Regular Session - May 21, 2001
7646
NEW YORK STATE SENATE
THE STENOGRAPHIC RECORD
ALBANY, NEW YORK
May 21, 2001
3:15 p.m.
REGULAR SESSION
LT. GOVERNOR MARY O. DONOHUE, President
STEVEN M. BOGGESS, Secretary
7647
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 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,
Sunday, May 20, the Senate met pursuant to
adjournment. The Journal of Saturday, May 19,
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.
7648
Messages from the Governor.
Reports of standing committees.
Reports of select committees.
Communications and reports from
state officers.
Motions and resolutions.
Senator Meier.
SENATOR MEIER: Thank you, Madam
President.
On behalf of Senator Kuhl, I wish
to call up his bill, Print Number 3071,
recalled from the Assembly, which is now at
the desk.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
286, by Senator Kuhl, Senate Print 3071, an
act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Meier.
SENATOR MEIER: Madam President,
I now move to reconsider the vote by which
this bill was passed.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will call the roll upon reconsideration.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
7649
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 49.
SENATOR MEIER: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Meier.
SENATOR MEIER: I now offer the
following amendments.
THE PRESIDENT: The amendments
are received, Senator.
Senator Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Madam
President, amendments are offered to the
following Third Reading Calendar bills.
Sponsored by Senator Marcellino,
page 18, Calendar Number 363, Senate Print
Number 392A.
Senator Seward, page 32, Calendar
Number 572, Senate Print Number 4372.
Senator Bonacic, page number 33,
Calendar Number 585, Senate Print Number 3581.
Senator Maltese, page number 42,
Calendar Number 679, Senate Print Number
3122A.
Senator Maltese, page number 62,
Calendar Number 891, Senate Print Number 3349.
Senator Padavan, page number 68,
Calendar Number 946, Senate Print Number 5.
7650
Senator Goodman, page number 65,
Calendar Number 920, Senate Print Number
3956A.
THE PRESIDENT: The amendments
are received, Senator Fuschillo, and -
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: I now move
that these bills retain their place on the
order of third reading.
THE PRESIDENT: And they will
retain their place on the order of third
reading.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
there will be an immediate meeting of the
Finance Committee in the Majority Conference
Room.
THE PRESIDENT: There will be an
immediate meeting of the Finance Committee in
the Majority Conference Room.
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
7651
will read.
THE SECRETARY: By Senator
DeFrancisco, Legislative Resolution Number
1946, honoring Brian P. McLane upon the
occasion of his induction into the National
Hall of Fame for Persons with Disabilities.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
DeFrancisco.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes, thank
you, Madam President.
Today we have among us a member of
the Hall of Fame, a fine person by the name of
Brian McLane, Assistant Commissioner of VESID.
I've known Brian for many, many
years. And I know we had Disability Awareness
Week last week, but this other honor was
planned by the Assembly and ourselves for
today to recognize Brian, because he was
inducted into the National Hall of Fame for
Persons with Disabilities. And what's
incredible is only five people a year have
been inducted into this particular
organization and this Hall of Fame, including
Franklin D. Roosevelt and Helen Keller and
many, many others that are on the resolution.
7652
I've known Brian for many years. I
know him most as an avid Syracuse University
basketball, football, and everything else fan.
He'd be a baseball fan if the university
wasn't as shortsighted as to eliminate
baseball. But a great sports person. In
fact, he's coached on the high school and
semipro levels. And he's a tough coach and a
very knowledgeable coach.
In the resolution are so many
things that he has done that I really cannot
list all of them today for you. But it's
really amazing when you think about it how
Brian has accomplished so much with what other
people would think would be a disability. And
there is nothing that he hasn't done or he's
deprived himself of, or deprived us of,
because of the disability that some people
perceive.
I'm very, very proud to stand up
and recognize Brian and to congratulate him
and to tell him how much I feel about him and
the things that he's done. He's just a great,
great individual who's done great things for
this state and for many, many people.
7653
So, Brian, congratulations. I'm
honored to know a member of the Hall of Fame.
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,
if we could go to the noncontroversial
calendar.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
223, by Senator Saland, Senate Print 3148, an
act to amend the Education Law, in relation to
conditional hiring.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
7654
295, by Senator Stafford, Senate Print 1053,
an act to amend the Environmental Conservation
Law.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
304, by Senator Saland, Senate Print 3328A, an
act to amend Chapter 672 of the Laws of 1993.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
306, by Senator LaValle, Senate Print 2352, an
act to amend the Education Law.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay that
aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
353, by Senator Stafford, Senate Print 2368,
an act to amend Chapter 138 of the Laws of
1984.
7655
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
400, by Senator Stafford, Senate Print 847, an
act to amend the Racing, Pari-Mutuel Wagering
and Breeding Law.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
510, by Senator Fuschillo, Senate Print 3901,
an act authorizing the assessor of the County
of Nassau.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
515, by Senator Johnson, Senate Print 2221A,
an act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside,
please.
7656
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
575, by Senator Bonacic, Senate Print 5116, an
act to amend the Public Housing Law.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
584, by Senator Hoffmann, Senate Print 3548,
an act to amend the Agriculture and Markets
Law.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay that
aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
605, by Senator Rath, Senate Print 4693, an
act to amend the General Municipal Law.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
646, by Senator Padavan, Senate Print 3543, an
7657
act to amend the Penal Law.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay the bill
aside, please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
648, by Senator Volker, Senate Print 3678, an
act to amend the Penal Law.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
715, by Senator LaValle, Senate Print 4127, an
act to amend the Education Law.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
736, by Senator Larkin, Senate Print 4680A, an
act to amend the Racing, Pari-Mutuel Wagering
and Breeding Law.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
7658
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
771, by Senator Marcellino, Senate Print 3911,
an act to authorize.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
800, by Senator Goodman, Senate Print 729, an
act to amend the State Finance Law.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
802, by Senator Maziarz, Senate Print 2117, an
act to amend the Executive Law.
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Read the last
section.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
816, by Senator Leibell, Senate Print 4556, an
act to amend the Military Law.
7659
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
933, by Senator Seward, Senate Print 3935, an
act to amend the Education Law.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
Senator Skelos, that completes the
reading of the noncontroversial calendar.
SENATOR SKELOS: Thank you, Madam
President.
If we could go to the controversial
calendar and begin with Calendar Number 802,
by Senator Maziarz.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read Calendar Number 802.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
802, by Senator Maziarz, Senate Print 2117, an
act to amend the Executive Law, in relation to
increasing.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
7660
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Maziarz,
an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Thank you,
Madam President.
This bill would allow the annual
increases in Social Security benefits to be
calculated not to count against any senior
individuals who want to take part in the Green
Thumb employment program.
Thank you.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, would Senator Maziarz -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: -- yield for a
question.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Maziarz,
will you yield for a question?
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Surely, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, I
couldn't quite hear your explanation. I'll
take the ten-second version, if you -
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Okay. The
7661
income limitation to the Green Thumb program,
which is a senior employment program, the
income limitations would be increased to take
into effect the increase in the case of
seniors -- mostly in the instances of an
increase in Social Security benefits.
SENATOR PATERSON: Okay. Madam
President, now I'm sure what my question would
be, if Senator Maziarz would yield.
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Yes, I would.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, would
you please let us know what the fiscal
implications of this piece of legislation
would be.
SENATOR MAZIARZ: There would be
absolutely no fiscal implications to the State
of New York.
SENATOR PATERSON: All right.
Thank you, Madam President.
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Thank you,
Senator.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any other
member wish to be heard on this bill?
7662
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 51.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
5 -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Skelos -
the Secretary will read.
SENATOR SKELOS: Read 510,
please.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
510, by Senator Fuschillo, Senate Print 3901,
an act authorizing the assessor of the County
of Nassau.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Fuschillo, an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Thank you,
Madam President.
This legislation would authorize
the assessor of the county to accept an
7663
application for exemption from real property
taxes from the Yeshiva Torah Mitzion of North
Merrick.
Madam President, the property was
purchased after the deadline of filing. The
refund would be minimal: approximately
$1,000.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, with your indulgence and Senator
Fuschillo's indulgence, can we lay this aside
temporarily? Because it's Senator Dollinger
who is interested, and he's in the Finance
Committee.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Skelos,
do you have any objection?
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
we've heard from Senator Dollinger on this on
numerous occasions, and certainly will extend
the courtesy. But as we go through the end of
session, we know that there are going to be
committee meetings met. This issue has been
discussed in terms of the assessment issues in
Nassau County almost to the point of
nauseousness.
7664
So I would just suggest that we
have to continue at some point with the
calendar, but certainly will extend that
courtesy to Senator Dollinger, if it's okay
with Senator Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: No objection,
Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside temporarily.
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Oh. Thank
you, Madam President.
I just wanted to point out that
even though we have discussed it before, one
of the reasons that it sometimes appears that
there's less attendance is that we have these
meetings called off the floor and it's -- you
know, it's just a little difficult for the
members who want to discuss the bill. So it's
not that Senator Dollinger's not interested -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, the bill
has already been laid aside temporarily.
SENATOR PATERSON: Oh. Well,
thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: You're welcome.
7665
The Secretary will read.
SENATOR SKELOS: Calendar Number
771, please.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read Calendar Number 771.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
771, by Senator Marcellino, Senate Print 3911,
an act to authorize the Mesorah Foundation of
Long Island, Incorporated.
SENATOR DUANE: Explanation,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Marcellino, an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: If Senator
Duane would be willing to just wait a couple
of moments, this is another bill that Senator
Dollinger asked when he left to have laid
aside, if we could, because there is a Finance
Committee meeting going on.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Skelos.
Senator Marcellino, do you have any
objection?
7666
SENATOR SKELOS: Do you want to
lay it aside temporarily?
SENATOR MARCELLINO: I have no
problem laying it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside temporarily.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: If you would
call up Calendar Number 736, by Senator
Larkin.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read Calendar Number 736.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
736, by Senator Larkin, Senate Print 4680A, an
act to amend the Racing, Pari-Mutuel Wagering
and Breeding Law, in relation to hunt
meetings.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Larkin.
SENATOR LARKIN: Yes, Madam
President.
Senator Paterson, this is a bill we
did last year. It repeals a portion of the
Racing and Wagering Law which requires that a
7667
$25 license be obtained from the Racing and
Wagering Board before conducting a hunting
meeting in which no bets occur. It also
repeals the limitation on the number of meets
that are currently set at ten. Last year,
three of these meets were licensed.
This is not a license to hunt.
This is just a license where they go out and
run. It's all done on private property. It's
similar to like a steeplechase, in that horses
and their riders race on a natural course
against time. At hunt meetings there is no
hunting of foxes or other animals. It is
merely a test of a horse and a rider's
horsemanship skill against time.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, I think Senator Larkin answered my
question, but if he'd be willing to yield.
SENATOR LARKIN: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, I
heard you correctly that there's no hunting of
7668
foxes in this -
SENATOR LARKIN: This is strictly
the skills of the horse and the skills of the
horseman, in that it's a race against time.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, if Senator Larkin would continue to
yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Larkin,
will you yield for a question?
SENATOR LARKIN: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: And, Senator,
you are familiar with the history of this
legislation? Because I'm not. In other
words -
SENATOR LARKIN: Well, years and
years ago when it was -- what happened was
these events were highlighted and there was a
$25 fee. And there was also a requirement
that somebody from the Racing and Wagering
Board be present at these.
Years and years ago, when you were
a little boy and I was a little boy, they had
7669
these races, and it was a sport, it was a
spectator. But during the last two years,
there's only been three permits requested.
And to have them -- and they were not all-day
permits, like before -- to take somebody from
the Racing and Wagering Board from some other
duties to watch this, it's not a money-maker.
When you figure there's three races at $75,
it's hardly worth the time and effort of
somebody to be out there doing it.
Again, there was some talk here
last year, a question about hunting little
foxes. There's no hunting of foxes. This is
strictly a rider getting on a horse and
subjecting himself to see how fast he and the
horse can go from Point A to Point B.
SENATOR PATERSON: Therefore,
Madam President, if Senator Larkin will
continue to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Larkin,
will you continue to yield?
SENATOR LARKIN: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Paterson.
7670
SENATOR PATERSON: Absent the
wagering, there's really no -
SENATOR LARKIN: There's no
wagering at all, Senator.
SENATOR PATERSON: Right. So
there's no reason to have anyone from the
Pari-Mutuel Board in attendance?
SENATOR LARKIN: There's no
racing, no wagering. The only thing is is
that what they had when they started this,
that they always said a member of the Racing
and Wagering Board should be present. But
there's no authorization for any gambling
whatsoever in this event.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, if Senator Larkin would continue to
yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Larkin,
will you yield?
SENATOR LARKIN: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR PATERSON: At the point
years ago that you were referring to -- you
know, back when we were kids -
7671
SENATOR LARKIN: When we were
young.
SENATOR PATERSON: -- the
question was in those days, I suppose it was
wagering, and that's why they had Racing and
Wagering Board presence at those events.
SENATOR LARKIN: Well, that's why
the Racing and Wagering Board asked us to do
this bill, because they say they feel that
it's not a proper utilization of their staff
time.
SENATOR PATERSON: Right. Then,
Madam President, if Senator Larkin would
continue to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Larkin,
will you continue to yield?
SENATOR LARKIN: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR PATERSON: I think what
I'm just trying to figure out -- and maybe
it's just me -- is why they had it there in
the first place. Or has there been some
change in the way that they had the hunting
7672
meetings from the way it was eons ago?
SENATOR LARKIN: Well, you know,
all you can look at is the records of the
Racing and Wagering Board that this is held on
private property, it's part of a sports club.
It isn't just anything -- the licensing was
done to sports clubs that handled these races.
But there is no money exchange in
it. There's no chasing of animals, foxes, as
it was brought up last year. The sole purpose
here was a sport to see the time that a rider
and his horse could compete from Point A to
Point B.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, on the bill.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
on the bill, Senator.
SENATOR PATERSON: I assume that
the fiscal impact is nominal because of the
$25 charge that Senator Larkin referred to.
And I don't know if I ever really figured out
whether or not there used to be wagering at
these hunting meetings, but there isn't now.
So I can certainly see why they would not need
the presence of someone from the Racing and
7673
Wagering Board in attendance.
And the fact that they are not only
held during the day but held at other times
certainly probably diminishes from the work
that the board could otherwise be doing. So
understanding that there's no actual hunting
going on, and that there's no wagering, I can
see why we can move to the last section, or
any other member that would like to speak,
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 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 53.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
Senator Alesi.
SENATOR ALESI: Thank you, Madam
President.
May we call Calendar 605, please.
7674
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read Calendar Number 605.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
605, by Senator Rath, Senate Print 4693, an
act to amend the General Municipal Law, in
relation to authorizing.
SENATOR DUANE: Explanation,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Rath, an
explanation has been requested.
SENATOR RATH: Yes, Madam
President.
This bill simply provides that two
or more municipalities may agree to work
together to establish business improvement
districts which would be for the benefit of
both municipalities.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor would yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Rath,
will you yield?
SENATOR RATH: Surely.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Duane, with a question.
7675
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You're welcome.
SENATOR DUANE: I'm wondering if
the sponsor has had municipalities in mind who
have asked to have this bill drafted.
SENATOR RATH: Yes, I do, Senator
Duane. In my district there are adjoining
towns that -- well, they actually adjoin each
other and almost adjoin the city of Buffalo.
It's what you might call an "edge city" kind
of community. And Cheektowaga and Amherst
have asked if they could join in this.
It's an older community in both
towns with the strip-type business districts
lining the main streets. And they're looking
to interact as those main streets try to
redevelop and reinvent themselves.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Rath, do
you continue to yield?
SENATOR RATH: I continue to
yield.
7676
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Right now, in
both of those cities are commercial properties
taxed as the same category? In other words,
is there similar taxation categories for
commercial properties in both cities?
SENATOR RATH: Yes, both towns,
the town of Cheektowaga and the town of
Amherst, have similar tax structures on their
commercial properties.
SENATOR DUANE: And through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Rath,
will you yield?
SENATOR RATH: I continue to
yield.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: And are the
properties valued for tax purposes in a
similar manner?
SENATOR RATH: I believe, Senator
Duane, if I can see where you're going with
7677
your line of reasoning, that would be part of
the arrangement that they would have to work
out with each other if there was an inequity,
so that they would be able to share equally as
the business improvement district was
developed.
SENATOR DUANE: And through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Rath,
will you yield?
SENATOR RATH: I do yield.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR DUANE: Just to -- that
is a direction that I was going in. But I'm
trying to determine if, say, commercial
properties in Amherst were taxed at a higher
rate, would that mean that their contribution
to the BID would be lower to equalize how much
of a tax each property from each town was
paying?
SENATOR RATH: Yeah, there will
be -- there would be a plan for the district
that would be agreed to by both town boards.
7678
And my expectation is that they would agree to
a pro rata arrangement.
SENATOR DUANE: And through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, will you
yield?
SENATOR RATH: Surely.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR DUANE: Who would be
responsible for collecting the revenue, the
additional revenue?
SENATOR RATH: The tax receiver
from each of those towns would have to be the
ones that would collect the revenue.
SENATOR DUANE: And through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, will you
yield?
You may proceed, Senator.
SENATOR DUANE: And they would
pay into the -- sort of the corporation or the
business improvement district pool, then?
7679
SENATOR RATH: My expectation
would be that there would be improvements that
would be equally important for both sides of
the street. If can I give you a for-instance,
there is an island that is foursquare in the
middle of a very large thoroughfare that's
between both of them. The DOT is involved to
some extent with street widening. But this
triangular-shaped island with thoroughfares on
three sides of it -- it's a triangle, it's
pretty obvious -- that is one of the
improvements.
When it has wheelchair access and
it's improved and has some plantings and
instead of just concrete and asphalt, it will
make a little haven for people who want to
cross this major intersection.
And so that kind of improvement
will be a benefit to both towns. It's
foursquare, right on the border.
SENATOR DUANE: And through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, will you
yield?
7680
SENATOR RATH: Surely.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Is the BID going
to have its board of directors divided equally
between the two towns, or will it be based
upon the financial commitment each is making
to the business improvement district.
SENATOR RATH: The plans,
Senator, are not that far along, but I think
your point is well taken. They haven't gotten
that far because they needed the legislation
before they went that far.
But I would tell you that these two
towns are the two largest bedroom communities
in Erie County. They're both over a hundred
thousand people, and both are both extremely
active and enthusiastic about this.
SENATOR DUANE: And through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, will you
yield?
SENATOR RATH: Surely.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
7681
Senator.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President.
I come to this debate with a great
interest and knowledge of business improvement
districts. The district that I represented in
the New York City Council had more business
improvement districts than anyone else's
district. And the same is true as a State
Senator, I have more than any of my other
colleagues in the Senate.
And I have to say that they all
came with some controversy. So that's one of
the reasons why I'm interested in how this is
going to work.
Has there already been an election
among the property owners in the business
improvement district to go into a business
improvement district?
SENATOR RATH: Both towns have
very active community groups that are working
along the border areas.
And an election as such for the
representatives of these community groups, I'm
not exactly sure when they turn over their
7682
leadership. But they have been after this for
at least two or three years. They've been
looking to get this opportunity.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Do you
continue to yield?
SENATOR RATH: I will yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: She
continues to yield.
SENATOR DUANE: Just, then, for
clarification, does this envisioned business
improvement district, does it demand an
election before it's created similar to the
way business improvement districts are done in
New York City?
In New York City, a
larger-than-majority number of property owners
had to actually vote to approve the business
improvement district. I'm wondering if that's
the way it's supposed to be in this case or if
that's something that's going to happen down
the line or is that not what's happening at
all.
7683
SENATOR RATH: Senator, we're not
that far in terms of community groups electing
or not electing people to represent them
business-district-wise. But I would say to
you that both town boards unanimously have
entered into the activity.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Rath, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR RATH: I yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR DUANE: In that it's the
property owners who would have to pay the
freight, so to speak, for the business
improvement district -- they're the ones who
would have a surcharge on their property
taxes -- I respect that the town boards have
already made that vote and the civic
associations or the chambers of commerce have
done it already.
But have the people who will
actually be paying the additional revenue
7684
voted on this, or are they going to vote on
it? Is this part of the legislation which
will create this business improvement
district?
SENATOR RATH: The people who
would be involved, as you're pointing out,
with the additional costs wanted to have the
legislation in place before they could go
forward with the other part of it. They felt
they could not do that part of it until they
had this part of it. It's one of the old
cart-and-horse discussions.
But I would say to you that it was
the people on both sides of that border
between those two towns that came to us in
order to get this legislation presented.
SENATOR DUANE: And through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
SENATOR RATH: I continue to
yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: She
continues to yield.
SENATOR DUANE: Will the cost of
the surcharge, if you will, be incurred
7685
completely by the business owners, or will -
I'm sorry, the owners of the commercial
properties? Or will that cost be passed along
to the tenants in the commercial properties?
SENATOR RATH: The area that
we're talking about is, generally speaking,
commercial. But the town boards, the two of
them, would have to make that recommendation
once they start into the development of an
intermunicipal agreement.
SENATOR DUANE: And through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Rath, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR RATH: I do.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator continues to yield.
SENATOR DUANE: There was some
disconnect -- not a disconnect, a discontent.
I have my dises confused -- a discontent among
the business owners who rented space who were
tenants in the commercial buildings that they
didn't have a vote on whether or not to be a
part of a business improvement district yet
7686
they were being stuck with the cost of having
the business improvement district which only
increased the property values for the business
owners and didn't do much for the business
owners except to raise their rents.
So I'm wondering whether the
chambers of commerce or the community groups
that are behind this business improvement
district have begun to look at this prickly
issue.
SENATOR RATH: Senator, I think
your point is well taken. But the areas that
we're talking about are so interested in
providing a new dimension to this community
that they feel that the only way that it's
going to keep it from -- this community, this
edge-city area from deteriorating and leaving
lots of empty strip-plaza areas that we would
consider very deteriorating on the edge of the
city, they feel -- they've done some studies.
They feel that they can pick up a great deal
of foot traffic, because the neighborhood was
that way at one time.
But because of the burgeoning
outer-ring suburbs, if you will -- this is an
7687
inner-ring suburb, very close, to within a
couple of blocks of the city of Buffalo. They
felt that -- everyone that we have talked to,
and as I said, this has been on the agenda for
at least two years I know of, maybe more, that
everyone who has been a part of it agrees that
this is the way to help this area.
But the two town boards will make
up a specific compact, because this area is
not the whole town of Amherst and the whole
town of Cheektowaga. This is the
Harlem-Kensington-Cleveland business district.
And there is a businessman's association that
is already jointly involved with the two
towns -- not the Amherst Chamber of Commerce
or the Cheektowaga Chamber of Commerce, this
is this particular business association.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President. If the sponsor would continue to
yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Rath, will you continue to yield?
SENATOR RATH: Surely.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: She
continues to yield.
7688
SENATOR DUANE: Along in this
area, are there commercial buildings that have
residential tenants living above the stores or
that sort of thing? I'm trying to envision
what it looks like.
SENATOR RATH: If there are,
Senator, it's only three or four. And I might
even be generous with that.
SENATOR DUANE: And through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Rath?
SENATOR RATH: I do.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator continues to yield.
SENATOR DUANE: Will residential
owners and tenants be exempted from paying the
surcharge for the business improvement
district?
SENATOR RATH: It's a very
commercial district. And if there are tenants
that are there, the town boards will hear
about it on either side of that border, and
the town boards will make that determination
7689
in this compact.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
SENATOR RATH: I continue to
yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator continues to yield.
SENATOR DUANE: I raise that
because we also had heated battles among
residential tenants who lived in coops or
above commercial buildings who didn't want to
have to pay for something that they didn't get
to vote on. So just sort of a beware.
Is this an area where there's an
increase or a problem with crime? And the
reason I ask that, and I'll follow up with a
second question, is it envisioned that part of
the revenue for the BID will go towards
security aside from the town police forces?
SENATOR RATH: Not necessarily,
Senator, no. There's a -- the incidence of
crime in this area would be no different than
many other areas throughout both towns.
SENATOR DUANE: And through you,
7690
Madam President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
SENATOR RATH: I continue to
yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Rath?
Senator Rath continues to yield.
SENATOR DUANE: The same is true
of -- one of the issues we had as well was
that many of us felt that the security forces
and the -- or the -- even without a security
force, just the banding together of the
businesses in part made it difficult for
homeless people and poor people to be in the
district. I'm wondering whether that's
something which has been thought about or
whether there's a social service component
that's going to be part of the business
improvement district.
SENATOR RATH: This is really not
a consideration in this particular community.
SENATOR DUANE: And through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
7691
Rath, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR RATH: Surely.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator continues to yield.
SENATOR DUANE: I know that the
sponsor mentioned one particular greening of a
triangle along the roadway. But I'm just
wondering if she could enlighten me as to what
other kinds of improvements the business
improvement district is going to do. Is it
advertising or, you know, how to do windows
better? What kinds of services is the
business improvement district going to provide
for its members?
SENATOR RATH: The plan is
incomplete. I brought to your attention the
issue of the greening and the wheelchair
access and the triangle. There is work going
on with the DOT in relation to the roadways.
One is a -- one of the roads that passes on
those three sides is a state highway and -- a
state road. It's not really a highway.
And so once the opportunity is
there, what they're going to be doing is
looking for the improvement of foot traffic
7692
and the development of a neighborhood attitude
throughout the three or four -- no, it's five
or six streets that come together, because
there's -- it's more than just a plain square
intersection. There is another street that
comes across. So there are an extra set of
corners and the crossings are tricky.
And so the DOT I know will pick up
as much of this as they can. The towns will
pick up other parts of it. And then this
business improvement district is hoping to
pick up yet again what can't be covered or
picked up anywhere else.
SENATOR DUANE: And through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Rath, will you continue to yield?
SENATOR RATH: Surely.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Rath continues to yield.
SENATOR DUANE: I am somewhat
intrigued that wheelchair accessibility is
needed for the island for a disabled person to
across the road or an older person or, for
7693
that matter, a mom or dad pushing a stroller.
In that this is a state DOT road and in that
accessibility is a requirement under the
state's compliance with ADA, has DOT for some
reason declined to make the island
wheelchair-accessible?
SENATOR RATH: I think you're
pointing out something that's very true. But
there may already be wheelchair access into
this triangle. And the side of the triangle
that's a state highway would not need the
wheelchair access. It would come from the
sides because of the demeanor of the
intersection.
SENATOR DUANE: And through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Rath, will you continue to yield?
SENATOR RATH: Surely.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator continues to yield, Senator.
SENATOR DUANE: One of the other
grievances that some property owners have
raised against business improvement districts
7694
is that they are almost impossible to
liquidate. They're easier to put together and
harder to take apart.
I'm wondering whether it's
envisioned that this business improvement
district could be dismantled.
SENATOR RATH: If there were such
a consideration or a request at that time, the
town boards would come back and ask us, and we
would take it apart.
SENATOR DUANE: And through you,
Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Rath, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR RATH: Surely.
SENATOR DUANE: And so like some
messy divorces we've recently seen in the
papers, what if one side wanted the BID to
dissolve and the other side didn't want the
BID to dissolve? Would that not leave the
sponsor in an almost Solomonic spot in terms
of what to do with legislation?
SENATOR RATH: We're not that far
along, Senator, with all of this. This is a
request from two towns in my district.
7695
SENATOR DUANE: And one final
question, Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Rath, will you yield for one final question?
SENATOR RATH: Surely.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator yields for your final question,
Senator.
SENATOR DUANE: I'm wondering if
there is precedence in the State of New York
for this to have happened and if this
legislation would apply to any two
municipalities that wanted to join forces for
a BID.
SENATOR RATH: Learned counsel
has advised that we are not aware of this
happening before. But I might add as we go
forward -- and the term "smart growth" has
come up so many times from both sides of the
of the aisle, "quality communities" from both
sides of the aisle -- I think what we're
seeing here is an effort by two communities to
provide quality -- quality of life, quality of
neighborhood. And this is their way of trying
to move forward with that.
7696
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you. Thank
you.
Madam President, on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Duane, on the bill.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you.
The issue of business improvement
districts, as I mentioned before, is something
which has been of great interest to me. The
idea that property owners are willing to pay
more in taxes provided that they actually see
the services that are being provided really
provides us all, I think, with a very good
lesson. And that is that people are willing
to pay more in taxes provided that they see
the results of that revenue being collected.
Sometimes what we find,
unfortunately, is that those businesses which
are already in pretty good shape are willing
to spend a little bit more in taxes to get
better services. But for those extremely
marginal businesses that don't really have any
kind of margin or any substantial margin of
profit, it would be an enormous hardship to
pay more in property taxes.
7697
And so the businesses that are
doing well get to do better with business
improvement districts, and the marginal
businesses that can't afford to pay any more
end up being at a disadvantage to the other
businesses that have these improvement
districts.
We've also found cases where
business improvement districts can run amuck
and in fact become a little government in and
of themselves and really operate outside the
general checks and balances that government
has.
I don't mean to cast aspersions on
all business improvement districts, but there
is a tendency when you have enough revenue
behind you to make decisions which may not be
in the best interests of everyone in a city
but in fact only be in the best interests of
those who are able to afford to pay additional
money in terms of property taxes.
And of course the property owners,
when they do get on board for business
improvement districts, nine times out of 10
end up with more valuable property.
7698
There is also, philosophically, a
certain admission of the failure of local
government if we think that business
improvement districts are what we should be
doing. We basically have to acknowledge that
cities and towns are not able to really serve
the needs of their business community and
that's why these outside government
organizations have to be started.
A case might be made to have a
limited life span of a business improvement
district where perhaps some experimentation
would happen on how best to supply services
but have that disbanded when it's shown how
government could be able to provide those
services.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Duane, will you suffer an interruption,
please.
Senator Alesi.
SENATOR ALESI: Thank you, Madam
President. Thank you for the interruption,
Senator.
There will be an immediate meeting
of the Rules Committee in the Senate Majority
7699
Conference Room.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE:
Immediate meeting of the Rules Committee in
the Senate Majority Conference Room.
Continue on, Senator Duane. Thank
you.
SENATOR DUANE: Well, Madam
President, I don't want anyone to miss the
pearls of wisdom, but I'll suffer on anyway.
There is also the issue of
sanitation. For instance, one of the major
occupations of the workers for a business
improvement district is to do additional
sanitation. But if everybody in a city is
paying taxes and only those who can afford a
little bit more are getting additional
services, that doesn't really seem
appropriate.
Every business, every business in
the city really deserves to have its garbage
picked up and its sanitation services
performed at the same level. And if
government can't handle that, then government
needs to raise the taxes for everyone rather
than only allowing those who can afford it to
7700
raise taxes to make their business areas
cleaner.
So my inclination is to vote yes on
this bill because, as the sponsor has very
thoroughly explained, this bill will just
allow them to move forward on discussions.
But I do vote yes, or I will be voting yes
with the proviso that while in theory business
improvement districts seem like a win-win, in
fact they're very complicated and actually
speak to the heart of what it is that we think
government should be doing in our towns and
cities.
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 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Announce
7701
the results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 53.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
Senator Alesi.
SENATOR ALESI: Thank you, Madam
President. Would you please call Calendar 646
at this time.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Clerk
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 PATERSON: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Padavan, an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR PADAVAN: What this bill
does, or proposed statute, is a correction of
our existing law that parallels a change in
federal law dealing with possession of a
vehicle identification number.
In 1992 we added a section of law
that made reference to the federal statute.
That statute was changed, and we're now
7702
complying with the federal statute so that
we're both making reference to the same
federal law.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you,
Madam President. If Senator Padavan would
yield for a question.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Padavan, will you yield for Senator Paterson?
SENATOR PADAVAN: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, in
1992 when the federal statute was changed, can
you explain to us what the change was? Or was
it just a technical change of the number?
SENATOR PADAVAN: It was a
technical change relative to the number. As
far as I can find out, there was no change in
substance as it related to the illegal
possession of a VIN.
SENATOR PATERSON: Yet that's
what kind of confused me. Because earlier,
Senator, I think you said that the law was
7703
repealed and then reinstated. Was that how
they effected the change?
SENATOR PADAVAN: No, what I said
was that we amended our Penal Law in 1992
which referenced a federal statute, which was
specifically designated as Section 1901.
However, two years later, in 1994, the federal
government changed that statute, repealed it,
and replaced it by another section. And so we
are conforming to that new designation.
To my knowledge, however, the
substance of the federal statute remains the
same.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you,
Madam President. If Senator Padavan would
yield for a question.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Padavan, will you continue to yield?
SENATOR PADAVAN: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator continues to yield.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator,
Senator Dollinger has spoken on this bill
before, and he has a suggestion. I know the
suggestion, but I've never heard your response
7704
to it, is that to stop this from happening
again -- which I assume it could, just because
of the technical way in which the federal law
is written -- would it be better for us just
to reference the federal law, since it's
exact, and not necessarily the specific number
of the law? Or would you be willing to hope
that this just never comes up again?
SENATOR PADAVAN: My response to
you is that I'm advised by counsel that in
terms of applicability and the judicial
process, that it's more effective and correct
to make specific reference to the federal
statute by its designation, rather than
allowing for any confusion to take place.
SENATOR PATERSON: And a final
question for Senator Padavan, if he's willing
to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Padavan, will you yield for Senator Paterson's
final question?
SENATOR PADAVAN: I certainly
will.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator yields.
7705
SENATOR PATERSON: So, Senator,
this is the standard process? In other words,
they just don't -- they actually, as your
sponsor's memo points out, they actually
repeal and then replace the law in the federal
system?
SENATOR PADAVAN: That is my
understanding of their process.
SENATOR PATERSON: Now it is
mine.
Thank you, Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Is there
any other Senator who wishes to speak on the
bill?
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
November.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Announce
the results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 53.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
7706
is passed.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
would you please call up Calendar Number 304,
by Senator Saland.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Clerk
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
304, by Senator Saland, Senate Print 3328A, an
act to amend Chapter 672 of the Laws of 1993.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Saland, an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR SALAND: Thank you, Madam
President.
This bill would merely permit the
Howland Public Library, which is located in
the city of Poughkeepsie, to finance
construction of a new library through the
Dormitory Authority, New York State Dormitory
Authority. The bill merely adds the name of
the Howland Public Library to a list of about
ten or so that currently have availed
themselves of that opportunity.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
7707
Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, Madam
President, if Senator Saland would yield for a
question.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Saland, will you yield for a question?
SENATOR SALAND: Yes, Madam
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, thank
you. Senator Saland, I don't think that I
have any problem with this. I just would like
to know, just how exactly does this work? How
does a local not-for-profit facility access
this program through the Dormitory Authority?
SENATOR SALAND: They are a
public library. I'm not sure if -- they're
not -- I don't think they're a 501(c)(3) if
the implication was that they're a
not-for-profit. I think that they're a
publicly funded library.
And we do this for 8-53 schools, we
do this for a number of other entities. This
merely affords them the opportunity to avail
7708
themselves of the financing at such point and
place and time if in fact it does happen -
because it doesn't designate an area. They
may not have purchased or have an agreement to
locate at a particular site.
It merely gives them the
opportunity to avail themselves of the
financing at rates and under terms as shall be
negotiated and would be available depending
upon the conditions that exist, if that be six
months from now, eight months from now, a year
from now, whenever.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes. Madam
President, if Senator Saland would continue to
yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Montgomery, thank you.
Senator Saland, will you continue
to yield?
SENATOR SALAND: Yes, Madam
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator continues to yield.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Thank you,
Madam President.
7709
Senator Saland, I'm just wondering,
I see these bills come through and we vote on
them and pass them fairly regularly for
different types of facilities -- some YMs,
YWs, now a library, and so forth and so on.
My question is why -- Madam
President, through you -- why is it that we
have to do this through the legislative
process? Is there not -- or could we not or
should we not establish a uniform procedure so
that all of the different parts of the state
have equal access to this process? Because I
have a Y, I have a couple of Y -- a YM and a
YW in my district. They would not necessarily
have access to this process, because I'm a
Democrat and no bill is ever going to pass in
this house on my behalf.
So I would like to know, could we
as a Legislature establish a uniform process
which would take this out of the political
process in the way that we do it now?
SENATOR SALAND: Madam President,
I am not certain as to whether each of these
libraries that's listed here is located in
whether they be Republican or Democratic
7710
districts, Republican of either house or
Democratic of either house.
Certainly the process is one which
is controlled by the Dormitory Authority.
This merely enables people to make application
and go through their process. I wouldn't be
so bold as to say that you might not be able
to, through whatever introduction you might
make, secure funding, provided that your
not-for-profit is an appropriate candidate and
would otherwise be eligible.
You seem to be aware that this has
occurred for YMCAs or YWCAs. I don't recall
seeing such bills, you know, to provide that
type of financing for those type of
institutions. I'll be very happy to stand
corrected if they are.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: All right.
Madam President, just one last question,
through you.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Saland, will you yield for one last question?
SENATOR SALAND: Yes, Madam
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
7711
Senator yields for a last question.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Thank you.
My last question is, does this
process add to in any way the debt service
that the state is responsible for? Or is this
completely -- the entity on whose behalf the
Dormitory is borrowing is entirely responsible
for the debt on this program?
SENATOR SALAND: This is not a
state general obligation. In fact, the
Dormitory Authority floats or issues its own
paper.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: I see. All
right. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam President.
SENATOR SALAND: And obviously,
whomever the entity is, if they are in fact
eligible, would have to pay back what -
whatever it is that they had borrowed and
financed through the Dormitory Authority.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: All right.
Thank you.
Briefly on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Montgomery, on the bill.
7712
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes,
certainly I think that this is perhaps a most
efficient way for a local library or any
library to be financed for their construction.
I would, however, hope that Senator
Saland, along with the Majority Leader and
members on the Republican side, would consider
establishing a more uniform program or process
whereby our local facilities that serve large
numbers of people that are very important and
key to constituents of ours could have access
to this process so that in districts like
mine, where facilities are in very, very dire
need of renovation and reconstruction, new
buildings, that they could also have the same
access as a facility in Senator Saland's
district or Senator Goodman's district or
Senator Morahan's district or any of the
Republicans who have needs as well as we do,
but we have needs and would like to have
access to this program.
So certainly I'm going to support
it, because I think it's important, Madam
President. But I do think that we need to
modify this so it's more open and accessible
7713
to all of the citizens of the State of
New York.
Thank you.
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: Announce
the results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 53.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
would you please call up Calendar Number 800,
by Senator Goodman.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
800, by Senator Goodman, Senate Print 729, an
act to amend the State Finance Law, in
7714
relation to requirement.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Goodman, an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR GOODMAN: Madam
President, may I ask who requested it, if you
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Paterson. No, Senator Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Oh, did I?
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Paterson asked for an explanation, Senator
Goodman. Would you be so kind?
SENATOR GOODMAN: Thank you very
much.
This bill is one which has been
developed to amend the contract provisions in
the State Finance Law to prohibit a state
agency, the judiciary, or a state authority
from contracting with, continuing, or renewing
a contract with a contractor who has taxes due
and owing to the state.
In other words, a deadbeat on
taxes, if it be a corporation, is placed in
the position by this bill of not allowing
7715
itself to be given the opportunity to enter
into business with the state.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, if Senator Goodman would be willing
to yield.
SENATOR GOODMAN: Always a
pleasure.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you.
Senator, I certainly understand
what we're trying to accomplish here. And I
would wish if you would enlighten us a little
bit about what the threshold for this is,
because I'm sure there could be nominal taxes
that the contractor might not fully be aware
and also a situation where there might be a
ministerial period by which taxes were not
paid back.
Or I'm even thinking of kind of a
de minimus situation where there's a technical
debt but the debt itself must have been from
some accident, so it's a minimal amount of
7716
money.
And so my question is, how does the
legislation try to avoid a situation where
someone is really not trying to evade their
obligations but is just in a situation they
might not have been aware of due to
recordkeeping?
SENATOR GOODMAN: Senator, that's
obviated by provisions of this bill, which
says that if they are still in arrears after a
ten-day notification, that that's when the
bill becomes effective. But prior to that,
there's no seizure, no cessation of
contractual relations. In other words, you
get a ten-day warning.
SENATOR PATERSON: Okay, very
good. Thank you.
Madam President, if Senator Goodman
would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Goodman, will you continue to yield?
SENATOR GOODMAN: Yes, I will. I
consider this a blanket willingness to
continue. You don't have to keep asking,
Senator.
7717
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator continues to yield.
SENATOR PATERSON: I have blanket
immunity. All right.
Senator -- through you, Madam
President -- I was wondering what information
you have about either the number of contracts
that the state involves in every year, but not
necessarily that.
I'm really looking more for the
percentage of those contractors that you think
fall within the ambit, the scope of this
legislation. And, you know, just specifically
what the numbers of contractors who may right
now be operating, receiving taxpayer dollars
when they haven't paid their taxes.
SENATOR GOODMAN: Senator, I
don't have an answer to that. I don't know
and I'm not sure that information is readily
available. But if you'd like, we can find out
for you.
SENATOR PATERSON: Okay. Thank
you, Madam President. If Senator Goodman
would be -- yes, Senator Goodman would be
willing to yield, and so my -
7718
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Goodman, will you continue to yield?
SENATOR GOODMAN: As I've so
indicated.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR PATERSON: Then I think
what I'm just getting at -- the legislation is
an excellent idea, there's no doubt about
that.
But I think specifically what I
wanted to know, just in terms of the research
and the history of the legislation, is whether
or not this is something that was brought to
your attention because of the malfeasance of
many who were contracting or were not meeting
their obligations, or was it something that
certainly would be meritorious just based on
the equity of giving contracts preferences to
those who don't have the record of meeting
their obligations such as those that were not
preferred.
So what I'm really asking you is
whether this is something where there's been a
problem in the past where the obligations
7719
haven't been met by a number of contractors
still doing business with the state.
SENATOR GOODMAN: Senator, as the
former finance commissioner of the City of
New York, charged with the responsibility of
collecting all the city taxes, it came to my
attention in that position that there were
innumerable instances in which this type of
problem arose.
I cannot give you a precise number,
but I think it's -- common sense has guided me
to the conclusion there's a sufficient number
so that -
SENATOR PATERSON: The -
SENATOR GOODMAN: Are you able to
hear me, Senator? I didn't quite finish my
sentence. I just wanted to be sure you
weren't being distracted.
SENATOR PATERSON: I'm sorry.
SENATOR GOODMAN: I think there's
a sufficient number so that it appeared
advisable, in the interests of good
housekeeping, to pass this measure.
SENATOR PATERSON: My final
question is -- it relates to -
7720
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Goodman, will you yield for a final question?
SENATOR GOODMAN: Yes, I will.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR PATERSON: It relates to
any other observations that the Senator had
through his previous experience that we would
be holding up any contracting between the
state and any parties, in addition to the
failure to pay back arrears in terms of debt
to the state or, obviously, any kind of
criminal conduct that is currently under
investigation.
SENATOR GOODMAN: Quite the
contrary. I think once the word is out that
you have an alert Tax Department which is
aware of people's arrearages and punishes them
in a manner that fits the transgression, that
this is a good thing for the state, that it
results in actually increasing the state's
ability to collect taxes, and thus assists the
fisc to become sounder on behalf of the
public.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
7721
Onorato.
SENATOR ONORATO: Madam
President, will the Senator yield to a
question?
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Goodman, will you yield?
SENATOR GOODMAN: Yes, I will,
Senator.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR ONORATO: Senator
Goodman, what happens in the case where a
contractor is in dispute with the state
regarding taxes that are owed to them, there
may be circumstances maybe protesting -- he's
claiming that he doesn't owe the taxes,
they're claiming that he does owe it, and it's
basically in litigation. And if it hasn't
been completely litigated, does this now
preempt him or her from seeking the contract?
SENATOR GOODMAN: This
legislation does not kick in until the dispute
has ended, Senator. Therefore, your concern
is without merit in this case.
SENATOR ONORATO: I can't hear
7722
you.
SENATOR GOODMAN: I say this does
not kick in until the dispute has ended
between the taxpayer and the State Tax
Department.
SENATOR ONORATO: Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Brown.
SENATOR BROWN: Thank you, Madam
President. Will Senator Goodman yield for a
question?
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Goodman, will you yield for some questions?
SENATOR GOODMAN: I will,
Senator.
SENATOR BROWN: Senator, I
apologize for any redundancy, but in response
to one of Senator Paterson's questions, did
you say that there was a ten-day period of
notification that a business would get prior
to not being awarded a contract?
SENATOR GOODMAN: Yes, that's
correct.
SENATOR BROWN: Thank you.
Through you, Madam President, would
7723
Senator Goodman continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Goodman, will you continue to yield?
SENATOR GOODMAN: Yes, I will.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Yes, he
will.
SENATOR BROWN: Senator, in the
case of a business that cannot afford to pay
an obligation that it has to the state but is
the low bidder on a contract that would enable
it to satisfy a debt that it owes to the
state, wouldn't it in that kind of case make
sense to allow the business to assume the
contract and pay the debt that it owes to the
state?
SENATOR GOODMAN: Senator, I
don't believe that would in the best -- in the
public interest to have that type of
circumstance permitted, simply because what
we're trying to do is to ensure that people
who do business with the state are in good
control of their finances.
And I think one such index of that
type of behavior is prompt payment of taxes.
Where there are delays in payment, that does
7724
not reflect well on the soundness or the
managerial worthiness of a business.
SENATOR BROWN: Thank you.
On the bill, Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Brown, on the bill.
SENATOR BROWN: I'm going to
support this legislation. We have similar
legislation in the City of Buffalo, where I
served for three terms as a council member.
In those cases, businesses that owed the City
of Buffalo taxes or any kind of indebtedness
were not allowed to assume contracts that they
were low responsible bidder on.
In that case as well, concerns were
raised about the business winning this
contract, having an indebtedness out there,
and being able to repay that indebtedness.
But, similar to Senator Goodman's response,
the concern of that municipality -- and I
agree, the concern of the state -- is to make
sure that businesses that are bidders should
be responsible. And to be a responsible
bidder, that bidder should not have any debt
that is owed to the state.
7725
I think the ten-day notification
period is a very responsible measure. Because
if a business has bid on a contract, is set to
be awarded the contract, and then has the
opportunity to pay any debt that it owes the
state within that ten-day period of time, that
business can still assume the contract, which
I think is a very good provision and one that
causes me comfort in supporting this piece of
legislation.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Will the
sponsor yield for one question, Madam
President?
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Goodman, will you yield for one question from
Senator Dollinger?
SENATOR GOODMAN: Yes, I will,
Madam President.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Madam President, Senator Goodman, does this
bill apply to the prevailing wage laws and
require that we only enter into contracts with
companies that have settled their claims under
7726
the prevailing wage laws? Or is it simply the
taxes?
SENATOR GOODMAN: It relates
simply to taxes, Senator.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Madam President, if Senator Goodman would
continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Goodman, will you continue to yield?
SENATOR GOODMAN: I will.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: He
yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Senator
Goodman, having brought this issue of tax
compliance, why wouldn't we have a bill that
requires compliance with our environmental
laws, our prevailing wage laws and all the
other laws that this house has enacted? Why
shouldn't we require the contractors to have a
clean slate on all of these issues?
SENATOR GOODMAN: Senator, if
it's your desire to see such legislation
passed, you're at liberty to introduce it,
needless to say.
This bill has a narrower ambit, and
7727
I think it's an appropriate solution to the
problem it seeks to solve.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Madam President, can I -- well, I'll dispense
with that question.
Thank you, Senator Goodman. I
appreciate your answers.
SENATOR GOODMAN: You're more
than welcome, Senator.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Madam
President, I'm going to vote in favor of this
bill for much the same reason that my
colleague Senator Brown did, which is I think
this is a proper way for us to insist that
contractors that are going to take state tax
dollars into their private accounts from the
public treasury simply require that they have
an accounting with the public treasury for
what they owe us.
But, Senator Goodman, I would
suggest that the bill doesn't go far enough.
If our theory is that we should only allow
people to contract with us and take money out
of the public treasury because they are clean
contractors or they are considered to be
7728
quality contractors, shouldn't that rule apply
to the prevailing wage laws?
We shouldn't enter into contracts
with companies that have failed to pay
prevailing wages or have disputes regarding
prevailing wages, a law that was passed by
this house that's been in effect for fifty
years that says that people are entitled to
living wages when they work on public
construction projects.
Why shouldn't we insist on the same
compliance with respect to the environmental
laws? Why should we enter into a contract
with a contractor who has failed to clean up
their property or remediated it the way the
Department of Environmental Conservation has
told them to?
Why should we support contractors
who have disputes involving the minimum wage?
Why shouldn't we require that any contractor
that we hire and pay from tax dollars comply
with the state minimum wage? Shouldn't we
also require that they comply with OSHA, the
state OSHA system or the federal OSHA system?
Senator Goodman, I think this is a
7729
good idea, but it would be a much better idea
if you had broadened the impact to suggest
that anyone that's going to go to work from
the State of New York and take cash out of the
public treasury should be required to comply
with all of our laws, and that they should
resolve those disputes with the government
before they take money from the public
treasury.
Senator Goodman, I'm going to vote
in favor of this bill. If we had a free
amendment process, I'd propose an amendment to
make it acceptable across the board for a
whole series of potential problems that
contractors run into with the State of New
York and require that every contractor that
takes money out of our treasury have clean
hands with respect to every law we enforce.
And my view is that this bill
should become law and should immediately be
amended in a far more expansive way to make
sure that we cover everyone in this state and
require full compliance with all of our laws
before we allow the public treasury to be
exposed and paid over to contractors who are
7730
not in compliance with those laws.
With that understanding, Madam
President, I'm going to vote in favor of the
bill. And I would ask my colleagues to vote
in favor as well, with the reservation that
the better thing to do would be to amend it
and make it broader, make it work for all
those other people that are protected by our
law, rather than just the public purse.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Is there
any other Senator that wishes to speak on the
bill?
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President.
I also agree that this is a good
bill and, in a way, a bill which would
discriminate against those who don't pay their
taxes. But I do want to point out that around
the state there are tens of thousands of
lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered
people who are discriminated against every day
even though they are tax-paying New Yorkers.
And while I'm pleased to vote for
this bill, I would be even more pleased if we
7731
brought to the floor of this house a bill
which would make it so that no New Yorker is
ever discriminated against. Certainly its
time has come. That bill has been around for
many, many years. And it's nice to pass these
other bills, but let's pass a bill that really
will impact the real lives of tens of
thousands of New Yorkers and allow them to
work where they want to work, live where they
want to live, and have the same public
accommodations as every other New Yorker.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Thank
you, Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: 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: Announce
the results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 53.
7732
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
I believe there's a report of the Rules
Committee at the desk. I ask that it be read
at this time.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Report
of the Rules Committee. The Secretary will
read.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Bruno,
from the Committee on Rules, reports the
following bills:
Senate Print 705, by Senator
Johnson, an act to amend the Public
Authorities Law.
1366, by Senator Johnson, an act to
amend the Public Authorities Law.
And 4106, by Senator Libous, an act
to amend the Executive Law.
All bills ordered direct to third
reading.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Move to accept
7733
the report of the Rules Committee.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
motion is to accept the report of the Rules
Committee. All those in favor signify by
saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: All
those opposed, nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Rules report is accepted.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
I believe there's a report of the Finance
Committee at the desk. I ask that it be read
at this time.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Stafford,
from the Committee on Finance, reports the
following bill direct to third reading:
Senate Print 5353, by the Senate
Committee on Rules, an act making
appropriations for the support of government.
SENATOR SKELOS: Lay the bill
7734
aside temporarily.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is laid aside.
Without objection, third reading.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Stafford,
from the Committee on Finance, reports the
following nominations.
As a member of the Rochester
Genesee Regional Transportation Authority,
Milo Turner, of Geneseo.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Volker.
SENATOR VOLKER: Madam President,
let me just second the nomination of Milo.
I've known him for many years. He is a
Vietnam veteran and served during the Vietnam
War, a fine gentleman who has been a farmer,
an auctioneer.
He's very familiar with the roads
and various highway issues in the
Rochester-Genesee region. He succeeds a
fellow who got into a little bit of trouble -
ran for the Assembly and won, which I guess is
trouble, and he succeeds Joe Errigo.
7735
His appointment was from the
Livingston County legislature, so he comes
here with the imprimatur of the Livingston
County legislature.
He's a fine gentleman, and also is
the husband of Bonnie Turner, who is the
person who runs the office of Assemblyman Joe
Errigo. And I think it was a fine choice by
the Governor, and I'm sure he'll make a fine
commissioner on the Rochester-Genesee Regional
Transportation Commission.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Madam President. I rise to second Senator
Volker's accolades and support for Mr. Turner.
I have generally asked the members
of the RGRTA to come to Albany and talk to us
about the future of transportation, largely
because, while the Transportation Authority as
set up by this Legislature includes rural
counties, there's no question that the hub of
the whole system is in the 54th Senate
District, and that about 80 percent of the
people who ride the bus service in Rochester
7736
originate in the urban, largely urban area in
the city of Rochester, which I represent.
I agree with Dale Volker with
respect to Mr. Turner's qualifications. He
does come to us with the approval of the
Livingston County legislature. And my hope
is, although I wasn't briefed to talk about it
in the Finance Committee, his reputation as an
independent thinker and a man of action I
think bespeaks the fact that he'll deal with
the broader issues of building a central
transportation hub, transportation facility.
My hope is that the RGRTA will talk
with all levels of government about the impact
of the decision to build a massive $25 million
to $30 million bus terminal in the heart of
the 54th Senate District, and that the
authority will come and talk to the members
from the broader community but particularly
the city of Rochester, its county legislative
delegation, its state delegation, about the
impact of that terminal's construction on
downtown Rochester.
In addition, I think that the issue
of transportation to and from rural areas such
7737
as Livingston County, the development of the
corridor along 5 and 20 and its intersection
with Route 390 has started to see significant
job growth. It would be my hope that the
Transportation Authority would look at ways to
get urban dwellers the 20 to 25 miles further
south of Rochester so that there would be an
opportunity for them to participate in that
new job growth.
So I think there's a lot happening
in transportation in Monroe County. I think
Mr. Turner can make a contribution to that.
And I wish him well.
And I would just urge him, Madam
President, if there are other issues -- state
funding for the terminal, for the Authority or
other things that are needed to provide
quality transportation for the people in the
54th district, please don't hesitate to come
and call.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
question is on the confirmation of Milo Turner
as a member of the Rochester-Genesee Regional
Transportation Authority. All in favor will
7738
signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Opposed,
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Milo
Turner is hereby confirmed as a member of the
Rochester-Genesee Regional Transportation
Authority.
(Applause.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE:
Mr. Turner is accompanied by his charming
wife, Bonnie. And we're pleased and may we
add our congratulations to you.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: As a member of
the Board of Trustees of the Cornell
University, Edward VK Cunningham, Jr., of
LaGrangeville.
As a member of the Ogdensburg
Bridge and Port Authority, Roger Leland
McBath, of Lisbon.
As a member of the Central New York
State Park, Recreation and Historic
Preservation Commission, Stewart F. Hancock
7739
III, of Syracuse.
As a member of the State Park,
Recreation and Historic Preservation
Commission, Seema E. Goldstein, of Brooklyn.
As commissioner of the Interstate
Environmental Commission, Rose Trentman, of
New York City.
And as a member of the Stewart
Airport Commission, Paul Quartararo, Esquire,
of Millbrook.
SENATOR SKELOS: Move the
nominations.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
question is on the confirmation of all those
read by the Secretary. All in favor will
signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: All
opposed will say nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
nominees are hereby confirmed.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
if we could go back to the controversial
7740
calendar and take up Calendar Number 584, by
Senator Hoffmann.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
584, by Senator Hoffmann, Senate Print 3548,
an act to amend the Agriculture and Markets
Law, in relation to the exemption.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON:
Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Hoffmann, an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR HOFFMANN: Thank you,
Madam President. I'd be happy to explain the
bill.
Currently we have a requirement
that all milk sold in New York State must be
handled by a licensed milk dealer. Recently,
however, it became clear that a requirement
that all vending machine operations should
also have a milk dealer's license, it creates
a duplicative situation.
There's really no reason for the
milk dealer license to be applied to vending
licensees. And in fact, most vending
7741
licensees are either unaware of the other
requirement and are presently operating
possibly outside the law.
We are in a situation in this
state, as in every other state, where we are
trying to encourage the consumption of milk in
contrast to soda and other less healthy
beverages. And for schools in particular,
this is a very worthwhile measure, because it
will allow the vending companies to have a
greater interest in providing milk on a
competitive basis with some of the other
soft drink/cola beverages.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Hassell-Thompson.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank
you, Madam President. If the Senator will
yield for a series of questions.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Hoffmann, will you yield?
SENATOR HOFFMANN: Yes, I'll be
glad to.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank
7742
you, Senator. Through you, Madam President.
While I certainly am in support of
milk being provided through vending machines
in any attempt to make milk a major product
that is consumed by the public, children in
particular, I need to ask the Senator to
clarify for me under what section are
vending-machine providers for milk covered by
existing law.
SENATOR HOFFMANN: All milk sold
in New York State must be transported and sold
by milk dealers. They have a milk dealer
license.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Hassell-Thompson.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: If the
Senator will continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Hoffmann, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR HOFFMANN: Yes, I'll be
glad to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR HOFFMANN: Senator
Hassell-Thompson might be interested in
7743
knowing that Section 296 of the Executive Law
also has an exemption if it's under -- oh, no,
it's not under 296.
Section 257 of the Ag and Markets
Law. And there is an exemption if it's under
3,000 pounds.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Okay,
I hear the explanation. I'm still not clear
what section of the law covers vending machine
sellers of milk that would make this
duplicative.
SENATOR HOFFMANN: The Sanitary
Code of New York State, Section 14-5.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: If the
Senator will continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Hoffmann, will you continue to yield?
SENATOR HOFFMANN: Yes, I will.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator continues to yield.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Won't
the health and safety of the consumer be
compromised if milk dealers utilizing vending
machines are not licensed?
SENATOR HOFFMANN: Madam
7744
President, the answer to that would be no.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: If the
Senator would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator?
SENATOR HOFFMANN: Yes, I will.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator continues to yield.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: I
think that the two main goals that we're aware
of under the Agriculture and Markets Law,
Section 21, assures that farmers are paid -
my light just went out. You can still hear?
Two of the goals of the Agriculture
and Markets Law, Article 21, assures that
farmers are paid for the milk and that milk
and milk products are handled in a safe and
sanitary manner. And I understand that this
bill continues to do that.
The question that I have, however,
is that there is a third goal of this milk
dealers' licensing law, and that is to allow
the state authority to oversee the direct
investigation, bacteriology, and other
sampling and packaging for public safety.
My question is, how can you
7745
guarantee that the vendors will in fact, based
upon their own ability to package for the
purpose of vending machines, be covered under
this regulation?
SENATOR HOFFMANN: Madam
President, the Senator is confused about the
intent of this law and possibly about the
current milk licensing statutes in New York
State.
Only a licensed milk dealer is
allowed to package the product. This simply
deals with the placement of a prepackaged
product in a vending machine. Only a licensed
milk dealer can package, only a licensed milk
dealer can transport, and all such packaged
milk is sampled and tested regularly in
accordance with the law.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: If the
Senator would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Hoffmann, will you continue to yield?
SENATOR HOFFMANN: Yes, I will.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator continues to yield.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: I'm
7746
very glad to have you on record as having said
that, because I still do not believe that this
bill in fact covers them. But if you say it
does, then I can hold your integrity in
question if it doesn't prove to be true.
Because the goal of this bill will weaken the
state's ability, in our opinion, to enforce
laws and regulations which ensure the orderly
and safe milk distribution process.
And I still am not clear you how
you tell me that this is not so.
SENATOR HOFFMANN: Madam
President, I'm not sure how much more clear I
can make it.
Any milk processed in New York
State or sold in New York State must be
processed, packaged, and tested by licensed
milk dealers, and a licensed milk dealer then
makes the product available in its packaged
and tested format form to somebody who holds a
vending license and is governed by the
sanitary laws of New York State.
There's no need for a duplicate
license for milk dealers to be held by both
the party that transports and packages and the
7747
party that sells in a vending machine.
The goal again, Madam President, is
to encourage the sale of milk in vending
machines. And consistent with many other
things that we're doing in this state, we
attempt to repeal unnecessary and burdensome
regulations where they exist and particularly
where they interfere with the consumption of a
product as wholesome as milk by the children
of New York State.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Hassell-Thompson.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Let me
do this on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: On the
bill.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank
you, Madam President.
I have heard Senator Hoffmann, and
I truly -- if I appeared that I did not, that
belief of that is not -- that is not the
intent.
The concern here is not whether or
not the regulatory process will be covered,
but in the licensing. The licensing ensures
7748
that those vendors who provide milk and milk
products to the public are in fact -- the
inspections in fact have occurred.
With this removal of this licensing
process, there's nothing that assures me that
each vendor has in fact been properly
inspected. That's the role that I see that
this licensure takes, not only to ensure that
the investigations and all of the regulatory
process has been carried out, but the
licensing is a way for the public to know on
those vending machines that in fact this
investigation has in fact occurred.
So that is my major concern in
terms of how this bill, in doing so, it may
appear to be duplicative, but that process is
one that I think becomes very important
because the public has no other way of knowing
whether or not those licensing practices and
compliances have been conformed with.
Thank you, Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Madam President. Will the sponsor yield to
7749
one question, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Hoffmann, will you yield for one question?
SENATOR HOFFMANN: Yes, I will,
Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Madam President, are all people who sell milk,
all operators or retailers who sell milk, are
they all currently subject to the regulation
that this bill exempts the vending machines
from? I mean, the general trend in New York
is to require that everybody that deals with
milk be licensed along the line; isn't that
correct?
SENATOR HOFFMANN: Would you
repeat the question, Senator Dollinger?
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Glad to,
Madam President. It may take me more than
one, then, to clarify it.
This bill seeks an exception from
the current licensing requirements for milk
dealers; is that correct?
SENATOR HOFFMANN: I'm sorry,
7750
would Senator Dollinger repeat his question.
There's a lot of noise in the back of the
chamber, Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: May we
have some order.
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Okay, I'll
try a third time.
Through you, Madam President, as I
understand this bill, it creates an exemption
for people who vend milk through vending
machines from the normal requirements that
they obtain a license to deal in milk; is that
correct?
SENATOR HOFFMANN: That is
correct. But it's not considered a normal
requirement, because most people who deal with
vending machines were unaware that a special
requirement is necessary for them to obtain
not only the vending license and all of the
other requirements that they have to have to
operate vending machines, but also a milk
dealer license.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Okay.
Through you, Madam President, is the milk
7751
dealer license requirement for a vendor, for
somebody who sells it through vending
machines, is that currently a requirement by
statute? Not by regulation, it is by statute?
SENATOR HOFFMANN: It's my
understanding that it is a requirement in
statute. But whether it has been previously a
regulation, I'm not sure at this point. I
believe it's in statute.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Madam President. If Senator Hoffmann would -
SENATOR HOFFMANN: Perhaps
Senator Dollinger has the information in front
of him.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I actually
don't, Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: But I'll
yield to a question at some future time.
If Senator Hoffmann would continue
to yield just for a moment.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Hoffmann, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR HOFFMANN: Yes, I will.
7752
SENATOR DOLLINGER: What was the
rationale when we put into statute the
requirement that milk dealers, whether they
deal through vending machines or through the
normal retail process, that they obtain that
milk dealers' license?
SENATOR HOFFMANN: Madam
President, I would not be able to make a
judgment call on the frame of mind of any
legislators that were involved in that
particular action or if in fact it was well
understood.
But very often we repeal sections
of law or change things because the
implication for us in 2001 had not been
properly anticipated when the law had been
enacted, many times a hundred years or so
before.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor will continue
to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Hoffmann, will you continue to yield?
SENATOR HOFFMANN: Yes, I will.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
7753
Senator yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Does this
bill -- because it creates an exemption,
again, as you've defined it, subject to three
conditions. Does this create the possibility
that more milk produced out-of-state would be
sold in vending machines in New York?
SENATOR HOFFMANN: Madam
President, since most of the milk sold in New
York State is already processed in New York
State, I find it unlikely that it would in any
way encourage out-of-state milk production.
Although given the current state of affairs
with the very great difficulty for our dairy
farmers in New York State, eventually we may
face that reality. But it would have
absolutely no correlation with this law
whatsoever.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Madam President. If the sponsor will yield to
one final question, I think I'm done.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Do you
yield, Senator Hoffmann, for one final
7754
question?
SENATOR HOFFMANN: I'd be glad to
yield to one final question from Senator
Dollinger.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Do the
provisions of the New York State Sanitary Code
contain specific directions on the process to
be followed when milk is sold in vending
machines?
SENATOR HOFFMANN: Madam
President, I would be happy, for Senator
Dollinger's benefit, to read that section of
the sanitary code. It is Section 14. Let me
make sure I've got the right section here now.
Under "Food Protection," Section
14-5, Section (b) states "Vending machines
dispensing potentially hazardous food are to
have heating or refrigeration units with
thermostatic controls that are able to
maintain the food at 140 degrees Fahrenheit,
60 degrees Celsius or above, 45 degrees
Fahrenheit or below when fully loaded. These
vending machines are also to have automatic
7755
controls which prevent the machine from
vending potentially hazardous food."
Then there's something about -
let's see. "Refrigerated food vending
machines vending potentially hazardous food
requiring heated or refrigerated storage are
to have thermometers accurate to plus or minus
2 degrees Fahrenheit, 1.1 degrees Celsius,
located in the machine that are readily
observable by the person servicing the
machine, showing the coldest part of the
heated storage compartment and the warmest
part of the refrigerated compartment."
And I find that a very adequate
explanation of how these machines should be
regulated, and I think I'm probably going to
take a closer look at vending machines from
now on and when I'm in a situation where I am
looking at purchasing one of those wonderful
new little chugs, the bottles of milk that are
being sold in vending machines, I'm going to
double-check to see that those thermometers
are in fact plainly in view.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Madam President. Just on the bill.
7756
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Dollinger, on the bill.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Senator
Hoffmann makes a good point about the state's
Sanitary Code. Because we have enacted in
this state among the tightest, if not the
tightest, regulations on the purchase and sale
of milk products, precisely because, as
Senator Hoffmann knows, we have an enormous
dairy industry in this state that these
regulations are designed to protect because we
want to ensure the integrity of the milk
product.
Under those circumstances, Madam
President, I'm enormously reluctant to back
off our requirement that vending machine
operators get milk dealers' licenses. I think
that that regulation, that statute was put in
place for the express purpose of requiring
that they comply with enormously rigid
controls on the quality of the milk product.
And I would suggest to Senator
Hoffmann that one of the problems with
creating an exemption -- even though, as I
acknowledge, it has some protections built
7757
into it in her three-part test -- is the great
danger is that if there's a milk problem, if a
vending machine breaks down and we sell milk
that could have either be well past its age or
have other problems with it, the effect of
that on New York's dairy industry could be
catastrophic.
I think of it happening at a place
like the New York State Fair, where a vending
machine sells sour milk, and I would suggest
that the dairy industry does not want to
encourage that kind of potential public
relations disaster.
We've had a very credible dairy
industry in this state, it has maintained
high-quality milk products. And I would
suggest to everyone that a step backward from
tight regulation of that industry is not in
the industry's best interest. Even though, as
Senator Hoffmann suggests, this might increase
the consumption of milk, it might end up being
the wrong kind of milk and might be
deleterious to the dairy industry in this
state rather than beneficial.
I'm going to vote in the negative,
7758
Madam President.
SENATOR CONNOR: Last section.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Any
other person 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: Announce
the results.
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
the negative on Calendar Number 584 are
Senators Connor, Dollinger, Duane, Gentile,
Hassell-Thompson, Lachman, Markowitz,
Montgomery, Onorato, Paterson, Schneiderman,
M. Smith, Stachowski, and Stavisky.
Ayes, 43. Nays, 14.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Madam President,
can we at this time call up Calendar Number
957.
7759
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
957, by the Senate Committee on Rules, Senate
Print Number 5353, an act making
appropriations for the support of government.
SENATOR BRUNO: Madam President,
is there a message of necessity and
appropriation at the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Bruno, there is a message of necessity and
appropriation at the desk.
SENATOR BRUNO: I would ask that
we accept the message.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
motion is to accept the message of necessity
and appropriation. All those in favor will
signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: All
those opposed will signify by saying nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
message is accepted.
Senator Bruno.
7760
SENATOR BRUNO: Madam President,
just so that my colleagues in the chamber
understand, that this is the emergency budget
bill -- that is about $7 billion worth -- that
we are going to enact today, hopefully, to
keep the state functioning.
This will make $18 billion worth of
budget items that we have passed in an
emergency fashion to keep the state
functioning.
Now, why is this necessary? It is
necessary, Madam President, because we in this
state do not have a budget. And we do not
have a budget because we are not able to
convene the conference committees that we all
agreed together, the Assembly and the Senate,
three years ago, that we would have an open,
public discussion on doing a budget for the
people of this state, that we would resolve
our differences in conference committees, in
an open forum.
We have for three weeks in a row
attempted, we in the Senate -- I in
particular -- to convene the general
conference committee. Now, by agreement the
7761
conference committee, the general committee is
convened by a call by my signature and the
Speaker's signature and the determination
date. We have named our conference committee
members, we in the Majority, you in the
Minority, in this house. So we have done as
much as we can do.
The Minority in the other house
named their conference committee members. The
only conference committee members that have
not been named are the Majority in the
Assembly.
And I want to clarify that because
all of us in this chamber are criticized, and
rightly so, for not being able to do the job
for which we are elected, and that is to pass
a budget for the people of this state.
Now, we can only do so much. And I
want to thank my colleagues in this chamber,
and I want to especially commend the Minority
Leader, Senator Connor, who on this floor on
3/28/01, March 28th, said: "The real fact of
the matter, Mr. President, is this Legislature
had got to stop waiting for the Governor and
do the job of a Legislature and negotiate
7762
between the two houses a budget."
I applaud the Minority Leader. The
Constitution of New York State says, clearly,
the Governor proposes a budget. The
Legislature acts on that budget. The Governor
has a right of veto. And the Legislature can
override a veto with two-thirds vote in both
houses. That is the Constitution of New York
State.
Senator Connor, you are absolutely
right. We should convene the general
conference committee to discuss what is
available to spend in a public forum.
Your colleague Senator Dollinger:
"My strong suggestion is let's, Senator Bruno,
tomorrow announce that we're going to start
conference committees." Thank you, Senator.
That was on 4/18.
Senator Brown: "I think it's also
terrible that the conference committee process
has not begun. What stops people from sitting
together in a room and talking about their
differences on a budget when they recognize
that this budget should be passed on
April 1st?" 4/18, April 18th. Thank you.
7763
Senator Duane, you have been
particularly vocal. And I applaud that, and I
thank you for that. On this floor, on
March 29: "We are ready to have the
conference committees. But is there anything
that prevents us from having a conference
committee to set the revenue?" The answer is
no, there is not.
Senator Duane, April 20th. If you
don't mind, because you copy the Speaker and
Senator Connor and Assemblyman Faso: "Dear
Senator Joe" -- thank you for being so
friendly and congenial.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR BRUNO: "I want to
commend you for taking the first step in
resolving the state budget stalemate by
calling for the start of conference
committees. The only way to pass a state
budget is to sit down and actually work on
resolving budget differences. Convening
conference committees is the vital first step
in achieving this goal. Sincerely, Tom."
Thank you. Thank you, Tom.
Now, Senator Stachowski also had a
7764
quote, but it's so long I'm not going to read
it.
(Laughter.)
The point that I'm making, ladies
and gentlemen in this chamber, is that for
three weeks we have followed your direction,
as we normally do when you relate to good
government, Senators. And we convened or
attempted to convene the conference committee,
the general committee, to do just what you
suggested, Senators Connor, Dollinger, Duane,
Brown, Stachowski and many others that would
like to have said the same thing but just
didn't. But you intended to.
But in all of these meetings, where
have you been? Senator Connor, I missed you.
You were not there. When you called us to
convene a general conference committee, you
were not there.
Now, to the credit of your
colleagues on that side of the aisle, Senator
Duane showed up with four of your colleagues a
week ago, nine days ago, and participated in
the process. And I thought it was productive
and constructive.
7765
And then last Wednesday, one week
later, I had fully expected, having invited
you all to be there, that we would have the
entire Senate and probably all the Assembly in
attendance, trying to get the budget process
started, as you suggested and directed.
You weren't there. Even the five
that were there from your side of the aisle,
you were no-shows. I was terribly
disappointed, as were my colleagues on this
side of the aisle, as were the people in this
state. And I wondered what on earth anyone
could have said to dissuade all five of you
from being there to participate in a public
process.
I mean, I can't imagine what might
have been said to you. Because it doesn't
relate to anything of consequence if we don't
have a budget. You can't participate much on
behalf of your district if we don't have a
budget. So I don't know what promises were
made or what promises were not made, but you
weren't there, and I was disappointed.
Now, we're contemplating doing it
again, Senator Connor. I won't reread your
7766
quote, but I am remembering what you have said
to me: Let's get the process started. I
don't know how else to start this budget
process other than to do what we all voted to
do -- convene a conference committee, have a
public debate on what is available to spend.
The Governor submitted his budget,
5.3 percent over last year. The Speaker
passed a resolution in his house: Out-years,
8.2 billion more than the Governor. Our
budget is 2.3 billion more than the Governor
in the out-years. First year, our budget is
1.2 billion more than the Governor. The
Speaker's is 2.1 in the Assembly, first year.
How will we ever close an
$8-billion-plus gap between the Governor and
the Assembly to arrive at our number, which is
the right number? How will we do that?
Senator Duane? Senator Connor? Senator
Stachowski? This is rhetorical, by the way,
Madam President.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR BRUNO: Senator Brown?
Senator Dollinger? How will we do it? You
had the right idea. Let us convene the
7767
conference committee publicly and start the
debate, start the discussion.
We feel that the Speaker will head
us towards a huge budget deficit with his
8-billion-plus spending. That's how we got in
trouble before in this state, by overspending.
When Governor Pataki became Governor and we
became leaders here, we were $5 billion in
deficit by overspending.
Now, do we want to go there again?
Anybody here want to go there again? Another
rhetorical question, Madam President. We
don't want to go there again. So we have to
control spending. I think we all agree on
that in this house.
But we're going to resolve this
only in public debate. Not three people in a
room, not two people in a room, not one person
in a room talking to himself. We're not going
to do it that way. We're going to do it in
public discussion. We're going to do it this
week, we're going to do it next week or next
month or in July or August or September,
October.
That's how this process is going to
7768
take place. And any meetings that take place
other than through this forum is
inconsequential to the process.
So I am now invite inviting you all
to participate again in the general conference
committee meeting that we expect at 10:30 in
the hearing room.
And, Senator Connor, you as the
leader, who was so articulate on this floor as
a matter of public record, ought to think in
your heart, in your mind, about being there.
You've named your committee members, to your
credit. So you want to participate in the
process.
So what are we doing? Who are we
protecting? Are we acting on behalf of our
constituency, or are we looking to protect
someone else's interest? You're elected in
this chamber to represent your constituency.
Collectively, we represent all of the people
of New York State in this house. We have an
obligation by constitution to do our job. I'm
inviting you to participate in helping us do
our jobs. We have to do it together. We
can't do it alone.
7769
And all of the comments and all the
posturing won't get us a budget. What will
get us a budget is to discuss publicly our
legitimate differences. We have differences.
The Speaker and the Assembly have a resolution
that they feel strongly about. We passed a
resolution that we feel strongly about. The
Governor proposed a budget that he feels
strongly about. But they're different.
In order for them to become the
budget of this state, they have to be unified
into one and they have to be identical and
they have to pass both houses in that form.
And the only way that is going to take place
is for the Legislature to act on its
constitutional responsibility to the people of
this state. And all the rhetoric and all the
posturing and all the finger-pointing won't
get it done. It's up to us, we in this
chamber.
So we're going to try again. We
are going to do what we can do to get together
and in the spirit of cooperativeness, not
aggression, not belligerence, but in
cooperating in an open discussion on how to
7770
get a budget done for the people of this
state. And if we do that, then we have
fulfilled the wishes of our electorate. And
if we don't do that, then shame on the people
who refuse to participate in this process.
See you all there at 10:30
Wednesday.
Thank you, Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Connor.
SENATOR CONNOR: Thank you, Madam
President.
And I am delighted to have been
applauded by Senator Bruno and to have so many
of my colleagues applauded, although we'd also
appreciate a little more tangible recognition,
if Senator Bruno would like to do that. We
are talking about an $80 billion budget.
Madam President, I'd gladly sit
down with Senator Bruno and negotiate a 79,
80, 81, $82 billion budget. Heck, I'd
negotiate a $60 billion budget with him if we
had the power between us to do that.
I'm the Minority Leader, and it's
no secret I certainly don't have the ability
7771
to do that. And any suggestion that I could
go to some meeting and negotiate a budget is
well beyond the bounds of anything anyone in
this Capitol is willing to credit.
I do await your conference
committee. And Senator Bruno said it so well
right at the very beginning, that a conference
committee is called on the signature of the
Temporary President and the Speaker of the
Assembly. And when I get a notice from the
Speaker and from Senator Bruno that there's a
conference committee meeting, then I'll know
it's a conference committee meeting, not a
press conference, and I'll attend. And I'll
attend not because I'm pretending to negotiate
any billions of dollars' worth of a budget in
that process, but because there is a role for
the Minorities to play to be heard there.
Frankly, Madam President, if I
thought going to this meeting on Wednesday
would somehow or other get $500 for my
constituents or the constituents of any of my
members here allocated in the budget, I'd
certainly go. But we're not negotiating a
budget this Wednesday, not without the
7772
Speaker, not without the Governor. It's not
going to happen.
Unfortunately -- and I applaud
Senator Bruno's efforts to try and move this
process, because things are needed to move it.
And he and I have talked on many occasions,
and I do agree with at least the desire to
find some vehicle or some way to kick-start
all this. That's needed. That's sorely
needed. So I do applaud his efforts and
sincerity in trying to get things moving.
Unfortunately, there are other
players, and they don't seem to be moving on
this. At least I'm not privy to whether or
not the Governor and the Speaker are moving on
this. And that's unfortunate.
What's really unfortunate is, as
Senator Bruno pointed out, after this
appropriation bill passes, we will have done
$18 billion in emergency appropriations. It's
not so many years ago when $18 billion would
have been the whole budget. As it is, it's
roughly -- figure it out. We're about -- at
the end of June, one quarter of the fiscal
year will be gone. Emergency appropriations
7773
will probably be about one quarter, roughly
speaking, of the budget.
I think we ought to get one quarter
of our paychecks for doing that, since we've
done a quarter of the job. But the fact is,
it doesn't work that way, unfortunately.
But the real point is we've now
invented a new way of doing budgets. That's
what we've done. We have ritualized a late
budget. We have condoned a late budget. And
I don't mean this like anybody sat down and
said, "Now, here's a bad thing, let's do it."
I think we've just fallen into it in the past
years, out of very, very good motives.
The idea of emergency extenders
come from very good motives, very good
political and governmental motives. We want
to pay the state's workforce. We want to
continue services to our constituents,
notwithstanding the inability of the
Legislature and the Governor to resolve budget
differences and enact a comprehensive budget.
So we started with emergency
extenders. I can remember when they were of
three days' duration or four days' duration,
7774
while the budget bills were being printed.
Then it became a week, and then a week but
doing it several weeks in a row. And then two
weeks. And now we've institutionalized it so
much that the emergency extenders this year
have been a month in duration each.
And all we're doing is changing the
constitution, which says there should be an
annual budget. And I can foresee -- hopefully
not this year, but some year, unless something
changes, when the entire budget will be
adopted in a series of one- or two-month
extender bills, which is not the
constitutional way to do it.
We have rewritten the constitution
without putting it in writing. We have
changed the way we do things. We have
eliminated the pain and pressure that comes
down on a Governor and Legislature, both
houses, when there are late budgets.
I know from my colleagues who come
from the Capital Region here, there's probably
a high awareness among your constituents that
the budget hasn't been adopted. But I have to
say in my district, as I go around New York
7775
City, you know, unless you're really, really a
government fiscal junkie, you don't know
there's no budget. Nobody stops me, as they
would have years ago, and says, "Oh, when are
we going to get a budget? or "It's terrible
there's no budget." It's become a nonstory.
Talk to reporters from other parts
of the state. Except for columns that poke a
little fun here and there and note that we
haven't been paid, nobody really seems to care
that there's a late budget. And it's because
we have sort of unconsciously, over the years,
so refined this tardiness and how to deal with
it that we've made it virtually painless.
Nobody is not getting a paycheck
except the legislators. Nobody -- no program
is going bankrupt or running off to the bank
to borrow large loans because the budget
didn't pass -- except for us.
The fact is, Madam President, we're
just brilliant. We put ourselves in a
situation where we're about the only people in
the state that suffer from a late budget in a
tangible way. There are intangible factors,
obviously, in the type of governmental image
7776
we project and in at least outside groups'
view of our fiscal reliability, perhaps, that
could hurt the state. But in any tangible
way, a month at a time.
And while I've voted for these
extenders before, Madam President, I did say a
month ago that when you start doing them a
month at a time, it's like you're planning for
failure. What we're really doing today in
passing this appropriation is all but
accepting defeat for the next month. Aren't
we really planning on not having a budget for
another month? Aren't we saying that?
Oh, look, lightning could strike
and we could get a budget before a month is
up. None of us really believe that. If we
believed that, we wouldn't be doing a
one-month extender. And that's really
unfortunate.
And sometimes what you believe
becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. And I
don't mean this just for people in this house,
I address it as well to the other house. And
I address it to the Governor, who sends a
one-month emergency appropriation to us, as
7777
well.
Everybody seems to be quiescent in
this: Well, it will be another month. We're
not going to have anything until at least, if
we're lucky, June 17th. And in the back of
everybody's head is that on June 17th, well,
we'll do a month -- gee, wouldn't you really
like to do six weeks and get July and not have
to come back? We know that's on everybody's
mind.
So what's happened here is all of
the players in this drama have kind of
accepted the fact that nothing will be
accomplished for the next month. And as I
said a month ago, I don't want to be complicit
in that anymore.
I would have a far different
answer -- by the way, this is not a criticism
of anybody. If I thought for one minute my
voting against this bill would result in the
public employees not being paid, in payrolls
not met, in programs not funded, I'd vote for
it. I'd vote for it. If I were sitting in
Senator Bruno's chair, I'd vote for it,
because it's -- frankly, it's necessary. At
7778
this stage, it's not a choice.
But I am in the Minority, Madam
President. And at least on the first round of
the roll call, I'll vote no. If for some
reason there aren't 31 votes voting yes, I
confess right now I'd switch and make sure it
passed. But I want to have a small protest
myself. And I just want to say no.
And that no is about how this whole
system -- and I don't mean just in this house,
and I'm not pointing across the aisle back and
forth across the building. We've just allowed
it to tumble along and developed a whole new
system that is extraconstitutional.
So today I'm voting no, Madam
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Thank you, Madam
President.
Senator Connor, in my humble
opinion, because the press isn't asking about
why don't we have a budget or our constituents
aren't necessarily asking, to me does not make
it a nonissue, the fact that we don't have a
7779
budget. Because, quite frankly, I think all
of us should be embarrassed as a Legislature
that there is no budget at this time.
Certainly we care. I know I care.
And I think your members are probably asking
also why isn't there a budget.
You know, in 1998 we instituted
budget conference committees. And it was, I
think, the most important reform of Senator
Bruno, and one of the reasons why he was
elected our Majority Leader under very
difficult circumstances back in 1995, because
it would create a more open, public and
accountable negotiations, rather than three
men in a room.
Which really led the way in Albany
for so many years -- and I know, quite
frankly, when he was a mere mortal Senator,
repulsed Senator Bruno, as it did so many of
us, that three men would get in a room and
tell the people of the State of New York what
their budget was going to be.
And that's why this budget
conference committee process is so important
and should be convened. And, quite frankly,
7780
all the members in this chamber should attend
that meeting on Wednesday at 10:30. And it
works. I just want to point out a couple of
statistics.
In 1998, the general conference
committee convened on March 25th and the
budget was passed on April 14th. That's about
20 days later. In 1999, it was convened on
July 19th, and it was adopted, the budget, on
August 4th, approximately 16 or 17 days later.
And then in the year 2000 it was
convened on April 5th and the budget was
enacted on May 5th, within 30 days.
So that's why it's important, my
fellow colleagues, that we follow Senator
Bruno's lead in a bipartisan basis and when he
calls for a meeting of the general conference
committee, we all attend and send the message
to the Assembly Majority that it's time to get
a budget done in New York State.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Stachowski.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Madam
President, just briefly on this particular
topic.
7781
I feel that the conference
committees are a great step forward too. And
as soon as we start having them, I'll be there
to participate. I know that when they have
the major conference committee, Senator Connor
will be there, as he's our only member. And
I'll be at the conference committee I'm
assigned to.
However, in a year when the whole
process, and in this house in particular, the
system is focused on rules, the following of
rules, the changing of rules, but basically
geared to rules and strict observance of them,
because of that -- and I had this conversation
with Senator Bruno at a reception before the
first of his conference committee, slash,
press conferences.
If in fact both names are on the
letter that invited me to a conference
committee, I would be there. If it was the
major committee, I would be there to watch and
see what was said. But the invitation came
from Senator Bruno. And as much as I enjoy
spending time with him -- and no one I would
rather sit and chat with, about a budget or
7782
about anything, than with Senator Bruno -- but
since the Speaker's name isn't there, for
whatever reason, it's not a conference
committee meeting.
And unfortunately, unless I see a
piece of paper coming this week with both of
their names on it, again, I probably won't be
there. Because I have a lot of things to do
in my day in the Legislature. None that's
more important than spending time with Senator
Bruno, but a lot of his other press
conferences I'm not invited to. So I can't
make an exception since I'm not invited to
those. And since this one is not, according
to the rules, a conference committee, I'm
probably not going to attend this press
conference either.
But if for some reason between now
and then Speaker Silver's name appears on a
letter that I get that will say "conference
committee Wednesday at 10:30," I will be there
to watch. Because obviously, if it's the main
committee, I'm not on it. But I will be there
to watch, to see what not only Senator Bruno
says but what the Assembly says and what my
7783
leader, Senator Connor, says and what
Assemblyman Faso says, because I'll be
interested. And I'll also be interested in
what -- I think usually Senator Skelos is on
that, and Senator Stafford is on that, and
I'll be happy to hear what everybody says,
because I'll be ready to go forward and move.
But until that time, because we
follow rules and we make such a sticky issue
of it, particularly in this house, I don't
want to be one to break the rules, so I can't
do something that's against the rules,
especially when we make sure that they're
followed so strictly in this chamber.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Madam President. I'll be very brief. Two
quick things.
One is I appreciate Senator Bruno's
wholesale commitment to public debate, to
debate about the great issues that we face in
this state. And you've properly criticized
that it should no longer be three men in a
room that control that public debate.
7784
Well, I would suggest in this house
we have 36 people in a room who in January
imposed a whole set of new rules on this
house -- you remember last week, you were all
here when we had that fancy thing they call a
canvass of agreement. Something, at least in
my view, I'd never heard of in American
parliamentary debate, I'd never heard of in
American democracy. Instead of voting yes or
no, you'd vote on a canvass of agreement,
whatever that means. I still don't know.
I would just suggest, Senator
Bruno, that if your commitment to that public
debate exists, I would urge you to go back and
take the same rules that govern conference
committees that you embrace today for wide
public debate about all of those issues and
put them back in place in this house as they
existed before January. That's the right way
to bring the spirit of public debate to this
chamber and to both chambers of the
Legislature and hopefully this whole Capitol.
And lastly, Senator Bruno, I
interpret the invitation I got to go to the
conference committee something like an
7785
invitation to a marriage that says: I, father
of the bride, want you to invite you to the
marriage of my daughter. I would call the
father of the bride and say, Who's your
daughter marrying? And the answer is, Well,
she doesn't have a proposal yet. She doesn't
have anybody who's willing to say "I do."
So why would I go to a marriage
when it's just the bride who's interested in
the proposal but there's no groom there to
agree to marry her?
Senator Bruno, I'm not going to go
to this marriage until you can show me a
willing bride and a willing groom who have
said "I do" to putting a budget together.
When they both say "I do," I will be there for
this marriage and I hope to participate.
But if I continue to get an
invitation from the earnest father, the
earnest father of the bride, I'm not going to
attend. Let's go to the marriage when it's
ready, Madam President, and I'll turn down the
invitation from the earnest father of the
bride looking for a marriage, and I'll wait
until we have a firm proposal in place to make
7786
sure that this marriage and the budget that
will follow goes through. When that
invitation comes, I'll be there.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Bonacic.
SENATOR BONACIC: Thank you,
Madam President.
I've been listening to this debate
and I have had other debates on the Assembly
floor while we were there. I think we've lost
our way.
What do I mean by that? I mean
when I ran my first campaign, I went to the
people and I said that I'm going to try to do
the best job I can for the people of the State
of New York. And when they elected me, I put
my hand on that Bible and I said, I'm going to
uphold the laws of the State of New York and
do the best job I can.
Now, that promise says, with our
State Constitution, that we will do a budget
by April 1st. All the things that I'm
hearing, it's our ineptitude to get a budget
done in a timely way.
Now, let's talk about the tactics
7787
that we have tried to do over the years to
break this cycle of late budgets. We could
put everyone in a room come midnight,
April 1st, and no one leaves that room until
there's a budget. But you know what? If we
close government down, the workers and the
welfare recipients, we make them victims. We
inflict pain on them if there is no budget and
no money flows.
So that's not a good alternative.
I don't want to go there. I don't think
that's a good strategy.
The other thing is to pass a law
that changes the Constitution of the State of
New York that says there will be an automatic
trigger if we can't agree, if we can't agree
something should happen independent of us.
And we have put legislation
forward, the Senate has, that says if we can't
agree, let's let the Comptroller of the State
of New York -- who just happens to be a
Democrat, but I won't care -- let the
Comptroller, who's most knowledgeable in
working with economists and fiscal estimates,
let him decide the availability of money. And
7788
we'll live by that. Then we kick in the joint
conference committee.
That seems to be reasonable. But
no, we don't get agreement from the leadership
of the Assembly.
So I believe that really what
happens is there is a political strategy going
on here. And the political strategy for the
Minority party -- when I say "Minority," we
have a Republican Governor, we have a
Republican Senate Majority, and then we have
the Majority in the Assembly. They're the
Minority in this case, two against one. They
use late budgets as an extortion for more
spending. That's what they do as political
operatives.
And we let the political agenda
take over what should be our individual
constitutional responsibility and the promises
we made when we were candidates to the people.
That got lost.
Oh, we rationalize. We have taken
some of the pain out. I agree with Minority
Leader Marty Connor when he says we've taken
out the pain with contingency budgets. But
7789
it's an excuse for our ineptitude.
But there is another tangible loss,
and I'll tell you what it is, Mr. Minority
Leader. School districts that don't know what
they're getting and have to guess. They
impose budgets that could increase the
property tax levy on taxpayers in the district
because we didn't tell them how much state aid
they're getting. That's one area where
there's a tangible loss for late budgets.
So I suggest to each and every one
of us that when we go home at night and we're
not in this room posturing or political
pandering, think about the promise you made to
the people and upholding the laws. And when
you put that handle on the Bible, you said
that you would uphold the laws of the
constitution.
I'm disappointed that the people
didn't call a constitutional convention,
because this would have been number one, right
up there, how to handle the budgets, and we
would have corrected the deficiency in the
State Constitution. Because there is no
penalty, there is no punishment if we don't
7790
meet the April 1st deadline.
But aren't you all getting tired of
being beaten up in the newspapers, being
beaten up by your school districts, saying
you're incompetent, you're inept? I know I
personally don't like it. Because when I come
here every day, I try hard, just like you do.
And I know you try hard, because I watch your
passion and I watch how you fight for the
things you believe in.
But let me tell you, when you don't
show up at a joint conference committee -- you
may not have the power. But if five of you
come, ten of you come, twenty of you come,
that's going to be a message to the other
side. And didn't Mike Bragman stand up, and
18 other soldiers, and say enough's enough?
Didn't he do that? They wanted joint
conference committees, open, with the public.
So don't let them sell you that
political agenda. And remember your promise
to the voters when you ran as a candidate.
And we're glad to have you here.
Thank you, Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
7791
Hoffmann.
SENATOR HOFFMANN: Thank you,
Madam President.
I spent ten years in this chamber
looking for ways that we could change this
whole process, and one of the things that I
thought would be most meaningful for the
taxpayers would be if all of the committees on
which we sit would take pieces of the budget
and work on those parts of the budget
independently. And that perhaps would create
a better framework than the famous
three-men-in-a-room scenario that has plagued
this state for so many years.
When I wasn't able to make all of
those changes, I was thrilled to see the
conference committee process evolve. Because
that at least creates a forum in which we can
meet across the aisle and between houses and
begin to break down into reasonable pieces the
responsibility that we have to the taxpayers
of this state.
And I can tell you without any
shadow of a doubt that my effectiveness as a
Minority or a Majority member was virtually
7792
the same in those committees. That's why I
cannot understand today why it was only the
Majority members of this house, for the most
part, who were willing to go to the last few
conference committee meetings.
And what I cannot understand is why
the other chamber is going to continue to
incur the disrespect of the people of this
state by refusing to sit at the table.
When I go back to my district in
Central New York, the question that I hear
over and over again is: What's wrong with
that Speaker, and why won't those people on
the other side of the aisle work with you to
get a budget together? It does matter to the
taxpayers of this state. It matters
symbolically in many ways, and it matters
substantively as well.
The school districts are only one
example. There are numerous cases where
people's lives are on hold. Everybody
involved in construction of roads and bridges
wonders what's going to happen with the CHIPS
aid. That's always one of the last things
that's settled.
7793
What happens to the localities when
an entire construction season is over and
necessary -- necessary for public safety -
repairs to roads and bridges have not been
undertaken? That's especially important in
small communities.
The little rural towns in the 48th
Senate District suffer when they don't know
what they're going to receive in state aid
because they can't roll it over year after
year. They don't have a large tax base. They
make every single decision based upon the
immediate dollars. They can't anticipate what
the future is going to hold. And they're
terrified that they're not going to be able to
complete things that they need to do.
I don't understand why we can't be
sitting around a table where the general
government committee can discuss the municipal
aid formula. When I was a Democrat and I
worked with Arthur Eve and we talked about
Syracuse needs and Buffalo needs, it was no
different than when I became a Republican and
we talked about Syracuse needs and Buffalo
needs. We were able to sit at a table
7794
together. And that's what we are elected to
do.
The people in my district don't
care what political party any of us are most
of the time. They just want us to be
honorable men and women. I don't think that
anybody is even paying attention to what we're
saying outside this chamber right now, because
we have lost so much respect in the world at
large.
But if anyone here can convey to
the Speaker that the ball is really in his
court now and that he needs to do what Senator
Bruno has asked him to do, to come and sit and
reason together, please try to make an effort
to reach the Speaker, for the benefit of the
people throughout this state.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President.
I want to thank Senator Bruno for
what I think were his kind words. And I'm
pleased to note that he reads his mail.
However, I did also send a
7795
follow-up letter which was not quoted this
afternoon on the floor.
I was actually very excited when I
was invited to the conference committee
meeting. I hadn't been to one before. And I
did go. But I have to say I was -- first, I
was surprised that the meeting was only going
to be a half an hour. It occurred to me that
a half an hour wouldn't really be enough time
to do very much work at all. But I thought I
would give it a shot anyway.
So I did attend. And I have to say
that the beginning of the -- what really -- I
mean, let's call a press conference a press
conference -- started off with adult Senators
chanting "where is Shelly, where is Shelly."
That didn't seem like a particularly serious,
businesslike start of a meeting.
And, yes, it is true that I asked
some questions and engaged in some discussion.
But only a very, very small part of the
budget, having to do with eliminating gas
taxes because of the energy crisis that's
going on. But that was just a scintilla of
the work that needed to be done when you look
7796
at all of the spending and all of the revenue
projections that we have to make.
I was also taken aback that at what
was supposed to be a joint conference that
only one part of it had the overhead
projection, with really what looked like a
very one-sided position on what the budget was
going to be like.
I was actually very interested in
following up. But I saw again that the next
budget committee that I was invited to go to
was also only going to be a half an hour. And
I didn't really want to participate in
something which really was not a working
meeting. Not that my time is any more
valuable than anyone else's time in this
chamber, but my time is valuable. And
clearly, a half an hour press event, allegedly
as a conference committee, was not working,
was not really getting any movement.
I know that on many pieces of
legislation, and in fact last year, some sort
of a budget process happened and we actually
did do a budget. This road that we're going
down on a sort of one-sided conference
7797
committee is obviously not the way to go. We
have to come up with some other method to make
the budget process happen in a timely manner.
I appreciated the early outreach to
try to do that kind of a conference committee,
but it was a failure. So let's move on and
try to find some other way to make the budget
for the state actually move forward. I'm
ready, willing, and able to work in any kind
of process that will make that happen. But I
want to make sure that it's a real process
that's really going to work and that's really
going to make us have a budget.
Thank you, Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Meier.
SENATOR MEIER: Thank you, Madam
President.
As my colleagues know, I spend
quite a bit a time in the chamber and I listen
quite intently to debates. And I have to say
I've been very interested in some of the
comments that I've heard on the other side of
the aisle today. And among the most
interesting was Senator Dollinger's marriage
7798
analogy.
Now, we may be a little backward
where I come from, but where I come from we go
through a period called courtship before
there's a marriage. And the problem that
we've got here, you see, is that one of the
potential partners in this marriage, he
doesn't write, he doesn't call, he doesn't
visit, and hell, he doesn't even send -- let
alone send flowers.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR MEIER: And what I find
interesting about that analogy and some of the
other comments from the other side of the
aisle that have been said today is that we're
really dancing around the obvious, which is
not the potential suitor, it's the 800-pound
gorilla who refuses to come into the room.
And despite what one of my other
colleagues on the other side of the aisle
said, there are parts of the world where
people do care. In the community where I
live, the leading newspaper editorialized: "A
spotlight on the empty chairs at these budget
meetings is more than cheap political
7799
posturing on the Republicans' part. Pataki
submitted a budget earlier than the law
requires, and Bruno, as Senate leader, has
convened meetings to talk about it. It's time
for Silver to join the process."
One of the other newspapers in my
district asked me two weeks ago what was I
doing to move the budget process forward. And
I gave them what I think is a pretty simple
answer, but it's -- like most other things in
life, sometimes the answer is simple. I told
them, I'm going to show up for work.
And I'm going to show up for work
Wednesday morning when the budget conference
committee convenes. Woody Allen said
80 percent of life is just showing up. I'm
going to continue showing up for work, and I
urge all my colleagues to do so.
Thank you, Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
DeFrancisco.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: In my own
life, I do trial work. And there's an old
adage that if the facts aren't on your side,
argue the law. If the law is not on your
7800
side, argue the facts. If neither are on your
side, sing and dance and hope for the best.
Well, I think we're now in the
sing-and-dance phase from the other side of
the aisle. It seems to me when you cry for
participatory government and you're given an
opportunity to participate and you choose not
to, especially when it's the constitutional
responsibility to have a budget, then I think
that we're in the sing-and-dance stage.
When you start talking about
marriages, that's pretty good singing and
dancing. When you start talking about who
signs the letter, the invitation, that sounds
like singing and dancing as well.
And my favorite is the half-hour
meeting that Senator Duane mentioned. Senator
Bruno and Senator Skelos at that meeting said
we will sit here all day, all night, all
weekend, we'll get a budget done. And he
would have known that had he shown up.
So let's stop singing and dancing.
You all know what influence you would have in
getting Shelly Silver to those conference
committees. If you showed up, then the 18
7801
Assembly people show up, the pressure mounts,
and we get it done.
So let's participate. We enjoyed
the song, we enjoyed the dance. Let's get
down to work and do what we're
constitutionally required to do.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you,
Madam President.
I must say I agree heartily with
Senator Bonacic. This is a sign of our own
ineptitude. And whether -- people in my
district aren't that upset about this. They
don't insult me about the late budget. I come
here to be insulted. They're actually not
very focused on the budget.
But I agree with Senator Bonacic, I
think this is a disgrace. And I think it's a
failure of government. And I think taking the
pain out of the process has not served us
well.
The way we've attempted to inject
pain into the process, withholding the
paychecks of the legislators, clearly hasn't
7802
worked. And some more creative approach is
necessary. Maybe if the Speaker of the
Assembly and the Majority Leader of the Senate
had to switch places April 1st with the
Minority Leaders, I think we'd have a budget
pretty fast. I mean, we can try to come up
with creative ways to bring this about.
But in the meantime, we're not
getting this done. And every time we do an
extender I stand up and I say, There is no
money in this for some programs, including
Superfund. We're not still not doing it.
We're approaching a quarter of the year gone
by with no funds going into that critical
program.
I am going to vote no today, and I
respectfully suggest that a month is just too
long. A month is just too long. We're taking
the pain out. I don't see how we are
advancing the cause that my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle are so passionately
advocating by doing a one-month extender. I
just think it's too long. I think it sends a
bad message.
And I think if we would hold out in
7803
this house and say we're not going to do a
one-month extender, let's get in here and do
this, we'll do two-day extenders, let's keep
coming back, let's keep coming back -- that's
a concrete way to force the other parties to
the table.
And I would support that sort of an
effort. I think that, look, the people on my
side of the aisle, Senator Duane expressed it.
You know, we're happy to come to meetings.
We're so rarely invited to meetings that we'll
all attend if it's a real meeting.
But in the absence of a real
meeting, I think that it is very unfortunate
that we're today voting on a one-month
extender. I will be voting no and urging
everyone else to also vote no.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Brown.
SENATOR BROWN: Thank you, Madam
President.
First let me thank the Majority
Leader for quoting me on the budget and my
interest in seeing the budget passed. I'm
certainly very honored by that, and my parents
7804
would be very proud to know that the Majority
Leader quoted me.
I think maybe because I'm a new
member, maybe I'm a little closer to the
people. I wonder -- and I don't mean to be
disrespectful, but it seems like around this
whole place it's pretty much business as
usual. And I don't know if it's really
business as usual, I think it's business worse
than usual.
Because as I understand it, in the
past, all the parties used to really work to
get that budget passed by April 1st. And I
agree with the Majority Leader and I agree
with the Minority Leader that to not pass that
budget by April 1st is wrong. We have a
responsibility as legislators to do that, and
for whatever reason we've gotten away from
that.
It's my understanding that in the
old days we used to stay over. People used to
stay up late. People used to work overtime to
get the budget passed close to that April 1st
deadline. In fact, it's my understanding that
you used to turn the clock back in the old
7805
days, if you were a few minutes late or a few
hours late, to get that budget passed on time.
And so I think, as Senator
Schneiderman said, maybe we do need to
interject more pain into the process. Because
perhaps if there was more pain, the public
would take a hard and serious look at what
we're all doing and they would rise up and
they would put more pressure on us to get this
budget passed.
But I think one of the reasons why
we're not getting more public pressure is
because the pain has been removed from the
process. And although there are
consequences -- like Senator Bonacic has said,
school districts can't plan, community-based
organizations can't plan, they have to borrow
money to continue to operate and provide
services that people desperately need -- to a
large extent, the public has lost sight of the
dire consequences for this state when the
budget is not passed on time.
So like others that have spoken
before me, I'm not going to vote for this
contingency budget today. I think there
7806
should be some pain. I think perhaps if there
was pain, the public would really stop and
take a hard look at everybody -- the Senate,
the Assembly, the Governor -- and would force
us together to get something done.
And while we're talking about
change, I'd like to say I'd like to pass
bills, I'd like to get more money for my
district. I'd like to share more equitably in
the resources of this house to provide those
resources to the taxpayers that elected me.
I'm not here for business as usual.
That's not why I ran for the Senate. I'm here
for change. Getting this budget passed on
time is one of those changes that I'm here
for. And this one-month extender doesn't get
it done. And as a result, I'm not going to be
voting for it today.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Morahan.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Thank you,
Madam President.
I rise in support of this extender
bill, because I reject the premise that we
7807
should inflict pain on our constituents to
make us do our job. We heard from many
eloquent speakers this afternoon -- Senator
Bonacic saying it's broken. The system is
broken. And every attempt to fix it has been
thwarted in the other house. Not one proposal
has surfaced in the Assembly and passed the
Assembly that would address the crisis that we
face every year.
What can we do about this? I think
if you put politics aside and this entire
Senate, Republican and Democrat, showed up
Wednesday when we attempt to convene another
joint conference, it would probably be the
most telling and effective thing any Senator
here could do if this entire house mobilized
and met.
Now, we hear it's only a half an
hour, we hear that we don't participate.
Let's not lose focus on what the general
conference does. It sets the available money,
it pronounces the teams, it allocates
resources by category, and then we, as
Senators, in those subcommittees and those
joint committees with the Assembly, go to work
7808
to hammer out how the money is going to be
spent. We don't do that at the joint
conference committee, necessarily.
But the real argument today is -
or the real question, rather, is do we show up
as a Senate -- not a Republican Senate, not a
Democrat Senate, but as a Senate -- to do our
job, saying we're willing. Now, it may not
work if we all showed up this Wednesday. But
I would guarantee you that the pressure and
the focus that you could bring to this issue
by not trying to defend colleagues in another
house, I think that would be the most telling
message that the press would watch, that the
people would watch.
Yes, we've taken the pain out of
this, but we haven't taken out the shame. And
the shame is on us. And we can't get out of
that by putting pain on the constituency, the
people of the State of New York.
I implore my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle to come Wednesday, to
see where the courage is, to see who's
committed to move the ball. There's no more
we can do at this point. All efforts to fix
7809
this thing have failed. We can't get a
constitutional amendment, which I have
proposed, so the people would have a budget on
April 1st every year. We have taken it out of
three-men-in-a-room scenario, and I commend
Senator Bruno for opening up this door. He's
opened it up for all Senators, he's opened it
up for all Assembly people by being committed
to the process.
So I think we ought to follow the
constitution, we ought to pass a budget on
time. I think we ought to let the Legislature
come together, present this budget back to the
Governor. And I think whatever fallout at
that time occurs we would have to deal with.
But there are no guarantees in this world.
So I implore you, please, on behalf
of your constituents, show the courage to be
there. I commend those Senators who were
there two weeks ago. And one has to wonder
what was said, what was not said, what was
done, what was not done that suddenly -- one
could only assume some pressure was applied.
One can only assume some people were told not
to be there. These are all assumptions. But
7810
it's still a heck of a good question.
Let's not have that question this
Wednesday.
Thank you, Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: To close
for the Minority, Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you,
Madam President.
I'm quite impressed with the mea
culpa that a lot of our colleagues have
expressed about our duties and how we may have
failed not only ourselves but the public in
not being able to pass a budget on time. And
perhaps out of this last hour of decision we
will take a new look at how we deal with this
process.
But it was kind of startling that
after the need to meet on Wednesday, as it was
expressed, that the extender would go for a
month. It's a long period of time. It's not
fair to the public. It is certainly in
dereliction of our duty.
But certainly the opportunity to
sit and to talk is a fair request. And I
think that it's founded in the concept of
7811
fairness, which is an existing equitable
belief that you should be granted the
opportunity to receive what you've given,
assuming that you come to court with clean
hands.
Now, I heard a lot of
self-righteousness out of some Senators, who I
want to ask where were they on March the 13th,
at noon, when they were statutorily required
to elect four members to the Board of Regents
and were absent at that time, even though
court rulings have sustained the fact that
that was a worthy proceeding. They didn't
like the process, and they didn't show up.
Now they like the process, and
they're admonishing those who don't want to
show up in a different forum. And what I'm
saying is that just really diminishes any
self-righteousness or principle that anyone is
trying to state here.
So now that we all know that we've
all done it and we go back and forth changing
sides on particular issues, admonishing each
other and lecturing each other -- I was very
impressed by the lectures I heard this
7812
afternoon, but they really ring with the
sounds of open cans and empty pots, when you
can go back just a couple of months and see
the exact same scenario with the reverse
findings.
So what I would say is that perhaps
we'll adjourn soon and we'll all go home and
think it over, and maybe somebody come back
here tomorrow with some consistency, because
as long as we do have three men and a budget,
as long as we all, out of some fierce, blind
loyalty, don't speak up for what would really
move the budget process along, which would be
that all the leaders of the house agree that
we stay here every day -- you keep people away
from their constituents for two weeks, you'll
get a budget passed in two weeks, I guarantee
it.
But while we continue to drown in
what I think is an orgy self-compromise, out
of loyalty to some principle that I don't
understand, perhaps we might want to think it
over and come back tomorrow and recognize that
the frailties that we have pointed out in each
other exist in ourselves.
7813
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Stafford, to close for the Majority.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Thank you,
Madam President.
First, allow me, please, from the
bottom of my heart, thank you for not asking
any questions.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR STAFFORD: We usually
have some questions on this bill.
We're closing. I was very sure of
that before I said that.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR STAFFORD: Also, Madam
President, I think it was a great founder of
this country, one of the great founders,
Benjamin Franklin, who once said we either
hang together or we hang separately. I think
that's rather profound. And we're finding
here that what he was inferring is not good,
and it is not good where we are.
I would suggest, Madam President,
that what's been said here today, that we can
sum it up -- but before I sum up, I have to -
I'm afraid Senator -- oh, Senator Dollinger is
7814
still here. And he and I also have to have a
bit of a dialogue before I sit down. And I
would suggest to him that the -- am I
interrupting you back there?
I would suggest, Madam President,
that the proposal has been made, in that we
are having the conference committees.
Therefore, I suggest that his analogy and
suggestion is rather not on-target.
Senator Paterson, I never thought
I'd see you so far off the mark. When it
comes to electing the Regents, we all know
that really we don't have any power, due to
the fact of the numbers over -- let me see, is
it the south side or the north side? You'll
have to help me again. But I think it's the
north side. We don't have any power.
Therefore, it is not necessary for us to be
there to have the constitutional decision
made. Here, we do have to have everybody
together.
And finally, Madam President, we
have to have the reasonable person -- when we
were in law school, we all learned about the
reasonable man. I suggest that that should
7815
now be revised and be the reasonable person.
And if we're going to be
reasonable, we do, as has been said, attend
the conference committees. The Governor
proposed the budget earlier than necessary, to
his credit. And it is now necessary for the
Legislature to dispose -- and I don't like the
word "dispose," so I would say act on the
budget.
But again, we have to have
reasonable people, reasonable persons, we have
to sit down together to do that in the
Legislature. And I think it's been suggested
a number of times here today what needs to be
done.
And with that, Madam President,
without any questions, we're going to have
this bill, I hope, pass unanimously.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: In relation to
Calendar Number 957, Senator Stafford moves to
discharge, from the Committee on Finance,
Assembly Bill Number 8864 and substitute it
for the identical Senate Bill Number 5353.
7816
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE:
Substitution ordered.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
is there a message of necessity and
appropriation on the Assembly bill?
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: There is
a message of necessity and appropriation on
the Assembly Bill at the desk.
SENATOR SKELOS: Move to accept.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: All in
favor signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Opposed,
nay.
(Response of "Nay.")
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
message is accepted.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 62. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
7817
Oppenheimer, to explain her vote.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Just very
briefly.
I was listening very closely, and I
can hear Senator Bruno's frustration, and I
think it is honest and I think it is earnest.
And if dances and flowers and invitations
would do the trick, I would send flowers to
everyone in this chamber.
The reason I'm voting against the
bill now is, as many of you know, I came out
of a good government group. I was president
of the League of Women Voters. I feel like I
am sitting in the worst imaginable government
possible right now, and it's just an
embarrassment for me.
I heard certain things that I think
are possibilities. One reason I think we
don't go to the conference committees is
because, as I understand it from my
background, a conference committee, at least
in Washington, D.C., is always joint. It is
held between the two houses. And this is a
one-house, so it is not truly a conference
committee.
7818
The two things that I did hear that
I thought had some measure of worth, I think
Senator Bonacic said something about the
automatic trigger, that the Comptroller would
do the estimates and then, within a certain
amount of time, a week or so, we would then
sit down at the conference committees. I
think that sounds like one good possibility.
I'm sort of very problem-resolving-oriented,
so that's why I'm looking at these things now.
I think the extender for a month is
too much. I think if we had an extender for
only a week, we would be taking it much more
seriously, because we'd coming back and doing
this every single week.
And I think another thing that was
mentioned was someone said something about
coming back, just staying here daily,
regularly, because we'd all get so disgusted
with each other that we'd surely come up with
a budget because we don't want to be here on a
daily business.
I'm just thinking of things that
would make us do the things that we all want
to do, we know we should be doing, and how do
7819
we force it to happen. And those ideas I
thought were valid.
But I'll be voting no.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Oppenheimer, in the negative.
Senator Hassell-Thompson.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: To
explain my vote, Madam President.
I know that some of my colleagues
and some of those who are preparing to run
against me for reelection next year are going
to be watching the way I vote in this chamber
very, very carefully and will be very happy to
point out to my constituents that I voted
against this bill, against this continuing
resolution.
And it will be unfortunate, too,
that the language of that will not be to
explain the background and the history and the
situation that I find myself in which has
forced me to vote no on this continuing
resolution.
Having said that, however, I think
it is incumbent -- I spoke the first time that
we did this, and I said that I understood very
7820
clearly the numbers of agencies and programs
for which I fight every day and fight very,
very hard to sustain would not in fact be paid
and would not receive their allocations if in
fact we did not pass these continuing
resolutions.
But I also cannot be considered to
be a part of the solution if I continue to
vote to make things so easy and so relaxed
that we don't have to be in a hurry. Even
though all of us probably could use our
salaries, you know -- and it's very obvious
that it isn't a major consideration, because
we haven't pushed this to the forefront of our
issues.
But what is very painful for me is
the fact that people are talking about as late
as September and October with a
comfortableness that is just frightening to
me.
And to move from a two-week
continuance to a four-week continuance, and I
guess the next time we can expect a six-week
continuance, which nobody -
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
7821
Hassell-Thompson, how do you vote on the bill?
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: -- is
concerned -- I will have to vote no, with the
understanding that I do so at my own dread,
but my conscience will not let me do
otherwise.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Hassell-Thompson, in the negative.
Senator Stavisky.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Very, very
briefly, to explain my vote, Madam President.
When the last appropriation came
up, I said on the floor in explaining my vote
that that was going to be the last time I
voted for an emergency appropriation.
What we're passing today is more in
line with the Governor's Executive budget
proposal that came out in February. I think
it's totally inadequate, it doesn't address
the issues, and for that reason I vote no.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator,
you will be recorded in the negative.
Senator Ada Smith.
SENATOR ADA SMITH: Thank you,
Madam President.
7822
I too find that I must explain the
reason that I'm voting no on this extender.
In all good conscience, I could not vote to
extend an extension for four weeks when we are
sitting here doing nothing to provide the
State of New York with a real budget.
And I will continue to vote no on
any other extenders until we start to take
this seriously. And on behalf of my
constituents, whoever may run against me, they
can try to use it, but I believe that my
constituents will understand that I'm voting
for them.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Ada Smith, in the negative.
Senator Brown.
SENATOR BROWN: To explain my
vote, Madam President.
Like Senator Stavisky and Senator
Connor, the last time an emergency
appropriation bill came up I said if there
weren't substantive negotiations going on, I
would not vote for it again.
Unfortunately and sadly, there are
not substantive negotiations going on, and I'm
7823
not going to vote for this emergency
appropriation today. What we're doing today
is business worse than usual. I think we
should stand up, we should not be extending
this bill for one month -- one month is much
too long -- we should say we want to pass this
budget and we should only, only be extending
an appropriation for a week at the longest.
I vote no, Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Brown, in the negative.
Senator Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, Madam
President. There's an article today, front
page of the Daily News, and it talks about
students who have not received adequate
chemistry lessons, lessons in science which
would allow them to pass their Regents.
And we have not negotiated, because
we don't have a bill -- a budget that is
negotiated between the two houses, as we
normally do, which would provide funding for a
STEP and C-STEP. Those programs are
especially, specifically established by this
Legislature and funded to make sure that
7824
youngsters have access to this kind of
education enhancement, enrichment in the
sciences in particular, and technology.
And we are short at least
$10 million for youth -- summer youth
employment. And we have no summer -
permanent funding for summer youth employment.
So there are many areas where
programs, important programs in the City of
New York, in my district in particular, are
not being funded. They are on hold. And that
is very bad, I think, for our constituents.
It does not serve them, and therefore we're
not serving them in our capacity as
legislators.
So I'm going to vote no on this
budget bill, because it really does not
include programs that are specific for my
district.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Montgomery will be recorded in the negative.
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Madam President. Just to explain my vote very
briefly.
7825
I want to clarify two things right
at the start. Senator Stafford, you're
absolutely correct. There's a proposal, but
go back to Contracts 101. A proposal has to
be accepted before something happens, before a
marriage can occur. There are proposals from
the Senate, there are proposals from the
Assembly. There's no acceptance. I would
suggest sending a marriage invitation is still
premature.
And with respect to my colleague
Senator Bonacic, who talked about political
motivation in the process -- remember, he
eloquently talked about the Minority party,
those Democrats, since Republicans now control
the Governor's mansion and the Senate, as they
have for 50 years or 60 years or 70 years. He
talked about this is politically motivated by
the Minority.
Isn't it astounding that this all
started in 1983, when there was a Democratic
governor, a Democratic Assembly, and
Republicans in the Minority party in the
house, in the Senate in the Legislature?
Could it be that this whole trend toward late
7826
budget is a political ploy by the Republican
Party to embarrass Democratic governors? I'm
not sure.
I would just suggest that Senator
Bonacic, when he accuses Democrats of that, is
engaged in revisionism.
I'm going to vote no, Madam
President. This goes far too long. It's like
a teakettle. We're relieving all the pressure
off budget discussions by admitting the defeat
that it will take more than a month to do.
I will agree with whoever the
speaker was who said when we start the
conference committee, we can get it done. I
would just suggest this is relieving all the
pressure on all of us. It's not the right
thing to do. I vote no.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Dollinger will be recorded in the negative.
Senator DeFrancisco.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: I'm just a
little bit confused. Some people are voting
no because the budget hasn't been negotiated
and the schools are not being properly funded.
If you vote no and if there was a majority
7827
that voted no, we would be depriving the
schools in our state of a billion dollars in
state aid to close out this year. That seems
sort of illogical.
To say that we're not putting
enough pressure on ourselves by having a
four-week budget, a temporary budget here,
what pressure are you putting on in order to
make sure we have true negotiations? And if
someone could tell me how you can negotiate
with only one person coming to the table, I'd
like to know that as well.
This is the best way to go, in that
school districts are not being hurt, they'll
be able to operate until the end of the fiscal
session.
And the only pressure that we can
put on the person who doesn't want to
negotiate is to be there at our meetings and
try to get public support for true
negotiations to start as soon as possible.
I vote yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
DeFrancisco, in the affirmative.
Senator Stachowski.
7828
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Madam
President, briefly to explain my vote.
I'm going to vote for this measure.
I can understand my colleagues in a protest
vote of a four-week extender, because many of
them said they would do that if there was
another long extender offered.
I'm going to vote to pay the bills,
because I think that we don't want to have a
mixed message, somebody thinking that this is
some party position in protest. This is
people voting the way they think is right and
why they want to do it.
I'm not going to get involved in
the -- as I said earlier, it's nice that you
have a conference committee, slash, press
conference again Wednesday. When I get an
invitation to a real conference committee -
because I didn't make the rules. I didn't say
they had to be signed by both the Speaker and
Senator Bruno, in this case, the President
Pro Tem of the Senate. Both have to sign it.
The Majority party has made the
rules. We try to obey the rules, whether we
like them or not. In all cases, we still try
7829
to obey the rules. We're dealt the hand we're
dealt with. We have to do what we have to do
as members, always remembering that we have
rules. Change the rules and let anybody call
the conference committee, I'll be happy to be
there Wednesday.
I vote yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Stachowski recorded in the affirmative.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
to explain my vote.
I'm going to support this bill
because -- and support Senator Stachowski in
his voting in the affirmative, because, quite
honestly, I don't attest to the Newt Gingrich
approach of closing down government to get a
budget done.
You know, I think it's totally
appropriate that you pass a four-week extender
because you need to -- organizations and
people that benefit from these funds need to
know that it's there and they need to know the
plan.
For example, Office for the Aging,
7830
$5 million for the Community Service Program,
they need to know that that money is going to
be there. 7.6 million for community treatment
services for the Office of Alcoholism and
Substance Abuse. $140 million, payment of
public assistance. I think people on public
assistance need to know that the funding will
be there so they can get by.
You need $3 million for child
support enforcement. 1.1 billion, as my good
colleague Senator DeFrancisco said, general
support of public schools. And 59, almost
$60 million for the AIDS Institute Program.
I vote in the affirmative.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Skelos, in the affirmative.
Senator Stafford.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Madam
President, I'm not usually one who prolongs
anything. But I do have to point out, Senator
Dollinger -- now, you're talking about
contracts. You've got to go back and read
Williston. Now, if you don't know Williston,
get Patterson and Jones' casebook.
And you'll find that yes, there has
7831
to be an acceptance after the proposal that
you had mentioned. But we're talking about a
reasonable acceptance of our responsibilities.
And we have mentioned earlier that
we've made the proposal to have the meeting,
we're there for the meeting, now we need that
reasonable acceptance. And that's what this
is all about, accepting our responsibilities.
Thank you, Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Stafford, in the affirmative.
Senator Balboni.
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, Madam
President, I rise to explain Senator
Dollinger's vote.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR BALBONI: When he said
the teapot and the pressure building in the
teapot, the only analogy that's appropriate
there is that there's a lot of hot air.
That's what he meant, not that there was
pressure building here.
As far as my vote goes, this
message is for the Speaker, who I consider to
be a friend. And I know that's heresy
7832
among -- but I do. So Shelly, if you're
listening, listen to me.
You can't have it both ways.
You're either for an open process or you're
not. You're either for reform or you're not.
You're either for an open budget with a budget
on time or you're not. Apparently you're not.
Thank you, Madam President. I vote
yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Balboni, in the affirmative.
Announce the results.
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
the negative on Calendar Number 957 are
Senators Brown, Connor, Dollinger,
Hassell-Thompson, Montgomery, Onorato,
Oppenheimer, Paterson, Schneiderman, A. Smith,
and Stavisky. Ayes, 47. Nays, 11.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
would you recognize Senator Breslin.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Breslin.
7833
SENATOR BRESLIN: Madam
President, I would request unanimous consent
to be recorded in the negative on Calendar
584, Bill Number 3548.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: So
recorded.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
before we do housekeeping and members leave, I
think it's appropriate at this time -- we have
a wonderful institution, the State Senate, and
probably the foundation of our State Senate
for so many years has been Senator Marchi.
And today is his 80th birthday.
And, Senator Marchi -
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Happy
birthday.
(Standing ovation.)
SENATOR MARCHI: Madam President,
by way of brief response.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Marchi.
SENATOR MARCHI: If I've been
7834
here that long, it's the longest -- I don't
know whether it's the longest in history, but
certainly the longest in the country. And
Senator Thurmond, down in Washington, we were
both elected in 1956.
I consider every single day and
every single member I ever met, no matter what
side of the aisle they sat on, they were
always so generous, so kind, so compassionate.
It's been a labor of love. I have not made a
sacrifice. I've enjoyed it so much. I love
them all, all of you.
And it has contributed very
generously to my pleasure in life and the
associations that I formed across the years.
And this goes back to 1953, when I was
actually on staff, and '56, when I was
elected. But these have all been happy years.
We have our differences, and we air
them, and I'm not always right and you're not
always wrong. But this is the setting. And
it's been a joy for me. And the people that
work here -- you too, Mary Louise. My wife is
Mary Louise.
All of you, God bless you all. And
7835
thanks so much for so much.
(Applause.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Happy
birthday, dear friend.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: I would also
like to point out, I'm not sure if they were
born when Senator Marchi first came to Albany,
but it's also Senator Spano's birthday and I
believe Senator Paterson's birthday also.
So happy birthday to all of you.
(Applause.)
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: If we could
return to motions, I believe we have the
motion that Senator Dollinger does on a daily
basis.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Yes, Madam
President, the motion that seems to have no
end.
I just give written notice pursuant
to Rule XI that I will move the Senate for an
amendment to the Rules to add a new rule, XV,
7836
with respect to ethical standards for
officers, members and employees of the Senate.
I'd ask that that be filed in the
Journal, Madam President, with thanks.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
notice is received and will be filed.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
would you please recognize Senator Volker.
SENATOR VOLKER: I just very
quickly want to remind everybody that tomorrow
is the Police Memorial celebration. In fact,
because of the delay last week because of the
National Memorial, both the Police Memorial
and the Firemen's Memorial is tomorrow.
There a mass at 9:00 o'clock at
Saint Mary's Church, and then the Police
Memorial I believe is at 11 o'clock tomorrow
morning. Unfortunately, it conflicts with our
session, but it's at 11 o'clock tomorrow, the
Police Memorial.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
please recognize Senator Farley.
7837
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Farley.
SENATOR FARLEY: Thank you, Madam
President.
Happy birthday to all three.
On behalf of Senator Libous, please
remove the sponsor's star on Calendar 111.
On behalf of Senator Saland, please
place a sponsor's star on Calendar Number 223.
On behalf of Senator Meier, on page
43, I offer the following amendments to
Calendar Number 692, Senate Print 4863A, and I
ask that that bill retain its place on the
Third Reading Calendar.
Madam President, on behalf of
Senator Johnson, on page 22 I offer the
following amendments to Calendar Number 425,
Senate Print 3258, and I ask that that bill
retain its place.
And on behalf of Senator Larkin, on
page 56, Madam President, I offer the
following amendments to Calendar 820, Senate
Print 2338, and I ask that that bill retain
its place on the Third Reading Calendar.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: So
7838
ordered.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Would you please
recognize Senator Hevesi.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Hevesi.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you, Madam
President. I rise to request unanimous
consent to be recorded in the negative on
Calendar Number 584, Senate Print 3548.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Without
objection, so recorded.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
is there any housekeeping at the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: There is
no housekeeping at the desk.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
there being no further business, I move we
adjourn until Tuesday, May 22nd, at 11 a.m.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: On
motion, the Senate stands adjourned until
Tuesday, May 22nd, at 11 a.m.
7839
(Whereupon, at 6:31 p.m., the
Senate adjourned.)