Regular Session - October 24, 2001
11562
NEW YORK STATE SENATE
THE STENOGRAPHIC RECORD
ALBANY, NEW YORK
October 24, 2001
4:16 p.m.
REGULAR SESSION
SENATOR JOHN R. KUHL, JR., Acting President
STEVEN M. BOGGESS, Secretary
11563
P R O C E E D I N G S
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senate will come to order.
I ask the members to take their
places, staff to take their places, and
everybody to rise and join me in saying the
Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
(Whereupon, the assemblage recited
the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.)
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: In the
absence of clergy, may we bow our heads in a
moment of silence.
(Whereupon, the assemblage
respected a moment of silence.)
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Reading
of the Journal.
THE SECRETARY: In Senate,
Tuesday, October 23, the Senate met pursuant
to adjournment. The Journal of Monday,
October 22, was read and approved. On motion,
Senate adjourned.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Hearing
no objection, the Journal stands approved as
read.
Presentation of petitions.
11564
Messages from the Assembly.
Messages from the Governor.
Reports of standing committees.
Reports of select committees.
Communications and reports from
state officers.
Motions and resolutions.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Mr. President, at
this time can we adopt the Resolution
Calendar.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
question is on the adoption of the Resolution
Calendar. All those in favor signify by
saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Opposed,
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Resolution Calendar is adopted unanimously.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Mr. President,
can we call an immediate meeting of the Rules
Committee in the Majority Conference Room.
11565
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: There
will be an immediate meeting of the Rules
Committee -
SENATOR BRUNO: And the Senate
will stand at ease for just a few minutes.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Immediate
meeting of the Rules Committee in the Majority
Conference Room, Room 332.
And the Senate will stand at ease
for a brief period of time.
The Senate stands at ease.
(Whereupon, the Senate stood at
ease at 4:19 p.m.)
(Whereupon, the Senate reconvened
at 4:30 p.m.)
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senate will come to order.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Mr. President,
can we at this time return to reports of
standing committees. I believe there is a
report of the Rules Committee at the desk. I
ask that that be read at this time.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: We will
return to the order of reports of standing
11566
committees.
There is a report of the Rules
Committee at the desk. The Secretary will
read.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Bruno,
from the Committee on Rules, reports the
following bills:
Senate Print 5821, by Senator
Maltese, an act to amend the Public
Authorities Law.
5822, by Senator Maltese, an act to
amend the Election Law.
And 5823, by Senator Balboni, an
act to amend the Criminal Procedure Law, the
Penal Law, and the Executive Law.
All bills ordered direct to third
reading.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Mr. President, I
would move to accept the report of the Rules
Committee.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
motion is to accept the report of the Rules
Committee. All those in favor signify by
11567
saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Opposed,
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The Rules
report is accepted unanimously.
The bills are ordered directly to
third reading.
The Senate will come to order.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Can we at this
time call up Calendar Number 1492.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1492, by Senator Maltese, Senate Print 5821,
an act to amend the Public Authorities Law, in
relation to the time limit.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Is there a
message of necessity at the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: There is.
SENATOR BRUNO: I would move that
11568
we accept the message.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
motion is to accept the message of necessity
on Calendar Number 1492. All those in favor
signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Opposed,
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
message is accepted. The bill is before the
house.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Explanation,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Maltese, to explain Calendar Number 1492.
SENATOR MALTESE: Yes, Mr.
President.
This bill we have seen many times
before, and it was previously vetoed by the
Governor in 1999. This is, in effect, a
compromise bill.
The time for complaints to the
New York City Water Board is presently fixed
by executive decision at two years. When this
11569
was changed, it was done without legislative
action.
The feeling on the part of the
Legislature and the proponents of the bill is
that the normal contractual time of six years
should prevail in the case of complaints by
consumers. This change has been endorsed by
practically every community board in the City
of New York, it has been endorsed by our
Public Advocate, Mark Green, it's been
endorsed by many good government groups.
Previously there was a
determination on the part of the Mayor's
office that the change would, in effect,
adversely affect the bondholders. There was a
legal opinion sought, which is a part of this
file, that it does not so adversely affect
bondholders. And when this was studied by
counsel for the Governor, there was a
compromise made that lowered the time that
consumers could make complaints for
overcharges to four years.
The four-year period would seem to
be a very fair period, since the utilities
governed by the Public Services Commission -
11570
and that's telephone, electric, and gas -
allow a customer six years to contest the
bill, based on the six-year statute of
limitations.
Also in the City of New York
there's been a wholesale change to meters that
in some cases are electronic and in other
cases are more up-to-date. And as a result,
many consumers have felt that their bills were
in effect overcharging them. When they make a
study of such bills, and there are businesses
that do that, they have a high percentage of
complaints and overcharges. And as a result,
they call upon their legislators and their
City Council legislators to appeal to the
Water Board.
This would in effect relieve the
Water Board, relieve city authorities, relieve
legislators of the onus of having to
constantly represent consumers in order to go
back and make those changes.
The six-year change was withdrawn
to four years. This now gives the consumer
four years to make a complaint.
One of the telling points was that
11571
the Water Board, in order to reclaim charges
that it feels weren't made by a consumer, does
go back in effect six years. So this kind of
equalizes and is an equitable bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Dollinger, why do you rise?
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Mr.
President, will the sponsor yield to a
question?
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Maltese, do you yield to a question?
SENATOR MALTESE: Sure.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: When was
Chapter 375 of the Laws of 2001 signed by
Governor Pataki? This bill is a chapter
amendment of that bill that became law. When
was that bill passed by this house, and when
was it signed by the Governor?
SENATOR MALTESE: Well, I don't
remember when the bill was passed, but my
understanding was that it was signed by the
Governor last night.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Excuse me?
11572
Could you just repeat that, Senator Maltese?
If he would yield, Mr. President, I
missed it.
SENATOR MALTESE: Yes. The bill,
I don't remember when the bill itself was
passed. But my understanding was the bill was
signed last night.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: The bill
creating the six-year period of time was
signed last night?
SENATOR MALTESE: That was my
understanding.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Okay.
Through you, Mr. President, if Senator Maltese
will yield to another question.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator,
do you continue to yield?
SENATOR MALTESE: Sure.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator continues to yield.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Who are we
compromising with? In August and July we said
six years was the right number. I assume that
bill, like so many bills, passed unanimously
through this house. It probably passed with a
11573
huge majority in the Assembly. So who are we
compromising with?
We have the power to set it at six
years. We had set it at six years. Why not
just keep it at six years? Who are we
compromising with? You said this is a
compromise bill. Between who and who? We've
got the power to change it. We're not
negotiating with ourselves. Why don't we just
keep it at six years, so that the period of
time in which the water authority can go back
and relevy and the period of time in which you
can contest is identical.
SENATOR MALTESE: Mr. President,
I think many of the statutes passed by this
house and the other house are the result of
compromise with the executive branch and
compromises at other levels of government.
My learned colleague is correct
when he says it was passed almost unanimously.
I believe, out of 211 legislators, it was
voted on favorably by 210.
When the bill was signed, there was
a negotiation between representatives of not
only the Assembly and the Senate but a
11574
representative of the executive branch and the
City of New York, which is affected by this
bill, and the Mayor of the City of New York.
And there was a representation made
by the legislative branch that this chapter
amendment would in effect be passed. Because
of the circumstances here where we're all
trying to cope with the dire consequences of a
terrible catastrophe, it was felt that this
could be done as, in effect, a shortcut so
that this bill, which had received such
overwhelming support, could be passed this
evening.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President, if Senator Maltese will
continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator,
do you continue to yield?
SENATOR MALTESE: Sure.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator continues to yield.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: The
government groups, the public advocate, all
the groups that supported the six years, have
they issued a memo or indicated their support
11575
for four years?
SENATOR MALTESE: Mr. President,
because of the brief passage of time there was
no opportunity to seek their input.
At the same time, I have been in
touch with a great many of these advocates
over the years, as has my counterpart in the
Assembly, Assemblyman Peter Abbate. He agreed
to this change. I agreed to the change. The
Governor's office agreed to the change. And
the Mayor's office agreed to the change.
We're hoping that Senator Dollinger agrees to
the change.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President, a final question if I will.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Maltese, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR MALTESE: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Do I
understand correctly, Senator Maltese, that
under New York City's code that the water
authority can go back and relevy your water
charges over a six-year period but this bill
11576
will allow a consumer to contest only over a
four-year period?
Is that correct? I think you said
that. I just want to make sure.
SENATOR MALTESE: My
understanding is that that is correct, under
normal procedure and contractual law.
One of the arguments that we made
was that if this law was enacted, we would
urge the Water Board to go back no further
than four years, but it is not yet in
legislation.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Mr.
President, just briefly on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Dollinger, on the bill.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Senator
Maltese, you couldn't have picked a better
bill to start this session in October with
which is a more dramatic representation of
what's wrong with this Legislature.
You do all this work, you get
everybody to agree that -- the good government
groups, the public advocate, they all agree
that six years is the right year, that two
11577
years are the wrong year. You do all the work
with Assemblyman Abbate, you pass a bill for
six years, and all of a sudden the City of
New York says, We don't like that bill, and
comes back and says, We want four years.
Why couldn't that have -- well, why
wasn't it done before the bill was passed in
the first instance?
And, number two, this looks like we
can't make up our minds, Senator Maltese. Two
years, four years, six years. It's like we're
flipping a coin, taking a chance on which year
is the right year.
Senator, I'm going to vote against
it because I think if the water authority in
New York has the ability to go back and relevy
my water bill, okay, over a six-year period of
time, I think it's only fair that I have six
years to go back and contest the water bill.
I would suggest, Senator Maltese,
that those good government groups and the
public advocate who so fondly supported the
six-year bill will frown on the notion of
dropping it to four years. And maybe next
year we'll come back and have a new compromise
11578
and we'll bump it back to six.
All of which couldn't be a more
graphic demonstration of how we do business
here, which is not to consult, not to have
hearings, not do it right.
I'm going to vote no, Mr.
President. This isn't a good bill for
consumers.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Any other
Senator wishing to speak on the bill?
Hearing none, the debate is closed.
The Secretary will read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Record
the negative and announce the results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58. Nays,
1. Senator Dollinger recorded in the
negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill
is passed.
11579
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Mr. President,
can we at this time call up Calendar Number
1493.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1493, by Senator Maltese, Senate Print 5822,
an act to amend the Election Law, in relation
to authorizing.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Mr. President, is
there a message of necessity at the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: There is.
SENATOR BRUNO: I would move that
we accept the message.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
motion is to accept the message of necessity
on Calendar Number 1493. All those in favor
signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Opposed,
nay.
(No response.)
11580
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
message is accepted. The bill is before the
house.
The Secretary will read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 5. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill
is passed.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Mr. President,
can we at this time call up Calendar Number
1494.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1494, by Senator Balboni, Senate Print 5823,
an act to amend the Criminal Procedure Law,
the Penal Law, and the Executive Law, in
relation to creating.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
11581
Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Is there a
message of necessity at the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: There is.
SENATOR BRUNO: I would move that
we accept the message.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
motion is to accept the message of necessity
on Calendar Number 1494. All those in favor
signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Opposed,
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
message is accepted. The bill is before the
house.
SENATOR CONNOR: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Balboni, an explanation of Calendar Number
1494 has been requested by the Minority
Leader.
SENATOR BALBONI: Thank you, Mr.
President.
The bill that is before us in many
11582
respects mirrors Title 18 of the federal law
in respect to the possession and use of a
chemical or biological weapon.
As this house will recall, we have
passed a bill for the last two years that
would essentially criminalize the use or
possession of a weapon of mass destruction, as
we called it, but is now, after the feds have
acted, referred to as a chemical or biological
weapon.
Essentially what the bill does, it
establishes definitions of what is a chemical
or biological weapon. It then discusses the
creation of a weapon as a result of a
combination of delivery system, and then sets
up three penalties, three crimes, as it were:
The possession, which is a Class B violent
felony, of an agent that is known to cause
death.
And then it sets up an A-1 felony,
which is punishable by life without parole,
for the use with the intent to coerce a
civilian population, and the other factors
that were inherent in the Chapter 300 that we
passed earlier, last month, as they relate to
11583
terrorism.
And then the last section, which
talked about the application of life without
parole or the death penalty if in fact a
murder results from the use of a chemical or
biological weapon.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Mr.
President, will the sponsor yield to just a
question?
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Balboni, do you yield to a question from
Senator Dollinger?
SENATOR BALBONI: I yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Senator,
could you explain to me why the State of
New York would need to undertake this action
if, according to the federal chemical weapons
legislation recently enacted by the United
States Congress and signed by the president,
why we need to do this here?
SENATOR BALBONI: This has come
11584
about through negotiations with the governor,
the attorney general, the various -- there
have been district attorneys involved in this
process, all believing that we need to enact a
statute that would allow the New York State
criminal authorities to prosecute and perhaps
assist in the detection and deterrence of the
utilization of any of these weapons.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President, if the sponsor will yield to a
question.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Balboni, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR BALBONI: I yield, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: You mentioned
that this would assist in the detection or
deterrence of these crimes. What in this bill
allows for deterrence or detection of these
crimes? This is purely a penal statute.
There's no money for detection or prevention
of these crimes; is that correct?
SENATOR BALBONI: There is no
11585
money in this for the detection and
deterrence. And this would be in the same
statutory scheme as we do for murder, where we
set up a -- all the -- the ability of the
criminal justice system to go out and try to
detect these crimes and try to set up systems
whereby we can prevent them.
And obviously the imposition of
these harsh penalties hopefully will deter
some individuals.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President, if the sponsor will yield to
another question.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Balboni, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR BALBONI: I continue to
yield, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator continues to yield.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Just pick any
one of the crimes that are described here, the
various levels. The intimidating or coercing
of a civilian population, influence policy,
affect the conduct of kidnapping, or cause
serious physical injury, those are all
11586
currently crimes under New York law, are they
not?
SENATOR BALBONI: Under Chapter
300 of the Laws of 2001, they are in fact -
constitute the crime of terrorism.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: But aren't
those currently -- in other words, are we
making a -
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Dollinger, are you asking Senator Balboni to
continue to yield?
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I am, Mr.
President. I'm rusty in October, Mr.
President, so -
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: I'll try
to straighten you around.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
sir.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Balboni, do you yield to another question from
Senator Dollinger?
SENATOR BALBONI: I do, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
11587
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Each one of
those crimes, then, are currently -
SENATOR BALBONI: Excuse me. Mr.
President, if I can just correct. They're not
the crimes, they're the elements of the crime.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: But each one
of those events are currently covered by the
statute that we passed earlier, isn't that
correct?
SENATOR BALBONI: That is
correct. Except they do not specifically
mention the utilization of a chemical or
biological weapon.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: But through
you, Mr. President, if Senator Balboni will
continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Balboni, do you yield to another question?
SENATOR BALBONI: I continue to
yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: The use of a
chemical agent or a biological weapon would
still constitute terrorism, would it not?
11588
Which would include -- it means that that
action would be covered by the statutes we've
already passed.
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes. But, Mr.
President, through you, the penalties
associated in this bill with the utilization
of those agents is higher than -- and is
signalled to be the most severe actions that
can be taken in this society.
And so what we have done is we have
worked off the terrorism bill and we have now
singled out the chemical and the biological
weapons, the utilization of those weapons, as
being the most severe crimes that can be
committed in this state.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President, just one final question.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Balboni, do you yield to another question from
Senator Dollinger?
SENATOR BALBONI: Mr. President,
I yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Senator, in
11589
paragraph 14 of the statute you talk about the
chemical weapons convention and you make
reference to biological agents that are
classified under that convention. Was that
convention treaty ratified by the United
States of America?
SENATOR BALBONI: I do not know
the answer to that question. I only know that
under Title 18 of the federal law that is the
same exact reference, and therefore we adopted
the same reference.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President, just on the bill briefly.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Dollinger, on the bill.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I'm going to
vote in favor of this bill.
I'm not so sure that it isn't
already covered under current statute. I know
and I've talked to Senator Balboni a number of
times about the correlation between federal
and state law. I'm not so sure that this bill
is in and of itself completely duplicative of
the federal statute, but my guess is it's
darned close to it.
11590
And I would just suggest, Senator
Balboni, that the United States, frankly, and
the State of New York would have a much better
argument for its concern about biological
terrorism if it had ratified the convention
which is mentioned in this law, which to the
best of my knowledge and understanding we have
never decided to ratify.
And, frankly, that may be why the
rest of the world has looked at this issue of
biological terrorism from a slightly different
point of view than the United States, because
in 1993 there was an opportunity to send an
absolutely crystal-clear message that the most
powerful nation in the world was dead set
against it, and to my knowledge we've never
sent that message.
Now, I'm going to vote in favor of
it. I still think this bill may have some
procedural defects. But those could be taken
care of later, just like the water authority
we can take care of later, and I'm willing to
vote in favor of it as a concept.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Volker, why do you rise?
11591
SENATOR VOLKER: I just have a
question, Mr. President. I want to ask a
question of Senator Balboni.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Balboni, do you yield to a question from
Senator Volker?
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, I yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR VOLKER: And by way of
explanation, if I might just ask this
question -- and one of the keys to this bill
is something which was not covered, if I'm not
mistaken, and that is the issue of someone who
sends not a material that appears to be
dangerous and deliberately sends, for
instance, talcum powder or whatever it is,
alleging it to be anthrax, through the mail
and -- or uses any kind of material.
This bill as opposed to, if I'm not
mistaken, the previous bill, this bill would
make that a very -- obviously, a serious
felony, and would cause that person -- and the
reason I'm mentioning this is quite clearly
this is what's been happening in many cases.
11592
And this bill would clearly and unequivocally
cover that, isn't that correct?
SENATOR BALBONI: That is
correct.
Mr. President, through you, Section
240.61, which is contained on page 7 of this
bill, handles that issue and makes it an A-1
felony -- I'm sorry, makes it a felony to try
to -- previously it would be placing a false
bomb, but now we say "false bomb or hazardous
substance." And hopefully that would solve
the hoaxes issue.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Any other
Senator wishing to speak on the bill?
Hearing none, the Secretary will
read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 13. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Record
the negatives and announce the results.
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
the negative on Calendar Number 1494 are
11593
Senators Duane, Montgomery, and Schneiderman.
Ayes, 56. Nays, 3.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill
is passed.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Mr. President, by
way of explanation, we have been waiting for a
couple of the major bills that we're going to
take up here tonight to get completed and to
get through with the bill drafting and to get
printed.
And I am told for the third time
that the bills are now being processed to get
printed. And it is going to take us probably
an hour and a half or so, possibly up to two
hours, to get them done.
So rather than just recess and sit
here entertaining each other, we might be more
productive and constructive to break and come
back at 7:30, with a Rules Committee meeting
to be called in the Majority Conference Room
at 7:15.
And we should have our work before
us. We can deliberate, hopefully get it done.
And if we get it done in any reasonable hour,
11594
we will then adjourn. If we don't get done in
any reasonable hour, we'll just adjourn and
come in tomorrow. And if we have to, we'll
just keep working until we have what we have
to do done.
So that is by way of explanation on
where we are. So I would move that we stand
in recess until 7:30, and with a Rules
Committee meeting at 7:15.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: There
will be a Rules Committee meeting in the
Majority Conference Room, Room 332, at 7:15,
Rules Committee meeting at 7:15 in the
Majority Conference Room.
And the Senate stands in recess
until 7:30 p.m.
(Whereupon, the Senate stood in
recess at 5:13 p.m.)
(Whereupon, the Senate reconvened
at 7:35 p.m.)
ACTING PRESIDENT WRIGHT: Senator
Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President,
as we begin the evening session, I want to
11595
call an immediate meeting of the Finance
Committee in the Majority Conference Room.
ACTING PRESIDENT WRIGHT: There
will be an immediate meeting of the Senate
Finance Committee in the Majority Conference
Room.
SENATOR SKELOS: And if members
could work their way back to the chamber, we
will be starting shortly. The Rules Committee
has already met.
ACTING PRESIDENT WRIGHT: We
anticipate that we'll be starting shortly, and
request members to return to chambers.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Mr. President,
can we at this time return to reports of
standing committees. I believe there's a
report from the Rules Committee, and I would
ask that it be read at this time.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Reports of standing committees.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Bruno,
from the Committee on Rules, reports the
11596
following bill direct to third reading:
Senate Print 5828, by the Senate
Committee on Rules, an act directing the
New York Power Authority.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: I move to accept
the report of the Rules Committee.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: All in
favor of accepting the report of the Rules
Committee signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Opposed, nay.
(Response of "Nay.")
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: The
Rules report is accepted.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Mr. President,
can we at this time take up Calendar Number
1498.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1498, by the Senate Committee on Rules, Senate
11597
Print 5828, an act directing the New York
Power Authority.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Explanation,
Mr. President.
SENATOR BRUNO: Is there a
message of necessity at the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: There
is a message at the desk.
SENATOR BRUNO: I would move that
we accept the message.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: All in
favor of accepting the message of necessity
signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Opposed, nay.
(Response of "Nay.")
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: The
message is accepted.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Mr. President,
the bill that we have before us is the
language bill that pertains to authorizing the
initiation of the negotiations that would take
place that would result in six casinos being
11598
operative, if successful, here in the state,
three in western New York and three in the
Catskills.
It also authorizes the initiation
of Powerball, as it's referred to. We will
join, I believe, 26 other states that already
have that. And many New Yorkers participate
by buying tickets in other states.
It also authorizes VLTs, video
lottery terminals, being placed in various
racing tracks, the harness tracks as well as
flat tracks, here in the state. The bill
talks about Aqueduct, Yonkers, Monticello,
Vernon Downs, and the Finger Lakes as being
mentioned specifically as part of the
legislation. And then, by local option, with
the county governing body voting to approve,
Batavia, Buffalo, and Saratoga harness tracks
could also participate.
This bill also has extenders for
med-mal to March 31st, lofts extension to
March 31st, it has Quick Draw to March 31st.
So it's a rather comprehensive package.
The gaming side, the estimates are
that it will produce upwards of a billion
11599
dollars in revenue as a result of people
participating. And we all know that people
now participate in some of the largest casinos
that surround, almost, New York State. And
New York State is, I believe, the largest or
second-largest exporter of people who visit
casinos in the United States.
So it would just seem at this time,
since we desperately need revenue -- with the
shortfall that will result from the terrorist
attack of September 11th, we know that our
revenues are going to drop this year and next
anywhere from three to nine billion dollars.
Those are the estimates. So we're looking for
revenue sources, since these are sources that
are in existence throughout the United States
in various places.
We hope that the VLTs will enhance
racing here in New York State, because many of
the quality horses race elsewhere because the
purses are larger. Agriculture is the largest
industry still, or second largest, in New York
State, and horse racing helps keep us in the
forefront.
While many of us may have
11600
differences of opinion over whether or not we
feel that it's appropriate for the state to be
legalizing additional gambling, I don't
believe that we necessarily have a choice as
relates to the citizens, because the citizens
of this state are participating in various
places as they see fit.
So all that's happening here is
that we are creating an authorization that
will allow the dollars that are used in gaming
to flow to education, primarily, and to
economic development and job creation. That's
the bottom line.
People who have, you know, varied
opinions also do recognize that these dollars
now are going into Canada, supporting
education, for the casinos they have, into
Connecticut, into New Jersey -- not in
New York. This changes all of that.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator Padavan.
SENATOR PADAVAN: Thank you, Mr.
President.
With all due respect to the very
11601
fine explanation given by the Majority Leader,
I regrettably will have to take issue with
some of his conclusions and some of his
observations, and hopefully in a fashion that
makes sense.
One of the aspects of this
particular omnibus bill -- and, by the way,
let me say that I'm addressing that portion,
those portions of this bill which deal with
various gambling venues which in my view can
be categorized best by one word, obscene, in
terms of their negative impact on the people
of this state.
Let's talk about Quick Draw.
Again, we're extending to I believe March 31st
of 2002, as we've been doing repetitively.
When we first put it into place, we mandated
that there be a study by the Office of Mental
Health to determine how it worked. And that
study was done, and we have copies of it. It
was published in March of 2000, commissioned
by the New York State Office of Mental Health:
"Quick Draw Players in New York State." It
compared the results of the activities of
Quick Draw between 1996 and 1999.
11602
Without boring you with all the
statistics, it points out that between 49 and
39 percent of the people participating in
Quick Draw fall in either the category of
compulsive gambler, pathological gambler, or
problem gambler. And that it is a big
mistake, something that we should have not
done in the first instance, but certainly, by
virtue of its performance and demonstrated
results, something we should stop immediately.
It was not labeled video crack by accident,
because that's exactly what it is.
Fast-moving numbers, in bars and taverns.
Very, very addictive.
Where are these 3400 outlets of
Quick Draw? They're largely to be found in
low-to-low-middle-income communities. In my
city you will not find Quick Draw on
Fifth Avenue or Park Avenue. It attracts
people who least can afford it and those
people who are most susceptible to the
inherent dangers of fast-moving, addictive
types of gambling.
So that's one area that we should
have forgotten about and certainly should not
11603
extend any longer.
In a similar vein, this bill
authorizes so-called VLTs. Which, let's be
plain -- and this word "gaming" offends me -
it's gambling. And VLTs are not some strange
item; it's an electronic slot machine. You
don't pull a lever, you push a button. And
it's all the time.
One of the places in this bill that
such devices will be located is at Aqueduct.
Those of you from the city, and particularly
from Queens, I'm sure are familiar with it,
but most of you are not. Aqueduct is in South
Ozone Park, in a community that's largely
minority. Hard-working people, but of very
modest means. On Saturday and Sunday of every
week, generally, there's a large flea market
that takes place in the parking lot adjacent
to the racetrack.
Now, with this, the potential
exists, if enacted, seven days a week, 12
hours a day, those very same people will go in
there and play the electronic slot machine,
along with alcohol, if they wish, losing money
that they can ill afford and money that they
11604
could better have spent in the flea market.
In the memo it says "much needed
source revenue while promoting local economic
development." And I fail to understand where
at Aqueduct, in that community of South Ozone
Park in the county of Queens, these electronic
slot machines are going to produce economic
development.
Like Quick Draw, and perhaps even
worse -- because Quick Draw is every five
minutes, this is all the time,
instantaneously -- we will have more people
become part of that 1.2 million people in this
state who are either pathological, compulsive,
or problem gamblers. And that number keeps
going up every time we do something new, every
time we add to gambling opportunities.
Another part of this bill deals
with Powerball. And it's true, people do go
to Connecticut to play Powerball. I would
take issue with the numbers of them, depending
upon how big that prize gets, with those
astronomical odds of 80 million to one,
whatever it happens to be.
But the fact remains, the lottery,
11605
the lottery, with all of its permutations -
Pick 10, Pick 6, daily numbers, those
scratch-off lottery tickets that hang in your
convenience store like confetti, the vending
machines -- all of that has contributed to a
significant degree to the social and economic
problems engendered in this gambling
phenomenon that is sweeping our state and the
nation in many, many different areas.
What Powerball will do is add
another dimension to it. We're told that
somewhere down the line all of these gambling
opportunities will produce a billion dollars
in revenue. That's the figure I heard
mentioned. But no one talks about what that
billion dollars will cost. And I suggest to
you that when you add up all the social
problems, all of the endemic ills associated
with these different kinds of gambling
opportunities, that the costs will exceed a
billion dollars.
Because every economist who has
written on this issue tells us that when the
gambler is in your state, a resident of your
state and not from some far distant place,
11606
you're simply moving money around. With no
value added, no goods or services provided.
Whether it's Keynesian or Economics 101, it's
a zero-sum game at best.
And in between, you have all the
pain and suffering inflicted upon individuals,
their families, in a whole variety of ways -
in the workplace, in the criminal justice
system, marital problems, social problems,
economic costs across the board. All of which
must be absorbed by the state or local
governments.
So Powerball is best not done. And
we talk about other states. Well,
Pennsylvania hasn't jumped into the Powerball.
Neither has Vermont. And they're our
neighbors. They haven't bitten into any of
this. Maybe they're smarter than we are.
And now we come to casinos.
There's no doubt that people get on buses in
New York City and go over to Atlantic City to
gamble. Or they drive there. Or people in
Niagara Falls go over the bridge into Canada
and gamble. There's no doubt about it. It's
a given. But get back again to what the
11607
economists are telling us. And these are
national in scope. Whether it's Goodman in
UMass or Grinols of the University of Illinois
or Professor Rose from the University of
Nevada, they all tell us that with casinos,
that if you don't attract great numbers of
people, the majority of the bettors from
outside your state, you're simply pouring
money into a black hole. And that's a direct
quote.
The notion that people in Niagara
Falls and other places in New York who are
going over to Canada are now going to come
back to Niagara Falls to gamble is somewhat
shaky. And the reason I say that is because
people were going over to Canada in greater
numbers than they were staying in Niagara
Falls long before there were casinos there.
The amenities, tourist attractions, aesthetic
reasons were such that they were enticed to go
there.
For the very same reason that many
people go to the Berkshires rather than the
Catskills, although geographically and in
every other physical way they are identical.
11608
So Niagara Falls failed to provide
the reasons for people to stay there or to
come there and not go to Canada. I heard one
story, one joke, said that Niagara Falls as it
was configured is the second worst
disappointment a young bride has. But whether
that's relevant or not I leave up to you.
(Laughter.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: That
remark was out of order, Senator Padavan.
SENATOR PADAVAN: And the notion
that people are going to come to downtown
Buffalo to gamble from other states and other
regions is mind-boggling. I'll tell you who
will gamble in those places: the people who
live there or within a reasonable distance in
New York.
And so we'll take money out of the
economy and we'll put it into the pockets of
the operators of the casinos: the Indians,
those they contract with to be the operators
of the casinos.
We have a perfect case study, and
it's Atlantic City. For twenty years, that
has continued. What happened over that period
11609
of time? Within a relatively short period of
time they went from fiftieth to first in terms
of their crime rate. They're right up near
the top. The highest unemployment rate in the
state of New Jersey. Four of the last seven
mayors went to jail. Major demands upon the
state of New Jersey for infrastructure costs.
And in Atlantic City, every small
business went out of business. They couldn't
compete with the casinos. Whether it was a
restaurant or a bowling alley or a movie
house, gone. The only economic development
that's occurred in Atlantic City are
pawnshops, about fifty of them.
For someone to tell us what
happened there is not going to happen in
New York, whether it's Niagara Falls, Buffalo,
or the Catskills, is somewhat difficult to
accept.
Now let's go to New York. Let's go
to Oneida. The mayor of Oneida came to the
Capitol earlier in the session, and he met
with many of us. And he said: "That casino
up there is killing me. Businesses are going
out of business in my town, social costs are
11610
going up, criminal justice costs are going up,
and I'm losing my shirt. You've got to do
something about it. Amend that compact so at
least I get something out of it." Well,
obviously we've done nothing. And that's in
Oneida, in New York State.
So there are two examples, two
realities. Not a question of fiction or
supposition, a matter of reality.
The fact remains, aside from all
the economic analyses we can make and all the
reports that have been done -- I mentioned one
of them. There are many others. There's a
report here commissioned by our New York State
Council on Problem Gambling dealing with
adolescent, adolescent gambling, kids under 18
who, while they represent 7 percent of the
population, are 11 percent of that over
1 million people who are in trouble in
New York State, and fast increasing. In a lot
of different places, somehow they're buying
lottery tickets. Somehow they're playing
Quick Draw.
And we're doing it. We're creating
at a very young age youngsters who will grow
11611
into adults with a gambling problem. And I
think that's unconscionable. We shouldn't be
doing that. I don't think any of us was sent
here to hurt people. And all of this gambling
is just going to do that.
I read an AP story today in which I
imagine a reporter asked the speaker of the
Assembly why he did not support the mayor's
request, Mayor Giuliani, to have casino
gambling in New York City. And his response
was that to have casinos in a compact area
like New York City would produce more social
problems than economic benefits. He's right.
But Buffalo is the second largest
city in New York State. Does that logic not
prevail in Buffalo or Niagara? I think it
does. I think it does.
Well, Mr. President, I've taken up
enough of your time. Obviously nothing that I
will say here tonight or have said previously
or will say in the future is going to change
anything that happens. This is not the end,
however. You can bet on it. Because more of
these racetracks are going to want these
electronic slot machines. More areas of the
11612
state will cry out for casinos operated by
Indian tribes. And there will be more
opportunities than you possibly think of.
OTB will ask for these electronic
slot machines, there's no doubt about it.
They're going to tell us, "Hey, what about us?
We need money also." And if this Governor has
his way, undoubtedly they'll get it.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Mr. President.
I rise -- my views on the issue of
gambling in any form are reasonably well
known. But I'd like to spend a couple of
minutes and go over some of the things that
have already been said and perhaps provide at
least an ounce of clarification about what
we're really doing and why I believe we're
doing it.
With all due respect to Senator
Bruno, who has been involved in these
difficult negotiations, Senator Bruno says we
desperately need revenue. I would suggest
11613
that that can't be true, Senator Bruno,
because most of the revenue that we're going
to get from all these gambling endeavors won't
show up for at least two or three years.
So if we desperately need revenue
this year, what we're doing today is not going
to help us this year. It's not going to help
us in the next 18 months. If we desperately
need revenue, that suggestion that this
implementation of gambling is going to provide
it in the short term is just not true. It
can't be true.
And, Senator Bruno, an old lesson
that I learned that I think belies the comment
you made about all of our neighbors, our
neighbors in Ontario and elsewhere that have
gambling -- Senator Bruno, I'm sure your
father said it to you or your mother said it
to you. They clearly said it to me. My
father said to me enough times that just
because everybody does it, that doesn't make
it right. If it's the wrong thing to do, the
fact that everybody does it doesn't make it
right.
I would suggest that the logic we
11614
should follow other states or another province
on this errand of fool's gold doesn't make
what we're doing right.
And with all due respect to Senator
Padavan, one thing that you said, Senator
Padavan, is untrue. You said that people will
be able to gamble from 10 o'clock in the
morning on Sunday and drink as well. As you
know, Senator Padavan, we don't allow anybody
in this state to buy alcohol before noon on
Sunday. We still carry that principle that on
Sunday morning, we have a notion that somehow
you shouldn't be able to buy alcohol. And yet
at 10 o'clock on Sunday morning, Senator
Padavan -- well, until 12 o'clock. But at
10 o'clock on Sunday morning, under this bill,
the video display -- is it 12 o'clock? It was
10 o'clock in the version I saw.
My point is that we still have -
and I apologize, Mr. President. I was under
the impression it was 10 o'clock. That was
the memo I saw.
But the point is, Senator
Padavan -
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: Order
11615
in the chamber.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: -- that we
still have rules from a long time ago that
embedded our values and our judgments about
what people do during the day. And it seems
to me that to open the video display terminals
at 12 o'clock on Sunday makes little sense.
Mr. President, there's one other
thing that Senator Padavan said that I think
needs to be put in even more graphic detail.
If Senator Bruno is correct that this will
generate $1 billion in revenue, I would just
ask how much money, since that's our
revenue -- and before that revenue gets to us,
the casinos will have taken their profit and
everyone will have taken their profits. How
much money do the poor people in this state
have to lose, Senator Padavan, for a billion
dollars to come to us?
My guess is that that number is
somewhere between 7½ billion and $15 billion
in lost income. Because remember -- Senator
Padavan, let's be honest with each other. The
income for a casino is income that comes
directly from someone else's earnings. When
11616
they report a profit, that profit constitutes
money taken out of the pocket of New Yorkers.
It's just like we walk in and
confiscate their money, except we're going to
do it under the ruse of gambling. That's
people's earnings. That's their paychecks.
That's the casino, when they report a profit,
that's what they're doing. They're taking
people's paychecks and turning it into profits
for themselves.
And I would suggest, Senator
Padavan, in a state that has about $650
billion or $700 billion in total income
reported to our state tax department, I'm
telling you in my opinion somewhere between
$10 billion and $15 billion in income raised
by New Yorkers is going to go down the drain
in casinos when we pass this measure.
And that money, as Senator Padavan
says, is coming from those who can least
afford it. If I stood here today and said
we're passing a measure that's going to take
$5 billion -- forget $5 billion, how about
500 million -- we're going to take
$500 million out of the pockets of people who
11617
can't afford it in this state, I daresay not
one person in this chamber would have the
courage to vote for it.
Well, that's what you're doing
today, make no mistake about it. You're
walking in and taking billions of dollars out
of their pockets by giving them the lure, the
false lure of gambling, this notion that
they'll somehow win when we all know that the
business is designed to lose, that somehow
they'll make more money when we know they're
going to lose it. We know it. Why would we
do it?
Mr. President, I believe that this
budget is worthy of only one person I can
think of, with all due respect to all the
people who have worked so hard on it, and
that's the Sheriff of Nottingham. Remember
the Sheriff of Nottingham? He was going to
take money out of the poor so that he could
support the rich and the wealthy.
I would suggest what we're doing in
this budget is we're taking money from poor
people in this state so that we can afford tax
breaks for businesses and economic development
11618
zones -- which may be valuable, but they
shouldn't be paid for at the expense of people
without adequate means. That whole notion
that we are balancing our budget on the backs
of the poor is an intolerable notion to me.
And I would close with one other
thought -- well, excuse me, I have one other
comment about what we're doing today. I
believe it's critical that everybody
understand that we are, in my judgment,
completely unbalancing our tourist investment
in New York State. We in Rochester, New York,
do not get a casino. Niagara Falls and
Buffalo both do. The Catskills do. And I am
telling you, we have spent millions of dollars
promoting our visitors and convention bureau
in the last ten years, millions of dollars.
And yet what you're doing today is
you are creating a strong competitor in
Niagara Falls, a strong competitor in Buffalo,
strong competitors in the Catskills, all of
which will make it more difficult for us to
attract visitors and convention bureau
business. And that the restaurants and the
people in Rochester who rely on those
11619
conventions, for which we have spent millions
of hotel and motel tax dollars, all that money
that we've spent will go down the drain
because we're now creating more powerful
competitors in Niagara Falls and Buffalo.
I would suggest those members in
this house who come to the Finger Lakes, think
about your bed-and-breakfasts, think about the
small hotels throughout the Finger Lakes.
Because you're going to see "I Love New York"
brochures that say why go to the Finger Lakes,
go to the Catskills, Niagara Falls, and
Buffalo instead.
I believe that we are unbalancing
our tourist investment in New York by putting
these casinos in only distinct locations, and
we're going to damage the tourism business
throughout the rest of this state. I don't
know why anyone from my neck of the woods
would see this as helping the business climate
in Rochester, New York. I just don't see it.
I'll close, Mr. President, with one
final thought. The governor on the second
floor has talked about his predecessor, the
former Republican Theodore Roosevelt, a
11620
conservationist, a man who believed in the
future of New York. A man who, if any other
president embodies it, embodies the notion of
what someone can do with diligence and hard
work.
I would suggest that this governor
is taking a state -- the symbol of our state
is the epitome of the American dream, the
Statue of Liberty, which shone so brightly and
so poignantly on September 11th. This
governor's vision is not the American dream,
it's a dollar and a dream. And that is a
complete, complete shame for the people of
this state.
Why George Pataki wants to make us
the biggest gambling state in the union is
beyond belief. I would suggest that the other
Republican predecessor of his by the name of
Thomas E. Dewey, the man who smashed the slot
machines, the man who fought against vice,
would be astounded to think that fifty years
later one of his Republican successors is
satisfied to have a state built not on the
state of liberty, but instead the state of a
dollar and a dream.
11621
This is a catastrophe for the State
of New York. I urge all of you to think about
the repercussions of this. This is not going
to be good for our state. Please think about
it and vote no.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Thank you, Mr.
President.
Mr. President, I'm rising because I
feel compelled not to prolong the debate,
because this hour is late and going to get a
lot later, but really to just correct a couple
of statements here that are very, very well
intentioned but just plain wrong. Wrong.
If you go to Niagara Falls,
Ontario, you will see two casinos, you will
see hotels, you will see restaurants, you will
see the construction of a brand-new
$800 million casino that was announced this
week. You will see a thriving metropolitan
area where 4 million additional people visited
since they opened their first casino.
So don't say it's not happening,
because it is happening. Go to Niagara Falls,
11622
New York. You ought to be ashamed to live in
this state and allow that to happen. You
ought to be embarrassed to allow to happen in
Niagara Falls, New York, what has happened
since those casinos went up.
And it is wrong to say that there
will be no income. I resent in essence being
told that what I'm saying isn't true. All of
us take licenses on this floor on occasion.
That might surprise you. Sometimes we say
things that maybe suit ourselves and aren't as
upfront, as truthful as we might like to
believe they are.
But we do this -- when we do it,
there will be anywhere from $200 to
$400 million flowing into the state revenues
within this next year. So it is just plain
wrong to say that we are three years away from
creating income.
And I just say that in these two
minutes, because when we talk about a
desperate need, there is a desperate need.
And we have alternatives. We can raise taxes
to fill that void and that vacuum that is
there in those declining revenues. None of us
11623
want to do that. We can cut vital services in
education, in health care, in maintaining our
roads and bridges. None of us want to do that
in this chamber.
Or we can try and increase the
revenue of this state by allowing people to do
what they do voluntarily. No one drags people
in kicking and screaming. They walk in of
their own volition, and they stay there. Just
as they go to Niagara Falls, Ontario. Just as
they go to the largest casino in the world, in
Foxwood, two hours and 15 minutes from here.
Mohegan Sun, right next to it, doubling its
size every year. No one drags them. They're
there.
So I only offer that, Mr.
President, not that it will be helpful for
those that want to say whatever it is they
have in their minds. That's what this debate
is all about. And people ought to be able to
express themselves as freely as they want to.
But the fact of the matter is this state
desperately needs to do things that are
different, because our lives are different.
It doesn't give me any pleasure in what I'm
11624
saying, it doesn't give me any great pleasure
in what we're doing, any more than it gives me
pleasure to go over to Niagara, Ontario, and
see the millions of people going through there
in Niagara Falls -- in your home district, Mr.
President -- where it looks like a ghost town
in the middle of the day.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: Thank
you, Senator Bruno.
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Mr.
President. On the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator Duane, on the bill.
SENATOR DUANE: I can't believe
that we're doing this here tonight. And to
make it even worse, we're using the guise of
the terrible tragedy, the terrorist attacks on
New York, to make New York one of the biggest
gaming states in the nation. Instead of being
here talking about rebuilding the Empire
State, what we're doing is trying to make
New York a gambling empire.
You know, you'll hear from others
11625
and we've already heard from others about the
harmful effects that casinos will bring to the
state. And I agree with all of those. And,
sadly, the terrorists are going to win again.
They're going to win again here in New York
because we're making a drastic decision
affecting institutions in our state. We're
changing things in this state based on a
horrible tragedy that happened to us.
We're not even looking at the
social and economic ills that are going to
befall us because of this. We're just
compounding the terrible things that the
terrorists did to us. They're winning again.
I also -- I am just incredibly
disgusted about the process that brought us
here. You know, we've been sitting around
here for three days, most of us kept in the
dark -- probably all of us kept in the dark,
though maybe not everybody would admit to
being kept in the dark -- and basically doing
nothing. All the time while three people were
talking about making a huge policy change for
the State of New York.
You know, 99 percent of the State
11626
Legislature has had nothing to do with
something that is going to change the state
forever. No public hearings, no conference
committees. You know, in a regular year all
of that would be, you know, completely
dysfunctional and undemocratic. But in the
wake of a national tragedy, to keep doing
business like that, that's dangerous.
And let's call gambling exactly
what it is. It's a tax on poor people. You
know, if we want to raise taxes on a group to
pay for the terrible and high costs that we
now have because of what happened at the Trade
Center attack, then I think we should stand up
and have the political courage to raise taxes
on everybody. Not just poor people, but let's
have the political courage to raise taxes on
everybody of every income in our state. If we
need to raise taxes, then let's raise taxes.
You know, it's really simple. It's
not like we've been given a choice. We have
to raise revenue. And the fair way to do that
is to raise taxes. September 11th made it so
that we don't have any other choice. But you
know what? We're not facing up to that.
11627
We're not facing up to that reality at all.
You know, why are we making the
nonprofit groups that provide very important
services to millions of New Yorkers -- why
should they be punished? Why are they being
punished because we are unable and have been
unable all year to get our act together here
and actually do a decent budget? And that's
what's brought us to this point as well.
I mean, why are we going to make
the arts suffer? The arts aren't going to get
anything out of this budget, and the arts are
one of the things that make New York a
wonderful place. And we're not doing a thing
to help them in this budget. We're virtually
doing nothing for school districts, nothing.
Our future is going to be about gambling, not
about what's happening in our schools.
What about health programs? What
about older people? What's happening in
nursing homes? What's happening in hospitals?
What's happening for people with AIDS?
Virtually nothing. You know, we're not going
to raise revenue or start a different revenue
stream, because we're afraid to raise taxes.
11628
And we're trying to fool people into believing
that gambling is the only way? You know,
shame on us. Shame on us.
You know, from what I hear,
New Yorkers are willing to stick together
during a terrible time like this. And maybe
they would be willing to pay a little bit more
in taxes to help our state, maybe a little bit
more on top of the personal income. Maybe,
but we didn't even bother to ask them. We
never ask them. And, you know what, we didn't
even ask them about gambling.
You know, here we are, at night,
passing this at night. I mean, you think that
people are not going to know that we're
ashamed of what we're doing? At a time when
New Yorkers have shown how very brave they
are, how very brave New Yorkers are, how
willing New Yorkers have been to stand up for
and put their lives on the line for what they
believe in, this is what we're doing? This is
what government is doing? This is how we're
going to rebuild the Empire State? I really
think New Yorkers deserve better.
And you know what else? I guess in
11629
the future we shouldn't bother to run for
election, we should just term-limit ourselves
out. Ordinarily I'm against term limits. But
you know what we should do in this state? We
should just elect the three people that make
these decisions by direct election and just
leave us out of it. Because that's the way
business has been done, that's the way
business is being done here, and that's the
shame of this Legislature.
I vote no.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator Brown.
SENATOR BROWN: Thank you, Mr.
President.
I don't mean to be disrespectful to
anyone, but I must confess that I have to
agree with Senator Duane on this process.
This process is a real disappointment. This
process truly, honestly, as Senator Duane
said, left so many of us out of this important
decision-making process.
Many of us have said it time and
time again in this chamber, but I didn't run
for election to be in this body not to have
11630
any voice on this important issue that so
deeply affects my community and so deeply
affects this state.
I feel compelled to vote for this
piece of legislation tonight even though it's
certainly by no means a perfect piece of
legislation. There are many holes and there
are many problems with it. But I have
listened to the voice of the residents of my
district -- Buffalo, Niagara Falls, Grand
Island, and the city of Tonawanda -- and from
the calls, the letters that I have received,
for the most part I think people want to see
casino gambling in the western part of this
state.
In Niagara Falls -- we've talked
about the fact that the state desperately
needs revenue. In Niagara Falls, that
community desperately needs hope. The people
in Niagara Falls are literally on their knees
begging for something, anything, to turn that
community around. They have worked and fought
and begged and pleaded for more than 30 years
now to see casino gambling come to that
community, a community that is a destination
11631
community.
Niagara Falls is one of the wonders
of the world, and we have it. We have it in
our state, and we haven't done nearly enough,
nothing, to develop that wonderful resource
that we have in our state. And like Senator
Bruno said, it's disgraceful. It's
disgraceful that we have not developed Niagara
Falls on the American side.
But let me turn your attention just
for a moment to some of the problems that I
see with this legislation that I hope as we go
forward we might be able to fix, we might be
able to clean up.
First of all, there's a question
between what the local share will be. It's
critical that the local share going to the
city of Buffalo and the city of Niagara Falls
be significant. We've heard from a number of
other speakers the impact that casino gambling
is going to have on the poorest in our
communities. Well, those communities that are
going to bear the brunt of that need to have
the resources to take care of people who will
have those problems.
11632
Now, unlike some, I feel that
people make that decision. And I think poor
people are just as intelligent as anyone else.
When they make the decision to gamble, they do
it of their own free will. And I don't think
by not approving this we are saving anyone
from what they will do anyway. There's an
opportunity for poor people to gamble right
now -- and we all know it -- legally quite
easily, and illegally if they want to.
What we need to do is educate
people to gamble in moderation if they are
going to gamble in our state so people aren't
spending more than they can afford to spend on
something that for people who are wealthier
and better educated is a recreational pursuit,
not a pursuit to get rich quick, not a hope
that they will roll the dice or pull down a
handle and in a moment change their life
circumstances, in a twinkling of an eye.
Now, also a question is what will
be the split of the local share between the
city of Buffalo and Erie County, between the
city of Niagara Falls and Niagara County. I
don't think there should be an equality of
11633
local share between the cities and the
counties.
In that part of the state, the
counties are much healthier than the cities
are. The cities are in desperate need of a
financial shot in the arm. And I think if we
pass a local share that is equal for both the
cities and the counties, we do the city of
Buffalo and the city of Niagara Falls a great
disservice. It would be a major disservice if
we did this.
Let's also look at the land claim
on Grand Island. There are more than 18,000
people that live in the town of Grand Island
that have been deeply concerned for quite some
time now about the Seneca land claim in their
community. I think we had an opportunity with
this negotiation to do something about that
land claim.
Still, this evening, if we pass
this tonight, it still leaves those
homeowners, those property owners in the town
of Grand Island, more than 18,000 of our
neighbors in New York State, with the
uncertainty of whether or not they will own
11634
their properties, based on the land claim
issue, based on the Seneca suit against the
town of Grand Island.
So I'm going to vote for this, but
my vote is fraught with some real
consternation. Consternation because I didn't
have the opportunity to participate in this
decision-making process to the extent that I
feel every one of us should have been able to
participate in this process. It's filled with
consternation because I don't think that this
is a perfect agreement.
But it's something that I feel that
I must do because I know that many in the
community that I represent are pinning their
hopes on this casino agreement. They're
hoping that the thousands of visitors to
Niagara Falls on the Canadian side -- that
bypass Niagara Falls on the American side
right now -- might be redirected, might stay
on the American side.
Also, the statistics will tell you,
if you look at these statistics, that right
now, on any given day, 50 percent or more of
the cars that are at Casino Niagara are cars
11635
from the United States of America. So right
now our dollars are going across the border.
Let's not make any mistake about that.
When we make the point that we have
nothing to lose by letting this opportunity go
by, that no revenue will be gained if we let
this opportunity go by, we are absolutely
wrong. Right now millions and millions of
dollars are being earned every year,
$650 million annually in Canadian dollars are
being earned every year in Casino Niagara.
And many of those dollars are U.S. dollars.
And many of those U.S. dollars are coming from
citizens of New York State.
We've got to stop the bleeding.
And we've got to make sure that, as we move
forward with this, we work and massage this
agreement. I think we can still make it
better. I'm hoping we will still make it
better. But I think we need to move forward.
I think we need to get it done.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you,
11636
Mr. President. On the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator Schneiderman, on the bill.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: I have
seldom heard as many of my colleagues express
consternation at having to make a decision on
their vote as I have on this particular piece
of legislation.
There are some very good things in
this bill. There are a lot of things in it in
addition to gambling which no one has
mentioned yet. I think it's unfortunate that
we've lumped so much together and essentially
are holding some people's votes on some very
good programs hostage to this gambling
initiative.
And I feel very strongly about many
of the provisions in this bill. I feel
constrained to vote against it not just
because of the eloquent arguments that have
been made by Senator Dollinger and Senator
Padavan about the evils of gambling, not just
because Senator Duane rightly points out this
is extraordinarily regressive, this is the
wrong way to move forward economically, but
11637
also because the issues that were of concern
to me when a similar piece of legislation came
up earlier in the session are still there.
And this is something I do not understand.
And I invite my distinguished
leader if he can correct me, because I hope
I'm wrong. This still has a provision where
we're giving a blank check to the Governor, we
are ceding our authority to ratify to the
Governor. And if it's any indication of the
kind of compacts he's going to negotiate with
this blank check -- the only indication we
have is the reference to the memorandum of
understanding referenced in Section 12 of this
legislation, the memorandum of understanding
of June 21, 2001.
This memorandum of understanding I
think indicates that if even if you were for
casinos, you should be opposed to this
legislation. This is a horrendous deal for
the people of the State of New York. There is
nothing that's going to guarantee labor laws
are enforced. There's nothing that's going to
guarantee that civil rights laws are enforced.
I would suggest that perhaps the
11638
most offensive part of this of all is a part
that I suppose you could say was economic
development. There is a special type of
economic development hidden in this memorandum
of understanding. It is a felony review
process that is more porous than any that
exists now in the United States that would
enable members of organized crime who are
convicted of felonies to still participate in
the gambling business.
I think we might as well call this
section the "Wise Guy Relocation to New York
Act." That will bring in some economic
growth, but I respectfully submit it's not the
kind of economic activity we should be trying
to promote in the state of New York.
Senator Bruno, I want you to lead
us in reviewing what the Governor does and
ratifying it. Why are we giving him a blank
check? Why are we letting ourselves be
railroaded into a bad deal when a more
tempered approach might produce better
results?
Senator Brown has spoken very
eloquently about the fact that we need to
11639
massage this. Well, if we pass this, giving
the Governor a blank check, he doesn't have to
come back to us. Our days of massaging are
over, except perhaps with respect to your
personal life.
This is not something that we need
to do now. This is not something that is
going to generate revenue now. This is
something that, as Senator Duane and Senator
Brown said, that would benefit from some
sunshine and some debate.
And I must say I really do not -
you know, I've become sensitive to some of
these issues of struggles between the
different branches of government. I don't
understand why the legislative branch of
government is ceding its authority in this
manner to a governor who has negotiated a
memorandum of understanding -- it's the only
one we've seen; the others may be worse -
that is a disgrace, that does not protect the
working people of this state, does not protect
the unions of this state, does not provide any
guarantee of revenues, and that has a
provision that will assuredly bring more
11640
criminal activity into the state of New York.
I think we should all get back to
consider this another time. I urge that we
vote no. And I hope that this will not pass.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator Volker.
SENATOR VOLKER: I pass.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator Larkin.
SENATOR LARKIN: Thank you, Mr.
President.
As the Majority Leader said, the
hour is getting late, but I think we have to
start and think about what we're doing here
tonight. We're putting something in place, as
my colleague Senator Brown said, to address an
issue in his part of the state, to address an
issue in Senator Maziarz's part of the state,
Senator Volker's.
And while there's a lot of people
saying that this isn't the right thing to do,
we have looked, as the Majority, at how we can
best address the needs of the people of the
state of New York, how we can generate the
11641
revenue. Senator Duane said we raise taxes.
I don't know in your district, but in mine
raising taxes is a good way to get run out of
town.
What we're doing here is putting a
package together, a financial package. And
some have said it's going to take a long, long
time. It isn't. We have three phases in this
package. We have the Powerball, which could
be in effect within 90 days. We have the
video lotteries that could be in effect within
seven to eight months.
And while the casinos are being
built, what will we see? We will see a lot of
people working, making money, paying taxes.
And we will be on a steady course to fill that
vacuum of revenue we lost when the World Trade
Center -- everybody wants to use the World
Trade Center. I know on this side of the
aisle we were talking about the problems of
the decreased revenues long before September
the 11th, and we were talking about how we
could fill that gap with additional money.
And what we've done here is taken three
courses, three actions that will enable us to
11642
make a permanent revenue source.
I want to remind the people who
kept talking against it that in June of 1997
Foxwood, just from their slots, gave
$470 million to the little state of
Connecticut. What we're doing here tonight is
giving the people of New York State an
opportunity to do something that they're doing
in another state. What we're doing is
providing an opportunity of jobs for our
people. None of you can say that you haven't
talked or heard from the trades. The trades
are saying please go ahead and do it.
This is the right time. It's long
overdue. And I suggest that we get along and
pass this bill now.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: Read
the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Mr.
President, can I be recognized one more time.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I believe
11643
under the rules I get a second time to speak.
And while I accept the urging of
all of my colleagues who say the hour is late,
I have been sitting in Albany since 12:30 on
Monday waiting to do this. With all due
respect to my colleagues, I don't think anyone
can look at me taking 10 or 15 minutes and
accuse me of being the reason why the hour is
late. That is clearly not my fault. I
wouldn't suggest anyone on this side of the
aisle bears that responsibility.
Mr. President, I have three things
I want to quickly do. First of all, I have to
respond to my friend Senator Bruno. As you
said, Senator Bruno, this is the opportunity
we get to talk about differences of opinions;
in some cases, differences of fact.
Senator Bruno, I would suggest that
when you say we ought to be ashamed by looking
at Niagara Falls, New York, and looking at
what the wonderful things they're doing in
Niagara Falls, Ontario, I would suggest,
Senator Bruno -- I don't know whether you've
been there. I assume you have. But I would
suggest, Senator Bruno, you might do what I
11644
did. You probably drove through the front
door of Niagara Falls, Ontario. You probably
went across the bridge and went in the casino.
Well, Senator Bruno, a month and a
half ago, on my way back from Canada, I
decided to look at Niagara Falls, Ontario,
through the back door. Because I wanted to do
what sort of the old Irish Catholics used to
do. You want to find out what a household is
like, go into the kitchen, see how they
organize the basement. I drove in the back
door of Niagara Falls. I was coming back, I
got off the Lewiston-Queenston Extension on
Smithson Street, and I drove in the back door.
I would suggest, Senator Bruno,
that before you say that there's something to
be proud of, look at the underbelly of Niagara
Falls, Ontario. It is just -- frankly, it is
poor, it is downtrodden, it looks in some ways
like places in my own district. It has the
earmarks of poverty.
And I will tell you, Senator Bruno,
the one thing that I will never forget is when
I looked at the Center for Compulsive
Gambling, which is about a quarter of a mile
11645
away from the casino, and what is happening
there -- it's a Sunday afternoon, there's a
big sign that says "Compulsive Gambling," and
the front yard of the house has got cars
parked all over it going to the casino because
they can park there for free.
I would suggest if you look at
casinos in the underside of Niagara Falls,
Ontario, you will see that this supposed
miracle that's occurred there has gone very,
very thin into the people that live in that
community. I don't see economic development,
I see a big, huge casino draining people's
money.
I'll conclude with one other
thought, Senator Bruno. You said we should be
ashamed because that's happened and it hasn't
happened in Niagara Falls. I'll tell you what
I am really ashamed at. I'm ashamed that
we're doing it today. I'm ashamed because we
have places like Cuba Street in Rochester, we
have Avenue D in Rochester, we have Texas
Street in Rochester, three streets in my
district -- pick them, there are hundreds of
them in my district -- where we have poor
11646
people who need education, they need health
care, they need to be told that there's hope
for a future, not hope that they're going to
win at a casino. Not hope that they're
somehow going to get lucky in life, but
instead that hard work and diligence and
effort and education will give them a chance
to reach their potential.
Today I'm ashamed because we're
telling them, No, we're going to allow you to
do it with a dream. Just go in, put your
money into a machine, and guess what, if
you're lucky, one in 18 million of you will
get there. If that's the American dream, that
only one in 18 million can get there, I don't
think that's the dream we should be passing on
to our children, and it's not the message we
should be sending to the people of this state.
There's another way to do it. I
will be proud when we do it the right way.
I'm ashamed we're doing it this way.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: Read
the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
11647
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator Breslin, to explain your vote.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Thank you, Mr.
President.
I think for most of us here today
this is an extremely difficult decision. We
think of New York State as the Empire State,
the state that has led this country. And now
we are going to be considered as the Nevada of
the East. I think that gives us great pause.
But I look down as to what is part
of this bill, and I think of the teaching
centers, the Empire Zones, and so many good
things that are a part of this bill. And for
a lot of us, we never knew what a Hobson's
choice was until we got to this body. But if
we didn't know it before, we certainly know it
now. And, you know, when we think about all
the positive things that can be accomplished
by a little bit of money, it becomes extremely
difficult to stand here and to rail against
it.
11648
However, we've experienced gambling
in the past, and we know it's a short-term
fix. It's a short-term fix that doesn't cure
the problem, that doesn't create the ultimate
dollars to make our economy better. It
certainly doesn't. It takes dollars from poor
people. We all know that. We don't admit it
sometimes, but it does. It takes dollars from
people who can least afford it, and I
emphasize "least afford it."
And what does it do to our society?
It creates an additional burden. At the same
time we're cutting back on education, we're
cutting back on our ability to support
not-for-profits. What will the passage of
additional legislation favoring this gambling
do? It will increase the need for programs to
help people who are addicted to gambling and
addicted to those things attendant to that -
alcoholism, drug addiction, and other societal
problems.
And as much as this bill does so
much to causes that I think are very important
in our state, I feel it very important to cast
my vote no.
11649
Thank you very much, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator Breslin will be recorded in the
negative.
Senator Connor, to explain his
vote.
SENATOR CONNOR: Thank you, Mr.
President.
There are things in this bill I'm
not too happy with. I don't imagine there's a
single senator in this chamber, whether you're
voting for or against it, that's happy with
everything in this. And I don't think there's
anybody here that's unhappy with every single
thing in this bill.
We are now experiencing what we've
seen for many, many years, and that's the
packaging of large bills with just some
bitter-tasting things in it for everybody and
some candy in it for everybody in terms of
things that they need done for their
constituents or that they need issues
addressed.
Indeed, there are important
governmental issues that are addressed here.
11650
In view of where we were in this process on
September 11th, things that -- there's a lot
of other things we'd love to do that we can't
afford to do. But we have addressed some
things that need to be done on an emergency
basis to provide some immediate relief.
I noticed that one of the things
that was in the print and it wasn't completed
in the earlier draft that I saw when we had
our conference on this side of the aisle is
the inclusion of the Upstate Tourism Council
and the Downstate Tourism Council. And it
looked familiar, because this house
unanimously passed a bill submitted by the
Governor creating both councils, providing the
Governor with a number of appointments and the
Majority Leader and the Speaker a number of
appointments and, yes, the Minority Leader an
appointment.
Now it comes back, after having
been negotiated with the other house, and the
Minority Leader no longer has an appointment.
That makes it the kind of bill that, were it
stand-alone, would certainly receive a party
vote in the negative, as it has in some other
11651
assistances when, through inadvertence or
other, perhaps less innocent intentions at any
given time in history, we have excluded the
minority leaders from an appointment. I think
I know where the change got made. It didn't
get made here. It got made in the other
house. And I won't soon forget that.
That kind of tips the balance for
me, Mr. President, and leads me to vote no.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator Connor will be recorded in the
negative.
Senator Montgomery, to explain her
vote.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, Mr.
President, just briefly to explain my vote.
I certainly agree that this is a
very sad thing for us to be sort of forced to
vote for, because it's really not an economic
development program. And I certainly agree
with my colleagues Senator Duane and Senator
Frank Padavan and others who have commented on
the disaster of this.
But I would like to be on record
that if I vote no, as I would like to on
11652
casino development -- I am voting yes, because
whatever little bit of a budget that there
is -- you know, a small amount of funding for
the grants for Teachers of Tomorrow, for
instance; teacher recruitment and retention
programs; giving out public authorities
authorization to do bonding to build some
housing, hopefully; universal prekindergarten
and preschool for children with disabilities,
and quality childcare. There are some very
important aspects, and unfortunately our -
the process has been corrupted, in my opinion,
so that we cannot vote for one without the
other.
We are forced to vote -- no matter
how we feel about casino gambling and whether
or not that's a viable, meaningful economic
development program, we must vote for it,
because if we do not, we also vote against the
budget. And the people in my district, the
organizations in my district are going to lose
an awful lot based on this budget. So
whatever resources that there are going to be
for them, I must support that, recognizing
that half of the organizations in my district
11653
will not exist in two years from now.
So I'm very saddened by this, but
I'm voting yes simply because I must support
the revenue that we have agreed to being in
the budget getting to the people that I
represent. I vote yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator Montgomery will be recorded in the
affirmative.
Senator Padavan, to explain his
vote.
SENATOR PADAVAN: Yes, Mr.
President.
I just want to make the record
quite clear that in voting in the negative on
this bill I acknowledge that within its
content are many, many worthwhile provisions.
Certainly the Loft Law, the Child Health Plus,
the Urban Development Corporation loan
guarantees, the Empire Zone expansion and so
and so on are all quite laudatory and things
that I fully support. It's regrettable that
it's all lumped together and in stating a
particular position we find ourselves in this
ambivalent situation of having to vote against
11654
those things.
And the other point I'd like to
make, very briefly, is several speakers have
indicated that we are in a very difficult
economic cycle. Some say we're in a
depression. We may well be. But if you look
at the last nine times we were in a
depression, we came out of it better and
stronger than ever.
And many economists are telling us
by the year 2002 or thereabouts, the end of
that year, we will come out of this one and
we'll be back where we want to be. However,
in the meantime we'll have created all of
these negatives that we've been talking about
here vis-a-vis gambling.
I've been around here, as a handful
of you have been, back in the '70s when we had
a city almost on the verge of bankruptcy and
the state and many of its components in
substantial difficulty. We remember the
famous wine-and-roses speech of Governor
Carey. We worked our way out of all those
problems by prudent, thoughtful actions, and
the state survived. There's no doubt in my
11655
mind we could do that again.
But I remind you, back in the '70s
and the '80s, during these difficult periods,
what we didn't do was impact negatively on the
lives -- at least not in a premeditated
fashion -- of the people of this state by
imposing upon them more gambling and other
ills than we are now trying to do or about to
do.
I vote no.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator Padavan will be recorded in the
negative.
Senator DeFrancisco, to explain his
vote.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes, to
explain my vote. It's on the tourism
component.
For at least five years I've been
working on two concepts, and one of them was
to have a dedicated fund for our second
biggest industry, the tourism industry. The
second thing I've been working on is to try to
have some money somehow designated so that we
could help new tourism destinations, whether
11656
someone wants to put an amusement park in the
state or do something to attract visitors.
This tourism piece does both,
because the fund that's being proposed for
this tourism piece would be able to be used
for more advertising and it will also be used
to fund destinations if the board allows it to
happen. So I'm very proud of that.
But I want to make it very clear
that the fund for the upstate part of this
piece doesn't happen unless and until all
three phases of this giant mall that's
everyone's talking about in Central New York
actually happens. And I think it's important
that that piece was in there, because we
shouldn't be committing to anything unless the
promises made by the developer actually occur.
Lastly, on the tourism piece, I
agree with Senator Connor one hundred percent.
That's why the bill originally had a minority
member from each house on the advisory boards.
The Assembly wouldn't buy it. The Assembly
required that those two names plus another
name, the county executive for Onondaga
County, to be eliminated. And that's why, to
11657
get an agreement, that was eliminated.
Lastly, I really take umbrage with
Senator Duane's remarks about the terrorists
winning again. That presupposes, that remark,
that the terrorists somehow won by their
dastardly act. I think you'd better watch
your language and it better be much tighter
than talking about that terrible act in
New York City as being a victory for
criminals, for animals. Because that is not
the case. And hopefully we will be able to
correct that problem in due course.
I vote aye.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator DeFrancisco will be recorded in the
affirmative.
Senator Oppenheimer, to explain her
vote.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Yes, to
explain my vote.
I feel like I'm damned if I do and
I'm damned if I don't, and I think a lot of
people here have a similar feeling. I'd like
to vote no, because I personally have a kind
of a visceral distaste for gambling. And I
11658
see that this bill, the bill before us, is so
balanced that one has to look at both the pro
and the con and try and weigh what's happening
to us here.
It's a difficult decision, but I
think because of the way it has been presented
to us in this packaged manner, bringing so
many bills together, it kind of holds me
hostage. And I feel I can't vote against the
gambling, which I really dislike so much. But
that because so many necessary programs are
incorporated in this bill, I'm -- it's a
conundrum.
I look at the TANF money which is
going to the childcare tax credits, I look at
the teacher centers, I look at the pre-K -
though it isn't universal pre-K, and I wish to
God it was universal pre-K -- the teacher
recruitment, the critical human services, the
emergency relief -- I mean, what to do? And
until I actually say what I'm going to do, I'm
not actually certain what I'm going to do.
But I must also point to something
else that's very distressing, which is that we
seem to be moving backwards to the way we were
11659
making decisions and having things presented
to us a number of years ago. It was five
years ago that I thought we had started to
move away from three people in a room making
decisions for the body. And now it seems that
we're back there again.
And it's very alarming because it
is such a closed way of operating government.
And as many of you know, I was the president
of a good government, open government
organization. And it's embarrassing to me to
be a part of a government that is so closed.
But as I said, it's a conundrum.
I'm going to vote yes because I want the
services. But -- and also I should add that I
would like to be able to assist Buffalo and
the Catskills, but in a more limited fashion.
It's a terribly difficult decision.
I'm going to be voting yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator Oppenheimer will be recorded in the
affirmative.
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you. To
explain my vote.
11660
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator Duane, to explain his vote.
SENATOR DUANE: You know, I'm not
going to be lectured by someone about
something that affected me so personally and
affected me so deeply, just so they can make
believe they're making some kind of patriotic
statement at my expense. And I stay and
listen to what people have to say.
And I'm not going to be blackmailed
by three men in a room. And besides, what the
heck does gambling have to do with lofts?
What the heck does gambling have to do with
Child Health Plus? I mean, maybe something to
do with gambling. But why don't we have the
courage to do these as separate things? Why
do we put them all into one bill?
I'm not going to be blackmailed to
vote to extend the Loft Law for a few more
months so that we have years of gambling. I'm
voting no.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator Duane will be recorded in the
negative.
Announce the results.
11661
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
the negative on Calendar Number 1498 are
Senators Breslin, Connor, Dollinger, Duane,
Hassell-Thompson, Padavan, Paterson, and
Schneiderman. Ayes, 52. Nays, 8.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: The
bill is passed.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Mr. President,
can we at this time ask for an immediate
meeting of the Rules Committee in the Majority
Conference Room.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: There
will be an immediate meeting of the Rules
Committee in Room 332.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: And, Mr.
President, if we can return to reports of
standing committees, I believe there's a
report of the Finance Committee at the desk.
I would ask that it be read at this time.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Reports of standing committees.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Stafford,
11662
from the Committee on Finance, reports the
following bill direct to third reading:
Senate Print 5824, Senate Budget
Bill, an act making appropriations for the
support of economic development initiatives.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Without objection, third reading.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Mr. President,
can we at this time take up Calendar Number
1495.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1495, Budget Bill, Senate Print 5824, an act
making appropriations for the support of
economic development initiatives.
SENATOR BRUNO: Is there a
message of necessity at the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: There
is a message.
SENATOR BRUNO: I would move that
we accept the message.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: All
those in favor of accepting the message of
11663
necessity signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: The
message is accepted.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Read the last
section.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: Read
the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59. Nays,
1 -- ayes, 58. Nays, 2. Senators Duane and
Paterson recorded in the negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: We're
going to have to get some order in the house.
Would all those in the negative on
Calendar Number 1495 please raise your hand.
The Secretary will announce the
11664
results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58. Nays,
2. Senators Dollinger and Duane recorded in
the negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: The
bill is passed.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Mr. President,
can we return to motions and resolutions.
And I believe that there are two
privileged resolutions by Senator Kuhl. I
would ask that the titles be read and move for
their immediate adoption.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Motions and resolutions.
The Secretary will read the titles.
THE SECRETARY: By Senator Kuhl,
Legislative Resolution Number 3379,
congratulating LaTrisha Sullivan upon the
occasion of receiving the distinguished Silver
Award, the highest award bestowed upon a
Cadette Girl Scout.
And by Senator Kuhl, Legislative
Resolution Number 3380, congratulating holly
Duquette upon the occasion of receiving the
11665
distinguished Silver Award, the highest award
bestowed upon a Cadette Girl Scout.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: All
those in favor of adopting the resolutions
signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: The
resolutions are adopted.
Senator Nozzolio.
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Mr. President,
I wish to call up my bill, Print Number 4525,
recalled from the Assembly, which is now at
the desk.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1133, by Senator Nozzolio, Senate Print 4525,
an act to amend the Correction Law.
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Mr. President,
I now move to reconsider the vote by which
this bill was passed.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: The
11666
Secretary will call the roll on
reconsideration.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 60.
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Mr. President,
I now move to recommit the bill to the
Committee on Rules.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: So
ordered.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Mr. President,
can we return to reports of standing
committees. I believe there's a report of the
Rules Committee at the desk. I ask that it be
read.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Reports of standing committees.
The Secretary will read the Rules
Committee report.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Bruno,
from the Committee on Rules, reports the
following bills:
Senate Print 5826, by the Senate
Committee on Rules, Concurrent Resolution of
the Senate and Assembly.
11667
Senate Print 5827, by the Senate
Committee on Rules, Concurrent Resolution of
the Senate and Assembly.
And Senate Print 5829, by Senator
Fuschillo, an act in relation to state
intervention.
All bills ordered direct to third
reading.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: I move to accept
the report of the Rules Committee.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: All
those in favor of accepting the report of the
Rules Committee signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: The
report is accepted.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Mr. President,
can we at this time take up Calendar Number
1496.
11668
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: Can we
have some order, please, in the chamber.
The Secretary will read Calendar
Number 1496.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1496, by the Senate Committee on Rules, Senate
Print 5826, Concurrent Resolution of the
Senate and Assembly proposing an amendment to
Section 9 of Article 1 of the Constitution.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: The
Secretary will call the roll on the
resolution.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: May I have an
explanation, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator Bruno, Senator Dollinger has requested
an explanation of Calendar Number 1496.
SENATOR BRUNO: Thank you, Mr.
President.
What we have before us is a
resolution that would authorize first passage
of changing the Constitution of New York State
to allow the state to engage in operating
casinos.
We just approved allowing
11669
negotiations to go forward with the Indian
nations here in this state. It just seems to
make sense that with a constitutional
change -- which, as we all know, has to be
passed by two separate resolutions and two
separately elected legislatures and then a
referendum of the people -- it just seems to
make sense, since we are moving forward with
casinos, to also move with an opportunity for
the people of this state to vote on whether or
not a majority of the people would approve
casinos here in the state.
If we give second passage by the
next elected legislature, it would be in the
year 2003. And you would then have a
referendum -
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator Bruno, excuse me.
There's far too much talking in
here. We can't hear the explanation being
given.
SENATOR BRUNO: Thank you, Mr.
President.
In the year 2003, if we give second
passage, the referendum would take place in
11670
November of 2003. And if that were approved
by the general public that would be voting,
then the state would be allowed, subject to
legislative approval to move enabling
legislation, to be in the casino business,
rather than just leave it as it is where only
the Indian nations can be in the business.
And what's included in this bill
are the three -- Erie County, Niagara County,
Ulster, Sullivan, and Greene County, and the
Rockaways. Those are the specific places that
are included in this particular bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Mr.
President, just briefly on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator Dollinger, on the resolution.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: My views on
the broad issue of gambling were talked about
a couple of minutes ago, and I won't repeat
them again.
I'm going to vote against this bill
as well, for the reason that I just don't
believe that gambling by the Indian nations of
11671
New York under a compact with this state, a
treaty with this state, is the right thing to
do. And I think it's even worse if we sponsor
it ourselves.
That would send a message to
everybody that the state not only is willing
to let advertising occur, that a dollar and a
dream is all you need, and instead we would
actually be sponsoring a form of vice that up
until 40 years ago we not only made illegal
but we acknowledged was a terrible thing to
do. Why was gambling such a horrible thing?
We called it a vice. There were actually vice
squads that broke up gambling.
And now here we are, the very same
slot machines that were broken apart, smashed
apart by Thomas E. Dewey, this governor is
trying desperately to glue them back together.
I don't understand that logic. I fail to
appreciate what motivates this sudden interest
in widespread gambling.
And I'll conclude with one other
thought. Senator Bruno, this bill, again,
creates an unbalanced tourist trade in the
upstate area. What you're going to do is
11672
favor portions of the Catskills, favor
Buffalo, favor Niagara Falls, and you leave
Rochester and my community out of the mix.
There's nothing in this -- there's no local
option in this, there's no opportunity for any
other community that would like to compete for
visitors and convention business in the
upstate business.
There's no way for us to compete
because that upstate tourist trade, that
upstate convention bureau business is going to
go to either Buffalo or Niagara Falls where
you have casinos with cheap meals and cheap
entertainment. And, frankly, you leave
nothing for the Rochester community in this.
This bill, even if it had a local
option, I wouldn't vote for it. But quite
frankly, I don't see how the Rochester
community could embrace this notion when this
simply puts us at a competitive disadvantage
in the tourist business in upstate New York.
I'm going to vote no, Mr.
President. I would urge everyone else to.
This chamber has, the whole time I've been
here, stood up and said gambling is not the
11673
answer to our problems in New York. I hope
that the echoes of those votes will resound in
this chamber again and we will discard this
ill-advised constitutional amendment.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator Brown, on the resolution.
SENATOR BROWN: Thank you, Mr.
President. I'm going to be very brief.
I want to thank Majority Leader
Bruno for his explanation. In looking at the
bill, it actually specifies a casino within
the county of Erie as opposed to specifically
the city of Buffalo. And I know that in Erie
County the interest has been in the casino
being in the city of Buffalo. And I'm
wondering if it's possible to change it to
specify Buffalo rather than Erie County.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator Bruno, do you yield to a question from
Senator Brown?
SENATOR BRUNO: Yes.
SENATOR BROWN: My question,
Mr. President, is in the bill it indicates "in
the county of Erie shall be established not
more than one casino." And heretofore the
11674
conversation has been a casino in the city of
Buffalo. And I know in Erie County all of the
interest has been in Buffalo as opposed to
Erie County.
Is it possible to specify Buffalo
in the bill rather than Erie County?
SENATOR BRUNO: The intent was
that it be in Buffalo. But, you know, it
would not change the resolution here. But
that was what the intent and the attitude was.
And for the record, the intent was
that it be in Buffalo, because that is by far
the largest city in Erie County.
SENATOR BROWN: Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: The
Secretary will call the roll on the concurrent
resolution.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator Duane, to explain his vote.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Mr.
President.
You know, since a week after the
terrorist attack the only thing that's really
gone on here is negotiations on and about
11675
gambling and what could be stuffed into a bill
that had to do with gambling. I think it's a
complete disgrace.
And I don't see any way that our
passing a resolution to allow people to vote
on gambling to be fulfilling our patriotic
duty. I vote no.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator Duane is recorded in the negative.
Announce the results.
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
the negative on Calendar Number 1496 are
Senators Connor, Dollinger, Duane,
Hassell-Thompson, Montgomery, Oppenheimer,
Padavan, Paterson, Schneiderman, and Senator
Breslin.
Ayes, 50. Nays, 10.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: The
resolution is adopted.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Mr. President,
can we at this time take up Calendar Number
1497.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: The
Secretary will read.
11676
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1497, by the Senate Committee on Rules, Senate
Print Number 5827, Concurrent Resolution of
the Senate and Assembly proposing an amendment
to Section 9 of Article 1 of the Constitution.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Explanation,
Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator Bruno, Senator Dollinger has requested
an explanation.
SENATOR BRUNO: Thank you, Mr.
President.
This resolution before us follows
exactly the same procedures as the previous
resolution. The previous resolution was
specific to the six counties that were
mentioned. This one is a general resolution
that would go before the people if it gets
second passage, in 2003. And it would allow a
casino to be placed anywhere in the state that
this Legislature designated, subject to a
referendum of the county in which the casino
was to be placed.
So a casino in Rochester, if
Senator Dollinger was really that interested
11677
and could get the concurrence of his
colleagues here and his colleagues in the
Assembly and could get the county of Monroe to
allow a referendum by all of the people, you
would then have your wishes. And any other
county in the state.
So this is really first passage,
recognizing that we aren't designating
anywhere, we're simply saying that if the
people of this state, by a majority in a
referendum vote, say to the Legislature: You
submit, and if the county, by referendum,
wants to approve it, then it's okay by the
majority.
That's it as simply stated. And
again, this is an opportunity for people in
this state to have a vote for the first time
in a lot of years. Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator Padavan.
SENATOR PADAVAN: Mr. President,
I said earlier in discussing one of the
previous bills that that wouldn't be the end.
Well, obviously I was right. It wasn't the
end. We're now further down that slippery
11678
slope.
I might suggest, and the Majority
Leader can correct me, that this last
concurrent resolution, the potential
amendment, could include the city of New York.
Casinos in the city of New York. And that's
something I think that many of us might draw
the line on.
There's going to be a lot of
champagne corks popped tonight. Lobbyists
throughout the capital representing a whole
venue of clients from GTECH to landowners are
going to be delighted with everything we've
done. Many people will question what we've
done. And I think it's fair to point out a
number of very important organizations in this
state have spoken out in opposition to what
we've done.
To me, this goes just a mile too
far beyond where we were before, which, as bad
as it was, doesn't bring us to the point where
now under these resolutions we can have
casinos anywhere in the state. Senator
Breslin, you're absolutely right. We will be
the Las Vegas of the north, a place that
11679
people will look to and point to as the mecca
of any and all gambling. The Empire State
will no longer be that but the gambling state
instead.
I vote no.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Mr. President.
I reiterated my views before on the
concept of gambling. But let me deal with the
local option question that Senator Bruno says
that this bill poses.
I'm convinced, with Senator
Padavan, that this will pave the way -
because what will happen, Senator Padavan -
remember IDAs, Senator Padavan? Remember IDAs
sort of -- they were going to be confined in
large counties, they would be used as tools to
encourage business to come to the larger
counties of this state? There's an IDA now in
every single county in this state. Why?
Because the competitive factors drove them to
do it.
I would suggest if this amendment
11680
ever becomes law you will not only have
casinos in the city of New York, you will have
them at every truck stop in upstate New York.
There will just be a series of truck-stop
casinos, all with their little signs, all of
them advertising, all of them telling people
that if you buy a ticket, buy a lottery, push
a button, hit a lever, you're somehow going to
make it in life.
I would suggest that that is
overkill for casinos. I would say to Senator
Bruno, with respect to the Monroe County, if
we someday have a referendum there, I will
lead the fight against a casino in Monroe
County whether I'm in this office or hopefully
retired.
And, lastly, this country got
through a depression without casinos and
without gambling. We fought it off then.
Now, because of the events of a couple of
months ago, because we're short some revenues,
we're now going to turn to gambling? We ought
to look back with pride on what we were able
to overcome to make this nation and the state
what it is, and we did it without gambling.
11681
Poor Tom Dewey is spinning in his grave.
I'll vote no.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: The
Secretary will call the roll on the concurrent
resolution.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
SENATOR MORAHAN: On the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator Morahan, to explain his vote.
SENATOR MORAHAN: I did not plan,
Mr. President, to speak to this issue. I'm
fully in support of it. But Senator Dollinger
just made a comment that I heard as I entered
the chamber which really was disturbing, the
fact that we had a depression and we got out
of it without gambling.
We had a depression and we got out
of it with World War II. And let me tell you,
Senator, gambling casinos are a far better
method of taking care of economic downturns
than World War II, and that's a stated fact.
Thank you, Mr. President. I vote
yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator Morahan will be recorded in the
11682
affirmative.
Senator Paterson, to explain his
vote.
Can we have some order, please, so
that we can all listen to Senator Paterson's
explanation of his vote.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you, Mr.
President.
What disturbs me the most about
this legislation coming here right now is what
seems to be some kind of feeling that this has
to happen because of the events of
September 11th.
And even if it did happen, the
revenues would not come to this state for
years. I think that if this is something we
wanted to do, then perhaps this is something
that we could sit down and work on for some
period of time.
But I'm very disturbed that this
type of legislation comes before us right now.
When you think about gambling, some people
have the types of addictions that Senator
Padavan described and some people don't, they
actually just do it recreationally. What
11683
bothers me is what I would call a notion of
coalesced dreams. It's the state acting more
like those who are addicted than acting as if
this was really a choice.
In other words, the people who are
down and out, we as the state are acting, by
passing this legislation tonight, at this time
in history, we're acting as if we're down and
out.
And the reality is that this is
something we've discussed for a long time and
see it as an option. We have a lot of upset,
dispirited, and confused people in this state
right now. No one can blame them. But we
should remind them that you don't resort to
these types of measures, if it wasn't
something you were going to do anyway, because
you're in a difficult period in history.
I vote no.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator Paterson will be recorded in the
negative.
Any other Senator wishing to speak
on the bill?
Senator Bruno.
11684
SENATOR BRUNO: Mr. President, by
way of explanation of my vote, and for those
who are voting in favor, we are not voting to
place casinos anywhere. We are voting to
allow the people of New York State to vote in
a referendum on whether or not they want to go
forward with casinos. That's all.
I am not voting for specific
casinos anywhere. I'm voting to allow the
people of this state to have a voice on
whether or not they want casinos, period.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: The
Secretary will announce the results.
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
the negative on Calendar Number 1497 are
Senators Breslin, Connor, Dollinger, Duane,
Hassell-Thompson, Montgomery, Padavan,
Paterson, Schneiderman, Stachowski, Stavisky,
and Senator Oppenheimer. Ayes, 48. Nays, 12.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: The
resolution is adopted.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Mr. President,
can we at this time call up Calendar Number
1499.
11685
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1499, by Senator Fuschillo, Senate Print 5829,
an act in relation to state intervention.
SENATOR BRUNO: Is there a
message of necessity at the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: There
is a message.
SENATOR BRUNO: I would move that
we accept the message.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: All in
favor of accepting the message of necessity
signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: The
message is accepted.
Read the last section.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Explanation,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator Fuschillo, an explanation has been
11686
requested of Calendar Number 1499 by Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Thank you,
Mr. President.
Back in June of this year, when the
session was supposed to conclude, we had voted
for and approved in this house a measure which
would provide for strong state intervention in
the overseeing and the governance of the
crisis confronting the Roosevelt School
District.
This bill makes some changes to
that. One specific change in the five-member
board, it would require three members to be
from the Roosevelt community. It provides an
avenue for deficit financing. If an agreement
is ever fully realized from the Assembly, any
additional state funds, rather than go for a
structural deficit that they have there, the
funding would go for teachers and
instructional programs.
And I had stated at that time, and
we had a lengthy discussion, about two
hours -
SENATOR CONNOR: Mr. President, I
11687
can't hear.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: Can we
please have some order so that Senator Connor
can hear Senator Fuschillo's explanation.
Senator Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Thank you,
Mr. President.
I had stated at that time, when we
had a lengthy discussion about the problems
confronting the Roosevelt School District over
a number of years, that the situation was bad.
Well, it's gotten worse with the school board.
Just two weeks ago, the school board met on a
Sunday night in a private meeting, they only
called three of the five board members to the
meeting, and they suspended or took out the
authority of the superintendent. A month
prior to that, they gave him a three-year
contract worth in excess of $300,000.
They gave no reason for the
suspension or taking away his duties. The
Commissioner of Education required, in a
letter to them, by the close of the next
business day a reason for taking away the
responsibilities and duties of the
11688
superintendent. The president of the school
board and the council gave him an answer that
"We don't have to tell you why we did this.
It's in his contract." The following day, the
commissioner had to issue an executive order
to reinstate the superintendent.
This past week we had negotiations
with the Governor and the Assembly, and we had
an agreement with the Governor and the
Assembly till last night. As you know, in our
discussions the board is integrated back into
the community in 2003. The Assembly wanted no
elections till 2007, for six years further
disenfranchising the voters of the Roosevelt
community. I thought that was wrong.
I hope by the passage of this
legislation, which puts the community on the
appointed board, that the Assembly will see
the will and approve it as well.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: Read
the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 10. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator Connor.
11689
SENATOR CONNOR: To explain my
vote.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator Connor, to explain his vote.
SENATOR CONNOR: Yes, Mr.
President.
We had a lengthy discussion, as
Senator Fuschillo pointed out, on the
predecessor to this bill. We have earlier, in
the extenders, extended the existing
supervision of the Roosevelt School District.
At the time this originally passed,
Senators Dollinger, Duane, Hassell-Thompson,
Oppenheimer, Paterson, Santiago, and Stavisky
were in the negative, as well as myself.
This is not agreed upon with the
Assembly. It's a one-house bill. And
therefore, Mr. President, I continue to vote
no.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator Connor will be recorded in the
negative.
11690
Senator Dollinger, to explain your
vote.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Mr. President.
I appreciate Senator Fuschillo's
fervid interest in the future of the Roosevelt
School District. As Senator Fuschillo knows,
I debated this bill with his predecessor,
Senator Levy. I was against the concept then.
I don't believe this is the right solution to
the problem.
And what I guess strikes me about
this bill, and it certainly isn't Senator
Fuschillo's fault, but this bill is heavy on
financial accountability but doesn't seem
quite as heavy on the educational
accountability. In a lot of that information
you hear about the educational balancing the
need for financial control.
I would just suggest that the
difficulties they have in Roosevelt -- and
they are legion, and I don't dispute that they
are serious problems -- somehow taking over an
elected government doesn't seem to me to be
the American way of solving them.
11691
I'll continue to vote in the
negative, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator Dollinger will be recorded in the
negative.
Senator Marcellino, to explain your
vote.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Yes, thank
you, Mr. President. I just rise to explain my
vote briefly.
The statement made by my colleague
Senator Fuschillo before about the
superintendent being hired two months ago and
then summarily on a Sunday evening, without
notification of the entire board, being
dismissed, no reason given, no rhyme given,
the district is in acknowledged chaos by every
objective observer of the community and what's
going on there.
This is not an educational school
system. There is no education going on in
those schools. There is nothing happening in
a positive way for those children. It is time
for the state to do it. Shame on our
colleagues in the other house for not standing
11692
up and taking action now. We are simply
allowing a generation of youngsters to go by
the boards because of their own inaction and
inability to have the political will and the
political courage to stand up.
I congratulate my colleague Senator
Fuschillo for having the courage to do the
right thing for the school district of
Roosevelt. I vote aye.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator Marcellino will be recorded in the
affirmative.
Will all those in the negative
please raise your hand so the Secretary can
record your votes.
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
the negative on Calendar Number 1499 are
Senators Connor, Dollinger, Duane,
Hassell-Thompson, Oppenheimer, Stachowski, and
Senator Stavisky.
Ayes, 53. Nays, 7.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: The
bill is passed.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Mr. President, is
11693
there any housekeeping to be done at the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: No.
SENATOR BRUNO: No. That's good.
Mr. President, then there being no
further business to come before the Senate, I
would move that we stand adjourned, subject to
the call of the Majority Leader, with
intervening days to be legislative days.
Thank you very much, and good
night.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: The
Senate stands adjourned, subject to the call
of the Majority Leader, intervening days being
legislative days.
(Whereupon, at 9:36 p.m., the
Senate adjourned.)