THURSDAY, JUNE 16, 2011 10:34 A.M. · 2011-06-16 · THURSDAY, JUNE 16, 2011 10:34 A.M. ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: The House will come to order. In the absence of clergy, let us pause

1

THURSDAY, JUNE 16, 2011 10:34 A.M.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: The House will

come to order.

In the absence of clergy, let us pause for a moment of

silence.

(Whereupon, a moment of silence was observed.)

Visitors are invited to join members in the Pledge of

Allegiance.

(Whereupon, Acting Speaker P. Rivera led visitors

and members in the Pledge of Allegiance.)

A quorum being present, the Clerk will read the

Journal of Wednesday, June 15th.

Mr. Canestrari.

MR. CANESTRARI: Mr. Speaker, I move to

NYS ASSEMBLY JUNE 16, 2011

2

dispense with the further reading of the Journal of Wednesday, June

15th and ask that the same stand approved.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Without

objection, so ordered.

Mr. Canestrari.

MR. CANESTRARI: In terms of the schedule for the

day, as far as we can tell, the members have on their desks the debate

list and the main Calendar. We will begin consenting the new bills on

the main Calendar beginning on page 16, Rules Report No. 301. We

also intend to work off the debate list and call 10 Committee

Meetings. These meetings include and start with Health, Cities, Real

Property Tax, Mental Health, Election Law, Education, Local

Governments, Codes, Ways and Means and Rules. They will produce

multiple calendars and we will also be calling respective party

conferences.

So, if there are introductions and housekeeping, we

will do those now. If not, or whenever they're finished, we will go to

the main Calendar and begin taking up the new bills on page 16, Rules

Report No. 301. Thank you.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Reilly for an

introduction.

MR. REILLY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This year

the City of Albany, proud of its Dutch heritage, celebrated its 63rd

Annual Tulip Festival and every year a Tulip Queen is selected to be a

role model for the residents of Albany County. Karen Colehour is the


3

2011 Tulip Queen, a young woman who has excelled in academics,

community involvement and athletics. She is a wonderful

spokesperson for our Capital City and an exemplar for both young and

old. Karen is here with her mother, Donna. And I ask you, Mr.

Speaker, to give her your usual warm welcome. Thank you.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. McEneny on

the same subject matter.

MR. MCENENY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The

Tulip Festival is something that started in Albany, and I speak for

myself and for Assemblyman Canestrari who share representation of

the City of Albany. It is one of the highlights of our year. It goes

back to the post-World War II era when we were twined under the

martial plan with Nyweg in the Netherlands. As you know, Albany

goes back to 1624, a year before the City of New York, for example,

as a Dutch Colony the new world, as a long tradition of freedom and

tolerance, unheard of back in the 1600s. Dutch customs and names

and traditions are cherished here in Albany by all people regardless of

their background. And the tradition of having the Tulip Festival,

which started with a gift of tens of thousands of tulips from the

Netherlands in gratitude for our friendship and help after the Second

World War, is one of the great festivals that we hold in early May

every year. The highlight of that festival is a very competitive

selection and crowning of the Tulip Queen. Karen, who was

introduced to you earlier, went through a rigorous vetting and only the

best of the best of the young women within our Albany County area


4

are selected. Prior Tulip Queens have been involved in literacy and

working with children and working with senior citizens, involved in

any number of civic projects throughout the year.

So, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of myself, Ron Canestrari

and, of course, Bob Reilly, who represents our Tulip Queen, please

extend to Karen your usual warm and cordial welcome. It is a

pleasure to have her here.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Gladly, Mr.

McEneny. Karen, thank you for being part of a very long tradition

and continuing that tradition and making sure that it continues. I

know that my colleagues are very proud to have you here with us

today and we know that you're getting a tremendous amount of

personal satisfaction by serving the people of the State of New York.

On behalf of Mr. Reilly, on behalf of Mr. McEneny,

on behalf of Mr. Canestrari, thank you for being with us here today.

On behalf of the Speaker and all my colleagues, we thank you for

being with us here today. Please enjoy the time that you're here in the

State Capitol. Come back soon. Thank you again.

(Applause)

Mr. Peter Lopez for an introduction.

MR. P. LOPEZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise to

draw the Chamber's attention to a very exceptional and amazing

young woman. We have Alexis Blue and, Alexis, if you could stand.

Alexis is a national champion wrestler and Alexis is from my

hometown where I had the privilege of serving on the wrestling team


5

as a young person in school, but Alexis' career in wrestling has far out

eclipsed mine and has brought much pride and national attention to

her abilities and I want to tell you a little bit about her, if I may. In her

first year of wrestling at the varsity level and, again, exceptional, she

made it to the State wrestling tournament in the 96-pound weight class

as a six seed with a 27-9 record, where she lost her first round. It was

a tough first round. She was named to the Western Athletic

Conference First Team All Stars for the 96-pound weight class, and

then she went on to take first in her weight class in 7th, 8th and annual

Gene Mills Eastern National Wrestling Tournaments. In 2010, she

had a fourth place finish in the Empire National Wrestling

Tournament and in January of 2011, just a few short months ago,

Alexis took home the title of National Champion in the Girls'

Folkstyle Wrestling Tournament in Oklahoma in the 97-pound weight

class. And the website, wrestling website called Matburn, which

those of us who have wrestled understand that term only too well, had

it this to say about Alexis' wrestling: "Alexis is an outstanding

wrestler for those who haven't seen her. I have witnessed her over the

past three to four years and she's a force to reckon with. Don't be

surprised if she's at the top of the podium and represents Section II

one day at the states."

So, with that said, Mr. Speaker, if you could please

offer her and her family, we have with her, her grandmother, Anita

Martin, Anita, if you could stand as well, her friend, Sidney Fullen;

her mom, Amber, and also her cousin, Christine, is Christine still


6

there? There she is. Mr. Speaker, if you could welcome Alexis and,

again, all of her family and offer them all the privileges of the House.


Lopez. Alexis, you really picked a very tough sport and not only did

you pick a tough sport, you have excelled tremendously in that sport

which means that those are the signs of a champion. A champion is

somebody who doesn't take minor obstacles or face minor obstacles, a

champion is somebody who overcomes major obstacles. So, I want to

congratulate you personally for excelling in that very, very tough sport

and for the support that you have. The best support you can ever have

is your family.

On behalf of Mr. Lopez, on behalf of the Speaker and

all my colleagues, we salute a champion. We congratulate a

champion. Please enjoy the privileges of the floor. Come back soon.

Thank you for being with us here today.

(Applause)

Mr. Saladino for an introduction.

MR. SALADINO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As we

all know June is the month for the Festa. So to my colleagues I say,

bongiorno. I join with my good friend, Assemblyman Mike Spano,

another very proud Italian-American, in saying how privileged and

fortunate we are to be visited by a very famous Italian author. Tiziano

Thomas Dossena is here. He was born in Milan in 1952. He grew up

in an artistic and inspiring environment and began writing at a very

young age. He moved to the United States at 16 years old and


7

completed his studies in America receiving two associates and three

bachelors degrees. When he temporarily returned to Italy in 1978 he

received an award at the Biennale di Boniprate for sculpture;

additional first awards were won in the following years for poetry, for

fiction and for journalism. His works have appeared in numerous

magazines and anthologies in Italy, France, Greece, Switzerland,

Canada and in the United States.

Mr. Dossena is an editorial director of the quarterly

L'Idea in Brooklyn, a magazine created in 1974 and run by volunteers.

He is also a staff writer of the magazine Bridge Apulia USA.

Mr. Dossena was a council member in 1998 to 2004

and secretary from 1998 to 2001 of the COM.IT.ES, Committee of

Italians Abroad. He held these positions in New York and served in

various functions within the Circolo Cuturale di Mola.

Mr. Tiziano Thomas Dossena is also a member of the

New York Academy of Sciences, Accademia Tiborina, Accademia dei

Bronzi, Accademia Marconi, Haute Academie Francaise, The

Academie des Marches and Lions International.

Mr. Dossena is the author of a short stories collection,

"Caro Fantozzi," which was published in 2009 and the co-author of

the book, Dona Flor, also an opera by van Westerhout, published in

2010.

Mr. Dossena is also the co-founder of Idea

Publications, a publishing house dedicated to Italian and

Italian-American authors and subjects.


8

He is joined by his daughter Samantha Dossena who

continues to show that the Dossena family has great minds and serves

the public. She's a student at Tufts Veterinary School where she will

go on to serve and protect our animals and all of our creatures.

We are so fortunate to have such an exceptional

author in our midst and, Mr. Speaker, if you would extend to them our

congratulations and the courtesies of this House.


Saladino.

Mr. Dossena, Madam Dossena, we really appreciate

the fact that you're here. It was a great introduction by my colleague

and a great supporter of yours, truly explaining the contribution that

you have made in this country and abroad.

So, on behalf of Mr. Saladino, the Speaker and all my

colleagues, we congratulate you. We thank you for being here today

so that we can have the privilege of meeting you and please come

back real soon. Please enjoy the time that you're here and the

privileges of the House. Thank you for being with us here today.

(Applause)

Mr. Canestrari for an announcement.

MR. CANESTRARI: Yes, Mr. Speaker, my

colleagues, the first Committee Meeting of the morning, Mr. Dick

Gottfried is here for the Health Committee in the Speaker's

Conference Room. Health Committee members, proceed to the

Conference Room. Grazie.


9

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Stevenson for

an introduction.

MR. STEVENSON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Today, once again, we have some visitors, two visitors here today, one

is a person who served in my district, who actually lived in my district

and did work in my district who was a famous saxophonist from the

Island of Jamaica by the name of Mr. Cedric Brooks. He has

contributed to literacy programs to many throughout the community.

He taught many how to play music and instruments and he contributed

to the Foundation of Raggae music to people like Bob Marley, Peter

Tosh, et cetera. And, unfortunately, he can't be here today because

he's on life support --

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Excuse me, Mr.

Stevenson. Can we have some order while we have an important

introduction by Mr. Stevenson, colleagues, please? Particularly in the

back. Could we have some order? I'm sorry, Mr. Stevenson.

MR. STEVENSON: As, as I mentioned,

unfortunately, he can't be here today because he's on life support and

he was taken out of the hospital in my district and brought to a nursing

home in Queens where he currently is there on life support, but given

his contribution in helping people like Bob Marley become Bob

Marley and Peter Tosh and all these other famous Raggae artists

become who they are in his contributions, I thought it would be an

opportunity to give recognition and honor to him, being that he's in the

condition he's in and we have today his sister, Miss Paulette Brooks,


10

here to receive a proclamation I'll be issuing to him on his behalf and

accompanying her from the big, beautiful sunny Island of Jamaica, we

have with us here today the First Lady of the Island of Jamaica, Miss

Lorna Golding. So, she's accompanying her --

(Applause)

-- and would like to extend the cordialities of the

House to them.

(Applause)


Stevenson. On the same subject, Mr. Perry.

MR. PERRY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's a

pleasure to join my colleague, Assemblyman Stevenson, to welcome

to our Chamber, Mrs. Lorna Golding, the First Lady of Jamaica, the

land that I was born in. In Jamaica we say the land of your birth. And

I am an American and proudly serve in this House representing the

people of the 58th, but I certainly have not disconnected or cut any of

my ties to that beautiful paradise island from which Mrs. Golding and

Mrs. Keyes come to see how we do business in New York. In

Jamaica, this would be the House of Representatives, not the

Assembly. But, certainly, her husband, as Prime Minister, before he

becomes Prime Minister, has to be elected to the House, so he's also a

member of the House and after that election, he becomes Prime

Minister as Head of the Majority Party in the House of

Representatives.

So, we welcome you here today, Mrs. Golding, and


11

hope that you will enjoy visiting with us and take just a little peek at

how we do about business in our House and maybe you can find some

good ideas that you could go back and suggest to the Prime Minister

as you have shared some of the good ideas that they have practiced in

Jamaica. God bless you and keep you safe during your visit here and

please enjoy the House. Mr. Speaker, I ask you to extend all of the

cordialities of the House and our Chamber. Thank you.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: On the same

subject matter, Ms. Hooper.

MS. HOOPER: Mr. Speaker, I wish to join my

colleagues, Assemblyman Stevenson, and my colleague,

Assemblyman Nick Perry in welcoming these two distinguished ladies

from the Isle of Jamaica. The First Lady, would you please stand

again, of Jamaica. We're so proud to have someone so beautiful, so

well informed. And my colleague asked her to take something from

us back to Jamaica, but I'm sure that she could give us something also

that would enhance what we do here.

Mrs. Keyes is joining the First Lady, Mrs. Golding,

and we are so happy and I'm very delighted to be a woman with these

women to show that things can succeed when you put women in

positions, because behind the thrown there is the power. He might be

the Prime Minister, but she's the neck, which means regardless of

which way his head turns, she controls it.

So, would you allow me to join my colleagues as we

welcome these two distinguished, wonderful, outstanding women who


12

come to join us today? Thank you.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Gladly, Ms.

Hooper. We really want to thank you for being with us here today.

We're truly honored by your presence here, by the fact that you have

so many native sons and daughters living in New York, also, today

that bring fame and understanding to Jamaica, its people and its

culture. So, we want you to bring that message back home that your

sons and daughters are welcome here and that they are truly a part of

us, just like we are truly a part of your country.

On behalf of Mr. Stevenson, Mr. Perry, Ms. Hooper,

on behalf of the Speaker -- I'm sorry. Mr. Farrell, I may have

interrupted you. Mr. Farrell, do you want to say something?

MR. FARRELL: Yes, I would, Mr. Speaker. I would

find it very hard to be here and have someone from my mother's home

and not come and say a few words. For those of you who know me,

when we have the holidays I usually spend a lot of time in what I call

my southern home in Montego Bay. So, it would be a pleasure, and it

is a pleasure, to be here and welcome the Prime Minister's wife and

friends to be here and I look forward -- I think that's why the weather

-- you noticed it was raining. She came up and we've got this

wonderful weather. This reminds me of Jamaica. So, it is a pleasure

to be here and I would like you to continue offering her the kindness

of the Assembly. Thank you.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Heastie on

the same subject matter.


13

MR. HEASTIE: Yes, Mr. Speaker, thank you, and I,

too, would like to bring special greetings to the First Lady of Jamaica

who, by the way, met her husband in my Assembly district and she

was a resident of my Assembly district as well. And as the legislator

who, I believe, represents the most Jamaicans now, it is a wonderful

pleasure to have the First Lady here who, by the way, when I met her

before at a Jamaica independence event in my district, I think maybe a

couple of days later she sent me the absolutely most beautiful e-mail

and I want to thank you personally for that.

So, Mr. Speaker, please give her the warmest

welcome that you could possibly give. Thank you.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: As you can see,

you have lots of friends here. You know what happens when you

have lots of friends in Albany? You have to come back.

So, on behalf of Mr. Heastie, Mr. Farrell, Mr.

Stevenson, Mr. Perry, Ms. Hooper, the Speaker and all my colleagues,

we truly welcome you to the floor. We ask that you enjoy your time

while you're here in Albany, that you have a safe Godspeed back

home and that we hope to see you real soon. Thank you for being

with us here today.

(Applause)

Mr. Molinaro for an introduction.

MR. MOLINARO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for

allowing us to interrupt the proceedings today for another

introduction. I'm happy and honored to follow after that introduction


14

with a group of young people who are visiting from my Assembly

district. They are also, however, constituents, young as they may be,

of Assemblyman Joel Miller. To the rear of the Chamber is a fourth

grade class from the Gayhead Elementary School in Hopewell

Junction, New York, the Wappingers Central School District. This is

Mrs. Misch and Mrs. Rupperts' fourth grade class and they're here to

observe the proceedings today and to enjoy a tour of the State Capitol.

So, if you wouldn't mind extending to them the cordialities of the

House and a warm welcome, we would appreciate it.


Molinaro.

On behalf you have and Mr. Miller, we know they

didn't travel as far as the other introduction, but we know that they

came here with the same kind of enthusiasm, the same kind of

willingness to learn, the same kind of desire to be a part of this great

State and the floor of this Assembly.

On behalf Mr. Molinaro, Mr. Miller, the Speaker and

all my colleagues, we salute you for being here today. We extend the

privileges of the floor to you. Please enjoy the time that you're here,

enjoy the debates that are about to happen and, also, please come back

real soon. Thank you for being with us here today.

(Applause)

We will commence with the resolutions on page 3,

beginning with Assembly No. 720, by Mrs. Cook, the Clerk will read.

THE CLERK: Resolution No. 720.


15

Legislative resolution memorializing Governor

Andrew M. Cuomo to proclaim October of 2011 as Behavioral Health

Recognition Month in the State of New York.

WHEREAS, It is the custom of this legislative body

to recognize official months that are set aside to increase awareness of

serious issues that affect the lives of citizens of New York State; and

WHEREAS, Attendant to such concern, and in full

accord with its longstanding traditions, it is the sense of this legislative

body to memorialize Governor Andrew M. Cuomo to proclaim

October of 2011 as Behavioral Health Recognition Month in the State

of New York; and

WHEREAS, Every year, New Yorkers across the

state recover from mental illness and/or overcome their struggles with

addiction; with personal determination and the support of family and

friends, community members, and health professionals, they have

turned the page on an illness and sought the promise of recovery; and

WHEREAS, The pain and suffering caused by

behavioral illness are immeasurable for the individuals afflicted, their

families and communities; almost 50 million Americans have serious

emotional disorders or illnesses; and

WHEREAS, The consequences of untreated mental

illnesses and emotional disturbances are quite clear; suicide is 30

times more common among people who are clinically depressed than

those among the general population; and

WHEREAS, The exceptional contribution made by


16

our military servicemen and their families also leads to stresses and

burdens that manifest themselves in the form of behavioral illnesses;

military families endure the challenges of multiple deployments and

moves; spend holidays and life milestones apart from loved ones;

juggle everyday tasks while a spouse, parent, son, or daughter is in

harm's way; and honor the service of their loved ones and live with the

memory of those lost; and

WHEREAS, New York's aging seniors have faced

many more life experiences and have been at great risk of behavioral

illness; the effects of treating physical illnesses and injuries in some

have caused addictive dependencies and behavioral disabilities; it is

necessary to assist them in recognizing the symptoms of debilitative

behavior and honor their personal recovery; and

WHEREAS, Addressing the complex behavioral

health needs of children, youth, and families today is fundamental to

the future of New York State; the need for comprehensive,

coordinated behavioral health services for children, youth, and

families places upon our community a critical responsibility; and

WHEREAS, Special tribute is due to the dedicated

professionals and everyday citizens who help eliminate the stigma

with skill and empathy, and who guide people through the treatment

and recovery process; these particular individuals are offering a

message of hope and understanding; and

WHEREAS, The State of New York understands that

all illness must be addressed equally including awareness, referral and


17

treatment; providing the highest level of commitment, dedication and

caliber of service to those most at risk, in treatment, and in recovery

requires the interagency coordination of support services; and

WHEREAS, New Yorkers benefit from better

services where disorders can be managed, giving individuals the

effective tools necessary to address their illness; and

WHEREAS, It is imperative that there be greater

public awareness of this serious issue, and more must be done to

increase knowledge and attentiveness at both the State and local levels

to support and protect those in need; now, therefore, be it

RESOLVED, That this legislative body pause in its

deliberations to memorialize Governor Andrew M. Cuomo to

proclaim October of 2011 as Behavioral Health Recognition Month in

the State of New York; and be it further

RESOLVED, That a copy of this Resolution, suitably

engrossed, be transmitted to The Honorable Andrew M. Cuomo,

Governor of the State of New York.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: On the resolution,

all those in favor signify by saying aye; opposed, no. The resolution is

adopted.

Privileged resolution by Ms. Calhoun, the Clerk will

read.



Andrew M. Cuomo to proclaim October 21, 2011, as School Bus


18

Driver Appreciation Day in the State of New York

WHEREAS, Each school day, more than two million

children are transported to and from school in school buses in cities,

towns and suburbs across the State of New York; and

WHEREAS, The safety and well-being of these

children are the utmost concern to all New Yorkers and parents and

schools entrust school bus drivers with the welfare of these children;

and

WHEREAS, The position of a school bus driver

requires tremendous responsibility; they have to maneuver through

traffic regardless of road conditions while maintaining the conduct of

the children on the bus and are looked upon for leadership and

life-saving decision-making in the event of an emergency; and

WHEREAS, School bus drivers delicately direct

these children while they are exiting the bus at their destination; when

an adult is normally at a bus stop to meet a child and is not present,

they will keep that child in their safe care until adult supervision is

located or the child can be returned to school; and

WHEREAS, Furthermore, school bus drivers may

also be an important aid in the fight against terrorism; they are able to

observe any suspicious activity or people along their bus route and

communicate that information to the proper authorities; and

WHEREAS, It is the sense of this legislative body to

recognize and pay tribute to these dedicated professionals who deliver

children throughout this great Empire State safely every day of every


19

school year; now, therefore, be it



proclaim October 21, 2011, as School Bus Driver Appreciation Day in

the State of New York; and be it further






adopted.

Privileged resolution by Mr. Reilich and Ms.

Lupardo, the Clerk will read.



Andrew M. Cuomo to proclaim July 8, 2011, as Collector Car

Appreciation Day in the State of New York.

WHEREAS, It is the sense of this legislative body

that the quality of life of the citizens of New York State is greatly

enriched by its exceptional cultural, educational and recreational

institutions; and

WHEREAS, Attendant to such concern, and in full

accord with its longstanding traditions, this legislative body is moved

to memorialize Governor Andrew M. Cuomo to proclaim July 8,

2011, as Collector Car Appreciation Day in the State of New York, in


20

conjunction with National Collector Car Appreciation Day; and

WHEREAS, The Specialty Equipment Market

Association (SEMA) and its Automotive Restoration Market

Organization (ARMO) and Hot Rod Industry Alliance (HRIA)

Councils announced July 8, 2011 as National Collector Car

Appreciation Day; and

WHEREAS, July 8, 2011, marks the second

commemoration in what will become an annual event to celebrate and

raise awareness of the vital role automotive restoration and collection

play in American society; and

WHEREAS, The 2011 National Collector Car

Appreciation Day events in the State of New York include: Collector

Car Appreciation Day at the Northeast Classic Car Museum in

Norwich, New York, from July 8-10, 2011; the 8th Annual All

Firebird Cruise with the Firebird Nation of North America in Saratoga

Springs, New York, on July 8, 2011; the Hemmings Motor News and

Hathaway's Drive-In Theatre Cruise-In for cars 25 years or older, in

North Hoosick, New York, on July 8, 2011; and the 9th Annual All

Firebird Lawn Show at the Albany-Saratoga Speedway in Malta, New

York on July 9, 2011; and the All Corvette Show in Saratoga Springs,

New York on July 9, 2011; and

WHEREAS, Since its invention, the automobile has

become a most treasured piece of Americana; by recognizing the

importance of its history, car collectors provide a nostalgic way to

preserve the presence of the past and inspire the innovations of the


21

future; and

WHEREAS, It is the intent of this legislative body to

set aside days of significance which pay tribute to our unique history

and add strength, vigor and inspiration to the diversity and quality of

life in the communities of the State of New York; now, therefore, be it



proclaim July 8, 2011, as Collector Car Appreciation Day in the State

of New York; and be it further






adopted.

We will commence with page 16, Rules Report No.

301, on consent.

THE CLERK: Bill No. 5184, Rules Report No. 301,

Thiele. An act to amend the Retirement and Social Security Law, in

relation to the employment of police officers in the Town of South

Hampton; and to repeal certain provisions of such law relating thereto.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: There's a home

rule message at the desk. Read the last section.

THE CLERK: This act shall take effect immediately.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: The Clerk will


22

record the vote.

(The Clerk recorded the vote.)

MR. CANESTRARI: Colleagues, this is the first

vote of the day. Please join us in the Chamber. Rules Report No.

301, Mr. Thiele. Let's move this along. It's Thursday. Let's move it

along. I'm getting very encouraging signs here.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Are there any

other votes? The Clerk will announce the results.

Colleagues, if we could have some quiet, please.

(The Clerk announced the results.)

The bill is passed.

THE CLERK: Bill No. 6332-A, Rules Report No.

303, Canestrari. An act to authorize the Town of East Greenbush,

County of Rensselaer, to lease certain parklands.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: On a motion by

Mr. Canestrari, the Senate bill is before the House. The Senate bill is

advanced and there's a home rule message at the desk. Read the last

section.



record the vote.


Are there any other votes? The Clerk will announce

the results.



23

The bill is passed.


Brook-Krasny. An act to authorize the City of New York to

discontinue the use as parkland of parcels of real property in the

Borough of Brooklyn in exchange for the dedication of certain other

lands in the Borough of Brooklyn for park purposes in furtherance of a

comprehensive development plan for Coney Island.





record the vote.



the results.


The bill is passed.


Dinowitz, M. Miller. An act to amend the Executive Law, in relation

to developing and promoting senior center-based domestic violence

prevention programs.


Mr. Dinowitz, the Senate bill is before the House. The Senate bill is

advanced. Read the last section.



24


record the vote.


Mr. Canestrari.


colleagues, the second Committee Meeting of the morning --

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Colleagues, could

we have some attention.

MR. CANESTRARI: Please, a little quiet in the back

of the Chamber. Local Governments in the Speaker's Conference

Room. Bill Magnarelli, the Chair, is already there. Local

Governments. Thank you.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Local

Governments in the Speaker's Conference Room.


the results.


The bill is passed.


307, Thiele. An act to amend Chapter 626 of the Laws of 1996,

amending the Local Finance Law, relating to the issuance of land

installment purchase obligations, in relation to extending the

provisions thereof.


Mr. Thiele, the Senate bill is before the House. The Senate bill is


25




record the vote.



the results.


The bill is passed.


Canestrari. An act to authorize the Town of East Greenbush, in the

County of Rensselaer, to reopen the provisions of an optional 20-year

retirement plan to police officer Edward A. Miano.





record the vote.



the results.


The bill is passed.

Mr. Conte for an introduction. Colleagues. Mr.

Conte, if you will allow me. Could we have some attention on the


26

floor, colleagues.

MR. CONTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like

to interrupt the proceedings. On behalf of Assemblyman Molinaro

and Assemblyman Miller, we are joined today by the Gayhead

Elementary School from the Wappingers Central School District in

Hopewell Junction, New York. This is Mrs. Ryan's fourth grade class.

If you can, on behalf of Mr. Molinaro and Mr. Miller, if you could

welcome them to the Assembly Chamber, I would be most greatly

appreciative.


Conte. We are blessed today. We have a had a couple of youngsters

from Mr. Molinaro's and Mr. Miller's district. So, it's really nice that

you're here and that you're joining my colleagues and that you get a

chance to see what's happening on the Assembly floor. It's nice to

have visitors here. You make the day pass by faster. So, on behalf of

Mr. Molinaro, Mr. Miller, the Speaker and all my colleagues, we

thank you for being with us here today. Please enjoy the privileges of

the floor. Come back real soon. Thank you.

(Applause)


Blankenbush. An act to amend the Tax Law, in relation to extending

the authorization granted to the County of Lewis to impose an

additional three-quarters of one percent of sales and compensating use

taxes.



27

Mr. Blankenbush, the Senate bill is before the House. The Senate bill

is advanced. There's a home rule message at the desk. The bill is laid

a side.


310, Magee, Russell, Lupardo, P. Lopez. An act to amend the

Agriculture and Markets Law, the Environmental Conservation Law

and the Soil and Waste Conservation Districts Law, in relation to the

membership of County Agricultural and Farmland Protection Boards,

authorization to hold conservation easements, and funding agricultural

non-point source abatement and control projects.


Mr. Magee, the Senate bill is before the House. The Senate bill is




record the vote.



the results.


The bill is passed.


Blankenbush. An act to authorize the Towns of Harrisburg, Montague

and Pinckney in Lewis County to elect a single town justice to preside

in the town courts of such towns.


28


Mr. Blankenbush, the Senate bill is before the House. The Senate bill

is advanced. Read the last section.



record the vote.



the results.


The bill is passed.

(Applause)

THE CLERK: Bill No. 7561-B, Rules Report No.

312, Abbate. An act to amend the Retirement and Social Security

Law, in relation to certain employees' ability to borrow against

contributions.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Read the last

section.



record the vote.



the results.



29

The bill is passed.


Moya, Ramos, Ortiz, Lavine, Castelli. An act to amend the Executive

Law, in relation to authorizing the Division Veterans' Affairs to

periodically review programs operated by the Division.


section.

THE CLERK: This act shall take effect on the 90th

day next succeeding the date on which it shall have become a law.


record the vote.



the results.


The bill is passed.

(Applause)


Sweeney, Cahill, Jaffe, Maisel, M. Miller, Spano, Zebrowski,

Schimel, Roberts, Abinanti, Gabryszak. An act to amend the

Environmental Conservation Law, in relation to providing

reimbursement to fire companies for costs associated with responding

to releases of hazardous materials.


section.


30



record the vote.



MR. CANESTRARI: Yes, sir, another Committee

Meeting. Cities Committee. Carl Heastie is available for the Cities

Committee Meeting in the Conference Room.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Cities in the

Speaker's Conference Room.


the results.


The bill is passed.


Galef. An act to authorize the assessors of the Towns of Whitestown

and the Village of New York Mills to except an application for real

property tax exemption from New York Mills Historical Society for

certain parcels of land in such village and town.


section.



record the vote.



31


the results.


The bill is passed.


316, Schimminger, P. Rivera, Magee. An act to amend the Alcoholic

Beverage Control Law, in relation to wineries, farm wineries, special

wineries, special farm wineries and microwineries; and to repeal

certain provisions of such law relating thereto.


Mr. Schimminger, the Senate bill is before the House. The Senate bill





record the vote.



the results.


The bill is passed.


Gunther, Lifton, Burling, Palmesano. An act to amend the Public

Health Law, in relation to facilitating access to the health occupation

and workplace demonstration program for home care providers.


32


section.



record the vote.



it's results.


The bill is passed.


Sweeney, Blankenbush, Sayward, Duprey. An act approving the

exchange of certain lands between National Grid and the people of the

State of New York.


section.



record the vote.



results.


The bill is passed.



33

V. Lopez, Cook, Wright, Heastie, Robinson, Bing, Benedetto,

Camara, Rosenthal, Jeffries, Castro, Gibson, Rodriguez. An act to

amend the Private Housing Finance Law, in relation to an increase in

bond and note authorization of the New York State Housing Finance

Agency; to amend Chapter 514 of the Laws of 1983, amending the

Private Housing Finance Law and the Real Property Tax Law relating

to the powers of the New York State Housing Finance Agency to

finance certain multi-family housing; to amend Chapter 396 of the

Laws of 1984, amending the Private Housing Finance Law and the

Real Property Tax Law relating to the powers of the New York State

Housing Finance Agency to finance certain multi-family housing, in

relation to the effectiveness of such chapters; to amend Chapter 915 of

the Laws of 1982 amending the Public Authorities Law relating to the

powers of the State of New York Mortgage Agency; to amend Chapter

555 of the Laws of 1989 amending the Public Authorities Law and

other laws relating to establishing a New York State Infrastructure

Trust Fund, in relation to the effective date thereof; and to amend

Chapter 172 of the Laws of 2002 amending the Public Authorities

Law relating to the powers of the State of New York Mortgage

Agency, to the powers of the State of New York Mortgage Agency, in

relation to extending the provisions thereof.


V. Lopez, the Senate bill is before the House. The Senate bill is




34


record the vote.



the results.


The bill is passed.

Mr. Canestrari.

MR. CANESTRARI: Mr. Speaker, we will now start

working off the debate list and go to Rules Report No. 46, page 4 of

the main Calendar and that is Mr. Pretlow, please.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: We will turn to

page 4 of the main Calendar, Rules Report No. 46, the Clerk will read.


Pretlow, Kellner, Millman, Ortiz, Hoyt, Wright, Perry, Rosenthal. An

act to amend the Public Service Law and the State Finance Law, in

relation to enacting the Accessible Electronic Information Act.


section.




record the vote.




35

the results.


The bill is passed.

Mr. Canestrari.

MR. CANESTRARI: Yes, sir, we will now go to

Rules Report No. 120 on page 6 of the main Calendar, Ms. Lupardo.

Rules Report No. 120. Thank you.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Proceeding to

page 6, Rules Report No. 120, the Clerk will read.

THE CLERK: Bill No. 6320-C, Rules Report No.

120, Lupardo, Magnarelli, Gabryszak, Roberts, Englebright, Hoyt,

Peoples-Stokes, Schroeder. An act to amend the Economic

Development Law, in relation to the establishment of the Centers of

Excellence Program.


section.



record the vote.



the results.


The bill is passed.

Mr. Canestrari.


36

MR. CANESTRARI: Yes, sir, the next two bills

we'll go to, Rules Report No. 44 on page 10 -- the sponsor's shaky, but

it's a good bill -- and then Rules Report No. 281 on page 15, Mr.

Cusick.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: We will proceed

to the Canestrari bill on page 10 for debate, Rules Report No. 244, the

Clerk will read.


244, Canestrari, Schroeder, Russell, Gunther, Weprin, Galef, Lupardo.

An act to amend the Education Law, in relation to the professional

and occupational therapy.







record the vote.



MR. CANESTRARI: Yes, another Committee

Meeting called, please. Ms. Galef is ready for Real Property Taxation

in the Speaker's Conference Room. Real Property Tax.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Real Property Tax

in the Speaker's Conference Room.


37


the results.


The bill is passed.

We will proceed to Rules Report No. 281 on page 15,

the Clerk will read.


281, Cusick, Tobacco, Titone. An act to authorize owners of

residential real property in high risk brush fire areas in the Borough of

Staten Island to cut and remove reeds from their property; and to

provide for the repeal of such provisions upon expiration thereof.


section.



record the vote.



the results.


The bill is passed.

Mr. Canestrari.

MR. CANESTRARI: Yes. We will now go to Rules

Report No. 154 on page 7, Ms. Millman. Rules Report No. 154.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: We will go to


38

Rules Report No. 154 on page 7, the Clerk will read.


154, Fuschillo-(Millman - 7898). An act to amend Chapter 549 of the

Laws of 1994, amending the Public Authorities Law relating to the

membership composition of the Metropolitan Transportation

Authority Board, in relation to extending the effectiveness of such

provisions.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: An explanation is

requested, Ms. Millman.

MS. MILLMAN: Certainly, Mr. Speaker. What this

bill does is gives the two non-voting members of the MTA Board,

which serve a rotating 18-month term, with the four alternating

non-voting members and this is to ensure that there is always one

subway and bus representative, a rider or somebody from labor, and

one commuter railroad rider or somebody from labor, a representative,

and that's simply what this bill does.


section.



record the vote.


Mr. Molinaro to explain his vote.

MR. MOLINARO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I and

many of us throughout the Hudson Valley have absolutely no


39

objection. In fact, the two non-voting members of the MTA have

been fairly aggressive and active in their commitment to their

constituencies, but it's the four-quarter voting members of the

Mid-Hudson Valley who have representation, four counties have

representation on the MTA, but currently still only get one-quarter of

a vote, not independent quarter votes, but one-quarter vote where the

four counties of the Hudson Valley who just recently saw the

imposition by this Legislature and the previous Governor of a payroll

tax that puts us as a competitive disadvantage that has been hurting

our municipalities, our businesses, our not-for-profits, those four

counties still don't get a vote on the MTA. We find it blatantly unfair

and we continue to ask this House, the Senate and for the MTA to

provide not only the necessary tax relief, but the adequate

representation on the MTA and for that reason, and that reason alone,

I'll be voting in the negative and urge my colleagues to do the same.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Molinaro in

the negative.

Ms. Millman to explain her vote .

MS. MILLMAN: Yes. I would like to point out to

my colleague that he makes a very valid point and if he's here next

year, next Session, if he were to be here next Session, I would

certainly enjoy the opportunity to correct that error. You're welcome.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Ms. Jaffee to

explain her vote.

MRS. JAFFEE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, too,


40

have concerns about the membership composition of the MTA and the

impact on the communities in Rockland County and Westchester and

the other communities that have a one-quarter vote on the MTA

Board. That doesn't give us an opportunity to have much of a voice at

all and to have any impact in terms of the decision-making, and given

that recently the MTA has imposed the mobility tax in these areas

which has severely impacted our local businesses, our not-for-profit

organizations at this very difficult time in our economic climate, I

think it is something that we need to move forward and resolve and

change. We need a stronger voice on that Board and we need to

remove that MTA tax from our communities. Thank you very much,

Mr. Speaker.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Zebrowski to

explain his vote.

MR. ZEBROWSKI: Thank you Mr. Speaker. A

business opened up this morning in Rockland County which had none

of its employees come over on any train or any subway, had none of

its customers come over on any train or subway and, yet, it's paying

the same exact mobility tax as a business in the middle of Manhattan

which probably saw much of its customers and much of its employees

use that mass transit system.

Now, dealing with this bill today, although the

specifics of it I don't necessarily have a problem with, it can only be

concluded that part of the problem is that those counties, Rockland

County, which I represent included, do not have enough


41

representation on that board in order to fix that disparity and fix which

has become an onerous tax burden on my residents in Rockland

County. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I'll be voting negative.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Zebrowski in

the negative.

Mr. Cahill to explain his vote.

MR. CAHILL: Mr. Speaker, thank you. To explain

my vote. While many of my colleagues are concerned about having

under representation on the MTA Board for their constituents who

enjoy some service from the MTA, I am in the unfortunate position of

representing constituents who get no service from the MTA, are still

forced to pay MTA taxes and have very limited representation on the

Board. The time is long over due that we reform the MTA Board to

give fair representation to those people who are being serviced and

also fair assessment of taxes in proportion to the services that are

given to those residents. I withdraw my request and vote in the

negative.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Cahill in the

negative.

Mr. Katz to explain his vote.

MR. KATZ: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This truly,

our situation in the Hudson Valley, represents exactly what began the

American Revolution, and that is taxation without -- it's not without

representation, but is with underrepresentation. At this point, I can

say, I think, with reasonable surety that we Democrats and


42

Republicans stand together for the Hudson Valley to ask for not only

to be represented appropriately on the MTA Board, but to repeal the

MTA payroll tax. The MTA payroll tax repeal was passed in the

Senate yesterday. We have a bill in the Assembly that we're waiting

to see the light of day on that is being sponsored by our fellow

brethren Democrats and we are urging that that bill be brought to the

floor so that we can debate and vote on it at the earliest possible

convenience. Thank you very much.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Latimer to

explain his vote.

MR. LATIMER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I intend

to vote yes on this bill, but I also intend to echo the concerns of my

colleagues from Putnam, Dutchess, Orange and Rockland Counties

and, I suspect more broadly, from Nassau and Suffolk Counties as

well. This particular provision is not the problem. This particular bill

is not the problem; however, there is a problem and those of us who

represent counties outside of New York City deal with this problem

every single day. This bill deserves support, but the problem that's

been expressed by my colleagues from Westchester County, from

Putnam County, from Rockland County, those who represent parts of

Dutchess, though they may live in Ulster, Mr. Speaker, this is a real

problem for many of us members in this room and we hope that we

will see legitimate discussion and legitimate resolution of that

problem.

I withdraw my request to speak. I will vote in the


43

positive on this issue, but I also want to stand behind the comments

expressed by my colleagues from Rockland, from Dutchess, from

Putnam, from Orange and elsewhere in the Hudson Valley.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Latimer in the

affirmative.

Mr. Vito Lopez to explain his vote.

MR. V. LOPEZ: I originally was going to vote yes,

but I'm not too clear on the representation of the Board. I know that

Brooklyn has 2.7 million people and when we have these Citywide

boards or Statewide regional boards, we really have almost no

representation. So, you know, if we look at what people are saying

from the Hudson Valley or from Dutchess County, it's outrageous.

But when you look at even New York City, when people think of New

York City, they think of it as Manhattan and I believe it's more than

Manhattan. And since we have an overwhelming number of people

that ride the MTA and we have the largest population probably

Statewide of any county and definitely in New York City, I believe I

have to change my vote, vote in the negative and find out what way

can we truly make this Board representative of all the people that it

represents, whether it's in an outlying county or, actually, in New

York City. Everyone is assuming here that New York City is fairly

represented; the City, in general, but not the local counties. So,

therefore, I'm changing my vote and voting in the negative. Thank

you.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Vito Lopez in


44

the negative.

Mr. Graf to explain his vote.

MR. GRAF: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'll be

voting no on this bill. There is legislation that has to come to the

floor. It's imperative that it comes to the floor of the Assembly

pertaining to the MTA tax. This is a parasitic tax. This is the tax that

keeps taking. The excuse is that the MTA cannot survive without this

tax is nonsense. This tax has only taken place for the last two years.

This has cost people their jobs, cost people their businesses and forced

a lot of people out of this State. It's killing Long Island and, for that

reason, anything with the MTA, until they address the waste and the

fraud and get rid of this tax, I will be voting no. Thank you.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Ra to explain

his vote.

MR. RA: While I commend the sponsor of this piece

of legislation for bringing this to the floor because I think it is

appropriate to have this type of representation on that Board from

labor and ridership, I, like many of my colleagues, want to , again, talk

about this MTA payroll tax. It's hurting our businesses locally in the

21st District and the other districts on Long Island. My constituents

are seeing a decrease in the trains available to them when they need to

commute places. Our local businesses, our local schools are paying

more and getting less and, for that reason, I think we really do need to

bring that legislation to the floor to repeal this tax. It passed the

Senate recently and I hope that we can see it in this House soon. I cast


45

my vote in the affirmative on this piece of legislation because I do

think it is important to have this representation, but I think that there's

much, much more work to do with regard to the MTA.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Ra in the

affirmative.

Ms. Rabbitt to explain her vote.

MRS. RABBITT: Thank you. On the bill. I join

with many of my colleagues throughout the Hudson Valley on a tax

that was so truly unfair to our constituents. The problem that we have

with the MTA is there clearly has not been an audit, a forensic audit

that had been promised to the taxpayers and until that audit is

completed, we will not be able determine fraud and waste. We can

stay here year after year and talk about it. Until the proof is here,

which we're demanding to see, we will be able to overturn that MTA

because the MTA right now is truly not running like a business. If

they were running like a business, we would not be in the position

year after year to keep bailing them out. Thank you.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Joel Miller to

explain his vote.

MR. J. MILLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I'll

add to what Assemblywoman Rabbitt just said. The impact of the

MTA tax is so severe that the only bill that's appropriate is to replace

the current members of the Board. In Dutchess County with our

quarter vote, the amount of tax raised through the MTA tax subsidizes

each rider to the tune of $36,000; $36,000 per rider. And when this


46

tax was imposed by the board that exists, it taxed public schools,

private schools, hospitals, nursing homes, every State building in the

area, American Legions, you name it. Anyone who hired anyone pays

this tax. And the reality is that the businesses in Dutchess County are

not employing people who travel on the MTA. There is not an

overwhelming flow of New York City residents to Dutchess County

for their jobs. Almost without rare exception, every project that the

MTA undertakes is over budget and beyond the time it was supposed

to be. So, the only appropriate bill is to get rid of this Board and get a

new one with better ideas and, as was pointed out, with some business

sense. But the fact that they can arrange a tax through this Body and

that's the consequences of that tax is shameful. This is an Authority

that can't live within a budget and has no way of being responsible.

So, I will be casting my vote in the negative rather

then in the aye because of the severity of what they have

accomplished. Thank you.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Ms. Nolan to

explain her vote.

MS. NOLAN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, my colleagues.

You know, nobody enjoys punching the MTA more then I do because

so often they're very frustrating to us as riders of the system and,

certainly, you know, often deserve the complaints that we have. But

that's not what this bill -- I mean, and it's always great to have an

opportunity, I'm sure members enjoy that and we want to do that when

we want to let our authorities know that we're dissatisfied. Having


47

said that, that's not what this bill is about. This bill is a way to correct

some of the things, the frustrations that we have with the Metropolitan

Transportation Authority. This bill is an attempt to give citizens a

voice at the table at the MTA. It's an attempt to give a legitimate

member, this is a non-paying position and we wish it was a voting

position. I would be happy with the bill if it was that, but it's an

attempt to put our voices as citizens at the table. And so, although I

understand my colleagues' frustration about various ways that we fund

the Agency, you know, this, in my opinion, is not the bill to sort of

take that out on. This is an effort, and I commend the sponsor, to

allow people to have a voice at the table. So, it's a good bill. I would

implore my colleagues to vote yes on the bill and I want to remind my

colleagues, even with all our frustrations at times that the MTA is the

world's preeminent people mover and that helps our environment and

that helps our economy and so, even with all the legitimate

frustrations, it's important that we fund appropriately the Authority

and it's certainly important, as this bill provides, to have citizens have

a voice at that Authority Board.

And so, you know, I understand the frustration, but to

take it out on a good bill, I think, is ill advised. And so, I would urge

my colleagues to vote yes. I'm very happy to be voting yes and I want

to commend the sponsor for the work that she's done on this issue. I

cast my vote, obviously, in the affirmative. Thank you.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Losquadro to

explain his vote.


48

MR. LOSQUADRO: Thank you. I will be voting

against this bill today for a number of reasons; first and foremost,

because I do not believe that it gives the residents of my district a

stronger voice. The residents of the 1st Assembly District are,

perhaps, the most egregiously affected by the MTA payroll tax. My

district happens to include Shelter Island and little tiny Fishers Island

in New York State, Suffolk County, Fishers Island, where you can't

even get there via transportation other than private boat from New

York State. You have to take a ferry to Connecticut and then back to

the island. These individuals pay the Metropolitan Transportation

Authority payroll tax. They would, obviously, like to see an

exemption because they have no access to that transportation. The

Greenport train station barely services anyone now. There's no

weekend service. That was removed. We're running one or two

strains a day at most. This bill, I do not believe, gives those most

impacted by this tax a stronger voice; therefore, I cast my vote in the

negative.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Losquadro in

the negative.

Mr. Lavine to explain his vote.

MR. LAVINE: Thanks, Mr. Speaker. I guess there's

no small amount of irony in the fact that Senator Fuschillo, who is

also against the MTA tax, is the sponsor of this bill in the Senate. Of

course, this bill has nothing to do whatsoever with the MTA tax. And

I guess, there's a small amount of irony as well in some of us standing


49

here and complaining about the MTA as it services Long Island and

complaining that it doesn't give us enough service. Now, either we

figure out some way to fund public transportation, which means we've

got to get both political parties dedicated to that proposition, and that

is certainly not the case in New York today, nor is it the case

nationally today.

So, what I'm going to do, because of the fact that this

has nothing to do with the MTA tax, is vote for this, but I vote for this

mindful of the fact that in my Long Island District, the Oyster Bay line

is the biggest single loss leader that the Metropolitan Transportation

Authority has, and the second biggest loss leader is the Port Jefferson

line which runs through my district. I don't want to be quite so

cavalier as to run the risk of losing those lines and further, further

decimating our economy on Long Island.

So, I will vote for this, mindful of the fact it's got

nothing to do with the tax and mindful of the fact that, as has been

said by my colleague from Queens, that the more good people we get

on this Transportation Authority Board the better off we will all be, so

I cast my vote in the affirmative.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Lavine in the

affirmative.

Mr. Saladino to explain his vote.

MR. SALADINO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, too,

take this opportunity to voice the tremendous concerns and the

frustration of the residents of Long Island who are forced to pay a tax


50

and not get a service for the tax that they pay. We all understand that

property taxes are unaffordable and have gotten out of control,

especially in the Long Island communities. To foist a tax on our

school districts, our towns, our counties, our villages and businesses,

hospitals, not-for-profit agencies that have no way to raise additional

funds to pay this tax is outrageous and it's wrong. This bill doesn't

deal directly with that MTA tax, but it gives us the opportunity to be

heard for the residents who have had it and now have an additional

fee, good people who live in Massapequa and Farmingdale and

Bethpage and Seaford and Wantaugh and Levittown, who have been

forced to pay more money and, in many cases, that money, that

additional property tax is pushing them right out of their homes.

People who work on the Long Island Railroad, we've

read the reports, over 90 percent of them going out on a disability.

They fixed it. It's down to 70 percent. Well, I'll tell you, the New

York Times reported the national average for transportation workers

going out on disability is 23 percent and far less in the private sector.

We've got to buckle down, fix this, get the assistance from the Federal

government, but force the MTA to operate efficiently and bring a lot

more respect to the taxpayers of Long Island. I'll be voting in the

affirmative because I realize that this bill does bring us more

representation, but we must come together, both Houses and both

parties, to fix this once and for all for the over-taxed people of this

State.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Castelli to


51

explain his vote.

MR. CASTELLI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I

listened with much interest to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle

and both sides of this particular issue. I have long been a staunch

critic of the MTA tax and the MTA in general for lack of oversight.

As we all know, it's one of these 700 public authorities that does not

have any legislative oversight and that still troubles me and I would

hope that there will be a time when we can address and correct that

issue. I certainly share everyone's frustration in the MTA tax, which I

think is unfair. I would like them to get their house in order. Myself,

Mr. Murray, a number of members here have called to them,

sometimes to no avail, to do so. Finally, we saw audits taking place.

But I'm not here to slam the MTA because of the

eight stations I have, their ridership has become greater, their services

have gotten better and, on certain circumstances, I think while we

would like to call a spade a spade, we should also give them credit

when they do a good job. But this is not about the MTA tax. I do

have a problem with this bill and I think the idea is commendable, but

I don't think it goes in a direction we need it to. Having said all that

we've heard here, I think this bill does not go far enough to give us a

voice there. While I agree with the scope and the legislative intent of

this, I don't think it goes far enough. It doesn't give us the voting

members that we need on this Board and for a host of those reasons, I

will be voting against it, but I do give them credit for improving their

services and I would urge my colleagues to vote against it until we see


52

stronger legislation to give us a greater voice. Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Castelli in the

negative.

Mr. Thiele to explain his vote.

MR. THIELE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just want

to explain my vote. I would rather be explaining my vote on Mr.

Latimer's bill that we phase out the MTA tax, but I may not get the

opportunity to do that this Session. I'm sure that this is a perfectly

innocuous bill. I really like the sponsor, but this is my opportunity to

talk about the MTA payroll tax and the MTA. If I thought this bill

would in any way make the MTA more accountable, more

transparent, more open, I would vote in favor of this bill. I don't have

any confidence in that at all, but what I would like to see is the

opportunity for this Legislative Body to have a say on the MTA

payroll tax in improving accountability and transparency of the MTA.

This is the only chance I get to express that and that's why I'm going to

vote no on this bill. Thank you.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Thiele in the

negative.

Mr. Murray to explain his vote.

MR. MURRAY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You

know, I've heard a couple of people mention that this is not about the

MTA -- this particular bill is not about the MTA payroll tax and

they're absolutely right. It doesn't specifically address the MTA


53

payroll tax. I'm not going to speak for everyone here; I'll speak for

myself. But what I'm saying here is this is a message vote. This is a

vote that says we're not pleased with the representation that we have

on the Board, we're not pleased with the fact that our voice,

apparently, is falling on deaf ears. There is a bill out there -- I'm a

proud co-sponsor of that bill -- that would phase out the MTA payroll

tax or, as I like to call it, the job-killing tax, because it is an unfair tax.

I believe it is unnecessary and I believe we do need to take steps to

phase that out and relieve that burden from the taxpayers.

Unfortunately, as I've said, it appears that our message is falling on

deaf ears when it comes to leadership allowing this bill to come to the

floor, to come to a vote so we can actually have our say on this

important issue.

I heard one member describe the MTA as the

"preeminent people mover." Well, I describe it as the preeminent

colossal failure when it comes to being efficient. They are extremely

inefficient; A, which is why we got into this mess in the first place. I

believe if we could tighten the belt, do things a little better, run it

more efficiently, then we wouldn't need the tax in the first place. I

believe if we could conduct the audit we would find that we didn't

need the tax in the first place.

But, again, back to this vote, I'm voting in the

negative because, well, one thing, I don't believe we're being

represented properly, but this is also a message vote to say that when

it comes to the MTA, we are not happy. We are not pleased and we


54

would like our voice to be heard once and for all on this issue. Thank

you.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Murray in the

negative.


the results.


The bill is passed.

Mr. Canestrari.

MR. CANESTRARI: Another Committee Meeting

before we go to Mr. Molinaro, who is leaving us shortly, thank God.

Mental Health Committee Meeting in the Speaker's Conference

Room. Mental Health Committee. Felix Ortiz is on his way. Mental

Health Committee Meeting. And now to my good friend across the

aisle, please.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Our good friend,

Mr. Canestrari.

Now for Mr. Molinaro, do you have an introduction?

MR. MOLINARO: From Mr. Canestrari's lips to

God's ears. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to interrupt the

proceedings. On behalf of Assemblyman Miller, I want to ask you, if

you wouldn't mind, if you would, to extend the cordialities of the

House, an introduction, a warm welcome to another class from the

Gayhead Elementary School in Hopewell Junction, New York. This

is the Wappingers Central School District and this is Mrs. Johnson's


55

fourth grade crass and they pay the MTA tax, so they were interested

in the last debate. So, if you wouldn't mind extending to them a warm

welcome, warmer than that which Mr. Canestrari extended to me, I

would be much, much appreciative. Thank you.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Is that the MTA

school bus tax, Mr. Molinaro? We want to thank you for being here.

I know that Mr. Miller's standing next to you and I think he's having a

great time because he had three buses from his district come up here

today and so he's very proud of the work that he does up here and he

wants all his constituents to know of the work that he does up here

because we're also very proud of the work he does here, also. So, on

behalf of Mr. Miller, the Speaker and all my colleagues, we salute

each and every one of you. We know that you're here for a short time.

Please enjoy the time that you're up here, enjoy the privileges of the

floor. Come back soon. Thank you for being with us here today.

(Applause)

Mr. Canestrari.

MR. CANESTRARI: Yes, continuing to work off the

debate list, we will go to Rules Report No. 273 on page 13 of the main

Calendar, Mr. Bill Magee.


to page 13, Rules Report No. 273, the Clerk will read.


Magee. An act to amend the Tax Law, in relation to tax agreements

with Indian nations or tribes.


56

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Magee, an

explanation is requested.

MR. MAGEE: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Actually, it's a

very simple explanation. This is legislation that would require any

agreement with Native American tribes to have legislative approval,

to be brought to the Legislature for their approval and that's it.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Hanna.

MR. HANNA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the

sponsor please yield?

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Magee?

MR. MAGEE: Yes.

MR. HANNA: Thank you, sir. Just a couple of

questions. The interest of the State of New York in this Federal court

litigation is currently represented by the New York State Attorney

General's Office; is that correct?

MR. MAGEE: Yes, that's correct.

MR. HANNA: And, in fact, the New York State

Attorney General's Office represents New York's interest in litigation

of various different natures; is that correct? For example, an action

brought against a company for DEC violations would be brought by

the New York State Attorney General's Office; is that correct?

MR. MAGEE: Yes.

MR. HANNA: And are you aware of any other

circumstances under which settlement agreements, proposed or agreed

to by the New York State Attorney General's Office, need to be


57

approved by this Body?

MR. MAGEE: Okay. There would be no agreements

that would circumvent State laws.

MR. HANNA: I'm sorry, sir, I couldn't hear you.

MR. MAGEE: There would be no agreements that

circumvent State laws. In other words, they would still be subject to

State laws.

MR. HANNA: Okay. But I guess my question -- let

me rephrase my question. If the counsel for both of the litigants enter

into settlement discussions to bring litigation to a conclusion and they

reach terms that they both agree on, is it not typical that it's

unnecessary -- isn't it true that it's usually unnecessary to come back

before this Body or the State Legislature to certify or ratify the terms

of that proposed settlement?

MR. MAGEE: If it's an enacted law, the Attorney

General can't, you know, make it go away without a lawsuit.

MR. HANNA: Thank you. On the bill, Mr. Speaker.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: On the bill.

MR. HANNA: I honestly just rise for the purpose of

asking a couple questions. I don't know that I'm actually for or against

this litigation. My only concern is that by requiring the parties to wait

so that this Body can certify or ratify any proposed settlement, it may

serve as a real obstacle to resolving this litigation, especially given the

fact that we're only in Session for about six months of the year. My

understanding is that that was not the case previously, that this


58

litigation would actually sort of change the rules that are in place now

as it has been explained to me previously. That may be a good thing

or a bad thing, but it should be noted that it is virtually unique, as far

as I understand it, and that changing the rules may require this

litigation to go on for a greater length of time which may not be in our

best interests. Thank you.


section.



record the vote.


Mr. Montesano to explain his vote.

MR. MONTESANO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise

on the occasion to support this piece of legislation because I

remember coming here a year-and-a half ago and the previous

administration, the Governor at that time, Governor Paterson,

circumvented this legislative Body to make an agreement with the

taxation for the cigarettes of the Indian reservation that was contrary

to what provisions were at that time. So, in order to avoid this

happening again, this bill would require that any stipulation or

settlements regarding the taxation of cigarettes on an Indian

reservation comes before this Body, so it can agree and pass upon

such settlement. So, therefore, I will be supporting this bill and I will

be voting in the affirmative. Thank you.


59




The bill is passed.

Mr. Canestrari.

MR. CANESTRARI: Yes, we'll now go to Rules

Report No. 207 off the debate list, page 8, Mr. Micah Kellner.


read.


207, Kellner, Abinanti. An act to amend the State Administrative

Procedure Act, in relation to ex parte communications.


requested, Mr. Kellner.

MR. KELLNER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The

purpose of this bill is to require any party involved in a proceeding

before the State Public Service Commission to be given written

notification of any ex parte communication with the PSC staff or

commissioners to other effective parties.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Conte.

MR. CONTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the

sponsor yield just for a couple of questions?

MR. KELLNER: Of course, Mr. Conte.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: The sponsor

yields.


60

MR. CONTE: Thank you. You're asking them to

have a written settlement or written communication. Who are they

suppose to file that with?

MR. KELLNER: They would file it with the PSC.

MR. CONTE: So, if you're a member of the PSC, a

staff person of the PSC and you have any conversation with a party

that is negotiating a settlement --

Mr. KELLNER: No, no it's not. It's not with

negotiating a settlement. It takes place outside of a settlement.

MR. CONTE: Okay. So, what type of

communications are we talking about here?

MR. KELLNER: Well, I will give you a perfect

example, Mr. Conte. I'm right now before the PSC with a case. There

was a landlord in my district who put forward -- he requested the PSC

to sub meter a building. The tenants in that building and the local

elected officials felt it was inappropriate. The PSC put forward an

order not disallowing them. The landlord has not met the

requirements of the order put forward by the PSC, but has been

back-channeling with staff in an attempt to hopefully get the PSC to

put forward another order to allow sub metering to go forward. I, of

course, am a party to this case as are the tenants in this building, but

they have no idea that the landlord has been speaking or his

representative, a former PSC Commissioner, has been speaking to

staff and other PSC Commissioners attempting to move this case

forward.


61

MR. CONTE: Okay. And so, if the people who

work for the PSC have to file this notice with themselves --

MR. KELLNER: No, no, it's not the people with the

PSC, it's the other party, Mr. Conte.

MR. CONTE: So, if that particular landlord --

MR. KELLNER: Yes, he would have to file. There

is a system for filing, there is a website, there's having to serve the

party with notification. This is all within the rules and regulations

currently under the PSC.

MR. CONTE: Okay. Thank you. On the bill.


MR. CONTE: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I think, you know,

a number of -- the Business Council, a number of telecommunication

associations here in New York State understand that there has to be

communications between people who are involved in disputes with

the PSC and the PSC staff and they feel that this is just going to slow

down the regulatory process, create an untended burden before the

PSC and feel that, you know, right now, it works well, and doesn't

need to be fixed. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Canestrari.


colleagues, another Committee Meeting. Ways and Means in the

Speaker's Conference Room. Mr. Denny Farrell awaits your arrival.

Ways and Means.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Jordan.


62

MR. JORDAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, will the

sponsor yield?

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Kellner.

MR. JORDAN: If you could clarify something for

me?

MR. KELLNER: Yes.

MR. JORDAN: Does this relate only to actions

pending, in terms of a complaint or a grievance filed by a consumer?

MR KELLNER: Any proceeding before the PSC.

MR. JORDAN: So, if I am a representative of

National Grid and I am seeking permission to change rates in a

particular area, I have to go to PSC, is that correct?

MR. KELLNER: Correct.

MR. JORDAN: And my request for that preliminary

discussion, what have you, who do I have to notify? I mean in the

case you reference with a landlord sub metering, that makes sense

because you have a captive group of tenants and it's known, but if it's

going to be a rate increase for Albany County, let's say, and I know

that's not how they do it, but let's say I'm the cable company and I

want to raise rates in Albany County alone or reduced rates, who do I

have to notify before I can talk to the PSC?

MR. KELLNER: You wouldn't have to notify

anyone beforehand, Mr. Jordan. It's afterwards, Mr. Jordan, it's after

the fact.

MR. JORDAN: Okay. So, now I submit my


63

application.

MR. KELLNER: You had to submit your application

beforehand, so you've submitted your application, you now have a

proceedings before the PSC.

MR. JORDAN: Yes.

MR. KELLNER: You now have a calendar. You

have submitted an application, you have an application number. If

there is another party on the other side, another aggrieved party on the

other side and you then have a conversation with a Commissioner or a

member of the staff, you have to summarize who you had that

conversation with, what was said in that conversation and serve it

upon the other aggrieved party in this case.

MR. JORDAN: But this wouldn't apply then to

preliminary discussions?

Mr. KELLNER: Absolutely not, Mr. Jordan.

MR. JORDAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank

you.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Kellner on

the bill.

MR. KELLNER: I just want to say, this does not

prohibit ex parte communication. This is about openness and

transparency. We're dealing with public utilities that affect all of our

lives here and when people have major discussions with the people

who are going to make those decisions, that should be out in the open.

And just filing a summary of what was said and who was spoken to is


64

not asking too much so that the people of the State of New York can

know what is going on at their Public Service Commission. I would

hope that people would give a yes vote on this bill.


section.



record the vote.



the results.


The bill is passed.

Mr. Canestrari.

MR. CANESTRARI: Yes, sir. Continuing to work

off the debate list, Calendar No. 491, page 39, Mr. Moya, please. It's

Moya day in the State Assembly.


to page 39, Calendar No. 491, the Clerk will read.

THE CLERK: Bill No. 7765-A, Calendar No. 491,

Moya, Cahill, Englebright Hevesi. An act to amend the Public

Service Law, in relation to net energy metering standards for

non-residential customers.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Moya, an



65

MR. MOYA: Yes, Mr. Speaker. This legislation

would add fuel cells to the technologies eligible for non-residential net

metering.


section.



record the vote.



the results.


The bill is passed.

Mr. Canestrari.

MR. CANESTRARI: Mr. Speaker, we will now go

to Rules Report No. 271 on Calendar No. 82, page 13, Ms. Jaffee,

please. Calendar No. 271.


to Calendar No. 271, the Clerk will read.


271, Jaffee, Ortiz, P. Rivera, N. Rivera, Dinowitz, Camara,

Gabryszak, Weprin, Linton. An act to amend the Public Health Law,

in relation to prohibiting smoking on waiting and platform areas of

railroad stations operated by the Metropolitan Transportation

Authority or its subsidiaries.


66


requested, Ms. Jaffee.

MRS. JAFFEE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The

purpose of this bill would amend the Public Health Law to prohibit

smoking on all outdoor areas of ticketing, boarding or platform areas

of all Metropolitan Transportation Authority train stations which

includes Metro-North and Long Island Railroad.



sponsor yield for a question?

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Ms. Jaffee.

MS. JAFFEE: Certainly.

MR. CONTE: Yes, I was just wondering if you can

explain to me specifically the areas of -- the outdoor areas where

you're trying to prohibit this?

MRS. JAFFEE: These would be areas in the

ticketing areas, the boarding areas and the platform areas of the MTA

train stations. And I just want to note that the MTA is in support of

this legislation. They have indicated that they have received

enormous complaints about exposure to the secondhand smoking from

the consumers and lingering odors of smoke on their clothing. They

also feel that it promotes both customer safety and service reliability

because sometimes they have customers they observe standing over

the gap between the train car and the platform in order to continue

smoking and this creates a hazard. They also feel that customers


67

throw cigarette and cigar butts on the track bed causing unsightly litter

problems there, so the MTA supports it and, of course, the American

Lung Association supports this legislation.

MR. CONTE: Okay. So, specifically, other than the

parking lot, everywhere within a MTA or a Long Island Railroad or

Metro-North train station will be non-smoking?

MRS. JAFFEE: Ticketing, boarding and platform

areas.

MR. CONTE: Thank you. On the bill, Mr. Speaker.


MR. CONTE: I believe this is the first time that this

particular House is going to ban smoking outdoors in areas here in

New York State. I voted for the Clean Indoor Air Act a number of

years ago, mainly because there were workers who worked within

bars and restaurants that were forced, because of their employment, to

inhale secondhand smoking. Right now, we are saying with this bill

that even if you're outside in the open air, even if you don't have a

reason to be at that particular point because of your employment, that

we are going to be ban smoking. I just feel, individually, that this

begins the slippery slope of -- because we have seen bills in this

House go before committees that are going to ban smoking in cars,

personnel automobiles, that is going to bank smoking in parks where,

you know, beaches and parks, which is done New York City, but if

you think of the vast outdoor areas that we have here in New York

State to ban them in parks such as the Catskills, the Adirondacks, even


68

areas in Long Island, beaches and parks where people go and enjoy

sitting around a campsite and smoking a cigar or a cigarette, this

House is looking to ban it. So, I believe this is a slippery slope as we

move forward. You know, I don't know how it's going to be enforced

but, again, I just feel uncomfortable that we are banning smoking in

outdoor areas where the issue of secondhand smoke, I believe,

non-existent, never has been, at least on outdoor air smoking, never

has been scientifically proven that it causes anybody any problems

because you can move upwind or downwind or move away are the

things that you can do. So for that reason, I'm personally going be

voting against this legislation.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Katz.

MR. KATZ: I do not smoke and I just find it ironic

at this point, given the fact that so much of the taxation on the

cigarettes is important, vital to New York City and to New York State.

I wonder, you know, what would happen to our finances right now if

every one of these bans came into effect and, in effect, we basically

stopped the sale of cigarettes. The taxation that we derive from that is

very important to the economy of the State.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Ms. Jaffee.

MRS. JAFFEE: I wanted to know if Mr. Katz would

yield to a question?

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: We can't clear

you clearly, Ms. Jaffee.

MR. KATZ: I'm sorry, that was on the bill.


69

MRS. JAFFEE: I wanted to know if Mr. Katz would

yield for a question?

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Katz, will you

yield to a question?

MR. KATZ: Certainly.

MRS. JAFFEE: Mr. Katz, you're on your way to

work, it's a crowded train station, a platform. In New York City, if

you worked New York City, you would already have the opportunity

to be on a platform without anybody smoking because in New York

City they have outlawed smoking, prohibited smoking on train

platforms. If you lived in New Jersey, Mr. Katz, you would be able to

be on that crowded train platform also without anybody standing near

you smoking because in New Jersey, Metro-North trains, when you

travel, it is prohibited to have smoking on the platform, but if you're

on Long Island Railroad or outside of New York City on Metro-North,

you would be standing on a crowded, very crowded train platform at

rush hour in the morning and there would be somebody standing to

your right smoking a cigar, somebody standing to your left and,

perhaps, in back of you smoking cigarettes. Would that be a

comfortable moment in your life, Mr. Katz? And if you had asthma,

Mr. Katz, would that be a moment where, perhaps, you would start to

have difficulty breathing? And that's what this is about. So, I

wondered your response to that kind of scenario.

MR. KATZ: I have been on crowded trains in New

York City. I lived in New Jersey. I've been on crowded tracks there


70

too. I would then, as crowded as it might be, I would move because

we're outside and as, Mr. Conte stated, I would go downwind or

upwind, I would be able to move. I've never been -- believe me, I

know how crowded they get. You can move out of the way. As I

said, once again, be careful of what you wish for because I want to see

how the finances of this State go if you, indeed, you end up nixing

people buying cigarettes, that's the direction we're headed in. Believe

me, I don't smoke. I don't like smoke, but I do believe in people's

right to do it in places where it is safe such as outdoors. We do have

the right, even in a crowded train station, to move; that's our right, to

move out of the way. We can do that.

MRS. JAFFEE: On a crowded platform when you're

trying to get on a train --

MR. KATZ: Yes, even on a crowded platform. I've

been there. I've been there on crowded platforms. I've been by people

who smoked and you know what I did? I moved out of the way.

MRS. JAFFEE: The cost of cigarettes and the loss of

that compared to the cost of what medical expenses would be in New

York State if we had many, many people stop smoking, if we

prevented opportunities to be exposed to that kind of asthma attacks,

we would save an enormous amount of money in New York State and

throughout this county if smoking were ended and less and less people

smoked. So, in the long run, it would actually save us a great deal of

money if we didn't sell any cigarettes.

MR. KATZ: So, why don't you have a bill to


71

eliminate they altogether?

MRS. JAFFEE: I'm sorry, I didn't hear you.

MR. KATZ: Why don't you have a bill to eliminate

them altogether?

MRS. JAFFEE: Well, because I'm not sure if that it

would pass this House at all, Mr. Katz, but perhaps we should discuss

eliminating smoking and trying to find every way possible that we can

protect the health of our communities.

MR. KATZ: You don't think it's enough that on

every pack it says that cigarettes will kill you? It's not enough? You

want to completely eliminate any individual freedom on something

like this. It's not enough that an adult can read a package and say,

Wow, this is really bad, I better not do this. Because you certainly

have enough warnings on the package. My point is and, as I said, I

don't smoke, but to eliminate your personal freedoms in the outdoors?

As I said, I've been there. I'm able to move. For the people who can't

move, well, that might be another situation and that might be valid,

but I have been on crowded platforms. I have been able to move out

of harm's way, as such, and I think that this bill is restrictive on that

level.

MRS. JAFFEE: Well, I'm not sure that I would be

the one wanting to move. I would prefer to have somebody not smoke

and the truth is, that imposes upon my freedom and my health and I

believe that is something that many of our commuters feel very

strongly about and they have expressed that to the MTA and,


72

certainly, to our communities.

MR. KATZ: As I have said, let's find alternate

revenue sources for the taxation of cigarettes and then I would

certainly be in agreement with you.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Joel Miller.

MR. J. MILLER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Colleagues

around Mr. Miller, could we provide some attention.

MR. J. MILLER: I could not agree with the sponsor

more and I find the arguments against this to be somewhat specious.

The idea when we know for a fact, as she pointed out, that the health

care costs are far greater than the tax we get is absolutely true. The

fact that we talk about the health hazard of cigarettes and we depend

on a tax to run the State would be ridiculous and I don't believe there's

a person in this room that hasn't walked out of a restaurant, out of the

Alfred E. Smith Building into to what smells like an astray. Yes, the

smoke is there, it's concentrated and it is horrible, and I will point out

that when you talk about it's your right. Well, yeah, it used to be the

right for people to smoke and shove their cigarette in your face and

have the stuff drift up and slowly we've eliminated that. Let's not ask

the person who is being abused to move. Let's ask the smoker to get

off the train, get off the platform and go home.

You know, at this point, there's not a person I see

who is young, who starts smoking where I don't see the big bubble

over their head with the arrow pointing down saying, "idiot." They


73

are idiots. They are stupid. They are beyond belief after everything

that has been discussed, they start smoking. You know, Einstein said,

there's only two things that are infinite, the universe and stupidity.

And then he said he wasn't sure about the universe. It doesn't say this

package will kill. In Europe, the package says it will kill. That's what

it says in Europe. In bold print there's only two words or three words

on the package. Here we have the, whatever they call them, the

Surgeon General says this that and the next thing. Do you know that

after the Surgeon General issued his report and it was put on

cigarettes, the Federal government, when we had the fuel shortage, set

aside an additional amount of fuel so that the tobacco crop could be

harvested. So much for the Surgeon General and what he said on a

pack of cigarettes, and that was put on and no one believed it until the

settlements in court.

Frankly, we have any number of bills, the seat belt

laws, the alcohol and drinking, the change of driving which says to

people you're too stupid to protect yourself and we will protect you.

And frankly, you know, the idea that we should allow smoking so we

could pay for things and that the smoker -- literally what I have heard

is the smoker have more rights than other people. The person causing

death, heart attacks, lung cancer has more right then someone standing

next to him. That's ridiculous. And, yes, I would ban cigarettes in

New York State except for the fact we already know that they are

smuggled in in the trunks of cars, people buy them on the Internet.

We already learned from prohibition it's not necessarily a good thing


74

when you ban something which is the drug of choice. Alcohol is the

drug of choice. It's not any better or worse than marijuana or anything

else.

So, yeah, we've demonstrated a concern amount of

stupidity ourselves over the years, but we are changing go that with

each one of the anti-smoking bills we're changing it and in the long

run we will save lives, we will save misery, we will save heartbreak

on the part of families and the idea of move away -- there's any

number of disgusting things that people might do, the response is not

to have everyone move away. The response is to eliminate the person

who is doing it.

So, once again, I think the sponsor is absolutely right

and I think if you think about you're families, if you think about

yourself, if you think about health care costs, if you think about people

standing on train tracks, not train tracks but train platforms, you must

vote for this bill. Thank you.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Dinowitz.

MR. DINOWITZ: I just want to thank Ellen for

sponsoring this bill. You know, in New York City, as you know, you

can't do that. You can't smoke in the subways. So we don't have the

problem of people blowing smoke in our face, but if I were on a

platform in a railroad station, I don't want to have to tell somebody

else that they can't smoke. Why should the onus be on me? They

shouldn't do it, it's a disgusting habit and, by the way, where do they

put their cigarette butts once they're done with it? I'm sure they don't


75

put it in their pockets. I'm sure that they don't walk somewhere to put

it in an ashtray. They throw it on the ground or they throw it on the

tracks because people who smoke very often tend to also be people

who throw things on the ground. So they also filthy up the railroad

platforms in addition to infringing on other people's rights.

It should not have to be up to people who want to

remain healthy to ask other people to stop making them unhealthy.

The fact that it's outdoors does not change the fact that if you're near

somebody who is smoking you can still breathe in the smoke. So it's a

disgusting habit, it's a filthy habit and you're bothering other people.

If you want to smoke, go home and go in your bathroom or something

and smoke, but don't do it near other people. You can go in your

kitchen, just don't do it near a window where it's going to go into

somebody else's apartment, like my neighbor. But also, if we're going

to be a State that has to depend upon the revenue from a terrible

product in order to balance our budget then we're in pretty bad shape,

but we don't really do that because I think we all understand that to

whatever extent we get revenue from the fools who spend $10 or more

on a pack of cigarettes that the health costs that they cause the rest of

us to have to pay far outweighs that and the health costs are enormous.

If people weren't smoking, we would not get that tax revenue, but we

would not also have to absorb the health costs, so I think it would be a

big money saver if more people stopped smoking.

So I think Ellen's bill -- and I hope it is a slippery

slope, quite honestly, because I think the more we are able to restrict


76

smoking the more there'll be additional people who will stop smoking.

It's true that there are warning on the cigarette pack and it's very good

that those warning are on there, but the truth is, people who smoke, by

and large, are addicts, you can sort of say drug addicts but let's not call

it drugs because people will get offended, but that's what they are. If

you had warnings on a bag of heroin, I have a funny feeling most

people would still take the heroin. There's really very little difference

except cigarettes are legal. So, when we're talking about personal

freedom, personal freedom is important but not when that freedom

infringes upon other people's rights, including the right to stay healthy.

That's where your personal freedom ends and where other people's

rights begin. So, I would strongly urge people here to vote yes on this

excellent bill. Thank you.


MR. CANESTRARI: I'm getting conflicting signals

here from counsel. Heather, can you please --

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Who's the boss,

Mr. Canestrari?

MR. CANESTRARI: We all know that. Don't

embarrass me in public. Ready? Immediate meeting of the Rules

Committee. That's what I thought all along, you know. The Speaker

will be available in the Speaker's Conference Room.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Rules Committee

Meeting.

Ms. Naomi Rivera.


77

MS. N. RIVERA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well,

following Mr. Miller and Mr. Dinowitz, I think they shared my

argument, but you can't turn off the "speak" button here, so I'm going

to speak. I just wanted to commend the sponsor as well. And I heard

the argument that we have passed legislation about smoking in cars

and I believe that legislation had to do with smoking in cars to protect

the welfare of children that do not have a choice. They can't tell their

parents, stop smoking or let me out of the car. And clearly, the

warning labels on cigarettes are not enough because people are still

smoking and if you speak with folks they will tell you, yeah, it's a bad

habit, it's one I've had forever. There is an addiction attached to it and

then there are cultural reasons why people will smoke cigars, but they

don't have to do that on subway stations where they're subjecting

non-smokers to smoke.

The question was asked, if we eliminated smoking

altogether, how would that affect are economy? Well, the cost of

health care to our State will go down dramatically. Those that suffer

from emphysema, asthma and cancer, what they cost the State in

medicine, in surgeries, we could see that cost go down. We would see

that the death rates would go down and I just, once again, want to

commend the sponsor for this important piece of legislation. Thank

you.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Graf.

MR. GRAF: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. One of the

things I want to clarify is when we're talking about -- on the bill.


78

When we're talking about the subways, we're talking about tunnels.

Many of the subway platforms are in tunnels. They're confined areas.

The other thing is, I believe we're going down a slippery slope here.

Your perfume, when you walk near me I may get an asthma attack, so

let's ban perfume in all outdoor areas. Your cologne may offend me.

Let's ban cologne. Now let's talk about the cost. Let's talk about

drinking in our parks, drinking in our ball fields. People have medical

problems associated with drinking. Let's ban drinking everywhere in

the State of New York, any alcohol. So, where are we going with

this? We're going to ban alcohol, we're going to ban perfume. Now,

you come up here and people in the subways -- and I've been in the

subways, excuse me, you haven't taken a shower in a week. I don't

want the bugs jumping on me; therefore, you're not allowed in the

subway. Enough is enough, people. Okay. Stop regulating behavior

constantly. That's why New York State is referred to as "the nanny

State." We're here to take care of everybody. We don't want personal

choice in New York State. We want to control everything you do. I

will be voting no on this bill. You're not my mother, you're my

Legislator. Stop trying to dictate my life to me.

ACTING SPEAKER N. RIVERA: Ms. Meng.

MS. MENG: I, too, want to thank and commend the

sponsor of this important legislation. I understand the arguments

about people's personal freedoms, but unlike perfume, unlike alcohol,

unlike bugs that may stem from someone not taking a shower, it

doesn't affect and harm another person's health and possibly ultimately


79

cause death.

The platforms in New York City, I live along the Port

Washington line. Most of the platforms in Queens aren't even long

enough to span the length of an entire train, a Long Island Railroad

train; therefore, we only have access to two or three doors that open,

so even if I wanted to move, let's say, during rush hour as I'm trying to

get to work, even if I wanted to move, there's no place to move

because the entire platform is filled with people. If I happened to be

on the platform with my two kids, with my stroller and a diaper bag or

two that's practically bigger than one of my kids, it's really

inconvenient for me to just move even if there was room to move. So,

while I understand these concerns, in New York City especially it's

not really practical for someone to just move. I think this is a bill that

will ultimately save lives, so I urge a yes vote on this bill.

ACTING SPEAKER N. RIVERA: Ms. Malliotakis.

MS. MALLIOTAKIS: Thank you very much. On

the bill. You know, listening to this debate back and forth, I'm not a

smoker. I don't like cigarettes. I hate smoking. When they used to be

able to smoke in clubs in New York City, I never went because I

couldn't breathe. I have asthma as well. However, I believe that, you

know, enough is enough, that we're going too far with legislating

people's lives.

You know, this is an infringement on people's rights.

If I want to be able to smoke and I suffer the consequences as a result

of it, it's my period prerogative. That's what America is. We should


80

be able to do what we want and if, you know, we're going to suffer the

results, we're going to suffer the results. You know, I find it

interesting in this debate about outlawing cigarettes altogether. Yeah,

possibly it's a bill that they may bring forth one day, we don't know if

it would pass now, but you know, the same people who want to

outlaw cigarettes are the same people who want to legalize marijuana,

and I think it's absolutely absurd and ridiculous, and I agree with my

colleague, Mr. Graf, that, you know, we are become a nanny State.

These pieces of legislation are not ones that we should be pushing on

the people of New York State State. So with that said, I will be voting

in the negative. I urge my colleagues to do the same. Thank you very

much.

ACTING SPEAKER N. RIVERA: Mr. DenDekker.

MR. DENDEKKER: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I

personally am adamantly against restricting the rights of a smoker to

be able to go out and smoke simply from a safety precaution of our

transportation system. This is a good bill. I think it's absurd in this

day and age where there are people who want to harm our country and

our transportation system, that we want to allow someone to be able to

have fire and lit cigarettes near our transportation system and be able

to throw these items on to a track nonchalantly, possibly even by error

throwing a cigarette on the track and causing a track fire. This is

equipment that's paid for with our money, our taxpayer money. From

simply a transportation safety standpoint, this is a good piece of

legislation. I don't agree that we should be limiting smokers being


81

able to smoke in other areas like in the City of New York where we

have outlawed it in New York City parks, I think that is absolutely

absurd. But in this particular instance I do support it and I will be

voting in the affirmative.

ACTING SPEAKER N. RIVERA: Mr. Curran.

MR. CURRAN: Thank you, Ms. Speaker. Will the

sponsor yield for a question?

ACTING SPEAKER N. RIVERA: Ms. Jaffe, would

you yield?

MRS. JAFFEE: Yes.

ACTING SPEAKER N. RIVERA: The sponsor

yields.

MR. CURRAN: Mrs. Jaffee, did you ever consider

including in this bill designating certain areas within the platform area

for smoking?

MRS. JAFFEE: I'm sorry, could you speak a little --

MR. CURRAN: Did you ever consider in this bill

designating certain areas on platforms for smoking?

MRS. JAFFEE: No. The platform area, when you go

onto a platform area and you're awaiting a train, you're waiting go to

go into doors of the train, so that wouldn't be practical to suggest that

there could be a place on the platform. However, there are waiting

areas and other areas outside of that that are possible for smokers, near

the parking lots. Those are areas that they could smoke, but on the

platform when people are crowded into platform and attempting to


82

wait for the train to come with children sometimes but, generally,

there would not be spaces in the platform that would be convenient or

available for those who wish to smoke, and it's so crowded very often

that there really is not enough space to be able to do that.

MR. CURRAN: I respectfully disagree with you. On

the platforms that I've seen, there is plenty of area in which designated

areas for individuals who want to smoke can actually avail themselves

of that opportunity and segregate them from people who don't want to

smoke.

Ms. Speaker, on the bill. I believe in reviewing and

listening to all of the arguments today, it's clear that this is just one

step in a very slippery slope to eventually do away with the ability for

people to smoke here in the State and, unfortunately, I have never

smoked. I'm not a smoker and I agreed with a lot of the people's

opinions that is an unhealthy activity but with that, it is an activity that

people can freely engage in. There was recently this week a report

that was issued, it was based upon a study of Georgia Mason

University which showed that New York State was the State with the

least personal freedoms. That it was deemed the nanny State of all

states here in the United States. This is yet one other bill that is going

to cement that reputation here in the United States. For that reason,

Ms. Speaker, I'm going to encourage all my colleagues to vote in the

negative. Thank you.

ACTING SPEAKER N. RIVERA: Read the last

section.


83




record the vote.



MR. LAVINE: I want to commend the sponsor. As

someone who watched his parents who were both smokers die

disgusting deaths of emphysema and watched his in-laws who were

smokers die of esophogeal cancer and heart disease, I just wanted to

comment on a study coming out of George Mason University that

seems to find fault with the states that most of us could live in, that's

New York, California and New Jersey, as being the states that the

authors of the study called the states with the least amount of personal

freedom. We might all be interested to note that it's the land of the

rugged individualists, the land of the Marlboro man that ranks number

one in their study. The most favorable state to them is South Dakota.

Now, I've lived in some of the wide-open expanses of the midwest and

while they could be starkly beautiful at times, I prefer to stay right

here in New York. I'm voting in the affirmative. I think this is a great

bill and I want to commend the sponsor.

ACTING SPEAKER N. RIVERA: Mr. Raia to

explain his vote.

MR. RAIA: Yes, thank you, Madam Speaker, I rise

to explain my vote. Just to point out a few facts and the fact of the


84

matter is, we're expecting the Parks Department, the park rangers to

enforce this prohibition on smoking. The last time I looked, in fact,

every time I've looked and every time I've ridden a train, I don't recall

ever seeing a park ranger at a train station. So, the fact that we're

relying on individual citizens to enforce this ban, quite honestly, could

expose them to potential harm, because I've met some smokers before

that are pretty angry in the morning. When you ask them to put their

cigarette out, I don't know how they're going to react. So, I would

hate to be sitting here in a year or so -- well, if this bill ever becomes

law, and read in the newspaper that somebody was stabbed or shot

because they asked another individual to put out their cigarette. If

we're going to pass laws that ban doing a certain thing, in this case

smoking, the least we can do is give it teeth to make it stick. I vote in

the negative.

ACTING SPEAKER N. RIVERA: Mr. Raia in the

negative.

Mr. Zebrowski to explain his vote.

MR. ZEBROWSKI: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I

rise to commend the sponsor and express my support for this bill.

You know, this isn't such a novel concept. Over the past several

years, as the science has gotten more and more concrete about the ill

health effects of not just smoking, but of secondhand smoke, we've

seen a host of changes. If you go to any type of professional sports

game, whether it's in Yankee Stadium or the new City Field, I guess

the new Meadowland stadium - I was going to say Giants Stadium -


85

you can no longer smoke there; those are outside facilities. However,

those are facilities where people are forced to congregate together for

what they're doing, whether it's watching a sporting event or here, as

we talk about this, waiting for a train. So, I don't think it's a novel

concept. What I think you've seen is that it does have ill health effects

that people have tried to stay away from secondhand smoke. So this is

a sound piece of legislation that makes sense where people have to

congregate that those people that smoke do so not next to those who

don't smoke, not in a private area, but do so out in the parking lot or

on their way to the train station. I don't think this makes New York

more of a nanny State. I think it more protects the health of people.

So for that reason, Madam Speaker, I will be voting in the affirmative.

ACTING SPEAKER N. RIVERA: Mr. Zebrowski in

the affirmative.

Mr. Molinaro for an introduction.

MR. MOLINARO: Thank you, Madam Speaker, as

we wait on these votes, for allowing me interrupt the wait with

another class from Gayhead Elementary School in the Wappingers

Central School District. Above you is Mrs. Cox and Mr. Paglia's

class, is that right? Paglia's class, that's nice, I go it. They're fourth

graders from Gayhead Elementary in Hopewell Junction in Dutchess,

New York. If you would, on behalf of myself and Assemblyman

Miller, extend to them the cordialities of the House and welcome them

as they observe the proceedings today. Thank you, Madam Speaker.

ACTING SPEAKER N. RIVERA: On behalf Mr.


86

Miller, Mr. Molinaro, the Speaker and all the members of the House,

we'd like to well this wonderful group of fourth graders to our

Chamber. We'd like to extend the privileges of the floor and hope you

enjoy the proceedings. Thank you for being with us.

(Applause)

Mr. Abinanti to explain his vote.

MR. ABINANTI: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I

want to commend the sponsor of this legislation for moving us

forward to a more healthy environment for our commuters and echo

what the previous speaker said about this not being a novel concept.

When Westchester County passed its legislation to ban workplace

smoking, we included certain outdoor areas that were frequented by

the public and frequented by a large number of employees because we

recognized that smoke accumulates not only indoors but it confined

spaces outdoors as well. The Westchester law prohibits smoking in

outdoor cafes and in areas where workers work outdoors, but are in

confined spaces. So, we recognized that in confined spaces, whether

they were outdoors or indoors, the smoke would accumulate and have

the negative impact of secondhand smoke on those who are not, in

fact, smoking. So, I commend the sponsor for bringing us forward to

a healthier environment for our commuters who should have not to

move if someone else is smoking and, therefore, I vote in the

affirmative.

ACTING SPEAKER N. RIVERA: Mr. Abinanti in

the affirmative.


87

Mr. Joel Miller to explain his vote.

MR. J. MILLER: Thank you, Madam Speaker.

Many of us were here when Member Hooker stood up, when we did

our first anti-smoking bill, and he said, "My father smoked. My father

died of lung cancer, but he died free." If any of you think that makes

sense you can vote no, but for the rest of us, it didn't impress me at all

and I sort of -- you know, if it's worth dying for something, it's

certainly worth living for it and I would prefer life, so, I'm voting in

the affirmative, Madam Speaker.

ACTING SPEAKER N. RIVERA: Are there any



The bill is passed.

Mr. Canestrari.

MR. CANESTRARI: Ms. Speaker, the next two,

Rules Report No. 142 on page 6, Ms. Paulin, for a change, and then

Rules Report No. 187, page 8, Abinanti. Rules Report Nos. 142 and

187, please.

ACTING SPEAKER N. RIVERA: The Clerk will

read.


Paulin, Jaffee, P. Rivera, Scarborough, Millman, Roberts, Lavine,

Robinson, Galef, Titone, Abinanti, Hooper, Spano. An act to amend

the Family Court Act and the Social Services Law, in relation to

notice of indicated reports of child maltreatment and changes of


88

placement in child protective and voluntary foster care placement and

review proceedings; and to repeal certain provisions of the Family

Court Act, in relation to technical changes thereto.

ACTING SPEAKER N. RIVERA: An explanation

has been requested, Ms. Paulin.

MS. PAULIN: What this bill will do is when there's

a foster care placement and that's changed, this bill will require that

notice be given to the parents of that child and the attorney for that

child within ten days.

ACTING SPEAKER N. RIVERA: Colleagues, can

we have a little quite please in the Chamber.

Mr. Conte.

MR. CONTE: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Will the

sponsor just yield for just a quick question?

ACTING SPEAKER N. RIVERA: Will the sponsor

yield?

MS. PAULIN: Sure.

MR. CONTE: Yes, Governor Paterson vetoed, I

believe, a similar bill in 2010. Can you tell me if this legislation

meets some of the Governor's disapprovals?

MS. PAULIN: It does. That was not my bill;

however, I am familiar with the veto message. The veto message was

concerned about two elements. The first was that it was a requirement

on districts and would cost them money, and so the bill was amended

so it would allow for electronic notice and it would allow for notice


89

inside family court.

The other part of the veto message was that it

required districts to go back to court to seek approval for a change in

placement and we eliminated that. We modeled this bill -- firstly, it's

an OCA departmental, but the bill was modeled on one directive from

OCFS and one letter from OCFS saying that this is essentially best

practice. Following that veto, the Governor had said in that veto

message to OCFS we really applaud the goals of this bill, so please go

back and, you know, provide notice in a more reasonably

cost-effective way. And so those directives went out, but we're

finding inconsistency around the State in following those directives.

So what this bill does is it takes those directives and codifies them so

we'll have consistency around the State.


section.



record the vote.



the results.


The bill is passed.

We will proceed to page 8, Rules Report No. 187, the

Clerk will read.


90


Abinanti, Calhoun, Jaffee, Spano. An act to amend the Environmental

Conservation Law, in relation to prohibiting the taking of striped bass

from the Hudson River for commercial purposes; and providing for

the repeal of such provisions upon expirations thereof.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Abinanti, an


MR. ABINANTI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This bill

statutorily continues the current regulatory prohibition on the

commercial fishing of striped bass in the Hudson River. It would

extend the moratorium until April 1, 2015.



sponsor yield for a couple questions?

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Abinanti.

MR. ABINANTI: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. CONTE: Okay. I guess my first simple

question is, why?

MR. ABINANTI: There are three reasons. First,

we're concerned about the high level of PCBs in the fish and we want

to make sure that there's not general consumption of the fish without

the knowledge of the PCBs. If you allow commercial fishing, the fish

could be distributed anywhere in the country and people may not be

aware of its source. On the other hand, when it's recreationally

caught, the anglers understand the possible damage to their health if


91

they eat too many of them.

Secondly, we want to continue to encourage the

recreational industry along the Hudson River. If we allow for

commercial fishing, we could see a depletion of a very limited supply

of striped bass, they have a short season, there's a limited supply. We

want to encourage the recreation industry.

And thirdly, the commercial industry itself could be

hurt if we allowed commercial fishing because you would be mixing

in the Hudson River striped bass with the rest of the striped bass

caught around the country and that could contaminate the fish industry

and cause a lack of faith in the striped bass industry.

MR. CONTE: Okay. Currently, and I guess for the

last number of decades -- if the sponsor would continue to yield?

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Abinanti.

MR. ABINANTI: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. CONTE: Thank you. Currently, and for the last

number of decades, the DEC has closed the Hudson River for

commercial fishery, is that correct?

MR. ABINANTI: Yes, it is correct.

MR. CONTE: Okay. And so why are we taking out

of the hands the expertise of the Department of Environmental

Conservation which, you know, has been able to regulate this industry

for 20-plus years? Why are we now taking it into the hands of the

New York State Legislature and not leaving it to the experts within the

DEC?


92

MR. ABINANTI: Those of us who support this

legislation believe that this is a policy determination as opposed to a

determination that should be in the hands of the DEC. The policy

here is to favor the tourism and the recreational angler over the

commercial industry and that's an important policy determination

which we believe, for the reasons that I already stated, should be made

in favor of the recreation industry.

MR. CONTE: Okay. And in 2000 we had --

MR. ABINANTI: Mr. Conte, if I may, just one other

point.

MR. CONTE: Sure.

MR. ABINANTI: We're not really taking it away

from the DEC. This is a moratorium, so we're going to have to review

this again in four years and we'll look to the DEC for

recommendations and I tend to doubt there's going to be any change in

the status of the PCB levels in the fish over the next four years.

MR. CONTE: Well, here's my problem. You know,

11 years ago we passed a law, Chapter 29 of the Laws of 2000, asking

the Department of Environmental Conservation to appoint a

temporary advisory committee on the management of striped bass in

the Hudson River. They issued a report that included

recommendations, but absolutely reached no consensus on the

reopening of the fishery, so if you have DEC, which we had asked

them to do, looked at it and saw that there's no consensus about

reopening, why are we, again, taking it out of the hands of the DEC?


93

MR. ABINANTI: Well, because that group came to

no consensus doesn't mean that there aren't good policy reasons for us

to make the determination that we're suggesting here. Those of us

who support this legislation believe on a policy basis that we should

make this determination. If someone wants to propose that we set up

another group to study it again, I would support that. But in the

meantime, I think that we should make sure that the present policy

stays in effect and that we continue to support the recreation

fishermen.

MR. CONTE: Okay. Now, this would ban the

commercial fishery approximately from the George Washington

Bridge to the Federal Dam in Troy, is that correct?

MR. ABINANTI: That is correct. There's a

definition of the Hudson River in here.

MR. CONTE: All right. Now, it is my

understanding that -- and being a fisherman, that first of all, the DEC

allows commercial fishery below the George Washington Bridge into

the East River into Long Island Sound and the Atlantic Ocean, is that

correct?

MR. ABINANTI: I'm not familiar with that. I'm just

concerned with the stretch that's covered by this bill.

MR. CONTE: Well, I'm going to tell you they do

allow for the commercial fishery of striped bass in the Long Island

Sound. And if you would continue to yield, most of the striped bass,

they go up the Hudson River, I believe, to spawn, is that correct?


94

MR. ABINANTI: That's my understanding, yes.

MR. CONTE: Okay. And then they come back out

to the Long Island Sound and other parts of the area where we allow

commercial and recreational fishing to continue.

MR. ABINANTI: Correct.

MR. CONTE: Okay. My question then is, what is

the difference between a fish caught north of the George Washington

Bridge and a fish caught south of the George Washington Bridge in

terms of both recreational and commercial fishing?

MR. ABINANTI: Well, I can't talk to the health

effects, but from the point of view of encouraging recreational fishing,

we want to make sure that the sweeping methods that the commercial

industry uses does not wipe out the fish in the Hudson River because a

large industry, a recreational industry has built up all the way up and

down the Hudson River for the area that is controlled by this

legislation, and we want to encourage that. Outside of that area, I will

leave it to those of you who represent those areas to determine how

best to handle the fishing in those areas.

MR. CONTE: Thank you.

On the bill, Mr. Speaker.


MR. CONTE: Just very quickly. You know, this

Legislature is, once again, taking out of the hands of the experts in the

DEC. We have asked them to do it on numerous pieces of legislation,

over 25 to 30 pieces of legislation giving DEC the authority to


95

regulate the commercial, the recreational takings of a variety of fish

here in New York State. This one here, I believe, is just helping one

fishery over another fishery without any benefit for the fishermen and

fishing women on Long Island, who go out and try to catch striped

bass south of the George Washington Bridge.

You know a number of years ago, a number of groups

had been opposed to this piece of legislation because it's just not there,

there's no science to back it up. The sponsor wasn't able to mention

any study that was done. Specifically the study that was done in 2000,

they came back with absolutely no consensus of why we should ban

fishing north of the George Washington Bridge and not south of the

George Washington Bridge. So, for that and a variety of other

reasons, I'm going to be voting no on this legislation.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Thiele.

MR. THIELE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On the bill.


MR. THIELE: Mr. Speaker, this legislation really

contributes nothing new substantively to what the rules and what the

law is with regard to commercial fishing in the Hudson River. The

DEC, based on the current status of the science, prohibits commercial

fishing in the Hudson. So that's not my objection to this bill is

because it somehow changes the rules and effects commercial

fishermen, many of which are in my district. My objection to this

legislation is similar to what was stated by Mr. Conte and that is the


96

fact that this legislation takes the decision-making in the future away

from the DEC where we have given the authority to the DEC in

almost every other case.

Earlier this Session, I think we must have passed 20

or 30 bills all that gave regulatory authority over various fish to the

DEC and, frankly, my commercial fishermen and I think most people

who are interested in the fishing want that authority to be in the DEC

and not in the State Legislature and it's really for one reason, there is

no particular expertise that we have here, that's why we delegate it.

This reminds me of when I, in a prior life, when I was the Town

Attorney in the Town of East Hampton, and a fishing issue came

before the Town Board and somebody said well, let's not let this thing

get political and one of the commercial fisherman got up and said that

politics was into everything except for very deep sleep. Well, my fear

is in Albany, politics is even involved in very deep sleep here and

politics should not be determining what happens with the fishery. It

should be with the DEC. This legislation is more about politics and

the various user groups than it is about the science of regulating the

fishery and I think that we would be better served to leave that

jurisdiction with the DEC. Thank you.


MR. HANNA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On the bill.


MR. HANNA: Thank you. I'm tempted to actually


97

sit down. I don't mean to be redundant with respect to the remarks

made by the previous two speakers, so I will be very brief as sort of a

compromise. New York State has long been a nanny State because it

has felt that it knows how to conduct the affairs of ordinary people

better than ordinary people do. This is sort of a twist or a variation on

the same theme. The New York State Legislature has now, through

this bill and through a series of bills that are very much like it, decided

that it has more expertise than the experts. It's not just that we know

more than the average person on the street, we now know more in the

State Legislature than the experts in these particular fields. This is

clearly an area that should be regulated by the Department of

Environmental Conservation, that is why we have a Department of

Environmental Conservation. I don't know, for the life of me, why the

New York State Assembly thinks that it is in the best interests of

either the environment or the citizens that we serve for us to be

substituting our judgment for that of the experts who clearly know

more about the issue than we do. Accordingly, I'll be voting in the

negative.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Ms. Calhoun.

MS. CALHOUN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On the bill.


MS. CALHOUN: For over seven years I had the

privilege of going with the Orange County Federation of Sportsmen

and with the Ulster County and Dutchess County people to fish on the


98

Hudson River for the striped bass. There were DEC personnel on

every one of these. They were called a Media Day and we had 10 to

12 boats that went out on the Hudson River. And the stripers are

interesting because they do go upstream and they stay in that one area

and they spawn, but they only spawn for a number of weeks, that's in

the month of May and so then they do, as was said, they spawn, they

leave their eggs that are fertilized there and they go down to both

Long Island and to the Chesapeake Bay area. I want to tell you

unequivocally that DEC, the personnel who were there were from the

fish and wildlife. They totally support this because, as was stated and

as I know for a fact, when commercial fishermen come into an area,

and I have no problem with them doing so off of Long Island and in

the Sound, but when they come into an area such as where the Hudson

River would be and you're casting wide nets, you are taking many,

many other species of fish that are affected and this is not a good

situation.

This bill has appeared here many years before. Its

sponsor was a man named Richard Brodsky, who had also gone out on

that same river and fished for these fish. He was very astute, as was

the DEC, in knowing that this is a good piece of legislation because

we cannot even take the possibility that somebody would allow there

to be commercial fishing on this portion of the Hudson River to north

of the George Washington Bridge where these fish would soon

become extinct, number one and, number two, you would be taking

many other species of fish that are in those waters because of the


99

taking provisions. I have voted in the past for it. I stand up very

strongly for it. I ask you to please remember, we are talking about

recreational fishermen utilizing the Hudson River to the north, not

commercial fishermen and others who are using it to the south. So, I

will be casting my vote in favor and I would urge others to do so as

well. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


MR. CANESTRARI: Yes, sir. Another Committee

is being announced, the Elections Committee, Michael Cusick, up

from Staten Island to be here for the meeting in the Speaker's

Conference Room. Elections Committee, please.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Saladino.

MR. SALADINO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

On the bill, please.


MR. SALADINO: This is a real easy one. I come

from a background on the South Shore of Long Island where I have

been fishing virtually my entire life. I've been a recreational

fisherman, a bayman and have studied these issues for some time. I

can tell you I have tremendous respect for my colleagues who spoke

out against the bill earlier and there is some truth to the issues that

they brought up. Clearly, it hurts recreational fishermen -- I'm sorry.

Clearly, it hurts commercial fishermen who fish for striped bass in the

Hudson River, but the reality is, all of us have a tremendous number

of recreational fishermen who live in our districts who we advocate


100

for. Striped bass spawn in, generally speaking, one of three places: In

the Chesapeake, in the rivers in Connecticut, but the vast majority of

them spawn in the Hudson River. So, it really just says that since so

many striped bass are bottlenecking their way up the Hudson River,

it's an easy kill spot for recreational fishermen. What we would like,

what many of us and the recreational fishermen in your districts would

like, is for those fish to come back down so we can all enjoy fishing

for striped bass back in our homes, whether it's Massapequa,

Montauk, New York City, all those areas, that's all. It's real plain

science here that let the fish spawn, we want them to spawn, but if

there's tremendous taking in those bottlenecks, it will not allow for a

significant population to get back to our home communities where we

fish, where we recreate and, by the way, that has a significant impact

on our local economies.

It's a good bill. It's a sensible bill. I understand the

needs for recreational fishermen and I will point out that we brought

quite a number of extenders to empower the DEC to continue to

regulate fishing for so many species and we didn't do a thing to fix the

situation. We really need to work with the DEC to fix the problems

with regulation. This is not a harmful bill; yes, it does affect

commercial fishermen, I understand that and there are so many ways

to make it up to commercial fishermen by fixing the problems that

they have with the DEC who, by the way, doesn't always get it right,

but I do respect the comments made by my colleagues earlier and I am

sure that the Chairman of our Environmental Conservation Committee


101

in this House supports this legislation, I do and I know that in your

communities the vast number of fishermen are recreational fishermen

and they want the striped bass to be caught at home.

We did some excellent work some years ago when

Pat Halpin was an Assemblyman here to regulate striped bass to

ensure that there will be many more for populations to come and,

frankly, it was one of the number one marine recreational comeback

stories in United States history. We did that here. Let's keep making

striped bass available for recreational fishermen and to invoke

economic recovery and echo tourism in our communities. This is a

good bill.

Again, I respect my colleagues who have taken

another position on it, but this is not a bad bill and I encourage

everyone to vote for it. Thank you very much. I'll be voting in the

affirmative.


section.




record the vote.



the results.



102

The bill is passed.

Mr. Conte for an introduction.

MR. CONTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Once again,

on behalf of Assemblyman Miller and Assemblyman Molinaro, we

have the Gayhead Elementary School fourth grade class and we have

with them Mrs. Tarantino and Mrs. Valentino as their teachers. If you

could welcome the fourth grade Gayhead Elementary School class for

Mr. Molinaro and Mr. Miller, I would be greatly appreciative.


Conte. They may not be aware of it, but today we've been blessed

with a lot of students in this age category from both Mr. Molinaro's

and Mr. Miller's Districts, so I guess that there is a school outing, for

lack of a better term, and we've had some wonderful young men and

women who come up her who show the enthusiasm and the energy

that is so necessary to spur my colleagues to continue working here

until the very, very, very late hours. So, we all join

Assemblymembers Molinaro and Miller, the Speaker and all my

colleagues, we salute each and every one of you and we extend the

privileges of the floor to you. Stick around for awhile, see some of the

more interesting debates and come back real soon. Thank you for

being with us here today.

(Applause)

Mr. Canestrari.


to Calendar No. 254, on page 30, Mr. Sweeney again.


103



THE CLERK: Bill No. S2581, Calendar No. 254,

Lavalle-(Sweeney, Hooper, Weisenberg, Lavine, Schimel,

Ramos--3614). An act to amend the Public Service Law, in relation to

the Long Island Power Authority.


section.




record the vote.


Mr. Sweeney to explain his vote.

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Colleagues,

please, if we can give Mr. Sweeney some attention while he explains

his vote. Thank you. I'm sorry, Mr. Sweeney.

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This bill

will codify the requirement that has actually been in existence since

1997, that the Long Island Power Authority not increase its rates more

than two-and-a-half percent in a 12-month period without the

approval of the Public Service Commission. In 1997, by resolution

No. 1, the Public Authority Control Board of this State and the


104

resolution sign by the Governor, the Speaker and the Majority Leader

of the Senate specified as a condition of LIPA's creation that that be

the case, that LIPA not increase its rate by more than two-and-a-half

percent in a 12-month period. LIPA has steadfastly ignored that

requirement, increasing its rates over the last 10 years, 7 times for a

total of 34 percent, despite the resolution of the Public Authority's

Control Board.

So, this legislation simply takes that PACB

requirement, almost exactly word for word, and puts it into statute,

thus making it more enforceable and clearer that this is what the Long

Island Power Authority has to abide by. Those of us who live on

Long Island understand that there are few issues of greater concern to

Long Islanders than LIPA's flaunting of its requirement, statutory

requirements, I'm sorry, requirements of its creation and I think that

this will help to put the brakes on some of the rate increases that we

have seen on Long Island and portions of Queens and require LIPA to

offer to ratepayers and the public generally a clearer explanation of its

intention when it proposes rate increases and so, I would urge my

colleagues to support the ratepayers of Long Island by voting for this

bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Brennan to

explain his vote.

MR. BRENNAN: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I

wanted to commend Mr. Sweeney for bringing forth this legislation

and add that by placing these words into statute, this language from


105

the PACB resolution into statute, it should also strengthen the

Authority and hopefully the resolve of the State Public Service

Commission in the event LIPA attempts to do further end runs around

the current law, the Public Service Commission would have a greater

clearer authority to block any effort by the Long Island Power

Authority to work around the statutes that we've had on the books so

far. So, I'll be voting in the affirmative on this legislation.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Brennan in

the affirmative.


the results.


The bill is passed.

Mr. Canestrari.

MR. CANESTRARI: We will stick with Mr.

Sweeney for the next bill as well on page 10, Rules Report No. 226.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Proceeding to



Sweeney, Maisel, Paulin, P. Rivera, Dinowitz, Millman, Zebrowski,

Schimel, Benedetto, Gottfried, Englebright, Galef, Colton, Barron,

Jaffee, Rosenthal, Weisenberg, Weprin, Russell, Jacobs, Lifton,

Lavine, Roberts, Gibson, Peoples-Stokes, Hoyt, Boyland. An act to

amend the Environmental Conservation Law, in relation to the

uniform treatment of waste.


106

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Sweeney, an


MR. SWEENEY: Thank you very much, Mr.

Speaker. This bill simply requires that hazardous waste that comes

about as a result of oil or gas drilling activities be subject to the

requirements for treatment of hazardous waste if, in fact, it is

hazardous waste. Unfortunately, under current State regulations the

waste that results from oil and gas drilling is exempt from hazardous

waste requirements. In other words, the State says it's not hazardous

waste even if it is and all this bill says is that if it is hazardous waste it

must be treated as hazardous waste and if it's not, it needn't be. Very

straightforward.


MR. JORDAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the

sponsor yield?

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Sweeney.

MR. SWEENEY: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. JORDAN: Listening to your explanation I think

I was getting closer to understanding what we were trying to do with

this bill, but I get confused when I'm reading, and I'll leave out the

middle part, but it says, "...all waste resulting from the exploration,

development, extraction, production of crude oil or natural gas shall

be considered hazardous waste under the law," if it is deemed

hazardous waste under the law," and what we were trying to

understand is if, in fact, it's hazardous waste, what does this do


107

differently than current law requires? And I think, I probably phrase

the question very poorly, so I'll go back and try without reading. If it's

hazardous waste under -- maybe I should ask it this way: How does

Subdivision 3 of Section 27-0901, how does that define hazardous

waste?

MR. SWEENEY: 27-0901, the existing law?

MR. JORDAN: Yes.

MR. SWEENEY: Hazardous -- which this material is

currently not subject to, but the current law defines hazardous waste --

I'll read you the section, it's not that long.

MR. JORDAN: Okay.

MR. SWEENEY: "Hazardous waste means a waste

or combination of wastes which, because of its quantity, concentration

or physical, chemical or infectious characteristics may (A) cause or

significantly contribute to an increase in mortality or an increase in

serious irreversible or incapacitating illness or (B) pose a substantial

present or potential hazard to human health or the environment when

improperly treated, stored, transported, disposed or otherwise

managed."

MR. JORDAN: And so, I think -- before you read

that I think you alluded to that the waste identified at the beginning of

your bill doesn't currently meet that criteria, is that correct?

MR. SWEENEY: No, not at all. In many cases it

probably does meet that --

MR. JORDAN: Might meet it, okay. I'm sorry. I


108

misunderstood.

MR. SWEENEY: But DEC regulations, not law,

DEC regulations say that it's not to be considered hazardous waste.

MR. JORDAN: Oh, really?

MR. SWEENEY: Yes.

MR. JORDAN: My surprise. I didn't know that, I'm

sorry. I didn't mean it in a derogatory --

MR. SWEENEY: That's the bottom-line issue here.

And all this bill says is, if it's hazardous waste, treat it that way; if it's

not, don't.

MR. JORDAN: And you're saying there's a specific

statutory provision that says this waste, itemized really in lines 4

through 5 of your bill, is specifically deemed not hazardous waste, is

that what I'm understanding correctly?

MR. SWEENEY: It's a regulation.

MR. JORDAN: Regulation.

MR. SWEENEY: DEC regulation says it's

automatically not deemed hazardous waste. You don't even have to

test it. You don't have to do anything. You can do whatever you want

with it. It's not hazardous waste. All we're saying is test it. If it's

hazardous waste treat it that way; if it's not, don't.

MR. JORDAN: I find the irony here is that I've

spent, although it's only been three Sessions, much of that time saying

we need to strip away the regulatory abilities of some of our agencies

because the regulations they put out are nonsensical, burdensome to


109

business, harmful and all of those things and it's very funny to be

standing here and having you explain to me how absurd this resolution

is and we need to codify something to overcome that, but I appreciate

the information and time. Thank you.

MR. SWEENEY: You're welcome.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Goodell.

MR. GOODELL: Would the sponsor yield?


MR. SWEENEY: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. GOODELL: I have trouble understanding this

bill a little bit and I was hoping you could explain it a little bit further

because on one hand we keep referring to the DEC as experts and then

on the other hand, we keep saying but we don't trust their judgment

and it seems that is an example here. Can you explain why is it, I

mean, to the best you can, obviously, but why is it the DEC about does

not consider these items to be hazardous now? Why is it that our

experts over at DEC, and at least we hope they're experts, don't

consider this material to be hazardous now?

MR. SWEENEY: A long time ago and for reasons

that I think are lost, at least to me, this regulation was enacted by

DEC. Obviously, now that we are, as everyone knows, taking a look

at drilling activities in the State, for obvious reasons that everyone is

familiar with, in the course of doing hearings and getting testimony

from people and taking a look at what's already on the books, this is a

regulation that we came across that simply stood out to me as making


110

no sense whatsoever, but nevertheless it's there. And so, we believe

that it's reasonable to say that we need to fix this. You know, we have

heard voluminous testimony from people about the hazardous nature

of cuttings and other materials that result from oil and gas drilling,

things that occur both naturally as well as things that are added into

the ground and then taken out, about how they're mutagens, they're

carcinogens, they cause all sort of problems.

MR. GOODELL: If I may, I just want to focus a little

bit on the DEC's position. Have you had a chance to discuss this with

the DEC and have they given you an explanation as to why their

current regulations do not consider this material to be hazardous?

MR. SWEENEY: No, this occurred a long time ago

and they have not offered to us a good rationale why they should

continue.

MR. GOODELL: Have you asked them?

MR. SWEENEY: Yes.

MR. GOODELL: And what did they respond?

MR. SWEENEY: We did not get a rationale as to

why they should continue.

MR. GOODELL: Is this material currently -- even

though it's not considered hazardous, is this material currently a

regulated waste?

MR. SWEENEY: No. And when you say "not

considered hazardous," it's not considered hazardous because of the

regulation, not because it isn't hazardous.


111

MR. GOODELL: I understand, but just because it's

not considered hazardous it's still a regulated --

MR. SWEENEY: No, it's not regulated or controlled

in any way.

MR. GOODELL: So, are you saying then that natural

gas drillers under current law just simply take this material and dump

it down the streams or whatever?

MR. SWEENEY: Well, they might be violating

some other law by doing that, but they don't need to treated as

hazardous waste even if it is.

MR. GOODELL: Your definition you read of

hazardous waste is very board. It basically, as I recall, a moment ago

said hazardous waste is something that if not properly disposed would

cause health risks, if I'm not mistaken, but clearly, we rely on the DEC

to refine that very broad definition because that definition would

apply, for example, to food by-products, many things in life that we

routinely handle through our septic systems, for example, that we all

agree would be very dangerous if not handled properly, but we don't

consider, for example, municipal left lawn to be a hazardous waste,

we treat it as a regulated waste. Why should we supercede the DEC's

expertise in this area and not in other areas?

MR. SWEENEY: The definition that I read to you is

the existing definition in law and it is further refined by other DEC

regulations. Whether we should be doing this in additional areas is a

good question; maybe we should, but the fact that we're not doing


112

everything doesn't mean that we shouldn't doing anything and if so,

since this issue has risen to the forefront, for obvious reasons, we are

addressing this particular aspect right now.

MR. GOODELL: If this bill were to become law,

would the normal natural by-products of natural gas production such

as salt brine or salt water now be considered a hazardous waste?

MR. SWEENEY: Only if it meets the definitions in

law and if it doesn't meet the definitions it's not hazardous waste.

MR. GOODELL: Have you evaluated the question of

whether the normal by-products such as salt water would fall within

this definition?

MR. SWEENEY: I don't have anyway of knowing

that. If it's plain old salt water it's, obviously, not going to meet the

definition. If it's brine that comes up as flow back that contains a

whole bunch of other things then maybe it will.

MR. GOODELL: Thank you. I appreciate your

responses, it's been helpful.

On the bill.


MR. GOODELL: Obviously, I come from a county

where we have a lot of natural gas. It's in the Medina formation which

is also referred to as sometimes tight sand. The natural by-product of

these natural gas wells is salt water or salt brine and if you drive

through our County you'll see next to these wells a relatively small

tank where the natural by-product is salt water. Back in the 1990s our


113

county, again, an extensive testing program with the constituents of

that salt water and based on that analysis, started applying the salt

brine on our roads in the winter instead of applying rock salt and in

the process saved literally hundreds of thousands of dollars. And the

salt brine is similar to what you would expect if you went to our best

beaches in Florida in the winter or up here in the north in the summer

and went swimming. The concern is that almost any product that you

can imagine can fit within the very broad definition of a hazardous

waste if it's not properly disposed of. Normal routine household

waste. What happens when we use a restroom is toxic. That will kill

you if you consume it, but we don't apply hazardous waste standards

to it because it is easy to treat.

The problem that we have with this bill is it takes a

definition that very broad, supercedes the technical expertise of the

DEC, overrides the scientific evaluation and makes virtually

everything, including the natural by-products, the natural gas a

hazardous waste. The effect of that is to dramatically drive up the cost

of our natural gas production because now the routine removal of the

by-products of natural gas require the very highly-regulated response

that we reserve for the most dangerous chemicals in our society. We

treat normal natural gas by-products like salt water as hazardous

waste. New York already has utility rates that are substantially higher

than the national average. It's my understanding our utility rates are

about 30 percent higher than the national average. This will drive all

the costs of locally-produced natural gas significantly higher to the


114

detriment of all of our businesses and consumers. In addition to

driving up the costs, it will actually put a lot of these wells out of

business because they will not be able to compete with the wells that

are producing natural gas right next-door in Pennsylvania. So, it

hammers our economy and it nails our consumers. It is a job-killing

bill on every front.

Finally, I would point out that by making this

hazardous waste what we are doing is we are dramatically reducing

the supply of natural gas that's produced locally and natural gas, as

everyone here knows, is one of the cleanest burning fossil fuels in the

world. So we reduce the supply of natural gas, a clean burning

environmentally friendly fossil fuel, increase the cost to our industry,

increase the cost to our residents and we do so because we don't think

our own DEC has the knowledge or ability to make the distinction

between salt water and hazardous waste. So because of the serious

adverse consequences on our industry, on our jobs, on our residents

and on the environment, I would recommend we vote against this bill

and allow our experts in the DEC to make a reasoned, rational,

appropriate decision and if they believe that some or all of these

constituents should be classified as hazardous waste we should let

them, the experts, make the decision, not us. Thank you.


MR. HANNA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Would the

sponsor please yield for just a couple of questions?



115

MR. SWEENEY: Yes.

MR. HANNA: Thank you, Mr. Sweeney. This

exemption that you have described, you said, is a matter of DEC

regulation, is that correct?

MR. SWEENEY: Yes.

MR. HANNA: And that DEC regulatory exemption,

if you will, has been in existence for quite a while, is that correct?

MR. SWEENEY: Yes.

MR HANNA: Since the 1970s, perhaps?

MR. SWEENEY: 1985.

MR. HANNA: 1985, not as long as I thought, 1985.

Thank you. And for that period of time there has been an awful lot of

drilling in New York State, is that correct?

MR. SWEENEY: Yes.

MR. HANNA: And that drilling has been conducted

under the umbrella, if you will, of this exemption that you've

described, is that correct?

MR. SWEENEY: Yes. The regulation, yes.

MR. HANNA: This bill that you describe would

propose to eliminate the exemption, is that right?

MR. SWEENEY: Yes.

MR. HANNA: I'm sorry, eliminate the regulatory

exemption.

MR. SWEENEY: Yes.

MR. HANNA: But the DEC could eliminate that


116

regulatory exemption on their own right now couldn't they?

MR. SWEENEY: Yes.

MR. HANNA: And is not true that the DEC is

undertaking a very lengthy, very exhaustive examination of the entire

hydrofracking issue right now?

MR. SWEENEY: Yes. Not as exhaustive and

lengthy as it should be but, yes.

MR. HANNA: Well, it's been going on for a couple

of years, is that right?

MR. SWEENEY: Not quite, but close to it.

MR. HANNA: So, I'm guessing there's some detail

being attended to in this study. Is it not possible that if, in their

discretion, as Mr. Goodell suggested, they could recognize this issue

especially after you, Mr. Chairman, brought it to their attention and

eliminate the regulatory exemption, if they see fit?

MR. SWEENEY: They could, but they haven't and I

would point out that in addition to the drilling that's taking place in

New York State, what we're seeing now and another reason why this

issue rises now is that drilling material from other states is being

brought into New York State to be disposed of because, unfortunately,

apparently, some our landfills and other places have cheaper rates here

than in states like Pennsylvania. So, all of a sudden we're seeing this

influx of material, so I don't want to wait until whenever DEC is

finished and that whole process is finished and they begin issuing

permits and more drilling starts taking place, the problem is occurring


117

right now.

MR. HANNA: So when is the DEC's SGEIS due to

be published?

MR. SWEENEY: Well, that's a good question. On

or after July 1st is the presumption.

MR. HANNA: Just a couple of weeks, is that

correct?

MR. SWEENEY: Well, it could be longer. I mean,

it's not before that date, but I don't think they've given a definitive date

as to when it will happened.

MR. HANNA: As I understand it and please correct

me if I'm wrong, hasn't the Governor asked that the SGEIS be

prepared and published on or before July 1, 2011?

MR. SWEENEY: He suggested the date of July 1st.

I haven't heard DEC say that and then, of course, there's a process that

will take place after that for public comment.

MR. HANNA: Isn't it true that there are various

kinds of waste, there's non-regulated waste, there's regulated waste

and there's hazardous waste, is that correct?

MR. SWEENEY: Yes.

MR. HANNA: Is it not true that it is more expensive

for industry to dispose of hazardous waste than other kinds of

regulated waste?

MR. SWEENEY: I would say guess that's probably

the case. Of course, I would also guess that the people who dispose of


118

hazardous waste have an expertise in it, sure.

MR. HANNA: So, the effect of eliminating the

regulatory exemption would be to increase costs to energy companies,

is that correct?

MR. SWEENEY: No, the effect of eliminating the

regulation is to save people's lives and protect the environment.

MR. HANNA: I didn't say the intent, I said the

effect.

MR. SWEENEY: Yes, that's the effect.

MR. HANNA: Well, the effect -- would it not

additionally be an effect that it would increase the costs to energy

companies to dispose of the waste that now has to be dealt with as

hazardous waste?

MR. SWEENEY: I don't know whether it would or

wouldn't, but it's something, in my opinion, that they should have been

doing all along.

MR. HANNA: I understand that. Now, with these

increased costs isn't the real objective of this legislation to make it

prohibitively expensive or at least to serve as a deterrent to these

energy companies to engage in hydrofracking?

MR. SWEENEY: That's an interesting question and

for the life of me, I guess, I just don't understand when we're talking

about cost, why is it that the cost to a company to safely treat a

hazardous waste it has created is more important to the State of New

York than savings people's lives, protecting people's health and by the


119

way, p.s., when this stuff gets dumbed in a landfill and somebody

figures out it's hazardous waste, what's the cost to the State of New

York and the municipality then, which the taxpayers of the State will

bear not the company that dumped it? Why don't we take those things

into consideration?

MR. HANNA: If we were in court I would object on

the basis of assumption of facts not in evidence. We don't have any of

those facts in evidence and I'm not suggesting that anything -- I'm not

taking the position that you're apparently assigning to me or those who

oppose this bill. I'm just asking you if one of the intents of this bill is

to make it prohibitively expensive for companies to engage in

hydrofracking?

MR. SWEENEY: The purpose of this bill is make it

less expensive to the taxpayers of New York to clean up the mess later

on.

MR. HANNA: Thank you very much, Mr. Sweeney.

I really do appreciate did.

On the bill, Mr. Speaker.


MR. HANNA: Like my colleague who spoke

immediately before me I'm also a bit perplexed about the

inconsistency that the Majority sometimes has in trusting matters of

environmental regulation to the Department of Environmental

Conservation. I recall two esteemed colleagues engaging in a

tremendous discussion just a couple of weeks about sea grasses down


120

around Long Island where it was argued by the proponents of

legislation that this is something that should be entrusted solely to the

DEC and that we, as a Legislative Body, should have no part in it.

When it comes to hydrofracking many of the people who opposed

hydrofracking take a very, very different position. Suddenly the

expertise of the Department of Environmental Conservation is not to

be trusted. This is something that will be, I'm quite certain, addressed

in the SGEIS when it comes out. As has been noted, it is scheduled to

come out on or before July 1st, maybe a little bit thereafter.

I will vote against the bill not because it's an

unreasonable approach to dealing with waste from hydrofracking, it

may or may not be, but I certainly think that we ought to wait to hear

from the DEC to find out what they say before we take action here in

this Body. Thank you.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Ms. Lifton.

MS. LIFTON: Yes. On the bill, Mr. Speaker.


MS. LIFTON: I just want to commend the sponsor.

This is an excellent bill. Currently, we have very serious problems

about the disposal of waste water from gas drilling. We know of cases

where brine has been spread on roads and school grounds in some of

our locals in Western New York have highest levels of radioactivity

because the radioactivity was in the brine substance coming out from

the drilled well.

We had a case in my district where a waste water


121

went to a local water treatment plant. They didn't even know what

was in it. It could well have had radioactivity in it or other dangerous

chemicals like benzene, a known carcinogen. There are many known

carcinogens in waste water that comes from gas drilling and that went

to a local water treatment plant that did not even have the capacity to

test it, never mind treat it, and then it was dumped into Cayuga Lake.

So, there are very serious problems. The DEC had to

be alerted to that problem and they stopped it. But, there are all kinds

of things going on around our State and it's very appropriate for the

Legislature to weigh in about these serious concerns and make sure

that this is dealt with and not just say well, we're going to leave it to

the DEC. These are important public matters, the safety of the water

in the State and the health of the citizens of this State where it's very

appropriate for the Legislature to be heard and weigh in. I urge the

support of my colleagues for this important legislation. Thank you,

Mr. Speaker.


section.



record the vote.


Mr. Jordan to explain his vote.

MR. JORDAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. During the

discussion on this bill I was struck by the realization of the sponsor


122

that oftentimes the regulations promulgated by our State agencies, in

fact, accomplish nothing or may actually be bad. In this instance, his

assertion is it's bad for the environment. My assertion is for the past

three years and long before that most of the time we pass legislation --

or not most of the time -- many often times we pass legislation we

advocate responsibility of creating a law and instead create a policy

and leave the actual legislation to our State agency and the effect is a

State that ranks 50th in terms of personal freedoms due to high taxes,

burdensome regulations, most of which are not even laws on the

books, but are regulations promulgated without oversight by this

House or the Senate and put in with the force and effect of law. We

see today a negative impact on the environment which has prompted

this House to bring forward legislation to correct that. Day in and day

out, we bring forward concerns and issues that are burdensome to the

very businesses that we are here to try to support and the consumers. I

hope that, perhaps, going forward when we bring these issues up

maybe some folks who oftentimes may want to dismiss our thoughts

as mere rhetoric will realize that there's a lot of truth to that and will

help us bring forward legislation that will help correct some of the

wrongs to our businesses. Having said all of that and listened

carefully to the discussion, I withdraw my request and vote in the

affirmative.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Jordan in the

affirmative.



123

MR. LAVINE: I'm casting my vote in the affirmative

but, again, we have, once again, heard reference to the George Mason

University report to the effect that New York is one of the least

favorable states to live in in terms of personal freedom and we know

that the author of that report is William Unger of the Cato Institute

and that the number one State, according to him, is South Dakota and

South Dakota is not quite as interesting a state to live in as New York

unless, of course, one wants to repeatedly look at either Mount

Rushmore or read through "Little House on the Prairie" over and over

again. I prefer to stay here. I like the protections of this bill. I want

to commend the sponsor and cast my vote in the affirmative.


affirmative.


the results.


The bill is passed.

Mr. Canestrari.

MR. CANESTRARI: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Continuing

to work off the debate list, we will go to Rules Report No. 175 on

page 7 of the main Calendar, Mr. Bronson, followed by Rules Report

No. 172 on the same page, page 7, by Ms. Rosenthal, and then go to

page 14, Rules Report No. 276, Mr. Wright. Rules Report Nos. 175,

172 and 276. Thank you.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: We will start with


124



175, Bronson, Lupardo, Jaffee, Maisel, Galef, Colton, Roberts. An act

to amend the State Finance Law, in relation to the cost effectiveness

of consultant contracts by State agencies.


requested, Mr. Bronson.

MR. BRONSON: Mr. Speaker, this bill is in

response to the calls from New Yorkers across the State asking us to

look at State government and find ways to rein in spending and to find

taxpayer savings. What the bill essentially will do is require every

State agency before letting out a consulting services contract, which

will be $500,000 or more over a 12-month period, to do a cost

analysis to determine whether or not there would be additional savings

if that contract were performed by State workers in-house versus

letting it out to outside consultants. State agencies should always get

the best value they can for every taxpayer dollar spent and this bill

will help to guide us in that direction.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Molinaro.

MR. MOLINARO: I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker. Will the

sponsor yield for a few questions?

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Bronson.

MR BRONSON: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. MOLINARO: Mr. Bronson, I apologize, I

haven't been able to get through the entire packet just yet, but I wanted


125

to ask -- no, it's quite all right. In this case, how many contracts do we

think the State of New York lets in the area of consulting services that

exceed $500,000 annually?

MR. BRONSON: I don't have a specific number.

What we were trying to do is from various studies that have been done

over the past decade by both Republican Comptrollers as well as

Democratic Comptrollers and other institutions to come up with a way

to have a cut-off point that would allow us to make it wise for these

agencies to expend the effort in doing the cost-savings benefit and

under current State Finance Law there's already a requirement for

them to look for cost efficiencies. All this bill will do is say under

these particular parameters that they need to do that cost-benefits

analysis between in-service versus outsourcing the project.

MR. MOLINARO: I understand that and, actually, in

answer to the question, I think you bring up what is our concern with

the legislation. First of all, this Legislature offered the Executive in

the adoption of this past budget some could argue unprecedented

authority to manage the Executive branch. This seems to establish

now a requirement for countless contracts, the Executive branch to get

into an analysis that undoubtedly will have cost. Have you estimated

what the cost will be to the State just to conduct the analysis?

MR. BRONSON: The analysis would be part of the

factoring in on this and we're looking for savings. There's estimates

that range upwards of $100 million in the first year, $200 million in

the second year of savings and $300 million in the third year of


126

savings, and there would be a requirement that the agency would

follow the existing State Finance Law, we're not changing those in any

way, except for to say that in these particular consulting contracts that

we want them to look to see if it would be better to do it in-House.

MR. MOLINARO: If we don't know how many such

contracts would be within the reach of this new legislation, I'm not

sure how then we evaluate the estimated savings, but I'm still

interested in knowing what the cost will be. Obviously, initially and,

perhaps, I don't think it would be unfair to suggest in the first year of

this legislation going into effect, there would be cost. Agencies now

that comply with current State Financing Law, State Finance Law,

already have to find the best and most responsible expensive tax

dollars. They already have to do that, which you've knowledge. If we

don't know how many contracts fall within the grasp of this

legislation, how then can we know what savings we're going to

achieve and, more importantly, how could we not know what the new

cost will be to State government going forward, at least in the initial

year? I'll give you that, perhaps, over the course of a long period of

time maybe they'll find savings, but what's initial hit?

MR. BRONSON: Well, I understand the premise of

your question, but I think if you look back, dating as far as back as

1990 the then Republican Comptroller indicated that the

Transportation Department could reduce its cost by using in-house

consultants. We had a State Comptroller in 1998 that had a similar

finding and that indicated that routine services that could have been


127

performed at a lower cost by in-house employees and an independent

agency, KPMG, an internationally known accounting firm did an

analysis in 2001, what they call the activity-base cost analysis. They

also found that if we exercise this procedure before letting out

contracts that, indeed, it would result in savings of millions of dollars.

MR. MOLINARO: I'll accept the studies. What I've

learned about the Comptroller, whether he be Republican or

Democrat, is they look at slices of State government, not State

government in its entirety. The reason I know this is because I have

been advised by the Comptroller that that's how they do business. It's

one of the reasons we can't get the kind of oversight we'd like in the

MTA and other public authorities, but all of that said, and I don't need

to belabor the point, nowhere in this dialog have we have had nor in

the background for the legislation do we identify what cost is to do the

analysis and I think what the Governor's objection was in 2008 was

twofold; one, this would, obviously, have cost. Agencies would have

to prepare contracts or the concept or the project, if you will, far

enough in advance so that they can conduct the analysis to meet the

standard and then, secondly, the Executive branch would lose

flexibility when it comes to letting contracts. And instead of giving

agencies the ability just to make a determination based on Finance

Law, we're now adding an extra burden that they're going to have to

meet and I don't hear an acknowledgement that that's going to cost

time and money despite the fact that a Governor in 2008 suggests just

that.


128

MR. BRONSON: With this bill it's our premise that

the cost savings will outweigh the cost in doing that analysis and,

indeed, agencies under current law, agencies under current law are

required to do analysis on cost savings. This is just adding a

parameter on that analysis that's already to be conducted if they truly

are going to follow Section 163 of the State Finance Law that requires

under best value that they look at cost and efficiencies before they let

out a contract.

MR. MOLINARO: Okay. Just one last question.

Does this bill pertain to all agencies, divisions and public authorities?

MR. BRONSON: Yes.

MR. MOLINARO: Thank you, Mr. Bronson. Thank

you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. BRONSON: Thank you.


section.




record the vote.



the results.


The bill is passed.


129

Mr. Conte for an introduction.

MR. CONTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like

to interrupt the proceedings. On behalf of Assemblyman Molinaro

and Assemblyman Miller, seated to the rear of the Chamber is the tour

bus, I guess, has arrived back here in the New York State Assembly

from the Gayhead Elementary School from the Wappingers Central

School District. We have Jill Jurina, the teacher of the fourth grade

class. Once again, the students from the Gayhead Elementary School

are here. On behalf of Mr. Molinaro, Mr. Miller, can you give them a

warm and cordial greeting.


Conte. I'm going to let you in the on a secret. If I could come back

young again, I would want to come back as a fourth grader from Mr.

Miller and from Mr. Molinaro's school district because I would get a

chance to come to Albany on a regular basis, because we've been very

blessed today. We've had four or five classes just from the fourth

grade that have come up here, just like you. And they have been as

bright and as attentative as you have been. I have seen Mr. Molinaro

and Mr. Miller speak to the group and all I see is rapt attention.

So, on behalf of Mr. Molinaro, Mr. Miller, the

Speaker and all my colleagues, we want to salute each and every one

of you for being here today, for showing us the attention that you have

shown so far in trying to learn what's happening here in Albany. We

want to also extend the privileges of the floor to you and ask that you

come back real soon. Thank you for being with us here today.


130

(Applause)

We will proceed to page 37, Calendar No. 434, the

Clerk will read.

THE CLERK: Bill No. 394-A, Calendar No. 434,

Gunther, Cahill, Lupardo. An act to amend the Environmental

Conservation Law, in relation to establishing the yearling buck

protection program.


Mrs. Gunther, the Senate bill is before the House. The Senate bill is

advanced.

An explanation is requested, Ms. Gunther.

MRS. GUNTHER: This piece of legislation has to

do with buck protection and antler restriction. It's the practice that has

to do with hunting or the taking of deer which have at least one antler

with at least three points. Each point must be at least one-inch long

measured from the main antler beam. This practice has been shown to

enhance deer management and will help create a healthier deer herd,

which is very important in my district.


MR. HANNA: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, on the bill.


MR. HANNA: Thank you. This is actually an

interesting bill. For those of us who have forgotten our second or

third grade science classes, and usually I fall into that category, bucks

shed their antlers every single year and every year that they live


131

they're replaced a larger rack of antlers that have more points. Those

larger racks, the additional points, are very attractive to hunters and

that's why there is a movement afoot among hunters in New York

State and Pennsylvania to impose limitations like this one, requiring

that hunters identify that a buck has three points before taking it and

harvesting it during hunting season. It's not a bad idea for a couple of

reasons. The first that I've already explained to you; the second is that

I think it enhances hunters' safety. If a hunter is forced to look at the

target, count the number of points on the buck, we know for sure that

he's actually aiming at a buck and not at a gentleman wearing a

Carhart walking behind a hedgerow, so there's certainly a lot of good

reasons for it. However, the hunting community is very split. Some

are very much in favor of it, for the reasons I've stated; others oppose

it because it cuts down on the number of bucks that they can take and,

frankly, in a lot of parts of New York State, there are many

households who rely on venison as a staple for food; that's the food

that they put on the table during the fall and during the winter. It's

very important to them and if they lose opportunities to access that

food source, then they are in a dire financial situation.

So, the DEC is actually waiting for a consensus to

build among the hunting community before they decide whether or not

they should make these regulations more Statewide. I think we ought

to wait for that consensus to build, too. I fear, as I stated earlier, that

we are in a pattern of getting into wildlife management here in this

Body. We don't have the expertise for that. This is not a wildlife


132

management bill. It's really a social bill, which is why the DEC has

held off but I, frankly, lack confidence in this Body's ability or

discipline to distinguish between environmental social practices and

environmental wildlife management practices. This is something that

we should, again, leave to the DEC and I'm quite certain that the DEC

will act once there is a consensus within the hunting community. If I

were still in the DEC I would lean very much in favor of this, but it's

not something that we should do as a matter of legislation. Thank

you.


section.



record the vote.


Ms. Cook for an announcement.

MRS. COOK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There will

be a meeting of the Codes Committee in the Speaker's Conference

Room. Will the members please proceed there? Thank you.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Codes Committee

Meeting in the Speaker's Conference Room. Mr. Lentol is there right

now or soon will be.


the results.



133

The bill is passed.

We will proceed to page 4, Rules Report No. 40, the

Clerk will read.


40, Bing, V. Lopez, Colton, Englebright, Cymbrowitz, Rosenthal. An

act to amend the Public Health Law, the Environmental Conservation

Law, the Labor Law and the Education Law, in relation to creating the

Environmental Health Tracking System.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Bing, an


MR. BING: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This

legislation, which was passed by the Assembly unanimously last year,

would establish a Statewide Environmental Health Tracking System

and create a working group composed of the Departments of Health,

Labor and Environmental Conversation, as well as the State of New

York Schools of Public Health at Albany and Buffalo for the purpose

of developing a health tracking system for the study of chronic

diseases.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Molinaro.

MR. MOLINARO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will

the sponsor yield just for a few questions?

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Bing?

MR. BING: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. MOLINARO: Mr. Bing, thank you very much.

Could you just advise for us, one, whether or not the Department has


134

the authority to conduct this kind of work already? It seems to us that

they could, on their own, engage in this kind of tracking; is that not

correct?

MR. BING: They may, but I think the legislative

findings that are in this legislation are important and also creating the

structure for not just the Department of Health but all the other groups

that I mentioned in creating this working group, I think, is important

to create the structure. One thing that we do in here in order to not

increase costs or require the hiring of any additional staff is to allow

flexibility in what the Department of Health puts together as the

working group. We don't require a certain number of people. We

suggest some areas of specification, but it really would be up to the

Commissioner of Health to put together this group.

MR. MOLINARO: I think one of the concerns that's

been expressed is that the, in essence, peer group that's established to

sort of manage the tracking system, the ultimate tracking is, to a

degree, I'll say nebulous. What's the standard that will be applied to

ensure that we're actually tracking that which is sort of generally

accepted as health risks, et cetera, et cetera?

MR. BING: I think the specifications of the working

group are pretty detailed in here in terms of what they're looking for,

Also, the findings that are in the legislation, as well as the description

of what the purpose of the group is and what they're going to do.

They're going to meet by September 1st of this year, put together an

action plan within the two years after that and then the Department of


135

Health will implement that by January of 2014. So, not only does it

give them enough time to put together something worthwhile, but also

the legislative findings as well as the description of what the group is

looking for as well as the bill memo is pretty clear in terms of what

they're supposed to be doing.

MR. MOLINARO: And just for our own

information, how does this differ from what the Health Department

currently does in tracking, in essence, cases of cancer as it results from

contamination, et cetera, environmental impact, that sort of thing?

MR. BING: I think the purpose of this bill is that,

perhaps, the Health Department has not been specific enough in

tracking chronic diseases. Chronic diseases cost America $325 billion

a year and seven out of every ten deaths in the United States are due to

chronic diseases. This will give some more focus on this topic and

also provide for a structure for seeing if there are geographic patterns

to chronic diseases in the State such that we will be able to be more

healthy. The bill is actively strongly supported by NYPIRG because

of the public interest involved.

MR. MOLINARO: One last question and it's more of

a specific scenario. Currently, I know, that in cases of established

environmental areas with environmental damage, contaminated sites,

Superfund designated sites, we track incidents, again, of cancer and

that information then is used by the Department of Health and others

to respond with cleanup and then future mitigation currently in the

area of chronic disease, neurological disorder, et cetera, we don't track


136

that. So, in incidents where there might be contaminated sites that

may or may not lead to clusters of neurological -- individuals with

neurological disorders or chronic ailment, would you foresee that this

legislation would have an effect in those situations and then what do

we do with the information?

MR. BING: I think it's very possible when you have,

as this legislation calls for, the public health schools as well as the

commissioners and the departments involved, I think that would be a

likely way for them to go. But it really would be up to the working

group to determine whether that's within their scope. Certainly, on the

surface, it seems like that would be a good thing for them to do.

MR. MOLINARO: I think we would offer and I have

had this conversation with others, that's an area of interest because,

again, where we do have major environmental or at least areas where

there is contamination, there seems to be this void, if you will, as to

tracking what is and is not a result or could have been a result of that

particular impact, so neurological disorders, chronic disorders, et

cetera. We just offer that as this bill finds its way through. Thank

you, Mr. Bing. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


section.



record the vote.



137


the results.


The bill is passed.

Mr. Canestrari.


to Calendar No. 209 on page 29 of the Calendar and that is

Englebright, Steven Englebright, please. Calendar No. 209.



THE CLERK: Bill No. 4601, Calendar No. 209,

Englebright. An act to amend the Insurance Law, in relation to

requiring insurers of property to eliminate from the claims record of

an insured, any claim of loss made and paid in good faith, which is

discovered to be false and the proceeds of such claim are repaid to the

insurer.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Englebright,

an explanation is requested.

MR. ENGLEBRIGHT: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The

purpose of this bill is to protect consumers who have had a claim on

loss of property in which the insurance companies made a payment on

the claim and then the lost item has been found and, continuing to act

in good faith, the insured has repaid the company the money, but the

companies sometimes currently count that entire transaction against

the insured going forward, and this would make sure that that part of


138

their record is not counted against them.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Barclay.

MR. BARCLAY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Would

the sponsor yield for a few quick questions?

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Englebright?

MR. ENGLEBRIGHT: I yield.

MR. BARCLAY: Thanks, Mr. Englebright. Just so I

understand your explanation, if an insured loses something and then

finds it again, they make a claim, there's no consequence to the

insured after --

MR. ENGLEBRIGHT: If they've repaid the money

and have acted in good faith all along, that is to say believing that

when they made the claim that the item was, in fact, truly lost and

then if the item is rediscovered, acting expeditiously to get the money

back to the company, then, as we say in basketball, no harm, no foul.

That's what this bill is attempting to do, to make sure that that is not

counted as a foul in terms of the insurability of that individual going

forward.

MR. BARCLAY: So, what are insurance companies

doing now in those cases?

MR. ENGLEBRIGHT: Some insurance -- it's uneven

and some insurance companies, basically, count that entire transaction

as a continuing loss and, therefore, raise the rates on the insured going

forward. But we're saying that that's unfair if, in fact, the company

has been reimbursed.


139

MR. BARCLAY: Can't that be indicative, though, of

potential fraud? I mean, you said it was good faith. I mean, how do

you prove the good faith? I guess they paid the money back, but I

could see an insured's concern that, oh, you know, all of a sudden

someone made a claim and then realized that maybe that wasn't in

their best interest because their premiums were going up or whatever

and the claim wasn't in good faith and they want a return and they got

back on. I mean, isn't that some sort of concern?

MR. ENGLEBRIGHT: I think it would depend on

the circumstances. If the claim was made in a way that was really

murky and suspicious, I think that the company would be able to say

that was not in good faith, but in some instances, in many instances,

an item that is thought to be lost is, in fact, rediscovered. We've all

experienced that in our own personal lives. My keys, for example,

sometimes.

MR. BARCLAY: Yes.

MR. ENGLEBRIGHT: Although that's not an item

to be insured, it's just an example of things that get lost and then when

they're rediscovered, if the insured makes the company whole and

there's a pattern of good faith through the entire transaction, then

going forward that insured should not have that transaction cause their

rates to go up or to, in fact, in some cases, make them uninsurable.

MR. BARCLAY: I don't know about the uninsurable

part, but my understanding is you can't raise rates based on claim

history and property and casualty.


140

MR. ENGLEBRIGHT: Well, at the present time,

there appears to be a need for this because in some cases, in the worst

cases, the individuals are not able to be reinsured.

MR. BARCLAY: Thank you. Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Ms. Calhoun.

MS. CALHOUN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, on the

bill.


MS. CALHOUN: I would just like to reiterate

something and it maybe will speak to all of you. There was an

incident that happened in a neighboring town and it was a break-in of

a property and in that property lived some very affluent people and in

their claim they lost jewelry, they lost fur coats, they lost a number of

things and a claim was put in for those lost and stolen items.

However, it turned out that when the police did their due diligence,

they located the young people who had been the perpetrators of that

break-in and they had never heard about any fur coats or any jewelry.

The perpetrator became the homeowner and the homeowner, who

truly was a professional person, was sentenced to jail.

I think that one of the reasons why you'll see that

many of us will be voting no on this is that there is a lot of room for

discussion when it comes to finding something that had been lost and,

at some point, returning it to the insurance company or telling them

and returning the money. So, there are reasons why it should not be


141

required. And I don't think the insurance companies always are the

bad guys because there are times when it does require them to look

back and to take it off of someone's record, but there are other times

when we should not be requiring the removal any time that the item

which wasn't lost is reimbursed for because there are many, many

times that there are incidents of this type.

So, I will be voting in the negative and I think there is

reason why we should be voting no and not requiring that anyone who

has mysteriously found something and paid it back should have it

removed automatically from their claim. Thank you very much. My

vote will be in the negative.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Goodell.

MR. GOODELL: Would the sponsor yield?

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Englebright.

MR. ENGLEBRIGHT: I would be pleased to yield,

Mr. Goodell.

MR. GOODELL: Does this bill require or deal in

any way with the repayment of the claim with interest or only the

repayment of the original face amount of the loss?

MR. ENGLEBRIGHT: There's no inference about

interest. The presumption is that it's a repayment in the amount that

was paid out would be paid back.

MR. GOODELL: If I'm correct, once that's paid

pack, this bill would require that all record of the claim be eliminated

as well, right?


142

MR. ENGLEBRIGHT: That is correct.

MR. GOODELL: Now, by the way, I would certainly

not want such a claim on my record if I had made an honest mistake.

And I think that's the purpose of your bill, if you had an honest

mistake and you paid the money back, no foul; that's basically the

thrust. The concern I had, and maybe you could address that, as you

know, not everyone dealing with insurance companies is honest,

unfortunately. How do we address a situation where when a person

needs cash they claim that an expensive item of jewelry, say, a

$10,000 ring was lost, they get the cash, six months later they repay it

without interest, the record is now expunged. Next year when it

comes time to pay their income tax again, the ring again is lost.

There's no longer a record to verify that the same ring gets lost every

year and, in the meantime, the insured is getting an interest-free

$10,000 loan. How do we address that situation?

MR. ENGLEBRIGHT: Well, the insurance

companies can keep a record. What this bill says, basically, is they

cannot -- and if keeping a record and, in so doing, if you're from the

insurance company's perspective you start to see a pattern emerge, I

would hope that you would have an insurance adjuster in touch with

the district attorney or the police detectives in your vicinity. What this

basically says, though, is that if there is good faith evident, that you

won't have a circumstance in which the insured faces a punishment, a

financial punishment or a punishment of being denied the ability to be

insured at all.


143

MR. GOODELL: Well, I agree with your

explanation and I think that's exactly the way it should work. My

concern is that the language says that the claim shall, "...be removed

from the record of claims made by the insured for all purposes." And

so, unless you've got someone in a very, very small insurance

department or someone who actually happens to have the claim cross

their desk more than once, it seems the language may be a little bit

broader then what you really had in mind. That was my concern

because if it's removed for all purposes, it seems to open the door for

potential fraudulent practice that you wouldn't be able to catch

because the record was removed for all purposes.

MR. ENGLEBRIGHT: If the purpose -- the very

clear purpose of this bill is to protect consumers from having a

circumstance in which an insurance company uses a circumstance,

such as we've been describing here, to essentially create a higher rate

or to discard from insurability at all that particular individual. There's

no contemplation here of this being used as a device for protecting

fraud. And I think you're quite correct to raise that concern.

Certainly, if that is something that emerges going forward, I think we

should revisit it. I don't think that that is something that is likely to

happen, but I think you're correct to raise it as a possibility and we

should keep our eye on it going forward.

MR. GOODELL: Thank you very much.

Just on the bill.



144

MR. GOODELL: I applaud the sponsor. I think it's

the right idea. I'm just a little concerned, as I expressed, that the

requirement that any record of a prior claim be eliminated for all

purposes goes too broad because if you want to catch fraud, we need

to allow the insurance company to keep a record of the claim so that

they can catch that type of fraudulent behavior, although I agree with

the sponsor, certainly, that in a good-faith situation if there's no prior

claim, if there's no pattern, then it should not affect the insurability of

the claimant.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Losquadro.

MR. LOSQUADRO: Thank you. Would the sponsor

yield for just a quick question?

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Englebright?

MR. ENGLEBRIGHT: I yield.

MR. LOSQUADRO: Thank you. As the sponsor

knows, we've known each other for some time. I believe he knows

that I worked for ten years in the insurance industry as a field

investigator. I can probably speak to this issue with a little different

level of experience than most. Are you aware of what it takes for an

insured to, by the definition of the company , to act in a good-faith

effort?

MR. ENGLEBRIGHT: I believe I do. I grew up, by

the way -- we're sharing experiences here. My father was an

insurance broker and I grew up in a home in which the methodologies

and peculiarities of insuring was a daily discussion and the sense of


145

service from my father to his constituency was a model for me as I

moved into public service later. So, I have a general sense.

MR. LOSQUADRO: We know --

MR. ENGLEBRIGHT: I'm not sure I've answered

your question, but I'm not coming in without any experience.

MR. LOSQUADRO: Insurance is only one of the

bedrocks on which we base society, it allows you to live your

day-to-day life without the fear of financial ruin. It's a very important

tenet of our society. But for someone to act in good faith they do

something as simple as signing an affidavit of theft and we want to

believe, of course, that everyone is good and they're going to do the

right thing. But I can tell you from experience, unfortunately, that is

not always the case. And unfortunately, the adversarial process that

many people have to go through with their insurance companies is one

that is borne out of necessity because there are so many individuals

that view insurance companies as free sources of money and insurance

companies have to do everything in their power to protect not only

themselves, but, more importantly, their policyholders and their

ratepayers and the public, as a whole, who they set these rates for in

order to accomplish that.

MR. ENGLEBRIGHT: Agreed.

MR. LOSQUADRO: Not having the ability to track

claims which may turn out to be fraudulent, if an individual did their

are due diligence in saying this was done in good faith, I sign the

affidavit of theft but it turns out that I did find it after, maybe, some


146

extenuating circumstances or maybe they thought the trail was getting

a little hot, they thought someone might find them out, they wind up

paying the money back. Not having the ability to track that

information, information that is vital for an insurance company to use

in their actuarial programs, in setting those rates, I can tell you for

myself, some of the basic red flags that we would look for were policy

inception date, frequency of claims, things of that nature. These are

all very important things.

I absolutely understand the goal that you are trying to

accomplish that people who truly have a situation where they lose,

perhaps, an article of their property that is insured, they find it, they

pay it back; we certainly don't want that to be held against them. But I

thought some of the points that Mr. Goodell raised were points that I

was going to raise. I think the language is a bit too open-ended and it

does not give the insurance companies the necessary tools that they

need in order to be able to accomplish this. I appreciate you listening

to my comments.

Mr. Speaker, on the bill.


MR. LOSQUADRO: Again, I do understand the

sponsor's intent. Having worked as an insurance investigator for a

decade, knowing the tools that are necessary and the tools that are

used and the data-mining that is done on the part of insurance

companies to track claims and to assess the viability of claims that are

presented to them, I think this legislation needs to be tightened up and,


147

therefore, I will be voting in the negative. Thank you.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Blankenbush.

MR. BLANKENBUSH: On the bill.


MR. BLANKENBUSH: Since 1986 I've been an

independent insurance agent. Systems have changed since 1986, so if

someone was calling my office for a claim, my customer service

representatives would be putting that in a system that you cannot go

back and alter it, you can't go back and change it, you're putting it in

the system, and that's because of liability factors on our part, errors

and omission in insurance and so forth. So, if you called my office

and said you had a claim, it would be in that system. You can't alter

that system in your local office. The companies also have that kind of

system for the same reasons. But just for the members, my history of

being in this business since 1986, I have not had one claim -- or one

client in my office call and say that their rates have been changed

because of a legitimate property and casualty loss unless it's excessive,

three or four claims in 18 months. I have never had one where their

house was totally destroyed by a fire that raised rates or was cancelled

because of that claim. So, for someone to call in and then change

their claim -- sometimes it happens because they figure that the claim,

with their deductible, isn't even worth claiming because they don't

want it on their record. However, if they already called it in, it's in the

system, so they reported a claim; however, all those years that I've

been in this business, I have never had one claim or one client call and


148

complain to us or to say that one, they were cancelled or, two, that

their property casualty rates were increased.

Now, in automobile insurance that's different. If your

claim is more than $1,000, most companies would raise your

premium. But in property casualty, homeowner's, renter's insurance,

that's never happened in my office for all those years. So, I will be

voting in the negative because I just don't -- I just never had that

experience happen to me.

Now, I also represent 10, probably 12 different

companies, so it's not just one company I represent and its never

happened in my office. So, I will be voting in the negative. Thank

you.


section.



record the vote.



MR. CANESTRARI: Yes. As we take this vote,

there will be a meeting of the Education Committee. Chairperson

Cathy Nolan is on her way to the Conference Room. Speaker's

Conference Room, Education. The vote continues.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Englebright

to explain his vote.


149

MR. ENGLEBRIGHT: Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker.

I think this is an important measure to protect the insureds of the State

from the occasional, not usual, as has been pointed out, but the

occasional circumstance in which an overly zealous insurance

company uses the opportunity of the loss and repayment scenario that

we've described here as an opportunity to, essentially, punish that

individual in varying ways, either with higher rates or denying them

the ability to be insured at all. The Insurance Department, certainly,

will have a role in interpreting the specific language of the bill. Some

of the points that have been raised here suggest to me that there is the

potential for further refinement going forward, but at this moment in

time, I think this is an important step to take to help protect those

people who we were sent here to protect and that's why I am

encouraging my colleagues to vote in the affirmative. Thank you, Mr.

Speaker.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Crouch to

explain his vote.

MR. CROUCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I've sat on

the board of directors for a small insurance company for a good

number of years. It's a cooperative, mutual-type insurance company.

The insurance companies, by State regulation under the Department of

Insurance, have to have a rate-setting meeting annually and they look

at their losses in certain categories -- this is under property and

casualty -- and they establish those rates then those rates have to be

filed for every category with the Department of Insurance. And so,


150

that's what everybody gets charged when they walk through the door

and they say I need insurance on my house or whatever. This is

typically done through the agents that handle a lot of different

insurance companies within their agency. They deal with those

clients. They can't just single out a certain prospective client and say

we're going to zap them because they filed a claim last year. They

have to be charged the same rate, pretty much, across the board. So,

because of that, I'm voting in the negative on this.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Crouch in the

negative.

Mr. Canestrari.

MR. CANESTRARI: Assembly colleagues, there's a

vote on the floor. If you are not here, please join us. This is taking a

long time to get this bill passed. Vote on the floor. Members, join us.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Ms. Gunther to

explain her vote.

MRS. GUNTHER: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just

wanted to talk about an incident that occurred in my life that has a lot

to do with this piece of legislation. My daughter, Katie, when she

went to her first year in college, we bought a Mac computer and

probably a month after we purchased it , the Mac wasn't working

appropriately. So I did was I was supposed to do, I packed it up in the

box and I sent it out for repair. Well, I had another computer on board

so I sent her with her other computer. Well, a month went by and I

called Mac and they said they had already sent the computer to me.


151

Well, I never did get the computer, so what I did was I called my

insurance company and I made a claim because, you know, it was

probably a $1,400 computer. I waited about six or seven days and I

was chatting with the insurance company and lo and behold, I guess

the computer got lost in the mail and the computer arrived at my

doorstep. So, then what I did was I called my insurance company and

said I'm sorry, but I want to withdraw my claim because the computer

finally came and it's repaired and everything's all right. Well, I was an

honest person, I told them I got my daughter's computer back, but that

claim was still on a report about me. It put me in a different risk

category. So, I really think it's important when something -- if

something in an instant like I had happens and you call back and you

don't receive any money or any kind of help from your company, that

they remove that and don't make you a high-risk person. So, that's

why I withdraw my vote and I'm voting in the affirmative.




The bill is passed.

Mr. Canestrari.


to Rules Report No. 276 on page 14, Mr. Wright, please. Rules

Report No. 276.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: We'll proceed to

page 14, Rules Report No. 276, Mr. Wright, the Clerk will read.


152


Wright, Bronson, Gibson, Colton. An act to amend the Labor Law, in

relation to enacting the "Roadway Excavation Quality Assurance

Act."


requested, Mr. Wright.

MR. WRIGHT: Certainly, Mr. Speaker. The

purpose of this bill is that it provides that a utility company -- utility

companies, that they shall use competent workers and shall pay the

prevailing wage on projects where a permit to use or an open street is

issued.



sponsor yield?

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Wright.

MR. WRIGHT: Absolutely, Mr. Speaker.

MR. JORDAN: Thank you. One of the questions

that I always have when I look at this bill is many of our

municipalities, especially within my district and throughout the North

Country, will have small water districts and water departments.

Would those constitute utilities under this bill?

MR. WRIGHT: I would say no, if they're doing

regular maintenance and such.

MR. JORDAN: But if part of that work -- I guess I

would take a step back . I think we -- I guess, for the purposes of this,


153

we should assume that they're going to be considered utilities under

the definition under Labor Law and public service?

MR. WRIGHT: Yes. And if they're regulated, I

would say, by the Public service Commission. The definition of

utility does come under the Labor Law.

MR. JORDAN: Thank you. And during regular

maintenance, perhaps, wouldn't trigger it, but if part of their work,

either repair or a service extension or connecting a building to the

main required digging underneath a road that was going to require a

permit from the State, county or locality, is that what triggers this bill?

MR. WRIGHT: I would say yes. Certainly, any time

you have to cut into a street, which I think is an inherently dangerous

sort of activity, and it would have to be a public utility, certainly, that

that's where this bill would kick in and it would require that the

municipality would have you doing such work, would have to hire

competent workers and pay prevailing wage.

MR. JORDAN: Some of our communities have

water districts that are separate taxing districts, but they're water

districts that are, for the most part -- or not for the most part, are

actually -- their commissioners are the board, the board members,

either the town board members or the village trustees and one of the

provisions of this, I think, is probably written because we don't

anticipate that scenario where we may expect it to be a private water

company, but one of the provisions requires that not only do they --

well, that they enter into a contract or agreement to hire competent


154

workers. In the instance I describe where you have, you know, the

Town of Johnsburg, the North Creek Water District or the Village of

Whitehall that provides its own water, they're going to be --

Mr. WRIGHT: I've never heard of those towns.

MR. JORDAN: I know. The next time you come to

visit we will go --

MR. WRIGHT: I've been meaning to come and visit.

You have finally have to take me up on that, Mr. Jordan.

MR. JORDAN: That's right. I know. And the

challenge is, who do they enter into an agreement with in that

instance?

MR. WRIGHT: Well, you know, and I think I

understand your question. I mean, if a municipality has a Public

Works Department, this bill would probably apply to them.

MR. JORDAN: Right.

MR. WRIGHT: I would say also that if a

municipality has its own power generation plant or waterworks which

it sells to its residents, the provision of this bill could apply as with

well. Now, who would they -- I guess your question is who would the

municipality enter into an agreement with?

MR. JORDAN: Correct.

MR. WRIGHT: If they enter into it with

subcontractors, they would have to have an agreement to do the work.

MR. JORDAN: Okay. Very often, though, these

localities will use their own workforce. So, folks that they'll either


155

have contract -- you know, they'll already have a collective-bargaining

agreement with or they may not be -- it may be an open shop, but they

have whatever wages they're paid.

MR. WRIGHT: I would say yes.

MR. JORDAN: And on --

MR. WRIGHT: I would say yes because there's a

presumption that the town folks are competent.

MR. JORDAN: But now, all of a sudden, I think

they're going to find themselves in a situation where they have to pay

prevailing wage to their workers on that part of the project that is

occurring within the roadway, let's say.

MR. WRIGHT: I'm told that this is only triggered

when there is, in fact, a contract that's triggered by -- when you have a

contract with a public utility.

MR. JORDAN: Well, that's right. And I think the

problem is the water company is a utility, so when the municipality,

through its water district, goes to do this work, they're going to have to

pay their workers prevailing wage, which I can only speak to the

communities in my area, prevailing wage is generally higher than the

hourly wage that the municipal workers are getting currently. But let's

move to the --

MR. WRIGHT: Well, I want to answer your question

because I want to be responsive. I'm told is it really depends on if, in

fact, there's a definition -- that they fit into the definition of a public

utility.


156

MR. JORDAN: Correct. And fortunately, someone

just left on my desk the definition under Department of Public Service

of what is a public utility, and it includes anyone that's furnishing --

the furnishing or distribution of water for domestic, commercial or

public uses.

MR. WRIGHT: Excuse me, Mr. Speaker. Can we

get a little quiet? I'm having a hard time hearing.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Colleagues, if we

can please pay attention to the debate that's going on.

MR. JORDAN: I will try to speak up, Mr. Wright.

MR. WRIGHT: No, that's fine.

MR. JORDAN: Somebody just left for me, and

fortunately, it's part of the definition of Public Service Corporation

and Jurisdiction. It includes any entity that's furnishing or -- the

furnishing or distribution of water for domestic, commercial or public

uses and to water systems and to the persons or corporations owning,

leasing or operating the same. A pretty broad definition.

MR. WRIGHT: Okay.

MR. JORDAN: I think the problem is, if we have a

municipality who may pay their laborers $14 an hour or $16 an hour

or $25 an hour, the prevailing wage is going to be -- in this area is

higher then that and this is going to create a potential burden to the

municipality on these projects to their own workers where they now

have to deviate from a bargaining-unit contract and pay them more.

MR. WRIGHT: Could you give me exactly what


157

definition you're reading from, Mr. Jordan?

MR. JORDAN: Yes. It's under Article I, Department

of Public Service, Public Service Law.

MR. WRIGHT: Subdivision 23?

MR. JORDAN: That's the definition of a utility

company. Actually, I'm wrong. It's -- that part, what I then jumped to

was jurisdiction of the Public Service Law. Who is under the

jurisdiction of the Public Service Commission.

MR. WRIGHT: Okay. Go on.

MR. JORDAN: Beat that one down for awhile.

MR. WRIGHT: Okay.

MR. JORDAN: For instance, with National Grid,

National Grid is our power provider up here, Long Island Power, et

cetera, if this bill were enacted into law and every time, you know, if

there was a gas leak and they were going to have to go into and do this

work and the contracts they had to enter into required the payment of

prevailing wage, assuming that that is a higher wage, that's going to

add to the cost of that project. Who will bear that cost? Will it be the

power company or will it be the ratepayers who will ultimately pay a

higher rate?

MR. WRIGHT: Well, from what I'm told is that

whoever, I guess, is contracting for this work has to apply for

permission to raise the rates to the Public Service Commission.

MR. JORDAN: And I think my experience with that

has been they come and say well, the State has driven up our costs


158

because of A, B and C, and therefore, we request a rate increase. My

concern is, are we creating a scenario where, in an effort to

accomplish one thing -- I mean, as you well know, our rates for

electric here in New York are 20 to 30 percent higher than our

neighboring states and in the Capital Region, it's 20 percent higher

than the rest of the State, so we're very concerned with anything that

may cause those to go up.

MR. WRIGHT: And I, as well, Mr. Jordan. But I

can assure you, from what I'm told by our experts in this field, and you

know we have a lot of experts in this field, that it would be no more

than one percent per kilowatt -- one cent per kilowatt; I'm sorry.

MR. JORDAN: And I'm very fearful that that will

become a new line item on my utility bill making it even more

impossible to read and understand. Lastly, a question that I had asked

and then I went back and looked at the bill and I think there's an odd --

an odd outcome is going to be in this bill and it's going to be the

complete opposite of the discussion I just had. Many friends of mine

are linemen for various power companies and when they're out on

storms and doing work, whether it's gas, whatever the work is, they

put in long hours and begin to get paid very well for those, for those

hours. And I note in the bill that if National Grid had to go dig under

the road to do a gas line repair, this says that they shall pay prevailing

wage. I'm curious what would happen if that National Grid worker

was making whatever their two-and-a-half times their regular rate was

in responding to a storm which is going to be significantly higher than


159

prevailing wage, what will their reaction be when National Grid

comes to them and says sorry, because you're digging in a State

highway, we can only pay you prevailing wage, not your contract

rate?

MR. WRIGHT: Well, let me just say this and I'm

glad you asked that question. Section 220, Subsection (d) of the

Labor Law stipulates that the prevailing wage required on public

works projects shall be the minimum amount that can be paid to

workers. The contractor can pay more than the prevailing wage, but it

must pay at least the prevailing wage. So, prevailing wage would be

the floor and not the ceiling.


you, Mr. Wright.

MR. WRIGHT: Thank you.


section.




record the vote.



the results.


The bill is passed.


160

Mr. Canestrari.

MR. CANESTRARI: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We will

now go to Rules Report No. 33 on page 4 of the main Calendar, Mr.

Gottfried. Rules Report No. 33.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Rules Report No.

33 on page 4, the Clerk will read.


Gottfried, Silver, Paulin, Dinowitz, Cahill, Peoples-Stokes, Bing,

Galef, Gunther, Cymbrowitz, J. Rivera, Englebright, Ortiz, Robinson,

Hooper, Hoyt, Rosenthal, Jaffee, Magnarelli, Maisel, Lancman, Clark,

Titone, Zebrowski, Ramos, Colton, Abinanti, Jacobs, Bronson, Cook.

An act to amend the Public Health Law, in relation to creating the

Prescription Drug Discount Program and to repeal certain provisions

of the Public Health Law relating thereto.


requested, Mr. Gottfried.

MR. GOTTFRIED: Mr. Speaker, this bill would

expand the Prescription Discount Program that New York now has to

be available to any New Yorker who doesn't have prescription drug

coverage of any age in a household up to 350 percent of poverty. The

current law makes it available only to people between the ages of 55

and 64 or people who have a serious disability and who have limited

income. Under the bill, under the program, and it would be expanded

under the bill, the discount that is made available to the consumer

does not come from any subsidy from the taxpayer. It comes from the


161

Health Department bargaining and negotiating rebates with drug

companies, which they are able to get because they are negotiating on

behalf of what would probably be a couple of million customers.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Burling.

MR. BURLING: Yes, Mr. Speaker. On the bill.


MR. BURLING: On the bill.

I've been opposed to this year after year and if you

look at the memos, you'll see that PHRMA's are against it, New York

State Health Plan Association is against it, Pharmacist's Society of

State of New York, Pharmacy Association and you might ask well,

why is that? I think that most of us have seen that year after year in

the budgets we've had serious reductions in reimbursement rates to

pharmacies that accept and administer these plans that fill

prescriptions for these plans and the problem that I have with this is

that as we expand the benefits to people, at the same time, we

continue to cut the reimbursement rates to pharmacies and we just

can't continue to do these programs, do these prescription programs

and continue to see our reimbursement rates cut, and that's what's

happening and it's detrimental to pharmacies, but especially

detrimental to the small pharmacies like I have in a small, rural

setting. So, because of that, because of the low reimbursement rates, I

will not support the bill. Thank you very much.


section.


162



record the vote.



the results.


The bill is passed.




56, Lentol, Silver, Aubry, Jaffe, Farrell, Weinstein, Clark, Jacobs. An

act to amend the Executive Law, in relation to establishing the

minimum period of time that forensic samples would be retained by

investigation authorities; in relation to appointments to the

Commission on Forensic Science; to amend the Judiciary Law, in

relation to creating the State Commission for the Integrity of the

Criminal Justice system, as an independent agency, and providing for

such commission's powers and duties; to amend the Criminal

Procedure Law, in relation to special fictitious name indictments; to

amend the Executive Law, in relation to requests for certain DNA test

comparisons; to amend the Criminal Procedure Law, in relation to

forensic DNA testing; to amend the Court of Claims Act, in relation to

claims for unjust conviction and imprisonment; to amend the

Executive Law and he Criminal Procedure Law, in relation to DNA


163

testing, confidentiality, data collection and recordkeeping; to amend

the State Finance Law, in relation to establishing the DNA Evidence

Fund; in relation to establishing the Innocence Research Project

Program; to amend the Criminal Procedure Law, in relation to

electronic recordings of interrogations; and to amend the Executive

Law, in relation to defining a designated offender.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Lentol, an


MR. LENTOL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This bill

expands the State's DNA database by requiring all persons convicted

of a Penal Law misdemeanor to submit a DNA sample. The bill, at

the same time, enacts various provisions to help ensure that innocent

persons are not wrongfully convicted of crimes.

Specifically, the bill requires the State Commission

on Forensic Science to develop standards for the preservation of

cataloging DNA evidence, establishes a State Commission for the

Integrity of the criminal Justice System to review wrongful conviction

cases and make recommendations to prevent such wrongful

convictions in the future. It establishes procedures for John Doe

indictments, removes certain procedural bars to better enable

wrongfully convicted persons to seek compensation from the State,

establishes procedures for the collection of voluntary DNA samples in

the course of a criminal investigation and, finally, requires the

electronic recording of custodial interrogations that take place in a

place of detention.


164



sponsor yield for a few questions?

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Lentol.

MR. LENTOL: Certainly.

MR. JORDAN: Thank you. I'll go in reverse order

of how you covered it. We start with the provision of now requiring

all custodial interrogations to be -- is it electronically recorded; is that

correct?

MR. LENTOL: Yes.

MR. JORDAN: I think you indicated -- is that

correct?

MR. LENTOL: Yes. All felony cases.

MR. JORDAN: Well, very often during the

investigation they don't know yet whether it's going to be a felony or a

misdemeanor.

MR. LENTOL: That's true. That's true.

MR. JORDAN: So, I think, by practicality it will be

any time there's a custodial interrogation it will have to be

electronically recorded; is that a fair --

MR. LENTOL: That's correct, sir.

MR. JORDAN: Can you provide for the House the

definition of "custodial interrogation"?

MR. LENTOL: The definition?

MR. JORDAN: Yes.


165

MR. LENTOL: On page 12, line (b), custodial

interrogation is defined as, "Custodial interrogation means any

interrogation which is conducted in a place of detention and during

which a reasonable person in the subject's position would consider

himself or herself to be in custody."

MR. JORDAN: Could that include the back of the

squad car if the defendant were handcuffed?

MR. LENTOL: Also, in Section (c) of the bill, place

of detention is defined to mean, "a police station, a correctional

facility, holding facility for prisoners or other government facilities

where persons are held in detention in connection with criminal

charges which have been or may be filed against them." So, therefore,

in your supposition, the back of a police car would not qualify under

that definition.

MR. JORDAN: I don't think it's a stretch to think

that a police car is a government facility.

MR. LENTOL: Well --

MR. JORDAN: And I guess -- I mean, we probably

could debate this point for 15 minutes and I won't put you through that

or the House, but I mean, I think the first part that says where a

reasonable person would not think they're free to leave, if I'm

handcuffed in the back of a police car, I think that alone will create

the presumption of -- and I believe the Supreme Court of the United

States has actually held that to be a custodial interrogation. But let's

move along. Electronic recording. What does that require in the bill?


166

MR. LENTOL: Electronic recording is also defined

in Subdivision (a) of the bill to mean, "...a contemporaneous video

and audio recording or where video recording is impracticable, a

contemporaneous audio recording."

MR. JORDAN: Is there a provision in the bill that

provides a carve out for where we would consider video recording not

practicable?

MR. LENTOL: Yes. Provision 4(c), for example,

says, "The failure to electronically record an entire interrogation was

the result of equipment failure and obtaining replacement equipment

was not feasible."

MR. JORDAN: But if a police station in a small

village that has three part-time police officers, if they don't currently

have video equipment, my assumption is, under this bill, that's not

going to be deemed impracticable because, I think, the courts would

say, if this bill were law you have to go out and buy a video camera.

MR. LENTOL: Yes, but it may also just require

audio recordings, which aren't that expensive.

MR. JORDAN: But my understanding was this says

video and audio or does it say video or?

MR. LENTOL: It says where video equipment is

impracticable, then audio equipment would be okay.

MR. JORDAN: Okay. If a custodial interrogation

occurs and it is not properly recorded, as required by this bill, what is

the consequence?


167

MR. LENTOL: I'm trying to find it for you in the

bill. In Section 3 on page 12, "If the court finds that the defendant

was subjected to a custodial interrogation in violation of Subdivision 2

of this Section, then any statements made by the defendant following

that custodial interrogation, even if otherwise in compliance with this

Section, are also presumed inadmissible."

MR. JORDAN: And so, we could have a scenario

where a defendant admits to a particularly heinous crime and because

the municipality didn't have a video camera and tape recording

machinery or, perhaps, because driving while in custody, in the back

of a police car, handcuffed and otherwise restrained, the person gives

a full confession with no interrogation or, perhaps, even better,

provides a -- you know, he's provided with his Miranda warnings, has

the benefit of counsel and provides a full statement of confession, but

it's not videotaped and audio taped, my understanding of this bill is

that confession, given with presence of counsel, with the full

understanding of the consequences, is now dismissed.

MR. LENTOL: Well, not necessarily because there

are exceptions, since you've read the bill, in Subdivision 4 which starts

out by saying that, "The people may rebut a presumption of

inadmissibility through clear and convincing evidence that the

statement was both voluntary and reliable and that exigent

circumstances necessitating interrogation at a place in a location other

than a police station, correctional facility or holding facility for

prisoners was not readily available."


168

MR. JORDAN: Right. And so, I think the biggest

problem I have is not the exceptions, because one would assume when

you first read it that, oh, if it was voluntary and reliable, we're okay.

And heck, his lawyer was there and he signed it, so how could it not

be voluntary and reliable? The problem is we use the word "and" and

my English teacher is going to have a heart attack, I think the

conjunctive says there has to be something else present, and it's

certainly not an exigent circumstance. If they simply don't use the

recording because the lawyer's there, that wouldn't be good enough,

and there wasn't any equipment failure. We've now allowed a

defendant who, you know, it's easy to think of situations, is now going

to walk despite a knowing, voluntary statement given in the presence

of his counsel and I think that's a major concern. I'll jump off of that

piece.

MR. LENTOL: But just remember, Mr. Jordan, and

I'm sure you know, as a very competent lawyer, that in those

circumstances that you've mentioned, it may be that the statement is

admissible, but that doesn't preclude a prosecution in the case

whatsoever.

MR. JORDAN: Well, I know, but very often crimes

are only as good as the evidence and very often the best evidence is

the admission of the defendant. But moving into the DNA database --

MR. LENTOL: And sometimes that's part of the

problem.

MR. JORDAN: Right. But I also think there are still


169

plenty of safeguards in existence already under current law that

address the issue of coerced statements, statements that are garnered

improperly and what have you. But moving to the DNA collection --

MR. LENTOL: Okay.

MR. JORDAN: -- right now, how many new crimes

does this bill now require us to collect DNA samples for? And a

ballpark will be more then sufficient.

MR. LENTOL: I think the last DNA expansion

covered approximately 46 percent and this bill would pick up the rest,

so I'm just guessing, I'm giving you a ballpark of about 50 to 54

percent.

MR. JORDAN: And do you know a raw number of

what that is in terms of Penal Law crimes that will now be covered, do

you know? I mean, is it more than a 1,000, less than a 1,000, more

than 500?

MR. LENTOL: I don't have that figure, but it may be

thousands of cases.

MR. JORDAN: Well, not cases, but just crimes.

MR. LENTOL: Yes.

MR. JORDAN: Not crimes committed but under the

Penal Law.

MR. LENTOL: I understand. I don't know the

number of crimes, but there would be thousands of cases that would

be covered.

MR. JORDAN: How much does a DNA sample


170

cost?

MR. LENTOL: Eighty dollars, I'm informed by

counsel.

MR. JORDAN: Eighty dollars?

MR. LENTOL: Yes.

MR. JORDAN: And who pays for that?

MR. LENTOL: The defendant pays a fee. I don't

know if it covers the entire cost.

MR. JORDAN: And what happens as we find, quite

regularly, we'll have defendants that are indigent qualify for public

defenders, can't pay their fines, et cetera, who pays the fee in that

instance?

MR. LENTOL: The fees are collected by the -- are

not waiveable by statute, the fees that are collected.

MR. JORDAN: Correct, they're not waived, but if

the defendant has no money then they never get it, I think that's part of

the concern.

MR. LENTOL: That's right.

MR. JORDAN: So, is the county left or the local

court left paying it or is it the State?

MR. LENTOL: The State pays for it since they're

processing the sample.

MR. JORDAN: And where are these DNA samples

collected?

MR. LENTOL: You mean in what location are they


171

collected?

MR. JORDAN: Yes.

MR. LENTOL: In New York State it's generally in

the court. In other places, at the Probation Department.

MR. JORDAN: Okay. One of the problems we have

is if it's going to be collected at the Probation Department, for

instance, in Washington County, the Probation Department is going to

be located 55 miles, perhaps, to 60 miles from many of the individuals

that are going to be subjected to this and we don't have mass transit.

And I am certain there are other counties where that distance is even

greater. So, what happens to the defendant who's now obligated to

submit a DNA sample who, although admittedly had transportation to

commit whatever crime he committed but is now -- you know, it's a

misdemeanor. It's an aggravated harassment, they're ROR'd, they're at

home, they're 55 miles from the county seat and they're told to go to

probation to submit a DNA sample. What happens if they actually

can't or use that as an excuse to not?

MR. LENTOL: Well, right now, the option exists to

do it at the Probation Department, but it doesn't have to be done there

by the county. They can do it right in the court just the way they do it

in other places.

MR. JORDAN: Yes, but our courts are part-time

judges who serve, oftentimes one morning. I think the problem I see

is a problem of geography and differences between locations. And

just giving you a vision, one of our courts that we have meets in a


172

firehouse on Tuesday nights from 6:00 to 7:00. I mean, that's the

extent of their court hours, and I doubt that judge is going to want to

be collecting DNA samples, nor will there be someone there. So,

those are some of the problems this poses.

Let's jump then to another part of the bill that I guess

really gets to some significant concerns. We are now creating a whole

new dynamic, are we not, with this bill about how DNA is going to be

stored, what happens to it, where it's stored, who tests it and the

procedures for a person who alleges they were wrongly convicted to

sue the State in Court of Claims; is that correct?

MR. LENTOL: I think what you're referring to in the

statute is left for the Forensic Science Commission to make

determinations about.

MR. JORDAN: One of my understandings is from

this bill is that there's a provision that allows DNA samples to be

destroyed after five years, regardless of whether or not an

investigation is still ongoing; is that correct?

MR. LENTOL: I don't believe that is correct.

MR. JORDAN: What is the current standard for a

defendant who believes they've been wrongly -- I gets it's now a

convicted person.

MR. LENTOL: Wrongfully convicted.

MR. JORDAN: Wrongfully convicted. What is the

current burden that they have to meet?

MR. LENTOL: Well, it depends upon what point


173

you're talking about, at the trial or after he's been convicted and sent to

jail.

MR. JORDAN: I guess it's the provision -- well,

okay. Which are they? I'll play. I'm suing in the Court of Claims.

MR. LENTOL: One is a discovery matter and one is

Court of --

MR. JORDAN: That's right. But I am now -- I've

now been convicted, I've served my time and I feel I've been wrongly

accused and I want to bring an action in the Court of Claims. What do

I have to establish?

MR. LENTOL: Saved by the bell.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Jordan, your

time is up.


you.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Canestrari for

an announcement.

MR. CANESTRARI: Economic Development

Committee Meeting, Speaker's Conference Room.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Which

Committee, Mr. Canestrari?

MR. CANESTRARI: Economic Development.

Robin Schimminger, Chair, is ready. Economic Development

members, please.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Boyle.


174

MR. BOYLE: Mr. Speaker, will the Chairman yield

for a couple questions?

MR. LENTOL: Certainly.


MR. LENTOL: Yes, sir.

MR. BOYLE: Chairman, just getting back to the

DNA testing, the expansion from some misdemeanors to now we're

talking about all misdemeanors? All misdemeanors will be covered;

is that correct?

MR. LENTOL: That's correct, all Penal Law

misdemeanors.

MR. BOYLE: Okay. Can you describe just a couple

of them, give me some examples where they were not being covered

before and they're now being covered under this legislation?

MR. LENTOL: Aggravated harassment is one

example that comes to mind, criminal trespass as a misdemeanor. I

think most of the property crimes were picked up in the last

expansion.

MR. BOYLE: Okay.

MR. LENTOL: Shoplifting, jostling.

MR. BOYLE: I'm sorry?

MR. LENTOL: Jostling.

MR. BOYLE: Jostling? Does the bill address the

idea of familial DNA testing at all, where we get a partial match and

we know that the defendant is not the person we may think it is, but


175

his brother or his uncle or some family member?

MR. LENTOL: No. As a matter of fact, I think that's

being attacked by court cases as to whether or not it's a viable use of

DNA and it's certainly not in the bill.

MR. BOYLE: Mr. Speaker, on the bill.

My colleagues, this legislation is long overdue and I

wish we'd passed it years ago with our Senate colleagues. I take, for

example, the case of recently-arrested Lerio Guerrero arrested a

couple of weeks ago in lower Manhattan for a rape in 1998.

Allegedly, Mr. Guerrero in 1998 took a 28-year-old college professor,

raped her, sodomized her, cut her with glass and then forced her to

take money out of the ATM. Because the law, the way it is now, he

was not asked to give a DNA sample in subsequent arrests. We didn't

know who he was. There was a suspect back there. He had cut

himself on the glass, they had the DNA. In 2000, Mr. Guerrero was

convicted of drunken driving. In 2002, he was convicted of marijuana

position. In 2003, he was convicted of a felony drunken driving

conviction and finally, in May 2011, he was convicted of disorderly

conduct. Only because Mr. Guerrero was a smoker and a police

officer was smart enough to see him throw away the cigarette butt did

they do a DNA test of him recently. And they found out that he is a

likely match for the 1998 rape. If we had required testing, DNA

testing, these other crimes, these misdemeanors, like this bill will call

for, we could have captured Mr. Guerrero in 2000. God only knows

what heinous crimes he's committed in the interim. These are just the


176

only ones he was convicted of. It's likely that he assaulted other

women and other people along the way.

I strongly urge passage of this legislation. I urge my

colleagues to support it. This is really the beginning and for my

colleagues here who have not done it, we took a trip a couple of years

ago to the forensic lab right down the street, it's at the Campus. That's

where the State Police do their testing. It is truly amazing what they

do. Take an hour out, we can organization a trip maybe a later in the

next Session to see what they do, to teach everyone about DNA,

what's available, familial DNA, touch DNA, the technology is better

and better to help us fight these heinous criminals and I urge a yes

vote. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Ms. Glick.

MS. GLICK: Will the sponsor yield for a couple of

questions?


MR. LENTOL: Yes, I will.

MS. GLICK: Could you just clarify for me in the

event -- now these are post-conviction?

MR. LENTOL: Yes.

MS. GLICK: These samples are taken

post-conviction?

MR. LENTOL: Yes. That's right.

MS. GLICK: So, the defendant would, in fact, be

available for obtaining the sample right at that point?


177

MR. LENTOL: That's correct.

MS. GLICK: So, the issue of transportation and all

the rest of it is --

MR. LENTOL: Well, assuming that personnel of the

Probation Department or the court were available at that time to take

the samples at the courthouse at the time of conviction.

MS. GLICK: Right. It's not as if you have to have

somebody - this is post-conviction so, theoretically, you actually have

the defendant somewhere.

MR. LENTOL: Right.

MS. GLICK: The other question, in the event that

there is a determination that there is a wrongful conviction, what

happens to the sample?

MR. LENTOL: What happens to what?

MS. GLICK: The sample.

MR. LENTOL: There's already a provision in law for

the destroying of the sample, of the evidence.

MS. GLICK: I have one other question. Over the

years there have been instances where, particularly in the instance of

rape kits, for example, that there have been long backlogs. Do we

have any such backlogs currently in the State of New York?

MR. LENTOL: Well, they're not really as bad as

they used to be. I would answer the question by saying that they're

almost up-to-date. According to Ways and Means they're entirely

up-to-date. I stand corrected.


178

MS. GLICK: Okay. So there are no rape kits that

have been sitting around as they had been for a number of years under

tested.

MR. LENTOL: They had been, but they are not now.

MS. GLICK: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Lentol.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Montesano.

MR. MONTESANO: Mr. Speaker, will the sponsor

yield for a question, please?


MR. LENTOL: Yes, I will.

MR. MONTESANO: Mr. Chairman, I just want to

be sure I was clear on something. Under this bill the DNA collected

post-conviction, it's only going to be kept for five years in the

databank?

MR. LENTOL: No.

MR. MONTESANO: Because I was reading

something in here that makes a provision that after five years DNA is

destroyed.

MR. LENTOL: Yes, I think that that section refers to

where there's an exoneration and then after five years the evidence is

destroyed.

MR. MONTESANO: But if it's taken

post-conviction so, in other words -- and the conviction is taken up on

appeal and, say, the Appellate Court dismisses that conviction or

reverses that conviction, five years from that time the DNA is


179

expunged?

MR. LENTOL: I'm sorry. The section that you're

referring to is actually the collection of voluntary samples that, you

know, the police may ask people in a particular building if there's a

burglary to submit voluntary samples, let's say, and they collect it and

everybody agrees to give their DNA sample and then the investigation

is concluded. They find the perpetrator, then they're required to

destroy those samples.

MR. MONTESANO: And just lastly, once that is

done is there any verification given to the person who voluntarily gave

the sample, that the DNA has been destroyed?

MR. LENTOL: What? I'm sorry.

MR. MONTESANO: If that occurs, is there any type

of verification that's given to the person who provided the voluntary

DNA that that's been accomplished?

MR. LENTOL: Not under the statue. Maybe they

should do that, but there is no provision under the statue for it.

MR. MONTESANO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


section.



record the vote.


Mr. Jordan to explain his vote.


180

MR. JORDAN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. DNA has

revolutionized both criminal prosecution but, more importantly,

protection of people who are truly innocent and it is important to

continue to look for ways to expand the database, expand our

understanding of that technology and the usefulness that it brings. But

a bill that would allow a heinous criminal who gives a statement to the

police with counsel present, fully aware of all of his rights and

responsibilities and opportunities to have the indictment dismissed

solely because it wasn't recorded strikes me as going too far, too

quickly, and leaves our police at a significant disadvantage when

criminals continually get smarter and smarter every day. For that

reason and a host of others, I will cast my vote in the negative and

encourage my colleagues to do the same. Thank you.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Lentol to

explain his vote.

MR. LENTOL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I guess

getting involved in the technicalities, the members of the House may

not get a real flavor for what this bill is all about, and after Mr.

Jordan's explanation, I wouldn't explain it quite that way regarding

custodial interrogations, especially since New York State has had

approximately 40 wrong convictions in the last 10 or 15 years

overturned and in 20 or so of those cases, or at least almost half, I may

not have my figures right, I read them a long time ago, but in almost

half of those interrogations there had been a confession, a confession,

where somebody confessed to the crime and DNA was tested and that


181

person was found to be innocent. That's why the custodial

interrogation piece is in this bill, because it's so important for our

understanding of how DNA works and how it's supposed to not only

convict the guilty, but also protect the innocent and if we don't have a

bill like this one passed that gives real meaning to protecting the

innocent, then all we'll have is a DNA database that serves mainly to

convict the guilty, and as laudable as that is to convict the guilty, it's

just as important to make sure that we don't convict an innocent

person like we've done in the past in almost half of the wrongful

convictions in the last 20 years that have happened, and that's

important because, because while that person who is in jail is

suffering and languishing, the guilty person is still at large and we

haven't gotten them off the street. So, I withdraw my request, Mr.

Speaker, and vote in the affirmative.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Lentol in the

affirmative.

Mr. Boyle to explain his vote.

MR. BOYLE: Yes, Mr. Speaker, to explain my vote.

If you look at some of the jury awards of those individuals that have

suffered in prison wrongfully for many years, I think the whole idea of

how much it costs to videotape these interrogations goes away. It's

always $16 million, $20 million, as well as it should be for people

who spend half their life in jail wrongfully convicted. When I first

started working on the DNA issue I was on Capitol Hill in the 1980's

and there were three places in the entire country that did DNA testing:


182

Cellmark, Life Code and the FBI Headquarters. Now we have

forensic labs all over country. This technology has gone a tremendous

way but we can go a lot further to prove the guilty are guilty and the

innocent are innocent. I vote strongly in the affirmative.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Ms. Barron to

explain her vote.

MS. BARRON: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to

commend the sponsor of this legislation. I think that it is very

important that we use the DNA results - the capacities that we have

for DNA testing to, in fact, not only convict the guilty, but to

exonerate those who are innocent and I'm thinking specifically of the

so-called Central Park jogger case where young men confessed and

were convicted and spent time in prison but, subsequently, someone

acknowledged that they, in fact, had committed the crime and their

DNA, in fact, was found at the scene. So, we want to commend the

Speaker and we want to encourage the municipality to do the right

thing in terms of giving restitution to the Central Park jogger, the

Central Park five in the Central Park jogger case. Thank you. I vote

in the affirmative.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Ms. Barron in the

affirmative.

Mr. Castelli to explain his vote.

MR. CASTELLI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I've

listened to the debate on both sides of the bill and I think it's insightful

and I certainly offer my compliments to the sponsor of this particular


183

bill. As somebody who spent 22 years in the State Police and 14 years

later as a criminal Justice Professor at John Jay College of Criminal

Justice, this is an area that Ive studied, I've taught and I certainly have

used as a member of the State Police force. I'm a big fan of the use of

DNA and I certainly am a fan of protecting the innocent while

convicting the guilty. Having said that to you, there are two parts of

this bill. The one part that deals with the DNA in the databases, I'm

100 percent in support of and would certainly compliment our sponsor

for that one. I, like some of my colleagues here, am troubled by the

facts that there is a secondary portion of this that creates a

burdensome requirement on law enforcement that might very well

preclude getting legitimate convictions and so much so is that a

concern that the DA's Association of the State of New York has come

out with a position in writing against this particular bill. It is not that

the bill in general is wrong. It is that some of the impositions imposed

in the context of this bill create a burdensome process that will, in

fact, make it much harder to convict individuals who are guilty of

crimes and remembering the police work is fluid not static, everything

does not exist in a static environment and as a result of which, while I

am in favor of the concept of this bill and I applaud my colleague, I

am going to have to sadly vote against this until some of those

restrictions are removed from that. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Lavine to

explain his vote.

MR. LAVINE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I suppose


184

that having practiced Criminal Law for more than 30 years and having

secured more convictions in that period of time than most prosecutors

would ever be able to dream about, then I ought to know a little bit

about this. This bill is sound. It is perfectly sound. Some have

observed that under some stretch of some tortured imagination that

these statements, not recorded, are going to become completely

inadmissible. The bill specifically says that's not the case. In

circumstances where the police have got somebody at a police station,

it's to be recorded. The bill specifically says, however, that where that

is impracticable, where it doesn't happened, where they're on the way

to the police station and the defendant makes spontaneous admissions,

those are admissible. All this bill does is supply the commonsense

factor that, where possible, in locations where the equipment exists,

statements made should be recorded and it's as simple as that. And I

think that if we give the impression that this bill is something that's

going to be impossible for law enforcement to comply with then we

are making -- we are not serving the ends of justice and one of our

obligations is to make sure we serve the ends of justice. It's a sound

bill, it makes a lot of sense. It's not going to be something that's going

to be utilized to cause wholesale dismissals of indictments or charges,

simple as that. It's a good bill, I'm voting for it.


affirmative.


the results.


185


The bill is passed.

Mr. Canestrari.

MR. CANESTRARI: Mr. Speaker, my colleagues,

we will now go to Rules Report No. 282 on page 15, Mr. Lopez,

please.


to page 15, Rules Report No. 282, the Clerk will read.


282, V. Lopez. An act to amend the Multiple Dwelling Law, in

relation to interim multiple dwellings.


requested.

MR. V. LOPEZ: This is a bill, I think, everyone will

enjoy voting for because it makes the incompatible use more practical

to implement and it clarifies language and it makes the bill we passed

last year more readable and understandable to individuals who are

non-lawyers.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Fitzpatrick.

MR. FITZPATRICK: Well, that was a great

explanation. Thank you very much. Vito, could we be a little just --

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Would you like

Mr. Lopez to yield?

MR. FITZPATRICK: This bill, when we passed a

bill earlier this year, I guess we expanded the coverage of the Loft


186

Law to Queens and Brooklyn. We expanded the coverage area.

MR. V. LOPEZ: Yes.

MR. FITZPATRICK: Now, what this bill will do

and, unfortunately, this will have, I believe, a negative effect on the

investment or and incentive to invest in upgrading these facilities so

that they come in to compliance and get their Certificate of

Occupancy, but to make the cost of these improvements just a

temporary surcharge rather than part of the base rent is going to have a

negative effect on the incentive to upgrade these building, would it

not?

MR. V. LOPEZ: Well, no. What we're doing is

making it more reasonable so that if, right now, you would have a six

percent increase compounded with an eight percent increase

compounded by another six percent increase and so we're talking

about a 30 percent increase or maybe even higher. We're using the

methodology, which you're quite familiar with and you've debated that

issue, we're using the MCI process where the cost would be laid over a

longer period of time and, therefore, it will make it more palatable for

the individual. If you're paying $1,500 for your space, the first

increase will be six percent, so it's $100. I mean, you'll go to maybe

$2,000 by these three increases and that really counters the argument.

What we're trying to do is make the commercial use which people are

living in, you know, more affordable and sustainable, and we're

allowing the landlord a right of return, but we're phasing it over a

certain period.


187

MR. FITZPATRICK: But historically we've allowed

that increase to go into the base rent and the reason for doing that is it

provides an incentive for owners of these buildings to invest the

necessary funds to upgrade those buildings for the benefit of the

tenants and since it's not a finite debt that -- you know, these

improvements are enjoyed long after the improvements are completed

but the use continues and, therefore, there is a cost of maintenance, a

cost of, you know, upgrade but particularly maintenance. We're

removing the incentive to invest in these buildings.

MR. V. LOPEZ: I'm being told that when this was

first put into law in the 1980s, the rents of the loft units were $200 and

$300 and now there $1,800 and $2,000 and so these six percent, eight

percent, six percent, respectively become enormous and it will be well

over a $400 or $500 increase. So, what we're trying do is give the

landlord an equitable rate of return, phase it in over six or seven years

and the MCI increase, as you know, although I don't support, will be

there for the rest of the time the owner owns building. The real thrust

of this is to say, how do we get the landlord the money and a rate of

return? How do we do it in a way that's more reasonable? He or she

will get the rate of return. Instead of getting it over three years, they'll

get it over seven. I mean, really, when you start looking at it, it really

isn't that much of a difference.

MR. FITZPATRICK: But unlike our other debates

when we talk about affordable housing and rent-stabilized housing

this is a different situation. These are not people who need affordable


188

housing, these are people with special needs, if you will, who are

artists and who are those who are in no need of rent protection at all

and can certainly afford to pay a higher base rent, but these people

also enjoy the benefits of the amenities, not only of bringing a

building into compliance with the City code, but also the other

amenities that they enjoy when an investor or a building owner has the

incentive to make improvements.

MR. V. LOPEZ: Well, you know, that's why I keep

on asking you to come to Brooklyn and you may be coming soon, but

maybe spend a full day. The lofts in general, in Brooklyn, north

Brooklyn, often they have the first and second floors utilized for

commercial use, the next five or six floors are basically empty, other

than the ones that are rented to lofts. So, it's a revenue enhancer for

the person who owns the building and, two, I beg to disagree that

these are nominal charges that they have but because, one, they do pay

rents that are very, very high compared to even other rents in my

district but, more significantly, you're an advocate for helping small

businesses. Most of these people are in a live-work situation. They're

painters, sculptors. I mean I went to visit them. They have, like, loft

weekend, art weekend.


MR. CANESTRARI: Mr. Speaker, excuse me.

Colleagues, excuse me. An immediate meeting of the Agriculture

Committee, Bill Magee awaits your arrival in the Speaker's

Conference Room. Sorry, Vito.


189

MR. V. LOPEZ: No, it's all right. Maybe you can

help me answer this question, because when I went to these lofts I saw

painting and sculpturing that I did not understand, but I don't even

know if they have a market.

MR. FITZPATRICK: That's called modern art.

MR. V. LOPEZ: Yes. All right. Well, I'm not -- you

know where I'm at. That's why either you or Ron Canestrari have to

come and help me look at -- and I looked at it from every direction,

couldn't figured it out, but these people, this is an industry and we're

allowing that industry -- some of them are filmmakers, some are

sculptors, some are relatives of members that live in Upstate New

York State, who their kids have come down, they're not living

productive lives. Well, in my mind, they aren't, they're not bringing in

any revenue. Their parents send money down to pay rent. So we're

talking about an unusual burden on them and this loft space would be

totally underutilized, it would be barren and vacant. Now, there are

some interests that say let's keep them there, but let's keep them not

regulated, let's not upgrade it. Very interestingly, this time around we

have not found that to be the case. People don't mind nurturing this

because there is no need for manufacturing. Manufacturers are not

coming back to North Brooklyn, Southern Queens, et cetera. I mean,

if it did come back that would be great in many other ways. So, it's an

industry that we're trying -- people talk about giving tax credits.

These are all people that live, work, we want them to stay and the only

way they could stay is they live in this space and they work there.


190

You might say that's ridiculous. How can you live and work in the

space? But they do.

And so, the question is large increases in rent could

undermine their financial capacities, so what we're doing is saying the

landlord and the owner deserve the increases, lay it over seven years

instead of doing it three years back to back. That's the thrust of what

this is, other then some technical changes.

MR. FITZPATRICK: But in a marketplace where

supply and demand and market forces are at work and they work very

well, it is not in a building owner's best interest to jack up the rent so

high that it is uncompetitive. People would move out. If there's no

one to move in they will lower that price. There is a strong

disincentive to make that initial investment. I want to see those artists

thrive. I want to see them succeed. I want to see those buildings fill

up with people. The owners of those buildings, if they are limited to

what they can make or limited in terms of their return, you are

disincentivizing these people from investigating and maybe making

further investments in their properties to put in improvements or even

significantly better improvements to make their properties more

attractive, more marketable.

MR. V. LOPEZ: There are other incentives where

they could do certain things and get other kinds of raises, but just

think of it, because I hear it all the time and I'm very sensitive. When

I go back to Brooklyn, people get a little bit annoyed and I say when I

drive to Upstate New York -- like I said, in three week I'm going to be


191

in Buffalo and the outer parts of Buffalo. I mean, you know, I really

feel for the members that are in areas that are decimated, that the

industries have left. We need to do things to give tax credits. I'm a

strong advocate for helping those particular communities. This is an

industry that's very vital to New York City and not enough has been

done. And the rationale behind the bill, and I think you might even

support it, I'm not too sure, is to allow these live-work people,

painters, artists, sculptors and some terms that I'm not even familiar

with, to stay in the City. Why? Because they add to the economy.

The way to do it is to allow them the rate of return that comes, but lay

it over seven years.

It's the same way, you know, people advocate for tax

credits for certain businesses. I strongly believe that if you're in

Amsterdam or you're in some Upstate community that maybe for the

first five or six years businesses maybe should not have to pay any tax.

Why? To make sure they become viable and they employ people and

those particular people, in turn, bring in an income.

So, I think the challenge is, how do we maintain

industry in the State? This is an industry. What we're talking about

here is not tenants. We're talking about people who are living in a

situation, but I don't want to identify a few members, but whose son is

a guitarist and somebody else is a writer. They haven't really

published anything, but they live in these lofts and some day maybe

they will. It's an incubator for a certain type of industry and probably

every other week in my district you see these film crews coming by


192

and there's movies of them and it's a big industry in New York City.

So they're unique and they're somewhat isolated and other than me,

you know, sort of getting caught up in this cause 30 years ago and

taking this tour last week, I was fascinated by what I saw in buildings

that I would probably be afraid to walk into.

So, one, I'd like to see it upgraded. I would like to

see the landlord get his fair share, his or hers, but I need to do it in a

way that protects their capacity to pay the same way I would want to

do for small business and they are small businesspeople. Very soon

that's an issue I'm going to raise when we deal with the car services

and liveries and yellows. The outer borough small businesses need to

be protected, they just can't be protected in certain circumstances, they

must be protected across the board.

So, that's the rationale behind doing what we're

recommending. Now, you may say that's -- I understand where you're

coming from, but we're worried that having such a heavy hit the first

three years compounded three years in a row could drive many of

these people to other places; not only other states, other countries to

do what they're doing and we become a hub for these unique

individuals. Now, are they part of the mainstream and the social

fabric of my community? Not really. But do they add to the economy

of the City and the region? Yes. So, that's the rationale. And I

understand where you're coming from. We're not eliminating the

increases, we're phasing them over a longer period of time.

MR. FITZPATRICK: Right. Well, I think we do see


193

eye to eye on a lot of this, maintaining this vibrant industry. You

talked about an incubator, well I want to keep that incubator warm so

that these artists can thrive and grow and this industry can be nurtured,

but you want to have a good incubator and that's what I'm interested

in, because -- and these, you know, budding young artists in this

budding young industry also needs a good incubator and as we've seen

when government gets involved in protecting tenants through rent

control, rent stabilization we've seen, we continue to have a housing

crisis because we have removed the incentive to provide more housing

units because we have put extreme limits on the ability of an owner to

realize a return on his or her asset. We are going to do the same

things here, I'm afraid, by penalizing that owner and disincentivizing

that owner from making significant improvements to that property.

These enhancements and improvements, the

occupants reap these benefits for a much longer period of time and

historically, we've allowed this to go into the base rent and I'm afraid

that if we do here what we have done with other types of housing in

the City and in the State of New York, we are going to end up with the

same result and that is we're going to have not enough supply to meet

what we hope is a rising demand.

MR. V. LOPEZ: A couple of points that I differ. I

understand your rationale; I might not accept it totally. We're not

talking about tenants now, we're talking about people who are tenants

and residents, but also a working entity. We're talking about a small

business. You might say that's pretty small if there are only two or


194

three people running the business. So the question is, how do they --

and it has to be from outside income because if they do sell what they

had on the wall and they were showing me, that's somewhat

remarkable.

So the question here is, how do we stimulate this

unique industry, all right? And put aside the issue of tenants. They're

in commercial buildings. And the other part of it that we could make

an analogy that we haven't connected on, although you and I have

connected on a lot, and some of these building which, you know,

when the landlord wants to say get rid of the loft tenants, they call up

and all of a sudden the fire department goes, they have to a vacate. I

said, gee, why are we having a vacate? They said, well, there's no fire

escape. I said, that sounds logical, but there hasn't been one for 20

years. These people have been living there for 20 years.

So, the fact that, and we have argued this, even with

MCI's, if they do the fire escape, they do sprinklers, they do certain

things, the individual own has a major benefit, especially in North

Brooklyn, because property changes in value. So, it isn't self-serving

only to the residents, but I need you to be sensitive just a little bit to

the fact that this is a small business and not straight tenants, that's the

distinction here with loft tenants.

MR. FITZPATRICK: Well, yes, I believe I'm very

sensitive. I'm sensitive, actually, to both sides because you have to

have a properly incentivized owner to make those improvements.

ACTING SPEAKER LUPARDO: Mr. Fitzpatrick,


195

your time is up.

MR. FITZPATRICK: Okay. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Vito. It's always a pleasure. I would urge

a no vote. Thank you.

ACTING SPEAKER LUPARDO: Mr. Miller.

MR. D. MILLER: Would the sponsor yield for a

couple of questions?

ACTING SPEAKER LUPARDO: Will the sponsor

yield?

MR. V. LOPEZ: The answer is yes. One of my staff

people said, look, this is not bad. No one is here to listen to you.

Very complimentary, I just want to let you know.

MR. D. MILLER: And I'm basically no one.

MR. V. LOPEZ: No, no, I didn't mean you. She's

looking this way.

MR. D. MILLER: Well, then you and I can just chat.

I just have a couple random questions. I need you to educate me on a

couple of things here. Do the folks, the artists who occupy these lofts,

do they tend to write off part or some or all of their rent on their

income taxes as business space?

MR. V. LOPEZ: I'm not sure. It's a good possibility.

If they do, I believe, just my own feeling, and I'm not very artsy, I

don't know if they have much of an income, all right. I really think

that they're all subsidized in different ways.

MR. D. MILLER: Even better then, right, because if


196

their income is fairly --

MR. V. LOPEZ: Fathers, mothers, grandmothers, I

really believe it's like an incubator that's out there for a long time.

MR. D. MILLER: Exactly. So, if their income is --

MR. V. LOPEZ: I may be a bad judge and maybe

people see what they do and some of it is quite unique. You're

welcome to come and look at it.

MR. D. MILLER: Right. If their income is fairly

low, as you're suggesting then, you know, the tax break might actually

help them out quite a bit.

Now, in terms of keeping people in the City, I just

want to make sure I'm understanding you correctly. Are you

suggesting that if these rents rise at a particular rate other people won't

occupy these loft?

MR. V. LOPEZ: No. I believe that the rents will

rise. The question to where -- there's two ways of them rising, to do

6-8-6 over three years or do it over an MCI, which is six or seven

years. All we're doing is spreading out over twice the time period the

increase. We're not eliminating the increase.

MR. D. MILLER: What if we got rid of the 6-8-6

limit and we just let them rise; what would happen?

MR. V. LOPEZ: Well, there are other types of

increases that they get for other improvements, but doing away with

the 6-8-6, if I ever said to -- I probably have 8,000 artists living in my

district, Joe probably has 14,000. If I ever said I can get rid of the


197

6-8-6, I would be a hero for one day because they're quite fickle, if I

could do that. But, the question is, how do you get the owner, as your

colleague talked about, how do you get him or her to stay in the

system and how do you get them the return that they definitely should

get, but how do you do it in such a way that's a little bit more

reasonable? That rationale is mine and theirs. If we pass this bill and

it becomes law, I will lose a lot of advocates of loft residents because

they would do just like what you recommended, why do we have to

have 6-8-6. So this is not a home run. It's probably like a single for

me.

MR. D. MILLER: Thank you very much.

ACTING SPEAKER LUPARDO: Read the last

section.



record the vote.



the results.


The bill is passed.

Mr. Canestrari.

MR. CANESTRARI: And would you recognize Mr.

Crouch for announcement, please?

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Crouch for an


198

announcement. Colleagues, if we could have some silence and some

order. Please?

Mr. Crouch for an announcement.

MR. CROUCH: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There will

be an immediate Republican Conference in the Parlor.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Republican

Conference in the Parlor.

Mr. Canestrari.

MR. CANESTRARI: With that I move the House

stand in recess until 7:15 p.m.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: The House is in

recess until 7:15 p.m.

(Whereupon, at 6:42 p.m., the House stood in recess.)

A F T E R T H E R E C E S 7:36 P.M.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: The House is

back in order at 7:36 p.m.

Mr. Canestrari.

MR. CANESTRARI: Yes, right. The A- and the

B-Calendars are on the members' desks, I move at this time to advance

the A- and B-Calendars.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Without

objection, the A- and B-Calendars are advanced.

MR. CANESTRARI: Mr. Speaker, we will go to the


199

A-Calendar directly and start on page 3, Rules Report No. 322, Mr.

Castelli.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Conte for an

introduction.

MR. CONTE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Standing in

the rear of the Chamber are constituents of our colleague

Assemblyman McLaughlin. We have with us Jeff Flynn, who is in the

Assembly Minority Research Department, but he is here with his two

lovely daughters, Lydia, who is going into sixth grade and Clare, who

is going into fourth grade. They're from the Averill Park Elementary

School. If you can give, on behalf of Mr. McLaughlin, Mr. Flynn and

his daughters the cordialities of the House, I would be greatly

appreciative.


Conte. I saw the two young ladies earlier and they were really

enthused and they were really having a great time, too great a time for

this hour though, don't you think so Mr. Flynn? In any event, we want

to thank you for being here and for brightening up the place.

On behalf of Mr. McLaughlin, the Speaker and all my

colleagues, we want to thank you for being here. We want to thank

you for enjoying everything that the House has to offer and please

come back real soon. Thank you for being with us here today.

(Applause)

We will commence with Rules Report No. 322 on

page 3 of the A-Calendar Clerk will read.


200


Castelli. An act to amend the Criminal Procedure Law, in relation to

designating court attendants employed by the Town or Village of

Harrison as peace officers.


section.

THE CLERK: This act shall take effect on January 2,

2012 next succeeding the date on which it shall have become a law.


record the vote.



MR. CASTELLI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This bill

grew out of the necessity of the Town of Harrison in Westchester

County with an overburdened court system. Initially, the Town of

Harrison had asked us to put this bill in. The bill successfully passed

in this House and in the Senate. It also has a Senate sponsor again,

Senate Oppenheimer. We believe that this bill will allow a

tremendous financial burden which takes police officers off the road

and forces them to act as court officers to be eliminated by virtue of

having their court officers train as peace officers. That cost and

burden would be borne by the Town of Harrison at no cost State and

it's an option that, is as late as this afternoon when I spoke to the

Town Board, they still desirous of seeing that passed, so they have the

option to enhance the safety and security of the courtroom, the


201

personnel, the DA's, the defendants and the witnesses in that

courtroom.

So for that reason, ladies and gentlemen, I would ask

that you lend your support to this and please pass this on the behalf of

the Town of Harrison. Thank you.


MR. CANESTRARI: Mr. Speaker, just to remind my

colleagues, we are back into Session and voting. Let's vote this along

this evening. Rules Report No. 322, Castelli. Your cooperation,

please, is important or it will be a very long night. It's up to you.




The bill is passed.

We have some housekeeping that we have to handle

right now.

On behalf of Mr. Gottfried on Bill No. 2063-B, the

Assembly bill is recalled from the Senate. The Clerk will read the

title of the bill.

THE CLERK: Bill No. 2063-B, Calendar No. 444,

Gottfried, Dinowitz, Cahill, Galef, Jaffee, Brook-Krasny, DenDekker,

Ortiz, Spano, P. Rivera, Lavine. An act to amend the Penal Law and

the Criminal Procedure Law, in relation to prosecution of a person

who, in good faith, seeks healthcare for someone who is experiencing

drug or alcohol overdose or other live threatening medical emergency.


202

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: There's a motion

to reconsider the vote by which the bill passed the House. The Clerk

will record the vote.


The Clerk will announce the results.


The bill is before the House and the amendments are

received and adopted.


325, Russell, Lupardo, Hoyt. An act to amend the Environmental

Conservation Law, in relation to authorizing angling by a single

individual with up to three lines in freshwater; and providing for the

repeal of such provisions upon expiration thereof.


Ms. Russell, the Senate bill is before the House. The Senate bill is




record the vote.



the results.


The bill is passed.



203

326, Lifton, Finch. An act to amend the Environmental Conservation

Law, in relation to hunting for deer and bear in Cortland County and

providing for the repeal of such provisions upon expiration thereof.


Ms. Lifton, the Senate bill is before the House. The Senate bill is




record the vote.



the results.


The bill is passed.


Galef, Sweeney, Ramos, Weisenberg, Lavine, Murray, Hooper. An

act to amend the Town Law, in relation to the removal of a fire

commissioner for dereliction of duty.


Ms. Galef, the Senate bill is before the House. The Senate bill is


THE CLERK: This act shall take effect on the first

day of January next succeeding the date on which it shall have

become a law.



204

record the vote.



the results.


The bill is passed.


328, Canestrari, N. Rivera. An act to amend the Environmental

Conservation Law, in relation to the number or reverse vending

machines required for mandatory acceptance of empty beverage

containers.






record the vote.



the results.


The bill is passed.


329, Thiele, Fitzpatrick, Montesano, Murray, Saladino, Lavine,

Englebright. An act to amend the Environmental Conservation Law,


205

in relation to the harvesting of surf clams and ocean quahogs; and

providing for the repeal of such provisions upon the expiration

thereof.


section.



record the vote.



the results.


The bill is passed.


McKevitt. An act to authorize the Town of North Hempstead, County

of Nassau, to convey to the Carle Place Water District, certain

parklands.


Mr. McKevitt, the Senate bill is before the House. The Senate bill is


section.



record the vote.



206


the results.


The bill is passed.


Johns. An act to authorize the Town of Webster in the County of

Monroe, to discontinue the use of certain lands as parklands.


Mr. Johns, the Senate bill is before the House. The Senate bill is


section.



record the vote.



the results.


The bill is passed.

(Applause)


332, Goodell, Giglio, Schroeder. An act to amend the Environmental

Conservation Law, in relation to allowing the use of rifles for deer

hunting in the County of Chautauqua; and providing for the repeal of

such provisions upon expiration thereof.


207


Mr. Goodell, the Senate bill is before the House. The Senate bill is




record the vote.



the results.


The bill is passed.


334, Latimer, Castelli, Maisel, Zebrowski, Reilly, P. Rivera, Spano,

Colton, Roberts, Paulin. An act to amend the State Technology Law

and the Real Property Law, in relation to permitting electronic

recording of instruments affecting real property.


Mr. Latimer, the Senate bill is before the House. The Senate bill is


THE CLERK: This act shall take effect in 365 days

next succeeding the date on which it shall have become a law.


record the vote.




208

the results.


The bill is passed.


335, Titone, Colton, Gottfried, Reilly, Bronson, P. Rivera, Lavine. An

act to amend the Civil Practice Law and Rules, in relation to grounds

for vacating an arbitration award on the basis of partiality of the

arbitrator.


section.



record the vote.



the results.


The bill is passed.


Hawley. An act to amend the Tax Law, in relation to extending the

period during which the County of Orleans is authorized to impose

additional rates of sales and compensating use taxes.


Mr. Hawley, the Senate bill is before the House. The Senate bill is



209

section.



record the vote.



the results.


The bill is passed.


Bing. An act to amend the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law, in

relation to permitting a retail tobacco business licensed to sell liquor

on the premises to allow smoking in the same area where the liquor is

sold.


section.




record the vote.


Mr. Gottfried.

MR. GOTTFRIED: Mr. Speaker, to explain my vote.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: To explain your

vote, Mr. Gottfried.


210

MR. GOTTFRIED: I will be voting in the negative

on this bill for a couple of reasons. One, I believe the Clean Indoor

Air Act is a strong and intelligent and thoughtful piece of legislation

that has done enormous good for New York and while any number of

people could make arguments for one exception or another, the more

exceptions we make I think we head down a destructive path, but

more seriously, my concern about the bill is that it overrides New

York City's anti-smoking legislation and when we enacted the State

anti-smoking law, this House fought very hard and successfully to get

language in the bill to empower localities to enact stronger laws if

they choose and not to preempt those local laws and because this bill

would preempt New York City's anti-smoking law, I will be voting in

the negative.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Gottfried in

the negative.


the results.


The bill is passed.


Lavine. An act to amend the Criminal Procedure Law, in relation to

increasing disclosures by automobile broker businesses.


Mr. Lavine, the Senate bill is before the House. The Senate bill is



211




record the vote.



the results.


The bill is passed.


340, Bing, P. Rivera, Castro, Hooper, Jaffee, Abinanti. An act to

amend the General Business Law, in relation to increasing disclosures

by automobile broker businesses.


Mr. Bing, the Senate bill is before the House. The Senate bill is




record the vote.


Mr. Canestrari.

MR. CANESTRARI0: Mr. Speaker, another

Committee meeting, Committee on Insurance in the Speaker's

Conference Room. Joe Morelle is on his way. Insurance Committee

members proceed to the Conference Room. Thank you.


212

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Lavine to

explain his vote.

MR. LAVINE: I just want to say before Mr. Bing

and I have to go to our Insurance Committee meeting that this may be

Jonathan's last bill that I'll get to vote on and what a pleasure it's been

and if it isn't then I will give the same speech again, but what a

pleasure it's been to work with him. He's been a great representative

for his district, superb member of the State Assembly and I just want

to wish him well, wherever his future travels take him. I'm voting in

the affirmative.


affirmative.

(Applause)


the results.


The bill is passed.


341, Paulin, Jaffee, Scarborough, Galef, Gunther, Millman, P. Rivera,

Roberts, Spano, Gibson. An act to amend the Family Court Act and

the Social Services Law, in relation to procedures for destitute

children in the Family Court and to repeal Section 1059 of the Family

Court Act, relating to abandoned children.


section.


213



record the vote.



the results.


The bill is passed.


Magee, Lifton, P. Rivera, Lupardo. An act to amend the Agriculture

and Markets Law and the Economic Development Law, in relation to

creating the strategic farm and good product development

coordinating council.


section.



record the vote.



the results.


The bill is passed.

THE CLERK: Bill No. 8178-A. Rules Report No.

345, Galef, Gabryszak, Calhoun, Markey, Schimel, Schroeder, Spano,


214

Cook, Gottfried, P. Lopez, Cusick, Finch, Giglio, Gunther,

McDonough, McKevitt, Molinaro, Barron, Robinson, Camara, Meng,

Crespo, Zebrowski, Ortiz, Castro, Scarborough, Kavanagh, Arroyo,

Weprin, Benedetto, M. Miller, Lancman, Dinowitz, Paulin, Titone,

Hooper, Morelle, Peoples-Stokes. An act to amend the Public Health

Law, in relation to establishing a certificate of still birth.


Ms. Galef, the Senate bill is before the House. The Senate bill is





record the vote.


Mr. Gabryszak to explain his vote.

MR. GABRYSZAK: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd

just like to take a moment to speak on this bill and on my vote. First, I

would like to thank the previous sponsor of this legislation. This

legislation has been around for a few years but, specifically, I would

like to thank the people who brought this to my attention and

everything that they've gone through in terms of their advocacy and

dedication to bringing about the certificate of still birth, that being

specifically Jeff Teger, who has spent a lot of time on the phone on

their advocacy, along with Page Ricci and Michelle Mosca, who are

here this evening, if they could stand and recognize them and thank


215

them for their efforts.

This not only brings comfort to tens of thousands of

families, it raises the awareness of the health crisis that is still birth.

With nearly 2,000 still births occurring every year in New York alone

and more than 30,000 nationwide, this brings an awful a lot of

comfort to the families who have suffered through the agony and the

pain of still birth. Thank you. I vote in the affirmative.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Gabryszak in

the affirmative.


the results.


The bill is passed.


346, Camara. An act to amend the General Business Law, in relation

to the bonds required by employment agencies, disclosure of the right

to the return of fees and deposits and the language of employment

contracts.


section.




record the vote.



216


the results.


The bill is passed.


Abbate. An act granting retroactive Tier IV membership in the New

York State and Local Employees' Retirement System to Randy Prock.


section.



record the vote.



the results.


The bill is passed.


Aubry. An act to amend the Correction Law, in relation to the

boarding of our of State inmates at local correctional facilities; and

providing for the repeal of such provisions upon expiration thereof.


Mr. Aubry, the Senate bill is before the House. The Senate bill is




217


record the vote.



the results.


The bill is passed.

Mr. Canestrari.

MR. CANESTRARI: Mr. Speaker, we'll now take a

couple of local revenue bills off the main Calendar, specifically Rules

Report No. 215 on page 9, Ms. Sayward, followed by Rules Report

No. 217 and Rules Report No. 223. Rules Report Nos. 215, 217, 223,

beginning on page 9 of the main Calendar.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Commencing on


THE CLERK: Bill No. S1687, Rules Report No.

215, Seward -- (P. Lopez--4960). An act to amend Chapter 333 of the

Laws of 2006 amending the Tax Law relating to authorizing the

County of Schoharie to impose a County Recording Tax on obligation

secured by a mortgage on real property, in relation to extending the

effectiveness thereof.






218

record the vote.



the results.


The bill is passed.

We will proceed to page 9, Rules Report No. 217.


217, Farley -- (Butler--5812). An act to amend the Tax Law, in

relation to the imposition of additional sales and compensating use tax

in Fulton County.





record the vote.

Colleagues, if we could have some order here, please.



the results.


The bill is passed.





219

223, O'Mara -- (Friend--6584). An act to amend the Tax Law, in

relation to extending the authorization of the County of Chemung to

impose an additional one percent of sales and compensating use taxes.





record the vote.



the results.


The bill is passed.

We'll proceed to Rules Report No. 246 on page 10,



246, Young -- (Giglio, Burling--6378). An act to amend the Tax Law,

in relation to extending the expiration of the provisions authorizing

the County of Allegany to impose an additional one-and-one-half

percent sales and compensating use taxes.





record the vote.


220



the results.


The bill is passed.

We will proceed to Rules Report No. 252, on page

11, the Clerk will read.


Barclay, Oaks. An act to amend the Tax Law, in relation to extending

the authorization of the County of Oswego to impose an additional

one percent sales and compensating use taxes.


Mr. Barclay, the Senate bill is before the House. The Senate bill is


section.



record the vote.



the results.


The bill is passed.

We will proceed to page11, Rules Report No. 254,



221


254, Seward -- (Lifton--7514). An act to amend Chapter 443 of the

Laws of 2007 amending the Tax Law relating to authorizing the

County of Cortland to impose an additional Mortgage Recording Tax,

in relation to extending the effectiveness of such provisions.





record the vote.



the results.


The bill is passed.

Mr. Canestrari.


we will now work off the debate list and that will go to Rules Report

No. 172 on page 7 of the main Calendar, Ms. Rosenthal. Rules Report

No. 172, please.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Page 7, Rules

Report No. 172, the Clerk will read.


172, Rosenthal, Bing, Schimel, Maisel, Gunther, Scarborough,

Bronson, Moya, Millman, Spano, Ortiz, Gibson, Stevenson, Roberts,


222

Weisenberg, Paulin, Lavine, Gabryszak, Weprin, Cook, Castro, Titus.

An act to amend the Penal Law and the Criminal Procedure Law, in

relation to the creation of the crime of aggravated family offense.


requested, Ms. Rosenthal.

MS. ROSENTHAL: This bill will create a new

felony level crime aggravated family offense for repeat offenders of

domestic violence.


section.




record the vote.



the results.


The bill is passed.

Mr. Canestrari.


the B-Calendar has been advanced already, as you know. We will

now go to page 3 of the B-Calendar and begin consenting that with

Rules Report No. 355, Mr. Cahill, please.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Turning to the


223

B-Calendar, page 3, Rules Report No. 355, the Clerk will read.


Cahill, P. Lopez, Crouch. An act to amend the Executive Law, in

relation to authorizing up to three Class III gaming facilities in certain

counties.


section.



record the vote.



the results.


The bill is passed.


Cusick, Ortiz, Abbate, Schimminger, V. Lopez, Weisenberg, Boyland,

Schroeder, Millman, Sweeney, Clark, Titone. An act to amend the

Public Health Law, the Tax Law and the State Finance Law, in

relation to providing for taxpayer gifts for leukemia, lymphoma and

myeloma research, education and treatment and establishing the

Leukemia Research, Education and Treatment Fund.


section.



224


record the vote.



the results.


The bill is passed.


357, Hevesi, Jaffee, Englebright, Cymbrowitz, Bronson, Colton,

Stevenson, Boyland, Castro, Spano, Magee, Millman, Schroeder. An

act to amend the Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation Law, in

relation to requiring a solar powered trash compacting garbage

receptacle pilot program.


Mr. Hevesi, the Senate bill is before the House. The Senate bill is




record the vote.



the results.


The bill is passed.



225

Magee, Markey, Clark. An act to amend the Tax Law and the State

Finance Law, in relation to authorizing a tax check-off for gifts to

food banks.


section.



record the vote.



the results.


The bill is passed.


Kellner, Dinowitz, Brook-Krasky, O'Donnell, Gottfried, Rosenthal,

Titone, Jaffee, Millman. An act to amend the Elder Law, in relation

to adding a requirement for the State Office of the Aging to report on

the delivery of services to and needs of traditionally underserved

populations in their annual report to the Governor and Legislature.


Mr. Kellner, the Senate bill is before the House. The Senate bill is




record the vote.


226



the results.


The bill is passed.


361, Castelli, Katz. An act to amend the Highway Law, in relation to

designating State Route 119 in the County of Westchester as the

"Detective Michael Perry Memorial Highway".


section.



record the vote.



MR. CASTELLI: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A year

ago last week, a very brave police officer Michael Perry was in the

process of a hot pursuit, arrested after resisting arrest a fleeing felon

and died in the line of duty at that time. His loss was suffered by

White Plains and is felt to us today. This memorializes him and

renames the local highway in the City of White Plains in the honor of

this brave police officer. I will vote in the affirmative and I would

appreciate if everybody else would honor him as well. Thank you, sir.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Castelli in the


227

affirmative.


the results.


The bill is passed.


Rosenthal. An act to amend the Real Property Tax Law, in relation to

providing an owner of a dwelling unit access to tax abatement

applications submitted on behalf of the condominium.


Ms. Rosenthal, the Senate bill is before the House. The Senate bill is





record the vote.



the results.


The bill is passed.


363, Raia. An act to amend the Highway Law, in relation to the

designation of a portion of the State highway system to be known as

the "Charles Varese Memorial Highway".


228


Mr. Raia. The Senate bill is before the House. The Senate bill is




record the vote.



the results.


The bill is passed.


Thiele. An act to amend the Town Law, in relation to payments for

certain school, fire, fire protection, and ambulance districts for lands

exempt from real property taxation for purposes which implement the

Peconic Bay Community Preservation Fund, and permitting the Town

of Southhampton to make such payments in certain cases; and

providing for the repeal of certain provisions upon expiration thereof.


Mr. Thiele, the Senate bill is before the House. The Senate bill is

advanced. There's a home rule message at the desk. Read the last

section.



record the vote.


229



the results.


The bill is passed.


P. Lopez. An act to amend the Tax Law, in relation to extending the

authorization for imposition of additional sales tax in the County of

Schoharie.


Mr. Peter Lopez, the Senate bill is before the House. The Senate bill

is advanced and there's a home rule message at the desk. Read the last

section.



record the vote.



the results.


The bill is passed.


Abbate. An act to amend the Retirement and Social Security Law, in

relation to increasing to 10 percent the amount of assets of the New

York State Teachers' Retirement System which may be invested in


230

real property.


Mr. Abbate, the Senate bill is before the House. The Senate bill is




record the vote.



the results.


The bill is passed.


367, Amedore. An act to authorize State Street Presbyterian Church

to file an application for real property tax exemption.


Mr. Amedore, the Senate bill is before the House. The Senate bill is




record the vote.



the results.



231

The bill is passed.


Burling. An act to amend the Highway Law, in relation to designating

a certain portion of State Route 15A the "Lima Veterans Memorial

Highway".


Mr. Burling, the Senate bill is before the House. The Senate bill is




record the vote.



the results.


The bill is passed.


Butler. An act to amend Chapter 489 of the Laws of 2004, amending

the Tax Law relating to the Mortgage Recording Tax in the County of

Fulton, in relation to the effectiveness of such chapter.


Mr. Butler, the Senate bill is before the House. The Senate bill is


section.



232


record the vote.



the results.


The bill is passed.


Brennan, Englebright. An act to amend the Public Authorities Law, in

relation to the powers of the New York State Thruway Authority to

finance certain projects in connection with the canal system including

emergency.


Mr. Brennan, the Senate bill is before the House. The Senate bill is




record the vote.


Ms. Calhoun to explain her vote.

MS. CALHOUN: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, my

colleagues. I'm in the process of voting no on this bill for two reasons:

The first is that it increases borrowing in this State again. The second

one is that many years ago, under several previous times' Governors,

the canal system was placed within the control of the Thruway


233

Authority and under using the revenues from the Thruway Authority

to pay for the canal system, cost in excess of $50 million per year and

it really should not be considered something that our travel on the

Thruway Authority should be paying for and so, what we're doing is

we use that and now we increase the borrowing for them and so all it

does is increases the need for people who are the users on the

Thruway to have to pay additional tolls and also we don't get all the

services we should get because whatever money, the $50 million a

year could either result in decreased tolls or certainly a combination of

decreased tolls and additional repairs and operation on the Thruway.

So, I will be voting no and I would urge anyone who is really a fiscal

conservative to look seriously at this bill because what we do is we

look at a budget once a year and we see all the moneys are being

raised and how they increase, but we seem to forget the fact that

during the year, every time we have a bill like this or the Dormitory,

all we're doing is we're using that bill to increase the debt of the State

of New York. I will be voting no and I appreciate your support in

that. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.




The bill is passed.


371, Lupardo, Titone, Magee, Jaffee, Schroeder, Bronson, Sayward, P.

Lopez, Tenney, Stevenson, Roberts, Gabryszak. An act to amend the


234

Vehicle and Traffic Law, in relation to the transfer of motorcycles

having parts with unidentifiable identification numbers.


section.




record the vote.



the results.


The bill is passed.


373, Perry, Zebrowski, Barron, Weprin, Stevenson, Crespo, Hooper.

An act to amend the Tax Law, in relation to establishing the Taxpayer

Refund Choice Act and affirming the right of State residents to

receive personal income tax refunds by paper check and requiring the

Department of Taxation and Finance to fully describe any debit card

or direct deposit program; and providing for the repeal of such

provisions upon expiration thereof.


Mr. Perry, the Senate bill is before the House. The Senate bill is




235

day, next succeeding the date on which it shall have become a law.


record the vote.



the results.


The bill is passed.


374, Titone, Gottfried, P. Rivera, Millman, Bronson, Gibson, Lavine,

Cook. An act to amend the State Finance Law, in relation to

prohibiting State contracts with vendors that forbid employees from

litigating discrimination or harassment claims.


section.



record the vote.


Mr. Titone to explain his vote.

Colleagues, if we could give him some attention.

MR. TITONE: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The

Constitution gives everybody the right to due process of law.

Contractors doing business with the State of New York should not be

permitted to use fine print in their contracts to deny people, mostly


236

woman, the right to their day in court. This legislation will ensure that

contractors profiting from the citizens of the State of New York

cannot limit the Title VII Civil Rights of anyone in this State. I will

be voting in the affirmative and I strongly urge my colleagues to do

the same. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Titone in the

affirmative.


the results.


The bill is passed.


Magee, Butler. An act to amend the Public Authorities Law, in

relation to the Montgomery, Otsego, Schoharie County Solid Waste

Management Authority.




section.



record the vote.



the results.


237


The bill is passed.


Murray, Graf, Raia, Montesano, Englebright, Finch. An act to amend

the Highway Law, in relation to designating a portion of the State

Highway System in the Town of Islip as the "Grace Peshkur Memorial

Bridge."


Mr. Murray, the Senate bill is before the House. The Senate bill is




record the vote.


Mr. Murray to explain his vote.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Excuse me, Mr.

Murray. Colleagues, thank you. I'm sorry.

MR. MURRAY: On May 17th of 2009,

seven-year-old Grace Peshkur passed away from a dreadful disease

called Epidermolysis Bullosa or EB for short. Now, this rare disease

affects the skin and the lack of collagen which is basically the glue

that holds the skin together, which means that any abrasion or friction

caused her skin to blister or sloth off. Now this disease is sometimes

referred to as the butterfly disease because of the fragility of the skin.

Now, when Grace was born there was no standard for care for


238

newborns with EB. Grace was put through a series of tests that left

wounds and scars that never healed. However, through these tests and

because of Grace's courage and perseverance, not only did awareness

for this disease reach an all-time high, but there are now protocols in

place to provide care immediately after birth for those with even the

smallest detection of EB.

Now, little Gracie's brave battle against this disease

served as an inspiration not only to her local community Holtzville,

New York, but also nationally. You see, it was Grace's case that got

then US Senator Hillary Clinton, US Congressman Tim Bishop,

Suffolk County Executive Steve Levy and numerous celebrities

involved to help bring more awareness to what they called this orphan

disease. Several bills were written in her name to secure funding for

research of the disease at NIH in Bethesda, Maryland.

Now, while Grace lost her battle with this disease,

her family and the community feel that dedicating this bridge in her

name will remind those that travel the area not only of her fighting

spirit, but also of the need to keep up the fight against this dreadful

disease.

So, I ask all of my colleagues today if you could

please support me in this and keep the memory of little Grace alive for

us, I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Murray in the

affirmative.



239

the results.


The bill is passed.


Magee. An act to amend the Tax Law, in relation to authorizing

Oneida County to impose additional rates of sales and compensating

use taxes and providing for allocation and distribution of a portion of

net collections from such additional rates.




section.



record the vote.



the results.


The bill is passed.


Amedore. An act to amend to legalize, validate, ratify and confirm

certain transportation contracts of the Schenectady City School

District.



240

Mr. Amedore, the Senate bill is before the House. The Senate bill is




record the vote.



the results.


The bill is passed.


Silver, Farrell. An act to amend the Tax Law, the Administrative

Code of the City of New York, Chapter 877 of the Laws of 195,

Chapter 844 of the Laws of 1975 and Chapter 882 of the Laws of

1977, relating to the imposition of certain taxes in the City of New

York, in relation to postponing the expiration of certain tax rates and

taxes in the City of New York.


Mr. Silver, the Senate bill is before the House. The Senate bill is


section.



record the vote.



241


the results.


The bill is passed.

THE CLERK: Bill No. 8085, Rules Report No. 380

Gottfried. An act to amend the Public Health Law, in relation to

authorizing the Commissioner of Health to extend the use of audit

findings to subsequent un-audit periods with regard to payments to

patient service providers and assessments on covered lives.


section.



record the vote.



the results.


The bill is passed.


381, Weisenberg, Molinaro. An act relating to authorizing the

establishment of a long term care community in Columbia County

known as Camphill Ghent, Inc. to provide integrated services to

certain persons.



242

Mr. Weisenberg, the Senate bill is before the House. The Senate bill




record the vote.


Mr. Molinaro to explain his vote.

MR. MOLINARO: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just

very, very briefly. If you've not visited a Camphill Village community

you really ought to make it an effort. This comprehensive and very

holistic approach to individuals living with developmental disabilities

seeks to bring families together in a community setting, really to

provide care in a way that provides dignity and decency to those living

with disabilities. This bill, thanks to my colleague in this House and

Senator Saland in the other House, will enable Camphill Village in the

Town of Ghent in Columbia County to continue that comprehensive

care from birth until individuals living with disabilities and their lives

on this earth. It is a wonderful, wonderful community and this

legislation enables us, as a State, to enable this kind of care to

continue from life to death and for that, I will be voting in the

affirmative and certainly thank my colleagues for supporting the bill.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Molinaro in

the affirmative.


the results.


243


The bill is passed.


Lupardo. An act to amend Chapter 445 of the Laws of 2008,

authorizing the Commissioner of Transportation to transfer certain

lands in the County of Broome, in relation to extending the time

period of such transfer.


Ms. Lupardo, the Senate bill is before the House. The Senate bill is




record the vote.



the results.


The bill is passed.


Sweeney, Thiele, Englebright, Fitzpatrick, Losquardo, Murray, Raia.

An act to amend the Environmental Conservation Law, in relation to

the addition of certain lands within the Carmans River watershed to

the core preservation area of the Central Pine Barrens.


section.


244



record the vote.


Mr. Sweeney to explain his vote.

MR. SWEENEY: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is a

significant bill for Long Island that came about because a number of

groups with usually divergent views came together for the benefit of

the community. They came to us fairly late in the Session and the bill

was actually put together with a lot of hard work by many people here,

including my counsel Steven Liss, Assembly Program and Council

staff, the support and efforts of member on both sides of the aisle, and

I would especially like to note through the efforts of Assemblyman

Fred Thiele, whose work I would like to commend and was greatly

appreciated. He was very instrumental in the development of this bill.

This is a good example of what can be accomplished when people

come together for the benefit of all. So, I thank everyone involved

and I urge my colleagues to support the bill. Thank you.




The bill is passed.


Glick, Paulin, P. Rivera, Rosenthal. An act to amend the Education

Law, in relation to special education services, programs for preschool


245

children with disabilities, waivers for certain special education schools

and early intervention agencies; and to repeal certain provisions of

such law relating thereto.


Ms. Glick, the Senate bill is before the House. The Senate bill is




record the vote.



the results.


The bill is passed.


Hevesi. An act to amend the Executive Law, in relation to directing

the Division of Criminal Justice Services to publish a brochure

describing the resources available to the general public for gathering

criminal background information on an individual.


section.




record the vote.


246



the results.


The bill is passed.


Lavine. An act to amend the Chapter 474 of the Laws of 1996,

amending the Education Law and other laws relating to rates for

residential health care facilities; in relation to payments by Social

Services Districts for public general hospitals.


section.



record the vote.



the results.


The bill is passed.

Mr. Canestrari.


we'll now go back to the main Calendar and change the pace a bit and

do the following: Rules Report Nos. 274, 277, 278 and then we'll all

stay tuned. Thank you.


247

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Rules Report No.

274 on the main Calendar, page 14, the Clerk will read.


274, O'Mara -- (Palmesano--6646). An act to amend the Tax Law, in

relation to extending the authorization of the County of Yates to

impose an additional one percent of sales and compensating use taxes.


section.



record the vote.



the results.


The bill is passed.




277, O'Mara -- (Palmesano--6974). An act to amend Chapter 366 of

the Laws of 2005 amending the Tax Law relating to the Mortgage

Recording Tax in the County of Yates, in relation to extending the

provisions of such chapter.


section.


248



record the vote.



the results.


The bill is passed.




278, Young -- (Giglio--7310). An act to amend the Tax Law, in

relation to extending the expiration of provisions authorizing the

County of Cattaraugus to impose an additional one percent sales and

compensating use taxes.


section.



record the vote.



the results.

(The Clerk announced the results.

The bill is passed.


249

Mr. Canestrari.

MR. CANESTRARI: Yes, continuing in a similar

vein, we will go to Rules Report Nos. 279, 283, 304 and 309.


to Rules Report No. 279 on page 14, the Clerk will read.


279, Saland -- (Kirwan--7313). An act to amend the Tax Law, in

relation to sales and compensating use tax in Dutchess County.


section.



record the vote.



the results.


The bill is passed.




283, Saland -- (McLaughlin, P. Lopez--7497). An act to amend

Chapter 556 of the Laws of 2007 relating to imposing an additional

Real Estate Transfer Tax within the County of Columbia, in relation

to extending the provisions of such chapter.


250





record the vote.



the results.


The bill is passed.




Palmesano. An act to amend the Tax Law, in relation to extending the

authorization of the County of Steuben to impose an additional one

percent of sales and compensating use taxes.



THE CLERK: This act take effect immediately.


record the vote.



the results.



251

The bill is passed.

(Applause)




Blankenbush. An act to amend the Tax Law, in relation to extending

the authorization granted to the County of Lewis to impose an

additional three-quarters of one percent of sales and compensating use

taxes.


section.



record the vote.



the results.


The bill is passed.

Mr. Canestrari.

MR. CANESTRARI: I understand, Mr. Speaker, you

have resolutions us to consider.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: We have

numerous resolutions which we will get right this time.

Privileged resolution by Ms. Calhoun, the Clerk will


252

read.


Legislative resolution commemorating the Cornwall,

New York, 62nd Annual Independence Day Parade on July 4, 2011.

WHEREAS, Our proud tradition of celebrating the

birth of our Nation on July 4, 1776, is not only a tribute to our rich

history, but a reflection of our living commitment to the exercise of

freedom, a legacy which rings through the ages and touches every

citizen throughout the land of liberty; and

WHEREAS, It is the sense of this legislative Body to

recognize and commend events which symbolize the historical, social

and cultural development of this great State and embody the spirit of

the principles upon which this Nation was founded; and

WHEREAS, This legislative Body is justly proud to

commemorate the Cornwall, New York, 62nd Annual Independence

Day Parade on Sunday, July 4, 2011; and

WHEREAS, For over six decades, the citizens of

Cornwall have gathered together to celebrate the birth of our Nation

on July 4th; what began as a small patriotic celebration at Donahue's

Farm, sponsored by the Donahue and Dorfman families, has, over the

years, evolved into an event which involves the entire community; and

WHEREAS, The treasured values of family unity and

wholesome entertainment for all ages that are reflected in the events

scheduled to celebrate such an auspicious occasion help to foster

community spirit and cooperation and preserve the beliefs, ideals and


253

values for which our forefathers declared the independence of these

United States; now, therefore, be it

RESOLVED, That this legislative Body pause in its

deliberations to most joyously commemorate the Cornwall, New

York, 62nd Annual Independence Day Parade on July 4, 2011, fully

confident that such procedure mirrors our shared commitment to

preserve and to enhance the spirit of freedom which is our American

heritage; and be it further


engrossed, be transmitted to the Cornwall Independence Day

Committee.



adopted.

Privileged resolution by Ms. Calhoun, Mrs. Gunther,



Legislative resolution congratulating Mr. and Mrs.

Robert Weeden upon the occasion of celebrating their 80th Wedding

Anniversary.

WHEREAS, Alice and Robert Weeden were united

in marriage as teenagers in a Westtown minister's living room on June

15, 1931; and

WHEREAS, Since then, Alice and Robert Weeden,

now 99 years old and 98 years old, respectively, have carved out an


254

incredible life together; and

WHEREAS, Early in their marriage, Mr. and Mrs.

Robert Weeden scraped out a living through the Great Depression on

the Weeden family farm; in 1940, the couple saved enough money to

rent a 100-acre farm; and

WHEREAS, Five years later, Mr. and Mrs. Robert

Weeden bought their own 200-acre farm, where they milked cows,

shucked corn and grew vegetables together until 1959; and

WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. Weeden sold the farm in

1959, and built a house off Route 284 five years later; and

WHEREAS, They are the proud parents of a son, the

late Robert Weeden, Jr.; one daughter, Clara Toffel; and are the

beloved grandparents of five grandchildren, eight great-grandchildren

and five great-great grandchildren; and

WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. Robert Weeden are and

always have been a tower of strength, support, understanding and

limitless love for their family; and

WHEREAS, Their love, devotion, caring, sensitivity

and responsiveness to their family, friends and all who know them are

their hallmark and tradition; and

WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. Robert Weeden have lived

and continue to live their lives with great dignity and genuine grace,

always demonstrating a deep and continuing concern for human

values and ideals, and in so doing, they have inspired others to do the

same; and


255

WHEREAS, This meaningful occasion is the result of

the love, hard work and spirit this couple has invested in their

marriage; and

WHEREAS, These same values they have passed to

their loved ones, producing a family that is close-knit and supportive

of its individual members, public-minded in its relations to the

community and committed to the ideals of citizenship upon which this

Nation was founded; and

WHEREAS, Mr. and Mrs. Robert Weeden have

touched the lives of their family and many friends through the shining

example of their marriage, which is a testament to the devotion and

admiration which they possess for one another; and

WHEREAS, The longevity of this enduring marriage

truly marks a milestone in life's journey, an event of personal triumph

and joy; and

WHEREAS, It is the sense of this legislative Body

that when an occasion of such importance is brought to our attention,

the same should be memorialized by us for the edification and

emulation of others; now, therefore, be it


deliberations to congratulate Mr. and Mrs. Robert Weeden upon the

occasion of their 80th Wedding Anniversary; and be it further


engrossed, be transmitted to Mr. and Mrs. Robert Weeden.



256


adopted.

Privileged resolution by Mr. Hanna, the Clerk will

read.


Legislative resolution commending Canadice United

Methodist Church upon the occasion of its 132nd Annual Strawberry

Festival on June 25, 2011.

WHEREAS, Religious institutions, and the many

spiritual, social and educational benefits they confer, play a vital role

in the development of the moral fabric of a responsible citizenry; and

WHEREAS, It is the tradition of this State and this

nation to pay tribute to those institutions and individuals who have

contributed to the ethical and spiritual values of their communities;

and

WHEREAS, This legislative Body takes pleasure in

commending Canadice United Methodist Church, Springwater, New

York upon the occasion of its 132nd Annual Strawberry Festival on

Saturday, June 25, 2011; and

WHEREAS, Among Canadice United Methodist

Church's many activities and events, its Annual Strawberry Festival is

one of its most enduring, best attended, and most festive occasions;

and

WHEREAS, This year's 132nd Annual Strawberry

Festival will feature musical entertainment by Diane Hershey and a


257

delicious family style ham dinner with all the fixings, including

strawberry shortcake; and

WHEREAS, There will also be baked goods and

quarts of strawberries for sale, as well as a Craft Sale and Silent

Auction to be enjoyed by all; and

WHEREAS, As Canadice United Methodist Church

holds its 132nd Annual Strawberry Festival it stands on the threshold

of tomorrow, prepared to meet the challenges of the coming decades

while retaining that spiritual resolve which characterizes its past; and

WHEREAS, It is the custom of this legislative Body

to take note of enduring religious institutions and to bring such

institutions to the attention of the people of this Empire State; now,

therefore, be it


deliberations to commend Canadice United Methodist Church of

Springwater, New York upon the occasion of its 132nd Annual

Strawberry Festival on June 25, 2011; and be it further


engrossed, be transmitted to Canadice United Methodist Church, 5949

Canadice Hill Road, Springwater, New York 14560.



adopted.

Privileged resolution by Mr. Reilly, the Clerk will

read.


258


Legislative resolution congratulating the Shaker High

School Boys Baseball Team and Coach Steve Frank upon the

occasion of capturing the 2011 Section II Class AA Championship.

WHEREAS, Excellence and success in competitive

sports can be achieved only through strenuous practice, team play and

team spirit, nurtured by dedicated coaching and strategic planning;

and

WHEREAS, Athletic competition enhances the moral

and physical development of the young people of this State, preparing

them for the future by instilling in them the value of teamwork,

encouraging a standard of healthy living, imparting a desire for

success and developing a sense of fair play and competition; and

WHEREAS, The Shaker High School Boys Baseball

Team are the 2011 Section II Class AA Champions; the Blue Bison

defeated Colonie High School by a score of 6-0 on Thursday, June 2,

2011, at Joe Bruno Stadium; and

WHEREAS, The athletic talent displayed by this

team is due in great part to the efforts of Head Coach Steve Frank and

Assistant Coaches Wayne Jones and Justin Perry, skilled and

inspirational tutors, respected for their ability to develop potential into

excellence; and

WHEREAS, The team's overall record is outstanding,

and the team members were loyally and enthusiastically supported by

family, fans, friends and the community at large; and


259

WHEREAS, The hallmarks of the Shaker High

School Boys Baseball Team, from the opening game of the season to

participation in the championship, were a brotherhood of athletic

ability, of good sportsmanship, of honor and of scholarship,

demonstrating that these team players are second to none; and

WHEREAS, Athletically and academically, the team

members have proven themselves to be an unbeatable combination of

talents, reflecting favorably on their school; and

WHEREAS, Coach Steve Frank has done a superb

job in guiding, molding and inspiring the team members toward their

goals; and

WHEREAS, Sports competition instills the values of

teamwork, pride and accomplishment, and Coach Steve Frank and

these outstanding athletes have clearly made a contribution to the

spirit of excellence which is a tradition of their school; now, therefore,

be it


deliberations to congratulate the Shaker High School Boys Baseball

Team; its members: Evan Alaxanian, Joey Bilynsky, Zach Breen,

Billy Carroll, Gabe Cassillo, Bobby Derico, Bryan Egan, Jeremy Fink,

Derek Gardella, Jeff Hoffman, Drew Lasky, Brendan Murphy,

Stephen Boldish, Andrew Brochu, Eric Egan, Jason Gallacchi, Nick

Guerro, James Holmes, Corey McMeel, Jake Nash, and Mike Taggart;

and Coaches Steve Frank, Wayne Jones and Justin Perry, as well as

Chris Lang, Director of Operations on their outstanding season and


260

overall team record; and be it further

RESOLVED, That copies of this Resolution, suitably

engrossed, be transmitted to the Shaker High School Boys Baseball

Team and to the aforementioned coaches and Chris Lang, Director of

Operations.



adopted.

Privileged resolution by Mr. Magnarelli, Mr. Roberts,

Mr. Barclay, the Clerk will read.


Legislative resolution commemorating the life of

Anthony C. "Tony" Nesci, distinguished citizen and devoted member

of his community.


bring full recognition and just tribute to individuals who distinguish

themselves through their unremitting commitment and preeminence of

service; one such individual is Anthony C. Nesci, who left this life on

June 8, 2011; and

WHEREAS, It is therefore fitting that we pay tribute

to Anthony C. Nesci, whose lifework and civic endeavors served to

enhance the quality of life in his community and the great State of

New York; and

WHEREAS, Anthony C. Nesci distinguished himself

in his professionalism and community activism, and by his sincere


261

dedication and substantial contribution to his community; and

WHEREAS, A life resident of Liverpool, Anthony C.

Nesci graduated from North High School in 1959, where he played

basketball, baseball and football, and was named to the All-City

Football Team; and

WHEREAS, For 43 years, Anthony Nesci worked for

the New Process Gear auto parts plant in DeWitt, before retiring in

2006, and most recently, was the Peer Counselor with the UAW

Daimler Chrysler Training Center; and

WHEREAS, As longtime Chairman of the Political

Action Committee for United Auto Workers Local 624, Anthony C.

Nesci served as a tireless and devoted advocate for working men and

women; and

WHEREAS, Active throughout the community for all

of his life, he was a life member of the UAW 624, Veteran of the Year

2010, Chairman of the Veterans Memorial at the New York State Fair,

Life-Member of American Legion Post 188, and was active in

volunteering and fundraising for the VA Hospital; and

WHEREAS, A true advocate of the people, Anthony

C. Nesci was known by all that knew him for his tireless volunteer

spirit and his big heart; and

WHEREAS, Anthony C. Nesci honorably served his

country as a member of the Armed Forces in the United States Army

for four years; and

WHEREAS, In 1998, Anthony C. Nesci dedicated


262

himself to filling what he saw as a big gap at the New York State Fair,

and worked to establish a memorial for veterans; and

WHEREAS, One year later, his vision was realized as

the memorial was established through funds provided by the Eagle

Association, the not-for-profit organization founded by Anthony C.

Nesci; and

WHEREAS, Anthony C. Nesci is survived by his

wife, Annette, and their four children, Anthony, Jeffrey, Lisa and

Nicole; two sisters, Anne and Lucille; and nine grandchildren; as well

as several nieces, nephews, and cousins; and

WHEREAS, Anthony C. Nesci will always be

remembered as an outstanding organizer, a devoted mentor, and a

loyal friend by all that were fortunate to have known him; and

WHEREAS, Armed with a humanistic spirit and

imbued with a sense of compassion, Anthony C. Nesci leaves behind a

legacy which will long endure the passage of time and will remain as

a comforting memory to all he served and befriended; now, therefore,

be it


deliberations to commemorate the life of Anthony C. Nesci,

distinguished citizen and devoted member of his community; and be it

further


engrossed, be transmitted to the family of Anthony C. Nesci.



263


adopted.

Privileged resolution by Mr. Burling, the Clerk will

read.


Legislative resolution congratulating John Wadach,

Monroe Community College Professor of Engineering, on being

named a Distinguished Teaching Professor by the State University of

New York Board of Trustees.


take note of and publicly acknowledge individuals whose exemplary

careers, accomplishments and purposeful lives have significantly

enhanced the quality of education in the State of New York; and

WHEREAS, John Wadach, Professor of Engineering

at Monroe Community College (MCC), Rochester, New York is such

an individual; and

WHEREAS, This legislative Body is justly proud to

recognize and commend John Wadach upon the occasion of being

named a Distinguished Teaching Professor by the State University of

New York Board of Trustees; and

WHEREAS, The Distinguished Teaching

Professorship, the highest honor conferred upon SUNY teaching

faculty, recognizes and honors mastery of teaching at the graduate,

undergraduate, or professional levels; and

WHEREAS, Candidates for the Distinguished


264

Teaching Professorship must have demonstrated consistently superior

mastery of teaching, outstanding service to students and commitment

to their ongoing intellectual growth, scholarship, and professional

growth, and adherence to rigorous academic standards and

requirements; and

WHEREAS, Professor John Wadach is one of only

25 SUNY faculty, and the only community college faculty member, to

be so honored this year; and

WHEREAS, Professor Wadach's innovations and

leadership skills have propelled Monroe Community College's

engineering sciences program to unprecedented success in enrollment,

national competitions, and transferability; and

WHEREAS, His influence as a professor and his

tenure as chair of the department doubled enrollment, revitalized

engineering advisement, and brought national recognition to the MCC

program; and

WHEREAS, John Wadach's students are seven-time

Two Year Engineering Science Association Design State Champions

and four-time American Society for Engineering Education Design

National Champions and, after transfer, excel at prestigious

universities; and

WHEREAS, Professor Wadach's innovations in

course development thoroughly restructured the engineering science

curriculum at MCC; he improved MCC's engineering graphics and

electronic engineering courses, introduced state-of-the-art software


265

packages, and initiated cross-departmental collaborations to

modernize the curriculum and provide interdisciplinary training for

students; and

WHEREAS, Anticipating developments in the field,

Professor Wadach, in addition, created a curriculum which heralded

advances at Rochester Institute of Technology (RIT), one of MCC's

main transfer institutions; and

WHEREAS, Professor Wadach is a model teacher

and advisor who lives, it might seem, for his students; he has worked

tirelessly to create a state-of-the-art engineering program which has

enabled MCC engineering students to consistently receive honors in

national competitions and to, after completing their MCC program,

transfer to some of the most prestigious engineering schools in the

country; and

WHEREAS, In addition to the contributions he has

made, and the stature he has brought to Monroe Community College

in his field, John Wadach has consistently demonstrated his dedication

to his students and his commitment to making MCC's engineering

program so successful and merits the highest commendation; and

WHEREAS, This legislative Body is proud to

recognize, with admiration and grateful tribute, the illustrious

accomplishments and commitment to excellence of this distinguished

educator; now, therefore, be it


deliberations to congratulate and commend John Wadach upon the


266

occasion of being named a Distinguished Teaching Professor by the

State University of New York Board of Trustees; and be it further


engrossed, be transmitted to John Wadach.



adopted.

Privileged resolution by Mr. Schroeder, the Clerk will

read.


Legislative resolution commending the City of

Buffalo, New York, upon the occasion of hosting the Nickel City

Triathlon, September 24-25, 2011.


pay tribute to outstanding athletes who distinguish themselves through

their exceptional performance, attaining unprecedented success and

the highest level of personal achievement; and

WHEREAS, Attendant to such concern, and fully in

accord with its longstanding traditions, this legislative Body is justly

proud to commend the City of Buffalo, New York, upon the occasion

of hosting the Nickel City Triathlon as part of the six-city USA

Triathlon Elite Race Series, September 24-25, 2011, and to pay just

tribute to the participating athletes; and

WHEREAS, USA Triathlon, Eclipse Multi-Sport and

the Buffalo Niagara Sports Commission announced the creation of the


267

Nickel City Triathlon which will be a part of USA Triathlon Elite

Race Series in 2011, 2012 and 2013; and

WHEREAS, Buffalo, New York, has been chosen as

one of six cities to host the USA Triathlon Elite Race Series; and

WHEREAS, The Nickel City Triathlon will have its

first running with more than 1,600 athletes from the United States,

Canada, Mexico, and parts of Europe; and

WHEREAS, The race, which will use the draft-legal

style of racing found in the Olympic Games, will take place at

Gallagher Beach on Lake Erie and throughout South Buffalo; and

WHEREAS, The 2011 race has the added distinction

of serving as the 2011 USA Triathlon Elite National Championship;

as such, the race will incorporate a special field of professional

triathletes who will compete for a share of the Elite Race Series'

largest prize; in addition, the Nickel City Triathlon will be one of only

two races where athletes can earn double points toward winning the

overall series crown; and

WHEREAS, Participants will compete in three race

formats: Swimming, bicycling and running; the race will feature a

spectator-friendly layout, as both the bike and run legs will take place

on multi-loop courses, allowing fans to see each athlete several times;

and

WHEREAS, Athletes will participate in one of three

different race formats: Olympic Distance: 1500 meter swim, 40

kilometer bike and 10 kilometer run; Sprint: 750 meter swim, 20


268

kilometer bike and 5 kilometer run; and Elite Development: 750 meter

swim, 20 kilometer bike and 10 kilometer run; and

WHEREAS, It is the intent of this legislative Body to

extend its full recognition and grateful tribute to the athletes of New

York State who have dedicated their purposeful lives to athletic

achievement and proudly represented their great State and Nation

through athletic competition; now, therefore, be it


deliberations to commend the City of Buffalo, New York, upon the

occasion of hosting the Nickel City Triathlon, September 24-25, 2011;

and be it further


engrossed, be transmitted to the Buffalo Niagara Sports Commission.

Privileged resolution by Ms. Tenney, the Clerk will

read.


Legislative resolution mourning the untimely death of

Oneida County Sheriff's Deputy Kurt Wyman on Tuesday, June 7,

2011.


convey its grateful appreciation and heartfelt regret in recognition of

the loss of a courageous police officer who dedicated his purposeful

life and career in faithful service to his family and the Oneida

community; and

WHEREAS, It is with profound sadness that this


269

legislative Body records the passing of Oneida County Sheriff's

Deputy Kurt Wyman, who made the ultimate sacrifice on Tuesday,

June 7, 2011, while faithfully executing his responsibilities, serving

with dedication, loyalty and compassion; and

WHEREAS, Devoting his purposeful life and career

to serve and protect, Deputy Kurt Wyman exemplified what it truly

means to give of himself; he provided vital police services, constantly

keeping with the noble mission of the Oneida County Sheriff's

Department; and

WHEREAS, Deputy Kurt Wyman, a 24 year-old

Oneida County resident, was a four year veteran with the Oneida

County Sheriff's Department at the time of his death; and

WHEREAS, From the days he served in Iraq as a

United States Marine to the nights he patrolled Oneida County as a

Police Officer, Kurt Wyman lived his life devoted to his family as well

as his country; he strived to be a good husband, father, and son, driven

by a passion that defined his character; and

WHEREAS, A faithful member of Crosspoint

Church, Kurt Wyman was an inspiration and a role model to the youth

of its congregation; and

WHEREAS, A 2005 graduate of Maranatha Christian

Academy in New Hartford, Kurt Wyman enlisted to become a Marine

as soon as he turned 18 years old; two years later, he became an

officer with the Oneida County Sheriff's Department; and

WHEREAS, In honor of Kurt Wyman's bravery and


270

distinguished service, the Department retired his badge number, 188,

as well as his car number, 462; in addition, his son was presented with

his father's badge, and a New York State Law Enforcement Medal of

Honor; and

WHEREAS, Kurt Wyman is survived by his parents,

Lynnette and Brian Wyman, and his loving wife, Lauren, and their

two wonderful children, Alexander and Adyson Jynnette, all of whom

felt privileged to be a part of his life; and

WHEREAS, Armed with a humanistic spirit and

imbued with a sense of compassion, Kurt Wyman leaves behind a

legacy which will long endure the passage of time and will remain as

a comforting memory to all he served and befriended; he will be

deeply missed and truly merits the grateful tribute of this legislative

Body; now, therefore, be it


deliberations to mourn the untimely death of Deputy Kurt Wyman,

noting the significance of his contributions on behalf of the citizens of

this noble Empire State, and expressing its deepest condolences to his

family; and be it further


engrossed, be transmitted to the family of Sheriff's Deputy Kurt

Wyman.



adopted.


271

Privileged resolution by Mr. Reilly, the Clerk will

read.


Legislative resolution recognizing October 16-22,

2011, as National Friends of the Library Week

WHEREAS, The State of New York takes great pride

in participating in nationally-declared weeks of recognition of

important organizations; and

WHEREAS, The week of October 16-22, 2011, has

been declared National Friends of the Library Week; and

WHEREAS, Friends of Library groups help raise

money that provide resources for additional programming,

much-needed equipment, support for children's summer reading, and

special events throughout the year; and

WHEREAS, Libraries are the cornerstone of the

community, providing opportunities for all to engage in the joy of

lifelong learning and to connect with others; and

WHEREAS, Friends of the Library groups

understand the importance of well-funded libraries and advocate to

ensure libraries get the resources they need to provide a wide variety

of services to all ages, including access to print and electronic

materials, expert assistance in research, readers' advisory, and

children's services; and

WHEREAS, The extraordinarily dedicated members

of these groups are shining examples of how volunteerism can lead to


272

positive, civic engagement and the betterment of local communities;

now, therefore, be it


deliberations to recognize October 16-22, 2011, as National Friends of

the Library Week; and be it further


engrossed, be transmitted to the New York Library Association.



adopted.

Privileged resolution by Mr. Hanna, the Clerk will

read.


Legislative resolution congratulating the Victor High

School Blue Devils Boys Baseball Team upon the occasion of

capturing the 2011 New York State Class AA Championship.

WHEREAS, Excellence and success in competitive

sports can be achieved only through strenuous practice, team play and

team spirit, nurtured by dedicated coaching and strategic planning;

and

WHEREAS, Athletic competition enhances the moral

and physical development of the young people of this State, preparing

them for the future by instilling in them the value of teamwork,

encouraging a standard of healthy living, imparting a desire for

success and developing a sense of fair play and competition; and


273

WHEREAS, On June 12, 2011, at the NYSEG Park

in Binghamton, New York, the Victor High School Blue Devils Boys

Baseball Team captured the New York State Class AA title defeating

Section 2's Shaker High School by a score of 5-4; and

WHEREAS, The Victor High School Blue Devils

Boys Baseball Team's victory in the 2011 New York State Class AA

Championship was the Blue Devils' first New York State baseball title

since 2004; and

WHEREAS, The athletic talent displayed by this

team is due in great part to the efforts of the coaching staff, skilled and

inspirational mentors, respected for their ability to develop potential

into excellence; and

WHEREAS, The 2011 Victor High School Blue

Devils Boys Baseball Team's overall record was 24-1, and the team

members were loyally and enthusiastically supported by family, fans,

friends and the community at large; and

WHEREAS, The hallmarks of the 2011 Victor High

School Blue Devils Boys Baseball Team, from the opening game of

the season to participation in league play and capturing the 2011 New

York State Class AA Championship were a brotherhood of athletic

ability, of good sportsmanship, of honor and of scholarship,

demonstrating that these team players are second to none; and

WHEREAS, Athletically and academically, the team

members have proven themselves to be an unbeatable combination of

talents, reflecting favorably on their school and community; and


274

WHEREAS, The coaching staff of the 2011 Victor

High School Blue Devils Boys Baseball Team has done a superb job

in guiding, molding and inspiring the team members toward their

goals; and

WHEREAS, Sports competition instills the values of

teamwork, pride and accomplishment; the coaching staff and the

Victor High School Blue Devils Boys Baseball Team's outstanding

athletes have clearly made a contribution to the spirit of excellence

which is a tradition of their school; now, therefore, be it


deliberations to congratulate the 2011 Victor High School Blue Devils

Boys Baseball Team, its members and coaches, on their outstanding

season, overall team record and outstanding accomplishment in

capturing the 2011 New York State Class AA Championship; and be

it further

RESOLVED, That copies of this Resolution, suitably

engrossed, be transmitted to the members and coaching staff of the

2011 Victor High School Blue Devils Boys Baseball Team.



adopted.

Mr. Canestrari.

MR. CANESTRARI: Now to your friend and mine,

Bill Colton.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: Mr. Colton.


275

MR. COLTON: Mr. Speaker, there will be a

Democratic Conference immediately following the close of Session in

the Speaker's Conference Room. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


MR. CANESTRARI: With that, Mr. Speaker, I move

the House stand adjourned until Friday, June 17th at 10:00 a.m.,

tomorrow being a Session day.

ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: The House stands

adjourned.

(Whereupon, at 9:58 p.m., the House stood adjourned

until Friday, June 17th at 10:00 a.m., Friday being a Session day.)

Documents

THURSDAY, JUNE 16, 2011 10:34 A.M. · 2011-06-16 · THURSDAY, JUNE 16, 2011 10:34 A.M. ACTING SPEAKER P. RIVERA: The House will come to order. In the absence of clergy, let us pause