Wednesday, January 23, 2013

Messages from the Governor.

Reports of standing committees.

Reports of select committees.

Communications and reports from state officers.

Motions and resolutions.

Senator Libous.

SENATOR LIBOUS:Mr. President, I believe Senator Gianaris has a motion.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Gianaris.

SENATOR GIANARIS:Thank you, Mr. President.

On behalf of Senator Stavisky, I move that the following bill be discharged from its respective committee and be recommitted with instructions to strike the enacting clause: Senate Number 648.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:So ordered.

Senator Libous.

SENATOR LIBOUS:Thank you, Mr. President.

I move that the following bill be discharged from its respective committee and be recommitted with instructions to strike the enacting clause. And that would be Senate Print 1908, by Senator Libous.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:So ordered.

Senator Libous.

SENATOR LIBOUS:Thank you. Mr. President, at this time could you call on Leader Stewart-Cousins for the purpose of a welcoming announcement.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Stewart-Cousins.

SENATOR STEWART-COUSINS:Thank you, Mr. President. And thank you, Senator Libous.

It is my pleasure to introduce the newest member of the Democratic Conference, Senator CeCe Tkaczyk.

Senator, please rise.

(Standing ovation.)

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Libous.

SENATOR LIBOUS:Thank you, Mr. President.

With unanimous consent, I'd like to recognize Senator Espaillat to address the body, please.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Espaillat, with unanimous consent, you are authorized to speak.

SENATOR ESPAILLAT:Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you for acknowledging me.

We have us with us today a distinguished group of visitors who have made it their business and a tradition to come before the State Legislature for the last 16 years to celebrate Juan Pablo Duarte Day.

Juan Pablo Duarte is the founding member, the founding father of the Dominican Republic. And we are celebrating this year his bicentennial, 200 years of his birth, on the 26th of this month. So we have a resolution before us today honoring his legacy.

And we have with us today, present here, the Honorable Consul General of the Dominican Republic, Felix Antonio Martinez, who's with us today, and also the President of the Instituto Duartiano, Mr. Caesar Romero, who's also with us today.

And in the galleries we have a great delegation made up of Teresa Cuevas, Angela Castillo, Lupe Fañas, Victor Compres, Pedro Pablo Zorilla, Xiomara Payano, Felix Grant, Rudys Vidal, Silvia Acosta, and a former and founding member of the Instituto Duartiano, Mr. Julio Cesar Rodriguez.

So we're here celebrating 200 years of Juan Pablo Duarte's birth, and we ask all of you to join in this endeavor and extend the courtesies of this house.

Thank you, Mr. President.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Thank you, Senator Espaillat.

We certainly welcome our distinguished guests from the Dominican Republic and hope that you enjoy your stay here in Albany. Thank you for joining us.

(Applause.)

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Rivera.

SENATOR RIVERA:Thank you, Mr. President.

I also rise to welcome {in Spanish}. I am Puerto Rican, as most folks know here, but my good colleague Adriano Espaillat refers to me as "El Boricua a plátano." Now, for those that are Spanishly challenged, that just means "the plantained Puerto Rican," since it is a friendly way that we refer to our Dominican brothers and sisters, as platános.

So I wanted to welcome them to our house and say that I have many Dominican constituents in my district. I look forward, every time that this time of the year comes around, to see you up here. And I see you every day in my district. So {in Spanish}.

Thank you so much, Mr. President.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Thank you, Senator Rivera.

Senator Diaz.

SENATOR DIAZ:Thank you, Mr. President.

I also join Senator Espaillat in welcoming the Honorable Felix Antonio Martinez, the General Consul of the Dominican Republic in New York, and our guests in the balcony. They're all good friends and people that we represent and have been very helpful to me and my son Ruben Diaz, Jr., in our careers.

And even though Senator Gustavo said that he's the Boricua plátano, I don't know what that means. Because I'm supposed to be the Boricua plátano. So this is because I'm the only Boricua that goes {singing in Spanish}. I'm the only one.

(Laughter.)

SENATOR DIAZ:So to all of you and to you, Honorable Consul, thank you. I'm honored to welcome you here and join my colleague Adriano Espaillat. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. President.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Thank you, Senator Diaz.

Senator Dilan.

SENATOR DILAN:Yes, I just rise to also join the chorus of my colleagues in welcoming our Dominican brothers and sisters here to our chamber.

I do want to say that when we do visit their homeland, they're very gracious hosts. So for that, we want to thank you and welcome you here to the New York State Senate.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Thank you, Senator Dilan.

Senator Libous.

SENATOR LIBOUS:Thank you, Mr. President.

There's a privileged resolution at the desk by Senator Stewart-Cousins. It's Resolution Number 249. Could we please have it read in its entirety and then move for its immediate adoption. And I'm sure there are a number of members in the chamber that would like to speak on it.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The Secretary will read the resolution in its entirety.

THE SECRETARY:Legislative Resolution Number 249, by Senator Stewart-Cousins, memorializing the 84th Birthday of the Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr., and his tremendous contributions to civil rights in American society on the 27th Anniversary of the national holiday that honors his birth and achievements.

"WHEREAS, Today we celebrate the life and extraordinary achievements of one of our nation's most beloved and influential leaders, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., and the 27th Anniversary of the holiday that honors his birth and achievements; and

"WHEREAS, Martin Luther King, Jr., was born on Tuesday, January 15, 1929, at his family home in Atlanta, Georgia, and was the first son and second child born to the Reverend Martin Luther King, Sr., and Alberta Williams King; and

"WHEREAS, Martin Luther King, Jr., began his education at the Yonge Street Elementary School in Atlanta, Georgia, attended the Atlanta University Laboratory School and Booker T. Washington High School, and was admitted to Morehouse College at the age of 15; and

"WHEREAS, At the age of 19, Martin Luther King, Jr., graduated from Morehouse College with a Bachelor of Arts degree in sociology, and three years later in 1951 was awarded a Bachelor of Divinity degree from Crozer Theological Seminary in Chester, Pennsylvania, where he also studied at the University of Pennsylvania and won several awards for most outstanding student, among which was the Crozer fellowship for graduate study at a university of his choice; and

"WHEREAS, In 1951, at the age of 22, Martin Luther King, Jr., began doctoral studies in systematic theology at Boston University, and also studied at Harvard University, and at the age of 26 was awarded a Doctor of Philosophy degree from Boston University in 1955; and

"WHEREAS, During his studies at Boston and Harvard Universities, Dr. King married the former Coretta Scott of Marion, Alabama, in 1953; and

"WHEREAS, Dr. King entered the Christian ministry and was ordained in February of 1948 at the age of 19 at Ebenezer Baptist Church, Atlanta, Georgia, and became pastor of the Dexter Avenue Baptist Church of Montgomery, Alabama, from September of 1954 to November of 1959, when he resigned to move home to Atlanta; and

"WHEREAS, Dr. King was elected president of the Montgomery Improvement Association, the organization which was responsible for the successful Montgomery Bus Boycott, which began in 1955 and lasted 381 days; and

"WHEREAS, Dr. King was incarcerated many times for his participation in civil rights activities, was a founder of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, which he led from 1957 to 1968, and was the leader of the 1963 March on Washington for Civil Rights, which is one of the largest peaceful demonstrations in American history and is a defining moment in this nation's civil rights movement; and

"WHEREAS, Dr. King was honored countless times for his leadership of the United States Civil Rights Movement, including his selection by TIME Magazine as Most Outstanding Personality of 1957 and Man of the Year of 1963, and his selection by LINK Magazine of India, the home of Mahatma Gandhi, as one of the sixteen world leaders who had contributed the most to the advancement of freedom during 1959; and

"WHEREAS, Dr. King's receipt in 1964 of the Nobel Peace Prize, at the age of 35, made him the youngest recipient of that prestigious award, and one of only three black Americans who have received that award, along with Dr. Ralph Bunche and President Barack Obama, whose journey to become President owes no small debt to the journey Dr. King and the millions of Americans who walked hand in hand with him undertook to end segregation and remind Americans of the great moral underpinnings of our federal Constitution, which provides that we are all created equal and of the incredible power of the American ideal that we all deserve to live in a free and just society; and

"WHEREAS, Dr. King was murdered in Memphis, Tennessee, on April 4, 1968, by James Earl Ray, and was mourned by millions of Americans of all ages, races, creeds and colors on the national day of mourning declared by President Lyndon Johnson; and

"WHEREAS, Dr. King's birthday was made into a national holiday in 1986, was first celebrated in all fifty states in the year 2000, and is the only federal holiday to honor a private American citizen; and

"WHEREAS, Dr. King stands in a long line of great American leaders and represents the historical culmination and living embodiment of a spirit of united purpose, rooted in black African culture and the American Dream; and

"WHEREAS, Dr. King taught us that through nonviolence, courage displaces fear; love transforms hate; acceptance dissipates prejudice; and mutual regard cancels resentment; and

"WHEREAS, Dr. King manifestly contributed to the cause of America's freedom; his commitment to human dignity is visibly mirrored in the spiritual, economic and political dimensions of the civil rights movement; now, therefore, be it

"RESOLVED, That this Legislative Body pause in its deliberations to honor the life of the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., whose untimely death robbed America of his leadership at too early a date, and whose deeds and words transformed America and live in our homes, schools and public institutions to this day, continuing to inspire the millions of Americans whose lives of purpose and achievement might not have been possible but for Dr. King's leadership and the examples set by the millions of Americans who joined him in one of the great moral crusades of the 20th century; and be it further

"RESOLVED, That this Legislative Body calls upon its members and all New Yorkers to observe the day of Dr. King's birth as a day of service to our family, friends, neighbors and those less fortunate than ourselves, and to moral causes greater than ourselves, and to the great State of New York, in keeping with the ideals of the national Martin Luther King Day of Service, which was started by former U.S. Senator from Pennsylvania Harris Wofford and Congressman John Lewis from Atlanta, Georgia, who co-authored the King Holiday and Service Act, signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1994; and be it further

"RESOLVED, That copies of this resolution, suitably engrossed, be transmitted to the family of Dr. King and to the King Center in Atlanta."

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Stewart-Cousins on the resolution.

SENATOR STEWART-COUSINS:Thank you, Mr. President.

I am just listening to this, as many of us did, remembering what Dr. King meant and still means to us. It is really important that we go beyond this day, beyond the date of his actual birth, the 15th, and reaffirm what Dr. King stands for and stood for.

I, like almost a million people, traveled to the inauguration over this past weekend. And being part of the history of watching President Obama take his oath of office for the second time was really more extraordinary, on some levels, than even the first time. The first time we all embraced the history and the fact that America and only America could produce an African-American president. But this time I think we were reminded how vigilant all of us must be in order to work towards and maintain the dream.

And when we talk about the dream, we're not talking about "dream," because the manifestation of the strides that not only African-Americans have made but every ethnic group has made as a result of Dr. King's efforts was embodied in this inauguration. And it was embodied in the fact that if we are not vigilant, we could very easily forget.

We could forget that discrimination was a way of life only in the 1960s. We can forget that people were not able to sit at lunch counters. We can forget that voting was something that one had to pay a poll tax for -- if you were allowed to register. And this was in our lifetimes. We can forget that people weren't allowed housing opportunities. And we can forget that education was something that was not an entitlement.

And now that we have the opportunity not only to remember, we can look forward and understand that we still have so much to do -- to level the playing field, to create educational opportunities, to make sure that people are given economic opportunities. So that we can provide not only the best of Dr. King's dream, which again this inaugural weekend took substance, and it reminded us that it's not in its substance, but there is still an opportunity for us to help our dreamers, to help folks who, but for what happens in these chambers and other chambers, would not be part of a level playing field which indeed is America.

So I know that so many of my colleagues will speak on Dr. King and so many of us will talk about what Dr. King's dream has meant to us and what the manifestation of it means and what our future means if we indeed understand that yes, we are equal. Yes, as the President brought that back to mind, from Seneca Falls to Selma to Stonewall, we are equal, and everything we do here to advance that makes America the dream for the entire world.

Thank you, Mr. President.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Thank you, Senator.

Senator Larkin.

SENATOR LARKIN:Thank you, Mr. President.

Thank you, Andrea.

You know, I've spoke on this gentleman for a number of years. My first encounter with Dr. King was in 1965. One morning I got called in by my boss, a three-star general, and he said: "You ever been to Alabama?" I said "No." And he said, "Well, you're going in about two hours." I said, "Well, I've got to go pack." He said, "Don't worry, your wife is delivering stuff to the office."

I got an airplane, I flew down to Maxwell Air Force Base, and I met the National Guard commander, a full colonel. And I said, "Colonel, these are orders from the President of the United States. They want Governor Wallace to activate the National Guard of Alabama to assist in providing security on the march from Selma to Montgomery."

Some of you probably never heard the words that he said to me. My ears were shocked that some full colonel would talk to a major that deliberate.

Wallace came out, and Wallace said: "Tell the President to go to hell." I said, "I won't tell him that, but I'll tell him." At midnight I was back there, and I ordered them to active duty. And he took the paper and tore it up.

But what bothered me was there was no respect for the President, there was no respect for Dr. King. There was one individual in this time, all the others were talking about what they were doing. I'd never met King.

The following Friday I was back in Alabama, and I was in Selma. And we were talking to people, groups, what we can do to make sure. I must tell you that I had some Army colonels that were brought to Alabama that weekend, and they said: "I'll never speak to you again. Do you know I could not be promoted if something goes wrong?" I said "How about you, how about me?"

But Sunday morning Dr. Abernathy sent for me and said, "Dr. King would like to talk to you for a few minutes." So there was a crowd, maybe 1500. But Dr. King said: "You have a thankless job, and I will pray for you that everything goes okay. But Dr. Abernathy will be your in-between."

Don't forget we had all of the big deals from the Justice Department and this department and that department. When they found out they were going to have to walk, they didn't know what to do.

But I'll never forget Dr. Abernathy. He was as loyal to Dr. King -- where a lot of other people were doing it for me, me, me.

But the amazing thing I remember about Dr. King was he said, "This is not about me. This is for something of our future."

You know, an Army officer, you're not going to get in the middle of this here, you know. He said "What do you think about the Voting Right Acts?" And I said, "I think everybody in America should be able to vote." Not because of the termination of the pigment, their skin, but because they're Americans.

Something that never is talked about here, a former United States Senator from California, a Republican by the name of Bill Knowland, flew into Maxwell, wanted to find out what we thought. And he spoke to the colonels and the generals. And by the way, he come by to me and said, "If you were in the United States Senate, how would you vote on the Voting Rights Act?" I said, "I would vote yes, because this is America." We've had Americans killed in World War Two, we've had them in the Civil War, we've had them in Korea, in Vietnam and the Mideast. And that blood runs the same as everybody else's.

For the next four days from that Sunday, the march was on. There was one little incident. Some of you might have heard the news -- I know you weren't there, you're too young, Michael. Bull Connor come out there. And I went up to him and I said, "My name is Major Larkin." And he said, "Oh, you're one of those Army brats that are here?"

I said, "You know, you're just a chief of police. And I'm telling you if you step on that bridge and you put those hoses on, I'll throw your" -- excuse my language, ladies and gentlemen -- "I'll throw your ass in jail for a long, long time."

Behind me was a six-foot-four African-American FBI man. And he looked at Connor and said, "You know, I haven't thrown a chief in jail for a long time. I need some practice." We never saw Connor again, never.

That march went off. The last day of that march, there were 25,000 people in it. Sure, there were a lot of people excited and scared. Was I nervous? Yes. Don't forget, I was looking to be a colonel in another two weeks. But the amount of people. And, you know, if you had to be there and see all the rednecks on the side cursing at us and all -- we had a mission. The Commander in Chief said "We'll do it."

On the night before we entered into Montgomery, Dr. King summoned three or four of us. And he said, "I will remember you in my prayers the rest of my life. This has been a success."

And it was, until Thursday night. We told everybody "You must go back this street, you cannot go back that street." A lady by the name of Viola Liuzzo, United Auto Workers, took her group down that way. She was told by the police "You can't do it." She was buried a week later. She was killed that night.

And we found out when we got back to D.C., we got the message. And Ramsey Clark, who was the Attorney General at the time, said "We've got to turn and go back." I said, "This aircraft isn't going back." Our mission was to do what we did.

Later, there was a letter from Dr. King to my boss -- not the President, but my boss, General Cotton. It said: "I thank everybody participating in this here."

You know, I learned more. I remember what Senator Knowland said. And if you will recall history -- most of you were too young to be there, Diane -- in June '65 we passed -- not we, they. I was still on the active duty -- the Voting Rights Act. And one of the biggest obstacles to the Voting Rights Act was a Senator from Tennessee, Mr. Gore, Al Gore's father. He tried to stop it.

But if you think what was done in those days, it was really a treasure. I felt good that we'd accomplished something. We'd worked together, both sides. The number of African-American troops doing this mission, we made sure there were plenty so everybody in Alabama could see that this wasn't a white drive, because we wanted people to be there.

In April of 1968, I was a retired young Army colonel and a message came that I was going to be recalled to active duty and that Dr. King had been killed in support of the sanitation strike in Memphis, Tennessee. I want to tell you -- {choking up}. Excuse me, I'm sorry. I got on that plane to go to Detroit because the riots were starting. And I thought, this man, he didn't make you mad -- you weren't here then, right -- he didn't make you mad, he was doing something.

I'm Irish. How many Irish rebels were in this country and fought for issues that belonged to Irishmen? Breslin was in one of those fights.

But in reality, it was a tough day. Cyrus Vance was the Secretary of the Army, and he called the people he wanted. And that's the father of Vance, the district attorney in New York City.

You know, but what bothers me today -- Dr. King spoke eloquently. I never saw, when I'd watched him on TV, him reading notes. And never did you read so, Andrea. But what I worry about is we are not doing our job in our schools.

I went to a school this past week, and they were talking about essays and that. I challenged them: "What are you doing to support what Dr. King did for you?" "Oh, I don't know. What should I do?" And what about the teachers? I was disappointed.

If we plan on a day every year in honor of Dr. King, we should, as a state and a nation, go and look at his principles. What did he speak about? What did he want to do? He talked about someday, in his dream, everybody will be alike.

I have two young grandchildren that have different pigments than I do. I have three grandchildren that were born in Korea. And I'm proud of them. But when we look at somebody and say, Well, they're black, they're Spanish, they're that there -- if you've ever been in combat and somebody calls you and says they've been wounded, when you see that blood come out, it doesn't come out pink, it doesn't come out black. It comes out red. And that blood from that person is just as sincere as yours is.

But if we're not going to stand up and say we're going to ask youngsters, we're going to ask teachers, we're going to ask business: Let's concentrate on what he said and what he stood for -- if we don't, we all should just say we don't need the day.

I ask you, go back to your districts, plan something for next year, something that the young people who never met Dr. King, who don't really understand it, and have them understand what he stood for and what he was there for.

Three minutes in my life and a few minutes at the end, and I still say if we abided by his principles, a lot of the incidents that we have in our cities across the state, a lot of our criminal activities and weapons -- he didn't talk about that. He talked about us working together.

I ask you to join all of us in doing something next year that Dr. King will look down from heaven and say: You have answered my prayers.

Thank you all.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Thank you, Senator.

Senator Parker.

SENATOR PARKER:Thank you, Mr. President. On the resolution.

Thank you, Senator Stewart-Cousins, for bringing this resolution to the floor. And certainly thank you, Colonel Larkin, for your service both to this great country but also to the civil rights movement.

Dr. King has been a role model of mine I guess since I was very, very small. And most years when I have spoken on this I have tried to make the same point that our leader has made, which is that Dr. King is much more than a dream, that in fact the work that he did was really about constructive engagement and direct constructive engagement.

And people like to talk about the dream because that's polite, and people don't want to talk about, you know, him being arrested and the kind of persecution that he and many of the members of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference took in standing up for African-Americans.

But the work of Dr. King was much bigger than just African-American civil rights, far bigger. And in fact today we have a new Senator just elected, and part of what happened in that process of us counting and recounting those votes was brought about exactly because of the work that Dr. King was able to do.

We heard during the inauguration speech of our 47th President a reference of Seneca to Selma to Stonewall, talking about how important all of these struggles have been in terms of making this country what it is today.

Dr. King was not just an exemplar for African-Americans throughout this country in fighting for public accommodation, but if you read the works of Cesar Chavez what you find is in California, amongst immigrant farmworkers, he was in fact one of the exemplars they looked to for the kind of leadership that needed to be done. And in fact he's quoted as saying that the words and the works of Dr. King leaped up out of the pages for them.

That when we look at the struggle of women and we talk about, you know, what happened in this great state in terms of, you know, men that don't understand -- and this is going to be, I think, an important transition for us as we talk about reproductive health rights this year, as we talk about equal pay for women. We need to do minimum wage, but we also need to do equal pay for women in this state.

We have to remember -- and we're going to pass Senator Savino's bill on that hopefully soon. But we have to remember that the women's movement began here in this state. And so when you hear the President talking about Seneca Falls, he's talking about New York State. And we must again be at the lead. And Dr. King has continued to be a leader in this work.

So if we're going to talk about Dr. King, we have to talk about him in fullness. In 1966, Dr. King got the Margaret Sanger Award. Right? Some of you who don't know Margaret Sanger, she's from Brooklyn, the founder of Planned Parenthood. Right? And really for his work, his dedication to women's rights and women's particularly reproductive health rights. And so we see Dr. King making his mark there amongst women.

And of course he's made his mark amongst the gay rights movement. And in fact you will see that much of the work that's being done now in gay rights is directly modeled on Dr. King and the kind of model that he put forward in terms of protesting. Nonviolent engagement has been a direct association to that kind of work.

And so Dr. King's work really is prevalent everywhere -- with the antiwar movement, the poor people's movement, the farmworkers movement, the immigrant rights movement, the women's movement.

And now hopefully we will take this time today to do what Dr. King said, which is understand, Mr. President, the urgency of now, and not to wait and kick the can down the road to do the great things that we know we can do as New Yorkers and as members of this body.

And so I'm asking you to join with me today as we not just commemorate the life and the legacy of the Dr. Martin Luther King but rededicate ourselves to his mission, to his work, and understanding the urgency of now.

Thank you.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Thank you, Senator.

Senator Diaz.

SENATOR DIAZ:Thank you, Mr. President. On the resolution.

I also join Senator Stewart-Cousins and congratulate her for bringing this resolution to the floor.

I was very moved, Mr. President, very, very moved with the words of Senator Larkin. He almost cried, I think he cried. And he asked a question. Senator Larkin, Mr. President, asked a question: What are we going to do, what are we doing with what Dr. Martin Luther King taught us? That's what he asked. Beautiful speech. But then he asked, What are we going to do with what Dr. Martin Luther King taught us?

Well, Senator Larkin, I'll tell you what we're going to do. Or I'll tell you what you should do.

Senator Larkin and ladies and gentlemen, Dr. Martin Luther King fought very hard to take us out of the back seat and to put us in the front seat. In this chamber, we got 33 Democratic Senators elected. And they shouldn't have taken us back to the rear seat.

So I think, Senator Larkin, the question should be asked to this chamber, not to send us to our districts to ask our people what we're going to do. You know, this chamber, right here, what are we going to do -- or what are you doing with what Dr. Martin Luther King taught us and all the fights that he had, that he had to take us from the back room in the bus? You here in this chamber are making a mockery out of that.

So I suggest that if we are going to honor Dr. Martin Luther King's fight, struggle -- that he even gave his life for it -- we should start here and be real and acknowledge that the people of the State of New York elected 33 Democratic Senators and gave us the mandate to be in the majority, not in the back seat.

I have also to say that -- every year I say it to the new ones -- when I was 18 years old in 1960, I joined the Army in Puerto Rico, the United States Army of America. I joined that in Bayamón, Puerto Rico, my hometown. And then they sent me in 1960, they sent me with a bunch of other Puerto Rican soldiers, all whites, I being the only black, they sent me to Columbia, to Fort Jackson in Columbia, South Carolina. Eighteen years old, 1960. Puerto Rican, black, with broken English and kinky hair.

If you think that you know what racism is, if you think even -- there are colored people, African-American people here in New York that they don't even know what I went through and they will never go through what I went through, even though they fight against racism. I was the only black in that barrack. And I learned there what to be called nigger, what to be called very Puerto Rican, and what to be called giving all the dirty words to do.

So now in Columbia, South Carolina, after the struggle of Martin Luther King, now you could have people moving, even black people being elected to office. Well, I was there in 1960 and I know what I know. Nobody -- I didn't read it in any books. I was there and I lived it. And I came out of that.

I went there proudly wearing the uniform of the United States Army, I went to a bar with my friends. The way they told me "Whatever you're looking for, we haven't got it." I had to leave the place. My friends stood there, even Puerto Rican like me, white, they stood in that bar. And they told me "You have to leave," and I had to leave.

And I know what it is to be alone even with people that call themselves your friends. Martin Luther King went through all of that, and he fought for us.

And now I want to end by saying that today we have a new Senator, Cecilia Tkaczyk. And I have to criticize my conference. My Democratic conference, I have to criticize them. Because in the time that we are honoring Martin Luther King, I don't even know why Cecilia Tkaczyk was sworn in without the Republican side.

I think that was -- that's shameful. And I think that we should have never allowed Cecilia Tkaczyk to be sworn in without every member of the Senate, for us only Democrats to be here swearing in Cecilia Tkaczyk.

And then we're going to stand here now honoring Dr. Martin Luther King? Please, give me a break.

Thank you, Mr. President.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Savino.

SENATOR SAVINO:Thank you, Mr. President.

First I want to thank Senator Stewart-Cousins for bringing the resolution to the floor.

This is the ninth year that I've been a member of the New York State Senate and the ninth time I've spoken on a resolution honoring Dr. Martin Luther King. And, you know, I always look forward to this resolution no matter who's the sponsor of it, because we get to hear the experiences of Senator Larkin. And we get to hear Senator Diaz talk about what it was like when he was young and experienced discrimination, something I will never ever really feel. And I think it's important that we share those stories to remind us.

Dr. King is important to many of us for many different reasons. I always like to stand and speak on Dr. King because of his commitment to that other movement -- he was a movement person -- and that was the labor movement.

Senator Larkin, when you spoke to some of those kids the other day, I guarantee you none of them knew what he was doing in Memphis, Tennessee, the day he was killed. They don't know that he went down there to lead a strike of striking sanitation workers. Who to this day the City of Memphis still does not acknowledge and does not treat them with the respect and dignity that they deserved. And they were not striking for money. They were striking to be treated with dignity and respect. In fact, their signs were very simple. They said "I am a man."

Dr. King understood how important the ability of workers to band together for mutual aid and protection to demand dignity in the workplace, how important that constitutional right was.

And so today, as Senator Larkin said, what are we doing to honor Dr. King's legacy? Well, let's look at where we've come since 1968, when the rate of organized workers in this country was somewhere around 30 percent, and in some sectors even higher. We are now at about 7 percent across the country. Highest in the public sector, very low in the private sector.

In the past two years we've seen a number of state legislatures introduce and pass right-to-work statutes stripping workers of the right to belong to their unions, to have a real say in their work life, to be able to demand dignity and respect. So if we're worrying about are we living up to his legacy, on this one we are not.

But I am proud to say that here in New York State we have not fallen for that. We've had to tighten our belts sometimes and some of you, you know, have had to take some hard votes. But we have not treated our workers or organized workers the way other states are. And we should be proud of that.

Dr. King would be proud of that. But he would not be proud of the fate of organized workers or workers in general in this country. And until we live up to his commitment, we won't be honoring his legacy the right way.

So I hope next year when we bring this resolution to the floor again and we share these moments that we're able to report that one of the things that was so important to Dr. King, the fate of organized workers and the labor movement, is in a much better place than it is on this anniversary.

Thank you, Mr. President.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Thank you, Senator.

The question is on the resolution. All in favor signify by saying aye.

(Response of "Aye.")

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Opposed, nay.

(No response.)

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The resolution is adopted.

Senator Libous.

SENATOR LIBOUS:Mr. President, I believe that Senator Stewart-Cousins would like to open up the resolution for sponsorship.

And I would ask that the desk put every member on the resolution. And if there's a member who for whatever reason wishes not to be on, that they should just let the desk know that at some point in time today. Okay?

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Thank you, Senator. The resolution is open for cosponsorship. Anyone not wishing to be a cosponsor should notify the desk.

Senator Libous.

SENATOR LIBOUS:At this time, Mr. President, there will be an immediate meeting of the Rules Committee in Room 332, an immediate meeting of the Rules Committee in Room 332.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:There is an immediate meeting of the Rules Committee in Room 332. The Senate will stand at ease pending the report of the Rules Committee.

(Whereupon, the Senate stood at ease at 4:33 p.m.)

(Whereupon, the Senate reconvened at 4:45 p.m.)

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Libous.

SENATOR LIBOUS:Thank you, Mr. President.

May we please return to reports of standing committees. I believe there's a report of the Rules Committee at the desk, and I would ask that it be read at this time.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Reports of standing committees.

The Secretary will read.

THE SECRETARY:Senator Skelos, from the Committee on Rules, reports the following bills direct to third reading:

Senate Print 2133, by Senator Martins, an act to amend the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law;

And Senate 2320, by Senator Golden, an act to amend the Real Property Tax Law.

Both bills reported direct to third reading.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Libous.

SENATOR LIBOUS:Mr. President, I move to accept the report of the Rules Committee.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:All in favor of accepting the report of the Rules Committee signify by saying aye.

(Response of "Aye.")

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Opposed, nay.

(No response.)

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The Rules Committee report is accepted.

Senator Libous.

SENATOR LIBOUS:Mr. President, at this time could we read the noncontroversial calendar. We'll read the active list for today.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The Secretary will proceed with the noncontroversial reading of today's calendar.

THE SECRETARY:On page 4, Senator Skelos moves to discharge, from the Committee on Rules, Assembly Bill Number 2086 and substitute it for the identical Senate Bill Number 2107, Third Reading Calendar 2.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Substitution ordered.

The Secretary will read.

THE SECRETARY:Calendar Number 2, by Member of the Assembly Silver, Assembly Print 2086, Concurrent Resolution of the Senate and Assembly proposing an amendment to Article 3 of the Constitution.

SENATOR GIANARIS:Lay it aside.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The concurrent resolution is laid aside.

Senator Libous.

SENATOR LIBOUS:Mr. President, could we take up the noncontroversial reading of Supplemental Calendar Number 3A at this time.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The Secretary will proceed with the noncontroversial reading of Supplemental Calendar 3A.

THE SECRETARY:In relation to Calendar Number 3, Senator Martins moves to discharge, from the Committee on Rules, Assembly Bill Number 1075 and substitute it for the identical Senate Bill Number 2133, Third Reading Calendar 3.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Substitution ordered.

The Secretary will read.

THE SECRETARY:Calendar Number 3, by Member of the Assembly Heastie, Assembly Print 1075, an act to amend the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Read the last section.

THE SECRETARY:Section 2. This act shall take effect on the same date and in the same manner as a chapter of the Laws of 2012.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Call the roll.

(The Secretary called the roll.)

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The Secretary will announce the results.

THE SECRETARY:Ayes, 62. Nays, 1. Senator Diaz recorded in the negative.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The bill is passed.

The Secretary will continue to read.

THE SECRETARY:Calendar Number 4, by Senator Golden, Senate Print 2320, an act to amend the Real Property Tax Law.

SENATOR GIANARIS:Lay it aside.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The bill is laid aside.

Senator Libous, that completes the noncontroversial reading of the supplemental calendar.

SENATOR LIBOUS:Thank you, Mr. President.

Now could we go back to the active list and do the controversial reading of Senate Calendar Number 2.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The Secretary will ring the bells.

SENATOR LIBOUS:Mr. President, let's start whatever debate would be on the bill, and we can still ring the bells so the members will come to the chamber. And put the bill before the house, please.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The bells are ringing, and the Secretary will place the concurrent resolution before the Senate on the controversial calendar.

THE SECRETARY:Calendar Number 2, by Member of the Assembly Silver, Assembly Print Number 2086, Concurrent Resolution of the Senate and Assembly.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Gianaris.

SENATOR GIANARIS:Mr. President, would the sponsor or a designated Senator answer a few questions?

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Nozzolio.

SENATOR NOZZOLIO:Thank you, Mr. President.

Senator Skelos and Senator Klein are the prime sponsors of this legislation, but I'll be addressing any questions of Senator Gianaris or members of this house.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Gianaris.

SENATOR GIANARIS:Thank you, Mr. President.

Would the sponsor explain to us why it is in this resolution that there are different vote totals required to pass a piece of legislation out of this chamber depending on which party is in control of the chamber?

SENATOR NOZZOLIO:Mr. President and my colleagues, just for everyone's edification, the measure before us is a constitutional amendment that requires passage of two consecutively elected Legislatures. The Legislature elected in 2011-2012 engaged in first passage. This now is before this house for second passage. It has already passed the New York State Assembly. And in order for it to be on the ballot for consideration by the public this year, it needs to be enacted before the end of this month.

That the portion of the measure that Senator Gianaris is referring to requires a standard for the execution of the process, a standard that changes when one party controls the Senate, the Assembly and the Governor's office. The intention of the drafters was to ensure, Mr. President and my colleagues, that there wouldn't be rode roughshod over the interests of the minority party, whatever that minority party may be. And in order to protect the sentiments of the minority party, that this standard would be risen if there was complete control by one party of both branches of the Legislature and the Governor.

SENATOR GIANARIS:Would Senator Nozzolio continue to yield.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Nozzolio?

SENATOR NOZZOLIO:Mr. President, I'd be happy to yield.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The Senator yields.

SENATOR GIANARIS:The answer just given is a noble goal, but my question is why is that protection for the minority party only provided in one circumstance, when one party is in the minority as opposed to the other? Why are not both parties afforded that protection?

SENATOR NOZZOLIO:The example, Mr. President, in response to the Senator's question, is that there are conferences established and that the leadership of those conferences is delegated and delineated in both the Assembly and the Senate by having a majority leader and minority leader. That's the delineation made in this legislation.

SENATOR GIANARIS:Would Mr. Nozzolio continue to yield, Mr. President.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator, do you continue to yield?

SENATOR NOZZOLIO:Yes, Mr. President.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The Senator yields.

SENATOR GIANARIS:I understand that each house has a majority leader and minority leader.

But my question is, why is a different vote total required to pass a redistricting bill when a particular party is in the minority? Why is it not a blanket two-thirds vote, which is what this provides in a certain circumstance, why is not a two-thirds vote required to pass a redistricting bill, period, end of story, regardless as to which party is in the majority or minority?

Because this legislation says if a particular party -- and practically speaking, it's the Republican Party -- is in the majority, a simple majority vote is needed; if the Democrats are in the majority, a two-thirds vote is needed.

SENATOR NOZZOLIO:Mr. President, the question is a very fair one. I think the answer is that this is a logical extension of what is established here. And when one party controls, the protections of the minority in effect can be run over roughshod by a vote. And that this vote is to set a different standard.

For instance, in the Assembly now where the Republicans have, I believe, less than a third of the chamber as representatives, this measure would require the standard to be set higher for the passage and final enactment -- and I really should say enactment, slash, acceptance of the commission's report. That this measure delegates to a commission the responsibility to draft legislation, legislation that would create Congressional, State Senate and State Assembly districts.

This legislation, under the constitutional amendment, could not be amended by the Legislature. There would be no opportunity by the Legislature whatsoever to amend. It would be either an up vote or a down vote, a yes or a no.

And to have a minority in effect protection by having, when one party does control all branches, that this does have a check and a balance, an attempt at establishing that check and balance in this process.

SENATOR GIANARIS:Would Senator Nozzolio continue to yield, Mr. President.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Nozzolio, do you yield?

SENATOR NOZZOLIO:Yes, Mr. President.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The Senator yields.

SENATOR GIANARIS:Thank you. I heard that last answer. And I guess my question to Senator Nozzolio is, does he believe that because we had a divided Legislature last year, with Democrats in control of the Assembly and Republicans in control of the Senate, that the interests of the minority party in the Senate at the time were not run roughshod by the redistricting process?

SENATOR NOZZOLIO:Mr. President, I believe that this measure is a measure to establish an independent redistricting process and establish that independence as much as possible within the frameworks of the Constitution and the authority granted to the commission and the responsibility of the Legislature to accept or reject the commission's report.

We say, when the delegation establishes a one-party rule -- Governor, Senate, Assembly -- the chances of there being unanimity is also an opportunity for that one party to destroy whatever fairness there is in the process.

Senator Gianaris references last year. If I recall, Mr. President, there was a Governor who was a Democrat, there was a New York State Assembly that had Democrat control, and there was a majority of Republicans in the New York State Senate. That created a balance, a balance that was I believe not shown in the prior two years before that, when the Senate was controlled by the Democrats, the Assembly was controlled by the Democrats, and the Governor was controlled by the Democrats.

This effort, this constitutional amendment, is an effort to provide a balance, a check and a counterweight when there is a one-party domination of state government.

SENATOR GIANARIS:Will Senator Nozzolio continue to yield, Mr. President?

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Nozzolio, do you continue to yield?

SENATOR NOZZOLIO:Yes, Mr. President.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The Senator yields.

SENATOR GIANARIS:Did Senator Nozzolio believe that Democratic control of the Assembly in any way inhibited the Republican majority's desire and ability to do whatever it wanted with the Senate lines last year?

SENATOR NOZZOLIO:Mr. President, I'm not schooled in being a guest on talk shows, being a pundit, being a speculator, being a Democratic or Republican analyst. That question requires a political analysis that I am not qualified to make.

SENATOR GIANARIS:Would the sponsor continue to yield?

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator, do you yield?

SENATOR NOZZOLIO:Yes, Mr. President.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The Senator yields.

SENATOR GIANARIS:Senator Nozzolio may not be skilled in any of those things, but he is skilled at gerrymandering, and he proved that last year very effectively.

(Audience response.)

SENATOR GIANARIS:Oh, please.

(Laughter; inaudible comments.)

SENATOR GIANARIS:My question to Senator Nozzolio is --

SENATOR NOZZOLIO:I'm sorry, I have trouble hearing Senator Gianaris. Did he say that this was an action that he may have or may not have heard when he walked out of the chamber last year when this measure was debated before this Legislature? Is that what Senator Gianaris said? I couldn't hear.

(Laughter.)

SENATOR GIANARIS:Mr. President, that is not what I was insinuating. In fact, I walked against the lines. I walked out on this abomination of a constitutional amendment that we're voting on for the second time today.

But let me continue, if Senator Nozzolio would continue to yield.

SENATOR NOZZOLIO:Mr. President, I'll continue to yield to a serious debate and serious questions. It appears on the edge of seriousness by the proponent of these questions at this point. Let's see what the question is before I decide to yield further.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Gianaris.

SENATOR GIANARIS:Thank you, Mr. President.

The resolution before us outlines different scenarios depending on the political affiliation of the Speaker of the Assembly and the Temporary President of the Senate. My question to Senator Nozzolio is, how is the political affiliation of the Temporary President of the Senate determined? Is it by with which conference they choose to sit, by which lines they choose to run on in November, or some other factor?

SENATOR NOZZOLIO:Mr. President, I barely knew the answer this year. I certainly can't speculate. The laws are there, the structure is there. The year that this would be in effect is 2020. And that's -- the formula is here. The answer can only be answered in 2020.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Gianaris.

SENATOR GIANARIS:Would Senator Nozzolio continue to yield?

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Nozzolio, do you continue to yield?

SENATOR NOZZOLIO:Yes, Mr. President.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The Senator yields.

SENATOR GIANARIS:If in 2020 we are faced with a structural situation in the Senate exactly identical to that which we have today, how would the political affiliation of the Temporary President of the Senate be determined? It's not a crazy hypothetical; we're living under it today.

SENATOR NOZZOLIO:Mr. President, that is a question of law that would be answered by the attorneys and the courts at that time.

SENATOR GIANARIS:Would Senator Nozzolio continue to yield?

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator, do you continue to yield?

SENATOR NOZZOLIO:Yes, Mr. President.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The Senator yields.

SENATOR GIANARIS:Is Senator Nozzolio's suggestion that we would undoubtedly end up in a confusing and lengthy court proceeding if we are facing the same situation in 2020 that we face today?

SENATOR NOZZOLIO:Mr. President, I think it's similar to the situation that Senator Gianaris mentioned when there was a question of who would be the next Lieutenant Governor. That he was a big proponent, if I recall. That was a question that was ultimately decided by the New York State Court of Appeals. And that certainly is a question I think similar in nature to this one.

SENATOR GIANARIS:Would the Senator continue to yield.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator, do you continue to yield?

SENATOR NOZZOLIO:Yes, Mr. President.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The Senator yields.

SENATOR GIANARIS:Would Senator Nozzolio answer if we had a situation similar to today, where the Temporary President position alternates literally on a day-to-day basis, would the vote required on the floor of this chamber depend on what day we were taking the vote?

SENATOR NOZZOLIO:Again, Mr. President, I stand by my previous answer.

Again, it's part of the structure of this house and the determinations as to how -- and, for that matter, the structure of the Assembly. These hypotheticals could occur in either house at either time.

That I believe we can only gauge what the law is today and what the structure is under current rule and current legislative law that establishes the organization of the Senate and the Assembly.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Gianaris.

SENATOR GIANARIS:Would the Senator continue to yield, Mr. President.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator, do you yield?

SENATOR NOZZOLIO:Yes, Mr. President.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The Senator yields.

SENATOR GIANARIS:I suspect I may get the same answer, but I just want to ask the question for the record.

Also in this resolution is a provision that the redistricting commission itself will require different votes depending on the party affiliation of the Temporary President. And I guess my question is, would the commission itself require a different vote total depending on which day they take the vote if we have an alternating president scenario?

SENATOR NOZZOLIO:Mr. President, again, it's a speculative question that only can be answered, at the very least, eight years from now. And that it's something that certainly the Legislature at that time will have to deal with.

But the essence -- and I think we're losing the essence on this track. The essence of this legislation is to have the Legislature empower a commission, a commission that would produce a product, a product that could not be amended by the Legislature regardless of who the Temporary President was, a product that in effect would have to be voted on in a procedure that would hopefully protect, as a check and balance, the rights of the minority party in this Legislature.

SENATOR GIANARIS:Would the Senator continue to yield, Mr. President.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Nozzolio, do you yield?

SENATOR NOZZOLIO:Yes, Mr. President.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The Senator continues to yield.

SENATOR GIANARIS:Could Senator Nozzolio explain to us whether he considers the commission that would be established by this resolution independent?

SENATOR NOZZOLIO:Mr. President, this commission is established within the boundaries that the Legislature has under the New York State Constitution, Article 3, Section 1. The delegation of -- that describes the legislative powers and authorities of this body and the New York State Assembly.

That this grant of authority is to a commission to produce a product, a product that could not be amended by the Legislature, a product that would have a higher standard of support necessary if one party was in complete control of the legislative process and the Governor's office.

And that this measure provides the opportunity for a commission to do its work, requires the work to be done and, under this provision, under full compliance with the Voting Rights Act and all other provisions of law governing redistricting. It requires a product to be produced, a series of hearings to be conducted. It requires the public to have significant input into the process.

And it does not allow the Legislature -- and I need to emphasize this -- the constitutional amendment forbids the Legislature from amending this product that's ultimately produced by the commission.

SENATOR GIANARIS:Would the Senator continue to yield.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Nozzolio, do you yield?

SENATOR NOZZOLIO:Yes, Mr. President.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The Senator yields.

SENATOR GIANARIS:I heard Senator Nozzolio twice indicate that the Legislature cannot amend the product. Isn't it in fact the case that if the Legislature rejects the product of the commission once, it can amend the subsequent product as often as it likes?

SENATOR NOZZOLIO:Thank you for raising that, Senator. Yes.

I said it could not amend; I meant on the first two passages. On the third enactment, there could be amendments under this provision. But again, it would be the third time -- not the first time, not the second time, but the third time in order to get ultimately a product produced.

SENATOR GIANARIS:Would the Senator continue to yield, Mr. President.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Nozzolio?

SENATOR NOZZOLIO:Yes, Mr. President.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The Senator yields.

SENATOR GIANARIS:So just to clarify, then, would Senator Nozzolio agree that the Legislature in fact has the final say and there is a process through this amendment, if enacted, where the Legislature can simply follow the exact process that was followed last year and ignore the recommendations of the commission?

SENATOR NOZZOLIO:Mr. President, I'd like to point out to my good friend and my colleagues that this measure is much akin to the judicial selection commission that was delegated authority by legislatures in the past, basically telling the governor of this state that: Your selections as appointees to positions in the judiciary should be screened and developed and proffered to the governor by the commission, where the governor would have the opportunity to say yes or no in nominating those individuals to a particular judgeship appointment.

This is very similar, in that the Legislature, under this constitutional provision, provides an opportunity, creates a commission, says to the commission: You develop the product, here are the guidelines. At the end of the day, we need to endorse that commission proposal.

If there cannot be agreement, if the Governor vetoes the provision twice, that that third time the Legislature would be acting. But not until that time.

SENATOR GIANARIS:Would the Senator continue to yield?

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Nozzolio?

SENATOR NOZZOLIO:Yes, Mr. President.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The Senator yields.

SENATOR GIANARIS:I want to give Senator Nozzolio an opportunity to -- I think he misspoke. My reading of the resolution indicates that the Legislature has the ability to amend the second plan presented. It does not have to go through a third round before the Legislature can present its amendments. I believe that's on page 3 of the resolution.

SENATOR NOZZOLIO:Mr. President, if that's a question -- Mr. President, would you ask Senator Gianaris to again reference the provision he's discussing?

SENATOR GIANARIS:I'd be happy to, Mr. President. It's on page 3, lines 11 through 17. It indicates that if either house shall fail to approve the second plan, each house shall introduce such legislation with any amendments it deems necessary. It's the second plan that could be amended. It doesn't have to go to a third one.

SENATOR NOZZOLIO:Mr. President, under this provision, that Plan 1 would have been provided by the redistricting commission and failed. Plan 2 would have had to come before the redistricting commission, and it would have to fail as well.

That this would provide an opportunity for that plan to be amended. But it really would be the third time that a plan would be before the body for consideration.

SENATOR GIANARIS:Would the Senator continue to yield, Mr. President.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Nozzolio?

SENATOR NOZZOLIO:Yes, Mr. President.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The Senator yields.

SENATOR GIANARIS:With respect, I just want to clarify this point because I think it's an important one. As I read the language of the resolution, it's my understanding that the Legislature would have to take -- if the Legislature was intent on passing its own plan and not what the commission recommended, it would have to vote against one plan, the first plan. On the second plan it merely says if the house fails to approve it. Which means it could take no action whatsoever, which would constitute a failure to approve the legislation, and then amend it and pass whatever the Legislature wished.

SENATOR NOZZOLIO:I believe, Mr. President, that the intent of this resolution is to have the Legislature act and vote on such a plan.

SENATOR GIANARIS:Would the Senator continue to yield, Mr. President?

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Nozzolio.

SENATOR NOZZOLIO:Yes, Mr. President.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The Senator yields.

SENATOR GIANARIS:How would the process set up by this resolution in any way, in any way differ from the process we witnessed last year, with one exception, and that is that this commission will produce a plan that can be completely ignored by the Legislature? Aren't we in fact dealing with the establishment of an advisory commission that simply leaves the power in the Legislature to do whatever it chooses at the end of that process?

SENATOR NOZZOLIO:Mr. President, I believe that this measure is establishing an independent process, a process that is requiring individuals to put together a product, a product that must be voted on by the Legislature. And those votes are consequences that I believe the questioner, in making the question, is discounting. That there will be an enormous amount of citizen input, an enormous amount of effort, an enormous amount of process that the public will have an opportunity to engage in.

For the Legislature then to -- as well as the Governor -- to ignore that process in any way I believe certainly would be contrary to the public interest.

The divisible grant of authority, though, that -- I think the next question that Senator Gianaris may be contemplating -- is one that he raised in committee, a question about, Well, why not simply make it so that the Legislature would never had have an opportunity to vote on the process? A question that is not illogical, but it is also not within the constitutional framework of our State Constitution as it's currently presented.

And it would further erode any type of legislative authority to simply pick and choose what individual grants of authority the Legislature will make.

It is Article 3, Section 1, which I'll repeat grants an indivisible grant of authority by the people of this state to the Legislature. Having that grant of authority obliterated obliterates Article 3, Section 1, and a pick-and-choose-type approach for the ultimate decision, being the people of this state through their Legislature, would be contrary.

In other words, the people of this state, speaking through their legislators, will ultimately decide this ultimate law or this ultimate plan as well as others. And that for the Legislature to -- it can't pick and choose its opportunity to grant articles of authority or divisions of authority on an issue-by-issue basis.

SENATOR GIANARIS:Would the Senator continue to yield, Mr. President?

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Nozzolio?

SENATOR NOZZOLIO:Yes, Mr. President.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The Senator yields.

SENATOR GIANARIS:Is the Senator aware that we are discussing amending the constitution and therefore we are not bound by any current provisions of the constitution by what we're proposing? So in other words, the fact that the current constitution gives the legislature the final say does not mean that we cannot propose removing that authority from the legislature in a constitutional amendment.

SENATOR NOZZOLIO:Mr. President, I think that takes a very narrow tunnel view of what a constitutional amendment does. Under Senator Gianaris's logic, then you could change the state constitution or any constitution -- our national constitution -- in one way with total disregard for the other provisions of that constitution. I don't think that's something that the original drafters of either the state or federal constitution would support.

That certainly the courts would not want an individual grant of some sort to be contrary to another constitutional provision. That would be certainly ripe for challenge. It would be an issue that would be fought in the courts for years. And it's something that I think certainly would not result in the type of process that this bill contemplates.

SENATOR GIANARIS:Would the Senator continue to yield.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Nozzolio?

SENATOR NOZZOLIO:Yes, Mr. President.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The Senator yields.

SENATOR GIANARIS:Is the Senator aware that in March of 2011 he and all of his colleagues on that side of the aisle voted for a constitutional amendment that would in fact strip the Legislature of complete authority over redistricting? And I wonder why his opinion has changed on that issue from that day to today.

SENATOR NOZZOLIO:I'm not familiar with the measure that Senator Gianaris is referring to. But whatever it was, that will no more stand the constitutional test than the other legislation that Senator Gianaris is referring to.

I think that the point, Senator, is this. That regardless of what votes were taken by any members of this Legislature on any other issue, the issue before us is one that we're dealing with now. The issue before us is the one you and I are addressing. And the measure before us I believe is irrelevant to that discussion of other legislation.

I should parenthetically ask, did that legislation pass both houses and is it before us for discussion today? I think the answer to that, Mr. President, would be no.

SENATOR GIANARIS:Would the Senator continue to yield, Mr. President.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Nozzolio, do you continue to yield?

SENATOR NOZZOLIO:Be glad to, Mr. President.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The Senator continues to yield.

SENATOR GIANARIS:For the Senator's and everyone's edification, it was a Senator Bonacic bill, S3331 in the last session, that was voted upon.

But no, it did not pass the Assembly, it is not before us today. I was merely asking because your explanation of the current resolution before us would seem to indicate that you would oppose an effort like that that you apparently voted for.

But let's move on from that. I want to go back for a moment to the question of the supermajority vote requirement in certain instances.

I heard Senator Nozzolio say that it is the will of the voters, through their representatives, that will determine whether these plans get enacted or whether this amendment is adopted ultimately. But my question is, why does this resolution not trust the will of the voters in determining the composition of the two houses so that the same vote requirements would apply under any circumstances?

I was perhaps not as articulate as I could have been. Let me try and rephrase that.

Why are the supporters of this resolution concerned that the will of the voters might enable the same party to control both houses and, through their will, enact a plan like every other bill we pass that requires the same vote total regardless of which party is in charge?

SENATOR NOZZOLIO:Mr. President, I think the will of the voters certainly will be heard by the enactment of this constitutional amendment. That's the ultimate will of the voters.

My friend the distinguished Deputy Minority Leader talks about a hypothetical and somehow suggests that we have the will of the people of the state collectively voiced through the actions of the Legislature.

The point is this, that the citizens of this state will have the opportunity to decide whether this is a provision that makes sense, that will be balanced, will provide a check and balance.

And I think that the hypothetical raised by Senator Gianaris is just too convoluted to matter to individual citizens, in the sense that they'll have their ultimate say in voting for this amendment or not. And that will speak louder than any action by this legislative body.

SENATOR GIANARIS:Would the Senator continue to yield, Mr. President?

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Nozzolio.

SENATOR NOZZOLIO:Yes, Mr. President.

SENATOR GIANARIS:I'll begin by noting for the record that the quote, unquote, convoluted hypothetical I referenced is the world in which we're living in today. So I appreciate that you're calling it convoluted. I agree.

But let me ask whether you are familiar with at any point in New York State's history that our constitution required different vote totals depending on which party had control of this body. Has that ever happened before?

SENATOR NOZZOLIO:I am not familiar with any constitutional provision. Although certainly I am with a measure that this body enacted fewer than two years ago establishing the new code of ethics for the State of New York and the legislatures and legislative members.

SENATOR GIANARIS:Would the Senator continue to yield, Mr. President.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Nozzolio?

SENATOR NOZZOLIO:Yes, Mr. President.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The Senator yields.

SENATOR GIANARIS:Of course the difference in those two is one is a statute that can be changed more easily than a constitutional amendment.

But I guess I'll ask the question more broadly. Is the Senator aware of any example in the history of the United States of America where the constitution of any state or the charter of any locality ever, ever required different vote totals depending on party advantage in a legislative body? Ever.

SENATOR NOZZOLIO:Mr. President, I certainly don't have the answer for Senator Gianaris. But I take his question very seriously, and I'll go home and do my homework this evening. It will probably take me all night to check every state legislative constitution as well as -- we might as well not limit it just to the United States, we can do all the countries of the world.

And I certainly will look forward to reporting to Senator Gianaris if I have been able to find any such provision.

SENATOR GIANARIS:Mr. President, on the bill.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Gianaris on the concurrent resolution.

SENATOR GIANARIS:Concurrent resolution, thank you.

Let me thank Senator Nozzolio for answering my questions and yielding.

The reason Senator Nozzolio was unable to answer that last question is because this is unprecedented. The idea that we would enshrine in the constitution of our state that a particular party needs more votes than another particular party to pass legislation is outrageous in the extreme.

We embarked on this effort to establish an independent process, many of us did -- some in the galleries with us today -- with the idea that we would be doing something good, not that we would make things worse.

And in fact we're being presented with a resolution today that would take an extremely bad process and make it horrendous. The Legislature would continue to have the final say. Not a darn thing different would have to happen other than we would have to reject this commission's proposal one time and then go right back to what happened last year.

Worse, we might require extra votes if the Democrats are in charge of the Senate than if Republicans are in charge. Let me repeat that. We are attempting to put into the constitution a process by which, if one party wins an election, they require fewer votes than if another party wins the election. In our state's governing document. If we do something like this, we are defaming the State Constitution today.

The Legislature would continue to have the final say, which is the one criteria that all of us said we supported. And the entire Republican majority voted for just such a proposal by Senator Bonacic. It would be establishing a commission that would mirror the setup at the Board of Elections, which is traditionally mired in gridlock because it has an equal number of appointees by both parties, even to the point of having co-directors, one from each party.

It doesn't take a genius to figure out what would happen. The reality is either the majority would continue to control and the Legislature would pass a plan just like it wanted to, this commission would be deadlocked five-five and nothing would come out of it, once again kicking it back to the Legislature to continue the process we've had in place for decades. There would be no addressing of the issue of reducing the population deviation. Questions about whether the change to prisoner population allocation would still be in effect.

And a situation where, if we have a structure of the Senate like we have today, where no one is able to answer what would happen. If this was in effect right now and this was a redistricting year, no one can tell us how this would even go. Would it depend on the day which party had the temporary presidency? Would the independent commission have to wait for the right moment to call a vote, depending on which party was in charge, to make sure they only needed a simple majority instead of a two-thirds majority? What if they were in a late-night meeting and at the stroke of midnight there's a new temporary president, because all of a sudden the votes have to change again?

And I don't mean to make light of the current situation in this body. It exists for a number of reasons that are not relevant to this resolution. I'm merely pointing out the lunacy of requiring different vote totals depending on party advantage.

And yet here we are, so-called reformers talking about how this is a good thing, others holding the line, and all of us having to make a decision whether we want to take one of the most maligned redistricting processes in the country and actually take a vote to make it worse. Because that's what we're doing today.

I encourage all my colleagues to vote no on this. If it passes, I encourage the people of this state to reject it in November and give us another crack to do this right.

Thank you, Mr. President.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Thank you, Senator.

Senator Bonacic.

SENATOR BONACIC:Thank you, Mr. President.

I want to thank Senator Nozzolio for clarifying this complicated process.

I want to talk what redistricting means to me. I want to share some thoughts with you. Under the constitution, the legislature has the power to decide the redistricting process. And why is that important to us? Because, for our political existence, we want to make sure that the district that is drawn every 10 years is fair.

Now, if you're a member of the minority party, you want to make sure that you're not squeezed in such a way that it's harder for you to get elected. And if you're in the majority party, you want to make sure that your chances are good to get elected. A political process which the constitution empowers you to have. Okay?

Every 10 years, when you're in the minority party, you say that the majority is going to stack the deck to hurt us, to hurt the minority. You have good government groups saying it's not fair, you have the media saying it's not fair. And we go through this process every 10 years.

So what we tried do in the Senate was make it simple and make it fair. But it's going to take courage. Because it was going to take a delegation, an authorization to an independent body to take it away from every elected official and let them draw the lines. Okay?

Now, Senator Gianaris has referred to my bill three times in this discussion with Senator Nozzolio. And what we tried to do in 2009 was to create a commission of five. Okay? Two from the majority leader, two from the speaker, and those four would decide the fifth. They draw the lines, and we live with it. It's over, very simple. Okay?

At that time Governor Cuomo, the attorney general, gave a legal opinion, he had no problems with the bill in terms of saying not a good idea.

We asked, when the Democrats were in power in 2009 and 2010, please run with this, because for years you've been talking about wanting independent redistricting. It doesn't get any more simpler than that.

When you were in the majority -- Assembly, Senate, Democratic governor -- you did not touch it. You ran away from it. You did nothing. Even though there was the chatter of wanting independent districting when you were in the minority. So a lot of this discussion today is kind of hypocritical.

Let me continue. In 2012 we took that bill, where you wouldn't touch it, and we passed it in the Senate. And that vote was 35-24. Finally, this house acted on the purest of independent districting: Let those five do it, we're out of it. We couldn't get the Assembly to move on it. They didn't want to do independent redistricting.

This was the only product last year that we could do with a bipartisan census with the Assembly and the Senate. Again, we're striving for independent redistricting. And as I understand this bill, this commission of 10, if we reject it, it goes back to them, if we reject it a second time, we draw it. We're back to where we always were.

And Senator Gianaris, when he speaks of is this going to meet the constitutional muster, it remains to be seen. But that can be said of anything we do in redistricting, because we have to adhere to the 14th Amendment, we have to adhere to the federal Voting Rights Act to make sure we don't disenfranchise any minorities, any voters in any Senate district. So we always have to cut the constitutional mustard and meet those two standards.

And Senator Gianaris talked about this third thing of a different count for whosever in power, which is a distraction.

So I commend Senator Nozzolio and Senator Skelos for doing the best they can with the other house to get a plan forward that tries to do independent districting. I vote aye on the resolution.

Thank you, Mr. President.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Thank you, Senator.

Senator Krueger.

SENATOR KRUEGER:Thank you, Mr. President. On the bill.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Krueger on the concurrent resolution.

SENATOR KRUEGER:So I just heard my colleague say this is simple and it's independent. But I listened to the debate between my colleagues Senator Gianaris and Senator Nozzolio, and clearly it's anything but simple.

I've also read endless analysis since a year ago on this constitutional amendment. And you know, it gets pretty bad grades from the actual independent people out there.

Professor Gerald Benjamin in his analysis rated it F on observance of the integrity of the state's regions. He graded it F on decisions on districting should fall to the state high court if the commission is not constituted or fails to act in a timely way. He graded it F on the criteria to be used, established in the constitution for redistricting in order of priority. He graded it F on commission decisions on districts --

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Excuse me, Senator Krueger.

Senator DeFrancisco, why do you rise?

SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: I'm wondering if Senator Krueger would yield to a question.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Krueger, do you yield to Senator DeFrancisco?

SENATOR KRUEGER:I will in just one minute, if that's okay with the Senator. Thank you.

I'm going on with Professor Benjamin's analysis. He starts to move up after he grades it F on the criteria to be established in the state constitution for redistricting in order of priority, grades it an F on the commission decisions on districts being final when filed with the Secretary of State. We then get up to Ds on a series of proposals, finally up to a grade of C. And we actually get to a B and an A on a couple of minor issues at the end.

But a recognized independent authority on the constitution and on the districting process in New York has given it terrible grades.

I will happily defer to Senator DeFrancisco for questions and then get back to talking on the bill, if I might, Mr. President.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator DeFrancisco.

SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes, I would just have this question.

Senator Krueger, how would you grade the Democrat majority in 2009 and 2010 on their redistricting efforts?

SENATOR KRUEGER:Through you, Mr. President, the Senate Republicans controlled this house for almost 70 years straight. They never addressed the fairness of districting in any of the 10-year periods during those approximately 70 years.

We did control the house for approximately one of those two years until a Republican-led coup threw us all into chaos. And I will agree during that short period of time we did not get redistricting done.

So I will agree both parties in this house have been guilty of failing to get independent redistricting done in the history of this house. That, in my opinion, does not justify moving forward with a bad constitutional amendment when in fact we have no immediate deadlines, we have no redistricting schedule to go forward for nearly another decade. And we really have the time, both of us in this house, both houses, to get this right.

When you're going to amend the constitution of the state, I believe you need to make sure you get it right before you change the constitution.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator DeFrancisco.

SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Would Senator Krueger yield to another question?

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Krueger, do you yield?

SENATOR KRUEGER:Happily, Mr. President.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Krueger yields.

SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Senator Krueger, I know you didn't get it done and the Republicans didn't get it done. But during the years 2009-2010, can you tell me what bills were introduced for redistricting by the majority, who would have controlled redistricting if they had kept the majority? What bills were introduced?

SENATOR KRUEGER:One moment, I'll check with counsel, please.

Reminding me, Mr. President, that at that time you, Senator Valesky, carried a bill for independent redistricting that in fact Senator Gianaris, who was then an Assemblymember, carried in the Assembly.

SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: And would she yield to one last question?

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Krueger, do you continue to yield?

SENATOR KRUEGER:Yes, Mr. President.

SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Can you tell me when in 2009 and 2010 Senator Valesky's bill came to the floor for a vote?

SENATOR KRUEGER:Mr. President, may I ask you if you can answer that question?

(Laughter.)

SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: I can answer it. It didn't come to the floor.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Thank you, Senator.

Senator Krueger, I believe you'd like to continue to speak on the concurrent resolution.

SENATOR KRUEGER:Thank you.

And I understand there was a hearing on that bill, but that did not come to the floor.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Excuse me, Senator Krueger.

SENATOR KRUEGER:Certainly.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Nozzolio, why do you rise?

SENATOR NOZZOLIO:Mr. President, will Senator Krueger yield?

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Krueger, do you yield to Senator Nozzolio?

SENATOR KRUEGER:Sure, I'm happy to yield to Senator Nozzolio.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The Senator yields.

SENATOR NOZZOLIO:Mr. President, through you. Senator Krueger, as she's quoting some --

SENATOR KRUEGER:Professor Gerald Benjamin.

SENATOR NOZZOLIO:-- professor, is she familiar with Citizens Union?

SENATOR KRUEGER:I am familiar with Citizens Union, yes.

SENATOR NOZZOLIO:Mr. President, would Senator Krueger agree that Citizens Union has been at the forefront of reform of state government throughout its history?

SENATOR KRUEGER:No, not at every given point in history. In fact, Citizens Union in fact I would argue was wrong on the support of the gerrymandering of the districts last year. And I believe they're wrong in their support of the constitutional amendment today.

SENATOR NOZZOLIO:Mr. President, I guess that is an answer to my next question, whether Senator Krueger is aware that Citizens Union has supported this constitutional amendment, it has supported this measure, supported your bill and supported this measure as it's come before us.

SENATOR KRUEGER:Yes, I am quite aware of that. And as I pointed out, I believe they're wrong here today on this issue.

Does Senator Nozzolio have more questions?

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:I don't believe so. You may continue on the concurrent resolution.

SENATOR KRUEGER:Thank you so much, Senator Valesky.

Again, for me, we could do better. We have time to do better. Again, and in fairness, unlike the deadlines we faced in 2009 through 2012, where there was imminent decisions to be made around redistricting, in 2013 there are not. And there is plenty of time for this state to get a constitutional amendment correct before we submit it, before we do second passage and we submit it.

As we already heard during the earlier debate, there are some truly fundamental flaws in this constitutional amendment. It uses the constitution to give political parties a legal and express stranglehold on redistricting. It sets up an even number on the commission -- which is likely to foster gridlock, as we have seen in this house -- in order to allow the Legislature to take over from the commission. It memorializes and requires a patronage-driven system for redistricting and puts that into the Constitution of the State of New York.

It leaves confusing and unconstitutional provisions of the current constitution in place, as we heard earlier in the discussions. In fact, I was quite surprised that the answers to some of Senator Gianaris's questions was, Well, if that occurs, then we'll have to take it to the courts.

Should we really pass a constitutional amendment where actually we're admitting on the floor of the Senate that a bunch of this stuff might have to go to the courts for an answer before we even put it into our constitution? I think that should be reason enough to pull ourselves back and figure out how we get this right enough that we don't think it's going to end up in the courts once it's attempted to be implemented.

It doesn't expressly prohibit gerrymandering. I actually thought that was one of the fundamental assignments in working towards independent redistricting. Last year we were accused of passing legislation that created the most gerrymandered districts in the Senate's history. Do we really want to change our constitution and not expressly prohibit gerrymandering?

It doesn't even establish a set number of Senate districts or clarify how the number is to be determined. Now, we've all gone back and forth in court several times around that one. You would think we would try to fix that going forward.

And it does encourage the malapportionment between districts and regions.

It might be hard to argue you could have a perfect process or even a perfect proposed amendment to the constitution. But this one doesn't pass the smell test. And it's so complicated that I really worry about how we're going to explain it to voters in a referendum, what level of detail is going to be offered in the ballot to voters to decide on this.

We are having trouble answering the questions here in the Senate. We are saying, Well, that might have to go court. Is that the kind of constitutional amendment we should be rushing forward where again, technically, we are not on a deadline at this point in history?

I will be voting no, Mr. President. Thank you very much.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Thank you, Senator.

Senator Dilan.

SENATOR DILAN:Yes, Mr. President. Would Senator Nozzolio yield to some questions?

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Nozzolio, do you yield to Senator Dilan?

SENATOR NOZZOLIO:I'd be happy to yield to Senator Dilan.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The Senator yields.

SENATOR DILAN:Thank you, Mr. President. Through you.

I have several questions, and some of them I really will be asking for the purposes of clarification.

For Senator Nozzolio, this resolution is silent on what will happen to the current structure that we have known as LATFOR, the legislative task force. If this resolution is accepted by the voters, what will happen to LATFOR?

SENATOR NOZZOLIO:Mr. President, there had been no harder worker in this legislative body than Senator Dilan, as I had the experience of attending well over 23 hearings across the state with him.

And that his question dealing with the structure of LATFOR, Senator, as I understand the constitutional amendment, LATFOR would continue as a technical group, a technical body within the New York -- the constitutional amendment does not eliminate LATFOR's structure, a structure that's designed to, as Senator Dilan well knows, to get census data, to get the appropriate census tracts mapped, to do the technical mapping. But LATFOR would not exist for the purposes of producing the product of legislative Congressional districts.

SENATOR DILAN:Would the Senator continue to yield?

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator, do you yield?

SENATOR NOZZOLIO:Yes, Mr. President.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The Senator yields.

SENATOR DILAN:Senator Nozzolio, who would be in control of LATFOR or the technical assistance unit? Would it be under the Senate or would the independent commission, would that transfer over to them?

SENATOR NOZZOLIO:The commission itself, Mr. President, would control the work of the technical body called LATFOR or some other name as it's developed.

The intention is not for LATFOR, which had -- Senator Dilan was a member, I was a member in this last cycle. There were also two citizen members, members of the Assembly. That legislative structure would be out the window. It would be a directed commission, members chosen under the terms of this amendment.

But the technical aspects of LATFOR -- the computers, whatever technology is available, the consolidation of that or collection of that -- are not eliminated by this provision. It would be up to the commission members to decide what type of technical structure they needed to have going forward.

And I hope this answers Senator Dilan's question sufficiently, that the structure would be chosen by the commission, be named by the commission, would be utilized by the commission, and would be in effect the technical arm of the commission.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Dilan.

SENATOR DILAN:I'd like to continue with the questions.

SENATOR NOZZOLIO:Yes, Mr. President.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Nozzolio continues to yield.

SENATOR DILAN:But I would like to see if I can get a simple answer in terms of would LATFOR still be under the control of the majority leader of this house and the majority leader of the State Assembly, or would they be working directly for the independent commission?

SENATOR NOZZOLIO:It's my understanding, Mr. President, that the commission would control the technical arm, whether it's called LATFOR or something else, not the legislative body. It would be controlled by the commission, the members of the commission, but it would not be controlled by the Legislature per se under this provision.

SENATOR DILAN:Would he continue to answer questions?

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Nozzolio, will you continue?

SENATOR NOZZOLIO:Yes, Mr. President.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The Senator yields.

SENATOR DILAN:I will attempt to ask the same question, maybe in a different form.

When this body or when the Legislature allocates money for the purposes of redistricting in the future, will there then be only one budget that will be controlled by the independent commission? Will they be doing all the hiring of the technical unit?

SENATOR NOZZOLIO:I refer Senator Dilan to the resolution that requires the appointment of the commission and the powers and duties of the commission.

And the technical aspects in drawing Senate districts, Assembly districts, and Congressional districts are under the total responsibility of this independent commission. Not of LATFOR, not of any variation of it. It would be the commission members who would make that decision. They would make that decision once they are chosen and convened.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Dilan.

SENATOR DILAN:Will he continue with questions?

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Nozzolio?

SENATOR NOZZOLIO:Yes, Mr. President.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The Senator yields.

SENATOR DILAN:So then my understanding, Senator, is that there will only be one allocation for the purposes of redistricting, with only one staff for that purpose, not two separate staffs at all. Or the technical units will not be controlled by the respective houses, is that what you're saying?

SENATOR NOZZOLIO:It's my understanding, Senator, that this constitutional amendment establishes an independent body of members and that independent body of members, nonlegislators -- totally nonlegislators -- would have the authority under this constitutional amendment to establish in effect a technical staff. And that technical staff would be the body that would draw the lines that would be proffered to the Legislature and the Governor for final consideration.

SENATOR DILAN:So I take that to mean that there will only be one staff.

On a different issue, would the Senator continue to yield?

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Nozzolio, do you continue to yield?

SENATOR NOZZOLIO:Yes, Mr. President.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The Senator yields.

SENATOR DILAN:This resolution is also silent on the prisoner reallocation law of 2010. What will become of that law? Would that be affected at all by this resolution?

SENATOR NOZZOLIO:Mr. President, the law that Senator Dilan refers to, as with any other law, would have to be -- and every other law -- would have to be complied with by the drafters of the commission, the commission itself. And ultimately the final legislative and congressional lines that are drawn would have to comply with every aspect of the law in effect at the time that they are drafted.

That should this law continue by the legislature that Senator Dilan refers to, and that's the allocation for state legislative district lines only -- not congressional lines, but state legislative lines only -- that it requires the state to take the prisoners and count them at their last known address. That law, if it exists in 2020-2021, that it would have to be followed.

SENATOR DILAN:Thank you.

On the bill.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Dilan on the concurrent resolution.

SENATOR DILAN:Mr. President, I would just like to indicate that I will be voting no on this resolution today because I believe that it does little to reform the way legislative districts will be drawn in the State of New York.

I believe that it still leaves the final say as to the outcome of the districts in the hands of the respective houses and their respective leaders.

Also, I believe that it adds an additional layer of bureaucracy, I think further confusing this process.

And also this resolution, last year or this year, did not have one single hearing. We did -- Senator Nozzolio and I did go out through the state to about 23 hearings on redistricting, but at no time did the public have one word to say on this resolution.

So based on that, I will be voting no.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Thank you, Senator.

Seeing no other Senators who wish to be heard on the resolution, the debate is closed. The Secretary will ring the bells. I ask all Senators to proceed to the chamber so that we may continue with the roll call.

(The Secretary rang the bells.)

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The Secretary will call the roll on the concurrent resolution.

(The Secretary called the roll.)

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Hassell-Thompson to explain her vote.

SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON:Thank you, Mr. President.

Of the several hearings that transpired around the State of New York on the redistricting, I -- outside of the committee -- probably attended the most of them, because it was important to me to hear something of such monumental importance to communities of color, how this Legislature was going to end up drawing these lines.

My first concern came when the lines somehow did not reflect what I heard the public say that they wanted to have happen.

The second concern I addressed was when we began to talk about suddenly an independent commission, and yet that commission is not reflected in the language of this bill. It may appear to be to some people.

I was not one of those who signed onto the independent commission. And I didn't because one of the things that I understand is that there's no such thing as independent. If you are a human, you're going to have your own biases in one direction or another. And I also did not believe that we should take power away from the Legislature and give it to an independent body.

But I did hope that in our process that we would come up with a design that was fair and appropriate. There is nothing fair or appropriate about what you're asking us to put before the public as a constitutional amendment. And so therefore I will be voting no.

And I have read and listened to all of the analysis that everybody has made about this bill, and the majority of people that I respect, whose opinions I respect, say that this is not the way our constitution should reflect the way in which we select a redistricting pattern that is fair and appropriate to allow the people of the State of New York to vote their conscience.

Thank you, Mr. President. I will be voting no.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Hassell-Thompson to be recorded in the negative.

I would just remind all Senators that we do have a two-minute time limit on vote explanation.

Senator Gipson to explain his vote.

SENATOR GIPSON:Thank you, Mr. President.

I'm happy to be here as a newly elected State Senator. I was not here back in 2009, which was referenced many times today. I signed no pledge. I watched from a distance as a candidate to see how this body would go about drawing up fair and independent redistricting. I testified at the LATFOR hearings and spoke out on behalf of the need for a more fair process.

I have to say today, standing here in this chamber as a newly elected State Senator, it's disappointing. And it's even more disappointing that on a day where we are commemorating a great leader who stood for fairness and justice for all and equality for all, that we are today looking at a bill that is neither fair nor just nor independent in any way, shape or form.

And I have listened to many good public advocacy groups say that they believe that this is the best we can do. I've listened to many Senators on the floor today say that they believe this is the best that we can do. And as a newly elected Senator, I have to say that if this is the best that we can do, it is indeed a sad, sad day in the State of New York.

I will be voting no. Thank you.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Gipson to be recorded in the negative.

Senator Stavisky to explain her vote.

SENATOR STAVISKY:Thank you, Mr. President.

I too testified at the LATFOR hearing. And I very carefully read the constitutional amendment. It says that there is an establishment of an independent redistricting commission. This doesn't do it. The title is great; the text is not.

And we have nine years to get it right. There's no reason why we have to submit this to the voters. It is not a nonpartisan redistricting commission bill.

Secondly, Abraham Lincoln had a great quote. He said: "How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg?" And the answer is "Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg."

And calling this a nonpartisan redistricting commission constitutional amendment doesn't make it so. I vote no.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Stavisky to be recorded in the negative.

Senator Tkaczyk to explain her vote.

SENATOR TKACZYK:It is ironic that my first day in the Senate chamber I am voting on a bill of this nature that creates an independent commission. It's ironic because I was elected to a seat that was gerrymandered and added in the last redistricting process to favor one political party.

This legislation is not fair. It disenfranchises the voters. We can do better. We must do better. I am voting no.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Tkaczyk to be recorded in the negative.

Senator DeFrancisco to explain his vote.

SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes, I just wanted to explain my vote.

When I was listening to Senator Gianaris talking about how if one party is in control there needs to be more votes or less votes or whatever the votes are, this is party-neutral in the sense that if in 2020 there's a Republican Governor and a Republican Senate and a Republican Assembly -- although it may seem unusual to expect that -- the fact of the matter is that it protects the other party, the Democratic Party, by this balance. And that's what Senator Nozzolio was saying.

And I just want to clarify that, because it sounded as if for Democrats the bill said one thing and Republicans another. It depends on the circumstances at the time.

Secondly, the reason I asked the questions of Senator Krueger, it's impossible, despite all the flowery language, to take politics out of politics. When the Democrats were in control, it wasn't because they wanted to study it more, they wanted the authority to be able to draw the lines. And anybody disputes that, I will debate that. When the Republicans are in control, they want to draw the lines. "They" meaning the majority party.

So the point of the matter is that you can't take politics out of politics.

Although this is not a perfect bill, it at least puts something in between so that there's public discourse, there's public pressure, I believe there's more transparency.

And I think it's a better procedure than we have now, and I'm going to vote aye.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator DeFrancisco to be recorded in the affirmative.

Senator Espaillat to explain his vote.

SENATOR ESPAILLAT:Thank you, Mr. President.

Last year was a very contentious year because redistricting was at the table. And traditionally, you know, redistricting has been a process where legislators choose their constituents as opposed to constituents choosing who represents them. So this was a very conflicting and adversarial process.

And I took a pledge last year that I would support independent redistricting and an independent redistricting commission. As a result of that pledge, we worked very hard to ask the Governor to include independent redistricting in the budget. We failed in that endeavor. When the efforts came to this floor, you know, we were also very disappointed that there wasn't a real transparent and bipartisan effort or model put before us, so we walked out of this chamber.

It is customary in the State Legislature that we don't always get exactly what we want. In fact, this process pushes us to reach consensus. And very often when everybody is upset, probably you have a good bill that has been approved by the Legislature.

So I took a pledge that I would support an independent redistricting commission. It may not be necessarily exactly the one I like, but I think it's a step in the right direction.

And very often we make the grave mistake of undermining the intelligence of our voters. I think at the end of the day this question will come before all the voters of New York State. And I think that they are very smart. They will be able to tell and say whether this is a good initiative or a bad initiative.

But for us to be in silos here second-guessing the independence or the smartness of our New York State residents that we represent I think is a grave mistake.

I think with all its issues and all its problems -- and one of the issues that I have with it was that in the other house I had sponsored the prison gerrymandering bill, and I wanted to make sure that it did not impact dramatically on prison gerrymandering. That I believe very strongly that prisoners should be counted where they live and not where they're incarcerated.

There are legal opinions about it that say that this doesn't hamper that effort. So --

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Espaillat, how do you vote?

SENATOR ESPAILLAT:I will be voting in the affirmative on this issue, Mr. President. I think that the voters that I represent and the rest of the New Yorkers are smart enough to know if we send them a good bill or a bad bill at that. Thank you.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Espaillat to be recorded in the affirmative.

Senator Squadron to explain his vote.

SENATOR SQUADRON:Mr. President, I'd like to thank Senator DeFrancisco for being honest about the motives behind this bill. It is ensconcing in the constitution a process worse than the one we've had. And in fact, it looks like it has the votes to pass today.

The people of the State of New York on Election Day have the opportunity to vote it down, leaving us with a statute that would be the best process we've had for redistricting in this state's history, and I hope that's what we'll be doing.

I vote no, Mr. President.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Squadron to be recorded in the negative.

The Secretary will announce the results.

THE SECRETARY:In relation to Calendar Number 2, those recorded in the negative are Senators Breslin, Dilan, Gianaris, Gipson, Hassell-Thompson, Krueger, Latimer, Montgomery, Parker, Peralta, Perkins, Rivera, Sampson, Sanders, Serrano, Squadron, Stavisky, Stewart-Cousins and Tkaczyk. Also Senator Diaz.

Ayes, 43. Nays, 20.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The concurrent resolution is adopted.

Senator Libous, that concludes the controversial reading of the calendar.

SENATOR LIBOUS:Of that calendar, Mr. President.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Of that calendar.

SENATOR LIBOUS:Now if we could go to Calendar 3A and take up the controversial reading of that calendar, please.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The Secretary will proceed with the controversial reading of Supplemental Calendar 3A.

THE SECRETARY:Calendar Number 4, by Senator Golden, Senate Print 2320, an act to amend the Real Property Tax Law.

SENATOR KRUEGER:Explanation.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Golden, an explanation has been requested.

SENATOR GOLDEN:Yes, it's the normal bill that we do every several years to give our condos and coops the tax abatements that they get and that they require.

This bill expired last year. This would allow that to go back to 12/31/11, and we would start from there, allowing for our condos, our coops and our rental to get their tax abatements. It would also go and allow for the J-51 benefits to be available for the conversion of commercial to condos and coops.

It would also allow for the 421-a to be allowed for several properties in Manhattan. And it would also allow for the benefits of 421-a and the FAR of 15 districts to be converted from commercial properties into residential use. It would also allow the abatement again to go back, the assessment to go back to June 30th of 2012, and it would extend the provisions for abatement.

It would also allow for those individuals that have three condos, it would limit the amount of condos that they could own to get this abatement. You'd have to be a primary resident, and you would be allowed to get for your primary residence as well as two other dwelling units.

It would also allow for the loft unit to protect the renters in those loft units. It would also reduce the minimum space required to qualify for a loft apartment. And it would reduce the percent rent increase allowed coming into compliance with the fire and safety standards.

It would also allow for the corporations, the domestic corporations to apply against their local PIT for a benefit.

That's basically it. It allows for our taxes for condos and coops and assessments to go into place.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Krueger.

SENATOR KRUEGER:Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor would please yield for some questions.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Golden, do you yield?

SENATOR GOLDEN:I do.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The Senator yields.

SENATOR KRUEGER:So the Senator started his explanation by saying this is the bill we do in previous years, and then he listed off that this bill impacts abatements of property tax for coop/condos, the 421-a program, the J-51 program, Loft Law, and also S corporation property tax law.

Have we done all of this together as one giant bill in previous years?

SENATOR GOLDEN:We have done that in the past. We've done portions of the bills in previous years. And this is again, it's a bill that's agreed to with HPD and OMB, the Mayor's office, the Assembly, the Senate and the Governor.

SENATOR KRUEGER:Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue to yield.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Golden, do you yield?

SENATOR GOLDEN:I do.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The Senator yields.

SENATOR KRUEGER:So my understanding is in this bill it would allow J-51 to be available, which is a tax -- there's abatements and exemptions within J-51. But it would allow J-51 to be available for coop-condo conversions that are not government or assisted -- legally government-defined affordable housing.

Why would the state or the city -- because I agree, the city is supporting this bill -- go out of their way to incentivize converting scarce rental apartments into most unlikely unaffordable coop/condos, when in fact the city's own recommendations have been to remove nongovernment-assisted coop/condos from the J-51 program? So why are we doing that in this bill today?

SENATOR GOLDEN:Through you, Mr. President, I believe all of these properties except for one are 80/20: 80 affordable, 20 low-income. The one property has agreed with the city in an MOU or in the process of an MOU to do $9 million in additional low-income housing. That is the only property that I'm aware of that is not directly working with the 80/20 on that given address.

SENATOR KRUEGER:Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue to yield.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Golden, do you continue to yield?

SENATOR KRUEGER:Or let me just clarify. I believe the Senator was confusing two different sections of the bill. His answer was in response to the 421-a section of the bill, and I was going to get to that but I hadn't gotten to 421-a yet.

So again, to J-51, there's not specific buildings that this applies to. It's a potentially universally available tax reduction.

SENATOR GOLDEN:You're absolutely right. And it does go forward, all properties will be 80/20.

SENATOR KRUEGER:Through you, Mr. President. Again, I'm certainly happy to let the sponsor double-check, but I don't believe 80/20 applies to the J-51 section of this bill but rather to the 421-a.

SENATOR GOLDEN:Yes, I stand corrected. It is the condos and coops that will need substantial government assistance.

SENATOR KRUEGER:Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue to yield.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Golden, do you continue to yield?

SENATOR GOLDEN:I do.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The sponsor yields.

SENATOR KRUEGER:Again, just sticking with the J-51 section of the law, not 421-a and not condo-coop abatement. Which in fact -- I appreciate this bill is very complicated, and in fact one of the concerns is that some people, including people in real estate, would confuse what's allowed simply as a property tax abatement under the formula for coop/condos, would confuse what's allowed in 421-a and then what's allowed going forward in J-51.

So again, my concern right now with this question is since the city's own historical recommendation is to remove non-government- assisted coops and condos from the J-51 program, because what the system has allowed to take place is the loss of affordable rental units transferred into coop-condo -- and actually we've seen a reduction in affordable rental units under a fairly expensive tax exception and abatement program known as J-51.

So I'm wondering why in this bill we're not going forward with the city's previous recommendations to limit it only to buildings that are quote, unquote, government-assisted affordable buildings.

SENATOR GOLDEN:I believe, Mr. President, it would create a disincentive for those to continue to renovate their buildings and to be able to accomplish that and to keep our housing stock as we now have it here in the City of New York.

SENATOR KRUEGER:Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue to yield.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Golden.

SENATOR GOLDEN:I do.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The sponsor yields.

SENATOR KRUEGER:So there was a time in history where one needed to incentivize certain types of development or redevelopment. But in fact the J-51 program -- and there's some terrific new data on this through the Community Service Society reports, that in fact most of these benefits have been going to some of the most expensive areas of the five boroughs.

In fact, my district is disproportionately taking advantage of J-51. And unfortunately my district is not defined as affordable housing at this point in time.

So again, since it was created to attract investment to certain areas of New York City, then amended at a time when luxury housing was concentrated in Manhattan below Harlem, that's not the case anymore.

So why do we continue to want as a state to subsidize luxury developments in areas of Manhattan that in fact have been gentrifying rapidly? Why would that be good public policy for the state?

SENATOR GOLDEN:Through you, Mr. President, we still have a need for low-market housing. This incentive allows for rent-stabilized units in this particular abatement. And it works.

And if we take a look at the housing stock in the city, we need more housing, not just in the City of New York but in the outer boroughs. Not just J-51, but 421-a, so that we can continue to create economic development we need, to create the jobs we need, and to be able to create the low-income housing that we need to be able to afford for people to come and live and stay in our beautiful city.

We have one million more people living in our city over the past ten years, and it's growing. And we need to be able to have that affordable housing.

SENATOR KRUEGER:Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue to yield.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Golden, do you continue to yield?

SENATOR GOLDEN:Yes.

SENATOR KRUEGER:Thank you.

Well, I certainly agree with the sponsor's last statement. We need to ensure there is more affordable housing, particularly in areas of the city that aren't in fact, one could argue, overdeveloped.

The problem is this J-51 program will only ensure more overdevelopment in high-cost areas and not accomplish the sponsor's goal -- which, by the way, is my goal -- of more investment in affordable housing throughout the City of New York.

And in fact the J-51 program has proven to be one of the most expensive programs the city runs for housing. It's actually second only to the 421-a program. 421-a construction benefits in I believe it's 2011, 421-a construction cost the city $912 million. And J-51 improvement tax benefits cost the city $257 million.

The problem is how much of that really goes towards actual affordable housing. So perhaps I could ask the sponsor, do you know how much of the J-51 investment over pick a recent year actually goes for affordable housing?

SENATOR GOLDEN:This bill, Senator Krueger, is if anything revenue-neutral, if not a plus for the city.

And all of the economic development that is created by this, and the jobs that we create and the people that we put to work and the housing that we create, 421-a gives us that opportunity, and we should spread that across the boroughs. We should actually go in and try to change that 421-a so that we could allow for more housing to be built under 421-a.

In Manhattan, 421-a is being built, and I think it should continue to be built.

SENATOR KRUEGER:Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue to yield.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Golden.

SENATOR GOLDEN:I do.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The sponsor yields.

SENATOR KRUEGER:Thank you.

Again, for the record, J-51 is not a revenue-neutral program. There is a section of this bill that is defined as revenue-neutral, and that's the S corporation section where the city memo actually clarifies that they believe that to be revenue-neutral.

I don't think anyone actually argues J-51 or 421-a is revenue-neutral, but each of them in their own structure can be of a value and good.

So let's jump to, if I might, the 421-a section of the bill. This is not a change in the overall 421-a law but rather a section specific to five buildings only in Manhattan. Could the sponsor please explain why we would give a pretty enormous tax benefit to five selected buildings in Manhattan? I'm not sure if any of them are defined as affordable.

SENATOR GOLDEN:Through you, Mr. President, these properties that are being discussed by Senator Krueger were negotiated with HPD, they were negotiated with OMB and the City of New York. I'll gladly get any other information she'd like to have on them, but that's all the information I have on it.

SENATOR KRUEGER:Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue to yield.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Golden.

SENATOR GOLDEN:I do.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The sponsor yields.

SENATOR KRUEGER:Thank you.

You know what, I appreciate the sponsor's answers to my questions. I'm going to speak on the bill.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Krueger to speak on the legislation.

SENATOR KRUEGER:Thank you.

So this is a complicated bill, as we can see even through our short interactions -- confusion over which section means what. I actually have strong support for several sections of the bill. There's a section specific to Loft Law. I believe it would mostly impact lofts in Brooklyn, and I know that they are really desperate for a change that will secure and assure that people living in lofts that are attempting transition to certified legal status are able to do so. I'm delighted to be in support of that section of the bill.

The straight tax abatement on coop/condos isn't identical to what we've done in prior years. It in fact is progress in that it is more progressive in how it applies to abatements for coops and condos. And it in fact does away with allowing nonresidents of New York City who are owners of real estate for investment purposes, it cuts them out of the abatement because basically they're not living in the home, they are using it as a business investment.

And that is an improvement, even though I would still challenge the City of New York to completely revise and reevaluate how they do both their assessments and their valuations of real estate throughout the five boroughs, because there are great frustrations.

But I'll accept that because that section of law sunsetted, there is enormous pressure on any of us from the City of New York to make sure we address that abatement.

There's the S corporation subsection, which again the City of New York assures us is a budget-neutral action by them.

There's the J-51, which personally I would rather us allow to continue to be sunsetted unless we actually come forward with a rational approach to how the City of New York decides who is being exempted from taxes, who is being abated taxes.

The original purpose of J-51 was to assure that there was efforts to keep communities affordable, preserve housing as affordable, encourage investment while guaranteeing that those units would remain affordable for residents of the City of New York.

My frustration is that that program has proved to be a constantly rising cost where fewer and fewer of the units that are winning the reduction in taxes are actually affordable.

And in fact we are seeing throughout sections of the City of New York gentrification with the use of tax exemptions and abatements that translate into people being priced out of their own communities and their own neighborhoods with nowhere else to go, destabilizing the communities and the neighborhoods that they've worked so hard to live in, raise their families in, were hoping to age in. And they find themselves priced out of their neighborhoods specifically because of a program that no longer fits the needs of the City of New York.

And then on the 421-a, one could go on forever -- we have in this house before -- on the pluses and minuses of different models of 421-a. But this bill has just a special section of allowing five named buildings to come into the 421-a program when they aren't eligible under existing law.

Well, that certainly piqued my interest. Why are these five buildings being allowed into a program they wouldn't otherwise be eligible for? Were they specifically going to be large units of affordable housing, the purpose of 421-a? No, it turns out not.

Were they going to be distributed in the boroughs and the areas where we're talking about needing to try to ensure the building of affordable housing? No, they're not. They're actually all in Manhattan.

Are they buildings that might not be built if not for 421-a? No, actually several of them are almost finished. And in fact one, One57, had the crane that almost fell down during Storm Sandy at the very top of the building, which was almost completely built, which has been presold and is nicknamed the Billionaire Building because apparently you have to be a billionaire to afford the apartments in there.

One of them used as an example in a recent news story was a $90 million, 13,554-square-foot penthouse. And with 421-a exemption allowed in this bill, their taxes per year would be $20,000. If they were not rolled into this legislation, their taxes would be $230,000.

I don't think that's what any of us were talking about when we endorsed the expansion and extension of property tax exemptions that the City of New York gives out.

I have a dilemma, for myself, because this bill, as I said, has some important things in it, but it's also a perfect example of what goes wrong in the wheeling-dealing of the backrooms of Albany. You get some important things people need under affordable housing thrown in with some items that were clearly negotiated special-interest deals.

I'm going to end up voting yes on this bill, Mr. President, but very unhappily. Very unhappily because I understand some of the issues that need to be addressed -- yes, feel free to be angry at me -- but also urging my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to recognize this isn't really how you're supposed to do it up here.

And in fact when we came to chambers tonight, this was a one-house bill. And I am hoping my colleagues in the Assembly choose to change --

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Can we have some order, please.

Senator Krueger.

SENATOR KRUEGER:Thank you, Mr. President.

I hope my colleagues in the Assembly choose to challenge the special-interest backroom dealing in this bill and will bring multiple bills to the floor, which we would then take up on this floor, and that at some point in the future in this chamber I will be able to comfortably vote yes on the good sections of this bill and vote no on the badly thought out sections of this bill.

Thank you, Mr. President.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Thank you, Senator.

Senator Diaz.

SENATOR DIAZ:Thank you, Mr. President.

Senator Krueger, I just love you. I love you so much. You know, I love you keeping me one hour talking bad about a bill and at the end saying "I'm voting yes." I love you. I love you.

(Laughter.)

SENATOR DIAZ:Mr. President and ladies and gentlemen, once in a while I write a column called "What You Should Know," my way to inform my constituents and the voters of New York of what's going on.

Today, I wrote one. And I call it, based on the Roman Empire old saying, I entitled it today "Caesar's wife should not only be pure but should also have the appearance of purity."

And by voting for this bill, we might be sending an appearance of impurity, because this bill only benefits the rich. It is a multi-million program of rent exemption and abatement for landlords who renovate their buildings.

This piece of legislation, ladies and gentlemen, does nothing to protect and strengthen tenant protection. So tenants in the City of New York will not be protected with this bill. On the contrary, they might be put in danger.

It is just a tax benefit to developers producing luxury buildings. This bill, ladies and gentlemen -- and I'm so sorry that Liz Krueger voted for it -- this bill does nothing to prevent landlords from double-dipping. That's a word that -- a nice word, double-dipping. Meaning that a lot of them are receiving a J-51 tax credit from the government and at the same time will be increasing the tenants' rent based on a major capital improvement.

So this bill will allow landlords to get money from the government for the renovation based on J-51 and at the same time will allow landlords to increase tenants' rents based on something called major capital improvement for the same renovation.

And this bill will extend 421-a tax benefits to the owners of 15 specific plots in Midtown and downtown Manhattan which are now being developed as luxury condominiums and office buildings. Fifteen of them.

And according to the New York Tenants and Neighbors Coalition, according to the New York Tenants and Neighbors Coalition, it seems that only five specific developer companies will benefit from this piece of legislation. Number one, Extell Development Company, Extell Development Company, for their billionaire tower, One57. Silverstein Properties, the owner of the World Trade Center. Thor Equities, the company behind the controversial Coney Island redevelopment for 516-520 Fifth Avenue. Number four, Steinhardt Management, who wants to develop two former Stock Exchange buildings in Lower Manhattan. Number five, Shoreham {ph} Association, Incorporated, who plans to build a 30-story glass tower over the site of the original New York Times building.

Ladies and gentlemen, these developments do nothing to address the New York City ongoing affordable housing crisis. Therefore, to vote for this bill we might be sending a message, an impure message, that we're only working for the landlords and against the tenants and the regular people in New York City.

So again, you can read my "What You Should Know" on my website. It's free, you don't have to pay anything. And today, I'm quoting, Liz Krueger, Caesar's wife not only shall be pure but should have the appearance of purity.

I'm voting no with all my heart, with all my strength. And I ask all my colleagues to reject this piece of legislation, especially an irony, and guided to the rich, not to the poor.

Thank you.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Thank you, Senator.

Senator Stavisky.

SENATOR STAVISKY:Thank you, Mr. President.

We have a lot of coops and condos in Queens County. And these are not rich people, these are middle class, the basis really of our city. We've had a problem with coop tax abatements since 1996. And in fact it stems from the way that coops and condos are classified.

Coops and condos are classified the same way as rental properties, when in effect they're really more like one- and two- and three-family homes. And in fact the New York City Independent Budget Office, the IBO, issued a report in January describing in great detail the issue involving the assessments and coops and condos.

This bill really addresses the needs of the middle-class coops and condos throughout the city. It is a progressive form of a tax abatement which expired in June of last year. It addresses these inequalities, inequities in the bill. It's a sliding scale of abatements based upon assessments. And it benefits the people who actually live there, the owner-occupied coops.

So I think this is an extremely important bill. It's essential for the middle class. I've spoken to many, many people about this legislation, about the needs of casino and condos. They are truly more like single-family homes. They're not profit-making. They're struggling to pay their insurance and their heating oil bills and so forth. This bill addresses many of those needs.

Would we prefer separate legislation dealing with J-51 and 421-a? Of course. But that is not what we have before us. We have this bill before us, and it benefits many people living in Queens County.

And I urge a positive vote on this bill. Thank you.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Thank you, Senator.

Senator Young.

SENATOR YOUNG:Thank you, Mr. President.

First of all, I'd like to take this opportunity to commend Senator Golden for his leadership in this issue. As was pointed out, this was a bill that was negotiated at the end of the last session last year that took a lot of time and effort between the Assembly, the Senate, the City of New York. And so I want to thank you, Senator Golden, for taking this up.

I also want to thank Senator Krueger for her support of this legislation.

And I did want to point out something, though. The J-51 piece has been an important law since about 1955. That's when it was first implemented. And really the reason it was put in is to encourage landlords to make upgrades to their apartments. At that time many people were living in substandard situations, the old cold-water flats and so on, so they needed upgraded heating systems, they needed to put in hot water in those flats. And that's really why J-51 was started.

Now, it expired on December 31st of 2011. But really this is a important tool. And it's an important tool because it's an ability for owners to be able to afford to upgrade their buildings. And when they upgrade their buildings, what that means is that we are helping tenants, we are helping people who live in those apartments because their living conditions are provided. And I don't think we should lose sight of that fact that this helps the tenants, this improves their quality of life. So I just want to point that out.

But again, I want to thank the people who are voting for this. This is a very important piece of legislation. Again, thank you, Senator Krueger, for your support. Thank you, Senator Golden, for your leadership.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Thank you, Senator.

Seeing no other Senators who wish to be heard, the debate is closed.

The Secretary will ring the bells.

SENATOR LIBOUS:Mr. President.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Libous.

SENATOR LIBOUS:Would you remind members they have to be in their chairs to vote. I don't know why they're leaving the chamber.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Nor do I, Senator Libous.

SENATOR LIBOUS:Thank you.

We want to get members in the chamber. And as soon as we get them in here, we can get them out of here.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:All Senators are asked to come to the chamber immediately so that we may call the roll.

(The Secretary rang the bells.)

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Read the last section.

THE SECRETARY:Section 27. This act shall take effect immediately.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Call the roll.

(The Secretary called the roll.)

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Announce the results.

THE SECRETARY:In relation to Calendar Number 4, those recorded in the negative are Senators Diaz, Espaillat, Gipson, Perkins, Rivera, Serrano and Tkaczyk.

Ayes, 56. Nays, 7.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The bill is passed.

Senator Libous, that completes the controversial reading of the supplemental calendar.

SENATOR LIBOUS:Thank you, Mr. President.

Mr. President, in consultation with Senator Stewart-Cousins, Senator Klein, Senator Skelos, we now hand up the following minority committee assignments and ask that the assignments be filed in the Journal, please.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:So ordered.

Senator Libous.

SENATOR LIBOUS:Is there any further business at the deck?

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The desk is clear.

SENATOR LIBOUS:There being no further business, I move that the Senate adjourn until Thursday, January 24th, at 11:00 a.m.

ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:On motion, the Senate stands adjourned until Thursday, January 24th at 11:00 a.m.

(Whereupon, at 6:43 p.m., the Senate adjourned.)