[{"id":null,"timestamp":"Thu Mar 15 11:25:00 UTC 2012","location":"ALBANY, NEW YORK","session":"REGULAR SESSION","text":"\n 1 NEW YORK STATE SENATE\n\n 2 \n\n 3 \n\n 4 THE STENOGRAPHIC RECORD\n\n 5 \n\n 6 \n\n 7 \n\n 8 \n\n 9 ALBANY, NEW YORK\n\n10 March 15, 2012\n\n12 \n\n13 \n\n14 REGULAR SESSION\n\n15 \n\n16 \n\n17 \n\n18 SENATOR JOSEPH A. GRIFFO, Acting President\n\n19 FRANCIS W. PATIENCE, Secretary\n\n20 \n\n21 \n\n22 \n\n23 \n\n24 \n\n25 \n\n\f 1276\n\n 1 P R O C E E D I N G S\n\n 2 ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: The \n\n 3 Senate will come to order. \n\n 4 I ask all present to please rise \n\n 5 and join with me as we recite the Pledge of \n\n 6 Allegiance to our Flag.\n\n 7 (Whereupon, the assemblage \n\n 8 recited the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.)\n\n 9 ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: In the \n\n10 absence of clergy, I ask all present to please \n\n11 bow our heads in a moment of silent \n\n12 reflection.\n\n13 (Whereupon, the assemblage \n\n14 respected a moment of silence.)\n\n15 ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: The \n\n16 reading of the Journal.\n\n17 THE SECRETARY: In Senate, \n\n18 Wednesday, March 14th, the Senate met pursuant \n\n19 to adjournment. The Journal of Tuesday, \n\n20 March 13th, was read and approved. On motion, \n\n21 Senate adjourned.\n\n22 ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: \n\n23 Without objection, the Journal stands approved \n\n24 as read.\n\n25 Presentation of petitions.\n\n\f 1277\n\n 1 Messages from the Assembly. \n\n 2 Messages from the Governor.\n\n 3 Reports of standing committees.\n\n 4 Reports of select committees.\n\n 5 Communications and reports from \n\n 6 state officers.\n\n 7 Motions and resolutions. \n\n 8 Senator Libous.\n\n 9 SENATOR LIBOUS: Mr. President, \n\n10 can we now go to the noncontroversial \n\n11 calendar.\n\n12 ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: The \n\n13 Secretary will read the noncontroversial \n\n14 calendar.\n\n15 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number \n\n16 195, by Senator Lanza, Senate Print 5878C --\n\n17 SENATOR BRESLIN: Lay it aside.\n\n18 ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: The \n\n19 bill is laid aside.\n\n20 SENATOR LIBOUS: Did we complete \n\n21 the noncontroversial calendar?\n\n22 ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: We \n\n23 have completed the noncontroversial calendar.\n\n24 SENATOR LIBOUS: Can we now go \n\n25 to the controversial calendar.\n\n\f 1278\n\n 1 ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: The \n\n 2 Secretary will ring the bell. \n\n 3 The Secretary will read.\n\n 4 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number \n\n 5 195, by Senator Lanza, Senate Print 5878C, an \n\n 6 act to amend Chapter 154 of the Laws of 1921.\n\n 7 ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: \n\n 8 Senator Krueger.\n\n 9 SENATOR KRUEGER: Would the \n\n10 sponsor please yield? Through you, \n\n11 Mr. President.\n\n12 ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: \n\n13 Senator Lanza, will you yield?\n\n14 SENATOR LANZA: Yes, \n\n15 Mr. President.\n\n16 ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: The \n\n17 Senator yields.\n\n18 SENATOR KRUEGER: Thank you.\n\n19 So I understand that this is a \n\n20 bill to require increased transparency and \n\n21 accountability for the Port Authority of \n\n22 New Jersey and New York, which certainly on \n\n23 its face is something I would like to \n\n24 support. But I do have a few questions. \n\n25 In the bill you discuss that when \n\n\f 1279\n\n 1 a fee or a toll is going to be increased it needs \n\n 2 to be discussed at a public meeting and an \n\n 3 independent entity must establish a needs \n\n 4 assessment. Could you tell me who an independent \n\n 5 entity would be? What does that mean exactly?\n\n 6 ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator \n\n 7 Lanza.\n\n 8 SENATOR LANZA: Yes, \n\n 9 Mr. President, through you. That would be \n\n10 established by regulation.\n\n11 SENATOR KRUEGER: Through you, \n\n12 Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue to \n\n13 yield.\n\n14 ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator \n\n15 Lanza, do you continue to yield?\n\n16 SENATOR LANZA: Yes, \n\n17 Mr. President.\n\n18 ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: He does.\n\n19 SENATOR KRUEGER: Thank you. \n\n20 So since it would be established \n\n21 through regulation, we're suggesting in this bill \n\n22 we would create an independent entity because \n\n23 we'd like more transparency and accountability by \n\n24 the Port Authority. But we would let them define \n\n25 what an independent entity is, how it's \n\n\f 1280\n\n 1 independent and who would be part of this; is \n\n 2 that correct? \n\n 3 SENATOR LANZA: Through you, \n\n 4 Mr. President. No, of course not, Senator \n\n 5 Krueger. This bill goes way beyond that with \n\n 6 respect to bringing much-needed reforms to an \n\n 7 authority that I think we can all agree in this \n\n 8 chamber, both Democrat and Republican, has been \n\n 9 far from open, transparent, and accountable. \n\n10 This legislation does many things \n\n11 that would bring that accountability, that \n\n12 transparency and that openness to this \n\n13 authority. \n\n14 I think the point that this is \n\n15 needed has been underscored recently by an \n\n16 independent audit that was paid for, actually, by \n\n17 the Port Authority to review their accounting \n\n18 controls and their operations, and their own \n\n19 consulting firm concluded that they are a \n\n20 dysfunctional organization lacking in sufficient \n\n21 cost controls and that they require a complete \n\n22 systemic overhaul. \n\n23 That's precisely what this \n\n24 legislation does. It does many things. Taken as \n\n25 a whole, transparency, openness and \n\n\f 1281\n\n 1 accountability would be restored if we were to \n\n 2 enact this legislation.\n\n 3 SENATOR KRUEGER: Through you, \n\n 4 Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue to \n\n 5 yield.\n\n 6 SENATOR LANZA: Yes, \n\n 7 Mr. President.\n\n 8 ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: The \n\n 9 Senator yields.\n\n10 SENATOR KRUEGER: Thank you. \n\n11 I don't disagree with the sponsor's \n\n12 explanation for the need for the bill. What I \n\n13 was raising was that this bill apparently leaves \n\n14 them the discretion to write their own \n\n15 regulations of what an independent entity is, to \n\n16 define what the functions of the entity are, and \n\n17 even to pick who it is.\n\n18 So to be honest, while I still \n\n19 would like to ask some more questions, I might \n\n20 have preferred had this bill not actually given \n\n21 the Port Authority, who we want to have more \n\n22 transparency and accountability, to not leave \n\n23 with them the authority to write the regulations \n\n24 defining how and who they define as independent \n\n25 entities overseeing them. That was my point of \n\n\f 1282\n\n 1 that question.\n\n 2 Through you, if I can continue \n\n 3 questioning the sponsor.\n\n 4 ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: The \n\n 5 sponsor yields.\n\n 6 SENATOR KRUEGER: Thank you.\n\n 7 As I understand it, this bill could \n\n 8 not take effect unless the identical bill passed \n\n 9 in the State of New Jersey. Is that a correct \n\n10 reading? \n\n11 SENATOR LANZA: That is correct, \n\n12 Mr. President.\n\n13 SENATOR KRUEGER: Through you, \n\n14 Mr. President.\n\n15 ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: The \n\n16 sponsor continues to yield.\n\n17 SENATOR KRUEGER: Thank you. \n\n18 Have there been any discussions \n\n19 with the legislature of New Jersey about moving a \n\n20 parallel bill?\n\n21 SENATOR LANZA: Mr. President, I'm \n\n22 so glad that Senator Krueger has brought that \n\n23 point up. \n\n24 We sometimes kick the \n\n25 Port Authority around, for good reason. Some \n\n\f 1283\n\n 1 would suggest that they're not good for much. I \n\n 2 would submit to you that it turns out they're \n\n 3 good for a lot, and that perhaps only the \n\n 4 Port Authority could bring Republicans and \n\n 5 Democrats in the Senate and the Assembly -- not \n\n 6 only in New York, but in New Jersey -- together.\n\n 7 And there not only have been very \n\n 8 productive conversations with our colleagues in \n\n 9 New Jersey, it is my understanding that this \n\n10 legislation will actually pass both the Assembly \n\n11 and the Senate in New Jersey today.\n\n12 SENATOR KRUEGER: Thank you.\n\n13 Mr. President, if through you the \n\n14 sponsor will continue to yield.\n\n15 SENATOR LANZA: Yes, \n\n16 Mr. President.\n\n17 ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: The \n\n18 Senator yields.\n\n19 SENATOR KRUEGER: So I'm delighted \n\n20 every once in a while there can be bipartisan and \n\n21 even bistate agreement. \n\n22 Do we know where the governor of \n\n23 New York or the governor of New Jersey may be on \n\n24 this proposal? \n\n25 SENATOR LANZA: Well, that's an \n\n\f 1284\n\n 1 open question. \n\n 2 Both Governors Cuomo and Christie \n\n 3 campaigned on reform, on bringing more \n\n 4 transparency and accountability to government \n\n 5 operations. And I'm hopeful and optimistic that \n\n 6 in that spirit, when this legislation comes to \n\n 7 their respective desks, that they would embrace \n\n 8 this reform.\n\n 9 SENATOR KRUEGER: Through you, \n\n10 Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue to \n\n11 yield.\n\n12 SENATOR LANZA: Yes, \n\n13 Mr. President.\n\n14 ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator \n\n15 Lanza yields.\n\n16 SENATOR KRUEGER: Thank you.\n\n17 In the detail of the bill it talks \n\n18 about having public hearings to define the need \n\n19 for any kind of increased fares, tolls or other \n\n20 costs. Can the sponsor help me understand what \n\n21 the definition of a justified need would be for \n\n22 purposes of the authority being able to bring \n\n23 such proposals through the public hearing \n\n24 process? \n\n25 SENATOR LANZA: Through you, \n\n\f 1285\n\n 1 Mr. President. So this would allow for a \n\n 2 complete reform whereby the Port Authority would \n\n 3 finally be required to actually speak to and \n\n 4 answer to the people they serve in our region. \n\n 5 It would require an independent \n\n 6 audit of the Port Authority. It would require \n\n 7 specific requirements for open public meetings \n\n 8 and a publication of those meetings. \n\n 9 It would establish a fiduciary \n\n10 responsibility for the commissioners of the Port \n\n11 Authority, something that inexplicably they don't \n\n12 have today.\n\n13 It would establish an audit and a \n\n14 finance and government committee. It would \n\n15 require financial disclosures and training for \n\n16 the commissioners it would require certification \n\n17 by the chairman, the vice chairman, the board of \n\n18 commissioners of the Port Authority, and the \n\n19 executive director of these reports. \n\n20 And it would require a more \n\n21 extensive public hearing process whenever they \n\n22 make those decisions which affect the people we \n\n23 represent.\n\n24 So taken as a whole, we will get a \n\n25 look before these decisions are thrust upon us at \n\n\f 1286\n\n 1 the information that is being utilized to make \n\n 2 those decisions.\n\n 3 SENATOR KRUEGER: Through you, \n\n 4 Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue to \n\n 5 yield.\n\n 6 SENATOR LANZA: Yes, \n\n 7 Mr. President.\n\n 8 ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator \n\n 9 Lanza yields.\n\n10 SENATOR KRUEGER: Thank you.\n\n11 This requires 10 hearings for any \n\n12 proposal. \"Not less than one public hearing \n\n13 required pursuant to paragraph a of the \n\n14 subdivision shall be conducted in each county in \n\n15 New York and New Jersey directly affected by the \n\n16 proposed fee, toll, charge or fare increase as \n\n17 determined by the board in consultation with \n\n18 local and state officials.\" I am reading from \n\n19 Article XV-D, paragraph 1(b) on page 4.\n\n20 So who determines which counties \n\n21 are affected? Because if it's an airport fee, \n\n22 people would be coming from many counties. Or \n\n23 would it just be the county the airport was in? \n\n24 If it's a toll for a bridge, the bridge starts \n\n25 and ends in, let's assume, two counties or even \n\n\f 1287\n\n 1 two states, but people drive across it coming and \n\n 2 going from many counties. \n\n 3 So I'm confused about the \n\n 4 definition of who determines which are the \n\n 5 impacted counties.\n\n 6 SENATOR LANZA: Through you, \n\n 7 Mr. President.\n\n 8 So clearly with respect to a toll \n\n 9 hike on a bridge, which we just had happen to us \n\n10 where tolls on, for instance, the Bayonne Bridge, \n\n11 the Goethals Bridge, the Outerbridge, all on \n\n12 Staten Island, were raised from $8 to $12 -- \n\n13 which really of course is outrageous and I \n\n14 believe immoral and unjustified under the \n\n15 facts -- hearings would need to be in both \n\n16 Richmond County and our sister county across in \n\n17 New Jersey.\n\n18 With respect to increases in fees \n\n19 or fares, I can't think of any with respect to \n\n20 the airports. \n\n21 But, Senator Krueger, I'd be open \n\n22 to having hearings in every single county in the \n\n23 region. That is precisely what we need.\n\n24 I'll tell you where this came \n\n25 from. When the Port Authority purported to \n\n\f 1288\n\n 1 conduct a hearing with respect to toll hikes last \n\n 2 summer, they had one of those hearings -- or they \n\n 3 called it a hearing -- for the public to come \n\n 4 forward to provide testimony. They did that on \n\n 5 Staten Island. Not a single commissioner of the \n\n 6 Port Authority was actually present. \n\n 7 We believe that's not right, it's \n\n 8 unjust and really outrageous. And this \n\n 9 legislation would put an end to that.\n\n10 SENATOR KRUEGER: On the bill, \n\n11 Mr. President.\n\n12 ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator \n\n13 Krueger on the bill.\n\n14 SENATOR KRUEGER: I very much \n\n15 appreciate the sponsor's answering of questions.\n\n16 I really don't disagree with his \n\n17 bill at all. I think we want to do exactly \n\n18 this. My concerns, for the record -- and since \n\n19 this will have to go through two states and four \n\n20 legislative bodies and two governors, I think \n\n21 there might be an opportunity to amend -- I need \n\n22 clarity about the definitions.\n\n23 It does concern me that the \n\n24 Port Authority would be allowed to define for \n\n25 themselves what an independent entity would be \n\n\f 1289\n\n 1 and who it would be be and how they would \n\n 2 operate.\n\n 3 It disturbs me, actually, that the \n\n 4 Port Authority would get to establish what the \n\n 5 needs assessment is that they need to bring to \n\n 6 the community. \n\n 7 I actually think that the sponsor \n\n 8 is right, communities aren't being heard. So I \n\n 9 think we would want to be in the process earlier \n\n10 rather than allowing the Port Authority to have \n\n11 control over defining what a needs assessment \n\n12 was, defining what an independent entity working \n\n13 with them is. \n\n14 And I think we need better \n\n15 definitions of the communities being impacted \n\n16 when it comes to the 10-hearings scenario, \n\n17 because I think we could both make a very good \n\n18 case that if you looked at almost any \n\n19 Port Authority facility -- again, if it's a \n\n20 bridge or tunnel, it might have a specific \n\n21 beginning locus and ending locus. But people are \n\n22 driving across those bridges and tunnels from a \n\n23 much wider area than the geography of where the \n\n24 bridge or tunnel starts or ends. \n\n25 People use the regional airports -- \n\n\f 1290\n\n 1 Kennedy, LaGuardia, Newark -- from a much broader \n\n 2 region from simply the County of Queens and I \n\n 3 believe it's Union County that Newark Airport is \n\n 4 in. I'm sorry if I misspoke the New Jersey \n\n 5 county.\n\n 6 So I would prefer that this had \n\n 7 tighter definitions, because I think it would go \n\n 8 even further in doing what Senator Lanza is \n\n 9 hoping we accomplish and which I would like us \n\n10 also to accomplish. \n\n11 So I will vote yes, with urging on \n\n12 the record that some amendments can be added as \n\n13 we move forward to strengthen the bill. \n\n14 Thank you, Mr. President.\n\n15 ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Thank \n\n16 you, Senator Krueger.\n\n17 Is there any other Senator wishing \n\n18 to be heard?\n\n19 Seeing none, hearing none, the \n\n20 debate is closed. The Secretary will ring the \n\n21 bell. \n\n22 Read the last section.\n\n23 THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This \n\n24 act shall take effect upon the enactment into law \n\n25 by the State of New Jersey. \n\n\f 1291\n\n 1 ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Call the \n\n 2 roll.\n\n 3 (The Secretary called the roll.)\n\n 4 ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator \n\n 5 Fuschillo to explain his vote.\n\n 6 SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Just quickly, \n\n 7 Mr. President. \n\n 8 Let me just thank my colleague \n\n 9 Senator Lanza for this important piece of \n\n10 legislation. \n\n11 I thought it was an absolute \n\n12 disgrace when the Port Authority had proposed \n\n13 raising the fares and tolls and then held public \n\n14 hearings but the board members never showed up. \n\n15 What an insult to the people of New York and \n\n16 New Jersey.\n\n17 When they came out and they showed \n\n18 the cost overruns and then they said that tolls \n\n19 were going to cover that, they used the sympathy \n\n20 method there to get everybody to agree to that, \n\n21 and then they backed off on that. \n\n22 I'm hopeful with Governor Cuomo's \n\n23 new appointee as the executive director, who has \n\n24 the experience hopefully necessary to turn around \n\n25 that Port Authority, we'll see things different. \n\n\f 1292\n\n 1 But what's important about this \n\n 2 legislation is the accountability and the \n\n 3 transparency.\n\n 4 You know, this conference, with our \n\n 5 leader Senator Skelos's bringing New York State \n\n 6 back in the right direction, the Port Authority \n\n 7 is continually sending New York and New Jersey \n\n 8 back in the wrong direction. \n\n 9 So I vote aye, and I want to thank \n\n10 my colleague Andy Lanza for bringing this bill to \n\n11 the floor.\n\n12 ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: Senator \n\n13 Fuschillo to be recorded in the affirmative.\n\n14 Announce the results.\n\n15 THE SECRETARY: In relation to \n\n16 Calendar Number 195, absent from voting are \n\n17 Senators Montgomery, Parker, Peralta, and Smith.\n\n18 Ayes, 54. Nays, 0.\n\n19 ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: The bill \n\n20 is passed. \n\n21 Senator Libous, that completes the \n\n22 controversial calendar.\n\n23 SENATOR LIBOUS: Thank you, \n\n24 Mr. President. \n\n25 Is there any further business at \n\n\f 1293\n\n 1 the desk?\n\n 2 ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: There is \n\n 3 no further business.\n\n 4 SENATOR LIBOUS: Mr. President, \n\n 5 there being no further business, I move that we \n\n 6 adjourn until Monday, March 19th, at 3:00 p.m., \n\n 7 intervening days being legislative days.\n\n 8 ACTING PRESIDENT GRIFFO: On \n\n 9 motion, the Senate stands adjourned until Monday, \n\n10 March 19th, at 3:00 p.m., intervening days being \n\n11 legislative days. \n\n12 Happy St. Patrick's Day. Senate \n\n13 adjourned.\n\n14 (Whereupon, at 11:45 a.m., the \n\n15 Senate adjourned.)\n\n16\n\n17\n\n18\n\n19\n\n20\n\n21\n\n22\n\n23\n\n24\n\n25\n\n\f\n"}]