Regular Session - January 28, 1997
277
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 ALBANY, NEW YORK
10 January 28, 1997
11 11:10 a.m.
12
13
14 REGULAR SESSION
15
16
17
18 SENATOR JOHN R. KUHL, JR., Acting President
19 STEPHEN F. SLOAN, Secretary
20
21
22
23
24
25
278
1 P R O C E E D I N G S
2 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
3 Senate will come to order. Ask the members to
4 take their chairs, staffs to find their places.
5 I'd ask everybody in the chamber to rise and
6 join with me in saying the Pledge of Allegiance
7 to the Flag.
8 (The assemblage repeated the
9 Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. )
10 In the absence of clergy, may we
11 bow our heads in a moment of silence.
12 (A moment of silence was
13 observed. )
14 Reading of the Journal.
15 THE SECRETARY: In Senate,
16 Monday, January 27th. The Senate met pursuant
17 to adjournment. The Journal of Sunday, January
18 26th, was read and approved. On motion, Senate
19 adjourned.
20 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Hearing
21 no objection, the Journal stands approved as
22 read.
23 Presentation of petitions.
24 Messages from the Assembly.
25 Messages from the Governor.
279
1 Reports of standing committees.
2 Reports of select committees.
3 Communications and reports from
4 state officers.
5 Motions and resolutions. Senator
6 Bruno.
7 SENATOR BRUNO: Mr. President,
8 can we at this time adopt the Resolution
9 Calendar.
10 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
11 motion is to adopt the Resolution Calendar which
12 is on all of the members' desks. All those in
13 favor signify by saying aye.
14 (Response of "Aye.")
15 Opposed nay.
16 (There was no response. )
17 The Resolution Calendar is
18 adopted.
19 Senator Bruno, that brings us to
20 the non-controversial calendar.
21 SENATOR BRUNO: And can we take
22 that calendar up at this time, Mr. President.
23 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Secretary
24 will read the non-controversial calendar.
25 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
280
1 6, by Senator Maltese, Senate Print Number 169
2 A, an act to amend the Penal Law, in relation to
3 the use of an explosive or an explosive device
4 during a robbery.
5 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Secretary
6 will read the last section.
7 THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This
8 act shall take effect on the 1st day of
9 November.
10 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the
11 roll.
12 (The Secretary called the roll. )
13 THE SECRETARY: Ayes 42.
14 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill
15 is passed.
16 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
17 27, by Senator Kuhl, Senate Print 351, an act to
18 amend the General Obligations Law, in relation
19 to the liability for negligence of owners or
20 operators of pools.
21 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Secretary
22 will read the last section.
23 THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
24 act shall take effect immediately.
25 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the
281
1 roll.
2 (The Secretary called the roll. )
3 THE SECRETARY: Ayes 42.
4 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill
5 is passed.
6 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
7 29, by the Committee on Rules, Senate Print 762,
8 concurrent resolution of the Senate and
9 Assembly, proposing an amendment to Section 9 of
10 Article I of the Constitution, in relation to
11 casino gambling.
12 SENATOR GOLD: Lay it aside.
13 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Lay the
14 bill aside.
15 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
16 45, by Senator DeFrancisco, Senate Print Number
17 484, an act to amend the Civil Practice Law and
18 Rules, in relation to certain privileged
19 information.
20 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Secretary
21 will read the last section.
22 THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
23 act shall take effect immediately.
24 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Lay the
25 bill aside.
282
1 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
2 49, by Senator Volker, Senate Print 521, an act
3 to amend the Civil Practice Law and Rules and
4 the Public Authorities Law, in relation to
5 personal service.
6 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Secretary
7 will read the last section.
8 THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
9 act shall take effect on the 90th day.
10 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the
11 roll.
12 (The Secretary called the roll. )
13 THE SECRETARY: Ayes 43.
14 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill
15 is passed.
16 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
17 52, by Senator Goodman, Senate Print Number 419,
18 an act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law, in
19 relation to mandatory suspensions of Class E
20 licenses.
21 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Secretary
22 will read the last section.
23 THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
24 act shall take effect 30 days.
25 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the
283
1 roll.
2 (The Secretary called the roll. )
3 THE SECRETARY: Ayes 43.
4 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill
5 is passed.
6 Senator Bruno, that completes the
7 non-controversial calendar.
8 SENATOR BRUNO: Mr. President,
9 can we at this time take up the controversial
10 calendar.
11 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Secretary
12 will read the controversial calendar beginning
13 with Calendar Number 29, Senate Print -- Senate
14 Print 762.
15 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
16 729, by the Committee on Rules, Senate Print
17 Number 762, concurrent resolution of the Senate
18 and Assembly, proposing an amendment to Section
19 9 of Article I of the Constitution, in relation
20 to casino gambling.
21 SENATOR PATERSON: Lay aside.
22 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Chair
23 recognizes Senator Bruno, on the resolution.
24 SENATOR BRUNO: Mr. President, on
25 the resolution, I believe all of the members in
284
1 this chamber understand that this resolution
2 that's before us presently represents second
3 passage which would move, if approved, this
4 referendum to the voters of this state in
5 November, and that's what is before us, the
6 second passage to amend the Constitution.
7 According to the Constitution,
8 this would then be a referendum if it passes.
9 If it is approved in a referendum, any locality
10 that is specifically mentioned in this
11 resolution would then have a referendum vote on
12 whether or not they would want a casino in their
13 designated area. That is what is before us, a
14 referendum, Mr. President, to take this issue to
15 the voters of New York State.
16 Now, we will have a long debate
17 on this issue, and there are very strong
18 feelings on this issue and this is an issue that
19 is not new. This issue has been before the
20 Legislature a number of times. This issue has
21 been debated since the middle '60s in this state
22 and I say that because I've heard some criticism
23 that we are moving this resolution early in the
24 session and haven't had time to fully debate
25 it.
285
1 Well, we have had nothing but
2 time to debate whether or not we want a
3 referendum on casinos in this state -- 30 years
4 -- 30 years we have been debating this issue.
5 Many of us in the Legislature, when faced with
6 difficult choices, would rather not make them,
7 but the moment is before us when we must make a
8 decision and the decision will be whether or not
9 we feel the voters of this state would have a
10 right to vote on whether or not they want to
11 legalize casinos in New York State in the
12 designated areas.
13 I am going to, Mr. President,
14 vote for this referendum. I had indicated two
15 years ago, when we gave this resolution first
16 passage, that the members in my Conference would
17 make their judgments for second passage based on
18 their feelings personally in representing their
19 own interests and their constituents, and that's
20 where we are. There isn't anyone that is
21 feeling, hopefully, any pressure other than the
22 pressure of their own conscience, of their own
23 emotions, and of their own constituency and
24 that's how this vote should be taken.
25 I would encourage you, and I say
286
1 encourage you, because most of the time when we
2 come in this chamber, our minds are all made
3 up. Very few times are any votes changed, as
4 eloquent as we may think we are when we're on
5 our feet. Rarely do we convince our colleagues
6 of the position that we take if they had walked
7 in feeling otherwise, rarely.
8 But I'm going to ask you all to
9 listen, listen to the debate this morning and
10 into this afternoon, and I would ask you all to
11 then make your judgment when you hear it all
12 together, review it all together, on how you
13 feel you should vote and then vote accordingly,
14 and I want to talk to the mechanics so everyone
15 understands what will be happening.
16 If the referendum passes in this
17 chamber, I am told by the Speaker they will take
18 it up shortly; that means within the next week
19 or two. Your reading, and the Speaker has
20 indicated, that there are enough votes in that
21 chamber to pass this resolution, which would
22 take it to the voters in November.
23 If we don't have the votes to
24 pass this resolution today, then we will be
25 certain that, before we leave here, that this
287
1 issue is dead for this legislative session, not
2 this year but next year as well. This
3 resolution will not be taken up again if, after
4 we debate it and after we deliberate and if the
5 decision is that this will not have a majority
6 of 31 votes, this issue will never be taken up
7 again in this chamber this year or next, and I
8 say that emphatically because we've discussed it
9 in our Conference, and I am representing our
10 Conference and sharing with you the majority
11 opinion of the people in our Conference, and I
12 believe in talking to Senator Connor that he
13 shares that view, that once this issue is
14 decided it will be decided for better or for
15 worse depending on the outcome and depending on
16 your own point of view.
17 I am not going to speak to the
18 issue of casinos and whether or not they make
19 sense. My position has been very clear, and it
20 hasn't changed. I wish that we, in these United
21 States, had never had a casino functioning in
22 the United States. If I had a dream and it
23 could come true, it would be that we never, ever
24 legalized any form of gambling in the United
25 States.
288
1 But we are way beyond that. We
2 are an island in New York. We are surrounded by
3 casinos. We in New York State have the
4 lottery. We have OTB. We have Quick Draw, so
5 we encourage, by our actions, people to gamble.
6 So the issue before us now is whether or not we
7 will allow the general public to vote on whether
8 or not they want to participate in whatever
9 happens in revenue from casinos.
10 Are there casinos in New York
11 State? We can't debate that issue on the floor
12 of the Senate or in the Assembly. That is an
13 issue that has to be debated in Washington, and
14 I'm very conscious of the fact that there are
15 those that say, Let Washington decide the issue,
16 and I wish that that could be the case, and I'd
17 like to see that happen in my lifetime and I
18 don't expect that it will, so it comes before us
19 to recognize that we have a casino operating
20 about an hour and 15 minutes from here. We have
21 to recognize that there are casinos planned by
22 the Native Americans all over this state.
23 They're planned. They're on the drawing
24 boards. There are discussions taking place, and
25 I only say that as a matter of fact so the issue
289
1 before us isn't whether or not we will have
2 casinos in New York State. We have casinos in
3 New York State. There isn't anyone that lives
4 in this state that can't get to a casino now in
5 two hours or less, and most of the population
6 can get to a casino in 45 minutes in this state
7 -- 45 minutes -- take a hike out late in the
8 morning, have lunch, be in the casino, be back
9 for dinner, most of the population of this
10 state. So the debate that takes place here
11 ought to be focused on whether or not we move
12 this to a referendum in November.
13 But the debate won't stay there.
14 Debate will discuss, and that's appropriate
15 because in this forum, Mr. President, in this
16 forum, we deliberate as any elected legislator
17 sees fit and that's appropriate and we will
18 debate it and we will talk about it and we will
19 vote.
20 So I will ask you only to
21 participate and, if everyone takes as long as I
22 have, then we'll run out of time. So I would
23 ask you to be conscious, much more than I have
24 been, of the time, in that I believe many of the
25 members want to be heard on this issue and, if
290
1 you're listening, you won't repeat more than
2 four or five times what's been said before and
3 we can all be heard.
4 But we have a two-hour time limit
5 in this chamber, Mr. President. I think the
6 consensus would be that we not adhere to that
7 strictly, with your indulgence, because if there
8 are people that want to be heard they ought to
9 be heard on this issue because we've waited a
10 while to talk about it. So I share that with
11 you at the beginning, but I would ask you to be
12 conscious of the fact that some time today we'll
13 conclude the discussion and take a vote.
14 Thank you, Mr. President.
15 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The Chair
16 recognizes Senator Connor on the resolution.
17 SENATOR CONNOR: Thank you, Mr.
18 President.
19 Mr. President, I've come to a
20 personal decision with respect to this issue
21 which I will share with my colleagues in a
22 moment, but with respect to the process I want
23 to thank Senator Bruno for moving this issue to
24 the floor. I think it's a good idea that we
25 engage throughout the session important issues
291
1 rather than following the past practices that
2 we've fallen into of everything suddenly being
3 linked at 11:30 at night, everything from the
4 budget to how much paper the Legislature is
5 going to buy or consume, and it's good that we
6 approach these issues untied, unattached.
7 Senator Bruno has been a person
8 of his word on this issue, and I know we meet
9 not alone Senators but a somewhat skeptical
10 audience facing us right now with pens in their
11 hand, but there have been no deals, negotia
12 tions, talks about that, attempts to link or
13 whatever. We're here on the merits of this
14 issue and each member will vote his or her
15 choice.
16 I am going to vote no on the
17 resolution, and it's not because -- and this
18 debate sort of operates on several levels. I
19 know there are members, and I understand that,
20 who have strong convictions about the moral
21 rightness of casino gambling. We have certainly
22 been lobbied by people. As I said to someone
23 last night, I've been lobbied by everyone from
24 archbishops to arch-villains in this, at least
25 if you read the press. But I'm -- we have
292
1 before us a specific proposal that I have a
2 great deal of problems with.
3 It's, in a lot of ways, a blank
4 check. It doesn't limit or specify the number
5 of casinos that would be in the Catskills. It
6 leaves it to the tender mercies of a future
7 Legislature to do what we call the follow-up
8 legislation. That means that all these folks
9 who have a concern will be back at this
10 institution year after year after year.
11 I have grave institutional
12 concerns about that, the fact that we may indeed
13 put into place enabling legislation should this
14 pass the voters and only to find that every time
15 they want a rules change to build an additional
16 casino in the Catskills or whatever, people who
17 deal in large amounts of investment money who
18 look to reap large profits will be back lobbying
19 the Legislature. Just let us have one more
20 casino, just let us have one more casino. Just
21 change the rules a little bit. Just change the
22 way whatever commissioner or body will regulate
23 it, and we don't know who will regulate it
24 because we don't have enabling legislation
25 before us. There are models we can adopt from
293
1 other states, but it's always been my position
2 that before we pass along an amendment to the
3 people, we ought to have in place contingent
4 enabling legislation so everybody knows what
5 they're -- the voters know what they're buying
6 into.
7 Who will regulate it? How will
8 it be done? Will it be strictly regulated or
9 kind of loosely regulated? Both models exist
10 elsewhere in this country. It's a major concern
11 to me that that's not before us, that we don't
12 know what it is, that we're in effect operating
13 in the blind on that.
14 Another major concern I have -
15 and I've not spoken to the Mayor of the city of
16 New York. I've spoken to the hotel and theatre
17 owners, for example -- is there's nothing in
18 this for New York City. New York City can't
19 have casinos under this and, second, and I know
20 it's been suggested, well, if this were to pass
21 the people, we could do another amending process
22 to place on the ballot three or four years down
23 the road including New York City.
24 Well, I can't believe the public
25 wouldn't laugh us out of this place if we
294
1 confronted them with referenda after referenda
2 over casino gambling; and secondly, obviously,
3 suddenly the people with an interest in the
4 Catskills would become opponents to protect
5 their own economic interests.
6 We have in New York City a
7 vibrant tourist industry. We have more first
8 class hotel rooms than anywhere, I suspect -- I
9 know -- and we have an enormously successful
10 theatre industry. We have occupancy rates that
11 are very high. We helped do that when we
12 repealed that hotel tax. The owners of those
13 businesses are very, very concerned about what
14 impact they believe that this measure would
15 have, a deleterious impact on that status in New
16 York City as a convention center, as a place
17 where large conventions locate. They would -
18 they fear they would lose that business and
19 that's a legitimate concern.
20 I think to say, well, let's -
21 all we're doing here is passing it on to the
22 people, is to deny the judgment the Constitution
23 vested in us. We have to make a judgment about
24 whether we believe in the rightness of the
25 specific measure we're passing on to the
295
1 ballot. That's our responsibility.
2 Indeed, think about it in other
3 contexts, my colleagues. There are many, many
4 people out there who favor term limits for us
5 and I dare say in this Legislature there
6 probably are not very many people who think term
7 limits is a bad idea who would casually say, I
8 think it's a bad idea but let's pass it on and
9 let the voters decide, and I'm not prejudging
10 where anyone is, but that would be a Constitu
11 tional Amendment. So I think we clearly have a
12 responsibility to use our judgment, and we ought
13 not fall into that trap of, let's pass it on to
14 the voters. We do that enough, and the voters
15 may get the idea they don't need us sitting here
16 making judgments.
17 The other concern I have,
18 frankly, about this is that there's been a lot
19 of talk about we have casinos already, we have
20 casinos already. We have one Indian reservation
21 casino. Now, as Senator Bruno rightly points
22 out, the Indian Gaming Act, we have nothing to
23 do with. The fed's passed it, but I think we
24 ought to be mindful of a few things.
25 The casino we do have on the
296
1 Oneida reservation was done through a compact
2 between the Governor and that tribe without any
3 legislative approval or referral. There is a
4 case, I believe, emanating out of New Mexico
5 where, in fact, the federal courts are saying,
6 Whoa! Wait a minute. The federal government
7 can't tell a state, that the Governor speaks for
8 the state, the state has a Legislature. If,
9 under state laws, laws are made by the
10 Legislature and the Governor, the Department of
11 the Interior, the Congress either, can't cut the
12 Legislature out. I happen to have believed this
13 was so as well.
14 There is a section of the federal
15 Constitution that guarantees to every state a
16 republican with a small "r" form of government.
17 I'm not referring to the unwritten portion of
18 the state Constitution which seems to guarantee
19 a big "R" Republican Senate, but in the federal
20 Constitution that's there.
21 I wrote a letter last summer. I
22 wrote a letter to the Department of the
23 Interior, Secretary of the Interior, and said,
24 There's a lot of talk about more Indian
25 compacts, Indian casinos, and you know, I
297
1 believe the Legislature ought to have a say in
2 this, so on and so forth.
3 I got an interesting letter back
4 which said, in effect, that the Secretary of the
5 Interior takes its bent from the chief
6 executive. They don't look into how a state
7 government operates but, because of my letter,
8 they went ahead and called the Executive Chamber
9 in New York and were assured that this Governor
10 has no intentions of entering into any Indian
11 gaming compacts without submitting it to the
12 Legislature.
13 So we -- we're going to end up
14 with the responsibility one way or the other
15 should there be any attempt to expand on Indian
16 gaming in New York. That's my firm belief. So
17 I don't think we ought to hold that out, well,
18 it's here anyway and the litany of gaming and
19 gambling and Quick Draw, et cetera, et cetera,
20 that we have in New York and that, in fact, we
21 seem to encourage our residents to engage in, I
22 don't know if that's anything to point to and
23 emulate. I'm sure we'll hear later from Senator
24 Padavan about how that's the wrong road and we
25 shouldn't go from marching down the wrong road
298
1 to running down the wrong road.
2 All that said, speaking for
3 myself, on this amendment which leaves out New
4 York City, which has no enabling legislation, no
5 ability from this to tell what, if anyone, will
6 regulate casino gambling; how many; will it be
7 limited or unlimited casinos can go in the
8 Catskills because, under this amendment, it
9 appears to be open ended and unlimited, and
10 indeed do we want to create that kind of open
11 ended situation where casino interests are
12 constantly coming back to this institution, the
13 people's Legislature, constantly seeking
14 changes, expansions, amendments, and so on.
15 I think that's a bad idea. It's
16 the wrong way to go. I don't pre-judge any
17 future proposals, but this one that's before us
18 today I can't vote for.
19 Thank you, Mr. President.
20 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The Chair
21 recognizes Senator -- excuse me. Senator Bruno.
22 SENATOR BRUNO: Mr. President, I
23 understand that the EnCon Committee has some
24 pressing business and would like to ask for an
25 immediate meeting in Room 332, and I understand
299
1 that it will be very short.
2 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Be an
3 immediate meeting of the Environmental
4 Conservation Committee, immediate meeting of the
5 Environmental Conservation Committee in the
6 Majority Conference Room, Room 332.
7 The Chair recognizes Senator
8 Waldon on the resolution.
9 SENATOR WALDON: Thank you very
10 much, Mr. President.
11 Would the sponsor of this bill
12 yield to a question or two?
13 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
14 Waldon, there is no sponsor. This bill came
15 directly out of the Rules Committee.
16 SENATOR WALDON: But wouldn't
17 Senator Larkin speak on the bill?
18 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
19 Larkin will speak on the bill. He's on the
20 list. Do you want to wait until he speaks?
21 SENATOR WALDON: No, no, I
22 apologize for not recognizing, Mr. President.
23 Let me just speak on the bill.
24 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
25 Waldon, on the bill.
300
1 SENATOR WALDON: Philosophically
2 Senator Waldon supports casino gambling. That's
3 legend up here. You all have known that for a
4 long, long time, my colleagues, but as this
5 proposal is crafted, I can not support casino
6 gambling.
7 If this were to go to the people
8 of the state of New York and pass, then every
9 act necessitated to build casinos would have to
10 come back to us. There would be a decision made,
11 is it Warren County or Saratoga County where the
12 casino will be built, not far from where we are?
13 That would be our decision. It will be
14 determined at some later point, if this goes to
15 the people and is passed by the people, that New
16 York City will not have any possibility of
17 casinos, whether it be a riverboat which would
18 work in Far Rockaway or a riverboat which might
19 work on the West Side of New York City. None of
20 that will happen if this goes to the people as
21 crafted.
22 There's nothing in this proposal
23 which says that this percentage of money will
24 enure to the benefit of the people of the city
25 of New York. Last year in this state, $3.6
301
1 billion were spent on lottery tickets, $2
2 billion went to winnings, 1.6 billion was left
3 over. About 1.4 billion went to the schools of
4 the state of New York. A similar amount, but
5 much diminished amount of money in terms of
6 percentages, might enure to our benefit, to the
7 schools or where else -- wherever else in terms
8 of the coffers of New York State, if casinos
9 were to become a fact. But there's nothing
10 written in this which says that this percentage
11 or that percentage will enure to the benefit of
12 the people I represent.
13 The Rockaways are being treated
14 like a motherless child under this proposal, a
15 long way from home, no benefit, no
16 consideration, no possibility of the best strip
17 of sand in New York State which is the best
18 place to build casinos having a possibility of a
19 casino.
20 I can't support it as proposed.
21 But there are some other considerations that you
22 in the gallery and those here who are my
23 colleagues may not be as cognizant of as I.
24 There's nothing here which says who will watch
25 the casinos. We have no commission proposed.
302
1 As crafted, we can't come back in the fall, we
2 can't come back next year and say, we're going
3 to clearly do what's right in terms of
4 controlling this factor.
5 I think what we've created here
6 if this were to go to the people and be passed,
7 is an opportunity for organized crime to come in
8 to this "cash cow" and milk it until the milk
9 becomes cream. This is dangerous for us. I
10 don't know if you're aware -- you are aware, I
11 should say, of what happened in Louisiana. Not
12 only were the legislators in hot water and
13 indicted, but even the son of the governor was
14 involved in some situations of a nefarious
15 nature. We can not build casinos without an
16 oversight commission.
17 In New Jersey, not one, not two,
18 but it is my understanding that three mayors
19 lost their office because no one was watching
20 the casinos sufficiently to ensure that
21 organized crime or other people with a vested
22 interest could not spread the money around.
23 Somebody said, Show me the money, and it was
24 shown and therefore, they got themselves in a
25 lot of hot water.
303
1 I think we're better than that.
2 I think that this state can revisit this issue
3 at a later date, can include the Rockaways, can
4 include the city of New York, can make sure
5 there's a fair distribution of whatever monies
6 enure to the state of New York. I believe that
7 we can craft a commission to watch who is doing
8 what with the money generated by the casinos. I
9 think that people in the Rockaways deserve a
10 casino. Those who live in that area would have
11 a chance for jobs other than McDonald's. Maybe
12 some of you would not be so worried about Work
13 fare versus welfare. You deny people the
14 opportunity to receive public assistance, and by
15 this you're denying them the opportunity to have
16 a meaningful job which would eliminate the need
17 for public assistance in the Rockaways.
18 My colleagues, I would encourage
19 you to do as Senator Bruno said, to listen to
20 the debate and to make a considered judgment
21 before you cast your vote and to make it in what
22 is my opinion what he was trying to state to us,
23 in the best interests of the people of the state
24 of New York.
25 As I understand this proposal,
304
1 the only best vote today is a no vote, so that
2 we can come back and do this right, so that we
3 can come back and do it in a just fashion, in an
4 equitable fashion, so that we can come back and
5 ensure that all of the people of the state of
6 New York would benefit equally from the
7 construction of casinos in this land.
8 There's another little concern,
9 and then I'll sit, Mr. President. As this is
10 crafted, every time down the road, when someone
11 wants to build a casino, they will have to come
12 back and see us. They will have to come back
13 here and touch the palm. They will have to come
14 back here and dip their beaks in the well of the
15 Legislature. I think that portends too many
16 ominous possibilities of bad things happening to
17 members of this Legislature.
18 I would encourage us not to do
19 that, to not build a slippery slope that some of
20 us may fall down. I would encourage us to go up
21 the rough side of the mountain in terms of
22 equity for all of those who are people and
23 citizens of the state of New York.
24 I'm not going to beg my
25 colleagues to vote no, but I can tell you that
305
1 there are 100,000 people in the Rockaways which
2 would ask that you really consider the
3 possibilities of disenfranchisement, of treating
4 people differently if you pass this and that you
5 would all vote no on this issue.
6 Thank you very much, Mr.
7 President.
8 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Chair
9 recognizes Senator Gold on the resolution.
10 SENATOR GOLD: Thank you, Mr.
11 President.
12 First of all, I want to agree
13 with Senator Bruno, as I said in the committee,
14 that I think getting this out and dealing with
15 it was right, but I agree with him on another
16 point and I think this is our own conscience and
17 what's good for our constituents, and I want to
18 start off by affirming my belief in the honesty
19 of everybody in this chamber and in the other
20 chamber, and I say that looking every one of you
21 in the eye, and I know that when you're at
22 cocktail parties it's considered chic to make
23 fun of legislators and of lawyers and doctors
24 but, believe me, they come around for the press
25 quick enough. But I have a great faith in our
306
1 honesty.
2 There was a story today which I
3 thought was interesting in the Albany Times
4 Union by Tom (not so) Precious and, for some
5 reason, he spends about -- most of this article,
6 four columns, on a Democratic function and it
7 takes about two and a half columns to find out
8 that there were two Republican functions, very
9 large ones, right next door to the Democratic
10 function. He also mentions that there was a
11 donation by somebody named Donald Trump to the
12 Senate Democrats, and interestingly enough he
13 doesn't mention that there was also money given
14 from that source to Republicans. Interesting
15 way to report.
16 But he mentions in this article,
17 and this is the part I thought was wonderful.
18 He says, and I'm quoting him: "Curiously no
19 lobbyists for Atlantic City casino owner Donald
20 Trump was seen at the Democratic event." Well,
21 Mr. Precious, you should have checked page 6 of
22 your Albany Times-Union where they came out
23 against casino gambling. Maybe they were with
24 your editorial board editor last night. Maybe
25 that's where they were active. If they weren't
307
1 there, maybe Mr. Trump's lobbyist was with the
2 New York Times editorial board. I mean I assume
3 that, if the Times-Union came out against casino
4 gambling, it had to be the hand of Donald
5 Trump. That's what you imply in your words; I
6 guess that goes for the New York Times, it goes
7 for Saratoga County. Interesting to know that
8 Mr. Trump's people are dealing with the Catholic
9 Conference and with the Conservative Party of
10 the state of New York, et cetera. You see how
11 foolish that story is, and how foolishly some
12 reporters are stretching to find something that
13 ain't there.
14 I know the members of this
15 Legislature, and I don't know how everybody is
16 going to vote, but I believe, Senator Bruno,
17 Senator Connor, and that is that people are
18 going to vote for what they think is right for
19 their constituents, and if there ever was such
20 an issue, I think this is the day and that is
21 the issue.
22 Speaking for myself, I won't
23 repeat what Senator Waldon said or Senator
24 Connor, but I adopt their remarks. I will say
25 that it's important to point out that we are not
308
1 voting on a label and, with all due respect to
2 Senator Farley, who once said to me, "Manny,
3 you're wrong, we do vote on labels," we are not
4 voting on a label because, as was pointed out,
5 casino gambling is not the issue. It is what's
6 going to happen to the Catskills, or Saratoga or
7 New York City under this bill, this resolution,
8 and while somebody naively says to you that,
9 well, we'll throw in a little bit of an
10 amendment and we'll take care of New York City,
11 it's not a little amendment. It's -- we're
12 talking about the Constitution. We're talking
13 about a process that's not -- going to happen
14 not so quick if you don't insist on it now, and
15 somebody said to me, "Well, Manny, you know,
16 down in the city of New York, you have people
17 going out on boats." Well, I want to tell you
18 something. If I were an individual who wanted
19 casino gambling under this proposal, the one
20 thing I wouldn't do right now is challenge the
21 boats that are leaving New York City, and I
22 would use that argument. New York City, you got
23 your gambling, let us have it, but I guarantee
24 you, if this were to go to the people and if
25 this were to pass and if casinos were to be
309
1 built in the Catskills, the day after that you
2 would see a lawsuit on the constitutionality of
3 running boats out of New York City that are
4 coming back into New York City and that aren't
5 headed to some place else past the three-mile
6 limit; and who's kidding who. The answer is
7 "nobody's kidding nobody" on that issue.
8 I must repeat something I told to
9 our colleague, Mr. Finnegan, of the Daily News
10 because up until the last few days I can tell
11 you I was not approached by lobbyists in the -
12 in the technical sense of the people we think as
13 lobbyists on this issue, but I did have a group
14 come to see me from Niagara Falls and there were
15 about five of them there from the Chamber of
16 Commerce, and it was wonderful because one of
17 them said to me that Niagara Falls needs this
18 because they've got to compete with Canada and
19 Robert Moses destroyed Niagara Falls, and I
20 said, "He destroyed Niagara Falls? How did
21 Robert Moses destroy Niagara Falls?" He said,
22 "He destroyed it because he told us there would
23 be no more development in Niagara Falls unless
24 we got rid of the honky-tonks and the whores.
25 We did it. They went over to Canada. Their
310
1 business is booming." I looked at him -- I
2 looked at him, and I said, "Are you suggesting
3 that, if we don't pass casino gambling, that we
4 ought to pass a law to give you back your
5 honky-tonks and whores?" I said, "Personally
6 I'm not putting in that bill, but is that what
7 you're asking for?" There was never an answer
8 to my question.
9 My concern, and I'll finish with
10 this, is the bottom line, and that is that when
11 Senator Bruno says he has his wishes and he has
12 his druthers that we didn't get involved in
13 this, I say to myself, I remember back to one of
14 our dear, dear colleagues, God bless him, Al
15 Lewis, who voted, who debated against the
16 lottery and what have you, and he says "Lookit,"
17 he says, "I'm telling you, it's not a question
18 of the lottery being out there and getting the
19 small bookies and the numbers people," he says,
20 "you're going to see what happens," and he was
21 right. They have it so that people who never
22 did play the lottery will play the lottery.
23 I can't believe that in our
24 society, the only way to create jobs, the only
25 way for economic development is to bring in
311
1 gambling, to bring in the lottery. We can't -
2 we find no obligation in our hearts to support
3 the education of our children except by selling
4 lottery tickets in the poorest neighborhoods of
5 the state. I mean it gets to be a silly thing
6 and I think society at one point has to grapple
7 with that issue.
8 As to whether or not we're
9 throwing up our hands and saying, Look, Native
10 Americans have it, it's here, it's there, and we
11 got to create jobs, and I had hoped that my son
12 would go to college, be a computer genius but if
13 he's going to be a dish washer, at least
14 there'll be a casino and he can do that and
15 sweep floors. I just think that that is not the
16 answer for society.
17 The bottom line is, the mayor of
18 my city -- Senator Waldon said it very well,
19 Senator Connor said it very well -- has asked us
20 not to do this. There is nothing in this for
21 us. There is no enabling legislation. I don't
22 know whether there will or will not be a
23 commission. I don't know whether they will or
24 will not take the proceeds that we make in the
25 state and help New York or help Nassau County or
312
1 help Suffolk County that have great property tax
2 concerns. Is there a plan to give some of that
3 money so that Senator Skelos' area can be helped
4 in property taxes? I don't know, but I sure as
5 heck think we all ought to know.
6 We ought to know where we're
7 going, and the back -- the bottom line of this
8 is that I cannot vote for this bill hoping and
9 praying that, in the future, somebody doesn't
10 bring a lawsuit against boats leaving New York
11 and that, in the future, somebody will put in an
12 amendment that will then have to go to a
13 statewide vote and then a city vote so that 17
14 years down the line New York may or may not get
15 relief for the Rockaways.
16 The answer is that there are two
17 processes. The process that brought it out here
18 by Senator Bruno sending it out I agree with and
19 I'm voting today. The process that puts this
20 bill out without the inclusion of areas like New
21 York and without enabling legislation, I do not
22 approve of, and I will vote no.
23 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
24 Larkin on the resolution.
25 SENATOR LARKIN: Mr. President, I
313
1 don't want to reiterate a lot of things that
2 have been said by Senator Bruno, Senator Waldon
3 or Senator Gold. But I think it's very impor
4 tant for us to recognize that what we have to
5 day is an issue that's been around for over 30
6 years. We have told the people we will give you
7 an opportunity, if you tell us or show us that
8 there's a need to assist in the economic growth
9 of certain areas.
10 This legislation is very
11 specific. It cites six areas in the state,
12 Niagara-Buffalo, Saratoga-Warren, and the three
13 counties in the Catskills, Greene, Ulster and
14 Sullivan. It's not the panacea of anything. It
15 just says that we are willing, in conjunction
16 with that, to at nine tracks -- to allow slots
17 at nine tracks. We are competing with other
18 states for that piece of the pie, of the
19 gambling dollar.
20 Having said all of that, I go
21 back to the basics of what this is all about. I
22 heard Senator Connor say, throw it out to the
23 people. I think there's nothing wrong when you
24 look at the Constitution and the Constitution
25 says that we have the right, two consecutive
314
1 sessions of the Legislature and then it goes to
2 the public. We shouldn't be afraid.
3 I heard stories that say this
4 will go down to the public 48 to 43. I have
5 never seen a poll; I have never taken a poll.
6 I've heard stories say, Well, New York City is
7 not involved in it. Last year there were
8 meetings of people who wanted to include New
9 York City and they were told, go to New York
10 City and get the Mayor, get the City Council,
11 get the Speaker to say -- excuse me -- "I want
12 New York City included in it." Nothing ever
13 happened. Why didn't it happen? We all know.
14 Maybe we're afraid to say it. Some people don't
15 want casinos in New York City. I'm not a casino
16 man. I've been to a casino once, and I was at a
17 meeting, Manny.
18 But having said that, everybody
19 that will talk to you will tell you that we're
20 losing -- we're losing $2.3 billion a year that
21 are going out of this state to facilities that
22 have gambling. The mayor of Buffalo says to us
23 the other day, to me, "20,000 people are going
24 across and taking money from my businesses and
25 spending it on the north side of this city."
315
1 Ladies and gentlemen, as Senator
2 Bruno said before, most of us have made up our
3 minds, but I personally believe that we ought to
4 sit back and think, why wouldn't we allow the
5 public in this state to vote on how we should
6 address an issue?
7 People will say, Well, gambling
8 is an addiction. Last year the Governor put
9 money into it. There's money into it this year
10 to address that issue. That's not the real
11 issue.
12 I heard someone say casinos are
13 like dogs. They bring fleas. Go back to the
14 basics. We just saw another casino open up in
15 Connecticut. In the past 19 months since we've
16 addressed this issue, casinos have opened up,
17 they've expanded. As a matter of fact, bingo
18 licenses have expanded, and all the other forms
19 of government have expanded, and it goes back to
20 the basics.
21 You have criminal justice people
22 have told us something; the business community.
23 I saw an article that said the horsemen were
24 against it. Well, not only the horsemen are for
25 it, so are some banks because they understand
316
1 that, if this doesn't get an opportunity by the
2 public, we will have banks let alone race
3 tracks. We have hotels that have 18 and $20
4 million in real property tax that can't pay it
5 because nobody wants to go to them because their
6 facilities are outdated, they're not up to date,
7 and they can go to Atlantic City or Las Vegas or
8 Puerto Rico and they can capitalize on the
9 benefits. We are denying our people those
10 opportunities.
11 The Constitution, as everybody
12 was saying here, has certain restrictions. It
13 also has certain rights, and the public in this
14 state, yes, I've heard people say, I don't like
15 casinos, but I want the opportunity to vote my
16 conscience whether it's yes or no, and I
17 appreciate the Majority Leader bringing this out
18 early to get -- to get it here and let us make a
19 decision.
20 But remember, you were sent here
21 by people and the Majority Leader or the
22 Minority Leader said to exercise our judgment.
23 We allowed the people to exercise judgment last
24 November. They passed a bond issue. That bond
25 issue will tax our grandchildren, but we had no
317
1 trouble placing it before the public.
2 All we're saying here is that
3 forget about the influence from the pro's and
4 the influence from the con's. Stand up and say
5 to the public that you represent, I'm giving you
6 a chance to make a decision on how this state
7 will operate in the future.
8 We have casinos. We have casinos
9 that are operated by the Indians, the Oneidas.
10 We have the Shinnecocks on Long Island who are
11 talking to the fed's, their lawyers. We have
12 them in Senator Cook's area in Sullivan County,
13 and they will proceed and we will have casinos
14 and, Senator Waldon -- I wish he was here -
15 Senator Waldon talked about we don't know about
16 how we'll arrange for the enabling legislation.
17 I answered that to him off in a private
18 conversation, that if this were to pass, we
19 would finalize enabling legislation. We've
20 looked at the 11 gaming states and the three
21 major states, Nevada, Connecticut and New
22 Jersey, but I think it's premature to say how
23 many square feet you'll have for crap tables or
24 how many square feet you'll have for slot
25 machines when you haven't even decided if you're
318
1 going to have them.
2 But if this Legislature passes,
3 this proposed amendment, we will, within a
4 month, finalize material that we've been looking
5 at and we would hold public hearings across this
6 state in the six locales and any other areas
7 that would like to have it; but when people
8 start to say we don't know enough about it, it's
9 this, it's that, it's always an excuse.
10 But I served for 12 years in the
11 other house, and I always heard people talk
12 about initiative and referendum and, yes,
13 somebody is going to get up here today and say,
14 well, it is an initiative, it didn't do this, it
15 didn't do that, but it's a referendum on what we
16 might want our people to make a decision on.
17 I, for one, am not afraid to put
18 this on the ballot and let the people that I
19 represent make their decision and, if they vote
20 it up or down, they have had that choice.
21 That's provided for them in the Constitution,
22 and it doesn't talk about gambling and it
23 doesn't talk about economics and it doesn't talk
24 about how much money.
25 You want to talk about the
319
1 economics of it? Just yesterday the slot
2 machine operators in the two facilities in
3 Connecticut said, just the slots will raise $200
4 million for the state of Connecticut. That's
5 not the issue. The issue here before us is, do
6 we trust the people of this state to make a
7 sound judgment on what they would like to see
8 with regard casinos?
9 Thank you, Mr. President.
10 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
11 Spano, on the resolution.
12 SENATOR SPANO: Mr. President,
13 I'm not going to get into any particular
14 detail. Senator Bruno and Senator Larkin have,
15 to a large degree, spoken on the main specifics
16 of this issue. What I think is, it should be
17 said that it was all said two years ago when, it
18 was then, the Senate Finance Committee
19 Subcommittee on Gaming and Wagering conducted
20 public hearings across the state. We heard from
21 people all across the state where we examined
22 the impact of casino gambling and we took a look
23 at the expanding role that an Indian nation
24 played on racing and gambling in the state. We
25 spoke to representatives from race tracks and
320
1 the harness tracks, the communities across the
2 state.
3 We had an opportunity to talk to
4 people who represent the other side of the coin,
5 people who were concerned about the issue of
6 compulsive gambling, which is an important
7 issue. I know that Senator Padavan no doubt
8 will speak about that, and it's one that I have
9 felt strongly about as the chairman of the
10 Mental Health Committee in this house for seven
11 years, which is why we put specific language in
12 this resolution to make sure that a portion of
13 the money set aside would help people with a
14 problem with the compulsive gambling disorder.
15 We're talking about stringent
16 licensing procedures. We'll be talking about
17 organized crime and, as I said on the floor here
18 when we had first passage of this resolution, we
19 should not ignore the fact that that's not a
20 serious issue. (probably should read that's a
21 serious issue).
22 The problem of keeping the bad
23 actors and organized crime out of New York State
24 is one that we should hit head-on and take a
25 look at the licensing procedures that exist in
321
1 Atlantic City that have kept those bad players
2 out of the process, take a look at other states
3 that have passed inadequate licensing procedures
4 that have gotten a lot of people into trouble,
5 and learn by their mistakes.
6 So I think we shouldn't ignore it
7 and we should also recognize that it's organized
8 crime today that does benefit from the lack of
9 casino gambling in New York State because people
10 are going to gamble, whether it's legal or not.
11 They're going to gamble on race tracks or OTB or
12 they're going to gamble, as many people did last
13 week end on a football game, on the Super Bowl,
14 or get a bookie and put some money on the games.
15 So what's happening there,
16 they're going to gamble in some areas of New
17 York State where we do see illegal gambling
18 parlors that do exist. And who do you think is
19 benefiting from that?
20 We've heard a lot about the city
21 of New York, and it should be said that we did
22 reach out during these hearings to our
23 representatives of the city of New York, both to
24 the mayor, both to the Assembly representative
25 and to his people, and it's clear in my opinion
322
1 that the Assembly leadership was not interested
2 in including the city of New York or we did not
3 hear, although we reached out on a couple of
4 occasions, any interest from the city of New
5 York on being included in this resolution.
6 So we're here today not to look
7 at rewriting history. We can't start by taking
8 a look at this resolution and saying, Let's
9 throw it out and start from scratch, because
10 then we would be in 1999 and some estimates are
11 we'd lose $100 million a year in additional
12 revenues in New York State for every year that
13 we do not pass casino gambling. We are seeing
14 those New York State license plates going across
15 our borders to Atlantic City, to Connecticut, to
16 the new casino in Connecticut, Mohegan Surf,
17 that I had an opportunity to visit a few weeks
18 ago, as I'm standing there after parking the car
19 watching one out-of-state license plate after
20 another of people pulling up.
21 Why aren't we getting a portion
22 in New York State of those 25-cent quarters
23 going into those slot machines right here in the
24 state of New York?
25 So, my colleagues, there's been a
323
1 lot of -- a great deal of debate, and this is an
2 issue that I think whatever is said, one of
3 those few issues that we could probably look at
4 now and probably -- I have no idea how it's
5 going to turn out at the end of the debate today
6 because it's clear that it's an issue that many
7 of us have said, Let's present it to the
8 voters. I'll take it a step forward and say
9 that I think it's something that we should step
10 -- we should present to the voters and present
11 it in a favorable light that it represents not
12 only to thousands of people and contributes
13 millions of dollars to people in Yonkers and
14 Westchester and New York State.
15 The failure of this amendment
16 today would be a death knell to Yonkers Raceway,
17 a death knell to racing in New York State and
18 also would be a surrender to the Native
19 Americans, to say that they should continue to
20 have a monopoly on casino gambling in New York
21 State. If that's what you want, then you vote
22 against this resolution. If you feel that it's
23 only the Indian nations who should benefit from
24 casino gambling, vote against the resolution.
25 If you are not interested in helping an ailing
324
1 racing industry in New York State, vote against
2 the resolution, and if you are not interested in
3 bringing the type of total entertainment center
4 that you would see in the Catskills created by
5 bringing those conventions back to New York
6 State, by bringing those families back and in
7 New York State spending their money, then you
8 vote against this resolution.
9 I think that you can look at it
10 two ways. You can say, I support it and vote
11 for it because I feel strongly about it. I feel
12 it is right for New York State, or I'm going to
13 vote for it and give the people an opportunity
14 themselves.
15 Either way, if it gets this
16 resolution passed through this house over to the
17 Assembly so that we can continue the debate
18 there and then there will be ample opportunity
19 between now and November for us to take a look
20 with the leadership of Senator Larkin and his
21 committee, take a look at the enabling
22 legislation.
23 I know Senator Waldon last year
24 had a number of concerns about the specifics
25 that he wanted included and wanted excluded here
325
1 and Senator Dollinger came up with his reasons
2 last year why not to support casino gambling. I
3 know people will say there are not specifics in
4 this resolution, but while we hark back to those
5 times when we amended the Constitution for
6 legalized gambling in New York State starting
7 back in 1939, when we started the mutuel phase
8 and then went to bingo and the state lottery and
9 then expanded the games of chance for
10 not-for-profit agencies, all it included was
11 that one line, and the specifics were handled
12 under enabling legislation subject to additional
13 hearings that we would have across the state
14 where there would be ample opportunity for
15 people to have input into the process before
16 this is presented to the public for their
17 approval or disapproval in November.
18 I think there's been a lot of
19 time since this was presented through this
20 resolution. It's time to start. I'm glad that
21 the leadership has decided to take this issue up
22 early in the session so that people will have an
23 opportunity to vote for or against this issue
24 and not link it to anything else that has become
25 a pattern around this Capitol, and also I'm glad
326
1 the leadership has said we're going to deal with
2 it today and, remember, if we deal with it today
3 and defeat this, the death knell would ring not
4 only for legalized gambling in this legislative
5 session, but it will also sound the death knell
6 for thousands, tens of thousands of jobs and
7 hundreds of millions of dollars in additional
8 revenue that we can benefit from all across the
9 state.
10 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Chair
11 recognizes Senator Cook on the resolution.
12 SENATOR COOK: Thank you, Mr.
13 President.
14 With the advent of railroad
15 transportation during the last half of the 1800s
16 and the first half of the 1900s, the Catskills
17 became one of the premier vacation destinations
18 in this whole nation. Families, trying to
19 escape the heat of the summer in the City, would
20 come to the Catskills for a week or a month,
21 enjoy the fresh cool air. What started as farm
22 vacations became boarding houses, bungalow
23 colonies, and finally fine rural class resort
24 hotels offering comfort and recreational
25 opportunities.
327
1 After World War II, as
2 residential air conditioning became widespread,
3 people's vacation habits changed. No longer did
4 they have to leave the city to escape the heat.
5 They still came to the Catskills for recreation
6 and fresh air, but their stay would be for week
7 ends or for a few days and as there were differ
8 ent modes of transportation easily available,
9 they tended to vary their vacations from year to
10 year instead of annually returning to the same
11 place.
12 This has necessitated a change in
13 the business practices for the hotels. They've
14 concentrated more on attracting conventions, the
15 statewide sporting events. They've opened
16 facilities for non-guests. They have tried to
17 offer a variety of special attractions, but to
18 this point they have not been able to offer the
19 one thing which is luring substantial numbers of
20 their potential market to other states: the
21 opportunity to spend an evening or a day at a
22 casino.
23 For those who have concerns about
24 gambling, I'd only point out that people, often
25 by the bus loads, are traveling to other states
328
1 to participate in gambling which is currently
2 illegal in New York State. The impact on our
3 resort industry is not inconsequential. Millions
4 of dollars have been invested in expansive
5 facilities, many of which have already closed
6 and others which are in severe financial
7 distress. The mere loss of these capital assets
8 is staggering.
9 Furthermore, these hotels have
10 provided employment for thousands of people in a
11 region where employment opportunities are at a
12 premium. For those concerned with the human
13 impact of casinos, I can only point out that the
14 human impact of massive unemployment on these
15 thousands of families goes far deeper than the
16 immediate jobs. It affects the ability of those
17 families to provide for the future of their
18 children and will have an impact which will
19 carry many years ahead.
20 The "echo" effect is also
21 profound. The store owners, the service
22 companies, the contractors who have been part of
23 the hotel economy will also face major
24 devastation. Also to be considered is the
25 impact on community infrastructure. The hotels
329
1 are major generators of sales tax which supports
2 county human services. Severe cutbacks in those
3 services will be required if this revenue source
4 is lost. The hotels are major property
5 taxpayers. Their taxes support the schools, the
6 police departments, the fire protection and a
7 whole range of local services. In one case one
8 hotel constitutes half of the property value of
9 a particular sewer district. Loss of that hotel
10 will probably force that district into
11 bankruptcy.
12 So it's no trivial thing of which
13 we speak. People may have legitimate concerns
14 over the various negative impacts of casinos,
15 but it's clear to me that the negative impacts
16 of the loss of our resort economy is much
17 deeper. It's not merely a matter of protecting
18 the investments of these family-owned businesses
19 which have been built up over a century. It's a
20 matter of protecting the financial security of
21 the thousands of families who depend on that
22 industry for their livelihood and for their
23 future, and it's in behalf of those families,
24 Mr. President, that I ask the members of this
25 house to approve this Constitutional Amendment,
330
1 approve sending it to the voters this fall.
2 Thank you.
3 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: For the
4 benefit of the members, we do have a list
5 running, and I'll give you the order: Senator
6 Padavan is up next, Senator Volker, Senator
7 DeFrancisco, Senator Goodman, Senator Dollinger,
8 Senator Lachman, Senator Abate, Senator Mendez
9 and Senator Hoffmann, in that order, and Senator
10 Marchi now.
11 So the Chair recognizes Senator
12 Padavan on the resolution.
13 SENATOR PADAVAN: Thank you, Mr.
14 President.
15 Only because Senator Cook was the
16 last one to speak, I'd like to reflect on some
17 of the comments that he just made, and let me
18 preface that by saying no one in this chamber
19 has a greater respect for the Senator and the
20 people that he represents.
21 But I love the Catskills. I
22 remember the first two years of my life being
23 brought there and going there ever since. I've
24 probably fished every creek and stream in the
25 Catskill Mountains, hunted there, spent time in
331
1 one of your hospitals, and own property there
2 and when I retire, Senator Cook, up there in
3 that log cabin, I hope you're still there to be
4 my Senator.
5 But there are three things that I
6 know, three things I know about the Catskills.
7 All the friends that I've made there over the
8 years, people who live and work there and raise
9 families, casinos are not the answer to the
10 economic problems in the Catskills no more than
11 they're the answer to the economic problems of
12 any region, rural or suburban.
13 The people in the Catskills need
14 economic improvement. They need a resurgence of
15 their tourist industry, but instead of looking
16 to casinos, they should look to the Berkshires.
17 They should look to Saratoga County. They
18 should look to other areas that have elevated
19 the attractions that bring families,
20 individuals, that come with beautiful pristine
21 areas such as the Catskills.
22 But as we will discover here in a
23 little while when I talk about some of the other
24 areas of this country, while this would be no
25 panacea, the only people who are going to make
332
1 money in the Catskills are the large property
2 owners, and you've touched on that. But the
3 average individual, the average family, the
4 farmers and those who live and work there, they
5 won't benefit. They'll suffer, however, in a
6 variety of ways which is why probably the Farm
7 Bureau has come out in opposition to this
8 particular proposal.
9 Mr. President, between the years
10 of 1976 and 1986, I chaired the Senate Committee
11 on Mental Hygiene and Addiction Control. Today
12 we have two separate committees that deal with
13 those issues. On that side of my responsibility
14 dealing with the problems of addiction, I came
15 face to face with the problems of the people of
16 this state as it related to drug addiction and
17 alcoholism, which I have some knowledge of, but
18 the one area that I learned a great deal about
19 was the problem of gambling addiction, and I
20 came face to face with people and individuals
21 whose lives had been ruined, families destroyed,
22 as a result of getting into the gambling way of
23 life, losing their businesses, their resources,
24 going into hock, and it was a problem then and
25 we tried to do some things to address it over
333
1 the period of the years, but without much
2 success I must admit.
3 Along the way, we created the New
4 York State Council on Problem Gambling, and
5 recently we gave them some funds to open up a
6 Hot Line and most importantly to do a survey of
7 the magnitude of the gambling problems in New
8 York State.
9 In the middle of the latter part
10 of last year, they presented the results of
11 their work to us and, if you haven't read it, I
12 urge you to do so, because what's in this study,
13 if we took it alone and no other issue, no other
14 argument, we would stand squarely in opposition
15 to any more gambling, because this report tells
16 us that New York State is now the worst state in
17 the nation with regard to problem gambling, with
18 over a million people being touched by it and a
19 half a million seriously involved in it, with
20 great social costs to individuals and families
21 and some very real economic costs that we are
22 all paying the price for.
23 Why in heaven's name do we feel
24 that, when we ask for a study and we get the
25 information, should we then ignore it? And what
334
1 is significant about this study beyond the
2 things that I've said is that it is a replicate
3 study. There was one done similar to this, if
4 not identical to this, in 1986 and what they've
5 demonstrated here is a 75 percent increase in
6 the magnitude of the problem, putting us right
7 to the top of the list.
8 I'd like to go back to the
9 beginning of this debate relevant to the issue
10 of the Constitutional Amendment. As has been
11 said, and properly so, we do not have an issue
12 with the referendum. In this state we are the
13 gatekeepers of the Constitution. We decide by
14 our own good judgment in both houses what should
15 be a Constitutional Amendment placed before the
16 voters and we have been very, very careful about
17 that, and year after year, dozens -- and I
18 looked at the index yesterday -- there are 30
19 Constitutional Amendments proposed by members of
20 this house and 40 in the Assembly, 70 proposals
21 and, I doubt any of them -- by the way, it
22 includes the one before us -- any of the others
23 will not see the light of day because we will
24 look at them individually, collectively through
25 the committee process and we will say to
335
1 ourselves, This is not the right thing to do
2 and, as our responsibility dictates, we reject
3 it. That's the way it is, and that's the way it
4 should be.
5 The fact is that, when we put an
6 issue on the ballot as we did last fall with the
7 Environmental Bond Act, it has our stamp of
8 approval. We are saying to the voters, We think
9 this is a good idea, but we need, by virtue of
10 our Constitution, your concurrence, your
11 approval. People will view it that way and, if
12 they don't, the casino interests out there will
13 certainly make them view it that way.
14 Secondly, if we look at some of
15 the other states where there have been
16 referendums -- Florida is an example -- $16
17 million dollars spent in that state of reported
18 hard money, how much more than that is anyone's
19 guess, by casino interests trying to convince
20 the people of that state that it was the right
21 thing for them. 8 million in the state of
22 Arkansas.
23 How much would be spent in New
24 York State? Anyone's guess, but probably more
25 than 16 million. It would probably be more than
336
1 was spent on the last gubernatorial race. There
2 will not be a level playing field. Fortunately
3 in Florida, Disney -- Disney did invest money in
4 trying to present the other side of the
5 argument, through the media and TV, and it
6 prevailed. The people rejected it as they've
7 done in some other states recently.
8 But we don't have a Disney. The
9 coalitions that have formed, the people who have
10 come to us here in the Capitol seeking our
11 support in opposing this amendment are not
12 people of vast resources that can be committed
13 in that fashion; and so we will be "outgunned"
14 to say the least.
15 So for those reasons, anyone who
16 stands here and says, "Why not present it to the
17 voters? Let them decide," is ignoring the
18 Constitution, is ignoring our responsibility, is
19 ignoring the extreme clout in terms of dollars
20 to be spent by the casino interests, is ignoring
21 the moral position, and it's actually exercising
22 a cop-out of that position, in my view.
23 Now, a year or so ago, we had a
24 proposal before this house that dealt with a
25 Keno game that we call Quick Draw. The
337
1 Legislature was opposed to it; at conference
2 after conference and meeting after meeting
3 members said so. They thought it was a bad
4 idea, would produce problems. And how did it
5 finally get through? And for those of you who
6 were here and those of you who were not, let me
7 refresh your memory. It got tacked together
8 with an income tax cut in the same bill and the
9 legislators stood up and said, "I'm against this
10 video crack game but I certainly am in favor of
11 a tax cut and so I have to vote for it." They
12 knew better because, if they had said no, we'd
13 have had the tax cut and we wouldn't have Quick
14 Draw.
15 I stay at a motel here outside of
16 the Capitol. There's a restaurant and then next
17 to the restaurant is a sports bar, and you walk
18 into the restaurant and the first thing you hit
19 face-on is the vending machine with the lottery
20 tickets, and then if you go from the restaurant
21 into the sports bar, you're faced with the Quick
22 Draw machine and you watch these people sitting
23 there filling out that card, and every five
24 minutes they can wager up to $100, and they're
25 doing it all over the state in 2500 outlets -
338
1 bars, taverns, convenient stores, and the Hot
2 Line that we created is bouncing off the hooks
3 by people calling in, telling those individuals
4 on the other end of the line, "I got hooked,"
5 and 28 percent of them are saying, "I got hooked
6 as a result of Quick Draw," and keep in mind
7 this survey that I referred to a while ago was
8 done with Quick Draw only being on line for
9 seven months, and I will venture a guess that
10 the problem today is even worse.
11 Anyone who says that, if we add
12 another layer of gambling opportunity on top of
13 the ones we already have will not exacerbate the
14 problem, I just can't respond to that because it
15 boggles the mind. The writers of this report
16 tell us very directly, the more gambling oppor
17 tunity, the more the problem increases. It's an
18 axiom. It's irrefutable.
19 And Senator Bruno says you can go
20 to gamble within an hour and 15 minutes of the
21 Capitol, 45 minutes or whatever, but within 10
22 minutes, you can step outside of this Capitol
23 and go to one of these mini-casinos and you can
24 gamble.
25 Do we simply answer that problem
339
1 by saying let's have more of them? Let's have
2 slot machines and casinos at race tracks all
3 over the state of New York, and when the
4 announcer says five minutes to post time he will
5 follow up by saying, and after the race feel
6 free to take advantage of our slot machines and
7 you can lose money that way too?
8 Slot machines are the most
9 addictive and the most profitable parts of any
10 casino operation. They'll be all over this
11 state. Instead of being the Empire State, we'll
12 be the gambling state.
13 Now, there have been a number of
14 economic studies and I've tried to share all of
15 that with you over a period of time and the most
16 recent study I sent you was done in the state of
17 Illinois where two economists studied the five
18 casinos in that state for a period of a year and
19 people who were sold casinos in that state heard
20 the very same argument you're hearing today. It
21 will improve the economies in these small towns
22 and villages that are suffering. It will make
23 revenues for the state of Illinois that can be
24 used for other purposes. But these economists
25 tell us really what has happened.
340
1 The state is not making any
2 money. It's losing money, and the localities
3 collectively are losing over $300 million in one
4 way or the other, and the problems of people who
5 have been getting involved unwisely in terms of
6 casinos in those regions, in those communities,
7 is going forward by leaps and bounds.
8 Now, are we going to say New York
9 is different than Illinois? What's happened
10 there is not going to happen to us. If you say
11 that, we're kidding ourselves. Economists from
12 Massachusetts, Professor Goodman, Illinois and
13 all the way from Illinois to Nevada and across
14 this country, who have been analyzing this issue
15 without exception, without exception, are
16 telling us that there is no gain to the economy
17 of any state as a result of casinos, and they go
18 even further to say unless you can entice more
19 than half of the people coming into your casinos
20 from other states and other regions, you're
21 going to lose money.
22 Now, I just can't see the state
23 of New York with planes flying in from all over
24 the country and all over the world, again. It
25 may be true in Las Vegas, but certainly is not
341
1 going to be true here. It certainly is not true
2 in Illinois. It's certainly not true in
3 Louisiana.
4 One of our colleagues mentioned
5 before the issue of corruption. There have been
6 state legislators in California, four mayors -
7 not three -- in Atlantic City, elected of
8 ficials, appointed officials in Louisiana, from
9 one part of this country to the other, who have
10 gotten caught up in the political corruption
11 associated with the gambling industry, and we
12 could listen to D. A. Morgenthau of the city of
13 New York, or the F.B.I. director, tell us
14 chapter and verse about political corruption,
15 how organized crime follows casinos as sure as
16 night follows day.
17 Even before Atlantic City opened
18 up, the mob was trying to figure out -- by wire
19 tap conversations, this was determined -- how
20 they could infiltrate. That will be a fact. No
21 matter what anybody says and no matter what
22 anybody thinks, criminality will be involved and
23 while I impugn the integrity of no one in this
24 chamber or anyone anywhere, the fact of the
25 matter is it is a part of this whole mosaic of
342
1 issues that we have to consider: Crime and
2 criminal corruption as it relates to the
3 gambling industry.
4 Now, the economic issues that
5 have been cited, I think by Senator Spano, that
6 tell us that people are leaving New York State
7 and they're going to other places and they're
8 gambling money that they should gamble here.
9 The fact is they are leaving New York State and
10 they are going other places and they are
11 gambling money that, in part, if we had casinos
12 they would gamble here. But when you look at
13 the pluses and minuses, add the costs as opposed
14 to the gains, we're far better off. Let 'em
15 go. Let 'em go. There are more people who go
16 to Disneyworld from New York State than perhaps
17 go to Las Vegas and maybe we ought to have a
18 Disneyworld in New York State, I mean if you
19 want to carry that logic in a proper direction.
20 We should be doing things to
21 bootstrap those industries that bring positive
22 gains -- positive economic development into New
23 York State and not become preoccupied with the
24 fact that others are going -- some people are
25 going elsewhere to gamble. The fact of that
343
1 does not justify the ills that we will be beset
2 with.
3 Now, one of the arguments we hear
4 and I'm sure we'll hear again before this debate
5 is over, is relevant to the Indian gambling
6 issue. The Indian Gaming Act was, in my view,
7 misapplied throughout this country; but thank
8 fully that has come to an end.
9 In a case brought by the Seminole
10 Indians against the state of Florida where they
11 insisted that they be given the right to enter
12 into a compact with that state to open up a
13 casino, the Supreme Court spoke and spoke very
14 clearly. They said very directly that no non
15 casino state has to enter into a compact with
16 any Indian nation and they, in effect, took a
17 chunk out of the Indian Gaming Act.
18 This state need not enter into
19 any more compacts. As a matter of fact, we
20 could go after the one in Oneida and repeal it,
21 as in one state -- I think Senator Connor
22 mentioned it, in New Mexico -- where a group of
23 state legislators are suing their Governor who
24 entered into a compact without their involvement
25 and that case is going to be heard by the
344
1 Supreme Court as well.
2 So the Indian gaming issue is no
3 longer a reason, if it ever was, and when
4 individuals bring it up, they do so either
5 because they're not aware of what I just said or
6 they choose to ignore it.
7 Keep one other thing in mind,
8 however. Should this Constitutional Amendment
9 prevail, the Oneidas now will put slot machines
10 in those casinos, which they're currently
11 prohibited from doing. Now, we've gotten some
12 reports out of Oneida County, and they're all
13 bad. Problems abound, from suicides to family
14 upheaval to increases in need for social
15 services, with no economic development. Letters
16 to the county executives up there and the local
17 Assemblymen are all saying that is so; there's
18 been no gain. There's no gain to the county or
19 the surrounding area.
20 But equally important to you, I
21 believe, should be the fact that 90 percent of
22 the people going to that casino are from a 75
23 mile radius, spending money on their own flesh.
24 The money is going out of the pockets of people
25 who can least afford it into the pockets of the
345
1 casino operators, in this case the Oneida
2 Nation. It's not benefiting the community.
3 It's not benefiting the people in it and that's
4 exactly what will happen in the Catskills,
5 Senator Cook, and that's exactly what would
6 happen in any other community that bites into
7 this apple.
8 I don't want to belabor the day
9 because I'm sure that many others have some of
10 very significant things to say. But when you
11 add the economic studies that have been made -
12 and I've got a whole list of economists here; I
13 won't read them to you, including some financial
14 institutions like Salomon Brothers, Federal
15 Reserve Bank of Boston -- and you look carefully
16 what they're saying, casinos and slot machines
17 at race tracks are not the answer to any
18 economic problem. Far from it.
19 If you look at the study done by
20 our own Council and other studies as well, you
21 see the great harm we've already done to the
22 people of the state with the lottery advertising
23 at the rate of $41 million a year, telling
24 people, Come on and wager, it's for everybody's
25 benefit, and Quick Draw at 25 (probably should
346
1 read 2500) locations around the state, if you
2 read that study you'll know we've made a big
3 mistake, and some day we'll have the guts to
4 undo it, and you can look at the Indian gaming
5 issue, you'll know that's a phony argument at
6 the very outset.
7 If you study everything that's
8 been said on either side and analyze it very
9 carefully, we come to one inescapable
10 conclusion, that this is the wrong thing to do
11 and that it could be the biggest mistake we will
12 have made in the state of New York in modern
13 history, if we go forward with it.
14 Abe Lincoln put it very well when
15 he addressed a group of people and said we
16 should be listening to the "better angels of our
17 nature" as we consider this action, and I would
18 commend that point of view to all of you.
19 THE PRESIDENT: Thank you,
20 Senator Padavan.
21 Senator DeFrancisco. Is he -
22 well, that's it.
23 Senator Goodman.
24 SENATOR GOODMAN: Madam
25 President, we have read in recent days of a
347
1 situation involving the seductive poison
2 mushroom. It's a very appealing looking growth
3 and it has lured people into its consumption and
4 they have consumed it and they have died.
5 Gambling in the state of New York
6 and gambling wherever it appears is a gigantic
7 poison mushroom. The effects of it may not be
8 immediately apparent, but over time it takes a
9 dreadful deadly toll, and it's time that the
10 problems related to this are amply exposed.
11 Let me share with you several
12 thoughts that I had over recent days and, in
13 fact, recent years on this matter, because this
14 is a complex question and it's one which I've
15 said is seductively appealing.
16 The fact of the matter is that
17 this is predicated on one gigantic moral
18 assumption, and that is that a society can have
19 a major portion of its economy predicated on the
20 idea that you can get something for nothing -
21 something for nothing. The land of opportunity,
22 the land of Horatio Alger, where success is
23 built on diligence and hard work and self-boot
24 strapping, is now being superseded by a very
25 different kind of image. It's a land where you
348
1 can get something for nothing by just rolling
2 the dice, stepping up to the blackjack table and
3 using the fabulous one-armed bandit with its
4 seductive graphics which lure you in and charm
5 you into a situation where you actually see
6 little old ladies with baskets of quarters
7 spending hour after hour seated at slot
8 machines, hoping for returns which they can
9 never hope to get. The odds are stacked against
10 you, and it's the biggest sucker bet
11 imaginable.
12 I condemn this on the grounds
13 that it seeks to expand the notion of something
14 for nothing, which is precisely contradictory to
15 our basic values as a society. The discussion
16 of the economic development fallacy of gambling
17 has been amply filled out by my distinguished
18 colleague, Senator Padavan, and I commend him on
19 the extensive study that he's made of this and
20 on the expertise he's developed.
21 I want to share with you some
22 perspectives that are based on my own personal
23 experiences at casinos. As best I recall, I
24 have visited casinos in New Jersey, Monte Carlo,
25 Cannes, Las Vegas, Reno, Macao, and the Palm
349
1 Springs Desert. There may be others; I don't
2 recall them.
3 If you go at night, in some of
4 these areas you see tuxedo-clad "glamoratti",
5 jet setters, creating an atmosphere of
6 excitement and passion. If you go during the
7 day you see threadbare little people who are
8 obviously impoverished, who have dreams of
9 getting rich quick, who have dreamed of getting
10 something for nothing and who invariably are
11 going to be frustrated and disappointed, and you
12 have the side effects of the great poison
13 mushroom.
14 Gambling is addictive. It is
15 ruinous to our moral laws. We know that mari
16 tal discord is increased in areas where we've
17 opened casinos because husbands and wives have
18 used credit cards to seek the credit which will
19 enable them to gamble at length and ultimately
20 to destroy themselves. The sucker bets are
21 everywhere in gambling. There is no way in
22 which you can possibly win, and they say that
23 the best game is blackjack, but then you get the
24 experts in blackjack, the people with
25 photographic memories who sit down at the table
350
1 and are able to memorize the cards as they're
2 peeled off the deck, and as soon as the casino
3 management spots these people it disqualifies
4 them from participating because they might break
5 the bank. In other words, don't dare to come
6 into the casino with the thought that you can
7 develop a system and win because that is a
8 fool's bet, and it cannot be done.
9 Crime: I'm waiting at this
10 moment for a FAX from New York from District
11 Attorney Morgenthau's office. I don't know how
12 many of you in the Senate -- Here it is. It's
13 just been placed in my hands. Mr. Morgenthau
14 came up here and was invited into the Senate
15 conference and, to sum his views very
16 succinctly, he said that gambling brings on
17 crime wherever it is tried and has sounded the
18 clarion call of great caution and said, Don't do
19 it because if will do nothing but enhance the
20 criminals' opportunities to function in many
21 different ways.
22 In a letter that he wrote at that
23 time, he said: "With this letter I'm forwarding
24 my statement. The experience of other states
25 has demonstrated that the economic benefits of
351
1 casino gambling will be outweighed by the
2 inevitable infiltration of organized crime and
3 political corruption. In addition, casino
4 gambling will raise funds from compulsive
5 gamblers and others who should not be encour
6 aged to gamble under state sanction. It is
7 quite simply the wrong way to raise revenue."
8 "In sum," said District Attorney
9 Morgenthau, one of our best D.A.s, "I believe
10 that casino gambling will result in increased
11 crime, increased corruption and diminishment of
12 the quality of life in New York. Please make my
13 position known to your colleagues in the
14 Legislature," and he amplified this at length,
15 and anyone who is interested in seeing his
16 statement is welcome to have it. I won't share
17 the whole thing with you, but I do just want to
18 take one or two selected paragraphs for your
19 awareness.
20 He says that "proponents of
21 casino gambling argue that casino gambling means
22 additional growth in tax revenue. While the
23 proponents acknowledge that the casinos have
24 'many problems'" in quotes, "they maintain that
25 these problems can be overcome by licensing and
352
1 regulatory provisions. They are dead wrong.
2 The experience all over the country in states
3 and municipalities which have had casino
4 gambling demonstrates that the benefits at best
5 are ephemeral and are far outweighed by the cost
6 to society in increased crime and political
7 corruption. Casino gambling breeds crime.
8 Casinos attract patrons carrying cash who make
9 easy marks for street criminals. Las Vegas has
10 the highest per capita crime rate in the United
11 States. In the third year of Atlantic City
12 casinos, the Atlantic County Prosecutor's office
13 and the New Jersey State Police report a 70
14 percent increase in felonies in Atlantic City."
15 Now, let me tell you about a
16 little visit I made to Atlantic City. As
17 chairman of the Senate Committee on
18 Investigations and Taxation, I called the New
19 Jersey Attorney General and asked to have a
20 guided tour of their facilities.
21 First of all, you drive up to
22 Atlantic City and the first thing you notice is
23 something rather bizarre. It is a "Potemkin
24 village". Remember the village with the facade
25 of buildings behind which is indemic poverty?
353
1 That's what Atlantic City is, a classic case of
2 the facade behind which there is nothing but rot
3 and strain and obvious economic decline. So
4 that this whole notion that the Atlantic City
5 casinos have brought prosperity to that area is
6 utterly fallacious.
7 Moreover, several of the last
8 mayors in Atlantic City have been convicted on
9 gambling-related offenses and, in fact, we know
10 that there have been convictions of elected
11 officials in Missouri, Louisiana and
12 Pennsylvania.
13 So let's sum up where this is
14 taking us, my friends. Obviously when Senator
15 Cook, for whom we have the highest regard, tells
16 us, "I need this for my district," that's a
17 stopper, and we say, What can we do to help
18 Charlie Cook's district? What can we do to
19 achieve economic development?
20 The answer is that the poison
21 mushroom won't work. It's beguilingly seductive
22 but once it is eaten, it will kill you and
23 that's not an exaggeration because if you study
24 the long-term effects of gambling, you will note
25 that it does eat away at the economic core of
354
1 society.
2 Why does it do this? To mix a
3 metaphor, through a gigantic Electrolux which
4 sucks money out of what is now a $5 billion
5 industry in the state of New York -- excuse me.
6 That's the wrong number. Let me check it -- a
7 $1 billion business of lottery and horses in New
8 York State. Just stop to think of the absurdity
9 of sucking money out of the lottery and horse
10 business, which casino gambling would do, and it
11 would take twice as much in the way of
12 individual losses in order to achieve the same
13 revenue to the state.
14 Much as casino gambling sucks the
15 money out of other forms of gambling, it would
16 simply cause an increased diminution of the
17 revenue available in New York. This is moving
18 backwards and going down on the up escalator.
19 So I think that's enough for the
20 moment. Let me just say that I think that this
21 is rotten to the core. I think that there are
22 some good people involved in furthering it.
23 Certainly our colleagues who have spoken of it
24 have my highest regard for their motivation.
25 They want to develop their communities, but I
355
1 hope I've persuaded in having brought to the
2 attention of some of you who might be undecided,
3 the fact that this is deadly stuff.
4 Beware of the poison mushrooms
5 because they can kill.
6 THE PRESIDENT: Thank you,
7 Senator Goodman.
8 Senator DeFrancisco.
9 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Thank you
10 very much.
11 I rise to support the proposal.
12 This is probably the most interesting group of
13 individuals I've ever seen combine together to
14 oppose a measure, that could possibly combine
15 together, from religious leaders to Donald Trump
16 to environmentalists worried about the water
17 shed in New York City, to cities who have not
18 been part of the process and, therefore, can't
19 have a casino so they don't want it, OTB who
20 doesn't want to lose the handle, the horse
21 racing that doesn't want to lose their
22 competitive advantage.
23 It's just absolutely amazing, but
24 all with a common thread that says basically not
25 to expand gambling for either good moral reasons
356
1 or because you are going to, in some way, affect
2 us in what we gain from gambling in the state of
3 New York.
4 Now, those who oppose it on -
5 for the right because they simply oppose the
6 concept of gambling, I can understand that, but
7 to listen to a group of individuals who just
8 want to increase their -- and keep their
9 competitive advantage doesn't make any
10 difference to me as far as my vote is concerned,
11 especially if we suck money out of OTB or suck
12 money out of the race tracks. So what? The
13 people should have an opportunity to choose what
14 their field -- their area of recreation will be,
15 and if it happens to be casinos as opposed to
16 another form of recreation, so be it, but the
17 individual should make that decision, and
18 similarly the individual should make that
19 decision at the polls and weigh all of these
20 factors come November and that's what this -
21 this bill would do.
22 To those who are morally opposed
23 to this particular issue, I can understand that,
24 but we have to be realists as well, in
25 understanding it. Some of the religious groups
357
1 that are opposed to this desperately, have
2 bingos on a weekly basis and those same little
3 old ladies who bring in their quarters over at
4 the casinos also bring in their dollars to buy
5 the "early bird specials" and whatever else that
6 the -- the bingos will allow.
7 In addition, we have gambling in
8 the state of New York in many different ways
9 that have already been discussed. We have
10 advertising for gambling not only in the state
11 of New York but also right across the borders.
12 The new casino in Niagara Falls on the Canadian
13 side has just undertaken an $8 million
14 advertising campaign. You know how much we
15 spend all year long for "I love New York" by my
16 committee, the Tourism Committee in the state
17 Senate? $11 million dollars.
18 Now, if you don't feel that
19 that's going to be an effect on tourism in the
20 state of New York, a campaign like that, to draw
21 people who want to gamble over their borders,
22 then I think you've got another thing to think
23 about, because it's not true. That will draw
24 people there and that will compete with whatever
25 other attractions there may be in western New
358
1 York.
2 We spend this year, this year on
3 Lotto, pick three, win four, take five, I don't
4 know, there may be a take six by now, Quick
5 Draw, $29 million dollars in advertising and $11
6 million on the "I love New York" campaign.
7 There is a group of individuals
8 who would choose to gamble and they have already
9 been provided that opportunity and to suggest
10 that we are going to stop gambling by not giving
11 someone another choice which choice is already
12 available either in Connecticut or in -- in
13 Canada or right smack in the middle of the
14 state, so for those reasons, I think it's
15 extremely important that we in this Senate look
16 at reality and what the reality of the situation
17 is right now and the reality is we have
18 substantial gambling, we have substantial groups
19 that are against gambling because they don't
20 want to have their particular area hurt in any
21 way economically because they've already got a
22 monopoly on this particular activity that people
23 want and we've got to look at the reality that
24 if this vote is so close in this house, should
25 the people of the state of New York make their
359
1 own decision on this particular issue and, if
2 the people in one of the areas that was
3 designated to have casino gambling if this bill
4 passes and if the people statewide agree with it
5 and pass it by referendum, then their localities
6 have to again pass on it by public referendum.
7 So there are many safeguards in this particular
8 bill and, looking at reality, I think we should
9 allow the voters to decide on this important
10 referendum and vote yes on this bill and bring
11 it to the voters in November of 1997.
12 THE PRESIDENT: Senator
13 Dollinger.
14 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
15 Madam President.
16 Senator Padavan, I think, made
17 many of the points that I would like to make.
18 What I would like to do is talk about some of
19 the things I've heard said today and comment on
20 them, perhaps place them in a context and then
21 talk about what I think this really means for
22 the future of this state.
23 I think it's instructive in this
24 debate, however, to go back to the start. How
25 did we get where we are today on casino
360
1 gambling? And I suggest to you it's because we
2 did a bad thing for a good reason. What did we
3 do? Many years ago, before I came to this
4 Legislature, the charities came to us and said,
5 We would like to run casino nights. We'd like
6 to run games of chances for prizes so that we
7 can have this little play gambling with fake
8 money and we can all gamble and send people in
9 and raise money at these blackjack nights for
10 charity, for churches, for charities, and we can
11 take that and give people prizes for the best
12 gambling.
13 This Legislature said, O.K., we
14 will allow not-for-profit groups to engage in
15 these play games of chance. We decided to do a
16 bad thing to allow some gambling because it was
17 going to be rigorously controlled. It wasn't
18 for real money; it wasn't for real prizes, and
19 it was to help churches and charities that were
20 in need.
21 What happened? It came back to
22 bite us. This bad idea that we promoted was
23 used by the Indians under the Indian Gaming Act
24 to bring casinos to this state. The little tiny
25 bit of bad that we thought was going to be
361
1 developed for good ended up a bad idea that got
2 worse and the problems of gambling came about
3 and today we're on the precipice in this chamber
4 of taking that bad idea that we had for a good
5 reason which got worse and we are about to make
6 it worse still.
7 What has been said in this debate
8 today? Senator Bruno said that this was an idea
9 that we've been debating 30 years. Isn't it
10 fascinating how the bad penny keeps popping up
11 time after time again. What was a bad idea 30
12 years ago is still a bad idea. He also said,
13 and I guess I find this in my history, my
14 history in this chamber, to be an amazing
15 statement when he said there's been no pressure
16 on the conscience of the members.
17 Senator Bruno, I've got to do you
18 a favor. You and I are going to go to the
19 movies, because you and I got to go see Jerry
20 Maguire, because what did Jerry Maguire say?
21 What's the famous line from Jerry Maguire?
22 Everybody knows if you've seen that movie when
23 his athlete shows up with his agent and says,
24 "Show me the money, Jerry, show me the money.
25 Say it with your heart."
362
1 Look at what's happened in this
2 debate alone. Look at the money that's fallen
3 all over this debate on the pro-con -- on the
4 side side -- on the con side. The money is
5 everywhere, and I'm not going to stand here and
6 righteously say that we're absolved from it, but
7 there's money all over this. It's the money
8 that taints the process. It taints us. It
9 taints our public credibility, and that taint is
10 going to eat away at our credibility among the
11 people right in this chamber and they will be
12 properly looking askance at us and saying, What
13 about all that money that you all took on both
14 sides of this issue?
15 If we pass this, I predict that
16 is only going to get worse. The corruption that
17 Senator Padavan talked about is going to come
18 into this house. It's going to eat its way
19 through the doors and it will infect all of us.
20 If it doesn't affect us individually, it will
21 affect this group in its ability to lead.
22 What about the issues that were
23 raised by Senator Larkin? He properly said we
24 have to compete for those gambling dollars.
25 Since when was competing for a bad thing a good
363
1 idea? If other states had things that were
2 addictive, if other states had things that cost
3 their communities money, would we go out and
4 compete for those? I don't think so. Since when
5 is it a good idea to compete for a bad thing?
6 What about the notion that
7 Senator Spano talked about? Gambling addiction,
8 a big problem Senator Spano knows it, Senator
9 Padavan is well familiar with it. What's the
10 solution that's proposed to gambling addiction?
11 Give 'em more gambling. Tell me how that solves
12 the problem. All the cash in the world won't
13 solve the problem. One way to solve the problem
14 is to reduce the opportunity to gamble. It
15 seems to me it's sophistry at best to say that
16 we're going to somehow resolve the gambling
17 problem with some cash when what we're doing is
18 encouraging it by bringing it closer to home.
19 I'm also astounded by Senator
20 Spano's comment about going to Connecticut and
21 seeing all those New York license plates, all
22 those license plates that were disappearing from
23 the state of New York. I'll tell you what's
24 disappearing from the license plates in the
25 state of New York is the Statue of Liberty and
364
1 if we pass this resolution, I've got the perfect
2 thing to put on it. Just put on two little dice
3 that'll make New York a form of "pair o' dice",
4 maybe not the paradise that we want it to be,
5 but maybe the pair o' dice that is on it if we
6 pass it that ought to be on our license plates.
7 We can all go to Senator
8 DeFrancisco's committee, just change and scrap
9 the whole "I love New York". Just put "I gamble
10 in New York," it has the same jingle. We can do
11 the same advertising campaign. We can match
12 what they're doing at the casino in Niagara
13 Falls. Does it make it a good idea? Doesn't
14 seem so to me.
15 Senator Spano also used a term
16 that unfortunately I disagree with. He talked
17 about a total entertainment center right there
18 in the Catskills. We will make it a total
19 entertainment center. Seems to me that that's
20 just the kind of euphemism that loses the whole
21 nature of the debate of gambling. When we make
22 gambling into entertainment, it seems to me
23 we've already lost the battle as to whether or
24 not it's a good thing.
25 I commend the people in the
365
1 casino industry. They've done a wonderful job
2 in taking gambling, a process by which people
3 give their monies to casinos and turning it into
4 the concept of total entertainment centers.
5 The other thing and I -- Senator
6 DeFrancisco talked about this as a form of
7 recreation. It's a perfect form of recreation.
8 You can lose your money if you want. It seems
9 to me that that same kind of logic could apply
10 to legalized drugs. After all, drugs are a
11 personal choice. They're addicting as well.
12 They don't hurt anybody. Why don't we just
13 legalize drugs and give everyone a chance to use
14 drugs? We could make money off that in taxes.
15 Same idea, right? Same victimless use of your
16 own money. Why not? It seems to me it
17 logically follows if you buy the notion of
18 casino gambling.
19 I've taken a strong position
20 against this. Most of the members of this
21 chamber know, but my final reason for avoiding
22 this whole issue is I think critical to the
23 future of New York State. We face many tough
24 decisions in the future. The future road for
25 New York has got a series of door posts every
366
1 couple feet. Behind each door lurks a critical
2 problem -- the creation of new manufacturing
3 jobs, the creation of new high tech' jobs,
4 solving the problems of addiction to drugs,
5 solving the problems of under-performing
6 schools, resolving welfare and dependency,
7 creating a transition from welfare to work. All
8 of those problems are enormous ones that we
9 face, but yet as we walk down that road and open
10 up those doors over in the corner, over in the
11 corner is a guy with a little table and what he
12 says to the people in this chamber and the
13 people of this state is, Hey, Buddy, you want to
14 make a fast dollar? Hey, Buddy, come on over,
15 you win. He's got three little shells with a
16 little pill or a little ball underneath them,
17 three little thimbles, and he puts the ball
18 under the thimbles and he moves them quickly
19 with prestidigitation right in front of the
20 bemused and now fascinated person who suddenly
21 becomes distracted from the problems that we
22 face at all the doors in New York.
23 If we buy into the concept of
24 gambling, we've already been distracted from our
25 problems. We will be distracted from our
367
1 solutions, and it seems to me this will get us
2 further and further away from what we really
3 need to do in New York, to tackle our problems
4 head-on and find real solutions.
5 This is not a solution for New
6 York. This is part of a growing and continuing
7 problem. It's time for New York and people in
8 this chambers to say to the people of this state
9 gambling is a bad idea. We ought to stop it
10 here in its tracks. Vote no.
11 THE PRESIDENT: Thank you,
12 Senator Dollinger.
13 Senator Lachman.
14 SENATOR LACHMAN: Madam
15 President, first I would like to state that it
16 is a pleasure to be debating such an important
17 issue at 1:00 p.m. in the afternoon rather than
18 1:00 a.m. in the morning. I hope it's a
19 precedent that will be followed in the future as
20 it is today.
21 Secondly, as a sophomore Senator,
22 I'm proud of the fact we are debating this issue
23 without any control and without any direction
24 from leadership as to how to vote. This is
25 truly a vote of one's conscience and, for that
368
1 we have to thank the respective leaders, my
2 leader, Senator Connor, and the leader of the
3 Republican Majority, Senator Bruno.
4 Now, before going on to the
5 issue, let me state that a process has been
6 developed over this particular issue that is
7 somewhat unique on a social issue that has been
8 debated in various state legislatures and in
9 Congress.
10 The process has united groups to
11 an extent where other social issues such as
12 physician-assisted suicide, partial birth
13 abortion and same sex marriage have divided
14 groups. Not only have Protestant, Catholic and
15 Jewish leadership come together in opposition to
16 this issue, but for the first time in two
17 generations -- and this I predict will be one of
18 the most important outcomes of our vote,
19 regardless of what the vote will be -- for the
20 first time in two generations Protestants have
21 come together, from liberal mainline Protestants
22 to the Christian Coalition, from progressive to
23 conservatives, and this is a power to be
24 reckoned with, not only for the present but for
25 the future, and I'm told that these groups will
369
1 be sitting down again in the future to discuss
2 other issues, to see if there is any commonality
3 of purpose for agreement on other important
4 issues that have proved divisive in the past.
5 Now, the issue at hand, Senator
6 Bruno in his opening remarks spoke very well and
7 eloquently about his own personal feeling
8 regarding gambling in the state of New York and
9 the reality of what exists regardless of one's
10 personal feelings as it relates to the economy
11 of the state and the viability of the state when
12 it is fighting for an existence alongside of
13 states that do have casino gambling such as the
14 state of New Jersey or the state of
15 Connecticut.
16 Now, my problem is that the image
17 is blurred and the image is not clear. When I
18 ask myself, what is the impact of what we're
19 doing on anticipated revenues, taxes and
20 otherwise, I have to admit I don't know.
21 When I ask myself what is the
22 impact on economic and urban development, I have
23 to admit I don't know.
24 When I ask myself what is the
25 impact on the increase in crime, I have to admit
370
1 I don't know.
2 When I ask myself what is the
3 impact on gambling addiction which Senator
4 Padavan calls problem gamblers, and its economic
5 and social consequences which may or could
6 eliminate any economic advantages we have from
7 this purported amendment, I honestly don't know,
8 even though Senator Padavan very clearly brought
9 to our attention the fact that there are
10 currently a half a million problem gamblers.
11 These are people who are addicted to gambling,
12 as people are sometimes addicted to alcohol, and
13 this might grow to over a million.
14 Even the federal government, the
15 divided federal government, the Republican
16 Congress and the Democratic Congress -- and the
17 Democratic President do not know, which is why
18 they are setting up a federal gambling
19 commission to look into this, to analyze what
20 happened in Mississippi and in Illinois and in
21 New Jersey and in Nevada which, as you know, has
22 the highest suicide rate of any of the 50
23 states, and I don't think that suicide rate is
24 based upon the fact that the Nevadans are
25 fearful that Southern Californians are moving
371
1 into their state in record numbers.
2 There are problems here that we
3 have to address, and we have to analyze, even
4 more adequately than we have over the last 30
5 years. An issue has been raised to trust the
6 people. Each of us are elected officials. We
7 wouldn't be sitting in this chamber if we didn't
8 trust the wisdom of the people in electing us to
9 our positions; but when we say trust the people,
10 we have to ask ourselves, trust the people for
11 what?
12 Do they know who would regulate
13 what will happen? Do they know what the enabling
14 legislation or regulations will be? No, they do
15 not and, as Senator Connor and Senator Gold and
16 Senator Padavan and Senator Waldon have pointed
17 out, New York City with over 40 percent of the
18 population of this state, is not included.
19 Now, all that the mayor of the
20 city of New York wants is the opportunity for
21 New York to be included so that New Yorkers can
22 vote whether they should have this or not have
23 it.
24 So we have the situation where we
25 have all the counties in the state and all 18
372
1 million New Yorkers voting for an amendment that
2 would impact at the most on six or seven
3 counties, when the five counties with the
4 greatest population of the state of New York are
5 not included.
6 Ladies and gentlemen, with the
7 information on hand, with the contradictory data
8 that I have read and with my conscience as a
9 guide, I will have to vote no.
10 Thank you.
11 THE PRESIDENT: Senator Seward.
12 SENATOR SEWARD: Yes, Madam
13 President. I would ask that the Committee on
14 Energy and Telecommunications will be meeting in
15 Room 332 immediately.
16 THE PRESIDENT: There will be an
17 immediate meeting of the Energy and Telecommun
18 ications Committee in Room 332.
19 Senator Abate.
20 SENATOR ABATE: I will attempt to
21 be heard. I will speak as long as my voice
22 endures, but this is such an important issue,
23 and I have such a strong opinion on this issue
24 that I do rise to give a statement.
25 This whole plan is based on the
373
1 assumption that the more casinos we bring to New
2 York State, the more revenue will be produced
3 and the better our economy. If that were true
4 and I wholeheartedly believed it, I might vote
5 for this Constitutional Amendment. However,
6 there's no report, there's no analysis. There's
7 nothing that I've seen first hand to support
8 this notion.
9 To the contrary, what we hear and
10 what I see and what I understand to be the truth
11 is that there is no net gain, that when you look
12 at the potential for economic gain and compare
13 it to the losses that will be incurred, whether
14 it's through the losses occurring in the Quick
15 Draw and other competing gaming, whether it's
16 the racing industry, lottery, if you take away
17 those losses and also add to it the human and
18 social costs to gambling, it is not a win/win
19 for this state. It becomes a lose/lose.
20 And there are a lot of other
21 reasons, and I want to compliment Senator
22 Padavan. He has shown extraordinary leadership,
23 entrepreneurial leadership, in the sense he's
24 done a number of studies. He's been out front
25 on this issue for a long time and I think we
374
1 should look to his studies for guidance on this
2 issue.
3 There are lots and lots of other
4 reasons why this amendment is flawed. One that
5 I want to highlight because others too have
6 highlighted it, is the absence of state control,
7 the absence of any discussion of a control
8 commission so we can assure that organized crime
9 does not infiltrate more within this state, and
10 to ensure there's not a corruption attendant to
11 these casinos.
12 I understand, I think everyone in
13 this chamber are sympathetic to the hotels in
14 the Catskills and the need for additional aid to
15 the Catskills. We should instead be talking in
16 this chamber what can we do for tourism in the
17 state? How can we help the Catskills? What
18 economic incentive plan can we sit down with the
19 hotels in that community to bolster that
20 community in a meaningful long-term way?
21 As I say this about the
22 Catskills, I was part of the Catskill community
23 in the 1960s. I grew up in a community called
24 Margate which is 20 minutes from Atlantic City
25 and during the '60s, and I grew up hearing over
375
1 and over again until I was tired of my parents
2 talking about you should have seen Atlantic City
3 in its heyday, when Atlantic City had wonderful
4 restaurants and hotels, and the beaches were
5 filled with people, and it was an economic hub
6 for the Northeast, and also brought into the
7 argument, we need casino gambling in Atlantic
8 City to keep manufacturing, to bolster our
9 retail, our commercial interests, and to keep
10 Atlantic City alive. Everyone bought into that
11 notion looking for casino gambling to be the
12 salvation, the panacea for that community and
13 many people today have talked about it.
14 The reverse occurred. It is a
15 virtual wasteland. Many of the people I knew
16 who lived in that community moved away. The
17 crime soared. The manufacturing jobs closed.
18 The movies, the restaurants, the small
19 commercial enterprises closed. A few, yes, got
20 rich, and not only did they get rich, a few got
21 very, very rich.
22 The jobs, the money, the entre
23 preneurial spirit left the community and entered
24 some very large buildings. It entered the
25 casinos. The economic activity went within the
376
1 four walls of those casinos and there's nothing
2 in Atlantic City other than those casinos
3 today.
4 So I, too, sympathize, whether
5 it's Niagara Falls or whether we're talking
6 about the Catskills or New York City, we need to
7 do something real in terms of economic
8 development. I just read an article in Times
9 talking about -- Times magazine talking about
10 the economic growth around the country, all the
11 new jobs, meaningful jobs, high paying jobs.
12 We, in the Senate and the
13 leadership from both aisles, need to put
14 together regional task forces with the best
15 minds in this state sharing the experiences
16 around this country, around how other states
17 have done it to attract new industries, to
18 retain jobs, to create new jobs.
19 We should be bringing together
20 the best in business and labor to do that. What
21 we're saying is we don't have the capacity to do
22 that. Well, I think that's ridiculous. We have
23 the capacity to do something for the economy of
24 this state and not give in to the interests of
25 casino gambling to think that's the only way we
377
1 can bring a turn-around to this state to
2 increasing tourism and to increase jobs.
3 So from my limited experience,
4 but it's one where I grew up, I saw a city I
5 loved destroyed. I do not want to see other
6 communities who are relying on casino gambling
7 as their panacea to be totally disappointed, to
8 see their communities destroyed.
9 I want to see what happened to my
10 community not happen to them, and I urge all of
11 you to vote against this amendment.
12 THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator
13 Abate.
14 Senator Volker.
15 SENATOR VOLKER: Madam President,
16 I have a feeling, and I did not hear the vast
17 majority of the debate involved in the negotia
18 tions with the Governor's office, and so forth,
19 but I was listening to the debate here, and I
20 think -- I have to say that I think -- I hope
21 people realize that what you've heard today is
22 not just politics as some of the print media
23 would have you believe, but it is a very serious
24 discussion on an issue that has been around for
25 many, many years and something on which the
378
1 people in this chamber feel extremely strongly.
2 As I laughingly said, that's why, of course,
3 they pay us this incredible salary that they pay
4 us which, by the way, let me point out to the
5 press, we haven't passed a pay raise since 1986
6 and we have to make decisions that affect every
7 person in this state and maybe in this country
8 because I happen to believe that this decision
9 today is much more significant than many of us
10 believe.
11 You know, after my colleague next
12 to me, Senator Padavan, probably I have been the
13 biggest opponent of casino gambling in our
14 conference, and I think those of you who have
15 been around here for a few years know that I
16 have made some rather, shall I say blunt and
17 emotional speeches in our Conference over the
18 years as this house has defeated casino gambling
19 time after time after time over the years. It
20 has happened many times. I once had to make a
21 speech in favor of casino gambling, and I
22 hesitate to tell this story because a colleague
23 of mine from Western New York was running for
24 the Senate and needed -- this was first passage,
25 by the way, keep in mind, first passage -- and
379
1 he wanted it very badly and it was part of his
2 campaign, and I made the pitch that his city
3 would be involved in the casino gambling bill
4 and immediately said "Now that I've spoken for
5 him, let me tell you what I think" and then, you
6 know, made a speech and that, of course, got a
7 lot of laughter from some of the people in the
8 Conference.
9 Let me make it very clear that as
10 the leader of a delegation in Western New York,
11 I realized that it was incumbent upon me when
12 this issue came up several years ago to try to
13 make sure if there was going to be a casino
14 gambling resolution that both Buffalo and
15 Niagara Falls at least were in the mix because I
16 felt and I knew that there were people who felt
17 very strongly about that.
18 We also knew -- and I'm going to
19 touch on that -- what was happening with the
20 Indians. We also knew what was happening with
21 the Canadians and since then, by the way, both
22 of those things have come to fruition with the
23 Indians and the Canadians. The Canadians now
24 have a casino in Niagara Falls, Ontario which,
25 of course, is getting all kinds of publicity
380
1 because in the initial stages it is getting a
2 lot of people and the real test will come this
3 summer, by the way, all that nonsense aside, as
4 far as they're concerned, but let me just say
5 this, what I believe, and I say this and I know
6 I'm going to make mad everybody on both sides
7 because I have a rather low opinion of casinos,
8 and I know some of my friends who support
9 casinos are not going to like it.
10 First of all, let me say that my
11 father voted against the lottery. I wasn't here
12 when the lottery was voted on. It was before I
13 was here. He voted against it. If I had been
14 here, I would have voted against it too, but I
15 want to tell you something. If I were here
16 today I wouldn't because this year, as I
17 understand it, $1.4 billion is going to go to
18 education and unless we can find some way to
19 replace that, we would have a huge problem
20 without the lottery.
21 The reason I'm mentioning that is
22 because one of the interesting issues in casino
23 gambling is we can generate a ton of money from
24 casinos, but if it impacts on the lottery and if
25 it impacts on the tracks and if it impacts on
381
1 OTB, we could end up easily as losers and trying
2 to figure out how to shift some money in the
3 budget over education, which gets such a huge
4 amount of money to start with, and that's one of
5 the factors that I want to put into place but,
6 my colleagues, I believe, and you can debate
7 this if you want, this issue would not even be
8 on the floor of this Senate today if it wasn't
9 for one event that occurred a few years ago.
10 I remember one time Senator
11 Padavan and I were sitting in the conference
12 room years ago after we had finished the session
13 and casino gambling was defeated the last time,
14 and I said, "You know, I wonder how those people
15 are going to figure a way to get around this
16 Senate because we are the biggest stumbling
17 block to casino gambling in the Northeast.
18 There's got to be some way", and I'll admit to
19 you that I mentioned some people who I used to
20 deal with somewhat when I was a police officer
21 who always lurk around casino gambling -- and
22 don't ever kid yourself that there isn't any mob
23 involvement. If anybody believes that there
24 isn't any in Atlantic City and Las Vegas and -
25 well, I won't mention some of the other casinos,
382
1 but you can be sure, unfortunately, that's not
2 true.
3 Without the Indian Gaming Act -
4 and when I saw that, I said, "Christ, this is
5 it" -- excuse me for -- "this is how it's going
6 to happen. This is how they're going to get
7 around us." If you think for a moment that if
8 we vote down this resolution today that that
9 votes down casino gambling, that would be
10 great. I doubt, by the way, if there were a
11 vote in this house straight out on casino
12 gambling that it wouldn't get a lot of votes. I
13 can tell you how many I think it would get
14 because I have a pretty good idea what it would
15 get. It wouldn't get much. If we could in this
16 house kill casino gambling today, I think we'd
17 vote it down.
18 The fortunate part of it is, do
19 you know since 1995 when we passed the first
20 resolution, first passage -- and I had a
21 conversation with the Majority Leader at that
22 time, and I don't think he minds my giving this
23 privileged communication because it wasn't
24 exactly privileged -- we both talked about what
25 should be done and why he was doing it in '95
383
1 because it didn't have to be done then, because
2 it didn't have to be passed at that time. We
3 could wait another year. His logic related to
4 the movement of Indian casinos, in particular,
5 and the fact that there were other people around
6 who are lurking in this Capitol today -- not
7 lurking but are around this Capitol today -- who
8 are opposing this resolution, by the way, big
9 casino people. That's the different kind of
10 thing here, and he felt if he did it early,
11 first of all, he would get the issue out of the
12 way and secondly he would hold in place a lot of
13 those people who wanted to move other casino
14 interests, number one, out of New York, that is,
15 money out of New York and, number two, would
16 hold the Indian gambling interests in abeyance.
17 By the way, he was absolutely
18 right. There has not been a new Indian casino
19 seriously proposed since the amendment passed in
20 '95, not seriously except in Buffalo and that
21 -- the fellow who was the lawyer for that, by
22 the way, I had a nice chat with him. He's a
23 friend of mine, and I said, "If this is going to
24 happen, I want you to know, so that you're
25 prepared, I may lead the lawsuit against it
384
1 because the last thing in the world we need is
2 for casinos to happen that way. If they have to
3 happen, they should be state run."
4 So that everybody understands, by
5 the way, I hope, that Indian casinos do not
6 benefit tribes. They really benefit individual
7 entrepreneurs. I mean, if you think that,
8 you're really wrong. It's not the way it
9 works. The trouble is, I happen to believe -
10 and I thought about this long and hard, and this
11 is not just politics to me. This is very, very
12 personal because there are a lot of people who
13 are very close friends of mine in law
14 enforcement, in the churches -- in fact, I had a
15 nice chat with the bishop -- Bishop Mansell, who
16 is the bishop of Buffalo -- Friday. We had a
17 nice chat. I said, "Bishop, the ironic part of
18 this is that you're in the same position with
19 the Christian Coalition, the Conservative Party,
20 Donald Trump, Indian gambling interests, the
21 Canadian gambling interests, some guy around
22 here who supposedly has a $20 million interest
23 in casinos is running around lobbying against
24 us." We're not even sure -- I've been told by a
25 number of people who he is -- who, of course,
385
1 doesn't want this resolution because, of course,
2 all these people feel as if they'll be adversely
3 impacted by it. So I thought about, what do we
4 do? What does New York do to deal with this
5 issue, because I know that there are still
6 people representing these Indians who are ready
7 and still willing to try to put more casinos in
8 this state, and the answer is there's probably
9 only one real way to send that message and to,
10 in effect, either deter or slow down lotteries
11 -- or casinos, and that is for the people of
12 the state of New York to go out to the polls and
13 defeat it.
14 Do you know the impact of that on
15 casinos across this country if a major state
16 like New York has a vote on casinos and votes it
17 down? It would be enormous, and my colleagues,
18 very honestly, as much -- and I've heard this
19 silver bullet theory about casinos in Buffalo
20 and there's a lot of businessmen who are
21 convinced of this, the silver bullet theory that
22 you put a casino in and everything's going to be
23 wonderful, and for the short time, by the way, I
24 think it'll help and in Niagara Falls -- and, by
25 the way, if you put one in Niagara Falls
386
1 opposite the casino in Niagara Falls, Ontario,
2 they'll compete with each other for a couple of
3 years and they'll kill each other, in effect.
4 In my opinion, that's what will happen, but it
5 seems to me that this is truly an issue -- and
6 I'm not one of those people that believes
7 necessarily in initiative and referendum and the
8 farce of California with its 250 propositions
9 which no one could possibly pay any attention
10 to, but I want you to know if this resolution
11 gets on the ballot, people are going to pay
12 attention to this one, and if you think for a
13 moment that all the money is going to be on the
14 side of casinos, think again because there are a
15 lot of people opposing this who are willing to
16 spend a good deal of money because they're
17 worried about their own business interests, but
18 in the long haul it seems to me that -- and the
19 only saying I say to my compadre here, Senator,
20 what do I know?
21 All I know is that I do not
22 believe in the long haul in casinos. I do not
23 believe that it's a good idea. My personal
24 opinion is if it's got to be done, then it
25 should be done by state run casinos so it's
387
1 strictly overseen, but I still think it's a bad
2 idea, but I also believe that if we are going to
3 really deter and to maybe stop casinos in this
4 state, the only way to do it is to go to the
5 polls and have the voters do it. If anybody in
6 this chamber really believes that this issue is
7 going to die if it's defeated today, I'm sorry.
8 I just don't see it that way.
9 I know the Majority Leader and
10 our conference has determined that this issue is
11 going to -- is going to die and we're going to
12 do the best we can.
13 By the way, on a New York City
14 issue, I think we all realize and Al certainly
15 has been a big proponent and his predecessor was
16 a big proponent, and so forth, but the reason
17 that New York City is not in this is because the
18 New York City people as a general rule didn't
19 want it. Of course, they could have been in
20 it. They didn't really want it. The mayor made
21 it very clear he wanted no part of it and the
22 Speaker didn't want it. That's why they're not
23 in the bill. It's not as if somebody just
24 decided to do this without New York City. Of
25 course, the problem is if you're going to vote
388
1 statewide without New York City in there, it's
2 going to be a problem. It really is, and I know
3 that.
4 It's another reason why I think
5 if you are truly going to deal with this issue,
6 the way to deal with it is to put it on the
7 ballot, let the people vote for it and let a lot
8 of us campaign against it.
9 THE PRESIDENT: Thank you,
10 Senator Volker.
11 Senator Cook.
12 SENATOR COOK: Madam President,
13 can I announce an immediate meeting of the
14 Education Committee in the Majority Conference
15 Room.
16 Thank you.
17 THE PRESIDENT: There is an
18 immediate meeting of the Education Committee in
19 the Majority Conference Room.
20 Senator Mendez.
21 SENATOR MENDEZ: Madam President,
22 I rise to speak against allowing the voters in
23 New York State to decide whether or not we
24 should have casino gambling in this great state
25 of ours.
389
1 I know that strong arguments both
2 for and against the issue has been stated here,
3 and I am more than anything else concerned with
4 the social issues surrounding gambling.
5 Statistics show that from the
6 year 1992 to 1994, crime increased 640 percent
7 in Foxwood and about the third year that casinos
8 had been in operation in Atlantic City, the
9 crime increased three times over. So that there
10 are some social maladies that could, in fact,
11 become a general rule in our state if we do go
12 for casino gambling.
13 I am very happy that the
14 referendum, if it gets to the voters in
15 November, will not have New York City. The
16 reason why most people from New York City do not
17 want casinos there is because we all know that
18 it would be so close to people that shouldn't be
19 gambling, they would be gambling. Secondly, the
20 services in terms of police protection would be
21 increased tremendously and the City could not
22 handle it. Prostitution would be all over the
23 place, and these are the kinds of things that do
24 occur as a by-product of casino gambling.
25 I understand that the situation
390
1 has been changed nowadays. I remember very well
2 the first time here in the Senate that the issue
3 came, and I have consistently voted against it.
4 That time the push was to have it in the city of
5 New York and after the situation had changed
6 because we know that we have over, let's say 1.7
7 million people -- New Yorkers -- who take their
8 buses to go to Atlantic City or to Foxwood or to
9 any other casino in Connecticut. So should a
10 public policy be one of saying, Look, since
11 these people are gamblers and they're going to
12 gamble anyhow, let's put the casinos there so
13 they will be closer to them so they would keep
14 gambling? Should we do that as a public
15 policy? It's the same thing like if a person is
16 suffering from a terminal disease and that
17 person in desperation because of pain says, "I
18 want to die. I want to die." Should we go and
19 say, "You want to die? Boom! Boom! Boom!"
20 and please her? So there is an element of
21 personal responsibility when we establish social
22 policy, governmental policy.
23 I truly believe, Madam President,
24 that if we institute gambling in New York State,
25 we will be gambling with the social fabric of
391
1 people residing in our state.
2 So, therefore, this kind of
3 situation, this Senate that has traditionally
4 voted down every single instance the idea of
5 establishing a casino gambling in the state of
6 New York should keep on that marvelous record
7 and vote this one down.
8 Thank you, Madam President.
9 THE PRESIDENT: Thank you,
10 Senator Mendez.
11 Senator Hoffmann.
12 SENATOR HOFFMANN: Thank you,
13 Madam President.
14 I'm pleased that I have the
15 opportunity to speak after Senator Padavan's
16 excellent arguments in opposition to this
17 resolution, and I'm also pleased to have the
18 opportunity to speak after Senator Volker's very
19 insightful analysis of the procedures and the
20 politics that govern a lot of our decisions
21 here. I'm not sure if Senator Volker had
22 realized that he was providing a virtual primer
23 in how policy is formulated in New York State
24 government, but I do hope those in the gallery
25 and those listening on the boxes and certainly
392
1 members of the press were taking careful note
2 because Senator Volker really did characterize
3 the worst of our policy procedures in this
4 place.
5 The only thing that he really
6 left out that I would just want to add for the
7 record, we are talking today about a resolution
8 initially passed 18 months ago tomorrow and
9 we're discussing it -- many members are
10 discussing it as though it was considered in
11 some significant fashion prior to coming for
12 that initial vote.
13 Let me just state again for the
14 record that that measure was drafted and put on
15 our desks as a finished product with virtually
16 no opportunity for most of the members of the
17 New York State Senate to review in advance. It
18 had only four or five hours in print form for us
19 to see.
20 So as Senator Volker
21 characterizes negotiations, it's important for
22 the people of this state to understand that
23 negotiations are generally private, somewhat
24 secretive and they are governed by people who
25 wield political power in this state, those
393
1 elected and those unelected, such as the people
2 who are lobbying on both sides of this issue
3 right now, but please remember that many of us
4 were forced to vote virtually in a vacuum,
5 including some members who had had no prior
6 experience with the issue of casino gambling,
7 and the record was quite clear and the press did
8 a scathing review of some arm twisting on the
9 other side of the aisle that occurred in that
10 initial passage.
11 It's nice today to hear the
12 Majority Leader of this august body, Senator
13 Bruno, state that people are free to vote their
14 own conscience. Oh, if we would be free to vote
15 our own conscience all the time. It hardly
16 seems like it should be major news, but if the
17 record is clear that we are voting our own
18 conscience today, then I would like to just
19 offer a little bit of anecdotal information as
20 one member who has lived with casino gambling
21 and kind of gone through a whole exploratory,
22 then discovery process over the last couple of
23 years.
24 For the first eight years of my
25 tenure, I represented the town of Oneida -
394
1 excuse me -- the town of Verona in Oneida County
2 and at that time and today I still represent the
3 city of Oneida in Madison County. Now, let's
4 not be too confused about that. The important
5 distinction here is that the Oneida Indian
6 Nation of New York State has its nation lands,
7 its sovereign lands, a paltry 32 acres -- all
8 they are left with after some unscrupulous land
9 deals 150 years ago -- they have their 32-acre
10 reserve or nation lands in Madison County. Just
11 over the county line in Oneida County in the
12 town of Verona is the famous Turning Stone
13 Casino, and I have watched and experienced some
14 of the discussion and seen what happened as this
15 Turning Stone Casino came into being.
16 Initially there was a great
17 flurry of excitement among the people in Oneida
18 County and particularly in the town of Verona
19 where the casino was to be located, anticipation
20 of great economic impact, a wonderful spin-off,
21 economic development, the expectation that there
22 would be full hotels and lots of people buying,
23 shopping, dining, staying overnight and
24 otherwise stimulating the county in an area
25 where the economy had been badly hurt by the
395
1 loss of an Air Force base, by the loss of major
2 manufacturing jobs and a difficult, extremely
3 difficult economy in which to make a living.
4 Now that the Turning Stone Casino
5 has been in operation for several years, there
6 are a few indisputable facts that are quite
7 clear. The casino has, in fact, been very good
8 for one type of business in particular, and that
9 is the law business because there are so many
10 people entering bankruptcy or encountering
11 divorce proceedings as a result of gambling
12 behavior that the legal community in Madison
13 County and Oneida County and further away even
14 in Onondaga County has seen a marked increase in
15 gambling-related activities.
16 I believe Senator Padavan also
17 made reference to some of the other sad personal
18 aspects that have sometimes fallen to people who
19 went down on their luck, looked to some of the
20 most terrible choices to end the dilemma from
21 which they believe that there is no escape.
22 If it's not terribly good for the
23 economy, why is this particular casino and the
24 entire concept of Indian gaming being used as an
25 illustration or an example of why the rest of
396
1 the state should get into it? We have seen no
2 clear evidence that there's anything terribly
3 positive from the Turning Stone Casino to
4 benefit the rest of the region. Why then would
5 we suddenly be looking at ways to spread this
6 type of activity across the state?
7 I think that there really has to
8 be a much more thorough analysis of what casinos
9 do to a community, how they change and shape the
10 social fabric.
11 Yes, as Senator Abate describes,
12 some of us have a personal experience with a
13 community that goes wholesale into casino
14 operation and her eloquent recounting of what
15 happened in Atlantic City has been documented by
16 the media in many other situations.
17 In fact, I recall reading a very
18 detailed analysis a couple of years ago
19 describing how the minority community living in
20 Atlantic City had been particularly hard hit
21 because of the sudden change in the economic
22 climate there, the increased cost of housing.
23 People who were poor before became poorer after
24 the casino operations entered Atlantic City.
25 When I spoke on the floor 18
397
1 months ago tomorrow on this issue, I voiced my
2 objections largely on the procedural matter, the
3 fact that we had not had time to review, that
4 this was a document crafted once again in
5 secrecy, and I also voiced my reservations on
6 the fact that it omitted from even taking part
7 in this opportunity that huge area of Central
8 New York. Clearly, for my constituents, there
9 would have to be something seen as a net loss.
10 If Turning Stone is the only show in town, then
11 hopefully some limited amount of economic
12 opportunity might inure from it some place, but
13 if you suddenly have competition to the west in
14 the Niagara Frontier, to the south in the
15 Catskills, to the north in the Adirondacks, then
16 some of the people who are going to Turning
17 Stone possibly buying gas some place along the
18 way, maybe stopping for dinner on their way to
19 or from the location would, in fact, no longer
20 have the incentive to go there.
21 So there is a potential job loss
22 for some of the people employed in Turning Stone
23 Casino, and I felt that I needed to enter that
24 into the record, but I must say that in these 18
25 months, I have an entirely different view on the
398
1 whole subject of gambling itself, and I think
2 it's only fair to put on the record how I have
3 seen gambling change the character of some of my
4 constituents. I have watched people become
5 angry with Native Americans with whom they once
6 enjoyed a warm, personal relationship or enjoyed
7 a sense of mutual respect.
8 I would hope that we would
9 analyze the entire Indian gambling compact as a
10 separate issue at another time, and I and the
11 Governor of this state, along with one or two
12 other members of this house, have publicly
13 stated that this compact negotiated between
14 Mario Cuomo and a representative of the Oneida,
15 New York Nation is quite possibly invalid and
16 should be examined by the courts much as other
17 states have examined and seen their compacts
18 thrown out.
19 Now, one of those states is New
20 Mexico, and I have journeyed to New Mexico
21 several times in the last year to see their
22 operation and specifically to monitor the
23 process of the Indian gaming expansion in that
24 state.
25 In that state, I watched casinos
399
1 jump up along the highway -- it's a north-south
2 corridor that runs up and down the state of New
3 Mexico with Indian Pueblos on either side. They
4 are a sovereign nation as much as our six
5 nations in the Iroquois Confederacy exist east
6 and west across New York State, but many of the
7 Pueblos opted to utilize a compact now ruled
8 illegal but they have utilized their compact and
9 put together casinos in a string across the
10 state making casinos very accessible for
11 virtually any resident of the state of New
12 Mexico, and I watched the initial flurry of
13 excitement when these casinos opened and I saw
14 people just like those of us in this room, just
15 like our constituents going to spend an
16 afternoon or an evening doing a little bit of
17 gambling.
18 A few months later I observed
19 some of those same people going to do a little
20 bit of gambling on a Sunday evening and not
21 coming home until dawn and not coming home with
22 the ability to pay the mortgage or the rent that
23 was expected of them, and then a few months
24 later there were situations which floored me,
25 but I saw them happening where people would go
400
1 to visit a casino and leave the baby in the car
2 just for a few minutes and come out hours later.
3 Now, many of us have debated in
4 this chamber about whether we can or should
5 enter the idea of legislating morality, and
6 there are people in the gallery who believe very
7 fervently that that isn't one of our higher
8 responsibilities. I don't know if we can
9 legislate morality. I don't know what we can do
10 to shape individual behavior, but the facts are
11 really indisputable that gambling does not
12 enhance the social fiber of a state, can cause
13 severe economic damage to certain areas, has a
14 ripple effect in terms of negative activity that
15 is difficult to measure but becomes costly all
16 across the spectrum in criminal activity,
17 declining employment opportunities, job loss.
18 If we take a good, long look at
19 this particular issue, we have to conclude that
20 there are some moral questions here and while we
21 may not be in the business of legislating
22 morality, we should at least recognize that
23 there is no good purpose served by making casino
24 gambling so accessible that everyone can do it
25 and just drop in leaving the baby in the car.
401
1 We have Atlantic City. We have
2 Las Vegas. There's Foxwoods. There's Turning
3 Stone. There are opportunities for people who
4 want to gamble in casinos to go and do that in
5 this country. They have to plan it a little
6 bit. It has to be premeditated. They have to
7 know and hopefully they do budget appropriately
8 to lose whatever their family can reasonably
9 afford to lose. It becomes a fun experience.
10 It's like going to Broadway. It's like going to
11 Europe. It's like going on a cruise. It's
12 something that you spend money that you can
13 afford to spend engaged in an activity that's
14 pleasurable with no serious economic
15 consequences, but if it is something that is
16 enticing, is too convenient and is suddenly next
17 door everywhere you go, then there is a real
18 risk that people who have a problem with
19 self-control will hurt themselves and will hurt
20 others and will create a societal cost which we
21 must then come back and analyze. I don't think
22 that we want to get into that situation.
23 I think that we owe it to the
24 people of this state to be much more thoughtful
25 on how we analyze this, and I believe that we
402
1 owe it to Native Americans everywhere to not
2 accuse all Indians of promoting gambling. This
3 issue of the gaming compact has torn apart
4 Native American communities in this state and in
5 other states as well.
6 For the record, the casino
7 operation that is run by the New York Oneidas is
8 not run by traditionalists and the other
9 proposals for Indian gaming in New York State
10 come from people who are not traditionalists.
11 They are referred to as the business interests
12 and most of them have a strong outside non
13 Indian force behind them. The traditionalists
14 whose faith keepers still keep alive their
15 traditions on the Onondaga Nation for the entire
16 six-nation confederacy have prophesied for
17 decades that there would be -- come a time at
18 approximately this point in their culture when
19 something terrible would happen to them,
20 something that would really attack their
21 culture, their sovereignty and their history.
22 They didn't have a name for it, but the people
23 who have kept the traditions alive believed that
24 it was something that looked and sounded like
25 gambling.
403
1 So among Native Americans this is
2 a painful time. Yes, there have been great
3 success stories by some of the nations who have
4 entered gambling operations. There have also
5 been terrible tragedies, cases in the far west
6 of Indian casinos that run amok where family
7 members have taken arms against each other
8 because of the enmity caused by casinos.
9 Now, we are not here to debate
10 the future of native gambling -- Native American
11 gambling in this state. That is a subject for
12 another day, but please recognize it is not a
13 good example on which to base the casino
14 gambling activities and the potential for
15 casinos across the rest of this state.
16 Do not cite Turning Stone,
17 please, as something that looks good for New
18 York State, looks good for America or even looks
19 good for Indians because that is truly not the
20 case. There is much more to be learned from
21 that before we are in a position to make a case
22 for wholesale casino gambling across New York
23 State.
24 So I, with great sadness, will
25 vote against expanding this to the rest of the
404
1 state because I always like to support economic
2 development opportunities. I like to support
3 tourism, but this is not the way for us to go.
4 If we are ever going to do something about
5 casinos, we must do it in a much more thoughtful
6 and a much safer way.
7 THE PRESIDENT: Thank you,
8 Senator Hoffmann.
9 Senator Marchi.
10 SENATOR MARCHI: Thank you, Madam
11 President.
12 I believe there's an abundance on
13 the record of statements both for and against
14 which certainly doesn't bring on any sense of
15 embarrassment or shame to those who made the
16 statements because it's not that easily clear
17 cut.
18 I'm glad that Senator Hoffmann
19 brought in the question of we're not dealing
20 with morality but depending on the circum
21 stances, it can become an immoral action if you
22 go overboard. It does not necessarily become
23 one, and she ended with the conclusion that she
24 did.
25 This is the hazard that we face
405
1 when we try to impute to some of these shadow
2 figures such as gambling a mal in se, an evil in
3 and of itself, when it comes to application, and
4 our history is replete with experiences that
5 sometimes have led to great grief.
6 Many years ago we ushered in the
7 Seventeenth Amendment -- or the Eighteenth
8 Amendment on alcohol, that alcohol was an
9 inherently dangerous, addictive -- and I don't
10 know what "addictive" is. If you're addicted to
11 sugar and you're a diabetic, it becomes almost a
12 process of self-abuse unless discipline, as you
13 mentioned, Senator, is exercised, but we adopted
14 the noble experiment and the result was that we
15 had organized crime. There was no organized
16 crime in this country before we got into the
17 noble experiment, and finally when it was
18 repealed, the organized crime remained with us
19 and it's with us today and it's with us on this
20 issue both on one side and the other, and that
21 was on the consumption of alcohol.
22 I remember being in Italy once as
23 a youngster, as a teenager, and I went to a
24 seminar and there were 16-year-old children and
25 they had little cruets of wine on their table,
406
1 which might have been viewed by many people in
2 this country as not quite moral, but there was
3 no abuse and, indeed, the latest statistics that
4 we've had on the subject, the lowest rates of
5 alcoholism in the world are in Italy and
6 Israel. When they came to this country, we
7 started to see a steady march up the grade where
8 people were not quite that different after
9 several generations.
10 So we don't -- we can't draw
11 these hard and fast conclusions. When we go to
12 Off Track Betting and some of the other forms of
13 gambling -- I remember Congressman Fino -- I
14 don't know how many of you remember Congressman
15 Fino, but he promised us that we would have a 25
16 percent drop in income tax if we only adopted, I
17 believe it was Off Track Betting at that time.
18 Well, it turned out to be patently untrue and
19 that element, that type of inducement that was
20 thrown out really didn't do anything.
21 We know that it's not always good
22 policy to make it promiscuously available,
23 gambling, and we're not totally coherent on this
24 because no one is introducing legislation to
25 repeal anything that we've ever done in the past
407
1 on this subject simply because we need the
2 money, I guess, but we haven't started that
3 process, but I submit that what Senator Cook
4 offered here for our consideration -- I think
5 this is the classic case, and maybe we defined a
6 few more areas where we might have chosen to do
7 otherwise on further reflection, but what
8 Senator Cook said, as he described the
9 evolution, the evolution of gambling from being
10 a local exercise by local patrons to families
11 who came in and then coming into these growing
12 palatial hotels to the point now where they are
13 experiencing in the evolution of these host
14 hotels for national conventions -- international
15 conventions that in Sullivan County he finds
16 that there is economic dislocation, a very
17 serious effect on these people and they're
18 losing them out to areas where they do offer,
19 among other recreational factors, the option of
20 some casino gambling.
21 Now, we know that he can't -
22 they said there must be better options. Well,
23 he can't dismantle billions of dollars of
24 infastructure. So suddenly we develop that they
25 can be developing a better way to make widgets.
408
1 It will be a long time and many people will
2 starve to death before that process is
3 completed. So he's not offering us something
4 here, I think, that enters into the classical
5 considerations that we have raised. He's
6 talking about people coming in from around the
7 country and, in fact, around the world to what
8 is now the fulsome development of these large
9 establishments who offer employment now
10 contracting and are threatened with very serious
11 economic dislocations unless they also meet that
12 competition.
13 I don't think it portends nor
14 does it suggest that we will be experiencing any
15 of the dire cataclysmic effects because of the
16 special circumstances that undergird an industry
17 in his county which offers a wide array of
18 alternatives and will continue to do so but
19 become marginalized because of this one item.
20 I think we can vote for this move
21 and not put the state into peril, and I would
22 hope that we can find our way to vote for this
23 because the circumstances are very circumscribed
24 and are addressed to circumstances that are very
25 special and unique in terms of the competition
409
1 and the world in which they live in and draw
2 from.
3 So I hope this prevails, Madam
4 President. It certainly -- no one has suggested
5 anything other than there must be better ways.
6 As I say, you can't destroy billions and bil
7 lions and billions of dollars of infrastructure
8 which is their outcome, which is going to be the
9 inevitable outcome if they are left unable -
10 incapable of competing with other centers around
11 the country and the world.
12 THE PRESIDENT: Thank you,
13 Senator Marchi.
14 Senator Farley.
15 SENATOR FARLEY: Thank you, Madam
16 President.
17 We're over three-quarters of an
18 hour over the two-hour time limit. Bearing that
19 in mind, I'm going to waive my time and explain
20 my vote during the roll call.
21 THE PRESIDENT: Is there anyone
22 else who wishes to speak on the resolution?
23 (There was no response.)
24 On the resolution, the Secretary
25 will call the roll.
410
1 (The Secretary called the roll.)
2 SENATOR PATERSON: Slow roll
3 call, Madam President.
4 THE PRESIDENT: A slow roll call,
5 please.
6 THE SECRETARY: Senator Abate.
7 SENATOR ABATE: No.
8 THE SECRETARY: Senator Alesi.
9 SENATOR ALESI: No.
10 THE SECRETARY: Senator Breslin.
11 SENATOR BRESLIN: No.
12 THE SECRETARY: Senator Bruno.
13 SENATOR BRUNO: No -- I'm sorry
14 -- yes. (Laughter)
15 THE SECRETARY: Senator Connor.
16 SENATOR CONNOR: No.
17 THE SECRETARY: Senator Cook.
18 SENATOR COOK: Yes.
19 THE SECRETARY: Senator
20 DeFrancisco.
21 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
22 THE SECRETARY: Senator
23 Dollinger.
24 SENATOR DOLLINGER: No.
25 THE SECRETARY: Senator Farley.
411
1 THE PRESIDENT: Senator Farley.
2 SENATOR FARLEY: As I was saying,
3 I would like to explain my vote.
4 Early on I have come out against
5 casinos in New York State. I don't think they
6 add anything to our society. As a matter of
7 fact, I think they -- they're a detriment to our
8 society but, you know, this keeps coming before
9 us and has for the 20 years that I have been
10 here, and I presume it will be back again some
11 day and, as far as I'm concerned, I think that
12 we could do a lot better things than have
13 casinos in New York.
14 I was quoted all over the state
15 by saying something about a dog. Basically I
16 said that with this dog comes a lot of fleas,
17 and I believe that, and I think it's something
18 that we do not need, and I'm confident that this
19 resolution is going to be defeated.
20 So, consequently, I urge my
21 colleagues to vote no.
22 THE PRESIDENT: Please continue.
23 THE SECRETARY: Senator Gentile.
24 SENATOR GENTILE: No.
25 THE SECRETARY: Senator Gold.
412
1 SENATOR GOLD: No.
2 THE SECRETARY: Senator Gonzalez.
3 SENATOR GONZALEZ: Yes.
4 THE SECRETARY: Senator Goodman.
5 SENATOR GOODMAN: No.
6 THE SECRETARY: Senator Hannon.
7 (There was no response.)
8 Senator Hoffmann.
9 SENATOR HOFFMANN: No.
10 THE SECRETARY: Senator Holland.
11 SENATOR HOLLAND: No.
12 THE SECRETARY: Senator Johnson.
13 SENATOR JOHNSON: Aye.
14 THE SECRETARY: Senator Kruger.
15 SENATOR KRUGER: No.
16 THE SECRETARY: Senator Kuhl.
17 SENATOR KUHL: Aye.
18 THE SECRETARY: Senator Lachman.
19 SENATOR LACHMAN: No.
20 THE SECRETARY: Senator Lack.
21 SENATOR LACK: No.
22 THE SECRETARY: Senator Larkin.
23 SENATOR LARKIN: Aye.
24 THE SECRETARY: Senator LaValle.
25 SENATOR LAVALLE: No.
413
1 THE SECRETARY: Senator Leibell.
2 SENATOR LEIBELL: Aye.
3 THE SECRETARY: Senator Leichter.
4 SENATOR LEICHTER: Madam
5 President, to explain my vote.
6 I didn't enter and engage in the
7 main debate or reflect the fact that I have been
8 very torn on this issue, and I really didn't
9 have any overwhelming strong feeling about it.
10 I think there are arguments for
11 and against it and, as I've considered them over
12 the past few weeks, I'm torn between my dislike
13 of gambling as a way of raising money and my
14 feeling that, was I just being King Canute
15 telling the tide not to come in because, as has
16 been pointed out, of course, gambling is all
17 around us, but the more I thought about it, the
18 very idea that if gambling as a way of raising
19 money for government is wrong -- and, yes, we
20 have it with the lottery and we have Keno and we
21 have other games, but it's still wrong -- why
22 should we make more of that available?
23 It's really a regressive tax. It
24 creates with it great social ills. There are
25 ways to help communities throughout this state
414
1 like the Catskills without buying into something
2 which is going to add to the social burden of
3 many families, which is going to cause domestic
4 turmoil in many families, which is going to
5 create great problems for communities that have
6 it.
7 It is not in the interest of the
8 state of New York. I feel that quite strongly
9 now and maybe in this instance King Canute will
10 be able to stop the tide.
11 Certainly this house today as
12 this vote is going is able to stop this tide of
13 growing gambling throughout the United States.
14 We will not have legalized gambling or legalized
15 casinos in New York State, and I think in doing
16 so we serve the people of New York.
17 Madam President, I vote in the
18 negative.
19 THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
20 Continue the slow roll call,
21 please.
22 THE SECRETARY: Senator Levy.
23 SENATOR LEVY: No.
24 THE SECRETARY: Senator Libous.
25 SENATOR LIBOUS: Madam President.
415
1 THE PRESIDENT: Senator Libous.
2 SENATOR LIBOUS: May I explain my
3 vote?
4 THE PRESIDENT: Yes, please.
5 SENATOR LIBOUS: I heard the
6 debate go back and forth today. I heard a lot
7 of good points for and against the issue.
8 I've had a very difficult time
9 with this issue. I said to one of the media
10 this week that I can give you ten good reasons
11 why I should support it and ten good reasons why
12 I shouldn't support it.
13 After listening to the debate,
14 thinking about it, sharing concern with our
15 constituents, I think maybe the issue has to be
16 one where we need to really examine what we want
17 for economic development in the state, whether
18 casinos are the way we want to go or maybe the
19 way we want to go is to continue cutting taxes,
20 generating good jobs, manufacturing jobs, high
21 technology jobs.
22 You know, I said to a reporter
23 the other day, my son is in his second year at
24 SUNY-Albany and my goal is hopefully that he'll
25 come back, maybe even come back home to Broome
416
1 County and get a good job or at least stay in
2 New York State. I'm not sure I want him to come
3 back to New York State and say that he's a
4 blackjack dealer in a casino. I'd rather him
5 say that he has a good job.
6 At the same time, I recognize
7 that when this resolution was drafted that we
8 have racetracks in this state that are hurting
9 and maybe the real issue is to look at that
10 entire system. Why is it that racetrack -
11 racing is successful in other states but it's
12 dying in New York? I'm not so sure that putting
13 slot machines in every one of those tracks is
14 going to be the simple answer. Maybe the better
15 answer is for us as a body to get together and
16 make some drastic changes to that entire
17 industry so that they can do better and they can
18 compete because they are suffering.
19 As I said when I first stood up,
20 Madam President, this is a very, very difficult
21 vote for me but at this point in time, I have to
22 vote no.
23 THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
24 Continue the slow roll call,
25 please.
417
1 THE SECRETARY: Senator Maltese.
2 SENATOR MALTESE: No.
3 THE SECRETARY: Senator
4 Marcellino.
5 SENATOR MARCELLINO: No.
6 THE SECRETARY: Senator Marchi.
7 (There was no response.)
8 Senator Markowitz.
9 SENATOR MARKOWITZ: To explain my
10 vote briefly.
11 I want to first off say I'm going
12 to be voting against this proposal but, Senator
13 Cook -- Senator Cook, if I can -- I really want
14 to reach out to Senator Cook. The Catskills, to
15 me and for many generations before me and God
16 willing many generations to come, will continue
17 to look at the Catskills as an area that we want
18 to visit, and I would hope that if this legisla
19 tion does not -- is not passed this afternoon,
20 that it should accelerate Governor Pataki, local
21 officials in the Catskills and our Legislature,
22 both the Assembly and the Senate, regardless of
23 where we live in the state of New York, to
24 really focus in on the redevelopment of the
25 Catskills. I think it's important not only for
418
1 the folks in your area, but I think it's
2 important a lot of us that reside in the city of
3 New York will always have a very warm and
4 special feeling about the Catskills, and I for
5 one would love to work with you or anyone else
6 to help with the redevelopment of that precious
7 area of the state of New York.
8 Regretfully, however, on this
9 issue, I vote no.
10 THE PRESIDENT: Continue the slow
11 roll call, please.
12 THE SECRETARY: Senator Maziarz.
13 SENATOR MAZIARZ: No.
14 THE SECRETARY: Senator Meier.
15 SENATOR MEIER: Yes.
16 THE SECRETARY: Senator Mendez.
17 SENATOR MENDEZ: Madam President.
18 THE PRESIDENT: Senator Mendez.
19 SENATOR MENDEZ: Madam President,
20 to explain my vote.
21 The overriding -- the overriding
22 reason why I vote no is because I am totally
23 convinced that casino gambling in New York State
24 will, in fact, destroy the social fabric of the
25 state.
419
1 I vote no.
2 THE PRESIDENT: Continue the slow
3 roll call.
4 THE SECRETARY: Senator
5 Montgomery.
6 SENATOR MONTGOMERY: No.
7 THE SECRETARY: Senator Nanula.
8 SENATOR NANULA: Madam President,
9 to explain my vote.
10 THE PRESIDENT: Senator.
11 SENATOR NANULA: Today there's
12 been much debate and much discourse for and
13 against this issue in regards to the state, in
14 regards to overall policy, but I rise in regards
15 to this issue, very frankly, with a very
16 parochial and provincial dynamic in regards to
17 this issue.
18 Of course, many of us know in
19 this proposed amendment, in this bill the cities
20 of Buffalo and Niagara Falls, New York each are
21 designed to have one casino land-based, and for
22 those of us who don't know, right now as we
23 speak, there is a -- quote-unquote -- temporary
24 casino, a $100-plus million facility that is in
25 operation as we speak in Niagara Falls, Ontario,
420
1 no more than a stone's throw away from Niagara
2 Falls, New York and, very frankly, even if we
3 are to agree with some of those arguments in
4 regards to the woes of casino gaming, our
5 community, Niagara Falls, Buffalo, Western New
6 York is already going to experience that, but
7 let me tell you what we're not going to
8 experience, the $800-plus million in revenue
9 that is projected which I'm already hearing is
10 designed -- or is projected to exceed that
11 amount from this temporary casino in Niagara
12 Falls, Ontario and, by the way, it has been
13 promoted by the Ontario government that this
14 casino is going to derive 80 percent -- 80, 8-0,
15 percent of its revenue from the United States,
16 from specifically a four-hour radius of that
17 area which includes Buffalo, which includes
18 Niagara Falls, which includes other upstate
19 communities. This cannot go unrecognized, and
20 again, I understand some of the arguments. I
21 understand some of the debates, but my issue is
22 a very parochial and a very provincial one.
23 We have now in our midst casino
24 gaming and understand this as well. This is
25 again a temporary casino facility. The
421
1 permanent facility that is being designed is
2 designed to be of a cost somewhere in the range
3 of $1 billion that is going to do several times,
4 of course, what this temporary casino is doing
5 and already exceeding in terms of the actual
6 revenues coming in, the $100 million, by the
7 way, in projected payroll that is going to be
8 drawn from this casino facility.
9 Again, for me as a Senator
10 representing Buffalo and Niagara Falls, having a
11 casino in our midst, this is an issue that can't
12 go unnoticed, and I am stating today for the
13 record that if this amendment -- if this bill is
14 voted down, I plan to introduce a new bill, a
15 bill that would only provide for a casino for
16 the city of Niagara Falls and for the city of
17 Buffalo and hopefully as that bill finds its way
18 onto this floor, it would be my hope if this
19 initiative does not pass today, given the nature
20 of what we're experiencing in Buffalo and in
21 Niagara Falls and the damage that is likely to
22 come from this casino facility already being in
23 our midst, I can have the support of this body.
24 On this bill, I vote aye.
25 THE PRESIDENT: Continue the slow
422
1 roll call, please.
2 THE SECRETARY: Senator Nozzolio.
3 SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Aye.
4 THE SECRETARY: Senator Onorato.
5 SENATOR ONORATO: No.
6 THE SECRETARY: Senator
7 Oppenheimer.
8 SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Explain my
9 vote, please.
10 THE PRESIDENT: Senator
11 Oppenheimer.
12 SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Well, like
13 many people in this chamber, I have been very
14 conflicted by this issue, and I said I was going
15 to quote Ron Stafford who said, "Half of my
16 friends are for this. Half of my friends are
17 against this and I'm for my friends."
18 (Laughter.)
19 If I could also quote what
20 Senator Libous said. I have very serious
21 concerns about racetracks and particularly one
22 that's in Westchester County, and we really have
23 to settle down and figure out a way how we are
24 going to help these racetracks because we are up
25 against a very hard wall now and we have to do
423
1 something, but I don't think this is the
2 "something".
3 I also want to comment on the
4 process that we have gone through with this
5 amendment. I think the amendment is very
6 flawed. I think something could have been done
7 in the one year that went past since we
8 originally passed this amendment. There was a
9 great deal of time for us to look into the
10 enabling legislation and to have defined
11 ourselves better, to have known if some of this
12 money might go to education. That might be a
13 very important factor for us. If we could lay
14 down some strict regulations about the
15 environment in the Catskills so that perhaps we
16 would have even stricter law than the watershed
17 agreement for that area when we put down -- when
18 we created these casinos.
19 As far as the independent
20 regulatory agency, wouldn't we have all liked to
21 have known that that was in place and that there
22 would be some qualified, competent, independent,
23 bipartisan people watching over this operation
24 because we hear from every corner of this
25 country that influences that we may not like in
424
1 this business find their way into the business.
2 So these are things that we could
3 have talked about and that could have been put
4 in enabling legislation and might have given us
5 some more meat, but there is really nothing
6 here. It's bare bones. Excuse the connection
7 there.
8 I find another thing very
9 distressing, and that is the unlimited
10 development that would have been permitted in
11 the Catskills. Perhaps if we had limited it to
12 one, but to have in a watershed area unlimited
13 numbers of casinos, I think can lead to severe
14 damage to our sewer system and to our waters.
15 So I think this is something
16 that, as I said, we are all very -- many of us
17 are conflicted on. The federal government has
18 created a nine-member bipartisan commission to
19 be studying gambling in America and they are
20 going to come back with a report in two years.
21 I think it's wise at the very least for us to
22 wait for that two-year period to be up to see
23 what the results are.
24 I'll be voting no.
25 THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
425
1 Continue the slow roll call,
2 please.
3 THE SECRETARY: Senator Padavan.
4 SENATOR PADAVAN: Madam
5 President.
6 THE PRESIDENT: Senator Padavan.
7 SENATOR PADAVAN: I'm taking this
8 moment to explain my vote. I would like to
9 express my personal gratitude to the Leaders of
10 this house, particularly the Majority Leader, in
11 allowing this debate to come forward in the
12 manner that it was done.
13 I almost wish that every student
14 in the state of New York could be in the
15 galleries today watching what went on here. It
16 was a classic exercise in democracy. People
17 spoke carefully on either side of the issue, and
18 I hope that the media will report this event in
19 that fashion.
20 I vote no.
21 THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
22 Continue the slow roll call,
23 please.
24 THE SECRETARY: Senator Paterson.
25 SENATOR PATERSON: No.
426
1 THE SECRETARY: Senator Present.
2 SENATOR PRESENT: No.
3 THE SECRETARY: Senator Rath.
4 SENATOR RATH: No.
5 THE SECRETARY: Senator Rosado.
6 SENATOR ROSADO: No.
7 THE SECRETARY: Senator Saland.
8 SENATOR SALAND: No.
9 THE SECRETARY: Senator Sampson.
10 SENATOR SAMPSON: No.
11 THE SECRETARY: Senator Santiago.
12 SENATOR SANTIAGO: No.
13 THE SECRETARY: Senator Seabrook.
14 SENATOR SEABROOK: No.
15 THE SECRETARY: Senator Seward.
16 SENATOR SEWARD: Madam President,
17 to explain my vote.
18 Madam President, we have had a
19 very lengthy debate on this issue this
20 afternoon. Many points both pro and con have
21 been brought out very eloquently. In fact, the
22 debate concerning casino gambling has been going
23 on for years in the halls of the Capitol and
24 across the state. It seems to me that we need
25 to bring this issue to closure one way or the
427
1 other.
2 I believe the answer is to let
3 the people of this state decide the fate of this
4 issue in an open election with both sides making
5 their case to the electorate of this state, to
6 have the kind of debate we've had today all
7 across this state involving the people of New
8 York.
9 I support letting the voters of
10 the state make the final decision on this
11 constitutional amendment, but I must tell you
12 that if this amendment ever reaches the ballot,
13 I personally will be voting no because I
14 personally do not support the legalization of
15 casino gambling in our state, but I do support
16 letting the people of the state make their own
17 decision and decide their own fate on this
18 issue.
19 So, therefore, Madam President, I
20 vote aye.
21 THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
22 Continue the slow roll call,
23 please.
24 THE SECRETARY: Senator Skelos.
25 SENATOR SKELOS: No.
428
1 THE SECRETARY: Senator Smith,
2 excused.
3 Senator Spano.
4 SENATOR SPANO: Aye.
5 THE SECRETARY: Senator
6 Stachowski.
7 SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Madam
8 President, to explain my vote.
9 THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Senator.
10 SENATOR STACHOWSKI: I suppose at
11 this point I could see the votes and take the
12 easy way out and be on the winning side, but I
13 decided I was going to make up my mind during
14 the debate, and I did, how I'm going to vote on
15 this.
16 I'd first like to say that I
17 don't like casinos. I spent a week in Reno once
18 and never gambled, and I was staying in a casino
19 and I just really don't care for them and that's
20 that, but the fact is in the area that I
21 represent, we have the Niagara Falls, Ontario
22 casino that people are rushing to daily and for
23 those groups that I respect tremendously that
24 are opposed to this, including the Christian
25 Coalition and the Catholic bishops, the fact is
429
1 we already have those problems and we have the
2 potential for those problems to get much greater
3 and whether New York ever does a casino, we are
4 going to have to deal with those problems in the
5 Buffalo area and Western New York.
6 So to base the vote on the fact
7 that those problems are either going to be here
8 or not, I would be burying my head in the sand
9 to say these problems won't exist if I vote no
10 on this bill today. These problems do exist.
11 It would be like me saying people in poor
12 communities in inner cities don't play the
13 numbers. I think that still happens. I checked
14 with some people. They say they still play the
15 numbers.
16 Saying in working communities
17 like I grew up in that people there don't go to
18 bookmakers to bet horses and sporting events,
19 they don't go to OTB, they never go to the
20 racetrack, they don't get on buses in droves
21 grabbing senior citizens and go to Turning Stone
22 -- and now they have a shorter trip because
23 they can go to the Niagara Falls casino -- those
24 people go whether they can afford it or not and
25 they do all those aforementioned things whether
430
1 they can afford it or not.
2 So all of those things are there
3 and the resultant divorces that won't happen if
4 we don't vote for this bill, those gamblers are
5 going to find a place to gamble and if that's
6 the reason for the divorce, those divorces are
7 going to happen. So to say that those things
8 aren't going to happen if we don't vote for this
9 bill, that's not reality, at least not in the
10 community that I grew up in.
11 In my area, I don't know about a
12 lot of proposals, but I know that the mayor of
13 the city of Buffalo, who I happen to know quite
14 well, had at least one presentation that would
15 give him if he got his casino a tourism piece
16 that would take -- that would fit into downtown
17 Buffalo and fill in an area of somewhat empty
18 buildings now. There's no businesses in them
19 because all the retail has left to the suburbs
20 and probably some of the offices that were
21 located up above, those businesses that are
22 gone, they've located in IDAs and they attract
23 now office buildings because that's the new IDA
24 practice. Let's take the offices out of the
25 cities because they can't have them park for
431
1 free and we can put surface parking and take
2 those offices in new IDA office buildings -
3 which isn't exactly what I thought that law was
4 for but that's what we're using it for in some
5 communities -- and that would fill in that area
6 and now downtown Buffalo, for example, would
7 have a piece that would fit in in the
8 entertainment package and the tourism package
9 that they present, to fill in what is now empty
10 between the theatre community and the sporting
11 venues. It made a lot of sense to me. The
12 mayor made a big plea and said this is not going
13 to be the economic generator for Buffalo but it
14 would help with the tourism package.
15 Listening to that pitch again
16 today reminded me that I heard it before. The
17 fact that all those woes are still there and
18 hearing people talk about it today in the debate
19 wasn't that they don't believe that those things
20 would get greater. It's just that they believed
21 that -- it seemed to me that I was getting the
22 impression that some of the people believed
23 those things won't happen if we don't pass this
24 bill, and the fact is that in a community like
25 mine where there's a casino just over the
432
1 border, where the thing is that they ask you,
2 "Where were you born?" "United States."
3 Boom! You're across the border and you're there
4 to gamble, if that's what your intention is.
5 So the fact is those things are
6 going to take place in my community. I can't
7 speak for the people that don't have a casino
8 right within a stone's throw, but I do, and I
9 know that the local harness track does believe
10 and based on numbers that you see in tracks that
11 have slot machines or video display machines,
12 they do help attendance, and I don't think those
13 changes that were mentioned that we should do
14 for the harness industry which were mentioned
15 time and time again in the years I've been here,
16 we've never done those changes to help that
17 industry do better. So to think that that's
18 going to happen now, I think that's a little
19 nuts too. The fact is that this is a way that
20 we could help those harness tracks also.
21 So with all those things in mind
22 and the fact that all that money is going out of
23 Western New York now to Canada, I vote aye.
24 THE PRESIDENT: Continue the slow
25 roll call, please.
433
1 THE SECRETARY: Senator Stafford.
2 SENATOR STAFFORD: Aye.
3 THE SECRETARY: Senator Stavisky.
4 SENATOR STAVISKY: No.
5 THE SECRETARY: Senator Trunzo.
6 SENATOR TRUNZO: Yes.
7 THE SECRETARY: Senator Tully.
8 SENATOR TULLY: No.
9 THE SECRETARY: Senator Velella.
10 SENATOR VELELLA: (Affirmative
11 indication.)
12 THE SECRETARY: Senator Volker.
13 SENATOR VOLKER: Yes.
14 THE SECRETARY: Senator Waldon.
15 THE PRESIDENT: Senator Waldon.
16 SENATOR WALDON: Madam President,
17 to explain my vote.
18 I had a good experience here
19 today. I truly saw the leadership of this
20 house, both Majority and Minority Leader do what
21 was righteous. Those of us who work in a place
22 like this understand that the Leader can
23 exercise certain power, pressure, but on this
24 issue on both sides of the aisle, it's very
25 apparent from the vote that we were released to
434
1 vote our conscience.
2 Today I saw in its purest form
3 perhaps since I have been here in these seven
4 years democracy in the Senate and for that, I
5 applaud Joe Bruno. I applaud Marty Connor. I'm
6 privileged to serve in this house.
7 I vote no.
8 THE PRESIDENT: Continue the slow
9 roll call, please.
10 THE SECRETARY: Senator Wright.
11 SENATOR WRIGHT: No.
12 THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
13 will call the absentees.
14 THE SECRETARY: Senator Hannon.
15 SENATOR HANNON: No.
16 THE SECRETARY: Senator Marchi.
17 SENATOR MARCHI: Aye.
18 THE PRESIDENT: Announce the
19 results, please.
20 THE SECRETARY: Ayes 19, nays
21 41.
22 THE PRESIDENT: The resolution is
23 defeated.
24 Senator Bruno.
25 SENATOR BRUNO: Madam President,
435
1 I want to thank my colleagues for the dialogue,
2 the discussion, the debate and this chamber has
3 now spoken on this issue and as I had indicated
4 as we opened debate, if this resolution were to
5 fail, it would fail for this legislative
6 session.
7 It's my understanding since this
8 is in the form of a resolution that this vote
9 stays in this chamber for three days and
10 according to the rules of the Senate, during
11 those three days, this can be recalled for
12 reconsideration one time before this issue is
13 truly out of this house.
14 So, Madam President, I move now
15 to reconsider the vote by which Senate
16 Resolution 762 was lost.
17 THE PRESIDENT: A no vote on the
18 motion to reconsider the vote confirms the
19 previous no vote.
20 The Secretary will call the roll
21 on reconsideration.
22 (The Secretary called the roll on
23 reconsideration.)
24 THE SECRETARY: Ayes 60.
25 SENATOR BRUNO: And, Madam
436
1 President, a no vote on the resolution for
2 reconsideration will kill this motion to
3 reconsider, and I would move that the same vote
4 be taken on reconsideration as was taken on the
5 previous resolution.
6 THE PRESIDENT: Without
7 objection, record the same vote.
8 SENATOR BRUNO: Thank you, Madam
9 President. Thank you.
10 THE PRESIDENT: Senator Bruno,
11 that completes the controversial reading of the
12 calendar.
13 Senator Bruno.
14 SENATOR BRUNO: Madam President,
15 is there another issue to come before the
16 house?
17 THE PRESIDENT: Yes, one more
18 bill.
19 SENATOR BRUNO: Can we take it up
20 at this time, Madam President?
21 THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
22 section, please.
23 SENATOR BRUNO: Thank you.
24 THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
25 will read.
437
1 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
2 45, by Senator DeFrancisco, Senate Print 484, an
3 act to amend the Civil Practice Law and Rules,
4 in relation to privileged information.
5 SENATOR LEICHTER: Madam
6 President, if Senator DeFrancisco -
7 THE PRESIDENT: Senator Leichter
8 -- order, please.
9 SENATOR LEICHTER: Senator, I
10 know you and I have been waiting all afternoon
11 to get these housekeeping things out of the way
12 so we could really get to work on something of
13 great interest and significance, like your bill,
14 but in all seriousness, this does raise some -
15 for me at least some troubling issues.
16 What Senator DeFrancisco does is
17 to provide, as I understand it -- you may then
18 wish to correct me -- but as I understand it,
19 provides an exception to the confidentiality
20 that we accord to doctors and other health care
21 professionals in the instance of drug use or
22 alcoholism in civil cases where the issue of the
23 drug use or the alcohol use might be an issue in
24 the case and where a prima facie case has been
25 made that such use, such alcoholism or such drug
438
1 use occurred, and I'm really trying to under
2 stand why we want to breach that confidentiality
3 in -
4 THE PRESIDENT: Can we have some
5 quiet, please, so we can hear Senator Leichter.
6 SENATOR LEICHTER: -- this
7 particular instance, Senator DeFrancisco.
8 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: What's the
9 need for it?
10 SENATOR LEICHTER: Why are we
11 doing this in this particular instance because
12 -- and I just want to mention, and I think
13 you'll agree with me, the reason that we have
14 this confidentiality is we want people to be
15 free to discourse with their doctors, tell them
16 what their ailments are, their conditions are,
17 their problems are, even their addiction and
18 wouldn't under this bill, somebody goes to his
19 doctor and says, you know, "I'm an alcoholic.
20 Last night I drank two bottles of gin." If that
21 becomes an issue in a lawsuit, that
22 confidentiality now can be breached. The doctor
23 could be forced to testify on that conversation.
24 THE PRESIDENT: Senator
25 DeFrancisco.
439
1 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: This isn't
2 a bill that would broadly open up records of any
3 individual who was involved in a civil lawsuit.
4 First of all, it relates to a
5 specific civil action and where an issue of
6 whether the individual was intoxicated or acting
7 under the influence of drugs at the time of the
8 act which is the basis of the civil lawsuit.
9 What brought it to my attention
10 is situations where there would be automobile
11 accidents and someone charged with driving while
12 intoxicated would be in a position not to
13 disclose the fact that at the accident he was -
14 a Breathalyzer test was taken at the hospital -
15 not a Breathalyzer but a blood test was taken at
16 the hospital and it's clearly relevant if this
17 act or occurrence -- that whether the person was
18 intoxicated or not to determine negligence or
19 not. So it's not a broad event where since
20 there's an act that a civil lawsuit surrounds -
21 it's dealing with, that all of a sudden all your
22 records are opened up. It's a specific record
23 at the time of the incident which results in a
24 civil action.
25 THE PRESIDENT: Senator Leichter.
440
1 SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
2 if I could just interrupt for a moment.
3 THE PRESIDENT: Senator Skelos.
4 SENATOR SKELOS: Would you please
5 recognize Senator Levy.
6 THE PRESIDENT: Senator Levy.
7 SENATOR LEVY: I apologize to
8 Senator Leichter and Senator DeFrancisco. There
9 will be an immediate meeting of the Senate
10 Transportation Committee in the Senate
11 Republican Conference Room. Excuse me for
12 interrupting.
13 THE PRESIDENT: There will be an
14 immediate meeting of the Transportation
15 Committee in the Senate Conference Room.
16 Continue, Senator Leichter.
17 SENATOR LEICHTER: If Senator
18 DeFrancisco would continue to yield. Wouldn't
19 it be possible to write a bill that provides
20 that the results of a blood test or Breathalyzer
21 would be made available under the circumstances
22 provided in your bill?
23 Your bill, unfortunately, I think
24 is a lot broader. So somebody that goes to a
25 doctor and says, you know, Doctor, I have a real
441
1 problem with drinking and last night I drank a
2 lot and I was in an accident, and so on, in that
3 instance, as I read that bill, that information
4 could be disclosed, and I just think that we
5 ought to keep in mind the main reason for the
6 privilege, which is that we want people to speak
7 freely to their health provider, to their doctor
8 and since we want them to feel free if they're
9 talking to their priest or to their rabbi. If
10 you limited the bill just to the blood test and
11 the Breathalyzer, I would have no problem, but I
12 think your bill is drafted more broadly than
13 that and that's the difficulty I have.
14 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: I
15 understand, but I think the same rationale would
16 apply, if there's a civil action, someone's
17 charging someone with an assault and seeking
18 damage for injuries, I would think under those
19 circumstances if there was a hospitalization and
20 a determination whether or not the individual
21 was intoxicated at the time would be relevant in
22 that lawsuit as well or whether they were on
23 drugs at the time. So I think it is -- even
24 though it was brought to my attention because of
25 a ruling in the Dillenbeck case, I just think
442
1 the logic behind it calls for an expanded bill.
2 SENATOR LEICHTER: Thank you.
3 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Is there
4 any other Senator wishing to speak on the bill?
5 (There was no response.)
6 Hearing none, the Secretary will
7 read the last section.
8 THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
9 act shall take effect immediately.
10 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the
11 roll.
12 (The Secretary called the roll.)
13 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Announce
14 the results when tabulated.
15 THE SECRETARY: Ayes 59, nays 1,
16 Senator Leichter recorded in the negative.
17 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill
18 is passed.
19 Senator Skelos.
20 SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President,
21 if we could return to reports of standing
22 committees, I believe there's a report of the
23 Education Committee at the desk. I ask that it
24 be read.
25 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: We'll
443
1 return to the order of standing committees.
2 The Secretary will read the
3 reports.
4 THE SECRETARY: Senator Hannon,
5 from the Committee on Health, offers up the
6 following bills:
7 Senate Print 324, by Senator
8 Johnson, an act to amend the Public Health Law
9 and the Penal Law;
10 336, by Senator Skelos, an act to
11 amend the Public Health Law, the Criminal
12 Procedure Law and the Family Court Act;
13 1436, by Senator Hannon, an act
14 to enact the Continuing Care Partnership
15 Demonstration Act of 1997;
16 1437, Hannon, an act to amend the
17 Public Health Law, in relation to disposition of
18 human remains.
19 Senator Cook, from the Committee
20 on Education, offers up the following bills:
21 Senate Print 179, by Senator
22 Skelos, an act to authorize the payment of
23 transportation aid to the Baldwin Union Free
24 School District;
25 305, by Senator Stafford, an act
444
1 to legalize, ratify and confirm the acts and
2 proceedings of the Board of Education for Bolton
3 Central School District;
4 506, by Senator Marchi, an act to
5 amend the Education Law, in relation to the
6 establishment of a Staten Island Borough School
7 District;
8 731, by Senator Wright, an act to
9 legalize, ratify and confirm the acts and
10 proceedings of the Board of Education of the
11 Mexico Central School District.
12 Senator Seward, from the
13 Committee on Energy, offers up the following
14 bills: Senate Print 375, by Senator Seward, an
15 act to amend the Public Service Law, in relation
16 to removal of telephonic blocks to certain area
17 codes;
18 377, by Senator Seward, an act to
19 amend the Public Service Law, in relation to
20 telephone blocking services;
21 398, by Senator Seward, an act to
22 amend the Public Service Law, in relation to
23 restricting access to telephone messages.
24 Senator Marcellino, from the
25 Committee on Environmental Conservation, offers
445
1 up the following bills: Senate Print 121, by
2 Senator Stafford, an act to amend the
3 Environmental Conservation Law, in relation to
4 non-hazardous landfill;
5 124, by Senator Stafford, and act
6 to amend the Environmental Conservation Law, in
7 relation to increasing the criminal penalties;
8 1391, by Senator Marcellino, an
9 act to amend the Environmental Conservation Law,
10 in relation to the join-off of water.
11 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
12 Skelos.
13 SENATOR SKELOS: I believe all
14 bills are reported to third reading.
15 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Without
16 objection, all bills will be reported to third
17 reading.
18 We do have the Transportation
19 Committee report.
20 SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President,
21 the Transportation Committee meeting is in Room
22 328. Is there any other housekeeping at the
23 desk?
24 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Nothing
25 else other than accepting the report.
446
1 SENATOR SKELOS: The Senate will
2 stand at ease pending the report of the
3 Transportation Committee.
4 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
5 Senate will stand at ease awaiting the report of
6 the Transportation Committee.
7 (Whereupon, the Senate stood at
8 ease from 2:43 p.m. until 2:50 p.m.)
9 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
10 Senate will come to order.
11 Senator Skelos.
12 SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President,
13 again if we could return to reports of standing
14 committees, I believe there's a report of the
15 Transportation Committee at the desk. I ask
16 that it be read.
17 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: There
18 is. We'll return to the standing order of -
19 reports of standing committees.
20 The Secretary will read the
21 report of the Transportation Committee.
22 THE SECRETARY: Senator Levy,
23 from the Committee on Transportation, offers up
24 the following bills:
25 Senate Print Number 400, by
447
1 Senator Levy, an act to amend Transportation
2 Law;
3 440, by Senator Goodman, an act
4 to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law, in
5 relation to requiring motor vehicle repair shops
6 to be registered;
7 734, by Senator LaValle, an act
8 to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law, in
9 relation to traffic control signal indicators;
10 918, by Senator Levy, an act to
11 amend the Public Authorities Law, in relation to
12 requiring the Metropolitan Transportation
13 Authority to make public, and;
14 925, by Senator Levy, an act to
15 amend the Transportation Law, in relation to
16 establishing a demonstration program.
17 All bills directly for third
18 reading.
19 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Without
20 objection, all bills are reported directly to
21 third reading.
22 Senator Skelos.
23 SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President,
24 is there any other housekeeping at the desk?
25 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: There's
448
1 nothing at the desk, Senator Skelos.
2 SENATOR SKELOS: There being no
3 further business, I move we adjourn until
4 Monday, February 3rd, at 3:00 p.m., intervening
5 days to be legislative days.
6 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Without
7 objection, hearing no objection, the Senate
8 stands adjourned until Monday, February 3rd, at
9 3:00 p.m., all intervening days to be
10 legislative days.
11 (Whereupon, at 2:54 p.m., the
12 Senate adjourned.)
13
14
15
16
17
18