Regular Session - June 17, 1999
5921
NEW YORK STATE SENATE
THE
STENOGRAPHIC RECORD
ALBANY, NEW YORK
June 17, 1999
10:35 a.m.
REGULAR SESSION
SENATOR RAYMOND MEIER, Acting President
STEVEN M. BOGGESS, Secretary
5922
P R O C E E D I N G S
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Senate will come to order.
I ask everyone to please rise and
recite with me the Pledge of Allegiance to the
Flag.
(Whereupon, the assemblage recited
the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: In the
absence of clergy, I ask that everyone please
bow their heads in a moment of silence.
(Whereupon, the assemblage
respected a moment of silence.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Reading
of the Journal.
THE SECRETARY: In Senate,
Wednesday, June 16th, the Senate met pursuant
to adjournment. The Journal of Tuesday, June
15th, was read and approved. On motion,
Senate adjourned.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Hearing
no objection, the Journal stands approved as
read.
Presentation of petitions.
Messages from the Assembly.
5923
Messages from the Governor.
Reports of standing committees.
Reports of select committees.
Communications and reports from
state officers.
Motions and resolutions.
Senator Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Mr.
President, on behalf of Senator Goodman, I
wish to call up Senate Print Number 664B,
recalled from the Assembly, which is now at
the desk.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1360, by Senator Goodman, Senate Print 664A,
an act to amend the Environmental Conservation
Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Mr.
President, I now move to reconsider the vote
by which this bill was passed and ask that
said bill be restored to the order of third
reading.
5924
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll on reconsideration.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 38.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Mr.
President, I move to amend Senate Bill Number
664B by striking out the amendment made on
June 10, 1999, and restoring it to its
previous print number, 664A.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
amendment is received, and the bill will be
restored to its previous print number.
Senator Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: I now move to
discharge, from the Committee on Environmental
Conservation, Assembly Print Number 1158, and
substitute it for the identical bill.
I now move that that substituted
Assembly bill have its third reading at this
time.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:
Substitution ordered.
The Secretary will read.
5925
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1360, by Member of the Assembly Grannis,
Assembly Print 1158, an act to amend the
Environmental Conservation Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 38.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
Senator Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Mr.
President, on behalf of Senator Goodman, I
wish to call up Senate Bill Number 5920A,
recalled from the Assembly, which is now at
the desk.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1450, by Senator Goodman, Senate Print 5920A,
an act to amend the General Municipal Law and
5926
Chapter 130 of the Laws of 1998.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Mr.
President, I now move to reconsider the vote
by which this bill was passed.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll on reconsideration.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 38.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Mr.
President, I now move to have its third
reading at this time.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read.
That bill will be laid aside
temporarily, Senator Fuschillo.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Are there any
substitutions to be made?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Yes, we
5927
have them. Would you like those done?
SENATOR SKELOS: If you could
make the substitutions at this time, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read the substitutions.
THE SECRETARY: On page 32,
Senator DeFrancisco moves to discharge, from
the Committee on Rules, Assembly Bill 1088 and
substitute it for the identical third reading,
1306.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:
Substitution ordered.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: If we could
return to reports of standing committees, I
believe there's a report of the Rules
Committee at the desk. I ask that it be read.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Reports
of standing committees.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Bruno,
from the Committee on Rules, reports the
following bills:
Senate Print 2505, by Senator
Padavan, an act to amend the Public
5928
Authorities Law;
2684, by Senator Leibell, an act to
amend the Civil Service Law;
3758, by Senator Libous, an act to
amend the Tax Law;
3898A, by Senator Stafford, an act
to amend the Executive Law and the Criminal
Procedure Law;
3914A, by Senator Velella, an act
to amend the General Business Law;
4174A, by Senator Meier, an act to
amend the Public Authorities Law;
4190B, by Senator Paterson, an act
in relation to authorizing;
4275, by Senator Velella, an act to
amend the Administrative Code of the City of
New York;
4458B, by Senator Marchi, an act to
amend the Not-for-Profit Corporation Law;
4516A, by Senator Wright, an act to
amend the Retirement and Social Security Law;
4556, by Senator Seward, an act to
amend the Real Property Tax Law;
4633A, by Senator Kuhl, an act to
amend the Education Law;
5929
4692A, by Senator Marchi, an act to
amend the Public Authorities Law and the Real
Property Tax Law;
4906, by Senator Farley, an act to
amend the Public Health Law;
5208B, by Senator Seward, an act to
amend the Education Law;
5618A, by Senator Seward, an act to
legalize, validate, ratify and confirm;
5689A, by Senator Saland, an act to
amend the Social Services Law;
5789, by Senator McGee, an act to
amend Chapter 584;
5832, by Senator Gentile, an act to
authorize;
5875, by Senator Rath, an act to
amend the Executive Law;
5888, by Senator Meier, an act to
amend the Social Services Law;
5893, by Senator Rath, an act
authorizing the implementation;
5919, by Senator Bonacic, an act to
exempt certain parcels;
5927, by Senator Marcellino, an act
to amend the Environmental Conservation Law;
5930
5973, by Senator Wright, an act to
amend the Agriculture and Markets Law;
5987, by Senator Volker, an act to
amend the Penal Law and the Criminal Procedure
Law;
And 5988, by Senator Johnson, an
act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law.
All bills ordered direct for third
reading.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Move to accept
the reports of the Rules Committee.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
question is on the motion to accept the report
of the Rules Committee. All those in favor
signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Opposed,
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
report is accepted.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President,
can we take up the noncontroversial active
5931
list.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read the noncontroversial
calendar.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
45, by Member of the Assembly Weisenberg,
Assembly Print 3522A, an act to amend the
Vehicle and Traffic Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 38.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
62, by Senator Meier, Senate Print 1028A, an
act to amend the Education Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
5932
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 40.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
526, by the Assembly Committee on Rules,
Assembly Print 8233, an act to amend the
Family Court Act and the Social Services Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 8. This
act shall take effect on the 90th day.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 40.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
893, by Senator Trunzo, Senate Print 4487A, an
act to amend the Public Authorities Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
5933
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 40.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
912, by the Assembly Committee on Rules,
Assembly Print 8168, an act to amend the Town
Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Lay it aside.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Lay the
bill aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1029, by Senator Wright, Senate Print 5279, an
act to amend the Public Lands Law and the
Environmental Conservation Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 5. This
act shall take effect on the 30th day.
5934
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 40.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1422, by Senator Balboni, Senate Print 5003A,
an act to amend the Penal Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Lay it aside.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Lay the
bill aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1506, by the Committee on Rules, Senate Print
5935, an act to amend Chapter 141 of the Laws
of 1994.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
5935
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 40.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1512, by Senator Nozzolio, Senate Print 5823,
an act to amend the Civil Practice Law and
Rules.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 7. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 39. Nays,
1. Senator Duane recorded in the negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
Senator Skelos, that completes the
reading of the noncontroversial calendar.
SENATOR SKELOS: If we can go to
the controversial calendar, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read the controversial
calendar.
5936
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
912, by the Assembly Committee on Rules,
Assembly Print 8168, an act to amend the Town
Law, in relation to providing that a local law
to abolish a police department.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Bonacic, an explanation has been requested of
Calendar 912 by Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR BONACIC: Thank you very
much, Mr. President. This is an act to amend
our Town Law, which would provide that a local
law to abolish a police department shall be
subject to a permissive referendum.
Presently, a police department can
be abolished by a town without voter approval.
And as a matter of policy, I think the safety
of our citizens and police protection is a
vital concern to the people who live in the
towns. And it's an expression of democracy to
allow a permissive referendum to see whether
or not they would want a police department to
be abolished, in the event that the town board
would vote accordingly.
Presently, Village Law does allow
5937
for a permissive referendum on the issue of
the abolition of a village police department.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Mr.
President, will the sponsor yield just to a
couple of quick questions?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Bonacic, do you yield to a question?
SENATOR BONACIC: I do.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Does the
County Law require a permissive referendum if
the county elects to change its police forces?
SENATOR BONACIC: I do not know
the answer to that. I've just been
concentrating on the Town Law and the
legislation that's before us.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Bonacic, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR BONACIC: I do.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: He
5938
yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Do you know
whether the cities are required to hold
permissive referendums if they change their
police force or the components of the police
force or abolish it?
SENATOR BONACIC: Again, I do not
know the answer to that question. I have
expressed to you that the Village Law allows
for the abolition of the police department,
and now we want to change the Town Law.
This has passed the Assembly, by
the way, with four no votes. And if I may, we
have memos of support by the CSEA, the New
York State Police Investigators Association,
the AFL-CIO. I do have a memo in opposition
from the Association of Towns.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Mr.
President, just on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Dollinger, on the bill.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: This was an
idea that came out of the work of a former
Senator named Mary Ellen Jones, who devised
this bill for a particular problem in Monroe
5939
County. It's amazing to me that I guess it
finds its way on the Rules Committee, as the
Jones bills always did, on the last day. But
it's got Senator Bonacic's name on it.
I'll let my other colleagues
address the bill before I decide how to vote
on it. But I remember that this bill has been
around for a long time. It's not necessarily
a reflection on Senator Bonacic. I hope you
won't interpret it that way. But I remember
when it was her bill, it could never seem to
get to the floor.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you very
much. Would the sponsor yield to some
questions?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Bonacic, do you yield for a question?
SENATOR BONACIC: I do.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you very
much.
I'm just wondering why it is that
5940
we're looking at this particular situation
having to do with police forces and
referendums. Why are we only looking at this
issue and not a broader range of issues having
to do with fiscal policy of the towns of the
state?
SENATOR BONACIC: It's my
experience in government that you do things
in -- one step at a time, in slow increments.
When you try to do broad, comprehensive
legislation, what you have is studies after
studies after studies and nothing much really
ever gets done.
So we've done it at the village
level. Now we're addressing it at the town
level. And I would be willing to entertain -
you know, any comprehensive legislation that
you may have on your mind in this area, we'd
certainly take a look at it.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you,
Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Bonacic, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR BONACIC: I do.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: He
5941
yields.
SENATOR DUANE: Is there anything
in current law that precludes towns from
putting forward referendums for themselves?
SENATOR BONACIC: You mean -- on
this issue, it needs a legislative act, at the
state level, to allow for a permissive
referendum.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you,
Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Bonacic, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR BONACIC: I do.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DUANE: As I understand
it, this legislation says "requires." But I'm
under the impression that if a town wanted to
have a referendum, they could have a
referendum. Is that not the case?
SENATOR BONACIC: I'm having a
difficult time hearing, Senator Duane. Could
you repeat the question, Senator, please?
SENATOR DUANE: Absolutely.
It is my understanding that this
5942
legislation requires a referendum, whereas
presently there is the option to have a
referendum on that matter such as this. Is
that not correct?
SENATOR BONACIC: Yes. A town
board could now, before they vote as a town
board, ask for an advisory opinion from its
electorate if it was so inclined.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you,
Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Bonacic, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR BONACIC: I do.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DUANE: So indeed, we're
really sort of forcing something onto the
towns of New York State that they probably
have not asked for. At least I'm not aware of
them having been asked to have this
requirement imposed upon them.
SENATOR BONACIC: That is
correct.
But we have to make a judgment as a
matter of state policy whether or not police
5943
protection and the safety of our residents is
an important issue that in certain situations
that they would have the right to vote in a
democratic way whether or not they approve or
disapprove of a town board's action. Since
the people ultimately are paying for the
police department through its taxes, and
they're the ultimate beneficiaries of town
policy.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you,
Mr. President, on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Duane, on the bill.
SENATOR DUANE: I personally have
pretty strong opinions on the issue of
referendums. I also have strong opinions on
the issue of mandates, unfunded mandates and
funding mandates which are imposed on the
cities and towns of the state of New York.
But I am struck by the -- although
I'm not ironclad and rigid on those positions,
and I guess maybe what I should say is I'm
pleased to see that other members of this
body, contrary to what they may have said in
debates on this floor, actually share a wide
5944
variety of views on the issue on referendums
and mandates to our local government, and that
there really are no ironclad rules on the way
we look at those things.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Breslin.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Mr. President,
would the sponsor yield to a question or two?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Bonacic, do you yield for a question?
SENATOR BONACIC: I do.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Senator
Bonacic, I have a number of towns in my
district who have talked with me about this
legislation, and they were uninformed as to
whether or not there's been towns throughout
the state that have adopted, through a vote of
their town board, to eliminate their police
department in the last several years.
Do you have any information about
whether or not there are, in fact?
SENATOR BONACIC: There has been
5945
a -- there have been town boards that have
voted for the elimination of their town police
departments. I don't have those statistics,
but I can tell you that it has occurred.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Through you,
again, Mr. President, if the sponsor will
yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Bonacic, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR BONACIC: I do. I do.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Some of their
concerns have been -- in some of my towns
there's village police departments, town
police departments, state police, often the
sheriff's department. And from a
regionalization point of view, they view it as
something -- as a cost-cutting efficiency and
still having good police protection. Was that
reviewed in the drafting of this legislation?
SENATOR BONACIC: It's -- it's
not necessarily reviewed. But these are
judgment questions that every constituency in
a town must decide.
5946
Because if a town -- a town board
has to make its argument: Lookit, we have
quite a bit of other agencies, whether it's
state police, joint agreements with the
village, or sheriff's office, and we don't
really need our police department. And you're
going to save X amount of dollars on your
taxes.
Now, these are judgments for the
people in that town to make. And they're
value judgments. And they're paying the price
for that decision. So we're asking that they
be able to participate in that decision.
And if the facts are conclusive, as
you've indicated, with the town concerns, I
trust the wisdom of the people to do what's
right for them in their town.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Again, through
you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Bonacic, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR BONACIC: I do.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Don't we also
5947
trust the citizens to choose representatives
who can make informed decisions and not
consider the passions or the emotions of
situation, as a police force often engenders?
SENATOR BONACIC: There's no
question that our constituents choose elected
officials to make judgments. But in the case
of police protection and the safety of
families and neighborhoods, we believe it is
such a high priority that they would have an
opportunity -- in a permissive referendum,
now. Permissive, not mandatory referendum -
if they got 5 percent of the votes cast in
that town for the last governor's election
through a petition, they would have the right
to participate in democracy, which is working
as it should.
SENATOR BRESLIN: One final
question, through you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Bonacic, do you yield for a question?
SENATOR BONACIC: I do.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: He
yields.
SENATOR BRESLIN: If in fact it
5948
becomes law, has there been any development of
the way it would be posed to the voters, in a
positive or a negative sense?
SENATOR BONACIC: You mean like a
format in how -
SENATOR BRESLIN: Format.
SENATOR BONACIC: -- they would
frame the issue?
SENATOR BRESLIN: That's correct.
SENATOR BONACIC: That would be
left to the town board. We have no
legislation that is a prototype format of how
you should present it.
But, you know, with reporters
covering town meetings, the people will have
an accurate flavor of the decision judgments,
the cost benefits that they would have to
make.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Thank you very
much, Senator Bonacic.
SENATOR BONACIC: Thank you,
Senator.
SENATOR BRESLIN: On the bill,
Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
5949
Breslin, on the bill.
SENATOR BRESLIN: I have serious
reservations on this bill. But I think when
we are in fact faced with reservations -
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Excuse
me a second, Senator Breslin.
Gentlemen, members, could we please
get through this in an orderly fashion so we
can conclude today.
Senator Breslin.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Thank you,
Mr. President.
When we are faced with those
reservations, we have to weigh the cost
factors, the regionalization factors, but most
importantly the factor of letting the people
be the final judge.
And with the people the final
judge, I will vote in the affirmative for this
legislation.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Stachowski.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Will the
sponsor yield for a couple of questions,
Mr. President?
5950
SENATOR BONACIC: I do.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Mr.
President, through you.
Senator, I really wasn't going to
ask any questions, but it kind of caught my
interest, the comment about that since it's a
police department and public safety, that
although we trust local elected officials to
do budgets and take care of sidewalks, we
don't trust them to make a decision on whether
they should keep their own police department.
And I'm kind of troubled by that,
only because is that the message we're
sending, that towns, elected officials aren't
capable of making a decision? Because they
spend every day with the people in their
district work, they're right -- they live
there, they work there.
In a town meeting, they have an
area for the public to speak at a town
meeting. If they were talking about
eliminating the police department, there would
probably be a lead-in time. It wouldn't be
like a midnight decision, something coming out
of a rules committee like we do and suddenly
5951
it's up on the floor and we're passing it
saying that we're getting rid of the police
department. It would probably be at least a
couple of months' -- or probably longer -
play into that, we're looking at getting rid
of the police department.
So I'm sure that there would be
plenty of give-and-take at different town
board meetings with members of the town,
people that live there, taking that little
public space that they have to talk and
voicing their opinion.
And with all of that and the fact
that they live right there and are always
there, we don't think they'd have enough input
to make the decision whether they should keep
their police department or not?
SENATOR BONACIC: My response to
that is we have it in Village Law.
If you recall, a couple of years
ago with city school budgets we gave the
people the right to vote, where those
decisions were made by city school boards
only. And I think whenever you can give the
people an opportunity to express their
5952
opinion -- since they're paying for the police
department -- as to whether or not they want
it, we should give them that opportunity.
And if the town board gives good
reasons why a police department should be
abolished, I trust the wisdom of the people.
They'll ratify the legitimate reasons which
the town board has stated why it should be
abolished.
But if they disagree and if they
think they have inadequate police protection,
especially in the rural areas, where the state
police are stretched quite thin -- and
normally the responsibility, I can tell you,
in my Senate district would fall on the state
police if you didn't have town police
departments. And people may say, "Hey, I'd
rather have more police than less police
watching out for our towns, and I'm willing to
pay that extra money in my taxes to keep
them."
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Mr.
President, again, through you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Bonacic, do you continue to yield?
5953
SENATOR BONACIC: I do.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: I heard what
you said, but I'm just a little confused. And
the point I'm going back to again is by doing
this we're saying that the local officials are
not in touch with their communities and that
they would make this decision oblivious to
what would be the majority of the people that
live there's opinion to keep the police, they
would still go ahead and abolish the police in
a certain town?
In the towns in my district, and I
have three, they're pretty aware of what the
people think, and they -- they're very aware
of -
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Excuse
me, Senator Stachowski.
Members, we're trying to conclude
our business today. And I would appreciate it
if you would give attention to the debate. If
you have other business other than the bill on
the floor that requires conversation, take it
outside.
5954
Senator Stachowski has the floor.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: As I was
saying, they are very aware of what the people
think. And on issues that are a lot more
minor than something like abolishing your
police department, they get tremendous input
from the public on -- before they ever think
of voting. Even for a thing of maybe changing
a wetland or asking for permission to do that
or changing a road or putting a turn lane on a
road, they get unbelievable public input.
So that I would think that they
would get just enormous communication from the
people that live in that town if they were
ever to do anything like say "We're going to
abolish our police."
And I had -- in my old previous
district, a lot of which Senator Volker now
represents, I also had towns that didn't
necessarily -- maybe they had one or two cars,
and that it was a combination of the sheriff's
department and the state police doing most of
the police work there. So that I am familiar
with towns like you have in your district.
But my concern is that we're taking away the
5955
right of town officials to govern for
themselves.
And I understand it is permissive.
But they can ask for that kind of election
now, and I'm sure that if they brought up an
issue of this magnitude, they would get that
kind of advisory election called for, just
through the work of the policemen that were
possibly going to be affected by this.
So my question still remains, do we
think that they're not capable of making these
decisions and that's why we have this bill?
Or do we want to govern for them and that's
why we're telling them they've got to have a
permissive referendum?
SENATOR BONACIC: I think our
town board members do outstanding work. And
they are familiar with issues, and they
communicate as best they can with their
constituents. But sometimes there's
legitimate differences of opinion as to
whether or not police protection and police
safety is a top priority with the people of
the town which they live in, of the residents.
And all we're saying is that the
5956
people in those minimum situations where they
disagree with their town board when it comes
to police protection, if they are so inclined,
the people would have the right to tell the
town board that "Although we understand that
you think you have our best concerns in mind,
in this particular case we think -- we don't
agree with you, and we'd like to keep the
police department." And/or abolish it, agree
with them.
You know, I'm a supporter, I always
have been, of initiative and referendum. And
I always say that you and I and town board
members are the servants and we work for the
people. And whenever -- and if we remember
these relationships, we never fear giving them
an opportunity to decide whether or not they
agree with us or not.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Stachowski.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: If the
Senator would yield again.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
5957
Bonacic, will you yield?
SENATOR BONACIC: I do. I do.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: He
continues to yield.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: I would
preface my next question by saying you
probably used to be a supporter of initiative
and referendum till you got to this house.
But, anyway -- because we don't like to let
bills come out, even by your guys, that we
don't want to see on the floor. So I don't
know how we'd ever let an initiative or a
referendum with some really abstract questions
come to the floor as delivered by the public.
However, the question is as far as
you know -- and I don't know if you would have
anything on this or not -- has there ever been
a town or, for that matter, even a village
that abolished their police department when
the police department wasn't on board with
that abolition?
Meaning that there weren't already
provisions for either everybody retiring
because they had aged out or being picked up
by a different police department, and that the
5958
police department was abolished against the
will of the members of the police department
it served. Because a lot of times a town will
make an agreement -- for example, what
happened in a couple of places in my district
is they made an agreement with the sheriff's
department, for example. And they had a small
department, and those members of that
department were either absorbed by another
town or by the sheriff's department. And so
therefore, there was very little opposition to
the police department being taken out.
So my question is, has there ever
been one where the police department was
vehemently against the abolition of the police
department and that they still -- the town
board went ahead and eliminated it?
SENATOR BONACIC: I can't speak
of what motivated, you know, police
departments and what they were thinking when a
particular political act was -- or a
legislative act was going on at the town
level.
I can tell you that there have been
two village referendums in the mid-Hudson
5959
where the people decided; one was to abolish,
one was to keep. And both times the village
board wanted to abolish. So in one instance
the people agreed with the village board, in
the other they did not. And that's in the
last year and a half.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Thank you,
Senator.
On the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Stachowski, on the bill.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: The only
trouble I have with this bill is that it seems
to me we're still not trusting our local
elected officials.
And I know that the sponsor has the
same high respect for his local elected
officials as I do, and he believes they're
just as well informed as I do. But I'll never
be a person to take away the opportunity for
the people that live in a community to vote on
the issue. So that I -- although I had
questions, I'm satisfied somewhat with the
answers. And I know that he has a great
respect for local elected officials, and so
5960
I'll support the bill.
But I still have some reservation
in the fact that we're telling them "maybe
you're not sure what's best for your
community."
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
the negative on Calendar Number 912 are
Senators Connor, Duane, Gentile, Hevesi,
Kruger, Lachman, Markowitz, Montgomery,
Onorato, Sampson, and Smith. Ayes, 45. Nays,
11.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1422, by Senator Balboni, Senate Print 5003A,
an act to amend the Penal Law, the Civil
Rights Law, and the Executive Law.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Explanation,
5961
Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Balboni, an explanation has been requested of
Calendar 1422 by Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR BALBONI: Thank you,
Mr. President.
This bill before us today is the
culmination of about six or seven months'
worth of work. I've had the opportunity to
work with local law enforcement in Nassau
County and the New York state troopers, I have
met with a variety of different DAs' offices
and the Association. And what we have before
us is an attempt to continue the work that was
initiated in 1996 when this state first
recognized the growing threat of gangs in our
communities.
The particular background here is
there was a shooting in Mineola, my hometown,
back in the fall of last year, and there was
gang involvement. That led me on a mission to
try to put together a workable construct where
we could really get at gang activity and gang
violence.
Here's what the bill does. It sets
5962
up a series of definitions as to what gang
activity and gang membership and what a street
gang is. Then essentially what it does is
create enhancements. In other words, if
regular crimes are committed by gang members,
they're enhanced one level.
It also sets up the crime of
recruitment, gang recruitment on school
grounds for the first time in this state. It
then permits expert testimony to be entered
into court in a case involving gangs. It
creates a new crime of gang assault when three
or four members of a gang assault an
individual. It provides for witness
protection during the pendency of a trial
relating to gang issues and gang activity.
And then, lastly, it sets up, for the first
time, a uniform statewide gang activity
database.
The bill is complex only because
the nature of the gang activity is complex.
The bill attempts to try to walk the fine line
between the right of a freedom of association
and the gang activities that are done
primarily now in Long Island and in the City
5963
of New York by illegal aliens who do not have
addresses, perhaps have not been arrested
beforehand.
And so that is the characteristics
that are attempted to be recognized and dealt
with by this measure, Mr. President. Thank
you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Will the
sponsor yield to one question, Mr. President?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Balboni, do you yield?
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, I yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: New York is,
under your bill, going down the path of
creating enhanced penalties and other antigang
sanctions. Is there any evidence in any other
state anywhere that enhancing the penalties
has resulted in a reduction of gang violence
or gang participation?
SENATOR BALBONI: Well, first of
all, the -- Mr. President, through you.
5964
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Balboni.
SENATOR BALBONI: Mr. President,
the state that's had the greatest experience
in this issue is California. They have had
significant gang problems for the last decade.
Senator Dollinger asked whether or
not enhancing penalties actually deters gang
activity. That's hard to tell. But I will
tell you this, that there is an entire justice
system that is designed around deterring
illegal gang participation and illegal gang
activity with enhanced penalties in
California. Has it worked? The California
authorities think it has.
What it has not done, however, it
has not stopped the flow of gangs, such as the
Bloods and the Crips, to this area. And
that's a reality that we should face.
But in addition to the enhanced
penalties, Senator, this bill allows law
enforcement to use tools previously not
enjoyed by them to try and root out and
develop the information and the intelligence
regarding gang activities so that police
5965
officers can make arrests efficiently and
perhaps before violence occurs.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: What are the
weapons -- through you, if Senator Balboni
would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Balboni, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, I do.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: What are the
weapons of choice for gangs in New York State,
do you know?
SENATOR BALBONI: The weapons of
choice vary as to the gang itself.
Gang structure in New York State is
varied. You have, obviously, organized crime.
That still, notwithstanding the belief of a
former governor, still exists in the state of
New York. They are -- they rely principally
on execution-style killings.
The gangs that are prominent -- and
when I use the word "prominent," the gangs
5966
that operate in some suburban communities tend
to be immigrant gangs, not very structured,
tend to be very fluid in their travel. And
therefore -- and they don't really have a lot
of money. And they don't run rackets or
extortion or prostitution or drugs.
And essentially what you'll have
is -- the shooting that occurred in my
hometown was a Saturday night special. So the
weapons of choice at that level are anything
that the gang members can get their hands on.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President, if Senator Balboni will
continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Balboni, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, I do,
Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Would it be
safe to say, Senator Balboni, that the cheap
prevalence of firearms is one of the reasons
why gang activity resulted both in the
shooting in Mineola and in the shootings
5967
throughout -- the other gang-related shootings
throughout New York State?
SENATOR BALBONI: I have no
information on that.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Well, you've
said that their weapons of choice obviously
involve firearms, to some extent. We've had a
big discussion here in the last week about
whether they're weapons or firearms. I'll
call them firearms.
Isn't one of the things that
creates the danger of gang activity the
abundance of cheap firearms in this state?
SENATOR BALBONI: Senator
Dollinger, you're aware that New York State
has the toughest gun laws in the nation;
correct?
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Was that a
question to me, Mr. President? I have -
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, it was.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: -- the floor.
I'll decline to answer any questions until
Senator Balboni answers mine.
SENATOR BALBONI: Mr. President,
through you.
5968
I'm sure the members understand
that New York State has the toughest gun law
in the nation. It's called the Sullivan Law.
If you'd like it, I can get it at the library
for you. And what that law tells us is that
illegal weapons are still out there on the
street.
And you know how the gangs get
them? They buy them out of the back of a
trunk in a neighborhood somewhere in perhaps
East Harlem, perhaps in New Jersey, perhaps in
Connecticut. And they take them and those -
and they're as much of a threat to those
communities as anywhere else.
The point here is not so much to go
after the weapons -- because I believe we
already have very sufficient laws on the
books -- but rather to go after the way the
gangs operate.
For example, with recruitment. How
do you know a member -- an individual that
walks with two or three other members is a
member of the gang? Well, they wear colors.
They have handshakes. They have different
types of graffiti that they utilize to mark
5969
their territory. They have certain modus
operandi.
These things, though, are not
traditional law enforcement indicators. And
so what the police have had to do is to try to
change their entire methodology as it relates
to identifying and dealing with gang members.
And that's really what the bill is intended to
do.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President, will Senator Balboni yield to
another question?
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes,
Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Balboni, do you yield?
The sponsor yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Isn't it also
true that they could be buying those handguns
out of the back of trunks of cars in Mineola,
your hometown?
SENATOR BALBONI: Oh, I hope not.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Why would you
conclude that they would be buying them -
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
5970
Dollinger, do you wish Senator Balboni to
yield for another question?
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I do,
Mr. President. And I apologize.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Balboni, do you continue to yield? Do you
continue to yield, Senator Balboni?
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, I do,
Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: You have
to let me know.
The Senator yields.
SENATOR BALBONI: Mr. President,
I'm sorry, I'm focusing on the question. But
I'll focus on your questions.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: What is it
about East Harlem, New Jersey, and Connecticut
that makes you think that that's the only
place they're buying guns out of the trunks of
cars?
SENATOR BALBONI: I apologize.
You've got me. I don't -- I don't have the
exact title of the Tobacco and Firearms
study -- done in 1992, I believe, but I'll
check -- that actually talked about the
5971
trafficking of illegal firearms into the state
and into the surrounding states. That's where
I got the information that led me to believe
that that's where it occurs. I have no
personal knowledge of it, though.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President, if Senator Balboni would
continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Balboni, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes,
Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: What is there
in this bill that would create greater
penalties or reduce or deter anyone, gang
member or otherwise, from buying those
Saturday night specials, as you referred to
them, out of the trunks of cars anyplace in
the state of New York? Considering that's
where the gangs get their weapons from, what
is there in this bill that addresses that
issue?
SENATOR BALBONI: Mr. President,
5972
I'm sure that the member is aware of the
federal body of law that deals with the
interstate transportation of guns and weapons.
That is the body of law which has been
utilized by law enforcement agencies to try
and get at these types of sales. This bill
does nothing in that regard.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President, if Senator Balboni would
continue to yield.
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, I do.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: The whole
point of your law, Senator Balboni, is that
that body of law isn't working. That's why we
need your bill; right? Because the federal
body of law that you say protects or restricts
access to weapons, it isn't working. That's
because gangs are too prevalent. That's why
we need this antigang rule here in New York,
is because federal law isn't working.
If that's the case, why doesn't
your bill contain a provision that will
increase penalties or restrict access to
weapons that are sold out of the backs of
trunks of cars in New York State? Federal law
5973
isn't working. Why wouldn't -- you want to
solve this problem. You acknowledge that's
part of the problem. Why doesn't your bill
solve that problem?
SENATOR BALBONI: Mr. President,
through you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Balboni.
SENATOR BALBONI: The area of
this bill that creates new crimes, such as
gang recruitment, such as gang assault, the
area of the bill that allows for expert
testimony in court, the area of the bill that
protects witnesses' identification, names, and
knowledge by individuals outside of the
courtroom, so as to prohibit witness
intimidation, those are new sections of law.
That is the focus of the bill. Because we
believe that those -- those new statutes are
going to give law enforcement the ability to
effectively investigate and prosecute gang
activity in the State of New York. That's the
focus of this bill.
Gun violence, the laws associated
with gun violence is a broad, broad topic.
5974
And we could debate this, you and I, back and
forth as to what truly is an effective
deterrent, whether or not the Sullivan Law,
the toughest gun law in the nation, is in fact
a deterrent to someone who's going to go out
and get a gun any way, shape, or form, and
what this state's role could be in stemming
that flow of violence and guns.
But that's not the point of this
bill. This bill is specifically designed to,
for the first time, identify, root out, and
effectively deal with gang-related activity.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I have a
final question, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Balboni, do you yield for the final question?
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes,
Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: He
yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Senator,
you're familiar, I'm sure, with the RICO
provisions under state law, the RICO
provisions under federal law which create
penalties for criminal enterprises and create
5975
additional sanctions for criminal enterprises
which involve more than one person. How does
this bill differ from the application of those
laws to gang activity?
SENATOR BALBONI: We
originally -- when we came up with this idea,
we decided to take a look at the state version
or equivalent of RICO, which is called -
what's it called, again?
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Racketeering.
SENATOR BALBONI: I'll get you
the state name.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: We know what
it is. I don't know what its name is.
SENATOR BALBONI: And in
consultation with the members of the
Legislature like Dale Volker, we decided that
this would be a better approach.
Because we're also having to
work -- remember, there are gang statutes in
law right now as a result of our actions in
1996. This statute works off of that, so -
and as I said, before includes new provisions
like gang recruitment. We've never done that
beforehand. In fact, I don't believe the RICO
5976
statutes, either the federal or the state RICO
statutes, deal with gang recruitment at all.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Mr. President, just on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Dollinger, on the bill.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I'm not going
to vote against this bill, which in my opinion
goes about a third of the way to solving the
problem that Senator Balboni has detected. I
think we ought to take steps to start solving
the problem.
But I would just suggest that this
bill and my colloquy with Senator Balboni
emphasizes a couple of the problems, a couple
of the problems that we have in trying to
control violence of any type in this state.
First of all, it somewhat troubles
me that Senator Balboni has the impression
that gangs are buying guns out of the trunks
of cars in East Harlem, New Jersey, and
Connecticut. They're buying guns out of the
trunks of cars in Mineola, they're buying them
out of the trunks of cars in Rochester, New
York, they're buying them out of the trunks of
5977
cars everywhere. Because these weapons are so
abundant that you can buy them by the
trunkload in Virginia -- you can buy them
anywhere and truck them into New York State,
and we can dump more weapons into the hands of
youths and gangs.
Yet Senator Balboni suggests that
the federal law -- we have plenty of federal
laws. Obviously, the federal laws aren't
working if you can buy a truckload -- a
trunkload of guns and drive them up and open
them up in any parking lot in New York State.
The federal law isn't working. State law
isn't working either, because obviously the
gang problem continues.
We're not doing the right thing. I
would just suggest that when federal law on
guns aren't working and state law on guns
aren't working, what we ought to do is look to
change the state law on guns. We ought to
look to restrict access to people who can sell
them out of a trunk. We ought to look to put
more restrictions on the transfer of weapons.
And I would just suggest that one
of the great dangers about those who don't
5978
want to put restrictions on weapons is that
now you have gangs hiding under the skirts of
the NRA. And they're hiding there because the
NRA doesn't want to put restrictions on these
weapons of any type.
So what we do is because of that,
because of that, we allow gang members to
continue to buy these weapons. Back in the
days of West Side Story, when Tony killed
Bernardo, it was done with a knife. That was
back in the old days before we had an absolute
abundance of weapons scattered through our
neighborhoods. Now they're out shooting each
other with tommy guns and AK-47s.
I would just suggest to decrease
gang violence, this bill gets us about halfway
there. Let's finish it off and go the other
half and let's deal with the problem of
weapons in the hands of kids. That's what we
ought to be doing.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes,
Mr. President. I would like to ask the
sponsor if he would yield for a couple of
5979
questions -
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Balboni, do you yield?
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: -- for
clarification.
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, thank
you.
Senator Balboni, I'm trying to
figure out for myself what is this new
category of young people that we're looking to
include in this that would be separate and
apart from what the Governor's Juvenile
Justice legislation also deals with. Because
according to my information here, the Juvenile
Justice Reform Act that the Governor has
proposed, and I believe we've passed in this
house, permits 14- and 15-year-olds to be
prosecuted as adults for the following
additional designated felony offenses. The
first one is gang assault, first degree.
Aggravated assault on a police or a peace
officer. And et cetera, et cetera.
5980
It also increases the length of
time that a person who would be sentenced
under this new law would be incarcerated. It
also permits 12-year-olds to be prosecuted as
adults for murder in the second degree. Now,
I'm not sure that your -- I don't know that
the 12-year-olds are actually engaged under
your legislation, but this bill covers them.
And it seems to do essentially what
your bill does for the exact same age group
that your bill seems to be targeting. So I am
trying to figure out what is the purpose of
this, what are we actually doing. Are we
going beyond our Juvenile Justice Reform Act
with your legislation, or does this in any way
enhance this bill that we've already done?
SENATOR BALBONI: The legislation
before this body specifically targets gang
activity. The Juvenile Justice Act does not.
The Juvenile Justice program talks about
juveniles of any type of activity level; in
other words, whether or not they act
independently, with a friend. There's no
recognition that in fact there's an
organization, an organized criminal
5981
enterprise, as it were, at work here.
The development of this
legislation, as I said before, was with the
Nassau County Police Department, the City of
New York, who talked about gang recruitment on
school grounds taking place, particularly on
Long Island. This is happening. It's a
reality, shocking as it is. It's happened in
New York City. And this is an attempt to try
and allow law enforcement to identify that
gang activity.
And oftentimes it's done by
children, 16-year-olds going up to
12-year-olds and saying, "You're going to be
in a gang." Or "When you come out, I'm going
to slit your wrists." Or "I'm going to steal
your bike," "I'm going to punch you in the
face," "I'm going to take your lunch money."
And the irony here is there's a
specific immigrant group that has been in the
papers on Long Island as a result of their
immigration in great numbers to Long Island.
And the irony is that -- people have warned me
not to talk about one specific group of
people. That's just unfair. But the irony is
5982
they're the ones who are being preyed upon.
They're the ones who the gangs are targeting.
Why? Because many of the kids don't go to
school, perhaps. They don't have a set house.
Or they live illegally, they're illegal
aliens.
And what's happening is they're the
ones who are having their money stolen if they
have any, who are terrorized, being forced to
join a gang, being encouraged to step outside
of a society that perhaps they don't speak the
language.
That's who we should be protecting,
the most vulnerable. That's what this
legislation does. This is not just to say,
you know, "Oh, my gosh, the gangs are coming
to suburbia, let's protect ourselves." No,
no, no, no. This is a recognition of the fact
that there's a whole culture that is below the
surface of our society and they're being
preyed upon, sometimes by their own people,
sometimes by a group of organizations that
have gotten together. That's what this bill
is designed to do.
And unfortunately, the reality, as
5983
presented to me by law enforcement and the
DAs, is that it is children who are committing
these crimes. Not adults, it's children. And
they're being used for everything from being
used to run drugs to actually being enforcers.
In Hempstead, Long Island, the
Hempstead Police Department -- who has been,
in the view of the statewide law enforcement
agencies and the federal agencies, one of the
preeminent law enforcement departments in
trying to deal with this situation -- they
have videotape of people trying to recruit
students on school grounds. There's nothing
hypothetical about this. This is taking
place.
And so the question becomes what's
the best way to try and address it and provide
for real, hard-hitting deterrents.
I'm as disturbed, Senator
Montgomery, as you are with the need to
enforce and enhance penalties against
children. But the reality of it is they're
the ones who are committing these crimes.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: All right.
Through you, Mr. President. I would like to
5984
just ask for -- to clarify.
You say that the young people who
are being preyed upon, those are the ones
we're trying to protect. How does your
legislation protect young people who as -- you
have referred to as being initiated into a
gang against their will, they've had their
wrists slit and whatever else has happened to
them, but nonetheless out of intimidation or
fear or whatever, they are now part of the
gang?
What do we do with those young
people? How do we distinguish between the
ones who have recruited, the leadership in the
gang, versus the members of the gang who are
now part of the gang because they were
recruited, perhaps through the intimidation
process, but nonetheless they are now
participants? How do we distinguish those
people, and what do we do with them?
SENATOR BALBONI: Throughout the
bill there are provisions that allow the court
to consider, first, the mental culpability of
the actor. In other words, were they
committing the crime in order to further the
5985
purposes of the gang. That's a requirement
stated in the bill, in order to have the
penalties enhanced. That's how we protect.
They've got to have the culpability, the mens
rea, as we talked about.
We're also allowing expert
testimony to talk about the modus operandi of
the gang. We'll give a jury the ability to
understand the structure of a gang -- who was
the leader, who are the followers. And then
the jury in its deliberations will be able to
mete out the consequences of the actions based
upon that information.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Okay.
Mr. President, one last question for
Senator Balboni.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Balboni, do you yield for another question?
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes,
Mr. President, I yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Senator
Balboni, I know that the New York City Police
Department has a specific gang unit. And
5986
the -- they also have a youth unit in each of
the precincts. And it is my understanding
that, based on the police officers that I've
spoken with in the seven different precincts
that I represent, all of them are very -
they're also concerned about gang activity,
but they also are concerned more about
preventing young people from becoming engaged
in the kind of activity that is associated
with gangs.
And I'm just wondering, does your
legislation in any way address what the police
officers and the police department is
attempting to do vis-a-vis prevention, based
on their working to prevent young people from
going in and the different -- and the variety
of different methods they have come up? What
do we have in that legislation that supports
that, since this is to address gangs?
SENATOR BALBONI: Senator
Montgomery, I cannot stand before you and tell
you that I have done an in-depth survey or had
in-depth discussions with all of the various
commissioners or police departments or
district attorneys around the state on the
5987
issue of gang violence. I'm going to try to
do that, but I have not done that.
My experience relates to my own
county. Chief Faust is the gentleman who
oversees Nassau County's efforts in gang
violence. He talks about these types of
programs for schools. We have a district
attorney, Denis Dillon. His biggest thing is
PALs, police athletic leagues. He's trying to
drive money into them. He's a big boxing fan,
thinks boxing's a great way to get these kids
off the street and give them something to do.
I agree with him.
I would be remiss at this point in
time -- or I'd be reluctant, I would be
reluctant at this point in time to try and
legislate programs that the police, if they're
a good department, are going to have in their
operations, in the way that they police their
communities, the kind of programs that they
think are going to work. Not to tell them
what to do, encourage them. Because, as you
know, prevention is so much cheaper than
having to put somebody behind bars.
But I think that a lot of the
5988
programs that are out there working, you're
right, this bill does not address those.
Because I think that the police departments
themselves, they're in the best position to
try and develop those programs.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Thank you.
Mr. President, I want to thank my colleague
for his patience.
And briefly, on the bill -
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Montgomery, on the bill.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: -- I fully
understand there's no one probably in this
room that has more problems with gang activity
than I do in terms of the people that I
represent.
However, we in my district and in
communities throughout the city, I think, and
certainly in Brooklyn have met with the police
department, from the narcotics people and all
of the other specialty divisions, and from the
top people on down to the local precinct
captains. And we have also talked extensively
with the divisions within each precinct that
try to deal with the whole issue of gangs.
5989
We've had workshops and -- you name it, we've
talked about it and tried to do it in our
area.
And one of the most salient things
that is missing from the resource bank is the
capacity of the police department to do early
intervention and prevention. That's what we
need, and that's what we want. That's what we
really are looking for in terms of help from
this government body.
And I have not heard from our local
law enforcement people that they want stronger
laws, that that's where they're weak. They're
weak in the capacity to address the needs of
young people in the way that they understand,
as law enforcement people, is most effective.
So I'm not going to vote for this
legislation. Not because I don't have a
concern for gangs, because obviously I do.
And all of my colleagues within my Senate
district, from every level of government, we
all do. But we also all have the same
absolute concerns. And that is how do we do
prevention, how do we develop more capacity in
the form of programs that the police
5990
department knows and the police officers who
are experts know work. How do we do more in
terms of youth courts and
community-justice-center-type facilities where
we can bring together community, school, law
enforcement, and court to begin to have an
early impact on children before they become
advanced criminals, and so forth and so on.
So I'm voting against this because
it's not what -- it's not what we in our
community have identified as the main problem
as related to gang activity.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Sampson.
SENATOR SAMPSON: Mr. President,
would the sponsor yield for a question or two?
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes,
Mr. President.
SENATOR SAMPSON: Through you,
Mr. President. I commend Senator Balboni on
enacting such legislation such as this,
because we do need to take the first step,
especially in gang activity, which has
increased tenfold within the last couple of
5991
years.
And as Senator Montgomery said, we
do need some prevention programs to really
prevent this activity. Because, as Senator
Balboni said, he's talking about, you know,
protecting the most vulnerable. In a lot of
ways to protect the most vulnerable is through
enacting such programs such as PAL or any
other program or after-school program.
Because we know most of those activities occur
between the hours of 2:00 to 8:00 p.m., when
these children have nothing to do.
But one thing I want to find out,
which has become prevalent within the last
couple of years, gang graffiti. And, through
you, Mr. President, I want to ask the Senator
what provisions, if any, does this legislation
take to record or keep track of such gang
activity, gang graffiti?
SENATOR BALBONI: Mr. President,
I yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Balboni.
SENATOR BALBONI: First of all,
let me just start by recognizing your work in
5992
this area, Senator Sampson. I know of your
interest and your legislation.
The bill itself deals with graffiti
only in that, for the first time in this
state, it would attempt to create a gang -- a
statewide gang database for the computer
justice system -- system of computers in the
justice system that would recognize a whole
host of elements or characteristics of gangs,
among them being graffiti.
You know, this is kind of a novel
approach for us, if you talk to law
enforcement here. But yet this is what they
do in California. They've got a program
called Gang Net in California which is -- and
Cal Net -- very sophisticated. And
essentially, they allow for downloading to any
local police department a color photograph of
both the individual, the colors that the gangs
wear, the graffiti that they use, you know.
And what's really interesting, the
police departments tell me that the graffiti
is an important indicator. Because when the
gangs, if the heat gets too much in their
local neighborhood, they shift their base of
5993
operation. And it could be as simple as
getting everybody in a car and going upstate
somewhere and hanging out for a couple of
days. But yet, believe it or not, they still
go out and they perform graffiti and write
graffiti on the walls.
And this is an indicator to the law
enforcement groups up there that there's a new
gang in town. You know, they may not be
operating -- this may not be their new base of
operations, but nonetheless, this would allow
law enforcement communities to know what
they're dealing with. You know, as another
trace here.
That's the way that this bill deals
with graffiti itself.
SENATOR SAMPSON: Okay.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Seabrook.
SENATOR SEABROOK: Yes,
Mr. President. Will the sponsor yield to a
question?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Balboni, do you yield for a question?
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, I do, Mr.
5994
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR SEABROOK: Mr. President,
through you.
Senator Balboni, there's a couple
of questions as it relates to common
characteristics that you talk about in this
bill. And are you familiar with the term
"wannabes"?
SENATOR BALBONI: "One of these"?
SENATOR SEABROOK: No,
"wannabes."
SENATOR BALBONI: "Wannabes"?
W-A-N-N-A-B-E-S?
SENATOR SEABROOK: Right.
SENATOR BALBONI: I've been a
wannabe all my life.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR BALBONI: I'm not sure
what, but I wannabe something.
SENATOR SEABROOK: Right. So
the -
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Balboni, do you continue to yield?
5995
SENATOR BALBONI: I do.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR SEABROOK: So the
question of gang wannabes in our communities
are a reality. We have more wannabes than
gang members.
This question of common
characteristics -- and if you look at some of
the common characteristics that you talk
about, the style of dress, the hand gestures,
their language, this is part of what the
children in our communities do, the wannabes.
The majority are. Less gang members, more
wannabes.
This also allows them to be picked
up without committing a crime. Part of the
bill here says that if they're in the company
of those known gang members but yet they're
not necessarily gang members, that they can
actually be picked up and identified as a gang
member. That's part of the characteristic.
The clothing that they wear, the
tattoos -- the tattoos are a part of the trend
of the wannabes. The clothing is sold in the
5996
Gap, it's sold at your major stores.
So how do we deal with this
question of the wannabes and this issue of
common characteristics?
SENATOR BALBONI: Mr. President,
Senator Seabrook raises a very important
question. That's the difficulty with this
bill. How do you allow police agencies to
identify gang members but yet still recognize
individual freedoms and associations?
If you take a look at the
definitions contained on page 2 of the bill,
in Section 280 you'll see that the criminal
street gang member is an individual, as
defined in here, who has two or more of the
following characteristics. A jury has to find
that. Just because a law enforcement agency
designates an individual as a gang member and
they are involved in criminal behavior, that
doesn't automatically put on them that
moniker. That has to be proved as an element
of the crime under this bill.
That's why the next section of the
bill, where it talks about expert testimony,
is so important. Because an expert will be
5997
able to differentiate for a jury what the
difference between a wannabe is and what the
difference between a gang -- a full-fledged,
active participant in a gang is.
Is that a perfect system? Is it a
foolproof system? Will enacting this statute
possibly result in the arrest of individuals
who are merely copycats or wannabes? I can't
tell you with an absolute certainty that it
won't.
But it is my understanding and my
belief that the law enforcement communities
across the state are so stretched with
resources that to go out and simply to pick
somebody up and now, as a pretense, say, Well,
we thought you were a gang member because you
did something with your hands, or you're
wearing this color or whatever, and make it
completely specious -- particularly in this
current environment, it's just not going to
happen.
I have faith in that. Maybe that's
not good enough for you. I understand that
and appreciate that very much. But this is an
attempt -- again, working with law enforcement
5998
and DAs -- to try and provide law enforcement
with tools to get at this problem.
SENATOR SEABROOK: Thank you,
Senator Balboni.
Mr. President, on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Seabrook, on the bill.
SENATOR SEABROOK: I think that
here we again are looking -- and the bill has
questions as it relates to common
characteristics, as it relates to identifying
members or who could be classified as street
gang members. And it says "two or more of
these characteristics." And "based on a
reliable informant."
I'm still trying to figure out
what's a reliable informant. So that's
probably one of the other questions. Because
in most cases, if you're paid, you can
probably buy a lie any type of way that you
desire.
The other issue, in terms of their
clothing and the gestures, in the district in
which I live there is a school for the deaf
that's populated by a tremendous amount of
5999
African-American and Latino kids who have a
desire to wear those type of clothing that's
there. They don't speak, but they use a lot
of sign languages that the gang members use.
A number of police officers would assume that
these are gang members.
I have a number of kids who have
basically worn a certain color and people said
that if they're wearing red today, they're
part of the Bloods. And the Gap sells those
big overblown shirts that everybody wears.
The baggy jeans are the style. In fact, they
cost more than some of the outfits we wear.
And the kids don't speak, but they use sign
languages coming from school. And they wear
their hair in a style of dreadlocks, in most
cases, and some are clean-shaven. And police
would assume that they are gang members,
because they want to be like everybody else.
The media has portrayed these individuals on
television, and it's a part of their dress and
their vernacular and everything else.
So it's rather hard. And when we
talk about these characteristics, that's the
danger of it. And we're a little bit
6000
overstepping as to how we begin to look and to
identify these gang members.
SENATOR BALBONI: Mr. President,
would the gentleman yield for a question?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Seabrook, will you yield for a question from
Senator Balboni?
SENATOR SEABROOK: Absolutely.
Absolutely.
SENATOR BALBONI: Senator
Seabrook, you're not suggesting that this bill
in any way, shape, or form contains penalties
for mere association with a gang?
SENATOR SEABROOK: I'm saying
that this bill, in terms of the
characteristics that's there, gives an officer
the opportunity to stop an individual on the
basis of his association. It says "based upon
the association of other gang members." It
might be a cousin that they might be at the
same dinner one night.
SENATOR BALBONI: Mr. President,
will the Senator yield for another question?
SENATOR SEABROOK: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
6001
Senator yields.
SENATOR BALBONI: Would you
please -- for the benefit of the body, Senator
Seabrook, could you direct me to where it
states in the bill that a law enforcement
officer is allowed to make a stop based upon
solely either looking like they are a gang
member, wearing their dress, someone saying
that they're a gang member? Where does that
say that in the bill?
SENATOR SEABROOK: It says in the
bill that a person -- a criminal street gang
member means a person who has two or more of
these following criteria. Based upon that,
the individual can be placed in a data bank.
And such a data bank and the individual who is
there, a police sees an individual who's
dressed in this characteristic, has this
tattoo and everything else, he assumes that
this is a gang member.
I'm saying that the presumption of
police officers in most cases in those
communities in which I represent, they would
be stopped. They would be searched. The
arrests, I don't know. But they will be
6002
stopped. They will be searched.
SENATOR BALBONI: As a result of
this bill only, Mr. President?
SENATOR SEABROOK: Not as -- Mr.
President, not as a result of this bill only.
Because even without this bill, they're being
stopped.
My point is that this bill in a
sense gives them a means and a basis of
legality that says, well, this is a gang
member.
So based upon that, Mr. President,
that this bill in a sense is almost similar to
the bill that they -- well, not the bill, but
the actions of the New Jersey state troopers.
In a sense. There's a profile that's created.
There's an actual profile that's actually
created by this bill -- characteristics,
customs, dress, tattoos. So you're actually
beginning to profile.
So we've got to be very careful.
The only thing we didn't profile was the
complexion. But based upon that, it's
children who are shopping at the Gap, children
who are shopping at J.C. Penney. The outfits
6003
that they wear, the baggy jeans. All of this
is a part of that.
And I'm saying that in our
communities, again, when we look at the school
that's in the district in which I represent,
the young guys who don't speak but use sign
languages to communicate -- the Bloods and the
Crips and everybody else use sign languages to
communicate too. Even the wannabes.
And so therefore, you have a system
that begins to profile individuals. And so
the danger of this -- and in this bill I
understand that there's a need to deal with
gang members and gangs that take place.
You deal with that not on the basis
of the characteristics, you give gang members
options and opportunities. Because this is a
gang, it's just a progressive, productive gang
of people associating. When our children do
not have all of the other means of being
involved in other activity, the gangs serve
their purpose. The Boys Club is a gang of
guys together. The Girls Club is a gang of
guys and girls together. The question is,
what do they do?
6004
So there are those who believe and
do criminal activity, but profiling at this
particular point creates a problem. And it
also gives all of us the belief that when we
see individuals dressing like that, tattoos
like that, we would assume that they're gang
members. The guy who rides a motorcycle and
have a helmet on and he is pumped up, you
would think he was a member of the Hell's
Angels. This guy might be a Wall Street
broker.
So we've got to be very careful in
bills that allow this whole proliferation of
profiling. But -- I do understand the need of
what Senator Balboni is trying to do, but it
is a dangerous step when we step over and
allow, in America, where racism exists -- that
we better be careful of how we do this. See,
the reality is with the racism that exists
within our society, the carefulness of how we
craft bills -- we have to be very careful.
Because what Mike wants is something good, but
those who will implement that will allow
something bad to happen. So the carefulness
of crafting that is essential and necessary,
6005
because all communities are different.
There is a need to deal with youth
violence, to deal with gang violence. But I
think that we have to begin to say perhaps we
need to educate children a little better. We
need to begin to talk about it in reality in
schools, as a part of a curriculum. That's
what changes attitudes and behaviors about
gangs.
When our children would care to be
in a facility -- there's a prison that was
built in the South Bronx a couple of years
ago, across the street from the school on
149th Street. The children are saying, "I
would love to go and play in the gym and swim
in the pool at the prison, because my school
don't have a gym or a pool." So the question
is that they would be prone to commit a crime
to go into the new spot for it than to go into
the old school.
So I'm saying that we have to be
creative as to how we deal with gangs in the
reality. They start out with nothing to do.
And when there's an absence of -- nothing to
do, they will create something to do. We have
6006
to begin to say that if crime is at the level
of being created at a higher percentage from
3:00 to 8:00, then there's something that we
have to do to allow our children to be
involved. Every school should be open. It
took ten years to fight to get the custodians
to say that they didn't have control of the
schools in New York City and we would have to
pay to have schools open.
So I understand the desire, and I
understand what gang members -- I have a
problem with some of the same young people in
my community, that we're going to take over a
park this Sunday. We're going to have
African-American men saying that we have had
enough in this park. And all the gang
members, the wannabe gang members, we plan to
bring a gang of African-American men in the
park to deal with those individuals who
believe that they have to create this gang,
this violence, because we have not stepped up
to the plate to show them that that's not the
way to go. So we have a responsibility.
I'm saying that there's enough on
the books to deal with individuals who commit
6007
crimes now. We don't have to do this. And
the profiling that's in here is the most
dangerous thing that can happen. And it will
come back -- not that Mike, Senator Balboni,
has a desire to have this, because I know him
well enough. But I know the danger of
profiling that will take place here. We will
come back, and we will be just like New Jersey
where we see that we are actually codifying,
profiling in a bill. And that's the danger of
what we have to look at.
So I think that we need to go back
to the drawing board on this bill. I
understand that the Senator has a real
commitment to deal with this. But this is
something that will come back to haunt us here
in this Legislature. So it was suggested that
we would sit back.
And at this particular point in
time, I would urge my colleagues not to vote
for this bill at this particular time until we
come to the realization that there's something
wrong with this bill.
Thank you very much, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
6008
Balboni.
SENATOR BALBONI: Senator, the
last thing that I would ever want to do is
propose legislation to this house that will in
any way further or widen the racial divide in
this state or in any community therein.
I have never, I have never
considered the aspect of profiling within this
bill. And that's perhaps because I've gotten
the view of this bill from law enforcement.
It has been law enforcement that has said to
me, "We consider gang members now all the
time." But when they come into your school
and they try to recruit your children, my
children, somebody else's child, we don't have
anything to get them on. We can't stop the
recruitment.
See, what you're talking about
would be very true if this -- these
characteristics were not already considered by
law enforcement. I assure you, they are. In
every neighborhood that the police are
involved, this is what they look for. Where
do you think I got the list?
By putting it into statute, what I
6009
am trying to do is allow the courts on the
back end, after the criminal act has taken
place -- not before -- when we're dealing not
with children but with children who have
committed criminal acts that either have
injured somebody, terrorized somebody,
destroyed a neighborhood, and now we allow a
jury to consider, as a part of the punishment,
the enhancement of the penalty based upon
expert testimony that this was a gang-related
crime that was directed against a victim and
these were done by full-fledged members or
leaders of a gang.
I understand your concerns very,
very well. But I think that we have to take
the courageous step to try and see if we can't
recognize that crime in this state is never an
easy fit, that if we're truly going to deal
with a new breed of criminals -- that is what
the gangs represent -- that we need to take
different approaches.
Having said that, this bill is
being carried by Assemblyman Klein. Assuming
this bill doesn't -- if this bill does not
become law this session, I will invite you,
6010
Senator Sampson, Senator Montgomery, let's sit
down and take a look at this bill from your
community's perspective, my community's
perspective -- I don't mean racial, I mean
where we live. And let's see if we can't
perhaps take out some of the provisions that
you might find to be offensive.
I thank you for your comments.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Seabrook.
SENATOR SEABROOK: Mr. President,
I just want to say to Senator Balboni that in
no way, shape, or form that I would associate
him with anything in terms of a divide or
creating a problem, because I know him too
well to be about that.
But I'm just saying that the
realities of what exists, what exists in our
communities -- and not too long ago, Senator
Balboni, the street crime unit in the City of
New York, the number of people that they
stopped just on the basis of what they wore,
how they walked -- if there was a big enough
shirt and the jeans were sagging and they were
on bikes or whatever, the assumption was that
6011
they had guns. The number of people that were
stopped and searched without any cause
outweighed the number of people that they
actually stopped and arrested and the guns
that were retrieved.
And I'm saying that we have to be
very careful about how we overstep this line,
because it's a very thin line. And that's
what we have to be very careful of.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 11. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
the negative on Calendar Number 1422 are
Senators Duane, Mendez, Montgomery, Rosado,
and Seabrook. Ayes, 53. Nays, 5.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
Senator Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Mr.
President -- just one second, please -- could
6012
we at this time recognize Senator Rosado?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Rosado.
SENATOR ROSADO: Mr. President, I
would like unanimous consent to be recorded in
the negative on Bill 912, Calendar 912.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Without
objection, Senator Rosado will be recorded in
the negative on Calendar 912.
Senator Mendez.
SENATOR MENDEZ: I also request
unanimous consent to be recorded in the
negative on Calendar Number 912.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Without
objection, Senator Mendez will be recorded in
the negative on Calendar 912.
Senator Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Mr.
President, can we at this time call up
Calendar Number 371.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Secreta
ry will read Calendar 371.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
371, by Senator Spano, Senate Print 1469B, an
act to amend the Social Services Law.
6013
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Is there a
message at the desk, Mr. President?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: There is
a message at the desk.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Move to
accept, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
question is on the motion to accept the
message of necessity. All those in favor
signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Opposed,
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
message is accepted. The bill is before the
house.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
6014
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 57. Nays,
1. Senator Hevesi recorded in the negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
Senator Schneiderman, why do you
rise?
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Mr.
President, I request unanimous consent to be
recorded as voting in the negative on Calendar
912, Senate 4450, and Calendar 14 -- no, 1512,
Senate 5823.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Without
objection, Senator Schneiderman will be
recorded in the negative with regard to
Calendar 912 and Calendar 1512.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you
very much.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Mr.
President, can we call up now Calendar Number
1068.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read Calendar 1068.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
6015
1068, by Senator LaValle, Senate Print 5206C,
an act to amend the Education Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Is there a
message at the desk, please?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: There is
a message at the desk.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Move to
accept.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
question is on the motion to accept the
message of necessity. All those in favor
signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Opposed,
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
message is accepted. The bill is before the
house.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 23. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
6016
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
Senator Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Mr.
President, at this time can we have the
noncontroversial reading of Supplemental
Calendar Number 1.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read the noncontroversial
calendar found in Supplemental Calendar
Number 1.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1524, by Senator Padavan, Senate Print 5505,
an act to amend the Public Authorities Law, in
relation to establishing.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the 30th day.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
6017
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: I'm
sorry. Senator Duane. To explain your vote?
SENATOR DUANE: Yes, Mr.
President, thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Duane, to explain his vote.
SENATOR DUANE: I'm very pleased
to vote in favor of this legislation. I
sponsored similar legislation when I was in
the New York City Council. It is long overdue
and a laudable idea.
I do also want to mention that
often it is important to provide special
protections for different groups of people,
which is why I continue to push for passage of
bias-related legislation. Oftentimes special
considerations need to be addressed through
legislation, in this case with half-fare
programs for persons with a disability, and in
the case of the bias bill to protect people
who are perceived to be or who are different
from being attacked in their neighborhoods.
But I vote in the affirmative.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
6018
Duane will be recorded in the affirmative.
The Secretary will announce the
results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
Senator Seabrook.
SENATOR SEABROOK: Yes, Mr.
President. With unanimous consent I would
like to be recorded in the negative on
Calendar 912 and Calendar 1512.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Without
objection, Senator Seabrook will be recorded
in the negative on Calendar 912 and Calendar
1512.
The secretary will continue to
read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1534, by Senator Leibell, Senate Print 2684,
an act to amend the Civil Service Law, in
relation to including.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
6019
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 57. Nays,
1. Senator Oppenheimer recorded in the
negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1535, by Senator Libous, Senate Print 3758, an
act to amend the Tax Law, in relation to
extending.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 56. Nays,
2. Senators Dollinger and Gentile recorded in
the negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
6020
1536, by Senator Stafford, Senate Print 3898A,
an act to amend the Executive Law and the
Criminal Procedure Law, in relation to
expanding.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Lay it aside,
Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Lay the
bill aside.
THE SECRETARY: In relation to
Calendar Number 1537, Senator Velella moves to
discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
Assembly Print Number 5384A and substitute it
for the identical Third Reading Calendar,
1537.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:
Substitution ordered.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1537, by Member of the Assembly Klein,
Assembly Print Number 5384A, an act to amend
the General Business Law.
SENATOR CONNOR: Lay it aside.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Lay the
6021
bill aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1538, by Senator Meier, Senate Print 4174A, an
act to amend the Public Authorities Law, in
relation to the creation.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: There's
a home rule message at the desk.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: In relation to
Calendar Number 1539, Senator Paterson moves
to discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
Assembly Print Number 7270B and substitute it
for the identical Third Reading Calendar,
1539.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: There is
a home rule message at the desk.
Read the last section.
6022
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1539, by Member of the Assembly Wright,
Assembly Print Number 7270B, an act in
relation to authorizing the City of New York.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:
Substitution ordered.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1540, by Senator Velella, Senate Print 4275,
an act to amend the Administrative Code of the
City of New York, in relation to workers on
excavations.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: There is
a home rule message at the desk.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the 30th day.
6023
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1541, by Senator Marchi, Senate Print 4458B,
an act to amend the Not-for-Profit Corporation
Law and the State Finance Law, in relation to
providing.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 6. This
act shall take effect on the 30th day.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: In relation to
Calendar Number 1542, Senator Wright moves to
discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
Assembly Print Number 7402A and substitute it
6024
for the identical Third Reading Calendar,
1542.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:
Substitution ordered.
Read the last section.
I'm sorry, the Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1542, by Member of the Assembly Bragman,
Assembly Print Number 7402A, an act to amend
the Retirement and Social Security Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Now read
the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: In relation to
Calendar Number 1543, Senator Seward moves to
discharge, from the Committee on Local
Government, Assembly Print Number 643 and
substitute it for the identical Third Reading
6025
Calendar, 1543.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:
Substitution ordered.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1543, by Member of the Assembly Luster,
Assembly Print Number 643, an act to amend the
Real Property Tax Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: In relation to
Calendar Number 1544, Senator Kuhl moves to
discharge, from the Committee on Finance,
Assembly Print Number 2977B -
SENATOR CONNOR: Lay it aside.
THE SECRETARY: -- and substitute
it for the identical Third Reading Calendar,
6026
1544.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Connor, we'll get the bill before the house
and then we'll lay it aside at your request.
Substitution ordered.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1544, by Member of the Assembly Sanders,
Assembly Print Number 2977B, an act to amend
the Education Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
will be laid aside at the request of the
Minority Leader, Senator Connor.
SENATOR CONNOR: At the request
of Senator Dollinger, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Dollinger requested the lay-aside.
The Secretary will continue to
read.
THE SECRETARY: In relation to
Calendar Number 1546, Senator Farley moves to
discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
Assembly Print Number 7879 and substitute it
for the identical Third Reading Calendar,
1546.
6027
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:
Substitution ordered.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1546, by the Assembly Committee on Rules,
Assembly Print Number 7879, an act to amend
the Public Health Law, in relation to
continuing.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 5. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
January.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1547, by Senator Seward, Senate Print 5208B,
an act to amend the Education Law, in relation
to illegal practice.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
6028
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 48.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1548, by Senator Seward, Senate Print 5618A,
an act to legalize, validate, ratify and
confirm the dissolution.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: There is
a home rule message at the desk.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1550, by Senator McGee, Senate Print 5789, an
6029
act to amend Chapter 584 of the Laws of 1998.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: There is
a home rule message at the desk.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1551, by Senator Gentile, Senate Print 5832,
an act to authorize the Brooklyn Cultural
Center of New York, Incorporated.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 57. Nays,
1. Senator Dollinger recorded in the
6030
negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1552, by Senator Rath, Senate Print 5875, an
act to amend the Executive Law, in relation to
establishing.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: In relation to
Calendar Number 1553, Senator Meier moves to
discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
Assembly Bill Number 996B and substitute it
for the identical Third Reading Calendar,
1553.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:
Substitution ordered.
6031
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1553, by Member of the Assembly Jacobs,
Assembly Print Number 996B, an act to amend
the Social Services Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 5. This
act shall take effect in 180 days.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1554, by Senator Rath, Senate Print 5893, an
act authorizing the implementation of a Smart
Growth planning demonstration program.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Lay it aside.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Lay the
bill aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1555, by Senator Bonacic, Senate Print 5919,
an act to exempt certain parcels of land.
6032
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: There is
a home rule message at the desk.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Could we go
back to Calendar Number 1554, by Senator Rath,
and lay that aside for the day.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Calendar
1554 will be laid aside for the day at the
request of the Acting Majority Leader.
Senator Marcellino, the remaining
bills are high. And that completes the
reading of the noncontroversial calendar.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Mr.
6033
President, we're just waiting for Senator Kuhl
for two seconds. He'll be right here. Then
we'll debate that bill. He should be here
momentarily.
Can we recognize the Right
Honorable Deputy Minority Leader,
Mr. Paterson.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you,
Mr. President. May I be -- with unanimous
consent of course, may I be recorded in the
negative on Calendar Numbers 912 and 1422, 912
and 1422.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Without
objection, Senator Paterson will be recorded
in the negative on Calendars 912 and 1422.
Senator Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Mr.
President, at this time can we call up
Calendar Number 1544.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read Calendar 1544.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1544, substituted earlier today by Member of
6034
the Assembly Sanders, Assembly Print Number
2977B, an act to amend the Education Law.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Explanation,
Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Kuhl, an explanation has been requested of
Calendar 1544 by Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR KUHL: Thank you, Mr.
President.
This bill is a rather modest
proposal. It makes relatively few changes in
the Education Law, but a very important
change. Primarily, this bill would raise the
compulsory education maximum level, which is
currently 16, to 17. And what it would do is
to raise the option to a higher age for local
school districts to require students to go to
school.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Will Senator
Kuhl yield to a couple of questions?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Kuhl, do you yield for a question from Senator
Dollinger?
6035
SENATOR KUHL: I'd be happy to.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Senator, I
agree with the concept of this wholeheartedly.
But I have two questions.
First of all, how many -- strike
that. Does the current law provide that local
Boards of Education may set a higher age
beyond 16, or is that new language in the
bill?
SENATOR KUHL: It -- they have
the authority to raise the age currently,
under current law, higher than 16, but they
can only go to 17. And currently in the state
of New York the City of New York has elected
to do so. So that in the City of New York,
students are required to continue education
till the year in which they turn 17, while in
the rest of the state they're only required,
unless there is a local option -- and I don't
believe there are many local options through
the rest of the state -- most students only
are required to go to school until the year in
which they turn -- the end of the year in
6036
which they turn 16.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President. And again, I -
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Kuhl, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR KUHL: Yes, I do.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: And again, I
want to make this clear, that I think this is
a good bill for all kinds of reasons.
But what will be the practical
effect on truancy if this measure passes? I
mean, I appreciate the fact that we're trying
to get kids to go to school for a longer
period of time. But is this simply going to
result in a huge increase in the truancy
numbers if we jump it from 16 to 17?
SENATOR KUHL: I don't believe
so, Senator. This is -- really, if you look
at the state of education in New York, there's
a major revolution going on, if you will.
There's been a requirement from a national
standpoint to upgrade the quality of education
in not only New York but in the country, and
6037
New York is starting to do that.
The Board of Regents, as you know,
who are elected by a joint conference of both
houses, have selected the -- a higher standard
for students to graduate. That is gradually
being phased in and will be fully implemented
by the year 2003.
One of the things that is, I think,
causing some concern right now, because -
there's a great deal of anxiety that's been
created because there's an unknown. There's a
change going on, and there's an unknown.
People don't know, for instance, what the
Global Studies Regents is going to look like
that they're going to be required to pass to
actually graduate from high school. And the
issues go on and on and on.
But not to bore you, and certainly
not to take -- I think to spend a lot of time
on another area, there also is going to be, I
think, an increased opportunity and perhaps
desire from some students just to call it
quits at 16 and just say, "Look, I'm not going
to engage in that more competitive course of
study, and therefore I'm going to just exit
6038
and go do my thing."
The reality is currently right now
we have about 28,000 students who are dropping
out of school. The reality is, quite frankly,
that to get anywhere in today's world, you
have to have a high school education. And
without that you're going to be probably, in
most cases, a drain on our society. You're
either going to end up not being able to
subsidize yourself and your family and you're
going to be thrust into a situation where you
are violating the law to survive and end up in
a correctional facility, or you're going to
end up being in need of some temporary
services and also being able not to take care
of yourself.
So the emphasis behind this
proposal is to do what is absolutely essential
in today's world, and that is to give an
education to our students and recognize that
there are times in a young person's life when
they are not necessarily making the most
mature decision. So what we're simply saying
is we're going to require students to receive
a formal education until they're 17, and local
6039
municipalities, school districts, may elect to
extend that even further.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: One final
question, through you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Kuhl, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR KUHL: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: The only
objection that I've heard to this bill is that
its impact on home schools, with respect to
the reporting requirements, the additional
reporting requirements beyond age 16, the
extra year that people who are educating their
children in the context of their home, that
they would have extra reporting requirements.
Is it possible that even though
we're increasing the compulsory age of
education, that they could waive that after
16, just to cut down on the cost or on the
administrative burden of home schooling?
SENATOR KUHL: To answer your
question, Senator, that is a possibility.
And Reverend Motley, who is
6040
promoting this possible concern in this area,
is in the stands behind you, and he and I have
had a discussion just as recently as about an
hour ago. And as I had told him several days
ago, in fact, that is an issue -
overregulation, bureaucratic controls -- that
we would be happy to look at.
And from my conversation with him,
you'd be happy to know that the Commissioner
of Education has also committed to do a review
of the regulations, to try to make it easier
for home schoolers, as long as they meet a
certain standard of providing that education,
to actually deliver that educational format.
So the answer to your question is
yes, that's a possibility. Will that happen?
I don't know. But I have committed to the
home school people that in fact we will
undertake a review of the regulations to try
to ease any burden that this might provide to
them. But also to ease any other burden that
might be imposed on them as a result of
regulations from the Department of Education.
Now, the other thing that Reverend
Motley did say to me was that, "Oh, we're very
6041
much in favor of this bill." So you should
know that also.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: He made that
clear to me as well.
Through you, Mr. President, just on
the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Dollinger, on the bill.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I think the
reason why -- and I hadn't really thought of
the home schooling before it was brought to my
attention. Truancy in the context of home
schooling is relatively slim. If mom or dad
is doing the educating, the kids are there in
the home. And the concept of truancy is
really almost inconsistent with the whole
notion of home schooling.
But I commend Senator Kuhl for
doing this. I continue to believe that there
are two things we should look at. Not just
raising the age of compulsory education, but
the other thing that we might want to do and
the other thing we ought to at least consider
is raising the age at which you are entitled
to a universal free public education. It is
6042
now age 19, that we can educate our students
up to 19.
One of the problems we've run into
in many contexts is the concept of remediation
until you get your high school degree. And as
we know, too many kids are not getting it by
the time they're 19. They're not eligible for
the GED. They don't get that educational
foundation. And yet when they try to go back
and get it at some future time -- we had a
debate here in the context of the Finance
Committee when we were considering nominees
for the CUNY system in which we talked about
how we had students who were using up their
TAP appropriation so they could get the
remediation which we can now only afford them
in either in our community colleges or our
four-year institutions.
And so it seems to me that one of
the things we should look at -- and I agree
with Senator Kuhl's philosophy and his concept
that we should be providing more incentives to
go through school. And I would suggest that
we not only look at the compulsory age of
education, but that we look at that whole
6043
notion of the concept of when are you entitled
to a universal free public education, and that
it not necessarily be age-determinative but
that it be skills-determinative.
And that we might establish a
situation in which, even though it's more
costly -- and this is where I agree Senator
Kuhl absolutely and completely. I believe you
can't get -- you can't even begin to show up
on the radar screen without a high school
education. I actually believe that you can't
even begin to make it to do the kinds of
things that you talked about, supporting your
family and not being a drain on society,
without a college education these days. And
that is the message we ought to be sending.
I'm going to vote in favor of this
bill because it takes a step in that
direction. I would like to think that we
would at some point take further steps that
will get us to that whole notion that was true
in the 1920s when we put in the age 16, when
we were convinced in the 1920s that if you got
to age 16, you probably could have a high
school degree, and that gets you in the middle
6044
class.
The notion now is very simple. To
get into the middle class, to survive in this
society, you have to have that college degree.
And I welcome this step. I hope we
can go further.
SENATOR KUHL: Would Senator
Dollinger just yield to one question?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Dollinger, do you yield for a question?
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Absolutely,
Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR KUHL: Senator Dollinger,
you used the age of 19. I'm curious as to
where you picked up that piece of information.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: It was my
understanding -- through you, Mr. President -
that that was the age at which your
entitlement to a free public education -- it
was 18, and then it was extended to 19 so that
those students could continue to go to a free
public high school until age 19.
That's my understanding. I may be
6045
incorrect with that, Mr. President.
SENATOR KUHL: Just for your
benefit, Senator Dollinger, if I may -
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: If you would refer
to Section 3202 of the Education Law, you'll
find that that age is 21.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: 21, okay.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Oppenheimer.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Just to
explain my yes vote. Because -
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Well,
you want to speak on the bill? We're on the
bill now.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Okay. Call
the roll, yeah.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Okay.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 8. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
July.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
6046
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Oppenheimer, to explain her vote.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Thank you.
This obviously, I think, is an
excellent bill. Otherwise, I wouldn't have
cosponsored it. We have now -- our students
will have to pass five Regents exams before
they will be able to get the Regents diploma.
We -- that's in the future. We're putting in
one each year.
But it may take additional time for
some of our students to meet and reach these
standards and pass these exams in order to
qualify for the Regents diploma. And
therefore, I think it's important that we give
them and mandate the extra time that they will
need to do this.
However -- here's the however -- I
don't want this to look like it is the answer
to the problems that we have with education
today. If we want to assure academic success,
we really have to work on those at-risk kids
who are struggling with our education system.
6047
And therefore, I see this as one step. But
many steps need still to be taken to provide
for the at-risk student at a very early age
and to provide the smaller classes and to
provide the pre-kindergarten instruction and
to offer the staff development that will be
necessary for the teachers to teach to the
higher standards.
And all of this really takes
substantial additional resources. And so I
would make my appeal also for those resources
so that we can offer the at-risk student
additional time, summer-school assistance,
after-school hours to provide assistance to
them.
There's a whole panoply of needs
here. This addresses one piece of it. I
support the bill. I don't want to overlook
the other important needs of our education
system.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Oppenheimer will be recorded in the
affirmative.
The Secretary will announce the
results.
6048
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
Senator Montgomery, why do you
rise?
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Mr.
President, I would like unanimous consent to
be recorded in the negative on Calendar 1512.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Without
objection, Senator Montgomery will be recorded
in the negative on Calendar 1512.
Senator Gentile.
SENATOR GENTILE: Yes, Mr.
President. I'd like unanimous consent to be
recorded in the negative on Calendar 371 on
the original calendar.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Without
objection, Senator Gentile will be recorded in
the negative on Calendar 371.
Senator Smith.
SENATOR SMITH: Thank you, Mr.
President. I request unanimous consent to be
recorded in the negative on Calendar Number
1420.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Without
6049
objection, Senator Smith will be recorded in
the negative with regard to Calendar 1420.
Senator Santiago.
SENATOR SANTIAGO: Yes,
Mr. President. I would like to be recorded in
the negative on Calendar 912, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Without
objection, Senator Santiago will be recorded
in the negative on Calendar 912.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
without objection, I'd like to be recorded in
the negative on Calendar Numbers 1512 and
1534.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Without
objection, Senator Paterson will be recorded
in the negative with regard to Calendar
1512 -- what was the other one, Senator
Paterson? 1534?
SENATOR PATERSON: 1534.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Smith, excuse me. The Chair requires a
clarification. Is it Calendar 1422 you wish
to be recorded in the negative on? That would
be Senator Balboni's bill that was debated
extensively.
6050
SENATOR SMITH: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: All
right, the record will so reflect. And
without objection, Senator Smith will be
recorded in the negative on Calendar 1422.
Senator Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Thank you,
Mr. President. Can we return to the regular
calendar and call up Calendar Number 644.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: On the
regular calendar, the Secretary will read
Calendar 644.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
644, by Senator Saland, Senate Print 3815B, an
act to amend the Family Court Act, in relation
to dispositions.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Is there a
message at the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: There is
a message at the desk.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Move to
accept.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
question is on the motion to accept the
message of necessity. All those in favor
6051
signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Opposed,
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
message is accepted. The bill is before the
house.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 5. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
November.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
Senator Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Mr.
President, can we call up, on the same
calendar, Calendar Number 994.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read Calendar 994.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
6052
994, by Senator Volker, Senate Print 3521A, an
act to amend the Civil Practice Law and Rules,
in relation to motions.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Is there a
message at the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Yes,
there is a message.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Move to
accept that message.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
question is on the motion to accept the
message of necessity. All those in favor
signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Opposed,
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
message is accepted. The bill is before the
house.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect immediately.
6053
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
Senator Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Can we now
call up Bill Number 1164.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read Calendar 1164.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1164, by Senator Skelos, Senate Print 5434A,
an act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law,
in relation to appointment.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Is there a
message at the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: There is
a message.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: I move to
accept the message.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
question is on the motion to accept the
6054
message of necessity. All those in favor
signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Opposed,
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
message is accepted. The bill is before the
house.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
Senator Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: May we stand
at ease temporarily.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Senate will stand at ease temporarily.
(Whereupon, the Senate stood at
ease at 12:45 p.m.)
6055
SENATOR LACK: There will be an
immediate conference of the Senate Majority in
Room 332. Repeat, an immediate conference of
the Senate Majority in Room 332.
(Whereupon, the Senate reconvened
at 2:30 p.m.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President,
if we could return to the order of motions and
resolutions.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Motions
and resolutions.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President,
there are three privileged resolutions at the
desk by Senator Larkin. I ask that the titles
be read and move for their immediate adoption.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: By Senator
Larkin, Legislative Resolution Number 2058,
commending Pat Ernenwein upon the occasion of
her service of twenty years as executive
director of Planned Parenthood.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
6056
question is on the resolution. All those in
favor signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Opposed,
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
resolution is adopted.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: By Senator
Larkin, Legislative Resolution Number 2059,
congratulating Dirk and Ella Ossmer upon the
occasion of their 50th wedding anniversary.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
question is on the resolution. All those in
favor signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Opposed,
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
resolution is adopted.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: By Senator
Larkin, Legislative Resolution Number 2060,
6057
congratulating Erwin and Dorothy Koziak upon
the occasion of their 50th wedding
anniversary.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
question is on the resolution. All those in
favor signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Opposed,
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
resolution is adopted.
SENATOR SKELOS: Are there any
substitutions at the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: We have
one substitution.
The Secretary will read.
SENATOR SKELOS: Please make the
substitution.
THE SECRETARY: On page 10,
Senator Spano moves to discharge, from the
Committee on Rules, Assembly Bill Number 7076
and substitute it for the identical Third
Reading Calendar, 369.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:
6058
Substitution ordered.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President,
on Supplemental Calendar Number 1, would you
please call up Calendar Number 1558, by
Senator Volker.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read Calendar 1558 on the
Supplemental Calendar Number 1.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1558, by Senator Volker, Senate Print 5987, an
act to amend the Penal Law and the Criminal
Procedure Law, in relation to capital
punishment.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Is there a
message of necessity at the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: There is
a message at the desk.
SENATOR SKELOS: Move to accept.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
question is on the motion to accept the
message of necessity. All those in favor
signify by saying aye.
6059
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Opposed,
nay.
(Response of "Nay.")
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
message is accepted. The bill is before the
house.
Read the last section.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Volker, an explanation has been requested of
Calendar 1558.
SENATOR VOLKER: Mr. President,
I'm sorry. I didn't realize we were started.
This is a bill, this is a
Governor's Program bill to deal with a
potential expansion of the death penalty
statute that we passed in 1995. Probably the
most high-profile part of this bill deals with
the -- dealing with a Supreme Court case -
well, actually a Court of Appeals case -
which in the meantime, by the way, has been
denied review -- which deals with a case
called the Jackson case. And it deals with
the issue of pleading to life without parole.
6060
Very quickly, let me say I think
the decision was probably in error. We
thought the decision in the Jackson case
didn't apply. And the reason was the Jackson
case was basically a kidnapping case.
Although it was, in my opinion, an erroneous
federal statute. A lot of us in law
enforcement didn't like the idea that you
could get the death penalty for kidnapping
someone even though you didn't kill them.
Because the danger in that was always that you
almost encourage the kidnapper to kill
somebody, because they got the same penalty
whether they kept them alive or they killed
them. And we frankly, many of us, thought the
federal government that enacted that statute
wasn't thinking very clearly.
And maybe that's one of the reasons
why most criminal justice statutes that mean
anything, I think, are at a state level. But
that's neither here nor there.
At any rate, the Court of Appeals
in this state just recently decided a case
that -- and it was the matter of Hynes versus
Tomei, I believe it was -- that said that the
6061
death penalty statute, as far as a person
pleading to life without parole, was invalid
because the person was coerced, because there
was no ability to go to trial.
Interesting, by the way, one of the
most fascinating declarations of deterrence
any of us have ever seen. What this says is
the fear of the death penalty is so strong
that some 40 people or more pled to life
without parole because they were so fearful to
go to a jury on the issue of the death
penalty.
This bill clears up that issue, and
it does it in -- primarily in a way that what
would happen is a person could plead to murder
and be subjected to the jury, a decision by
the jury, as to whether there would be death
or life without parole. You could also plead,
under this bill, to life without parole.
Because under the Jackson case, you had to
have the ability to do something else besides
just plead to life without parole, and this
bill does that.
The other thing is you could
actually plead, in this case, as in virtually
6062
every state in the union, you could plead to
capital punishment, to the death penalty, but
only through -- as I say, only through a jury
trial.
There are several expansions here
of categories of people who would be -- could
be subject to the death penalty. And maybe
most significantly, it changes the end of the
case pattern whereby, instead of the defendant
having the last shot at the jury, the
prosecutor is the last one to sum up to the
jury. As is the case, by the way, I believe,
in all 39 other states that have a death
penalty statute.
It also allows, at the penalty
phase -- which is the phase in which the jury
decides on sentencing -- allows victim impact
statements and allows the victim to make
statements.
One other thing it does, which I
admit is very important, it allows for what we
call prior bad acts to be brought in at the
sentencing stage, where previous convictions
are allowed in. The bill that we passed in
'95 admittedly allowed a great deal of leeway
6063
for defendants on the issue of mitigation. We
still allow that. But what some people argued
at that time was that we really weighted it so
strongly on the mitigation side that we should
at least allow some testimony as to previous
bad acts in the case. And that's what this
bill does.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
would Senator Volker yield to a question?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Volker, do you yield for a question?
SENATOR VOLKER: Sure.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR PATERSON: Actually,
Senator Dollinger relinquished the floor to me
for a moment. I just want to ask you a
technical question -
SENATOR VOLKER: Sure.
SENATOR PATERSON: -- about
something that you just said.
As the law stands now, would a
defendant be able to plead to the death
6064
penalty?
SENATOR VOLKER: You mean would
he be able to plead to capital punishment?
The answer is no.
SENATOR PATERSON: No?
SENATOR VOLKER: No.
SENATOR PATERSON: This would
actually change that?
SENATOR VOLKER: No. No, you
still can't plead -- in other words, you still
can't stand up in front of a judge and say, "I
plead to subject myself to the death penalty."
That you still can't do. You can't -- some
people would say you can't commit suicide.
Under this bill, that part of it
still remains. It's just that you can plead
to murder and subject yourself to the jury and
you can -- which decides death or life. You
could plead to life without parole. But you
couldn't plead directly to capital punishment,
no.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
if the Senator would yield just for a moment.
SENATOR VOLKER: Sure.
SENATOR PATERSON: And how does
6065
that change the law as it stands right now?
SENATOR VOLKER: Well, the major
change in the law is that under the present
law you couldn't actually plead to murder and
then allow yourself to go to the jury on the
issue of death or life without parole. In
other words, you've got to try in order to get
to the jury on the issue of life without
parole, death, or life term.
You can still plead now, under this
statute, to life without parole, but you had
the option to plead to murder and go to the
jury and plead your case before the penalty
phase on the issue of whether you should get
the death penalty or life without parole.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
I want to thank Senator Volker for his answer
and Senator Dollinger for his indulgence. I
just wanted to clear up that technical point.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Mr. President. As I promised Senator Volker
6066
earlier, I intend to ask him a series of
questions if he would yield, at least at the
start, for a couple of questions.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Volker, do you yield for some questions from
Senator Dollinger?
SENATOR VOLKER: Sure. Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Before I ask
my first question, Senator Volker, let me tell
you, I agree with one thing that you said
completely. And that is there's no question
that the death penalty has had a deterrent
impact on the people charged with capital
offenses. And there's no question that it
deters them. The option of life in prison
without parole deters them from taking their
case to trial.
The big question we debated when we
did the death penalty was whether it was
actually going to deter their conduct in
killing someone, which I think the jury is
still out on. But there's no question that
the option of life imprisonment without parole
6067
has deterred people who are facing murder in
the first degree from going to trial. I think
the evidence is pretty strong that that's the
case.
Let me go back to a couple of
sections of the bill, Senator Volker, if I
could. First of all, on page 3, the section
that deals with the other instances in which
the death penalty would now be permitted. My
question is, do we have any evidence that any
of the cases under which we are currently
prosecuting for capital offenses in this
state, whether they involve the killing for
the pleasure of it or the act of -- to
experience the act of killing or to obtain
membership or status in a group or
organization? Are there any cases for which
we're currently prosecuting people that
involve any one of those three?
SENATOR VOLKER: I think there
are -- nationwide, there are definitely some.
And I understand that there is a case in New
York City that one of the -- and I think
it's -- I'm not sure if it's tried or not yet.
I don't think it was tried yet -- that deals
6068
with the issue of pleasure killing and may
also deal with the issue of membership in a
club.
And, Senator, I must tell you
something. When people tell me that the death
penalty is not a deterrent, I have to kind of
chuckle. I mean, when the death penalty
declined in this country, the murder rate shot
out of control. And since we have established
the death penalty not only in this state, in
this country, the murder rate has dropped like
a rock.
So I only point that out -- there
are instances. Now, as to whether some of the
instances of cases in New York relate to these
specific issues, I believe there is one where
the allegations are that there was, in effect,
some pleasure killing, if you want to call it,
and also an issue of whether there was some
gang involvement in it.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Again,
through you, Mr. President, if Senator Volker
will continue to yield on that point.
SENATOR VOLKER: Sure.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
6069
Senator yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: But aren't
those people charged with the death penalty
anyway? I mean, they would be charged
regardless of whether we had this new language
or not.
SENATOR VOLKER: Could be.
Although there could be some cases where they
might not be. Remember, we don't -- it
depends on the type of killing there is.
And I could cite you three or four
cases that are presently under active
investigation, shall we say, where the issue
is -- and one of them is a very high-profile
case -- where the question of whether that
person would be subject to capital punishment
could depend on, for instance, prior killings
and things of that nature, as is -- the person
is suspected of being involved in a prior
killing.
And, I mean, there are a number of
cases where there may be some involvement in
some of the changes that are being made here.
It's possible there may not be. But we do
know nationwide that there have been incidents
6070
that appear to involve these type of actions.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Again,
through you, Mr. President -
SENATOR VOLKER: Sure.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Volker, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR VOLKER: Yes, I'll
continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: With respect
to the provision immediately in front of that,
where the killing is motivated by the benefits
of a trust, an insurance policy, an estate, do
we have any evidence that there are any cases
that encompass that in this state since we've
put the death penalty in place?
SENATOR VOLKER: My counsel
informs me that under the current death
penalty statute, there would be no way that
that could be covered. But as far as I know,
there are none right now that appear to be of
that nature.
But of course, remember, as my
counsel points out, since this now would not
6071
be covered by the death penalty statute, we
don't know for sure whether there may have
been some cases that were murder-two cases, as
the saying goes, because they weren't covered
by this provision.
Am I clear on that? In other
words, I am not aware of a case directly
involving this. On the other hand, there may
well be, because they would not be death
penalty cases at the present time unless the
guy was a multiple murderer or some other
reason for bringing them into the fold. They
could well have killed someone for this very
reason, and they're in jail, and we wouldn't
know. But I am not aware specifically of a
case in New York at this time that involves
this.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Okay. Thank
you, Mr. President.
I've got a couple of others on a
couple of other sections.
On page 4, section 4, the lines 14
through 21, "effects a change in the
postconviction motions." Could you explain to
me what the theory behind that is, why -- I
6072
assume, through you, Mr. President, that the
postconviction motions are all brought at the
time the verdict is rendered; that is, to set
aside the verdict, to challenge the -- to poll
the jury, to do all that.
Why would we wait until after the
sentencing phase to do that if one of the
effects that the court could do is the court
could rule, even after the jury came back,
that there wasn't sufficient evidence for the
jury to find the defendant guilty beyond a
reasonable doubt and therefore avoid the
conviction? Why would you wait until after
the sentencing -
SENATOR VOLKER: Well, I think
the reason for that provision is to avoid
enormous delays. A judge always has the
authority, by the way, whether you -- the
authority to move against a decision. But the
reason for this is an attempt to bring all the
motions at the end of the proceedings so that
they don't delay the sentencing process in -
for a long period of time, as I understand
that.
And the other thing is I think
6073
that -- I think that judges, the judicial
comment on some of these things could have an
impact, I suppose, on the sentencing
proceeding, and I think that's one reason for
the -- for that. That's the only thing I can
think of.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President, if Senator Volker will continue
to yield.
SENATOR VOLKER: Sure.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: The concern
about the sentencing phase of the hearing is
critically important. As I know you well
understand, Senator Volker, the nature of the
evidence that's admissible and produced at the
sentencing portion of the hearing is so
critically important because that's the point
at which the jury has already established this
is a bad guy, that this guy has committed a
capital offense. And the question becomes
what's the appropriate penalty.
This change allows impact of the
crime on the victim's family and the
6074
community. Could you tell me what the phrase
"the community" means?
SENATOR VOLKER: Well, I think
what it would be is -- is -- again, it would
be more like a victim's statement, testimony.
I think the community, they're talking about
the family and what impact it could have. Or
I suppose in the case of a police officer, you
could at least bring in some evidence as to
the impact of that crime, just -- I'm just
thinking in terms of the person's death, loss
of an important person in the community.
It is more a matter of comment. As
you know, no state in the union allows as much
flexibility on the mitigating stage as New
York. In fact, that was frankly a decision of
mine, way back when. That was in my original
bill, before the court even moved to allow
more mitigation. I did -- I felt that was
absolutely critically important.
Most states, by the way, allow
virtually unfettered ability to make both
sides to -- to testify at the sentencing.
This actually -- the -- in reality, what this
bill does is to move toward the way the rest
6075
of the country is allowing the sentencing
phase, and that is allowing victims to come
in. Some states are even more extensive in
allowing testimony of prior bad conduct than
we are.
We're talking about crimes here.
The crimes -
SENATOR DOLLINGER: -- we're
getting into the bad conduct -
SENATOR VOLKER: And that's true.
And that's a significant change. We're
talking here about -- a lot of these people
are people that have been arrested a number of
times and convicted, and we're allowing that
in.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Again,
through you, Mr. President, if Senator Volker
will continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Volker, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR VOLKER: Yes. Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I understand,
Senator Volker, the point about other bad
6076
acts. My question here specifically deals
with the language of "the community."
And here's why I'm concerned,
Senator. Because this suggests that if you
killed a -- if someone were killed who was a
high-profile person, like the supervisor of a
town or a New York state senator, or a
community -- a president of the community
bank, that the broad community could come in
and comment on the loss of a particular
individual's life and its impact on the
community, but that would not necessarily have
any direct relevance to the issues of the
murder or the penalty.
And my concern is that by putting
in the phrase "the community," do we set a
double standard? Do we set a standard that
says if you happen to be shot -- and I'll use
my own district, because it's the one I'm most
familiar with -- if you happen to be shot in
Brighton and you were a community resident in
the town of Brighton, a wealthy,
upper-middle-class suburb, that you might be
subjected to a different community action than
if you were shot in the central portion of my
6077
city, in an area where there's substantial
poverty?
Do you set up a dichotomy when you
allow the community in one case to come in and
articulate its sense of loss and another
community which may not have that same
capability?
SENATOR VOLKER: I think you'd
make an interesting argument on appeal, except
for one thing. I think you'd make the same
argument in the minority community, that a
person was so valuable to the minority
community, for instance, that you could make
an argument maybe more valuable than a person
in a more wealthy community or, for instance,
the Jewish community or anything.
I think the idea of this is to
allow some sort of -- and most states do
this -- to allow some sort of testimony on the
value of human life to the community where the
killing occurred. And, you know, I suppose
this would have to be within limits, and
obviously the judge would limit that. But the
idea -- I think what you have said is
fascinating.
6078
I would look at it from a different
standpoint. Not the value of, for instance, a
wealthy person. I would look at the value,
for instance, of a poorer person and of
somebody who is a part of the community. I'll
give you an example. For instance, what about
a rabbi who is killed, or a priest or a
minister or whatever? I suppose that that is
something that some would argue should be at
least part of some of the testimony.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Again,
through you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Volker, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR VOLKER: Sure.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: My concern is
that the testimony at the sentencing phase
includes mitigating circumstances, which is
largely focused on the psychology, the
background, the life of the accused, now the
guilty party.
The evidence from -- that is in
aggravation is from the family of the
6079
deceased. My question is, how -- if you bring
in the community, if you allow broad testimony
as to the value of the life to the community,
do we in essence ratchet up the penalties for
those who happen to kill people who are
perhaps more famous or more noteworthy or more
established in the community than we do for
the guy who lives next door? Are we setting a
standard that says that if you kill somebody
famous, you're more likely to get the death
penalty?
SENATOR VOLKER: I think the
truth has been that it seems if you kill
somebody famous, you're less likely to get it.
But I think -- I think -- I guess I
look at it from both sides. I think you could
make an argument that -
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Excuse me,
Madam President. I'm having some difficulty
hearing Senator Volker.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Gentlem
en, please.
SENATOR VOLKER: I understand
what you're getting at, Senator. But I
don't -- I think this is a provision that
6080
attempts to deal with some of the -- with some
sort of testimony that could deal with the
individual or individuals that are involved
and at least some sort of dealing with the
community involvement.
I could foresee that a poor person
could be just as easily -- they could just as
easily give testimony as to their involvement
in the community as somebody who is wealthy or
famous or whatever. And I would suspect
strongly that any -- as you know, any defense
attorney worth his note would be pretty
careful here to make sure that the testimony
didn't go awry. And I think the judge would
be also.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Okay. Just a
couple more questions, Madam President, and
I'll be done.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Volker, will you yield?
SENATOR VOLKER: Sure.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I'd like to
turn to page 7, to the prior bad acts question
which you raised and I know you've been
concerned about before.
6081
Could you just explain to me the
provision about -- it says if -- in other
words, you could introduce at the sentencing
phase evidence of any prior violent felony; is
that correct?
SENATOR VOLKER: Right.
Conviction. Let me just -- this is
a conviction. You can't just -- not an
arrest, a conviction.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Okay. Again,
through you, Madam President. That would
include any violent felony -
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Volker, do you yield?
SENATOR DOLLINGER: -
conviction, even a Class D felony conviction?
SENATOR VOLKER: That's true.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: And the part
I don't understand is the section that starts
on line 13, "or in any other jurisdiction of
an offense for which the sentence of
imprisonment is in excess of one year." Are
you saying that, in other words, if they meet
the felony test in our state and they're
sentenced for more than a year, that's -
6082
SENATOR VOLKER: If the violent
felony offense in that state equated to a
violent felony offense in our state, then that
you could bring into evidence. The one year
is because in some states -- not in our state,
where a violent felony offense is
traditionally more than one year. But in some
states, a violent felony offense does -- has a
basis of one year.
It's only, though, a violent felony
offense. And that offense in that other state
must equate to a violent felony offense in
this state. In other words, if it's a violent
felony offense but it's not one that's in our
state, you can't bring it in.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Okay. Again,
through you, Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Volker, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR VOLKER: Sure.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Does this
bill put any time limit on when the violent
felony offense has to have occurred?
SENATOR VOLKER: No, it doesn't.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: So, through
6083
you, Madam President, if someone were charged
with a violent felony offense at age 16 or
17 -- a baseball fight -- and were
convicted -
SENATOR VOLKER: Yeah, convicted.
Not charged.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Right,
convicted. If they were charged with murder
and convicted, they would face -- they would
have that brought up as an aggravated
circumstance five, ten, fifteen, twenty years
later?
SENATOR VOLKER: It could.
But, Senator, I think you realize
that a minor offense, even a minor violent
felony offense, so to speak, if it was a long
time ago, the defense attorney -- since you
have virtually unfettered ability to bring in
any kind of mitigating testimony you want -
I'm sure would blow that one pretty well out
of the water. Because, remember, the
defendant still has a right to respond to
this.
I think the intention of this is to
avoid situations where you have people, for
6084
instance, who have multiple violent offenses
in their background and at the mitigating
stage are made out to look like choirboys and
in reality they have a long criminal record
behind them.
And the reason, by the way -- I
guess there was some discussion, I've been
told, of arrests and of other bad acts. But I
think rightfully so, they limited this to
convictions and violent felony convictions.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Okay.
SENATOR VOLKER: Other states, by
the way, as I understand it, allow even
more -- even broader aggravating testimony
than this.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Okay. Just
one final area of questions.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Volker, will you continue to yield?
SENATOR VOLKER: Yes.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Senator, if
you could turn to page 8 -- and I again
apologize for this sort of exegesis approach
where we're reading through each line by line.
But in line 22, where it talks about the -- if
6085
the jury determines that the aggravating
factors substantially outweigh the mitigating
factors. "In determining whether the death
penalty should be imposed, the jury may
consider all of the facts and circumstances of
the case, including any victim testimony
offered." I'm not sure I understand what that
means.
Am I -- I don't mean to take it out
of context, but I'm trying to figure out what
it means.
SENATOR VOLKER: I think that
brings in the victim evidence sort of thing.
I think they're just saying that if they -- in
order to reach the level of victim evidence,
then they must decide that the aggravating
factors outweigh the mitigating factors in
determining whether the death penalty should
be imposed.
I think what it means is you then
go on to listen to the next part of it.
Because of course, as you know, if they don't
make that determination, then they would not
do the death penalty and they would go back to
a life term or life without parole.
6086
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Final
question, Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Volker, will you continue to yield?
SENATOR VOLKER: Yes.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Does this
bill, this amendment to it, still require that
the death penalty sentence be imposed,
weighing all those factors beyond a reasonable
doubt, by unanimous vote of all the jurors?
SENATOR VOLKER: Yes. If it's
not a unanimous vote, you can't have the death
penalty. It still maintains its -- the
aggravating -- mitigating circumstances must
outweigh them by beyond a reasonable doubt.
And if there is any negative -- if someone
doesn't agree, then you can't have the death
penalty.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Okay. Thank
you, Madam President.
I heard -- I appreciate Senator
Volker's continuing candor as we plow through
now, four years later, the second iteration of
the bill that he and I debated on the floor a
number of times, that most of the people in
6087
this chamber have heard me debate and talk
about.
I'm going to vote in the negative,
Madam President. I continue to be committed
to see the death penalty repealed in this
state. I appreciate those who want to clarify
it and make sure that it's constitutional so
that if we're going to use it in any
circumstance we make sure we accord the full
constitutional rights to those who are charged
with the possibility of losing their lives at
the hands of the government.
But let me tell you why in this
particular proposal. I'm concerned because
the changes with respect to the circumstances
under which the killing -- in which the
killing occurs where it's motivated by the
pleasure killing, I don't think there's
significant evidence that that's a different
problem from what we're currently trying to
address in New York State with respect to the
death penalty. Which is, if it's a capital
offense and murder one, you're charged with
the death penalty.
There's another provision in there
6088
about killing for estates and trusts benefits.
Again, I don't see that, I guess, as a whole
new dimension of this, something that's
happening all over the place that we need to
impose this deterrent on this. We have the
death penalty. If you kill someone, you
potentially face the death penalty. That's a
pretty strong deterrent. Should be, anyway.
Two, the section that deals with
the change in the sentencing provisions that
allows evidence of prior bad acts, that is
very, very explosive evidence to place in
front of a jury, even at the sentencing phase.
To bring up a past violent act that could have
occurred a decade or a decade and a half
earlier in their lives, it could be a
substantially, in my judgment, prejudicial
fact.
And while Senator Volker properly
points out that the court could have the
ability to restrict the entry of that
evidence, I would point out that there is
nothing in this statute that gives the courts
the guidance as to when that would be
appropriate. So what we're left with is a
6089
court looking at a statute that says any
violent felony offense anytime in the
individual's life, whether it was a year
before the murder occurred or twenty years
before the murder occurred, can be evidence in
a sentencing phase.
I think that's a very dangerous
time to introduce that evidence. At a time
when someone's life is in the balance,
suddenly their past, whether it's a long time
ago or a short time ago -- I would agree with
Senator Volker, his argument would have
greater credibility if they were a relatively
short period of time, if you could say that
those violent felony offenses were within the
prior three or four years, or five years.
Then it would have relevance and the court
would be able to say, Okay, we may have
someone who has a violent predisposition, and
that violence predisposition should be taken
into account by the sentencing jury.
But in this case, because it
extends so far back, it tends to bring in
highly prejudicial cases, highly prejudicial
convictions that could significantly influence
6090
the jury.
I'll conclude with just one other
objection, and I pointed it out to Senator
Volker. And that is the question of the
community's ability to testify at the time of
sentencing. I continue to be concerned, Madam
President, with the dangers that the death
penalty will not be enforced uniformly across
the spectrum of those who commit murder.
There is no question that all the -- there is
no question that the data shows, and it showed
it in 1995, it continues to show it until this
day, that the death penalty is being used
disproportionately against people of color.
And it seems to me that the danger
of allowing the community to testify without
any statutory guidance is that we will be in a
situation where the communities that are best
able to articulate, that are best able to come
up and testify, will be the communities in
which the death penalty will be most
prominently endorsed. And those will be
communities of largely upper-class and wealthy
who will rally a community to testify in favor
of the death penalty.
6091
What I'm afraid of is that that
will only perpetuate the prospect that this
penalty will be used disproportionately
against the poor and people of color. It was
my fear in 1995. There is nothing that has
transpired from 1995 to date to give me any
consolation that that isn't in fact a true
problem with continued use of the death
penalty. You can see it in other states. We
will see it in New York.
And I would just strongly suggest
that whoever does the drafting of this bill,
that the broad invitation for a community
testimony on the issue of the death penalty as
being an appropriate sentence in a particular
case will skewer the use of the death penalty
against some particular people, and that what
we'll end up with is a further
disproportionate impact of the use of this
penalty.
I go back to what I said in 1995.
The penalty is unfair, it is unjust, we don't
need it. And I think these amendments,
although they're driven to enhance something
that I have a enormous fundamental
6092
disagreement with, are wrong-headed even as a
matter of law. I would suggest that we not
make these changes.
I would suggest it, and I pray for
that day when we will all come to our senses
and realize that the state, based on those
inalienable rights that were articulated in
the Declaration of Independence that we talked
about yesterday, that this government has no
right to take away that life. We can put
people in prison for their lives, but taking
it away and destroying it ourselves is not
something that a government relying on the
just consent of the governed should do.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
Senator Paterson, why do you rise?
SENATOR PATERSON: Oh, thank you,
Madam President.
Madam President, I voted against
the death penalty in 1995, and I -- but I
understand that as a -- as we're sworn to
uphold the laws of this state, that this is
now a part of our law. And looking at it in
that context, I'm trying to view this bill in
6093
the sense that it is designed to enhance a
law -- laws that we already have.
Senator Dollinger just referred to
the disproportionate impact. And I actually
have a different context in which I'd like to
phrase a question, if Senator Volker would be
willing to yield.
SENATOR VOLKER: Sure.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Volker, will you yield?
SENATOR VOLKER: Sure.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, my
concern is that when the victim is unable to
produce the type of litany of circumstance
that we have become even more familiar with
from watching the televised sentencings -
there was a case in New Jersey where the
mother of a 3-year-old was kidnapped and
murdered, and we actually saw the testimony at
the sentencing of her killer. And in the
Jeffrey Dahmer case some years ago, we saw the
same thing.
And where the victim is not in the
position to create that kind of support at the
sentencing, does that not really influence the
6094
jury in the sense that now it doesn't appear
that that life may have been quite as
important or certainly one that could evoke
the kind of emotion that pulls at all of our
heartstrings when we see it on television?
And does that, if anything, create somewhat of
a double standard, depending on whose life the
perpetrator snuffed out in that case?
SENATOR VOLKER: Well, first of
all, Senator, it's very difficult for the
victim to organize any kind of a -- because
that victim is dead.
SENATOR PATERSON: Right. I'm
really talking about -
SENATOR VOLKER: I think what you
mean is the family and so forth, or if there
is no family -- I think -
SENATOR PATERSON: I mean the
victim in the sense of victimization.
SENATOR VOLKER: The broad sense.
And then the other thing, as you
well know, Senator, thanks to this house, we
don't have cameras in the courtroom. So
you're not going to see it on television, the
sentencing, which I think is a very good
6095
thing, and I think you would agree with me.
But in any case, I think that
that's an issue frankly that a district
attorney and that the people representing the
public have to present. I mean, I suppose you
could make that argument that if there isn't
as much victim impact shown, that somehow it
might somehow help the person. I guess it
probably depends, too, on the individual
involved.
That's another reason, by the way,
why maybe I would disagree with Senator
Dollinger's limitation on violent crimes; in
other words, you shouldn't allow a violent
crime to be brought in after twenty years. I
made a point, what about somebody who was in
jail for 25 years for first-degree murder,
gets out after 25 years and murders somebody.
And just as an example, that couldn't be
brought in under his twenty-year limitation.
So, Senator, I guess the answer to
that is I suppose you could try to make that
argument, but I think the truth is that this
is a matter of the circumstances, and
therefore it would depend on the circumstances
6096
of the case.
SENATOR PATERSON: If the Senator
would continue to yield.
SENATOR VOLKER: Certainly.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Volker, you continue to yield?
SENATOR VOLKER: Sure.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Thank
you.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator -
through the President -- you referred to prior
bad acts being raised. And I certainly would
feel that if I were on a jury and I was
considering someone's life, it would be
relevant for me to know whether or not there
was a pattern of conduct that demonstrated
that in this particular case a life was taken,
but this individual had historically involved
themselves in violence and had put other lives
at risk, and this is just the circumstance in
which a life was lost. Can you establish that
with just one prior bad act?
SENATOR VOLKER: I think the
truth is that you may have hit on one of the
arguments certainly at least in favor of
6097
violent felony offenses. And the argument in
some states is that you should even give more
latitude to the other side, because the
mitigating side of the testimony is unlimited.
And you are probably right. There
is an argument that possibly we should broaden
the law even more to allow the prosecutor to
show maybe even more evidence of bad acts.
And one of the arguments, I guess, was more
arrests. For instance, you might have
somebody who's arrested 15 or 20 times, but
under the present death penalty law you
couldn't bring that in unless he or she was
convicted.
So you could make that argument.
But of course, that's an argument for an even
broader aggravating circumstances section.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, in the case where -- I wouldn't be
interested, Senator, in the arrests. What I
would be interested in would be the situations
where there was a conviction, even if it was
for a high degree of assault, where it was
clear that whether or not the life was lost,
it was by reason of circumstance. In other
6098
words, someone throws someone down the stairs,
they might not die in that situation. But
certainly it was not -- it was reckless enough
that it could have happened. I'm not
interested in the arrest, but where there are
the prior bad acts.
What concerns me is when we have an
incident or two in the long life of an
individual that would be establishing the
pattern.
My question now relates to the
wills, the insurance policies, the trusts, the
estates of those who are being killed for the
purpose of the killer getting ahold of those
documents. We already have in the law the
contract killing as a prerequisite for the
death penalty. And my question here is just
under the M'Naghten Rules, the establishment
of malice aforethought, do we need the
specific reference as to what the benefit
would be for the perpetrator? Or don't we
recognize that just the establishment of
intent would be the circumstance that would
make someone eligible to be punished by death?
SENATOR VOLKER: One of the -- it
6099
was just pointed out to me, Senator, that you
are right. Unless you have a second jury to
determine the sentencing, which is possible.
In other words, you have the one jury to
determine their guilt or innocence and a
second jury to determine the sentencing.
If you have the same jury, as is
normally the case, you cannot bring in the
evidence that was used to find the person
guilty, because that has already been entered
in. And some of the things that you talked
about that may be part of the killing would
not be available in the sentencing procedure.
And you're absolutely correct.
Unless there was a second jury, and
then those sorts of things could be brought
in, since they were part of the crime. But
other than that, they could not be brought in
in the penalty stage.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, I want to thank Senator Volker for
his answers. And if he would yield for one
final question.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Volker, will you yield for one final question?
6100
SENATOR VOLKER: Certainly, yes.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, you
have here that we would change the order,
where the prosecutor in the sentencing phase
would have in effect, quote, the last word,
whereas the victim has that in the trial.
And I would assume, if I could try
to read your mind for a moment, that at the
time of trial there's a presumption of
innocence and therefore the defendant would be
given every opportunity and the last
opportunity to explain to the jury that there
is reasonable-doubt circumstances that the
defendant not be convicted. I would assume
that in the sentencing phase, the presumption
now is that there's a burden on the guilty
party to prove why we should not, as a matter
of law, seek the death penalty.
But my question is, with a human
life lying in the balance, why would we not
leave it as we have it now and give the person
who is likely to lose his or her life the last
chance to explain to society why that life
should be spared?
SENATOR VOLKER: Senator, first
6101
of all, I would disagree with you on only one
thing. I don't think there's any presumption
of the death penalty. In fact, the reverse
has been true, as you know, in the cases that
have been tried already. And in fact, that
most cases do not result in death penalty
cases.
But it has been pointed out that, I
believe, we are one of the only states, if not
the only state in the union, that does not on
the penalty side have the prosecutor or the
district attorney do the last summation. Now,
remember that we have given the defendant
every possible opportunity, with mitigating
circumstances, with virtually no limits on
what he or she can bring in during that
penalty stage.
And I think the argument is that
the district attorney should at least have the
last opportunity to at least make a pitch on
the -- in the evidence that's been presented
in the penalty stage.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
6102
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Certainly some
of the changes that Senator Volker has
proposed are quite valid. I don't think I
really have a problem with the expansion to
include the evidence relating to murders to
enlist membership in some organization or
gang, or pleasure murders, as they're
so-called. Or even these cases where -- to
get hold of the resources in a will or trust
or insurance policy. We certainly would
understand that.
I would have to say that just the
disproportionate nature of how the death
penalty is enforced, even some problems with
the rights of society versus the individual,
are -- really compel me to vote against this
legislation.
But what I would say if this is
going to be the law, and we're here following
the law, there are some interesting changes
that Senator Volker is making. Certainly the
ability to plead to the murder and then the -
in the second phase, the jury would determine
whether or not this would be a capital crime
6103
is, I think, actually an enhancement of the
legislation.
But I guess I agree with Senator
Dollinger. My long-held views on the
existence of the death penalty compel me to
vote against this legislation.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
SENATOR CONNOR: Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Connor.
SENATOR CONNOR: If I may, in
closing.
I know the death penalty doesn't
seem like a big deal anymore politically, but
there's a statute on the books. No one in
this state has suffered the ultimate penalty
under that statute, nor is it likely that such
will happen for some time to come.
So in a sense, while Senator Volker
makes a technical, legal correction as well as
embracing some of the Governor's suggestions
to expand the category or types of murders
covered -- and I certainly have no brief for
people who commit thrill killings or anything
6104
else -- ultimately, for me, this vote comes
down to the same consideration that weighed
with me every time we've had the death
penalty.
And that is, I am unconvinced that
the death penalty is a deterrent. I am
thoroughly convinced it was unworthy of a
civilized society. Without ever having
executed anyone in New York for decades now,
we have seen our crime rate rates plummet, we
have seen our murder rates plummet. And, oh,
I know the second-floor publicists would say
we only have 30 percent of the murders per
year that we used to have because, gee, we
said we were going to have a death penalty, we
enacted it, and everybody's afraid to commit
murders. It's not quite so simple, Madam
President.
Many, many crimes for which we have
not enhanced the penalty have also fallen
dramatically. The combination of demographic
trends, a good economy, and some fantastically
great policing initiatives -- we've also seen
some bad policing initiatives in New York
City. But, by and large, there have been some
6105
good initiatives, going back to Mayor Dinkins'
proposal, Safe Streets, Safe Cities, which
this house embraced. And we've put more
police officers on the streets.
So we're all gratified that crime
has been reduced. There is simply no evidence
whatsoever that the death penalty has been a
factor. It remains for me totally unproven
that it deters any conduct. I think people
who commit murders, particularly those we
would -- the statute would punish with the
death penalty, are people who do not think of
the consequences of their actions, are
motivated by sociopathic tendencies that
recognize no deterrence, no normative guide
from the law or anything else.
The problem with the death penalty
is there are mistakes. And any system,
including as seemingly fair a system as
perhaps we have evolved here in New York,
makes mistakes. And while I've seen no new
studies showing the deterrent effect of the
death penalty, we have seen dozens and dozens
of cases in the past few years in other states
involving capital punishment, in this state
6106
involving lengthy prison terms for crimes like
rape and so on, where the advent of DNA
testing has been not only an incredibly
valuable tool for law enforcement to prove
that the guilty are guilty, but where the
courts have permitted DNA evidence or where
there was DNA evidence in long-closed crimes
wherein the system was convinced that the
guilty had been convicted, lo and behold, we
read case after case where DNA testing proves,
nope, you had the wrong guy.
And in the cases in New York thus
far, some people have been released from
prison after serving 10, 15, 20 years of their
life in prison, when the DA has to stand up
after the DNA testing and say, "Oops,
convinced as we were for the last 15 years
that we had the right person, we were wrong."
Now we have seen in other states -
there was a case not so long ago in
Illinois -- where, when there is old DNA
evidence, blood stains, other things like
that, and hair samples and so on, that
accurate DNA testing and comparisons have
established that people on death row, people
6107
who have exhausted almost all of their appeals
on legal technicalities and other things, and
lost them at the highest courts of the land
because the courts said, "Look, the jury heard
all the evidence and they convicted him, and
that's our system" -- and it is our system,
but DNA testing has proved it made a mistake,
it made a tragic mistake.
And thankfully we hear about all
the cases where the person on death row is
sprung by this evidence before they're
executed. There was one case where the
prisoner came within 12 hours of being
executed.
And I think no one doubts -- no one
who has looked at it has any doubt whatsoever
that in these United States, since the
reinstitution of the death penalty, that
innocent people have been executed. Why?
Because we have, under the Supreme Court,
retrenched from the scope of appeal that's
allowed postconviction. The Supreme Court has
sanctioned executing people because, gee, they
didn't meet deadlines in their appeals.
You know, it's one thing, Madam
6108
President, to throw out the automobile
accident cases because the lawyers didn't file
something on time. But we have seen people go
to the chair because of procedural errors that
their lawyers made.
We have had holdings from the U.S.
Supreme Court basically saying, well, it's
irrelevant whether the person seems to have
been innocent or not, they got a trial and
da-da-da-da-da, and the system has to be
upheld at all costs.
You're then faced with a prisoner
who has already been executed. Even if there
were DNA testimony, there's no one that has
any standing anymore to apply to a court to go
back and examine the DNA record.
But one thing that ability has done
is it's clearly proven what many of us said
years ago in debating this bill: innocent
people get convicted. And the one thing about
the death penalty is there is no way to undo
the harm. There's no way to say "Sorry about
the last 14 years, but we're letting you go
free." Its very finality and irreversibility,
when imposed due to what is a fallible
6109
system -- and our system is fallible. And I
don't criticize it. It's fallible, and it's
probably the best legal jurisprudential system
ever invented on the face of the earth. But
it's nonetheless a human system. It's subject
to mistakes. The -
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Excuse
me, Senator Connor.
Could we please have some quiet.
SENATOR CONNOR: Thank you, Madam
President.
Indeed, the system vindicates
itself on those occasions when it is concerned
enough to allow things like reopening a record
and examining DNA testing and attempting to
cure errors.
So let's go with what the wisdom of
these past years has taught us. It hasn't
taught us that the death penalty deters crime.
It has taught us just how fallible, just how
possible it is for our system of justice, fair
as we try to make it, but nonetheless a human
system of justice, to make mistakes.
And all these past few years has
taught me is what I always knew intuitively,
6110
and that is we ought not play God. We ought
not repeal one of the Ten Commandments. We
won't stop any killing by killing people.
Madam President, I'm against this
bill because it's one more step in a whole
death penalty march that, while it meets
public acclaim, just doesn't satisfy me that
it's the right thing to do.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Volker, to close.
SENATOR VOLKER: Madam President,
I will try to be brief.
Senator Connor, I understand what
you said. But let me tell you something,
Senator Connor. My father was here in 1965.
He listened to that same general speech. He
listened to that speech and he came home and
he said, "Now the murder rate is going to
soar. It will rise dramatically."
It doubled within four years. The
murder rate in New York City tripled within a
decade. The murder rate particularly, in the
minority community, became enormous. You talk
about depriving people's rights.
And, Senator, let me remind you of
6111
something. In '65, when the Bartlett
Commission repealed -- my father was part of
that Bartlett Commission and did the Minority
report to the Bartlett Commission. And every
single thing he said in that Minority report
came true. And everything that the Majority
said didn't happen.
You can say all you want about it
not being a deterrent, but how do you explain
when nationwide, when the death penalty
ceased, that the murder rate shot out of
control, and since we have restored the death
penalty -- and when we restore the death
penalty, by the way, we automatically somehow
restore tough sentencing. And that's what
we've done in this state.
Let's not forget that a lot of us
said, for instance, if we could lock up most
of the professional burglars in this state,
the burglary rate would go down. It's gone
down. If we could do something about stolen
cars, it would go down.
And the reason I'm saying that is
that the point is that deterrence has been
clearly and unequivocally proved. I think
6112
it's kind of -- it's like saying "We don't
care what the facts say, we don't like this
and we don't want it."
And, Senator Connor, let me point
something out to you. The handful of cases -
and there have been some cases on DNA. Some
of those cases proved that the evidence that
was used in those cases was erroneous. It
didn't necessarily, in some cases, say that
those people didn't commit the crime. I only
point that out to you because under our law,
when a person is found to be not guilty, we
have to assume that they didn't commit the
crime. In some of those cases, that's not
necessarily true.
What we did is when we don't have
the evidence -- and, by the way, if you can
retry a capital case after ten years, it's no
secret that the chances of ever getting a
conviction again is almost nil. Defense
attorneys know that virtually everywhere.
That's one reason they do that.
Let me tell you something else,
Senator Connor. And I was challenged in this
some years ago, and I still say it. There has
6113
never been a person in the history of this
state that was executed where there is even
substantial evidence that that person was not
guilty. Some California professors came here
with some bogus allegations, but when they
were looked into, they turned out to be merely
allegations and foolishness and so forth.
I point that out because I think
it's important to point that out. I am only
saying this. I don't say that the death
penalty can deter all killings. But the
murder rate is down dramatically. In addition
to that, let me just say that what the
Governor is trying to do with this bill here
is to enhance a system that nationwide people
believe is working well, and I think it's
working well here in New York.
And I would only make a prediction
to you. I would not be so sure that the first
execution in this state is so far off. There
are a number of cases that are wending their
way through the Court of Appeals. And
remember, the way the system works now, it is
much quicker than it was in the past. The
federal government has enhanced the system and
6114
so have we.
So I think it is working. And I
think it's important for all of us to realize,
whether we like it or not, that the death
penalty has had an impact on the murder rate
and on the quality of life in this state.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Marchi.
SENATOR MARCHI: Madam President,
I probably hold a record for voting for Volker
bills, because they are excellent uniformly,
and I have the greatest respect.
But the death penalty should be put
under the jeweller's eye. In my view, in my
view, the only effect that the death penalty
has is to provoke morbid propensities. And it
encourages the commissions of more killings.
It's a thrill operation, it's an operation
that excites. And the public spectacle of an
execution doesn't discourage anybody.
Thucydides, the great Greek historian, pointed
that out, I think, very graphically. Beccaria
another Italian criminologist, 1500 years
later showed it to be true.
Charles Dickens interviewed, Madam
6115
President, interviewed 287 people who were
about to be hung, drawn, and quartered in
London -- because they used it to do it with
thousands of people, and that was to be the
great public example that would discourage
homicide. Do you know, Madam President, 264
had watched, they had seen that event take
place.
So I think that there's abundant
evidence and reason that it does provoke
morbid propensities which are out there, and
it brings them out and it becomes very
dramatic. I don't accept the theory that only
the poor people die. But I do accept the
theory -- I've yet -- and I've challenged
audience after audience and chambers after
chambers, give me the name of one person that
was executed for having committed homicide in
the United States of America. I've never seen
that person. And if there is one, it would
only prove the rule.
But there are none. Bob
Morgenthau, who I think is one of the finest
district attorneys and most sensitive human
beings that I've been privileged to know -- I
6116
wish I had his Op-Ed piece from the New York
Times several years ago when he pointed out
that when he took office -- you know, we like
to say that we've been making dramatic
progress against crime. Bob Morgenthau,
before the dramatic reduction that has taken
place -- and I credit it to good police work.
I think the police deserve credit, and the
management and law enforcement efforts have
paid off. Safe Street Acts, as you mentioned
also, which initialled at the start. These
things have paid off, and we have seen
improvements. But Bob Morgenthau had achieved
a remarkable record under very difficult
circumstances, and there was a dramatic drop
in homicides in the county of New York or in
the borough of Manhattan.
So I -- you know, the old days,
they'd put maces on and they'd have chains and
everything to impress that the state was very
serious and very regal in applying. You know,
all this stuff, what impact does it have on
the general public? They become calloused to
life.
In Florida they had a disk jockey
6117
and every time they'd kill somebody, he would
describe it gleefully over the radio and
hundreds of people would mass outside and
cheer. And then one night he had the bright
idea, he got a -- they were electrocuting them
in Florida. And he had a frying pan, and he
had bacon. He fried the bacon. And it was a
guy named Spenkelink who had killed and was
being executed. So he said now -- they gave
the signal that the execution was taking
place -- "Now you are hearing Spenkelink,
Spenkelink frying." And with that, from the
reportage that was universally consistent,
there was great cheering from the crowd.
Do you think that anybody's morals
were elevated? Do you think that they -- a
greater repulsion for the taking of a human
life was increased in any way?
These are terrible circumstances
and -- the death penalty revisited, no matter
how much we sweeten it. I wrote a letter
to -- and he could very well be the president
of the United States -- when that Karla Faye
Tucker was being executed, and she had 14
years. I don't know how many of you saw the
6118
televised interview that was conducted with
her. I don't see how anything was -- any
profit, really -- she upstaged them
completely. Said, "Well, I'll be seeing you
gentlemen when I'm in heaven and you're coming
in, and I'll be greeting you." And I hope I
greet you. Because I felt here was a person
who had made heinous mistakes in her youth,
and 14 years later she was being executed.
Big victory. Big victory for what?
I don't know. Not a big victory for the
advancement of the concept of justice.
And then there were stories, even
the current President of the United States,
instead of staying an execution, and
perhaps -- maybe it's the Scotch verdict on
the condition of the person, but the person
was supposed to be mentally deranged.
You, Senator Connor, presented many
circumstances of varied -- various situations.
Burying your mistakes, even with DNA and
everything else. We have -- we have weapons
to apply to protect the public. And there may
be very special circumstances, I suppose.
There was a Catholic thing put out by the
6119
Vatican, under very special circumstances. If
you had a caravan in the Old West and they
were going across the country and there were
about maybe 50 or 100 people, and somebody
kills, what do you do with that person? Can
you put them in jail? Do you have the means
of coping with a problem of that nature?
Probably not.
But we do have means. We do have
means. Life imprisonment is available. And
we don't have to go to the point and revert to
a practice that virtually all of the advanced
nations of this world have abandoned.
And those states where they are
faithfully executing and adhering to the
requirements of the law are the ones that have
the biggest number of homicides. How many
people has California executed in the last -
since they adopted it in 1973? Very few. I
don't know. Two, three people. Jersey, I
think, is still waiting on someone. But we
have something like 20,000 homicides a year.
So it's very evident it's a sometime thing.
You're more likely to win the Super Lottery
than to be executed.
6120
But what you have done to the
public? What a spectacle to give them. This
is not pagan Rome in the year 1000 or 100 B.C.
This is the year where we would like to
elevate, to raise, to raise the human spirit,
to raise respect for life. This does not do
it. It does about everything possible to
destroy it, I think.
And I say this with the greatest
deference and respect. I'm voicing my own
feelings that I've held every since I was a
teenager, I guess, that this is simply not
acceptable. Defense in a just war,
self-defense, these are things I can
understand doing and exercising that force
that is necessary to preserve your life.
But, Madam President, this ain't
the way to go. This ain't the way for people
who are children of God and who should be held
to higher standards and be giving better
examples. Punishment, yes. There is
punishment available. And to remove them and
take them away from those opportunities to
inflict harm, all well and good. But
otherwise, I just cannot support this bill.
6121
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Connor, to close.
SENATOR CONNOR: Just briefly,
Madam President.
As Senator Volker put forth the
proposition that it's never been demonstrated
that an innocent person was executed in New
York State, there came to mind a book I read a
few years ago by our parliamentarian called
The Trial of Bat Shea. It was for a crime
that at least half of this -- or more than
half of this house would think the most
heinous crime possible, a Democrat on Election
Day killing a Republican at the polls. But
the book convinced me that they got the wrong
guy. It was a different Democrat, probably.
But I commend the book to Senator
Volker, because I think while -- I think it's
a rather sweeping statement to say that the
State of New York's judicial system was so
infallible that there never was an innocent
person executed.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 19. This
6122
act shall take effect on the first day of
November.
SENATOR CONNOR: Slow roll call.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Slow
roll call has been called for.
The Secretary will read. Ring the
bells.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Alesi.
SENATOR ALESI: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Balboni.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Bonacic.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Breslin.
SENATOR BRESLIN: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Bruno.
(Senator Bruno was recorded as
voting in the affirmative.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Connor.
SENATOR CONNOR: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
DeFrancisco.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Dollinger.
6123
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Madam
President, just to explain my vote, briefly.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Dollinger, to explain his vote.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I dedicate my
vote on this bill to two people that live in
my district. Their names are Betty Tyson and
John Duval. In 1972, they were convicted of
the highest possible offense in the State of
New York. They were both sentenced with the
highest possible penalty in the State of New
York, 25 years to life. They both walked free
in the 54th Senate District today because it
turns out that at their trial, the district
attorney failed to give their defense lawyer a
statement from a witness that was inconsistent
with his testimony at trial.
They were found guilty. Their
convictions were affirmed by the New York
Court of Appeals, the highest court in this
state. And if the highest penalty in this
state had been death, neither of them would be
walking in the 54th Senate District today. A
mistake was made. Two innocent -- two people
were found guilty in an unfair trial. Two
6124
people who deserved a fair trial didn't get
one.
And I would suggest that if there's
a better argument against the death penalty,
it lies in the lives of Betty Tyson and John
Duval. In their honor, and in respect for
their lives, I vote no.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Dollinger will be recorded in the negative.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Farley.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Yes.
SENATOR FARLEY: I vote aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Gentile.
SENATOR GENTILE: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Gonzales.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Goodman.
SENATOR GOODMAN: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Hannon.
SENATOR HANNON: Aye.
6125
THE SECRETARY: Senator Hevesi.
SENATOR HEVESI: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Hoffmann.
SENATOR HOFFMANN: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Johnson.
SENATOR JOHNSON: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Kruger.
SENATOR KRUGER: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Lachman.
SENATOR LACHMAN: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Lack.
SENATOR LACK: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Larkin.
SENATOR LARKIN: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator LaValle.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Leibell.
SENATOR LEIBELL: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Libous.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Maltese.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator
6126
Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Marchi.
SENATOR MARCHI: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Markowitz.
SENATOR MARKOWITZ: To explain my
vote.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Markowitz, to explain his vote.
SENATOR MARKOWITZ: Thank you.
I voted for the death penalty and
have been a supporter of it. I have some real
concerns on this particular legislation
because New York State has no record at all
thus far of the implementation of the death
penalty, how the juries are working. I have
real -- I just -- this is one of those kinds
of issues that really cause -- should cause
all of us to say whether or not we want to be
in a position to expand something that we
don't have any experience at at this time.
So I just wanted to get on record
that although I support the death penalty -
and I plan to support this legislation as
6127
well. But I think that all of us should be
put on notice, and I think we have that
responsibility that we should not go crazy on
this type of legislation, that we have to
monitor this very closely. Because, put into
the wrong hands in the future, I would dread
to think where this can go and what it could
mean potentially to those that are accused and
convicted. So I just want all of us in the
Senate to be mindful of that.
I'll vote yes, with both eyes wide
open.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Markowitz is recorded in the affirmative.
Call the roll.
THE SECRETARY: Senator McGee.
SENATOR McGEE: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Meier.
SENATOR MEIER: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Mendez.
SENATOR MENDEZ: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Montgomery.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Montgomery, to explain your vote.
6128
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, Madam
President, to explain my vote briefly.
Senator Volker referred to the high
murder rate and that the high murder rate was
impacting particularly on communities where
people of color were. And I just want to
remind Senator Volker that those communities
are communities of high infant mortality, high
educational-system failure for young people,
high unemployment, high health -- health
indices of failure and inadequacy, and so on
and so on. And so it is no surprise that it
would also be the areas where there would be
the highest dysfunctionality in terms of
social indicators; i.e., murder rates and what
have you.
But we cannot address the problems
of those neighborhoods particularly, and
including the murder rate, by escalating our
incarceration rate and trying to escalate the
rate and degree that we do the death penalty.
So I am voting no. I voted no on
the death penalty. I vote no on this. I will
continue to hold that position until I am
satisfied that the way that we're addressing
6129
or the reason that we're addressing crime in
this way is that it is in fact going to be a
solution to some of -- to crime itself and
that it is not an attempt to address all of
the ills in certain communities by virtue of
our penal system and the death penalty.
Thank you. I am voting no.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Montgomery will be recorded in the negative.
Call the roll.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Maziarz.
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Morahan.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Nanula.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Nozzolio.
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Onorato.
SENATOR ONORATO: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Oppenheimer.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Madam
President, to explain my vote.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
6130
Oppenheimer, to explain her vote.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: I'll be
voting in the negative. I strongly believe
that a government that is postulating that one
should not kill, that individuals should not
kill, that same government should not be in
the business of killing itself. It sets a
rather poor example.
I would like to take issue with one
thing that Senator Volker said. Actually, not
take issue. I feel -- I've come to a
different conclusion than he does on why we
are having less murders. He feels it's the
deterrent of the death penalty. I think we
are having less crime throughout our nation
because we are having a rising economy. The
economy is lifting all the boats, and
therefore people are more -- are working. We
have the lowest unemployment rate that we have
ever had since the Second World War, and I
think that is why we are seeing far less crime
and far less murder.
I think this is a very poor policy,
for the state to be in the murder business. I
vote no.
6131
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Oppenheimer to be recorded in the negative.
Call the roll.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Padavan.
SENATOR PADAVAN: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Rath.
SENATOR RATH: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Rosado.
SENATOR ROSADO: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Saland.
SENATOR SALAND: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Sampson.
SENATOR SAMPSON: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Santiago.
SENATOR SANTIAGO: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Seabrook.
SENATOR SEABROOK: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Seward.
SENATOR SEWARD: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Skelos.
6132
SENATOR SKELOS: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Smith.
SENATOR SMITH: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Spano.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Stachowski.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Stafford.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Stavisky,
excused.
Senator Trunzo.
SENATOR TRUNZO: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Velella.
SENATOR VELELLA: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Volker.
SENATOR VOLKER: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Waldon.
SENATOR WALDON: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Wright.
SENATOR WRIGHT: Aye.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
absentees.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Balboni.
6133
SENATOR BALBONI: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Bonacic.
SENATOR BONACIC: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
DeFrancisco.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Farley.
SENATOR FARLEY: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Gonzales.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Libous.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Maltese.
SENATOR MALTESE: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Nanula.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Spano.
SENATOR SPANO: Aye.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Announce
the results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 41. Nays,
17.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
I take this moment, on behalf of
6134
the Senate, to wish a very happy birthday to
Senator Mary Lou Rath. Today is her birthday.
So let's say happy birthday to Senator Rath.
(Applause.)
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, while we're on the subject, today
is also the birthday of one of our colleagues
from this side of the aisle. And I know you'd
like to join me in wishing happy birthday -- I
don't even know how we can work today, with
two of our colleagues having birthdays on the
same day. But I know you'd like to wish happy
birthday to Senator John Sampson from Kings
County.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE:
Absolutely.
Happy birthday to Senator John
Sampson.
(Applause.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
Senator Velella said his birthday is
September 25th, and he hopes we're not in
6135
session.
(Laughter.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: I'm not
too sure about that, Senator Velella.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
there will be an immediate meeting of the
Rules Committee in the Majority Conference
Room.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: There
will be an immediate meeting of the Rules
Committee in the Majority Conference Room.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
please call up Calendar 1537, by Senator
Velella.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Secretary will call Calendar Number 1527 -
37.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1537, by Member of the Assembly Klein,
Assembly Print 5384A, an act to amend the
General Business Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
6136
THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This
act shall take effect on the 180th day.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Santiago. To explain -
SENATOR SANTIAGO: Madam
President, will the sponsor yield for a
question, please?
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: We're on
a roll call, Senator Santiago.
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: If Senator
Santiago would like to speak on the bill,
perhaps I would move that we, with unanimous
consent, withdraw the roll call and have an
explanation on the bill. Or she can just
speak on the bill. Whatever you like, Madam
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Roll
call is withdrawn.
Senator Santiago.
Senator Velella, will you yield the
floor? Thank you.
6137
SENATOR VELELLA: Madam
President, just so we're -- did we recall the
bill -- withdraw the roll call? Is the bill
before the house?
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: We
withdrew the roll call. The bill is on the
floor.
SENATOR VELELLA: Yes, Senator, I
yield to a question.
SENATOR SANTIAGO: Thank you.
Senator, does this measure apply to
companies and retailers outside of New York
State who issue credit cards in New York or
just to those issuers based in New York State?
SENATOR VELELLA: It would apply
to only those who the state laws apply to.
And hopefully we would be setting a national
precedent with this.
SENATOR SANTIAGO: Would you
repeat that, please?
SENATOR VELELLA: I said it would
apply to only those who are subject to the
laws of the State of New York, and hopefully
we would be setting a national precedent with
this.
6138
SENATOR SANTIAGO: Can I
interpret that to mean no, that it would only
apply to New York State? I want to make sure
I understand.
SENATOR VELELLA: It would apply
to those who the laws of New York State apply
to. So it would only apply to the people who
do this business in the State of New York.
SENATOR SANTIAGO: Okay. Thank
you, Senator.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Excuse
me, Senator Santiago. Could you suffer an
interruption?
Can we have some quiet here,
please?
Okay, Senator Santiago. Thank you.
SENATOR SANTIAGO: Thank you,
Senator.
Madam President, on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Santiago, on the bill.
SENATOR SANTIAGO: I appreciate
your response. I tried to listen to it
carefully. I still have some reservations,
and I'd like to explain what they are. I
6139
spoke on this floor a number of times about
parity between New York State and out-of-state
financial institutions. For example, the
parity issue was the driving force behind the
wild-card legislation we've passed twice in
the Legislature.
I know Senator Farley shares my
concerns and commitment to keeping our
in-state financial institutions on equal
footing with out-of-state counterparts. I
fear this measure, even with its excellent
intent, would have an unintended consequence
of handicapping in-state financial
institutions and retailers that issue credit
cards.
It would be wonderful if this
measure could be revised to reach out-of-state
institutions that solicit business in New York
State. However, we know that this can only be
done a hundred percent effectively on a
federal level. Most credit card issuers are
in Delaware or South Dakota, and this bill
does not speak to that. It only reaches three
or so of the major issuers, which is Chase,
which is the largest employer on Long Island;
6140
M&T Bank, which is a large employer in the
Buffalo area; American Express, which is
headquartered in New York City; and all the
small independent banks that issue credit
cards upstate. What it leaves out is every
other issuer in the nation.
So because I see this bill as
impacting only New York State institutions and
as a consequence giving a competitive
advantage to out-of-state institutions, I must
vote against it, well-intentioned though it
may be, and encourage my colleagues to do so.
It's a wonderful bill. It should
be a federal bill. And if we were in a
federal chamber, it would be appropriate to
vote for it. But because we're in a state
chamber and our responsibility is to protect
financial institutions in the state of New
York, I strongly encourage my colleagues to
vote against this bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Santiago will be recorded in the negative.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This
act shall take effect on the 180th day.
6141
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
the negative on Calendar Number 1537 are
Senators Bonacic, Breslin, Connor, Duane,
Farley, Montgomery, Onorato, and Santiago.
Ayes, 51. Nays, 8.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
Senator Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Madam
President, would you please call up Calendar
Number 1545, by Senator Marchi, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call
Calendar Number 1545.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1545, by Senator Marchi, Senate Print 4692A,
an act to amend the Public Authorities Law and
the Real Property Tax Law.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Is there a
message at the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Yes,
there is, Senator Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Move to
6142
accept.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
motion is to accept the message of necessity.
All in favor say aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Any
opposed?
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
message is accepted.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 15. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
Senator Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Madam
President, will you please call up Calendar
Number 1557, by Senator Wright.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Clerk will call 1557.
6143
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1557, by Senator Wright, Senate Print 5973, an
act to amend the Agriculture and Markets Law.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Is there a
message at the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: There is
a message at the desk.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Move to
accept.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
motion is to accept the message of necessity.
All in favor signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Opposed,
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
message is accepted.
The Secretary will read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Rath, to explain her vote.
Call the roll, please.
6144
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
Senator Rath.
SENATOR RATH: Madam President, I
request unanimous consent to be recorded in
the negative on Calendar Number 1537.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Without
objection, so recorded.
Senator Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Madam
President, on the regular calendar, please
call up Calendar Number 257, by Senator
Larkin.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Clerk
will call Calendar Number 357 -- 1357.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Madam
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Wait one
moment, please.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Calendar
Number 257.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Calendar
two-five -
6145
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: 257.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: 257.
Oh, that's great. Calendar 257.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
257, by Senator Larkin, Senate Print 2534A, an
act to amend the General Municipal Law and the
Town Law.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Is there a
message at the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Yes,
there is.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Motion to
accept.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
motion is to accept the message. All those in
favor say aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Opposed,
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Message
is accepted.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 7. This
act shall take effect immediately.
6146
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Madam
President, please call up Calendar Number
1041.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Secretary will call 1041.
Oh, I'm sorry, the bill is passed.
The Secretary will call 1041.
The last bill was passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1041, by -
SENATOR GOODMAN: Madam
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Goodman.
SENATOR GOODMAN: I ask to be
recorded in the negative on Senate 3914A,
which passed in this house a few moments ago.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Goodman will be recorded in the negative on
6147
bill -- yes.
SENATOR GOODMAN: Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Thank
you. So recorded.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1041, by the Assembly Committee on Rules,
Assembly Print 8201, an act to amend the
Banking Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
No, read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect in 90 days.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
Senator Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Madam
President, on the supplemental calendar,
please call up Calendar Number 1549.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
6148
Secretary will call Calendar Number 1549.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1549, by Senator Saland, Senate Print 5689A,
an act to amend the Social Services Law and
the County Law.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Is there a
message at the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Yes,
there is.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Madam
President, is there a message at the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Yes,
there is.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Move to
accept.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
motion is to accept the message of necessity.
All in favor signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Opposed,
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Motion
is accepted.
The Clerk will read the last
6149
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 11. This
act shall take effect June 30th.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Paterson, to explain his vote.
SENATOR PATERSON: I was
actually -- all right, I'll explain my vote,
Madam President.
I explained pretty much yesterday
that we did not think that where these
appointments and legislative leaders were
involved that the Minority leaders of the
Assembly and the Senate should be excluded.
And for that reason, I wish to vote
in the negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Paterson will be recorded in the negative.
Clerk, call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
the negative on Calendar Number 1549 are
Senators Breslin, Connor, Dollinger, Duane,
Onorato, Paterson, Seabrook, Smith, and
Stachowski. Ayes, 50. Nays, 9.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
6150
is passed.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Madam
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Madam
President, on the supplemental list, please
call up Calendar Number 1536, by Senator
Stafford.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Clerk will call 1536.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1536, by Senator Stafford, Senate Print 3898A,
an act to amend the Executive Law and the
Criminal Procedure Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR STAFFORD: It's very
understandable -
SENATOR DOLLINGER: -- Senator
Stafford, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Can we
have some quiet in here, please.
SENATOR STAFFORD: -- the
question that Senator Dollinger has, if we can
6151
answer that.
This, as you know, as we have the
tenor of the times and as we have some of the
problems that we have, it's very
understandable that the state police, together
with other law enforcement agencies, would be
working together. I would emphasize this is
only on a task force, by a document that has
to be signed by the state police
superintendent. It could not be something
unilateral where the -- one agency moved out
into an area that is not in their
jurisdiction. And it's something that we will
watch very closely.
I will say that in all areas of the
state, and actually in an area that -- well,
let's say in all areas of the state. Thank
you.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Madam President. I want to thank Senator
Stafford for the explanation and the
assistance of his counsel as well.
Senator Stafford, I'm going to vote
in favor of this bill. I would just like to
encourage you to take the next step in dealing
6152
with this problem of the enforcement of
warrants in different jurisdictions.
The reason why I ask you to do this
is because the City of Rochester, which I
represent, was in a civil action brought in
the United States Federal District Court. The
city police officers went in with a warrant
from an adjacent community to enforce the
warrant. And what happened is there was a
scuffle, there was an ensuing fight. The
person injured by the police officers brought
a federal civil rights action against the City
of Rochester, and the United States District
Court ruled that he was entitled -- the
plaintiff was entitled to a directed verdict,
that the police were not properly at his home
because there was no state legislation that
authorized the city police department to
enforce a warrant from the adjacent community.
This bill, as I understand it, says
that when the state police are involved in the
a multijurisdictional task force, that the
superintendent, Mr. McMahon, who I have
tremendous -
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
6153
Dollinger, would you hold it for just one
moment, please.
Can we have some order in the
chamber, please?
Sergeant-at-arms, will you clear
the back aisle and close the door. Thank you
very much.
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
again, Madam President, on the bill.
-- that the superintendent,
Mr. McMahon, who I have tremendous confidence
in, can use this procedure if they're a
multijurisdictional task force.
However, it doesn't solve the
problem, the broader problem, of a police
agency that has a valid warrant from one
community enforcing it in the other community.
And I know that the City of Rochester has
appealed that verdict.
But at least in my judgment, in a
reading of the Criminal Procedure Law, that
that is probably an accurate determination by
the Federal District Court, because they did
not have the express statutory authority to
6154
enforce a valid warrant in the City of
Rochester even though it came from a nearby
jurisdiction.
And I would just strongly recommend
that the nature of this is to give our police
the power to avoid jurisdictional disputes and
jurisdictional difficulties when in a
multijurisdictional task force, enforcing a
warrant and taking other police actions.
I would just recommend it to your
attention, perhaps for the next session, to
your counsels' attention, that we look at that
issue. I will provide them with the data that
shows the specifics of that directed verdict.
But it highlights a critically important
problem which, in the case of the City of
Rochester, came back to result in a civil
liability against them when all they were
doing was enforcing the law and doing what we
want our police departments to do.
So I'm going to vote in favor of
this bill. It's the right thing to do. I
would just ask Senator Stafford perhaps next
year to take that next step.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
6155
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
November.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
Senator Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Madam
President, will you kindly take up Calendar
Number 1559.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Clerk will call Calendar Number 1559.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1559, by Senator Johnson, Senate Print 5988,
an act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law
and the Education Law.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Is there a
message of necessity at the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
message is at the desk.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Move to
6156
accept.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
motion is made to accept the message of
necessity. All in favor say aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Those
opposed say nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Motion
is passed. Motion is accepted.
The Clerk will read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 15. This
act shall take effect April 1st.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
Senator Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Madam
President, may we return to the reports of
standing committees. I believe there's a
report of the Rules Committee at the desk.
6157
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Smith.
SENATOR SMITH: Thank you. Madam
President, I request unanimous consent to be
recorded in the negative on Calendar Number
1537.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Without
objection.
We will return to the reports of
standing committees.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Bruno,
from the Committee on Rules, reports the
following bills:
Senate Print 143A, by Senator
Nozzolio, an act to amend the General Business
Law;
1467, by Senator Spano, an act to
amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law;
2077, by Senator Farley, an act in
relation to affecting;
2082A, by Senator Oppenheimer, an
act authorizing the appointment;
2155B, by Senator Hannon, an act to
amend the General Obligations Law;
6158
2429A, by Senator Bonacic, an act
to amend the Judiciary Law;
2559, by Senator Maltese, an act to
amend the New York City Charter;
2878, by Senator Velella, an act to
amend the Criminal Procedure Law;
3038, by Senator Balboni, an act to
amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law;
3363, by Senator Stachowski, an act
authorizing;
3432, by Senator Kuhl, an act to
amend the Agriculture and Markets Law;
3619C, by Senator Marcellino, an
act to amend the Environmental Conservation
Law;
3964, by Senator Skelos, an act to
amend the Criminal Procedure Law;
4013A, by Senator Libous, an act to
enact the False Reporting Act of 1999;
4167, by Senator Nozzolio, an act
to amend the Family Court Act;
4454, by Senator Goodman, an act to
amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law;
4488B, by Senator Marchi, an act to
amend the Waterfront Commission Act;
6159
4501A, by Senator Wright, an act to
amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law;
4559A, by Senator Nozzolio, an act
to amend the Family Court Act;
4698, by Senator Kuhl, an act to
amend the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law;
5195A, by Senator Bonacic, an act
to amend the Environmental Conservation Law;
5361A, by Senator Saland, an act to
establish a pediatric extended care center;
5547A, by Senator Stafford, an act
to amend the State Finance Law;
5592, by Senator Kuhl, an act to
amend the Judiciary Law;
5779, by Senator Leibell, an act
authorizing the reopening;
5783A, by Senator Leibell, an act
to amend the Environmental Conservation Law;
5798, by Senator Morahan, an act to
authorize the payment;
5866, by Senator Morahan, an act to
amend the Real Property Tax Law;
5961, by Senator Hannon, an act
authorizing the assessors;
5983, by Senator Mendez, an act to
6160
amend Chapter 899 of the Laws of 1984;
And 5995, by the Senate Committee
on Rules, an act to amend Chapter 1040 of the
Laws of 1981.
All bills ordered direct for third
reading.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Move to
accept the report of the Rules Committee,
Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
motion is made to accept the report of the
Rules Committee. All in favor will say aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Opposed,
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
motion is accepted. The Rules report is
accepted.
Senator Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Madam
President, is there any housekeeping at the
desk?
6161
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Yes,
there is.
Senator Libous.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Thank you, Madam
President. On behalf of Senator Larkin, on
page 20 I offer the following amendments to
Calendar Number 760, Senate Print Number 681,
and ask that said bill retain its place on the
Third Reading Calendar.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
amendment is received, and the bill will
retain its place on the Third Reading
Calendar.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Madam President,
on behalf of Senator Fuschillo, I wish to call
up his bill, Print Number 5952, recalled from
the Assembly, which is now at the desk.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1525, by Senator Fuschillo, Senate Print 5952,
an act in relation to authorizing.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Madam President,
I now move to reconsider the vote by which
this bill was passed.
6162
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Secretary will call the roll on
reconsideration.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Madam President,
I now offer up the following amendments.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Amend
ments received.
Senator Fuschillo, we have some
substitutions.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Madam
President, are there any substitutions at the
desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Yes,
there are.
The Secretary will read the
substitutions.
THE SECRETARY: On page 9,
Senator Bonacic moves to discharge, from the
Committee on Rules, Assembly Bill Number 3977
and substitute it for the identical Third
Reading Calendar, 336.
On page 16, Senator Leibell moves
to discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
6163
Assembly Bill Number 5617 and substitute it
for the identical Third Reading Calendar, 603.
On page 19, Senator Maltese moves
to discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
Assembly Bill Number 4152A and substitute it
for the identical Third Reading Calendar, 697.
On page 21, Senator Fuschillo moves
to discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
Assembly Bill Number 7248 and substitute it
for the identical Third Reading Calendar, 798.
On page 21, Senator Leibell moves
to discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
Assembly Bill Number 5189 and substitute it
for the identical Third Reading Calendar, 807.
On page 21, Senator Spano moves to
discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
Assembly Bill Number 3798B and substitute it
for the identical Third Reading Calendar, 817.
On page 27, Senator Hannon moves to
discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
Assembly Bill Number 8686 and substitute it
for the identical Third Reading Calendar, 956.
On page 28, Senator Hannon moves to
discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
Assembly Bill Number 8071A and substitute it
6164
for the identical Third Reading Calendar, 957.
On page 26, Senator Skelos moves to
discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
Assembly Bill Number 8187 and substitute it
for the identical Third Reading Calendar, 921.
And on Supplemental Calendar Number
1, Senator Marcellino moves to discharge, from
the Committee on Rules, Assembly Bill Number
8114A and substitute it for the identical
Third Reading Calendar, 1556.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE:
Substitutions ordered.
Senator Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Madam
President, there will be an immediate meeting
of the Majority in the Majority Conference
Room.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: There
will be an immediate meeting of the Majority
in the Majority Conference Room.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Madam
President, on behalf of Senator Connor, there
will be an immediate meeting of the Minority
Conference in the Minority Conference Room.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: There
6165
will be an immediate meeting of the Minority
Conference in the Minority Conference Room.
The Senate will stand at ease.
(Whereupon, the Senate stood at
ease at 4:30 p.m.)
(Whereupon, the Senate reconvened
at 5:30 p.m.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President,
on the first supplemental calendar, would you
please call up Calendar Number 1556.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read Calendar 1556 on the first
supplemental calendar.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1556, substituted earlier today by the
Assembly Committee on Rules, Assembly Print
Number 8114A, an act to amend the
Environmental Conservation Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
6166
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President,
would you please call up Calendar Number 1525,
by Senator Fuschillo. The bill is on the
members' desks.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read Calendar 1525.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1525, by Senator Fuschillo, Senate Print
5952A, an act to amend the Education Law and
the Public Authorities Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President,
is there a message at the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Yes,
there is a message at the desk.
SENATOR SKELOS: Move to accept
the message.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
question is on the motion to accept the
6167
message of necessity. All those in favor
signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Opposed,
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
message is accepted. The bill is before the
house.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 14. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Dollinger, to explain his vote.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Mr.
President, I understand that this bill passed
the house yesterday, 60 to nothing, and that
we amended the Senate version to conform with
the Assembly version. And therefore, under
those circumstances, we're consenting to the
passage of this bill.
Thank you, Mr. President. I vote
6168
in the affirmative.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Dollinger will be recorded in the affirmative.
The Secretary will announce the
results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Breslin. I'm sorry, one moment.
The bill is passed.
Senator Breslin.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Mr. President,
I request unanimous consent to be recorded in
the affirmative for Calendar Number 1549.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Without
objection, Senator Breslin will be recorded in
the affirmative with regard to Calendar 1549.
Senator Breslin, just to clarify.
The record will reflect that the record is
being corrected so that your vote will be
recorded in the affirmative on that bill.
SENATOR BRESLIN: That's correct,
Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Thank
you, Senator Breslin.
Senator Skelos.
6169
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President,
on the main calendar would you please call up
956, by Senator Hannon.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read Calendar 956.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
956, substituted earlier today by the Assembly
Committee on Rules, Assembly Print Number
8686, an act to amend the Public Health Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect in 180 days.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
Senator Waldon, why do you rise?
SENATOR WALDON: Mr. President, I
request, respectfully, unanimous consent -- I
was out of the chamber on other Senate
business when we dealt with Calendars 912 and
1512 -- to be recorded in the negative.
6170
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Without
objection, Senator Waldon will be recorded in
the negative with regard to Calendar 912 and
Calendar 1512.
SENATOR WALDON: Thank you, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President,
if we could now move to the supplemental
active list and call up Calendar Number 220,
by Senator Wright.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read Calendar 220, found on the
supplemental active list.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
220, by Senator Wright, Senate Print 2733A, an
act to amend the Estates, Powers and Trusts
Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
6171
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
Senator Bonacic, do you wish to
have the Secretary do the supplemental active
list in regular order?
SENATOR BONACIC: I do, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read the supplemental active
list.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
534, by Senator Larkin, Senate Print 21, an
act to amend the Criminal Procedure Law, in
relation to security.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
6172
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
539, by Member of the Assembly Schimminger,
Assembly Print Number 1540, an act to amend
the Criminal Procedure Law, in relation to
peace officers.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
670, by Senator Farley, Senate Print 4541, an
act to amend the Banking Law, in relation to
the regulation.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
6173
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
697, by Senator Maltese, Senate Print 2824A,
an act to amend the Public Health Law, in
relation to requiring hospitals.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect April 1, 2000.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
SENATOR BONACIC: Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Bonacic.
SENATOR BONACIC: Could we now
take up the Senate Supplemental Calendar
Number 57B, and can we go to the
6174
noncontroversial reading.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read the noncontroversial
calendar, beginning with Senate Supplemental
Calendar 57B.
Senator Bonacic.
SENATOR BONACIC: Mr. President,
I would ask if we could go to Calendar Number
697, Senate Bill Number 2824A, by Senator
Maltese, and ask to reconsider the vote by
which it was taken.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read Calendar 697.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
697, by Senator Maltese, Senate Print 2824A,
an act to amend the Public Health Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll on reconsideration.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Bonacic.
SENATOR BONACIC: Can we
substitute the Assembly Bill for the Senate
bill which we just reconsidered.
6175
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
697, by Member of the Assembly Grannis,
Assembly Print Number 4152A, an act to amend
the Public Health Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:
Substitution ordered.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect April 1.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
Senator Bonacic.
SENATOR BONACIC: Mr. President,
we would now like to return to the Senate
Supplemental Calendar Number 57B, and we ask
that we proceed with the noncontroversial
reading, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read.
6176
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1560, by Senator Nozzolio, Senate Print 143A,
an act to amend the General Business Law and
the Executive Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 5. This
act shall take effect January 1.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1561, by Senator Spano, Senate Print 1467, an
act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law, the
State Finance Law, and the Social Services
Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 5. This
act shall take effect October 1.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
6177
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58. Nays,
1. Senator Meier recorded in the negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: In relation to
Calendar Number 1562, Senator Farley moves to
discharge, from the Committee on Civil Service
and Pensions, Assembly Bill Number 3563 and
substitute it for the identical Third Reading
Calendar, 1562.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:
Substitution ordered.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1562, by Member of the Assembly Vitaliano,
Assembly Print Number 3563, an act in relation
to affecting.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Farley.
SENATOR FARLEY: To explain my
vote.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: We'll
start the roll call, Senator, and then I'll
recognize you.
6178
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Farley.
SENATOR FARLEY: Thank you, Mr.
President.
This is one of the more significant
bills that we will pass this year. It's one
that is the number-one priority of every
retired public employee in the state. It says
that they cannot take away the health benefits
that they currently have unless they do it for
everyone. They can't unilaterally reduce the
health benefits of a retired public employee.
It's the right thing to do. It's a
great piece of legislation. And as I said,
it's the number-one priority of every retired
public employee in this state. Good bill.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: I assume
you vote aye, Senator Farley.
6179
SENATOR FARLEY: I vote aye.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Farley will be recorded in the affirmative.
Senator Breslin.
SENATOR BRESLIN: To explain my
vote, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Breslin, to explain his vote.
SENATOR BRESLIN: I commend
Senator Farley for extending this to retirees
and tying it in with existing employees. It
certainly will make a lot of people in my
district, the most heavily populated of state
retirees, very, very happy.
And I hope we will see a time when
we can do that on a permanent basis, a basis
that will be forever, so our senior citizens
who have been state and local workers can live
on a year-to-year basis with a total comfort
level that they will continue to have their
health benefits.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Breslin will be recorded in the affirmative.
Senator Dollinger, to explain his
6180
vote.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Mr.
President, just to briefly explain.
I concur with Senator Breslin. I
also think that Senator Farley's bill
eliminates a temptation. And the temptation
is that in the collective bargaining process,
with tremendous pressures inside the
collective bargaining process, that the
current employees, who have the ability to
ratify a contract, would sacrifice, be tempted
to sacrifice the benefits of their retirees to
maintain their own benefits.
I think that that's a temptation I
know has existed in the collective bargaining
process. And what I think this does is this
creates a parity between the current employees
and the retirees and prevents that temptation.
Or, frankly, the pressure from an employer to
require the active employees to sacrifice
their retirees for the sake of a current
contract.
I think it takes one of the
temptations in the collective bargaining
process out of the process. And I think we'll
6181
end up with a fairer, more equitable
collective bargaining process with respect to
retirement benefits for all employees that are
in the state system.
So I think this bill takes away a
temptation that might occur at the collective
bargaining process, and I think it's a good
bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Dollinger will be recorded in the affirmative.
Senator Waldon, to explain his
vote.
SENATOR WALDON: Very briefly,
Mr. President.
What Senator Farley has done I
think is absolutely brilliant in regard to
ensuring that those most powerful unions in
the state cannot cut a deal which benefits
their members and leaves the little guys out.
That's a brilliant, brilliant move.
I support what he's doing. I am voting aye.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Waldon will be recorded in the affirmative.
The Secretary will announce the
results.
6182
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1564, by Senator Hannon, Senate Print 2155B,
an act to amend the General Obligations Law,
in relation to certification.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
November.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1565, by Senator Bonacic, Senate Print 2429A,
an act to amend the Judiciary Law, in relation
to establishing.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
6183
act shall take effect January 1.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1566, by Senator Maltese, Senate Print 2559,
an act to amend the New York City Charter, in
relation to permitting.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Bonacic.
SENATOR BONACIC: Mr. President,
we ask that that bill be laid aside
temporarily.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Lay the
bill aside temporarily.
The Secretary will continue to
read.
THE SECRETARY: In relation to
Calendar Number 1567, Senator Velella moves to
discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
Assembly Bill Number 5141 and substitute it
for the identical Third Reading Calendar,
6184
1567.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
Oh, I'm sorry. Substitution
ordered.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1567, by Member of the Assembly Nolan,
Assembly Print Number 5141, an act to amend
the Criminal Procedure Law, in relation to
peace officer status.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: In relation to
Calendar Number 1568, Senator Balboni moves to
discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
Assembly Bill Number 5839 and substitute it
6185
for the identical Third Reading Calendar,
1568.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:
Substitution ordered.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1568, by Member of the Assembly Tonko,
Assembly Print Number 5839, an act to amend
the Vehicle and Traffic Law and the State
Finance Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This
act shall take effect in 180 days.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58. Nays,
1. Senator Meier recorded in the negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: In relation to
Calendar Number 1569, Senator Stachowski moves
to discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
Assembly Bill Number 6674 and substitute it
6186
for the identical Third Reading Calendar,
1569.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:
Substitution ordered.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1569, by Member of the Assembly Wirth,
Assembly Print Number 6674, an act authorizing
Paul S. Zywiczynski to file for certification.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: There's
a home rule message at the desk.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: In relation to
Calendar Number 1570, Senator Kuhl moves to
discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
Assembly Bill Number 5807 and substitute it
for the identical Third Reading Calendar,
6187
1570.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:
Substitution ordered.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1570, by Member of the Assembly Magee,
Assembly Print Number 5807, an act to amend
the Agriculture and Markets Law and the State
Finance Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect April 1.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: In relation to
Calendar Number 1571, Senator Marcellino moves
to discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
Assembly Bill Number 6248C and substitute it
for the identical Third Reading Calendar,
1571.
6188
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:
Substitution ordered.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1571, by Member of the Assembly DiNapoli,
Assembly Print Number 6248C, an act to amend
the Environmental Conservation Law and the
Public Health Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This
act shall take effect January 1.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1572, by Senator Skelos, Senate Print 3964, an
act to amend the Criminal Procedure Law, in
relation to the designation.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
6189
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58. Nays,
1. Senator Duane recorded in the negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: In relation to
Calendar Number 1573, Senator Libous moves to
discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
Assembly Bill Number 1075B and substitute it
for the identical Third Reading Calendar,
1573.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:
Substitution ordered.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1573, by Member of the Assembly Bragman,
Assembly Print Number 1075B, an act to enact
the False Reporting Act of 1999.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
6190
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Aye.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Duane, to explain his vote. No? I'm sorry, I
thought you had your hand up.
The Secretary will announce the
results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 57. Nays,
2. Senators Duane and Montgomery recorded in
the negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1574, by Senator Nozzolio, Senate Print 4167,
an act to amend the Family Court Act, in
relation to authorizing.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
6191
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
Senator Duane -- oh, there you are.
Why do you rise?
SENATOR DUANE: I wanted to ask,
Mr. President, for unanimous consent to be
recorded in the negative on Number 1564.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: 64?
SENATOR DUANE: 64.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Without
objection, Senator Duane will be recorded in
the negative on Calendar 1564.
The Secretary will continue to
read.
THE SECRETARY: In relation to
Calendar Number 1575, Senator Goodman moves to
discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
Assembly Bill Number 8489 and substitute it
for the identical Third Reading Calendar,
1575.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:
Substitution ordered.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
6192
1575, by the Assembly Committee on Rules,
Assembly Print Number 8489, an act to amend
the Vehicle and Traffic Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect January 1.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58. Nays,
1. Senator Meier recorded in the negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1576, by Senator Marchi, Senate Print 4488B,
an act to amend the Waterfront Commission Act.
SENATOR BONACIC: Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Bonacic.
SENATOR BONACIC: Is there a
message of necessity at the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: There is
a message at the desk.
SENATOR BONACIC: Move to accept,
6193
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
question is on the motion to accept the
message of necessity. All those in favor
signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Opposed,
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
message is accepted. The bill is before the
house.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This
act shall take effect upon enactment into law.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: In relation to
Calendar Number 1578, Senator Nozzolio moves
to discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
Assembly Bill Number 7069A and substitute it
6194
for the identical Third Reading Calendar,
1578.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:
Substitution ordered.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1578, by Member of the Assembly John, Assembly
Print Number 7069A, an act to amend the Family
Court Act.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Nozzolio, to explain his vote.
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Thank you, Mr.
President.
Mr. President and my colleagues,
this measure before us is the culmination of
over three years of work with the entire
Monroe County delegation, including working
with our County Executive, Jack Doyle.
6195
While the judge who last took
office added in Monroe County occurred almost
twenty years ago, the court has experienced a
staggering increase in the number of cases it
handles, growing from 10,000 cases back then
to over 25,000 cases today.
I'm very pleased that our
delegation could work together to provide not
one but two county Family Court judges to the
very overburdened Family Court system in
Monroe County. The court has experienced a
tremendous increase in workload, and the cases
are much more complicated today and difficult
to resolve. The addition of those court
judges will help address the very growing
issues of helping our children and families
who seek justice.
Mr. President, again, this has been
a bipartisan effort, an effort that the entire
delegation -- Senator Alesi, Maziarz,
Dollinger, and myself -- have worked very
closely together on, and that we're very
pleased that the county executive, through his
support, is able to realize this important
need in Monroe County.
6196
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Nozzolio will be recorded in the affirmative.
Senator Dollinger, to explain his
vote.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Mr. President. I want to echo the sentiments
of Senator Nozzolio, but I also want to add my
thanks to my colleague from the east.
Senator Nozzolio, you navigated
this ship through lots of shoals and
occasionally through even the unruly deckhand
in the delegation. But you did it with a
masterful sense of getting to the goal. And
the goal was to create, as you properly point
out, two desperately needed Family Court
judges. And I applaud your perseverance. It
took a long time and a lot of effort, but I
think you got everybody on the same page.
And I think it's important, as we
work to these goals, sometimes we do navigate
through different straits and go in different
directions. But you kept this thing on
course, and I commend you for that. And,
frankly, when those two new Family Court
6197
judges are sworn in, whoever they may be, I
hope you will take a great deal of pride in
having helped the people of our county.
I extend the same commendations to
Senator Alesi and to Senator Maziarz and to
our colleagues in the Assembly. This is a
great day for the children and the families of
Monroe County. We should all be proud.
And again, I commend your hand on
the helm that got us there.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Dollinger will be recorded in the affirmative.
Announce the results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1579, by Senator Kuhl, Senate Print 4698, an
act to amend the Alcoholic Beverage Control
Law, in relation to summer and winter
licenses.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
6198
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1580, by Senator Bonacic, Senate Print 5195A,
an act to amend the Environmental Conservation
Law, in relation to permits for mining.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 6. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 57 -- ayes,
56. Nays, 3. Senators Leibell, Marcellino,
and Saland recorded -- also Senator LaValle.
Also Senator McGee.
In relation to Calendar Number
1580, those recorded in the negative are
Senators Fuschillo, LaValle, Leibell,
Marcellino, McGee, and Saland. Ayes, 53.
6199
Nays, 6.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: In relation to
Calendar Number 1582, Senator Saland moves to
discharge, from the Committee on Finance,
Assembly Bill Number 8156A and substitute it
for the identical Third Reading Calendar,
1582.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:
Substitution ordered.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1582, by the Assembly Committee on Rules,
Assembly Print Number 8156A, an act to
establish a pediatric extended care center.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
6200
THE SECRETARY: In relation to
Calendar Number 1583, Senator Stafford moves
to discharge, from the Committee on Finance,
Assembly Bill Number 6709A and substitute it
for the identical Third Reading Calendar,
1583.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:
Substitution ordered.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1583, by Member of the Assembly Farrell,
Assembly Print Number 6709A, an act to amend
the State Finance Law, in relation to the
issuance of bonds.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
McGee, to explain her vote. No?
Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
6201
Senator McGee.
SENATOR McGEE: Mr. President, I
would like unanimous consent to be recorded in
the affirmative for Calendar Number 1580,
Senator Bonacic's bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Without
objection, Senator McGee's vote will be
changed to be recorded in the affirmative on
Calendar 1580.
Senator Padavan.
SENATOR PADAVAN: Yes, by
unanimous consent, I'd like to be recorded in
the negative on Calendar Number 1580.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Without
objection, Senator Padavan will be recorded in
the negative on Calendar 1580.
Senator Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you,
Mr. President. I'd like to request unanimous
consent to be recorded in the negative on
Calendars 1537 and 1549.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Without
objection, Senator Schneiderman will be
recorded in the negative on Calendar Numbers
1537 and 1549.
6202
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1584, by Senator Kuhl, Senate Print 5592, an
act to amend the Judiciary Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1586, by Senator Leibell, Senate Print 5779,
an act authorizing the reopening.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: There is
a home rule message at the desk.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
6203
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1587, by Senator Leibell, Senate Print 5783A,
an act to amend the Environmental Conservation
Law and the Navigation Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 7. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: In relation to
Calendar Number 1588, Senator Morahan moves to
discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
Assembly Bill Number 7228A and substitute it
for the identical Third Reading Calendar,
1588.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:
Substitution ordered.
6204
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1588, by Member of the Assembly Gromack,
Assembly Print Number 7228A, an act to
authorize the payment of transportation aid.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: In relation to
Calendar Number 1589, Senator Morahan moves to
discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
Assembly Bill Number 7339A and substitute it
for the identical Third Reading Calendar,
1589.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Lay it
aside.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Lay it aside,
please.
6205
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Lay the
bill aside. Wait a minute.
Substitution ordered.
Okay, the Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1589, by Member of the Assembly Gromack,
Assembly Print Number 7339A, an act to amend
the Real Property Tax Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Now lay
the bill aside.
The Secretary will continue to
read.
THE SECRETARY: In relation to
Calendar Number 1590, Senator Hannon moves to
discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
Assembly Bill Number 557 and substitute it for
the identical Third Reading Calendar, 1590.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:
Substitution ordered.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1590, by Member of the Assembly Hill, Assembly
Print Number 557, an act authorizing the
assessors of the County of Nassau.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
6206
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Dollinger, why do you rise?
SENATOR DOLLINGER: This is
Calendar Number 1590, Mr. President?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Yes, it
Senator.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I just rise
to -- this is another instance in which we are
creating a -- the ability of the assessor to
take a retroactive property tax reduction.
My concern is, as we've noted this
a number of times, this bill is retroactive to
1989. This is a decade's worth of late taxes
that they're able to file for.
I again call on my colleagues from
Long Island, especially Nassau County, where
this problem seems to continue to persist,
that we seem to have this growing list of
people who don't file for their property tax
6207
exemption. They're entitled to them, but they
don't file, and now we end up with a ten-year
property tax exemption that we're going to
grant.
I continue to be in opposition, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Dollinger will be recorded in the negative.
The Secretary will announce the
results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58. Nays,
1. Senator Dollinger recorded in the
negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
Senator Farley.
SENATOR FARLEY: Mr. President, I
wish to call up Senator Lack's bill, which is
Print Number 5790, which is recalled from the
Assembly, which is now at the desk.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1352, by Senator Lack, Senate Print 5790, an
act to amend the Public Authorities Law.
6208
SENATOR FARLEY: Would you please
reconsider the vote by which this bill passed.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll on reconsideration.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Farley.
SENATOR FARLEY: Mr. President, I
now offer the following amendments.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:
Amendments received.
Senator Farley.
SENATOR FARLEY: On behalf of
Senator Maziarz, Mr. President, on page 27, I
offer the following amendments to Calendar
Number 945, Senate Print 4005, and I ask that
that bill retain its place on the Third
Reading Calendar.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
amendments are received, and the bill will
retain its place on the Third Reading
Calendar.
Senator Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Mr.
6209
President, can we go back to motions and
resolutions and adopt the Resolution Calendar,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Motions
and resolutions.
The motion is adopt the Resolution
Calendar. All those in favor signify by
saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Opposed,
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Resolution Calendar is adopted.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Can we go to
the controversial calendar, the Supplemental
Calendar Number 2, Calendar Number 1589,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read Calendar 1589 on the
Supplemental Calendar Number 2.
6210
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1589, substituted earlier today by Member of
the Assembly Gromack, Assembly Print Number
7339A, an act to amend the Real Property Tax
Law.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Can we have
an explanation, please?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Morahan, an explanation has been requested by
Senator Dollinger for Calendar 1589.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Yes, Mr.
President.
Rockland County, as well as many
other counties that are serviced by volunteer
agencies, both ambulance and fire and other
sorts of community services, want to make some
recognition of the contribution of those
individuals who serve the community and to
encourage those who come behind us to continue
to so serve.
This bill would allow a governing
body, whether it be a town, a village, or a
county, to grant up to a 10 percent tax
reduction or abatement, if you will, on those
people who live in the area they serve and
6211
have served under a certain set of criteria.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Mr.
President, will the sponsor yield to a couple
of questions?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Morahan, do you yield?
SENATOR MORAHAN: Yes, sir.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: This
10 percent property tax exemption, the way the
bill reads is that it will only apply to
Rockland County; is that correct?
SENATOR MORAHAN: No, it will
not. It will also apply to other counties.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: What other
counties -- through you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Morahan, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR MORAHAN: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: What other
6212
counties will it apply to?
SENATOR MORAHAN: It doesn't
apply to counties by name, but they also -- it
indicates by size of county.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: And, through
you, Mr. President, what other counties other
than Rockland fit the size requirements that
are contained in this bill?
SENATOR MORAHAN: I can't answer
that.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President, if Senator Morahan will
continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Morahan, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR MORAHAN: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: If you don't
know what other counties it would affect, why
did you put the size requirements in the bill,
that it could only be between counties that
have 261,000 and 270,000?
SENATOR MORAHAN: This was agreed
to by the County of Rockland, so that would be
6213
included. In discussing it with my Assembly
cohorts, or my colleagues in the Assembly, we
thought this would narrow the number of
counties and therefore reduce the controversy
with the bill, if there would be any.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Again,
through you, Mr. President, if Senator Morahan
will continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Morahan, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR MORAHAN: Yes, I do.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: You said that
the County of Rockland approved this tax
exemption. Do we have a home rule message
from the County of Rockland endorsing this
bill?
SENATOR MORAHAN: There is not a
home rule message as I understand it.
But we did pass a resolution. I
was there in the legislature when we passed a
resolution asking the members of the Senate
and the Assembly representing the county to
put forth this legislation, so they in turn
6214
could adopt such a program.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Morahan, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR MORAHAN: Yes, I do.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Is there any
reason why this concept of a property tax
reduction for volunteer firefighters or
ambulance workers shouldn't be applied to the
whole state?
SENATOR MORAHAN: It could be.
And I think any expansion of this will be
future legislation for those who would like to
join in.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President, if Senator Morahan will
continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Morahan -
SENATOR MORAHAN: Yes, I will.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
6215
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Is there any
income limitation on the people who would
qualify for this benefit? In other words, if
you owned a million-dollar house and you get a
10 percent tax abatement or tax exemption,
that's worth a lot more than if you own a
$100,000 house. Is there any ceiling on how
much the tax reduction would be?
SENATOR MORAHAN: The bill
doesn't put in any ceiling. But I don't know
of any volunteer fireman or paramedic who
lives in a million-dollar house. I just don't
happen to know any of those, so I guess it
didn't cross my mind.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Okay.
Through you, Mr. President, if Senator Morahan
would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Morahan, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR MORAHAN: Yes, I do,
Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: But what this
means is then that certain members of the fire
6216
department will get larger dollar returns
because their exemption will be worth more,
depending on the value of their house. Does
it strike you as fair that those who own more
expensive houses, who would therefore
presumably have more income, actually get a
bigger tax deduction under this bill than
those who might have smaller houses and might
need bigger deductions?
SENATOR MORAHAN: Well, it's all
relative. It's a 10 percent reduction on what
they now pay. Those who have larger homes are
paying more. So there is a sense of fairness,
as long as it's the same percentage for each
individual that is eligible for this under the
law.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Let me -
through you, Mr. President, just one other
question from myself. And I believe other
members -
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Morahan, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR MORAHAN: Yes, I do.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
6217
SENATOR DOLLINGER: What happens
if one of the two members that are on the deed
owns the property but the other member doesn't
belong to the volunteer fire department? Do
they get the full 10 percent exemption?
SENATOR MORAHAN: Yes, they do.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: What happens
if both members belong to the fire department?
Do they each get a 10 percent exemption?
SENATOR MORAHAN: I don't know.
I don't believe so.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President, I believe other members may
have questions.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Breslin.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Through you,
Mr. President, will the sponsor yield to a
couple of questions?
SENATOR MORAHAN: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR BRESLIN: We talked about
owners. How about someone who rents property?
6218
What kind of a benefit would they get?
SENATOR MORAHAN: They don't get
a benefit, unfortunately. There's no way I
could write that in.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Through you,
again -
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Morahan, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR MORAHAN: Yes, I do.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR BRESLIN: You said that
there was a resolution passed by the Rockland
County legislature.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Yes.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Was there a
home rule attached to it directing us to act?
SENATOR MORAHAN: No, there was
not.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Again, through
you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Morahan, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR MORAHAN: Yes, I do.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
6219
Senator yields.
SENATOR BRESLIN: With this tax
benefit, was there any consideration given to
taking the word "volunteer" off "fireman" and
making it more of a paid position, a
compensated position?
SENATOR MORAHAN: Well, that's
one of the things we're trying to encourage,
is more volunteerism. Because a paid fire
department would really be a more expensive
way to go for the county and the
municipalities within the county.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Again, through
you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Morahan, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR MORAHAN: Yes, I do, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Again, getting
back to the ownership of the property, we
talked about a joint tenancy, a husband and
wife or two firemen owning it. What about
if -- I have a big family. If someone owned
6220
it with their brothers and sisters, if there
was one volunteer fireman, would the entire
property be considered?
SENATOR MORAHAN: Senator, it's a
tax exemption on the property regardless of
how many own it. It's on the property. As
long as one of the people is a volunteer, one
of the owners.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Thank you,
Senator.
On the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Breslin, on the bill.
SENATOR BRESLIN: I think it's an
ill-conceived bill, a
not-very-well-thought-out bill, a bill that's
particularly for Rockland County, even though
it has a population designation. It will give
a windfall benefit to some firemen -- who
perform wonderful services and need to be
recognized -- and not a windfall for others
who may rent. It gives a particular windfall
if you happen to own a house with a volunteer
fireman.
But I think that for all of those
6221
reasons, I will vote in the negative on this
legislation.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Mr.
President, there will be an immediate meeting
of the Rules Committee in the Majority
Conference Room.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:
Immediate meeting of the Rules Committee in
the Majority Conference Room.
Senator Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you,
Mr. President. If the sponsor will yield to a
couple of questions.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Morahan?
SENATOR MORAHAN: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you.
If I understood your answer to
Senator Breslin's question a moment ago, even
if someone is a -- owns a piece of property
with their brother or with, as in the case of
6222
the Breslin family, multiple brothers,
perhaps, you're saying there still would be a
10 percent property tax reduction?
SENATOR MORAHAN: If they reside
in the domicile, yes.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Well, the
language of the bill -- and I'm referring to
lines 4 to 5 -- actually refers specifically
to "real property owned by an enrolled member
of a company." It doesn't say real property
partly owned or real property owned by an
enrolled member along with someone else.
But your contention is that that
language in lines 4 to 5 would cover the full
10 percent deduction even if someone was only
a 25 percent owner of the piece of property?
SENATOR MORAHAN: I would think
it would, yes, sir.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Well, I
believe that other property tax exemptions
specify the nature of the ownership. And I
believe that this -- unlike, as far as I'm
aware, the other property tax exemptions in
New York State law -- doesn't have the same
language.
6223
Did you intentionally put that in
differently from all the other property tax
exemptions?
SENATOR MORAHAN: No, I did not.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Do you
think that it's fair that -
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Schneiderman, do you wish the sponsor to
continue to -
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Ah, yes.
Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor
would continue -
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Well, I
know it is troublesome, but we have these
rules, you know.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Not -
not -
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Morahan, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR MORAHAN: I certainly do.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor continues to yield.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Not at
all. Thank you.
I don't understand the fairness,
6224
and perhaps you can explain it to me. There
may be a volunteer firefighter who owns
25 percent of a piece of property that's
valued at $2 million, and that piece of
property will get a huge property tax
exemption, whereas someone who entirely -
volunteers full-time and is a renter gets no
benefit, or if they own a lesser piece of
property entirely owned by the firefighter,
they get a much lesser exemption.
Can you explain the thoughts behind
the equities of that, Senator?
SENATOR MORAHAN: Well, as I said
a little bit earlier, Senator, it would have
to be the prime residence of the volunteer.
If it's his prime residence and he is on the
deed, he would get the -- or she would get the
tax deduction.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: The
full -- through you, Mr. President.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Yes, the full
10 percent. The whole $50.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Morahan, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR MORAHAN: Yes, I do.
6225
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you.
Thank you.
Senator, let me ask you a question.
Does this tax exemption apply to Orange
County? Would this apply to volunteer
firefighters in Orange County?
SENATOR MORAHAN: It may very
well.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Do you
know whether or not it applies to Orange
County, Senator?
SENATOR MORAHAN: I believe it
would, because I believe the populations are
about the same.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: And so in
answer to some earlier questions, there was
some discussion -- if the sponsor will
continue to yield.
SENATOR MORAHAN: I will continue
to yield, Mr. President.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you.
Thank you.
-- of which counties were covered
6226
by this, and we mentioned Rockland and weren't
sure about others. So now you think at least
Rockland and Orange are covered by this; is
that correct, Senator?
SENATOR MORAHAN: Well, I would
have to look at the population of all the
counties that would fall in the range of the
population outlined in the legislation. Maybe
Chemung County also applies. I have no
knowledge of that.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Could
Albany County be eligible, as far as you're
aware, Senator?
SENATOR MORAHAN: I don't know.
And I don't have a list of those counties who
would be eligible under the guidelines of the
bill, which stipulates a specific population.
Therefore, those counties with the population
that's within the bill would be able to, if
they chose to, adopt a local law to do this
abatement.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Through
you, Mr. President, if the sponsor will
continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Do you
6227
continue to yield, Senator?
SENATOR MORAHAN: Yes, I do.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Well, many
of us, in trying to assess whether or not to
vote for a bill, try and assess the fiscal
impact on the state. And if we don't have any
information as to how expensive this would be,
how many counties are covered, that's
difficult.
You're certain that Rockland County
applies. Are you certain that Orange County
would be included within this or not, Senator?
SENATOR MORAHAN: I'm not
certain. I would believe it is. I would have
to ask a colleague from Orange County if they
know the population of Orange County. I
believe they're very similar and that both
would be eligible under the guidelines of the
populations that I know to be in Orange
County, but they're not in front of me, or in
Rockland County, which are not in front of me.
But I know Rockland County it does
apply to.
6228
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Through
you, Mr. President, if the sponsor will
continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Morahan, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR MORAHAN: I continue to
yield, yes, sir.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you.
Is there a home rule message from
Orange County in connection with this
legislation, Senator?
SENATOR MORAHAN: There's no home
rule legislation necessary here.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: But is -
if the sponsor would continue to yield.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Yes, I continue
to yield, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: I take it,
then, from your answer there is no home rule
message. Is there a resolution or anything
else from Orange County in connection with
6229
this legislation?
SENATOR MORAHAN: No, sir.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Are
emergency medical technicians covered under
this legislation?
SENATOR MORAHAN: If they belong
to an ambulance corps, yes.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: If the
sponsor would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: I'm not
sure I understand. An emergency medical
technician who does not belong to an ambulance
corps would not be eligible for this, but an
emergency medical technician who belongs to an
ambulance corps would be eligible? Is that
what you're saying, Senator?
SENATOR MORAHAN: That is
correct.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Okay, Mr.
President. On the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Schneiderman, on the bill.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: I thank
6230
the sponsor for his time and patience.
I find it baffling that given all
of the concerns about the fiscal state of New
York State that we don't know how many
counties this would be applicable to and how
expensive it might be. I also find that the
irrationality of extending this to one or
perhaps two counties makes no more sense than
the exclusion of Rockland County that took
place yesterday in the pesticide bill.
And I think that this is not the
kind of legislation that we should be
advancing in this house, and I urge everyone
to vote no.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Hevesi.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you, Mr.
President. Would the sponsor yield to a
question?
SENATOR MORAHAN: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR HEVESI: Senator Morahan,
the provisions in this piece of legislation
are very specific in terms of who would be
6231
impacted were this to become law.
Specifically, that the county's population
must be between 261,000 and 270,000 -- very,
very specific.
And I know Senator Dollinger asked
about this and Senator Schneiderman asked
about it and Senator Breslin alluded to it.
I'm just -- if you could, for my edification,
just explain the rationale on the specific
population guidelines for this to be
applicable.
SENATOR MORAHAN: There is a
statewide bill, I understand, being considered
that would include all the counties and all
the towns and all the villages. That
legislation is not moving forward at the
moment.
Rockland County would like to have
the ability to do this now for their
volunteers, people who work on a 24-hour-call
basis, unpaid, putting their lives in
jeopardy. We lost, in Rockland County, two
volunteer firemen in the last year and a half.
And I believe it's important that we do
something to acknowledge the county's request
6232
to give them relief.
And it's not a money bill.
Rockland County considered this bill, and the
average that they came up with was $50 a year.
Let me finish, Senator, just so in case you
don't miss what I'm saying. About $50 a year
for a volunteer in Rockland County if he gets
a county tax abatement.
The county is the only municipality
so far who has indicated any support for this,
or they're the ones who requested it. No
other town or village, to my knowledge, has
asked for this bill. So in order to get this
done so that Rockland County can acknowledge
the work done by the volunteers, I put a bill
in that would cover the county, at their
request.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you, Mr.
President. If the sponsor would continue to
yield.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Yes, I do.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR HEVESI: Senator Morahan,
the underlying premise behind this bill I
6233
think is a good one, and I commend you for
recognizing that volunteer ambulance workers
and volunteer firefighters provide an
extraordinary service at no cost to the
public, and that service sometimes places
their own lives and their own well-being in
jeopardy. And the concept that we would
provide an additional -
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Hevesi, excuse me just one moment.
We have two members on opposite
sides of the chamber trying to hear each
other. I'd appreciate it if everybody would
cooperate with them.
Senator Hevesi, go ahead.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you, Mr.
President.
So the notion that we would provide
an additional benefit to individuals who are
so giving of themselves I think is a good one.
But there are some problems in the
implementation of this bill, specifically as
to why we would exclude every other county
that doesn't fall within that prescribed
population specification that's outlined in
6234
the bill. And specifically, it would be very
difficult for me to go back to my district -
and I've got many volunteer firefighters and
many volunteer ambulance workers -- and have
to try and explain to them why I supported a
bill that conferred a benefit to someone where
they are equally deserving of that benefit.
And so I guess I would -- my
question to you is, in keeping with that vein,
Senator Morahan, would you agree that this is
a benefit that we should provide for all
volunteer firefighters and all volunteer
ambulance workers in every county in New York
State?
SENATOR MORAHAN: Well, I would
say that if you wanted to put a bill in like
that, it certainly would be considered. And
anyone here could do that, anyone who's
concerned with their district or their county
could put a bill in.
SENATOR HEVESI: Mr. President,
through you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Morahan, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR MORAHAN: Yes, Mr.
6235
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR HEVESI: Senator Morahan,
I'm trying to get a sense on whether or not,
were such a piece of legislation to be
introduced, whether it would receive the
requisite consideration to get it passed. So
I'm trying to gauge how I'm going to vote on
this piece of legislation by whether this
institution would be responsive to providing
the benefit for every county, as I believe is
deserving.
So specifically, my question to
you, would you be supportive of extending
these benefits to everyone else? And I guess
if the answer is no, I'd like to explore why
not.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Well, the
answer is not no and the answer is not yes,
Senator.
The answer goes like this. That if
a bill to do that went through committee and
came to the floor, then I think I would
support it. Because then all of the Senators
6236
would be able to participate, their committees
could do the research, they could do the
back-home effort to see if it's needed and
necessary.
So if it came through the proper
and exploratory process that the Senate rules
allow for, yeah, I think you would get
support.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you.
On the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Hevesi, on the bill.
SENATOR HEVESI: Mr. President, I
like the idea behind this piece of
legislation. Again, as I suggested a few
minutes ago, the men and women who perform the
services that we ask them to perform,
volunteer ambulance workers and firefighters,
they don't receive the credit, the public
recognition that sometimes I think we would
feel that they're deserving of. What they do
receive is the self-gratification for knowing
that they are doing something without monetary
compensation, something that provides the
ultimate benefit to people in society, which
6237
is to help protect people's lives. And when
people are in danger or in jeopardy or sick or
need assistance, that they don't question the
purpose, they don't question the personality
of the person that they are supposed to be
helping, they go in and they do it. And so I
have the greatest respect for the men and
women who perform this valuable service for
free.
And so we can easily and logically
deduce that it is only appropriate that we
provide an additional benefit for them. I am
just greatly troubled with this piece of
legislation, because I have 1.7 or 1.8 million
people in my county of Queens, and for me for
vote yes on this piece of legislation and then
go back to my district and tell them, "Sorry,
I think you do as good as job as the volunteer
firefighters and the volunteer ambulance
workers in every other county, including the
county that is getting this additional
benefit" -- evidently it's Rockland County -
I don't think that the -- as good a job as the
workers, the ambulance workers and the
firefighters in Rockland County do, that they
6238
are any more heroic or deserving of an
additional benefit than my constituents are
deserving of. And as a result, I am not going
to be able to support this legislation.
But, Senator Morahan, I commend you
for the concept behind this, and I am greatly
appreciative of your stated support for
expanding this concept of conferring this
benefit throughout the entire state.
I intend to vote in the negative,
Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Waldon.
SENATOR WALDON: Thank you very
much, Mr. President. Would our colleague from
Rockland County permit me to ask a couple of
questions?
SENATOR MORAHAN: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR WALDON: Thank you very
much, Mr. President.
Senator, I have before me the 1998
New York State Statistical Yearbook. And it
speaks to the populations in all of the
6239
counties of the state, both in the year 1990,
which is part of your proposal, and in 1996.
Would you be kind enough to tell us
why you chose 1990 as the linchpin year,
versus a more current year -- '96, '97, '98,
'99 -- if that came into your deliberations?
SENATOR MORAHAN: I believe that
was selected because that was the last
official census taken in the state of New
York.
SENATOR WALDON: Thank you very
much, Senator.
Mr. President, would the gentleman
yield one more time?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Do you
continue to yield, Senator?
SENATOR MORAHAN: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR WALDON: Thank you, Mr.
President.
Senator, we've had a lot of
colloquy on the floor in regard to -
discussion on the floor in regard to your
proposal, which is meritorious. But being
6240
that there's so much concern as a result of
this proposal, would it not be better, so that
those of us who want to support the concept
could vote for it, could you not withdraw the
bill and craft it so that all of these other
counties which are so deserving could be
considered? Is that something that you might
wish to consider?
SENATOR MORAHAN: Well, I would
normally consider something like that. But
Senator Farley has a bill that already now
does this statewide. And I believe when that
passes, this would fold.
But I want to give the relief to
the firefighters in Rockland County who have
petitioned loudly and often to the county
government for this sort of relief and
recognition.
SENATOR WALDON: Thank you very
much, Senator. I appreciate it.
Thank you, Mr. President.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Mr. President,
I believe there's an amendment at the Chair on
this.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Would
6241
you give us a moment to take a look at it,
Senator Lachman.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Lachman, the amendment is germane. Do you
wish to weave -- yeah, weave -- waive the
reading?
SENATOR LACHMAN: I would -- yes,
I would rather waive the reading rather than
weave the reading on the amendment. If I may
speak on the amendment.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
reading of the amendment is waived, and you
may now weave your explanation.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Senator
Morahan, I think this is a very good bill.
The only problem is it's been limited to one
particular area of our state.
Now, in answer to Senator Hevesi's
question a few minutes ago, I believe you said
that you would consider having the benefits of
this bill go further than your county. And I
think that's a very worthwhile and humane
statement. I think there are other people,
other firefighters in other counties, from
6242
Sullivan County to Rensselaer County to Kings
County and Queens County, who stand to benefit
from such an amendment.
And I therefore offer this
amendment for consideration, especially based
upon your remarks in answer to the question of
one of my colleagues that you would consider
such an amendment. Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
question is on the amendment. All those in
favor signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Party vote
in the affirmative.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Party vote in
the negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 23. Nays,
36. Party vote.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
amendment fails.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
6243
act shall take effect on the first day of
January.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
the negative on Calendar Number 1589 are
Senators Breslin, Connor, Dollinger, Duane,
Hevesi, Lachman, Mendez, Montgomery, Rosado,
Sampson, Schneiderman, Smith, and Waldon.
Ayes, 46. Nays, 13.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
Senator Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Mr.
President, if we could return to reports of
standing committees, I believe there's a
report of the Rules Committee at the desk.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Bruno,
from the Committee on Rules, offers up the
following bills directly for third reading:
Senate Prints 1156, by Senator
Dollinger, an act to amend the Real Property
6244
Law;
3075A, by Senator Kuhl, an act to
amend the Abandoned Property Law;
3399, by Senator Lack, an act to
amend the Judiciary Law;
4577B, by Senator McGee, an act to
amend the Election Law;
4917A, by Senator Marcellino, an
act to amend the Public Service Law;
5647A, by Senator Nozzolio, an act
to amend the Tax Law;
5950, by Senator Fuschillo, an act
to amend the General Business Law;
5969 by Senator Trunzo, an act to
amend the Civil Service Law;
6003, by Senator Velella, an act to
amend the Education Law;
And 6004, by Senator Rath, an act
to enact the Clinic Access and Anti-Stalking
Act of 1999.
All bills directly for third
reading.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Mr.
6245
President, I move to accept the report of the
Rules Committee.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
question is on the motion to accept the report
of the Rules Committee. All those in favor
signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Opposed,
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
report of the Rules Committee is accepted.
Senator Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Mr.
President, if we can go to the supplemental
active list and call up Calendar Number 578,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read Calendar 578.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
578, by Senator Nozzolio, Senate Print 3776B,
an act to amend the Executive Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Mr.
6246
President, is there a message of necessity at
the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: There is
a message at the desk.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Move to
accept.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
question is on the motion to accept the
message of necessity. All those in favor
signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Opposed,
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
message of necessity is accepted. The bill is
before the house.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Duane, to explain his vote.
6247
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Mr.
President.
In that this bill has come back to
us on a second vote, I'm sad to see that it
did not include, as is what I believe is the
intent, inclusion of a domestic partner. I
think domestic partners of crimes victims are
as entitled to counseling as are any other
relative of crime victims, and I'm sad to see
that it was not included in this legislation,
though it's our second time to be able to do
it.
I'm hopeful that that will -- that
it will be clarified in the future.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: How do
you vote, Senator?
SENATOR DUANE: Aye.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Duane will be recorded in the affirmative.
The Secretary will announce the
results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
6248
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
may I be recorded in the negative on Calendar
Number 1589, with unanimous consent?
Especially with your consent.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Paterson will be recorded in the negative on
Calendar 1589, without objection.
Senator Fuschillo, we have a little
housekeeping. Shall we take care of that at
this time?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Mr.
President, is there any housekeeping at the
desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: I think
so.
Senator Nozzolio.
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Mr. President,
may we call up Bill Number 4591, recalled from
the Assembly, which is now at the desk.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
950, by Senator Hannon, Senate Print 4591, an
act to amend the Public Health Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Just a
6249
moment.
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Mr.
President -
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Nozzolio.
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Thank you, Mr.
President. I now move, on behalf of Senator
Hannon, to reconsider the vote by which this
bill was passed.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll on reconsideration.
THE SECRETARY:
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Mr. President,
I now offer the following amendments.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:
Amendments received.
Senator Hoffmann.
SENATOR HOFFMANN: Mr. President,
I was out of the chamber earlier today when
Calendar 1559 came up and passed. I would
appreciation permission to be recorded in the
negative on that bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Without
6250
objection, Senator Hoffmann will be recorded
in the negative on Calendar 1559.
SENATOR HOFFMANN: Thank you.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Will you
kindly take up Calendar 1527, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read Calendar 1527.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1527, by the Senate Committee on Rules, Senate
Print 5965A, an act providing for the election
of delegates.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
SENATOR CONNOR: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Bruno, with regard to Calendar 1527, there's a
message of necessity at the desk. Do you -
the motion is to -
SENATOR BRUNO: Move to accept
the message.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: -
6251
accept the message of necessity. All those in
favor signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Opposed,
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
message is accepted. The bill is before the
house.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 6. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: In relation to
Calendar Number 1527, those recorded in the
negative are Senators Fuschillo, Marcellino,
and Skelos. Ayes, 56. Nays, 3.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
Senator Seabrook, why do you rise?
6252
SENATOR SEABROOK: Yes, Mr.
President. With unanimous consent, I'd like
to be recorded in the negative on Calendar
1589.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Without
objection, Senator Seabrook will be recorded
in the negative on Calendar 1589.
Senator Balboni, why do you rise?
SENATOR BALBONI: Mr. President,
I request unanimous consent to be recorded in
the negative on Calendar 1527.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Without
objection, Senator Balboni will be recorded in
the negative on Calendar 1527.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Mr. President,
can we get to Supplemental Calendar 57C and go
to the noncontroversial calendar.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: In relation to
Calendar Number 1581, Senator Dollinger moves
to discharge, from the Committee on Aging,
Assembly Print 3430 and substitute it for the
identical Third Reading Calendar, 1581.
6253
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:
Substitution ordered.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1581, by Member of the Assembly Morelle,
Assembly Print 3430, an act to amend the Real
Property Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
September.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1585. In relation to Calendar Number 1585,
Senator Kuhl moves to discharge, from the
Committee on Finance, Assembly Bill 4321A and
substitute it for the identical third reading,
1585.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:
6254
Substitution ordered.
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1585, by Member of the Assembly Parment,
Assembly Print 4321A, an act to amend the
Abandoned Property Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1593, by Senator Lack, Senate Print 3399, an
act to amend the Judiciary Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
6255
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1594, by Senator McGee, Senate Print 4577B, an
act to amend the Election Law.
SENATOR BRUNO: Is there a
message at the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Yes,
there is, Senator.
SENATOR BRUNO: Move to accept
the message.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
question is on the motion to accept the
message of necessity. All those in favor
signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Opposed,
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
message is accepted. The bill is before the
house.
Read the last section.
6256
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1595, by Senator Marcellino, Senate Print
4917A, an act to amend the Public Service Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 7. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1596, by Senator Nozzolio, Senate Print 5647A,
an act to amend the Tax Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
6257
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 6. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1597, by Senator Fuschillo, Senate Print 5950,
an act to amend the General Business Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
November.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1598. In relation to Calendar Number 1598,
6258
Senator Trunzo moves to discharge, from the
Committee on Rules, Assembly Bill 8833 and
substitute it for the identical third reading,
1598.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:
Substitution -
SENATOR SMITH: Lay it aside.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:
Substitution ordered.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1598, by the Assembly Committee on Rules,
Assembly Print 8833, an act to amend the Civil
Service Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Smith, you're asking that the bill be laid
aside?
SENATOR SMITH: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Lay the
bill aside.
The Secretary will continue to
read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1600, by Senator Rath, Senate Print 6004, an
act to enact the Clinic Access and
6259
Anti-Stalking Act of 1999.
SENATOR BRUNO: Is there a
message at the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Yes,
there is, Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Move we accept
the message.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
question is on the motion to accept the
message of necessity. All those in favor
signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Opposed,
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
message is accepted.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 15. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
November.
SENATOR CONNOR: Lay it aside.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Lay the
bill aside.
Senator Bruno, that concludes the
6260
reading of the noncontroversial portion of the
supplemental calendar.
SENATOR BRUNO: Mr. President,
can we at this time go to the controversial
calendar, starting with 1600.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read the controversial
calendar, commencing with Calendar 1600.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1600, by Senator Rath, Senate Print 6004, an
act to enact the Clinic Access and
Anti-Stalking Act of 1999.
SENATOR CONNOR: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Rath an explanation has been requested by the
Minority Leader, Senator Connor, of Calendar
1600.
SENATOR RATH: Thank you, Mr.
President.
Very simply, what the act will
provide is a simple explanation of
establishing new criminal penalties for
stalking and conforming the state law to
federal law to protect public access to places
of religious worship and health-care
6261
facilities that provide family-planning
services.
And that's simple enough to
understand, and I'm sure you've all had the
bill in front of you, you've looked at it, you
know what it provides for. And we can go
through that, and we will go through that.
But let me frame the discussion a little bit.
It has been a long time in coming
to the floor, this particular bill. And words
from somewhere down the ages rang in my head
as I was thinking about framing the debate
tonight. And you might say it's the best of
times and the worst of times. In a country
where there is a lot available to people, a
lot available to all of us, we have moments of
violence bursting on our consciousness,
whether it's the World Trade Center or
Columbine High School or Dr. Slepian in
Amherst, New York, my hometown, my district.
The violence that's perpetrated on people and
the violence that people are willing to put up
with shocks our sensitivities.
And in our responsibility as
representatives of large constituencies all
6262
across the state of New York, we feel very
strongly the responsibility to take some sort
of action. The violence that people have had
perpetrated on them and have witnessed and,
indeed, culminating in the violent death of
Dr. Slepian, insults our sensitivities. We
know people have the right to access to
health-care facilities. We know that. We
know that people have the right to free
speech. But how do these conflict, and how
can we accommodate?
That debate has been going on for a
long, long time. In my activities in public
life the last twenty years, I would tell you
that I drew my conclusions about where I was
going to be in these areas about twenty years
ago, when I had a daughter who was growing up
and I needed to sort out in her thoughts and
in our family's thoughts and in the morals, if
you will, and the folkways and mores that we
live with in our household, how we were going
to deal with the issues that really come to a
culmination in front of us today.
And some folks would characterize a
bill like this as a litmus test. I don't
6263
characterize things as litmus tests. I
characterize one bill at a time as to whether
it's best for the people I represent and what
they expect from me. And it's foolishness to
think that we would not be the upholders of
the law that we are sworn to protect and the
law that we represent when we're sent to
Albany by our constituencies.
The great sadness that was
reflected in my community and, indeed, all
across not only the state of New York but all
across the United States when Dr. Slepian was
killed by -- I wouldn't even begin to try to
characterize the kind of mind that would think
that that was all right, to call attention to
an issue by doing that, if indeed that was
what was in that person's mind.
But tonight we're here to try to
give some shape to the future of this issue in
the state of New York, by making it -- by
putting criminal penalties to the act of
stalking. We've done that already in this
Legislature earlier this year, and now we have
the opportunity to add the penalties for
trying to bar access to health facilities or
6264
places of worship.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Goodman.
SENATOR GOODMAN: Mr. President,
we live in a great free land, Mr. President,
in which every citizen has the right to assume
that in going about their daily business and
earning their daily bread and in seeking the
care that they must have for their bodies and
their minds that they may go unassailed and
free and without any obstruction or
interference with their free right of
movement.
But, Mr. President, I'm sorry to
report to you that freedom is not free.
Indeed, freedom carries with it a very high
price at times, and one which we must
discharge appropriately if we're to protect
the very preciousness of our way of life and
the ability of our people to go about their
daily lives with a sense of release and
without fear that they shall be either killed
or maimed or brutalized in any fashion.
And for that reason, this very
significant omnibus bill which is before us at
6265
the moment, in my judgment, is probably one of
the landmark pieces of legislation which this
body has been asked to consider, probably
since 31 years ago when I found myself in this
house debating the bill which preceded Roe
versus Wade by two years and granted freedom
of reproductive choice to women everywhere in
the state of New York.
Let it be noted, Mr. President,
that that was a momentous event and that at
the time that that bill passed, we had as a
leader in this Legislature an individual of
great stature named Earl Brydges. For those
of you who may recall that day -- and there
probably are not too many left in this
chamber -- that leader had an opposition to
the bill that was brought before the house for
consideration. And at the conclusion of it,
in the final debate, he actually made a speech
and he concluded by lapsing into tears and
slumping into his chair in almost a -- with
almost a sense of defeat.
And yet at that moment, Mr.
President, I daresay he rose to a degree of
stature that was probably the very ultimate
6266
degree of stature of his entire life, because
he had believed in one fundamental principle.
That was that this house, this great, great
house in which we sit tonight, must be a place
in which people have the right to have their
various views understood and debated, and that
with respect to certain issues of conscience
and safety and in the protection of liberty,
it becomes imperative that this house
entertain a variety of different views.
Therefore, I want to thank most
profoundly the leader of the Majority of the
Senate, Senator Bruno, for the extraordinary
degree of statesmanship which he showed in
being willing to bring this -- allow this bill
to come before the house tonight, because it's
a bill which I think is replete with
significance.
Why? Because let's take just a
moment to discuss its most significant
components. First of all, if we look at the
bill itself, there's a declaration of
legislative intent which I think starts
significantly on line 6 of the first page,
which says, "The unfortunate reality is that
6267
stalking victims have been intolerably forced
to live in fear of their stalkers, stalkers
who repeatedly follow, phone, write, confront,
threaten or otherwise unacceptably intrude
upon their victims, often inflicting
immeasurable emotional and physical harm upon
them. Current law does not adequately
recognize the damage to public order and
individual safety caused by these offenders."
And if we look a little more deeply
into the bill, we come upon the language on
page 2, line 13, which says: "The Legislature
also finds that criminal acts involving
violence and intolerance at health-care
facilities and places of religious worship
have become more prevalent in recent years.
Medical clinics, physicians' offices and other
facilities throughout the state have become
targets in a campaign of obstruction and
terrorism aimed at closing the facilities and
intimidating those who seek to obtain or
provide reproductive health services. In
addition, places of religious worship have
regrettably been targets of vandals or
radicals, thereby threatening these havens of
6268
peaceful prayer and meditation."
And finally it says, in this very
important passage, "Legislation is necessary
to supplement federal law by empowering state
and local officials to assist in combatting
violence and acts of vandalism at health-care
facilities and places of religious worship.
It is therefore the intent of this Legislature
to provide state criminal penalties against
anyone who by force or threat of force or
physical obstruction intentionally injures,
intimidates, or interferes with another person
or attempts to injure, intimidate, or
interfere," and so on.
Mr. President, this language makes
it very plain that this Legislature, in its
wisdom, has reached a very serious conclusion
in regard to a state of affairs in this
society which is absolutely intolerable;
namely, that there are people who, for
whatever reason -- whether it's due to
religious bigotry, whether it's due to
different convictions with respect to the
matter of freedom of choice or the like -
impose their will not by persuasion but by
6269
physical force, by intimidation, by violence,
even culminating in the type of tragic murder
we witnessed in Buffalo with the death of a
health-care physician named Dr. Barnett
Slepian, who was killed not at the entrance to
his clinic, mind you, but in his own home, by
someone who stalked and killed him and indeed
singled him out, if you will, for a death
notice on the Internet, using the very latest
technology to locate and to identify a man who
is perceived as a bull's-eye in the target of
terrorists who were not willing to allow
people to seek their freedom of choice as best
they chose.
That, Mr. President, reflects to
us, I think, the unbelievable atmosphere which
this bill tonight is a strong weapon to oppose
and must be considered in that light, in my
judgment.
Now, let's be very clear what's
going on here. What's going on here is that
it was the position of this Legislature, to be
followed two years ago later by the United
States government, and since upheld repeatedly
by Supreme Court decisions, that in the event
6270
and with respect to the matter of reproductive
services, a woman has an absolute freedom of
choice with regard to how she wishes to bear a
child or not bear a child, and within the
restraints imposed by that law, it was
imperative that those rights be protected.
In an attempt to protect them in
1994, the federal government passed a bill
which was designed to guarantee access to
clinics. It was a well-intended instrument,
but unfortunately there was not sufficient
muscle to permit it to be properly functional.
And what has happened was simply that there
are insufficient numbers of federal marshals,
of the United States attorneys and their
assistants in all of the localities -
certainly in the state of New York -- to
enable that federal protective legislation to
really have teeth. So it became a toothless
tiger in many areas, simply because there's a
lack of district attorneys and police
officials.
And not long ago -- I must share
with you an experience that I had. I decided
that it would behoove me, as one who had been
6271
an advocate for some while of the freedom of
choice, to go to Buffalo to observe the actual
clinic in which Dr. Slepian had done his work.
When I arrived there, I was astonished to find
a group of demonstrators outside carrying
signs, which were perfectly permissible under
our Freedom of Speech Act, but also people who
were shouting and who were frankly giving
signals that looked very ominous indeed.
Now, as it happened, they were
totally surrounded by United States marshals,
by local law enforcement officials, and by
state troopers as well. And it happened that
because of the notoriety of the Slepian murder
and the situation that occurred in Buffalo,
that there was now a total effort at
enforcement of the federal law which was
effective.
And on the day that I was there, no
violence did occur. But there had been
warning signals sent out prior to that, to my
arrival, indicating that that clinic in
Buffalo is to be the prime target of
terrorists who wish to preclude the
possibility of women obtaining services to
6272
which they're entitled to legally obtain under
the law.
Now, Mr. President, I mention this
experience because it's indelibly engraved in
my mind, not just that visit, but also other
visits that I've made to clinic entrances,
where there are women who stand in terror of
being literally murdered on the streets. And
I don't say this to be dramatic, because we're
trying, frankly, to deemphasize the emotion in
this and simply talk to the direct concept of
good behavior and civility. But there are
people who literally are concerned for their
very well-being if they seek and attempt to do
what they wish in terms of their freedom of
choice.
Unfortunately, in the nation, this
is a phenomenon that's repeated in many
places. And unfortunately, in the nation as
well, there is an inadequacy of enforcement.
But here in New York State, we've
concluded that it is imperative that, first of
all, stalking be addressed frontally and that
it be prevented. Because stalking is a
particularly vicious crime which is often
6273
clandestine, which can involve people
receiving threatening phone calls or being
followed on the street or literally into their
homes where they could be slaughtered without
mercy by people who have set up a deliberate
design over time strategically to entrap them
and to do away with them.
This is something which is so
terrorizing, as we look in our nightly
televisions at what's gone on in Kosovo and we
see those corpses strewn about the horizon, we
can just imagine how people feel when they
meet this kind of actual physical threat.
This is not mythological, and this
is not being said to excite your emotions or
bring them to a boil. It's simply to say that
this is simply unacceptable in New York. And
because it's unacceptable, we're taking action
to vigorously confront it and to prevent its
recurrence.
Now, what is this law that we've
got before us going to do? In my judgment, it
will establish several things. A state law
giving doctors and clinics local law
enforcement protection, access to state
6274
courts, and granting state investigative
powers will clearly reduce violence.
And there's evidence that laws
aimed at protecting women and abortion
providers work. Since the federal law was
enacted, for example, the number of clinics
reporting severe violence dropped by 52
percent. So it is possible to prevent these
things from happening. There's clear evidence
to that effect, and that's going to occur in
New York, I'm confident, with the passage of
this law.
The Governor has taken a bold
initiative on this. And I want to compliment
all of my colleagues here, many of whom do not
agree with the theory of abortion at all -
and this does not reflect that point of view,
and it should not be misconstrued as a
reflection of their attitude, pro or con, on
abortion, where honest people can certainly
differ in an appropriate fashion.
But what it does do is to say that
freedom is the essence of what we have to
protect. And it's in the protection of that
freedom that this law has been so carefully
6275
crafted. And I'm confident that with your
assistance tonight, it will pass in this house
overwhelmingly and, in the fullness of the
evening, will pass in the Assembly, to
accomplish something which is so precious to
all of us.
Many of us are the sons or
grandchildren of immigrants who escaped
pogroms, who escaped violence in other parts
of the world, who came here knowing that this
was indeed the place of sanctuary. But it
hasn't always been a place of sanctuary, and
it's to preserve that precious heritage that
we're gathered here tonight and that we're
going to do our duty.
And in my opinion, this is
deserving of the highest praise for our
leadership and for those of you who wish to
vote in favor of this most significant and
enduring measure.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Hoffmann.
SENATOR HOFFMANN: Thank you, Mr.
President.
Sometimes we have to pass
6276
legislation that we wish we didn't have to do.
And it's another indication of how fragile our
rights sometimes are as individuals in this
society. And it's unfortunate that in New
York it's even necessary for us to implement
something that really should not have to be on
the books, and that is a simple guarantee that
a person has the opportunity to exercise her
prerogative to undertake a legal procedure
guaranteed by this state.
The fact that there is a federal
statute that has to back up access to clinics
was disturbing enough. But following the
violence in Buffalo, described very capably by
Senator Goodman and Senator Rath, I think it's
quite apparent that this is a responsible
decision by this Legislature and one that we
really must undertake today in order to assure
that the dignity of people in this state is
afforded as well as their access to this
health care.
To those people who are on both
sides of this issue, it's another indication
that we have failed as a society that the
service itself is even necessary. Perhaps it
6277
would be easier not to consider the reasons
why abortion still exists. But please let's
remember for a few moments that we have all
failed in our task as educators if there is
still a need for underage girls to seek this
service because they have been impregnated by
somebody through an act of rape or incest.
And it's unreasonable for a woman who has been
denied other medical opportunity to be denied
this when it is the only legal way that she is
going to be able to address the situation that
is now guaranteed under the law.
But to be faced, in the pursuit of
that procedure, with insults and an attack and
an abusive behavior from people she does not
even know is an indignity that should not be
allowed to continue.
This is a responsible position for
us to take. I'm pleased with the fact that we
have reaffirmed once again our concern about
stalking as an ever-growing menace in this
society -- to men as well as to women, but
clearly much, much greater a threat to women
of this state.
These are two very, very important
6278
messages that we send in one bill to the women
of this state, that we have not abandoned
their rights and that the New York State
Senate understands full well the need for us
to continue reviewing legislation at the state
level when it is deficit in protection of
women's rights in any areas.
I too would like to compliment
Senator Bruno for his even-handed handling of
this matter. It was not a difficult decision
to come to this consensus -- it was not an
easy decision to come to this consensus. I'm
sorry, Mr. President, there's a great deal of
noise around me, so I was temporarily
distracted.
And I think perhaps I can speak
from the heart in saying how much I recognize
Senator Bruno's desire to bring together
people from all parts of this state, from all
sides of several different issues, so that we
could, with dignity and clarity, send a
message that we will insist on respect for the
women of this state when they seek this
procedure at any clinic or health facility in
this state.
6279
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Maltese.
SENATOR MALTESE: Mr. President,
I'd like to make a few observations concerning
this legislation.
First of all, as certainly all my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle know,
there was legislation passed at the federal
level in 1994, the Freedom of Access to Clinic
Entrances, FACE, that was passed
overwhelmingly by the Democratic side, with
many, many fewer Republicans voting for it.
It was passed in that manner because it has
become a symbol across our nation.
But the federal law, and I read
right from the description, will deter
criminal activity against persons who provide
or obtain reproductive health services and
deter similar acts at places of religious
worship, and has made it a federal crime for
anyone to deny or attempt to deny another
person access to health-care services or
religious worship.
Thus, Mr. President, with a first
6280
offense punishable by six months in jail or a
$10,000 fine, I feel the area has been
covered.
But in addition, Mr. President, as
pertaining specifically to this legislation, I
wish to point out terminology that is exact in
the federal statute and the state statute.
And it is terminology that indicates that a
parent or legal guardian of a minor shall not
be subject to penalties under this section for
such activities insofar as they are directed
exclusively at that minor.
I just wish to submit and have some
personal knowledge of circumstances where men
and women attempted to deter or discourage
daughters or unemancipated minors from seeking
abortions, and while they would have been
protected for their actions, attempting to
deter their own children where, if there was
interference from guards or security guards -
as there was in one instance -- they would
then be subject to the extreme penalties in
this bill.
In addition, Mr. President, the -
I wish to point out that this bill in just one
6281
instance goes further than the federal
legislation, in that in addition to utilizing
the terminology in the federal legislation,
for the first time uses the term not only
"intimidate or interfere with another person"
but uses the terminology "to discourage."
I submit, Mr. President, that when
people legally picket, lawfully picket outside
an abortion clinic, with -- taking none of the
hideous circumstances where people are harmed
or physically threatened or intimidated,
certainly the use of the terminology
"discourage" would at least lead us to
question perhaps the constitutionality of the
section.
In addition, Mr. President, we have
a circumstance where you could very well have,
outside an abortion clinic, a number of
pickets. Some of the pickets would be there
perhaps in connection with a labor dispute.
Some of the pickets there might very well be
there as AIDS activists. Some of the pickets
might be there in connection with possible
animal-rights issues, use of animals in
experiments or what have you. And you would
6282
have the Right to Life pickets.
And under the terminology, again,
of both pieces of legislation, the pro-life
people, because they were seeking to picket or
object to or discourage people who were
seeking abortion services, would be classified
completely separate and apart from their
associates on picket lines standing right next
to them.
I submit again, Mr. President, when
we go into these areas, we go into the
thought-police area as to what you think
rather than what you do.
My good colleague, Senator Goodman,
has described this as a piece of landmark
legislation. And I believe it is a piece of
landmark legislation, but unfortunately not in
the same sense that Senator Goodman calls it.
He referred earlier to Earl
Brydges. I was in the room subsequent to Earl
Brydges' decision, where Earl Brydges himself
had indicated that that was one of the things
that disturbed him most in his life, one of
the decisions that he made. And I only refer
it to at this point in time because Senator
6283
Goodman did. And other Senators in this house
at this time heard him make those statements
and similar statements, that it was one of the
most difficult decisions he made and a
decision that he regretted.
I won't put words into his mouth.
He's long gone, God bless him. The fact of
this matter is this is a decision that I
honestly believe, despite -- taking into
consideration the Right to Life people, taking
into consideration those conservative-minded
people that would object to it, it's a
decision that we'll subsequently come to
regret.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you,
Mr. President. Would the sponsor yield to a
couple of questions?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Rath, do you yield to a question?
SENATOR RATH: Surely.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you.
6284
Through you, Mr. President.
The language in the section
establishing the penalty of criminal
interference with health-care services or
religious worship refers, in several
instances, to "the intimidation or
interference with." And the language I'm
focusing on is "another person because such
other person was or is observing or providing
reproductive health services."
And my question is, Senator, when
it refers to those providing reproductive
health services, does that extend beyond
doctors to cover nurses, other people who work
at clinics, escorts who bring people in and
out?
SENATOR RATH: Yes, it does,
Senator.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: So the
definition of those providing reproductive
health services is to be taken broadly, as
including all who work at or around a clinic?
SENATOR RATH: That's the intent
of the legislation as drafted.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you
6285
very much, Senator.
Mr. President, on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Schneiderman, on the bill.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you,
Senator Rath, for your answers and for your
legislation.
As many of you know, I've made
something of a cause out of this legislation.
This has been a major focus of my work in this
legislative session.
And Senator Goodman, who spoke
earlier, and I were both at a candlelight
vigil in New York City after the despicable
murder of Dr. Slepian, and at that time -- it
was before I had taken office -- Senator
Goodman told the crowd that we were going to
pass a clinic antiviolence bill this session.
And I'm ashamed to admit that I wasn't sure he
was right. And he said, when he said that -
and this part I really wasn't sure about -
"We're going to pass it with a lot of good
Republican votes."
And I'm very, very proud of the
fact that we're finally bringing this house
6286
into the light of reality, and that today
Senator Goodman's words are being proven true
and that today we're moving forward on an
issue that is of critical importance for the
men and women of the state of New York.
Because tonight we're taking a step forward
from what I believe is a form of
self-inflicted blindness in this house towards
the reality that informed Americans have
recognized for years all across this country.
And that's that there's a campaign of violence
and terror against reproductive health
facilities.
And I hear Senator Maltese, and I
respect the sincerity of his views. We're not
passing this law because reproductive health
facilities are better than anyplace else.
We're passing this law because they're under
attack and current law enforcement strategies
have been unable to deal with the particular
type of attack that they are focused on.
The murder of Dr. Slepian
unfortunately was necessary to bring public
attention to an issue that those of us in the
abortion-rights movement have known of for
6287
years. There's a terrorist network that will
stop at nothing to destroy freedom of choice
in this state and in this country. We know
that the FACE law has been effective. We know
that clinic antiviolence laws in other states
have been effective. And tonight we're taking
at least a first step in our house towards
making such a law a reality in the state of
New York.
Now, this bill, in my view, is not
a perfect bill. Senator Oppenheimer and I
sponsored a clinic antiviolence bill earlier
this session that I felt went further,
contained some other provisions I would like
to see. I hope we will move forward to add
those provisions. I hope we will take things
further.
This bill is modeled on the federal
FACE bill. I'm proud of the fact that several
months ago Senator Charles Schumer, who as a
Congressman was one of the lead sponsors of
the FACE bill, stated that after reviewing the
clinic antiviolence bill Senator Oppenheimer
and I introduced in this house and Assembly
Member John, who joins us here, introduced in
6288
the Assembly -- after reviewing that, he came
to the conclusion that he can improve the
federal law by amending it to reflect some of
our changes. I hope we will take that up in
this house again.
But I think that this is a
monumental night, because this is the first
time that this house -- and I commend everyone
who's participated in this -- has been open to
the reality of what's going on in this country
and has taken up the cause of women, clinic
workers, and doctors who have been suffering
for years without our support.
And I read from the statement of
legislative intent. This, in my mind, is
perhaps the most important thing in this bill,
the recognition of this house, finally -- and
now I quote -- "that medical clinics,
physicians' offices, and other facilities
throughout the state have become targets in a
campaign of obstruction and terrorism aimed at
closing the facilities and intimidating those
who seek to obtain or provide reproductive
health services."
That's reality. It may not be
6289
pretty, but that's why we need this bill. I'm
very impressed with the fact that we were able
to get it this session.
I know all of you or many of you
have been on the receiving end of the campaign
that we've launched over the last months, and
I have to recognize at this time the hundreds
and hundreds of volunteers across this state
who participated in the campaign -- letter
writing, postcards. You've seen the young men
and women outside the Senate chambers every
week. You've seen the ads, you've gotten the
phone calls. Maybe some of you haven't gotten
the phone calls, but I think they've been
there. And I think that this represents the
people of the state of New York sending a
message and us receiving the message.
I am pleased with the fact that
we're moving this forward. I know that
there's work to be done to bring this together
with the views in the Assembly and try and
actually get a law passed. I know that there
are questions about the stalking provisions of
the bill, although I have to say that unlike
clinic access, which is an issue I was
6290
familiar with, I didn't know a lot about
stalking when I got here. My education, due
to Senator Balboni, primarily, I recognize
issues about stalking now that I did not
understand. I realize there are concerns
about the stalking portion of the bill.
I hope we will move forward to work
with the Assembly to pass a law this year.
I'm very proud that in my first session we're
passing a bill. I really would be doubly
proud if we can pass a law. I commend all who
have worked on this, all who have supported
this. This is a very important step for us,
and I hope that we'll be able to work together
to advance this issue in the future.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Marchi.
SENATOR MARCHI: Mr. President,
this is a very difficult subject. Not in
terms of what we should do; the problem and
the issue of the life of the unborn comes into
play. And there are so many of us who know
and are fully cognizant that over 30 million
unborn never reached the state of life by
virtue of a procedure that terminated their
6291
existence.
It is a legal procedure in this
country, and the reaction has been very sharp.
The one thing that undermines, I think, in a
very serious way is the visitation of
violence, intentionally inflicted, and this
bill points to that. This is not a question
of placing a benediction on the procedure
itself, because there are differences. Those
differences survive.
Nevertheless, there are people who
certainly it's between themselves and their
Maker, and for us to make those judgments are
certainly beyond our ken. At one time I could
say that most of us were born when physicians
had taken the Hippocratic oath -- that's 2300
years ago -- that prohibited this procedure.
That was only eliminated a few years ago, when
I was studying law. It was then a crime.
So strong feelings survive about
the rights of the unborn. So this subject has
much of its genesis from that feeling that
resulted and the companion feeling of many
people in our country that reproductive rights
exist so that life can be terminated.
6292
I have a feeling that if we fail to
pass this bill, if we fail to establish the
legitimacy of laws that stand resolutely
against the use of violence and force to
obstruct access to clinics, access to
physicians who are -- have a license to
practice, we will have made a serious mistake.
We will have seriously undermined -- if this
kind of fratricidal warfare continues,
constructed an impedence to a rational study
and -- by individuals just on the question of
life and what it means and when it takes
place.
There was an attempt to do that in
Roe v. Wade by dividing it in trimester
segments. And there's increasing evidence, of
course, that there is a viability of the
unborn that comes very early after the moment
of conception.
There is also a growing propensity
to make some changes by increment, such as
consent, on the part of parents where minors
are involved. We invoke that principle when
it comes to removing a splinter from the
finger of a child, but we stand resolutely in
6293
the way of measures to allow parental
cooperation and parental consent in those
procedures. Even with safeguards against
judicial review on the part of situations that
complicate the problem no end.
So we have a very, very difficult
challenge. But we cannot abide by the
reckless use of violence, obstruction, that
has nothing to do with legitimate objection
and presenting -- and the presentation of
reasons that would attenuate the practice.
And that is why this bill is important.
Senator Bruno deserves great credit
in recognizing this. Not in terms of the
basic differences that still exist and will
continue to exist, but that we simply cannot
invite a vigilante law to go out with a saber
and cut down anybody that interferes with that
process.
And I submit again, this is the
worst way that we will -- I believe that
eventually we will understand this problem
better, and not on terms with which I would be
discomfited. Or, for that matter, all of us.
But we'll never give them a chance to be
6294
articulated, we will not give them a chance to
get that deep-seated judgment and
consideration it deserves unless we continue
to live in an orderly society that observes
the norms of law.
And this isn't the only occasion
that Senator Bruno has manifested courage.
He's tackled several other things that we can
think back here that were sacred cows. And he
was resolute to the point that I feel there's
been a substantial broadening of our freedoms
and our access to freedom.
So I would hope, Mr. President,
that we recognize this as a necessary step if
we are to assure the tranquility of order in
terms of lawful respect. We cannot do it
under the present circumstances where the
federal government, even though they have
addressed this issue in almost the precise
language we have here, is unable to do it -
for very practical reasons. They don't have
the people to do it.
We can do it with much greater
sensitivity and with a greater degree of
fairness, and at the same time take in the
6295
problem of stalking and take in the problem of
the profanation of houses of worship that are
other examples where we go to the barricades
and display our indifference to the respect
that we should have for each other.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
DeFrancisco.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: I'm a
little bit confused here. I hear terms like
"this is an historic moment," "it's a
monumental bill." And the reason I have
confusion in understanding that is, number
one, there is a federal statute already in
existence that does exactly what this statute
does. So I don't know that this is so
monumental or historic.
Secondly, I want to make clear that
there's two bills here, one that I support,
the stalking bill. We've passed it before,
and I did vote for it, and I'm voting -- I
would vote for it again if it was a
stand-alone bill. But there's another bill
here, and that deals with the clinic access.
And the reason I don't think this bill is
historic or monumental is everything that it
6296
prohibits, everything that this bill
prohibits, there's already an existing
criminal statute.
If you kill a doctor, whether he's
in a clinic or whether he's outside, that's
murder. If you assault a doctor or assault
somebody else, a patient or someone seeking an
abortion, it's an assault. If you harass
somebody, it's harassment. If it's bad, it's
aggravated harassment. If you menace them,
it's menacing. If you damage property, it's
criminal mischief. And all various degrees.
So to suggest that this is monumental -- it
merely is a designer bill.
We've heard over and over again by
the advocates that this bill is not an
abortion bill, it's a health clinic or a
health bill. It's interesting that every
single person who spoke in favor of it, except
Senator Marchi, termed it as an abortion bill
and a great reaffirmation of abortion rights.
Well, the danger with designer
bills, I think -- and that's the reason we
have penal statutes that punish crime no
matter what the circumstances might be.
6297
Certain activities are antisocial. Certain
activities are criminal. They should be
penalized, and they should be criminalized.
But when you start these designer
bills, what happens? We see something on TV,
there's a killing in a school, then we have a
designer bill that we should not kill in
schools or we should not have whatever the
illegal activity may be, depending upon where
the location is.
It's not monumental. It's a
designer bill to make a certain group believe
that they're doing something special. And
there's nothing special. Every one of these
activities could be determined to be penal,
criminal, and punished accordingly. The fact
that the law enforcement agents did punish and
did seek redress for what -- the wrongs that
happened in Buffalo is a pretty good
indication that that's the case.
Now, what's particularly disturbing
to me and what's so hypocritical in my mind,
the same individuals who are advocating for
this designer bill, I believe, would have been
screaming during the Vietnam War if anyone
6298
even talked about stopping someone from
demonstrating and throwing blood on an
airplane or demonstrating out in front of a
draft board or demonstrating -
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Excuse
me, Senator DeFrancisco.
In particular, would the staff
seated along the side of the chamber please
give the Senator some courtesy. And the same
extends to members as well.
Senator DeFrancisco, the floor is
yours.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: -- and
demonstrating sometimes violently in front of
various areas where recruitment was taking
place for the military people.
You know, we have a right to
peaceably assemble. And if we don't peaceably
assemble, if we do these terrible things that
were done in Buffalo and elsewhere, we have
criminal laws that apply to all of these
situations.
And I guess what I'm saying here is
I don't believe this is monumental, I don't
believe it's historic, I don't believe it's
6299
necessary. And there's a huge danger, I
believe, in the designer bills that are
increasingly coming before us when a tragedy
occurs. We should have one set of criminal
laws that applies to everybody under any
circumstances.
And therefore, I intend to vote
against this bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Waldon.
SENATOR WALDON: Thank you very
much, Mr. President. I will attempt to be
brief.
There's been much discourse around
this issue on both sides of the aisle. I've
discussed it with people in our conference and
folks like Nick Spano in your conference.
I've discussed it with Tom Long, who's a buddy
of mine, even though philosophically we don't
agree. I have discussed it with women on our
side of the aisle. This is a very important
issue.
And so I applaud Senator Rath, who
in her wisdom and in her sensitivity has
crafted a bill that all of us hopefully will
6300
support. I applaud Joe Bruno, our leader, for
making sure that it hit the floor. And I also
applaud Senator Connor, who has had very
intense discourse around this issue in our
conference.
Whether or not this is monumental,
I'm not sure. But I know it is extremely
important, because a lot of people have
suffered pain and suffering, both from a
physical aspect and a psychological aspect
surrounding this issue.
So what I really rose to say,
Mr. President, is we should applaud ourselves
by virtue of the fact that we came together on
an issue that's important. It is not
partisan. It is people-centered and
people-driven. It is health-care-driven. It
is women-centered and women-driven, in my
opinion, and that's extremely important to all
of us.
So I applaud, again, the sponsor.
I applaud the leadership. I encourage all of
my colleagues to do the right thing and
support this legislation.
Thank you very much, Mr. President.
6301
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Oppenheimer.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Well, I,
for one, am very, very happy tonight. I guess
it's monumental for me, Senator DeFrancisco,
because I've worked on this for so long, to
see it come to fruition is very good. It
makes me very happy.
I would say that the federal clinic
access law has had a good impact. That was
written about five years ago. But local and
state authorities cannot charge offenders, as
you know, under federal violations. And
that's why we -- that was the significance of
this law, why we felt it was necessary at the
state level. It is necessary to have this at
the state level.
I'd like to bring up one other
point that hasn't come out tonight, and that
is that reproductive health clinics, which we
are seeking this protection for, people keep
talking about abortions. And it is true that
many of them do provide abortion services.
But the fact is the vast number of people
coming into clinics in my county are there for
6302
a whole panoply of other services. They have
Pap smear services, ovarian cancer tests, they
have contraceptive care, they have prenatal,
they have postnatal, they have first year of
baby's life.
They provide so many other
services, which I think is really very
significant. And therefore, I think that they
should be considered as reproductive health
clinics, which is what they are. They are
there to treat the whole -- the whole
reproductive care that a woman is seeking.
And indeed, they give general medical annual
checkups. So as you can see, there's a whole
lot of things that happen in a reproductive
health clinic.
We definitely think that the
antichoice protesters have a definite right to
peacefully demonstrate. We have always said
that. But they do not have the right -- and
that is why this bill is so important -- to
intimidate or to harass or to in any way harm
either the clinic workers or the people coming
to the clinic.
And this is a very important bill
6303
for me at this particular moment because we
are about to open a new reproductive health
clinic in New Rochelle, and we have already
received unpleasant threats. And it's
something that has us very concerned. And
hopefully we'll be able to move a joint bill
in both houses that will permit us to monitor
more closely and control the kind of
activities that will be going on, we expect,
outside of this new clinic.
In the bill that I sponsored and
was cosponsored by Eric, there was a reference
which I had hoped would be in this bill which
would protect from violence those people who
work in clinics who are not on the site of the
clinic. The piece in our bill had these
protections written in that it was not just at
the clinic, but rather at the person's home or
wherever the clinic workers lived or ate or
whatever. And so we think that that is
something that hopefully might appear in a
negotiated bill.
But, you know, I just have to say
this is a very good, good beginning. And
hooray for all of us, for you on that side of
6304
the aisle who supported this and us on this
side of the aisle who stuck with it, and for
all those really super advocates around New
York State who helped us so much to promote
this bill.
And I applaud the sponsor and the
other side of the aisle and the Majority
Leader for bringing this forward.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Hevesi.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you, Mr.
President.
Mr. President, I am very pleased
this evening. Many weeks ago I rose on the
floor of this body and spoke out in support of
legislation which would protect women,
thousands of women, from being stalked and
harassed. And I want to publicly recognize
Senator Balboni for having brought that very
important issue to our attention. And that
work is here in tonight's legislation. Very,
very important. Absolutely essential.
But I said at the time that however
wonderful that legislation was and is, and
however necessary, it doesn't take away the
6305
absolute clarity that we need to protect
anyone who exercises their constitutional
right to seek reproductive health-care
services, in addition to those who would
provide it.
And then there was -- there was
some quiet. We didn't hear much, except from
several individuals -- Senator Oppenheimer,
Senator Connor, and particularly from Senator
Schneiderman, who never missed an opportunity
to articulate just how essential it was that
we provide protection for individuals who
unquestionably needed it, need it now, and
will need it in the future.
And, Mr. President, we have before
us a piece of legislation tonight that has
some technical problems. And there was some
articulation of those technical problems. But
I would like to say here tonight that our
role, those of us on this side of the aisle,
is by definition, in the course of our
advocacy on behalf of our constituents and the
people of New York State, is to be critical,
so that we may craft the best policy to help
people.
6306
But it would be disingenuous of us
in assuming that role of being critical if we
didn't at the same time recognize when there
has been some significant leadership. And so,
Senator Bruno, I would like to commend you for
having recognized the need and then provided
the leadership to say, You know what, we have
some unquestionably treacherous political
waters to navigate, but it's important that we
do so, and so we're going to provide some will
to do it.
On the other hand, I'd be remiss if
I didn't also say that however wonderful that
is, that the legislation that's before us
provides protection for women who would be
stalked, it provides protection for anyone who
seeks or provides reproductive health-care
services. But we could have before us, though
we have a really good piece of legislation -
we could have a great piece of legislation if
this was, let's say, the omnibus New York
State Citizen Protection Act of 1999, in that
it also provided protection to those who would
be victimized because they were Jewish, or
black, Puerto Rican, Latino, disabled,
6307
homosexual, whatever.
And so, Senator Bruno, I believe
that you are now somewhat a victim of your own
success, in that your ability to come through
on this unquestionably essential piece of
legislation -- and I applaud you for it -
also lends itself to our knowledge that where
there's a will, there's a way, and a
recognition of a problem that we have all
articulated here on numerous occasions, that
that problem can also be solved by the same
navigating of very difficult -- and, you know,
we'll recognize that -- very difficult
circumstances and the pressures that push and
pull and try and blow apart what needs to be a
cohesive process so that the people in this
state can benefit.
So I want to applaud the members on
this side of the aisle who wouldn't let up,
who wouldn't relent on this issue, and all the
members on the other side of the aisle, those
who support it and those who didn't. And I
recognize that there are individuals who have
real concerns about what we've done here. But
I'd like to commend everybody tonight. It's
6308
deserving that we do that.
And I'd like to let everyone know
that as a result of the legislation that sits
on my desk tonight, I am proud to be a member
of this institution, and, Mr. President, I'm
proud to vote for this bill.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you very
much, Mr. President.
I also rise to applaud what I hope
will be the successful passage of this
legislation, but also to applaud our ability
to discuss it on the floor and to actually
vote on a piece of legislation and let our
opinions be known with an actual piece of
legislation which has been allowed onto the
floor.
As many of you have heard, I've
served as a clinic escort and a clinic
defender, and I'm hopeful that the legislation
which I believe will be passed here will
someday soon make it easier for everyone to
safely get reproductive health care in the
6309
state of New York.
I would also like to ask the
sponsor, through you, Mr. President, to yield
to a couple of questions on a couple of
elements of the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Rath, do you yield to a question?
SENATOR RATH: Certainly.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you very
much.
The area of the legislation before
us, which is slightly different from the
stalking legislation which earlier had come
before us, I just wanted to get some
clarification, if I may, Madam President. And
my question has to do with line 44, which
is -- oh, section 10, I guess it is, line -
page 5, line 44. The area which talks to the
amendment of the Penal Law, specifically the
language which says "for no legitimate purpose
knowingly engages in a course of conduct
directed against the person or persons on
whose behalf such order was issued and such
6310
conduct is likely, under the circumstances, to
cause substantial distress" -- and that's the
critical word -- "to a reasonable person or
persons."
And I'll give you a moment to look
at it as well. And I'm going to go on, then,
on page 4, to line 19, then to focus on the
definition of the word "distress," if I may.
SENATOR RATH: You're requesting,
as I understand it, Senator, a definition of
the word "distress," a clarification of what
we mean there in line 19?
SENATOR DUANE: Well, yes, Madam
Sponsor of the legislation. Through you, Mr.
President.
I understand that the word
"distress" in Section 7 refers to the
definition of "distress" on line 19. And so
specifically, my question is "distress, in
addition to its normal meaning, includes but
is not limited to," and then there's quite a
lengthy definition of things that it's not
limited to.
But I was wondering whether it's
the intent of the legislation that it could
6311
include, for instance, such things as serving
papers in the office or the place of work
where a person is employed.
SENATOR RATH: Let me check with
counsel.
SENATOR DUANE: Absolutely.
SENATOR RATH: If the word
"distress" and the behavior that results in
the distress is part of an action that has no
legitimate purpose, then that would be
considered distress.
SENATOR DUANE: And through you,
Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Rath, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR RATH: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DUANE: And the threshold
is based upon the person who is being
distressed, how they feel to be distressed; is
that correct?
SENATOR RATH: Right. Yes.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you, Mr.
President, if the sponsor would continue to
6312
yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Rath, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR RATH: Surely.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DUANE: Might that
include -
SENATOR RATH: I'm sorry, I was
listening to counsel. Were you asking another
question? Would you please repeat that,
Senator?
SENATOR DUANE: Absolutely.
Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor
continues to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Go
ahead, Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: The bar is -
the -- what matters is the person who feels
the distress; is that correct?
SENATOR RATH: Yes.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you, Mr.
President, if the sponsor continues to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Rath, do you continue to yield?
6313
SENATOR RATH: Certainly.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DUANE: In the case of,
for instance, an admirer who sends on a daily
basis, say, flowers or cards, could that be
included in the definition of causing
distress?
SENATOR RATH: Yes. A continuous
pattern of activity certainly would cause
distress, Senator.
SENATOR DUANE: And through you,
Mr. President, if the sponsor continues to
yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Rath, do you yield?
SENATOR RATH: Surely.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DUANE: Would it include
annoying constituents?
SENATOR RATH: I can't hear you,
Senator. You're going to have to speak up.
SENATOR DUANE: I'm sorry. Would
this include annoying constituents coming by
6314
the office or repeatedly calling, if -
SENATOR RATH: That, Senator, I
think might be called a legitimate purpose. I
think we all have constituents that some might
consider annoying and others would consider
them challenging.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR DUANE: Through you, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Rath, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR RATH: Surely.
SENATOR DUANE: I of course don't
have that problem. I was asking on behalf of
other members.
Does the sponsor know if there's
any other place in law that could be pointed
to where the onus of the person being
distressed causes the -
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Excuse
me a second, Senator Duane.
Ladies and gentlemen, we'll get
through this more quickly if we can give
attention to the speakers. Thank you.
Proceed, Senator Duane.
6315
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you,
Mr. President. It gave me a moment to frame
my question better anyway, I think.
Is there anyplace else in state law
now that the sponsor is aware of where the
person who feels that -- something like
distress or an emotion like distress causes a
charge to be leveled against a person?
SENATOR RATH: Yes, Senator.
There is harassment and there is menacing.
And this is a different level that
we're speaking of here, and one that I think
has not been identified very clearly in the
past and consequently needed to be laid out,
just as questions such as you're bringing up
tonight have been brought up. Because
distress is quite different than menacing or
harassment.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you, Mr.
President, the new Mr. President. If I could
focus for a moment on this new level.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator Rath, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR RATH: Surely.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: The
6316
Senator yields.
SENATOR DUANE: In the case of a
person who is mentally ill or has a chemical
imbalance and may, through no fault of their
own, provide an appearance that could cause
distress to a person, is it the sponsor's
intention to include those circumstances as
being covered by this legislation?
SENATOR RATH: Senator, I think,
as you pointed out, if someone is mentally
imbalanced and because of their appearance
someone might try to construe that that was
causing distress, that wasn't by intent. I
think that that is a stretch, if you will, to
try to say that that would be distressing in
the intent that it is here in this
legislation.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you, Mr.
President, if the sponsor will continue to
yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator Rath, do you continue to yield to
Senator Duane?
SENATOR RATH: Surely.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
6317
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Just to try to
clarify, you're talking about the intent of
the legislation and not the intent of the
person that may be doing the -
SENATOR RATH: Yeah.
SENATOR DUANE: If you would
clarify that.
SENATOR RATH: Senator, I believe
your question was if distress was caused to a
person by another person who was mentally
disturbed and in their actions or their dress,
appearance, whatever, might be distressful to
someone else, they are not knowingly try to
distress someone. So that would not be
something that would be considered here.
This is by intent. We're talking
of someone who is intentionally attempting to
cause distress in another person.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator Rath, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR RATH: Surely.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
6318
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: I just want to
clarify as much as I possibly can.
So I do have a -- just a concern,
as opposed to a confusion, that while I think
that -- I agree that what's being reached
for -- and this does have to do with whether
the person who's doing the bothering, if you
will, that we have to look at their intent. I
still have concern that as much weight seems
to be being given, if not more weight, to how
a person perceives what's happening, as much
as the person who is doing the -- you know,
the asking or the putting upon, if you will.
SENATOR RATH: Senator, let me
point out that I think stalking is very often
identified as something that happens to women.
And even if you're not being stalked but you
think someone is stalking you, you are in
grave distress. And this is what was being
looked for as the stalking legislation was
being developed.
And as an adjunct to the piece of
legislation that has been talked about a great
deal tonight, the stalking legislation did
6319
pass this Legislature earlier this year.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator Rath, do you continue to yield to
Senator Duane?
SENATOR RATH: Surely.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: I just raise this
in the context that the language has just
changed a little bit, and so I'm just trying
to clarify it, because there isn't the same
history on this as there was there.
But I just -- to continue, through
you, Mr. President, if a person is a person
who is asking for money -- whether, you know,
for a religious organization or for their own
personal circumstances -- and I want to make
this aside from any legislation which may be
in existence in the cities and towns across
the state having to do with panhandling and
aggressive panhandling. But in circumstances
of a person who may be asking for money for a
legitimate cause or what some may consider to
6320
be a legitimate cause but others not a
legitimate cause -- or, for that matter, for
no particular cause but their own personal
ability to put some money in their pocket -
are these persons potentially at risk of being
captured under this legislation?
SENATOR RATH: I think, Senator,
as you're referring to the panhandling
circumstance that all of us have found
ourselves in that place -- I think we find
ourselves going to another place if someone is
panhandling. And we're talking about a
consistent and continual course of conduct
that could distress someone.
For example, someone coming out of
an office building and walking to the same bus
stop every night and observing someone, the
same person, in a red jacket or what have you,
following every day or every other day.
That's the kind of activity that we're trying
to get at here, not panhandling.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you very
much.
SENATOR RATH: You're welcome.
SENATOR DUANE: On the bill, Mr.
6321
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator Duane, on the bill.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you very
much.
I just would like to say again that
I'm very happy that we've been able to have
this discussion about this bill on the floor.
I'm optimistic that it will be passing. I
will be celebrating its passage. And I'm also
glad that we had the opportunity to put some
of the open-ended questions on the floor as
the process continues.
Thank you very much. Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator Connor.
SENATOR CONNOR: Thank you, Mr.
President. I shall be brief.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator Connor, on the bill.
SENATOR CONNOR: I think my
colleagues have already articulated some of
the -- what we would regard as shortcomings in
the bill, and concerns. With respect to the
stalking portion, there is a concern about
6322
perhaps a certain vagueness in definitions
that could lead to prosecutions for conduct
under circumstances that the sponsor doesn't
intend, that no one thinks should be the
subject of a criminal prosecution.
But we certainly recognize the
unique and frightening phenomenon of stalking
and that it is somewhat difficult to quite
define it in very traditional legal terms.
But nonetheless, people who are the victims of
stalking do need the assurance that there are
additional penalties and protections. And
those victims tend to be largely women,
although certainly not exclusively women.
With respect to the clinic access,
that has been a problem that many members in
this house, a lot of members on this side of
the aisle, have raised during the course of
the past month. We've actually talked about
it for a couple of years now.
While we've talked and advocated,
there have been, throughout the country, and
regrettably here in New York as well, some
instances that show that people who work in
these reproductive-health-service clinics are
6323
at some risk. They're at risk from people who
are more than extremists, who are criminal
terrorist extremists.
It's not about their political
views. I have read the bill. I think the
definitions meet the test. I do not want to
punish anyone for advocacy on any side of any
issue. That's a First Amendment concern. But
there is a difference, Mr. President, between
advocacy and literally physically putting
yourself in the path of someone who is merely
attempting to seek a legal service.
By way of shortfall, I think in the
bill proposed by my colleagues earlier in this
session the private right of action and the
access by private individuals to the courts to
vindicate these rights was an important one.
It's not in this bill. Hopefully over the
course of the next few days, in the
negotiations with the Assembly, some of these
differences will be resolved in a way that
will further reassure us, those of us who are
concerned about this issue, that we're writing
the best law possible.
That said, certainly the bill comes
6324
a long way, a long way. Certainly a long way
in this house. And Senator Bruno is to be
congratulated for recognizing that this is an
important issue and putting it before the
members.
It's not decided yet. We haven't
voted yet. But I suggest most humbly, Mr.
President, that the best way to go with issues
that are of great concern -- albeit there are
people of sincere conscience who will be
opposed to this as well as those who would
support it -- the way to resolve that in a -
in our representative democracy is exactly as
how we're doing it now, on the floor of a
representative body. Not in the streets, not
in a brawl outside, but in a legislative
debate with a vote by the people's
representatives. And, Senator Bruno, this
evening, with respect to this issue, you have
made that possible.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Mr.
President, just briefly.
6325
I just want to rise because I think
an aspect of this bill -- and I'm glad that it
finally came out, and I want to compliment
Senator Hevesi for mentioning it, is the fine
work that Senator Balboni has done on this. I
know he's worked on this for a long time.
And the stalking issue is something
that we should really focus on. Tens of
thousands of people in this great state and
throughout the country are stalked. And,
Senator Balboni, I just want to compliment you
for being the author of this legislation.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: Read
the last section.
SENATOR RATH: May I make a final
comment, please?
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator Rath, on the bill.
SENATOR RATH: Thank you. I'm
sorry I delayed a moment. I was checking with
counsel here.
This has been probably the most
important night that I've spent here in five
years. As I said, I developed my position on
this -- these issues a long time ago.
6326
Senator Bruno, particularly, thank
you for bringing this issue to the floor. An
issue -- any issue that's grounded in deep
personal and moral convictions is difficult.
And it's a brave decision to bring it to the
floor and let all of us go at it as we have
tonight. But I think most of us were pretty
much where we were going to be before we came
to the floor tonight.
And, Senator Balboni, your effort
all year long on the stalking legislation has
been outstanding. You've brought something to
us that needed to be here, something that, as
it is coupled with the clinic access, is
putting forward a very good front from the New
York State Senate.
And now we have a choice, all of
us, in our responsibility as elected
representatives of the State of New York. And
I would venture to guess that on a range of 1
to 100, there will be some people who are
totally opposed and some people who are
totally in favor. And for me, for me, if I
could have one foot on each side of that 50
percent mark, boy, I would be there. Because
6327
I come to the middle every time on everything
every chance I can.
But I can't on this one. I'm over
here on this side, and that's why I've
sponsored this bill. And as I said earlier, I
don't characterize it as a litmus-test bill.
I characterize this as services to the people
in my district and a lot of other districts
around this state who have the legal right to
health services and the legal right soon, I
hope, not to be harassed and not to be
stalked.
As we said earlier at the beginning
of the debate, the violence that we see in our
communities insults our intelligence. And
this was just another form of violence that
we've seen and that we're trying to correct.
And as we go forward and do our
vote and walk away from here tonight and walk
away from this session, of course we'll be
talking and dealing with our constituencies.
But more importantly, I think I heard all
around the room tonight, and it's a very
personal thing, we'll all be dealing with our
consciences. And that's where this kind of a
6328
vote should be. It's what your constituents
will know. As they talk to you, they will
know that you've soul-searched and you've come
to the conclusion to do the very best job you
can for them.
And I'm proud of all of you and
really proud to be a member of the State
Senate.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: Read
the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 15. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
November.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator Meier, to explain his vote.
SENATOR MEIER: Thank you, Mr.
President.
I can't recall a more troubling
vote that I've had to cast in my almost three
years here now. But I am persuaded by the
statement made earlier by Senator DeFrancisco
6329
that for every act that has been complained of
at these facilities, there is an existing
criminal law that applies.
Having said that, let me say this.
I don't want anyone in my district or anyplace
else to take comfort from my vote if they go
to the door of one of these facilities with
hatred, if they go to the door of one of these
facilities with the intent to threaten or to
commit violence. And I say to them that it is
not the advocates for this bill that have
brought us to tonight. It is you who claim
the mantle of the pro-life movement and
profane its name by bringing hatred and
violence to the forefront.
I vote no.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator Balboni, to explain his vote.
SENATOR BALBONI: Mr. President,
allow me to strike a different chord.
This has been a very difficult
session for all of us. For the first time in
our professional careers, we've had our pay
taken away, we've been unable to get any type
of logjam done, and we've been unable to come
6330
to grips with so many issues in this state
because we are frozen in place and perhaps we
don't trust one another enough. Well,
hopefully that ends here tonight.
My explanation of my vote is a
message to the Speaker of the State Assembly.
Mr. Speaker, please do not view this act, this
act of courage on behalf of so many members in
this chamber, particularly on behalf of
Senator Joe Bruno, as an act of cynicism or
politics. Let's use this vote tonight as the
first step towards coming together to finalize
all the issues that face us this year.
This was a very difficult thing to
do for so many people in this chamber. And in
Joe Bruno's wisdom, he decides that this is
this the step that can bring us to conclusion.
Mr. Speaker, Mr. President, I vote
yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator Meier will be recorded in the
negative, Senator Balboni in the affirmative.
Senator Farley, to explain his
vote. Senator Farley.
SENATOR FARLEY: Thank you, Mr.
6331
President.
Let me just say that this is a
difficult vote. This is a very troubling
situation.
Senator Balboni, I applaud you for
what you've done in this stalking issue. Your
legislation would have answered every problem
that we have with clinic access.
And on your birthday, Senator Rath,
I applaud you for what you're doing here.
But let me just say that as we go
forward on this, this is a pro-life chamber.
This Senate has historically supported life.
This is not an abortion issue.
This is a rights issue. Many of us worked
very hard to make sure that the civil suits
are out of this legislation, because that
could be a real harassing situation. It is -
it mirrors the federal legislation, with that
exception. But the stalking law will become
law, which is crucial.
And with that, I am going to vote
aye.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator Marcellino, to explain his vote.
6332
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Mr.
President, thank you.
And I congratulate my colleagues,
Senator Balboni and Senator Rath, for their
efforts; our Leader, for bringing this bill
out.
This bill sends a very simple
message. This bill says that violence will
not be tolerated. Violence, no matter what
the intent, no matter what the cause, no
matter what the purpose, if you perpetrate
violence against your fellow person, that will
not be tolerated. That's what we're saying
here. That's what we intend here. And that's
what we mean here by this vote.
I vote aye.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Announce the results.
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
the negative on Calendar Number 1600 are
Senators DeFrancisco, Maltese, Meier, and
Padavan. Ayes, 55. And nays, 4.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: The
bill is passed.
Senator Bruno.
6333
SENATOR BRUNO: Mr. President,
can we at this time take up Calendar 1598.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1598, substituted earlier today by the
Assembly Committee on Rules, Assembly Print
8833, an act to amend the Civil Service Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: Read
the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: The
bill is passed.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Mr. President,
can we go to the regular calendar and call up
Calendar 855.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
6334
855, by the Assembly Committee on Rules,
Assembly Print 7901, an act to amend the
Education Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: Read
the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
July.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: The
bill is passed.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Mr. President,
can we at this time call up Calendar 983.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
983, by Member of the Assembly Vitaliano,
Assembly Print 6692A, an act to amend the
Penal Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: Read
the last section.
6335
THE SECRETARY: Section 8. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
November.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: The
bill is passed.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Mr. President,
can we call up Calendar Number 1352.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1352, by Senator Lack, Senate Print 5790A, an
act to amend the Public Authorities Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: Read
the last section.
Senator Bruno, there's a message of
necessity from the Governor.
SENATOR BRUNO: Please accept the
message.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: The
motion is to accept the message. All those in
6336
favor signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: The
message is accepted.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: The
bill is passed.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Mr. President,
can we call up Calendar 645.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
645, by Senator Saland, Senate Print 4138A, an
act to amend the Domestic Relations Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: Read
6337
the last section.
SENATOR DUANE: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator Saland, there's been an explanation
requested on Calendar Number 645 by Senator
Duane.
SENATOR SALAND: Mr. President,
this is the uniform child custody
jurisdiction -
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: Excuse
me, Senator Saland. Senator Duane has
withdrawn his request for an explanation.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect in 180 days.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: The
bill is passed.
SENATOR BRUNO: Mr. President, is
there a substitution at the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: There
is one substitution.
6338
SENATOR BRUNO: Please make the
substitution.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: On page 27,
Senator Hannon moves to discharge, from the
Committee on Rules, Assembly Bill 7140B and
substitute it for the identical third reading,
944.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Substitution ordered.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Mr. President,
can we call up Calendar 63.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
63, by Member of the Assembly Stringer,
Assembly Print 1568, an act to amend the
Education Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: Read
the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect January 1st.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: Call
6339
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: The
bill is passed.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Mr. President,
can we at this time ask for an immediate
meeting of the Rules Committee in Room 332.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: There
will be an immediate meeting of the Rules
Committee in Room 332. Immediate meeting of
the Rules Committee in Room 332.
(Whereupon, the Senate stood at
ease at 8:25 p.m.)
(Whereupon, the Senate reconvened
at 8:34 p.m.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Mr. President,
could you call up Calendar Number 945, please,
on the regular calendar.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
6340
945, by Senator Maziarz, Senate Print 4005A,
an act to amend the Public Health Law and the
Education Law.
SENATOR KUHL: Is there a message
of necessity at the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator, there is a message of necessity at
the desk.
SENATOR KUHL: I move we accept
the message.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: All
those in favor of accepting the message of
necessity signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: The
message is accepted.
Senator Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Read the last
section.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: Read
the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 6. This
6341
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: The
bill is passed.
Senator Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Mr. President, may
I have permission to ask for unanimous consent
to be recorded in the negative on Calendar
Number 1559.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: With
out objection, so ordered.
SENATOR KUHL: Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: The
Senate will stand at ease.
(Whereupon, the Senate stood at
ease at 8:36 p.m.)
(Whereupon, the Senate reconvened
at 8:55 p.m.)
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: The
Senate will come to order.
Senator Skelos.
6342
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President,
if we could return to reports of standing
committees.
I believe there is a report of the
Rules Committee at the desk. I ask that it be
read.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: Return
to the order of standing committees.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Bruno,
from the Committee on Rules, reports the
following bills:
Senate Print 1191A, by Senator
Johnson, an act to amend the Tax Law;
1740B, by Senator Connor, an act to
amend the Public Authorities Law;
2432B, by Senator Johnson, an act
to amend the Insurance Law and the Vehicle and
Traffic Law;
2726B, by Senator Stafford, an act
to allow Lawrence E. Strait;
2836, by Senator Johnson, an act in
relation to allowing;
3403A, by Senator Bonacic, an act
to amend the Executive Law;
6343
3646, by Senator Stafford, an act
to amend the Education Law;
3680, by Senator Spano, an act to
amend the Education Law;
4002, by Senator Skelos, an act to
amend the Retirement and Social Security Law;
4110, by Senator Onorato, an act to
amend the Labor Law;
4769A, by Senator Spano, an act to
authorize correction officers;
4852, by Senator Bonacic, an act to
amend the General Municipal Law;
5333, by Senator Leibell, an act to
amend the Retirement and Social Security Law;
5569, by Senator Seward, an act to
amend the Insurance Law;
5740, by the Senate Committee on
Rules, an act to amend the Insurance Law;
5780, by Senator Leibell, an act to
amend the Retirement and Social Security Law;
5787, by Senator Rath, an act to
amend the Penal Law;
5943, by Senator Saland, an act to
amend the Parks, Recreation and Historic
Preservation Law;
6344
5944, by Senator Leibell, an act to
amend the Retirement and Social Security Law;
6006, by Senator Nozzolio, an act
to amend the Penal Law;
And 4197, by Senator Saland, an act
to authorize the payment.
All bills ordered direct for third
reading.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President, I
move to accept the report of the Rules
Committee.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: All in
favor of accepting the report of the Rules
Committee signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: The
report is accepted.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President,
would you please, on the original -- main
6345
calendar, please take up Calendar Number 1270,
by Senator Maziarz.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1270, by Senator Maziarz, Senate Print 5654A,
an act to amend the General Municipal Law and
the Vehicle and Traffic Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: There
is a home rule message at the desk.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: The
bill is passed.
Senator McGee, why do you rise?
SENATOR McGEE: Mr. President, I
wish for unanimous consent to be listed as
voting in the negative on Senate Bill 5988.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: Would
you repeat the number, please, Senator?
6346
SENATOR McGEE: 5988.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: Which
one is that?
SENATOR McGEE: It's -- Calendar
1559, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: With
out objection, Senator McGee will be recorded
in the negative on Calendar 1559.
Senator Nozzolio.
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Mr. President,
I ask unanimous consent to be recorded in the
negative on Calendar Number 1559.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: With
out objection, Senator Nozzolio will be
recorded in the negative on Calendar Number
1559.
Senator Libous.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Mr. President, I
too would ask unanimous consent to be recorded
in the negative on 1559.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: With
out objection, Senator Libous will be recorded
in the negative on Calendar Number 1559.
Senator Seward.
SENATOR SEWARD: Yes. Mr.
6347
President, I would also ask unanimous consent
to be recorded in the negative on Calendar
Number 1559.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator Seward, without objection, will be
recorded in the negative on Calendar Number
1559.
Senator DeFrancisco.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: If it's
good enough for Senator McGee, it's good
enough for me.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: And
apparently several others, Senator
DeFrancisco.
Without objection, Senator
DeFrancisco will be recorded in the negative
on Calendar Number 1559.
Senator Farley.
SENATOR FARLEY: I vote no.
(Laughter.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: With
out objection, Senator Farley also will be
recorded in the negative on Calendar Number
1559.
Senator Morahan. Senator Morahan
6348
requests, without objection, to be recorded in
the negative on Calendar Number 1559.
Senator Rath.
SENATOR RATH: Yes, Mr.
President, I request unanimous consent to be
recorded in the negative on 1559.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: With
out objection, Senator Rath would like to be
recorded in the negative on Calendar Number
1559.
Senator Stachowski, why do you
rise?
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: I'd like
unanimous consent to be recorded in the
negative on Calendar 1559. Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator Stachowski, without objection, will be
recorded in the negative on Calendar Number
1559.
ACTING PRESIDENT NOZZOLIO:
Senator Maziarz, why do you rise?
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Thank you, Mr.
President. I would like to join many of my
colleagues and request unanimous consent to be
recorded in the negative on Calendar Number
6349
1559 -- and apologize to Senator Johnson.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT NOZZOLIO:
Senator Maziarz in the negative on Calendar
Number 1559.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: The
Senate will come to order.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Mr. President,
can we at this time take up the Senate
Supplemental Calendar 57D, and take the
noncontroversial portion.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1601, by Senator Johnson, Senate Print 1191A,
an act to amend the Tax Law, in relation to
establishing.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: Read
the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect on the 120th day.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
6350
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: The
bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY: In relation to
Calendar Number 1602, Senator Connor moves to
discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
Assembly Bill Number 3013B and substitute it
for the identical Third Reading Calendar,
1602.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Substitution ordered.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1602, by Member of the Assembly Lentol,
Assembly Print Number 3013, an act to amend
the Public Authorities Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: Read
the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the 120th day.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: The
6351
bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1603, by Senator Johnson, Senate Print 2432D,
an act to amend the Insurance Law and the
Vehicle and Traffic Law, in relation to
creating.
SENATOR CONNOR: Lay it aside.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: Lay
the bill aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1605, by Senator Johnson, Senate Print 2836,
an act in relation to allowing Edward Andersen
to be reclassified.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: There
is a home rule message at the desk.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: The
bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY: In relation to
6352
Calendar Number 1606, Senator Bonacic moves to
discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
Assembly Bill Number 6070A and substitute it
for the identical Third Reading Calendar,
1606.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Substitution ordered.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1606, by Member of the Assembly Vitaliano,
Assembly Print Number 6070A, an act to amend
the Executive Law, in relation to longevity.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: Read
the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: The
bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY: In relation to
Calendar Number 1607, Senator Stafford moves
to discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
6353
Assembly Bill Number 6429 and substitute it
for the identical Third Reading Calendar,
1607.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Substitution ordered.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1607, by Member of the Assembly Bragman,
Assembly Print Number 6429, an act to amend
the Education Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: Read
the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: The
bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1608, by Senator Spano, Senate Print 3680, an
act to amend the Education Law, in relation to
collective bargaining.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: Read
6354
the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
SENATOR BRUNO: Lay it aside,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: Lay
the bill aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1609, by Senator Skelos, Senate Print 4002, an
act to amend the Retirement and Social
Security Law, in relation to authorizing.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: Read
the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 5. This
act shall take effect January 1.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: The
bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY: In relation to
6355
Calendar Number 1610, Senator Onorato moves to
discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
Assembly Bill Number 6833 and substitute it
for the identical Third Reading Calendar,
1610.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Substitution ordered.
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1610, by Member of the Assembly Nolan,
Assembly Print Number 6833, an act to amend
the Labor Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: Read
the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: The
bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY: In relation to
Calendar Number 1611, Senator Spano moves to
discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
6356
Assembly Bill 7999A and substitute it for the
identical Third Reading Calendar, 1611.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Substitution ordered.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1611, by the Assembly Committee on Rules,
Assembly Print Number 7999A, an act to
authorize correction officers of the County of
Westchester.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: There
is a home rule message at the desk.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: The
bill is passed.
Senator Morahan, why do you rise?
SENATOR MORAHAN: Yes, I'd like
unanimous consent, sir, to be recorded in the
affirmative on 1559 calendar.
6357
Yes, in the affirmative. I thought
it was a different bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: With
out objection, Senator Morahan will be
recorded in the affirmative on Calendar Number
1559.
Senator LaValle.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Mr. President,
may I have unanimous consent to be recorded in
the negative on Calendar Number 1607.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Without objection, Senator LaValle will be
recorded in the negative on Calendar 1607.
Senator Bonacic.
SENATOR BONACIC: Mr. President,
I ask for unanimous consent to vote in the
negative on Calendar 1559.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: With
out objection, Senator Bonacic will be
recorded in the negative on Calendar Number
1559.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: In relation to
Calendar Number 1612, Senator Bonacic moves to
discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
6358
Assembly Bill Number 7105B and substitute it
for the identical Third Reading Calendar,
1612.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Substitution ordered.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1612, by Member of the Assembly Lopez,
Assembly Print Number 7105B, an act to amend
the General Municipal Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: Read
the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: The
bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1613, by Senator Leibell, Senate Print 5333,
an act to amend the Retirement and Social
Security Law, in relation to service
retirement benefits.
6359
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: Read
the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: The
bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY: In relation to
Calendar Number 1614, Senator Seward moves to
discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
Assembly Bill Number 8275 and substitute it
for the identical Third Reading Calendar,
1614.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Substitution ordered.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1614, by the Assembly Committee on Rules,
Assembly Print Number 8275, an act to amend
the Insurance Law, in relation to the writing.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: Read
the last section.
6360
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: The
bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1615, by the Senate Committee on Rules, Senate
Print Number 5740, an act to amend the
Insurance Law, in relation to the authority.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: Read
the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: The
bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY: In relation to
Calendar Number 1616, Senator Leibell moves to
discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
6361
Assembly Bill Number 8310 and substitute it
for the identical Third Reading Calendar,
1616.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Substitution ordered.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1616, by the Assembly Committee on Rules,
Assembly Print Number 8310, an act to amend
the Retirement and Social Security Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: Read
the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: The
bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1617, by Senator Rath, Senate Print 5787, an
act to amend the Penal Law, in relation to
civil liability.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: Read
6362
the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the same date as such
chapter.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: The
bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY: In relation to
Calendar Number 1618, Senator Saland moves to
discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
Assembly Bill Number 6375B and substitute it
for the identical Third Reading Calendar,
1618.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Substitution ordered.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1618, by Member of the Assembly Grannis,
Assembly Print Number 6375B, an act to amend
the Parks, Recreation and Historic
Preservation Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: Read
6363
the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: The
bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1619, by Senator Leibell, Senate Print 5944,
an act to amend the Retirement and Social
Security Law, in relation to membership.
SENATOR LACK: Lay it aside.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: Lay
the bill aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1620, by Senator Nozzolio, Senate Print 6006,
an act to amend the Penal Law, the Vehicle and
Traffic Law, and the Family Court Act, in
relation to falsely reporting an incident.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator Bruno, there is a message of necessity
at the desk.
SENATOR BRUNO: Thank you. Move
6364
to accept the message.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: All
those in favor of accepting the message of
necessity signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: The
message is accepted.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 11. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
November.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator Duane, to explain his vote -- I'm
sorry.
SENATOR DUANE: After the vote, I
want to say something.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 57. Nays,
2. Senators Duane and Montgomery recorded in
the negative.
6365
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Mr.
President. I was -
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: The
bill is passed.
SENATOR DUANE: I was hoping I
could have unanimous consent to vote in the
negative on Calendar Number 1617.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: With
out objection, Senator Duane will be recorded
in the negative on Calendar Number 1617.
Senator Saland.
SENATOR SALAND: Mr. President, I
would request unanimous consent to be recorded
in the negative on Calendar 1559.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: With
out objection, Senator Saland will be recorded
in the negative on Calendar Number 1559.
The Secretary will read.
I'm sorry, Senator Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, Mr.
President, I would like unanimous consent to
be recorded in the negative on Calendar 1545.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: With
6366
out objection, Senator Montgomery will be
recorded in the negative on Calendar Number
1545.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1621, by Senator Saland, Senate Print 4197, an
act to authorize the payment of ordinary
disability benefits.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: Read
the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: The
bill is passed.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Mr. President,
can we take up Calendar Number 1608.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1608, by Senator Spano, Senate Print 3680, an
6367
act to amend the Education Law, in relation to
collective bargaining representation.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: Read
the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 56. Nays,
3. Senators Duane, Paterson, and Smith
recorded in the negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: The
bill is passed.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Mr. President,
can we take up Calendar 1619.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1619, by Senator Leibell, Senate Print 5944,
an act to amend the Retirement and Social
Security Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: Read
the last section.
6368
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: I'm
sorry, Senator Lack.
SENATOR LACK: Mr. President,
withdraw the roll call, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: Roll
call is withdrawn.
Senator Lack.
SENATOR LACK: Thank you, Mr.
President.
I arise to first congratulate
Senator Leibell for his chapter amendment -
this is 1619, right -- for his chapter
amendment with respect to my chapter of last
year on the teachers Tier 1 bill. This is the
tier equity bill which would equalize that for
everyone else.
It's unfortunate that lines 16
through 24 have to be placed in the bill.
When we passed this bill last year -
unanimously, I might add, and unanimously in
6369
the Assembly -- it was quite apparent what we
were doing to restore to 12,000 teachers in
this state, in both the city and state
teachers union, the right to go back to Tier 1
status.
Unfortunately, the Teachers
Retirement System, because of the use of one
word "contribution," withheld $13.9 million
owed to over 5,000 teachers in this state for
prior service credit, because they said we in
the Legislature did not know what we were
doing.
We supplied the Teachers Retirement
System with four years' worth of legislative
history. And they said that was not adequate
because we could not, in our legislative
history, exclude that which we didn't know.
Imagine that. We should exclude in our
legislative history what we could not know and
what we did not contemplate.
My opinion, my colleagues, is that
quite frankly, in the name of this body, we
should sue the State Teachers Retirement
System, because that an impossibility, to be
told by a retirement system in this state that
6370
the Legislature did not know what it was
doing. Unfortunately, to do that would mean
it would be another four or five years before
5,000 teachers would receive $13.9 million.
So instead, we are passing
legislation which makes it crystal clear to
the Teachers Retirement System exactly what we
meant. And 5,000 teachers will now get the
money that they're owed.
By the way, we should contrast the
operations of the New York State Teachers
Retirement System with that of the New York
City Teachers Retirement System, which had
almost a thousand teachers covered under the
same legislation last year. Upon passage, the
New York City Teachers Retirement System
immediately returned prior years' service
credit to the thousand teachers that were
affected and added it back into their
retirement system without all the hullabaloo
of having to pass an extra bill this year.
What a difference, what a
difference in representation between the State
Teachers Retirement System and the City
Teachers Retirement System. I should also
6371
comment that part of that, quite frankly, is
the manner by which the relationship between
the State Teachers Union exists with the State
Teachers Retirement System and the UFT, the
United Federation of Teachers, in New York
City with their retirement system.
Upon passage last year, Randy
Weingarten, the president of the UFT,
immediately spoke to the City Teachers
Retirement System and had everything in the
pipeline frozen and then had her counsel and
others work with the City Teachers Retirement
System to make sure all monies were
immediately returned to the city teachers
covered.
That is not true of the state
teachers, the United Teachers, who made no
effort whatsoever to contact the State
Teachers Retirement System to freeze anything
in the pipeline. And indeed, after this bill
was passed and prior to signature by the
Governor, a teacher actually gave $6,000 to
the Teachers Retirement System, who accepted
it, gave her back her teachers -- her prior
years' service credit, which, if they had
6372
waited one day more, would have been hers for
nothing once the Governor signed the bill, and
have since refused to give the $6,000 back.
Which, after passage of this
legislation this evening, assuming it is
signed by the Governor, that teacher would
finally receive that $6,000 back.
If I was in the Teachers Retirement
System, I think I might ask just whose
fiduciary they are and then for whose purpose
they are serving.
I won't take any more of the
valuable time at this late time of the evening
to go on about this, but except to say thank
you to Senator Leibell for adding this
provision to the bill that we are considering
this evening.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: Read
the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
6373
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: The
bill is passed.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Mr. President,
can we at this time take up Calendar 950.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
950, by Senator Hannon, Senate Print 4591A, an
act to amend the Public Health Law, in
relation to authorizing.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator Bruno, there is a message of necessity
at the desk.
SENATOR BRUNO: Please accept the
message.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: All
those in favor of accepting the message of
necessity signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: The
message is accepted.
6374
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: The
bill is passed.
Senator Wright.
SENATOR WRIGHT: Thank you, Mr.
President. I request unanimous consent to be
recorded in the negative on Calendar Number
1559.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: With
out objection, Senator Wright will be recorded
in the negative on Calendar Number 1559.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Can we take up
Calendar Number 1603.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1603, by Senator Johnson, Senate Print 2432D,
an act to amend the Insurance Law and the
6375
Vehicle and Traffic Law.
SENATOR CONNOR: Explanation.
SENATOR JOHNSON: Mr.
President -
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator Johnson, an explanation has been
requested by the Minority Leader, Senator
Connor.
SENATOR JOHNSON: Yes,
Mr. President.
This bill will establish a pilot
program for taking a defensive-driver course
through technological means other than
attending a classroom session with an
instructor.
Now, it's almost twenty years since
I established the original defensive-driver
course. And during that time, many people
have taken that course, and the results have
been very good, justifying the 10 percent
discount on auto insurance.
And this is going to expand the
opportunity for more people to take this
course at home at their own time. If -- and
if the experiment works out satisfactorily,
6376
it's going to be -- possibly become permanent.
Right now it's only a temporary plan.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator Connor.
SENATOR CONNOR: Thank you, Mr.
President. Would Senator Johnson kindly yield
to a question?
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator Johnson, would you yield for a
question?
SENATOR JOHNSON: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator Connor.
SENATOR CONNOR: Thank you, Mr.
President.
Would the Senator explain, with
respect to the existing program that yields a
10 percent insurance premium discount, is it
not true that the person has to attend a class
in person?
SENATOR JOHNSON: That's correct.
SENATOR CONNOR: And their
attendance at the class or the course is of
course monitored by someone else?
6377
SENATOR JOHNSON: That's correct.
SENATOR CONNOR: If the Senator
would further yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator Johnson, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR JOHNSON: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator Connor.
SENATOR CONNOR: They give a test
at the end of the course presently?
SENATOR JOHNSON: Well, there's
something akin to that, yes.
SENATOR CONNOR: Now, under this
pilot program, Senator, would it be true that
someone could like buy a video and watch it at
home and get a 10 percent discount on their
insurance? Is that what could happen here?
SENATOR JOHNSON: Well, that is
what happens now in other states where this
program is in effect.
We were very skeptical about this
program, and we did not introduce a bill which
would permanentize this system. This is a
pilot program. And I'll tell you, they're
6378
going to have to demonstrate to the
satisfaction of the department that indeed
they can verify the identity of the person.
They will ask questions.
The way it's worked in Texas, they
get a videotape and they get a portable
computer which they have to hook up, log onto
the central headquarters where this program is
run from, and verify on various occasions
during this course that they've taken that
test.
Even after they've done that, it's
only a year and a half -- it has to be run for
at least a year, then there has to be a year
and a half of evaluation after that of their
driving record to see if indeed there is a
benefit to this program. And after that, it
would be determined subsequently if this can
continue as a pilot or just terminate.
SENATOR CONNOR: Mr. President -
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator Connor.
SENATOR CONNOR: -- would the
Senator yield for another question?
SENATOR JOHNSON: Yes.
6379
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator Johnson -- Senator Connor.
SENATOR CONNOR: Thank you, Mr.
President.
I would inquire of the Senator
whether or not there is any independent way to
monitor that the person who gets the video and
the computer and plays the video has actually
bothered to take the couple of hours to go
through it.
SENATOR JOHNSON: You know, that
is the reason we have a -- that is a permanent
program in Texas and New Mexico and possibly
other states.
We are skeptical. We want them to
prove to the satisfaction of the Commissioner
of Motor Vehicles that they can indeed verify
the identity of this person. And they say
they have a way to do that. Let us hope that
they do, or this will terminate and will not
continue.
SENATOR CONNOR: Thank you.
Mr. President, on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator Connor, on the bill.
6380
SENATOR CONNOR: My simple mind
tells me that not every bad idea deserves a
trial. And this, on the face of it -- you
know, we ought to encourage people to learn,
learn driver safety, the entire thing. But,
you know, we're doing this at the expense of
forcing insurers to give a 10 percent discount
to someone who says they watched a video.
The whole thing reminds me of -
actually, I got some accessories. My son's
birthday is on this coming Saturday, and I
just got some accessories for his computer
game. I mean, he has a Nintendo, and he puts
in a video and whatever.
And he tried to tell me earlier
this year that he thought he played a much
better game of baseball because he had been
playing the Ken Griffey, Jr., baseball video
game all winter. He's a little better at
hitting this year, but I really seriously
doubt it has anything to do with the Ken
Griffey, Jr., baseball game. Not that I have
anything against it. It's provided my wife
and I with some hours of rest while he sits
transfixed there, hitting home runs on the TV
6381
screen.
But the fact is, I just -- I
understand -- I'm sure there's a program in
Texas that's very successful for the person
that's making good dollars on it by selling
it, but I don't know that this is anything we
ought to try in New York. And I don't think
we ought to try it with other persons' money.
And in effect, that's what we're doing with
the insurance companies' money. We're forcing
them to give 10 percent to someone as a
discount on the chance that watching a video
may have worked. It's just not comparable to
someone who's observed in a class, who goes
through coursework, who has some sort of test.
You know, it's just -- I don't know
that we're ready for this yet. I'm not ready
for it, because -- and I certainly don't think
it's fair of us to make the insurance
companies pay for this kind of experiment.
I frankly, Mr. President, think if
it's ever a good idea, it's at a time somewhat
off in the future, and it really shouldn't
ought to get a trial now, particularly at
somebody else's expense.
6382
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: Read
the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: While
the Secretary is tallying the roll call,
Senator Bruno inquired as to the score of the
Stanley Cup finals. Halfway through the
second period, it is Buffalo, 0, Dallas, 1.
(Several Senators booing.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: It was
Senator Bruno that made the inquiry, not me.
Record the negatives and announce
the results.
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
the negative on Calendar Number 1603 are
Senators Connor, Duane, Hevesi, Montgomery,
Paterson, Sampson, Schneiderman, Seabrook,
Smith, and Waldon. Ayes, 49. Nays, 10.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: The
bill is passed.
6383
I'm sorry, Senator Morahan.
Senator Morahan wants to be recorded in the
negative. Without objection.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Mr. President,
can we go to Calendar 57C, the supplemental
calendar, and Calendar 1599.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1599, by Senator Velella, Senate Print 6003,
an act to amend the Education Law, in relation
to limiting.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Senator Bruno, there is a message of necessity
at the desk.
SENATOR BRUNO: Move we accept
the message.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: All
those in favor of accepting the message of
necessity signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
6384
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: The
message is accepted.
SENATOR BRUNO: Read the last
section.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: Read
the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the 120th day.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58. Nays,
1. Senator Seward recorded in the negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: The
bill is passed.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Is there any
housekeeping to be done at the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: There
is no housekeeping, Senator Bruno. Other than
the fact we want Buffalo to score a couple of
goals, Senator.
SENATOR BRUNO: Well, Mr.
President, I at this time move that we
recommit all the bills that are left on the
6385
calendar to the Committee on Rules.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: The
motion is to recommit all the bills on the
calendar to the Committee on Rules. All those
in favor signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ:
Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: The
motion is carried.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Mr. President,
there being no further business to come before
the Senate at this particular time, I move
that we stand adjourned until Monday at
3:00 p.m., intervening days to be legislative
days.
Thank you, Mr. President, and good
night.
ACTING PRESIDENT MAZIARZ: On
motion, the Senate stands adjourned until
Monday at 3:00 p.m., intervening days being
legislative days.
(Whereupon, at 9:39 p.m., the
6386
Senate adjourned.)