Regular Session - March 20, 2000
1425
NEW YORK STATE SENATE
THE STENOGRAPHIC RECORD
ALBANY, NEW YORK
March 20, 2000
3:07 p.m.
REGULAR SESSION
LT. GOVERNOR MARY O. DONOHUE, President
STEVEN M. BOGGESS, Secretary
1426
P R O C E E D I N G S
THE PRESIDENT: The Senate will
come to order.
I ask everyone present to please
rise and repeat with me the Pledge of
Allegiance.
(Whereupon, the assemblage recited
the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.)
THE PRESIDENT: The invocation
today will be given by the Reverend Peter
Young, from Blessed Sacrament Church in Bolton
Landing, New York.
REVEREND YOUNG: Let us pray.
Dear God, we enjoy Your increased
sunshine -- and hope -- as we celebrate
spring. Spring has always been historically a
symbol in mythology and religion of hope. As
the days warm up and offer our citizens relief
from the heating bills, and opportunities of
outdoor recreation, we again see Your very
good guidance and love and generosity to all
of the world that You've created.
Your gift of intelligence has been
given to all of those who wisely then do their
duty as elected officials in the very
1427
dedicated way that they represent the people
of New York State. We know that they will
wisely, too, advocate for legislation that
will fulfill Your will to enhance our lives.
May we call upon Your blessing to help them in
this great body of the Senate of New York
State.
Amen.
THE PRESIDENT: Reading of the
Journal.
THE SECRETARY: In Senate,
Sunday, March 19th, the Senate met pursuant to
adjournment. The Journal of Saturday,
March 18th, was read and approved. On motion,
Senate adjourned.
THE PRESIDENT: Without
objection, the Journal stands approved as
read.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
there will be an immediate meeting of the
Environmental Conservation Committee in the
Majority Conference Room.
THE PRESIDENT: There will be an
immediate meeting of the Environmental
1428
Conservation Committee in the Majority
Conference Room.
Presentation of petitions.
Messages from the Assembly.
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: Thank you,
Madam President.
On behalf of Senator Wright and
Senator Spano, I move the following bills be
discharged from their respective committees
and be recommitted with instructions to strike
the enacting clause: Senate Print Number
1225, Senate Print Number 1260, and 4237.
THE PRESIDENT: So ordered.
Senator Farley.
SENATOR FARLEY: Thank you, Madam
President.
On behalf of Senators Spano,
Libous, Larkin, and Kuhl, I offer the
1429
following amendments to the following bills.
On page 14, 219, 3514B; that's for
Senator Spano.
Senator Libous, on page 21,
Calendar Number 326, Senate Print 6288.
On behalf of Senator Larkin, page
29, Calendar Number 435, Senate Print 5709.
On behalf of Senator Kuhl, on page
30, Calendar 444, and Senate Print 4102.
And I ask that these bills retain
their place on the Third Reading Calendar.
THE PRESIDENT: The amendments
are received, Senator Farley, and the bills
will retain their place on the Third Reading
Calendar.
SENATOR FARLEY: Thank you, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
if we could take up the noncontroversial
calendar.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
8, by Senator Skelos, Senate Print 1014, an
1430
act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law, in
relation to increasing the period of time.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
November.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 45.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
10, by Senator McGee, Senate Print 4179, an
act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law, in
relation to providing for the permanent
revocation.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
September.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 44. Nays,
1431
1. Senator Duane recorded in the negative.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
11, by Senator McGee, Senate Print 4952A, an
act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law, in
relation to requiring suspension and
revocation.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
November.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 45.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
122, by Senator Fuschillo, Senate Print 2030,
an act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law,
in relation to periods of license revocation.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
1432
act shall take effect on the first day of
November.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 47. Nays,
1. Senator Duane recorded in the negative.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
123, by Senator Marcellino, Senate Print 2791,
an act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law,
in relation to increasing the parameters of
driving while ability-impaired.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
November.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 48.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
125, by Senator Wright, Senate Print 4552, an
1433
act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law, in
relation to creating the crime of aggravated
driving while intoxicated.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 9. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
November.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 48.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
132, by Senator Maziarz, Senate Print 654, an
act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law, in
relation to the offense of operation while
license or privilege is suspended or revoked.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
November.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
1434
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 48.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
304, by Senator Velella, Senate Print 1214, an
act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law and
the Criminal Procedure Law, in relation to
authorizing the discovery of blood samples.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 5. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
November.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 48.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
305, by Senator Johnson, Senate Print 1432, an
act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law, in
relation to limiting options.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
1435
act shall take effect on the first day of
November.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 48.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
308, by Senator Wright, Senate Print 3404, an
act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law, in
relation to the suspension and revocation.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
311, by Senator Fuschillo, Senate Print 6517,
an act to amend the Alcoholic Beverage Control
Law, in relation to use of a driver's license.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
September.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
1436
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 48.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
365, by Senator Nozzolio, Senate Print 1093 -
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
367, by Senator Fuschillo, Senate Print 2031,
an act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law,
in relation to increasing fines and license
revocation periods.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
November.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 47. Nays,
1. Senator Duane recorded in the negative.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1437
370, by Senator McGee, Senate Print 4822, an
act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law, in
relation to requiring the revocation for 18
months.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
393, by Senator Wright, Senate Print 6481A, an
act to amend the Public Authorities Law, in
relation to maintaining certain pension and
benefit rights.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 48.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
421, by Senator Wright, Senate Print 4355B, an
act to amend the Penal Law, in relation to the
crimes of vehicular assault and vehicular
1438
manslaughter.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 7. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
November.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 47. Nays,
1. Senator Duane recorded in the negative.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
Senator Skelos, that completes the
reading of the noncontroversial calendar.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
if we could go to the controversial calendar
at this time.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
308, by Senator Wright, Senate Print 3404, an
act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law, in
relation to the suspension and revocation of
registrations.
SENATOR DUANE: Explanation,
1439
please.
SENATOR SKELOS: Lay it aside
temporarily.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside temporarily.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
365, by Senator Nozzolio, Senate Print 1093,
an act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law,
in relation to the application for court
orders.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Nozzolio,
an explanation has been requested by Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Thank you,
Madam President. Could you tell me who
requested the explanation?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson,
Senator Nozzolio.
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: I'll be glad
to try to explain this to Senator Paterson.
Senator Paterson, this measure is
to mandate that all drivers involved in fatal
or serious-injury accidents submit to blood
alcohol content, BAC, tests when there is a
1440
reasonable cause to believe that an
alcohol-related offense has been committed.
That this measure basically
empowers the police, when they believe that
there is a reasonable cause to appreciate that
someone may have been under the influence of
alcohol when they resulted in a serious injury
or death, then that is certainly allowed under
this measure.
And that the individual who is so
asked then would be required to submit to a
compulsory chemical test to determine their
blood alcohol content.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you. Would
the sponsor yield to a question or two?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Nozzolio,
would you yield to two questions?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead, Senator
Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President.
Are police officers, don't they now
1441
have the power to ask for the test?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Madam
President, certainly under current law police
officers have the authority, but that
authority is very discretionary.
That this is -- this takes away
that discretion to the officer and says that
if there's any suspicion of an alcohol- or
chemical-related problem, that that test must
be taken.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you,
Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Duane, go
ahead. You have a second question.
SENATOR DUANE: What are police
officers required to do now when they suspect
there's alcohol involved?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Madam
President, pardon me, because I could not tell
if that was a question or hear it if it was a
question.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Duane,
could you please repeat your question?
SENATOR DUANE: Yes, certainly,
Madam President.
1442
What are police officers required
to do now when they suspect there's alcohol
involved?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: The -- as
stated in my previous answer, Madam President,
that the police officers have the authority to
make application to compel a test. However,
that does not put any burden on the police
officer of compulsory.
We're saying that when there is an
injury, when it results in a serious fatality,
we're taking that circumstance, if there is
any suspicion at all by the police officer,
that police officer must require a test at
that juncture.
SENATOR DUANE: And one final
question, through you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Nozzolio,
would you yield to an additional question?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead, Senator
Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Are there any
examples that the sponsor could cite of police
1443
officers not checking for alcohol when they've
suspected that there's alcohol?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Yes, Madam
President. In 1996, Doris Monica from
Webster, New York, had her son, Randy, killed
by a drunk driver. The drunk driver was never
prosecuted because he was unconscious upon
arriving at the hospital and the blood
evidence was never collected.
That, as such, that death certainly
pointed out to me a loophole in the law, that
had the test been collected, in effect there
would certainly have been grounds for a
prosecution. Because of that lack of
collection, there was no prosecution, and the
individual who died, died so without having
his family know that the individual
responsible for that death was prosecuted.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you.
Madam President, on the bill.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Duane, on
the bill. Go ahead.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you.
I'm going to vote no on this. I
don't see any need for this legislation.
1444
First of all, I believe that police officers,
when they do suspect that alcohol is involved,
do test for it. I'm not aware that this is a
big problem.
I believe that officers, through
training and by their own procedures, are
required to do this. If they're not -- though
I don't think that's true -- I believe that's
the remedy that we should be pursuing rather
than legislation. Although, as I say, I am
sure that they are now required, by both
training and procedure, to administer a test.
The example that's cited is
actually I don't think a particularly good one
for this, because if a person is unconscious,
they're supposed to be given medical attention
first. If the police officer then did not
follow up the case at the hospital and get the
blood alcohol tested, then the police officer
made a mistake.
I don't believe that we should make
it that the police officer broke the law.
That said, I think that they should have done
that and their supervisor should have followed
up with them.
1445
But I don't see any need for this
legislation, and I would encourage my
colleagues to vote no. I think it's just the
wrong way to go, the wrong remedy. Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Hevesi.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you, Madam
President. Would the sponsor yield to a
question?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Nozzolio,
would you yield for a question, please?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead, Senator
Hevesi.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you, Madam
President.
Senator, in the example that you
cited of the individual who was unconscious
and therefore no blood sample was taken from
him, did the police officer, under current
New York State law, have the ability to seek
and obtain a court order to extract blood from
the individual?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Yes, Madam
President. As I described to Senator Duane,
1446
who asked the same question, the same answer
to Senator Hevesi, that yes, police officers
have the authority to do that.
Senator, I distinguished that
from -- the authority to do it from the
requirement to do it. They're two different
things.
And that's what we're seeing as a
loophole in the law today, and that's why
we're asking for the statute to be changed to
close the loophole.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you.
Madam President, would the sponsor
continue to yield?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Nozzolio,
do you continue to yield?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead, Senator
Hevesi.
SENATOR HEVESI: Senator, in
trying to decide whether or not to vote for
this legislation, we need to make an
evaluation as to whether or not making this
requirement mandatory removes some discretion,
1447
some prosecutorial discretion, that may
otherwise be necessary.
And while I can appreciate in the
example that you've cited that maybe it wasn't
necessary -- although, as Senator Duane points
out, certainly in that example, and I think
you would concede this, the police officer or
somebody acted with some degree of negligence.
So my question to you is, is there
any type of example where -- any other example
other than the case you cited where a police
officer did not seek a court order for some
other reason other than negligence?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Madam
President, I must disagree with the
characterization made by my esteemed
colleague.
We're not trying to remove
prosecutorial discretion here. On the
contrary, we're trying to provide another
prosecutorial tool from which to gain
prosecution. That the discretionary aspects
of the law create a gray area, and that police
officers are well intentioned -- I'm never
going to criticize the actions of a police
1448
officer. But, rather, let's make the job
easier for them. Let's take away the
discretion in this area.
If they do have any suspicions
whatsoever, let's put a clear statement of
policy by this chamber and by the entire state
government that our laws, when there is -- and
let's characterize what we're saying here.
We're saying here in a very severe automobile
accident, where there is a loss of life or
very serious injury, that there is in effect a
presumption.
That if there is any suspicion
whatsoever that this could have been caused by
an alcohol-related driver, a driver under the
influence of alcohol, that that driver would
in effect be tested and that the evidence
would be preserved so that a prosecution could
be obtained.
That that's what this measure does.
It's trying to, in effect, provide prosecutors
with the tools necessary to do their job. And
that that's why the bill is before us.
SENATOR HEVESI: Madam President,
on the bill.
1449
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Hevesi,
go ahead on the bill, please.
SENATOR HEVESI: Madam President,
with all due respect to Senator Nozzolio,
there's no other example or case except a case
where a police officer hasn't, in my opinion,
done his job, when he knows or has a
reasonable suspicion that there's been alcohol
involved in a particular vehicular incident
and doesn't seek a court order for a blood
test, a blood alcohol test.
So this legislation doesn't do
anything. Doesn't do anything. And I raised
this issue in committee, and I didn't receive
an adequate response in the committee meeting.
And I don't believe we've received an adequate
response here.
Though the legislation is well
intended, and I suppose I'll support it, it's
superfluous. I don't know what this bill
does. And Senator Duane rightly points out
the fallacies with the logic behind this bill.
The bill doesn't do anything.
But in that it might help somebody,
some police officer think twice before
1450
deciding, even though he has probable cause to
believe there's alcohol involved, before
deciding that he's not going to seek a court
order -- for what reason, I don't know -- but
if this legislation is on the books, maybe
police officers will be even more vigilant to
seek court orders to get blood alcohol tests
on these individuals.
So I guess I'll support this
legislation, but the bill really doesn't do
anything, Madam President. And I would like
to see, in the future, these issues worked in
out in committee, as opposed to getting on the
floor -- as opposed to getting on the floor
and having this discussion, which we really
could have had in committee had there been an
adequate response.
So I'm going to vote yes on the
bill. And my colleagues are free to vote any
way they want, but I don't believe this
legislation does anything.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, Senator Hevesi has somehow managed
to, in supporting the bill and voting for the
1451
bill, convinced me to vote against it.
The fact is that I don't see any
way that a police officer discharging their
duties aptly would not call for some kind of a
drug or alcohol test in the circumstances that
are described.
We have to understand that just by
the use of the word "discretionary" we're
describing the suspicion, the subjectivity of
the police officer's determination that there
is a suspicion in the first place. There's no
rule that defines what a suspicion is. That
is a determination that's made individually by
the officer.
I wouldn't want to handcuff the
officers one way or the other by putting them
in a position to be second-guessed when it's
pretty clear that we have not had any problem
in this state with the police failing to
discharge their duties at times like that when
they should call for such a test.
So therefore, the attempt to
mandate something that is prima fascia
suspicion -- granted, due to subjectivity in
the first place -- in my opinion doesn't make
1452
any sense.
And I'm convinced by Senator Duane
that it would not be effective, and would
encourage a no vote on this bill.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect on the 30th day.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
the negative on Calendar Number 365 are
Senators Connor, Duane, Paterson, and Smith.
Ayes, 52. Nays, 4.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
370, by Senator McGee, Senate Print 4822, an
act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law, in
relation to requiring the revocation for 18
months.
SENATOR DUANE: Explanation,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator McGee,
1453
Senator Duane has requested an explanation.
SENATOR McGEE: Thank you very
much, Madam President.
This bill increases the minimum
license revocation period from one year to 18
months for a refusal to submit to a chemical
test for drivers under the age of 21 or
drivers of a commercial vehicle.
At the present moment, the current
law requires a one-year license revocation
upon conviction of a DWI or DWAI for persons
under the age of 21 or for operators of a
commercial vehicle.
Quite honestly, if penalties are to
be an effective deterrent in this case, it's
important that any penalty for refusing a
chemical test be higher than the penalty for a
conviction that would have resulted from
taking the chemical test.
Increasing the penalties for people
who refuse to submit to a chemical test will
certainly send the message to those who
believe they can wiggle out of a DWI or DWAI
arrest by not taking the Breathalyzer test.
I would point out that this is a
1454
good bill. This is a bill that has another
stipulation, that it reports to the -- at the
present moment, the report of any type of
accident involving that type of thing goes to
the Commissioner of Motor Vehicles. This also
asks that information be forwarded from the
County Coroner's office, as determined -- when
the results of the accident is determined,
that this would be sent on to the DWI
coordinators so that there could be a
correlation between a death and the cause of
death being alcohol or substance abuse.
I would point out that in 1997,
2,209 teens from the age of 15 to 20 were
killed in crashes involving alcohol. And,
Madam President, may I point out that one
death is too many. 2,209 teenage deaths is
much, much too many.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President. Would the sponsor yield to a
couple of questions?
SENATOR McGEE: I certainly will.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator McGee,
will you yield for two questions?
1455
SENATOR McGEE: I will.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead, Senator
Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you very
much.
I'm wondering why, if this bill is
good enough to impact those under the age of
21 and those who drive commercial vehicles,
why shouldn't this legislation apply to all?
If a 32-year-old is driving their Maserati and
they refuse to submit to a chemical test, why
shouldn't they be covered by this legislation
as well?
SENATOR McGEE: That's certainly
something that we can look into. At the
present moment, this bill calls for 18 years
of age or -- excuse me, 21 years of age or
drivers of a commercial vehicle.
I enjoy your suggestion. It's
certainly something we'll look at. Thank you.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you.
On the bill, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Duane, on
the bill.
SENATOR DUANE: Just for the
1456
record, this isn't the first time the issue
has been raised. It was raised in the
committee meeting.
And I don't think it's appropriate
for us to merely go after younger drivers or
those who drive commercial vehicles. I think
everybody in the State of New York with a
driver's license should be held to the same
standard. And I would encourage a no vote.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
November.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 55. Nays,
1. Senator Duane recorded in the negative.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
308, by Senator Wright, Senate Print 3404, an
act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law, in
1457
relation to the suspension and revocation of
registrations.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
SENATOR DUANE: I'm sorry.
Explanation, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Duane
requests an explanation, Senator Wright.
SENATOR WRIGHT: Thank you, Madam
President. I believed an explanation had been
requested.
The bill before you amends the
Vehicle and Traffic Law and links mandatory
suspension and revocation of registration with
mandatory suspension and revocation of
licenses.
The logic behind this is relatively
simple. In the past there have been numerous
instances where there has been a revocation of
a license and the individual would continue to
drive a registered vehicle. We're trying to
increase and enhance the deterrence involved
in this so that both are now mandatory.
This has previously passed the
Senate on two separate occasions.
1458
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Would the sponsor
yield to some questions, please?
SENATOR WRIGHT: Yes, I will.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Wright,
will you yield for questions?
SENATOR WRIGHT: I will, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead, Senator
Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President.
I'm wondering why it is that the
legislation calls for taking away the
registration. Why not just the driver's
license? After all, there may be a family
member or family members who need to use a
car. There could be a spouse, a husband or a
wife who doesn't have a drinking problem, and
this would cause them to not be able to get to
their place of work or to get to school or,
for that matter, to get to the supermarket or
a store in a rural area. It seems like unjust
punishment of more than just the perpetrator
of the drinking and driving violation.
1459
SENATOR WRIGHT: Thank you, Madam
President. I'm glad the Senator brought that
to our attention.
Because the current statute
provides for the mandatory revocation of a
license, this would add the registration as an
additional component. And we specifically
provide for conditional registrations. Being
a representative of those rural communities,
we understand the importance of that and
provided for a conditional registration to be
considered.
SENATOR DUANE: I'm sorry, Madam
President, I didn't hear the last sentence.
If the -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Wright,
could you repeat your last sentence for
Senator Duane?
SENATOR WRIGHT: We provided for
a conditional registration.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Wright,
will you yield to an additional question?
1460
SENATOR WRIGHT: I will, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead, Senator
Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Even if there is
some kind of a provision or a hardship
provision in this bill, won't that still cause
time and expense to the family member who,
again, shouldn't be punished? They are
probably being punished enough by living with
someone with a drinking problem who drives
while they drink. Why should they have to go
through an additional, onerous time and
expense to be able to get to their work or get
to their school or drive their children to
school or however it is that they may need to
use the car if there's only one car in the
family?
SENATOR WRIGHT: Well, the
current process will put them through that
expense and that problem regardless of whether
or not registration is involved.
I think everyone recognizes that
the proceedings in a mandatory suspension of
license have a significant impact upon the
1461
family. That's the intent, to ensure that
there is a deterrent, that there is everyone
paying attention to it and trying to
discourage that particular behavior.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you,
Madam President. I'd like to get a
clarification, if I may.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Wright,
will you yield for an additional question?
SENATOR WRIGHT: Certainly.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead, Senator
Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Madam President,
I don't understand what the sponsor means by
they'd have to go through the same trying to
get the hardship provision or conditional -
the same as what? I don't understand what
that is.
SENATOR WRIGHT: I'm afraid I
don't understand your question, Senator.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you,
Madam President.
The sponsor said that under current
law, the spouse would already have to go
through this or someone would still have to
1462
already go through this process, but I don't
think that that's true.
SENATOR WRIGHT: Well, under
current law, Senator, it provides for a
mandatory suspension of the license. You were
relating the impact and the negative effect
that proceeding would have upon a family. And
I acknowledged that in fact that may well be
the case, and I do not see that being further
compounded by the registration being linked to
the licensure.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you,
Madam President. Yes, the person whose
license has been revoked does have to -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator -
Senator Wright, will you yield for a question
from Senator Duane?
SENATOR WRIGHT: I will yield for
a question, yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Duane, if
you have a question, you may ask it.
SENATOR DUANE: Yes. It is true
that the person that's had their license
revoked would have to go through a lot to try
to get their license back.
1463
However, what I'm pointing out is
that this legislation would cause, for the
registration to be removed or taken away, that
the person that doesn't have the drinking
problem in the family, that hasn't been
involved in a drinking and driving incident,
would have to go through the time and expense
to get the registration back.
And that seems unfair, since they
are not the person that has actually done the
wrongdoing and yet they're punished anyway.
Under present law, you don't have to go
through any kind of process to get your
registration back, because your registration
is not taken away.
SENATOR WRIGHT: I missed the
question, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Duane,
you were authorized and Senator Wright yielded
for a question.
SENATOR DUANE: Yes, so -- okay.
The person that's drinking and driving who
loses their license does have to go through a
big deal to get their license back. I
understand that, and I'm for that.
1464
However, under current law,
registrations are not taken away. And so the
person who is in the family -- the spouse or
the child who needs the car to get to work or
get to school or get to the grocery store -
under this law would have to go through the
expense and time of getting the registration
back.
And what I'm saying is, is that I
don't think it's fair that that person should
be punished for an infraction which they
didn't commit, which their spouse or some
other family member committed. So we're
punishing someone that did nothing wrong.
I'm totally fine with taking the
license away, but I think it's wrong to take
away the registration of what might be the
only vehicle that the other members of the
family use to get on with their lives.
SENATOR WRIGHT: Senator, I
understand your position. I simply don't
share it.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
SENATOR DUANE: Well, I -- let me
1465
just speak on the bill, then.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Duane, on
the bill.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President.
Although I guess I really did make
my point. But I just want to reiterate that I
don't think it's right for us to cause
additional hardship to someone who may already
be living under the burden of, you know,
living with a drunk. And so we're just making
their punishment even worse for, you know,
being in that family.
And I just think that that is too
harsh and wrong, and I would urge my
colleagues to vote no and to only punish the
actual perpetrators of a drunken driving
offense.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 5. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
November.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
1466
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
the negative on Calendar Number 308 are
Senators DeFrancisco, Duane, Marchi, Onorato,
and Schneiderman. Ayes, 51. Nays, 5.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
Senator Morahan, that completes the
reading of the controversial calendar.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Thank you,
Madam President. May we return to the reports
of the standing committees. I believe there's
a report of the Environmental Conservation
Committee at the desk.
THE PRESIDENT: Reports of
standing committees.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Marcellino, from the Committee on
Environmental Conservation, reports the
following bill direct to third reading: 7003,
by Senator Johnson, an act to amend the
Environmental Conservation Law.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
reported direct to third reading.
1467
Senator Morahan.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Is there any
more housekeeping at the desk, Madam
President?
THE PRESIDENT: No, there is not,
Senator.
Senator Morahan.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Madam
President, will you please recognize Senator
Connor.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Connor.
SENATOR CONNOR: Thank you, Madam
President. Madam President, I have a motion
to discharge at the desk. And I ask that it
be called up now.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Senate Bill
Number 3804, by Senator Connor, an act to
amend the Election Law, in relation to
campaign receipts and expenditures reporting.
SENATOR CONNOR: Thank you, Madam
President. If I may explain.
This is a motion to move to the
floor for consideration by the Senate my
1468
campaign finance reform proposal that I filed
last year.
I know there are those who are
going to say it's procedural, but read The New
York Times. In a couple of editorials in the
past month, they have finally caught on to the
fact that the only way, the only way a bill
like this can get on the floor when the
committee chair won't put it out is through
this motion. So call it what you will. The
only way we can get to consider and vote on
this proposal is by this motion.
Basically, there are three
different proposals floating around this
Capitol to reform the campaign finance laws,
the state campaign finance laws. An issue,
Madam President, that I'll note has captured,
on a national level, the attention of many,
many people in both political parties.
The Assembly has a proposal; it's
good. The Governor has a proposal; it's good.
My proposal is better. It's stricter. It
follows much more along the lines of the
federal limitations, but it eliminates some of
loopholes there as well as in our state law.
1469
My bill, Madam President, would cap
contributions to candidates at $1,000 from
individuals and $5,000 from PACs. The limits
now can go as high for a statewide candidate
as $29,000 from an individual or a PAC. For
State Senate candidates, they can go to $7,900
from individuals or PACs. And for the
Assembly, I believe it's $4,500.
My proposal would also cap
contributions to campaign and party committees
at $20,000 for individuals and $25,000 for
PACs. Madam President, the present limit is
$79,000 per individual. That's $158,000 a
couple. It's $79,000 for a PAC to a campaign
committee, to the Republican Senate campaign
committee, to the Democratic Senate campaign
committee, to the corresponding committees in
the Assembly as well as to the state
committees.
Is it any wonder that there's a
perception afoot among the rank and file in
both parties -- indeed, the Republican Party
seems, among the rank and file, to have -
this issue seems to have resonated with the
rank and file there in recent weeks, more so
1470
than anywhere. Is it any wonder that there's
this perception? $158,000 a couple. This
would reduce it: 20,000 for individuals,
$25,000 for PACs to party committees.
My proposal would also cap total
contributions by any individual to any and all
campaigns or candidates in New York State at
$50,000. Someone who gives to all campaigns
in New York State $50,000 in the aggregate per
year is, Madam President, indeed a
public-spirited citizen.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR CONNOR: Someone who
gives $125,000, Senator Morahan said, is
either nuts or looking for something. Or at
least that's the public perception.
My bill would also eliminate the
party's housekeeping funds as a conduit for
soft money that somehow or other gets used in
campaigns. What's the limit on housekeeping?
There is none. There is none. A corporation,
an individual, anyone, they can give a million
dollars to a party housekeeping account.
There's no limit. Unlimited contributions
raise the perception of unlimited influence.
1471
And that's the perception that's
afoot out there. Whether a reality or not
doesn't matter, Madam President. When you get
a corporation pumping a half a million dollars
into a party housekeeping fund, the public
perception is "what's for sale?" And that's a
public perception that we have a
responsibility to rebut.
My bill would also require
subsidiary corporations to identify themselves
under the aegis of their parent company when
reporting campaign contributions. Thus the
loophole can be closed. A person that
controls 20 corporations can't have each
little corporation giving the maximum amount.
As if there was a fiction that the same person
wasn't contributing corporate funds.
My bill would also prohibit the use
of campaign funds for anything other than
political campaigns. Right now we have a
restriction on personal use, yet campaign
funds can be used now to buy cars, to travel
the world, as long as it's loosely connected
with anybody who holds a public or party
office.
1472
This would close that loophole. It
would end that perception that people are
raising campaign funds to finance their next
vacation or their next junket. Raise campaign
funds, use it on campaigns only.
The bill would also permit only one
authorized campaign committee for candidate
per election. What's the problem here?
Myriad committees. Try tracing the money. By
the way, this bill would eliminate transfers
as a result as well. No transferring from one
committee to the other committee to the other
committee, forcing the public and the press to
play "Where's Waldo?" and look for where the
money started, look for where it ended up.
We'd end that. One committee.
Disclosure would mean exactly what it means:
You disclose the contributions and
expenditures. And one report, and nobody has
to play trace the contributions back through
the maze.
And finally, I would increase the
civil penalty in this bill for failing to file
financial disclosure forms to a thousand
dollars, to something meaningful, a meaningful
1473
amount.
Madam President, the public, the
public is now paying attention. The public
doesn't like what they see. We have a
responsibility to end the perception that
somehow or other very large campaign
contributions or unlimited contributions to
housekeeping funds are somehow or other buying
an advantage by the contributor. I like to
think that's not the case. But I know the
perception is people believe it.
And we have an obligation, Madam
President, to reform the loophole-laden
Campaign Finance Law. Oh, it was a good start
in 1974 and '5 after Watergate to now have
laws. But clever, clever political
operatives, clever election lawyers have
filled it full of Swiss cheese, made it look
like Swiss cheese, full of holes. For every
rule, there are ten loopholes. I know, Madam
President. I know the loopholes. We all know
the loopholes.
Let's close them. Let's reassure
the public, let's reassure the public that we
have meaningful campaign contribution limits,
1474
meaningful disclosure laws, and a meaningful
system of campaign financing that reassures
the public that those who want to participate
out of an interest in government, out of
public-spiritedness, are allowed to, but that
no one who would give blank checks is allowed
to play in our political game in New York
State.
Madam President, I urge my motion.
THE PRESIDENT: On the motion.
All in favor of accepting the motion to
discharge signify by saying aye.
SENATOR CONNOR: Party vote in
the affirmative.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Party vote in
the negative.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 20. Nays,
36. Party vote.
THE PRESIDENT: The motion is
defeated.
SENATOR CONNOR: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Connor.
1475
SENATOR CONNOR: While I'm
terribly disappointed that my motion failed,
there are alternatives. And I would like
Senator Hevesi to be recognized, because he
would like to move the Governor's campaign
finance reform proposal.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Hevesi.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you, Madam
President. I believe there's a motion to
discharge at the desk. I would ask that it be
called up.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Senate Bill
Number 6750, by Senator Hevesi, an act to
amend the Election Law, in relation to
campaign finance reform in New York State.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Hevesi.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you, Madam
President.
Let's all gauge the sincerity of
this institution to campaign finance reform on
this day. I'm going to start out by
commending Senator Connor for crafting the
piece of legislation that he just discussed at
1476
some length that would go a tremendously long
way to cleaning up what is the most abhorrent,
ridiculous system probably anywhere in the
United States.
And frankly, if you segmented
Senator Connor's legislation, took each
individual component, put it up on a dartboard
and started throwing darts at it, if you hit
something, you're going to make the state's
system better.
We are an embarrassment here in New
York State, an absolute embarrassment. We've
been talking about this for a long time now
and had some kind of a ray of hope. And I
guess we'll now gauge the sincerity of the
Legislature to act on it, because we're still
trying to gauge the sincerity of the
Governor -- who last year on the final day,
the final regularly scheduled day of our
legislative calendar announced that he was
advocating and introducing a program bill that
would be a sweeping reform of the state's
Election Law. And it went nowhere.
And the reason we are here today
discussing the motion to discharge that's
1477
before us -- which, Madam President, is Senate
Print 6750, which I sponsor -- it is word for
word identical to the Governor's Program Bill
92. It's the exact same bill.
The reason we're moving it today is
because this house didn't want to do anything
with Senator Connor's legislation, so terribly
predictably, and so now we're left with the
situation where we may have absolutely no
reform and no discussion, which is even worse,
this year.
So we have decided to do a motion
to discharge on what is essentially the
Governor's program bill, primarily -- even
though Senator Connor's bill is by far a
better bill than the Governor's bill -
because the Speaker of the New York State
Assembly has said that if the Senate passes
something that is similar to legislation that
he has passed, that automatically we would go
to conference committee and begin a real
discussion and a real negotiation about
campaign finance reform.
All right? So I can assure, before
I even talk about the Governor's bill -- and
1478
I'm looking forwarding to advocating the
Governor's position on campaign finance
reform. But I can assure the members of this
body who are reticent to vote yes on this
motion to discharge because they're afraid
that this version will become law, that this
version that I'm bringing up here will not
become law. It will become the basis of a
discussion as to how we should reform the
state's unbelievably inadequate campaign
finance regulations.
So I would encourage, at the
outset, every member of the Majority to vote
yes on this -- not even if you're interested
in seeing the exact provisions of the
Governor's bill, but if you're interested in
talking about this. Talking about this.
And I'm the ranking Democrat on the
Senate Elections Committee. We haven't had
any real legislation come out of that
committee. In fact, last year Senate
Elections -- and I have the greatest respect
for the chair of that committee, my Queens
colleague Senator Maltese, a terrific
Senator -- we met once. We did some
1479
perfunctory legislation that made some
technical corrections, had some impact on
reporting requirements. And to do that when
we have such a crisis on our hands, and have
for so long, is embarrassing. It's really
embarrassing.
So I stand up today proud to
support Governor Pataki, a Republican
colleague in the statehouse, for his courage
for advancing some principles that he had
previously been silent on. But I applaud him
for them nonetheless. I'm not going to take a
shot at him. The same way I'm not going to
take a shot at him as he's now advancing gun
legislation for the first time in his tenure
as Governor. That's great; let's have a
discussion about it.
So his legislation is now before
us, a motion to discharge on it. Let's talk
about it. Senator Connor's bill reduces the
campaign expenditure limits to much more
reasonable and acceptable levels, a thousand
dollars for an individual. But the Governor's
legislation reduces contribution limits down
to $7,500 for statewide candidates. It's now
1480
$45,000. It's ridiculous, absolutely
ridiculous. Reduces contributions for State
Senators that we can receive down to $4,000,
as opposed to $12,000 or $13,000, where it is
now.
And interestingly, the Governor's
bill puts a spending cap on the offices of the
Mayor, the Comptroller, and the Public
Advocate in the City of New York. Why is that
significant? Because the Governor reduces,
under state law -- follow me on this -- those
amounts that are able to be raised from
$45,000 down to $7,500.
But you know what? You don't need
that $7,500 limit in the City of New York,
because candidates in the City of New York are
limited to $4,500. Because in the City of New
York we have a campaign finance system that is
the model system in the United States. So
again, a stark contrast, an almost
unbelievable contrast -- the worst state
system and probably the best city system
going.
So in the City of New York, if I
decided I wanted to run for mayor in the next
1481
election cycle, I'm limited, if I opted into
this program, to $4,500 in contributions if
I'm running for mayor. My limit as a State
Senator is about $13,000.
Plus in the City of New York, we
can't take money from corporations. I can
take money from corporations for my Senate
race in my Senate district.
And the City of New York requires a
whole slew of reporting requirements,
including the occupation, the address, the
employer, all kinds of information so we know
exactly where the money is coming from.
And you know what's happened as a
result? Democracy in its purest form. There
are more candidates running for vacant seats
or soon-to-be-vacant seats in the New York
City Council, for Borough President, and the
three citywide offices in the history of the
City of New York, because we have leveled the
playing field in New York City.
So I support public financing. I
know Senator Connor supports public financing,
and most of the members of this conference.
But we didn't even dare to put it in this
1482
legislation, knowing that that would be dead
on arrival. But it shows us another example
of just how far we need to go.
So again, I go back to advocating
for the Governor's bill, which again doesn't
go as far as Senator Connor's bill. More
disclosure on independent advertising and
independent expenditures. You know what that
is? That's the Texas oilman who spent $2.5
million on anti-John McCain ads, attacking
him -- ridiculously, incorrectly -- on his
environmental record.
Governor Pataki has a section in
his bill which would require reporting of
those independent expenditures, which are
another form of soft money. Which the state,
in its lengthy history, has decided never to
address.
And the housekeeping exemption,
which Senator Connor discussed. There is no
limit to the amount of money you can spend on
housekeeping. Senator Connor's bill has
limits on housekeeping. It eliminates all the
exemptions.
You know what you can spend
1483
housekeeping money on now? This is unlimited
contributions. Somebody wants to give a
million dollars into a housekeeping account,
that money can be spent on a permanent
headquarters to maintain a staff. This is a
political operation. Spent on voter
registration and spent on fundraising. In
other words, that unlimited, unrestricted
contribution can go to support my candidacy
through fundraising or voter registration
efforts. Unrestricted money. Anybody can
give.
And please, somebody tell us that
there's nothing being bought. Not just the
perception. I'll go so far on this day as to
tell everybody I believe in many instances,
since the limits are so ridiculous, that there
is a direct -- not just the perception, there
is a direct influencing effect of those
campaign contributions.
Maybe nobody says it, because that
would be absolutely illegal. But you'd better
believe there is a perception in the mind of
whomever is giving the money that they'd
better get something in return for it. And if
1484
they don't get something in return for it,
that that contribution will not be forthcoming
and support for different candidates will be
withheld or pursued on the basis of what is
delivered legislatively as a consequence of a
campaign contribution, which may not happen at
the time that the contribution -- I'm sorry,
that the legislation was passed. The
contribution may come later, and suddenly
we'll see a huge contribution after some
special interest got a favorable judgment out
of this legislative body.
And whether or not it's a direct
influence -- a direct payoff, if you will -
the perception is absolutely awful. It's why
thousands and thousands of Democrats flocked
to open primaries to vote for John McCain.
Everybody knows what a travesty this is. It's
an absolute travesty.
In-kind contributions. Right now,
under current law, in-kind contributions,
you're only required to tell the exact amount,
the total, the aggregate of how much an
in-kind contribution was given. Not to splice
it out, whether it was for phone banks,
1485
whether it was for literature or lit
distribution. There's no disclosure here.
And lastly -- and almost this is
one of the most embarrassing failures of the
current law -- the penalties are wholly
insufficient, to the extent to which
individuals may choose intentionally not to
file on time.
And why may that be the case? I
mean, we're all political pros here. You know
that if you've taken campaign money -- and
I've spoken about this on other legislation
that's come before this body. If you take
campaign contributions in the very final days
of your campaign -- because you are hungering,
desperate for cash, because you're fighting
for your political life -- you take money from
somebody who you shouldn't have taken money
from, okay, even if that requirement has to be
reported at some time, you take money from
that individual, you don't want to put it on
your filing that comes 15 days before the
primary or the general election. Why?
Because your opponent will see it and they'll
attack you on it, and you may lose the
1486
election as a consequence. So what do you do?
You don't file on time. Take the hit. That's
disgusting. That's outrageous.
And the Governor increases
penalties for that type of activity, to
prevent it. Governor Pataki. Republican
Governor Pataki.
So I support the Governor's bill.
I don't think it's a phenomenal bill. Senator
Connor's bill is a phenomenal bill. We didn't
have that. Every member of the Majority just
voted no on his bill. So now you're asked to
vote on the Governor's bill. And even though
I'm not in love with the Governor's bill, it
is the jumping-off point, it is the
jumping-off point for a dialogue and a
discussion on this issue.
And so I fully anticipate the
members of the Majority -- I'm not trying to
be antagonistic here, but I'm frustrated. I'm
frustrated because I don't believe we're going
to see action on this campaign finance issue
this year. I really don't think we're going
to see it. And one of the ways you're going
to demonstrate that we're not going to see it
1487
is to vote no on this. Because you know if
you vote yes on this and the bill comes out
and it passes, we will have a real discussion,
a real dialogue, and you know the people of
New York State want it. You know they want
it, because you know they're right on it.
So let's have a vote for courage
here, for standing up and doing something that
maybe is not politically expedient. A lot of
these things may hurt individual members
politically. Do we have the courage to stand
up today and do what's right as opposed to
doing what's politically expedient? The vote
we're about to cast is a vote on doing what's
right over political expediency.
And I urge all of my colleagues to
make the right decision on this next vote.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Yes.
Thank you, Madam President. I rise to support
Senator Hevesi's motion.
A few years ago I read an
extraordinary book, short book, called the
Wealth Primary that documented very carefully
1488
how we are losing voters, particularly young
voters, because of the perception in this
country that candidates are chosen and
elections are decided long before people go to
the polls, in something called the "wealth
primary." It's a fact. We all know it.
We're not going to do Senator
Connor's bill, which is a far superior bill.
We should at least do the Republican campaign
finance package that the Governor introduced
at the end of last session.
And I rise in support of this and
also to mention that when Senator Hevesi
introduced this, because there was no
Republican sponsor moving the Governor's
Republican campaign finance package, I checked
back and confirmed that the Speaker of the
Assembly -- and this is weeks ago, before he
and the Governor became buddies -- weeks ago
confirmed that if this bill, the Governor's
package, passes this house, they're going to
conference committee on it.
So Senator Hevesi has now done us a
favor. He's introduced word for word the same
bill. Let's pass the Governor's bill. Let's
1489
get this to a conference committee. And let's
not be sitting around waiting, waiting,
waiting to do something about this critical
issue.
And I think everyone in this house
should vote yes on this motion.
THE PRESIDENT: On the motion.
All in favor of accepting the motion to
discharge signify by saying aye.
SENATOR CONNOR: Party vote in
the affirmative.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Party vote in
the negative.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 20. Nays,
36. Party vote.
THE PRESIDENT: The motion is
defeated.
Senator Morahan.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Madam Chairman,
there being no further business to come before
the Senate, I move we adjourn until Tuesday,
March 21st, at 3:00 p.m.
1490
THE PRESIDENT: On motion, the
Senate stands adjourned until Tuesday,
March 21st, at 3:00 p.m.
(Whereupon, at 4:10 p.m., the
Senate adjourned.)