Regular Session - March 21, 2000
1491
NEW YORK STATE SENATE
THE STENOGRAPHIC RECORD
ALBANY, NEW YORK
March 21, 2000
3:07 p.m.
REGULAR SESSION
SENATOR THOMAS P. MORAHAN, Acting President
STEVEN M. BOGGESS, Secretary
1492
P R O C E E D I N G S
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
Senate will come to order.
Pledge of Allegiance.
(Whereupon, the assemblage recited
the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: In the
absence of any clergy, we will bow our heads
in a moment of silence.
(Whereupon, the assemblage
respected a moment of silence.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
reading of the Journal.
THE SECRETARY: In Senate,
Monday, March 20th, the Senate met pursuant to
adjournment. The Journal of Sunday,
March 19th, was read and approved. On motion,
Senate adjourned.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Without objection, the Journal stands approved
as read.
Presentation of petitions.
Messages from the Assembly.
Messages from the Governor.
Reports of standing committees.
1493
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Fuschillo, from the Committee on Consumer
Protection, reports:
Senate Print 902C, by Senator
Skelos, an act to amend the General Business
Law;
4499, by Senator Bonacic, an act to
amend the General Business Law;
4744, by Senator Fuschillo, an act
to amend the General Business Law;
6242, by Senator Skelos, an act to
amend the General Business Law;
And 6243, by Senator Johnson, an
act to amend the General Business Law.
Senator Trunzo, from the Committee
on Transportation, reports:
Senate Print 1105A, by Senator
Goodman, an act to amend the Vehicle and
Traffic Law;
4412C, by Senator Trunzo, an act to
amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law;
4413, by Senator Trunzo, an act to
amend the Public Authorities Law;
4491, by Senator Trunzo, an act to
1494
amend the Public Authorities Law;
5412A, by Senator Marcellino, an
act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law;
And 6868, by Senator Trunzo, an act
to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law.
Senator Kuhl, from the Committee on
Education, reports:
Senate Print 6241A, by Senator
Velella, an act to amend the Education Law;
6584, by Senator Kuhl, an act to
amend the Education Law;
6669, by Senator Farley, an act in
relation to adjusting certain state aid
payments;
6711, by Senator Bonacic, an act in
relation to legalizing, validating, ratifying
and confirming actions of the Liberty Central
School District;
7002, by Senator Kuhl, an act to
amend the Education Law;
And 7020, by Senator McGee, an act
to amend a chapter of the Laws of 2000.
All bills ordered direct to third
reading.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
1495
Without objection, all bills reported direct
to third reading.
Reports of select committees.
Communications and reports from
state officers.
Motions and resolutions.
Senator Balboni.
SENATOR BALBONI: Mr. President,
on page 26 I offer the following amendments to
Calendar Number 408, Print Number 1564, and
ask that said bill retain its place on the
Third Reading Calendar, if you please.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
amendments are received. The bill will retain
its place on the calendar.
Senator Skelos, we have a
substitution.
SENATOR SKELOS: Please make the
substitution.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: On page 29,
Senator Trunzo moves to discharge, from the
Committee on Transportation, Assembly Bill
1496
Number 2189 and substitute it for the
identical Senate Bill Number 2869, Third
Reading Calendar 442.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
substitution is ordered.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President,
if we could adopt the Resolution Calendar in
its entirety.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: All
those in favor of adopting the Resolution
Calendar signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
Resolution Calendar is adopted.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: At this time if
we could take up the noncontroversial
calendar.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1497
19, by Senator Maziarz, Senate Print 3665A, an
act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law, in
relation to authorizing villages and towns.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Read
the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect on the 30th day.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 36. Nays,
1. Senator Kuhl recorded in the negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
20, by Senator Trunzo, Senate Print 4408A, an
act to amend the Public Authorities Law, in
relation to the recovery of lost toll revenue.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Read
the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This
act shall take effect on the 90th day.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
1498
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 40.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
37, by Senator Rath, Senate Print 5787A -
SENATOR SKELOS: Lay it aside for
the day.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Lay it
aside for the day.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
54, by Senator Alesi, Senate Print 4124B, an
act to amend the Workers' Compensation Law, in
relation to liability for compensation.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Lay it
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
71, by Senator Volker, Senate Print 3537A, an
act to amend the Criminal Procedure Law, in
relation to verdict sheets.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Read
the last section.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Lay it
1499
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
89, by Senator LaValle, Senate Print 5857, an
act to amend the Education Law, in relation to
removing provisions.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Read
the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
January.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 40.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
208, by Senator Saland, Senate Print 3815B, an
act to amend the Family Court Act, in relation
to dispositions.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Read
the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 5. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
November.
1500
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 40.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
216, by Senator Bonacic, Senate Print 3908B,
an act to amend the Public Authorities Law, in
relation to the power of the State of New York
Mortgage Agency.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Read
the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 5. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 40.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
224, by Senator Bonacic, Senate Print 3664, an
act to amend the Private Housing Finance Law,
in relation to the powers of the New York
1501
State Housing Finance Agency.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Call
the roll.
I'm sorry, read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 42.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
230, by Senator Balboni, Senate Print 858, an
act to amend the Insurance Law, in relation to
eliminating the examination fee.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Read
the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 6. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 42.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
1502
bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
238, by Senator Saland, Senate Print 2722, an
act to amend the Family Court Act, in relation
to evidence of child neglect.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Lay it
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
241, by Senator Skelos, Senate Print 4439A, an
act to amend the Social Services Law, in
relation to the charging of a fee.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Read
the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
November.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 42.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
373, by Senator Marchi, Senate Print 6484, an
1503
act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law, in
relation to providing for a distinctive
foreign organization license plate.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Read
the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 42.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
425, by Senator Rath -
SENATOR SKELOS: Lay it aside for
the day.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Lay it
aside for the day.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
432, by Senator Larkin, Senate Print 3035A, an
act to amend the General Municipal Law, in
relation to the operation of games of chance.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Read
the last section.
1504
THE SECRETARY: Section 6. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 41. Nays,
1. Senator Padavan recorded in the negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
465, by Senator Johnson, Senate Print 7003 -
SENATOR SKELOS: Lay it aside for
the day.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Lay it
aside for the day.
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: I'd like
unanimous consent to be recorded in the
negative on Calendar Number 238, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Without objection, you will be recorded in the
negative.
Senator Larkin.
SENATOR LARKIN: Mr. President, I
request permission to be recorded in the
1505
negative on Calendar Number 19, Senate Bill
3665A.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Without objection, you will be recorded in the
negative.
Senator Duane, Calendar Bill 238
did not pass. Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: (Nodding.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President,
if we could take up the controversial
calendar, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
54, by Senator Alesi, Senate Print 4124B, an
act to amend the Workers' Compensation Law, in
relation to liability for compensation.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Alesi.
SENATOR ALESI: I couldn't quite
hear. Was I asked for an explanation?
Thank you.
1506
Mr. President, this bill, as you
know, was introduced a few weeks back. And
what it does today is slightly different from
what it did a few weeks ago when it was passed
in this house. And that is it recognizes that
anybody who is injured on the job as a result
of an illegal activity would not be entitled
to workers' compensation.
Thank you very much, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Thank
you, Senator.
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
I want to thank Senator Alesi for that brief
but informative explanation. And if he would
yield for a question, Mr. President, I have a
few that I'd like to ask.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Alesi, do you yield?
SENATOR ALESI: Gladly.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, the
illegal conduct for which the employee is
convicted, either as a misdemeanor or felony,
1507
in your bill, as I understand it, would not
necessarily relate to the conduct that caused
the employee to be injured.
So in other words, it's not like an
employee that's speeding in an employer's car
that sustains an accident and then is
convicted for some speeding or some vehicular
offense, perhaps a car hitting another car,
and then that would deny the workers'
compensation.
In this case, it could be an
employee working in a bank that embezzles
money, where the ceiling of the bank falls on
the employee's head, and because of the
conviction for the embezzlement, the employee
would be denied workers' compensation. Do I
understand that right?
SENATOR ALESI: Through you, Mr.
President.
You understand that correctly. And
I might add that the amendment in this bill is
to some extent owed in part to your compelling
and impassioned debate when we originally
introduced it. And so that by making it
clearer for those who are opposed to it to
1508
understand, I am hopeful that you'll fully
embrace it this time around.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, I
have one more question.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: And based on
that answer, it will make me know whether or
not I can embrace you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator, do you yield to another question?
SENATOR ALESI: I yield, Mr.
President.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
my question is if the employer also breaks the
law in the same situation -- say you have a
situation where an employer is in violation of
OSHA requirements by exposing the employee to
toxic waste; say, mercury or something -- and
the employee sustains injury as a result of
the illegality of the employer's action, would
the employee still be denied workers'
compensation because at some other point the
employee was convicted of a criminal
violation?
1509
SENATOR ALESI: No.
SENATOR PATERSON: No, they would
not be denied?
SENATOR ALESI: No, they would
not be.
SENATOR PATERSON: So the two
criminal violations in a sense cancel each
other out?
SENATOR ALESI: Mr. President,
through you.
This deals specifically with the
illegal act of an employee. But it stands to
reason, although it's not visited in this
particular bill, that an employee who is
injured as a result of anybody else's
activities, whether illegal or legal, would
still be entitled to workers' comp. Provided
they were injured on the job.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
if I could ask a question one more time, I
just want to try to clarify it for Senator
Alesi.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
1510
Senator, do you yield?
SENATOR ALESI: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
I'm taking the circumstances that Senator
Alesi is setting forth in this bill, that the
employee is convicted of a felony, let's say.
However, the workers' compensation claim is
made as a result of illegal activity on the
part of the employer.
So now, since both the employer and
the employee are in violation of the law, does
the employer escape the coverage of workers'
compensation even though it would be barred
based on the passage of this legislation?
SENATOR ALESI: Through you, Mr.
President.
As I mentioned earlier, this
particular bill deals specifically with the
illegal acts of the employee.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you, Mr.
1511
President.
I think I have to give Senator
Alesi's bill a little more consideration.
Perhaps he will be as gracious and willing as
he was last year to revisit the legislation.
Specifically because I think that
we should not allow the employer, based on the
illegal acts of the employee, to escape
responsibility based on illegal acts that the
employer might trigger the workers'
compensation claim. Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Thank
you, Senator Paterson.
SENATOR ALESI: Mr. President, if
I just may comment on the bill, I'd like to
thank -
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: On the
bill, Senator Alesi.
SENATOR ALESI: I'd like to thank
Senator Paterson for his input a few weeks
ago. And we acceded to his wishes.
And I would like to -- in response
to the last point that he made, the injured
employee still has recourse against the
employer. So maybe the Senator would like to
1512
reconsider his vote.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Duane, do you wish to be recognized?
SENATOR DUANE: Yes, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you very
much. I was wondering if the sponsor would
yield to a couple of questions.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Alesi, do you yield?
SENATOR ALESI: I'd be glad to.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR DUANE: As I understand
this bill, it seems that it's okay to take
away workers' comp from an employee who may
have committed a crime. I'm wondering how the
sponsor feels about using workers' comp if you
are an employee who is the victim of a crime
at work.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator.
SENATOR ALESI: The bill, as I
mentioned to Senator Paterson, has little to
1513
do with my feelings and everything to do with
what's contained in this section. And that is
specifically dealing with someone who is
injured as a result of an illegal act on the
job, not receiving compensation.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you, Mr.
President.
However, I'm wondering whether or
not the sponsor believes that protection
should be given to the victim of a crime in
the workplace.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Alesi, do you yield?
SENATOR ALESI: I yield, Mr.
President.
And my response is that anyone who
is a victim of any crime, whether it's on the
workplace, in the workplace, off the
workplace, anywhere in the United States or
the state of New York, if they are a victim of
a crime, they should be compensated in some
form or another.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you, Mr.
1514
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Through workers'
compensation or -
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Do you
continue to yield, Senator Alesi?
SENATOR ALESI: I continue to
yield.
SENATOR DUANE: Does the sponsor
believe that should be through workers' comp,
or should there be another way of receiving
compensation through the justice system?
SENATOR ALESI: Through you, Mr.
President.
I believe that anyone who is
victimized in any way, shape, or form should
be compensated through whatever vehicle is
available through the law.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Thank
you, Senator.
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: And one final
question for the sponsor, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Do you
1515
continue to yield, Senator Alesi?
SENATOR ALESI: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR DUANE: Does the sponsor
believe that the victim of a rape at work
should have to go through workers' comp, or
should they be permitted to have other access
to justice?
SENATOR ALESI: Mr. President,
although the question is irrelevant to the
bill at hand, I would reiterate my response
earlier. And that is that anyone who is
victimized anywhere should be the recipient of
assistance through whatever means are
available through the law as it exists today.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you.
On the bill, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: On the
bill, Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you.
Tragically, what is being discussed
today is taking away workers' comp for someone
who may have committed a crime at work and not
1516
letting justice take its course, but rather
prohibiting a judge and a jury from looking at
facts and making a decision.
What we are not doing today, but
which we should be doing, is to make it so
that a worker who is victimized by crime at
work -- for instance, the most recent case of
a woman who was viciously raped and assaulted
at work, and yet she has no recourse but to go
through workers' comp. She's unable to get
redress in the court system. She's being
forced to take her claim through workers'
comp.
So I fail to see why it is that
today we're saying it's okay to take away
workers' comp from someone who may have
committed a crime, but we are forcing a worker
who was raped or viciously assaulted to go to
workers' comp in order to get any kind of help
or support for the terrible thing that
happened.
I would also say that tragically,
when workers' comp was first created,
apparently there were too many men putting the
law together. Because I believe very strongly
1517
that if men were raped at work or if men were
viciously assaulted at work that we would not
be forcing people only to go through workers'
comp, that we would allow people to have their
day in court.
And so in addition to taking a look
at this bill, which I'm not supportive of, I
do think what we should be looking at is
3955B, the Protection in the Workplace Act,
which would make it possible for a woman who
has been viciously assaulted and/or raped
because of negligence on the part of their
employer to get their day in court.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Thank
you, Senator.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Paterson, to explain his vote.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
1518
I think I have to take responsibility for the
fact that I did suggest some changes to this
legislation to Senator Alesi, and that the
changes that I suggested were -- that my
issues were heard by Senator Alesi.
And although I just thought of this
other issue involving the criminality of the
employer right here, I'm going to support this
legislation and pledge myself to work with the
Senator, because I think it will be an issue
to getting it passed in both houses. And
perhaps with a little further tweaking we can
get the Assembly to see the merit in not
allowing people who have committed crimes to
recover just on face value because they have
workers' compensation claims.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Paterson will be recognized in the
affirmative.
Announce the results.
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
the negative on Calendar Number 54 are
Senators Connor, Dollinger, Duane, Markowitz,
Montgomery, Onorato, Rosado, Sampson,
Schneiderman, Smith, and Stavisky.
1519
Ayes, 43. Nays, 11.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
71, by Senator Volker, Senate Print 3537A, an
act to amend the Criminal Procedure Law, in
relation to verdict sheets.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Volker.
SENATOR VOLKER: Mr. President,
this is a bill that I believe we passed last
year, if I remember right, that relates to
verdict sheets. And it relates to the
information submitted to a jury where there
are multiple counts and where the court
submits two or more counts charging offenses.
This would allow notations to be given to the
jurors as regards relevant information on the
verdict sheets.
This has been suggested by various
court cases. And it has been suggested in
fact by a committee of the bar as a way of
providing a better explanation of how the
various counts are set up when they're
submitted to the jury.
1520
In all honesty, I can see probably
where this would cut both ways. Some people
would argue that it might be of more advantage
probably to the defendant in many cases.
But it just seems to a lot of
people in the Office of Court Administration
that this presents a way of helping to
simplify a juror's decision in a court case.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Read
the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 53. Nays,
2. Senators Duane and Montgomery recorded in
the negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
238, by Senator Saland, Senate Print 2722, an
act to amend the Family Court Act, in relation
to evidence of child neglect.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Explanation.
1521
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Montgomery has requested an
explanation.
Senator Saland, an explanation has
been requested.
SENATOR SALAND: Thank you, Mr.
President.
Mr. President, this is a bill which
recognizes that under the current law, where a
person or respondent in an abuse or a neglect
proceeding may have indulged excessively in or
misused drugs or alcohol to the extent that
they no longer are considered to be in control
of their actions, that that person whereas
under the current law would be able to assert
as an affirmative defense voluntarily
participating in some type of a rehab program,
this bill would now say that that
consideration would occur at the time of
disposition.
The purpose being that far too
often in any number of cases, in order to stop
the proceeding which is underway to protect
the well-being of a child in a neglect or an
abuse proceeding, the allegation of having
1522
entered a drug or alcohol program effectively
tolls that proceeding.
The net result is that it's grossly
inefficient to have multiple applications back
and forth to the court before the child can be
properly taken care of and some arrangements
made to deal with the family.
What this bill would do would be to
say we would go through the hearing, we would
determine whether or not neglect or abuse had
occurred, and if the respondent had a drug or
alcohol problem which rose to the level of
making him or her unable to really control
their own actions, that person could then be
directed to a rehab program and participation
in that rehab program would be made part of
the dispositional order.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Thank
you, Senator.
Senator Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes. Mr.
President, I would like to ask if Senator
Saland would yield to a question or two.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Saland, do you yield?
1523
SENATOR SALAND: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Senator
Saland, as I understand it, this bill would
make it so that a judge would consider a
person's voluntary participation in a drug
treatment program only after they've been
charged with child neglect.
So how does this bill justify
criminalizing a person's behavior while
they're actively seeking treatment for the
drug problem?
SENATOR SALAND: I would very
sharply take issue with your reference to
criminalizing. If you look at the sections of
the law, we're talking the Family Court. This
is a civil proceeding, not a criminal
proceeding.
And what we're contending with here
is a child who is the subject of a petition
who is alleged to have been neglected or
abused, and that child's guardian or parent
comes in and says "I have a drug problem, and
1524
I'm checking myself into a rehab program."
Under the existing law, that
effectively terminates the ability of the
court to go further. And after that has
happened two, three, four, five, and six
times, there's been no ability or little
ability to assist the child who is the concern
of the application.
What we're saying is if that
respondent genuinely is as concerned as they
claim to be under the existing law, and not
merely concerned with using this affirmative
defense as a tool to avoid the consequences of
neglect and abuse, we put it at the end of the
disposition, at the end of the proceeding
which is the disposition, and we enable to the
court to make the determination where that
person -- and the language remains basically
the same: "The court shall consider whether
the respondent has enrolled in a recognized
rehabilitative program and is participating
therein in a regular and satisfactory manner."
I think it's extremely relevant
that they meet those qualifications and not
use that ability as a subterfuge, as they do
1525
under the existing law, to avoid being able to
contend with all the underlying issues that
are associated with a neglect or an abuse
proceeding.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, Mr.
President. If Senator Saland would continue
to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Saland, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR SALAND: Yes, Mr.
President.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: So, Senator
Saland, if, for instance, a parent is
abusing -- is a substance abuser of some sort
and that parent wants, genuinely wants to seek
treatment -- however, under this bill, even if
the person is seeking treatment, it's not an
affirmative defense any longer under your
bill; is that not correct?
In other words, the fact that I am
now seeking treatment for my sickness, you
will not consider -- the judge will not
consider that until after the treatment.
1526
SENATOR SALAND: No.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: So then what
happens to the child in that instance?
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Saland.
SENATOR SALAND: No, no, no, no,
no. Not after treatment. The consideration
of the treatment comes on the disposition -
there's a fact-finding hearing in all of these
cases which determines whether or not the
alleged neglect has occurred.
Under the existing law, a person
who alleges that he or she is in a recognized
drug or alcohol rehab program has the ability,
as an affirmative defense, to say, in effect,
"The reason why I am before the court in this
neglect proceeding is because of that
condition, and I'm doing something about it."
They establish that by their affirmative
defense.
They then effectively terminate the
proceeding, only, in far too many cases, to
come back on any number of occasions
thereafter continuing to allege the same
affirmative defense.
1527
If we are thinking in terms of a
family, if we are thinking in terms of the
child, whichever unit is the unit of concern
to you, to permit the intervention of any type
of therapy or counseling or assistance either
to that child or to that family unit, because
of the subterfuge of abusing this very easily
accessed affirmative defense, does nothing for
anybody.
Maybe in some small number of
cases -- perhaps I've overstated. Perhaps in
some small number of cases, there are people
who allege the affirmative defense and are
never heard from again. In a goodly number of
cases, in a significant number of cases, these
people repeat their appearances before the
Family Court, alleging the same type of
affirmative defense.
If your concern is making sure that
somebody in effect can dodge the
responsibility and leave their child at risk,
then the existing system works well.
If your concern is that that person
who is the alcohol or drug abuser gets into a
program which can be monitored by a court so
1528
that they will see it to a successful
conclusion and not use it in times of perhaps
self-imposed need to avoid the consequences of
the court, and if your concern is what does
this mean for the best interests of the child,
then to treat this on disposition in the
civil, not criminal, proceeding is certainly a
far more reasonable and both child- and
family-oriented way of dealing with what is a
rather difficult problem.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Thank
you, Senator.
Senator Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes.
Senator Saland, I'm just trying to figure -
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Saland, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR SALAND: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: At what
point does the disposition take place, and
under what circumstances? I mean, what in
fact happens between the charge of neglect and
1529
the disposition as you see it?
SENATOR SALAND: There has to
be -- the fact-finding hearing, which again is
a Family Court hearing, is one in which the
petitioner -- which will in all likelihood be,
in the City of New York, I would assume, HRA;
in the counties outside of the City of New
York, the Department of Social Services -
alleges that there has been an act of neglect
or abuse. They then have the burden of
establishing their case by a fair
preponderance of the evidence in court.
If they've managed to establish
that, then the court has to make a
disposition, an order of disposition
determining what is it do we do now that we
have found this neglect or abuse.
And what this bill says is where
there has been an allegation that a respondent
is in a drug program or an alcohol abuse
program, that the relevant time to consider
that is at the dispositional part of the
hearing where you can integrate services and,
instead of using the affirmative defense as a
shield to avoid the consequences of the
1530
intervention of services, accomplish more both
for that individual -- however begrudgingly
they're willing to participate, or perhaps
even voluntarily -- but particularly for the
child.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Thank you.
Thank you, Senator Saland.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Thank
you, Senator Saland.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Mr.
President, I think I certainly understand -
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Montgomery, on the bill?
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, on the
bill.
I understand Senator Saland's
intent, and I want to support that.
I'm afraid, however, that the way
that the legislation is set up, we may end up
with consequences that we had not intended.
And that is that we in fact discourage people
coming forward for treatment because they may,
in the disposition of their case, be charged
with a crime. Rather than at the onset, when
the charge is made, that the requirement for
1531
treatment be established at that point rather
than at the final stage, when it may be a
little late for intervention.
So I'm going to be voting no on the
legislation.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Thank
you, Senator Montgomery.
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you. Would
the sponsor yield to some questions, please?
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Saland, do you yield?
SENATOR SALAND: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you very
much, Mr. President.
The sponsor has alluded to cases of
moms repeatedly going to the Family Court to
stop the petition to remove their children.
I'm wondering if he could give more specific
facts on the number of those cases.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Saland.
1532
SENATOR SALAND: The information
is not information that's catalogued. It's
the information that's been provided to me and
to my staff, I would say, anecdotally.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Saland, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR SALAND: Yes, Mr.
President.
SENATOR DUANE: Is it not the
case that drug treatment programs which are
sanctioned by the courts actually have built
into their program ways to deal with relapse?
And is it not also true that a program that
has enrolled a mom who's at risk of losing her
child to neglect because of substance abuse
and other reasons would not be very careful to
not be even more -- what's the word I'm
looking for -- to be very, you know,
supervisory, to make sure that the mom did not
relapse, or, if she did relapse, to do
everything in their power to make sure that
the child would not be endangered?
Do we not have that kind of faith
1533
in drug treatment programs in the State of New
York?
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Saland.
SENATOR SALAND: Mr. President,
in the bill what we're talking about, by
definition, is a person that repeatedly
misuses a drug or drugs or alcoholic
beverages.
Certainly in my responses to
Senator Montgomery I indicated that there may
well be situations, any number of situations
in which somebody who voluntarily participates
in a rehab program gets the benefit of that
program and hopefully goes on to act in a
manner that's responsible and not one which
results in their being charged in any fashion
under Article 10 of the Family Act.
Notwithstanding that, we do know
that there are any number of circumstances in
which people have availed themselves of an
affirmative defense, basically as a shield to
avoid the consequences of dealing with the
issues that underlie a neglect proceeding, and
have effectively clothed themselves in alcohol
1534
or drug abuse as a means to avoid the outcome
of the proceeding.
All we are saying is all of those
souls who engage or participate in these
programs certainly will have the ability to
participate in those programs. And whether
they will succeed I think will be amplified by
doing it at the disposition stage, when there
will be a far greater degree of court control,
where it can't be used as a means to just
merely avoid whatever the consequences of the
court proceeding are.
It certainly is an approach which I
think is far more holistic, therapeutic, any
other term of that nature that you would like
to use, with respect to dealing with the child
and the issues surrounding why that family,
that parent, that guardian is in court with
that child.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you -
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Thank
you, Senator.
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Mr. President,
for a final question.
1535
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Saland, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR SALAND: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you.
But still, the whole justification
for this legislation, which will really change
the weight and the affirmative nature of
entering into a drug treatment program, is
actually based upon anecdotal evidence that
this may have happened in a few cases.
So we're changing an entire section
of the Family Law based on anecdotes and not
on any hard evidence.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Saland.
SENATOR SALAND: If that's a
question, I would merely say that for anybody
who is engaged in such a program, if their
desire is to successfully go through the
program, as distinguished from participating
in fits and spurts, if their desire is a
concern to do something that will benefit
1536
their child, if their desire is a concern to
not only enhance the welfare of their child or
the best interests of their child but to do
something about reunifying with their child,
then why in the world, under what
justification, would they object to a program
that the court could monitor and determine
whether they in fact were appropriately
participating, as distinguished from merely
using it as a subterfuge to avoid the
consequences of dealing with the charges that
have been levied against them in the court?
Anybody who in good faith either
has their own well-being, because of their
addiction or their need for rehab, or the
concerns for their child at heart could not
possibly justify objecting to this change in
the law.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Thank
you, Senator Saland.
SENATOR DUANE: On the bill, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Duane, on the bill.
SENATOR DUANE: I actually am
1537
going to justify being opposed to this change
in the law.
I believe that what we need to be
doing is to make sure and continue to make
sure that regular and voluntary participation
in a drug and/or alcohol rehabilitation
program is an affirmative defense in a child
neglect proceeding. I think that we have to
keep that as an affirmative defense.
I've not been compelled by the
evidence that we should be changing that. I
think that's a very, very dangerous thing to
do, to make involvement in a drug treatment
program a neutral thing for a judge or a court
to look at.
I also believe that drug
rehabilitation programs -- whether they are
freestanding, whether they are
hospital-based -- when they're licensed by the
State of New York, when they're sometimes even
funded by members of the Legislature, are
doing a good job, do have the best interests
of children at heart, would not frivolously
threaten the life or the well-being of a
child. There would be no rational reason for
1538
doing that.
And yet we are throwing all that
away based on evidence which, as I say, has
not been shown at all to us that there may be
a parent who is using that they're going into
a drug treatment program as a way to save
their child.
I actually believe that most moms
will do everything they can to keep custody of
their children. That's true, and I would
expect no less of them. And in fact I even
think that's a good thing in many cases,
though sometimes a mom will know that they're
too overwhelmed or unable for whatever
reason -- drug abuse or whatever -- to keep
their child.
But I also believe that they do
that, because those moms also will do what's
in the best interests of their children,
including giving them up if that's what they
have to do to provide the best possible life
for their child.
But I absolutely believe that a mom
or a parent who voluntarily goes into a drug
treatment program -- even if it doesn't take
1539
the first time, even if it takes a couple of
times to go through a drug rehab program -
absolutely should be entitled to have that
count in their favor.
And in fact, instead of doing this
kind of punitive legislation, which takes away
the affirmativeness of going into a drug rehab
program, maybe what we should be looking at
are more drug rehab programs where a mom could
actually be with her children. Because now
there's a tremendous lack of beds available
for moms who are addicted to alcohol or drugs
to be able to actually live in a community
with their family while they're undergoing
treatment.
And, in fact, the isolation of
being away from one's family is one of the
things that makes it difficult for some
women -- not all women, but for some women to
recover. Some do have to be removed from the
stresses of what's happening in their home.
But for others, the pain of not being able to
be near or take care of their children in a
monitored atmosphere is a very, very bad and
negative thing.
1540
But the bottom line here is I don't
think we should be doing anything in this
legislative body to ever make it that
voluntary participation in a drug or alcohol
rehabilitation setting is anything but a
positive thing. It's not -- it certainly
shouldn't be something which risks further
criminalization. And it's not neutral to go
into a drug rehabilitation program. It is a
positive step, and the law should recognize it
as such.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Thank
you, Senator Duane.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This
act shall take effect in 120 days.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
the negative on Calendar Number 238 are
Senators Duane, Montgomery, and Paterson.
Ayes, 52. Nays, 3.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
1541
bill is passed.
Senator Hoffmann.
SENATOR HOFFMANN: I was out of
the chamber when Calendar 19 was taken up, Mr.
President. I would request unanimous consent
to be recorded in the negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Without objection, Senator Hoffmann, you will
be so recorded in the negative on Calendar
Number 19.
Senator Seward.
SENATOR SEWARD: Mr. President,
likewise, I was at a meeting when Calendar
Number 19 passed earlier today, and I would
ask unanimous consent to be recorded in the
negative on Calendar Number 19.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Without objection, you are recorded in the
negative.
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Mr.
President, could I have unanimous consent to
be recorded in the negative on Calendar Number
432.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
1542
Without objection, you will be recorded in the
negative.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, Mr.
President. I would like unanimous consent to
be recorded in the negative on Calendar Number
241.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Without objection, Senator Montgomery will be
recorded in the negative.
Senator Skelos, that completes -
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President,
is there any housekeeping at the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: -- the
reading of the controversial calendar.
There is no housekeeping.
Senator Hevesi.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you, Mr.
President. I believe there's a motion to
discharge at the desk. I'd like to call it
up, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
1543
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Senate Bill
Number 4401A, by Senator Hevesi, an act to
amend the Education Law, in relation to
adjustment of state aid for prior school
years.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Hevesi.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you, Mr.
President.
The motion to discharge that's
before us, Senate Print 4401, is a piece of
legislation that addresses in some small
fashion the much more global and widespread
problem of prior-year school aid claims that
the Senate Democratic Conference and myself
have been discussing for some time now.
And this is only a partial remedy,
but it's important that we address this
problem even in the smallest scope possible,
in the name of equity, particularly in a
fiscal climate where if no action comes now on
this issue, then there really is just never
going to be a chance or an opportunity where
we're truly going to see a commitment on the
1544
part of the state to remedy this problem.
So just a quick refresher for
everyone, and to remind everyone in this body
that this is an issue that not only affects
legislators from New York City, but
legislators in almost every school district in
the entire state of New York that are owed
millions of dollars -- and it really is
millions -- in prior-year school aid claims.
But the biggest problem, the most
acute problem, focuses on the City of New
York, which, because of a unique set of
circumstances, has totaled up roughly $600 to
$800 million, depending on how you calculate
it, in claims right now that are before the
state, pending before the state, in legitimate
school aid claims that have never been paid.
And, because of the backlog, there are claims
which have not been submitted totaling
additional hundreds of millions of dollars.
And this is money that not just New
York City schoolkids, but schoolkids in every
other district that is owed money under this
prior-year school aid claim problem -- they
are being cheated, absolutely cheated.
1545
In the case of New York City, just
to show you why this problem has existed,
because there have been some who have
suggested -- some of my colleagues have
suggested that it might have been the fault of
the City of New York to have racked up this
debt, when in fact it was about $400 million
in building aid claims that are due the City
of New York because the state created the
School Construction Authority in 1988 but
didn't create authorizing legislation which
would have facilitated payment for building
aid claims until 1995. And in that time,
$400 million or so became owed to the City of
New York.
In addition, high-cost aid of about
$200 million to New York City was owed, and
the state never passed authorizing legislation
to facilitate the allocation of those
resources.
And finally, because of retroactive
tax certiorari claims, which had the impact of
reducing property taxes in New York City,
which then kicked in the wealth factor
component of state law, thereby increasing the
1546
money owed to New York City -
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Excuse
me, Senator.
Could we have a little order in the
chamber, please.
Thank you, Senator.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you.
-- because of that, several hundred
million additional dollars were owed to New
York City.
So that's why the problem exists,
and it exists with other school districts
throughout the state for varying reasons.
And I'll remind everybody that this
legislative body has in the past -- certainly
did last session -- passed legislation which
specifically reimbursed school districts other
than the City of New York for school aid that
was owed based on claims which had been
submitted not in the current fiscal year but
in previous fiscal years. So there is a
commitment to addressing this, but not in an
equitable fashion.
So here's the problem, and here's
one of the remedies that we're going to ask
1547
you to vote on today. And I believe that this
is a really reasonable approach. Because
there is a fundamental inequity in the law
which says that whatever amount of money you
allocate for prior-year school aid claims,
that no school district can receive more than
40 percent of that allocation in any one year,
irrespective of any other consideration. So
if there's $10 million allocated for
prior-year school aid claims, regardless of
who's owed what, nobody gets more than
$4 million, 40 percent of the 10 million.
That is New York State Education Law, Section
3602.
The motion to discharge that's
before us right now and that everyone is going
to have to cast a vote on would simply
eliminate that provision. And there is really
no compelling reason why that provision should
be in the law right now when you look at the
following situation. The situation exists
that New York City is owed upwards of
90 percent, 90 percent of all of the
outstanding claims, yet is capped at
40 percent of whatever meager -- I'll make a
1548
commentary here -- meager allocations the
state has deemed necessary to provide in the
past few years.
So that's what this motion to
discharge would do. But I'd like to point out
before I conclude here that this would not
have a terribly negative impact on other
school districts throughout the state that are
also owed money, and it's a reason why we need
to address this problem in the long term.
This is not a problem that is
exclusive to New York City. There are
currently $111 million in outstanding claims
for school districts outside the City of New
York. And according to the Governor's
Executive Budget, only about 25 percent of
those outstanding claims would be paid if the
Governor's Executive Budget passed as he has
presented it to the Legislature.
So here's the situation as it
exists right now. Last year the Governor
recommended $40 million for the state,
statewide, to repay prior-year school aid
claims. Because of the 40 percent cap,
New York City got 16 percent. We then went
1549
back in and added $24.3 million for the city,
exclusively for the city, which brought the
total amount that the city would get up to
about 58 percent -- more than the 40, because
we created a special pot of money for it.
The problem is that right now,
here's the situation in terms of what is owed.
New York City has 73 percent of the approved
claims that have been approved by the State
Education Department: $298 million out of 410
statewide, 73 percent. But we would only get
58 percent under the proposal. We have
82 percent of all the submitted claims, those
not yet approved. And we have over 90 percent
of all of the claims outstanding, those not
even yet submitted.
So in addition to the amendment
that we offered up last week as an amendment
to the Senate's one-house resolution, which
would have at least brought us up to the level
of funding that the state provided last year
in recognition of prior-year school aid
claims -- in addition to that, which doesn't
even address the more global problem that we
will not repay these claims for about 50
1550
years, at the going rate -- the motion to
discharge before us, Mr. President, simply
says if some municipality is owed 70 or
80 percent of those claims, you don't say
"We're not going to pay you what you're owed
in proportion to the amount of money that's
allocated."
What we do want to have happen is
if you have the most amount in claims, you get
the most amount of money. If you have the
oldest claims that have been submitted, you
get first dibs on the claim money.
And not to sound bitter or sore
here, but such partisanship exists whereby
allegations of prior-year school aid claims in
the last couple of years did not go
specifically to pay the oldest claims to the
City of New York, they went to pay claims for
the school year '95-'96, because the Pataki
administration felt "We're not responsible for
what was done in 1990, '91, and '92, we're
only paying for claims since we've been in the
Governor's mansion."
You can't do that. It's absolutely
wrong to do that. And the reason why it's
1551
wrong to do that is New York City has to write
off 10-year-old claims for accounting
purposes. So last year the kids in the City
of New York almost lost $40 million, which
would have blown a huge hole in the Board of
Education's budget. Because of our advocacy,
our vigilancy on this issue, we got -- and I
applaud the Majority for their acquiescence on
this issue, and I'm being sincere when I say
that. I'm not being sarcastic. I really
applaud the Majority for sparing us that
crisis at a time when we have such pressing
problems in New York City for doing that.
But at the same time, this issue
has to be addressed. You cannot continue to
only pay the minimum payment due on your
credit card debt. That's exactly what we're
doing here.
So, Mr. President, I would urge all
of my colleagues, both sides of the aisle, to
support this motion to discharge on this
Senate bill, which is absolutely fair and
equitable. And if anybody doesn't think it's
fair and equitable, I would sincerely urge
them to rise and tell me and the rest of the
1552
members of this house why it's not, why you
wouldn't remove this cap. This cap is
absolutely unfair.
And so this legislation is
necessary. I urge everybody to support it.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Thank
you, Senator Hevesi.
Senator Lachman.
SENATOR LACHMAN: It is fair and
equitable, Senator Hevesi. I strongly commend
and support your motion to discharge, this on
education equity, as I did yesterday on your
very strong proposal to discharge a bill on
campaign finance reform.
Very briefly, within 30 seconds, if
we can't do this in a time of plenty, when are
we going to do it? We won't do it in a time
of need. Now is the time to discharge this
bill.
Furthermore, even though Senator
Hevesi has said the emphasis is on New York
City, it does impact upon the rest of the
state. Who knows for whom the bell shall toll
tomorrow? There might be people from Nassau,
Suffolk, upstate New York who have a greater
1553
problem than New York City has in a few years,
and the shoe will be on the other foot.
I strongly recommend and commend my
colleague in discharging this bill.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Thank
you, Senator Lachman.
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Mr. President. I'll be very brief.
I also commend Senator Hevesi for
his diligence in bringing this to the floor.
This is very simple. This is a
failure-to-fund mandate. Not an unfunded
mandate, but a failure to fund. This is where
the State of New York -- and I've been told on
the floor of this chamber that we ought to act
like a business. Government ought to act more
like a business, we should do things the way
the free-market system does.
What possible free-market system
works with people not paying their bills? We
owe the City of New York 400 million, 200
million, and we're going to put our cap on
what we're going to pay them for bills that we
1554
owe them?
Now, I get this lecture all the
time, that I'm one of those Democrats who's
out of touch with the free-market system.
Well, I would just challenge everybody in this
chamber -- though there aren't many people.
But I would just challenge everyone, come to
the floor and let's debate the issue of
whether we should pay our bills.
And I think now is the time to do
it. This is the time to pay this bill. This
is a failure-to-fund mandate. Let's pay our
bills, let's act responsibly. Let's pay the
City of New York, let's pay the City of
Rochester, let's pay everybody who has back
claims. It's the right, free-market thing to
do.
I commend Senator Hevesi for
bringing it to the floor.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Thank
you, Senator Dollinger.
All in favor of accepting the
motion to discharge signify by saying aye.
SENATOR PATERSON: Party vote in
the affirmative.
1555
SENATOR SKELOS: Party vote in
the negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Party
vote in the negative, party vote in the
affirmative.
The Secretary will call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 21. Nays,
36. Party vote.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Is there any
housekeeping at the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: No,
there's no housekeeping. There's no further
business.
SENATOR SKELOS: There will be an
immediate meeting of the Majority in the
Majority Conference Room.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: There
will be an immediate meeting of the Majority
in the Majority Conference Room.
SENATOR SKELOS: And there being
no further business to come before the Senate,
I move we adjourn until Wednesday, March 22nd,
1556
at 11:00 a.m.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: So
ordered.
(Whereupon, at 4:07 p.m., the
Senate adjourned.)