Regular Session - March 27, 2000
1611
NEW YORK STATE SENATE
THE STENOGRAPHIC RECORD
ALBANY, NEW YORK
March 27, 2000
3:27 p.m.
REGULAR SESSION
LT. GOVERNOR MARY O. DONOHUE, President
STEVEN M. BOGGESS, Secretary
1612
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: With us today to
give the invocation is the Reverend Peter G.
Young, from Blessed Sacrament Church in
Bolton Landing, New York.
REVEREND YOUNG: Let us pray.
Dear God, as today's rainy clouds
gather, we know that they will bring the
beauty of blooming flowers that will soon
enhance the beauty of our state. We see in
Your gift the power of nature, and we thank
You for Your continued guidance to all of Your
creations.
As we assemble in Your name, it's
with an attitude of gratitude for Your
blessings on all of our Empire State citizens
and the richness of our resources.
But most of all, we ask Your
1613
blessing on our Senators, to advocate with
wisdom laws that will enhance Your
environmental creations and the lives of all
of our New York State citizens.
In Your name, now and forever,
amen.
THE PRESIDENT: Reading of the
Journal.
THE SECRETARY: In Senate,
Friday, March 24th, the Senate met pursuant to
adjournment. The Journal of Thursday,
March 23rd, was read and approved. On motion,
Senate adjourned.
THE PRESIDENT: Without
objection, the Journal stands approved as
read.
Presentation of petitions.
Messages from the Assembly.
Messages from the Governor.
Reports of standing committees.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Seward,
from the Committee on Insurance, reports:
Senate Print 6545A, by Senator
Velella, an act to amend the Insurance Law;
1614
6643A, by Senator Seward, an act to
amend the Insurance Law;
6734, by Senator Seward, an act to
amend the Insurance Law;
And 7064, by Senator Seward, an act
to amend the Insurance Law.
Senator Bonacic, from the Committee
on Housing, Construction and Community
Development, reports:
Senate Print 1455, by Senator
Volker, an act to amend the Private Housing
Finance Law;
2069, by Senator Volker, an act to
amend the Public Housing Law;
4440, by Senator Leibell, an act to
amend the Private Housing Finance Law;
5358, by Senator Saland, an act to
amend the Executive Law;
5435, by Senator Farley, an act to
amend the Private Housing Finance Law;
And 7106, by Senator Bonacic, an
act authorizing certain housing authorities to
sell or lease.
All bills ordered direct to third
reading.
1615
THE PRESIDENT: Without
objection, all bills reported direct to third
reading.
Reports of select committees.
Communications and reports from
state officers.
Motions and resolutions.
Senator Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Thank you,
Madam President.
On behalf of myself, I move the
following bills be discharged from their
respective committees and be recommitted with
instructions to strike the enacting clause:
Senate Numbers 829, 839, 3216, 4429, and 4430.
THE PRESIDENT: So ordered,
Senator.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: On behalf of
Senator Lack, I move that the following bill
be discharged from its respective committee
and be recommitted with instructions to strike
the enacting clause. And that is Senate Print
Number 2837.
THE PRESIDENT: So ordered.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: And on
1616
behalf of Senator Wright, I move that the
following bills be discharged from their
respective committees and be recommitted with
instructions to strike the enacting clause.
And they are Senate Print Numbers 2591, 4084,
and 5575.
THE PRESIDENT: So ordered.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Thank you,
Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Farley.
SENATOR FARLEY: Thank you, Madam
President.
On behalf of Senator Rath, on page
14 I offer the following amendments to
Calendar Number 267, Senate Print 4206A, and I
ask that that bill retain its place on the
Third Reading Calendar.
THE PRESIDENT: The amendment is
received, and the bill will retain its place
on the Third Reading Calendar.
SENATOR FARLEY: On behalf of
Senator DeFrancisco, Madam President, on page
17 I offer the following amendments to
Calendar Number 318, Senate Print 6469, and I
ask that that bill retain its place.
1617
THE PRESIDENT: The amendment is
received, and the bill will retain its place
on the Third Reading Calendar.
SENATOR FARLEY: On behalf of
Senator Rath, Madam President, on page 24 I
offer the following amendments to Calendar
Number 425, Senate Print 5606, and I ask that
that bill retain its place on the Third
Reading Calendar.
THE PRESIDENT: The amendment is
received, Senator, and the bill will retain
its place on the Third Reading Calendar.
Senator Bonacic.
SENATOR BONACIC: Thank you,
Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: You're welcome.
SENATOR BONACIC: I would like to
place a sponsor's star on Calendar Number 229,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill will be
starred, Senator.
SENATOR BONACIC: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: You're welcome.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
1618
at this time may we please have the
noncontroversial calendar read.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
162, by Senator Spano, Senate Print 3315, an
act to amend the Workers' Compensation Law, in
relation to premium payment plans.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 52.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
265, by Senator Larkin, Senate Print 173, an
act to amend the Real Property Tax Law, in
relation to school districts.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
1619
January.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 52.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
276, by Senator Libous, Senate Print 2097, an
act to amend the Education Law, in relation to
providing for the certification of podiatrists
as acupuncturists.
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, 51. Nays,
1. Senator Paterson recorded in the negative.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
353, by Senator DeFrancisco, Senate Print
4417, an act to amend the Parks, Recreation
and Historic Preservation Law, in relation to
1620
the penalty for violations of such law.
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, 52.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
355, by Senator Maziarz, Senate Print 6318, an
act to amend the Social Services Law, in
relation to the denial of public assistance.
SENATOR DUANE: Lay it aside,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
359, by Senator Kuhl, Senate Print 2728, an
act to amend the Agriculture and Markets Law
and the Vehicle and Traffic Law, in relation
to exempting.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
1621
THE SECRETARY: Section 3 -
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
378, by Senator Morahan, Senate Print -
SENATOR SKELOS: Lay it aside for
the day, please.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Lay it aside
for the day.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside for the day, Senators.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
410, by Senator Johnson, Senate Print 1962B -
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
431, by Senator Trunzo, Senate Print 4247, an
act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law, in
relation to authorized emergency vehicles.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
1622
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 52 -
excuse me. Ayes, 51. Nays, 1. Senator
Mendez recorded in the negative.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
436, by Senator Skelos, Senate Print 969, an
act to amend the Correction Law and the County
Law, in relation to maintenance of prisoners.
SENATOR DUANE: Lay the bill
aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
453, by Senator Meier, Senate Print 5852A, an
act to amend the Domestic Relations Law, in
relation to notification.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect January 1.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
1623
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 52.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
Senator Mendez, why do you rise?
SENATOR MENDEZ: Yes, Madam
President. I didn't have my glasses on, and I
voted no on Calendar Number 431. I meant to
vote yes on that one, but I meant to vote no
on 436.
THE PRESIDENT: 436 has been laid
aside, Senator.
SENATOR MENDEZ: Very good.
Change my vote on 431, please.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Without
objection, you will be recorded in the
affirmative on Calendar Number 431.
SENATOR MENDEZ: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
454, by Senator LaValle, Senate Print 2760 -
SENATOR SKELOS: Lay it aside for
the day, please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
1624
aside for the day.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
458, by Senator Bonacic, Senate Print 5488, an
act to enable the County of Ulster to acquire,
develop and dispose.
THE PRESIDENT: There is a home
rule message at the desk.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 8. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 52.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
459, by Senator Morahan, Senate Print -
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
467, by Senator Bonacic, Senate Print 4499, an
act to amend the General Business Law, in
relation to advertising by membership.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
1625
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect in 180 days.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 52.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
Senator Skelos, that completes the
reading of the noncontroversial calendar.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
if we could take up the controversial
calendar.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
355, by Senator Maziarz, Senate Print 6318, an
act to amend the Social Services Law, in
relation to the denial of public assistance.
SENATOR DUANE: Explanation,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Maziarz,
an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Thank you very
much, Madam President.
1626
Madam President, Senate Bill 6318
expands upon the existing law to disqualify
individuals from receiving public assistance
who are fleeing from prosecution, custody, or
conviction of a felony or a misdemeanor
charge. Currently, persons fleeing from a
felony charge, a violation of parole or
probation, are disqualified from receiving
public assistance.
This bill also expands upon the
permitted exception to confidentiality of
records related to a person fleeing a crime,
to allow the Social Services district to share
any information relating to such person that
could assist in his or her apprehension.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Would the sponsor
yield to some questions?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Maziarz,
would you yield to a few questions?
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Absolutely,
Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead, Senator
Duane.
1627
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you very
much.
SENATOR MAZIARZ: You're welcome,
Senator.
SENATOR DUANE: I'm wondering if
there's a definition in the legislation or if
you could tell me what the definition would be
or where I would find it on "any information
necessary."
SENATOR MAZIARZ: The definition
of "any information necessary"? The
definition of "any information necessary"
would be any information that the Department
of Social Services has on the applicant.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you,
Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Duane, do
you have an additional question?
SENATOR DUANE: Any information
at all?
SENATOR MAZIARZ: That the
Department of Social Services may have on the
particular applicant or recipient of social
services, that would assist the law
enforcement agency in the apprehension.
1628
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you.
Madam President, if the sponsor
would continue to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Maziarz,
do you -
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Yes. Yes,
Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead, Senator
Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Why is this
legislation only focused on people who receive
public assistance? Why not other members of
the public?
SENATOR MAZIARZ: I think what
I'm attempting to do, Senator Duane, is to
interface law enforcement with the Department
of Social Services, where individuals may come
to -- I would certainly be willing to expand
it, but I thought this might be a good place
to start.
Some agencies of government -- most
agencies of government I think already
interface their information with law
enforcement agencies. Social Services,
because of some certain prohibitions in state
1629
law, cannot do that. And that's what I'm
attempting to do, Senator.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Maziarz,
will you continue to yield?
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Absolutely,
Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead, Senator
Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: So the sponsor is
saying that if a person is receiving workers'
compensation, he would shut that off if a
person misses a court date?
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Absolutely not.
I don't know where you would get that question
from.
SENATOR DUANE: Well, through
you, Madam President, the sponsor said he was
most willing to shut off -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Duane, do
you have an additional question?
SENATOR DUANE: Yes, Madam
President.
1630
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Maziarz,
do you continue to yield?
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Yes, I do,
Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead, Senator
Duane, if you have a question.
SENATOR DUANE: I believe the
sponsor indicated that he would be willing to
make this that people that get public benefits
in general, that those agencies that provide
those benefits could start interfacing with
the criminal justice system.
So, for instance, people who
receive workers' comp, why are they not
then -- could we not consider them to be fair
game the same way that we are using people
that get food stamps or Medicaid?
SENATOR MAZIARZ: I'm not aware
of any prohibition on law enforcement going to
the workers' comp system and getting that
information now. I'm not aware of it,
Senator. There may be.
I am aware of this prohibition
right now with the departments of Social
Services.
1631
SENATOR DUANE: Through you,
Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Maziarz,
will you continue to yield?
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Yes, Madam
President.
SENATOR DUANE: So as I
understand it, the sponsor is saying that
there's just this one little opening in the
law that has let people receiving public
assistance get out of the grasp of people in
law enforcement.
As opposed to all the people law
enforcement have been able to go after who are
receiving workers' comp or Social Security or
unemployment or lottery winners, they're all
people that law enforcement can go and cut off
their benefits?
SENATOR MAZIARZ: I don't know
whether the lottery or whether workers' comp
can do that.
I am aware that the Department of
Social Services cannot cooperate with law
enforcement in giving them certain
information.
1632
SENATOR DUANE: Through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor will continue
to yield.
SENATOR MAZIARZ: But it sounds
like pretty good legislation, Senator Duane.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead, Senator
Duane.
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Yes, I will
yield. I was finishing my last answer, and
you started to ask the next question.
THE PRESIDENT: And you have the
floor, Senator Maziarz, to finish your
statement.
SENATOR MAZIARZ: I am finished,
Madam President, thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: And you do
continue to yield?
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Yes, I do,
Madam President. Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Duane, do
you have an additional question? You may
proceed.
SENATOR DUANE: Well, it sounded
to me as if the sponsor -- and maybe I'm
mistaken about this. But it sounded as if he
1633
had discovered something in our state's laws
that was preventing, in this one instance,
people who receive public assistance from
interfacing with the criminal justice system.
And just as an aside, I'm opposed
to this anyway. But I am not aware that any
other agency does it. It sounds to me that,
quite contrary to what was being indicated,
this isn't just a glitch of some sort in the
policy of public assistance. But in fact,
most citizens are protected from having this
kind of intrusive thing happen in their lives.
So that's what I'm trying to
clarify. And maybe the sponsor would sort of
clarify that once and for all before I
continue with some other difficulties I have
with this legislation in my questioning.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Duane,
was there a question there?
SENATOR DUANE: Well, was it the
sponsor's intent just to point up the
shortfall of people receiving public
assistance not having enough interfacing with
the criminal justice system? Or is the
sponsor not really aware what other agencies
1634
like workers' comp, unemployment, veterans,
Social Security, lottery winnings are having
with the criminal justice system? Or is this
just singling out people who receive public
assistance?
SENATOR MAZIARZ: What the
sponsor is attempting to do, Senator, is to
allow the local departments of Social Services
to share information -- that they are
currently prohibited from doing -- with law
enforcement individuals, to apprehend people
who have committed crimes.
SENATOR DUANE: Okay. Through
you, Madam President.
Is the sponsor aware whether or not
the workers' comp board is able to get this
information?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Maziarz,
do you yield for an additional question?
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Yes, I do.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead, Senator
Duane, with a question.
SENATOR DUANE: Is the sponsor
aware about whether or not the workers' comp
board, or I'll give you the -- unemployment,
1635
Social Security, lottery winners, or
veterans -
SENATOR MAZIARZ: No, I am not
aware of what -- if there are any prohibitions
or what their particular policies are,
Senator.
SENATOR DUANE: Okay, thank you.
Madam -
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Or any of the
agencies that you read, other than the
Department of Social Services.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you.
Madam President, if the sponsor
would continue to yield.
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead, Senator
Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: I'm wondering
what in the legislation would protect the
confidentiality of information such as a
person's HIV status or their psychiatric
diagnosis or what their disability is.
SENATOR MAZIARZ: I think any -
through you, Madam President -- any
1636
information that would be helpful to law
enforcement agencies would be able to be
released.
Now, I don't know if it would be,
quite frankly, assisting law enforcement to
know a person's HIV status or -- I didn't
catch -- what was the other thing you
mentioned, Senator?
SENATOR DUANE: Psychiatric
diagnosis, disability.
SENATOR MAZIARZ: That may be
helpful to law enforcement personnel to know
that.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead, Senator
Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Even if releasing
that information breaks other state laws, you
would think it's okay?
SENATOR MAZIARZ: You mean -- I'm
sorry, you're going to have to clarify that,
1637
Senator.
SENATOR DUANE: Well, releasing
someone's HIV status or their -
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Then I would
say that it could not be, no.
SENATOR DUANE: So then they -
then -- through you, Madam President. Then
this information -- if the sponsor will
continue to yield.
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Yes, Madam
President.
SENATOR DUANE: I don't want to,
you know, do anything wrong.
Then that is information which the
sponsor says cannot be released. And I'm
wondering where it is in the legislation where
it says that they can't release that
information.
SENATOR MAZIARZ: It doesn't say
that, Senator.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you,
Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Maziarz,
do you continue to yield?
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Yes, I do.
1638
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead, Senator
Duane, with a question.
SENATOR DUANE: Actually, I think
I'll end there and just speak on the bill,
Madam President, if I may.
THE PRESIDENT: On the bill,
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you.
I mean, I think I understand what
the point of this legislation is, which is to
be more punitive towards people who receive
public assistance than other people in the
general population. And I just completely and
totally do not approve of that.
Though it would start with people
on public assistance, I think that begins a
slippery slope, and soon we would be using the
public records of people on worker's comp -
or I should say the private records of people
on workers' comp or who are receiving Social
Security or older people who are receiving
Social Security, people who are on
unemployment benefits, or veterans.
I think that this is a terrible,
terrible slippery slope, that we're just
1639
beginning by being particularly punitive
towards people who are on public assistance.
I also want to make the point that
this legislation is just incredibly flawed in
that it disregards other laws which protect
confidentiality of information about citizens.
I think those of us in public life should be
particularly sensitive to how it is that
things are known about our personal lives and
what happens in terms of our physical and
mental health. And to allow that to be opened
up because someone may miss a court
appointment because they have a doctor's
appointment or a child is sick or the
babysitter calls in is just outrageous.
I think I would be opposed to this
legislation no matter what, because it only
goes after people on public assistance. But I
really think the legislation needs to be
recrafted so that a person's privacy is always
protected. That's one of the most important
things we can do in this Legislature.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
1640
President, if Senator Maziarz would yield for
a couple of questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, would
you yield for a few questions?
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Surely, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead,
Senator.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, I
have a slightly different focus in my
questioning than Senator Duane, although I
agree with everything that he said.
The distinction in this legislation
compared to legislation that we've passed
rests in the delineation between the charge of
felony and the charge of misdemeanor.
Obviously a felony is a very serious charge.
It raises the specter of information that we
would want to get about a perpetrator. And
certainly there's public policy for the
immediate apprehension of perpetrators for
felonies, because they may be continuing to
commit them. They're usually very dangerous
crimes.
Misdemeanors are often charges such
1641
as public loitering, Family Court actions,
political protests, a fight in a bar, or
something like that. And though this is -
there is a need for these individuals to face
justice, I think that the original drafters of
the legislation had a reason for drawing a
distinction between a misdemeanor and a
felony.
Senator Maziarz -- through you,
Madam President -- would you really be
interested in taking public assistance away
from an individual who may have a misdemeanor
outstanding against him or her, with the full
understanding that you may be driving someone
deeper into poverty and perhaps subjecting
their family members to loss of revenues that
might be vital to their survival?
SENATOR MAZIARZ: No, Senator.
But I would want to weigh that and
I would like to think that law enforcement
would weigh the -- let's say, the number of
misdemeanor convictions. You know, if it's a
person who has several misdemeanors pending
against them, that that -- it's important that
that person should be apprehended and brought
1642
before the bar of justice and clear up their
criminal justice problems.
SENATOR PATERSON: Well, Madam
President, if Senator Maziarz would continue
to yield.
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Surely, Madam
President.
SENATOR PATERSON: You see, this
is a problem I have with a lot of pieces of
legislation around here. And it's that the
sponsor is very focused on what in this case
Senator Maziarz is trying to allow.
And I think what Senator Maziarz is
saying is quite reasonable, and I think
anybody in this room would find it to be
reasonable. Which is that he wants to open
the door in case you have a situation where
you might have perpetual numbers of
misdemeanors, an individual who is
persistently breaking the law and collecting
social services at the same time. And Senator
Maziarz would like to provide for greater
latitude to investigate the individual.
However, by opening the door, the
result is that it then becomes the opportunity
1643
and really within the purview of the law
enforcement entity to decide who is going to
be perhaps victimized by this particular
statute. And those who have not had the
experience and are a lot less sensitive than
Senator Maziarz might determine at a later
date that they just want to harass
individuals, going to different places that
they might have been known to frequent in
order to try to find them. And those places
might be confidential.
It might be a person who, as a
result of a Family Court misdemeanor action,
has been forced to undergo counseling. And
now this is exposed by the fact that law
enforcement can come and look to see the
counselor, to look for the individual.
So this kind of goes back to
Senator Duane's question, Senator Maziarz,
which is how far do we want to go opening up
records that would not normally be opened
unless this type of a claim were valid?
SENATOR MAZIARZ: I don't know -
were you finished, Senator Paterson?
SENATOR PATERSON: Yes, sir.
1644
SENATOR MAZIARZ: I don't know,
Senator Paterson, if I would agree with your
term "victimized." I think I would leave it
to the professional judgment of law
enforcement to go out there and to apprehend
perpetrators of crimes.
And I think you have to judge that
on an individual basis, Senator.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you,
Madam President. On the bill.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson,
on the bill. Go ahead.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, I don't think that a person who is
wanted for a felony can in any way be
considered to be a victim. But a person who
has committed a misdemeanor certainly can be,
because misdemeanors are those types of acts
that quite often may have been unintentional
at the time they are committed. Nonetheless,
they are against the law, and nonetheless,
they have penalties.
But these types of situations,
which many people who collect social services
are often guilty of -- because they are often
1645
homeless, they are often people who can be
caught for public loitering or different types
of public indecency, different types of
legislation that we've debated even on the
floor of this house -- that they would be put
further in need or in further difficulty by an
investigation into every aspect of their
life -- which Senator Duane, I think,
certainly portrayed for us rather
poignantly -- in my opinion is going beyond
what would really be a case-by-case-basis
scenario that Senator Maziarz describes.
While I think that that's the
intention of the legislation, there's nothing
in the legislation that prohibits it from
becoming something that I think would inure to
the detriment of individuals involved and also
their family members, who quite often the
social services serve.
So I would urge my colleagues to
vote no on this legislation, with the proviso
that perhaps Senator Maziarz could tighten
this up a little bit and separate the
misdemeanors from what may be persistent
offenses that we might want to investigate.
1646
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
Senator Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, Madam
President. I would just like to ask one
question of Senator Maziarz.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Maziarz,
will you yield for a question?
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Absolutely,
Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead, Senator
Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, Senator
Maziarz. I'm looking at the legislation, and
I just want to be clear what we're doing here.
This means that if, for instance, a
person who was a student and involved in some
demonstration or other and in the process was
charged with some misdemeanor based on some
absolutely nonviolent situation, but just that
they were protesting -- and that can, indeed,
result in a misdemeanor charge -- and that
person after some years finds themselves in a
situation where they may -- not that they are
already a recipient, but they may be applying
1647
for some assistance -- and I note that you
indicate this includes safety-net protection
as well.
And so under this law, that person,
even if they had children at that point and
found themselves in need of some assistance,
even if it's temporary, under this bill they
would not be able to qualify, based on
something that had happened some time ago -
SENATOR MAZIARZ: If the law -
I'm sorry, Senator, were you finished?
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: -- if this
law passes. Is that what the bill does?
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Okay. I didn't
mean to interrupt you. I was going to answer
your question.
If the law enforcement agency deems
it necessary to go after that individual to
make them pay for that misdemeanor that they
committed, the answer is yes, I would think
that the law enforcement agency may go after a
individual who repeatedly has committed small
petty thieveries, breaking into cars and
things like that, that, you know -- and may
have 80 misdemeanors against them. That this
1648
would also provide law enforcement the
opportunity to seek information about that
individual too.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: And they
could get that information based through
the -
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Yes. Yes.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: -- local
Social Services department?
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Yes.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Well, does
this also include if they go to the hospital
for medical care, any kind of assistance that
they would receive?
SENATOR MAZIARZ: No, this is
strictly for the Department of Social
Services.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: It doesn't
include Medicaid if they're asking for
assistance -
SENATOR MAZIARZ: No, no -- well,
I think if the information is contained within
the Department of Social Services, I would say
yes. Which I would probably think most or all
Medicaid -
1649
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Medicaid
would fall under -
SENATOR MAZIARZ: -- information
would be, yes.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Thank you,
Madam President.
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
the negative on Calendar Number 355 are
Senators Duane, Mendez, Montgomery, Paterson,
Schneiderman, and Stavisky. Ayes, 50. Nays,
6.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
359, by Senator Kuhl, Senate Print 2728, an
act to amend the Agriculture and Markets Law
and the Vehicle and Traffic Law, in relation
to exempting farm vehicles.
1650
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Kuhl, an
explanation has been requested.
SENATOR KUHL: Madam President,
who is it that requested the explanation?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson,
Senator Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: You're welcome.
SENATOR KUHL: Madam President,
this is a bill that would remove a very
burdensome, onerous provision that was enacted
by this Legislature back in 1994 relative to
farm vehicles that are registered under what's
called a farm-plate registration.
It's a very simple requirement but
a very expensive requirement, and one that is
actually a duplication of coverage that was
already present on these vehicles. So this is
a way to eliminate a very expensive burden on
farmers in this state.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: If Senator
Kuhl would yield for a question from an old
farmer from Harlem.
1651
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, would
you yield to a question?
SENATOR KUHL: Was that Senator
Paterson asking me to yield, that farm boy
from New York?
THE PRESIDENT: Self-described.
SENATOR KUHL: Certainly I'd
yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead, Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, under
the Motor Vehicle and Traffic Law, the
farm-plated motor vehicles are considered
motor vehicles, they're not considered farm
equipment as would be a tractor or
self-propelled harvesting equipment. Would
you not concede that perhaps that's really
where the problem starts?
In other words, once it's
considered a motor vehicle, the classification
thereafter is the real problem.
If you wanted to change this -- and
you've made very clear to me over the past few
years what an encumbrance this is for
farmers -- do you think that would actually be
1652
the way in the law we could address it? As
opposed to just acknowledging that they are
motor vehicles and then setting up what is
almost a different standard whereby they would
not be as liable, should, in the event -- and
it's probably an infrequent event -- that
there be an accident involving a farm-plated
motor vehicle, that the victim would not be
covered the same way as it would be in the
regular, nonfault insurance claim.
SENATOR KUHL: Senator, my
response to your question would be, very
simply, in the experience that farms have
actually existed from the time of the
invention of the motor vehicle up until 1994,
there was no requirement for this type of
insurance coverage. And at the time that this
was actually imposed, there still was no
requirement, really, or no incidence of
accidents that necessitated this inclusion.
Now, you may remember back -- and I
believe that it was 1990 when the federal
government enacted a piece of legislation
which was meant to crack down on the safety of
traffic control, including trucks across this
1653
country, that in fact there were various
waivers of types of vehicles. I think one of
them were emergency vehicles. The other
opportunity was for farm vehicles.
And there were at that time what we
call farm-plated vehicles in existence, or
that concept was in existence, and farm-plated
vehicles might be a hay wagon, for instance.
It's only used in certain periods of time. It
might be a truck that is only used to gather
watermelons in the field and take them back to
the farm building, which has to be within a
certain distance from the base farm. And
they're only used during that very single
purpose of time or period of time.
So this provision was added -- and
I think really without due consideration, and
certainly without need. And what we're
finding is that the general liability policies
on the farms already cover any kind of
coverage, probably to a larger extent than is
required under the minimum standards under
this particular provision that was included in
that chapter. The chapter really dealt with
safety provisions. It didn't deal with
1654
insurance coverage. And this was kind of an
add-on.
And it was overlooked at the time,
and some people who were insisting that it be
in there really didn't, I think -- were
looking out for the trial lawyers of this
state and for additional coverage, and not
looking out for the poor farmer, who's having
a very difficult time making it in this state.
And so it's my thought and we don't
have any experience at this time that it's
ever been utilized. And so we have this huge
cost that every farmer who now finds this new
requirement to do business in this state to
license and insure these vehicles when they're
only used for minimum periods of time. And it
just seems like a needless and really an
unuseful and certainly a very onerous cost to
our farmers.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Well, thank
you, Madam President.
Thanks, Senator Kuhl.
Madam President, on the bill.
THE PRESIDENT: On the bill. Go
1655
ahead, Senator.
SENATOR PATERSON: I don't think
that there should be some kind of an accident
or a tragedy that would compel this
Legislature to take action. Too many times in
history after some sort of accident occurs,
everybody points the finger, and there's a
loophole in the law or a crack that doesn't
cover someone, and we come back here and we
try to create some legislation post hoc, ergo
propter hoc.
The fact is that we don't really
need to do that in this particular case,
because it would appear that there is not any
legislation that really would cover the
individual that would be possibly hurt in this
type of an accident. Because what we want to
do in this law is to really remove this type
of motor vehicle from the regular type of
encumbrance that would be due upon anyone that
owns a motor vehicle.
What I think and suggest to Senator
Kuhl is perhaps there's some type of a
tax-incremental financing that might help
farmers that we as a state would take into
1656
account, that this would be a very rare
circumstance where there would be an accident,
and hope to defray their costs. But our
primary objective here has to be to cover the
potential victim.
Now, last year I was persuaded to
vote for this legislation because I thought
that the farmer's umbrella policy would
actually cover these types of losses.
However, we have checked with the Family Farm
Insurance Company, which is a well-known
insurance company in the area and different
parts of the Midwest. And they -- their
counsel has told us that the type of policy
that would cover the farm does not
automatically include the type of farm-plated
vehicles of which we're talking about. And so
the counsel to the Family Farm Insurance
Company felt that in these cases there would
have to be a separate policy.
So I'm going to vote no again, as I
would urge my colleagues -- as I had up until
1999 -- hoping that perhaps there's a
different way that we can provide what the
farmers really need. What the farmers really
1657
need is not necessarily to be obligated, but
what the farmers really need is to be
protected from the -- apparently the
tremendous financial loss that they would
possibly accrue from having to provide for
these policies.
So I would encourage a no vote on
this bill.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Johnson.
SENATOR JOHNSON: On the bill,
Madam President.
I've had a farm, I've had a farm
truck, I've written insurance policies, and I
had one of my own. And I can tell you,
changing the Motor Vehicle Law was a mistake
in 1994. These policies do cover farm trucks.
And if you talk to the Motor
Vehicle Bureau, they'll tell you what a farm
truck is. A farm truck is one that you use on
your property. Maybe you have to use a road
to get from one field to another, or you
rented a field that's down the road a bit or
you have to go to the dumps or pick up
something from the farm, drop off a product
locally.
1658
And when you apply for the
registration on this farm truck, which I think
is a dollar, you have to put down the route
you're going to follow, and you're covered on
those routes. And these farmers know darn
well this is not a general purpose vehicle.
It's just for that purpose, on the farm
property.
So I think the learned counsel
doesn't know about policies in New York State.
He probably lives too far away, in a different
state. Maybe they have different laws there.
But in our state, a farm truck is very
strictly defined. The coverage is included in
the general liability policy.
There was no reason for this law
ever to be changed in 1994. It's time for us
to correct the error by putting that coverage
back as it was previously, putting the
requirements back that were there originally.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Hoffmann.
SENATOR HOFFMANN: I appreciate
Senator Johnson's explanation about how
farm-plated vehicles operate. And I have a
1659
couple on my farm as well. And I think it's
unfortunate that Senator Paterson, after our
debate last year, hasn't had the opportunity
to see how we utilize farm-plated vehicles.
But it is a requirement at the time
of registration for a farm-plated vehicle to
have the actual route that that vehicle will
be traveling delineated. If it's going to a
dump, if it's going to get gasoline, if it's
going from field to field, all of that has to
be clearly marked out.
So if a vehicle leaves that given
route, then the same kind of liability would
incur that would incur to anybody else in New
York State. This just allows farmers to have
one very minor bit of cost savings that they
desperately need in this state.
And I'm a little offended that we
should be wasting time trying to malign the
activities of farmers and their pursuits.
They have enough other problems to deal with
right now. Around this state right now,
farmers are trying to figure out how they are
going to pay the exorbitant amount of
increased gasoline costs that's going to be
1660
coming onto every farm, how they're going to
deal with increased electricity costs.
This is a tough, tough business
we're in. And if this state can't give them a
little break on their farm-plated vehicles,
then we're all doing something wrong for
agriculture. It's our number-one industry in
New York State.
And I would urge every member of
this house to show their support for the
hardworking men and women who are farmers and
proud to be farmers in this state by
supporting this measure today.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
DeFrancisco.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: First of
all, I'm not quite sure what that last comment
was all about. I didn't hear anybody on this
floor maligning farmers or trying to hurt
farmers or trying to give farmers a hard time
by a debate on this bill.
I think there's an issue here
that's very clear: Does the existing policy
cover people who may be injured or doesn't it.
It's a very legitimate issue.
1661
And why the issue of trial lawyers
has to be brought up whenever there's a bill
that tries to provide some protection for
someone who may get hurt -- it may be a farm
worker employee who may get hurt, and they
have an arm lost in the course of an operation
that they may be doing on the farm. I mean,
to raise these extraneous issues I think are
absolutely ridiculous.
So the real issue is, does the
existing policy provide the coverage or
doesn't it.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Kuhl, why
do you rise?
SENATOR KUHL: Will Senator
DeFrancisco yield to a question?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: I most
certainly will the minute I finish my comment.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead, Senator
DeFrancisco.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: So the
issue is whether or not the existing policies
provide the coverage.
And I have to make a decision based
on whether they do or whether they don't. I
1662
either have to listen to Senator Paterson,
from New York City, or Senator Johnson, who
owns a farm and has gone through this actual
experience of issuing insurance. So I will
assume that Senator Johnson has the superior
information on this. I will vote for the
bill.
But my point in rising is simply we
should just debate the issue, not the
extraneous points that have no relevance
whatsoever.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Yes. Senator
DeFrancisco, have you seen the memo that was
filed in opposition to this bill dated
March 8, 2000, from the Trial Lawyers
Association?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Absolutely.
SENATOR KUHL: And are you aware
that they make the statement that this
proposal, coming in after the enactment of the
'94 legislation which was placed on these
vehicles, makes -- and I quote -- a mockery of
the legislative process? And now are you here
saying today that to raise the issue that the
1663
trial lawyers might have some interest in this
legislation is out of place?
I don't -- I'd like to have you
explain that statement to me, if you would,
sir.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Well, first
of all, I don't think that was the comment,
that it's not relevant to raise the issue of
Trial Lawyers Association.
But the claim that this bill is -
should be passed and one of the reasons it
should be passed is because the Trial Lawyers
Association has some ulterior motive to try to
make more fees -- the Trial Lawyers
Association have the same right as the farm
workers do, as the farm community does, to
comment on legislation.
And if you listened to my comment,
Senator, I didn't say I was voting against the
bill like the trial lawyers had urged. I said
I'm going to vote in favor of the bill, based
upon the issue. And the issue has nothing to
do with what the trial lawyers' belief is or
what -- maligning farmers.
SENATOR KUHL: Would Senator
1664
DeFrancisco yield to another question?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Absolutely.
SENATOR KUHL: Senator, then if
I'm to understand that you're voting for this,
then you disagree with this bill -- then you
disagree with the trial lawyers' opposition
memo that says that this proposal makes a
mockery of the legislation.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: I disagree
with the memo, yes, I do.
SENATOR KUHL: Okay, thank you.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: But that
doesn't mean I'm anti-trial lawyer or for
trial lawyers. The Trial Lawyers Association
is an association that takes positions. They
can be right; they can be wrong. The Farm
Bureaus Association is an organization that
takes positions. They could be right or they
could be wrong.
But I outlined what the issue was
in this case, and I outlined why I'm voting
yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, I never mentioned the trial
1665
lawyers' memorandum in my discussion.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR PATERSON: And what's
interesting is that since Senator Kuhl said
that he couldn't think of a case where this
had arisen yet, then I don't know what the
trial lawyers' interest would be, because they
haven't -- they weren't losing business as a
result of us passing this legislation, because
we're still talking about what would be a
presumption, which is something that could
happen.
That's why I can understand the
argument that if -- that the cost to the
farmers is one that we might foreseeably
overlook, because the cost to the farmer is
something that really has not manifested
itself. There haven't been a number of cases
where this has actually happened.
But I think that when we take an
oath as legislators, we are supposed to
legislate with the understanding that in spite
of whatever interests there are of our own
individual districts and our own sometimes
parochialism, we have to understand that we
1666
live in a state, a state that involves a lot
of people, a state that involves what would be
the travel of different vehicles around the
state. And we would not want, even if it's
something that would be considered to be
speculative, the foreseeable possibility that
someone could be injured in this particular
situation and not covered.
Now, it's debatable up until 1994
whether or not the umbrella insurance policies
covered this type of an action. I don't know
the answer to that question.
But I know the answer to this.
That the umbrella policies, as it stands now,
do not necessarily cover these farm-plated
vehicles. They would have to have a rider,
they would have to have a separate policy.
And I think if anyone -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Kuhl, why
do you rise?
SENATOR KUHL: Would Senator
Paterson yield to a question?
SENATOR PATERSON: Certainly.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead, Senator
Kuhl.
1667
SENATOR KUHL: Senator Paterson,
I think you heard what I said, that the intent
of this proposal is to remove duplicative
coverage for the farmer.
Now, you seem to think that, from a
source that you've reached out to, that in
fact that's -- that the additional policy that
we're talking about that's a requirement here
isn't necessarily duplicative. Is that
correct?
SENATOR PATERSON: That would
actually be the problem if the farmers were
paying dual coverage for the same thing. I
wouldn't want to be responsible for continuing
that.
The reason that I propose to vote
against this bill -- and, Senator, upon
information and belief, I voted for the bill
last year. But I am now assured and I'm
convinced that there may be some umbrella
policies that cover the farmers, but they all
don't. And to lead farmers to believe that
these policies are covering them is
misleading. And it's the farmers I think who
would be offended if they found out that they
1668
weren't covered.
SENATOR KUHL: Senator, I
appreciate your approach. But I would think I
would approach it a different way.
And so my question to you would be,
have you gone to a farmer and asked a farmer
whether or not they have coverage under a
general liability policy that covers their
trucks -- and then also now, since 1994, in
complying with this law, have a duplicative
policy for each truck that they had that's now
a farm-plated vehicle? And have you ever
asked them whether or not they have expressed
some displeasure over having duplicative
coverage on vehicles that are costing them
sums of money?
Have you inquired of that aspect of
the industry, rather than just going to an
insurance company and saying, Well, now, does
this policy in general that you issue cover
it?
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, I
thought I did better than going to the actual
farmers. I heard the information from yours
truly. In other words, I heard it from you.
1669
In other words, I didn't think I
had to go to the farmers themselves when
someone who ably represents them as well as
you did, you have, gave me that information.
But because we had had the
information from one insurance policy last
year, we now have the information from a
second insurance company this year, I'm
persuaded that the issue was not necessarily
what the farmers knew or didn't know. That's
why we're debating the bill.
What we would really want to know
is what was within the ambit of coverage that
the insurance companies gave. Because if the
insurance companies aren't covering them, the
farmers are in a difficult situation should
this situation ever arise and would then need
some type of coverage. Or the farmers are now
in a situation where they're not covered.
So in other words, that's the
reason I chose to go to the insurance
companies.
You wouldn't want, I would assume,
Senator, for any of us that want something to
stand up and to presume that our colleagues
1670
would necessarily know our districts and the
people in them as well as we do. I concede
that.
But what I'm saying to you is this
is not necessarily an issue of the actual
construction or the day-to-day use of the
vehicles. This is an issue of whether or not
a potential victim would be covered by the
policy.
SENATOR KUHL: Would the Senator
yield to another question?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson,
will you yield to Senator Kuhl for a question?
SENATOR PATERSON: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead, Senator
Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Senator, in the
course of your investigation did you ever
determine that there was ever an accident in
which there was not insurance coverage for
anybody who was injured as a result of that
and when there was not a policy, either a
general liability policy that covered these
individuals prior to the 1994 incident? Do
1671
you have that kind of data which would
indicate that there was not coverage?
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, that's my whole point.
My point is that I don't want there
to be an accident where we're all down here
being questioned at a future date by
reporters, pointing the finger at each other
as to who really understood what the law was.
When the fact that we're talking about it now,
at least what can be said for both of us, even
though we now may be on opposite sides of the
issue this year, is the fact that this was
within the contemplation of the Legislature
before a situation such as this, in which we
may disagree on what the outcome is -- it's my
opinion that although an accident has not
occurred as yet, there is no coverage for all
farmers should one occur in the future.
That's my position.
SENATOR KUHL: Would the Senator
yield for one more question.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson,
will you yield to another question?
SENATOR PATERSON: I would
1672
certainly yield to as many questions as my
distinguished colleague would want to ask.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Senator Paterson,
I'm interested again in the depth of your
investigatory process here. And I'm curious
as to, in asking questions of this insurance
company, how many victims prior to the 1994
law actually did receive coverage from the
general liability policies.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
the information I have is that prior to 1994
it's very possible that the umbrella policies
may have covered the farmers. But I do not
know substantially whether or not they did.
But what I am assuring everyone
here right now is that we don't have to go
back to 1994. We're in the year 2000. And
those policies, unless I hear any information
from someone in this chamber to contradict
that, something that is on point, that these
policies do not cover the farmers.
SENATOR KUHL: I have no further
questions.
1673
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, hearing no one in this chamber,
either directly or indirectly, that can get up
and assure us that these policies will protect
the farmers, then I would suggest that should
an accident occur, that the potential victim
of this accident is not covered.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You're welcome.
SENATOR DUANE: On the bill.
Last year I listened to the debate
on this piece of legislation because, you
know, I'm always sitting in the chamber
because you have to be here to vote no. So I
generally listen to all the debates. And I
was struck because Senator David Paterson and
I have the exact same number of farms in our
districts, and yet he was voting yes and I was
voting no.
So I did go out and investigate
1674
this issue. Beyond the farms in our
districts, I went to other farms around the
state of New York. And I asked farmers -- not
just the insurance companies, not just those
poor trial attorneys that have been so
vilified here today, but I asked farmers about
this issue. And what I discovered was they're
confused. They're pretty confused about this
issue.
And so today I'm going to cast my
vote yet again, though I hate to disagree with
my colleague -- although now we're on the same
side, David Paterson -- and my colleagues who
represent more rural districts than David and
I represent, somewhat more rural districts.
And I'm going to be voting no because I think
I need to err on the side of caution until
this confusion is cleared up.
So I will be voting no, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect on the 60th day.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
1675
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
the negative on Calendar Number 359 are
Senators Breslin, Connor, Duane, Kruger,
Montgomery, Paterson, Schneiderman, and
Stavisky. Ayes, 48. Nays, 8.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
410, by Senator Johnson, Senate Print 1962B,
an act to amend the Penal Law, in relation to
criminal use of public records.
SENATOR DUANE: Explanation,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Johnson,
Senator Duane has requested an explanation.
SENATOR JOHNSON: Yes, Madam
President.
Well, this bill is quite
straightforward in its presentation. And the
intent of this bill is, as you know, under the
Freedom of Information Law, the information is
readily available. There's a list of reasons
why it is not available. But generally it's
available unless there's a reason to deny the
1676
information. So convicts and others have been
using this Freedom of Information Law to get
information which they use in the perpetration
of a crime.
So we're saying if you get
information that's freely available, fine.
But if you use it to commit a crime, you're
subject to the penalties in the law, which in
this case would be a Class E felony penalty.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Would the sponsor
yield to a few questions?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Johnson,
will you yield for -
SENATOR JOHNSON: No, let's try
one.
THE PRESIDENT: He will yield for
a question.
Go ahead, Senator Duane.
SENATOR JOHNSON: Maybe another
one later.
THE PRESIDENT: Pardon me,
Senator -
SENATOR JOHNSON: Come on, go on.
Yes, I yield. Go ahead.
1677
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead. You
have two questions, Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Well -
THE PRESIDENT: He's yielded for
two questions. That was your request, wasn't
it?
SENATOR DUANE: Through you,
Madam President, I didn't hear him say -
THE PRESIDENT: Was your request
"two" or "a few"?
SENATOR JOHNSON: I am waiting.
SENATOR DUANE: A few.
THE PRESIDENT: And you yielded,
Senator Johnson, to his questions.
Go ahead, Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President -
THE PRESIDENT: You're welcome.
SENATOR DUANE: -- from the
bottom of my heart.
I'm wondering what happens now.
SENATOR JOHNSON: What does that
mean? Is that your question?
SENATOR DUANE: Is there a crime
committed now if someone uses this
1678
information?
SENATOR JOHNSON: Are you asking
me if crimes have been committed using this
information? The answer is yes.
SENATOR DUANE: No. Madam
President, through you, if I may clarify my
question.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead,
Senator.
SENATOR DUANE: I'm wondering if
at present, if someone does this, uses the
information, is that prosecuted?
SENATOR JOHNSON: There is no
specific penalty in the law for using this
information. Of course, if they commit a
crime, they've committed a crime. But there's
no penalty to take the information and use it
improperly at this point.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you,
Madam President, if I can reclarify my
question.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you have a
question to ask, Senator, an additional
question?
SENATOR DUANE: Madam President,
1679
I'm not asking if there exists such a law. I
know there isn't. Otherwise, we wouldn't be
debating this law, unless there was some
dreadful mistake.
But what I'm asking is, is there -
would there -- is there prosecution now, or
are thousands of inmates getting off scot-free
because no prosecutions are taking place with
people using this information? Or maybe not
thousands, but some.
I'm not asking if such a law
exists. Obviously it doesn't exist, or the
bill wouldn't have been introduced unless
someone's not doing their job.
I'm asking, in a situation like
this, is not the crime already prosecuted?
SENATOR JOHNSON: I'd like to
read you something from a newspaper. And
we're talking about information being too
easily available.
And this article said that in the
case of a lady named Maria -- they have to
inform you when a request is made, a formal
request -- they wrote her a letter saying:
"This agency has received a Freedom of
1680
Information request seeking to determine your
current address. The request came from" -
I'll leave their name out -- "who is currently
incarcerated at Woodbourne Correctional
Facility. Under the Freedom of Information
Act, we have disclosed this information to
[the inmate]. If you have any questions,
please do not hesitate to call my office."
It turned out that this inmate was
a convicted killer who was trying to track
down the young woman because she once rejected
hid advances. The request came in July, a
month before he became eligible for parole.
State corrections officials say
this case is far from unique, that inmates
have learned to use loopholes in the law to
gain information and use it in ways never
intended by those who drafted the legislation.
The point is that people are using
this information improperly now. And we're
saying if you do that, that's going to be a
crime, and you're going to be apprehended if
you are and pay a penalty.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you,
Madam President.
1681
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: I'm still
wondering, did this inmate then commit a crime
with that information?
SENATOR JOHNSON: I thought I was
speaking properly, but perhaps you haven't
comprehended what I said.
If you think it's all right for
these situations to continue, then I guess you
should vote against this bill. But if you
think this type of action should be
circumscribed by law, then you should support
this bill.
I don't think anybody should have
to put up with that kind of business, using
that information improperly. And we're saying
if you do it, the penalty is in the law. The
crime is being created right now in this law,
and there's a penalty in there. We don't want
that to continue.
Now, don't ask me if he ever
succeeded in apprehending her and raping her.
Does that have to happen before you want to
prosecute him?
SENATOR DUANE: Through you,
1682
Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead, Senator
Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: But does not this
law actually only apply when a crime is
committed?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Duane,
were you asking the Senator to yield for an
additional question?
SENATOR DUANE: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Johnson,
will you yield for an additional question?
SENATOR JOHNSON: That is so,
yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Johnson,
you are yielding?
SENATOR JOHNSON: But we're
trying to avoid the temptation for people to
use this information improperly.
Now, the crime could be anywhere
from walking behind her on the street to
killing her. But the fact is that we're
trying to put the message out: Don't try to
use this information improperly, because
1683
there's a penalty for that.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President. I think I'll just speak on the
bill.
THE PRESIDENT: On the bill,
Senator Duane. Go ahead.
SENATOR DUANE: I just think it's
interesting that this discussion is taking
place in the context of Senator Maziarz
putting forward the possibility of starting a
slippery slope of getting information from the
Department of Social Services, and then on the
other hand we're talking about an
information-retrieval thing here as well.
I think that we need to kind of
look at how it is that we're playing fast and
loose with information about citizens' lives
and also how that impacts how it is that we go
about fighting crime in our state.
The other thing I want to say is -
and of course I don't want people murdered.
It's absurd to think that that's what I would
want to have happen in our state. But how
many times have I heard in this body a crime
is a crime; you know, a rape is a rape, a
1684
murder is a murder, a theft is a theft, a
felony is a felony. And yet, you know, we're
already setting up separate categories in
many, many ways dealing with intent, of which
this is just another one as well.
And I don't think we can have it
both ways, that looking at intent in some
areas of the law is all right and not looking
at intent in other ways is what we're going to
be doing.
So I hope that people remember the
discussion that we've had here about this bill
in terms of intent, as we do when it comes to
crimes against police officers or crimes
against older New Yorkers, when we discuss the
bias bill, which it's my fervent hope we will
actually get to debate on the floor of the
Senate.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
Senator Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, Madam
President. I just have one question that I
would like to ask the sponsor, Senator
1685
Johnson, if he would yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Johnson,
will you yield for a question?
SENATOR JOHNSON: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead, Senator
Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, thank
you.
Senator Johnson, with -- we have in
the past in -- at least in our house passed
legislation that prevents the Division of
Corrections from allowing inmates to be
involved in areas where there's certain
private information on individuals, that it is
now -- they are now not supposed to be doing
that.
So I'm trying to figure out what
is -- why do we now need your legislation when
it is assumed that the inmates are not in fact
supposed to have access to any of this
information, either through the Freedom of
Information Act or by virtue of their
participating in certain activities, use of
the Internet and what have you.
1686
SENATOR JOHNSON: Senator, did
you say that inmates are now prevented from
getting this information? Is that what you
said?
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes.
SENATOR JOHNSON: Well, it isn't
true.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Based on
legislation that we've already passed.
SENATOR JOHNSON: It isn't true,
Senator.
That's why the information was
released, because there was no grounds upon
which to withhold that information, getting
someone's address and phone number and things
like that. There's no way to deny that
information under the present law. That's why
we're putting a penalty in there.
And you can understand that if they
do need information to defend themselves or
help in their trial, they're allowed to get
that information. And that's specifically -
they're permitted to get that. But there's no
prohibition against getting other information
as well. Unless they're denied the right,
1687
they can get it. And that's the way the law
is right now.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: All right.
Then, Senator, if that is the case, if the
issue is access, my question then is who
provides the access, and is that person or
that entity not the one then that becomes
liable for providing the access?
I mean, don't we want to -- don't
we want to punish the person or persons or the
entity that is responsible for providing the
information rather than the criminal for
requesting it, the inmate?
SENATOR JOHNSON: Well, you know,
Senator -- I'm sorry, we should be addressing
each other through the chair, but I'd like to
respond to you.
We're only talking about the misuse
of information. We're not talking about its
accessibility. If they use it to commit a
crime or intend to commit a crime, that's the
problem, not the fact that they have the
information. Which is harmless by itself, of
course, you know.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: So then
1688
based upon your explanation, if it is an
inmate that requests information about me and
that inmate is serving a life sentence without
the possibility of parole, it's very
unlikely -- even if that inmate wanted to take
some retribution against me, it's unlikely
that that particular inmate is going to fall
under this particular bill.
SENATOR JOHNSON: Senator -- if I
may respond, Madam President -- this has
nothing to do with inmates per se.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Oh.
SENATOR JOHNSON: These are the
cases which have come to people's attention.
But I could get your address and
follow you down the street because I want to
irritate you. Or anyone else could do it.
That's still available. And the people inside
have more friends outside that could do the
job for them, so I don't think you could feel
safe.
In any event, all we're saying is
if they use that to commit a crime, then we're
going to punish them. But otherwise it's
freely available, as it is now for all of us.
1689
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: So this
really -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Through you,
Madam President -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Johnson,
will you yield for an additional question?
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: -- just one
last question -- one last question.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead,
Senator.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Thank you.
So, Senator Johnson, this really
refers to -- even though the example that you
used was of an inmate who was a murderer and
asked for information, this really refers to
anyone. In other words, any of us, all of us
fall under your legislation; it's not really
targeted only to inmates.
SENATOR JOHNSON: That's correct.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Okay. Thank
you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
1690
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, 54. Nays,
2. Senators Duane and Montgomery recorded in
the negative.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
436, by Senator Skelos, Senate Print 969, an
act to amend the Correction Law and the County
Law, in relation to maintenance.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson
has asked for an explanation.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
Senator Paterson has asked for a speedy
explanation, so I'll accommodate him.
This bill amends the Correction Law
and the County Law to provide that a prisoner
who has been found unindigent may be required
to reimburse the county or city jail for
1691
certain expenses incurred during his or her
term of imprisonment. The factors to be
considered regarding the individual's ability
to pay include, but are not limited to,
financial resources, health, age, and other
relevant factors.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, just a quick question for Senator
Skelos, who -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Skelos,
will you yield for a question?
SENATOR PATERSON: -- I know is
dying to get a chance to explain this bill
further.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead, Senator
Paterson, with a question.
SENATOR PATERSON: Do you have
any research of the inmates who are currently
housed in these facilities to give an idea of
what the projected savings might be?
SENATOR SKELOS: Well, as you
know, Senator Paterson, because we discussed
this a number of times -- and I believe it was
at the request of Senator Abate -- we made it
1692
optional at the county level so that each
county could independently determine whether
they would benefit from this or not benefit.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President. I'd like to speak on the bill.
I'm going to vote no on this for a
whole host of reasons, but I wanted to raise a
couple of additional reasons. One is that I
believe strongly that someone who is
incarcerated, especially if they're the
breadwinner, that their money in many cases,
unless they are very wealthy, is needed to
support the people who now are not going to
have a breadwinner helping to pay the freight
at home. And I think that their money is
needed to make sure that they don't have to go
onto public benefits and can stay independent.
The other issue is that just when I
read the justification from the Majority, it
said that -- something about what a person in
prison had done, while his victim was unable
to receive financial compensation for the
crime committed against her, further
demonstrates the need for this legislation.
1693
Although I don't think that
demonstrates the need for this legislation so
much as the need to investigate what's
happening in the Crime Compensation Board, if
this particular crime victim is not being
compensated. So I would encourage us to take
a look at that and find out why it is that
she's not getting the support that she needs
from an agency whose mission it is to help
people who have been the victims of crime.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 7. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: I would like
to explain my vote.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Montgomery, to explain your vote.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes. Madam
President, I just want to explain my vote
for -- my no vote by reminding my colleagues
that we now have an exhibit downstairs in the
connecting concourse where we have all of the
1694
products that are produced in the prisons by
inmates. And they are very, very many and
far-reaching.
Including -- we have the dogs that
are trained to assist blind people, are
trained in one of our prisons. We have all of
our highway signs, all of our state furniture,
a lot of the emergency assistance in different
parts of the state when there is a storm or
some other tragedy.
These are all done by inmates in
our prisons. In addition to the enormous
amount of money that is spent just to make
telephone calls to loved ones from prison.
So I think that there is a
tremendous amount of restitution that we
receive. And therefore, I am voting no on
this legislation because I think that it is
going a bit far to ask people to pay this to
the local counties.
THE PRESIDENT: You will be so
recorded as voting in the negative on this
bill, Senator.
The Secretary will announce the
results.
1695
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
the negative on Calendar Number 436 are
Senators Connor, Duane, Markowitz, Montgomery,
Paterson, Santiago, Schneiderman, Smith, and
Stavisky. Ayes, 47. Nays, 9.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Madam Chair.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Lachman.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Yes.
Unfortunately, I was out of the chamber when
we voted on 359. I would like to have
unanimous consent to be recorded in the
negative on that bill.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Lachman,
without objection, you will be recorded as
voting in the negative on this bill.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
459, by Senator Morahan, Senate Print 6240, an
act to amend Chapter 235 of the Laws of 1865
relating to incorporating.
SENATOR DUANE: Explanation,
please.
1696
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Morahan,
an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Yes, Madam
Chairman. Or Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you,
Senator.
SENATOR MORAHAN: You're quite
welcome.
This is a bill that affects a fire
company in Nyack, New York, in Rockland
County, which lifts their ability to have
assets beyond $5,000. They're requesting that
to go up to $1 million.
SENATOR DUANE: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Would the sponsor
yield to a few questions?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Morahan,
will you yield for a few questions?
SENATOR MORAHAN: I'd be
delighted to yield, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
with your first question, Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President.
1697
Why is this fire department in need
of this increase?
SENATOR MORAHAN: Well, they're
in need of this relief, Senator, because this
law from 1895 has been a little bit outdated
as a practical matter. They have accumulated
some assets since that time.
In particular, they are now forming
a parade committee to honor their 175th
anniversary. They're the oldest fire company
in Rockland County. I believe they're amongst
the ten oldest in the state. And they're one
of the few that are governed by the state or
chartered by the state.
They have, for example, $150,000 in
their general fund. And I think they're
looking for a way to get relief from the 5,000
limitation, number one. And, number two,
there are some consolidations and transfers
going on within the county where they may even
pick up the ownership of the trucks they now
rent from the district, which would increase
their assets to another $250,000, $300,000.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you.
Through you, Madam President, would
1698
the sponsor continue to yield?
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead. You
had authorization, Senator.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President.
Assuming that the parade is not
going to cost a half a million dollars, I'm
wondering how was this figure reached. Why
isn't it $500,000, or why is it a million
dollars?
SENATOR MORAHAN: Well, because
it took 175 years to get to this point. I
guess they don't want to come back next year
or the year after or come back every ten
years. They want to be in conformity with the
law. And I believe they feel that this would
give them some relief.
Their insurance are all set at a
million dollars, and it ties in pretty much
with their mode of operation. In addition, if
they take over more assets, such as the
firehouse itself, I don't believe that they
want to have to come back here each time they
increase their assets in today's terms, in
today's dollars.
1699
SENATOR DUANE: Through you,
Madam President, would the sponsor continue to
yield?
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead, Senator
Duane. You have authorization for one more
question.
SENATOR DUANE: I'm still not
sure where the $1 million fee has come from.
Was there actually -- is there a -- did they
supply a list of the reasons for that? Is
this a -
SENATOR MORAHAN: Yes, they did.
SENATOR DUANE: They did.
SENATOR MORAHAN: But it doesn't
go all the way up to a million dollars.
They're not holding a million
dollars now, Senator. But they feel they may.
And they want to have that elbow room, if you
will, because it took 175 years to get this
one lifted.
SENATOR DUANE: And also through
you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Morahan,
will you yield for an additional question?
SENATOR MORAHAN: I certainly
1700
will. With pleasure.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead, Senator
Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: I'm wondering if
the sponsor knows of other fire districts with
a similar problem to this. Or is this the
only one in the state, or will we be seeing
more of these or -
SENATOR MORAHAN: It's quite
possible you will see more. But this is only
one of the few that are chartered under the
Legislature of the State of New York. Others
may be doing this; they don't need our
permission. This particular company does
because it's chartered in 1895, under the
state law. So it has to come to the
Legislature. It's one of the very few in the
state of New York, Senator.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
Senator Marchi.
SENATOR MARCHI: Just a
postscript to what the Senator has -- the
1701
point that he's made. At the time it was
$5,000, do you realize in constant dollars
that we're in the year 2000? Manhattan was
bought for $22. It's probably -- if you said
$2 million, you were probably being
conservative.
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, 56.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Just to explain
my vote.
But just so there's no -- just to
break the suspense, I'm going to vote yes on
it. But -
THE PRESIDENT: Just a minute,
Senator Duane.
The roll call is withdrawn.
Senator Duane, you have the floor
to explain your vote.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
1702
President.
I'm just concerned that we've gone
from $5,000 to a million dollars and that -- I
mean, I don't want to cast aspersions. No one
loves Nyack more than I do. I do, I love
Nyack. And I've spent time in Nyack. Not
just last year, but other times in my life.
But I just think it's of concern
that their assets could potentially go from
$5,000 -- you know, that they didn't do
anything about the collection of assets until
this point.
And maybe that should be -- we
should forewarn the others that are chartered
by the State of New York that they should take
a look at the bottom line and maybe look at
all of this as a package for other fire
districts that are in the same position.
But I'm going to vote yes on this
one, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Without
objection, Senator Duane, you will be recorded
as voting in the affirmative on this bill.
The Secretary will announce the
results.
1703
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 56.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
Senator Skelos, that completes the
reading of the controversial calendar.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
is there any housekeeping at the desk?
THE PRESIDENT: No, there is not,
Senator.
SENATOR SKELOS: I'd just like to
inform the members of the Majority, before we
go on to motions to discharge, that there will
be a conference of the Majority following
session.
THE PRESIDENT: There will be a
conference of the Majority following the
Senate session.
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, would the distinguished Deputy
Majority Leader let me know what room that
conference is going to be in, please?
SENATOR SKELOS: The Majority
Conference Room.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you,
1704
Senators. In the Majority Conference Room.
SENATOR VOLKER: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Volker.
SENATOR VOLKER: Madam President,
I don't have a motion to discharge, but I
would like to star a bill, if I could.
On page 12, Calendar Number 218,
Senate Print 1992B. That's Calendar Number
218, my bill, 1992B. I'd like to star that
bill, please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
starred, Senator Volker.
SENATOR VOLKER: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Motions to
discharge.
Senator Stachowski.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Madam
President, I believe there's a motion at the
desk. I'd like to ask to waive the reading
and speak on the motion.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, there is,
Senator.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Senate Bill
Number 1988, by Senator Stachowski, an act to
1705
amend the Economic Development Law, in
relation to enacting the "Corporate and
Financial Accountability Act."
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Thank you,
Madam President.
This bill would set up clear
requirements for companies applying for
publicly funded assistance with the state.
Although some agencies have a policy of
what -- how they govern these, it's not
universal throughout the state. And there are
some areas where companies are still taking
money with the promise to either create or
retain jobs, and those promises, for one
reason or another, often are not fulfilled.
And since we're limited on the
number of dollars we have in the state, it
seems to me that this bill is a good bill. We
had the foresight to do it once, and then
Governor Cuomo vetoed it.
And assuming that Governor Pataki,
in his vision for economic development in the
state and his realization that there are only
so many state dollars available, that we
should try to make sure that they go to the
1706
best possible places, would see that a bill
like this, once it's passed, is a good tool
for the state, and he would sign it -- as
opposed to Governor Cuomo, who didn't see that
vision.
The fact is that states around us
use this. Ohio uses this, and it doesn't hurt
their applications. So that argument about
the fact that it would hurt companies from
applying for state assistance I don't think
holds any water.
The truth is, in the bill there are
safeguards for if there was an economic
downturn in a particular industry or some
economic problem that wasn't foreseen and
that's the reason they didn't meet their
requirements, that would be covered. And the
reality is that oftentimes companies say
they're going to create jobs, and either they
don't or they leave with the state dollars or
the state equipment that they purchased with
it.
So with all of those things in
mind, it's clearly the time to do this bill.
This bill was a good idea when it was first
1707
drafted. It's just as good, if not a better
idea now. And I would urge all my colleagues
to support this motion.
THE PRESIDENT: All in favor of
accepting the motion to discharge signify by
saying aye.
SENATOR PATERSON: Party vote in
the affirmative.
Yes, keep going, Madam President.
SENATOR SKELOS: 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 Mendez.
SENATOR MENDEZ: Thank you, Madam
President. I wish to be recorded in the
negative on Calendar Number 436. I was out of
the chamber. Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Without
objection, Senator Mendez, you will be
1708
recorded as voting in the negative on 436.
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President. I think there's a motion at the
desk.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Senator,
there is.
The Secretary will read.
SENATOR DUANE: I ask that
reading be waived.
THE PRESIDENT: He will read the
title before the house, Senator.
Go ahead.
THE SECRETARY: Senate Bill
Number 3955B, by Senator Duane, an act to
amend the Workers' Compensation Law, in
relation to enacting the "Protection in the
Workplace Act."
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Now I move to
waive the reading; right?
THE PRESIDENT: You may.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: And it is.
1709
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you.
I'd like to speak on the
"Protection in the Workplace Act." As many of
us know, violence in the workplace is becoming
a growing cause for concern around our state
and around the nation.
If we all look back at what the
intent of the workers' compensation system
was, it was to provide monetary assistance to
injured workers or their survivors. However,
in getting that aid, the injured party or
their family gives up all rights to petition
the courts for further legal redress.
Now, this works well in terms of
saving the taxpayers money and the courts the
time and money and expense of lengthy
litigation. And it also provides an injured
worker a guarantee of compensation for their
injuries.
However -- and I think this is
because the people who drew up the workers'
comp laws were probably of the male
persuasion -- it was never envisioned that
rape and sexual assault or other sexual
injuries would be considered to be part of a
1710
day's work, and therefore that they could only
go through the Workers' Compensation Board and
that the victim of a sexual assault or a rape
would not be allowed to get their day in
court, particularly when the employer had been
negligent in providing safety for that worker.
For instance, recently in New York
City a woman was viciously assaulted and raped
at her place of work. Even though the
employees of the company had repeatedly
complained that there was a lack of security,
the employer did nothing to remedy that
situation. Even the city itself had found
safety violations and building violations
regarding safety at the site. And still
nothing was done, and a woman was viciously
assaulted and raped by someone who broke into
the building while she was working there.
That this victim would have to go
to the workers' comp board only to get redress
for her pain and suffering is an absolute
outrage. The drafters of workers' comp could
never envision that to have happened. We must
make it possible for this woman to get her day
in court. And that's exactly what this
1711
legislation would do.
Now, remember, while my amendment
would remedy this terrible injustice and allow
the victim to seek remedies in court, there
are protections in the bill. For instance,
any insurance carrier providing workers'
compensation benefits would be entitled to a
lien on any damages awarded by the successful
court action. So there are also protections
built into the legislation.
I just also want to add that the
legislation has broad-based support throughout
the state. And in particular, it's also
supported by the National Organization for
Women, the New York City Alliance Against
Sexual Assault, and the New York State
Coalition Against Sexual Assault.
This is the right thing to do. If
it were men who were being raped in the
workplace, we would not even be having this
discussion. But let's do the right thing and
let's make it possible for women who have been
assaulted and raped due to negligence by their
employer to get their day in court.
Thank you.
1712
THE PRESIDENT: On the motion.
All those in favor of accepting the motion to
discharge signify by saying aye.
SENATOR PATERSON: Party vote in
the affirmative.
SENATOR SKELOS: Party vote in
the negative.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you,
Senator Skelos.
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 Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, I have a motion to discharge
legislation I'd like to have called up.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Senate Bill
Number 6012, by Senator Paterson, an act to
amend the Election Law, the Tax Law, and the
Lobbying Act, in relation to providing for a
1713
program for a "Clean Election Campaign
Financing."
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, this piece of legislation would
establish a system under which candidates for
governor, for comptroller, for attorney
general, for the state Senate, state Assembly,
and district attorney would enter into a
program by which a certain number of
contributions of a small denomination -- we
suggest $5 -- would be accrued, guaranteeing
these candidates to have public financing for
these particular campaigns.
It would require that a certain
number of registered voters who contribute
into the system in each of our districts and
in the majority of Congressional districts for
statewide offices participate, and this would
make individuals eligible for public financing
of elections.
The possibility always exists that
some would not want to enter into this system.
And if that would be the case, then candidates
who would actually be in the system would
1714
receive larger amounts of money to offset the
contributions made to those candidates who did
not want to function within the system.
Obviously, we would want to limit
campaign contributions, and we'd limit them to
$1,000 per candidate and $1,000 per party,
which would eliminate what we call the soft
money, and would have an aggregate
contribution limit for all campaigns of
$25,000 per individual.
We would want these campaign
contributions to come from registered voters,
because we would want them to be perceivably
from people who are in the process. We would
not think that someone who would not want to
vote would necessarily want to participate in
the funding of candidates if they didn't have
an interest in the actual political process
itself.
That, I think, sets forth what the
legislation does. I would just want to add
that there's a national campaign designed to
have clean money establish clean elections.
We would not want there to be the negative
perception that the dollar is worth more than
1715
the vote. Certainly we live in a society
right now, one of cynicism, in which elected
officials are thought to be easily swayed by
campaign contributions. And certainly the
huge number of campaign contributions that
exist and the tremendous chokehold often that
lobbyists and lobbying firms have over
government certainly leads to that perception.
There was a legislator from Ohio,
the late Representative C.J. Parker, who once
said that "You have to eat their food, drink
their wine, and then vote against their
bills." But that is not really the perception
that the public has of us.
If we allow this amount of
resources to influence the political process,
then what we're saying to the voters is that
they are disenfranchised and that their votes
are not really equal to the value of the
donations made by other individuals who might
have an agenda rather than a belief.
Finally, what I think that this
legislation would really bring us is a new
playing field by which candidates could be
heard and could be able to give their honest
1716
and their sincere candidacy to their fellow
constituents without fear that the merit or
the qualifications that they bring or the
ideas that they present would be lost under
the avalanche of campaign contributions.
And so we think that this would
make the process fair. We think that there is
no issue that could be more collative in this
discussion of issues here in the Senate
chamber than the issue of clean money, clean
elections. And so I offer this motion to
discharge this legislation, to bring it onto
the floor so that we can find out how my
colleagues feel one way or the other, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: All in favor of
accepting the motion to discharge signify by
saying aye.
SENATOR PATERSON: Party vote in
the affirmative.
SENATOR SKELOS: Party vote in
the negative.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
1717
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 20. Nays,
36. Party vote.
THE PRESIDENT: The motion is
defeated.
Senator Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you,
Madam President. I have a motion at the desk.
I request that it be called up and that I be
heard on the motion.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Senate Bill
Number 6965, by Senator Schneiderman, an act
to amend the Workers' Compensation Law, in
relation to increasing the maximum weekly
benefit payable to a disabled employee.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you,
Madam President -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: -- on the
motion.
This is the fourth of the bills
we're seeking to discharge today. I think it
is a tremendously important bill to address a
1718
serious problem in New York State.
But before I start on the specifics
of the legislation, I just want to say that
all four of these bills come from the
legislative agenda of the Working Families
Party. This is the first year the party has
submitted a legislative agenda. It's a party
that only got statewide ballot status in 1998.
But I urge all of my colleagues
that they will be hearing a lot more from the
Working Families Party. I attended their
convention yesterday, and the message they
have is very powerful.
And it's a message for both the
Democrats and Republicans, that we are really
not addressing the needs and interests of
working people in this state adequately, and
that in an era when our national wealth has
tripled over the last decade, yet 75 percent
of the people in this country are no better
off or worse off than they were, something is
wrong with the system.
One of the most concrete ways in
which we can get some of this new national
wealth into the hands of the workers who
1719
create the wealth is to amend the Workers'
Compensation Law, and that's what this bill,
this motion, would bring forward today.
New York is behind virtually every
state in the country in terms of the maximum
weekly benefits under workers' compensation.
If a New Yorker is injured on the job so badly
that he or she can't work, the most you can
get is $400 per week. This is below all
neighboring states, all of the rest of the
industrial states. Maximum weekly benefits
are $840 in New Hampshire, $764 in
Connecticut, $700 in Massachusetts, $539 in
New Jersey, and the list goes on and on.
We're down at the very bottom of the pile.
The workers who have created all of
the great wealth that is moving the stock
market ever higher are just not benefitting
from the boom. And for our disabled workers,
whose disability benefits and workers'
compensation benefits are so low, to send them
a message that in this era of prosperity, when
we have a great budget surplus, we can't do
anything for them, is the wrong message to
send.
1720
I urge everyone to vote for this
motion to discharge and to support amending
the Workers' Compensation Law. It has not
been dealt with for over ten years, and it's
something that we really need to address this
legislative session. And I urge all my
colleagues to vote yes on the motion.
THE PRESIDENT: All in favor of
accepting the motion to discharge signify by
saying aye.
SENATOR PATERSON: Party vote in
the affirmative.
SENATOR SKELOS: 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 Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
no further housekeeping at the desk. So there
being no further business to come before the
1721
Senate, I move we adjourn until Tuesday,
March 28th, at 3:00 p.m.
And a reminder that there will be
an immediate conference of the Majority.
THE PRESIDENT: There will be an
immediate meeting of the Majority Conference.
On motion, the Senate stands
adjourned until Tuesday, March 28th, 3:00 p.m.
(Whereupon, at 5:11 p.m., the
Senate adjourned.)