Regular Session - April 3, 2000
1949
NEW YORK STATE SENATE
THE STENOGRAPHIC RECORD
ALBANY, NEW YORK
April 3, 2000
3:05 p.m.
REGULAR SESSION
LT. GOVERNOR MARY O. DONOHUE, President
STEVEN M. BOGGESS, Secretary
1950
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: We are honored to
have with us today the Reverend Robert J.
Romano, pastor, Shrine Church of the St.
Bernadette in Brooklyn, and chaplain of the
New York City Police Department.
REVEREND ROMANO: Let us pray.
Almighty and eternal God, You have
revealed Your glory to all the nations. God
of power and might, wisdom and justice,
through Your authority is rightly administered
law, laws are enacted, and judgment is
decreed.
Assist with Your spirit of counsel
and fortitude the Senators of the great State
of New York, that the light of Your divine
wisdom direct the deliberations of this great
body and shine forth in all the proceedings
1951
and laws framed for the rule and government of
our state.
We pray for the members of this
great Legislature who are entrusted to create
the laws that benefit the citizens of New
York. May they all be enabled by Your
powerful protection to discharge the duties of
their great office with fairness, honesty, and
ability.
We likewise commend to Your
unbounded mercy all the citizens of this great
state, from Buffalo to Brooklyn, from
Ogdensburg to Orange County, and from the
Finger Lakes to Long Island Sound. May we be
blessed in the knowledge and sanctified in the
observance of Your holy law.
Lord, may we strive for unity and
peace, love and understanding no matter what
the cost. Let us work together, black and
white, rich and poor, young and old, to follow
our state motto of "Excelsior," to send our
prayers upward to You.
We make this prayer to You, who are
Lord and God forever and ever, Amen.
THE PRESIDENT: Reading of the
1952
Journal.
THE SECRETARY: In Senate,
Sunday, April 2, the Senate met pursuant to
adjournment. The Journal of Saturday,
April 1, 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.
Reports of select committees.
Communications and reports from
state officers.
Motions and resolutions.
Senator Meier.
SENATOR MEIER: Thank you, Madam
President.
On behalf of Senator Skelos, please
place a sponsor's star on Calendar Number 257.
THE PRESIDENT: So ordered,
Senator.
SENATOR MEIER: Madam President,
1953
amendments are offered to the following Third
Reading Calendar bills.
On behalf of Senator Seward, Senate
Print Number 3516.
On behalf of Senator Nozzolio -
I'm sorry, on behalf of Senator Nozzolio, at
page 13, Calendar Number 248, Senate Print
6282B.
On behalf of Senator Morahan, at
page 19, Calendar 384, Senate Print 6511.
On behalf of Senator LaValle, at
page 24, Calendar 454, Senate Print 2760.
On behalf of Senator Farley, page
25, Calendar 479, Senate Print 6669.
On behalf of Senator LaValle, at
page 33, Calendar 571, Senate Print Number
6487.
On behalf of Senator Rath, at page
10, Calendar Number 189, Senate Print 2942.
THE PRESIDENT: The amendments
are received, Senator Meier, and the bills
will retain their place on the Third Reading
Calendar.
SENATOR MEIER: Thank you, Madam
President.
1954
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
Senator Skelos, resolutions.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
there's a privileged resolution, 3586, at the
desk, by Senator DeFrancisco. May we please
have the title read and move for its immediate
adoption.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: By Senator
DeFrancisco, Legislative Resolution 3586,
recognizing the White Ribbon Campaign,
sponsored by Vera House of Syracuse, New York,
to take place the week of March 31 through
April 9, 2000.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
DeFrancisco.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: I just
would like to rise in support of the
resolution.
And the Vera House is an
organization that one of its main objectives
is to maintain awareness of the seriousness of
domestic violence, and also provide shelter
for battered women and children of those
1955
women.
It's a wonderful organization. In
1995, they started the White Ribbon Campaign.
I distribute them to each of the Senators and
hope that during this week they will wear this
white ribbon to show our concern over the
issue and to show our support for groups such
as Vera House.
THE PRESIDENT: The question is
on the resolution. All those in favor signify
by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The resolution is
adopted.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
may we please take up Privileged Resolution
3585, by Senator Marcellino -- this concerns
Earth Day -- have the title read and move for
its immediate adoption.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: By Senator
1956
Marcellino, Legislative Resolution Number
3585, commemorating the 30th anniversary of
Earth Day, April 22, 2000.
THE PRESIDENT: On the
resolution. All in favor signify by saying
aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The resolution is
adopted.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
Senator Marcellino has consented to the
resolution being opened for sponsorship by all
the members. If you do not wish to be on the
resolution, please notify the desk.
THE PRESIDENT: Those members who
do not wish to be included on this resolution
please notify the desk.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
if we could take up the noncontroversial
calendar.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
1957
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
326, by Senator Libous, Senate Print 6288A, an
act to amend the Public Authorities Law, in
relation to the financing of construction.
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, 47.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
342, by Senator Padavan, Senate Print 1893 -
SENATOR BRESLIN: Lay the bill
aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside, Senator Breslin.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
360, by Senator Kuhl, Senate Print 2729A, an
act to amend the Agriculture and Markets Law,
in relation to the producer referendum under
the Rogers-Allen Law.
1958
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, 50.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
364, by Senator Marcellino, Senate Print
6729A, an act to amend the Public Health Law,
in relation to prohibiting the sale or
distribution.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 7. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
February.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Lay it aside,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
371, by Senator Lack, Senate Print 6744, an
1959
act to amend the Judiciary Law and the Penal
Law, in relation to providing a juror with a
gratuity.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
378, by Senator Morahan, Senate Print 5861B,
an act to amend the Military Law, in relation
to modernizing the title and functions of the
Bureau of War Records.
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, 50.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
395, by Senator McGee, Senate Print 6464, an
act to amend the General City Law and the
Village Law, in relation to the filing of
decisions.
1960
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 5. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
July.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 50.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
397, by Senator Volker, Senate Print 100, an
act to amend the Penal Law, in relation to the
criminal possession of marijuana in the third
degree.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Lay it aside,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
402, by Senator Meier, Senate Print 922, an
act to amend the Penal Law, in relation to
permitting a court to impose.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
1961
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, 50.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
424, by Senator Balboni, Senate Print 5605 -
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Lay it aside,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
507, by Senator Padavan, Senate Print 6964, an
act to -
SENATOR ADA SMITH: Lay it aside,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside, Senator Smith.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
521, by Senator Bonacic, Senate Print 6314, an
act in relation to creating the Stone Ridge
Library District in the town of Marbletown,
1962
New York.
THE PRESIDENT: 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, 50.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
524, by Member of the Assembly Cahill,
Assembly Print 9580, an act to amend Chapter
723 of the Laws of 1992 relating to
establishing.
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, 50.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
Senator Skelos, that completes the
1963
noncontroversial reading of the calendar.
SENATOR SKELOS: Thank you, Madam
President.
I'm just wondering if the Minority
would want to reconsider the lay-aside on
Senator Balboni's bill.
(Laughter.)
THE PRESIDENT: So ordered.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
if we could now go to the controversial
calendar.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
342, by Senator Padavan, Senate Print 1893, an
act to amend the General Business Law, in
relation to the possession and sale of
drug-related paraphernalia.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Breslin.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Explanation,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Padavan,
an explanation has been requested by Senator
Breslin.
1964
SENATOR PADAVAN: Thank you,
Madam President.
A number of years ago, in the
mid-eighties, this house, the Legislature and
then the Governor put into law a bill that
outlawed the sale of drug paraphernalia.
"Drug paraphernalia" is a broad term meaning
all kinds of devices, chemical kits,
everything that's used in the consumption of
illegal substances, including heroin, cocaine,
hashish, and a variety of other products.
What this bill would do is allow a
locality -- and the bill is specifically
requested by the City of New York -- to adopt
a local law that would be in addition to the
state law. It might increase the penalty or
the fine which is provided for in state law.
That's it.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you.
Through you, Madam President, if Senator
Padavan will yield just to a couple of
questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Padavan,
1965
will you yield for two questions?
SENATOR PADAVAN: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead, Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Senator
Padavan, I'm not familiar with this section of
the General Business Law. Does this only
apply to cities with populations in excess of
a million, or is this a broad application to
all municipalities?
SENATOR PADAVAN: It is a broad
application. A local government, a
municipality, as it says very specifically,
which is currently precluded from enacting a
local law would be authorized to do so.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Okay.
Through you, Madam President, if Senator
Padavan would continue to yield.
SENATOR PADAVAN: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead, Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you.
Is it your intention to allow every
village and every town to create their own
separate -- potentially their own separate
1966
penalties for the possession of this kind of
drug paraphernalia? And doesn't that create,
in essence, a hodgepodge of different
statutes?
For example, you could come from
the Queens line into Nassau County and have a
building on one side of the dividing street
and have one set of penalties in one store and
another set of penalties in another, or
someone caught on both sides.
SENATOR PADAVAN: Well, there
would be obviously minimal penalties, as
provided for in state law. But situations
vary in different parts of the state.
As you can imagine, the city of New
York, particularly in certain parts of the
city, the penalties that might be needed to
discourage entrepreneurs from selling these
products might necessarily be required, or
increased penalties might be required.
So in answer to your question, yes,
it would allow cities such as the City of
Albany to adopt a local law in this subject
area.
But then again, there are many,
1967
many examples of that. If you look at our
traffic laws, we have many local laws that
increase local penalties for everything from
parking violations to traffic violations, to
speeding violations, and a whole host of
areas. There are many sections of law that
allow local municipalities to adopt greater
penalties for an infraction different than in
another municipality, or by the -- for the
state itself.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Madam President, if Senator Padavan would
yield to another question.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Padavan,
do you yield?
SENATOR PADAVAN: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead, Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Is there any
portion of the General Business Law that
limits the severity of the penalty that could
be imposed in either one of these cases? Does
this give a municipality, a small town or a
village the ability to make a felony out of
these -
1968
SENATOR PADAVAN: No, it does
not.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: -
possessions?
SENATOR PADAVAN: This does not
give them that authority.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Madam President, if Senator Padavan will
continue to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Padavan,
do you yield?
SENATOR PADAVAN: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead, Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Is that
contained in the proposed bill, or is that in
some other portion of the General Business Law
that restricts that?
SENATOR PADAVAN: It's in the
underlying statute that we adopted in the
mid-eighties.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Madam President, just on the bill, briefly.
I've voted for this in the past,
and I'm probably going to vote for it again.
1969
I think Senator Padavan's point about giving
certainly the City of New York, a population
of a million people, the ability to set up its
own penalties for possession or the sale of
drug-related paraphernalia makes sense.
I would, however, suggest that in a
bill that has this broad application to every
municipality and town may pose a host of
problems. In a community such as mine, a
county like Monroe where we have 19 towns and
the City of Rochester, associated villages,
this type of bill could create a hodgepodge of
regulations and criminal and civil penalties
that I don't think will necessarily always
serve the public interest.
And I appreciate what Senator
Padavan is going to do. I'll vote for this
for the City of New York. They've asked for
it, they're a big enough community. They've
got the ability to impose severe penalties,
misdemeanors, up to a year in prison for
possession of this. I'd give them that
authority.
However, we may run into a problem
that I can foresee when towns and villages may
1970
try to utilize this and we'll end with a
hodgepodge of civil and criminal penalties
across the state that may serve no one's
interest.
So I'll vote for it now, Madam
President, but there may be a dark cloud on
the horizon on this bill.
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. Nays,
1. Senator Sampson recorded in the negative.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
364, by Senator Marcellino, Senate Print
6729A, an act to amend the Public Health Law,
in relation to prohibiting.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
on behalf of Senator Marcellino, it's my
1971
understanding that this legislation passed
last week and it's a technical chapter
amendment to the bill. It changes a section
number of the bill.
SENATOR PATERSON: Let me think.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Gentile.
SENATOR GENTILE: Yes, thank you,
Madam President. Just on the bill.
I notice that there are some
technical amendments to this bill that we
voted on last week on banning herbal
cigarettes. And I think it was a good bill
last week, it's a better bill this week -
except that it still does not address the
issue of herbal cigarette sales over the
Internet. And that is a major and growing
problem in our state.
And I think that while I will vote
in favor of this bill, I think we still have
to address that issue of selling these herbal
cigarettes over the Internet. So I will vote
in the affirmative, but we need to do some
more work.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
1972
President, I think the bill also addresses the
issue of some transaction scanning of motor
vehicle licenses.
But I won't take Senator Skelos
through that. He was kind enough to get up to
explain the corrections for us.
And I'll also vote in favor of the
bill.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Madam
President, just briefly.
I too will vote in favor of this
bill. But I really think that if we want to
do something in tobacco prevention, frankly,
we ought to go back to Senator Padavan's bill
and the bill that I carry that would create
safe burning cigarettes.
That's really the problem we have
to face. With all due respect to Senator
Marcellino, while the issue of smoking herbal
cigarettes may be a big issue for some people,
the issue of safe burning cigarettes that we
could mandate that would cut down on the fire
loss and the risk to our firefighters and our
1973
police officers who are confronted with far
too many cigarette fires, that's what we ought
to be spending our time doing.
I'm going to vote in favor of this
bill. We shouldn't have herbal cigarettes, we
should restrict them. But this is merely
using a flyswatter to go after the big
problem. The big problem is safe burning
cigarettes. We ought to pass Senator
Padavan's bill or my bill to make sure that
people don't die in cigarette fires. Then
we'd have something to really say is an
accomplishment.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 7. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
February.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 53.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Skelos.
1974
SENATOR SKELOS: There will be an
immediate meeting of the Energy Committee in
the Majority Conference Room.
THE PRESIDENT: There will be an
immediate meeting of the Energy Committee in
the Majority Conference Room.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
371, by Senator Lack, Senate Print 6744, an
act to amend the Judiciary Law and the Penal
Law, in relation to providing.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, with the permission of the
Majority, might we lay that aside just for a
couple of minutes for Senator Duane, who is
out of the chamber at the moment?
SENATOR SKELOS: No objection.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside temporarily.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
397, by Senator Volker, Senate Print 100, an
act to amend the Penal Law, in relation to
criminal possession of marijuana in the third
1975
degree.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Skelos,
an explanation has been -
SENATOR SKELOS: Lay it aside
temporarily.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside temporarily.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
424, by Senator Balboni, Senate Print 5605, an
act to amend the Penal Law in relation to
enacting the "Anti-Weapons of Mass Destruction
Act."
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, may we have an explanation from
Senator Balboni? Who would be very
disappointed if he didn't get to give one.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Balboni,
an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR BALBONI: Thank you.
Thank you, Madam President. And I do
appreciate the opportunity to discuss this
piece of legislation.
1976
As many will recall, this is a bill
that we discussed last year. And as recently
as this afternoon I was reviewing the comments
in last year's transcript. And I have to at
the outset thank Senator Paterson for his
wonderful remarks about my erudite comments
and the proficiency with which the bill was
written and the severity of the subject
matter.
Notwithstanding those things,
however, I'd like to just briefly state that
this is an issue which is not going away.
Notwithstanding the fact that this house has
signaled its overwhelming support behind this
bill by a vote of 53 to nothing.
Just the other day, as recounted in
the New York Times article of February 14th, a
Glendale village community was the site of a
mock biological attack. It was responded to
by a branch of the military, specifically the
"22-member team is a part of a newly formed
counterterrorism capability, a cadre of
full-time specialists created to help local
police and firefighters after a chemical,
biological or nuclear attack."
1977
Ladies and gentlemen, last year in
the debate Senator Dollinger raised the issue
of whether or not anyone in this state had
ever died as a result of a chemical,
biological, or nuclear attack. At the time, I
told him that he was in fact correct. But
what has become apparent is that though no one
perhaps has perished in this state,
nonetheless it is being taken very seriously
in this state by the federal government.
To review the contents of the bill
and what it does, essentially what it does is
it takes the Penal Law and brings it to the
frightening reality of what today's terrorism
capabilities are. It essentially says that if
you possess, manufacture, provide equipment,
plan to deliver or threaten to deliver a
biological or chemical or nuclear weapon in
the state of New York, you are guilty of a B
felony to an A-1 felony. An A-1 felony, as
you know, is the most serious crime in the
state.
This is an issue that is continuing
to garner serious consideration by the federal
government. And just recently in Nassau
1978
County, on June 15th, we had a threat of an
anthrax attack at the Mineola Courthouse.
Mineola is my home district and basically my
home community.
And though Senator Mary Lou Rath
has taken the issue of the threats of
biological or chemical weapons, it is
nonetheless something that would be covered
also in my bill. If in fact you could show
that an individual had reasonable access and
intended to use this weapon and then
threatened to do so, that would be a B felony.
With that, I yield to any questions
that anyone might have.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator
Balboni has a bill that I think is crafted
with excellence and is quite a propos at this
time. We don't need for anyone in this state
to die in order to recognize a hazard or a
catastrophe as it's approaching. And so I
don't think it's necessary to look at those
types of statistics when you think in terms of
1979
the type of devastation that this type of
chemical warfare can cause.
However, Senator Balboni, if you
would yield for a question.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Balboni,
will you yield to a question?
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: The fact is
that we have weapons of mass destruction that
are killing people in this state right now,
and they relate to firearms.
And although it is not really right
to bring this to your attention, the fact is
that whenever you see a piece of legislation
like this, the notion of why we would be
selective in our concerns for weapons of mass
destruction of all kinds has to be discussed.
And so I just want to ask you, why
would colleagues of ours be so interested in
this very effective piece of legislation and
still, for some reason, not recognize those
other weapons that have already done damages
1980
in schools, in our streets, in business
offices and other places around our state?
SENATOR BALBONI: Madam
President, in order to respond to my
colleague's inquiry -- or statement, I should
say, more than a question -- I would just make
two points, two observations.
As you know, Senator Paterson, gun
use in this state is already dealt with in the
Penal Law. The specifics as to firearms are
also dealt with in the federal law. And I
know that this house is under a process of
considering it, as is the State Assembly. And
whether or not there will be legislation this
session remains to be seen, but I know that
individuals are working towards a consensus
from both houses.
As you know, recently the Governor
has come out with his package. And,
surprising or not, the Assembly has failed to
address the package as it is right now. And
therefore, the traditional advocates of that
type of legislation have been considering the
issue also.
So in other words, there has been
1981
no rush to conclusion. And I think that
that's what we want to do in this state right
now, Senator Paterson, is we want to deal with
that issue. But that's not the issue at hand.
What is at hand in this bill is the
fact that our Penal Law does not take into
account the seriousness of this particular
agent of destruction. And the significance of
this, by the way, Senator Paterson, is that
this is much more insidious. A gun shows up
at someone's house, you know it's a gun. The
chemicals that are used in order to make some
of the most deadly gases known to man, most
deadly chemical agents are as commonplace as a
mail-order catalogue.
Most likely biological agents occur
naturally in the environment. Specimens can
also be obtained by mail from the American
Type Culture Collection in Maryland, or other
similar collections around the world. For
example, anthrax specimens can be purchased
for about $35, according to one author. He
complains that marijuana is more closely
regulated in the United States than access to
and distribution of the most deadly biological
1982
cultures. That's a report from Douglas and
Livingston, published in 1987.
So what we have here is not only
the fact that these agents are easily
accessible, but they are insidious because
certainly in the chemical form they're used in
manufacturing processes.
And it is time that we bring New
York State's Penal Law into the 21st century,
in recognizing that these items also should be
specifically prohibited.
Thank you, Senator.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, on the bill.
I demur to Senator Balboni's
complaint. I agree with everything he said.
Particularly the fact that this type of
warfare is insidious, and to a great degree we
may not have recognized how available many of
these chemicals, such as anthrax, may be. And
therefore, just the publication of this issue
as much as passing the legislation is very
effective.
But I just simply don't need to ask
1983
Senator Balboni the question as much as I need
to ask all of my colleagues the question:
What's the difference between chemical warfare
and armed weaponry? Particularly the types of
weapons that could only be used to assault
other human beings. They don't have any other
purpose in mind. And we still as a state have
not regulated them.
And I would just simply answer,
because there are not the same type of
interests pressuring the Legislature as there
would be in chemical warfare. There's no
anthrax lobby. There's nobody saying that
this is something that we should be passing
around among our constituency.
So the consensus is one that if we
had it in a vacuum, there would be a consensus
tomorrow. And what we as legislators have
done is knuckle under to special interests
rather than thinking about special human
beings, our neighbors.
And so I don't mean to in any way
diminish the caliber or the quality of Senator
Balboni's legislation, other than to restate
the fact that we aren't covering all of the
1984
types of weapons of devastation, particularly
ones that are doing the most damage in this
state. And the more we engage in this
conversation, the more we are also in a way
hoodwinking the public into believing that we
are really addressing the most immediate
problem, when actually we are not.
And I certainly hope that Senator
Dollinger, who is now approaching 2,269 days
of trying to get effective gun control
legislation in this state, will get up and say
a word on this.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Madam
President, I will yield to Senator
Schneiderman.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
Senator Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Oh, thank
you, Senator Dollinger. I just want to slip
in a word before you take the stage.
If the sponsor would yield to a
question, through you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Balboni,
will you yield for a question?
SENATOR BALBONI: Of course,
1985
Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead, Senator
Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: My
question is I notice a repeated reference in
this legislation to chemical substances,
biological substances used in an industrial or
commercial process. And I was wondering if
you could explain what that includes.
And specifically, would that
include biological or chemical substances that
are used in military processes; you know, used
by the military?
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes. The -
one of the most disturbing characteristics of
these types of chemicals is the relatively
simple transposition of the chemical equation
into a deadly chemical equation. There is one
study that concludes that ballpoint-pen ink is
one step away from saran gas in terms of its
chemical composition.
And so it does include the
military. But of course that is a specific
exemption in the bill, when it says "the
lawful use of the weapon." So this is what -
1986
or the chemicals. This is a question that
Senator Dollinger had asked last year, as to
whether or not the military was exempted. And
in fact they are.
But if I might, Senator
Schneiderman, because I anticipated you were
going to perhaps go down a similar vein as
Senator Paterson -- let me just make a
statement, if I can, to my colleagues.
Because I also want to make a challenge to
you.
The statement is this. What I'm
talking about here are weapons of mass
destruction. And I guess "mass destruction"
is a subjective phrase. What is mass
destruction to some might not be mass
destruction to others. And of course wanting
to avoid the simplification or the -- how
shall I say this -- the failure to recognize
the loss of any human being. One death is too
many.
But the weapons that I'm talking
about, there is a 1972 study by the Advanced
Concepts Research Corporation of Santa
Barbara, California, which postulated that an
1987
aerosol attack with anthrax spores in the New
York City area could result in 600,000 deaths.
We are talking at a scale that mankind has
never known before. Think along the lines of
Hiroshima, Nagasaki. That's the kind of
devastation and destruction we are talking
about.
To lump this in and refer to any
type of firearm, unless it's a nuclear-tipped
artillery shell, I think is somewhat
inappropriate in this terminology. So for the
purposes of the record and for the purposes of
the legislative intent, those are the weapons
that we're speaking about.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: If the
sponsor will continue to yield.
What I was focusing on, though,
Senator Balboni -- although I certainly
appreciate your substantial response to my
brief inquiry -- the -- I'm really interested
in the fact that any chemical -- and I'm
referring to the language that's repeated
1988
several times in the bill -- any chemical or
biological substance generally used in an
industrial or commercial process.
That includes lots and lots of
things. As you pointed out, ballpoint-pen
ink. And if you say that could be someone
with chemicals that would be routinely used
for many purposes, and the key factor, as I
gather from your legislation, is really just
the intent of the user, what they intend to do
with that substance -- it may be a substance
used in a factory, used in a household, used
in a gas station; is that not correct?
SENATOR BALBONI: That is in fact
the case.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Well, I'm
pleased, then, that today, when we're going to
be speaking about other types of crimes where
the only distinction is intent, that my
Republican colleagues are joining me in
recognizing that every possession of a
substance is not the same, that every type of
act of potential violence is not the same, and
that the subjective intent of the perpetrator
is key.
1989
And that's really the issue in the
hate crimes legislation we're bringing forward
later today.
So on the bill, I appreciate
Senator Balboni's thoughtful work on this
issue, and I look forward to our debate on a
related subject relating to intent later
today.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Madam
President, will Senator Balboni yield to a
question?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Balboni,
do you yield?
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, I will.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Madam President.
Has anyone in this state been
killed by a weapon of mass destruction since
we debated this bill last?
SENATOR BALBONI: No, there has
not.
1990
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Madam President, will Senator Balboni yield to
another question?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Balboni,
do you yield for another question?
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, I do.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Has anyone
been seriously injured as a result of a weapon
of mass destruction in this state since we
last debated this bill?
SENATOR BALBONI: Well, there
were several injuries associated with several
threats in terms of evacuation of buildings
and schools over the last couple of years.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: But, through
you, Madam President, was anybody actually
hurt because of one of these weapons being
used?
SENATOR BALBONI: No.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Madam President, is there so much as a -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Balboni,
do you continue to yield?
1991
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, I do.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Has anyone in
the state of New York suffered so much as a
sniffle because of one of these weapons of
mass destruction in the last year since we
last debated this bill?
SENATOR BALBONI: Senator
Dollinger, I know that you're in your
cross-examination mode, and I appreciate that
very much, because you're very good at it.
However, let me do what you can't do in court.
I'm going to jump to the chase because I know
where you're going, because we went here last
year.
Here's what I challenge you to do,
all of you. Let's not wait until there's a
death. Let's not wait until we have the
scenes of people being brought out in
thousands of body bags. Let's not wait until
we have mass destruction and devastation.
I want the Democratic members of
this house, if you voted for the bill, don't
let that be enough. I want you to go to the
1992
Assembly and help me pass it there. I really
mean that. This is a bill that we should have
see the light of day in the State Assembly.
And we should get them to move on it, because
that's so crucial.
Because I know how proactive we are
in this house, and how forthright we are, and
we can move forward on this.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Madam
President, through you. I have one more
question for Senator Balboni. But let me just
address him for a second, if I could.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you on the
bill? Are you on the bill?
SENATOR DOLLINGER: On the bill,
Madam President.
I accept that challenge
wholeheartedly. I couldn't agree with you
more, Senator Balboni. Let's take this bill
that will save lives and let's go convince our
Assembly members to do that. I'll take
responsibility for that.
I'd ask you to take one other
challenge, Senator Balboni. Go back in your
conference and tell those who don't want to
1993
enact reasonable gun control measures -- that
are killing people every single day in this
state -- and tell them that they should take
the same logic and apply it to reasonable gun
control measures.
Senator Balboni, I know you've been
in that conference, and I know you've probably
said those kinds of things. You go convince
them, and I'll go over to the Assembly and get
this bill passed. And I will ask every one of
my colleagues to do it.
But what I refuse to do -- and I
voted for this bill, and I'll vote for it
again. But, Senator Balboni, this is the
exact same kind of bill that when we put it
forward in terms of gun control, people say
it's not the right thing to do. It's the
exact same kind of bill. You define the kinds
of -
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam
President -- Madam President, if I could
interrupt for a moment -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: -- without
raising a question of germaneness, I think it
1994
would be more appropriate, Senator Dollinger,
if we discussed the bill before us -
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I was just
about to get to that.
SENATOR SKELOS: -- rather than
going tangentially off on every other thing
that seems to be bothering you today.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: With all due
respect to the Deputy Majority Leader, Senator
Balboni issued a challenge to me to ask me to
do something. I've responded and said that
I'm willing to do it in exchange for something
else.
SENATOR SKELOS: I believe the
challenge was based upon the bill before the
house, not some other issue that's bothering
you today. So if we could -
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Well, but I
don't think something's bothering me today. I
think -
SENATOR SKELOS: -- stick to the
bill, I think it would be appropriate.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson,
why do you rise?
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
1995
President, Senator Skelos is raising a point
of order, and then he's debating the bill.
SENATOR SKELOS: No, I didn't.
Madam President, to clarify, I didn't raise a
point of order. I just suggested, rather than
getting into the issue of germaneness, points
of order and everything, if we could stick to
the bill, perhaps that would be more
appropriate, so we do not have to go in that
direction.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, it's just that -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson,
do you wish to be recognized?
SENATOR PATERSON: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: All right. Why
do you rise, Senator Paterson?
SENATOR PATERSON: I rise as a
point of order, Madam President. That -
THE PRESIDENT: State your point
of order, please, Senator.
SENATOR PATERSON: Well, that
Senator Dollinger had the floor. Senator
Skelos did not ask to be recognized to ask him
to yield for a question. That's why I assumed
1996
he was raising a point of order.
Now -- as he himself said -- he
wasn't raising a point of order, that made him
out of order, and Senator Dollinger should
have been allowed to continue.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger, you have not requested to continue.
Do you wish to be acknowledged and recognized?
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Yes, I do,
Madam President. I'm -
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Dollinger. On the bill.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I'll be
mindful of the comments made by the Deputy
Majority Leader.
THE PRESIDENT: Are you on the
bill, Senator Dollinger?
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Yes, I am,
Madam President. Yes, I am.
THE PRESIDENT: And please keep
your comments germane, Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Absolutely.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
with germane comments on the bill.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
1997
Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: You're welcome.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: This bill
describes a series of weapons of mass
destruction, describes them in detail. I'd
just point out, what happens if someday it
isn't Crimean-Congo fever which is the
problem, but it's Korean-Congo fever, it
mutates, we develop a new -- how does this
bill cover it?
This is exactly the same kind of
description that's been in bills which
describe assault weapons, and everybody says
you can't describe it. I would suggest that
this bill can't describe it.
Then the second question that
Senator Balboni has talked about are these are
the weapons of the 21st century. I would
simply point out to him, we haven't solved the
problem of the 20th century yet. We haven't
figured out how to deal with the weapons of
the 20th century, to deal with those, those
things called guns.
And lastly, I'd conclude with one
other thing, Senator Balboni. I've voted for
1998
this bill. I'm willing to buy into the 21st
century. But we all know that these weapons
don't kill people. We know that people kill
people. It's not the weapons that kill them.
Weapons don't kill anyone.
That's what I've been told. I've
been told it for the last ten years, on the
floor of this Senate and elsewhere: It's not
weapons that kill people, it's people that
kill people. Then why would we ban these?
Are you suggesting that this kills a lot of
people all at once?
I agree with you, Senator Balboni.
I agree with you that someday in our
neighborhoods, anthrax and Crimean-Congo
hemorrhagic fever virus may be as common as
Smith & Wesson and Colt and Beretta. And my
hope is that when it becomes that common, we
have the courage to ban both these weapons of
mass destruction and those other little
weapons of mass destruction that you can walk
around with concealed in your pocket.
I join you, I welcome you, I take
your challenge. I'd ask you to take ours.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
1999
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 5. This
act shall take effect in 90 days.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 60.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President. I was hoping, without objection, I
could be recorded in the negative on Calendar
Number 342 and 397.
THE PRESIDENT: Without
objection, you will be recorded as voting in
the negative on Calendar 342, Senator Duane.
But Calendar Number 397 has not
been -
SENATOR DUANE: Excuse me, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: -- is ahead.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
507, by Senator Padavan, Senate Print 6964, an
act to authorize the Dormitory Authority or
2000
the Commissioner of General Services to sell
or lease.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Padavan.
SENATOR PADAVAN: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Smith.
SENATOR ADA SMITH: Thank you.
Would the sponsor yield for a couple of
questions?
SENATOR PADAVAN: Yes.
SENATOR ADA SMITH: Thank you,
Senator.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Padavan,
do you yield for a few questions?
SENATOR PADAVAN: Yes. Yes, I
do.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Smith,
through me, you may proceed with two
questions.
SENATOR ADA SMITH: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: You're welcome.
SENATOR ADA SMITH: Through you,
as I was saying -
THE PRESIDENT: Excuse me,
Senator?
2001
SENATOR ADA SMITH: I said
"through you," as I was saying when I was
interrupted.
THE PRESIDENT: I did not hear
that, Senator.
You may proceed with two questions.
SENATOR ADA SMITH: Thank you.
Thank you.
Senator Paterson -
SENATOR PADAVAN: Padavan. He's
Paterson. I'm Padavan.
SENATOR ADA SMITH: I'm sorry,
Padavan.
SENATOR PADAVAN: I know we look
alike, but -
(Laughter.)
SENATOR ADA SMITH: You're much
more substantial.
SENATOR PADAVAN: He's
better-looking.
SENATOR ADA SMITH: Could you
tell me what would be the disposition of this
property once it is sold to the Board of Ed?
SENATOR PADAVAN: Pardon me?
SENATOR ADA SMITH: Could you
2002
tell me, what would be the disposition of this
property -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Smith, I
cannot hear your remarks. Please direct your
remarks to me, as President of the Senate.
SENATOR ADA SMITH: Senator
Padavan, could you please let us know, through
the -- through Madam President -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Smith, I
just asked you for the -- this is now the
second time. Your remarks should be directed
through me, as President of the Senate.
SENATOR ADA SMITH: Madam
President, as I said -
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you,
Senator Smith.
SENATOR ADA SMITH: -- to the -
to Senator Padavan, through you.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR ADA SMITH: As I said
three times, could you please tell us what the
disposition of this property would be once it
is sold to the Board of Education?
SENATOR PADAVAN: Yes. Madam
President, in response to the question, the
2003
plans are to build three schools: a high
school, an intermediate school, and an
elementary school.
SENATOR ADA SMITH: Could Senator
Padavan also enlighten us as to what -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Smith, do
you wish Senator Padavan to yield for an
additional question?
SENATOR ADA SMITH: Thank you,
Madam President. As you stated to me earlier,
I could ask at least two questions.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR ADA SMITH: And I was on
my second one.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Smith.
SENATOR ADA SMITH: Thank you,
Madam President.
Through you, would Senator Padavan
tell us what districts in Queens would be
involved in this endeavor?
SENATOR PADAVAN: They'll be
Districts 26 and 29 for the intermediate
school and the elementary school, and of
course the high school comes under the High
2004
School Division, which is Borough 1.
SENATOR ADA SMITH: Madam
President, would the Senator continue to
yield?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Padavan,
do you continue to yield?
SENATOR PADAVAN: Yes. Yes, I
would.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Smith,
you may proceed.
SENATOR ADA SMITH: Thank you.
Through you, Madam President.
Would you tell us, have there been
public hearings on this issue?
SENATOR PADAVAN: There have been
public hearings held by Community School
District 26 and 29, and the High School
Division in Queens County.
SENATOR ADA SMITH: Would the
Senator just answer one more question?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Padavan,
will you yield for an additional question?
SENATOR PADAVAN: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: All right.
Senator Smith -
2005
SENATOR ADA SMITH: Through you,
Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Smith,
you may proceed with a question.
SENATOR ADA SMITH: Through you,
Madam President.
Would you acknowledge that there
has been some dissension from some of the -
at least one school board?
SENATOR PADAVAN: There were a
number of questions and issues from both
school boards which have been addressed in the
current plan that we are now dealing with, as
announced by the borough president, myself,
Harry Thompson, the Queens member of the
school board. And that has been shared with
the community school boards in question.
And there seems to be, from
everything I've heard, unanimity in accepting
the plan.
SENATOR ADA SMITH: Thank you
very much. On the bill.
After a long list of hearings and
the community having their opportunity to
address this issue, I am a little upset that
2006
Community School Board 29 is still objecting
to this. However, with the need for
additional classrooms and the overcrowdedness
in the Queens school system, I will certainly
support this bill.
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Smith.
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: Madam
President, through you, will Senator Padavan
yield to a question?
SENATOR PADAVAN: Yes, I would
yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead, Senator
Smith.
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: Senator
Padavan, what is the area size that -
SENATOR PADAVAN: I'm sorry, can
you -
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: -- the
size of the area that they're looking to sell?
SENATOR PADAVAN: The acreage
that will be purchased is 32.69 acres.
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: Madam
President.
2007
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Smith.
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: Yes. For
the record, I just want to indicate to the
Senator that what I would hope would happen is
there's a big concern -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Smith,
are you speaking on the bill at this time?
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: Yes, on
the bill.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
on the bill, Senator. Go ahead.
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: There's a
major concern as to the size and the area in
which these schools will be built on.
While it is important for the
students to be trained academically, there is
some clear concern as it relates to the
recreation that they will be involved with.
And I would just hope that the size and
acreage which they will offer to the Board of
Ed would also consider that as well.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Padavan.
SENATOR PADAVAN: On the bill.
Just to give Senator Smith some
comfort, first -- later I'll be glad to show
2008
you the layout. And when you see it, you will
note that there are recreational facilities
around each school as well as the construction
of a baseball field, a soccer field, and a
football field on this acreage. More than
enough in terms of adequate recreational and
athletic opportunity.
SENATOR COPPOLA: Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Coppola.
SENATOR COPPOLA: Yes. On the
issue or the item, can Mr. Padavan tell us a
little bit about the environmental review -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Coppola,
are you requesting that Senator Padavan yield
for a question?
SENATOR COPPOLA: Yes. Thank
you.
THE PRESIDENT: All right.
Senator Padavan, will you yield for a
question?
SENATOR COPPOLA: The
environmental review on -
THE PRESIDENT: Excuse me,
Senator.
2009
Senator Padavan, will you yield for
a question from Senator Coppola?
SENATOR PADAVAN: Well, I'm
delighted to yield for a question. I'm
curious to know what Buffalo has to do about
this, but I'll wait to hear.
THE PRESIDENT: All right.
Senator Coppola, you may proceed with a
question.
SENATOR COPPOLA: Buffalo is
going to vote in support of it.
But I'd like to know about the
environmental review that you did on the
property. It's of great interest to me
because of these projects coming up. And
sometimes we get hit over the head if we don't
ask the questions.
SENATOR PADAVAN: Well, as you
know, this is state land. It's on the grounds
of Creedmoor State Hospital. The property in
question already has buildings on it which
will be demolished and replaced by school
buildings.
The environmental review by the
School Construction Authority indicates there
2010
is no problem, obviously. On this acreage
there is one stand of trees which will remain
intact.
SENATOR COPPOLA: 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: Ayes, 61.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Madam
President, may I -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Thank you,
Madam President. I would like unanimous
consent to be recorded in the negative on
Calendar 342.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Montgomery, without objection, you will be so
recorded as voting in the negative on Calendar
Number 342.
2011
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
371, by Senator Lack, Senate Print 6744, an
act to amend the Judiciary Law and the Penal
Law, in relation to providing a juror with a
gratuity.
SENATOR DUANE: Explanation,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Lack,
Senator Duane has requested an explanation.
SENATOR LACK: It's a very simple
bill, Madam President. This is the Abe
Hirschfeld bill.
It is reprehensible and
unfortunately a void in the law of this state
that after a mistrial, a defendant obviously
of some means -- as well as a certain degree
of eccentricity -- offered to pay an amount of
$2,500 to every juror who voted on his
mistrial, and indeed tendered such sums to
those who wanted it.
Much as, I must say, to all of us
who have practiced law for many years, that
indeed such a practice is indeed legal. It
is, as we speak, legal.
2012
This would make that practice
illegal.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President. Would the sponsor yield to a small
set of questions?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Lack,
would you yield to questions?
SENATOR LACK: I will not only
yield, but I'll yield without payment.
(Laughter.)
THE PRESIDENT: That indicates
that you may proceed, Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President. You know, no one interprets a
"yes" like you.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR DUANE: I'm wondering if
the sponsor is aware of any other cases
besides the infamous Abe Hirschfeld court case
where this has been a problem.
SENATOR LACK: Madam President,
I'm aware of no other cases.
Mr. Hirschfeld, in addition to
being an occasional political candidate, seems
2013
to be a case totally unto himself. And I
would certainly hope that by action that we
take today, and hopefully followed by the
Assembly and signed into law by the Governor,
it will not serve as further precedent for
anybody else to have the same type of mind-set
as Mr. Hirschfeld.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you.
Through you, Madam President, if the sponsor
would continue to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: You have
authorization, Senator.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President.
I'm wondering what happens in the
case of a juror who's taken out to lunch at
the conclusion of a case, whether or not they
would then be liable under this law.
SENATOR LACK: Well, Madam
President, that of course would depend upon
who takes the juror to lunch afterwards.
If the juror went to lunch by
himself, nothing would happen. If he went -
if it was an assignation with someone not
connected with the trial, nothing would
2014
happen.
If indeed, as the bill says, it is
a party in a civil or criminal action or
proceeding, then something definitely will
happen. It will be the commission of a Class
A misdemeanor.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you,
Madam President -
SENATOR LACK: That is, Madam
President, providing that, as with our own
rules, the juror didn't buy the lunch.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you,
Madam President, while I just soak in what a
terrific example we are here in the Senate,
I'm wondering whether or not this law applies
to a person or persons who may have been taken
out to lunch by a defendant both before -
does it apply to if they were taken out to
lunch before, by coincidence, as well as
after?
SENATOR LACK: Madam President,
the answer to that is contained in line 9,
where it says "having been." As I read the
2015
words "having been," it requires that the
lunch, in the example that Senator Duane is
utilizing, to have taken place after the
person in this -- assuming it's hypothetical,
has bought the lunch, has indeed bought the
lunch.
SENATOR DUANE: And through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor would tell me
whether or not there's a time limit. Does
this gift or gratuity count for five years,
ten years, twenty years, a lifetime?
SENATOR LACK: The gratuity would
count at any time.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President. On the bill.
I understand the intent of this
bill, and I'm very aware of the Abe Hirschfeld
situation where payments were made to jurors.
But that is the only case of its kind that I
know of where there had been a question as to
whether or not that could have an impact on -
whether or not that had an impact on the
disposition of the case.
I understand that if jurors knew
that the defendant was a wealthy person, it
2016
might put the idea of great wealth in their
heads and that sort of thing. But I'm very
concerned that this legislation is a huge
reaction to one case, one aberrant case.
I believe this bill should be
drafted much more tightly so as to not capture
people who might innocently go out to lunch
with the defendant five, ten, twenty years
afterwards. I don't think that there's much
malice in our criminal justice system that
people would take advantage of taking jurors
out to lunch or jurors demanding to be taken
out to lunch after a case.
And so while I understand and I
approve of the actual intent of this bill, I
just believe absolutely that this bill could
be more tightly crafted. And I actually think
it's the kind of legislation which we should
craft in consultation with various bar
associations and the district attorneys, so
that we could actually profit by the knowledge
of their experience if others have actually
abused the ability to take jurors out to lunch
or give them payments.
So I would recommend a no vote at
2017
this time, pending a better-crafted piece of
legislation that really addresses the more
heinous examples like the Abe Hirschfeld
example.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Lack.
SENATOR LACK: Thank you, Madam
President.
Senator Duane's comments are
certainly appreciated. Unfortunately, I would
suggest that in the future Senator Duane read
the bill.
First of all, this is not the bill
that was originally drafted by us in the
Assembly, nor by anybody in the Assembly.
This bill was put in at the request of the
judiciary. Because prior to the completion of
drafts by members of the Legislature, together
with bill drafters for the Office of Court
Administration, we all sat down and structured
a bill that is now introduced at the request
of the judiciary.
And who is the judiciary? Well,
the Office of Court Administration. All those
who are involved in the court system that
2018
administer the justice and were absolutely,
totally taken aback by the vacuum that
Mr. Hirschfeld capitalized on, offering
payment to jurors for their service.
And finally, I would just refer
Senator Duane to line 15 of the bill, which
says that the lunch, the gratuity, the gift,
anything that he's talking about, has to be on
the account of such service as a juror.
So if twenty years later you still
want to pay off the juror with a lunch, that's
covered under the bill. If, twenty years
later you, having married the juror, want to
buy him or her a ring, help yourself. That's
not covered under the bill.
I think the bill is very nicely and
tightly drafted, and I thank the judiciary for
their nonpolitical, nonpartisan draftsmanship
which has brought this bill to the floor of
the Senate today, and would certainly ask for
everyone's vote.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
2019
November.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: To explain my
vote, Madam President, just briefly.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: This vote
that I'm going to take right now is absolutely
consistent with something I did in December, a
vote I cast on this floor in December.
Because this vote says today that we shouldn't
let the gratuities and the appearance of
taking gratuities influence the judicial
process, even if the gratuity is given after
the person has rendered their service as a
juror.
In December I voted for a bill that
said no one in this Legislature should take a
gratuity from a lobbyist because it would
influence the legislative process.
And what Senator Lack just said,
when people were taken aback by what happened
with Mr. Hirschfeld, I would suggest our
voters out there are taken aback when they
find out that we're taking gifts from
2020
lobbyists which, whether they're given before
or after the fact, are nonetheless designed to
say thanks for a job well done on behalf of
our special interest.
I would just suggest that if we
believe gratuities are a bad thing because
they influence jurors in the judicial process,
we all ought to affirm the pledge that the
Democratic Conference in the Senate gave last
December when we said we wouldn't take
gratuities from lobbyists because it will
interfere with the integrity of the
legislative process.
Let's have a constant, consistent
rule. What's good for the judiciary to
protect jurors from bias, from influence,
should be equally as good for us. If the
people in the chicken coop are going to follow
this rule, maybe the foxes should as well.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President. To explain my vote.
Just to refresh the chair's memory,
I raised this exact same issue in committee.
And I additionally requested that we have a
2021
hearing. I was told having a hearing was a
waste of time, although I personally think
having a hearing where the public comes to
testify is never a waste of time.
That said, the objections that I
raised to the bill at that time when I voted
without recommendation remain the same. And
I'm going to vote no on this.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Duane,
you will be so recorded as voting in the
negative.
Senator Dollinger, how do you vote?
SENATOR DOLLINGER: With
consistency, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: On this bill.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: In the
affirmative. Consistently I've voted against
gratuities.
THE PRESIDENT: All right.
Senator Dollinger, you will be so recorded as
voting in the affirmative on this bill.
The Secretary will call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 60. Nays,
2022
1. Senator Duane recorded in the negative.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
397, by Senator Volker, Senate Print 100, an
act to amend the Penal Law, in relation to
criminal possession of marijuana in the third
degree.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Explanation.
SENATOR VOLKER: Madam
President -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Volker,
Senator Montgomery has requested an
explanation.
SENATOR VOLKER: Yes, ma'am.
Madam President, this bill passed
the Senate last year by a vote of 57 to 3.
And what it essentially does -- and let me
start off by saying this has absolutely
nothing to do with Rockefeller Drug Laws. In
fact, I was looking at last year's debate.
And let me point out that this was part of an
amendment, Chapter 265 of the Laws of 1979,
and it was further amended by Chapter 75 of
the Laws of 1995.
2023
Rockefeller Drug Laws were 1993 -
or 1973, I'm sorry. I was there. In fact,
one of the few people that was there in the
Assembly when the Rockefeller Drug Laws
passed. And it's one of the reasons I'm in
the Senate now, because the governor at the
time didn't like some of our responses. But
that's neither here nor there.
What this bill basically does is -
when the law was changed back in '79, it
lowered the penalties for marijuana rather
dramatically. We have since amended them, but
still the penalty for 2 ounces, possession of
2 ounces to 6 -- or to 8 ounces, I'm sorry, of
marijuana is only a Class A misdemeanor.
Even though in certain cases it is
patently obvious that the person that
possesses the drugs intended to sell them.
One case, for instance, involved 6 ounces of
marijuana packaged in 100 individually sealed
plastic bags, stored in two large Ziplock bags
labeled with the total weight and number of
packages of marijuana each bag held.
In another case, the defendant was
found with a phone pager, a portable cellular
2024
phone with three separate batteries, records
of customer sales, and so forth and so forth.
Clearly a seller. All that person could be
charged with, because it was only 6 ounces of
marijuana, was a Class A misdemeanor.
But the same situation with crack
cocaine, that person could get a B felony.
Let me remind you, a B felony.
All we're doing with this bill is
saying in that circumstance, a person with
between 2 and 8 ounces of marijuana, that is
found with the intent to sell -- and you must
prove the intent to sell -- that person could
receive a Class E felony. And in New York
City, as many people know, you don't go to a
Class E felony -- a Class A misdemeanor isn't
looked at very strongly. In fact, it's said
by some DAs they don't really pay much
attention to misdemeanors.
So what this really is is it says
that for up to 8 ounces of marijuana, if
you're charged and convicted of intent to
sell, that you could be charged and convicted
of a Class E felony.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
2025
section.
Senator Montgomery, why do you
rise?
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Madam
President, I would like to know if the sponsor
would answer a question for clarification.
SENATOR VOLKER: Certainly.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead.
Senator Volker does yield, Senator Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Okay, thank
you.
Senator Volker, I'm just trying to
figure out from you, it's my understanding
that for a misdemeanor charge, one can get up
to one year in prison. Is that correct?
SENATOR VOLKER: Right.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: And with a
Class E felony, how does that change?
SENATOR VOLKER: One to four
years. They could still get one year. But
under the felony section, you can get one to
four years.
The real difference, by the way, is
that you could go to state prison -- where, by
the way, you'd probably be able to get better
2026
drug treatment, I would only point that
outlet. With a misdemeanor, you stay in a
local jail, generally speaking. I say
generally speaking because very often the
person who gets the misdemeanor doesn't end up
going to jail at all in New York City.
But you're right, it -- what it is
is when you look at the Class A misdemeanor is
up to one year, and then the Class E felony is
the lowest felony, which is one to four years.
It doesn't mean you get four years, it means
you can get one to four years.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Thank you.
Just one further question, Madam President, if
the Senator would yield.
SENATOR VOLKER: Certainly. I
yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Volker,
do you continue to yield?
Go ahead, Senator Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: So now,
Senator, you say that it requires 6 ounces of
marijuana?
SENATOR VOLKER: Well, no, it's
actually 8 ounces. Two to 8 ounces, and you
2027
have to prove intent to sell. It really
doesn't change anything as far as possession
is concerned. Possession still remains a
misdemeanor.
But if you can prove intent to
sell -- and I just made a description of a
situation where clearly the person was a
seller. And if you can prove that person is a
seller, even though you don't actually prove
the sale itself -- in other words, the
problem, I think, Senator, you're aware, with
drug undercover people, in fact, you can find
somebody with pounds of marijuana, for
instance, but you can't necessarily prove
they're a seller unless you actually see them
selling or have evidence that they sold.
What we're saying here is that up
to 8 ounces of marijuana, between 2 and 8,
that if a person is caught with between 2 and
8 ounces of marijuana and you can prove an
intent to sell, then that person could be
subject to a Class E felony.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Okay. All
right. Thank you.
Madam President, briefly, on the
2028
bill.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, go ahead
on the bill.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: I just want
to remind my colleagues that while Senator
Volker is trying to address, I suppose, the
small drug dealers on the streets -- this is
the only -- only person or only thing that I
can see that he would be concerned about, with
chasing people for 2 ounces.
We're now in the process, I hope,
between the two houses in the Legislature,
between the two parties, to try and look at
what is wrong with the Rockefeller Drug Laws,
that we have filled up our prisons with
thousands and thousands of people who were
arrested under the Rockefeller Law, which is
already draconian. And one of the problems is
it leads to arrest of very small time, very
often, drug users, as opposed to really being
a mechanism to address drug trafficking in a
meaningful way.
So certainly I am going to oppose
this. Because it is my district and other
districts like mine where these draconian
2029
so-called drug laws have wreaked the most
havoc in terms of large numbers of people who
are locked away, no drug treatment, no
rehabilitation, and the ultimate -- and long,
long sentences -- and ultimately are sent back
to their communities that are simply more -
better criminals, as opposed to being reformed
citizens.
So I'm going to vote no. And I
certainly hope that we can address the
Rockefeller reform in this legislation as
quickly as possible. Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
November.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59. Nays,
2. Senators Duane and Montgomery recorded in
the negative.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
SENATOR HOFFMANN: Madam
2030
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Hoffmann,
that completes the controversial reading of
the calendar.
SENATOR HOFFMANN: Thank you,
Madam President. May we please return to
reports of standing committees. I believe
there are reports at the desk.
THE PRESIDENT: Reports of
standing committees.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Wright,
from the Committee on Energy and
Telecommunications, reports the following bill
direct to third reading:
Senate Print 7094, by Senator
Velella, an act prohibiting the recovery of
costs.
THE PRESIDENT: Without
objection, all bills directed to third
reading.
Senator Hoffmann.
SENATOR HOFFMANN: Thank you,
Madam President. There will be an immediate
meeting of the Majority in Room 332.
2031
THE PRESIDENT: There will be an
immediate meeting of the Majority in Room 332.
The Senate stands at ease.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President. Madam President, there will
similarly be a meeting of the Minority in the
Minority Conference Room, Room 314.
Room 332? That's next year. We'll
meet there next year. Right now, 314, the
Minority Conference Room.
THE PRESIDENT: Excuse me,
Senator Paterson. There's a Minority
conference in -- what room did you say?
SENATOR PATERSON: Room 314.
THE PRESIDENT: In Room 314. The
Senate continues to stand at ease.
SENATOR HOFFMANN: Thank you.
(Whereupon, the Senate stood at
ease at 4:24 p.m.)
(Whereupon, the Senate reconvened
at 4:55 p.m.)
THE PRESIDENT: The Senate will
come to order.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Madam President,
2032
is there any housekeeping at the desk that we
may take up at this time?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, there is,
Senator.
Senator Farley.
SENATOR FARLEY: On the charge of
housekeeping, Madam President, I wish to
recommit the -- strike the enacting clause of
this calendar bill on behalf of Senator
Johnson. I move to recommit Senate Print
7003, Calendar Number 465, which is on the
order of third reading, and recommit it to the
Committee on Environmental Conservation, with
instructions to that committee to strike the
enacting clause.
THE PRESIDENT: So ordered.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Madam President,
I believe that there is a motion to discharge
at the desk by Senator Duane.
THE PRESIDENT: That's correct,
Senator.
SENATOR BRUNO: I would ask that
he be recognized at this time.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Duane.
2033
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President. I'd like to waive the reading on
the motion and to be heard on the bill.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read to bring the bill before the house,
Senator Duane.
THE SECRETARY: Senate Print
2303, by Senator Duane, an act to amend the
Criminal Procedure Law and others, in relation
to strengthening civil rights protections.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Duane, to
explain the motion.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you. Yes.
Thank you, Madam President.
I would first like our body to
pause for a moment of silence for those who
have been murdered because of hatred. Matthew
Shepard. James Byrd. Joseph Ileto, a
Filipino-American postal worker who was killed
by the hatred of Buford Furrow, who was the
very same hate-filled person who terrified the
Jewish children and teachers in a Los Angeles
daycare center. Henry Edward Northington, who
was beheaded in Virginia for being gay. Billy
Jack Gaither, killed because he was gay.
2034
James Zappalorti, killed because he was gay.
Ricky Birdsong, a victim of Benjamin's Smith's
hatred -- Benjamin Smith who shot his way
across the Midwest because of his hatred for
African-Americans, Asians, Jewish people, gay
people, people of Latino descent. And a
moment of silence for the continued recovery
of Sonya Thompson, who was shot here in the
Capital District because she's
African-American.
And for the recovery of all those
people who have been murdered and injured and
traumatized because of hatred, could I have a
moment of silence, please.
Thank you. I want to speak to the
hate crimes bill, Madam President. This bill
would make hate-related violence and
intimidation a criminal offense. This bill
protects everybody. Not just the protected
categories of race, creed, color, national
origin, sex, disability, age or sexual
orientation. This bill protects everybody,
because the bill specifically states that the
attack must be based on the attacker's real or
perceived motives for attacking the victim.
2035
A heterosexual person who is
viciously attacked because they're perceived
to be something they are not, or if they're
perceived to be straight and are beaten
because of that, would receive the exact same
protections under this bill.
Critics of the bill say "a crime is
a crime," and that we already have laws on the
books making actions of the attackers illegal.
But this logic doesn't make sense, and it's
really just an easy way to get out of
addressing a very serious problem. If that's
true that a crime is just a crime, then we
should just get rid of the Codes Committee,
because we don't have to vote on any other
penal law, because everything is already
covered by the laws that we have.
And we know that that's not true.
Our society has evolved, and we recognize
other terrible damaging things that happen to
our society and that happen to individuals who
live in our state.
If a crime is just a crime, then
why do I constantly vote on very good bills
that provide extra protections for crimes
2036
against specific categories of people -
crimes committed against the elderly, the
mentally disabled, corrections officers,
police officers -- even, one time in
committee, sports officials?
We vote on new crimes all the time.
We just voted on a crime that had to do with
someone FOIAs information and then commits a
crime. So in addition to the crime, there was
another bill that had to do with actions
leading up to the crime, even though the
result would be the same: the victim would be
dead.
Now remember, this bill does more
than increase penalties. It has stringent
reporting requirements. This bill will allow
us to keep track of crimes and to try to fix
problems of hate through education and
sensitivity and through better work by law
enforcement -- district attorneys, police
departments, and others.
This will help us to prevent these
crimes from happening in the future, and
someday in this body we will be able to repeal
hate crimes if the legislation -- if the goal
2037
of this bill is actually attained. It's about
reducing hate and bias. It's about reducing
hate crimes.
Now, last year I told you about my
own experience as the victim of a hate crime.
But maybe what I didn't tell you about is the
trauma that is caused to the victims of hate
crimes. Even after I was viciously assaulted
in 1983, when the issue of hate crimes would
come up I did not always identify as a victim.
It took me years to recognize that I too had
been the victim of a hate crime.
And that happens to victims all the
time. Why? Because when I reported to the
police what had happened to me, what did I
get? Nothing. Nothing. No support, none.
No opportunity to confront the people who had
perpetrated the crime against me. No way to
appear in court and talk about what had
happened.
The police were not sensitive to
what had happened to me at all. In fact, they
did not even contact me before the case went
to court. And I certainly got no counseling
on it.
2038
And maybe that is what accounts for
some of the anger I show here today, because
of the way I was treated and victims in New
York State continue to be treated when they
are victimized by hate crimes.
What about the people who
perpetrated the crime against me? Where are
they now? We don't know. We don't know where
they are. We don't whether they went on to
assault other people. We don't know whether
they killed other people.
Why don't we know? Because there
is no reporting. There is no tracking. They
could have done anything to anyone and we
would not know, because nobody documented what
happened to me and nobody documented what they
did to me.
Why can we let that go on? It is a
disgrace. It is the shame of New York State
that we do not have hate crimes. It's wrong
that we do not have legislation which would
protect people. It's wrong that we do not
document when hate crimes occur. Because some
of you will not vote for this legislation no
matter what. But if we had reporting, you
2039
would see the problem it had in our state and
you would eventually come around and realize
that hate crimes legislation is good for the
state of New York, that we need hate crimes
legislation.
The time for this is now. It's
already too late. How many people have to be
attacked, how many people have to be attacked
before we pass this legislation? Let's do the
right thing. Let this come to the floor.
Some will say it's just procedural,
it doesn't really matter. Well, there is one
thing that I agree on with others, the
Catholic Conference and others. This is not
just a procedural vote. This is a vote of
conscience. This vote on the motion to
discharge is about the merits of the bill. We
can't make believe it's not about that.
So let's hurry up and get through
the motion to discharge. Let's get it on the
floor. Let's pass this. Let's protect all
New Yorkers.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Thank you, Madam
2040
President.
Senator Duane, colleagues, this
issue is a very emotional issue. It's
emotional for you, it's emotional for me, it's
emotional for everyone in this chamber. And
we have heard you, and there isn't a person in
this room that doesn't sympathize with you.
And, Madam President, this is a
procedural motion. I did not stand and object
to a discussion of the bill that is not before
us, because I thought it was important that
Senator Duane have an opportunity to voice his
description and his opinions.
And I thank you for that. You
know, we've talked about this privately, and
we have talked about it publicly.
I am standing to really share that
I am going to vote against this procedural
motion to bring this bill to the floor. But I
am again stating, Madam President, that this
is an issue that we feel is an important
issue, it's one that should be addressed in
some way here in this chamber, discussed, and
voted on.
And we intend to do that in this
2041
session. But the way to get there is not in
any emotional way, with motions to discharge,
but by negotiating with sponsors who feel
very, very strongly -- just as strongly as you
do, Senator -- who have personal experiences
of people who have been injured and seriously
injured and killed, with relatives and with
friends.
So I don't want you or anyone else
in this chamber to feel that we are
unsympathetic. We're very sympathetic.
But there is a procedure, and we're
conscious of that procedure. And I'm asking
my colleagues to reject a motion to discharge
and to recognize that this important issue
will be discussed in this chamber and brought
to some conclusion.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Goodman.
SENATOR GOODMAN: Madam
President, may I ask the sponsor to yield for
a quick question?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Duane,
would you yield to a question for Senator
Goodman?
2042
SENATOR DUANE: Yes.
SENATOR GOODMAN: Senator Duane,
would you just clarify, please, where you got
the wording for your bill?
SENATOR DUANE: Through you,
Madam President, to respond to the question.
Through the Governor's bill, the
good offices of Senator Goodman's bill,
through the Assembly Bill, through the
advocates and my colleagues on both sides of
the aisle in general.
SENATOR GOODMAN: Senator Duane,
may I ask you to respond to a further question
through the chair, please?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Duane, do
you continue to yield?
SENATOR DUANE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead, Senator
Goodman.
SENATOR GOODMAN: Madam
President, the question I'd simply like to
clarify, if I may, is that this is a bill
identical to the bill which carries my name as
the prime sponsor which has been before the
house for some time. And it's absolutely
2043
identical in every respect, right down to the
last comma.
Senator, it's not the Governor's
bill, it is a bill that we drafted up in my
office by my counsel. Are you aware of that,
sir?
SENATOR DUANE: Through you,
Madam President. I just want to clarify.
Then the Senator believes that it's
his bill that we're voting on the motion to
discharge?
SENATOR GOODMAN: No, I simply
wanted to clarify where the bill originated,
Senator.
If I may just continue on the bill
itself, Madam President.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you,
Madam President -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Goodman,
do you wish to be heard on the bill at this
time?
SENATOR GOODMAN: If I may, Madam
President.
SENATOR DUANE: I thought he was
asking me a question.
2044
THE PRESIDENT: I think he wants
to be heard on it.
Go ahead, Senator Goodman.
SENATOR GOODMAN: On the motion.
Madam President, this is a matter
of great gravity. And I would just like to
say to you that after a careful discussion
with the Majority Leader, I'm absolutely
convinced that what you've just heard from him
will be a binding pledge. He has done this
before, and he has stuck to every word of
his -- every bit of his commitment on anything
that he's ever pledged to me personally.
And I do have his pledge, as does
our entire conference, that this matter will
be taken up in due course this year. And I'm
also informed that it will involve the use of
the sexual orientation with specificity, and
not just a vague language to becloud the
issue.
It's a critically important issue.
I sympathize deeply with the personal angst
which you've suffered, and would point out
obviously that it's very widespread and it has
increased to an alarming degree in the state
2045
of New York.
As you are well aware, I've
endeavored, through the offices of the
Catholic Church, and in particular His
Eminence the Cardinal, Cardinal O'Connor in
New York, to try to come up with a
satisfactory bill last session. The
arrangement was made for us to address the
Council of Bishops. That unfortunately did
not come to pass, because of the Cardinal's
grave illness, so it was not feasible for us
to carry out the pledge that I made to you and
others with respect to that procedure.
Nonetheless, it's -- the motivation
behind our desire to be helpful in this matter
to all of those who suffer in these
circumstances is keen and deep, and something
will be done. You have my word of honor on
that, Senator.
THE PRESIDENT: On the motion.
All in favor of accepting the motion to
discharge -
Senator Connor.
SENATOR CONNOR: Yes, Madam
President, just on the motion.
2046
And I appreciate what Senator Bruno
said and what Senator Goodman said. Obviously
the reason to go forward with this motion is
the Assembly has passed this legislation I
believe 11 times.
And in the Assembly, the
overwhelming majority of the Republican
members have been voting for it for years.
For years. It's a bipartisan bill in the
Assembly. I don't think there are two or
three nos when it comes to the floor, year
after year after year.
And of course it's Senator
Goodman's bill. And he has had it for years.
And it's never once moved to the floor of the
Senate for all the years that he's had it.
And I don't doubt for a moment his conviction
that the bill is the right thing and ought to
pass. But this is about legislative
procedure.
Because isn't that procedure too?
Madam President, isn't a procedure when a
member has a bill for eight or ten years and
never gets it to the floor out of committees?
It's a procedure of failure. Of failure of
2047
this house on the floor to take action on
this.
Just as Senator Duane's motion is
the -- really the only thing that a member in
Senator Duane's position who cares very, very
much about this legislation -- the only thing
he can do today to advance this bill is this
motion to discharge.
And, Madam President, you know,
once upon a time many, many years ago, this
kind of legislation was, I guess, considered
somewhat avant-garde. Well, you know, my
notes, my little bullet notes prepared by my
staff today said New York is one of only ten
states that doesn't have a hate crimes bill.
And I learned an hour or two later, wrong.
Georgia passed a hate crimes bill just a week
or two ago.
In fact, Madam President, on the
entire East Coast there are only two states
that have failed to adopt a hate crimes bill:
New York and South Carolina, where they still
fly the Confederate flag over the statehouse.
Madam President, New York has had
in the past a long tradition of being at the
2048
forefront, of protecting its citizens, of
addressing these kind of concerns. We've
fallen far, far behind because of the inaction
of this Senate and the failure of the Majority
to bring this kind of legislation to the
floor.
You know, all the arguments against
hate crimes legislation that we've heard in
the past pale because I have heard, I have
heard at least half of the Majority members of
this house, in explaining and defending their
legislation, say "We have to send a message to
these people who would hurt our senior
citizens" or "We have to send a message to
those who would vandalize cemeteries" or "We
need to send a message to the people who would
harm children."
I agree. Legislation is, one,
about concrete protections for people. But,
number two, it's about sending messages about
what we think about those who commit violent
crimes when motivated by hatred.
Sure, murdering, assaulting,
shooting people is already a crime. Just as
it was already a crime to assault senior
2049
citizen or children or whatever. But we've
passed special legislation because, in the
words of my colleagues in the Majority, we
have to send a message to the perpetrators of
those crimes.
Well, Madam President, we have
failed in these past years to send the
appropriate message, the message that
virtually every other state has sent or every
other state with which we would identify New
York's traditions and then some.
The message is hate crimes are a
special offense to our society, to our values,
to our moral principles. And that's why I'm
supporting this motion to discharge, because
it really is the only procedure that we can
use to get this bill before the house right
now.
And the regular procedure in all
these past years has failed. Hopefully, in
the future in this session, something will
come of it.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Schneiderman.
2050
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you,
Madam President.
I appreciate the comments made by
our colleagues here today, Senator Bruno and
Senator Goodman. I hope that I'm hearing you
right, because it sounded a lot like what we
heard last year from you, that we were going
to address this issue. And I know it is an
important issue to Senator Goodman.
Because at a certain point in time,
you have to say when are we going to get
something done. This is not just a matter of
us falling out of step with other states.
This is a matter of people being hurt while
we're waiting.
And it is not true -- and we have
some advocates here with us today -- that
emotion and motions and agitation are not the
way to get something done. Apparently in this
house that's what we have to do to get
something done. Eleven years is too long to
wait for a bill to pass the Assembly over and
over again and for us to fail to respond.
And I would urge all of you, if you
are going to vote against this, whatever your
2051
rationale is -- it's procedural -- the only
way bills come to the floor is through
procedures. Every day, all we do is
procedure. Third reading. You know,
unanimous consent. Messages of necessity from
the Governor. Those are the procedures
through which bills move forward.
If you're going to vote against
this, whatever your rationale, you'd better be
prepared to come back and get this done this
year. Because this is way too long. The
advocates are tired. Everyone in the state of
New York, with a few very narrow exceptions,
supports this legislation. We understand that
it's a different kind of crime to commit a
hate crime than to commit another type of
crime.
We've been over this and over this
and over this. The arguments just don't hold
up. And I would urge you to take a lead from
the Mayor of the City of New York. Because
it's not just Mrs. Clinton who's supporting it
this year, it's Mayor Giuliani, who some say
will be the Republican candidate for the U.S.
Senate. And he has responded to the acts of
2052
hate, of violence, and of -- particularly he
called attention this week to the
anti-Catholic acts in Brooklyn and other parts
of New York City, the defacing of statues of
saints.
And there's not one member of this
body who can stand up and tell me that if some
kid spray-paints a statue of a Civil War
soldier, it's the same crime as someone
writing anti-Catholic graffiti and chopping
off the hands of a statue of a saint. It is a
different crime, but in the state of New York
today they're punished the same way.
This is a law that makes sense,
this is a law that made sense last year, this
is a law that made sense ten years ago. If
you're not voting for it today, tell us when
we're going to get it done and then we can
feel like this house can hold its head up and
not slink out of another legislative session
ashamed that we've failed to match the
Assembly on this important piece of
legislation.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger.
2053
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Madam
President, I yield the floor to Senator
Lachman.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Hevesi is
next.
SENATOR HEVESI: Madam President,
I'll yield to Senator Lachman.
THE PRESIDENT: Excuse me.
Senator Bruno, why do you rise?
SENATOR CONNOR: Point of order.
SENATOR BRUNO: We're being very
patient, very, very patient. This is a
procedural motion. And I've been listening to
a discussion of the bill, Senator Connor, and
this is not the format to discuss this
legislation. Now, if you want to
politicize -
SENATOR CONNOR: Point of order,
Madam President.
What's the Senator's point for
interrupting the members? Is this a point of
order?
SENATOR BRUNO: Yes, it is. And
the point of order is that we are discussing a
procedural motion and not the legislation.
2054
And we have been very patient
listening to you breaking all the rules of the
Senate, and we are not going to continue with
you -- with member after member breaking the
rules of this Senate. We are on a procedural
motion.
And, Madam President, I am asking
you to make sure the members address this
motion and do not discuss the merits of this
legislation. That will happen when this bill
is on the floor.
SENATOR CONNOR: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Bruno,
your point of order is well taken. The
members should keep your comments germane to
the procedural aspect of this motion alone.
Senator Connor, why do you rise?
SENATOR CONNOR: Madam President,
my point of order is, and I've been here
twenty -- this is my 24th session -- when you
take up a procedural motion, you obviously
explain the purpose of it. And the purpose of
it is to move certain legislation.
And it would be rather meaningless
for someone to stand up and say -- talk about
2055
a motion to discharge and not tell anybody
what's in the bill. And I think people are
entitled to discuss what's in the bill they
wish to move before the house.
And I know of no rule in the
written rules of this house that has ever
precluded a member's remarks. Motions must be
germane. I know of nothing that restricts a
member's ability to discuss, analogize or
debate anything that they wish to debate in
the course of explaining.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Connor,
my ruling stands.
Senator Duane, why do you rise?
SENATOR DUANE: Madam President,
I'd like to have a vote on -- appeal the
ruling of the chamber.
THE PRESIDENT: All right. We'll
have an appeal of the ruling.
The Secretary will call the roll,
Senator Duane.
All members in favor of overruling
the ruling -- the ruling of the chair signify
by saying aye.
SENATOR CONNOR: Slow roll call,
2056
Madam President. There are five members
standing.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will call the roll. There are at least five
members standing.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Alesi.
SENATOR ALESI: Support the
chair.
THE PRESIDENT: He will be
recorded in the negative.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Balboni.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Bonacic.
SENATOR BONACIC: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Breslin.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Connor.
SENATOR CONNOR: Thank you, Madam
President. To explain my vote.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Connor,
to explain your vote.
SENATOR CONNOR: I know these
rules after 24 years, Madam President. And
2057
aside from the chair keeping proceedings
germane, I know of absolutely no precedent in
this house, nor is it anywhere in the written
rules that it says a member on a procedural
motion can't discuss the underlying substance
for which the motion is brought.
And the motion is clearly
debatable. I know of no muzzle on members'
debates that's ever been imposed in this
house. It may be politically inconvenient for
the Majority to have the members point out
what the underlying substance of the bill is
that would be brought to the floor by a motion
to discharge.
But there is absolutely no
precedent in this house, that no presiding
officer that I know of has ever, ever ruled
that members can't discuss the underlying bill
for which their motion is brought.
Else how could one possibly explain
a motion to discharge if you didn't tell the
members what the bill was about and why it was
important, why it was important to bring the
bill to the floor today, now, without saying
what's in the bill?
2058
Madam President, I vote aye.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Connor,
you will be so recorded as voting in the
affirmative.
The Secretary will continue to call
the roll.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Coppola.
SENATOR COPPOLA: Yes. Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
DeFrancisco.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Dollinger.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger, to explain your vote.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Madam
President, to explain my vote.
I agree with Senator Bruno on one
thing. This is an exceptional procedure.
Whenever you make a motion to discharge, what
we are doing, Senator Connor is correct, we
are bypassing the committee process. We are
taking it out of committee and not allowing
the committee that has jurisdiction over this
legislation to vote on it before it comes to
2059
the floor.
It is an extraordinary step.
There's no question it's extraordinary.
That's why detailing the merits of why we
ought to do something extraordinary is what
the motion to discharge should be about. It's
an opportunity to describe why we need to take
this extraordinary step.
And I would suggest that you can't
do that without describing why the nature of
the bill requires us to take an extraordinary
step. It's all part of the logic of what a
motion to discharge is, that the member would
talk about the merits of the bill in order to
encourage his colleagues or her colleagues to
take an extraordinary step.
This is very much germane. It's
clearly in order. With all due respect to the
chair, I vote aye.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Nozzolio.
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: No.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will continue to call the roll.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Yes.
2060
THE SECRETARY: Senator Farley.
SENATOR FARLEY: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Fuschillo.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Gentile.
SENATOR GENTILE: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Gonzalez.
SENATOR GONZALEZ: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Goodman.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Hannon.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Hevesi.
SENATOR HEVESI: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Hevesi,
to explain your vote.
SENATOR HEVESI: Madam President,
I rise to request that the members be informed
specifically what rule precludes members of
the Senate from speaking on the substance of a
motion.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, you're
out of order. We are on a roll call.
The Secretary will continue to call
2061
the roll. You may explain your vote if you
choose.
SENATOR HEVESI: I vote yes,
Madam President, in this highly irregular -
THE PRESIDENT: You will be so
recorded as voting in the affirmative.
The Secretary will continue to call
the roll.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Hoffmann.
SENATOR HOFFMANN: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Johnson.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Kruger.
SENATOR KRUGER: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Lachman.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Lack.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Larkin.
SENATOR LARKIN: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator LaValle.
SENATOR LAVALLE: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Leibell.
2062
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Libous.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Maltese.
SENATOR MALTESE: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Marcellino.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Marchi.
SENATOR MARCHI: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Markowitz.
SENATOR MARKOWITZ: To explain my
vote.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Markowitz, to explain your vote.
SENATOR MARKOWITZ: It seems to
me, Senator Bruno -- and Senator Goodman, I'm
sorry he's not in the chamber at the moment,
but hopefully he'll be coming in in a short
period of time. It seems to me that from what
I heard, it sounds like if in fact -- and I
know you're a man of honor, and certainly
Senator Goodman is, that in fact we will be
taking up this issue before the end of
2063
legislative session this year.
And listening to the words of
Senator Goodman, it seems to me that the bill
that will pass probably is remarkably similar
to the motion to discharge that we're trying
to move forward at this moment.
So why just don't we say, let's
just take this bill up and get it over with?
Just get it over with. Let's just vote on the
legislation that we are trying to discharge
and get it over with. Because -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Markowitz.
SENATOR MARKOWITZ: -- it's going
to be very, very similar.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Markowitz.
SENATOR MARKOWITZ: I'll vote
yes.
Thank you so very, very much.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Markowitz, when I hit that gavel, I expect you
to stop and to please listen to what I am
saying.
SENATOR CONNOR: Point of order,
2064
Madam President.
It is unprecedented for a presiding
officer of this house to speak to a member
that way. You're not -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Connor,
you are out of order. Please be seated.
SENATOR CONNOR: Point of order.
Point of order.
THE PRESIDENT: You are out of
order.
SENATOR CONNOR: I am a member of
this body. I'm an elected member. I've
never -
THE PRESIDENT: You are out of
order.
SENATOR CONNOR: -- heard a
presiding officer, not one, who's ever talked
like that to a member.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Connor,
I'm going to -
SENATOR CONNOR: I've had four
lieutenant governors, and not one ever spoke
to a member that way.
THE PRESIDENT: And if I'd been
allowed to finish my sentence, Senator Connor,
2065
I was clarifying to Senator Markowitz that he
was given the floor to explain his vote and
that his explanation of his vote should be
directed to me, as President of the Senate.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Thank you, Madam
President.
Maybe it's time that we take a
little break here, since it appears that
people would rather posture in this chamber
than go on with the order of business in this
chamber.
Madam President, thank you for your
presence and for your parliamentary procedures
here in keeping order in this house.
And, Senator Connor, we will have
order in this house.
SENATOR CONNOR: I agree.
SENATOR BRUNO: And we're going
to maintain order in this house. And we are
not going to have outbursts in a very
unbecoming way by anyone this chamber while
this Senate is in session.
And this is not a time, with an
issue like this, to posture, to be political,
2066
but for the Senate to be able to do its
business in an orderly way.
And you have been a gentleman in
this chamber for all the 24 years that I've
known, since I've been here the same length of
time. And I expect that you will continue to
handle yourself accordingly, and I and all the
others in this chamber appreciate that.
And, Madam President, I think if we
can, in an orderly way, conclude this motion
to discharge, we should do it. And if we
can't, I will move that we adjourn and we'll
return tomorrow.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you,
Senator Bruno.
And an explanation of a vote on an
appeal should be germane to the merits of the
appeal and nothing else.
And the Secretary will continue to
call the roll with that order.
Senator Paterson, why do you rise?
SENATOR PATERSON: Point of
order, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
and state your point of order, Senator.
2067
SENATOR PATERSON: The
explanation of a vote, according to the rules
of the Senate, is at the discretion of the
member. That is not related to the issue
being discussed. The member has two minutes
to explain his or her vote, regardless. A
member can talk about anything in those two
minutes.
So the reason Senator Connor was
standing up was to make that point of order of
your admonishment of Senator Markowitz. There
was no reason why Senator Markowitz ever
should have been interrupted. That, Madam
President, is a rule of the house.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson,
I appreciate your input.
When I have a point of order and I
have input from a member regarding the
germaneness of the remarks of the member, I
will continue, if necessary, to gavel. And I
expect any member to show respect for me as
President of the Senate and to stop and listen
to what I have to say.
Thank you, Senator Paterson, for
your continuing politeness.
2068
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, point of order.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead. What's
your point of order, Senator?
SENATOR PATERSON: My point of
order is that the reason that Senator
Markowitz didn't stop is that no Senator in
this chamber had ever been stopped before
while explaining their vote on a slow roll
call. Because the explanation of the vote has
no germaneness limitations.
So it wasn't that Senator Markowitz
was being disrespectful of you, Madam
President. Senator Markowitz would never have
expected to have been interrupted at all,
because he had two minutes -- which had not
expired at that point -- he had two minutes to
explain his vote.
So I'm just trying to advise the
chair of the rules of the house, which were
that Senator Markowitz should not have been
interrupted. I can understand during a debate
your banging the gavel to try to get order.
And all of our members should respect Your
Honor's ruling.
2069
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you,
Senator.
SENATOR PATERSON: But in this
particular case, the member had two minutes
and could talk about any subject he chose.
And that's the reason why Senator
Markowitz, who's never disrespected you, Madam
President, or anyone else that sat in that
chair, did not have to stop and should not
have.
THE PRESIDENT: All right. Thank
you, Senator.
I will clarify again that Senator
Markowitz was out of order because he ignored
the fact that I had something to say. I
gaveled at that point, and I will continue to
clarify my ruling that on an appeal, when a
Senator rises to explain, it should be germane
to the issue of the appeal.
The Secretary will continue to call
the roll.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Maziarz.
SENATOR MAZIARZ: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator McGee.
SENATOR McGEE: No.
2070
THE SECRETARY: Senator Meier.
SENATOR MEIER: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Mendez.
SENATOR MENDEZ: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Morahan.
SENATOR MORAHAN: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Onorato.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Onorato,
to explain your vote.
SENATOR ONORATO: Madam
President, to explain my vote.
We've been hearing quite a bit
about the procedural mechanisms that are going
on here. And we are now -- we are frustrated
that we cannot get bills that were actually
voted out of committee. Because this
particular bill was voted out on several
occasions from Senator Goodman's committee, of
which I am a member.
And now to have a motion to
discharge that bill on the floor and then to
be told that we cannot even discuss it -- we
2071
can't get a bill out of the committee and when
a motion to discharge it comes on the floor,
we are being denied our civil right as an
elected official to debate the bill that we
want to bring to the floor, is a very, very
sad day in this house.
I vote aye.
THE PRESIDENT: You will be so
recorded, Senator, as voting in the
affirmative.
The Secretary will continue to call
the roll.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Oppenheimer.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Padavan.
SENATOR PADAVAN: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Rath.
SENATOR RATH: Aye -- no. No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Rosado.
SENATOR ROSADO: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Saland.
SENATOR SALAND: No.
2072
THE SECRETARY: Senator Sampson.
SENATOR SAMPSON: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Santiago.
SENATOR SANTIAGO: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Seabrook.
SENATOR SEABROOK: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Seward.
SENATOR SEWARD: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Smith.
SENATOR ADA SMITH: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Mr. Smith.
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Spano.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Stachowski.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Stafford.
SENATOR STAFFORD: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Stavisky.
2073
SENATOR STAVISKY: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Trunzo.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Velella.
SENATOR VELELLA: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Volker.
SENATOR VOLKER: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Wright.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will call the absentees.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Balboni.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator
DeFrancisco.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Fuschillo.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Goodman.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Hannon.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Johnson.
(No response.)
2074
THE SECRETARY: Senator Lack.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Leibell.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Libous.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Marcellino.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Spano.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Trunzo.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Wright.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will announce the results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 25. Nays,
24.
THE PRESIDENT: The ruling of the
President is sustained.
Senator Connor.
SENATOR CONNOR: I'm sorry, I
didn't hear the vote. May I hear it again?
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
2075
will announce the vote.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 25. Nays,
24.
SENATOR CONNOR: So, Madam
President, the sentiment of the members who
are here is clear, but the motion failed?
THE PRESIDENT: The appeal -
SENATOR CONNOR: No, the
sentiment of those who are here is clear, but
the motion nonetheless failed.
THE PRESIDENT: It requires an
affirmative vote of 31 members, Senator. That
failed.
SENATOR CONNOR: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: On the motion to
discharge, all those accepting the motion to
discharge signify by saying aye.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Madam
President. Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger, why do you rise?
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Madam
President, I believe before we went through
this, I had the floor. I yielded to Senator
Lachman, I'd asked that Senator Lachman be
2076
heard, and then I asked for the floor back.
And Senator Lachman will yield it
back to me, which I believe is the proper
procedure. Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger.
Senator Lachman.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Madam Chair, I
believe that in a discussion of this issue, we
all have to be civil towards each other. I
also believe that no one in this chamber,
Senator Bruno, wants to politicize this issue.
It's much, much too important.
One of my colleagues mentioned the
destruction of sacred statues of the Catholic
faith. In my diocese in Brooklyn, a statue of
Pope Pius X was thrown into the gutter, hacked
up, and the words written on it "Pope John
Paul II Satan."
One more thing that I want to say.
About three weeks ago I visited the New York
Historical Museum that had a special
exhibition on lynchings through the 20th
century. There were over 100 lynchings. Who
were those who were being lynched? There were
2077
two Italian Catholic immigrants who couldn't
speak English and didn't do the right thing,
according to those in their community. There
were several union organizers, including a
Latino. There was one Jew called Leo Frank.
And as a result of his lynching for a crime he
did not commit, the Anti-Defamation League was
formed; the year after, the NAACP.
But the vast majority of these
lynchings involved American blacks. The
African-American people of this country have
been lynched physically in decades and
generations past and are now being lynched in
another way in this decade and this
generation.
That is why I wanted this motion to
be discharged. We've been debating this not
for 11 years but 13, 13 years. And I commend
Senator Paterson for bringing this to our
attention 13 years ago, as Senator Duane did
today. And I also commend my leader for his
forcefulness, and I commend the Majority
Leader and Senator Goodman for their
statements.
I hope that eventually justice will
2078
be done and we will discharge this motion and
vote according to our individual consciences.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Madam President. I'll be very brief. My
colleagues have said most of what I wanted to
say.
I described this as an
extraordinary step. We are bypassing our
committee process, we are taking an
extraordinary step. We are moving to
discharge a bill that does not have a
committee vote. That is an extraordinary
step.
I would suggest, Madam President,
that there's an extraordinary need. Senator
Duane, Senator Schneiderman, Senator Lachman
have spoken about the personal injury side. I
just want to remind everyone in this chamber
that there's an extraordinary need because of
the damage to property. Hacking up the statue
of Pius XII, Giuseppe Sarto -
SENATOR LACHMAN: Pius X.
2079
SENATOR DOLLINGER: -- Pius X,
Giuseppe Sarto, a saint, is not simply an act
of vandalism. Putting a swastika on a wall of
a temple is not simple disorderly conduct.
Burning a cross on someone's front lawn is not
simply a trespass. Those are crimes, those
are actions driven by hate.
And I would suggest, Madam
President, as much as those who perpetrate
those crimes are trying to send a message to
parts of our society -- be they black, be they
white, be they straight, be they gay, be they
Catholic, be they Jewish -- they're sending a
message. And the point of that message is if
you are part of one of those groups, you have
something to fear.
I would suggest that the
extraordinary step of discharging this bill
from committee should occur today because we
should tell those fearmongers and those
hatemongers that they have something to
fear -- the power of government which will
punish them for their hate.
We should take that extraordinary
step today. We should take this bill out of
2080
committee. And we should not even let simple
vandals start their hateful acts by putting
images on property or desecrating statues.
Before they start killing, before they injure
people, let's send a message to them that if
they even commit a simple violation against
property that we will not tolerate their hate.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Hevesi.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you, Madam
President.
I was going to rise to explain why
we need hate crimes legislation in New York
State, but I don't believe I'm able to do
that. Am I allowed to do that, Madam
President?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, you may
proceed. This is a motion to discharge. You
may comment, and your remarks should be
pertinent to the motion to discharge.
SENATOR HEVESI: I understand.
But point of order, I'm going to be
voting to discharge this bill from committee
for a reason. The reason is I believe this
bill should become the law of the land.
Can I discuss that, Madam
2081
President?
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: I don't believe
the debate is supposed to be between Senator
Hevesi and the chair. If he wants to discuss
the motion to discharge, that's fine. But I
don't think we are looking -
SENATOR HEVESI: Senator, I'm
trying to get a clarification from the chair
as to whether I can speak about the
legislation before us.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, I've
given a clarification. You may proceed.
Please proceed.
SENATOR HEVESI: Well, I guess
I'm explaining my vote to discharge from
committee, which is yes.
The reason is because it's
disgraceful that we haven't done it in 11
years. It's disgraceful today that we can't
even have a debate and a discussion about it.
The reason the procedure is
necessary is because Democratic bills can't
get passed out of this house. The proof? The
2082
evidence? In 1999, last session, there were
1,199 bills passed by this house. Twenty of
them were sponsored by Democrats, none of them
with an impact more global than their own
Senate district.
So we're here to try and foster
some motion on something that is absolutely
essential to the voters of New York, and I
can't talk about it because of a ruling of the
chair on a rule that I asked which is the
rule, and I received no answer. Because I
don't think it exists.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Hevesi,
for further clarification, there has been an
appeal on my ruling. The appeal has been
overcome. And you should stand and abide by
that ruling in -
SENATOR HEVESI: Well, I abide by
the rule for the purpose of this session. I'm
going to research now the specific rule that
has led to your ruling, which I don't agree
with. I don't understand it.
So, Madam President, I'm voting yes
on a motion to discharge. But in my very
frustrating days in this house, this is by far
2083
the most frustrating, by far the most sad and
undemocratic. This is really a disgrace
today. I don't know what's next.
I vote yes on the motion to
discharge.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you,
Madam President. On the motion.
The issue of motions for discharge
is covered in the rules of the Senate under
Rule 11. These relate to the rules for the
suspension of the rules of the Senate. It's
covered in Section 1 that covers the entire
rule.
And to simplify it, it talks about
what the timeliness of the motion should be.
And apparently the drafters of the rules of
the Senate did not want anyone to just get up
and ask for a motion to discharge because they
had some bill and they wanted to bring it to
the floor that particular day. There's a
seasonable period of three days, which this
conference complied with and filed our motion
for discharge.
Section 1 of Rule 11 goes on to say
2084
that there should be no motions after the
second week of April. Now, why did the
formulators of the rules of the Senate want
the second week of April to be the deadline
for the suspension of the rules of the Senate?
Well, I think that would be very
clear. If you wanted to bring a bill before
the floor, you wanted to make sure that there
was ample time to give the members a chance to
vote on it. Because by passing the motion to
discharge, which I hope we will do today, that
would then give us time to bring the bill to
the floor and debate the bill. So you would
want to do that at some point in the session
that's early enough so that there would be
time to schedule a debate to vote on this
particular bill.
So therefore, we're down to only
one issue, which is how would a motion for
discharge pass. Well, under Rule 11 it says
by a majority of the Senators. Therefore, it
opens the door for debate.
Now, it's clear that you can bring
a motion for discharge, under the rules of the
Senate, you can bring the motion for discharge
2085
to the floor if you do it in the right amount
of time and in the right time of the year.
All that was complied with. And now the only
question is, is the motion going to pass?
So that begs the question, what
would be the subject of a discussion on a
motion for discharge? What else could the
subject be? It has to be the bill. It can't
be the motion, because that's stated right
here in the rules of the Senate.
That makes it very clear that it
may be procedural, but it is part of the rules
of the Senate. If there was something wrong
with it, it wouldn't be part of the rules of
the Senate. And it has been part of the rules
of the Senate for as long as the Senate has
existed.
So what has caused motions for
discharge to fail? Not the rules of the
Senate. The vote of the house. It's been a
custom -
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Perhaps, Senator
Paterson, if you'd look at Rule 9, Section 3,
2086
where it says "Debate," debate shall be in
order when it is germane to the question under
discussion. And the question under discussion
right now is whether it should be discharged
from committee.
So we can discuss whether the bill
should be discharged and about motions to
discharge, but not the substance of the bill.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, did you hear me discuss the
substance of the bill?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson,
do you wish to be heard?
SENATOR PATERSON: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Please proceed.
SENATOR PATERSON: Well, since
you can't answer, maybe someone else here can
tell me if they heard me discuss the subject
of the bill. I'm talking about the motion for
discharge.
Now, a minute ago, believe me, I
wanted to talk about the bias bill. Senator
Goodman said that Senator Duane got it from
his office. They must have got it from mine.
2087
I'm the first one to ever write a hate crimes
bill in this state.
But I thought I would discuss the
procedural issue, and I can't get halfway
through it without -- did the Senator want me
to yield for a question about Section 9.3?
Yeah, if we were talking about a tax bill,
maybe that would be in order. The subject of
the bill would have been the genesis of the
discussion.
We have all kinds of motions around
here that we discuss all the time. And they
are based on the actual substance. So when I
raise the issue of what would be the basis of
the discussion, I'm raising how you would pass
a motion for discharge in the Senate. How
would you pass one? By stating that there is
such a thing as a motion for discharge? You
don't have to do it, it's already there.
Anybody can read it.
Now, the germaneness, that's a
simple question. The germaneness relates
specifically to what would be the subject of
the bill. Well, we know what the subject of
the bill is. That's in Senator Duane's
2088
motion.
The question about motions for
discharge relate to the need for urgency, the
need to pass the legislation. How important
is it that we bring this to the floor right
now, this moment? Why do we have to do it now
rather than waiting for the bill to grind its
way through committees and through the
procedures of the Senate?
And the only way to explain what
the urgency is, why we're bypassing the
committee system, would be because there's an
emergency. In this case, Senator Duane feels
that violence committed by people based on
hate is an emergency. And he's cited examples
of why he thought that was the case.
If anyone thinks that it's not an
emergency, then they can vote against the
motion to discharge. They can be responsible
for the fact that we can't deal with this
problem today -- even though in 1989, 11 years
ago, 57 of the 61 members of this house
answered a poll by the New York Post that said
that they thought it was urgent, they thought
a hate crimes bill should be passed and they
2089
thought it should be passed immediately.
But nonetheless, that would be an
issue that would relate directly to the reason
why we would table the rules of the Senate,
suspend the rules of the Senate under Rule 11,
and go right to the heart of the issue,
whether or not we should discuss this bill
forthwith.
And so there's no section of that
rule that precludes a member of the Senate
from discussing what would be the nature of
the urgency that brings this bill to the
floor.
And so on that basis, I recommend
to all of my colleagues that we vote to pass
this motion for discharge, to demonstrate that
we think that this is urgent. The majority of
the public feels that way. That's why people
are getting so upset around here. They know
they're going against the grain. The majority
of legislators, when asked off the record -
or even on the record -- individually to
answer polls, feel that way. And that's the
way I feel.
And so, Madam President, under the
2090
rules of the Senate, I recommend an
affirmative vote on this motion for discharge
so that we can provide some relief to the
families of people who unfortunately couldn't
live long enough to see the Senate act on this
because they were victimized by the violence
and the hatred of others.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Oppenheimer.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: At this
point I'm sort of confused. I wanted to speak
briefly on something that had occurred a few
years ago, but it pertains to the substance.
If I may continue, I would like to discuss
that.
This happened, I think, about four
years ago. And it was a very personal issue,
in that the peninsula on which I live in
Mamaroneck was -- the whole peninsula was
affected by a hate crime. And that crime was
some person who was never found -- we believe
it was one person -- that person was painting
swastikas and hate words -- "Kill all the
Jews," "Jews are pigs," "Pigs shouldn't live
amongst us," really very hateful things -- on
2091
nine houses in our peninsula, which is not
very big.
And as was described a little
earlier, it made the entire community very
fearful. And it is -- was not an act against
one house or even eight houses or nine houses,
it was an act against our community. And it
was not even just an act against Jewish
people. It was felt by the community to be an
act against everybody in that community.
At that time, a little bit
subsequent to that time -- oh, several months
later -- Governor Pataki came down to a
college, Manhattanville College in
Westchester, only a few minutes from where
this incident happened. Oh, and by the way,
it happened over a series of months.
And at that time he said to all of
us there -- and there were several hundred
people -- that this bill was a priority for
him and that we would have this hate crimes
bill. And that really made us feel a whole
lot better, that it wasn't just our community
that was under siege but that it was being
perceived as something that affected all the
2092
people of this state.
And so we were very comforted by
that. But that has been, oh, a number of
years. And we are still waiting.
I would like to give a happier
ending to this, because this is sort of a
dismal story. The community did come
together. And what happened is we had a march
of two or three thousand people of our
community, and we marched from church to
synagogue to church to where some of our
Koreans meet, to where some of our Moslems
meet. And it was a march of several hours,
and we ended up in our high school auditorium.
And everybody participated, saying this was an
affront to every person that community.
So it's a hopeful note. I hope
that we can continue to pursue this, because
it is a very hateful thing that occurs to a
community when something like this happens.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Markowitz.
SENATOR MARKOWITZ: Thank you
very, very much.
Obviously we all feel very, very
2093
strongly about this issue. Some of us have
witnessed hate towards Hassidic Jews in parts
of New York City, certainly gays and lesbians,
Latinos, Muslims, to our Muslim population in
New York.
But I want to talk specifically why
right now, right now, it's burning. Because
those 11 incidents against Roman Catholic
churches this year are all in my Senate
district, every one of them. Maybe except for
one. Excuse me, 10 out of the 11. Forgive
me.
This is serious. There are mutants
in this society that feel that they can get
away with anything. And I have to tell you, I
visited some of those churches. And the
disbelief on the face of the parishioners of
these Roman Catholic churches in my area -- to
see the horror, the fear, the emotions
reinforced what we already knew about other
hate crimes.
You're right, Senator, we can't
wait another year. And I take Senator Bruno
at his -- at what he said today, because I do
believe that he is a man of honor. I do
2094
believe that. We may differ on certain
issues, but he is a man of honor. And so is
Senator Goodman.
And so I hope that while this
motion to discharge I hope will succeed this
afternoon -- it should succeed. Because
unfortunately, the one thing I've learned
about hate, it's much like cancer. If you
don't pay attention to cancer when it happens,
when it's first detected, it grows.
Unfortunately, it grows like -- and then it
reaches a point, regrettably, that it can't be
controlled any longer.
So this is true with hate, the same
exact thing. There are people unfortunately
that are so unstable in our society that they
watch others and when they see them getting
away with it, they want the action, they want
the attention. I don't understand the
craziness in the minds of these people. I
don't understand it.
But I do know that as the
Legislature, we're the ones, we're the ones
that are charged with the responsibility of
indicating to those in our society, to those
2095
throughout the state, that this is right and
this is wrong. And when you do these acts of
crime, of hate, this society will properly
mete out its punishment, due punishment, to
put them away and to make sure others are
dissuaded from taking that type of action.
And that's why I'm supporting this
motion to discharge.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Coppola.
SENATOR COPPOLA: Madam
President, I thought when they knocked down
the Berlin Wall that Communism was dead and
ruined. And I go back to some of the things
that have happened in the history of the
United States, in the wars, in the Vietnam War
where men and women died.
And then I looked at this today,
the chamber and everybody very sincere,
talking about issues that they were concerned
about -- environmental, guns, whatever. But
if we don't get by -- if we don't kill racism
in this country, we're going nowhere fast.
And believe me, there's a lot of
racism out there and a lot of hate out there.
And why can't we get together in a room of
2096
grown men and women and talk about love, talk
about showing what we can do as leaders of New
York State? Why do we debate something that
we were taught all of our lives, to love and
honor your neighbor?
When I was a little boy in Catholic
school, Father Gambino said, "You're always
going to go someplace, son, as long as you
treat your neighbors the right way."
Well, today we're here to send the
kids of New York State a message, to show them
that we're leaders and we can pass this bill.
There are no sides to this issue. We're
taught every Sunday to love thy neighbor. Are
we hypocrites in this room today? Are we not
going to do something because we have all
these egos out here? That's wrong.
This is about life, quality of
life. This is about sincerity. And I hope we
all come on the same page today.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Stavisky.
SENATOR STAVISKY: We've had a
problem in northern Queens with hate stickers,
stickers of different colors against
2097
African-Americans, immigrants, a whole host of
people.
And a number of us got together to
offer a reward system, with the
Anti-Defamation League, for information
leading to the arrest and conviction of those
people who were putting them up.
But the interesting part of the
stickers is who's printing them. It's a group
called the National Alliance based in West
Virginia. And the National Alliance was made
famous by a fellow named Pierce, the Turner
Diaries. And they were implicated in the
Oklahoma City bombing.
But interestingly, last Thursday,
someone was caught on a parole violation. And
they got a search warrant. And what did they
find in his apartment? In College Point, I
regret to say. What did they find? They
found a loaded AK-47, they found information
on how to make bombs, they found ammunition
for the assault weapons, they found a whole
host -- they found Nazi uniforms. They found
music. They found all sorts of things that
would fall under the hate crimes bill.
2098
The man's name was Michael
Sagianara [ph]. And the most appalling part
to me is that he's 20 years old. He had been
convicted five years ago for trying to blow up
a tower at Flushing Airport that controls the
wind-shear information for LaGuardia and
Kennedy, and apparently was paroled. And five
years later, we go from arson and bombing to
Nazi memorabilia.
Madam President, I think this
illustrates it's not just for gays, it's not
just for African-Americans or Latinos, it's
for all of us. And that's why I plan to vote
yes.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: On the motion,
all in favor of accepting the motion to
discharge signify by saying aye.
SENATOR ADA SMITH: Slow roll
call.
THE PRESIDENT: There are five
members standing.
The Secretary will call the roll.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Alesi.
SENATOR ALESI: On the procedural
2099
motion, I vote no.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Balboni.
SENATOR BALBONI: Nay.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Bonacic.
SENATOR BONACIC: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Breslin.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Bruno.
(Senator Bruno was indicated as
voting in the negative.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Connor.
SENATOR CONNOR: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Coppola.
SENATOR COPPOLA: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
DeFrancisco.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: To explain
my vote.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
DeFrancisco, to explain your vote.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: I vote no
on this procedural motion.
And we heard a lot of heartrending
stories today, very serious matters, for all
of which there is currently a crime by which
2100
an individual can be charged. I vote no on
the procedural motion.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will continue to call the roll.
And, Senator DeFrancisco, you will
be so recorded as voting no on the motion.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Madam
President, just to explain my vote briefly.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: How much more
urgent, how much more demanding, how much more
extraordinary does the debate have to be
before we look past the procedure and do the
right thing? I don't know of a better
example. We've got an opportunity to do the
right thing today, to make law, to make the
right law. Forget the procedure. Forget the
process. Do the right thing.
I vote aye, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger, you will be recorded as voting in
the affirmative.
2101
The Secretary will continue to call
the roll.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President. I rise to thank -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Duane, to
explain your vote?
SENATOR DUANE: Yes, Madam
President.
I rise to thank my colleagues for
their -- on this side of the aisle for their
terrific words on this issue, which I think is
very, very important not just to me but to
each and every citizen in the State of New
York.
And I sadly have skepticism about
the future of this legislation. I still have
hopes that we'll win the motion today, but I
remain skeptical. And I think that that is a
tragedy. And frankly, the lives and the
ability for citizens of our state to live free
of intimidation and bias and hatred really
hangs in the balance of what we do in this
body this session.
Thank you, Madam President.
2102
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Duane,
you will be recorded as voting in the
affirmative.
The Secretary will continue to call
the roll.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Farley.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Farley,
to explain your vote.
SENATOR FARLEY: Thank you, Madam
President.
This is a procedural motion. In
the 24 years I've been here, I've never seen a
motion to discharge pass. I don't think one
has ever passed in the other house. And
that's what this is, is a motion to discharge.
It hasn't gone through the proper or the usual
way that a bill becomes a law.
Senator Bruno said it all. This
issue will be addressed.
I vote no.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Farley,
you will be recorded as voting in the
negative.
The Secretary will continue to call
the roll.
2103
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Gentile.
SENATOR GENTILE: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Gonzales.
SENATOR GONZALEZ: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Goodman.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Hannon.
SENATOR HANNON: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Hevesi.
SENATOR HEVESI: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Hoffmann.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Johnson.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Kruger.
SENATOR KRUGER: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Lachman.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Lack.
(No response.)
2104
THE SECRETARY: Senator Larkin.
SENATOR LARKIN: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator LaValle.
SENATOR LAVALLE: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Leibell.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Libous.
SENATOR LIBOUS: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Maltese.
SENATOR MALTESE: Nay.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Marcellino.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Marchi.
SENATOR MARCHI: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Markowitz.
SENATOR MARKOWITZ: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Maziarz.
SENATOR MAZIARZ: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator McGee.
SENATOR McGEE: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Meier.
SENATOR MEIER: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Mendez.
2105
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Montgomery.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Montgomery, to explain your vote.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, Madam
President, to explain my vote.
My experience and relationship to
bigotry is sometimes so painful that I can't
discuss it objectively. But -- and it's -
there have been so many and so pervasive, and
for basically all of my life.
But the one that I remember most
vividly, that is like a recurring dream to me
or recurring nightmare, is when I was on a bus
in Texas, going someplace, and there was a
busload of us, all white students and myself.
And we got off the bus at this particular
little place that supposedly was selling
whatever they were selling, and supposedly
there would be a restroom for us to use. And
I got off with the other students, and I went
into this place with them.
And there was a big, burly white
man with a huge gun on his -- in his belt.
2106
And he turned me around and physically threw
me out the door. And the reason that he did
that was because of my color.
So I have a very, very emotional
and personal experience with bigotry. And
therefore, Senator Duane's comments on this
motion are certainly not unfamiliar to me.
And I certainly fully and completely
empathize. It is quite amazing to me that
here in the state of New York, in this new
century, new millennium and whatever we're
calling it, we are still debating what we
should do about expressions of bigotry on the
part of citizens in this state. I'm quite
ashamed of it and quite upset about it.
But certainly I want to thank
Senator Duane for bringing this to the
attention of us in this way. It is painful
for all of us, those who want to vote yes and
can't, those who may not want to vote because
they don't understand, but certainly for those
of us who fully understand what bigotry means.
I am in favor of this. I vote yes
for this motion. Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
2107
Montgomery, you will be recorded as voting in
the affirmative.
The Secretary will continue to call
the roll.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Morahan.
SENATOR MORAHAN: No on the
motion to discharge.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Nozzolio.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Onorato.
SENATOR ONORATO: To explain my
vote.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Onorato,
to explain your vote.
SENATOR ONORATO: We've heard a
lot of discussions here again about the
procedural -- that this being procedural.
And they also forgot to mention
again during this procedural motion that this
bill was voted out of committee, the usual
procedure to get it onto the floor. Now, what
happened to it when it got out of committee
that it was voted on to be presented to the
floor? It made its way to the Rules Committee
and then to the shredding machine.
2108
We have an opportunity here today
to bring this out on to the floor and to vote
on the merits of the bill, whether you're for
it or against it. But at least give everybody
in this chamber an equal opportunity to have
their voices expressed on this very, very
monumental piece of legislation.
I vote aye.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, you will
be recorded as voting in the affirmative.
The Secretary will continue to call
the roll.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Oppenheimer.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Oppenheimer, to explain your vote.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: I think
Senator Montgomery's words jogged a lot of our
memories.
Because I remember when I was about
9 years old and I was living in Durham, North
Carolina. And I was there because my father
was a colonel in the Army and we were
traveling behind him during the Second World
War, and he was teaching.
2109
At any rate, I remember my
classmates had never met anyone of my
religion. And they kept trying to pick up my
skirt to see if I had a tail, because they had
been told that Jews had tails.
So, I mean, there's so much -- it's
hard to believe that people don't believe that
all people are the same people and that we're
constructed the same. And we may have
different minds or different-color skins, but
we are constructed the same.
At any rate, I have a feeling. I
have a sneaking suspicion that were this ever
to come to the floor in this house, that we
would have a unanimous vote in favor of it.
And so I hope the day will come very soon,
within this year, when this will happen.
I vote aye.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Oppenheimer, you will be recorded voting in
the affirmative.
The Secretary will continue to call
the roll.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Nozzolio.
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: No.
2110
THE SECRETARY: Senator Padavan.
SENATOR PADAVAN: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Paterson.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson,
to explain your vote.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, generalizations often err in the
direction of oversimplification. To state
that this is a procedural motion is really in
effect to deny the axiom that the whole is
equal to the sum of its parts.
Of course it's a procedural motion.
It's a motion. That means it's inherently
procedural. Why would we wonder or even worry
about whether or not these motions have passed
previously? There are people who have been
write-in candidates for President of the
United States. None of them has ever won, and
I don't know that any of them ever will. But
it's because it's the President of the United
States of America.
Now, maybe if we were in Bosnia it
might be a more apt place for today's
discussion. Because then when we don't like
what people are saying, we can just tell them
2111
to sit down. When we don't feel the necessity
to debate a bill, we can duck behind a lot of
procedural remedies and claim that the rules
are actually being suspended and that someone
is doing us a favor by allowing us to
participate in a democracy.
The fact is that in 1989, the first
time the Assembly passed this legislation, the
Senate Majority Leader at the time -- and I'm
certainly not going to visit the sins of the
previous Majority Leader on the present
Majority Leader, who got up today and I think
was speaking as sincerely as he could at that
particular moment. But the fact is the
Majority Leader in 1989 said that they were
going to address the issue of hate crimes
legislation.
And in 1990, they did. On May 29,
1990, there was a bill that they called a bias
bill that was really to prevent crimes
committed by youth gangs. It mocked the
procedure. It had nothing to do with the
issue of hate crimes.
The issue of hate crimes has arisen
in all communities and to all different types
2112
of people. The fact is that we need effective
legislation that will increase the penalties
and the punishments for those who would commit
crimes on other people for reasons of race,
religion, national origin, sex or sexual
orientation, age or disability. And we need
it right now.
This is an urgent matter. It needs
to be addressed urgently. It would be the
first time that we'd ever passed a motion for
discharge, and I can't think of a more apt
time to do it, for all those who are crying
out all over this state for effective
legislation that would cure this malady.
It's not only an issue in this
state, but it is all over this country. We
are living in not only in the only state on
the Eastern seaboard that doesn't have hate
crimes legislation, we haven't even passed a
state statute to accompany the federal Civil
Rights Act of 1964, passed by the House and
Senate, which at that time included Senator
Jesse Helms and Senator Eastland. We haven't
even passed that bill.
So I think that this body needs to
2113
do some reflecting, and we can do it right now
by passing this motion for discharge. I vote
aye, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson,
you will be recorded as voting in the
affirmative on this motion.
The Secretary will continue to call
the roll.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Rath.
SENATOR RATH: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Rosado.
SENATOR ROSADO: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Saland.
SENATOR SALAND: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Sampson.
SENATOR SAMPSON: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Santiago.
SENATOR SANTIAGO: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Schneiderman.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Schneiderman, to explain your vote.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you,
Madam President.
This has been a good debate. I'm
2114
sorry we had to do it again. I'd like to
commend all those colleagues of mine who have
shown leadership on this over the years -
Senator Duane, Senator Paterson, and so many
others.
I disagree, though, with Senator
Duane on something important. He said before
he was pessimistic about this bill's
likelihood of success this year. I am
optimistic.
Because I think that the Senator
Majority may at times not do what we want them
to do, but no one will ever accuse you of not
being smart. And you're smart enough to know
that the people of the State of New York
overwhelmingly support us on this issue, and
you're smart enough to know there's an
election in November and you don't want this
on the table.
So I think, Senator Duane, we're
going to get this bill done, thanks to your
agitation over the years, thanks to Senator
Paterson's agitation, thanks to the advocates
who are with us here today. I'm sorry it's
taken 11 years to get this house to do the
2115
right thing, but I think this year we're going
to get it done.
Thank you. I vote yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You will be so
recorded, Senator Schneiderman.
The Secretary will continue to call
the roll.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Seabrook.
SENATOR SEABROOK: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Seward.
SENATOR SEWARD: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Seward,
to explain your vote.
SENATOR SEWARD: Yes, Madam
President.
As one who has consistently over
the years supported measures that have come
before this house that have increased
penalties for assaults and other crimes, I for
one would have no problem in supporting
legislation that would increase penalties for
additional crimes that may involve bias and
bigotry.
And I commend Senator Bruno for his
leadership here today in stating on this floor
2116
that this house will in fact deal with this
issue in a meaningful and responsible way.
On this procedural matter that's
before us at this time, I vote no.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Seward,
you will be recorded as voting in the negative
on this motion.
The Secretary will continue to call
the roll.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
to explain my vote.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead, Senator
Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Thank you, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You're welcome.
SENATOR SKELOS: This is a
procedural motion, and I intend to vote no.
And just -- we talked about
historical perspectives. I look around this
chamber and I see Senator Saland, Senator
Morahan, and I were elected in 1980 to the
Assembly together, and Senator Leibell,
Senator Spano served in the Assembly. Senator
2117
Volker, Senator Balboni. And I remember when
I first -- Senator McGee -- when I first
arrived in the Assembly, there were motions to
discharge, there were amendments.
And members of the Majority there,
some of us may know them. Senator Hevesi, we
seek fatherly advice from him at times.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR SKELOS: Never once -
never once did they support a motion to
discharge or an amendment that was offered by
the Minority in the Assembly.
And we would have discussions. And
I remember that fine individual, who I was
very fond of, would put his arm around me and
give me fatherly advice and say, "Assemblyman
Skelos" at that time, "it is procedural and it
is not a vote against my conscience by
supporting the Majority and the procedures of
the house."
So I am going to vote no on this
procedural motion, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Skelos,
you will be recorded as voting in the negative
on this motion.
2118
The Secretary will continue to call
the roll.
THE SECRETARY: Senator A. Smith.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Smith, to
explain your vote.
SENATOR ADA SMITH: Thank you,
Madam President. To be black or
African-American in this great state, it's too
often that we encounter this kind of behavior
and these kinds of crimes.
Therefore, I vote no -- I mean yes.
Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: I was ready to
record you, Senator.
(Laughter.)
THE PRESIDENT: You will be
recorded as voting in the negative, Senator.
The Secretary will -
(Laughter.)
THE PRESIDENT: In the
affirmative. Please excuse me. I had a
mind-set there.
You will be recorded as voting in
the affirmative on this motion.
The Secretary will continue to call
2119
the roll.
SENATOR HEVESI: Madam President,
may I be recognized?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Hevesi,
why do you rise?
SENATOR HEVESI: Very briefly,
with your permission, I'd like to respond to
Senator Skelos.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, we're in
the middle of a roll call and we must proceed
with the roll call.
The Secretary will continue to call
the roll.
THE SECRETARY: Senator M. Smith.
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Spano.
SENATOR SPANO: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Stachowski.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Stafford.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Stavisky.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Trunzo.
2120
SENATOR TRUNZO: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Velella.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Volker.
SENATOR VOLKER: Madam President,
to explain my vote.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Volker,
to explain your vote.
SENATOR VOLKER: Madam President,
I've made it a kind of a policy not to respond
to motions of discharge out of my committee.
This is my committee, by the way.
And let me say to Senator Onorato,
you were thinking of another bill. I
understand when you said that the bill was
reported out of committee. This particular
bill, this type of bill which has been around
for a few years, has never actually been
reported out of committee. The bill that you
were talking about was another one, and that
came out of Senator Goodman's committee. I
understand that.
Let me just say that Senator
Paterson, who talked about the Majority saying
that they were in favor of a hate crimes bill,
2121
that was because we passed hate crime bills in
this house, and we did it for a number of
years. And it was quite similar to this bill,
but with certain differences. And this
bill -- but that bill was voted on by most of
the members of this chamber -- in fact, just
about all. It went over to the Assembly,
where of course the Assembly, for political
reasons, decided they did not want a bill that
included all groups in it, essentially. And
it would have provided hate crimes legislation
for all groups.
We also, by the way -- and there
was a discussion here about graffiti. You
will be happy to know that this house has
passed increases, over the years in this last
decade, of the penalties for graffiti on a
regular basis. Some pretty severe penalties
for graffiti which would have covered many of
the kinds of issues that were discussed in
this house today, and the Assembly has refused
to do it.
One of the things we've said on
many occasions -- and I only point that out -
is that we have passed upgrades in general to
2122
some of these crimes, in fact most of these
crimes you're talking about. In fact, a major
piece of our bias crime bill, we used to call
it, was the gang violence. We pulled that out
of that bill, and that is now law. And in
fact, many of the so-called bias crimes you're
talking about are now being charged under gang
violence. I only point that out.
The final thing is we have
something here called the death penalty. And
when people commit these heinous crimes,
they're subject to the death penalty. It's
hard to find a crime that has a penalty more
severe than that one. I only point that out.
Now, I have said to Senator
Gentile, who is the ranking member of my
committee, that we'll be happy to discuss this
type of legislation this year. And we will.
But I point that this house has in the last
decade passed legislation, so-called hate
crime legislation, and the other house has not
passed it.
I vote no.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Volker,
you will be recorded as voting in the
2123
negative.
The Secretary will continue to call
the roll.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Wright.
SENATOR WRIGHT: No.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will call the absentees.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Goodman.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Hoffmann.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Johnson.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Lack.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Leibell.
SENATOR LEIBELL: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Marcellino.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Mendez.
SENATOR MENDEZ: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Stafford.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Velella.
2124
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will announce the results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 25. Nays,
29.
THE PRESIDENT: The motion is
defeated.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
there being no further business to come before
the Senate, I move we adjourn until Tuesday,
April 4th, at 3:00 p.m.
THE PRESIDENT: The Senate stands
adjourned until Tuesday, April 4th, 3:00 p.m.
(Whereupon, at 6:30 p.m., the
Senate adjourned.)