Regular Session - April 17, 2000
2370
NEW YORK STATE SENATE
THE STENOGRAPHIC RECORD
ALBANY, NEW YORK
April 17, 2000
3:13 p.m.
REGULAR SESSION
LT. GOVERNOR MARY O. DONOHUE, President
STEVEN M. BOGGESS, Secretary
2371
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: Joining us this
afternoon to give the invocation is the
Reverend Peter G. Young, pastor of Blessed
Sacrament Church in Bolton Landing.
REVEREND YOUNG: Let us pray.
Dear God, as we see the budding
plants and the blossoming flowers, we're aware
of our spring holidays and Your annual
blessings of new life. We are grateful for
all of Your gifts and the dedicated services
of the Senate members to our New York State
citizens.
We gather in Your name, asking Your
guidance to all of our Senate members for good
health as they exhaust their energy in
creating a pride of New York State leadership.
We ask You this now and forever.
2372
Amen.
THE PRESIDENT: Reading of the
Journal.
THE SECRETARY: In Senate,
Sunday, April 16th, the Senate met pursuant to
adjournment. The Journal of Saturday,
April 15th, was read and approved. On motion,
Senate adjourned.
THE PRESIDENT: Without
objection, the Journal stands approved as
read.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
there will be an immediate meeting of the
Finance Committee in the Majority Conference
Room.
THE PRESIDENT: There will be an
immediate meeting of the Finance Committee in
the Majority Conference Room.
Presentation of petitions.
Messages from the Assembly.
Messages from the Governor.
Reports of standing committees.
Reports of select committees.
Communications and reports from
2373
state officers.
Motions and resolutions.
Senator McGee.
SENATOR McGEE: Madam President,
amendments are offered to the following Third
Reading Calendar bills.
Sponsored by Senator Volker, page
12, Calendar Number 260, Senate Print 1592A.
Sponsored by Senator Morahan, page
27, Calendar Number 556, Senate Print 6938.
Sponsored by Senator LaValle, page
number 27, Calendar Number 571, Senate Print
6487A.
Sponsored by Senator Libous, page
Number 32, Calendar Number 632, Senate Print
Number 2100.
Sponsored by Senator Bonacic, page
Number 32, Calendar Number 638, Senate Print
1913A.
Madam President, I now move that
these bills retain their place on the order of
third reading.
THE PRESIDENT: The amendments
are received, Senator McGee, and the bills
will retain their place on the Third Reading
2374
Calendar.
SENATOR McGEE: Thank you, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Meier.
SENATOR MEIER: Thank you, Madam
President.
I move that the following bills be
discharged from their respective committees
and be recommitted with instructions to strike
the enacting clauses: Senate Bills 3222,
4431, 4916, 4919, and 5652A.
THE PRESIDENT: So ordered.
You may proceed, Senator Meier. Go
ahead.
SENATOR MEIER: Thank you, Madam
President.
I wish to call up Senator Lack's
bill, Senate Print Number 6975, recalled from
the Assembly, which is now at the desk.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
563, by Senator Lack, Senate Print 6975, an
act to amend the Arts and Cultural Affairs
Law.
2375
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Meier.
SENATOR MEIER: Madam President,
I now move to reconsider the vote by which
this bill was passed and ask that the bill be
restored to the order of third reading.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will call the roll upon reconsideration.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 51.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Meier.
SENATOR MEIER: Thank you, Madam
President.
I now move to discharge from the
Committee on Investigations, Taxation and
Government Operations Assembly Print Number
9075, and substitute it for Senator Lack's
identical bill. And I now move -
THE PRESIDENT: The substitution
is ordered.
SENATOR MEIER: Thank you, Madam
President. I now move that the substituted
Assembly Bill will have its third reading at
this time.
THE PRESIDENT: The Senate bill
having previously been unanimously passed, the
2376
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
563, by the Assembly Committee on Rules,
Assembly Print 9075, an act to amend the Arts
and Cultural Affairs Law.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 51.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
Senator Maziarz.
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Thank you,
Madam President.
On behalf of Senator Spano, please
place a sponsor star on Calendar Number 288.
THE PRESIDENT: So ordered.
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Thank you,
Madam President.
Also, on behalf of Senator
Nozzolio, please place a sponsor star on
Calendar Number 680.
2377
THE PRESIDENT: So ordered.
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Skelos,
we have some substitutions.
SENATOR SKELOS: Please make the
substitutions.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: On page 6,
Senator Hannon moves to discharge, from the
Committee on Health, Assembly Bill Number
8071A and substitute it for the identical
Senate Bill Number 4870A, Third Reading
Calendar 98.
On page 25, Senator Wright moves to
discharge, from the Committee on Health,
Assembly Bill Number 1112 and substitute it
for the identical Senate Bill Number 7042,
Third Reading Calendar 527.
And on page 27, Senator Morahan
moves to discharge, from the Committee on
Veterans and Military Affairs, Assembly Bill
Number 9672 and substitute it for the
identical Senate Bill Number 6940, Third
Reading Calendar 557.
2378
THE PRESIDENT: The substitutions
are ordered.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
there's a privileged resolution at the desk by
Senator Lack. May we please have the title
read and move for its immediate adoption.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: By Senator Lack,
Legislative Resolution Number 3770, honoring
Philip M. Damashek upon the occasion of his
designation as recipient of the 2000 "Lifetime
Achievement" Award on April 18, 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,
if we could have the noncontroversial calendar
2379
read at this time.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
73, by Senator Saland, Senate Print 5583, an
act to amend the Criminal Procedure Law and
the Executive Law, in relation to entry of
orders.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect on the 90th day.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 53.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
76, by the Senate Committee on Rules, Senate
Print 5740, an act to amend the Insurance Law,
in relation to the authority of charitable
annuity.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
2380
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 53.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
143, by Senator LaValle, Senate Print 2050, an
act to amend the Education Law, in relation to
the terms of community college trustees.
SENATOR DUANE: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside, Senator.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
206, by Senator Skelos, Senate Print 1075, an
act to amend the Social Services Law and the
Family Court Act, in relation to proof of a
neglected or abused child.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Lay it
aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
267, by Senator Rath, Senate Print 4206B, an
act to amend the Real Property Tax Law, in
2381
relation to the definition of the residential
assessment ratio.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect September 1.
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.
SENATOR SKELOS: If I could
interrupt for a moment, there will be an
immediate meeting of the Racing and Wagering
Committee in the Majority Conference Room.
THE PRESIDENT: There will be an
immediate meeting of the Racing and Wagering
Committee in the Majority Conference Room.
The Secretary will continue to
read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
270, by Senator Seward, Senate Print 6316, an
act to authorize the Village of Herkimer to
2382
sell and convey.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: There's a home
rule message at the desk.
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, 54.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
459, by Senator Morahan, Senate Print 6240A,
an act to amend Chapter 235 of the Laws of
1865 relating to incorporating.
SENATOR DUANE: Lay it aside,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
497, by Member of the Assembly Grannis -
2383
SENATOR SKELOS: Lay it aside for
the day.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside for the day.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
536, by Senator Padavan, Senate Print 1398, an
act to amend the Penal Law, in relation to
making -
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
602, by Senator Stafford, Senate Print 774, an
act to amend the Public Authorities Law, in
relation to authorizing the New York State
Olympic Regional Development Authority.
THE PRESIDENT: There is a home
rule message at the desk.
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, 54.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
2384
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
604, by Senator Volker, Senate Print 6324, an
act to amend Chapter 824 of the Laws of 1933.
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, 54.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
605, by Senator Velella, Senate Print 6494, an
act to amend Chapter 465 of the Laws of 1994,
amending Chapter 285 of the Laws of 1891.
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, 55.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
2385
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
606, by Senator Alesi, Senate Print 6583, an
act to amend the Public Authorities Law, in
relation to authorizing and 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, 54.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
671, by Senator Trunzo, Senate Print 6249, an
act to amend the Town Law, in relation to
making a technical correction.
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, 55.
2386
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
673, by Senator Marcellino, Senate Print 6707,
an act authorizing the assessor of the County
of Nassau to accept an application.
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, 55.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
674, by Senator Fuschillo, Senate Print 6723,
an act authorizing the assessor of the County
of Nassau to accept an application for
exemption.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
2387
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 57.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
676, by Senator Wright, Senate Print 6836, an
act to amend the Real Property Tax Law, in
relation to taxation of certain state lands.
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, 57.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
Senator Skelos, that completes the
noncontroversial reading of the calendar.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
if we could take up the controversial
calendar.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
2388
143, by Senator LaValle, Senate Print 2050, an
act to amend the Education Law, in relation to
the terms of community college trustees.
SENATOR DUANE: Explanation,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Skelos -
SENATOR SKELOS: Lay it aside
temporarily.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
206, by Senator Skelos, Senate Print 1075, an
act to amend the Social Services Law and the
Family Court Act, in relation to proof of a
neglected or abused child.
SENATOR DUANE: Explanation,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Skelos,
an explanation has been requested by Senator
Duane.
SENATOR SKELOS: Thank you, Madam
President.
This bill has been debated on
numerous occasions in this house and has
passed, and hopefully someday the Assembly
2389
will see fit to pass it in their house. It's
sponsored by Assemblywoman Nettie Mayersohn.
And basically there was a Court of
Appeals decision in 1995 which changed the way
the State protects its most vulnerable and
innocent victims, newborn infants. Basically,
the decision said that if there is a positive
toxicology test of a newborn, it is no longer
sufficient to support an indicated report
without more evidence of abuse or neglect.
The child must now, under the case
decision, be released back to the parent,
potentially for further abuse and neglect,
before Social Services can intervene.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you. If
the sponsor would yield to some questions,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: Will the sponsor
yield?
SENATOR SKELOS: Yes, Madam
President.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you very
much.
Through you, Madam President. If
2390
this bill is concerned about the harm drug use
would have on a child when they are at birth
as well as a fetus while the mom is pregnant,
shouldn't we also be testing the father of the
child?
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
if I could respond. And I believe Senator
Duane asked a similar question last year when
we were debating the bill. And basically the
drugs are transmitted to the child through the
birth mother. And that's where the immediate
danger, in my opinion, resides.
And again, as I'm saying, is the
court decision changed the system, the way it
was, back in 1995. And I think it's just
appropriate to go back to protecting the
child, resolving perhaps instances in favor of
the child, and protecting the newborn infant.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
I'm wondering if the sponsor has
any definitive scientific knowledge that drug
and alcohol abuse may affect the quality of
sperm.
2391
SENATOR SKELOS: I have no
personal knowledge of that, but I am sure
there are studies that say it does.
SENATOR DUANE: And through you,
Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Skelos,
do you continue to yield?
SENATOR SKELOS: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead, Senator
Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: I'm trying to get
to the point that I believe that a double
standard is being made here.
If the issue is that there's
concern that there's de facto abuse of a child
if the mother is using drugs or alcohol, is
that not also -
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
if we could just wait a minute here.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead, Senator
Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President.
If we are claiming through this
legislation that substance abuse by a mother
2392
in the home is a de facto reason to believe
that the child is being abused, should we not
also agree, then, that if a father is also
using alcohol or drugs, and/or drugs, that
that would constitute abuse as well?
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
I just want to go back to if you had a baby in
the hospital and a nurse found the birth
mother abusing the child in the hospital, the
State would not send that child home.
If you have a birth mother who has
ingested drugs, for it to show up in a
child's -- in a newborn's system, she would
literally have to have been taking those drugs
on the way to the hospital for them to come up
as a positive indication.
So I feel that if that is happening
in that moment, the best thing that we can do
for the child is not send them home. Because
there is such a direct correlation between
substance abuse and abuse of children at birth
that we not should send that child home, have
them perhaps abused, injured or murdered
before the Social Service system steps in and
tries to protect that child.
2393
This makes sense to me. You may
not think it makes sense. To me, it is very
logical and commonsense to do that.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Skelos,
do you continue to yield?
SENATOR SKELOS: I sure do.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead, Senator
Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: I'm willing to
acknowledge and follow the common sense that
the sponsor is putting forward, though I may
not agree with it and have my own common
sense.
But if I follow the sponsor's
reasoning on that, does it not also follow
that we should rush and test the biological
father -- or, for that matter, an adoptive
father -- for alcohol and drugs at the moment
of birth, if the concern is what's going to
happen to that child when it leaves the
hospital?
SENATOR SKELOS: Well, I think
2394
under the law, number one, if you were an
adopting parent, you would not have adopted at
birth. So you'd have to exclude that class of
individuals.
But again, we're dealing with a
situation here with a birth mother on the way
to the hospital literally taking drugs. And
the high correlation between abuse of that
child that exists is so high that, in my
opinion, you protect that child. You err on
the side of the child. I don't believe that
you should send that child home and subject
them to abuse.
Very similar to spousal abuse,
where the State of New York has made a very
definite decision that you're not allowed -- a
male is not allowed one free punch of his
life. We have a mandatory pro-arrest policy
in this state. We act proactively, we
intercede immediately, and we protect the
battered spouse and err on that person's
behalf.
In my opinion, you now err on
the -- on behalf of protecting that newborn
infant.
2395
SENATOR DUANE: Through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Does the sponsor
continue to yield?
SENATOR SKELOS: Yes, I do.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead, Senator
Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Is it not true
that more men than women are the perpetrators
of domestic violence at home? And is it not
also true that a history or a pattern of
domestic violence in the home is generally
also one that can be followed in terms of its
being perpetrated on a child?
SENATOR SKELOS: If I could
respond, Madam President, then you should be
totally supportive of this bill, because we
are protecting a child where there would be a
study not only by Social Services of the birth
mother but also any other male that would be
living in that household, in terms of whether
that is a proper household for that child to
be returned to.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you,
2396
Madam President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Skelos,
do you continue to yield?
SENATOR SKELOS: Yes, I do.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead, Senator
Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Is it not true,
though, that we should do all we can to
protect a child from abuse, whether it's from
a mother or from the male adult that will be
in that child's home? If we are to follow the
logic of this bill, which only tests the
mother, why is it that we again should not
also be testing the father to ensure -- or
whoever the guy is at home to ensure the
safety of the child?
SENATOR SKELOS: Well, Madam
President, again, if I could respond, this is
a very important first step in protecting the
child, and I think a very positive step.
If you wish to explore other pieces
of legislation, we'd be happy to explore them.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President.
2397
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
Senator Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, Madam
President. Would the sponsor yield for a
question of clarification?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Skelos,
will you yield to a question?
SENATOR SKELOS: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead, Senator
Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Thank you,
Madam President.
Senator Skelos, through the
President, I want to ask you a question. In
the legislation, I'm reading on page 4, line
6, where it says -- this is current law, I
presume -- in determining whether temporary
removal of the child is necessary to avoid
imminent risk, the court shall consider and
determine in its order whether continuation in
the child's home would be contrary to the best
interests of the child.
And then on line 33, it says if the
2398
court makes a finding of abuse or neglect, it
shall determine, based upon the facts adduced
during the fact-finding hearing, whether a
preliminary order, pursuant to whatever, is
required to protect the child's interests
pending a final order of disposition.
So the court has some leeway in
determining whether or not the child is in
imminent danger, based on current legislation.
Except with your bill, you now create a
rebuttable presumption of imminent danger, so
that it is now the burden of the mother to
prove that the child is not in imminent
danger.
So it seems to me that we create
two classes of children or -- or you treat
different parents differently.
SENATOR SKELOS: You're required
to have a hearing.
Madam President, if I could
respond, through you.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: As you said, it
is a rebuttable presumption. And the Social
Services or Human Services is required to
2399
respond within three days as to whether this
is a potentially dangerous situation for the
child.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: All right.
Through you, Madam President.
So, Senator Skelos, the evidence of
imminent danger or the evidence of lack of
imminent danger lies -- or the requirement to
prove that there is not imminent danger to the
child lies solely on the responsibility of the
parent in the case of Senator Skelos's bill.
SENATOR SKELOS: It is a
rebuttable presumption. Yes, it is a
rebuttable presumption.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Okay. Yes,
I just wanted to make sure that I understand
that.
Madam President, if I may ask
another question.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Skelos,
do you yield?
SENATOR SKELOS: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead, Senator
Montgomery.
2400
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Based on
this legislation, since it is the mother who
must prove in one way or another to the liking
of the court, the satisfaction of the court,
that the child is not in imminent danger, what
happens when there is a glitch; i.e., there is
a false positive and that parent is required
to prove that that is a false positive and it
takes longer than three days?
SENATOR SKELOS: It takes longer.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Okay. Madam
President, just one last question, if the -
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead, Senator
Montgomery. You have the floor.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Thank you.
I would like to know from Senator
Skelos, Madam President, what we have done in
the cases where there is a problem with a mom
who is a drug user who finds herself pregnant,
with child, and who would in fact like to
receive drug treatment. What -- how does this
legislation make it possible for that mother
to receive drug treatment while remaining
intact with her infant?
SENATOR SKELOS: I think, Senator
2401
Montgomery, one, this legislation has to do
with the protection of the child. I don't
believe that you need legislation to provide
drug treatment for pregnant women or for any
individuals. Because there are so many
wonderful programs that exist out there that
if you want to help yourself, you certainly
can avail yourself of those programs.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Thank you,
Madam President. Thank you, Senator Skelos.
Madam President, on the bill.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead,
Senator, on the bill.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: I just would
like to inform my colleagues, those of them
who are unaware -- and certainly to remind
those of us who understand very, very
personally how this whole problem works -- we
are now setting ourselves up to criminalize
women. And these are the most vulnerable,
at-risk women.
There is not, in fact,
notwithstanding Senator Skelos's understanding
that there's a lot of these wonderful
programs, there really are not programs for
2402
women and their children.
So when a woman wants to have drug
treatment for purposes of reclaiming her life
and being able to be a productive parent, that
woman has to give up custody. Even if it's
temporary, she must give up the custody of her
children in order to go into treatment, for
the most part.
So we're not encouraging women,
one, to go into treatment, especially if they
have children, because they know that they are
likely to lose custody. And, two, with this
legislation, it pushes women further out of
the realm of seeking help and, furthermore,
puts them in a position of being accused of
neglect. And there are criminal consequences
of that.
So I would urge my colleagues to
look at this legislation very carefully.
While we want to protect the interests of
children -- I certainly am all in favor of
that. I understand Senator Skelos' wishes to
do that. But we must not criminalize women.
And I think there are much better ways of
looking at protecting these children without
2403
going to this extreme that Senator Skelos's
bill would take us.
So I'm voting no on this
legislation.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President. If the sponsor would grant me the
indulgence to ask just a few, very few more
questions, I would appreciate it very much.
THE PRESIDENT: Does the Senator
yield?
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
I would.
And if I could just comment on what
Senator Montgomery said, we're not
criminalizing anything. This is a Family
Court matter. It's a civil remedy to protect
the child. We are not criminalizing anything
in this legislation.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President.
I am concerned in that the bill
doesn't require drug testing on all newborns.
2404
And I wouldn't support it if it did. But I'm
wondering what checks and balances the sponsor
envisions would be in place so that it's not
just poor children or minority children or
basically non-middle and upper-middle and
upper-income children's moms who are being
tested under this legislation.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
if I could just point out to Senator Duane,
the legislation does not mandate testing on
all children. It is up to the discretion of
the doctor. If he, through visual examination
of a child -- and they're well-trained in this
area -- feels that there is an indication of
drugs within that child's system, then the
doctor could have the specific tests taken.
But there's no mandatory testing of
all newborns.
SENATOR DUANE: And through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Does the sponsor
yield?
SENATOR SKELOS: Yes, Madam
President.
2405
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR DUANE: As you can see,
I've given this particular legislation an
awful lot of thought.
I am wondering whether or not the
sponsor believes that there's a conflict with
this legislation in terms of the Fourth
Amendment, that this legislation could allow
an illegal search and seizure and perhaps an
invasion of privacy through the involuntary
drug testing of a mom through her newborn.
SENATOR SKELOS: No. We're not
testing the mother, we're testing the child.
A test could be ordered on the child by the
doctor, all -- as being medically necessary
anyway.
And all we're saying is we're not
going to send that child home immediately in
light of the fact that generally, with
pregnancies, the birth mother is sent home
within, as we know, one, two, three days.
All we're saying is keep that child
there, protect them, and don't send them back
into a potentially abusive household. Protect
2406
the child. Err on the side of the child.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President. On the bill.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
on the bill, Senator.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you.
Just as I was last year, I remain
concerned about this legislation and what its
impact is and the doors it opens in our law.
I have enormous respect for the
sponsor's goal of protecting children. It's a
very, very laudable goal and one which I
share. But I believe that there are some
consequences of this legislation which are
detrimental both in terms of the health as
well as the legal rights of a mother,
particularly her mental health.
I think that we tread into very
dangerous territory when we start adding more
and more protective rights for fetuses,
particularly at the expense of women and
mothers. I think that a double standard is
being created here, one which is more
punishing or potentially punishing and hard
and provides a different standard for women,
2407
pregnant women, than for fathers, who I
believe need to share equal responsibility for
what happens to a child.
And in addition, I very much think
that in the absence of more drug and alcohol
treatment for mothers or parents in general,
there are very, very few residential treatment
programs where a pregnant mother or a mother
who has other children and wants to be in
treatment and be with their family at the same
time could go into. Our state is very, very
lacking in providing that service to mothers
who show willingness to go into recovery.
And I think that rather than just
looking at this as a criminal justice issue,
we need to look at all of the different
elements of this difficult issue but
absolutely not leave out the public health
aspects of it.
And I think that that's what's
happening here, is that we're only looking at
the criminal justice elements of it and not at
the public health ramifications and really
good work that we could be doing in this area.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Skelos,
2408
why do you rise?
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
if Senator Duane would yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
SENATOR DUANE: Yes.
SENATOR SKELOS: Senator Duane,
do you feel that all birth parents should be
tested for drugs?
SENATOR DUANE: Through you,
Madam President. No, I don't.
In fact, Madam President, I think
that by far the better way to go would be
to -- in the prenatal stage of the birthing
process that work and outreach and counseling
be done to ensure that each and every mother
and father is provided with options to get
into recovery.
I also am concerned that this bill
feels to me -- though I don't think it's the
intention of the sponsor -- that it targets
low-income and minority moms. And in fact,
there is an enormous amount of substance abuse
among middle- and upper-income Caucasian
women -
2409
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Skelos,
why do you rise?
SENATOR SKELOS: I was going to
ask a question, but I -
SENATOR DUANE: Let me just
finish. Let me just finish my -
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead, Senator
Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: -- where, for
instance, prescription drugs may be more a
part of the abuse of drugs that those women
may be involved with. And in fact, that that
may not be so easily captured by a physician.
So I think that prenatal counseling
and the resources that would go into that for
each and every mom would be a better way to go
to really attack this problem in an equal and
forthright manner.
SENATOR SKELOS: If Senator Duane
would yield -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
SENATOR DUANE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead, Senator
Skelos.
2410
SENATOR SKELOS: Of course, the
initial contact essentially with the family is
the discovering of the illegal drug within the
newborn which is transmitted by the mother.
If we find that there is a positive
toxicology report, would you then feel that we
should mandate drug testing on the birth
father?
SENATOR DUANE: May I respond,
through you, Madam President?
I must say, it's great to be on
this side, to be doing the yielding.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR DUANE: Actually, what
I'm most concerned about is that the
presumption changes for the mother, so now
it's that she has to prove that she's not a
neglectful or abusive mother and has to put
the resources together to defend herself,
rather than the State having the burden of
proof about the mom having the drug abuse
problem.
If it were still that the State had
to prove that, I would not have an objection
to the father or the male in the household -
2411
or if there's a female in the household, for
that matter, who's the other parent -- having
to also undergo treatment or discover whether
or not they're abusing drugs.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Saland.
SENATOR SALAND: Thank you.
Thank you, Madam President.
I rise in support of this bill and
I rise to commend Senator Skelos for his
continued advocacy of this measure.
And I've heard a number of things
here on the floor today that I think are
somewhat extraneous to this bill. And I'm
certainly assuming that while they are
extraneous, that there's nothing deliberate
about it. I just assume it's a
misunderstanding of what this bill does.
Clearly, as Senator Skelos
mentioned in his earlier remarks in response
to Senator Montgomery, there's absolutely
nothing about this bill that criminalizes
anything. This bill only deals with the
Family Court Act. No criminal sanctions for
anybody for any reason whatsoever under this
bill.
2412
There are no Fourth Amendment
questions raised by this bill because, again,
there is no criminal action that -- no conduct
that's being criminalized by this bill.
There's not a criminal justice
issue to be found anywhere in this bill unless
you really don't bother to read it. Then you
may find that there are criminal justice
issues here.
Lastly, there's certainly no issues
here regarding fetuses. This only occurs upon
the birth of a child and if that child, he or
she, shows some signs of positive toxicology.
And let me suggest to you that this
is nothing imagined. I'm well aware from
hearings that I've conducted of instances in
which nurses have come and said, We did not
have the ability to file a petition because
there's nothing under the law that let us do
so, and we had to return a child to parents,
parents who gave birth -- or a parent who gave
birth to a child with a positive toxicology.
And that child subsequently thereafter was
either, in one or more instances, severely
abused -- and I'm talking about more than one
2413
case -- and in some instances that child
subsequently was killed.
So this is not something that's
imagined, this is not something that's
contrived. This is something that represents
really an extraordinary effort on behalf of
Senator Skelos to try and create a mechanism
that's more responsive to the needs of perhaps
the most vulnerable of vulnerable children,
infants, newborns who are being returned to
households which run the risk of subjecting
them, if not merely to neglect, then perhaps
to the most severe type of abuse and, in some
instances, ultimately the victim of some fatal
act.
So I again wholeheartedly support,
endorse, and welcome Senator Skelos's efforts.
And I would urge everybody in this house to
support his bill.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Montgomery, why do you rise?
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Madam
President, I was rising to ask Senator Saland
if he would yield for a question.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Saland,
2414
will you yield?
SENATOR SALAND: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead, Senator
Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes.
Senator Saland, what is the highest level of
penalty, criminal penalty, for child neglect?
SENATOR SALAND: There is no
penalty per se in this bill.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: I
understand.
SENATOR SALAND: This is purely a
Family Court bill. Depending upon the nature
of the act, depending upon the nature of the
act -
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, okay.
SENATOR SALAND: -- if you're
charged in a criminal court, you can be
charged with an assault, you can be charged
with endangering the welfare of a child. None
of that is applicable under this section of
the law.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: All right.
Thank you, Senator.
2415
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 7. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Montgomery, to explain your vote.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, Madam
President, to explain my vote, within two
minutes or shorter.
There are a number of issues
related to this legislation. Certainly one is
the cost. This is going to be an extremely
costly process for us without being a
solution. So obviously that's one
consideration that I think we all take very
seriously.
The other is while my colleagues
have assured me that this legislation, this
particular bill in no way relates to a
criminal charge, they also admit that there
is, based on the level of neglect, the level
of abuse, once that issue enters into criminal
court, it is considered a crime.
2416
So we are setting women up to
ultimately be -- possibly be criminalized. So
I think we need to think about that very
seriously. And that is certainly why I'm
voting no on this legislation.
THE PRESIDENT: Will those
members voting in the negative please raise
your hands again.
Senator Duane, to explain your
vote.
SENATOR DUANE: Yes. Thank you,
Madam President.
I just want to assure my colleagues
that I actually have read this bill in great
detail. And while there are -- and though
explicitly in the bill are not some matters,
implicit are some -- a couple of other issues
of grave concern in addition to the ones that
I raised.
The first is that I believe that if
a mom tests positive for drugs, that it's hard
to believe that a doctor or a nurse or a
health care professional would not call the
police into it and actually that mother would
be entered into the criminal justice system.
2417
So while that may not be explicitly
written in the bill, implicitly I think that
no one could deny that that's exactly what
would happen.
And another area where the bill
falls short, and the reason why it's such a
good idea for us to actually debate these
bills, is that if there's a finding of neglect
because of the mother's having a positive
toxicity or a negative toxicity, and even if
she's able to prove that it's a negative -
that it was not true that she had been using
drugs, that it was a false positive, there's
nothing in the legislation which then says
that the mother's name should be taken off the
child abuse registry, where her name would
remain on for 18 years.
So again, this is -- it's a very
good issue for us to raise and debate on the
floor. And the goal of trying to stop child
abuse is very, very laudable and one which I
agree with enormously. I think that there is
some more work to be done in terms of being as
effective as we possibly can about making sure
that children are returned to a safe
2418
environment, and I vote no.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Schneiderman, to explain your vote.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you,
Madam President.
I don't think there's anyone who
doubts the sincere intentions behind this
bill. And I must say, listening to Senator
Skelos and Senator Saland talk about it, this
is obviously an effort to deal with a serious
problem.
I think, though, that this approach
really is almost an approach that seems to be
based on kind of a blissful ignorance about
the situation in the Family Courts in many
parts of this state. That system is
tremendously oppressive. The resources aren't
there. The resources for a mother to defend
herself against a charge that will stay with
her for 18 years -- and it may, as Senator
Duane points out, stay with her for 18 years
even if she does rebut the presumption -- are
just not there.
And I would urge that we take a
2419
comprehensive approach to the problem of poor
children in Family Court in New York State
instead of doing something that raises a
presumption that doesn't provide the resources
or the wherewithal for us to deal with the
underlying problem.
It's great to say we're on the side
of the kids, but what these children really
need is more funding for health care, more
funding for child care, more funding for
education, more funding drug treatment.
And until we're prepared to do
that, instead of passing through expanding and
exploding out your tax cuts that are going to
prevent us from providing any money for these
things in a few years, I don't think that it's
fair for us to say that we're on the side of
the children. I vote no.
THE PRESIDENT: The members will
each be recorded as voting in the negative who
have so spoken.
The Secretary will announce the
results.
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
the negative on Calendar Number 206 are
2420
Senators Duane, Gonzalez, Markowitz,
Montgomery, Oppenheimer, Paterson, Rosado,
Sampson, Schneiderman, Smith, and Stavisky.
Ayes, 48. Nays, 11.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
The Secretary will continue to
announce the results.
THE SECRETARY: On Calendar
Number 206, also Senator M. Smith. Ayes, 47.
Nays, 12.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
there will be an immediate meeting of the
Civil Service Committee in the Majority
Conference Room.
THE PRESIDENT: There will be an
immediate meeting of the Civil Service
Committee in the Majority Conference Room.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
if we could go back to reports of standing
committees, I believe there's a report of the
Finance Committee at the desk. I ask that it
2421
be read.
THE PRESIDENT: Reports of
standing committees.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Stafford,
from the Committee on Finance, reports the
following bill direct to third reading:
Senate Print 2257, by Senator
Padavan, an act to amend the Executive Law.
THE PRESIDENT: Without
objection, the bill will be reported to third
reading.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
if we could take up Senate 2257 at this time.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: In relation to
Calendar Number 684, Senator Padavan moves to
discharge, from the Committee on Finance,
Assembly Bill Number 1162 and substitute it
for the identical Senate Bill 2257, Third
Reading Calendar 684.
THE PRESIDENT: The substitution
is ordered.
2422
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Explanation,
Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
SENATOR PADAVAN: Thank you,
Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Padavan,
an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR PADAVAN: Thank you,
Madam President.
This bill establishes the
"Cigarette Fire Safety Act."
THE PRESIDENT: First of all, the
Secretary should read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
684, by Member of the Assembly Grannis,
Assembly Bill Number 1162, an act to amend the
Executive Law, in relation to establishing
fire safety standards.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Padavan.
SENATOR PADAVAN: Thank you,
Madam President.
This bill, which is called the
"Cigarette Fire Safety Act," will require that
manufacturers of cigarettes selling them in
2423
New York State ensure that they will be of the
type that are not slow burning, that will
extinguish themselves when not being smoked.
And the reason for this is quite
simple. The leading cause of fire-related
deaths is the careless use of cigarettes. As
an example, in New York City last year there
were 112 fire-related deaths; 31 of them were
directly caused by smoldering cigarettes.
Thousands of people have been injured,
millions of dollars of property lost,
firefighters' lives taken in responding to
these fires.
We will require that the
manufacturers within the next year meet the
standards that will be promulgated by the New
York State Fire Safety Bureau in consultation
with the State Health Department.
You should be aware of the fact
that in 1984, the Congress of the United
States passed a Fire Safety Act relative to
cigarettes. It commissioned a study that was
done over a three-year period, and that report
was rendered in 1987.
The report was conclusive. It said
2424
basically two things: That after testing and
examining 41 different brands of cigarettes,
that there was no reason in the world in terms
of technology, from any practical viewpoint,
that cigarettes could not be manufactured so
that they would not be a fire hazard, they
would not continue to burn when not smoked.
They indicated that it was both feasible,
practical, and should be done.
Well, that's 13 years ago. Other
studies, other analyses have been done, other
reports and opinions rendered, all confirming
that judgment of 13 years ago.
This bill is supported by every
leading firefighting organization in the
state, all insurance companies, medical
groups. The list is quite extensive.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Gonzalez.
SENATOR GONZALEZ: Yes, Madam
President. Will the sponsor yield for a
couple of questions?
THE PRESIDENT: Does the sponsor
yield?
SENATOR PADAVAN: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
2425
Senator Gonzalez.
SENATOR GONZALEZ: This bill will
result in two types of cigarettes available in
New York. Licensed tobacco retailers will be
permitted to sell only fire safety cigarettes,
and the existing tobacco brands will be
continued to be sold in bordering states, on
Indian reservations, and on the black market.
Has the sponsor or the counsel made
a determination as to the state's ability to
impose regulation on a product such as tobacco
under the commerce clause of the United States
Constitution?
SENATOR PADAVAN: How many
questions was that, Senator? At least three.
Let me work backwards.
First, there's enough case law that
you could write a volume on indicating that
the states, and certainly New York State would
qualify, have the right to regulate both
products and processes where it relates to
people's health and safety. We have that
right and we exercise it in many, many
different ways. So there is no constitutional
prohibition as it relates to interstate
2426
commerce.
Now, with regard to the selling of
such cigarettes that would not comply with
these regulations by Indian reservations, we
understand the problem that relates to the
nations in selling tobacco and fuel,
particularly as it relates to collecting sales
taxes.
And, yes, they could go outside
this regulation. But I would suggest two
things to you. First, within the body of this
bill there lies a civil penalty that an
individual would incur should he knowingly
sell a cigarette that would not fall under the
rules and regulations to be promulgated and
that that cigarette would cause someone to
lose a life, property or be injured.
Now, I don't think a retailer on an
Indian reservation would want to subject
himself to that possible liability.
Secondly, I don't believe that the
Indian nations are irresponsible in terms of
not only the safety of the general public but
the safety of the members of their own nation,
who obviously buy these cigarettes. Would
2427
they want to jeopardize their lives?
And, third, one of the factors that
came out of all these studies is that the cost
associated with manufacturing this cigarette
does not change. It's basically the same,
because the tobacco is basically the same.
What changes is the wrapper. And where
wrappers today in some cases are laced with
nitrate so they'll burn rapidly and hotter,
that would be dealt with.
So for all those reasons, I don't
believe any of these things are a problem.
SENATOR GONZALEZ: Would the
sponsor still yield for a question?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Gonzalez.
SENATOR GONZALEZ: Has the
Department of Taxation and Finance or the
Division of Budget provided any estimate of
the fiscal impact on the state relating to the
tax revenue laws to cross-border, Indian,
black market sales? Has the impact of the
department enforcement budget been calculated?
SENATOR PADAVAN: No, I'm not
aware of any such studies.
But I would suggest to you,
2428
Senator, if you look at the loss in property
and the subsequent loss in tax revenues due to
fires, if you look at the cost to insurance
companies, the cost of lives, of a whole
variety of things that have an economic factor
to them that we will be helping to prevent, I
think we're far ahead of the game. If you
want to look at it purely from the point of
view of dollars and cents.
But on the other hand, Senator, I
think what we're basically setting about here
to do is to save lives and prevent people from
being injured.
SENATOR GONZALEZ: Mr. President,
can -
ACTING PRESIDENT BONACIC:
Senator Gonzalez.
SENATOR GONZALEZ: Has the Office
of Fire Prevention and Control indicated it's
prepared to develop standards mandated by the
bill within the necessary time allotted?
SENATOR PADAVAN: They haven't
indicated that they couldn't.
ACTING PRESIDENT BONACIC:
Senator Gonzalez.
2429
SENATOR GONZALEZ: Yes, Mr.
President, one final question. I think
basically you answered it.
Does the Department of Taxation and
Finance intend to enforce any provision of
this bill with regard to cigarettes sold on
Indian reservations?
SENATOR PADAVAN: I think my
answer earlier, Senator, would apply.
SENATOR GONZALEZ: Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT BONACIC: You're
welcome.
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Mr.
President, will the sponsor yield for a couple
of questions?
ACTING PRESIDENT BONACIC:
Senator Padavan, do you yield?
SENATOR PADAVAN: Yes.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Senator, what
happens in your bill if for some reason the
Office of Fire Prevention and Control does not
meet the one-year deadline?
SENATOR PADAVAN: If they could
2430
do it more quickly? We give them up to a
year. We give the manufacturers up to a year
beyond the effective date of this bill, which
is next April.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Right. But
my understanding -
SENATOR PADAVAN: So therefore,
we have more than a year, actually, for the
implementation.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Correct.
Through you, Mr. President, if
Senator Padavan will continue to yield.
SENATOR PADAVAN: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT BONACIC:
Senator Padavan will continue to yield.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: My
understanding is that the Office of Fire
Prevention and Control has one year to develop
the standards for cigarette sales in New York
State; is that correct?
SENATOR PADAVAN: That's correct.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: And my
question is, what happens if for some reason
they don't complete that process within a
year?
2431
And the reason why I ask, through
you, Mr. President, is because we have at
other times done things with HCRA and other
agencies where we've taken complicated
regulatory issues, given them to the agencies,
and for some reason a year passes or a year
and a half passes and we don't get a report or
we don't get these standards.
As you know, I strongly support
these standards. I'd simply like to know what
happens if, for some reason, the agency for
some reason doesn't complete it in a timely
fashion.
SENATOR PADAVAN: First, Senator,
there's so much work been done already on this
issue. I mentioned earlier the previous
three-year study done at the federal level.
All of that information is currently
available.
Some of the manufacturers have
already gotten patents, cigarette
manufacturers, on how to do this. There are
several brands on the market which we believe
already comply, although we can't say with
definity, because the standards have not been
2432
promulgated. But they seem to be.
So I don't believe that the year
will be a problem. However, should it be,
obviously they can come back to us and say, We
need more time. And obviously we would comply
if it was reasonable. But I don't see that as
an eventuality.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
again, Mr. President, if Senator Padavan will
continue to yield.
SENATOR PADAVAN: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT BONACIC: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Senator, at
some point would you consider an amendment or
a chapter amendment to this bill, if we get
it -- because this is certainly a bill I would
like to see signed -- that would require the
Office of Fire Prevention and Control to
report back to the Legislature on the
standards that it's developed so that we get a
chance to see those and analyze those and
determine whether any kind of additional
legislative action is required?
SENATOR PADAVAN: Well, Senator,
2433
I can assure you that I and I assume many
others in both houses will be closely
monitoring what that agency does and sharing
that information with everyone. And if at
some point in time we find that that is not
forthcoming, then obviously we'll take
appropriate action.
If necessary, obviously we can
produce any kind of chapter amendments or
changes in the law that are needed then.
I don't foresee that as a problem,
because I believe these agencies have just as
much concern as we do, and I'm sure that they
will approach this mandate, this requirement,
with enthusiasm.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Mr. President. On the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT BONACIC:
Senator Dollinger, on the bill.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Mr.
President, I want to commend Frank Padavan for
his work on bringing this bill to the floor
and his work for a long time on the issue of
producing safe-burning cigarettes in New York.
This is an issue which the Senate
2434
Democratic Conference, we attempted to bring
to the floor several weeks ago through a
motion to discharge. And I think I can speak
for my colleagues on this side of the aisle,
that this is an issue which I know Senator
Padavan has supported for more than a decade.
And I commend him for that.
My only disappointment, Mr.
President, is that we had to wait 13 years for
this to happen. And my further dismay or
disappointment is that this year our movement
on this bill also happens to coincide with the
industry acknowledging that they are capable
of producing fire-safe cigarettes,
safe-burning cigarettes.
And while I know in Senator
Padavan's mind this is a bill he's worked on
for a long time, I hope that what this Senate
is not doing is suggesting that we will only
regulate industries that cause death and
destruction, property loss, danger to our
firefighters and public safety personnel -
all very adequately described by Senator
Padavan -- but I hope what we will not do is
only act in the public interest when the
2435
people we are seeking to regulate say, Okay,
it's okay, you can do it now, we have figured
out how to do it.
I would suggest, Mr. President, if
that's our approach, we're abdicating our
public responsibilities, and that the proper
response on this issue should have been 13
years ago when the federal government said it
can be done, the technology exists. It seems
to me New York would have been fulfilling its
obligation in the public interest then by
saying it's time to pass safe-burning
cigarette legislation.
And it seems to me that that would
have been the time we could have stood up and
said, Regardless of what the industry wants,
we know that this is in the public interest.
And we know that hundreds of lives will be
saved for the next decade if they had passed
safe-burning-cigarette legislation in 1987.
I understand perhaps why that
didn't happen, but I find it disappointing
nonetheless. Senator Padavan has persevered
through those years with his determination to
get this bill to the floor. And I commend him
2436
for that, as I have before. But I couldn't go
without stating my disappointment that we
didn't do this a decade ago. We should have
done it then. It was the right thing to do
then. It is still the right thing to do. But
I regret the fact that apparently hundreds of
New Yorkers may have needlessly died while we
waited.
And I would just strongly urge this
house, let's do it now, let's do the right
thing now. I wish that before I had come to
the Legislature in 1992 this had already been
done and we could stand here and celebrate the
10th anniversary or the 13th anniversary of
safe-burning cigarettes. There would be fewer
people who had died, there would be fewer
people who were scarred, there would fewer
property losses, there would be fewer
firefighters who would have been imperiled
because of carelessly discarded or burning
cigarettes while people fell asleep.
It's still the right time to do it,
Mr. President. I only wish we had done it
more than a decade ago. I'll be voting in
favor.
2437
ACTING PRESIDENT BONACIC: Read
the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
April.
ACTING PRESIDENT BONACIC: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 60.
ACTING PRESIDENT BONACIC: The
bill is passed.
Senator Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Mr.
President, there will be an immediate meeting
of the Election Committee in the Majority
Conference Room.
ACTING PRESIDENT BONACIC: There
will be an immediate meeting of the Election
Committee in the Majority Conference Room.
Senator Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Mr.
President, can we return to the controversial
reading of the calendar, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT BONACIC: We
can.
2438
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT BONACIC: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
459, by Senator Morahan, Senate Print 6240A,
an act to amend Chapter 235 of the Laws of
1865.
ACTING PRESIDENT BONACIC:
Senator Duane, why do you rise?
SENATOR DUANE: I just have a
question for the sponsor.
ACTING PRESIDENT BONACIC:
Senator Morahan, do you yield?
SENATOR MORAHAN: Yes, sir.
ACTING PRESIDENT BONACIC:
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Why is this bill
different than the bill we voted on a couple
of weeks ago?
SENATOR MORAHAN: It's in the
description of the bill, the act. The
Assembly asked it to be recalled.
If you look at the two bills,
Senator, we amended the descriptive paragraph
on the original one that we passed that said
2439
"in relationship to money appropriated." In
the new bill, or the amended bill, it is now
"in relation to monetary value of assets."
It's still the same million
dollars.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT BONACIC: You're
welcome.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you.
SENATOR MORAHAN: You're quite
welcome, Senator.
ACTING PRESIDENT BONACIC: Read
the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT BONACIC: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 60.
ACTING PRESIDENT BONACIC: The
bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
536, by Senator Padavan, Senate Print 1398, an
act to amend the Penal Law, in relation to
2440
making unlawful immigration a Class C felony.
ACTING PRESIDENT BONACIC: Read
the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
November.
ACTING PRESIDENT BONACIC: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT BONACIC:
Senator Coppola.
SENATOR COPPOLA: I'd like to,
Mr. President, ask a question of the sponsor.
ACTING PRESIDENT BONACIC:
Withdraw the roll call.
Senator Padavan, would you yield to
a question, please?
SENATOR PADAVAN: Yes.
SENATOR COPPOLA: In regards to
this bill, Senator, can you just make a
distinction between what's happening now in
Florida as opposed to New York? Would they be
fine to take this boy's raft from him?
SENATOR PADAVAN: I'm sorry. You
know, I'm having trouble hearing you. You
2441
said something about Florida. I didn't -
SENATOR COPPOLA: Elian, yes.
I'm talking about the young boy.
If we had somebody come over in a
raft like that, would we be putting this
immigrant in jail and fining him? How would
we handle a situation like that?
SENATOR PADAVAN: Senator,
there's no relevance whatsoever to the
situation of Elian in Florida -
SENATOR COPPOLA: I'm sorry,
Senator.
SENATOR PADAVAN: There is no
relevance whatsoever between this bill and the
terrible tragedy that's going on in Florida
relevant to a young boy named Elian.
What we're talking about are
smugglers of illegal aliens. As a matter of
fact, in 1998 there was a very extensive
article in the New York Times telling us about
just one ring alone that had smuggled people
across from Canada, over 3600 Chinese. They
charge for this; on the average, $47,000.
We have a problem that's much
broader than that. That's just one place, one
2442
group, one organization. It's far more
pervasive than that.
But to answer your original
question, it has absolutely nothing to do with
a Cuban exile. As you know, under the Cuban
Refugee Act, people coming from Cuba are given
automatic asylum. That's not the case with
the type of people we're talking about.
SENATOR COPPOLA: Mr. President,
may I ask one more question, please?
ACTING PRESIDENT BONACIC: Mr.
Padavan, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR PADAVAN: Yes.
SENATOR COPPOLA: Aren't there
young immigrant Chinese men and women who come
to this country?
SENATOR PADAVAN: Sure, there are
thousands and thousands. Most of them come
here legally. They come here, they seek green
cards, they seek citizenship, they seek
asylum. But they're not smuggled in over our
borders illicitly. They come in in an
appropriate way.
SENATOR COPPOLA: I'm still -
one more question, please.
2443
ACTING PRESIDENT BONACIC:
Senator Padavan, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR COPPOLA: Senator, I
still think we have young immigrants -
SENATOR PADAVAN: Senator, what
you don't understand is we're talking about
illegal immigration, not legal immigration.
This is smuggling of illegal immigrants.
SENATOR COPPOLA: Senator, how do
you distinguish between illegal and the people
who are oppressive and don't know?
SENATOR PADAVAN: How do we
distinguish? We are certainly the fountain of
immigration from the very beginning, of people
who have fled foreign countries coming here
seeking freedom and economic opportunity.
But they came in through Ellis
Island, like my grandparents did, or they came
in in other ways that were perfectly legal and
appropriate. They weren't smuggled in the
middle of the night across the borders from
one nation -- namely, Canada -- to another.
They weren't brought in on a boat that
floundered off the coast of Long Island in the
hands of -- being operated by illegal
2444
smugglers.
So let us draw a distinction
between those who come here seeking asylum,
seeking opportunity, and those who are
smuggled here for a price, which is clearly
illegal. We are merely -- it's already
illegal. What we're doing is providing a
different penalty. And in this bill, we're
providing for an opportunity to seize the
assets of those smugglers. Which may be
boats, planes, whatever they use.
That's what this bill is all about.
SENATOR COPPOLA: Just one more
question, please, if the sponsor would yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT BONACIC: Do you
continue to yield, Mr. Padavan, to Senator
Coppola?
SENATOR PADAVAN: Yes.
SENATOR COPPOLA: How does this
deal from the federal laws as opposed to what
you are now proposing?
SENATOR PADAVAN: How does it
what?
SENATOR COPPOLA: How does this
deal -- how does this differ from the federal
2445
laws -
SENATOR PADAVAN: Right now the
federal government has statutes that allow it
to seize assets in a variety of areas, such as
in drugs.
In 1984, we adopted a statute which
we worked on for a number of years -- it's now
law -- that allows to us seize the assets, New
York State to seize the assets of drug
smugglers. I'm giving you a parallel here.
We use half those assets for drug treatment
and education programs. The other half goes
back to local law enforcement so they can do
their job better.
What we're doing with this bill is
providing for local law enforcement the
opportunity to seize those assets as we do in
the case of other criminality.
SENATOR COPPOLA: Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT BONACIC:
Senator Coppola.
SENATOR COPPOLA: On the bill,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT BONACIC: On the
bill, Senator Coppola.
2446
SENATOR COPPOLA: I just feel
that the federal government has enough law
enforcement, enough agencies, enough manpower
to enforce illegal immigration, and what we're
doing is adding a burden to the State of New
York.
And that's the reason why I'm
voting against this.
ACTING PRESIDENT BONACIC: Read
the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
November.
ACTING PRESIDENT BONACIC: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT BONACIC: The
Secretary will announce the results.
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
the negative on Calendar Number 536 are
Senators Coppola, Duane, Gonzalez, Markowitz,
Meier, Mendez, Montgomery, Rosado, Sampson,
Schneiderman, A. Smith, M. Smith, and
Stavisky. Ayes, 47. Nays, 13.
ACTING PRESIDENT BONACIC: The
2447
bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
143, by Senator LaValle -
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Lay it aside
for the day.
ACTING PRESIDENT BONACIC: The
bill is laid aside for the day.
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Mr.
President, I'd ask unanimous consent to be
recorded in the negative on Calendar Numbers
673 and 674.
ACTING PRESIDENT BONACIC:
Without objection.
Senator Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Mr.
President, could we stand at ease for a
moment.
ACTING PRESIDENT BONACIC: The
Senate will stand at ease.
(Whereupon, the Senate stood at
ease at 4:30 p.m.)
(Whereupon, the Senate reconvened
at 4:35 p.m.)
ACTING PRESIDENT BONACIC:
2448
Senator Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Mr.
President, there will be an immediate meeting
of the Rules Committee in the Majority
Conference Room.
ACTING PRESIDENT BONACIC:
Immediate meeting of the Rules Committee in
the Majority Conference Room.
Senator Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: The Senate
will stand at ease.
ACTING PRESIDENT BONACIC: The
Senate will continue to stand at ease.
(Whereupon, the Senate stood at
ease at 4:36 p.m.)
ACTING PRESIDENT BONACIC: The
Senate will come to order.
Senator Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Mr.
President, may we return to reports of
standing committees. I understand there are
reports of some committees at the desk.
ACTING PRESIDENT BONACIC:
Reports of standing committees.
The Secretary will read.
2449
THE SECRETARY: Senator Larkin,
from the Committee on Racing, Gaming and
Wagering, reports the following bill direct to
third reading:
Senate Print 6178, by the Senate
Committee on Rules, an act to amend the
Racing, Pari-Mutuel Wagering and Breeding Law.
Senator Maltese, from the Committee
on Elections, reports the following bill
direct to third reading:
Senate Print 7418, by Senator
Maltese, an act to amend the Election Law.
Senator Leibell, from the Committee
on Civil Service and Pensions, reports the
following bills direct to third reading:
Senate Print 6540, by Senator
Bonacic, an act to amend the Civil Service
Law;
6543, by Senator Leibell, an act to
amend the Retirement and Social Security
Law -
ACTING PRESIDENT BONACIC: Excuse
me.
Can we have a little order, please,
show a little respect. Thank you.
2450
THE SECRETARY: And Senate Print
7067, by Senator Leibell, an act to amend the
Retirement and Social Security Law.
And Senator Bruno, from the
Committee on Rules, reports the following bill
direct to third reading:
Senate Print 7512, by the Senate
Committee on Rules, an act to amend the Public
Authorities Law and a chapter of the Laws of
2000.
ACTING PRESIDENT BONACIC:
Senator Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Move to
accept the report of the Rules Committee.
ACTING PRESIDENT BONACIC: The
motion is to accept the report of Rules
Committee. All in favor signify by saying
aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT BONACIC: All
opposed, nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT BONACIC: The
Rules report is accepted.
And without objection, all other
2451
bills reported directly to third reading.
Senator Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Mr.
President, could we stand at ease for a
moment, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT BONACIC: The
Senate stands at ease.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Thank you.
(Whereupon, the Senate stood at
ease at 4:53 p.m.)
(Whereupon, the Senate reconvened
at 4:56 p.m.)
ACTING PRESIDENT BONACIC:
Senator Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Mr.
President, can we take up Calendar Number 685,
Senate Bill 7512, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT BONACIC: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
685, by the Senate Committee on Rules, Senate
Print 7512, an act to amend the Public
Authorities Law and a chapter of the Laws of
2000 amending the Public Authorities Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT BONACIC:
2452
Senator Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Mr.
President, is there a message of necessity at
the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT BONACIC: Yes,
there is.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: I move to
accept the message of necessity.
ACTING PRESIDENT BONACIC: All in
favor of accepting the message of necessity
signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT BONACIC:
Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT BONACIC: The
message is accepted.
Read the last section.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT BONACIC:
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Can I just
have a brief explanation from Senator Padavan,
please.
2453
ACTING PRESIDENT BONACIC:
Senator Padavan, will you yield?
SENATOR PADAVAN: Yes. Yes.
Mr. President, two weeks ago this
chamber, as well as the Assembly, passed a
bill requiring that mentally disabled
individuals on SSI receive the same treatment
in traveling the subways, buses, and railroads
of the State of New York; namely, that their
fare be cut in half.
After that bill was passed, there
were two problems that surfaced. One of them
is that we determined that all other SSI
recipients receiving half fare do not receive
that half fare during the morning rush hour
from 7:00 to 9:00. The other problem related
to the amount of time the MTA would need to
implement this new provision.
This chapter amendment places the
mentally ill SSI recipient on a parity basis
with all other SSI disabled individuals in
terms of half fare. It also gives the MTA 90
days to implement it.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Mr. President. Explanation satisfactory.
2454
ACTING PRESIDENT BONACIC: Read
the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT BONACIC: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT BONACIC:
Senator Duane, why do you rise?
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Mr.
President. I'd like to speak on the bill -
to explain my vote.
ACTING PRESIDENT BONACIC:
Senator Duane, to explain his vote.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you very
much, Mr. President.
I actually like things the way they
are now with persons with mental illness
getting half fare not just during non-rush
hours but also during rush hours.
I actually think that we should let
more people get half fares during more of the
day, including rush hours, to the point where
we're able to reduce the fare for everybody.
Because, after all, the fares on public
2455
transportation are really just a tax on
working people.
I know in New York City very few
people except for tourists just take the
subways and buses for the fun of it. They
actually take it because they have to,
including and especially on their way to work.
I can see if we did this while at
the same time we were raising the minimum wage
to make it possible for working New Yorkers to
be able to survive on a little bit more money
in their pockets.
But in lieu of doing that, I'd like
to keep things this way and have an eye
towards making it possible for more people to
have a reduced fare, including and especially
during rush hour.
So I'm going to vote no, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT BONACIC: Thank
you, Senator.
Senator Duane will be recorded in
the negative.
Senator Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you,
2456
Mr. President.
I'm going to join my colleague,
Senator Duane, in voting no. I think that we
need to have a renewed commitment to our mass
transit system and to broadening public
transportation.
This issue has moved beyond the
realm of transit advocates. This is an issue
now where the most prominent organizations in
New York City's business communities have come
out saying we're not providing enough transit
service, we're not providing the funds for our
transit system.
We're going to have an $8 million
hole in the MTA's budget. It is not
acceptable to cut back programs for working
people and to limit a fine program like, you
know, allowing the mentally handicapped to
travel at half fares based on budgetQary
constraints and considerations when what we
should be doing is investing in our transit
system for the economic future of our city and
our state.
And I think that we're about to,
hopefully very soon, start debating a budget.
2457
And we know, as we take this budget up, that
there's not enough money there for the MTA.
So I'm joining Senator Duane in voting no. We
are not doing what it takes for the transit
system. And I think shaving away at good
programs like this one is not the answer to
the problem.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT BONACIC:
Senator Schneiderman will be voted in the
negative.
Any other votes? The Secretary
will announce the results.
Senator Padavan, why do you rise?
SENATOR PADAVAN: I'm rising to
explain my vote.
The last comment from Senator
Schneiderman just is appalling to me. What
this bill does is it enables us to put in
place in the City of New York and in the MTA
region parity for the mentally disabled
individuals who ride those systems, who today
are paying full fare. This bill will give
them half fare and put them on the same
playing field as any other disabled person
2458
receiving SSI.
Therefore, how you can say that
this bill takes away from that population
something which they've never had is beyond my
ability to comprehend. I vote aye.
ACTING PRESIDENT BONACIC:
Senator Padavan will be recorded in the
affirmative.
Again, all negative votes please
show by raising your hand.
The results, please, Mr. Secretary.
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
the negative on Calendar Number 685 are
Senators Coppola, Duane, Lachman, Rosado,
Schneiderman, and Stavisky. Ayes, 54. Nays,
6.
ACTING PRESIDENT BONACIC: The
bill is passed.
Senator Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Mr.
President, is there any housekeeping at the
desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT BONACIC: No,
there is not.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Well, there
2459
being no further business to come before the
Senate -
ACTING PRESIDENT BONACIC:
Senator Paterson, why do you rise?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Mr.
President, will you recognize Senator
Paterson, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT BONACIC:
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you, Mr.
President.
With unanimous consent, especially
the consent of the distinguished Deputy
Majority Leader in place at this time, I'd
like to be recorded in the negative on
Calendar Number 536.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Without
objection.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT BONACIC:
Without objection, Senator Paterson will be
recorded in the negative.
SENATOR PATERSON: Because of the
tremendous response I just got from all of my
colleagues, I not only want to thank them but
2460
I'd like to invite them to an immediate
meeting of the Minority. There will be an
immediate meeting of the Minority Conference
in Conference Room 314 of the Capitol.
ACTING PRESIDENT BONACIC: There
will be a Minority conference in the Minority
Conference Room, Room 314.
Senator Lachman, why do you rise?
SENATOR LACHMAN: I'd like to be
recorded yes on 685, without objection.
ACTING PRESIDENT BONACIC:
Without objection, Senator Lachman will be
recorded in the affirmative on said vote, on
685.
SENATOR HEVESI: Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT BONACIC:
Senator Hevesi, why do you rise?
SENATOR HEVESI: I rise to
request unanimous consent to be recorded in
the negative on Calendar Number 685.
ACTING PRESIDENT BONACIC:
Without objection, Senator Hevesi will be
recorded in the negative on Calendar 685.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT BONACIC: Thank
2461
you also.
Senator Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Mr.
President, there being no further business to
come before the Senate, I move we adjourn
until Tuesday, April 18, at 3:00 p.m.
ACTING PRESIDENT BONACIC: On
motion, the Senate stands adjourned until
Tuesday, April 18, at 3:00 p.m.
(Whereupon, at 5:03 p.m., the
Senate adjourned.)