Regular Session - June 7, 2000
4352
NEW YORK STATE SENATE
THE STENOGRAPHIC RECORD
ALBANY, NEW YORK
June 7, 2000
10:09 a.m.
REGULAR SESSION
SENATOR PATRICIA K. McGEE, Acting President
STEVEN M. BOGGESS, Secretary
4353
P R O C E E D I N G S
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senate will come to order.
I ask everyone present to rise and
repeat with me the Pledge of Allegiance.
(Whereupon, the assemblage recited
the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: In the
absence of clergy, may we bow our heads in a
moment of silence.
(Whereupon, the assemblage
respected a moment of silence.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Reading
of the Journal.
THE SECRETARY: In Senate,
Tuesday, June 6, the Senate met pursuant to
adjournment. The Journal of Monday, June 5,
was read and approved. On motion, Senate
adjourned.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Without
objection, the Journal stands approved as
read.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
if we could go to the calendar and take up
4354
Calendar Number 1315 and have the last section
read for the purpose of Senator Libous voting.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Secretary will read Calendar Number 1315.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1315, by Senator Maltese, Senate Print 1638B,
an act to amend the Penal Law, in relation to
the crime of partial birth abortion.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
November.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Libous.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Nozzolio.
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Aye.
SENATOR SKELOS: Please withdraw
the roll call.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The roll
call is withdrawn.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
if we could call up Calendar Number 1316 and
4355
have the last section read for the purposes of
Senators Libous and Nozzolio voting.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Secretary will read Calendar 1316.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1316, by Senator Goodman, Senate Print 4691A,
an act to amend the Penal Law and the
Executive Law, in relation to hate crimes.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 7. This
act shall take effect in 90 days.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Libous.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Nay.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Nozzolio.
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Nay.
SENATOR SKELOS: Please withdraw
the roll call.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The roll
call is withdrawn.
4356
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: If we could go
back to regular order.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE:
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 Farley.
SENATOR FARLEY: Thank you, Madam
President.
On behalf of Senator Nozzolio,
would you please place a sponsor star on
Calendar 1086.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: That
bill will be starred.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
if I could just interrupt.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: There will be an
4357
immediate meeting of the Judiciary Committee
in the Majority Conference Room.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: There
will be an immediate meeting of the Judiciary
Committee in the Majority Conference Room.
Senator Farley.
SENATOR FARLEY: Thank you, Madam
President.
I wish to call up my bill, which is
Senate Print 3554, recalled from the Assembly,
which is now at the desk.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
108, by Senator Farley, Senate Print 3554, an
act to amend the Banking Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Farley.
SENATOR FARLEY: Madam President,
I now move to reconsider the vote by which
this bill passed.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Secretary will call the roll on
reconsideration.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
4358
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 42.
SENATOR FARLEY: I now offer the
following amendments.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE:
Amendments received.
Senator Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Thank you,
Madam President.
Amendments are offered to the
following Third Reading Calendar bills:
By Senator Nozzolio, on page 8,
Calendar Number 248, Senate Print Number
6282D;
By Senator Volker, on page 11,
Calendar Number 396, Senate Print Number 6590;
By Senator Trunzo, on page 24,
Calendar Number 812, Senate Print Number 7228;
By Senator Skelos, on page 30,
Calendar Number 933, Senate Print Number
7092A;
By Senator Volker, on page number
31, Calendar Number 961, Senate Print Number
7188;
By Senator Skelos, on page 35,
Calendar Number 1043, Senate Print Number
4359
6777A;
By Senator Balboni, on page 42,
Calendar Number 1152, Senate Print Number
7161;
By Senator Balboni, page number 45,
Calendar Number 1272, Senate Print Number
7701;
By Senator Trunzo, on page 50,
Calendar Number 472, Senate Print Number
4412C;
By Senator Farley, page number 34,
Calendar Number 1018, Senate Print Number
7747.
Madam President, I now move that
these bills retain their place on the Third
Reading order. Assuming you accepted the
amendments.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE:
Amendments received. The bills will retain
their place on the Third Reading Calendar.
Senator Skelos, we have some
substitutions.
SENATOR SKELOS: Please make the
substitutions that are at the desk.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
4360
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: On page 4,
Senator DeFrancisco moves to discharge, from
the Committee on Rules, Assembly Bill Number
109A and substitute it for the identical
Senate Bill Number 550A, Third Reading
Calendar 39.
On page 5, Senator Hannon moves to
discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
Assembly Bill 3039 and substitute it for the
identical Senate Bill Number 2157, Third
Reading Calendar 97.
On page 12, Senator Marcellino
moves to discharge, from the Committee on
Rules, Assembly Bill Number 8111 and
substitute it for the identical Senate Bill
Number 4623, Third Reading Calendar 445.
On page 15, Senator Marcellino
moves to discharge, from the Committee on
Rules, Assembly Bill Number 10167 and
substitute it for the identical Senate Bill
Number 6706, Third Reading Calendar 549.
On page 15, Senator Morahan moves
to discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
Assembly Bill Number 1816 and substitute it
4361
for the identical Senate Bill Number 5929,
Third Reading Calendar 554.
On page 16, Senator Leibell moves
to discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
Assembly Bill Number 9530 and substitute it
for the identical Senate Bill Number 6542,
Third Reading Calendar 620.
On page 24, Senator Meier moves to
discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
Assembly Bill Number 445 and substitute it for
the identical Senate Bill Number 927, Third
Reading Calendar 803.
On page 27, Senator Kuhl moves to
discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
Assembly Bill Number 9723B and substitute it
for the identical Senate Bill Number 6767B,
Third Reading Calendar 875.
On page 27, Senator Bonacic moves
to discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
Assembly Bill Number 10814A and substitute it
for the identical Senate Bill Number 7310A,
Third Reading Calendar 901.
On page 27, Senator Bonacic moves
to discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
Assembly Bill Number 10815A and substitute it
4362
for the identical Senate Bill Number 7311A,
Third Reading Calendar 902.
On page 28, Senator Trunzo moves to
discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
Assembly Bill Number 6903B and substitute it
for the identical Senate Bill Number 3728B,
Third Reading Calendar 908.
On page 28, Senator Leibell moves
to discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
Assembly Bill Number 7196A and substitute it
for the identical Senate Bill Number 4068A,
Third Reading Calendar 910.
On page 29, Senator Leibell moves
to discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
Assembly Bill Number 9875 and substitute it
for the identical Senate Bill Number 7303,
Third Reading Calendar 918.
On page 33, Senator Marchi moves to
discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
Assembly Bill Number 10950 and substitute it
for the identical Senate Bill Number 7080,
Third Reading Calendar 994.
On page 46, Senator Lack moves to
discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
Assembly Bill Number 7265D and substitute it
4363
for the identical Senate Bill Number 3393C,
Third Reading Calendar 1283.
On page 47, Senator Maltese moves
to discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
Assembly Bill Number 9539 and substitute it
for the identical Senate Bill Number 6485,
Third Reading Calendar 1293.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE:
Substitutions ordered.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
there's a privileged resolution at the desk by
Senator Seward. May we have the title read
and move for its immediate adoption.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Secretary will read.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
if we could just lay that aside temporarily.
And could we take up Resolution
4545, by Senator Bonacic -- this resolution
passed the Senate on June 6th -- and have it
read in its entirety.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Secretary will read.
4364
THE SECRETARY: By Senator
Bonacic, Legislative Resolution Number 4545,
honoring the valedictorians of the 40th Senate
District, in recognition of their outstanding
academic accomplishments at a celebration to
be held at the State Capitol on June 7, 2000.
"WHEREAS, It is the sense of this
Legislative Body to act, in accord with its
long-standing traditions, honoring the youth
of today -- the leaders of tomorrow -- whose
character and achievements best exemplify the
ideals and values cherished by this great
state and nation; and
"WHEREAS, This Legislative Body is
justly proud to recognize and commend the high
achievements of these dedicated students in
the 40th Senate District on the occasion of a
special celebratory visit to be held at the
State Capitol in Albany, New York, on
Wednesday, June 7, 2000. At this time, the
valedictorians will receive special
recognition from the Senate in the Senate
chamber. Lunch will be served in the office
of their state senator, followed by a tour of
the Capitol building; and
4365
"WHEREAS, these valedictorians
represent the best of developed potential
inherent in our most precious resources, our
youth, and their achievements have brought
enduring honor to their families and
communities, and should be recognized and
saluted; and
"WHEREAS, The valedictorians who
are being honored today for their outstanding
performances and exemplary achievements
include: Thomas Ventimiglia, Heather
MacClintock, Emma K. Pokon, Tracey A.
Perazone, Jessica Arabski, Kristen Klufas,
Ilana Richman, Sherry Pieringer, Heather
Stickle, Christopher Colasuonno, Bethany
Slater, Robert Semerano, Hamsa Stainton,
Pamela Buck, Kelly Vanderzell, Rachael
Altbach, Joseph Iatauro, Katelyn Connell,
Erika Truax, Joshua M. Lader, James Van Loon,
Mara S. Miller, Robert Osterhoudt, Megan
Brennan, Kelly Brumbelow, Daniel J. Brown,
Jessica Garvin, Jessica Foster, Elisabeth
Hubert, Maragharita Pilarinos, Michael Reese,
Jamie Shampine, Christopher Phillips, Roger
Hall, Adrienne LaPierre, Jessica Sweeney,
4366
Jennifer Gewandter, Heather Prevosti, Kenneth
Stalter, and Amy Schildkraut; and
"WHEREAS, These valedictorians may
now stand with pride as they assess their
achievements, experience the satisfaction of
their labors and the joy of their
accomplishments, eager to experience the
challenges of new experiences as they face a
challenging world with bright promise; now,
therefore, be it
"RESOLVED, That this Legislative
Body pause in its deliberations to honor the
valedictorians of the 40th Senate District, in
recognition of their outstanding academic
accomplishments, at a celebration to be held
at the State Capitol on June 7, 2000; and be
it further
"RESOLVED, That copies of this
resolution, suitably engrossed, be transmitted
to the aforementioned valedictorians."
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Bonacic.
SENATOR BONACIC: Thank you,
Madam Speaker. I know that was -- Madam
President and Madam Speaker.
4367
That was a lengthy resolution, but
I thought it was appropriate to take the time
to mention the 39 students that are up here in
our gallery who have achieved valedictorian
status in our school districts throughout the
five counties of the 40th Senate district.
Accompanying them are parents, principals,
superintendents.
And we have a very special day
planned for them. We'll be doing an education
forum, which the Lieutenant Governor will
attend, as well as university presidents and
people from the State of New York, telling
them of the opportunities, holding them in
high esteem. Then we're going to have a pizza
party and a tour.
And I just want to say real briefly
that you are the best of the best, that this
Senate and this Legislature puts a high value
on excellent in education and academic
achievement. And we would hope that you would
go on to higher education, which I'm sure many
of you will be, if not all of you.
And we ask that you give back to
this great country some of the opportunities
4368
that it gave to you, and you would think about
perhaps living here and coming back to work
here. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Thank
you, Senator Bonacic.
For the record, this resolution was
adopted yesterday, June 6, the year 2000.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
there are ten privileged resolutions at the
desk. Could we have the titles read and move
for their immediate adoption.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: By Senator
Bonacic, Legislative Resolution Number 4627,
commending Dr. Albert J. Gruner upon the
occasion of his designation for special honor
by the Gateway Foundation on Sunday, June 11,
2000.
By Senator Bonacic, Legislative
Resolution Number 4628, congratulating Daniel
E. Johnson upon the occasion of receiving the
distinguished rank of Eagle Scout, the most
4369
prestigious of Scouting honors, on June 11,
2000, at Gold Mountain Resort.
By Senator Larkin, Legislative
Resolution Number 4629, congratulating Edward
T. Palange III upon the occasion of receiving
the distinguished rank of Eagle Scout, the
most prestigious of Scouting honors, on
June 11, 2000.
By Senator Larkin, Legislative
Resolution Number 4630, congratulating Paul R.
Wolf upon the occasion of receiving the
distinguished rank of Eagle Scout, the most
prestigious of Scouting honors, on June 11,
2000.
By Senator Larkin, Legislative
Resolution Number 4631, congratulating Joseph
A. Massari upon the occasion of receiving the
distinguished rank of Eagle Scout, the most
prestigious of Scouting honors, on June 11,
2000.
By Senator Larkin, Legislative
Resolution Number 4632, congratulating Kevin
E. Mahoney upon the occasion of receiving the
distinguished rank of Eagle Scout, the most
prestigious of Scouting honors, on June 11,
4370
2000.
By Senator Skelos, Legislative
Resolution Number 4655, honoring Darius
Schwartz upon the occasion of his designation
as recipient of the "Alumnus of the Year"
Award by the Hebrew Academy of Nassau County.
By Senator Skelos, Legislative
Resolution Number 4656, commending Dr. Eric
Moskow upon the occasion of his selection as
Guest of Honor at the Hebrew Academy of Nassau
County's 47th Annual Journal Gala.
By Senator Skelos, Legislative
Resolution Number 4657, honoring Lee and Andre
Lichtman upon the occasion of their
designation as recipients of the "Grandparents
of the Year" Award by the Hebrew Academy of
Nassau County.
And by Senator Meier, Legislative
Resolution Number 4658, honoring Mary Ann Lum
Nelson upon the occasion of her retirement as
Town Clerk of the Town of Webb, New York.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
question is on the resolutions. All those in
favor signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
4371
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Opposed,
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
resolutions are adopted.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: If we could go
to the noncontroversial calendar at this time.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
195, by Senator Trunzo, Senate Print 6374, an
act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law, in
relation to increasing penalties.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
November.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 51.
4372
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
203, by Senator Libous, Senate Print -
SENATOR SKELOS: Lay it aside
temporarily.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is laid aside temporarily.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
300, by Member of the Assembly Weinstein,
Assembly Print Number 7162A, an act to amend
the Family Court Act, in relation to
telephonic, audiovisual or electronic
testimony.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect on the 90th day.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 51.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
4373
485, by Senator Libous, Senate Print -
SENATOR SKELOS: Lay it aside
temporarily.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is laid aside temporarily.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
505, by Member of the Assembly Weinstein,
Assembly Print Number 10421, an act to amend
the Estates, Powers and Trusts Law, in
relation to the presumption of death from
absence.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 51.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
551, by Senator Saland, Senate Print 6761, an
act to amend the Family Court Act, in relation
to orders of restitution.
4374
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect on the 90th day.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 51.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
653, by Senator Volker, Senate Print 3441, an
act to amend the Criminal Procedure Law, in
relation to adjournment.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
November.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 51.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
4375
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
695, by Senator Larkin, Senate Print 24, an
act to amend the Real Property Tax Law, in
relation to subjecting.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 51.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
709, by Senator Libous, Senate Print 7139A, an
act to authorize the City of Norwich in the
County of Chenango.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: There is
a home rule message at the desk.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
4376
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 51.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
761, by Senator Skelos, Senate Print 7489, an
act to amend the Domestic Relations Law, in
relation to parents or other persons.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 51.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
765, by Senator Saland, Senate Print 7725A, an
act to amend the Family Court Act and the
Domestic Relations Law, in relation to the
appointment.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
4377
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 51.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
770, by Member of the Assembly DiNapoli,
Assembly Print Number 7387, an act to amend
the Environmental Conservation Law, in
relation to requiring.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 51.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
826, by the Assembly Committee on Rules,
4378
Assembly Print Number 8561B, an act to amend
the Civil Practice Law and Rules, in relation
to the use of prior testimony.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
January.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 51.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
842, by Senator Wright, Senate Print 3903, an
act to amend -
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is laid aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
875, substituted earlier today by Member of
the Assembly John, Assembly Print Number
9723B, an act to amend the Executive Law, in
relation to increasing.
4379
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect in one year.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 51.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
897, by Senator Padavan, Senate Print 6507A,
an act to amend the Private Housing Finance
Law, in relation to increasing the bonding
authority.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 51.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
4380
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
898, by Senator Bonacic, Senate Print 7126, an
act to amend the Private Housing Finance Law,
in relation to the powers.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 51.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
901, substituted earlier today by the Assembly
Committee on Rules, Assembly Print Number
10814A, an act to amend the Private Housing
Finance Law, in relation to loans.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
4381
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 51.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
902, substituted earlier today by the Assembly
Committee on Rules, Assembly Print Number
10815A, an act to amend the Private Housing
Finance Law, in relation to participation.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 51.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
943, by Member of the Assembly Gunther,
Assembly Print Number 6404A, an act to amend
the Town Law and the Not-for-Profit
Corporation Law, in relation to the
eligibility.
4382
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 51.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
988, by Senator Marchi, Senate Print 4458C, an
act to amend the Not-for-Profit Corporation
Law and the State Finance Law, in relation to
providing.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 6. This
act shall take effect on the 30th day.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 51.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
4383
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1028, by Senator Trunzo, Senate Print 6945A,
an act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law,
in relation to registration lists.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is laid aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1033, by Senator Maziarz, Senate Print 4515B,
an act -
SENATOR SKELOS: Lay it aside
temporarily.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is laid aside temporarily.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1262, by Senator Skelos, Senate Print 6821, an
act to amend the Civil Practice Law and Rules,
in relation to the time to take an appeal.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is laid aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1270, by Senator Stafford, Senate Print 7645,
an act to amend -
4384
SENATOR SKELOS: Lay it aside for
the day.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is laid aside for the day.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1279, by Senator Meier, Senate Print 1170A, an
act to amend the Education Law and the
Criminal Procedure Law, in relation to the
appointment.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 16. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 50. Nays,
1. Senator Duane recorded in the negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1280, by Senator Breslin, Senate Print 1739,
an act to amend the General Municipal Law, in
relation to authorizing.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
4385
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 51.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1281, by Senator Padavan, Senate Print 2010,
an act to amend the Penal Law, in relation to
possession of stolen motor vehicles.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
November.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 51.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
4386
1282, by Senator LaValle, Senate Print 3195B,
an act to amend the Education Law, in relation
to information.
SENATOR DUANE: Lay it aside.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is laid aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1283, substituted earlier today by Member of
the Assembly Weinstein, Assembly Print Number
7265D, an act to amend the Estates, Powers and
Trusts Law, in relation to granting.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 51.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1284, by Senator Saland, Senate Print 4362B,
an act to amend the Surrogate's Court
Procedure Act, in relation to the appointment.
4387
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
January.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 51.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1285, by Senator Marchi, Senate Print 4594, an
act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law, in
relation to authorizing.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
SENATOR HEVESI: Lay it aside.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is laid aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1286, by Senator Seward, Senate Print 4772A,
an act in relation to granting retroactive
membership.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: There is
4388
a home rule message at the desk.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 51.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1287, by Senator Balboni, Senate Print 4999B,
an act to amend the Insurance Law and the
Public Health Law, in relation to the
confidentiality.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This
act shall take effect on the 120th day.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 51.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
4389
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1288, by Senator Wright, Senate Print 6327, an
act to amend the Correction Law and the
Executive Law, in relation to making sex
offender registry information available.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 50. Nays,
1. Senator Duane recorded in the negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1289, by Senator Alesi, Senate Print 6383A, an
act to amend the Penal Law, in relation to
including a public place.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
November.
4390
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 50. Nays,
1. Senator Duane recorded in the negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1290, by Senator Skelos, Senate Print 6398, an
act to amend the Criminal Procedure Law, in
relation to the designation.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 50. Nays,
1. Senator Duane recorded in the negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1291, by Senator McGee, Senate Print 6466A, an
act to amend the State Finance Law and the
4391
Vehicle and Traffic Law, in relation to
providing.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 51.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1292, by Senator Seward, Senate Print 6480A,
an act to amend the Education Law, in relation
to permissible use of school grounds.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
July.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 51.
4392
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1293, substituted earlier today by Member of
the Assembly Connelly, Assembly Print Number
9539, an act to amend the Education Law, in
relation to the eligibility.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 51.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1295, by Senator Seward, Senate Print 6733A,
an act to amend the Insurance Law, in relation
to qualifications of persons.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
4393
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 50. Nays,
1. Senator Duane recorded in the negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1297, by Senator Skelos, Senate Print 6827A,
an act to amend the Education Law, in relation
to registering and operating optical stores.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect 180 days.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 51.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1298, by Senator Trunzo, Senate Print 7010, an
act to amend the Highway Law, in relation to
establishment of dedicated project accounts.
4394
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 51.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1299, by Senator Maziarz, Senate Print 7312,
an act to amend the Executive Law, in relation
to expanding.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 51.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
4395
1300, by Senator Hannon, Senate Print 7388, an
act to amend the Not-for-Profit Corporation
Law, in relation to authorizing.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
SENATOR DUANE: Lay it aside.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is laid aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1301, by Senator Kuhl, Senate Print 7562A, an
act to amend the Alcoholic Beverage Control
Law, in relation to authorizing.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 53.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1302, by Senator Stafford, Senate Print 7647A,
an act to amend the Racing, Pari-Mutuel
4396
Wagering and Breeding Law, in relation to
subjecting real property.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect in 90 days.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 53.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1303, by Senator Oppenheimer, Senate Print
7873, an act in relation to legalizing,
validating, ratifying and confirming certain
acts and proceedings.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: There is
a local fiscal impact note at the desk.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
4397
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 53.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1304, by Senator Padavan, Senate Print 7890,
an act to authorize the Dormitory Authority to
sell or lease certain land.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is laid aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1305, by Senator Larkin, Senate Print 7904, an
act to amend the Penal Law, in relation to
obscene sexual performance.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 11. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
November.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
4398
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 53.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1306, by Senator Volker, Senate Print 7916, an
act to amend the Executive Law, in relation to
the community services block grant program.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 53.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1307, by Senator Lack, Senate Print 7922, an
act to amend the Correction Law, in relation
to information.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the 90th day.
4399
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 52. Nays,
1. Senator Duane recorded in the negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1308, by Senator Morahan, Senate Print 7925,
an act to amend the Real Property Law, in
relation to discrimination against children.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 53.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1309, by Senator Rath, Senate Print 7928, an
act to amend Chapter 812 of the Laws of 1942
constituting the Erie County Tax Act.
4400
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect September 1.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 53.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1310, by Senator Spano, Senate Print 7932, an
act to amend Chapter 831 of the Laws of 1981
amending the Labor Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 53.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
4401
1311, by Senator Spano, Senate Print 7933, an
act to amend the Workers' Compensation Law and
Chapter 729 of the Laws of 1993.
SENATOR ONORATO: Lay it aside.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is laid aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1312, by Senator Spano, Senate Print 7934, an
act to amend Chapter 491 of the Laws of 1993.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 53.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1313, by Senator Balboni, Senate Print 7940,
an act in relation to authorizing the Village
of East Hills, County of Nassau.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: A home
rule message is at the desk.
4402
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 53.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1314, by Senator Velella, Senate Print 7944,
an act to amend the Education Law, in relation
to notification.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the 120th day.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 53.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1315, by Senator Maltese, Senate Print 1638B,
4403
an act to amend the Penal Law, in relation to
the crime of partial birth abortion.
SENATOR ONORATO: Lay the bill
aside.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Lay the
bill aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1316, by Senator Goodman, Senate Print 4691A,
an act to amend the Penal Law and the
Executive Law, in relation to hate crimes.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
SENATOR DUANE: Lay it aside.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is laid aside.
Senator Kuhl, that completes the
noncontroversial reading of the calendar.
SENATOR KUHL: Madam President,
may we now return to the order of motions and
resolutions.
And I believe that there was a
Resolution Number 4499, which was passed on
the 1st of June, by Senator Libous. And I'd
like to have that read in its entirety at this
time.
4404
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Motions
and resolutions.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: By Senator
Libous, Legislative Resolution Number 4499,
memorializing Governor George E. Pataki to
proclaim Wednesday, June 7, 2000, as
Legislative Disability Awareness Day in the
State of New York.
"WHEREAS, The New York State Senate
Select Committee on the Disabled, in
conjunction with the New York State Assembly
Task Force on People with Disabilities, is
sponsoring the 20th annual Legislative
Disability Awareness Day; and
"WHEREAS, It is the sense of this
Legislative Body that persons with
disabilities merit our recognition as they
realize the goals of inclusion and equality in
our communities and society at large; and
"WHEREAS, It is the intent of this
Legislative Body to recognize persons with
disabilities, accentuating in turn the benefit
to New York State of their contributions to
our economic, educational and social growth;
4405
and
"WHEREAS, Legislative Disability
Awareness Day so clearly labors for the
positive and salutary definition of the
communities of the State of New York; and
"WHEREAS, Legislative Disability
Awareness Day will conclude with this
Legislative Body considering legislation
significant to persons with disabilities; and
"WHEREAS, Legislative Disability
Awareness Day provides individuals with an
opportunity to acknowledge and understand the
legislative process; now, therefore, be it
"RESOLVED, That this Legislative
Body pause in its deliberations to memorialize
Governor George E. Pataki to proclaim
Wednesday, June 7, 2000, as Legislative
Disability Awareness Day in the State of New
York, fully confident that such procedure
mirrors our shared commitment to the
efflorescence of human dignity; and be it
further
"RESOLVED, That copies of this
resolution, suitably engrossed, be transmitted
to the Honorable George E. Pataki, Governor of
4406
the State of New York, and to selected
representatives of persons with disabilities."
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Yes, Madam
President. Would you recognize Senator Spano
to speak on the resolution, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Spano.
SENATOR SPANO: Thank you very
much, Madam President.
It's my pleasure today to
acknowledge the fact that today marks the 20th
anniversary celebration of the Legislative
Disability Awareness Day here at the State
Capitol. And on behalf of my colleague
Senator Libous, it is my pleasure to thank the
members of the Senate who are continuing to
increase the awareness of the needs of people
with disabilities in this state.
There are some 35 organizations
from across the state who are here to display
some information about the services they
provide for people with disabilities. And I
hope that if you have an opportunity to visit
4407
the third floor of the LOB, you'll take a look
at some of their services.
In session today we'll be passing a
package of disability-related bills that
include bills that increase opportunities and
increase the quality of life for people with
disabilities.
The resolution that was previously
read, I would ask, Madam President, that if
all of the members of the Senate would like to
be part of that resolution, that with the
concurrence of the Majority and Minority
Leaders that we allow that to happen.
We have a gentleman here from
Senator Hoffman's district, who was honored as
a special guest for Legislative Disability
Awareness Day. And I would like to yield to
Senator Hoffmann to give her an opportunity to
introduce and say a few words about her
special guest here today.
Thank you, Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Hoffmann.
SENATOR HOFFMANN: Thank you,
Senator Spano.
4408
And I appreciate Senator Libous's
willingness to give this very, very important
day the attention that it deserves and to
allow us to honor some wonderful people from
our own districts.
And Senator Libous would be here if
he did not have to leave very suddenly with
the Governor to be at an important event in
Binghamton today. And Senator Spano has taken
over the role, and did a lovely job for us at
the awards ceremony downstairs.
But it's my distinct honor and
pleasure to be able to introduce to my
colleagues a good friend and a community
activist without parallel. Mr. Jim Babel, who
is in the back of the Senate chamber, has been
one of those exemplary individuals who shows
that there are in fact no limitations to a
person who is determined to make a
difference -- not only for himself, not only
for people with disabilities, but for the
larger community.
And he has been in the forefront of
an organization called Disabled In Action in
the Syracuse community that provides guidance
4409
and creates public pressure and support for
the kind of changes that make life easier for
people with a disability.
Regardless of what type of
disability it is, this organization is there
to provide the kind of pressure and support
and guidance for those of us in policy-making
positions so that we can have a better
understanding ourselves and make the pressure
that they feel lessen somewhat.
We hope that in years to come,
these issues will all have resolved
themselves -- we will have a simple
understanding of the importance of curb cuts,
we will all recognize where ramping is
necessary, and it will just be a fact of life.
But we're still in the infancy of that type of
awareness. And it requires, unfortunately, a
great deal of public advocacy.
And Jim Babel is right now the
president of the board of Disabled In Action
in greater Syracuse, and he's served in that
organization since 1985.
He is also one of the shining
lights of an organization called the Syracuse
4410
Flyers. And this is one of those famous
wheelchair basketball teams that takes on
people with and without disabilities and,
again, demonstrates the good humor as well as
the tenacity of this very special individual
and many of his friends who are also in
wheelchairs and have other disabilities.
So the Governor is to be commended
for acknowledging this day and for allowing us
the opportunity to bring to Albany special
individuals who help all of us become more
sensitive to the needs of the disabled
community.
Jim, we're very proud to have you
here. We welcome you to the Senate chamber
today.
Thank you, Madam President, for
allowing us this opportunity in a very busy
day.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Thank
you, Senator Hoffmann.
Senator DeFrancisco.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
Senator Hoffmann has really said it all about
Jim.
4411
I've known Jim for many, many
years, since I was in the City Council in
political office. And when Larraine said that
he's an activist, that is an understatement.
When he gets an issue that he's got
involvement in, he takes it to the point of
making sure that the issue is not only
discussed but it gets a result.
So, Jim, I want to congratulate you
as well. Keep up your great work, on behalf
of not only yourself but all people with
disabilities.
Thank you, Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Thank
you, Senator DeFrancisco.
Senator Kuhl, shall we open up this
resolution for sponsorship by the entire
Senate?
SENATOR KUHL: Madam President,
this resolution was previously adopted, as I
had previously mentioned, on the 1st. And I
believe everybody is on it.
But I will direct that everybody be
put on it if they are not on it, unless they
indicate to the desk that in fact they don't
4412
wish to be on it.
So I think that takes care of the
matter.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Thank
you, Senator Kuhl. The resolution will be
open for any previous sponsorship that has not
already done so. If you don't wish to be so,
please notify the desk.
For the record, this resolution was
previously adopted on June 1, the year 2000.
Senator Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Madam President,
may we now have the controversial reading of
the calendar. But may we take up first
Calendar Number 203, followed by Calendar
Number 485, and then to be followed by
Calendar Number 1033, in that order, and then
resume the natural order.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Thank
you, Senator Kuhl.
The Secretary will read Calendar
203.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
203, by Senator Libous, Senate Print 2102A, an
act to amend the Mental Hygiene Law and the
4413
Executive Law, in relation to requiring
providers of services.
SENATOR DUANE: Explanation,
please.
SENATOR ONORATO: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Spano, an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR SPANO: Right now the
Commission on Quality of Care for the Disabled
has the mandate to review programs for people
with disabilities across the state.
What this bill would do, it would
expand the scope of the Commission on the
Quality of Care to include those who are blind
or visually handicapped.
SENATOR KUHL: Read the last
section.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect in 90 days.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
4414
the negative on Calendar Number 203 are
Senators Duane, Montgomery, and Schneiderman.
Ayes, 52. Nays, 3.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
485, by Senator Libous, Senate Print 4913, an
act to amend the Mental Hygiene Law, in
relation to directing the State Commission on
Quality of Care.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 55.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1033, by Senator Maziarz, Senate Print 4515B,
an act in relation to enacting the Blind
Students' Literacy Rights and Education Act.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
4415
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 7. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Maziarz.
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Thank you,
Madam President. To explain my vote, Madam
President.
Today is, as Senator Spano pointed
out, Disability Awareness Day, sponsored by
Senator Tom Libous. And I just want to
briefly point out -- I know that many of the
advocates are here today -- that this bill,
the Braille Students' Literacy Rights and
Education Act, will ensure that Braille
education is made available to the visually
impaired and deaf-blind students.
This bill was negotiated between
the Office of Children and Family Services,
the Commission for the Blind and Visually
Handicapped, and the State Education
Department.
4416
And I think it's only fitting that
I point out two individuals, Tom Robertson, of
the Commission for the Blind and Visually
Handicapped, the director, and the deputy
director, Mr. Brian Daniels, for all of their
assistance with this bill.
This bill has a great deal of
support out there by the National Federation
for the Blind, the American Council for the
Blind in New York, the Independent Living
Council, the State Rehab Council, and
Industries for the Blind of New York State.
And I just want to thank also my
Assembly colleague, Assemblyman Weisenberg,
for his support.
And, Madam President, this I
believe is one bill which will see the
Governor's signature this year.
Thank you very much.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Maziarz will be recorded in the affirmative.
The Secretary will announce the
results.
Senator Farley.
SENATOR FARLEY: No, Madam
4417
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Thank
you very much, Senator Farley.
Results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 56.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
Can we have some order in the
chamber, please.
The Secretary will read in regular
order.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
842, by Senator Wright, Senate Print 3903, an
act to amend the Public Service Law, in
relation to the elimination.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
SENATOR COPPOLA: Explanation,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Wright, an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR WRIGHT: Thank you, Madam
President.
The bill eliminates the requirement
that's currently contained in the law that the
4418
Public Service Commission conduct an audit on
an every-five-year basis. This eliminates the
five-year requirement, leaves it to the
discretion of the Public Service Commission as
necessary.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Coppola.
SENATOR COPPOLA: Madam
President, I'd like to ask the sponsor of this
bill a couple of questions, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Coppola, would you wait for just one moment.
Can we have some order in the
chamber, please. It's extremely noisy.
Thank you, Senator Wright. An
explanation has been requested for answers.
SENATOR WRIGHT: Madam Chairman,
the explanation was provided. I believe I'm
responding to questions at this point.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Please
do so.
SENATOR COPPOLA: Thank you,
Senator.
Senator, are you aware of the list
of towns and municipalities that have been
4419
overcharged by the company that you're
requesting to now do away with auditing?
For example, I have the Alexandria
School, the Central School, Brunswick School,
the Buffalo Board of Education, the Buffalo
Municipal Housing Authority, the Buffalo Sewer
Authority, the City of Buffalo, the City of
Cohoes, the City of Fulton, the City of
Niagara Falls, the City of North Tonawanda,
the City of Oneida Water District, the City of
Oswego, the City of Syracuse, the City of
Utica, Delaware, Erie County, Fonda-Fulton
Central Schools, Geneseo, Greenwich, Greater
Amsterdam School, Herkimer County BOCES.
Just recently, here in Albany -
SENATOR WRIGHT: In response to
the question, Senator, no, I am not aware of
that list.
SENATOR COPPOLA: Well, I'm very
concerned that if we do away with the
monitoring of this company requested by the
attorneys who represent Niagara Mohawk, that
we will be lax in our duties to the ratepayers
out there across their service territory.
We have found just three months ago
4420
that they wrote a check out, because I found
them overcharging the City of Buffalo over
$2 million, with phantom streetlights of 1500
that we were being charged for.
And I feel, Senator, and I'm only
appealing to you, that the monitoring and the
auditing of this company is most important.
And to do away with it would be, you know,
giving them a leeway out there of more
mismanagement than they have been performing
over the past several years.
SENATOR WRIGHT: Senator, let me
correct a couple of assumptions you've made.
Number one, this bill is not at the
request of any company. And my assumption is
that you're implying it's at the request of a
utility. It is not. It has been submitted
and introduced at the request of the
Department of Public Service, the Public
Service Commission of the State of New York,
relative to one of their procedures.
It is, in fact, supported by a law
firm that represents one of the utilities -
Niagara Mohawk, in this case -- as they have
advanced a memorandum of support. There's a
4421
clear difference and distinction, I believe,
in that.
Secondly, this does not in any way,
shape, or fashion limit the audit power or the
oversight responsibilities of the Public
Service Commission. It simply provides them
the necessary flexibility to address it.
Were we to have a situation as
you've related, where you've identified a
problem, simply referring that problem and
necessary documentation to the Public Service
Commission could result, and in fact I believe
would result, in an audit being performed if
there were sufficient documentation to present
and warrant that audit.
I think that's a legitimate
oversight function of the Public Service
Commission. This bill in no way diminishes
that and in no way restricts the ability of
the Public Service Commission to conduct hair
oversight.
It simply reflecting the changing
reality of the restructuring of the utility
industry and the energy field, and provides
for greater flexibility so that the Public
4422
Service Commission has the capability of
responding in a timely and appropriate
fashion.
SENATOR COPPOLA: Madam Chairman,
through you, please, may I ask another
question.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Wright, will you continue to yield?
SENATOR WRIGHT: Yes, I will,
Madam Chairman.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator continues to yield.
SENATOR COPPOLA: What is the
manpower that the Public Service Commission
has to do the auditing, Senator?
SENATOR WRIGHT: I'm not aware of
the specific number of staff that is assigned
to that function. Current law provides them
the opportunity to utilize their own staff or,
in turn, to contract outside staff.
In all instances, the costs are
borne by the utilities as opposed to
taxpayers. And that's why I believe you see
the kind of support that there is for
eliminating a mandatory requirement, because
4423
that in turn simply generates a cost that is
borne by the ratepayers.
SENATOR COPPOLA: Senator, my
understanding is that the Public Service
Commission does not have sufficient manpower
to do the auditing, especially with other
companies in New York State.
But in particular, this company
needs to be audited. And I think that if we
do away with the auditing with an outside
firm, more mismanagement will take place like
it has in the past.
I have stated to you over fifty,
fifty towns and municipalities have been
overcharged. And it was because of our
findings that this took place. If we now
allow the Public Service Commission to monitor
this, they will get away with overcharging
throughout their service territory.
SENATOR WRIGHT: Was that a
question, Senator? I believe it was a
statement.
SENATOR COPPOLA: No, I just
wanted to make sure and highlight, Senator,
because you are pushing the bill.
4424
And I think it's so important that
we keep these restrictions out there. To do
away with these restrictions, more
mismanagement is going to happen, more things
are going to happen to the ratepayers across
that territory.
SENATOR WRIGHT: Well, once
again, Senator, I will reinforce that we are
not in any way, shape, or fashion eliminating
the authority, responsibility, or function of
the Public Service Commission as it relates to
audit functions, as it relates to management
oversight, as it relates to their
investigatory powers relative to the conduct
or operation of those utilities.
This certainly eliminates a
provision that says it must be done every five
years. That is all. I believe that's part of
flexibility. That's part of a responsibility.
In terms of the examples that you
cite, simply making that information available
to the Public Service Commission, I'm sure it
will be dealt with in an appropriate fashion
by the Public Service Commission.
SENATOR COPPOLA: Madam
4425
President, on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Coppola, on the bill.
SENATOR COPPOLA: To make the
Public Service Commission aware of this -
they are aware of it. They handled each and
every one of these cases when it was brought
to their attention.
The fact of the matter is they do
not have the manpower. The fact of the matter
is this company overcharged the city mission
over a hundred thousand dollars, which is
scandalous. And we found that. The fact of
the matter is they're charging all of the
religious organizations in the City of
Buffalo, they're overcharging. The fact of
the matter is the people who depend on cheap
power, they've hurt them dramatically.
And it would be scandalous if we
passed this bill, because we will be letting
them get away with more mismanagement
throughout the service territory. The fact is
they overcharged the city mission, they
overcharged all non-profits in the City in
Buffalo. They've overcharged here in Albany
4426
almost $4 million. And that ought to come to
light.
So, Senator, I would think and hope
that you would table this bill and discuss
this with your company and the attorneys and
with the Public Service Commission and let us
know what kind of manpower does the Public
Service Commission have to audit all of these
companies.
To do away with this will continue
the mismanagement. It will hurt all of the
people in Western New York. I cast my vote in
the no, Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Yes, Madam
President. You want to call the last section
on this bill?
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
4427
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
the negative on Calendar Number 842 are
Senators Coppola, Duane, Gentile, Gonzalez,
Hevesi, Kruger, Lachman, Onorato, Oppenheimer,
Paterson, Rosado, Santiago, A. Smith,
Stachowski, Stavisky. Also Senator Connor.
Ayes, 41. Nays, 16.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
Senator Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Yes, Madam
President. There will be an immediate meeting
of the Senate Finance Committee in the
Majority Conference Room.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: There
will be an immediate meeting of the Senate
Finance Committee in the Majority Conference
Room.
The Secretary will continue to read
in regular order.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1028, by Senator Trunzo, Senate Print 6945A,
an act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law,
in relation to registration lists.
SENATOR DUANE: Explanation.
4428
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Trunzo, an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR TRUNZO: Madam President,
this bill would prohibit the commissioner of
motor vehicles from selling vehicle
registration lists and bulk title information,
except in connection with motor vehicle safety
products and service communications -- which
would include the issuance of a manufacturer's
warranty, safety recall, or similar notices -
for Motor Vehicle statistical compilation
purposes, customer satisfaction and other
survey research related to the use and
ownership of motor vehicles, and the
verification of a vehicle's title status or to
carry out the purpose of the federal
Anti-Car-Theft Act of 1992.
That's what this bill does, it just
prohibits the commissioner from selling lists
except in those cases.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, if the sponsor would yield for a
question.
4429
SENATOR TRUNZO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Trunzo, will you continue to yield?
SENATOR TRUNZO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, I
noticed that the United States Supreme Court,
in a North Carolina case last fall, criticized
a lot of the policies of the motor vehicle
department in North Carolina by listing a
number of pieces of information that could not
be circulated without the express written
consent of the consumer.
Now, what we have in this
legislation, or what we are doing right now in
this state, is we're finding all of the things
that the court didn't mention -- accident
reports, for example -- and we're going ahead
and doing it, even though I would say that the
Supreme Court decision could be regarded as
dicta and that an interpretation of it would
certainly be that we shouldn't be doing this.
Our own Department of Motor
Vehicles considered abandoning the
4430
distribution of information as a protection to
the consumer, and has now kind of changed its
mind -- with the Commissioner only really
giving as an example in testimony before a
hearing that, you know, it's not on the
Supreme Court's list, so we can go ahead and
do it.
And I don't know if that's really
the best thing that we should be doing at this
time.
What information do you have that
passing this legislation would be anything
other than a precursor to a suit filed against
our own law and having it eventually struck
down by a federal court?
SENATOR TRUNZO: Is that a
question, Senator?
SENATOR PATERSON: Yes.
SENATOR TRUNZO: As far as we are
concerned, we believe that this piece of
legislation will meet those federal
qualifications.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: I'm sorry,
4431
Madam President, I had trouble hearing Senator
Trunzo.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Trunzo.
SENATOR TRUNZO: What I said,
Senator Paterson, is that we believe that this
piece of legislation we're doing here will
meet the federal qualifications that were
pointed out, that you have just recently
pointed out.
And by the way, it does not affect
any contract that is currently -- that the
Department of Motor Vehicles currently has
entered into prior to the adoption of this
legislation.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, I'm not in any way questioning the
integrity of the sponsor, who I have the
highest regard for, not only as a person but
as a legislator. I didn't think anybody would
offer any legislation where there was any
doubt that it met the federal guidelines and
would be constitutional.
4432
What I'm trying to determine is
based on the information I gave about the
Supreme Court decision, how do you explain to
consumers that just because we have a couple
of other areas that the Court didn't address,
that those areas were not within the
contemplation of what the Court's spirit was
when they arrived at the decision last fall?
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Paterson, am I to believe that that request
was directed at Senator Trunzo, or is that
merely a statement?
SENATOR PATERSON: No, I asked it
through the chair as a question, Madam
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Thank
you.
Senator Trunzo.
SENATOR TRUNZO: Madam President,
these items that we have here are legitimate
safety factors that have been developed as a
result of that federal legislation, and
basically is what we're trying to put into our
own law.
It's part of a privacy situation
4433
which, again, the Department of Motor Vehicles
has been selling their lists and have done -
you know, and many people have been annoyed
with phone calls and what have you from all
types of vendors based on the lists that have
been sold by the Department of Motor Vehicles.
And we're trying to restrain that
and maintain privacy for the consumers
themselves except in these specific cases.
And we feel that this applies and
will take its effect with the federal law that
had been -- the federal decision that has been
reached.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Madam
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Just on the
bill, Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Dollinger, on the bill.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I understand
the initial purpose for which Senator Trunzo
4434
and, I gather, the Senate Majority are
carrying this bill. Certainly we have
encouraged our departments to accelerate
revenues and increase revenues through
reasonable measures to enhance cash coming
into the departments.
But this bill, in my judgment, is a
mistake. And the reason for it is very
simple. The Department of Motor Vehicles has
a whole truckload, frankly, of information
about individuals, of identifying information
about characteristics of their automobile
habits, their purchasing habits, their motor
safety records, and really scads of
information, Madam President.
And it seems to me that before any
of that information is released, we should get
the consent of the consumer. And we don't do
that now.
Currently in the reregistration of
a motor vehicle there is a box at the bottom
of the registration that allows people to
decide whether their information can be
disclosed without further permission or not.
And quite frankly, I've had counsel read that
4435
section of the reregistration form, and it's
eminently confusing. You can't tell whether
you're supposed to opt in or opt out. You
don't know what the effect of a yes answer to
the question is with respect to your privacy.
We, I believe, in this Legislature
need to come to grips with the privacy issues
that are included with the disclosure of this
type of information.
I would strongly suggest that we go
to a system which is becoming better
recognized throughout the nation, the opt-in
system. That the only way you can release the
information is to opt in, to directly exercise
your choice to allow information of any type
that's in the possession of government to be
available to anyone anywhere. The only way to
do that is if you affirmatively decide that
you want to have it available.
I know that that may go slightly
beyond the context of this proposal, but I see
this bill as selling information to the
highest bidder. That information will involve
our consumers, our taxpayers, our residents.
I don't think that we should do that unless
4436
they specifically opt in.
I'd point out the bill is also
defective, in my judgment, because while it
includes a civil remedy or a civil penalty, it
appears to me that that penalty would only be
paid from the violator to the government, to
the Department of Motor Vehicles, for breach
of the contract between the buyer of the
information and the Department of Motor
Vehicles.
And there's no civil remedy for the
person whose privacy is violated to directly
seek redress in the courts. So we'll have the
Department of Motor Vehicles fining the
recipient of the information, but the poor
person whose privacy has been violated has no
remedy.
I would suggest, Madam President,
that this approach is counter to the trend in
this nation, which is that we should -- we, as
government, should protect people's privacy
and not allow any information about them to be
released unless they specifically choose
beforehand to have it released.
I'm going to vote against this
4437
bill, and urge my colleagues to do likewise.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect 180 days.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
the negative on Calendar Number 1028 are
Senators Breslin, Connor, Coppola, Dollinger,
Duane, Gentile, Morahan, Onorato, Padavan,
Paterson, Schneiderman, M. Smith, and Senator
Stavisky. Ayes, 44. Nays, 13.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
Senator Morahan.
SENATOR MORAHAN: I'd like to be
recorded in the negative on Calendar 842,
Senate Bill 3903.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Without
objection, you will be so recorded.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
would you please call up Calendar Number 1304,
4438
by Senator Padavan.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you,
Madam President. I would also request
unanimous consent to be recorded in the
negative on Calendar 842.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Without
objection, you will be so recorded.
The Secretary will read Calendar
Number 1304.
Senator Smith.
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: Yes,
Madam President. I also would ask unanimous
consent to be recorded in the negative for
Calendar Number 842.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: So
recorded.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1304, by Senator Padavan, Senate Print 7890,
an act to authorize the Dormitory Authority to
sell or lease certain land.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
4439
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Explanation,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Padavan, an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR PADAVAN: Yes, Madam
President.
This is a bill that would authorize
a community organization, the Malankara
Orthodox Syrian Church, to acquire, through
negotiation and purchase, a certain portion of
surplus land on the grounds of Creedmoor State
Hospital, to be used for a youth and family
center.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Thank
you.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 57.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
Regular order. The Secretary will
4440
read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1262, by Senator Skelos, Senate Print 6821, an
act to amend the Civil Practice Law and Rules,
in relation to the time to take an appeal.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
if we could withdraw the roll call. An
explanation has been requested.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Secretary will withdraw the roll call. An
explanation has been requested.
SENATOR SKELOS: Senator
Paterson, I'd be delighted to answer your
question. And I think both of us should be
humble that we are debating a bill with so
4441
many distinguished jurists in the gallery and
future judges, that certainly they will be
impressed by the caliber of this debate on
such an important issue.
This bill would provide that an
order of judgment is appealable immediately
upon the signing date the order or judgment is
signed by the judge.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, if the sponsor would yield for a
question.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Thank
you.
Senator Skelos, do you yield?
SENATOR SKELOS: Yes, I do.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Thank
you.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, I'm wondering when the 30-day
period that allows for the appeal period
begins to run if we're going to allow the
appeals before the order is actually entered.
SENATOR SKELOS: The problem that
exists, Senator Paterson, with some attorneys,
4442
they'll receive a judgment and basically hold
the order, not enter it for a long time. And
a losing party sometimes has to hang out there
until they can take the appeal.
All this does, it says once the
appellant-to-be finds out that the judgment or
order has been signed, they could commence an
appeal. That is all the legislation does.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, if the Senator would continue to
yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Skelos, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR SKELOS: Yes, I do.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR PATERSON: But we do have
a period right now, 30 days, upon which
expiration you cannot file an appeal. So I'm
trying to figure out if -
SENATOR SKELOS: That does not
change.
SENATOR PATERSON: That does not
4443
change?
SENATOR SKELOS: No.
SENATOR PATERSON: So when does
it expire? Does it expire prior to the -
see, I'm saying you might have a situation
where the appeal has expired before the
judgment was even entered.
SENATOR SKELOS: It's when the
person has signed, when the judgment or order
is signed and the appellant has notice of
that, he or she could commence the appeal at
that time.
SENATOR PATERSON: So in other
words, the -- I'm a little confused -- the
period for the appeal could now be longer than
30 days?
SENATOR SKELOS: Under existing
law, the order has to be signed, entered and
served.
SENATOR PATERSON: And that's
when the -
SENATOR SKELOS: Right.
SENATOR PATERSON: -- time lapse
begins.
SENATOR SKELOS: Right.
4444
SENATOR PATERSON: So since we're
allowing for the appeal prior to that, the
appeal period is now longer than 30 days.
SENATOR SKELOS: No.
SENATOR PATERSON: Maybe we need
one of those jurists to come down here and
help alleviate my confusion.
Because what I thought I heard
Senator Skelos say is that for -- many times
there is an elongated process by which the
judgment is not entered. And if that's the
case, this is why the Senator would like to
have the appeal process begin.
And I can understand that. That
makes perfect sense. But my question is if
the appeal process is going to begin before
the judgment is actually entered, then it is
possible that the date for the appeal could
expire before the judgment was actually
entered.
And that's why my question is, how
could we be allowing that to happen where
someone's right to an appeal has expired
before the judgment against them has even been
entered? That's my question.
4445
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
DeFrancisco.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: May I be
heard on that issue?
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Please.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: I had the
same confusion when I first read it. But I
think what happened -- what it is is that -
the regular rule is that the appeal expires 30
days after the filing and service of an order.
That's not going to change.
But what Senator Skelos' bill is
saying -- so the expiration date will always
be 30 days after the service and filing of the
order. What Senator Skelos' bill would do, in
addition to that, you could commence the
appeal before that. Namely, when the order
has been signed.
And the concept is that normally
the winning party signs the order or gets the
order written and prepared, and it goes back
to that individual. Sometimes they hold it
indefinitely. So it's just an additional
4446
ability to file early. It doesn't change the
end date of the time that you've got to
appeal.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, if Senator DeFrancisco would yield
for a question.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
DeFrancisco, will you yield?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: I guess I
got myself into this.
But I think that was the intent of
the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, I
understood everything you said. So I would
like you to answer this question.
Then the period for which you have
an appeal could now be longer than 30 days?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes, it
could. But it could never -
SENATOR PATERSON: Okay, that's
fine.
4447
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes,
because it could start earlier.
SENATOR PATERSON: I understand
that.
But that's not the answer that
Senator Skelos gave me. He said the appeal
process was still 30 days. So -
SENATOR SKELOS: From the notice
of entering.
SENATOR PATERSON: From the
notice, absolutely.
But my question is that if we're
allowing appeals to start before the notice,
then that time period that a person has to
file the appeal is now longer. Do we all
agree about that?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: I agree. I
don't know about everybody else.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR SKELOS: Yes, I do.
SENATOR PATERSON: You both
agree. All right, now we're getting started
here.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Paterson, are you still directing your
4448
question to Senator DeFrancisco or to Senator
Skelos?
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, I'm now addressing my question to
Senator Skelos. Unless you would like to join
the discussion in -
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Not at
all. Thank you very much.
Senator Skelos, will you yield?
SENATOR SKELOS: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Thank
you.
The Senator yields, Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, now I would like to know about the
cross-appeal process. In other words, when is
the time appropriate -- when is it seasonable
for there to be a cross appeal?
SENATOR SKELOS: The legislation
doesn't affect cross-appeals.
SENATOR PATERSON: I guess my
question, Madam President, is then again, is
the cross-appeal process beginning at the time
of service or at the time of the signing of
4449
the order, the entry of the order?
SENATOR SKELOS: Service.
SENATOR PATERSON: Upon the
service, thank you.
I have one further question at this
time for Senator Skelos, if he would be kind
enough to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Skelos, will you continue to yield?
The Senator yields.
SENATOR PATERSON: What I think
is confusing about this legislation, Madam
President, is that on one hand we've kind of
established a kind of gray area, because what
you could have sometimes is that you have
parties who are having appeals served on them
before there's even a judgment in this regard.
I understand totally what Senator
Skelos is trying to do. Because we have had
this situation sometimes, as he described,
where the -- one of the parties just has to
kind of hang around and wait for an order to
actually be entered.
But in some respects, I find the
legislation contradictory, because on one hand
4450
we're not really very specific about what
those time periods should be, and then on the
other hand we're very specific about what
happens when the order is entered.
So my question to the Senator is,
don't you think that it might be more helpful
if we just put a time period on what time the
orders need to be entered?
SENATOR SKELOS: Good suggestion,
Senator Paterson.
And that will be reviewed with the
New York State Bar Association, Assemblyman
Weprin, who has sponsored the bill in the
Assembly. And I'm sure he will be speaking to
the Speaker about it, and we could proceed
accordingly at that time.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Madam
President, just briefly on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: On the
bill.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I appreciate
the comments both of my colleague Senator
Paterson and Senator Skelos, who says that
4451
will be part of the future of this bill.
I'm going to vote in favor of it,
because I think there's one instance in which
you can't wait for the order to be entered,
especially if your opponent has got it in
their hands. And that is when you're seeking
immediate relief.
You want immediate relief, you go
to the Supreme Court judge, you seek a
temporary restraining order. For some reason
you either get it or you don't get it, you get
the order signed in your presence, and your
opponent picks up the order and starts walking
away with it.
In order to appeal, in order to
have one of our appellate division judges
review that case, you need the order filed
instantaneously. Because it could drastically
affect the consequences between the parties if
the temporary restraining order is either in
place or not in place.
And I've had this happen in my own
practice where they get the temporary order,
they put it in their pocket, they walk out,
they promise you it's going to be entered so
4452
you can file the appeal you've got prepared
and are ready to go with -- and sure enough, a
week later your client is screaming at you,
you're screaming at your opponent, File the
order. And it's always, It's in the hands of
my paralegal, it's in the staff, it's with the
messenger, it's somewhere. "Don't worry, I'll
get it filed, Rick, and I'll serve you with
notice of entry."
And they wait the full five days
for the service of the notice of entry, and
next thing you know you're back before the
judge asking the court to order your opponent
to file the order.
If you could file that appeal the
minute -- in essence, hand it to the Supreme
Court judge, hand it to your opponent at the
second it's signed, you could then immediately
file the appeal and go upstairs and see if you
can get the kind of immediate relief you need.
I think this is not a bad idea. I
think Senator Paterson may be correct, it
could inadvertently create some difficulties
in the timing of cross-appeals and other
things. I would hope that those are attended
4453
to in further negotiation of this bill.
But the concept of not allowing
your opponent to walk away with the order and
keep you in suspense is not a bad idea.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
Senator Paterson, why do you rise?
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, would Senator Dollinger yield for a
question?
(Laughter.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Dollinger, will you yield for a question?
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, how
do you explain the fact that this bill on one
hand requires that there be service with
notice of entry and then in the other section
of the bill it says that you don't need notice
of entry to have an appeal?
In other words, if we're trying to
alleviate confusion, how do we alleviate
confusion with a bill that actually, in my
4454
opinion, in spite of the well-intended notions
of the party, contradicts itself?
Here, you can have it.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Madam
President, I would agree with Senator Paterson
that there's a prospect for that kind of
confusion.
But I also believe that the concept
of allowing someone to accelerate the order
and the entry process, or to avoid that
because your opponent picks it up and puts it
in their pocket and you don't get a chance to
go up to the appellate division to ask either
for the continuation of a temporary relief or
the denial of it -- I've just been in that
situation, frankly, on both sides, Madam
President.
I've had them in my pocket and
said, Boy, wouldn't it be nice if we waited
two or three days before the order got entered
and filed so that my opponent couldn't file
the appeal. I think as a good advocate,
sometimes that's been in my client's best
interest.
And quite frankly, despite those
4455
telephone calls encouraging me to go to the
courts and file my orders, I've, in the best
interests of my client, diligently represented
them and said, "It might take a couple of days
to get that order filed."
This will partly remedy that
process. And I think Senator Skelos has
indicated that he'll take this debate and the
discussion about clarifying those issues into
the conference committee or further
discussions with the Assembly. And I would
look forward to a bill that addresses these
concerns but does solve the problem of the
order-in-your-pocket phenomenon.
SENATOR ONORATO: Madam
President, on behalf of the confused
nonattorneys in this chamber, I would like to
know why, when a judgment is handed down, why
both parties are not handed the order so that
either one of them can proceed. Why are not
duplicates entered? When we make -
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Are you
directing your question to a specific entity?
SENATOR ONORATO: I'm asking it
to anybody who's willing to answer the
4456
question.
(Laughter.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
DeFrancisco, will you yield to the question by
Senator Onorato?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes, I
will.
Because -- the only reason why is
this Legislature didn't pass a bill that says
that.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Thank
you very much.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
DeFrancisco, to explain his vote.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: I just want
to explain my yes vote. And I've already done
that.
But I wanted to add that since we
have ten new judges-to-be, very soon to be new
4457
judges in the audience, I would wonder if at
some point after this session we could get an
opinion from all ten of them to see if what
we're doing makes any sense.
But I would caution that you should
probably not give an opinion until after the
nominations are confirmed.
(Laughter.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
DeFrancisco recorded in the affirmative.
Announce the results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 56. Nays,
1. Senator Paterson recorded in the negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1282, by Senator LaValle, Senate Print 3195B,
an act to amend the Education Law, in relation
to information.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
4458
(The Secretary called the roll.)
SENATOR HEVESI: Explanation,
Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
LaValle, an explanation has been requested by
Senator Hevesi.
The roll call is withdrawn.
Senator LaValle.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Thank you,
Madam President.
This legislation deals with both
the City University and the State University
and would ask that in the catalogs of both the
State University and the City University that
they indicate the percentage of classes in
each department taught by adjunct faculty,
teaching assistants, or graduate assistants.
That is the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Thank
you, Senator LaValle.
Senator Hevesi.
SENATOR HEVESI: Would the
sponsor yield to one question?
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Will you
yield?
4459
SENATOR LAVALLE: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR HEVESI: Senator LaValle,
I think this is a good idea. Just a question
for you in terms of what the potential
repercussions of this might be.
Do you anticipate that more
students than currently would enroll only with
tenured full professors, might try and get
into those classes and we'd have an imbalance
in the other classes as a consequence of this
laudable public disclosure?
SENATOR LAVALLE: I don't suspect
that it would have that effect. But as you
have indicated, Senator Hevesi, that I think
the most important thing in disclosure is that
it has some impact in making sure that the
students know what the rules of the road are.
Now, we won't know the answer to
your question until this is implemented, to
see whether it has any impact. I suspect,
from my knowledge, that students know what a
good -- teaching assistants that they want
regardless of their status, or an adjunct
4460
professor who may be very, very good, very
exciting, they want to enroll in that class.
But that would be their decision to do that.
What we're trying to do here is, as
I indicated, by department for students to
see, for the public to see that there may be
some departments who are relying a little more
heavily on, let's say, teaching assistants or
adjunct professors rather than full-time
faculty.
SENATOR HEVESI: Madam President,
if the sponsor would continue to yield for one
additional question.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
LaValle, will you continue to yield?
SENATOR LAVALLE: Yes. Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator continues to yield.
SENATOR HEVESI: Senator LaValle,
is there anything in current law or any
current requirement, in addition to the
requirements that we will likely impose with
this legislation, that student review of
teacher performance be included in the
catalogs?
4461
SENATOR LAVALLE: As you know,
Senator Hevesi, right now in both the State
University and City University there are
reviews of evaluations that students do of
professors. However, there is nothing that
would publish or disclose the results of those
evaluations, and obviously this bill does not
do that.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you,
Senator.
Madam President, briefly on the
bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Hevesi, on the bill.
SENATOR HEVESI: Madam President,
this is a solid piece of legislation. I would
simply suggest that Senator LaValle visit the
issue that we just discussed and possibly make
mandatory an objective and fair analysis and
evaluation of professors by students.
I think that's the direction that
we're heading in with this legislation and
would be certainly in the interests of those
in the collegiate community.
Thank you.
4462
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Stavisky.
SENATOR STAVISKY: I have one
question for Senator LaValle.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
LaValle, do you yield?
SENATOR LAVALLE: Yes.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Senator
LaValle, what is the percentage of full-time
faculty in the community colleges in the State
of New York?
SENATOR LAVALLE: That varies,
Senator, campus by campus. On some campuses
you may have a very high ratio of almost
50 percent of adjunct faculty, and then on
other campuses that may shrink to a much lower
percentage.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Madam
President, through you -
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Stavisky.
SENATOR STAVISKY: -- if Senator
LaValle would yield for one more question.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
4463
Senator continues to yield.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Isn't the
figure widely quoted to be somewhere in the
neighborhood of 30 percent full-time faculty
at the community colleges?
SENATOR LAVALLE: I don't know,
Senator, if that -
SENATOR STAVISKY: That's the
figure that has been widely attributed as the
full-time faculty ratio at the community
colleges, 30 percent.
SENATOR LAVALLE: From my
knowledge, that number just changes from
community college to community college.
I do not -- I would find -- if we
took an average of the 30 community colleges,
I would think that that's kind of a low
percentage. I would think it would be higher
than that.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Madam
President, because the percentage is low, I
commend Senator LaValle for this bill, and I
urge its passage.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Thank
4464
you.
Senator Lachman.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Yes, on the
bill. The percentage -
SENATOR KUHL: Senator Lachman,
on the bill.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Right. The
percentage of community college faculty in
CUNY is between 45 and 50 percent, in the
community colleges. In the senior colleges,
it's between 50 and 53 percent. It is about
10 to 20 percent higher at the SUNY colleges.
Now, I also want to commend Senator
LaValle on this bill. Because I have said in
the past, and I say again, that CUNY and SUNY
are great institutions, but their greatness
rests upon their full-time faculty, which is
the permanent arm of an institution. As good
as part-time faculty are, you cannot have in
the United States today an outstanding
institution of higher education without having
higher averages of full-time faculty.
And I urge my colleagues next year
to review this and increase the number of
full-time faculty at both CUNY and SUNY.
4465
But I think the bill is an
excellent start.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 57.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1285, by Senator Marchi, Senate Print 4594, an
act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law, in
relation to authorizing right on red in
Richmond County.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
SENATOR HEVESI: Explanation,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Marchi, an explanation has been requested by
Senator Hevesi.
4466
SENATOR MARCHI: Well, most of
the State of New York operates on the
principle advocated in this bill. And this
would bring us in conformity with the other -
I wouldn't say the other 58 counties, but the
great majority of circumstances that are
addressed throughout the state. In the City
of New York, we have just the reverse.
Mrs. Connelly and myself have been
sponsoring this legislation in reflecting the
considered judgment of the people of Staten
Island in using the public highways and
streets of Staten Island, so that you have the
same experience that we have here in Albany
where you are able to make a turn on a red
light unless it's expressly forbidden.
Of course, I've had long experience
with both systems, and each is appropriate in
their own way.
I might point out that this bill
was advanced once, and it was vetoed some
years ago by a mayor. And I can understand.
But we're out in the harbor there, we're out
in the Atlantic Ocean, miles away from any
other part of the City of New York.
4467
And I believe that it would
function very well, and it is the judgment of
Mrs. Connelly in the Assembly. It's a
bipartisan bill in response to a bipartisan
and almost universal sentiment that is
expressed in that borough that we have that.
Frankly, I don't see any problem.
You adapt and adopt to the particular
stringencies that are in place in any given
jurisdiction. So if you've done any traveling
and you've been around, you know that you're
chargeable and must be responsive to the law.
This bill I believe would be a good
bill. I can understand the objection to it.
Nevertheless, I think it collides in a very
substantial way with the indicated preference
of drivers, who feel that the regulation of
traffic would be expedited and also that it
would be a comforting factor in being able to
drive under the circumstances described in
this bill.
So we're seeking to conform to what
is virtually universal practice in the State
of New York -- with the exception, of course,
of Manhattan, Brooklyn, Kings, and the Bronx,
4468
multimillion-population counties.
Staten Island is almost as large as
Manhattan and the Bronx put together, but we
only have a slight percentage of the total
population that is reflected in either of
those boroughs, and certainly nothing
comparable to Queens or Brooklyn or Kings
County.
So I think it's -- if you accept
the judgment of a bipartisan representation
here from the Island of Staten lying out there
in the Atlantic Ocean, miles away from anybody
else, I do hope that it enjoys a general
consensus and approval.
SENATOR HEVESI: Madam President,
would the sponsor yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Marchi, will you continue to yield to Senator
Hevesi?
SENATOR MARCHI: Yes, Senator.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you,
Senator.
If you can first clarify something
I thought I heard you say in your explanation.
Did the New York City Council at some point
4469
authorize what you are trying to accomplish
here today and a mayor of New York City vetoed
that legislation?
SENATOR MARCHI: If my memory
serves me correctly, I believe that we passed
this some years ago and the Governor then
vetoed it, reflecting the sentiment of the
mayor, the then-mayor.
So -- but I couldn't go beyond
that. I know that we have introduced this
bill hoping that at some point that we might
establish a consensus on this.
And I respect the arguments that
have been raised by the City of New York. But
I believe that our isolated position and the
circumstances generally, and the fact that
virtually 99 percent of all the traffic or
95 percent of all the traffic that is
generated on Staten Island is locally
generated, that it would make a great deal of
sense to change it.
I don't know whether it would be
useful, for instance, in your county or any of
the other major counties with a heavy
population and the heavy use of the motor
4470
vehicle, not only from those indigenous to
those counties but also from the tristate
area. But it is our judgment that it would
make eminent sense in Staten Island.
So take your pick.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you.
Madam President, if the sponsor
would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Marchi, will you continue to yield to Senator
Hevesi?
SENATOR MARCHI: Oh, sure. Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator continues to yield.
SENATOR HEVESI: Senator Marchi,
are you aware as to whether or not the current
administration of the City of New York
supports this legislation?
SENATOR MARCHI: No, I would hope
that a kindler, gentler mayor and all of the
kindler, gentler council members would respect
our decision if it were made.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you, Madam
President, on the bill.
SENATOR MARCHI: And I've had too
4471
many years in my 44th year to predict
infallibly the future. Even fallibly.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Hevesi, on the bill.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you.
Madam President, I very much
appreciate, understand, and respect what
Senator Marchi is trying to do here. I would
feel a little bit more comfortable if this
legislation did not simply authorize Staten
Island to have a right on red legally
permissible but instead gave the City of New
York the authority to enact right on red in
Staten Island if the City of New York, through
an act of the council and with the
acquiescence of the mayor, chose to do so.
There are some concerns that I have
in light of the fact that we are a single
entity in New York City composed of five
separate and distinct counties, but with some
commonality. And I'm concerned that there
could potentially -- and I'm not predisposed
to opposing what Senator Marchi is looking to
do here, but that there could be some safety
concerns, including how are we going to ensure
4472
that individuals who grow accustomed to right
on red in Staten Island don't violate the law
and compromise public safety when they come
into Brooklyn over the Verrazano Bridge, as
thousands and thousands of them do at any one
time.
And I would also like to see a
study, possibly by the New York City
Department of Transportation, on whether this
is truly feasible, whether the traffic volume
is sufficiently low to justify right on red,
and in the name of fairness and equity and
justice whether or not any other boroughs
might be better suited by right on red.
So I would simply suggest that this
legislation would be better if it authorized
New York City to take such an action instead
of doing it itself.
So I'm going to vote no on the
bill, but understanding that I very well might
think it's appropriate, that with additional
evidence and some studies and the appropriate
authority making the decision, I might support
right on red in Staten Island. But for now,
I'm going to oppose the legislation.
4473
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Gentile.
SENATOR GENTILE: Thank you,
Madam President. On the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Gentile, on the bill.
SENATOR GENTILE: Thank you,
Madam President.
I rise in support of my colleague
from Staten Island in this bill. It has often
been said that Staten Island, although a
borough of the City of New York, is very
unique in many, many ways, and that is true.
And I believe one of the ways it is unique is
in this instance, Madam President.
Indeed, as I travel through Staten
Island, the vehicular traffic in Staten Island
can be overwhelming many, many times.
However, the pedestrian traffic is of a lower
volume than any of the other boroughs in the
City of New York.
And with a lower amount of
pedestrian traffic in Staten Island, I believe
a right on red is a possibility and a relief
to the motorist in Staten Island.
4474
And given the fact that that is not
the case in any other borough but Staten
Island, I believe Senator Marchi's bill and
Assemblywoman Connelly's bill is right on the
mark in terms of reducing that vehicular
congestion.
Senator Marchi, you know very well
all you have to do is go down Highland
Boulevard or Richmond Road or any one of those
thoroughfares in Staten Island and know what
frustration Staten Island motorists experience
every single day. And with the lack of volume
in pedestrian traffic, right on red in Staten
Island is a unique, is a unique opportunity
for Staten Islanders to help relieve some of
their traffic congestion.
So, Senator Marchi, I stand as the
other Senator from Staten Island to advocate
that we go forward and we pass this bill. And
not only -- although I'm not on your bill, I
want the people of Staten Island to know that
I'm in support of your bill and Assemblywoman
Connelly's.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
4475
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
September.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
the negative on Calendar Number 1285 are
Senators Duane, Hevesi, and Kruger. Ayes, 54.
Nays, 3.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
Senator DeFrancisco, why do you
rise?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: I would
request unanimous consent to be voted in the
negative on Calendar 485, Senate Print 4913.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: So
noted.
The Secretary will continue to
read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1300, by Senator Hannon, Senate Print 7388, an
act to amend the Not-For-Profit Corporation
Law, in relation to authorization.
4476
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 56. Nays,
1. Senator Duane recorded in the negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
Senator Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, Madam
President. I would like unanimous consent to
be recorded in the negative on Calendars 842,
1290, and 1295.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Without
objection, you will be so noted.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1311, by Senator Spano, Senate Print 7933, an
act to amend the Workers' Compensation Law and
Chapter 729 of the Laws of 1993.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Just one
4477
moment.
SENATOR SPANO: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Spano.
SENATOR SPANO: This is a program
as part of the worker's comp reform program
that was designed to increase the safety in
the workplace. This bill is a three-year
extender of that program.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President. Would the sponsor yield to a
question?
THE PRESIDENT: Does the sponsor
yield?
SENATOR SPANO: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you.
I'm wondering if there's been any
data about what's happened to the original
pilot program that's been put out.
SENATOR SPANO: Cornell
University, Senator, has been conducting a
study -- frankly, it has been a little late,
and we're informed that the study will be
4478
available for us next week -- relative to the
success or failure of the pilot program.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you.
Madam President, on the bill.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Duane, on
the bill.
SENATOR DUANE: I just, as I have
stated before here, object to us extending
pilot programs when we don't have the data
from the original programs. It seems to me if
the data could have been available next week,
it could have been available last week, so we
could have taken a look at this before we
voted on this legislation.
Thank you, Madam President.
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, 57.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
Senator Marcellino.
4479
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Madam
President, can we return to the reports of
standing committees. I believe there's a
report of the Judiciary Committee at the desk.
THE PRESIDENT: Reports of
standing committees.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Lack,
from the Committee on Judiciary, reports the
following nominations:
As a judge of the Court of Claims,
Margaret L. Clancy, of Brooklyn.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Lack.
SENATOR LACK: Thank you, Madam
President.
I rise to move the nomination of
Margaret L. Clancy, of Brooklyn, as a judge of
the Court of Claims. We received her
nomination from Governor Pataki. The staff of
the committee has examined her credentials.
She appeared before the committee earlier
today, was unanimously moved from the
committee to the floor.
And it is with great pleasure that
I yield to Senator Connor for purposes of a
4480
second.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Connor.
SENATOR CONNOR: Thank you, Madam
President.
It's my privilege to second the
confirmation of Margaret Clancy to the Court
of Claims. I congratulate the Governor on
this appointment.
Her experience has been extensive
in the New York County District Attorney's
office, for nearly 20 years, rising to the
position of chief of the frauds bureau. She
also had served as the chief of the special
prosecutions bureau and was a deputy chief of
the trial bureau.
Her prior legal experience included
working for legal assistance in Geneva, New
York. I guess before she had the wisdom to
move to downtown Brooklyn. And we're
delighted to have her as a neighbor.
She's a graduate of Cornell Law
School, and her undergraduate work was at
Manhattan Marymount.
She is here today with her husband,
Steven Standiford, and her daughter, Emily, as
4481
well as her relatives, Elizabeth, John and
Zachary Palisoc.
So I'm delighted to move this
confirmation.
THE PRESIDENT: The question is
on the confirmation of Margaret L. Clancy, of
Brooklyn, as a Court of Claims judge in the
State of New York. All in favor signify by
saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The nominee is
hereby confirmed.
And on behalf of the State Senate,
I'd like to congratulate Judge Clancy on this
auspicious achievement and wish you the very
best in your new endeavors. Congratulations.
(Applause.)
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: As a judge of the
Court of Claims, Anthony I. Giacobbe, of
Staten Island.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Lack.
4482
SENATOR LACK: Thank you, Madam
President.
I rise again to move the nomination
of Anthony I. Giacobbe, of Staten Island, who
has been nominated by the Governor to be a
judge of the Court of Claims. His credentials
been examined by the staff of the committee,
have been found to be perfectly in order. He
appeared before the committee earlier this
morning, was unanimously moved from the
committee to the floor.
And it is with pleasure that I
yield for purposes of a second to Senator
Marchi.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Marchi.
SENATOR MARCHI: We suffered or
enjoyed an embarrassment of riches this
morning, Madam President, and we had excellent
candidates all the way down the line.
I'm especially proud of the
candidate that was designated or the nominee
who was indicated to us by the Governor, and
there were numerous compliments throughout the
proceedings as to the wisdom of the Governor
in assembling the very best. Quality
4483
certainly matched quantity in the number of
judges that we are considering today.
And this is very, very true of
Anthony Giacobbe, who is a graduate of
Georgetown University, enjoyed a brilliant
academic life, and an equivalent brilliancy in
also teaching law at St. John's University,
and a splendid record of trial prosecution.
In every aspect of the law he
manifested a mastery of the knowledge of the
intricacies of the law, and certainly
indicating that what is prologue in terms of
his own experience should result in a
rewarding experience for the people in this
state who will be affected who will appear
before him on various proceedings.
He served under Frank Hogan, John
Braisted, and some of you may know Judge
Thomas Sullivan, who's on the appellate
division. They were all DAs in Manhattan and
Staten Island. And uniqueness here, that,
bearing a Republican label, he was selected in
each and every case to be a member, a prized
member, of the assistant district attorney's
staff, handling the toughest cases, crime
4484
cases, and being knowledgeable in all of these
fields. And this period extended over a
period of ten years. So this was a stupendous
manifestation.
He also served with the Legislature
for several years, in the Assembly, not as a
member, but as counsel.
He did this in the borough
president's office, in almost every single
aspect of life which requires a mastery of
different disciplines, but primarily those
that invoke his qualities as a prosecutor, as
a trial attorney, and as an eminently fair and
judicial person.
So I sat back there very smugly and
with great pride that Staten Island was so
ably represented in this distinguished array
of judges who were requesting our
confirmation.
He is here with family and friends
from Richmond County, who are very proud of
him. And I do hope that past is prologue and
is richly annotated in terms of the attributes
that I've described, and that we give him a
rousing and unanimous confirmation at this
4485
session of the Legislature.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Gentile.
SENATOR GENTILE: Thank you,
Madam President.
I also rise as a Senator from
Staten Island to endorse and second this
nomination of Anthony Giacobbe for the Court
of Claims.
As I said earlier today in the
committee hearing, I don't think I've received
more calls on a nomination than I did for
Mr. Giacobbe, calls from my own party asking
me to support this nomination. Those calls
were unnecessary. But I point it out only to
indicate the breadth and depth of the support
for this nominee and for the respect that he
has in Staten Island.
It's certainly my honor to stand
here with Senator Marchi and the other members
of this house to confirm Anthony Giacobbe for
the Court of Claims, and to wish him well and
to say how all of us in Staten Island are very
proud this day for him, for his family, and
for all on Staten Island.
THE PRESIDENT: The question is
4486
on the confirmation of Anthony I. Giacobbe, of
Staten Island, as a Court of Claims judge in
the State of New York. All in favor signify
by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The nominee is
hereby confirmed.
And as President of the Senate,
congratulations, Judge Giacobbe, on this
eminent achievement.
And I want to acknowledge the
presence of your aunt, your friends, Joy
Spinelli, Peter Napolitano, Anna Marie
Napolitano, Elena Spinelli, and several other
of your friends who have joined you here this
afternoon. Congratulations.
(Applause.)
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will continue to read.
THE SECRETARY: As a judge of the
Court of Claims, Guy James Mangano, of
Brooklyn.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Lack.
4487
SENATOR LACK: Thank you, Madam
President.
I rise to move the nomination of
Guy James Mangano, of Brooklyn, as a judge of
the Court of Claims. We received the
nomination from the Governor. We examined the
credentials of the candidate; he was found to
be excellent in our examination. He appeared
before the committee this morning, was
unanimously moved from the committee to the
floor.
And I most respectfully yield for
purposes of a second to Senator Skelos.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Thank you, Madam
President. Thank you, Senator Lack.
I'm delighted to second the
nomination of Guy James Mangano for the
position of judge of the Court of Claims.
He has been active in many
associations -- Columbian Lawyers, Brooklyn
Bar Association, Catholic Lawyers
Association -- attended Brooklyn Law School.
I went to Fordham, but not everybody is
perfect, Judge.
4488
But he -- what's most important,
what's most important is he has been in the
trenches. He's tried cases, he's worked for
the Legal Aid Society, Appellate Term, general
practice, and, since 1995, principal law clerk
to the Honorable John M. Leventhal.
I'm also delighted to mention that
his parents are here, Anne Mangano and of
course the Honorable Guy Mangano, who is P.J.
of the Second Department.
So, Madam President, it's my
pleasure at this time to second the nomination
of Guy James Mangano for the position of judge
of the Court of Claims.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Connor.
SENATOR CONNOR: Thank you, Madam
President.
I also rise to second the
confirmation of Guy James Mangano, my
constituent, someone I've known for a number
of years.
These past five years, he's served
in Supreme Court of Kings County as a
principal law clerk to a judge who is a very
close friend of mine, John Leventhal. Guy is
4489
actually a colleague of my wife's, who is also
a principal law clerk to a different justice.
But really I think my association
with his family goes back many years. In
fact, it's the first real political
involvement that I had when I moved to
Brooklyn as a new lawyer.
Guy James Mangano bears an
illustrious name in the annals of the
Democratic Party in Brooklyn. I'll address
first the "James" part of it.
His grandfather was the last
elected sheriff of Kings County, was a
prominent and leading Democratic district
leader for over 40 years, was someone who I
have to say in my initial years as a young
upstart I came into some political conflict
with.
But I have to say that Jim Mangano
taught me many, many lessons about politics.
He had a very quiet way of conveying his many,
many years of experience, and I benefited from
his wisdom on many occasions.
Now the "Guy" part. Senator Skelos
said he's the presiding justice of the Second
4490
Department, and that's true. But, Madam
President, in this chamber and in this
gallery, he's Senator Mangano, who served in
this body and then moved on to an illustrious
judicial career as a Supreme Court justice and
as the presiding justice in the Second
Department.
Guy James Mangano, about to become
another Judge Mangano, is known for his
cooperation, his insight into the law. He's
very, very well regarded by his colleagues.
And he indeed is a credit to the
Governor for this appointment and will be a
credit to the people of the State of New York
as he serves us as a judge of the Court of
Claims.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Gentile.
SENATOR GENTILE: Thank you,
Madam President.
I also rise to second the
nomination of Guy James Mangano, of Brooklyn.
I have to thank Governor Pataki for this
nomination also.
It's really a banner day for
nominees from my area, both in Staten Island
4491
and in Brooklyn. And although this nominee is
a constituent of Senator Connor's, the Mangano
family and the Mangano name is well-respected
and legendary in Brooklyn and throughout our
city and our state.
So it is my honor to stand here
with Senator Connor and the other Senators to
indicate my support and my seconding of this
nomination for Guy James Mangano and, again,
to congratulate Governor Pataki for this fine
nomination.
THE PRESIDENT: The question is
on the nomination of Guy James Mangano, of
Brooklyn, as a judge of the Court of Claims in
the State of New York. All in favor signify
by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The nominee is
hereby confirmed.
And as President of the Senate, my
congratulations to you, Judge Mangano.
And I'd like to acknowledge the
presence of your parents -- Guy, the Honorable
4492
Guy Mangano, and Anne Mangano -- and your
friend Pat Pope. Have a wonderful
celebration, and best wishes to you.
(Applause.)
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will continue to read.
THE SECRETARY: As a judge of the
Court of Claims, Steven J. Mignano, of
Cortlandt Manor.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Lack.
SENATOR LACK: Thank you, Madam
President.
I rise to move the nomination of
Stephen J. Mignano, of Cortlandt Manor, as a
judge of the Court of Claims. We received the
nomination from Governor Pataki. The
nominee's credentials were examined, found to
be eminently satisfactory. He appeared before
the committee this morning, was unanimously
moved from the committee to the floor.
And I most respectfully yield for
purposes of a second to Senator Leibell.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Leibell.
SENATOR LEIBELL: Thank you,
Madam President.
4493
And I had the opportunity this
morning to join Senator Lack at his Judiciary
Committee meeting. Once again, we have seen
the Governor send to us a particularly stellar
name to join the ranks of our judiciary.
I've had the pleasure of knowing
Steve for a number of years, and I can tell
you that within our area of the Hudson Valley,
he is well-known, well-respected. He is
coming to us and coming to the judiciary with
many years of experience, especially in the
area of municipal law, which is particularly
well-suited for the judgeship he's going for
today.
I would also note that he has been
active in our community. His private practice
has been a particularly successful one. And
throughout -- as I noted, throughout the area
of the mid-Hudson he is well-respected by all
who have come in contact with him, both judges
and fellow practitioners as well.
I am pleased to stand here today in
support of this nomination, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Spano.
SENATOR SPANO: Thank you, Madam
4494
President.
It is also my pleasure to stand and
to congratulate each of the appointees of the
Governor to the Court of Claims. The Governor
has sent us a very strong list of individuals
over the years to be members of the Court of
Claims, and today's appointments are no
different.
It is my particular pleasure to
speak in favor of the nomination of Steve
Mignano, someone who spent a great deal of
time in the City of Yonkers. And we were
sorry to lose him to Peekskill, but if he was
going to go anywhere, the appropriate place,
especially these days, is to go from Yonkers
to Peekskill.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR SPANO: Senator Lack said
some people would like me to go to Peekskill
as well.
Steve has an outstanding record and
has been involved in so many different
activities. But I have known him personally
for a long time as someone who has worked in
and around many of the activities around our
4495
great Governor. And he's got the exact type
of temperament that we need in this court.
And it's my pleasure to stand and
to very proudly second the nomination of Steve
Mignano. It will make us even more proud to
address him as "judge."
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: The question is
on the confirmation of Stephen J. Mignano, of
Cortlandt Manor, as a judge of the Court of
Claims in the State of New York. All in favor
signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The nominee is
hereby confirmed.
And again, as President of the
Senate, I congratulate you, Judge Mignano, as
well as acknowledge the presence of your wife,
Barbara, your son, David, your parents,
Dominick and Sandra Mignano, and your sister,
Andrea Miscinger.
Congratulations to all of you, and
have a good celebration.
4496
(Applause.)
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will continue to read.
THE SECRETARY: As a judge of the
Court of Claims, Norman I. Siegel, of New
Hartford.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Lack.
SENATOR LACK: Thank you, Madam
President.
I rise once more to move the
nomination of Norman I. Siegel, of New
Hartford, as a judge of the Court of Claims.
We received the nomination from the Governor,
we examined the credentials of the nominee,
they were found to be eminently satisfactory.
He appeared in person before the committee
this morning, was unanimously moved by the
committee to the floor.
And I most respectfully yield to a
very patient Senator Meier, who has been
waiting to second the nomination.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Meier.
SENATOR MEIER: Thank you, Madam
President. And I thank the chair of the
Judiciary Committee, Senator Lack.
4497
And there are some in the gallery
who know how long I've waited to do this and
what a great pleasure it is for me to second
this nomination today.
I really think that the way someone
can express confidence the best in an attorney
is to retain that attorney's services. And
when I was county executive of Oneida County,
I chose Norman Siegel to counsel me and to be
my county attorney.
Norm Siegel is known throughout
Oneida County as an excellent lawyer, as a
good negotiator, as a great trial lawyer, and
as a fair poker player.
He is joined today by a number of
the members of the firm with which he's
practiced for many years. And I know he'll be
missed from that firm, and he'll especially be
missed at the evening meetings where we sit
around and discuss the cases that are pending
in the firm, because of the wise counsel he
gives us at those meetings.
One of the things I think the
Governor often looks for, and it's been
especially gratifying to see in this group of
4498
nominees that we have here today, is people
who have a wide range of experience. And Norm
Siegel certainly has that with regard to the
breadth of areas in which he practiced. For
14 years, he served as the principal law
assistant to our county court judge, working
on criminal cases. He has wide trial
experience in federal courts, state courts,
including the Court of Claims.
But he also has wide experience,
Madam President, in a number of civic
organizations, serving as president of the
board of trustees at the Citron Health Care
Center, serving on the board of trustees at
St. Elizabeth's, working as a member of the
board of directors of the Jewish Federation of
Utica, and a number of other areas.
I think that's important for people
who come to us and ask for our consent to
become judges, that they have a depth and
breadth of experience. I believe that -- I
think all of us would agree with this, that
judges go to books to find the law, and they
go to a depth and breath of human experience
to find humanity, to find compassion, to find
4499
equity, and I think to find justice itself.
And on that count, nobody -
nobody -- will be a better judge than Norm
Siegel.
Norman, God bless you.
Congratulations.
THE PRESIDENT: The question is
on the confirmation of Norman I. Siegel, of
New Hartford, as a judge of the Court of
Claims in the State of New York. All in favor
signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The nominee is
hereby confirmed.
And I congratulate Judge Siegel on
your new responsibility and achievement, and
acknowledge the presence of your wife, Anne;
your daughters, Laurie, Susan and Judy; and
your friend Eugenia Greenhouse.
Have a wonderful celebration, and
best wishes.
(Applause.)
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
4500
will continue to read.
THE SECRETARY: As a judge of the
Court of Claims, Richard E. Sise, of
Niskayuna.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Lack.
SENATOR LACK: Thank you, Madam
President.
I rise to move the nomination of
Richard E. Sise, of Niskayuna, as a judge of
the Court of Claims. We received the
nomination from the Governor, we examined the
credentials of the nominee. They were found
perfectly in order. He appeared in person
before the committee earlier today, was
unanimously moved by the committee to the
floor for purposes of confirmation at this
time.
And I most respectfully yield to
Senator Farley for purposes of a second.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Farley.
SENATOR FARLEY: Thank you, Madam
President.
It is with pleasure that I move the
nomination of Richard Sise from my hometown of
Niskayuna. Let me just say a word about Dick
4501
Sise, who is eminently qualified for this
office, for this judgeship.
He's a graduate of Siena College,
University of Miami Law School. He has served
as an assistant district attorney for Bronx
County; he was a prosecutor for a number of
years. He's been an outstanding practicing
attorney with his family.
And let me just say a word about
his family, because you can't mention the word
"Sise" without talking about an incredible
family.
His father, who is with him today,
Bob Sise, was chief administrative judge for
this state, it was a number of -- it seems
like a few years ago that I moved his
confirmation. And he was -- I said he really
needs the job, because he's the father of five
sons -- nine sons, nine, and he really needs
the job and the money to -- because he was
educating them all at that time.
And what a remarkable group of
young men they are. His brother Joe, who's
also up there in the gallery -- Madam
President, I know that Dick Sise is a dear
4502
personal friend of yours. And if you're going
to introduce everybody who's up in that
gallery, we won't be out of here till sundown.
But believe me, there's a lot of them up
there.
But his brother Joe is the youngest
Supreme Court justice in the State of New
York -- maybe the whole world, for all we
know. And he has such connections here. His
brother-in-law John Cahill, who sits over
here, a great basketball referee. And his
wife, Connie Cahill, who's a distinguished
attorney and was a law professor for me at the
State University of New York at Albany, and
had the highest teaching ratings I think of
anybody that ever taught up there.
And incidentally, seated right over
here is Ellen Cahill, who worked for many,
many years for Guy Velella, Senator Velella.
And of course her namesake, Ellen Sise,
sitting right beside her, that Dick's eldest
daughter. And he's got several other
children.
But let me just say he is not only
eminently qualified for this bench by his
4503
education, his training, but what a family
tradition. And what an outstanding judge he
will make.
It is really -- I congratulate the
Governor for recognizing this young man and
this family. And they are all here in support
of him. And it really warms the heart of
everybody that's on the committee and in this
chamber to see the support that you have,
Dick.
We wish you well, and godspeed.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Breslin.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Thank you,
Madam President.
I can only echo Senator Farley's
remarks about Dick Sise, his wife, his
brother-in-law, John Cahill, and the remaining
Sise brothers and their parents.
You know, it's okay to have
brothers who are lawyers. I happen to have a
couple myself. Only one judge, though. But
hopefully somewhere down the line that will
change as well.
But Dick Sise is not only very
bright, very compassionate, he's very honest.
4504
And those are the three major ingredients to
make sure that we retain our commitment to a
good judiciary.
And I'm just so pleased to be able
to stand up here as a part of the other side
of the aisle to say that this is one wonderful
selection.
Thank you very much, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Stafford.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Madam
President, I've been waiting for the
opportunity to just say -- we've been here a
while -- I've never seen a finer group of
nominees come before us, the Judiciary
Committee. Just a great group. And they are
to be commended.
But also the Governor is to be
commended on the quality, everyone who was
involved in the appointments.
And I also, of course -- Dike Sise
is from my area. I would second everything
that's said. He'll do a great job in the
Court of Claims.
Thank you.
4505
THE PRESIDENT: The question is
on the confirmation of Richard E. Sise, of
Niskayuna, as a judge of the Court of Claims
in the State of New York. All in favor
signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The nominee is
hereby confirmed.
And now it's the President's turn.
Congratulations. It is truly an honor and a
delight for me to be here with my friends
Connie and Judge Sise, Judge Richard Sise, to
add to the family roster.
You know, there's a joke in my
family about the congenital family defect with
so many lawyers in the O'Connor family where I
come from. The Sises set the standard.
And it is certainly a benefit and
certainly a source of pride for the State of
New York to have you join the ranks, not only
in your family, but of justices in the Court
of Claims.
Congratulations also to your wife
4506
and my dear friend Connie, as well as Joe,
Senior, and all of you in the family, for your
achievements on behalf of the State of New
York.
And particularly Judge Sise, our
former chief administrative judge, I know this
is a special moment for you. And certainly
your example has set the model not only in
your family but across the spectrum of
judicial achievement.
My best wishes to each and every
one of you.
And I'd like to acknowledge the
presence of Judge Sise's children, Ellen,
Mary, and Michael; as well as his wife,
Connie; his parents, Robert and Theresa Sise;
brothers Joseph, Thomas and Jack, who are all
here there afternoon; as well as your
mother-in-law, who's already been
acknowledged, Ellen Cahill, and other family
friends.
Best wishes for a successful
endeavor and, I know, a wonderful celebration
within the Sise family.
(Applause.)
4507
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will continue to read.
THE SECRETARY: As a judge of the
Court of Claims, Leslie Crocker Snyder, of New
York City.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Lack.
SENATOR LACK: Thank you, Madam
President.
I rise to move the nomination of
Leslie Crocker Snyder, of New York City, as a
judge of the Court of Claims. We received the
nomination from the Governor, we examined the
credentials of the nominee, they were
perfectly in order. She appeared before the
committee earlier today and was unanimously
moved from the committee to the floor.
And I most respectfully yield for
purposes of a second to Senator Goodman.
SENATOR GOODMAN: Madam
President -- Mr. President. Dual address.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: You're
fast, Senator Goodman. That's good.
SENATOR GOODMAN: I rise with a
feeling of special enthusiasm to second this
nomination of an extraordinary individual
4508
whose career would almost make an outstanding
television series, not just a single show.
And I want to give you a little bit of her
background, because it's quite exceptional.
First of all, starting with her
education, she attended Radcliffe College,
which I have a substantial familiarity with,
since it was in the year 1949 that I went to a
freshman mixer dance and met my own wife at
Radcliffe and subsequently have had the
pleasure of being married to her for 45 years.
But getting back on the main
subject, she not only went to Radcliffe
College and Harvard University but majored in
American history and literature, which
happened to be the major in which I found
myself while at college. And thus I can
testify to the exceptional background that she
received in terms of American historical
fundamentals, which I think have served to
ground her active legal career with great
distinction.
So much for this personal
interweaving. Let me go on from there to say
to you that she was a scholarship student at
4509
Case Western Reserve, where she excelled, and
proceeded to join a very prestigious New York
law firm, where she practiced law for several
years, going on from that point to several
other very distinguished accomplishments,
which I'd now like to enumerate briefly.
First of all, Leslie Crocker Snyder
was in the district attorney's office in New
York County, where she served from January
1983 to January 1986 -- no, I'm sorry, that's
September '82 to March '83 -- again, I'm
afraid that I've become a little bit muddled
on my dates. But let me just say that her
district attorney's work was extensive.
Here we go. It was actually
January '68 to September '76. She was an
assistant DA with criminal trial work, which
prepared her for some major responsibilities
which I will outline shortly. She was the
chief and founder of the sex crimes
prosecution bureau and other very important
assignments at the district attorney's office.
She then proceeded to go to the
office of the special prosecutor against
corruption in the criminal justice system,
4510
working with the distinguished justice John F.
Keenan, who was a special prosecutor at the
time, from '76 to '79.
Going beyond that, she was a deputy
criminal justice coordinator and chief of the
arson strike force in New York from 1982 to
1983, a judge of the Criminal Court of the
City of New York from '83 to '86, and finally
an acting Supreme Court justice.
Now may I just take a moment to
outline the extraordinary career which she had
as an acting Supreme Court justice, because I
think it makes her sui generis absolutely
unique among her colleagues.
She presided primarily over the
highest level A1 multiple-defendant narcotics
felonies, including drug gang homicide cases,
organized crime narcotics cases, white collar
crime cases, as well as other felonies. And
her trials have included some of the following
of New York City, and this is what I referred
to as being of such highly dramatic nature.
These included a whole range of gangs whose
names are household words in the gang
community.
4511
And may I just say that in the
process of this, she had the unusual
experience of receiving multiple threats on
her life. As a result, it was necessary for
her to be guarded continuously, and that
guarding continues to this very date. Her
life was thus very rudely, if you might say,
intersected with a justice system which must
protect its justices against any undue
interference by the criminal element.
And I think the fact that she's
been willing to raise a family and to put up
with this type of interference over these many
years qualifies her for exceptional notice and
for deep qualification from this body which so
values the importance of a criminal justice
system which is sound and appropriate.
The fact is that Judge Snyder is
herself an extraordinary human being. I've
had the pleasure of knowing her personally for
some time. And I'd like to cite one of her
many community activities which I think gives
an insight into her special character. For
the last seven years, she has adopted two
classes at P.S. 116 in Manhattan, involving
4512
monthly visits to the school, organizing and
presiding over the moot court program for the
classes, regular court visits by the classes
to the courtrooms.
So, Mr. President, as you can
readily see, the combination of extraordinary,
specific educational high qualification, her
great dedication to the public service,
including willingness to withstand unusual
pressures of a type that are rarely brought on
any member in the criminal justice system, as
well as her very unique personality and her
deep humanitarian impulses, all add up to an
exceptional curriculum vitae and I trust will
cause this body to wish to overwhelmingly
support her for this very important judicial
post.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
question is on the confirmation of Leslie
Crocker Snyder as a judge of the New York
State Court of the Claims. All those in favor
signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Opposed,
4513
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
nominee is confirmed.
Judge Snyder is with us in the
gallery today. She's accompanied by her law
clerk, Teresa Matushaj.
Judge, on behalf of the Senate, we
congratulate you on your confirmation and we
wish you well with your very important duties.
(Applause.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will continue to read.
THE SECRETARY: As a judge of the
Court of Claims, Lewis Bart Stone, of New
York.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Lack.
SENATOR LACK: Thank you, Mr.
President.
I rise again to move the nomination
of our last nominee today, but hardly the
least -- of course, they're in alphabetical
order -- someone I've known for a long time,
Lewis Bart Stone, of New York City, as a judge
4514
of the Court of Claims.
We received the nomination from the
Governor. The nominee's credentials were
examined by the committee and found to be
excellent. He appeared this morning in person
before the committee, was unanimously moved
from the committee to the floor for
consideration at this time.
And once again, I most respectfully
yield to Senator Goodman for purposes of a
second.
SENATOR GOODMAN: Mr. President,
thank you very much.
I'm delighted to say it's my
doubled-barreled privilege today not only to
speak of the judge I've just mentioned, but to
say that the following candidate for your
consideration is a man I know exceptionally
well, both personally and because he was a
member of my counsel staff here in the Senate
of the State of New York for several years.
In the process of his working for
me, I became aware of his extraordinary
intellect. He's a very keen lawyer. His
Harvard Law School background, from which he
4515
graduated cum laude, is suggestive of his
academic excellence. But I may say that in
addition to that, he gives repeated evidence
of an extraordinary, pragmatic grasp of the
law and an ability to apply it in many
different situations.
For many years he's been a partner
in the distinguished law firm from New York
City of Rogers & Wells, which is one of
actually the outstanding firms in the City of
New York. He was a special assistant to the
Governor of the State of New York in 1971 and
assistant counsel to the Governor from 1967 to
1970.
He has had extensive private
practice, and is an individual who has been
involved as a commissioner on uniform laws of
New York State. He has lectured at the New
School for Social Research. He was counsel to
the New York State Committee on Housing and
Urban Development. He was a teaching fellow
at the department of chemistry of Harvard
University, which is an interesting bit of
scientific background which will equip him for
many high-tech decisions, I'm sure.
4516
He's been involved heavily in an
awareness of real estate problems. He's a man
of compassion and concern and very deep
intellectuality. He's been a trustee of the
Citizens Budget Commission, the Empire State
Citizens Housing and Planning Council, the
Jewish Conciliation Board of America, a number
of other philanthropies of note.
Let me just say, wrapping it all
into one quick verbal package, he is an
absolute standout and will do an honorable and
superb job as a justice of the Court of Claims
of the State of New York, and I trust Lewis
Bart Stone will merit your enthusiastic
support.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
question is on the confirmation of Lewis Bart
Stone, of New York City, as a judge of the
Court of Claims. All those in favor signify
by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Opposed,
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
4517
nominee is confirmed.
Judge Stone is with us today in the
gallery. He is with his wife, Gretchen, and
his daughter, Pamela.
Judge Stone, on behalf of the
members of the Senate, we wish you our warm
congratulations, and we wish you well in
office. Thank you, Judge Stone.
(Applause.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President,
if we could return to motions and resolutions,
I believe there's a privileged resolution at
the desk by Senator Seward. I ask that the
title be read and move for its immediate
adoption.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Motions
and resolutions.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: By Senator
Seward, Legislative Resolution 4659,
commending the Cornell University Chorus upon
the occasion of its Sun-Kissed Tour.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
4518
question is on the resolution. All those in
favor signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Opposed,
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
resolution is adopted.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President,
if we could now go to the controversial
calendar. And I'd like to call up Calendar
Number 1315 for the purposes of Senator
LaValle voting.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read Calendar 1315.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1315, by Senator Maltese, Senate Print 1638B,
an act to amend the Penal Law, in relation to
the crime of partial birth abortion.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
November.
4519
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
LaValle.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
LaValle will be recorded in the affirmative.
SENATOR SKELOS: Please withdraw
the roll call.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Roll
call is withdrawn.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President,
if you could call up Calendar Number 1316 for
the purposes of Senator LaValle voting.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read Calendar Number 1316.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1316, by Senator Goodman, Senate Print 4691A,
an act to amend the Penal Law and the
Executive Law, in relation to hate crimes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 7. This
act shall take effect in 90 days.
4520
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
LaValle.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
LaValle will be recorded in the affirmative.
SENATOR SKELOS: Please withdraw
the roll call.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The roll
call will be withdrawn.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: If we could
return to reports of standing committees, for
the Finance report.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Reports
of standing committees.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Stafford,
from the Committee on Finance, reports the
following nominations:
As Superintendent of Banks,
Elizabeth McCaul, of Manhasset.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
4521
Stafford.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Mr. President,
Elizabeth McCaul appeared before the Finance
Committee today and was found eminently
qualified. She was most impressive.
And it's a pleasure to yield to
Senator Balboni.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: I'll be
pleased to recognize Senator Balboni.
First, we need just a little order
in the chamber so we can all hear.
Senator Balboni.
SENATOR BALBONI: Thank you, Mr.
President.
It is a pleasure to rise in favor
of this appointment. And I would like to
thank the Chairman of the Finance Committee,
Senator Stafford, for yielding to me and
allowing me to say a couple of words about
this nominee.
Elizabeth McCaul represents the way
things are supposed to happen. She's been
part of probably one of the most renowned
financial firms in the nation and in this
world: Goldman, Sachs. She learned about
4522
finances and banking in the real world, then
she took her skills and she went into public
service.
And people question whether or not
when you make somebody the head of an agency,
is there a certain amount of learning on the
job, a certain amount of transition that goes
into it. Well, this nominee, Mr. President,
has been in the role as Superintendent of
Banks, Acting Superintendent of Banks, for a
number of years. She has the experience
because she's earned the experience.
I'm very proud that a member of
such a fine financial firm as Goldman, Sachs
has chosen to leave that very lucrative,
prestigious lifestyle and has come to lead
what is arguably one of the premier banking
departments in the nation -- that is, the New
York State Department of Banks.
And I believe that she's going to
be an excellent superintendent and that this
appointment is long overdue. And I'd like to
compliment the Governor on his fine
appointment, and I wish her many, many years
of great success.
4523
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, Mr.
President.
I rise to join my colleague from
Long Island, Senator Balboni, to also
compliment the appointment of Ms. McCaul. I
think that I would say that she has already
been serving in the capacity as
superintendent, so I'm just going to address
her as Superintendent McCaul.
Because of the problem that we've
had for many decades in areas of the state
like I represent, there is a tremendous
problem with redlining by banks. The
redlining was followed by banks disappearing
from the community that I represent, or some
parts of my district.
And because of the redlining,
because there is no access to capital,
particularly by people who want to purchase
their homes or people who own homes and they
want to fix their homes up, there is
deterioration in the housing and deterioration
4524
in the community.
And then comes -- because of all of
that, then comes what we consider predatory
lenders. These are so-called secondary
lenders. They come in to make loans based on
people's equity in their homes. And very
often, tragically, the kind of lending that
goes on in relationship to these particular
outfits causes people to lose their homes. So
we've lost homes wholesale in many parts of
the city.
But it was Superintendent McCaul
who had her staff come to my district and hold
hearings on this issue. As a result of those
hearings and others that she held throughout
the state, the Superintendent has been looking
at providing for the State of New York or
instituting or implementing for the State of
New York for the first time regulations for
the predatory lending community.
I'm most pleased that she has taken
on this issue, because it is a very, very
high-stakes issue for me and the people that I
represent. So I'm honored to stand and second
her nomination.
4525
And I look forward to continuing to
work with her, because I believe that she
understands and she's committed to addressing
this particular issue in addition to some of
the other issues as it relates to financial
institutions in the state.
So I commend the Governor for this
nomination, and I congratulate Ms. McCaul on
her service to our state.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
question is on the confirmation of Elizabeth
McCaul as Superintendent of Banks for the
State of New York. All those in favor signify
by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Opposed,
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
nominee is confirmed.
(Applause.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:
Superintendent McCaul is with us in the
gallery today. She's accompanied by her
husband, Frank Ingrassia, by her
4526
mother-in-law, Rita Ingrassia, and by her
brother-in-law, Christos Kanavos.
Superintendent, we congratulate
you, we wish you welcome to the chamber today
and wish you well with your very important
duties.
(Applause.)
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Can we move
the rest of the nominees in order and have the
Secretary call them all.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: As a member of
the Municipal Bond Bank Agency, Kenneth M.
Bialo, of Larchmont.
As a member of the Capital District
Transportation Authority, Robert P. Roche, of
Delmar.
As a member of the Correction
Medical Review Board, Phyllis Harrison-Ross,
M.D., of New York City.
4527
As a member of the State Board of
Historic Preservation, Christina R. Davis, of
New York City.
As a commissioner of the Interstate
Sanitation Fund, Donna B. Gerstle, of Orchard
Park.
As members of the Empire State
Plaza Art Commission, Joseph G. Perrella, of
Niskayuna; Charles A. Stainback, of Middle
Falls; Arete Swartz Warren, of New York City;
and Kristin Jannitto Woodward, of Latham.
As a member of the Saratoga-Capital
District State Park, Recreation and Historic
Preservation Commission, Gerald J.
Lewandowski, of East Amherst.
As members of the Stewart Airport
Commission, John H. Dippel, of New Paltz, and
Robert J. Zaccheo, of New Paltz.
As director of the New York State
Environmental Facilities Corporation, Lawrence
D. DiGiovanna, of Brooklyn.
As director of the New York State
Urban Development Corporation, J. Patrick
Barrett, of Manilus.
As members of the Advisory Council
4528
on Agriculture, James L. Vincent, of Byron,
and Charles E. Willie, of Montgomery.
As members of the Advisory Council
on Alcoholism and Substance Abuse Services,
Herbert D. Kleber, M.D., of New York City, and
John Douglas Melbourne, M.D., of Scotia.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Can we move
these nominations.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Okay.
The question is on the motion to confirm the
nominees named in the report of the Finance -
I'm sorry.
Senator Gentile.
SENATOR GENTILE: Yes, Mr.
President. I just wanted to speak in behalf
of one nominee and just congratulate the
Governor again on his reappointment of
Lawrence DiGiovanna, of Bay Ridge, Brooklyn,
as director of the New York State
Environmental Facilities Corporation.
Mr. DiGiovanna and I have known
each other for many, many years. And indeed,
he is well-qualified, a member of many
4529
organizations in the community. And I think
this will serve our state and our government
very well.
So again, I congratulate the
Governor on this reappointment.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
question is on the confirmation of the
nominees named in the report of the Finance
Committee. All those in favor signify by
saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Opposed,
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
nominees are confirmed.
Senator Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Mr.
President, can the Senate stand at ease for a
few moments. Unless you have any housekeeping
at the desk.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Yes, we
have a couple of motions, Senator, if we could
take care of those now.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Please take
4530
care of them.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
McGee.
SENATOR McGEE: Thank you, Mr.
President.
On behalf of Senator Seward, I wish
to call up Calendar Number 497, Assembly Print
Number 10030.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
497, by Member of the Assembly Grannis,
Assembly Print Number 10030, an act to amend
the Insurance Law.
SENATOR McGEE: I now move to
reconsider the vote by which this Assembly
Bill was substituted for Senator Seward's
bill, Senate Print Number 6734, on April 4th.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll on reconsideration.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
McGee.
SENATOR McGEE: I now move that
4531
Assembly Bill Number 10030 be committed to the
Committee on Rules and that Senator Seward's
Senate bill be restored on the order of the
Third Reading Calendar.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: So
ordered.
SENATOR McGEE: Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: You're
welcome.
Senator Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Mr.
President, amendments are offered to the
following Third Reading Calendar bills:
Sponsored by Senator Johnson, page
number 13, Calendar Number 470, Senate Print
Number 6243;
On behalf of Senator Bonacic, page
number 14, Calendar Number 494, Senate Print
Number 7106;
On behalf of Senator Hoffmann, page
number 30, Calendar Number 941, Senate Print
Number 7798;
On behalf of Senator Skelos, page
number 34, Calendar Number 997, Senate Print
Number 6800B;
4532
And on behalf of Senator Farley,
page number 42, Calendar Number 1151, Senate
Print Number 5068B.
I now move that these bills retain
their place on Third Reading Calendar.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
amendments are received, and the bills will
retain their place on the Third Reading
Calendar.
Senator Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Thank you,
Mr. President.
On behalf of Senator Saland, I wish
to call up his bill, Senate Print Number 2752,
recalled from the Assembly, which is now at
the desk.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
347, by Senator Saland, Senate Print 2752, an
act to authorize the City School District of
the City of Poughkeepsie.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Mr.
4533
President, I now move to reconsider the vote
by which this bill was passed.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll on reconsideration.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: I now offer
the following amendments.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
amendments are received.
Senator Marcellino, that concludes
the motions.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Thank you,
Mr. President. If we could just be at ease
for two seconds.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Senate will stand at ease.
(Whereupon, the Senate stood at
ease at 1:00 p.m.)
(Whereupon, the Senate reconvened
at 1:03 p.m.)
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Bruno.
4534
SENATOR BRUNO: Mr. President,
can we at this time take up Calendar Number
1316.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1316, by Senator Goodman, Senate Print 4691A,
an act to amend the Penal Law and the
Executive Law, in relation to hate crimes.
SENATOR DUANE: Explanation,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Bruno, an explanation has been
requested.
SENATOR BRUNO: Thank you, Mr.
President, colleagues.
The legislation that we are
discussing now and hopefully will pass in this
chamber, this legislation is referred to as
the bias-crime bill, hate crimes.
And we had talked about this over
the years. We talked about it last year in
January. And we've indicated previously that
this legislation or something like it would
appear on the floor of the Senate to be openly
4535
debated, and we're here.
I want to make a point that we in
the Senate have always been in the forefront
in doing what is necessary to help protect
people's lives in this state. In this
country, in this state, it's founded really on
the principles of life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness. To live our lives the
way we want to, to be free, to pursue
happiness means that people don't have to be
afraid to be on the street, in their homes, in
their place of businesses for any reason.
And that's why we have done
legislation to increase the penalties on
assaults of all types, which is now law.
Which we did a gang violence bill to protect
people where two or more gang up on them, and
that is now law. And we have a litany of
other pieces of legislation, all intended to
protect people's lives, their liberty, and
their ability to pursue their happiness.
Now, I would only hope that this
legislation adds to -- by increasing penalties
where there is an intent to commit a hate
crime or a bias crime to any specific
4536
individual or group, I would only hope that
this would help make our lives safer here in
this state, and I pray that that is the case.
I have a feeling still that this
legislation is more perception than it is
substance. But times change. And the time,
we feel, is appropriate for us to just add
this to all the other things that we have done
here in the Senate in a leadership position to
help protect people from those that would want
to violate them or injure them in any way.
And I want to commend Senator
Goodman for his continuing and continued
leadership on this issue; Senator Spano, who
has had this in the forefront for years;
recently, with our new addition, Senator
Duane, who has added his voice to help get
this bill to the floor.
And I want to commend Governor
Pataki for having had the good judgment to
structure a piece of legislation that helps
protect the people the way they ought to be
protected and allowing a bill such as this to
be constructed in a way that we feel that we
can bring it to our floor, that many of the
4537
people here will vote for it, and that this
will hopefully pass the Assembly and get
signed by the Governor.
And just add it to all of the other
things that we have done to protect people in
this state and allow them to go on and live
their lives in the pursuit of happiness.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Goodman.
SENATOR GOODMAN: Mr. President,
I'd like to start by reminding this body that
some weeks ago I informed some people who were
raising questions with respect to what might
happen to this bill that we had received a
word of honor from the Majority Leader of the
New York State Senate to the effect that this
bill would be taken up this year.
And I at that time expressed the
opinion that this word was worth 24-carat gold
in terms of assurance. And today I think
proves the hypothesis that when Senator Joseph
Bruno gives his word that something will
happen, it happens, and you can take it to the
bank. That, I think, is a significant factor
4538
in the extraordinary stature which he's
achieved as leader of this house.
And I'd also like to comment on
what I think is the underlying statesmanship
impulse which permits this now to be acted
upon.
My mind goes back to a day many
years ago when there was a majority leader in
this house who did not necessarily believe in
the bill that was brought forth; namely, the
abortion reform bill. And notwithstanding his
personal deep opposition to it, he allowed it
to come to the floor for a vote of conscience.
At the conclusion of that debate, he slumped
into his chair, literally in tears because of
his distress at the outcome. But nonetheless,
he felt an impelling need to bring it before
the house so that each member could be heard
and express a point of view.
It's a similar impulse. I have no
idea in which way my Majority Leader will find
it in his wisdom to vote on this matter, but I
think the fact that he has seen fit to let it
come to the floor for a vote at this time is a
signal that he is an individual of great
4539
humanitarian concern and obviously the most
honorable of senators.
So with that preface, let me now
speak to the bill itself.
Mr. President, we have had from
time to time some extraordinarily sad
happenings which have attracted the attention
of the entire nation. I refer, of course, to
Matthew Shepard, a young gay man in Wyoming
who was strapped to a fence and killed and
tortured and murdered. I refer to situations
involving a man in Mississippi who was chained
to the back of an automobile and, solely
because he was black, he was literally torn to
pieces and ripped and wrecked and destroyed as
a human being. I refer to cases in which
churches and synagogues have been wantonly
attacked for no reason other than that they
represent the religious views of certain
people not in harmony with those who had
launched the attacks.
And I say to you that what we are
attempting to deal with here is some of the
darkest and most tragic impulses which enter
warped minds who seek to take out vengeance
4540
upon specific groups, whether it be due to
bias or due to hate that is somehow the result
of twisted mental processes.
Mr. President, it's imperative that
society recognize the nature of these things,
not as crimes against one individual but
rather as crimes against a whole class of
people.
As you are probably well aware by
now, the bill before us is one which has been
developed in cooperation with the Governor,
with a number of civic groups, with a number
of fellow legislators to whom Senator Bruno
referred. And I would add the names of
Senator Hoffmann and Senator Lack to those
that he referred to, as well as others on the
other side who have been very instrumental in
pushing this -- Senator Lachman, for one. And
I could name a number of others, I'm sure.
The bill itself seeks to do the
following. It seeks to punish severely those
who commit a hate crime because of their
biased perception regarding the race, color,
national origin, ancestry, gender, religion,
age, disability, or sexual orientation of
4541
their victim.
Under the bill, a judge or a jury
would be asked to say whether a defendant
chose a victim because of prejudice and bias
and hate. If a guilty verdict is returned
accompanied by a finding of bias, then a
longer prison term would be presented and
would be used to punish the individual.
Now, what we're doing, as you can
plainly see, is ratcheting up the penalty.
And some will say why should this be
necessary, we have very heavy penalties on the
books. The answer is that when a crime is
intended to cover a whole class of people, we
must try to deter it with a penalty that is
far more severe and one which can be
understood and advanced by potential
perpetrators as absolutely unacceptable and
inadmissible in a civilized society.
Crimes punishable by the bill
include assault, manslaughter, murder, rape,
kidnapping, burglary, arson, harassment and
sexual abuse. There are others as well.
Forty-one other states have already
provided added penalties where a perpetrator
4542
singles out a victim because of a bias, and 23
states include sexual orientation in the list
of bias crimes.
The matter of the inclusion of
sexual orientation should be dealt with
candidly on this floor. Ever since the AIDS
epidemic occurred and the misperception
permeated our society that AIDS was a disease
exclusively suffered by homosexuals and gay
men and lesbian women, particularly gay men,
there's been a sense that God has sought to
punish these people.
And the warped perception that this
is a divine intervention in some way to punish
a select group is of course a preposterous and
ludicrous distortion of the facts, the plain
fact of which is that the AIDS epidemic is -
the vectors of transmission of the AIDS
epidemic are not strictly homosexual. Indeed,
they're widely heterosexual, as can be readily
perceived by anybody familiar with this
disease.
So that unfortunately as a result
of the AIDS epidemic and the fright that it
engendered, there have been vicious attacks on
4543
gay men. We have in this very chamber someone
who suffered such an attack who happens to be
HIV positive and who was brutally beaten. And
I think that Senator Duane has shared with you
his personal experiences in this matter. And
we could have no more living proof of the need
for this type of bill than having one of our
colleagues on the receiving end of this type
of warped behavior.
Now I want to pay special tribute
to Governor Pataki as well, since the
Governor's people have drafted the bill that's
before us. As is well known, since 1988 I had
a bill of my own on this. I've yielded to the
Governor's bill, which is somewhat broader.
And I may say that the Assembly has
passed a bill which is available to be
integrated with this bill. And I am confident
that there will be no problem in a conference
procedure in melding these bills into one that
we'll readily agree upon, which the Governor
will be happy and prepared to sign.
I want to emphasize one important
feature of the bill, which would require that
state law enforcement agencies keep statistics
4544
on bias incidents. It is exceptionally
important that society have an awareness of
the scope and extent of bias crime, because it
is only through such an awareness that it can
be adequately combated.
Frankly, it's that awareness, I
think, and the rising incidence of such crimes
in the presence of general crime declines
which has caused this house to recognize that
it is time that we do something specific to
address this.
Some may regard it as a symbolic
action. But whether you believe it to be
symbolic or pragmatic in its application, it
will have the same effect of sending a strong
signal to those who would consider
perpetrating a hate crime that this is out of
bounds in our society and is simply forbidden
and will not be tolerated. And, should you do
something of this sort, you will face a prison
sentence far longer than what you would
otherwise face had you not committed the crime
with bias.
Now, let me also say that I think
there are inherent protections in this bill.
4545
The question is how does a judge or a jury
ascertain whether bias was involved in a
crime. The proof must be very carefully
ascertained. It cannot be done on the basis
of hearsay or bland assumptions. There must
be definite evidence that the individual who
perpetrated the crime had in mind to
perpetrate it against an individual of a
specific class or group against which there
was prejudice or bias.
In the absence of such ironclad
evidence, these penalties should not apply
because they are indeed severe and it would be
a misapplication of justice for that to be
done.
Mr. President, let me conclude with
these few brief personal thoughts, if I may.
As an individual who had lost relatives in the
Holocaust myself, I obviously have a
heightened sense of the importance of society
awakening in ample time to deal with this type
of hatred which can, if allowed to spread,
become a conflagration and an epidemic of
uncontrollable proportions.
What we seek to do is to put out
4546
these fires before they can spread. And
that's exactly the intent of the bill, which
has a sharp point on it aimed precisely at the
individual crimes of violence and hatred which
unfortunately still occur with all too great
frequency in society.
So make no mistake about it, this
is a landmark bill. It's the first time in
anyone's memory that sexual orientation has
been specifically mentioned. But it is not a
bill, I would assure you, that relates solely
to that by any means.
Indeed, I would remind you that
Cardinal O'Connor before his untimely death
asked me to come to see him in his office. In
the course of that interview with him he said
that he was deeply concerned not only about
hate crimes directed at gay and lesbian people
but against Jews and Catholics and others who
had been assaulted. He was troubled by the
attacks on Catholic churches as well as Jewish
synagogues, on gay men as well as nongay men,
and indeed troubled by anything that smacked
of prejudice and bias.
The Cardinal was in his own way a
4547
towering figure. I suspect if there were ever
a saint on earth, he may well qualify as that
person. And tragically, although it was his
intention to do what he could to get behind
this bill in some appropriate fashion, he died
before he could implement that wish.
But let me just say that his
involvement in this and that of other
statesmanlike figures in this chamber strike
me as being a convocation of some of the great
minds and great people we've ever dealt with
in my experience of 32 years in the Senate.
I thank again the Majority Leader
and all of you who have been involved in this
effort, to say to you simply that I think
we've done something which is both noble in
intent and practical in application. And it's
my fervent wish that this will help to banish
the hideousness of hate crimes and bias from
the State of New York and hopefully, by
example, other major areas of the nation.
Thank you very much, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Connor.
SENATOR CONNOR: Thank you, Mr.
4548
President.
And thank you, Senator Goodman, for
your explanation of the bill. There's really
little need to go into the specifics of what's
in the bill after that fine articulation of
the content of the bill.
But obviously the bill is bigger
than the four corners on which it's printed,
and its meaning and significance is larger
than the four square corners that encompass it
in bill copy.
The first bias or anti-bias-crime
bill introduced in this house was by Senator
David Paterson more than a decade ago, after
the Howard Beach murder. There have been
subsequent versions put about. Governor Cuomo
was an ardent advocate for a hate-crimes bill.
Repeatedly over the years, the
Assembly passed a hate-crimes bill, and it was
the Senate that never before allowed a
hate-crimes bill that embraced all the
categories of people who are subject to this
kind of violence because of who they are to
come to this floor for a vote.
And more specifically, there was
4549
once an offer many years ago to do a -- by the
Senate to do a hate-crimes bill that embraced
race, gender, and other categories, but not
sexual orientation. And much to -- really,
much to everyone's who's concerned about this
eternal gratitude, members of the -- the then
members of the Black and Puerto Rican Caucus,
as well as other organizations from other
religious groups and so on, said, No, we won't
accept the protection if it's not extended to
everyone in every category of our citizens who
are subjected to this hate-directed violence.
So here we are many years later.
Better late than never. Senator Duane, since
he's joined us, has been an ardent advocate
for this hate-crimes bill or a similar
hate-crimes bill. I'm proud of my conference
that stands absolutely unanimously for this
legislation and has in the past, year after
year, stood unanimously in favor of motions to
move this bill to the floor so that we could
have had a vote much earlier than this.
When we last did that, Senator
Bruno, the Majority Leader, made a commitment.
As always, kept his word. And at long last,
4550
we have it.
So to certainly my colleagues in
the Democratic conference who have worked so
hard -- we've had hearings, we've had task
force hearings around the state. Indeed, we
had one scheduled for tomorrow that will now
be more on the order of a celebration.
To the first lady, Hillary Clinton,
we were gratified that she came to Albany
several weeks ago specifically to call for
this bill to be moved to the Senate floor and
passed by both houses. And so she
certainly -- the kind of focus she brought to
bear on this issue, that focused all New
Yorkers that New York alone on the East Coast,
with the exception of South Carolina, does not
have this kind of legislation.
Other places like Georgia, and
places considered much more conservative than
New York in its approach, have hate-crimes
bills. And we will soon be joining that
company of states. As Senator Goodman noted,
there are many, many others.
So to my colleagues in the
Democratic conference, I say once again that
4551
old political axiom is being proved, the one
attributed to Speaker Tip O'Neill. And that
is there is nothing in a legislative body that
you can't accomplish as long as you're willing
to let someone else take credit for it.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR CONNOR: And to my
colleagues in the Republican conference who
are supporting this, I say welcome aboard.
We're delighted that we're able to have this
vote. And we're delighted to know -- and I
certainly hope very swiftly any differences
with the Assembly, which I think are really
without any great substance, will be resolved
and we can actually have legislation to the
Governor, who I congratulate for putting this
bill in. And I congratulate him in advance
for responding to the calls of many, many New
Yorkers. And we're certain he will certainly
sign it.
So thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Maltese.
SENATOR MALTESE: Mr. President,
I first would like to make reference to a
4552
remark earlier by my distinguished colleague
Senator Goodman, who spoke of the majority
leader who in his words did such a courageous
act, the late Earl Brydges. I and other
members presently in this house know that
Senator Brydges had indicated many times
during his retirement that it was the decision
he regretted most of his legislative career.
I'd like to first of all say that I
believe all violent crimes should be punished
to the fullest extent of the law, regardless
of the category of the victim or the mind-set
of the perpetrator.
I'd like to just allude to the
comment by Senator Connor where he indicated
that those members of the gay and lesbian
community had indicated that they could not
avail themselves of the protection unless it
was extended to all categories.
Well, Mr. President, I don't find
myself in any of those categories. Most of
the members of this house do not find
themselves in those categories. Perhaps we
could prevail upon Senator Connor and the rest
of his distinguished colleagues to not avail
4553
themselves of this protection until it is
afforded to all of us.
And that is the point, Mr.
President. This is shades of Orwell in 1984.
We're all equal, and yet some are more equal
than others.
Why should a crime perpetrated upon
a victim, a helpless victim, if someone utters
a racial or ethnic or gender slur, be more
punished than any other crime? Why should
most, the vast majority of the people in my
district not deserve and not be afforded the
protection that is afforded under this bill?
There are some fifty lines of
categories and crimes in this bill. Why not
extend it and make it much easier and indicate
that all persons would be afforded the
protection of the bill and all penalties would
be suitably enhanced or increased?
And the reason is simple. Because
the members of the other house, the majority
in the other house, because many of the
members who are lauding this bill will not
vote for increased penalties for most violent
crimes, despite the best efforts of the Senate
4554
Majority here.
Are you less -- should a person, an
elderly women mugged in a street corner be
afforded less protection, should her
perpetrator receive less of a penalty than
those protected under this statute? And my
reply is no.
I'd like to allude to a statement
by the New York State Catholic Bishops which
we checked this morning -- and the statement
still stands -- and just read a couple of the
paragraphs. And this, by the way, is a
statement from New York State's Catholic
Bishops on the proposed legislation regarding
bias-related offenses. And I'll skip over
some of the preface.
"As Catholics, we share with the
proponents of anti-hate legislation a deep
concern over deplorable acts on individuals
based on their perceived membership in a
particular group or class. Indeed, at various
times in our 2,000 years as a church, it has
been Catholics who have been and are now the
targets of such violence.
"We empathize fully with all those
4555
who find themselves victimized by violent,
bias-motivated crimes. We stress that
bias-motivated violence against all persons,
whether based on race, color, religion, sex,
disability, age, national origin, or sexual
orientation, in speech or in action, is
reprehensible and deserves condemnation from
all whenever and wherever it occurs.
"We are also not convinced that
current anti-bias proposals would be effective
in deterring bias crimes. There are already
federal and state laws to punish such crimes.
"We suggest that primary
intervention through education and
rehabilitation is the best method of
addressing the ignorance and deep-seated
prejudices that underlie such actions, rather
than further criminalization of the
population.
"We are deeply sensitive to the
suffering that crime, particularly
bias-related crime, inflicts on victims and
their families, and to the long-term damage it
causes to the social fabric. Particularly
troubling is the high incidence of crime among
4556
young people, which raises disturbing
questions about current society and ominous
concerns about the future.
"We must commit ourselves ever more
to working as a society to enhance respect for
the rights of all and to identify and address
the root causes of crime. Through every
aspect of our pastoral ministry and through
the preaching of the word of God, we strive to
promote love, respect, and tolerance for every
human being, as created in the image of God."
I'd like to just quote one line
from Bishop Dailey, the bishop of the Diocese
of Brooklyn. The point that he makes, which
is just in a few words, is that the way to
approach the bias and ignorance of bigotry is
through the church, is through the teachings
at home. Bishop Dailey has said, "Those who
hold these bigoted views must in time come to
a conversion of heart."
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you, Mr.
President.
On May 24th of 1981, there were two
4557
young men riding through South Ozone Park,
Queens, on their bicycles. Their names were
Michael Phillips and Jerry Brown. They were
then attacked by a group of young people.
They were African-American; those young people
were white. In the attack, Michael Phillips
was murdered. Jerry Brown escaped.
Jerry Brown now lives in Toronto,
Canada, and says that he will never come to
the United States again. But he did come one
time, to testify at one of our
hate-crimes-legislation hearings.
In 1983, one of the individuals who
was part of the group that attacked these
young men -- who actually did not participate
in the actual attack, but was present -- a
young man named Danny Basile, came forward and
admitted to his part in the crime and named
the other individuals that he said were
involved. He named them in a preliminary
hearing in the Queens District Attorney's
office on May 5, 1983. At that time I was
working in the Queens District Attorney's
office.
Because of the directness of his
4558
statements about other people, his family
thought it better that he relocate and live in
Dallas, Texas. In December of 1983,
Mr. Basile came home to visit his family, and
on December 27, 1983, Danny Basile was
murdered, presumably by people who were upset
that he was testifying against his friends.
There was never a conviction in the
Michael Phillips murder. Mrs. Phillips, Mrs.
Mary Phillips, Michael Phillips' mother, does
not speak to me to this day, because she feels
that I was part of the same Legislature that
could not pass hate-crimes legislation and
could not find a way to convict someone for
the death of her son.
These cases are unfortunately
enriddled in the fabric of our country. Our
founding Constitution, Article I, Section 2,
clause 3, the part of the Constitution that
allows for slavery, was the manifestation of
hate through the actual belief that some
people were superior to other people.
We have had this problem eating
away at our democracy from its founding. What
to do about slavery was the entire issue of
4559
the Louisiana Compromise in 1803, the 17 years
of debate that culminated in the Missouri
Compromise of 1820, where slavery was
permitted south of the 36th parallel -- and
north of the 36th parallel, those areas in
this country would be free.
The fight continued through the
abolitionist movement to the Compromise of
1850, the Compromise of 1854, the
Kansas-Nebraska Act, and eventually the Dred
Scott case, which people felt continued the
allowance of slavery, but actually the Dred
Scott case just said that an African-American
couldn't sue in a United States federal court
because African-Americans at that time were
considered to be three-fifths of a person.
Actually, it was three-fifths of a
man. We weren't even giving women credit in
those days for having any real meaning in this
country.
So the separation of people, the
systemic discrimination of people, from the
Irish to the Jews to the Italians, to every
single ethnic group that came to this country,
became unfortunately as American as apple pie.
4560
It has always been something that we have
never addressed as a society.
Those attacks on individuals
because of their race, their color, their
ancestry, their national origin, their age or
disability, their sex or their sexual
orientation, those are always the cases that
attack, as Senator Goodman said, the community
of people, in addition to the pain that
individuals actually feel.
And so that's what we've come here
to try to address today. In 1987, when I
first examined our history of legislation, it
was interesting to note at that particular
time that the New York State Senate and the
New York State Assembly, our Legislature in
New York, had never even passed the
state-accompanying legislation that had been
passed by several other states to the federal
Civil Rights Act of 1964. In those days I
wondered aloud if this body could even pass
the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964.
When we think in terms of that
period, we remember that Michael Griffith, a
young man walking through Howard Beach after
4561
his car broke down, was chased and eventually
died as a result of the actions of a mob of
people who attacked him simply because he was
black.
We drafted that legislation in
1987. And at that time, even the leaders in
the gay and lesbian community were willing to
let that bill pass because they felt that at
least somebody would get protection from what
would be hate crimes.
Fortunately that bill -- in a
way -- didn't pass, because it would have been
a hate-crimes-relief bill that had hate built
right into it, because we would have been
eliminating gay and lesbian citizens from that
protection and consideration.
And so I'd like to thank the chair
of the Black and Puerto Rican Legislative
Caucus in that year, 1987, Roger Green, for
being the one who brought the message to those
of us who were in that caucus that we could
not allow for any such hate-crimes legislation
to continue.
In 1989 the New York Post, with a
reporter by the name of Joel Nicholson, did a
4562
survey: 57 of the 61 Senators in this chamber
said that they would be in favor of some type
of hate-crimes protection. But yet the bill
did not pass.
When the governor at the time,
Cuomo, introduced his bill, he called it
antibias legislation. And we found through
surveys over the years that in spite of the
well-intended legislation that Governor Cuomo
offered, the euphemistic term "bias
legislation" confused the public, and people
couldn't really tell you how they felt about
it until you asked them about hate crimes,
which was the way the bill was originally
introduced.
It is now the day when that bill
will pass. And I would like to thank Senator
Bruno for honoring his commitment that he made
right here in this chamber and bringing this
bill before the house.
I would say that I'm somewhat
disappointed that there isn't a lot more
enthusiasm about what this type of legislation
can actually do. Because we're not only
trying to diminish the actions of perpetrators
4563
of this crime, we're also trying to interest
law enforcement in the need to prosecute
people who manifest their hatred in violence
against other citizens.
We protect people who are robbing
banks from excessive force taken by law
enforcement or personnel who are trying to
stop them.
And so we need to protect everyone,
no matter how we feel about them, but really
to go even beyond that and address what is the
reason that we have these hatreds toward other
people because of how they conduct their lives
or what they look like or where they're from.
The fact is we have 23 continuing
world conflicts right now that are ethnically
derived. In World War II, we had countries
fighting each other and praying to the same
Pope.
This issue, more than any other, is
one that gets beneath and beyond the
sensibilities of individuals. And if the
nexus of how to stop crime and how to create
honor in people's hearts begins in the church,
then maybe it does. But it doesn't end to the
4564
exclusion of the law.
A little while ago Senator Maltese
talked about the fact that little old ladies
in his district could be attacked. They're
protected under this legislation. Everyone in
this state, everyone in this jurisdiction is
protected from the violence that could be
manifested by others hating them, because they
would be a member of one of these protected
classes.
The fact is that this type of
legislation is the most necessary of all
anticrime or penalty-oriented legislations,
because it is the most rooted of all crimes
that we see committed. And that is why I am
glad to see it come before us today.
I want to thank those from the
Anti-Defamation League and all of the groups
that came together to have the Hate Crimes
Coalition, because about ten to twelve years
ago some of us used to feel that this was an
issue that was only felt in the minority
communities around this state. They came
forward to make us understand that we were
wrong.
4565
And I particularly want to thank
the director of the Anti-Defamation League in
New York, Howie Katz, for his persistent and
unending work on this particular issue.
I want to thank the former Minority
Leader Manfred Ohrenstein, who once carried
this bill; former State Senator Catherine
Abate; and also the Minority Leader right now,
Senator Connor, who has always made this a
priority in his list of issues to try to get
addressed before this house.
I also want to thank Senator Tom
Duane, whose resilient effort on this bill has
actually turned me from being the cynic in
this house to actually believing that we can
get something done around here once in a
while. And it doesn't even matter whose name
is on it. Years from now, that will not make
a difference.
What may make a difference to the
families of Michael Griffith and Yankel
Rosenbaum, who was killed in August of 1991 in
Crown Heights and Yusef Hawkins, who was
killed in Bensonhurst in 1989, and Julio
Rivera, who was killed in Brooklyn in 1991,
4566
and to all of those who escaped death but were
violated by the anger and the actions of other
people who hated them for the least of all
reasons, it might provide some kind of relief
and at least the understanding that we as a
society are starting to address the issues
that go to the very core of our existence and
the very being of our persons.
We are certainly not finished when
we pass this legislation. We still have to
compile statistics. We know that hate crimes
have trebled in the gay and lesbian community.
We know that hate crimes have doubled in the
Jewish community against these particular
victims.
And we know that this is
unfortunately something that we are going to
have to attack from all levels of society and
not to in any way try to promote the
distinction that this is separate from any
other type of situation that needs to be
addressed by the law.
We protect police officers and
corrections officers because when they are
attacked, the fabric of our society is
4567
attacked, because they are pillars of the
institution of our democracy.
We protect cemeteries and religious
artifacts and religious edifices from the
violence of others, because it's not just like
vandalizing a vacant building. All the dreams
and sometimes the hopes and the spiritual
desires of a community are vested in their
cemeteries and in their religious buildings.
So when you attacked them, you went out of
your way to send a message to that community.
Now we as a society are going to go
out of our way to make sure that you pay for
it in a way beyond what would have been the
regular sentence for an ancillary type of
crime.
And so we hope that this will be a
prelude, a catalyst for other legislation that
will hope to eliminate and eradicate the type
of hate and the type of anger that people
feel, and also the fact that they manifest it
in violence.
And we hope that sometime we'll be
able to come back here and recognize that the
step we took today was a step in a direction
4568
that really made our society build up to what
was hopefully the intent of the formulators of
our original Constitution when they hoped that
they could guarantee, in the Declaration of
Independence, that all men and women in this
society would be treated equally.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Marchi.
SENATOR MARCHI: Mr. President, I
listened with -- at the time of the debate
that we had on abortion many years ago, seated
right next to me was Senator Clinton Dominick.
And we both faced each other on that bill.
And I remember the circumstances well when the
majority leader, Earl Brydges at that time,
wept over the decision that was made.
It was not a mistake to bring the
issue to the public. And before this, the -
our distinguished Majority Leader helped in
the process to bring this to the attention of
the membership and requesting that we address
it.
But the quality and the judgment
that we make must be reflected in our basic
mores on what is effective law and what is
4569
likely to paper over and layer a patina of
moralistic expression without really tackling
the basic essentials of what's involved here.
I remember that we debated this
last year, and I remember we heard from
Senator Santiago; from you, Senator Duane.
And I asked you at that time was there any
way -- he had a legitimate argument for a
crime that had been inflicted on him.
The failure there was not the
presence or absence of hate, it was the
presence of hatred in the form of violence.
And shame on those who ran out on their
obligation. Law enforcement must be taken
more seriously.
We indict, out of every hundred
people, I understand there are only four or
five that actually end up serving any time at
all.
Now, I wonder. Most of the nation
has hate crime legislation on the books. And
every state on the Atlantic seaboard, except
New York and, I believe, Georgia -
SENATOR LACHMAN: South Carolina.
SENATOR MARCHI: South Carolina,
4570
I'm sorry. Thank you. They're the only two.
Is there any less hatred in New
Jersey? Is there any less hatred in
Massachusetts? Has anybody paid any penalty
for the violation of this principle? Go right
out to the Pacific Ocean. Do we have any
evidence at all that we can consider here that
this is a step that will serve us well in the
enforcement of simple morality, simple decency
towards our neighbor?
We're exhorted to love our neighbor
as we love ourselves. Does this have any
demonstrable application? I suggest that
there is nothing -- I don't think anyone can
bring us any statistical evidence or changes
in the public mores of these states around the
country that pledge their allegiance to a myth
and diverts us from the real problem that
crime that is committed must be punished.
That is essential. That is basic.
And whether it's Matthew Shepard's
or anybody else's experience, those people in
this state, they would be available to capital
punishment. But we've had capital punishment,
despite my protestations, for several years.
4571
Has anybody been executed? I don't think so.
I stand to be corrected, but I don't believe
anybody has been executed in the state of New
York. Nor am I advocating it.
But that is an indication to me
that around this country we are very -
there's a propensity to embrace these
principles, principles of morality that go to
the essence of our personality as creatures of
a divine God who has given us -- we have an
immortal soul. We have to confront our
destiny at some point. These are profound,
spiritual considerations. We're all subject
to that.
And we do have our own laws that
should be enforced, which is a compact among
people to punish that conduct when it results
in violence and force, when it results in
discrimination against people. But these are
demonstrable on a very tangible basis.
So we have nothing, nothing at all
to show. I know that in capital punishment,
for instance, the pleas that I heard at that
time that it was a terrible -- well, I voted
to abolish it. Then all of a sudden it was
4572
back again.
Well, you go to the states that
have capital punishment. Well, there's one
state that has had 167 executions within the
last 20 years. But the number of the
homicides makes us look like angels here in
New York.
And that's true from state after
state after state. The ferocity of the
punishment does not determine. It's the fact
that a person has elected to do violence to a
neighbor, they have inflicted pain and
suffering. And that they should pay.
Until we have that determination,
we're not going -- we're going to get the
mixed results. Why don't you ask your friends
over in New Jersey, in Connecticut, in Rhode
Island, in Maine and Vermont, Pennsylvania.
Do you think they're going to tell you
anything different? They all have this law.
Has it made a difference, a tangible vision
that we can see some change in public mores?
I know that Senator Padavan had an
excellent statement last year: That is the
product of a total culture. What we learn in
4573
the family, what we learn in our churches,
what we learn in our synagogues, in communal
gatherings, these are those that formulate and
shape human attitudes. But when that thing is
transgressed and violence takes place, then we
seem to walk the other way. It becomes
uncomfortable.
So I really don't -- I know that
reference was made earlier in the debate that
Cardinal O'Connor had supported this
legislation -- not this specific bill. But
there's a letter that he sent me on April 5th
that he disagreed for the reasons that were
assigned by Senator Maltese on the kind of
legislation and not closing the door.
Are there steps, are there things
that we can do of a positive nature to share
this value and reinforce this value system
with our children as they grow, with our
society as they interact? I submit you're not
going to do it with this bill.
I certainly have nothing but praise
for the people who have sponsored this bill,
because we know that they're candidly and
sincerely committed to a principle that we all
4574
share. I don't think there's anyone here
within range of my voice that doesn't share
the feelings that are reflected by Senator
Duane or anybody else who's sponsoring this.
But it doesn't answer the question.
The question is, do we enforce the laws that
we have? Is this a leavening agent that has
worked wonders in Connecticut, Illinois,
Kentucky, or Minnesota? I don't know of any
state in the union that has profited by
embracing this principle. And most states
have.
So the best I can say for it, it's
at least an expression of a feeling that the
people have. And that the shapers of policy
feel that hate is a bad thing. Well, I would
hope that this is -- we don't have to enshrine
this on tablets. Of course it is. So if it's
designed to do that, maybe it has some value.
But it has no demonstrable value.
Nowhere has this made any difference at all,
not one scintilla. Can you cite any examples
where this has worked beneficially in
diminishing crime, in diminishing an
expression of hatred? I don't think so.
4575
I am available to persuasion. The
only manifestations I had of hate were some of
the letters I received when I voted against
the motion to discharge. And some of them
said, "Well, I hope you change your mind."
You know, a few of them. And some of them
said, "Well, I have to hate somebody who
doesn't hate hate."
Well, you know, we're in a circular
position nobody ever resolves. I've never
hated anybody in my life, and I don't expect
to. And I don't think most of you, I would
say all of you, have the engagement of hatred
that would move you to commit a crime.
So I would prayerfully suggest that
the example we have around the country doesn't
help us at all, at all. And I stand to be
turned down on this if you give me examples in
other states, in other jurisdictions, where
this has worked something positive.
So why don't we keep our eye on
those affirmative builders of character -
good schools, no inhibition about sharing
values that are common to all of us, respect
for each other, respect as we reflect it here
4576
even in the conduct of our interrelationships.
All of these things are very valuable.
They're all positive. And they go to the
formation of a conscience. And it has
enormous benefits in all directions.
But I do hope that -- however you
vote, I'm sure you're voting your conscience,
and I respect that. And I certainly respect
those who have sponsored this bill and feel
that it offers something. But it doesn't. It
does not. This is false gold, iron pyrites or
whatever you want to call it. But the main -
we have in our penal code and in our
procedures an attempt to be specific about the
objective and how we are about to achieve it.
So you probably have a notion of
how I feel about this bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Paterson, why do you rise?
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
would Senator Marchi yield for a brief
question?
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Marchi, do you yield for a question?
SENATOR MARCHI: Yes.
4577
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, on
May 9, 1989, the state senate in Connecticut,
which at the time had 21 members, passed a
hate-crimes legislation. It already been
passed by their house of representatives. And
the governor signed it into law, Connecticut's
hate protection legislation, in June of 1989.
On the tenth anniversary of that,
the bias unit of the attorney general's office
in Connecticut reports hate-motivated crimes
down 15 percent. Would that be an example of
where one might point to the legislation as
being somewhat helpful?
SENATOR MARCHI: Well, I'm glad
you've done your homework, Senator. And I had
every expectation that you did.
No, they say that it's gone down by
X percentage -- or even if it was cut in half,
has their homicide rate gone down? Do we know
what went into the tabulation and the
categorizing of crimes? No, we don't.
I mean, it doesn't stand up under
critical analysis. If you tell me that
4578
there's been a dramatic drop in homicides in
the state of Connecticut, then perhaps there
may be a correlation. But I don't know of
anything like this around the country.
We have a problem that sometimes
fluctuates with the economics and
permissiveness in a society, but we have no
hard facts that we can put in the bank,
really, the moral bank, to indicate that we
indeed have had a solution to this problem.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Padavan.
SENATOR PADAVAN: Thank you, Mr.
President. I'll be very brief.
As you all know, today here in
Albany we have designated Disability Awareness
Day. One of the significant portions of this
bill highlights those who are disabled,
singling them out -- and rightly so -- for the
special protection and attention they deserve.
And so I rise to bring that point
to your attention. And I'm sure I need not do
that, but for those who had not taken note of
it.
And also use it as an opportunity
4579
to present to the house and the members some
very fine people who are here visiting us
today, 11 youngsters from St. Mary's Hospital
for Children, who are here visiting us in
Albany, watching us. And they came at a very,
very important time, as I told them when we
talked before the session began, here in
Albany to learn about our Legislature, to see
what we do and how we do it and to travel
around the Capitol.
And they're led by some outstanding
people who are staff members at St. Mary's -
Laura Bonilla and Mark Hoffacker and Beryl
Williams and Rosemary McNamara and Charlie
Cunningham and Ann Shirrell and Yi Sung, who's
a registered nurse.
So I would like all of you to join
me in saying welcome to these young people who
are here to my left and to my right, and some
up in the gallery.
Thank you, Mr. President.
(Applause.)
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Lachman.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Mr. Chairman, I
4580
believe that my learned colleagues will
appreciate the fact that I've eliminated
three-quarters of my remarks because of
previous statements by speakers. But I do
want to speak briefly.
I support this hate-crimes bill
because I believe firmly that no person or
institution should be the target of a crime on
account of bias. And that the law, when
enacted, must come down hard, very hard, on
people who perpetuate such crimes.
This bill has nothing whatsoever to
do with the lifestyles or personal practices
or special rights of any individual or group.
Nor does the bill confer in any way special
rights on any individual or group.
It simply sends a message, a most
important message, a clear message that
society will not tolerate the commission of
criminal conduct motivated by bias against any
human being, especially those who have
suffered as victims from this bias from the
earliest days of our republic. And that is a
message which I completely and fully endorse.
But others, more prestigious people
4581
than me, have also endorsed this position.
Mr. Chairman, I commend the Governor, who has
obviously patterned this bill on the Wisconsin
versus Mitchell antibias bill which reached
the United States Supreme Court in 1993. The
majority decision, the nine to zero decision,
was written by Chief Justice William
Rehnquist, appointed chief justice of the
United States by President Ronald Reagan, and
who is probably the most conservative chief
justice in three-quarters of a century.
The decision was also approved by
every member of the U.S. Supreme Court,
including a man who is today considered one of
the brightest and yet one of the most
conservative members of the U.S. Supreme
Court, Justice Antonin Scalia, also appointed
to the U.S. Supreme Court by President Ronald
Reagan.
Now, these justices acted on a
nonpartisan manner, just as I hope today we
will act on a nonpartisan manner. They acted
in dealing with upholding the Wisconsin law.
This bill before us today in New York is also
a nonpartisan bill that condemns bias crimes
4582
and nothing else.
In 1993, the U.S. Supreme Court
said that bias crimes will not be tolerated in
the state of Wisconsin. We today, in the year
2000, have the opportunity to agree with the
United States Supreme Court and say that bias
crimes will never again be condoned in the
State of New York.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Balboni.
I'm sorry, Senator Stavisky, why do
you rise?
SENATOR STAVISKY: Oh, there's a
list? I'm sorry.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Balboni.
SENATOR BALBONI: Thank you, Mr.
President.
When I first arrived at the State
Assembly in 1990, I would regularly debate
Steve Sanders on this bill. And the reason
for the debate was the reason that has been
heard around this chamber, that the bill
creates an artificial justice system: Why
4583
should anyone get more time than someone else
if they're injured the same, if the same act
of violence is done against them?
And then I believe it was 1996, I
sat and I had a very long talk with my good
friend Steve Sanders. And I began to
understand that there is a place in our law
for making statements. There is a place in
our law to teach our children and the
generations of children that are coming behind
us that there are certain things we cannot
tolerate.
It's very easy to be here in this
chamber and to consider the niceties and what
a wonderful life we have. But there's another
reality out there. There are communities in
this state and in this nation who are fearful.
You have communities that don't trust police
officers, and police don't trust them. You
have communities that worry about religious
actions against them, religious intolerance
actions, religious violence actions.
We would like to think that we are
one people. We are not. There's a great
divide that needs to be addressed. I'm not
4584
sure that the deterrent in this bill is
actually going to save somebody from injury.
I'm not sure if this scheme is actually going
to eradicate any acts of violence.
But I know this. This is a bill
that we're doing today because we're taking a
step to say we cannot tolerate it. And for
this chamber, for leaders like Joe Bruno to
come to this issue with thoughtful
considerations and to consider a path that
will take us together is very, very important.
Senator Bruno, I know that this was
difficult. A lot of things came into your
considerations. This is an act of courage and
leadership. And leadership is not always
about being popular, it's not always about
doing things that everybody agrees with. It's
usually doing things that people don't always
agree with you on. This is leadership, and
this is right for the state.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Out of deference
to my colleagues' times, we'd like to ask,
4585
while we're having this discussion continued,
for an immediate meeting of the Rules
Committee in Room 332.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
There will be an immediate meeting of the
Rules Committee in Room 332.
Senator Hoffmann.
SENATOR HOFFMANN: Thank you, Mr.
President.
I'm proud to have my name on this
bill as a cosponsor along with Senators
Goodman, Lack and Spano. And I too want to
thank our Majority Leader, Senator Bruno, for
making this day possible.
This is indeed one of those
momentous occasions when we should be proud of
the step that we're taking. Not because it's
another piece of legislation, but because it's
part of that enormous process by which America
cleanses itself of prejudices in a darker
time.
State by state, as our Constitution
has ordered, we are making the changes that
will bring us into an era of enlightenment.
And it's no longer acceptable to simply ignore
4586
the fact that there is hatred. It may not be
hatred on a grand scale that it once was, but
it's still there. And it's no longer
acceptable to ignore prejudice or all forms of
bias, no matter mow minuscule they may seem to
people who are not affected by them.
It is incumbent upon each of us as
an American, and certainly in this arena, as
New York State representatives, it is
incumbent on us to find ways that we can help
bring about that equality on this country was
originally founded.
I've had a unique opportunity over
these last few days to be with a group of
young people that were embarked on a process
to study the civil rights movement in hopes of
learning something from that experience to
bring home that would make them better
citizens.
Back in 1996, I started a program
by which I take high school students while
they're juniors from Central New York down to
Mississippi. The reason we go to Mississippi
is because I was a civil rights worker 30
years ago myself. And I remember how it
4587
changed me.
And when I found myself face to
face with people who had encountered the most
unspeakable criminal actions directed against
them and yet had no opportunity to seek
justice, I found that I wanted to become more
involved in this system of ours, this great
democracy, in an attempt to bring a change to
some of those inequities.
And it's comforting for me today to
know that we are still in that process, that
today's action is yet another step that will
ensure equality for Americans. I like it when
I hear people talking about this as a symbolic
measure. If in fact this is a symbolic
measure, it means that we have really come a
long way. And if it is only necessary to have
it there to remind people that hatred is not
tolerated, then we can be very proud.
I'm not so sure it's a purely
symbolic gesture. I recognize some of the
things that have happened. I listened with
real interest to what Senator Paterson was
describing. Once again, he's shown that he is
a scholar as well as a gentleman, because he
4588
can recount with chapter and verse and
tremendous specificity the situations that
have occurred here in New York State that
clearly indicate that hatred does still exist.
But we are taking a step today that
says we will not allow that hatred to take
place. We are directing people in other
branches of government and in law enforcement
to take steps to prevent hatred from taking
place. We are telling young people that we as
a state government are still committed to
rooting out that evil that we know is hatred
wherever we see it and any way that we can.
This is much bigger than simply a
piece of legislation. It marks the changing
of minds of many, many people and a continuing
process in the cleansing of our country of
evil and hatred.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Coppola.
SENATOR COPPOLA: Yes, Mr.
President, very briefly.
It was just a few weeks ago that
Senator Bruno said that he'd be back with the
bill. And I want to applaud him for keeping
4589
his word. Because this is very important to
the State of New York, that we join the other
48 states that already have a hate-crime bill
on record.
The fact of the matter is this is
not a Republican bill or a Democratic bill,
this is a human, human bill for all of the
state of New York. When we leave our
synagogues, when we leave our Protestant
churches and our Catholic churches, we all
pray for one another that there's peace and no
violence out there. Well, this will help.
This sends a message.
And people have, I think, concerns
that this bill won't be powerful enough, that
this won't prevent the violence that's out
there. Well, believe it or not, when the Ten
Commandments were handed down, we've had
violence ever since. But the fact is, we have
to keep working at it. We have to keep
striving for peace. We have to take to one
another, working together as one.
And that's what this bill does.
We're working together as one, no matter how
opinionated people feel about it. But the
4590
fact is, there is violence out there. And
this Senate today is showing a tremendous
amount of leadership.
Again, I want to applaud Senator
Bruno. I can understand the feeling and the
anxiety that Senator Paterson must have had
all of these years when he started way back
when. The leadership under Senators Connor
and Duane, for their persistence.
But Senator Paterson explained from
his heart how he felt about the incidents that
took place 11 years ago and that his hands
were tied when he tried to do something about
it. And I think we should all understand
that. And that's what's important today.
So again, I'm proud to be a member
of this Senate, and I'm proud to be voting on
this bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator M. Smith.
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: Thank you
very much, Mr. President.
As one of the newer members of this
body, I think I have the distinct pleasure in
experiencing what I consider to have been some
4591
very significant things over the last two
months. There's been some very dramatic
sessions. There's been some very dramatic
events that have occurred in the entire state
government as it relates to this body and our
sister body in the Assembly.
But I can tell you, Mr. President,
there is nothing more significant than to be a
part of this august body during a time in
which I believe history will record that we
have done something today that has never been
done before in this body -- and that is bring
forward a particular piece of legislation that
will not only impact on the lives of many of
those who have felt to this day they have not
gotten their fair, just due as relates to hate
crimes, but will also represent a group of
individuals who for so long have been
considered to be individuals who do not
deserve to have the kind of significant laws
on the books that will protect their rights
and protect them as individuals.
I am extremely honored and pleased
to be a part of this body at this point in
time, because I know when history records what
4592
we have done today, there will be many of
those who will look to see who was a part of
it and who were the individuals who raised
their hand aye for this particular bill.
I also want to tip my hat and say
to Senator Paterson, who had the foresight
years ago to introduce legislation of this
kind -- and as he said during his eloquent
statement, there were those who looked at him
kind of cynically. I must say to him that he
has broad shoulders, and he has the fortitude
and the foresight to bring forth this piece of
the legislation then, and so also he should be
credited to the fact that he has still brought
forth this particular piece of legislation
now.
To my colleague to the right, and
my most honored friend, who I have had the
fortunate ability to sit next to and hear many
times his concern on a matter that I think
heretofore many people have not offered the
type of respect nor response to, I am happy
for him today. I am happy for him because we
have in so many words said to him and to many
of his friends and associates that we respect
4593
his opinion, we respect him as an individual,
and he as well as individuals around this
state deserve to be treated fairly in all
different points of view of life.
Also, I would say that to everybody
in this body, as one again who has the
privilege to be sort of a new -- and yet an
outsider, to a degree, because I have not had
the experience to be a part of so many things
that you have done, I will tell you what you
are doing for the citizens of this state
today. You are making them believe that they
have a voice in what goes on in this state.
There is a great deal of cynicism
that arises throughout this state around
politics and those who are involved in it.
There are many who tend to believe that they
have no influence in all that occurs in bodies
like this as well as in the Assembly, in the
Council down in the City. But today we are
proving to them that not only do we have a
conscience, but we are also at a new level of
consciousness, and that new level of
consciousness says that they also count.
So it gives me great pleasure and
4594
it gives me an honor to have the opportunity
to speak today on this particular bill. And I
am so happy that this will be the day that
history will record that we have adopted a
hate-crimes bill.
Thank you very much, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Hevesi.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you, Mr.
President. On the bill.
About two weeks ago in Senator
Stavisky's district, just north of my
district, there was a terrible crime committed
that most are familiar with that was not a
hate crime, where two individuals went into a
Wendy's and shot seven people in the head in
the course of robbing the store of $2,000,
killing five of them and seriously injuring
the other two.
Not a hate crime. And in addition
to just the scope of the crime creating such
an impression with everybody, I believe what
struck a chord in so many who have followed
that tragic case is that the crime was simply
mindless. Absolutely unnecessary, mindless.
4595
That's what hate crimes are,
absolutely mindless. Just like what happened
in February in Senator Libous's district on
the campus of SUNY Binghamton, when three
Asian-American students were attacked by three
members of the wrestling team because they
were Asian-American and no other reason. No
other reason. One of them had a skull
fracture and a concussion and took days and
days to recuperate in the hospital.
So I have heard the discussion and
the debate here today and have participated in
it since I've been a member of the Senate and
have had the opportunity to vote on our
motions to discharge numerous times. And I
would say the following.
To those who believe that this is
more perception than reality, I suggest to you
that the perception of somebody who now will
languish in a prison cell for a longer period
of time because of his mindless stupidity,
that person is not going to be the victim of
perception, that person will be the victim of
the reality that we created for them here
today.
4596
And I know it was suggested earlier
by Senator Maltese that it somehow
disenfranchises individuals who are not the
victims of hate crimes, that are victims of
other crimes, if we provide for additional
penalties for those who commit bias crimes.
And I would suggest to Senator
Maltese the following. If he believes that
the current penalties for assault and arson
and rape and what have you are insufficient,
then bring us the legislation to increase
those penalties, particularly for recidivists,
for second-time offenders, and I'll vote yes
on all of those bills.
But don't suggest to me that we
can't deter criminal behavior in the area of
bias crimes by providing these additional
penalties. And Senator Padavan provided the
evidence of it today.
But I'll go you one even further.
I believe that even if the legislation that
we're going to pass today will not be a
deterrent for bias crimes, that we should pass
it anyway, because bias crimes are the most
heinous, ugly, sick crimes that can be
4597
committed. And they are almost always
committed by stupid, ignorant people who are
ascribing blame on someone else to compensate
for their own failures and shortcomings.
And as a consequence, and because
we live in the most diverse state of any state
in the United States -- or anywhere else in
the planet, frankly, and my county is the most
diverse county in the world -- that for us to
fail to send a message that we're going to
sufficiently punish -- forget deterrence for a
second -- punish people who commit these
horrendous, horrendous crimes as a consequence
of their own stupidity, that's just wrong.
And we've been wrong with it for the last 11
years.
And so, you know, I commend Senator
Bruno for keeping his word and bringing this
legislation to the floor today. I would wish
he had made that promise years and years ago.
Because people have been victimized as a
consequence of our failure.
So the message today is, the
message today is bigots of New York State,
look out. Because we're not going to tolerate
4598
it anymore. And if you commit an A
misdemeanor and you did it because somebody
was Jewish or Catholic or Asian or what have
you, now you've just committed an E felony.
Longer jail sentence. If you committed an E
felony, it's now a D felony. And on and on
and on and on.
And we're sending the message to
all the bigots out there, New York State is
not going to tolerate it. You want to attack
somebody because they're gay? We weren't able
to, through education or through your
upbringing, prevent that? Okay, that's
unfortunate, but now you're going to deal with
the consequences. The consequences are higher
penalties. Higher penalties.
And for all those people who would
commit hate crimes because they weren't
thinking or what have you, let the word go
out. And the word will go out. Because when
the first series of people are prosecuted
under our new hate-crimes statute, you will
see in plain print in all the newspapers the
additional penalties, the longer terms of
incarceration that they'll be subject to. And
4599
they'll be sitting in jail. They'll be
sitting in jail.
And I believe it will be a
deterrent. And even if it's not a deterrent,
then to heck with all those people who
committed these terrible crimes for absolutely
no reason. We're sending the strongest
message possible today.
So now it's time for kudos, which
go to every member of the Democratic
conference who have been fighting for this for
so for very long, including Senator Lachman
and Senator Connor, Senator Paterson.
And most of all, Senator Duane, who
I must say his entire career has been
exemplary in terms of the courage that he has
demonstrated, fighting one obstacle, one
barrier after another, trailblazing, treading
on ground that people have not tread on that
came before him, just taking on issues that
are important to him, his constituents and the
entire constituency of the State of New York.
Tom Duane is a hero. He forced us
to recognize that we have to act.
And I commend everybody else who,
4600
even though they don't think it might be
effective, agreed to allow the vote to be
taken today. That's courageous in and of
itself. And it speaks to the imperative that
we should have in both the Senate and the
Assembly to open up the process a little bit
more, let democracy really reign true, and let
more bills come to the floor that everyone
will be able to have their input on and
consider. That's democracy.
Today's process of bringing it to
the floor shows that we have the votes to pass
this, that it has been the popular will of the
people of New York State to punish and deter
bias crimes for years and years and years.
And we just haven't done it.
And it took the advocacy of some
exceedingly courageous individuals -- not just
the legislators here, but all of the victims
who testified before task force committee
meetings and what have you that their crimes
could have been prevented and that they should
be more sufficiently punished than is allowed
under current law.
So, Senator Duane, hats off to you
4601
for all your work on this. This is not the
end. This will not stop bias crimes from
occurring. We need to educate. We need to
preach tolerance. We need to get into the
schools and make sure that children don't grow
up with racist tendencies, with bigoted
tendencies and what have you.
Because nobody is born a racist.
That is a learned behavior. Nobody is
prejudiced when they come out of the womb.
That is a learned behavior in every single
circumstance.
So why we would think that when you
have a punishment and public discourse and
debate about this learned behavior that it
wouldn't have an impact on individuals who are
predisposed to being racists or bigots or
prejudiced or hating gay people or blacks or
whites or whatever they are -- to think that
wouldn't have an impact is just wrong.
And we're going to see now. And
thank God for that. Because we can't
legislate common sense in this state, but we
sure as hell can make sure that individuals
who commit crimes based on their own stupidity
4602
and punish other people in this state just
because of who they are, which should be
celebrated instead of scorned, that those
people pay a heavy price.
That's what we're doing today. I
vote aye.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Stavisky.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Thank you, Mr.
President.
I too want to commend the people
who were responsible for bring this measure to
the floor, not only in this legislative body
but also those who contributed to the
education process of others.
There were young people here a few
minutes ago, and I think it is for them as
well that we debate to its fullest extent the
hate-crimes law.
Now, Senator Hevesi referred to the
terrible, terrible tragedy that occurred on
Main Street in Flushing, in my district. And
obviously this was not -- this was not a hate
crime.
But there was a crime that occurred
4603
several months ago, not very far away -- but
not in my district -- where an individual was
arrested for pasting Nazi stickers. Now, this
individual who was arrested, he's been charged
with a crime. Obviously he can't be charged
with a hate crime. But when he was arrested,
they found an assault weapon in his house and
information on how to make bombs. And this is
all part of the kind of person who will commit
a hate crime.
So I commend the people who were
here earlier from St. Mary's Hospital, a
hospital which I have visited on a number of
occasions. And they were able to see how a
legislative body, people on both sides of the
aisle, working cooperatively and
constructively, can enact a meaningful piece
of legislation.
I am, I guess, the third newest
member, but I'm very proud, Mr. President, to
be able to vote for this bill today.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
4604
Mr. President.
I commend many people for their
work in bringing this bill to the floor. But
I couldn't let it go without just responding
quickly to two things, one that my colleague
Senator Marchi said, and the other that my
colleague Senator Maltese said.
Senator Maltese said that he
wouldn't vote for any bill that attaches
greater penalties to victims of crime by
virtue of who they were. I would point out
that we've done that all the time.
My gosh, we increase penalties if
you assault a police officer. We've done
bills that increase penalties if you assault a
teacher. We increase penalties if you try to
defraud somebody who's over 65. If they're 64
years and 364 days, they don't hit the 65-year
threshold, it's a lesser penalty than the next
day when they're 65 years old.
We've done that all the time. We
create different categories of crime depending
on who the victim is and depending on what the
perpetrator knows about the victim. We've
done that all the time. This bill breaks no
4605
new ground in that area.
The second thing, and with respect
to Senator Marchi and Senator Maltese as well,
I guess I'm always astonished by the position
of the Catholic Conference on this bill. I
was taught in the Catholic schools that I went
to that it was in the mere formation in your
own mind of the hate that constituted
sinfulness. Whether you acted on that hate or
not was a different level of sin. But it was
the creation in your own mind, the intent in
your own mind that was the beginning of the
downward spiral towards sin.
And it seems to me that what this
bill says is that if you commit an ordinary
crime with that hate, with that intent, you
are going to be more severely punished.
I couldn't think of anything based
on my Catholic teaching that is more
consistent with the fundamental belief of the
Catholic Church than to pass this bill. Make
intent matter. If you hate someone, you have
already started down the road on that moral
path of decline.
All we're saying is in this bill if
4606
your conduct is motivated by that hate, it
should be punished in a greater way. I'm
astounded by the Church's seeming retreat from
that fundamental basis of our faith.
I'll address one final point and
sit down. I believe that this bill -- and I'm
going to vote in favor of it -- doesn't quite
go far enough. And I'll tell you why.
Senator Hevesi talked about it.
I'm concerned about big criminals,
but I'm also concerned about the little
criminal. I'm concerned about someone who
believes that carving a swastika into a park
bench in Brighton or putting it in the sand on
a beach in Mamaroneck is simply malicious
damage and not a crime of hate.
I'm concerned that someone who
walks into a cemetery and turns over only the
stones that have the Star of David on it, that
that's a mere trespass.
I'm concerned about someone who
sprays racial epithets on the walls of the
Roger Robach bathhouse in Charlotte in
Rochester, New York, and then what they're
charged with is being a graffiti artist.
4607
I'm amazed that someone who can
burn a cross on another person's lawn ends up
charged with trespassing.
And I'm also concerned, Senator
March, that someone in Brooklyn or Queens who
is cutting off the fingers of statues of the
Blessed Virgin Mary, that that is simply
malicious or disorderly conduct.
I would suggest that the one flaw
in this bill is that it doesn't quite go far
enough. It doesn't say to those who commit
trespasses by turning over only the Star of
David cemetery stones that that is not just
trespass, that's a hate crime, and that's a
criminal. That's someone who's being taught
at a young age that it's okay to do that to
personal property, and the leap from there to
committing a crime against a person is a small
jump.
I hope that the message we send
with this bill is that we will no longer
tolerate little haters. We will no longer
allow the seed of hate sown in the stereotypes
of the past to bloom into the rage, the venom,
and the hate that can destroy a society.
4608
We have to send a message to
everyone that even if you commit a hate crime
as a youth, that this is not a joke, it is not
funny. We as a society will not tolerate your
hate when you're young, we will not tolerate
if when you're old, we will not tolerate it
for minor crimes, we will not tolerate it for
major crimes.
To all those who have the seeds of
hate in their heart, I say to them beware, we
in this state will not tolerate your hatred in
its infancy or in its adulthood. It should
end with this bill becoming law.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you,
Mr. President. I will be brief. I think
we're coming to the conclusion of this debate.
And it's hard to believe, after
listening to all this, it took us 11 years to
do this. I think the holdup of this bill all
these years it's been passing the Assembly
really reflects the fact that we have in this
house ideological barriers to many commonsense
bills that will make the lives of New Yorkers
4609
better.
I hope the ideological barriers are
falling. It's no secret that for years we
could have passed a hate-crimes bill if we
were willing to take out gay people, if we
were willing to take out sexual orientation.
It is a tribute to Senator Paterson and the
other members of the Black and Hispanic Caucus
that they were not willing to settle for that.
But I think we have to, while we're
patting ourselves on the back on this, also
take an honest look at why it took so long for
this house to recognize that gay New Yorkers
exist and that prejudice against gay New
Yorkers exists. This is the first time, I
believe, that the statutes of the State of New
York will reflect that fact, which I think all
of us are aware of.
An ideology should not present us
from seeing reality. Gay people exist.
There's prejudice against them. It's now in
the statutes, and now maybe we can move
forward to get civil rights treatment,
domestic partner benefits, and all the other
rights and privileges that are our fundamental
4610
property as New Yorkers and as Americans.
I'm sorry it took 11 years. I'm
happy we're doing it today. I commend
everyone who's been so active on this. And
the good news is Senator Duane is not coming
to visit you anymore about this. The bad news
is he's still coming to visit you, but it's
about something else.
So with that, let me defer to my
colleague and commend him for his work on this
issue.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Mr.
President.
I don't know where my attackers are
today. I'm pretty sure that I would recognize
them if I saw them again, but I just don't
know where they are today. And for them, I
was just another queer left to bleed in an
emergency room.
You know, as my life has moved
along since then and I was eventually elected
to the Senate, I've wondered very often what I
would tell my attackers if the day ever came
4611
when the state enacted meaningful hate-crimes
legislation. And after much thought and
deliberation, I've come to some fairly simple
conclusions about what I would tell them.
First, this isn't strictly a happy
day or a day of celebration. In fact, it's
really more of a bittersweet day. Certainly
it's a day where we should celebrate our
accomplishment, and we should celebrate that
whether we're Democrats or Republicans. But
it's also a very, very sad day.
In fact, as I really think about
it, and as I've thought about it through the
years, I knew that it was going to be one of
the saddest days of my life as well. Because
today is a day that I and I think we as a
body -- and, when the bill is signed into law,
as a state and a society -- we're going to
have to finally acknowledge to ourselves and
the people in this state that there are those
of us there that are so fueled by, motivated
by hate and prejudice that people will still
be murdered, some will be raped, others
brutally attacked, some people will have their
houses burned down, and others will have their
4612
religious institutions desecrated.
This certainly isn't going to end
that. And for those who are consumed by the
hate that leads them to take part in this kind
of violence or perpetrate this kind of
violence, I'm also sad to say that they're
going to have to spend a good portion of their
lives behind prison walls.
And I also hope that we'll be able
to keep a place in our hearts for those who
are so damaged that for whatever reason
they've lashed out with hatred and violence
and been perpetrators. And that they, unlike
their victims, will be safe while they're
incarcerated, and I hope rehabilitated while
they're incarcerated.
And I would certainly tell my
attackers that while I'm saddened by today's
actions, I'm not ashamed. I'm not ashamed of
who I am. I'm not ashamed of what happened to
me.
And I'd also like to say that today
we are saying that this state will not
tolerate violence based on hate, that we know
that hate spreads destruction, and that today
4613
we are taking a giant step to stop the
terrible violence of hate. And that someday,
regardless of our sexual orientation, our
gender, our race, religion, ethnicity or
disability, we can all feel safe and protected
in this state, a state which has unlimited
potential. That's what I would tell my
attackers.
And I'd be telling my attackers
that I'm voting yes to commit myself and the
state to making this next generation the last
generation of hate and violence, and voting
yes with the hope and goal that one day our
state will be a state of safety and tolerance
for all.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: Read
the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 7. This
act shall take effect in 90 days.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Oppenheimer, why do you rise?
4614
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: I just want
to explain my vote.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Oppenheimer, to explain her vote.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: I just want
to say that this is a very important day for
me too, because as many of you know I have
spoken often about the horrible incident that
happened in my village of Mamaroneck where we
had many homes defaced on the peninsula on
which I live with not only swastikas but
statements like "Kill all the Jews" and "Burn
the cancer within us" and just unbelievably
horrible things.
The entire community was so
appalled by this that, as I have mentioned
before to you, we ended up marching, the
entire community, marching from synagogue to
church to synagogue to church, 2,000 of us, to
show that this was not a community where we
could tolerate this.
And now we have a law which also
says it cannot be tolerated. It took us a
long time. This happened in my community
eight years ago, and we have been very anxious
4615
in my community to see this happen. So I am
very pleased that finally, through the efforts
of many, many people -- Marty Connor -- well,
just too many. I'm not going to mention them
all.
But it has happened, and I am very
appreciative that it has happened. Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: Read
the results.
Senator DeFrancisco, to explain his
vote.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes. I'm
voting no on this resolution.
And it's not because I believe that
hate is not a bad thing. Nor is it because I
have any particular feelings one way or the
other for one group or other that's listed as
the class of individuals that this act is to
prevent assaults on or prevent the various
crimes on.
I simply feel that a law should be
a law. A criminal law should be a criminal
law. And whether you are hated because you
are 4 foot 2 or you're hated because you are
of a certain religion or a certain lifestyle,
4616
no matter what the reason is that a person
committed a crime, the punishment -- there
should be the same crime for all of those
individuals. And the punishment can be meted
out accordingly, based upon the broad
discretion that a judge has in determining
sentencing.
So my point is simply this. We
should not single out any classes of
individuals against whom crimes are committed
and provide different treatment. And for
those reasons, I'm going to vote no.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: The
Secretary will announce the results.
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
negative on Calendar Number 1316 are Senators
DeFrancisco, Farley, Kuhl, Larkin, Libous,
Maltese, Marchi, Maziarz, McGee, Nozzolio,
Volker, and Wright. Ayes, 48. Nays, 12.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: The
bill is passed.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President,
if we could take up Calendar Number 1315. I
ask that it be read for the purposes of
4617
Senator Spano and Senator Lack and Senator
Rath voting.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1315, by Senator Maltese, Senate Print 1638B,
an act to amend the Penal Law, in relation to
the crime of partial birth abortion.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: Read
the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
November.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Spano.
SENATOR SPANO: I vote no.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Lack.
SENATOR LACK: Aye.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Rath.
SENATOR RATH: Yes.
4618
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Seward.
SENATOR SEWARD: I vote aye.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator DeFrancisco.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Marchi.
SENATOR SKELOS: Wait a minute,
wait a minute. We are not -- the bill -- the
last section is being read and the roll called
for those who must catch a plane.
For those of you who do not have to
catch a plane, we should hang in a little bit
longer.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Rosado.
SENATOR ROSADO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Santiago.
SENATOR SANTIAGO: No.
SENATOR SKELOS: Please recognize
Senator Padavan.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Padavan.
4619
SENATOR PADAVAN: Yes.
SENATOR SKELOS: And Senator
Kruger.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Kruger.
SENATOR KRUGER: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator M. Smith.
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Lachman.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Velella.
SENATOR VELELLA: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Skelos. Senator Skelos, could we just
slow down a little bit.
Senator Lachman, how are you
voting?
SENATOR LACHMAN: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator M. Smith.
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
4620
Senator Alesi.
SENATOR ALESI: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Velella.
SENATOR VELELLA: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Wright.
SENATOR WRIGHT: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator McGee.
SENATOR McGEE: Yes.
SENATOR SKELOS: Can we withdraw
the roll call, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: The
roll call is withdrawn, Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: If we could
please take up Calendar Number 1315.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: It's
before the house now, Senator.
4621
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Explanation.
SENATOR SKELOS: Senator Maltese,
I believe there's an explanation that's been
requested.
SENATOR MALTESE: Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Maltese.
SENATOR MALTESE: This is a bill
that most of us are very familiar with. It
first passed the Senate in the 1995-'96 term.
It's an act to amend the Penal Law in relation
to the crime of partial birth abortion.
This bill would ban abortions that
are performed by a person who delivers a
living fetus into the vagina and then kills
the fetus. The bill specifically defines a
partial birth abortion as an abortion in which
the person performing the abortion partially
vaginally -
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Maltese, if I could just interrupt you
for a second.
Can we could have some order in the
house, please.
SENATOR MALTESE: -- partially
4622
vaginally delivers a living fetus before
killing the fetus and completing the delivery.
Persons who violate the law would
be subject to criminal penalties, but no
penalty could be applied to the woman who
obtains such an abortion.
The partial birth abortion
procedure is often used for second trimester
abortions from 20 to 24 weeks. It can be used
in the third trimester, and in some cases is
performed up until the ninth month.
The procedure consists of the
induced partial delivery of the fetus in a
breech position. When only the head remains
in the birth canal, surgical scissors,
Metzenbaum scissors are inserted into the back
of the head, and the brain of the fetus is
removed.
Dr. Martin Haskell of Dayton, Ohio,
a pioneer in this inhumane technique who wrote
a paper describing this procedure, wrote that
he routinely performs this procedure on all
patients who have been pregnant for 20 weeks
or more. In his experience, 80 percent of the
abortions were purely elective and had nothing
4623
to do with the health of the mother or of the
baby. He further noted that these abortions
are performed only under local anesthesia,
which he claimed had no effect on the baby.
This devastating procedure is
nothing less than murder and cannot be
justified.
Now, this bill, as has been
indicated numerous times that it's been before
the Congress of the United States, has very
much bipartisan support, not only in this
house and in the Assembly, but in the
Congress. Noted New York legislators like
Senator Moynihan support the bill. Noted
public figures and past executives, like the
Mayor of the City of New York Ed Koch, support
this legislation.
In 1998, the House overrode the
President's veto by a 296-to-132 vote. The
Senate fell three votes short but still
managed to attain a 64-to-36 vote in the
Senate for this procedure.
I'd like to -- and recognizing that
many of our colleagues who had heard the
debate many times in the past had to leave for
4624
obligations in their district, I'll try to be
shorter, briefer than usual. But I think it's
important to refer back to Roe versus Wade and
Justice Blackmun's opinion of the court:
"The state has a legitimate
interest in seeing to it that abortion, like
any other medical procedure, is performed
under circumstances that ensure maximum safety
for the patient. Moreover, the risk for the
woman increases as her pregnancy continues."
And this is the portion that I want
to stress: "Thus, the state retains a
definite interest in protecting the woman's
own health and safety when an abortion is
proposed at a late stage of pregnancy.
"The third reason is in the state's
interest. Some phrase it in terms of a duty
in protecting prenatal life. Some of the
argument for this justification rests on the
theory that a new human life is present from
the moment of conception. The state's
interest and general obligation to protect
life then extends, it is argued, to prenatal
life. Only when the life of the pregnant
mother herself is at stake, balanced against
4625
the life she carries within her, should the
interests of the embryo or fetus not prevail."
And I'd like to repeat that again
for emphasis: "Only when the life of the
pregnant mother herself is at stake, balanced
against the life she carries within her,
should the interests of the embryo or fetus
not prevail."
"Logically, of course, a legitimate
state interest in this area need not stand or
fall on acceptance of the belief that life
begins against at conception or at some other
point prior to live birth. In assessing the
state's interest, recognition may be given to
the less rigid claim that as long as at least
potential life is involved, the state may
assert interests beyond the protection of the
pregnant woman alone."
I'd like to -- just putting this in
some context, there's been much made of the
fact that the bill itself does not limit the
criminality of the partial birth abortion to a
post-20-week pregnancy.
The reason for this -- and it's
unfortunate to go into graphic detail, but we
4626
are in an area that's a very emotional area.
And that reason is that the fetus itself
cannot be turned around. The muscle tissue,
the texture of the skin is not sufficient to
hold together when the instrument is inserted
and turn the baby around if it's much prior to
the 20-week period.
And I'd like to just say what
occurs at that 20-week period. The head is
now visible. The mother -- the baby will
display a startled reaction to loud, sudden
noises. The baby can suck a thumb or fingers
and stroke parts of its own body, the amniotic
wall, or the umbilical cord. The sex of the
child can be clearly determined.
To cover an area that we have not
gone into in any length in the past, I'd like
to just refer to an area that in the past has
not been made very clear because of
information on both sides. And that's the
area of fetal pain and the pain that can be
felt by the fetus or the baby, the then-unborn
baby.
As I had indicated, some of the
doctors who perform this technique indicated
4627
at various times either that the anesthesia
applied to the mother either went to the baby
and anesthetized the baby or did not. Now,
because of Congressional testimony and because
of the study that's been made, Professor
Robert White, director of the division of
neurosurgeon and brain research laboratory at
Case Western Reserve School of Medicine
testified at a June 15, 1995, House Judiciary
Committee hearing: "The fetus, within this
time frame of gestation, 20 weeks and beyond,
is fully capable of experiencing pain."
After analyzing the partial birth
abortion procedure step-by-step for the
subcommittee, Professor White concluded:
"Without question, all of this is a dreadfully
painful experience for any infant subjected to
such a surgical procedure."
Further evidence of fetal pain was
elicited at a 1996 House Judiciary Committee
by Dr. Jean A. Wright, associate professor of
pediatrics and anesthesia at the Emory
University School of Medicine in Atlanta. She
testified that recent research shows that by
the stage of the development that a fetus
4628
could be a candidate for a partial birth
abortion, 20 weeks -- again, reiterating the
fact that the fetus itself has to grow to that
period -- the baby is more sensitive to pain
than a full-term infant would be subjected
to -- if subjected to the same procedures.
Wright further stated, "These
fetuses have the anatomical and functional
processes responsible for the perception of
the pain and have a much higher density of
pain receptors than older humans."
Wright concluded: "This procedure,
if it were done on an animal in my
institution, would not make it past the
institutional committee, and thus the animal
would be more protected than this child is."
We've -- since 1995 in this chamber
we've spoken of this procedure, we've spoken
making various quotes of doctors. I think
back to the testimony of the nurse who had
participated in these procedures, a Brenda
Schaefer, Nurse Brenda Schaefer who was here,
and how horrified she was by it.
But I was also struck at the same
time by physicians who had come in in answer
4629
to the dilemma of parents who were able to
have diagnosed the conditions of their infants
in utero who came to us with heartrending
stories. And the physicians indicated even at
that time -- and this was at least two years
ago, and in most cases three or four years
ago -- they told of operations that they had
performed on fetuses that were no more than 7
or 8 or 9 inches long that were in utero, of
putting a heart and other vital organs back
into the chest cavity, of putting a portion of
a brain or a brain back into the head of a
child in utero and having the child born.
Admittedly, some of the children
were not born completely normal. But they had
at that time brought in mothers who had
indicated the love of a mother for a child and
the fact that this child certainly, while it
was possibly deficient in other areas, was not
deficient in the love of a mother or a parent.
In addition, there were many of
these children who were born whole in every
way, physically and mentally. Dr. Haskell,
again, the -- a person who followed up
Dr. McMahon in this terrible procedure,
4630
indicated that he had performed the procedure
in the 8th and 9th month for conditions like
cleft palate, conditions that could have
easily been corrected postbirth.
I think we have to look at this as
an indication of a loss of humanity in our
society. This is not a question of choice
or -- or life. The fact that pro-choice
individuals like Mayor Koch and Senator
Moynihan and many, many others, hosts of
others, have supported this bill indicates
that it's not a question of choice.
It's a question that whether in a
society like ours we can destroy our young
preborn, imminently preborn. How a doctor's
fingers, merely the pressure of just two
fingers holding in the head of a preborn
child, totally born with the exception of the
head, can apply sufficient pressure to keep
the head internally within the mother, insert
a Metzenbaum scissor, and then with a suction
device suck out the contents of the brain.
Is this an unpleasant subject?
Yes. But far more unpleasant is the terrible
depths to which our society would descend to
4631
if we continue to approve this procedure.
We have numerous public opinion
polls, one taken as recently as April, that
indicate that 70 to 80 percent of our society
oppose this bestial procedure. The good
doctor that I've just referred to correctly
indicates that this would not be permitted if
it were done to animals. And yet we can carry
out this procedure to children that are almost
born.
This is a terrible procedure. It's
a terrible indication of how our society could
permit things like this. Ethically, many of
the medical associations, many of the
obstetrical associations, gynecological
associations, physicians have indicated while
some of them reluctantly approve of the
procedure, the vast majority say it's
unethical and not in keeping with a doctor's
oath to do no harm and preserve life.
We in New York lead the way in many
cases, in many statutes. Earlier today we've
heard repeatedly from legislators saying how
New York leads the way in other ways that
affect far less individuals than this
4632
loathsome procedure.
I call upon and beseech my
colleagues to vote for this bill which would
prohibit this terrible procedure.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Goodman -- Senator Dollinger.
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I'll yield to
Senator Goodman.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Goodman.
SENATOR GOODMAN: Mr. President,
this is always the most difficult moment of
the year, when one has to get up and debate a
bill of this sort. Because on its face, the
bill appears to be exactly what Senator
Maltese described it as being; namely, an
inhumane and appallingly barbaric procedure.
So we have to ask ourselves
repeatedly the question why would anyone
oppose this bill, which appears to prevent
such a procedure. And the answer is both
complex and yet very simple.
The simple answer, my friends, is
that this bill would destroy the opportunity
4633
for physicians to render merciful medical
assistance to a mother whose life is in danger
or to a dead fetus or a fetus whose life
cannot possibly become viable. And let's just
examine what the circumstances are which
surround this type of birth.
The information which I've received
from direct conversations with OB-GYN
specialists who normally do not perform this
procedure but leave it to other specialists is
as follows. It is a very, very rare
procedure. There has never been any
statistical proof indicating that it is a
procedure which is carried out with any degree
of frequency, for the following reason.
What is involved here is a
situation where a mother becomes pregnant,
carries that pregnancy almost to full term,
and there is a discovery made through sonogram
or other currently available technological
procedures medically that the child is born
with the brain outside its head, that the
child is born with the lungs outside its body,
that the child is born with the stomach
outside its body; in short, that the child is
4634
in so many different possible ways deformed to
the point where its birth would be an
immediate death sentence to the child itself.
Now, should this procedure not be
performed timely within the mother's womb,
there is a possibility of the degrading of the
fetus. The degrading of the fetus means that
the fetus in effect has its tissues degraded
to the point where it becomes toxic and
poisons the bloodstream of the mother, thus
jeopardizing the life of the mother.
It is these circumstances which
render what appears to be an inhumane
procedure one which is absolutely merciful and
medically imperative.
When you speak to doctors, they say
there is no such thing as a "partial birth
abortion," because there is no such thing as a
partial birth as it relates to this situation.
What you have a late-term abortion.
But I'm sorry to say that this bill
is constitutionally so vague that it actually
might reach back into the second or first
trimester of pregnancy, which is clearly and
plainly constitutionally mandated to be
4635
protected by the Roe versus Wade decision.
Now, my friends, in order to
understand why this bill must be defeated, we
have to strike through the various attempts to
depict it in a superficial fashion with
diagrams showing a child's head being crushed
and having the child removed from the vaginal
canal with a pair of forceps. This is in
itself grotesque.
But keep in mind, my friends, that
all D&Cs are grotesque, and all D&Es,
dilatation and extractions, are inherently
grotesque. Nobody wishes to remove a womb or
to prevent a life from developing if it can be
avoided.
And the only reason for the
justification of this procedure is that the
fetus is not viable, is not in fact a human
being at the time this occurred because of the
earliness of the pregnancy, or that the
individual is so advanced in development but
so distorted and so unable to survive that
something must be done to prevent this tragedy
that I've described in the way of a birth of
an individual unable to survive due to the
4636
incredible distortion and tragic problems
which arise when an individual's development
is so totally taken out of the normal stream.
So where are we on this matter?
This requires some tough, incisive analysis on
the part of the Legislature. It cannot be
done superficially. It cannot be done in an
immature fashion. It has to be done with the
most careful deliberation and scientific
reality terms and in discussion with the
physicians who actually do this.
Physicians do not want to do this
procedure, and they only do it when it is
imperative that it be done for the health of
the mother or the imminent demise of the
fetus. And by "imminent demise," I mean
exactly that, the fact that the fetus is not
viable.
There have been suggestions that
this procedure is done because people want to
have their prom gowns fit them at the time of
their school proms and they wait till a month
before birth and have this done so they can go
to the prom with proper measurements. This is
a fairy tale, it's simply not true, and it's
4637
an outrageous and an inappropriate distortion.
And I might say at the moment I in
no way intend to suggest that anyone in this
house resorts to that type of distortion. I
think the honorable colleagues who have given
you the other side of the story do so from the
depths of sincere conviction.
But may I say to you that in order
to be very clear what's happening here, number
one, we're encouraging an unconstitutional
outcome which has repeatedly been denied by
every court that's reviewed it. If you
examine the court decisions, you will see that
the courts plainly state that Roe v. Wade
provides certain protections which this
clearly is seeking to prevent the application
of.
And, secondly, it does jeopardize
health in a fashion that would be both
inhumane and intolerable.
So look through the
superficialities, my friends. Understand that
what goes on here is something that must be
done in the interests of good, sound medical
science.
4638
The fact that certain physicians
have done it capriciously is not a
justification for this bill. Those people
should be prosecuted in any manner deemed
appropriate by the profession and by the
courts, because if they're involved in the
murder of a human being, that's a separate and
entirely appropriate matter for prosecution of
the most vigorous sort.
But where the humane and medically
sound objective is fulfilled, that's where we
must draw the distinction. And that, my
friends, is why I suggest to you that the
superficial horror implicit in this procedure
which so frequently causes people to favor
this type of legislation is unfortunately a
misfired missile.
We must understand it for what it
is. It's a confused and inappropriate
application of reasoning that just is
illogical and altogether outside the realm of
any possible practical application of
scientific truth and merciful medical
treatment.
So for these reasons, I urge us
4639
please to reconsider, to understand what's at
stake and not to be susceptible to the
superficial type of thinking which I believe
underlies the foundation of this bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Dollinger, why do you rise?
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Mr.
President, I believe there's an amendment at
the desk. I'd waive its reading and ask to be
heard briefly to explain it.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: The
amendment is at the desk. Reading is waived.
Senator Dollinger, on the
amendment.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Mr. President.
This is an amendment we've done
before. Senator Maltese, this amendment will
bring this bill into conformance with the
United States Constitution, the decisions of
the United States Supreme Court, and eliminate
late-term abortions of any type, which are
still illegal in this state, except when two
conditions are necessary: The condition in
your bill, which says if the life of the
4640
mother is at stake; and, as the amendment
says, if there is a serious adverse health
consequence.
I agree with you, Senator Maltese.
If an abortion is performed at the late term
and it doesn't meet either one of those two
tests, it's against the law, should be against
the law in this state. But I am telling you
without this amendment, this statute will
never become law and in my opinion will never
be constitutional.
If this amendment passes, I'll vote
for this bill and I'll go over and ask people
in the other house to vote for this bill,
because we'll have a law that's in conformance
with the Constitution of the United States.
I trust women to make the right
decision, in conjunction with their physician
and their family support group, when their
life is at stake or when a serious, adverse
health consequence threatens them. I trust
women to make the right decision in that case.
This amendment will conform with
the Constitution and allow them to do it. I
would ask that you accept this amendment. I
4641
would ask that if you don't accept it, that it
be approved by the house so we can pass a
constitutionally sound bill that addresses
this issue.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Meier, on the amendment.
SENATOR MEIER: On the amendment,
Mr. President, and briefly.
The problem with the amendment is
the amendment is the universal solvent that
makes this bill totally meaningless. Because
what we're talking about is a very broad term,
capable of interpretation in almost any way.
Now, here's the other major problem
with the amendment. On January 12, 1997, the
executive board of the American College of
Obstetricians and Gynecologists announced it
could identify no circumstances in which a
partial birth abortion would be the only
option to save the life of the mother or to
preserve her health.
An American Medical Association
task force which was put together to study the
very issue of partial birth abortion -- or
intact dilation and extraction, whichever term
4642
you prefer -- said: "There does not appear to
be any identified situation in which intact
dilation and extraction is the only
appropriate procedure to induce abortions."
That is the problem with the
amendment, and that's why it deserves to go
down.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Montgomery, on the amendment.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: On the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: On
the amendment, all those in favor signify by
saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Opposed.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Paterson, why do you rise?
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
I'd like a slow roll call on the amendment.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
There are three members standing -- four,
five. Five members standing.
4643
The Secretary will ring the bell
for a slow roll call.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Alesi.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Balboni.
SENATOR BALBONI: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Bonacic.
SENATOR BONACIC: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Breslin.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Bruno.
(Senator Bruno was recorded as
voting in the negative.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Connor.
(Senator Connor was recorded as
voting in the affirmative.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Coppola.
SENATOR COPPOLA: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
DeFrancisco.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Mr.
President, just briefly to explain my vote, to
4644
address the -
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Dollinger, to explain his vote
briefly.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: -- the point
that Senator Meier made, which is is the
amendment too ambiguous, will it swallow the
entire principle set forth in this statute.
I would remind Senator Meier that
this is a criminal statute, that we are
criminalizing behavior. We are going to make
it a crime for a physician to participate.
And I would just suggest that
because it's a crime that what we're doing is
we're saying it's not just the life of the
mother but any serious, adverse health
consequence. That would be an issue, if there
were a charge raised against a physician, to
determine.
I would, however, suggest that it
is best left to the judgment of the physician
attending a woman in this situation to make
that judgment call. That's what this
statute -- the amendment does, that's why
we've brought it forth. That will make it
4645
constitutionally acceptable.
I vote aye.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Dollinger will be recorded in the
affirmative.
Continue the roll.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Farley.
SENATOR FARLEY: On the
amendment.
There already are 17 people that
voted in favor of this bill. Senator
Dollinger, we would love to have -- wherever
you're going, we'd love to have your vote on
this. But I think the point that Senator
Meier made is very significant.
Let me just say there's plenty of
votes in the other house for this. It would
pass in a New York minute if it was allowed on
the floor.
Seventeen people that are not here
that would be voting against your amendment.
It takes 31 votes to pass anything in this
house. There's not going to be 31 votes to
4646
pass your amendment. And with the 17 people
that have already voted, and left, in favor of
this bill, this is kind of an exercise in
futility.
I vote no.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Farley will be recorded as no.
Continue the roll.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Gentile.
SENATOR GENTILE: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Gonzalez.
(No response.)
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.
SENATOR JOHNSON: Nay.
4647
THE SECRETARY: Senator Kruger.
SENATOR KRUGER: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Kuhl.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Lachman.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Lack.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Larkin.
SENATOR LARKIN: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator LaValle.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Leibell.
SENATOR LEIBELL: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Libous.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Maltese.
SENATOR MALTESE: Nay.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Marchi.
SENATOR MARCHI: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Markowitz.
4648
SENATOR MARKOWITZ: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Maziarz.
SENATOR MAZIARZ: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator McGee.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Meier.
SENATOR MEIER: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Mendez,
excused.
Senator Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Morahan.
SENATOR MORAHAN: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Nozzolio.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Onorato.
SENATOR ONORATO: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Oppenheimer.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: To explain
my vote.
I would say that we have to say yes
to the -
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Oppenheimer, to explain her vote.
4649
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: It would be
absolutely essential to say yes to the
amendment so that we couldn't be violating the
U.S. Constitution.
This is very clearly spelled out in
the memorandum from the League of Women
Voters. It says lawsuits have been filed in
19 states to challenge similar so-called
partial birth abortion bans. And in all cases
decided thus far, the courts have either
enjoined the law or restricted its
applicability to the period after viability.
New York State, as we all know,
already prohibits abortions after 24 weeks
except when the mother's life is threatened.
So I definitely support this
amendment. I vote yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Oppenheimer recorded in the
affirmative.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Padavan.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Rath.
4650
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Rosado.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Saland.
SENATOR SALAND: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Sampson.
SENATOR SAMPSON: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Santiago.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Seabrook.
SENATOR SEABROOK: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Seward.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator A. Smith.
SENATOR ADA SMITH: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator M. Smith.
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Spano.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator
4651
Stachowski.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Stafford.
SENATOR STAFFORD: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Stavisky.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Trunzo.
SENATOR TRUNZO: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Velella.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Volker.
SENATOR VOLKER: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Wright.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: Call
the absentees.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Alesi.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator
DeFrancisco.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Gonzalez.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Goodman.
(No response.)
4652
THE SECRETARY: Senator Hoffmann.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Kuhl.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Lack.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator LaValle.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Libous.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Alesi.
SENATOR ALESI: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator McGee.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Nozzolio.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Padavan.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Rath.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Rosado.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Santiago.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Seward.
4653
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Spano.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Velella.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Wright.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Announce the results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 19. Nays,
23.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: The
amendment is defeated.
Senator Farley, on the bill.
SENATOR FARLEY: Yes. Thank you,
Mr. President.
I rise in support of this bill. I
think that Senator Maltese has said everything
that needed to be said on behalf of the bill.
But let's just focus for a moment on the
breadth of support that there is for this bill
throughout New York State and the United
States, for that matter.
It passes overwhelmingly in both
houses of Congress and misses a veto override
4654
by one vote. It is a vote that crosses party
lines. Patrick Kennedy, Daniel Patrick
Moynihan, so many, many people from the other
side of the aisle that consider themselves
pro-choice consider this an abhorrent,
obnoxious, terrible procedure.
The general public is 80 to
85 percent opposed to late-term abortions. It
is a procedure that is absolutely obnoxious
and has no place in a civilized society.
I think that if there's any issue
that is nonpartisan -- it really isn't an
abortion issue. This is, in my judgment, as
Daniel Patrick Moynihan said so eloquently,
this is infanticide. This is taking a child
that could live, that they're practically out
in the world ready to live.
There's a woman that testified
before Congress that was going to be a partial
birth abortion victim, and her -- the
nurses -- the doctor was out of room, and the
nurses couldn't do it or wouldn't do it. And
she was testifying before Congress thanking
God for her life, that she was able to survive
a procedure that was going to draw her brains
4655
out.
I think it's something that
everybody in this house should really
consider. And this ban is needed more and
more. As I recall the vote on this
legislation, it's 40 or 40-some-odd members of
this house in favor of it. The Governor has
said he would sign it.
Again, as I said, if this bill ever
hit the Assembly floor, it would pass in a
minute. The votes are there for it.
Unfortunately, it's not let out on the floor.
I hear all kinds of complaints from
the other side about bills that can't come out
on the floor. Well, we've seen a lot of bills
come out on the floor this year in this house.
I'd like to see this bill come out on the
floor in the Assembly, and we'd see a law
banning partial birth abortion.
I'm going to vote aye, and I would
hope everyone else would.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Oppenheimer.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: I would
like to ask the Senator a question.
4656
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Farley, do you yield for a question?
SENATOR FARLEY: I am only one of
many sponsors, but I'll try to answer your
question.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Oh, I said
the Senator, not the sponsor.
Because you used the word
"infanticide," and -
SENATOR FARLEY: I didn't use
that word. That was -- I was quoting Senator
Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who considers himself
pro-choice, who said that this procedure is
infanticide.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Well, if I
could question, do you understand the law that
as it is now specifies infanticide is against
our law. So infanticide in and of itself is
criminal.
SENATOR FARLEY: I understand
that. I think that this is truly criminal
too.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Hoffmann.
SENATOR HOFFMANN: Thank you, Mr.
4657
President.
So much of the debate around this
measure is born out of hysteria and a very
carefully crafted campaign by the
right-to-life organizations on the national
level to create a new and a very, very
emotional issue around which to rally the
antichoice forces. And it has been effective.
But it bears little truth to medical practice
as it exists in New York State or anyplace
else in the nation.
I'd like to just enter into the
record, if I may, please, a couple of
memorandums. And I don't often do this, but I
think that they state rather eloquently some
of the facts that have been misquoted or
misunderstood even by very ardent supporters
of this measure, upon reading the reality of
the law.
And we just saw one example of it a
few minutes ago. It's apparent that there is
misinformation circulating. And we as
legislators have a responsibility to learn the
facts.
Here are some of the facts from the
4658
American College of Obstetricians and
Gynecologists. "The New York State Office of
the American College of Obstetricians and
Gynecologists opposes any action that would
supersede the medical judgment of trained
physicians. The potential exists that
legislation prohibiting specific medical
practices may outlaw techniques that are
critical to the lives and health of New York
women. There is no medical procedure called a
partial birth abortion."
Again, I'm quoting from the
American College of Obstetricians and
Gynecologists. These are the people who
understand the medical practice that has been
grossly misinterpreted in this chamber today.
Again, I quote: "The term is not
found in any medical dictionaries, textbooks,
or coding manuals. The American College of
Obstetricians and Gynecologists believes the
intent of the legislation is to prohibit a
procedure referred to intact dilatation and
extraction. This legislation prohibits the
use of this medical procedure in all stages of
pregnancy, not just late pregnancy, as the
4659
bill has been characterized.
"Abortions after 24 weeks are
already prohibited by law except when
continuing a pregnancy poses a danger to the
woman's life or health. Third-trimester
termination of pregnancy procedures are not
routinely performed in New York State. These
procedures are only performed under extreme
circumstances where the health and life of the
mother are threatened.
"Some examples of rare maternal
problems that threaten the life and/or health
of pregnant women are severe heart disease,
kidney failure, malignant cancers that develop
during pregnancy, and severe toxemia."
Again, the College of Obstetricians
and Gynecologists goes on to state that "A
woman in her third trimester in New York
undergoing an interruption of a pregnancy does
so only when the abnormalities of the fetus
are so extreme that independent life is not
possible or when the fetus has died in utero.
These procedures are not performed routinely
and are never purely elective.
"If there is a viable fetus, the
4660
fetus is delivered with full medical support
for mother and infant. Full life support and
the neonatal intensive care services are
recommended by the College of Obstetricians
and Gynecologists, and are provided as routine
procedures to any fetus delivered close enough
to term to have any possibility of life.
"This legislation would ban a
medical procedure regardless of whether it is
the best or most appropriate procedure to save
the life or preserve the health of an
individual woman. Under this bill, an
obstetrician-gynecologist would be forced by
law to use a different procedure to save a
woman's life or preserve her health even
though it may carry a much greater health risk
to the patient."
And they conclude by saying "Even
though a woman and her consulting physician
may decide to interrupt a pregnancy during the
third trimester, such a decision must be
approved by the hospital's ethics committee,
the hospital's lawyer, and other physicians,
including perinatologists and geneticists. In
New York State, such approval is very rarely
4661
given.
"The Supreme Court and many state
courts around the country have rejected
similar laws because they are clearly
unconstitutional. In fact, legislators do not
have the expertise or the medical knowledge to
intervene in medical decision-making. This
decision must be left up to trained
professionals.
"It is for these reasons that the
American College of Obstetricians and
Gynecologists in New York State strongly
opposes this legislation."
I would also like to enter for the
record the statements made by the League of
Women Voters and the Family Planning Advocates
of New York State. I won't read them now
because the hour grows late. We have had this
debate before.
This is a matter that should be
decided by the medical professionals of this
state, not by the New York State Legislature.
I'll vote no.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Montgomery.
4662
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Thank you,
Mr. President. I would like to ask Senator
Maltese a couple of questions.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Maltese, do you yield for a question?
SENATOR MALTESE: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: The
Senator yields.
Senator Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Thank you,
Mr. President.
In line with the memo that Senator
Hoffmann just read, I note that in the bill it
says that partial birth abortion is
characterized as intact dilation and
extraction, or D&X, and that the woman will
not be charged with a crime under this
legislation, only the doctor will be charged
with a Class E felony if that doctor performs
this particular procedure.
And it says on line 24, page 2,
that partial birth abortion -- which is
defined by your legislation as D&X -- shall
not constitute a justifiable abortional act.
I do not see in your legislation,
4663
Senator Maltese, where this particular
procedure has a specific time frame connected
to it.
So if that is the case, unless I'm
misreading this legislation, if that is the
case, then what the obstetricians and
gynecologists have said -- in effect, that
this procedure is one that is used for -- this
is apparently a standard procedure in
relationship to this particular situation, if
that's the case, then does your legislation
not eliminate, essentially, abortions?
Or does it not place any physician
who does that procedure at any point, any
stage in the situation, doesn't it place that
physician in a position of having committed a
felony?
SENATOR MALTESE: Mr. President,
through you.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Maltese.
SENATOR MALTESE: First of all,
I'd like to take the opportunity to just
correct something that Senator Goodman had
said and that was referred to in the memo.
4664
The birth of a dead fetus does not
come under this legislation. It would only be
a live fetus. So some of the horrendous acts
that Senator Goodman referred to about
degenerating within the womb would not apply.
This is only if the fetus is in fact alive.
As far as in reply to your
question, Senator Montgomery, yes, the
terminology here would say that any partial
birth abortion.
But the procedure itself, while my
good colleague Senator Hoffmann has made much
of the fact that the term "partial birth
abortion" is not a medical term, that's
correct. It's absolutely correct. At the
same time, it has been used in various
hearings of the American Medical Association,
the New York State Medical Association. It
has been used in Congressional testimony. It
has been used in testimony by a variety, a
host of physicians and obstetricians and
gynecologists in Congressional testimony.
If there's anybody that is involved
in public life that doesn't know what a
partial birth abortion is, I'd be very
4665
surprised. Certainly anybody in this chamber
could pretty well recite exactly what would
come within the confines of this terminology.
At the same time, the phrase that
is included in this -- and this was the change
from the first legislation that we put in in
this house in 1995-'96, we added this one
sentence: "This procedure is characterized by
the American Medical Association as intact
dilation and extraction, or intact D&X."
And that is a medical term, and
that is medical terminology, and that is
terminology that is used by physicians,
obstetricians and gynecologists. So that is
explained.
As far as the procedure itself,
while there is no time limit on the
terminology within this legislation, as I've
said before, the doctors, both pro and con,
advocates and proponents and detractors and
opponents, have indicated that the state of
the fetus is so fragile and so susceptible to
breaking off that the fetus itself is
dismembered if this procedure is attempted
before approximately the period of 20 weeks.
4666
So the procedure itself is a
procedure that's limited by the state of the
fetus itself. Therefore, it limits it.
And in direct response to your
question, Senator Montgomery, this procedure
does not constitute a justifiable abortional
act. What I am saying by this legislation and
the proponents of similar legislation, almost
identical legislation, with certain changes
relative to federal statutes, they're saying
that you cannot perform this procedure only,
this D&X, this procedure, partial birth
abortion.
It is not limiting the woman's
choice in any other manner. This is limiting
a physician's choice from performing this type
of loathsome procedure in a -- in a late-term
abortion. It removes one of the choices.
It has been spelled out in much of
the material on this partial birth abortion
that this is a procedure that usually takes a
minimum of two days and usually takes three
days. It is done over a period of time that
would almost certainly negate a procedure that
would be only to save the life of the mother.
4667
It is done by dilation over a period of time.
And whether it is an inpatient or outpatient
procedure, it does take that period of time.
We have, just as has been read,
material by physicians and obstetricians and
gynecologists that have testified. It seems
to be a procedure that is not necessary to
save the life of the mother.
But assume for the moment that it
is necessary to save the life of the mother.
The legislation indicates that is the one
course of action that is permitted a physician
to take if he feels it's to save the life of
the mother.
So it covers those unique
situations. My -- I offer -- I say to you if
it is done in such an infinitesimal number of
the cases as recited by Senator Goodman
previously, then end this barbaric practice,
end this loathsome practice, and put to bed
any type of this right-wing conspiracy that
has been referred to by my good colleague
Senator Hoffmann.
It is not a right-wing -- it is not
a conspiracy of any shape, manner, or form.
4668
No right-to-life forces all over the country
have gathered together.
Constant polls indicate the vast
majority of the American people want an end to
this procedure.
Quite frankly, if I were to look at
it from the viewpoint of being pro-choice, I
would want this procedure ended too, because
it seems to divert attention from those that
prefer choice and those that prefer life.
This procedure is not a procedure
that must be resorted to. Apparently at least
the vast majority of physicians seem to agree
on that. I submit to my colleagues this is
not a choice situation. This is a situation
that many of you have referred to in the past
as a slippery slope. It's doing away with a
child that's near born.
It is a mistake for us to sanction
it in this legislative house.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Thank you,
Mr. President. On the bill, briefly.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
4669
Senator Montgomery, on the bill.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: I just -
notwithstanding the fact that I respect
Senator Maltese and his reading and
understanding of the legislation, it's not how
I read it.
And I think that part of what
happens here is that we have a bill before us
which has specific language in it that will
govern the law under this legislation. And
then we have Senator Maltese's memorandum in
support, which has the justification for his
bill.
And it sounds to me like Senator
Maltese is reading the justification as if
it's the legislation. And his intent in his
mind is one thing, and what's in this bill is
another, as I read it.
Now, it says here, as clear as I
can see, that the bill defines partial birth
abortion according to the AMA. And the AMA
defines -- is used here as the definition of
partial birth abortion, which says intact
dilation and extraction, D&X.
It happens to be a procedure that
4670
is associated with abortions. We could be
talking about other kinds of medical
procedures, but we happen to be talking about
this one. And this one is related to a woman
who finds herself in a situation where she is
in need of an abortion. So fine.
And the law, the law already
specifies what a justifiable abortional act
is. And it does not allow, without certain
circumstances as defined in law, an abortion
beyond the 24th week. That's already in the
law.
But then at the very end, this
addition that Senator Maltese is putting into
the law essentially repeals the rest of the
law, as I see it. And it says "Partial birth
abortions shall not constitute a justifiable
abortional act." Period. That's the end of
the sentence. It doesn't say within any
period of time, it does not have if the
mother's life is in danger. It has nothing
there but that as the final sentence.
So I just think that there is a
major problem with this. And that is anyone
looking at the legislation, assuming that it
4671
passes both houses and is enacted into law, we
have a situation where any physician in this
state would be charged with a felony if
they -- if they participate in this particular
procedure at any point in time as it relates
to having an abortion.
So, Senator Maltese, as far as I
can tell, your legislation repeals the right
for women in this state, for any reason, at
any stage, to receive an abortion. And I must
certainly be against this legislation.
And besides which, it's probably
going to be unconstitutional when it's passed.
But I think just considering passing it is
wrong.
So I'll be voting no, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Hevesi.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you, Mr.
President. On the bill.
We've had a long debate here today.
Last year I debated Senator Maltese for some
time about the specific provisions in his
legislation. I believe that verbatim this is
4672
the exact same bill that we're addressing this
year that we addressed last year. And many of
my colleagues' responses to this legislation
are right on target.
I simply want to reiterate what my
comments were last year to Senator Maltese,
which is that I'm perfectly willing to support
a ban on partial birth abortion with an
acceptable bill. And I know that, Senator,
you referred to public opinion polls showing
overwhelming support for a partial birth
abortion ban. I doubt that those public
opinion polls would reflect the same results
if I was able to articulate exactly what this
bill does and could potentially do.
And so as a result, I will
reiterate my comments from last year, which
are I cannot support this particular
legislation until it satisfies two specific
provisions. One is to more narrowly define
what a partial birth abortion is so that we
don't, intentionally or unintentionally,
outlaw other abortion procedures which are
constitutionally protected.
And, number two, and most
4673
importantly, there is no exemption here in
consideration of the health of the mother.
And what that does, let me break it down for
you very simply. It simply says that in the
unfortunate situation that a woman has to have
a late-term abortion, if the partial birth
abortion procedure is the safest procedure,
meaning it's safer than some other available
procedure, if this bill becomes law, the woman
cannot have the safest procedure.
It's probably unconstitutional.
It's certainly awful public policy. And it's
just wrong.
So, Senator Maltese, I suggest to
you if you're interested in having the votes
from some members on this side of the aisle,
including Senator Dollinger, who articulated
the same concerns, I would suggest that you
amend the bill and you'll receive a favorable
response from some of us.
Until that's done, this legislation
will not have the effect that you suggest that
it will have. It will have some other effect.
And that effect, I believe, is not in the best
interests of my constituents or anybody in New
4674
York State.
I will be voting no.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Meier.
SENATOR MEIER: Thank you, Mr.
President.
I hope someday that people will
look back at this and find it incredible that
we had to debate this.
In a lot of the debate, some
mention has been made about some hysteria on
the part of the pro-life community. I would
suggest to you that there may be some hysteria
on the other end of the debate, and an
unwillingness sometimes to face what we're
really talking about.
I like to remind people of a
gentleman named Ron Fitzsimmons who some time
ago was the national director, executive
director of the National Coalition of Abortion
Providers. I have a New York Times article
from February 22nd of 1997 which reads as
follows, in short part: "A prominent member
of the abortion rights movement said today
that he lied in earlier statements when he
4675
said a controversial form of late-term
abortion is rare and performed primarily to
save the lives or fertility of women bearing
severely malformed babies. He now says the
procedure is performed far more often than his
colleagues have acknowledged, and on healthy
women bearing healthy fetuses."
It goes on to say that "He
intentionally misled in previous remarks about
the procedure, called 'intact dilation and
evacuation' by those who believe it should
remain legal, and 'partial birth abortion' by
those who believe it should be outlawed" -
and I'm quoting the New York Times -- "because
he believed that the truth would damage the
cause of abortion rights. But he is now
convinced, he said, that the issue of whether
the procedure remains legal, like the overall
debate on abortion, must be based on the
truth."
Well, I think it ought to be based
on the truth. And I find it interesting, as I
said during the debate on the amendment, the
American Medical Association convened a study
group to look at this issue in 1997. And they
4676
concluded, and I quote: "There does not
appear to be any identified situation in which
intact dilation and extraction is the only
appropriate procedure to induce abortion."
I mean, the very fact that we are
talking about whether a question of seconds
and centimeters constitutes the difference
between a medical procedure and infanticide is
absolutely incredible. Absolutely incredible.
And I think that maybe we do have
to confront the issue of extremism when we get
into this broader issue. I have personally
remonstrated with my bishop over the issue
when he demonstrates on the issue of life of
associating with people who have in the past
committed violent acts.
I have remonstrated with other
leaders of the pro-life movement that we have
an obligation to weed those extremists out of
our midst and to tell people who come to this
issue with hate in their hearts to go away,
because they're hypocrites. You can't be for
life and hate at the same time.
I would invite, though -- and I
would invite in a gentle way -- people who are
4677
on the other side, in good faith, on this
debate to ask yourself, to ask yourself if a
society which finds that this is a debatable
matter, centimeters and seconds, if we have
not in fact created a climate of moral
ambiguity about life that has led to some
tragedies that are all too frequently reported
in our newspapers. The Amy Grossberg and
Brian Peterson case, the two New Jersey
teenagers who left their newly born son
wrapped in a blanket and in plastic and in a
trash dumper. The case of the young woman,
also in New Jersey, who left her newly born
son in a toilet stall.
In an interview on the NBC program
"Dateline," a friend of Melissa Drexler -- the
young woman who left the baby at the prom -
said the following about the baby boy's death,
and I quote: "She didn't know it was alive.
It came out blue. She assumed it was dead.
Melissa told me it wasn't living."
Four sentences. Twenty-one words.
Four occasions to refer to a baby, a human
being, a little boy. But it's "it." It's
"it." It's "it."
4678
And that, I suggest to you, is the
environment we have created when we can come
to the point where something like this is a
debatable matter.
I recognize and I respect the fact
that honorable people may differ as to the
point where life begins, and that honorable
people may perhaps differ as to the point
where life deserves the protection of law.
But I must tell you in all conscience and in
all candor with my colleagues, I don't
understand how seconds and centimeters can
become a debatable point about whether we're
talking about a medical procedure or a murder.
And the Melissa Drexlers and the
Amy Grossbergs and Brian Petersons of the
world and the moral ambiguity within which
they're able to commit those heinous acts are
the whirlwind of that kind of world.
I urge an aye vote on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Coppola.
SENATOR COPPOLA: I respect my
colleagues on the other side of the aisle for
their passion, for their concern on this
4679
issue.
But I go back to before abortion
wasn legal. And I witnessed in our area the
illegal abortions that took place way back
when, and the young women who died because of
the illegal abortions. I watched that, and I
watched doctors perform those illegal -- they
were in the paper, they were prosecuted. We
didn't have a handle on all of them. Not only
did the babies die, but the mothers died.
And what happened was because there
was no supervision. There wasn't anything
there. That happened because the very poor
couldn't afford an abortion or medical care.
But the very rich had an abortion. The
elitists were out there because they could
afford it, in secrecy, behind closed doors.
Our country has made mistakes.
We've made mistakes when we had bootleggers
back in the thirties, and we brought that
back. And we have laws now for alcoholic
beverages. Why don't we just eliminate
cigarette smoking? We know how harmful it is
to our health. But we won't do that either,
because we have to have some control on that.
4680
So we eliminate abortions, and
there are no controls. Now, I was even
willing to go today and watch the other side
of the aisle and support this, when Dollinger
put in his amendment -- and to shoot it
down -- I said, at least this is a step in the
right direction. We're trying to look for a
compromise, come together here.
Because the bottom line here is not
your side or our side. The bottom line is
we've all got to get together and start
educating the kids of tomorrow that it's wrong
to have babies, number one, when you can't
afford it. And, number two, you have to
respect life.
We're not putting that kind of
energy into that. So what we do is eliminate
all of this and go back to the illegal
abortions? I really respect, Senator Maltese,
your passion and your concern. I really do,
because that's important.
But hopefully you take that kind of
passion and we start getting out there to our
schools across the state of New York and
teaching them about education and respect of
4681
life. When I have 7th- and 8th-grade girls in
my area pregnant, that's wrong. When I
witnessed back years ago, before there was
legal abortions, the mothers dying and the
fetuses being flushed down the toilet.
So what do we do? We have
prohibition again? What do we do? We outlaw
cigarettes? We hide behind our cloak that
we're all nice people here and we're fighting
for lives?
Well, we are fighting for lives on
this side of the aisle. But let's do it
through education, education, education.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: Read
the last section.
Oh, I'm sorry. Senator
Schneiderman. I didn't see you.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: You wish,
Mr. President.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Listen,
it's been a long day. This is a very serious
issue. I'm sorry so many of our colleagues
have left, because I know that both the
4682
proponents and the opponents of this take it
very, very seriously.
Actually I join Senator Meier in my
concern -- and it's nice to know Senator
Marchi has spoken about this. I don't
disagree with you about the climate of moral
ambiguity. In my view, however, this very
wrong-headed legislation is not a way to
address that.
In fact, I think this is really
unfortunate that we get hung up on this issue.
I agree on that also. But I think it's pretty
clear that this legislation would be horrible
public policy if enacted.
Conspiracies are hard things to
pull off. And I don't believe there's a vast
right-wing conspiracy behind this bill.
However, I do believe that this is an -- there
is an intentionally deceptive, extremely
clever campaign behind this legislation.
The reason is very simple. This
bill does nothing more or less than tie the
hands of a doctor who is in an operating room
with a patient that's already determined to
have an abortion, to terminate the fetus.
4683
Where the doctor determines that to preserve
the health of that patient this particular
type of procedure would be the most
appropriate thing, that doctor won't be able
to do it.
This bill does not prohibit
dilation and evacuation, which is the most
standard procedure in the second trimester.
And we've heard a lot about how disgusting
this procedure is. This is grisly stuff. I
assure you, dilation and evacuation is equally
disgusting. And I could go into details about
crushed heads and broken limbs that take place
when the vacuum tube is pulling the baby out.
It's all disgusting stuff.
The problem is that you are
misleading people when you say this bill will
prohibit a particular type of abortion at the
very, very end of a pregnancy. It's
obvious -- and we've mentioned this
repeatedly, and people have said for years
that if you're serious about this being
late-term, put in a time limit.
There's no time limit, because this
is a bill that would discourage doctors from
4684
performing any type of abortion procedure.
And I do disagree with my
colleagues in some of their references to what
medical opinion is on this. I read from the
same AMA report I think Senator Meier was
reading from. He mentioned the first sentence
of this paragraph. I want to read later in
the paragraph.
It acknowledges ethical concerns
about intact dilation and extraction, but then
says "The AMA recommends that the procedure
not be used unless alternative procedures pose
materially greater risk to the woman. The
physician must, however, retain the discretion
to make that judgment, acting within standards
of good medical practice and in the best
interests of the patient."
That's all we're saying here.
Don't tie the hands of doctors to serve a
patient, to carry out their oath. That's what
we would do with this legislation.
I now want to make a reference to a
report from the American College of
Obstetricians and Gynecologists, because this
assertion that most doctors are opposed to
4685
this procedure is just nonsense. "An intact
D&X may be the best or most appropriate
procedure in a particular circumstance to save
the life or preserve the health of a woman.
And only the doctor, in consultation with the
patient, based upon the woman's particular
circumstances, can make this decision."
And it goes on to cite the
situation in which a fetus is hydrocephalic as
a situation in which a D&X procedure is safer
for the patient than a D&E procedure.
So we're not preventing abortions
with this bill. What we're doing is saying to
doctors, We're going to tie your hands, we're
not going to let you do what is safest for
your patient. That, to me, is not a noble act
of public policy. I think this is a deceptive
campaign.
I respect the fact that there are
members of this house, including Senator
Maltese, who are antichoice. And if you want
to put in a bill that says we think all
abortions are wrong, you put it in. We'll
debate it, we'll vote against it.
This is a deceptive effort to
4686
undermine freedom of choice. I urge that we
all reject it now. And I urge a no vote.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Marcellino, why do you rise?
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Can we have
the last section read for purposes of Senator
Morahan and Senator Saland to cast their
votes.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: Read
the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect first day of November.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Morahan.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Saland.
SENATOR SALAND: Aye.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Skelos.
4687
SENATOR SKELOS: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Onorato.
SENATOR ONORATO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Sampson.
SENATOR SAMPSON: No.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Withdraw the
roll call.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Withdraw the roll call, please.
Senator Oppenheimer, on the bill.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Well, for
the eight of us left here.
I don't know, I'm listening very
closely and sometimes I have a feeling that
there's a whole lot more concern for the fetus
than there is for the woman here. The woman
is an adult. And it seems like the woman
doesn't count, it's only the fetus that seems
to count.
And I was just talking to my
colleague here, Senator Montgomery, and
4688
really, I don't quite understand what
government is doing in this whole thing
anyway. Because as we know from time
immemorial, a woman is going to do what a
woman has to do. And, you know, whether it's
approved or not approved, it really is a
question of is it done in a safe and healthy
manner or is it going to be done in, you know,
back alleys.
Anyway, there's some things I'd
like to clarify. And I'm also going to use
some notes from a noted authority. This is
Allan Rosenfield. He's the dean of the
Columbia School of Public Health.
And by the way, I concur with my
colleague who says that almost all doctors,
almost all nurses, almost all people in just
about any health care field, to say nothing of
the League of Women Voters, a lot of very
respected organizations, all say that this is
not the way to go.
And the only groups that seem to be
supporting this, quote, partial birth abortion
ban act are the right-to-life people. So I
don't see that there's a huge groundswell.
4689
Let me clarify certain things.
This intrusion into decision-making by
physicians about a specific medical procedure
is really unprecedented, and it's
inappropriate, and it could have very
devastating consequences on the quality of
medical care in our state for sure.
And this Legislature, in my opinion
and in many people's opinion, doesn't belong
in the decision-making about medical
procedures or treatments. In fact, the phrase
I think "partial birth" was totally fabricated
by the antichoice community to sensationalize
a very serious medical procedure.
And I was quite interested to see
that the League of Women Voters has become
quite passionate on this, and that's not their
usual stance. And they say, "Those who are
advocating this legislation are pandering to
an extreme constituency which is legislating
at its very worse." They call this
legislation politically motivated and that it
disregards the life and health of women.
That's pretty strong words for the League of
Women Voters.
4690
This bill is really vague. It
lacks any medical terminology. And it's
difficult to understand exactly what the
authors are trying to ban. This vagueness is,
I think, intentional, an effort to eliminate
the right to choose in our country. The fact
is that Roe versus Wade, where -- all
abortions performed in the third trimester are
illegal, and they can only be performed if the
purpose is to save the life and health of the
woman, including cases of extreme fetal and
abnormalities.
The fact is fewer than 1 percent of
all abortions are performed after 20 weeks and
significantly -- this is amazing -- less than
one-tenth of 1 percent of all abortions are
performed after 24 weeks. That's -- wait,
0.10. So that's one-tenth of 1 percent.
This legislation would ban one
variant of the dilatation and evacuation
procedure, which is the dominant method used
in second-trimester abortions. I said second
trimester. That is covered under Roe v. Wade.
This legislation could be
interpreted to ban most or all D&E procedures,
4691
which is the safest method of abortion in the
second trimester, and that's between the 12th
and the 18th week.
The fact is the choice of the most
appropriate option must be a medical choice,
not one dictated by us, a legislative body,
which would only increase the risk factors of
surgery and not be the most appropriate
medical care that the doctor would prescribe.
This legislation would force
doctors in some cases to select what they
consider a second- or even a third-best method
just in order to avoid criminal prosecution.
I believe, and I'll tell you a lot
of women believe that the medical decisions
that women have to make should be made with
their families and with their doctors, not
with the Legislature.
And I think this is an
unprecedented intrusion into our medical care.
And I think the decision-making does not
belong with the Legislature. I really think
this should be rejected.
I'll be voting no.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: Read
4692
the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
November.
SENATOR PATERSON: Slow roll
call.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Paterson, do you have five members
standing?
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Yes, Mr.
President, we do.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: Slow
roll call.
The Secretary will ring the bells.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Alesi,
voting in the affirmative earlier today.
Senator Balboni.
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Bonacic.
SENATOR BONACIC: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Breslin.
SENATOR BRESLIN: No.
4693
THE SECRETARY: Senator Bruno.
(Senator Bruno was recorded as
voting in the affirmative.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Connor.
(Senator Connor was recorded as
voting in the negative.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Coppola.
SENATOR COPPOLA: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
DeFrancisco voting in the affirmative earlier
today.
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Farley.
SENATOR FARLEY: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Gentile.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Gonzalez.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Goodman.
4694
SENATOR GOODMAN: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Hannon.
SENATOR HANNON: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Hevesi.
SENATOR HEVESI: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Hoffmann.
SENATOR HOFFMANN: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Johnson.
SENATOR JOHNSON: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Kruger
voting in the affirmative earlier today.
Senator Kuhl voting in the
affirmative earlier today.
Senator Lachman voting in the
affirmative earlier today.
Senator Lack voting in the
affirmative earlier today.
Senator Larkin.
SENATOR LARKIN: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator LaValle
voting in the affirmative earlier today.
Senator Leibell.
SENATOR LEIBELL: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Libous
voting in the affirmative earlier today.
4695
Senator Maltese.
SENATOR MALTESE: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Marchi.
SENATOR MARCHI: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Markowitz.
SENATOR MARKOWITZ: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Maziarz.
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator McGee
voting in the affirmative earlier today.
Senator Meier.
SENATOR MEIER: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Mendez
excused.
Senator Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Morahan
voting in the affirmative earlier today.
Senator Nozzolio voting in the
affirmative earlier today.
Senator Onorato voting in the
4696
affirmative earlier today.
Senator Oppenheimer.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Padavan
voting in the affirmative earlier today.
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Rath
voting in the affirmative earlier today.
Senator Rosado voting in the
affirmative earlier today.
Senator Saland voting in the
affirmative earlier today.
Senator Sampson voting in the
negative earlier today.
Senator Santiago voting in the
negative earlier today.
Senator Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Seabrook.
SENATOR SEABROOK: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Seward
voting in the affirmative earlier today.
Senator Skelos voting in the
affirmative earlier today.
4697
Senator A. Smith.
SENATOR ADA SMITH: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator M. Smith
voting in the affirmative earlier today.
Senator Spano voting in the
negative earlier today.
Senator Stachowski.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Stafford.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Stavisky.
SENATOR STAVISKY: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Trunzo.
SENATOR TRUNZO: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Velella
voting in the affirmative earlier today.
Senator Volker.
SENATOR VOLKER: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Wright
voting in the affirmative earlier today.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: The
Secretary will call the absentees.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Gentile.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Gonzalez.
4698
SENATOR GONZALEZ: (No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Gentile.
SENATOR GENTILE: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Gentile will be recorded in the
affirmative.
The Secretary will read the
results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 40. Nays,
19.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: The
bill is passed.
Senator Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Mr.
President, do we have any housekeeping at the
desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: Yes.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: May we
return to motions and resolutions.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Meier.
SENATOR MEIER: Thank you, Mr.
President.
I wish to call up Senator Leibell's
4699
bill, Print Number 7530, recalled from the
Assembly, which is now at the desk.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
744, by Senator Leibell, Senate Print 7530, an
act to amend the Retirement and Social
Security Law.
SENATOR MEIER: Mr. President, I
now move to reconsider the vote by which this
bill was passed.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: Call
the roll on reconsideration.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 60.
SENATOR MEIER: Mr. President, I
now offer the following amendments.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Amendments received.
SENATOR MEIER: Mr. President, I
wish to call up Senator DeFrancisco's bill,
Print Number 4239, recalled from the Assembly,
which is now at the desk.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: The
Secretary will read.
4700
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
733, by Senator DeFrancisco, Senate Print
4239, an act to amend Chapter 679 of the Laws
of 1992.
SENATOR MEIER: Mr. President, I
now move to reconsider the vote by which this
bill was passed.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: Call
the roll on reconsideration.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 60.
SENATOR MEIER: Mr. President, I
now offer the following amendments.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: The
amendments are received.
Senator Meier.
SENATOR MEIER: Thank you, Mr.
President. Amendments are offered to the
following Third Reading Calendar bills:
By Senator Lack, at page 9,
Calendar 301, Senate Print 6502;
Senator Seward, page 14, Calendar
497, Senate Print 6734;
Senator Volker, at page 15,
Calendar 559, Print Number 4659B;
4701
By Senator Wright, at page 23,
Calendar 786, Print Number 7085;
By Senator Balboni, at page 34,
Calendar 1017, Print Number 7700;
By Senator Velella, page 34,
Calendar 1013, Senate Print 7397A;
By Senator Johnson, at page 18,
Calendar Number 677, Senate Print Number 6864;
By Senator Skelos, at page 34,
Calendar Number 1005, Senate Print Number
6153;
And by Senator Spano, at page 38,
Calendar Number 1098, Senate Print Number
7766.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: The
amendments are received, and the bills will
retain their place on Third Reading Calendar.
Senator Meier.
SENATOR MEIER: Thank you, Mr.
President.
Also, on page number 23, on behalf
of Senator Spano, I offer the following
amendments to Calendar Number 796, Senate
Print Number 1594A, and I ask that the bill
retain its place on the Third Reading
4702
Calendar.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: The
amendments are received. The bill will retain
its place on Third Reading Calendar.
Senator Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Mr.
President, can we return to reports of
standing committees. I believe there's a
report of the Rules Committee at the desk.
Can we have it read now.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Reports of standing committees.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Bruno,
from the Committee on Rules, reports the
following bills:
Senate Print 273, by Senator
Kruger, an act to amend the Penal Law;
1182A, by Senator Padavan, an act
to amend the New York City Charter;
1271, by Senator Goodman, an act to
amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law;
1580A, by Senator Larkin, an act to
amend the Insurance Law;
2311, by Senator Kuhl, an act to
4703
amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law;
3475, by Senator Paterson, an act
to amend the Tax Law;
4125, by Senator Alesi, an act to
amend the Labor Law;
5152, by Senator Libous, an act to
amend the Education Law;
6696, by Senator Oppenheimer, an
act to amend Chapter 17 of the Laws of 1930;
6851, by Senator Balboni, an act
authorizing the reopening;
7231A, by Senator Maziarz, an act
to authorize the Village of Medina;
7351, by Senator Leibell, an act to
amend the Retirement and Social Security Law;
7352, by Senator Leibell, an act to
amend the Retirement and Social Security Law;
7548A, by Senator Leibell, an act
to amend the Town Law and the Real Property
Tax Law;
7566A, by Senator Maziarz, an act
to amend the General Municipal Law;
7816, by Senator Meier, an act to
amend the General Municipal Law;
7823, by Senator Seward, an act to
4704
amend Chapter 607 of the Laws of 1999;
7834A, by Senator Larkin, an act to
amend the Highway Law;
7865, by Senator Libous, an act to
amend the Mental Hygiene Law;
7902, by Senator Spano, an act to
amend the General Business Law;
And 7967, by Senator Marchi, an act
to amend the Tax Law and others.
All bills ordered direct to third
reading.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Mr.
President, can we accept the Rules Committee
report.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: The
motion is to accept the report of the Rules
Committee. All those in favor signify by
saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: The
4705
report is accepted.
Senator Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Mr.
President, at this time can we take up Senate
Number 5152.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: The
Secretary will read. 5152, the Secretary will
read.
THE SECRETARY: In relation to
Senate Print 5152, Senator Libous moves to
discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
Assembly Bill Number 3597 and substitute it
for the identical Senate Bill Number 5152,
Third Reading Calendar 1324.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Substitution ordered.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1324, by Member of the Assembly Stringer,
Assembly Print Number 3597, an act to amend
the Education Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: Read
the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
4706
July.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 60.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: The
bill is passed.
Senator Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Mr.
President, are there any substitutions at the
desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: Yes,
there are.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: May we have
them made, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: On page 38,
Senator Nozzolio moves to discharge, from the
Committee on Rules, Assembly Bill Number 8130B
and substitute for the identical Senate Bill
Number 5590B, Third Reading Calendar 1086.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Substitution ordered.
Senator Marcellino.
4707
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Can we
recognize Senator Dollinger.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Mr.
President, may I have unanimous consent to be
recorded in the negative on Calendar Number
709.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: Yes,
you do.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Coppola, do you wish to be heard?
SENATOR COPPOLA: No.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Okay. You sure?
(Laughter.)
SENATOR COPPOLA: Thank you very
much.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Mr.
President, there being no further business to
come before the Senate, I move we adjourn
until Monday, June 12th -- excuse me, Senator
4708
Paterson. The unshaven one wishes to speak.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO:
Senator Paterson, why do you rise?
SENATOR PATERSON: Are we about
adjourn, Mr. President?
SENATOR MARCELLINO: I hope so.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: I'm
waiting for the motion from Senator
Marcellino, Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Can I have a
slow roll call on that, please.
(Laughter.)
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: Are
there five Senators left in the chambers?
Senator Marcellino, will you
continue on your motion, please.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: There being
no further business to come before the Senate,
I move we adjourn until Monday, June 12, at
3:00 p.m., intervening days to be legislative
days.
ACTING PRESIDENT FUSCHILLO: On
motion, the Senate stands adjourned until
Monday, June 12th, at 3:00 p.m., intervening
days being legislative days.
4709
(Whereupon, at 4:23 p.m., the
Senate adjourned.)