Regular Session - February 5, 2001
560
THE STENOGRAPHIC RECORD
ALBANY, NEW YORK
February 5, 2001
3:09 p.m.
REGULAR SESSION
LT. GOVERNOR MARY O. DONOHUE, President
STEVEN M. BOGGESS, Secretary
561
P R O C E E D I N G S
THE PRESIDENT: The Senate will
come to order.
I ask everyone present to please
rise and repeat with me the Pledge of
Allegiance.
(Whereupon, the assemblage recited
the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.)
THE PRESIDENT: In the absence of
clergy, may we bow our heads in a moment of
silence, please.
(Whereupon, the assemblage
respected a moment of silence.)
THE PRESIDENT: Reading of the
Journal.
THE SECRETARY: In Senate,
Saturday, February 3rd, the Senate met
pursuant to adjournment. The Journal of
Friday, February 2nd, was read and approved.
On motion, Senate adjourned.
THE PRESIDENT: Without
objection, the Journal stands approved as
read.
Presentation of petitions.
Messages from the Assembly.
562
Messages from the Governor.
Reports of standing committees.
Reports of select committees.
Communications and reports from
state officers.
Motions and resolutions.
Senator Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: On behalf of
Senator Balboni, on page 8 I offer the
following amendments to Calendar Number 36,
Senate Print Number 853, and ask that said
bill retain its place on Third Reading
Calendar.
THE PRESIDENT: So ordered.
Senator Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Thank you.
Again on behalf of Senator Balboni,
on page number 8 I offer the following
amendments to Calendar Number 43, Senate Print
Number 858, and ask that said bill retain its
place on Third Reading Calendar.
THE PRESIDENT: So ordered,
Senator.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
563
there will be an immediate meeting of the
Rules Committee in the Majority Conference
Room.
THE PRESIDENT: There will be an
immediate meeting of the Rules Committee in
the Majority Conference Room.
SENATOR SKELOS: If we could take
up the noncontroversial calendar.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
15, by Senator Volker, Senate Print 208, an
act to amend the Penal Law and the Criminal
Procedure Law, in relation to term of
imprisonment.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside, Senator.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
29, by Senator Goodman, Senate Print 662, an
act to amend the Penal Law, in relation to
concurrent and consecutive terms of
imprisonment.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
564
section.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay that
aside, please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
34, by Senator Balboni, Senate Print 851, an
act to amend the Penal Law, in relation to
increasing the criminal penalties.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 12. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
November.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 37.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
41, by Senator Marcellino, Senate Print 781,
an act to repeal Title 17 of Article 23 of the
Environmental Conservation Law.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
565
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 37.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
53, by Senator Skelos, Senate Print 404, an
act to amend the Social Services Law, in
relation to charging of a fee or other form of
compensation.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
Senator Kuhl, that completes the
reading of the noncontroversial calendar.
SENATOR KUHL: Could we have a
controversial reading of the calendar now.
THE PRESIDENT: We may.
SENATOR KUHL: Thank you very
much.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
566
15, by Senator Volker, Senate Print 208, an
act to amend the Penal Law and the Criminal
Procedure Law, in relation to term of
imprisonment.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Volker,
an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR KUHL: Lay that bill
aside temporarily.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside temporarily.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
29, by Senator Goodman, Senate Print 662, an
act to amend the Penal Law, in relation to
concurrent and consecutive terms of
imprisonment.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation,
please.
SENATOR KUHL: Lay that bill
aside temporarily, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside temporarily.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
53, by Senator Skelos, Senate Print 404, an
567
act to amend the Social Services Law, in
relation to charging of a fee or other form of
compensation.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
SENATOR KUHL: Lay the bill aside
temporarily, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside temporarily, Senator.
SENATOR KUHL: And would you
return to -
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read Calendar Number 29.
SENATOR KUHL: Correct. Thank
you.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
29, by Senator Goodman, Senate Print 662, an
act to amend the Penal Law, in relation to
concurrent and consecutive terms of
imprisonment.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation,
please.
568
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Goodman,
an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR GOODMAN: This
legislation relates to the problem of rape and
serial rapists, who unfortunately have been
running rampant in New York City, certain
parts of it in particular. And it seeks to
impose a different type of penalty than the
law now provides.
Specifically, not just a single
sentence for an individual rape or a
combination of the same which would run
concurrently, but, rather, sentences that
would be run consecutively so that it would be
possible to hold a rapist for a more extended
period of time in the event of conviction.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, would Senator Goodman yield for a
question.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Goodman,
do you yield?
SENATOR GOODMAN: Yes, I will.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead, Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, do
569
the consecutive sentences apply for the actual
first incident, or is this something that
occurs after a second charge; in other words,
after there have been multiple charges?
SENATOR GOODMAN: If a rapist is
involved in multiple rapes, the answer is it
would apply to the first instance. The notion
being that a series of rapes are more
significantly punishable than a single rape.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, if Senator Goodman will continue to
yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
continue to yield?
SENATOR GOODMAN: I do.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead, Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you,
Madam President, and to Senator Goodman.
My question, Madam President,
relates to a hypothetical that I want to offer
to Senator Goodman, whereby an individual has
been arrested after a long investigation for a
series of rapes, say ten. Would the
legislation apply in that particular case?
570
SENATOR GOODMAN: To a person who
allegedly committed ten rapes or who was
convicted of ten rapes?
SENATOR PATERSON: A person who
was convicted.
SENATOR GOODMAN: Absolutely,
sir, it would, yes.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, if Senator Goodman would continue
to yield.
SENATOR GOODMAN: Yes, I will,
Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
Senator Paterson, you may proceed.
SENATOR PATERSON: Then, Senator,
what I'm understanding is that this is not the
same as a kind of predicate felon situation.
This is a situation that relates to the acts
and separates them because of the multiple
pain that the perpetrator has inflicted, and
that that the public policy of your
legislation is that there has been even
greater suffering in the multiple factor of
the number of crimes that were committed.
SENATOR GOODMAN: That plus the
571
concept that clearly relates to this type of a
defendant who has been convicted of a series
of crimes perpetrated against a number of
individuals, thus creating a very great danger
that this individual, if permitted to serve a
concurrent sentence, would be released much
sooner than the seriousness of the crime would
warrant.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you,
Madam President, on the bill.
I find the Senator's -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: I find the
Senator's explanation to be satisfactory.
However, there are two learned
colleagues, Senator Duane and Senator
Montgomery, who had considerable questions on
this legislation to the effect that they voted
in the negative last year. They are both
temporarily out of the chamber on other
business. Perhaps they will be able to
explain for themselves better than I can what
their concerns are.
But I would like to make record of
the fact that these two Senators voted in the
572
negative on this legislation last year.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 38.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
15, by Senator Volker, Senate Print 208, an
act to amend the Penal Law and the Criminal
Procedure Law, in relation to term of
imprisonment.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Volker,
an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR VOLKER: Madam President,
this bill, which has been around since 1995,
is what I call a "three times and you're out"
bill.
What it does is that for people who
have already committed two violent felony
573
offenses, if they commit a third violent
felony offense, those two become predicate
felonies and the person is subject to a
sentence of 25 years to life.
It is interesting, very quickly, as
I was going through the memo on this, I
realized that this is a 1995 memo that talks
about "each day our court dockets are filled
with greater and greater numbers of cases,"
and it goes on to talk about we can't find a
way to bring down violent crime. Well, we
have.
In fact, at the hearing today we
pointed out we have had the greatest decline
in violent crime in this state's history.
We're having right now the greatest decline in
inmates in modern history. Nobody can ever
remember anything like it.
And I happen to believe -- and I
think there's a series of reasons why that is
happening in this state, way beyond what's
happening in other states. And certainly the
Governor has to be commended, because it's
since he took office that this has begun to
happen, and this Legislature, which has passed
574
all sorts of legislation to deal with that.
This bill, which was introduced
during the period just as we began to get
tough here -- let's never forget that in the
1970s, we began to forget about what brought
us where we were. We brought down penalties
in many areas and forgot what was going on in
the criminal justice system.
At any rate, what this bill does,
it's a persistent violent felony offense
program that says on the third -- and
remember, these are people who are pretty bad
people. They already had to have committed
two violent felony offenses, which means they
had to be in jail for a considerable period of
time. Because under any circumstances, they
certainly would go to jail for at least some
time.
So this is the third time. If they
commit a very serious crime, they would be
subject to 25 years to life. The bill also
limits plea bargaining in violent felony
offense cases.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President.
575
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: If my
distinguished colleague, Senator Volker, would
yield for a few questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
SENATOR VOLKER: Certainly.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, you
have rather clearly and cogently stated the
reasons for why we have to have mandatory
minimums. What I'm asking you is, what is the
justification for doubling the mandatory
minimum from 12 years to 25 years -- more than
doubling it -- when there's been an increase
in crime and -- well, I'll ask you that and
then I'll go to another question.
SENATOR VOLKER: Decrease in
crime.
SENATOR PATERSON: I'm sorry, a
decrease in crime.
SENATOR VOLKER: That's the
question.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you.
576
SENATOR VOLKER: I just wanted
to -- I knew what you were saying, so -- well,
I think the answer is that yes, there has been
a decrease in crime.
But it's my belief and the belief
of, I think, many in the criminal justice
system that a prime reason for the decrease in
crime is that we have got off the streets so
many of the people who are repetitive violent
felony offenders.
And what this bill does is it takes
repetitive violent felony offenders -- and
remember, these are not minor felons,
obviously. These are people that have
previously been convicted. Probably, if they
were convicted twice of violent felony
offenses, they probably have 25 or 30 arrests.
Because that's the normal type of situation.
And now they're arrested again, after coming
out of jail, for another violent felony
offense.
And the question is, what do you do
then with a person who is already in a
situation? And the answer is the third time,
you're out, you go to jail for a period of a
577
minimum of 25 years.
So I think the answer to that is
yeah, crime is down, but I think a major
reason why crime is down is because we're
sending these type of people to jail. And I
think this is a deterrent to those kinds of
people who would realize if they commit
another one of these offenses, they're going
to jail for a long time.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you,
Senator.
Madam President, if -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: If the Senator
would yield for another question.
SENATOR VOLKER: Sure.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead, Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, I
don't mean this facetiously, I really mean it
rather seriously. Wouldn't it be possible to
argue both ends of the sword? If crime had
gone up, then that would be a good reason to
say we need to increase the sentences more; if
crime goes down, we say, well, it's working,
578
so we need to do it some more.
SENATOR VOLKER: Yeah, I think
you could make that argument. Except that I
think this is the type of situation that seems
to be working.
Now, the argument, for instance, on
drug offenses is that minor drug offenses -
the argument is that too many of them are
going to jail. None of this in the violent
felony offense area relates to any of these
minor people. We're talking the very serious
people.
When I was a police officer, we
used to say if you could put a high percentage
of professional burglars in jail and keep them
there for a long time, the burglary rate in
this state would go down.
We did, it's happened, the burglary
rate went down dramatically after we put a lot
of professional burglars in jail for a long
period of time. We increased the penalties,
judges started getting tougher and so forth.
So my argument is -- I think the
argument of a lot of people is that although
it is very arguable that since the crime rate
579
is generally down and the serious offenses are
down that on the lower scale, very possibly,
that we can consider some situations where we
can do treatment and things like that.
But in the areas of the very
violent people, the best thing to do with
those people is to get them off the streets
and get them off the streets as long as
possible.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: -- on the
bill.
THE PRESIDENT: On the bill,
Senator. You may proceed.
SENATOR PATERSON: I have been
persuaded over the years by this argument, and
particularly as it's articulated by Senator
Volker, whose approach to things is very lucid
and is very reasonable.
And I think that in spite of the
fact that I probably voted against this
legislation when Senator Volker first tried to
implement it, I think that upon hindsight,
580
with the distinct advantage of hindsight, I
can see the purpose for it, and I guess it's
borne out by the facts that Senator Volker's
certainly cited.
But I don't see a great deal of
information that tells me that lowering a
minimum sentence -- or raising the time of a
minimum sentence from 20 years to 25 years is
accomplishing that much good. I don't know
that people who come out of prison after 20
years go back to the same types of crimes that
they were committing before they went there.
There certainly is a celebrated age
at which criminals seem to age out, that they
just don't seem to commit the same types of
crimes. And I think that we've reached that
threshold and that we're overextending what
may have been some very good legislation at a
particular period of time.
Senator Volker and those who
suggested it are to be commended. I voted for
a bill last week by Senator Skelos which
approximates the number of acts that would
ignite the threshold of this kind of public
protection. But in this case, it's just
581
extending the time. And I think we've got the
time at a pretty good length as it is now.
So I would recommend a no vote on
this legislation, in spite of the fact that
previous legislation seems to be borne out by
some statistical data. I don't see the
statistical data when it comes to what people
do 15, 20, 25 years into a minimum sentence
when they're released.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 5. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
the negative on Calendar Number 15 are
Senators Connor, Duane, Hassell-Thompson,
Montgomery, Paterson, and Santiago. Ayes, 50.
Nays, 6.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President. I was hoping I could have
582
unanimous consent to vote in the negative on
Calendar Number 29.
THE PRESIDENT: Without
objection, you are recorded as voting in the
negative on Calendar 29, Senator.
Senator Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, Madam
President. I would like unanimous consent to
be recorded in the negative on Calendar 29.
THE PRESIDENT: Without
objection, you are so recorded as voting in
the negative on Calendar 29.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
53, by Senator Skelos, Senate Print 404, an
act to amend the Social Services Law, in
relation to the charging of a fee or other
form of compensation.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Skelos,
an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR SKELOS: Thank you, Madam
President.
This legislation would increase the
penalties for selling a child for money or
583
other things of value to an E felony for the
first offense and a D felony for a subsequent
offense.
Currently, the law is a Class A
misdemeanor for the first offense and an E
felony for the second.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, would Senator Skelos yield for a
question?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
SENATOR SKELOS: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: You know what,
Madam President? Tell Senator Skelos that
when I think of a question, whenever it is, I
want him to yield. But for now, I'll let the
proceedings go forward.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
584
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
November.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 57.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
Senator Skelos, that completes the
reading of the controversial calendar.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
if we could return to reports of standing
committees, I believe there's a report of the
Rules Committee at the desk. I ask that it be
read.
THE PRESIDENT: Reports of
standing committees.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Bruno,
from the Committee on Rules, reports the
following bill direct to third reading:
Senate Print 2102, by Senator
Goodman, an act to amend the Tax Law.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Move to accept
585
the report of the Rules Committee.
THE PRESIDENT: All in favor of
accepting the report of the Rules Committee
signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: No.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Nay, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Rules report
is accepted.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
could we take up the Rules report.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
80, by Senator Goodman, Senate Print 2102, an
act to amend the Tax Law, in relation to
enabling a city of one million or more.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Explanation.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Goodman,
an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR GOODMAN: Madam
586
President, this bill seeks to respond to the
very serious problem of increased fuel oil and
gas prices as they apply in the City of New
York.
The attempt to provide this relief
is in the form of a tax forgiveness which
would be for a 60-day period upon action by
the City Council, applying both to heating oil
and to natural gas.
The cost to the City of New York
would be $8 million for the heating oil
portion of this bill and $16 million for the
gas portion.
May I say that an attempt has been
made -- this has been introduced at the
request of the mayor of the City of New York,
who sought to obtain approval of the other
house by inclusion of a clause relating to the
natural gas portion of this bill. But
unfortunately, having made that concession,
I'm advised that the other house still does
not wish to pass it in this form but rather in
a form which would not have the 60-day limit
but, rather, an open-ended limit on the
imposition of this tax holiday.
587
Therefore, the effort being made by
the City of New York to relieve its citizens
of the onerous problem related to the hike in
the cost of gas and oil is one which may not
reach consummation by virtue of the inactivity
in the other house. But it's to be hoped that
they will realize the mayor's effort to
compromise this issue and will act
accordingly.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
Senator Oppenheimer.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Madam
President, would you please yield for a
question, Senator?
SENATOR GOODMAN: Of course,
Senator.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
You may proceed, Senator
Oppenheimer.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: I'm
questioning why some other counties are not
included. For example, I can speak for
Westchester County. Our gas bills are a
588
little bit over double what they were last
year this time. I'd like to know why
Westchester wasn't included.
SENATOR GOODMAN: Senator, I
realize the seriousness of what you say. But
may I say to you that as far as I'm aware, the
City of New York sought this for its own
citizens and it was not applicable to other
counties. This is a single-purpose bill
relating strictly to the City of New York.
And I cannot tell you about the other
counties.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: I see. All
right. Well, I certainly -- through you,
Madam President -- I certainly hope we can
draft a bill similar to this -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, are you
speaking on the bill?
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: On the
bill.
I certainly hope we can draft
something similar to this, if this receives
favorable response in the other house, that
could help some of those counties that have
been very severely impacted by the increase in
589
gas prices.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
is there any housekeeping at the desk?
THE PRESIDENT: No, there is not,
Senator.
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Madam
President, I believe there's notice of a
proposed rule change before the house that
I've given notice of. Pursuant to a
stipulation, I believe, with the Majority in
our last session day, that notice was properly
given. And I'd like to address the amendment
of the rules right now.
In addition, Madam President -
590
THE PRESIDENT: One minute,
Senator.
Senator, we have received the rules
proposals. Under the new Senate rules, you
now have half an hour to discuss the proposed
rules changes.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Madam President.
In addition, as a matter of
housekeeping, I believe I would also like to
hand up notice of two other rules changes that
would be in order. And I would hand that up
at this time for tomorrow, which would notice
them for tomorrow.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
I would suggest that before we start handing
up and discussing rules changes, why don't we
complete the discussion on the proposed rule
change. And then if Senator Dollinger wishes
to hand up other proposed rules changes, I'm
sure we would be happy to entertain them.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: That's
perfectly acceptable, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you,
591
Senator Skelos.
You may proceed with your
half-an-hour maximum.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you
very much.
This proposed rule change does two
things. It creates a new Senate committee on
audiovisual coverage that will be made up of
four members.
As many of the members in the
house -- those who were here last week -
recall, we had made two original proposals
with respect to the video broadcasting of the
affairs and proceedings of the New York State
Senate.
The first was to require the
Legislative Library to maintain a storehouse
of videodiscs and videotapes of the
proceedings, and the second was to create the
position of an official videographer, someone
who would sit at the desk, as our stenographer
and our microphone person now sit, and provide
for the recording of the affairs of the
Senate.
We talked about how that could be
592
done, we talked about the process of wiring
this chamber, with its 19th century elegance,
and wiring it for the 21st century to allow
that video broadcasting to occur.
The proposal and the amendment
which is the subject of this proposed
amendment today would create the new Senate
committee on audiovisual coverage, a
four-member committee -- two members of the
Majority, two members of the Minority -- that
would participate in ironing out the rules of
how videotaping would occur.
It is patterned after the Senate
Ethics Committee, which includes two members
of the Majority and two members of the
Minority as well as our colleagues from the
Assembly in equal numbers.
And it seems to me it would
eliminate the one great danger that members of
the house might feel with respect to
videotaping, and that is that somehow
partisanship would influence what appears in
our video broadcasts. It seems to me the best
way to neutralize that tendency towards
partisanship which occurs, frankly, in any
593
political body, especially one for which
elections may be a once-every-two-year affair,
serious and complicated, difficult
elections -- the way to do that, the way to
root out that tendency towards partisanship is
to simply balance the membership, as we
balanced it on the Ethics Commission.
To assure integrity in our ethics,
in the administration of the Ethics Law in
this state, we made it truly bipartisan. It
seems to me the same thing should be true
here, in order to ensure that the entire house
is properly and fairly represented in
videotape proceedings and video broadcasting,
the easiest way to do it is simply to allow
two Democrats, two Republicans to sit on the
Senate committee on audiovisual coverage of
the Senate. That would get us a long way down
the road to assuring that kind of bipartisan
nature of the broadcasts.
The second amendment which is the
subject of the proposal today is a rule that
would amend Senate Rule VII to require the
Senate to video broadcast its proceedings.
This is really the nub of the rule for which
594
the other three portions that we've discussed
previously are essential predicates, but this
is the rules change that really makes it work.
The State of New York is one of the
few states in the Northeast that doesn't
broadcast its proceedings in a video form. As
I think I said last week -- and what actually
occurred in my office, which I regard as an
interesting part of our new technology -
because we audio broadcast our proceedings,
because we allow people in the state to turn
on their computers and go right to the Senate
website and get the audio feed through their
computer, members of my staff were able to sit
in Rochester, New York, and talk to me on the
telephone, and I got the stereophonic
equivalent of Senator Markowitz's speech in
support of video broadcasting.
I sat in the lobby and listened to
him live, and they put the telephone up to the
audio broadcast, and I was able to listen to
him on the telephone and listen to him live at
the same time.
The only drawback of that, of
course, was that there was no video
595
presentation of Senator Markowitz's rather
fiery speech talking about the importance of
video broadcasting all of the Senate
proceedings.
It seems to me that the complement
to that process is to simply take what we now
see in pictures -- and, frankly, which any
member of the gallery can now capture with
their eyes -- and we can make that video
broadcast in reality and, in essence, allow
the 18½ million people that live in this state
to sit in the gallery of our parlor while we
debate the important parts of the state's
agenda.
Now, this room right here is the
state's parlor. This is where, at least in
the Irish Catholic family that I grew up in,
this is where the debates about the future of
the family, the future of the country,
religion, everything was talked about in the
parlor.
We sit, by privilege of the people
who elected us, in the parlor of New York in
its State Senate. We would allow 18 million
people to have the potential to sit in our
596
gallery every single day and observe what we
do.
It seems to me that much as we're
now convinced that video pictures, whether
they're transmitted around the world or around
our neighborhood, are an intelligent part of
our ability to make judgments about the world
outside, it seems to me that people should
have the right to look into this parlor and
see what we debate, what we talk about, what
issues we effectively present.
And our voters both in our home
districts and around the state can make a
judgment about the validity of what we do, the
passion of what we do, and the correctness of
critical public policy decisions that we make.
So I commend to the house both of
these rules changes. It's my view that these
rules changes will open the door to
New Yorkers to visit their public officials,
to see us, to watch us, to understand what we
do. I think it will be a civics lesson for
everyone in this state.
I believe it will enhance our
politics, it will encourage voter
597
participation, and it will drive a political
discourse in this state, much as it does in
Massachusetts with their gavel-to-gavel
coverage, much as it does in New Jersey and I
believe the 17 or 18 other states, many of
them from the Northeast, in which video
broadcasting is an important part of the
public's knowledge and understanding of their
government.
I've said this before; I'll
continue to say it again. We govern with the
consent of the governed. In our debate last
year with Senate Marchi, we talked about those
famous words in the Declaration of
Independence, and we talked about the consent
of the governed as being a critical part of
America's history and America's view of itself
and its projection into the world.
I would suggest that by video
broadcasting our proceedings, we will enhance
the informed consent of the public and drive a
stronger respect for this government, for the
operation of this Senate, perhaps even for the
Majority of this Senate, in convincing people
that its decisions on behalf of the people of
598
this state are the right decisions for today
and will stand as the right decisions for
tomorrow.
It seems to me that the Majority of
this house, having governed it for nearly 40
years, and having been watched by thousands of
people in our gallery debate the important
issues of the time, this gives us an
opportunity to simply reach a broader
audience.
And, quite frankly, it seems to me
that those in government, if they're willing
to stand up and say, We are the Majority, we
are making choices as a majority, that this
video broadcasting will give you a forum to
present your views on the issues to the people
of this state, as it will everyone in this
chamber, and allow us to fulfill, at least in
my judgment, the important duty that we have
to everyone.
So, Madam President, I commend both
of these rules changes to the house. It is my
view that they can only enhance the system we
call democracy and make this State Senate
better.
599
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you,
Madam President. I want to speak in support
of Senator Dollinger's proposal, the rules
change allowing for the video broadcasting of
the proceedings here in the Senate.
And I want to commend to you, Madam
President, a study in 1997 that demonstrated
that less than 30 percent of high school
students could approximate which half-century
the Civil War of this country was fought.
Also less than 30 percent of those high school
students could not properly identify which
country the United States of America defeated
in the Revolutionary War.
And when you look at that, it begs
the question of how much more the parents of
those students know than the students. And I
think that generally there is a malaise or an
obfuscation of some of the most important
issues of history and of the operation of
government that have escaped some of us.
Perhaps we weren't paying enough attention in
civics and history class and in other avenues
of educational study.
600
But for those who are interested,
with the myriad number of channels now
provided for on cable television, where you
have 80 to a hundred channels that most
subscribers are eligible for, to show the
workings of government here in the New York
State Senate for all those who don't live in
Albany, who don't come here in the course of
business, but are just civilians and would
like to know what's going on.
I'm sure the terms can be worked
out later. Perhaps the Majority might feel
that they'd like a larger percentage of those
who are making the decisions on how we'll set
up the camera. For those who were here last
week, Senator Dollinger talked about the
camera angles that he thought would be
appropriate.
But I think that it's a time that
has come and an idea that should germinate
through our voting for this rules change, and
I proudly support it.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President. Would the sponsor yield?
601
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Yes, I will,
Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you.
I'm wondering if last week's
debates and discussion on the rules change
were broadcast live on video, what the sponsor
thinks the reaction of New Yorkers would be if
they were able to see that live.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: That would
be -- through you, Madam President, that would
be mere speculation on my part. I think I
rather accurately expressed my personal
opinion, and I would hope that my personal
opinion, had it been broadcast to New Yorkers,
might have convinced others to share that
opinion.
But, Senator, I believe that's pure
speculation on my part. And although I would
like that as the ending, I couldn't guarantee
that it would happen.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
602
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
continue to yield?
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: I'm wondering if
the sponsor has had a chance to share his
rules reform regarding particularly the
videotaping of the proceedings here, if he'd
been able to share that with his mother yet.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR DOLLINGER: No, Madam
President, I haven't.
But be that as it may, given what
was said about the rules changes, perhaps my
mother would be the appropriate person to show
it to.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President. On the bill -- on the resolution.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Duane,
you may proceed on the resolution.
SENATOR DUANE: The other reason
that I wanted to raise Senator Dollinger's
mother is because last week, when so many of
603
us were so effusive in our praise of Senator
Dollinger, I think that it would be most
appropriate to really give a big hunk of that
credit to Senator Dollinger's mother, who had
the foresight to actually deliver him, which
made it possible for him to come here and put
these terrific resolutions on the floor before
us.
So thank you. As I thanked you
last week, Senator Dollinger, this week I wish
to thank your mother.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you,
Senator Duane, for your knowledge and respect
for Senate rules.
Senator Oppenheimer.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Thank you.
I also would like to praise the
whole Dollinger family, because I think -- I
do think that the father must have had some
role to play in his coming forth and joining
us here, and certainly in the fine parenting
that he must have received in order to be such
a fine, upstanding citizen.
I'd like to talk on the bill for a
604
moment. And I am talking somewhat as a past
League of Women Voters president, which feels
very, very strongly on the issue of videoing
these proceedings here.
I can point to my county of
Westchester, where we have -- every town and
village has the proceedings of the village
board and the town board and the city -- also
our cities, our city councils, every single
community has the proceedings of their local
legislature videotaped, so that people are
able to follow it even though they can't
necessarily get to those local meetings. And
this is also true for our county board of
legislators.
We feel strongly that this is an
important issue if we are going to try and
keep our citizenry informed. Which is, after
all, the basic tenet of the League of Women
Voters, that we are trying to educate citizens
in order that they may become informed and
involved citizens.
The fact is that we are losing so
many of our citizens to indifference, to
absolutely no interest in even bothering to
605
vote, which is not a major effort. And I
think it is only through a greater
understanding of their government, so it isn't
felt that it is so distant from them, that
they have absolutely zero impact.
So I strongly would support this
resolution and commend Senator Dollinger for
it.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you,
Mr. President. On the bill.
I am not going to spend more time
commending Senator Dollinger, although
certainly all that has been said I concur
with.
I think that we have a
responsibility to our constituents, to the
laws of the State of New York, to the people
of the State of New York, to take quick action
on the issue of televising Senate proceedings.
It's been on the record that the
Majority, and Senator Bruno said this in the
press a number of times, supports televising
proceedings. We have no excuse for waiting.
606
People can't see us at home -
former Senator Abate couldn't see us on TV in
New York City. She had to come up here when
she missed us. You know, and there are a lot
of other people who don't have that option
because they're not former senators.
And most importantly is the point
that's been made repeatedly by my colleagues.
Children, young people, people who have not,
by and large, shown a great propensity to
register to vote as soon as they become
eligible, it can only help for them to see
what we do. It can only help democracy. It
can only help the process of making this a
better state.
And I don't know what rationale we
have for failing to act. The technology is
easily available. Senator Dollinger had put
forward an extremely sensible, bipartisan
proposal. We have a committee that's modeled
on the Ethics Committee, which we all, I
think, are satisfied with.
And I think that the proposal is
just there. We're happy to have it taken -
and I think Senator Dollinger would be happy
607
to have someone else's name put on it if we
can get it done. But we have a responsibility
to do it and do it promptly. There's really
no excuse.
And I urge everyone to vote for
this resolution.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Stavisky.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Mr. President,
I wonder whether the sponsor would yield for a
question or two.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Dollinger, do you yield for a question?
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Certainly,
Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Thank you, Mr.
President.
Last night at 9 o'clock, one of my
favorite programs was on television, on
C-Span. I don't know if you happened to see
it, but it's called "Prime Minister's
Questions," and they ask questions of the
Prime Minister in the House of Commons in
608
London.
I wonder if the sponsor could
explain to me why I can watch the House of
Commons in Great Britain and I can't see the
Legislature here in the State of New York.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Well, I guess
the shorthand answer, through you, Mr.
President, would be that there's some greater
affinity with England than there is with the
Senate in New York.
I find that astounding. This body
was formed in 1777, before America's
independence, and we can't watch its
deliberations on television, but we can tune
in and watch Tony Blair, who nobody ever voted
for -- I don't know about you, Senator, but I
never did voted for Tony Blair. In fact, I've
never voted for a Liberal or a Laborite or a
Conservative. And I -- we get to watch them
on television.
And the other thing is, Senator,
you may not know this, but you can also watch
the question-and-answer period in the Canadian
Parliament.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Yes.
609
SENATOR DOLLINGER: And I might
actually have an interest in doing that,
because my sister-in-law is a member of
Parliament in Canada, and I've actually seen
her ask questions during the
question-and-answer period. I found it
fascinating. I was rooting for her from
Rochester, New York.
And I find it astounding that I can
watch her and nobody that I represent can
watch me. And I guess the anomaly of that,
Senator Stavisky, is that the people in New
York will learn more about government from the
British than they will from New Yorkers.
Although I would suggest that
that's somewhat of a foreign experience,
considering we divorced ourselves from Great
Britain 225 years ago, and we still have some
lingering infatuation that apparently the
members of the Senate are comfortable with in
allowing that infatuation to continue.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Mr. President,
Senator Dollinger has done the transition for
the question, the point that I was going to
make, which was that we are independent of
610
Great Britain today. And it seems to me that
in this house of lords, we ought to be able to
have our constituents tune in and watch us as
they can the Canadian Parliament or the House
of Commons in Great Britain.
And I urge my colleagues to support
Senator Dollinger's rules changes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Just to sum
up, Mr. President, on behalf of the rules
change.
Senator Stavisky brings up I think
a strong point, and one that's worth
repeating, which is we can watch foreign
governments debate their future, but the
people in New York can't watch their
government debate ours.
In addition, Senator Oppenheimer's
comment about local government, I still think
that's one of the great innovations of local
government, is that we get to watch our public
officials, our city councilpeople. I see a
couple of my new colleagues who were both on
city councils who are both familiar with the
611
process of televising local city council
meetings.
It's wonderful to sometimes walk in
a grocery store when you're a local official
and have someone interrupt you while you're
standing in the checkout line and say, "Oh, by
the way, I saw you on television last night."
And sometimes they say, "I completely agree
with you," and other times they say, "I
complete disagreed with what you had to say."
Don't you think it's a wonderful
thing that the people that you represent have
that opportunity to lay their views right at
your feet, even perhaps at an inconvenient
time, but nonetheless because they were
watching you advocate your position on
television?
I would point out that in addition
to watching Great Britain and Canada and
watching our local officials, we of course get
to watch the parlor of the federal government
when we watch the Congress debate the issues.
We can watch our congresspeople -- Louise
Slaughter, from my district, or any one of
your congresspeople, I can watch them on
612
television through C-Span, I can watch them
debate, I can hear them talk about issues that
are critically important.
I would only go back to one that I
will never forget, which was to watch the
members of the House line up in single file
and approach the podium or approach the
microphone and announce whether they were
supporting then-President Bush's initiative in
the Persian Gulf. And at a moment when
America was going to contribute the lives of
its young people to a military venture, it was
refreshing to see members of Congress come to
a podium and say "I support the President, and
if he wants to put American troops to defend
American interests in the Persian Gulf, I will
stand with him."
It seems to me that that moment in
time when the Congress was siding with the
President, while we may never approach that
dramatic level, certainly the debate on issues
like the death penalty, debate on the budget,
debate on critical issues affecting health
care or women's health -- all of these issues,
I think the public has an enormous interest.
613
And I think it would be in our
interest to show them what we have to say and
visualize it with pictures, use that
latter-20th-century technology of the picture
which can say a thousand words and probably,
in the modern parlance, can say a million.
Mr. President, I know that Senator
Bruno supports this. I know we have his
support for this initiative. I simply would
ask Senator Bruno and his colleagues in the
majority party to give their support to a
measure that will allow video broadcasting to
occur.
I have, I think, fashioned it
reasonably, I have fashioned it fairly, I have
fashioned it in a way that can be done with
minimal cost. I think it can be done without
substantially changing the protocols in this
house. And I think it can be done by
maximizing the benefit to the people that we
represent.
When I grew up in New York, the
"Excelsior" actually stood for something. It
meant that on most issues, New York was first
in line. It meant that New York was a leader.
614
It meant that we weren't afraid to go down a
path where others had not even tread yet.
I would suggest that by approving
video broadcasting, by allowing the
proceedings of this chamber to be broadcast to
the people of this state, we are not going
into a new territory, we are not fulfilling
the goal of it being at the top of the list,
at the forefront of an approved communication
with our public. Instead, we are simply
following a path already set by many other
states who have done it fairly, consistent
with the rules of their house, and
inexpensively, in providing people with access
to democracy. It's that simple.
I know Senator Bruno supports it.
I know in his heart he's going to vote with
us. All I would ask is that his voice follow
his heart and that this rule be approved now.
Now is the time to do it. Let's
start the process. Let's get the people of
this state what they want, a chance to see us
do their work, the work that they pay us for
in this State Senate. I commend the rule to
the house.
615
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President, I
thank Senator Dollinger for his comments.
If your sister-in-law were
listening to this, I'm sure she would have a
great night's sleep in Canada.
It's great to see Senator Abate
sitting here. The only thing that would make
it better would be if Senator Leichter was
also sitting here.
But I would just like to point out
that Senator Bruno has led the way in terms of
reform for this chamber. He has established
joint conference committees. We have
expenditure review open to the public. And we
do not have the all-night sessions as a
practice that existed in the past.
This Majority, under Senator
Bruno's leadership, and the task force that
has been established, chaired by Senator
Johnson, will continue to move forward in a
way that's businesslike and professional. And
when it's appropriate, we will ask you to join
in supporting us in what will be continuing to
616
improve the accessibility of the public to
this chamber.
So I would urge my colleagues to
defeat this motion.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
question is on the motion. All those in favor
signify by saying aye.
SENATOR PATERSON: Party vote in
the affirmative.
SENATOR SKELOS: Party vote in
the negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 22. Nays,
36. Party vote.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Dollinger, why do you rise?
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Just to
explain my vote, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Just one
second. Senator Skelos.
Senator Dollinger, to explain his
vote.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Just very
617
briefly, Mr. President. I take heart with
what Senator Skelos has said. I listened.
Senator Bruno has made changes in this house.
He has done good things.
The expenditure report, which
Senator Leichter advocated for years, is now a
matter of record. We tried to pass an earlier
rule that would have made it by rule so that
no Majority Leader could change that without
changing the rules as well. He has also
improved the starting-on-time of the house,
which I think everybody appreciates. He
eliminated the late-night sessions, after
years of Senator Hoffmann suggesting that was
the right thing to do.
I think Senator Bruno has listened.
And I don't want to suggest that Senator Bruno
hasn't made positive changes in the house.
I'm just -- in this instance, the time is a
wasting. If time is money, the people of this
state are losing money by not being able to
watch us on television.
And I would just strongly suggest,
this is not a multimillion-dollar project. I
sit on Senator Johnson's committee. I would
618
suggest that it has functioned somewhat less
than efficiently and economically, since it's
only met once in its two-year history.
And I would suggest, from my point
of view, this is something to vote aye on. I
will reiterate it, I think that in the long
run, doing it quicker is better than doing it
later.
And I would suggest, Senator
Skelos, that while at some point I may join
you to do it, the better approach is to join
the 21st century and have the Majority join
this rules amendment now.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Dollinger will be recorded in the affirmative.
The motion is defeated.
I'm sorry, Senator Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Mr.
President, to explain my vote.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Schneiderman, to explain his vote.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: I also
welcome Senator Skelos' comments, although I
do have to say that there's nothing that would
upset Senator Leichter more than hearing that
619
you guys think I'm more of a pain in the neck
than he was.
But in regard to the hearing and
the task force, I would welcome that, if the
task force had had meetings or reports
scheduled, coming up, or if I could recall
when it last had met.
I hope you will energize this task
force, take action at Senator Dollinger's
behest to move this along, because this is
something where time is wasting.
And I think that I certainly would
welcome the opportunity for everyone in all of
our districts to see what what's going on
here, and I don't think there's any credible
argument for not moving forward quickly.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Schneiderman will be recorded in the
affirmative.
The resolution is defeated.
Senator Dollinger, why do you rise?
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Mr.
President, I rise to give written notice, as
required by Rule XI, that I will move to amend
620
the Senate rules with respect to two other
rules.
SENATOR SKELOS: I think it would
be appropriate first if we moved to motions
and resolutions. That's when this type of
motion should be handed up.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I accept
Senator Skelos's admonition.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Motions
and resolutions.
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Mr. President.
I hereby move to give written
notice, as required by Rule XI, with respect
to two additional amendments of the Senate
rules. And I would give notice, as required
by Rule XI, that those rules changes would be
in order tomorrow.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
notice will be received and entered in the
Journal.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Is there any
housekeeping at the desk?
621
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: No,
there is not.
SENATOR SKELOS: There being no
further business, I move we adjourn until
Tuesday, February 6th, at 11:00 a.m.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: On
motion, Senate stands adjourned until Tuesday,
February 6, at 11:00 a.m.
Senator Paterson, why do you rise?
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you, Mr.
President. There's no -- there's no problem
that -- the Senate's adjourned, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senate's
adjourned.
(Whereupon, at 4:07 p.m., the
Senate adjourned.)