Regular Session - April 17, 2001
5283
NEW YORK STATE SENATE
THE STENOGRAPHIC RECORD
ALBANY, NEW YORK
April 17, 2001
3:04 p.m.
REGULAR SESSION
SENATOR RAYMOND A. MEIER, Acting President
STEVEN M. BOGGESS, Secretary
5284
P R O C E E D I N G S
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Senate will come to order.
I ask everyone present to please
rise and repeat with me the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
(Whereupon, the assemblage recited
the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
invocation will given by the Reverend Peter G.
Young.
REVEREND YOUNG: Let us pray.
Dear God, we thank You for the
return of our airmen.
We're grateful for Your guidance to
our Senate and pray for their good health upon
their return from recess, so that they might
use their energy to be dedicated to our
priorities of assisting our New York State
citizens.
May Your wisdom guide them to be
creative in their sponsorship of legislative
bills that will enhance our society.
Amen.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Reading
5285
of the Journal.
THE SECRETARY: In Senate,
Monday, April 16, the Senate met pursuant to
adjournment. The Journal of Friday, April 13,
was read and approved. On motion, Senate
adjourned.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Without
objection, the Journal stands approved as
read.
Presentation of petitions.
Messages from the Assembly.
Messages from the Governor.
Reports of standing committees.
Reports of select committees.
Communications and reports from
state officers.
Motions and resolutions.
Senator Farley.
SENATOR FARLEY: Thank you, Mr.
President. On behalf of Senator Goodman, I
move that the following bill be discharged
from its respective committee and be
recommitted with instructions to strike the
enacting clause. That's Senate 3957.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: So
5286
ordered.
Senator Farley.
SENATOR FARLEY: Mr. President, I
offer the following amendments to the
following Third Reading Calendar bills.
Senator Nozzolio, on page 11,
Calendar Number 55, Senate Print 218.
On behalf of Senator DeFrancisco,
on page 12, Calendar 96, Senate Print 512.
Senator LaValle, on page 20,
Calendar 210, Senate Print 1103.
For Senator Wright, on page 23,
Calendar 263, Senate Print 2503.
On behalf of Senator McGee, on
page 23, Calendar Number 269, Senate Print
3187.
On behalf of Senator Stafford, on
page 27, Calendar Number 324, Senate Print
3438.
And on behalf of Senator Libous, on
page 29, Calendar Number 111, Senate Print
1989.
I move that these bills retain
their place on the Third Reading Calendar.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
5287
amendments are received and adopted, and all
bills will retain their place on the Third
Reading Calendar.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President, I
believe there's a substitution at the desk.
If we could make it at this time.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Yes,
there are. The Secretary will read the
substitutions.
THE SECRETARY: On page 24,
Senator Maltese moves to discharge, from the
Committee on Consumer Protection, Assembly
Bill Number 174A and substitute it for the
identical Senate Bill Number 92A, Third
Reading Calendar 276.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:
Substitution ordered.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President,
if we could go to the noncontroversial
calendar.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read the noncontroversial
calendar.
5288
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
164, by Senator Kuhl, Senate Print 1685, an
act authorizing the trustees.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Lay it aside,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Lay the
bill aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
189, by Senator Nozzolio, Senate Print 224, an
act to amend the Correction Law.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Lay it aside.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Lay the
bill aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
218, by Senator Padavan, Senate Print 1814, an
act to amend the Agriculture and Markets Law.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Lay the bill
aside, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Lay the
bill aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
227, by Senator Wright, Senate Print 2678, an
act to amend the Highway Law.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Lay that bill
aside.
5289
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Lay the
bill aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
250, by Member of the Assembly Lentol,
Assembly Print Number 5305, an act to amend
the Judiciary Law and the Penal Law.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Lay that bill
aside, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Lay the
bill aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
260, by Senator Farley, Senate Print 2964, an
act to amend the Banking Law and others.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Lay that bill
aside, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Lay the
bill aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
268, by Senator McGee, Senate Print 3089, an
act to amend the General City Law and others.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Lay it aside.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Lay the
bill aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
288, by Member of the Assembly Magnarelli,
5290
Assembly Print Number 5831, an act to amend
the Vehicle and Traffic Law.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Lay it aside.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Lay the
bill aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
301, by Senator LaValle, Senate Print 2589, an
act to amend Chapter 554.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Lay the
bill aside.
Senator Morahan, that completes the
reading of the noncontroversial calendar.
Senator Trunzo.
SENATOR TRUNZO: Will you please
put a sponsor star on Calendar Number 288,
Senate Bill 3527.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: A
sponsor's star will be placed on Calendar 288.
So ordered.
Senator Morahan.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Mr. President,
now may we have the controversial reading of
the calendar, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
5291
Secretary will read the controversial
calendar.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
164, by Senator Kuhl, Senate Print 1685, an
act authorizing the trustees of the Steuben
Allegany Board of Cooperative Educational
Services.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Explanation,
please, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Kuhl, an explanation has been requested of
Calendar 164 by Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR KUHL: Thank you, Mr.
President.
This is a bill that simply would
allow the Southern Tier Library System to
lease land from the Steuben Allegany BOCES on
a long-term basis.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Mr.
President, will the sponsor yield to a
question?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Kuhl, do you yield for a question?
5292
SENATOR KUHL: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President, why is it that the library
system needs to lease the parcel from the
BOCES system? Is there a difficulty with
available space in the library system itself?
SENATOR KUHL: The Southern Tier
Library System is one of those agencies
created at the state level that oversees and
coordinates the area libraries. They don't
actually put books on shelves and have people
come and read and provide the normal library
services. They're the coordinating agency
that kind of oversees the libraries and runs
the book loan program for them.
That operation is out of space.
They have a lease that ends at the end of this
year. They would like to locate in a new
facility that will accommodate their needs.
And this is the most cost-efficient mechanism
to do that.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President, if the sponsor will again yield
5293
for a question.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Kuhl, do you yield for another question?
SENATOR KUHL: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: This proposal
would be for a 30-year lease. And generally,
under the -- I think a number of areas, both
in the Education and the General Municipal
Law, we don't permit public entities to enter
into leases in excess of five years. Why
should we make that exception in this case,
and why wouldn't be it be preferable just to
allow BOCES to sell the land to the library
system?
SENATOR KUHL: Well, you've asked
several questions, not just one, Senator, but
let me try to answer that in the most
efficient way that I can.
And that is, the library system
currently is leasing from a private landowner.
If they were to go out and own their own
system, then they would in fact be expending
money that they wouldn't necessarily have to
5294
by buying property and then building.
This coordinated effort between the
BOCES and themselves, really there are a lot
of kind of joint operations that potentially
they could enter into. And also, the land is
already there, it's available. And BOCES has
no desire to actually sell the property that
they have.
So this was a proposal to actually
allow them to utilize property that's there
and existent, and also add them to their
campus so that some of their students might
make benefit of some of the services that they
can provide.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President, if the sponsor will yield to a
final question.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Kuhl, do you yield?
SENATOR KUHL: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President, how is the 30-year lease and
the construction going to be financed by the
5295
Southern Tier Library System? If it is, as
you describe it, just a coordinating agency,
it wouldn't seem to have the assets or the
taxing authority to levy the taxes to pay for
this cost. How will the cost be paid for?
SENATOR KUHL: I believe they're
financed by you and I, Senator. Through the
state budget, each one of the state library
systems gets funding.
And what they would have to do is
to go out and borrow money from a bank and
actually finance the construction and pay it
back over a long period of time. And
certainly no financial institution is going to
loan anybody money that can't repay it in five
years without the security of having a longer
lease.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Excuse me, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Morahan.
SENATOR MORAHAN: There will be
an immediate meeting of the Racing, Gaming and
Wagering Committee in the Majority Conference
Room.
5296
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:
Immediate meeting of the Racing, Gaming and
Wagering Committee in the Majority Conference
Room.
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Mr.
President, just briefly on the bill, and then
I'll head off to the Gaming and Wagering
Committee meeting.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Dollinger, on the bill.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: It seems to
me that this is a reasonable use of an
exception to the general rule in New York that
no government entity should be permitted to
enter into any period longer than a five-year
lease.
I think that was done for a number
of reasons, most importantly to prevent one
elected government from committing a
subsequent elected government to the terms of
a long-term lease deal.
I'm satisfied that Senator Kuhl's
explanation is adequate, does the purpose, and
suggests that this is in the best interests of
5297
both the taxpayers of the State of New York,
since we fund the library system, and it seems
to me to be a reasonable basis for BOCES to
retain control of the property if at some
future time they wanted to exert control and
ownership and again use it purely for
educational purposes.
So, Mr. President, I'll be voting
in the affirmative.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Does any
other member wish to be heard on this bill?
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
if Senator Kuhl would yield for a question.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Kuhl, do you yield to a question from Senator
Paterson?
SENATOR KUHL: Yes, I'd be happy
to.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, has
this experience that we are going to codify
here today happened to any of the libraries in
the Southern Tier system before, where we've
5298
actually leased a property from someone else
but they retain control of the property?
You want the shorter question? Has
this ever happened before?
SENATOR KUHL: I wasn't pausing
based on not understanding your question,
Senator. It was I was thinking about how to
respond to what appears to be a
misunderstanding that you have.
The Southern Tier Library System is
a 501(c)(3) corporation that's chartered by
the Board of Regents. They are one of
several, and I'm not sure how many library
systems there are -- it seems to me it's
something like 37 throughout the entire
state -- that actually oversee a geographical
area. And they vary in size, they have
different-sized libraries that they actually
oversee.
And they provide a coordination of
services from the state to the libraries. And
actually, that organization itself is totally
funded by the state, by our budget which we
hopefully will adopt here shortly.
Now, a library that they would
5299
participate and would be part of that system
who actually provides the services to each one
of the communities, generally they're
chartered on their own, separately, and they
may have entirely different financial
circumstances. Many of them, as you may know,
are struggling for dollars. They have all
kinds of ways that they try to raise money.
And there is some funding that is provided to
them, but certainly not enough.
As a matter of fact, the Board of
Regents have offered up, and Senator Farley
carries, a bill that would authorize a major
overhaul of the funding system for those
individual libraries. But that's different
from the centralized library system which this
is a part of.
So has a leasing of this particular
situation occurred before of the centralized
library systems? I don't know. Has leasing
of premises from another organization ever
occurred before for one of the smaller
libraries it provides the individual services
to? I'm absolutely certain of that. But
there never has been a need that I'm aware of
5300
for a longer term to be extended or for a
change in the law.
SENATOR PATERSON: Very good.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Does any
other member wish to be heard on this bill?
Senator Ada Smith.
SENATOR ADA SMITH: Thank you,
Mr. President. Would the sponsor yield for a
question?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Kuhl, do you yield for a question?
SENATOR KUHL: Certainly, to
Senator Smith. I think it's Senator Smith's
birthday today.
SENATOR ADA SMITH: No, tomorrow.
And you are Thursday.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR KUHL: So we'd love to
have a birthday conversation. Yes, I'll
yield.
SENATOR ADA SMITH: Thank you.
See, you made me forget the question.
Is there a reason -- he wants to
know how old you are. Is there a reason for
5301
leasing rather -
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Kuhl, you don't have to yield for that.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR ADA SMITH: Is there a
reason for leasing versus purchasing?
SENATOR KUHL: I haven't gotten
into the internal discussions with the board
of the Southern Tier Library System. I know
that they have explored all the options.
And what they've come back to me
with was, Could you seek out a longer-term
lease so that we in fact could conclude our
negotiations on the construction aspect of
that with our prospective mortgagor? And I
said, Yes, is this the most cost-efficient
way? And they've assured me that it is.
SENATOR ADA SMITH: I'm sorry, I
was not here earlier. But could you tell me
exactly how long this leasing -
SENATOR KUHL: Currently the law
restricts them to a five-year lease. What
they're looking at is a 30-year lease.
SENATOR ADA SMITH: Once again,
would the sponsor yield?
5302
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Kuhl, do you yield for a question?
SENATOR KUHL: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR ADA SMITH: With a
30-year lease, it would seem to me that the
amount that we would expend would be a hefty
amount towards purchasing or at least a decent
amount of a purchase.
SENATOR KUHL: Well, I think what
you're missing, Senator, and if I can help you
out -- I didn't really hear a question there,
but the point is that this land that they will
put this building on costs them nothing.
If they were to go and purchase
something, certainly they're going to have to
purchase something on a piece of property
which they'd have to go out and buy.
And this is an extremely attractive
piece of property. It's right off of what's
called I-86, an interstate. It's right near
the regional DOT facility, it's right next to
a state police headquarters, it's right next
to a BOCES school system.
5303
So it provides a lot of potential
opportunity at virtually no cost for -- as far
as land acquisition goes. The only cost that
they'll incur will be for construction.
SENATOR ADA SMITH: Thank you
very much. Now that I have a better
understanding of this leasing agreement, I
would certainly support this bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, Mr.
President, if Senator Kuhl would just yield
for a question.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Kuhl, do you yield to a question?
SENATOR KUHL: Be happy to.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, thank
you, Senator Kuhl. I support this
legislation, of course. And always, you know,
I think libraries are so important.
The question that I have for you is
the Department of Corrections talks about the
fact that inmates have been very much involved
5304
in helping to build libraries upstate for some
communities. And I'm just wondering if you
have any idea if this particular library will
receive assistance from DOCS, with inmates
helping to construct that -- the new library.
SENATOR KUHL: I don't know,
Senator, but I've heard no mention of that.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Okay. Thank
you. Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Any
other member wish to be heard on this bill?
Debate is closed.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll call.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 55.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
Senator Morahan.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Yes, Mr.
President. Would you call up Calendar 260,
Senate Bill 2964.
5305
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read Calendar 260.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
260, by Senator Farley, Senate Print 2964, an
act to amend the Banking Law, the Education
Law, and the Surrogate's Court Procedure Act.
SENATOR HEVESI: Explanation.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Farley, an explanation has been requested of
Calendar 260 by, I believe, Senator Paterson
and Senator Hevesi.
SENATOR FARLEY: Thank you, Mr.
President.
This bill would enact technical
amendments that would ensure that all national
banks operating in New York State are subject
to the same laws. These technical amendments
that we're talking about here are needed to
address changes which have occurred in the
banking industry as a result of the new
interstate branching laws.
Prior to interstate branching,
these particular laws applied to all national
banks with branch offices in New York State.
5306
However, after interstate branching, it
appears that these laws may apply only to
those national banks which are still
headquartered in New York State.
It is important to update these
laws because -- to ensure that they will
continue to apply to all national banks that
operate in New York. There was no intent or
decision to exempt national banks
headquartered in New York from New York laws.
This bill will remove any possible
uncertainties or questions about applicability
of these laws. It would ensure that the banks
continue to be subject to the same laws and
rules that apply to all other national banks
that operate in New York State.
The banking environment in the
mid-1990s changed substantially with the
enactment of the interstate branching laws.
Incidentally, before that, a bank could only
operate in one state. I don't know if you
remember that.
As a result, this new environment
has called into question the applicability of
New York State laws, and these laws have yet
5307
to be amended to reflect the new banking
environment.
Basically, what this will do is to
say that -- go with the original intent of the
bill, of the law, which will apply to all
national banks which are actually operating in
New York State. By updating the language of
these laws and removing the outdated reference
to having, quote, a principal office in the
state, this bill would clarify and ensure that
all national banks operating in New York State
are subject to the same laws.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
if the sponsor would kindly yield for a few
questions.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Farley, do you yield for some questions?
SENATOR FARLEY: Yes, I will.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, when
we were talking on April 4th, right before we
left here for a few days, we actually were
5308
talking about the convergence of Section 203
and Section 108 to accommodate the foreign
banks.
Are the international banks in any
way affected by this situation? I know
they're not affected by this legislation. But
did they have the same admonishment legally
that they had to be headquartered in the same
state before the passing of the interstate
banking laws in the mid-'90s?
SENATOR FARLEY: No.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
if the sponsor would yield for a question.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Farley, do you yield?
SENATOR FARLEY: Sure.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
I'm interested in Senator Farley's comments
about what the previous law was and the way it
was written, that the addressing of the
headquarters having to be in the state was
5309
because the nationally chartered bank could
only operate in one state, so then the
headquarters would have had to have been
there. Was that what you were saying,
Senator?
SENATOR FARLEY: That's correct.
That's prior to interstate branching.
SENATOR PATERSON: Right. So
then obviously it would -- it would be obvious
that now that the federal law has changed and
accommodates several states for these
different banks, they can't have their
headquarters in any other than one place.
But I did notice back and forth the
reference to a principal location. Is the
principal location meaning the same thing as
the headquarters?
SENATOR FARLEY: Well, some
places in the law it refers to a particular
law that applied to a bank that has a
principal headquarters in New York. And what
this bill would do would make sure that
anybody -- any national bank that is doing
business in New York State, whether
headquartered here or whether it has a branch
5310
here, would be subject to all of our laws.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you, Mr.
President. If Senator Farley would yield for
another question.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Farley -
SENATOR FARLEY: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, how
many banks that had their headquarters in
New York and have left New York -- at least
their headquarters, even though they're doing
business and may have branches here -- would
actually be affected by this legislation? Or
is this something really just to clear up the
technicalities in case this should ever happen
so there'd be no misunderstanding?
SENATOR FARLEY: Well, I don't
have an exact answer to this. But I think
that -- I know that you've been here long
enough to remember that Fleet Bank and Key
Bank are the two most prominent examples of
national banks which consolidated their
multistate operations and moved out of state
5311
to a single bank. As a result, these two
banks are now headquartered elsewhere.
And that came about because we were
a little bit reticent or reluctant to pass
banking deregulation, and also the wild card.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
if the Senator would continue to yield.
SENATOR FARLEY: Yes.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
I do remember that. Key Bank actually was
headquartered right here in Albany, and I
guess about six or seven years ago they
relocated to Cleveland. Or eight years ago.
And it was probably as a result of some of the
new changes and some of the desires they had
in New York that they felt we weren't
accommodating.
My question is, would the passage
of the federal law, in spite of the fact that
we would want to be consistent, is there
necessarily a need to pass this legislation?
Or does it just -- is it just preempted by the
new regulations that were established about
seven or eight years ago.
SENATOR FARLEY: I think, as the
5312
good lawyer that you are, I think there's a
need to do this, because there's a bit of
confusion in the law. Although I think that
the courts would realize, should it have to go
to court, that the intent was, the legislative
intent was that all national banks are covered
by New York law, whether they're headquartered
or branched here.
But there are places in the law
right now that says that certain laws only
apply to banks that are headquartered here.
And that was -- that's not the intent and
that's not what we want to have happen. We
want all banks that are national banks that
are branched or headquartered here to be
subject to New York law.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr.
President -
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
if I'm a good lawyer, then perhaps hearing
what the advice is from a great lawyer, it
would be a good time to defer. Thank you.
SENATOR FARLEY: Thank you.
5313
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Hassell-Thompson.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Yes,
thank you, Mr. President. I just have one
question, if the Senator would yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Farley, do you yield?
SENATOR FARLEY: Certainly.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON:
Senator Farley, I tried to follow -- through
you, Mr. President, I tried to follow all of
the discussion. And the only question that
concerns me that I did not hear is will, in
fact, by there not being a principal office
here, will that have any effect on the CRA, or
Community Reinvestment Act?
SENATOR FARLEY: No, it would
not. Because it has to follow federal law on
that one.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Okay.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Stavisky.
5314
SENATOR STAVISKY: If Mr. Farley
will yield for what I think will be one
question.
SENATOR FARLEY: Certainly.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Will this have
any effect on foreign banks? And I go back to
what I said when we were debating the bill
that Senator Paterson referred to last -- two
weeks ago.
SENATOR FARLEY: No. No, it only
affects nationally chartered banks. No.
SENATOR STAVISKY: The answer is
no. Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you.
Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor
would yield for a few questions.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Farley, do you yield for a question?
SENATOR FARLEY: Certainly.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
5315
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you.
What I'm curious about is, does
this bill eliminate any distinction in New
York law between banks with their principal
headquarters in New York and banks that just
have branch offices in New York?
SENATOR FARLEY: No. All it does
is it says that they shall be treated equally
under the law, that they're both subject to
our laws. That's all.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Through
you, Mr. President. But I guess what I'm
getting at is that in this era of national and
international banking, we have found -- and
I've been participating for years in a survey
of bank rates for ATMs and for savings
accounts, to try and inform consumers. And
what we've found is we appear to have less and
less leverage as a state on some of these
banks.
So the question is, are we, by
passing this bill -- which I understand is to
bring us into line with the federal laws -
are we giving up any ability to regulate based
on a distinction between banks with their
5316
principal offices in New York and banks that
do not have their principal offices here?
SENATOR FARLEY: No. We're
putting all banks, and specifically certain
branch banks, that only are branched here,
under New York law. So we're bringing in, if
you will, consolidating every national bank,
making it subject to New York law.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Through
you, Mr. President, if the sponsor will
continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Farley, do you yield?
SENATOR FARLEY: Yes, I will.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: So are
there any provisions left in the law after
this that would provide additional benefits or
advantages in the Banking Law to banks with
their principal offices in New York State, as
opposed to banks that just have branch offices
here?
SENATOR FARLEY: No. The answer
is no, not in regard to a national bank.
5317
Incidentally, we have limited
authority over a national bank anyway. For
instance, we do have -- I was able to, with
the support of my colleagues, put in some
security for ATMs and so forth, because that's
a police power. And one that we were -- we
subjected national banks to, that they had to
provide security for these ATMs, for the
consumer using it. That sort of thing.
But on balance, we only have effect
over state-chartered banks.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Through
you, Mr. President, would we still have
authority after this bill was passed to
regulate the fees, the double-dipping fees, as
they're called, at ATMs to prevent them from
charging too high a rate to someone who's not
using that bank?
SENATOR FARLEY: No, it would not
have any authority to do anything on fees for
national banks.
That's one of the reasons we
haven't moved in this area, Senator, is
because all they'll do is jump to a federal
charter. And as you know as well as I, the
5318
feds are always trying to eat our lunch
anyway.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Well,
through you, Mr. President, the current
administration anyway, I do concur.
But a final question. After the
repeal of the Glass Steigel Act, many banks
are in fact seeking to do additional business
in New York through their mergers or joint
ventures with various sorts of securities
firms. Are we preserving our ability to
regulate that sort of joint activity or to
encourage banks to locate in New York in order
to do such activity if we pass this bill?
SENATOR FARLEY: Actually, that's
very limited, because they have to follow the
federal law.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: So through
you, Mr. President, there's nothing that we're
really giving up by this?
SENATOR FARLEY: No. As a matter
of fact, we're not only not giving up, we're
regulating more.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Okay,
thank you. Thank the sponsor for his answers.
5319
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Onorato.
SENATOR ONORATO: Would Senator
Farley yield to a question, Mr. President?
SENATOR FARLEY: Certainly.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR ONORATO: Senator Farley,
under the bill would there be a minimum amount
of branches that would be required to be
placed in this state? Is there any minimum?
SENATOR FARLEY: No.
SENATOR ONORATO: Would one
suffice?
SENATOR FARLEY: One would
suffice.
SENATOR ONORATO: Okay. And the
other one that I was -- why was the industrial
banks -- through you, Mr. President. Senator
Farley -
SENATOR FARLEY: Yup.
SENATOR ONORATO: -- why were the
industrial banks omitted from this?
SENATOR FARLEY: The authority to
have an industrial bank was repealed several
5320
decades ago, before you and me. We don't have
industrial banks.
SENATOR ONORATO: Okay. Thank
you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President, will the sponsor yield to my
favorite question about small banks?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Farley, do you yield for a question?
SENATOR FARLEY: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President, how does this bill impact home
office protection?
SENATOR FARLEY: It does not
impact it.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President, just a follow-up question, if I
may.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Farley, do you yield?
SENATOR FARLEY: Yes.
5321
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: My
understanding is that this bill says that
instead of having your principal place of
business in certain locales, that a bank may
have simply a branch in that locale and then
be able to do things that have traditionally
been done only by banks with their principal
residence.
For example, in the city of
Canandaigua, which I believe may be close to
Senator Kuhl's district and might be in
Senator Nozzolio's district, it has a bank,
Canandaigua National Bank and Trust, which has
its principal office for operations there, and
that they get certain protections under state
law because that's where their principal
office is, in a small city.
My question is, will all national
banks that have a branch in there now enjoy
the same benefits that it previously reserved
just to that particular instance?
SENATOR FARLEY: No. The federal
law requires the same home office protection
5322
that we do under state law. Federal law is
the same as our home office protection.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President, if Senator Farley will continue
to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Farley, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR FARLEY: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Then why do
we need to do this bill if we've preserved
home office protection? Aren't we allowing
banks that don't have their principal place of
residence in certain communities to now do
traditional bank functions like manage
estates, manage trusts, make loans and extend
credit to infants, and -
SENATOR FARLEY: Let me just
address this, Richard, if I could. Senator,
excuse me.
This really has nothing to do with
home office protection. This bill has nothing
to do with it. This addresses other areas.
Certain segments of the law -- not very many,
5323
but a few segments of the law said that this
particular law will only apply to a bank who
has a principal office in New York State. We
don't want that to be the case. It is not the
intent that that be the case.
What we're saying is that New York
law will apply to any national bank, whether
it is home-officed here, whether its principal
office is here, or whether they're a branch
office here. That if they operate in this
state, they're subject to our laws.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President, just on the bill briefly.
I'll take Senator Farley's word for
it. As always whenever we do one of these
amendments where we sort of pick out certain
sections and insert new language, it's
difficult to determine what the long-term
ramifications are, certainly in the banking
bill, which has a constant repetition of
specific, defined terms which are then
repeated and describe both the extent of our
regulation and the ability of banks to operate
and how they operate. I'll take Senator
Farley's word for it.
5324
I think that from my point of view,
I continue to believe that one of our major
sources of consistency in upstate New York has
been the strength of our small banks. And I'm
reluctant to create a playing field in which
those banks will be paired in a competition
with banks that have much stronger muscle
because they have international or truly
national bases.
And I believe that there is a
justification for continuing New York's
preference for certain bank operations in
small communities upstate. I think they've
been enormously successful. I think that's
been very prudent. And I'm just concerned, as
I know Senator Farley and I have talked about
this concept a number of times, that we not
erode that by allowing them to do bank-like
things, whether it's the administration of
trusts or providing loans to infants, which is
another one of the sections in the bill that's
amended.
But with the chairman of the
Banking Committee's assurance that this does
not affect that and erode that principal, I'll
5325
vote in favor.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Hevesi.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you, Mr.
President. Would the sponsor yield, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Farley, do you yield?
SENATOR FARLEY: Yes, I will.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you.
Through you, Mr. President. It
seems to me that the technical corrections
that we're making today, if I have understood
the debate correctly, were necessitated by
Banking Law change that occurred five or six
years ago.
My question for you is -- and I
supported this last year, and I'm likely to
support it again today -- in the time since
these inconsistencies materialized as a result
of those banking changes in the mid-1990s, has
there been any national bank or any banking
institution that sought to take advantage of
this supposed loophole and not comply with any
5326
aspect of New York State law?
SENATOR FARLEY: That's a good
question. I have a written answer here to
that question.
Currently it is assumed that the
laws continue to apply to all national banks.
As far as we know and are aware, out-of-state
banks continue to comply with these laws, and
no one has brought any legal challenge.
Nevertheless, the language of the
law does raise some questions of uncertainty.
If we fail to update these laws, we could
someday find ourselves in a situation where an
out-of-state bank may claim that it does not
have to comply with certain provisions of our
New York law -- for instance, ATM security.
I'll just use that as an example. We believe
it is appropriate to amend the -- update these
laws and eliminate any uncertainty.
There's no real objection to this
by anybody. And I'm confident if -- because
these things fell between the cracks last
year, that this should become law.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you. Mr.
President, one final question for the sponsor,
5327
if he would yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Farley, do you yield for a question?
SENATOR FARLEY: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you.
Through you, Mr. President. And I
very much appreciate trying to take a
preventative approach to remedying a problem
that may exist if the future. It's a good
idea. And you addressed it at the end of your
comments.
But more specifically, is there any
problem that the other house, the Assembly,
has with this, or the Governor has with this
that resulted in this dying an untimely death,
as it were, last year?
SENATOR FARLEY: None whatsoever,
Senator. I think that's a good point. I
think that the other house will embrace this,
and I'm sure that the Governor will. There's
no -- it's just doing the right thing.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you, Mr.
President.
5328
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Any
other member wish to be heard on this bill?
Debate is closed.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 6. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
Senator Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Mr.
President, can we call up Calendar Number 268
at this time.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read Calendar 268.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
268, by Senator McGee, Senate Print 3089, an
act to amend the General City Law, the Town
Law, and the Village Law.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER:
Explanation, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
5329
McGee, an explanation has been requested of
Calendar 268.
SENATOR McGEE: Thank you. May I
ask who asked for the explanation?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: I
believe it was Senator Oppenheimer.
SENATOR McGEE: Yes, this bill is
designed to provide a framework for the use of
planned unit developments as a tool for
guiding communities in growth and development.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: I'm having
trouble hearing, Mr. President.
SENATOR McGEE: This is a bill
that's designed to help communities plan
development and growth.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Sampson, why do you rise?
SENATOR SAMPSON: I'll defer
to -
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Well, thank
you very much.
Thanks, Senator McGee. I
understand planned unit development, and
that's why I don't understand why we have the
bill. So I guess I need a little more of an
5330
explanation of why we need the planned unit
development. I can only tell you I did it
twenty years ago in my village. So I don't
know why we need the law.
SENATOR McGEE: At the present
moment, traditional zoning -
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: I can't -
whoops. Excuse me, I am having trouble
hearing.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:
Senators, could we have some order in the
chamber so that all of us can be enlightened
by this debate. That's better. Thank you.
Go ahead.
SENATOR McGEE: Basically,
traditionally, zoning right now as we have it
typically provides for single use. In other
words, it's single housing or double housing.
Now, there are variances that are allowed.
Single housing, double housing, agriculture,
commercial, industry, business.
This one will allow what's known as
a planned unit development, which will allow
multiple use. In other words, we can have a
cluster development which would allow senior
5331
citizens' housing to be here, single homes,
perhaps throw in a double house in here,
perhaps even within that planned development,
that planned community, would allow them to
have restaurants, hairdressers, et cetera, et
cetera.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Okay. Now
I can see how this varies from what I've done
in the past.
Does this require or allow for only
specific sites to be utilized for PUD
development? Through you, Mr. President, if
you'll yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
McGee, do you yield to a further question?
SENATOR McGEE: Yes, I do.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR McGEE: It would be a
township or a municipality would make the move
as to whether there was a development that
wanted to come in. That developer would then
go to that township and say, This is what I
have in mind. The township then would be able
to look to see where that development is going
5332
to go. It could be on farmland, if that's
where -- you know, you want to be very careful
that it's not agricultural farmland that's in
use right now, it's not in an ag district, et
cetera, et cetera, et cetera. The developer
would have to say, This is my planned use.
In other words, it's designed
basically to control, if you can, urban
sprawl.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Then
through you, Mr. President, would there be -
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Wait,
wait. Whoa, whoa. Senator McGee, do you
yield for another question?
SENATOR McGEE: Yes, I do.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Then would
you have certain -- would the law require
certain specific parameters for the
development of those sites? In other words,
certain criteria that are required before the
site could be established as a planned unit
development?
SENATOR McGEE: Oh, there would
5333
always have to be, Senator. I mean, when you
go in to do any kind of a development, you
have to go through a certain plan type that
you have to go through, whether you're going
to, you know, provide the water, the sewer,
whether you're on environmentally touchy land,
et cetera, et cetera.
This just would be able to give the
township, where the developer has to go
through, the ability to make a decision as to
do we want a planned -- a PUD, they call
them -- planned unit development rather than a
specific use, senior housing or et cetera, et
cetera.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Thank you.
But through you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
McGee, do you yield for another question?
SENATOR McGEE: Certainly.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Would the
law have a certain requirement as far as the
total size, acreage, lot size?
SENATOR McGEE: No.
5334
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: No?
SENATOR McGEE: It does not call
for that. Does it say -- you mean, in other
words, you have to use a planned unit
development in a 2-acre or you must have a 13
acres to do this in? Is that what you're
saying? In other words -
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Yeah.
SENATOR McGEE: Any time a
developer will come in, a developer naturally
would be able to tell you what the size of his
community was or that development was going to
be.
But no, this bill does not say -
does not require X amount of land with it.
That would be the decision of the town.
Zoning always goes through the town at that
point. It's a town's decision as to whether
they want to do zoning -- I'm going to use
town as an example -- a town's decision as to
whether they want to do it or not.
So if you're saying does this bill
say you must have 5 acres or 10 acres to do
it, no, it does not.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: That's
5335
interesting, because our law in the village
where I served did have a requirement of X
minimum acreage in order to permit the PUD to
move ahead.
SENATOR McGEE: I suspect the
local municipality itself could set that by
virtue of looking at what the development was.
But this law doesn't call for that.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Well, then,
you'd -- through you, Mr. President -
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
McGee, do you yield for a question?
SENATOR McGEE: Certainly.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Then do you
believe or not believe that the powers of the
community board, city council, or village
board or planning board or zoning board, is
going to be impacted? In other words, will
some of their decision-making power be taken
away, or do you feel it will be enhanced?
SENATOR McGEE: No, absolutely
not. As a matter of fact, this bill will give
them additional options to work with.
5336
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Some -- oh,
additional options.
SENATOR McGEE: This bill will
not impact on -- not have a negative impact on
anything like that. What this bill will do,
it will give that municipality additional
options to operate with.
In other words, they will be able
to plan, use a planned unit development rather
than just saying you can only use it for
commercial, you can only use it for industry.
This gives them the opportunity to make a
planned unit development include, if they wish
to do so, a portion of each and every one of
those things. So it enlarges their options.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Then
through you, Mr. President -
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
McGee, do you yield for another question?
SENATOR McGEE: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Would this
be like an addition to the zoning code of the
individual municipality? Would they then
5337
incorporate this into their zoning code?
SENATOR McGEE: If they wish to
do so.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: And they -
then they could limit space or a variety of
choices that can be made within the planned
unit development?
SENATOR McGEE: That's correct.
That's correct.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Is there
any -
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
McGee, do you yield for another question?
SENATOR McGEE: Yes, I will,
thank you.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: I don't
even have to ask.
Is there anything in the bill -
I'm not certain if I read this -- in that a
requirement for a public, a municipal hearing
would be necessary before this could be
implemented?
SENATOR McGEE: No, ma'am. If
you're looking at zoning, if you're looking at
zoning, that is not a public referendum.
5338
That's a decision, it's a legislative decision
made by the municipality.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: I just
remembered my zoning law.
Okay, I think -- thank you very
much, Senator McGee.
SENATOR McGEE: You're welcome.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: We come out
of a similar background.
Well, on the bill for a moment.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Oppenheimer, on the bill.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: The bill is
a very good one. And now that I understand
how, this differs somewhat from what I was
doing as the head of my community twenty years
ago, when I did use planned unit development
to avoid basically sprawl and to make sure
that the infrastructure within the planned
unit development was funded both with public
and private monies, which was a new concept.
And this new concept in effect took
the old, standard land-use regulation pattern
of the original zoning and rezoned it into
something new, and that was this planned unit
5339
development. And I think we were the first to
ever try this in Westchester County twenty
years ago. And it was very exciting. It did
give us a lot more flexibility. And we were
working with the developers, and we permitted
greater density in certain areas in response
to leaving open space and having a
recreational area planned there.
And the design was much more
flexible, because we found this kind of
exception at that time called planned unit
development. And it really leveraged a lot of
different things. It permitted us to not only
cluster and then have open space, but we
worked out a maintenance of roads, which was
both public and private. We had the private
change the lighting and interchange on the
streets, which they paid for, saving the local
taxpayer a considerable amount of money.
And I think it's valuable for
these -- in our cases, we saw it as a unique,
large land opportunity where there was large
lots, which were pretty unique in urban
communities, to develop something that was
new, original and could take care of a variety
5340
of needs, and indeed saved the local taxpayer
a considerable amount of money through what we
were able to negotiate.
But the difference being at that
time we only had mixed residential. And I can
see the value of adding commercial.
We did utilize the space for
negotiating -- we negotiated additional space
for recreation for the community, parkland for
the community. But if you're going to have a
variety of zoning uses like residential,
commercial, industrial, then I guess this is
the value of the bill before us.
And I think it's an excellent bill,
and I congratulate you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Sampson.
SENATOR SAMPSON: Will the
sponsor yield for a few questions, Mr.
President?
SENATOR McGEE: Yes, I will.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR SAMPSON: Through you,
Mr. President, the criteria that is used in
5341
determining these PUD zones, who's going to be
involved in determining this criteria?
SENATOR McGEE: Let me -- let
me -- just one moment, if I can. I do need to
correct -- not correct, but enlarge a little
bit on a statement that I made to Senator
Oppenheimer.
You used the term "referendum."
There would be public hearings held on the
proposal, but there would not be a referendum,
because it is a legislative duty of the
municipality to make that decision.
Now, back to who -- what the
criteria would be?
SENATOR SAMPSON: The criteria as
to how you determine these zones, these PUD
zones. What criteria is going to be used in
determining it?
SENATOR McGEE: I suspect that
that would be a decision made by the developer
who would come in with a plan to the town
board and say, This is what I would like to
do, this is a portion where I would like to
have senior housing, over here I would like to
have perhaps a small strip mall that would
5342
serve the senior housing, maybe a daycare
center here, mixed -- double houses here.
It would be a combination of
working together, the developer working with
the town board or the village board as to what
their -- how it fit into a planned PUD, if you
will.
SENATOR SAMPSON: Through you,
Mr. President, will the sponsor continue to
yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
McGee, do you yield?
SENATOR McGEE: Certainly.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR SAMPSON: Senator, when
we're talking about the PUD zones, we're
dealing with usually large tracts of land.
SENATOR McGEE: Yes.
SENATOR SAMPSON: What about
those landowners who have smaller or mid-sized
property? Can they also take advantage of
getting involved in this PUD development?
SENATOR McGEE: Again, I would
assume -- if I may, through you, Mr.
5343
President -- I would assume that if it's
something that wouldn't fall into the scope of
a PUD, they would still come under what is
known as their traditional zoning.
I'm sure you're not going to take a
5-acre piece of land and going to build senior
housing on it and a childcare and a restaurant
and have industry in it. I suspect there has
to be, within that link or within that space
that that developer wants to do, to bring that
into the village or the town or the
municipality, whichever is doing it, and then
they would make the decision.
This bill doesn't tell you whether
they're going to make that decision or not.
It's up to the municipality. This bill gives
the municipality the option to stay with
traditional zoning or to be able to go to the
planned unit development.
SENATOR SAMPSON: Okay. Through
you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
McGee, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR McGEE: Certainly.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
5344
sponsor yields.
SENATOR SAMPSON: Prior to this
legislation, what authority, if any, did the
local municipalities or zonings have to create
such a PUD development? Or if they had any at
all.
SENATOR McGEE: I would assume
that it would have to have been done by a
piecemeal thing. If you take a township,
you're going to have perhaps a village in it.
In that village, you would create your own
zoning, whether you have commercial, whether
you have industry, or whether you have
residential. And there's strict residential,
or you could have residential that had a
variance in it, like maybe a beauty parlor or
something in it. That would be within that.
But as you go further out from a
village into a township, that township then
also has its own zoning to them, if they have
zoning. Now, there are many areas in the
State of New York that don't have zoning.
So I guess I lost track of what it
was you asked me. But what -- who has the
ability to say -- I'm sorry. I think I
5345
answered your question.
SENATOR SAMPSON: Okay. Through
you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
McGee, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR McGEE: Certainly.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR SAMPSON: Senator, what
sort of incentives, if any, would be offered
to the developer and the community surrounding
this development, if any?
SENATOR McGEE: I really don't
know as there would be any type of incentive.
I think the main incentive that you would get
out of a planned unit development is the fact
that you're going to be able to contain urban
sprawl, you're going to be able to contain -
not going to end up -- and again, I'm going to
use a rural analogy, if I might -- you're not
going to end up with a racetrack or a pig farm
next to a -- or a car-painting business next
to a residential area where it could be
hazardous, where it could be -- you know, as a
matter of fact, it could in fact bring down
5346
the value of the property next to them.
So I think that that's the only
incentive. If there were additional
incentives, I'm sure that that's something
that the developer and the municipality would
have to work out amongst themselves. This
does not call for incentives.
Again, the only incentive I think
that you would find would be the ability to
offer an option to the developer and offer an
option to the municipality, the ability to be
able to use a planned unit and, again, contain
urban sprawl.
SENATOR SAMPSON: Okay. Thank
you.
SENATOR McGEE: Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Does any
other member wish to be heard on this bill?
Senator Hassell-Thompson.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank
you, Mr. President. I have just one question
of the Senator.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
McGee, do you yield for a question?
SENATOR McGEE: Certainly.
5347
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank
you, Senator McGee. Through you, Mr.
President, the only question I have is in your
summary of provisions you use the words that
the legislation will provide "specific
statutory authority for, and guidance in."
How are you defining "guidance"?
SENATOR McGEE: I'm sorry, I
guess I didn't -- would you repeat it again?
I'm sorry.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Okay.
In the language of the summary of provisions,
the legislation would provide specific
statutory authority for and guidance in. And
then it talks about the establishment of the
PUD and whatever.
SENATOR McGEE: The guidance
would be the fact that -- the ability for them
to do it. And the fact that these are
different areas -- this gives you the option
of being able to go from the business,
industry, et cetera, et cetera, only guidance
to say this is what you can put into it, this
5348
will allow you to step outside of your
traditional one, which is the housing, the
senior citizens, et cetera, et cetera. That's
the guidance that you would have on it.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Okay.
Thank you. Thank you, Senator.
SENATOR McGEE: You're welcome.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON:
Through you, Mr. President, on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Hassell-Thompson, on the bill.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: I have
the distinct advantage of having just come out
of a city council where we just did a major
PUD. And it was interesting to me at that
time that there were many, many questions that
the city council members had of our planning
department, and it was clear that there were
no statutory -- there was no statutory
language that would limit it, so that we were
able to be very, very creative in terms of how
we developed this property.
And as I read the legislation, I
think we followed the guidelines. And even
though we created it ourselves, it looked as
5349
though you lifted the language from that which
we did.
So I'm very supportive of the bill,
obviously, because we were extremely
successful. And I think the thing that
becomes very important in the language of this
is the adherence, particularly to the public
hearings and to community hearings to ensure
that when you develop these parcels of land
that everyone feels that they have input.
Because we also did it so well that
we were able to sustain a lawsuit that was
brought by a neighboring community based upon
the amount of traffic and other issues that
they thought would be raised, based on the
abutment of this development to their school
district.
So we did our job well. And in
reading the legislation, you did yours very
well. So I can appreciate that and be very
supportive of this legislation.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Does any
other member wish to be heard on this bill?
Debate is closed.
5350
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
July.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
Senator Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Mr.
President, at this time can we call up
Calendar Number 227.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read Calendar 227.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
227, by Senator Wright, Senate Print 2678, an
act to amend the Highway Law, in relation to
designating.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Wright, an explanation has been requested of
Calendar 227 by Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR WRIGHT: Thank you, Mr.
5351
President.
The bill before us amends the
Highway Law. It takes a portion of state
highway currently designated as New York State
Route 12 and changes that designation to the
POW-MIA Memorial Highway.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Brown.
SENATOR BROWN: Through you, Mr.
President, would the sponsor yield for a
question?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Wright, do you yield for a question?
SENATOR WRIGHT: I will, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR BROWN: It seems like I
have seen this designation before. Senator
Wright, are there other such highways
designated in the state?
SENATOR WRIGHT: Yes, there are,
Mr. President.
SENATOR BROWN: Through you, Mr.
President, would the sponsor continue to
5352
yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Wright, do you yield?
SENATOR WRIGHT: I do.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR BROWN: Senator Wright,
where are the others?
SENATOR WRIGHT: The first one is
a portion of a state highway in Kings and
Queens County. The second is -- excuse me,
that's a bridge, not a highway, in Herkimer
County. There's another bridge in Suffolk
County. And there's a memorial highway in
Monroe County and a memorial highway in
Richmond County. So if you were traveling in
any of those areas, you would encounter a
MIA-POW New York State memorial highway.
SENATOR BROWN: Thank you.
That's why it looks familiar. There's one in
Monroe, which is Rochester, right outside of
Buffalo.
SENATOR WRIGHT: On the way home.
There you go.
SENATOR BROWN: Yes, on the way
5353
home.
Through you, Mr. President, would
the sponsor yield for another question?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Wright, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR WRIGHT: I will, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR BROWN: Through this
POW-MIA designation, will there be additional
resources to maintain this section of the
highway?
SENATOR WRIGHT: There will be no
additional resources required in terms of
maintenance. There would be the ongoing
maintenance effort of the State Department of
Transportation.
The only cost that we could
identify would be accrued to signage, and we
believe that is minimal. But more
importantly, the advocates and proponents of
this designation, many of whom are the various
American Legion and VFW posts along the length
and breadth of this highway, have already
5354
expressed a willingness to purchase and secure
the necessary signage as part of their
commitment as citizens.
SENATOR BROWN: Senator Wright
was way ahead of me. He asked my next
question.
However, through you, Mr.
President, would the sponsor continue to
yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Wright, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR WRIGHT: I certainly
will.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR BROWN: How long is the
actual section of the highway that will be
designated for this purpose? And when the
thruway is designated for such a purpose, is
the length the same in every case?
SENATOR WRIGHT: Let me answer
the last question first. That would be no.
In terms of the first question,
frankly. I don't have the scale on this map,
but it's about that long on a state highway
5355
map (indicating).
SENATOR BROWN: Okay.
SENATOR WRIGHT: It would
commence in the town of Morristown, which is
in the northwestern corner of Saint Lawrence
County. It would proceed east to the village
of Alexandria Bay, in the northeast corner of
Jefferson County. It would proceed along the
Saint Lawrence River, through the crossings of
Fishers Landing, into the village of Clayton,
which is about the midpoint of the northern
edge of Jefferson County, whereupon it would
then proceed south.
It would proceed south through
Jefferson County, through Depauville down into
Brownville, through there into the town of
Watertown, thereby arriving at the city of
Watertown. Whereupon, it would continue to
proceed south through South Rutland,
Copenhagen. Upon arriving in Copenhagen, it
would be in Lewis County.
We have now gone into Senator
Meier's district, so I will discontinue my
description at that point. But it does
continue further south into Senator Meier's
5356
district, into and including the city of
Utica, in Oneida County.
SENATOR BROWN: Thank you.
Through you, Mr. President, would the sponsor
yield for one final question?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Wright, do you yield for one more question?
SENATOR WRIGHT: Yes, I will, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR BROWN: Senator Wright,
is there anything that limits these -- I know
that all of us want to honor our POWs and
MIAs. Is there anything that limits these
from placed all the way up and down the state
highway, from Long Island all the way to
Niagara Falls?
SENATOR WRIGHT: There are no
limitations other than those imposed by the
State Legislature, Senator.
If one looks at the designations to
date, I think you'll find that they are
regionally dispersed throughout the state,
they are reflective of urban and rural
5357
interests. I think there is a great deal of
recognition among the people of this state as
to the importance of our veterans, a
willingness to designate and recognize our
veterans, and I think this is just one more
example of that.
SENATOR BROWN: Thank you,
Senator.
SENATOR WRIGHT: Thank you.
SENATOR BROWN: On the bill, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Brown, on the bill.
SENATOR BROWN: This certainly is
something that I think we all support. I
think giving honor to the men and women who
have served our country is an important thing.
And certainly placing such signage
and making such a designation on the state
highway system gives the opportunity for
hundreds of thousands of people to see the
signage and to reflect and remember those men
and women who have courageously served our
country in the armed services, particularly
those who have been prisoners of war and those
5358
who have been missing in action during the
course of their service.
So I support this wholeheartedly
and thank Senator Wright for introducing this
legislation with Senator Meier.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President, will the sponsor yield to just
one question?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Wright, do you yield for a question?
SENATOR WRIGHT: I will, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Does the
designation of Route 12 as a POW-MIA Highway
in any way interfere with the Seaway Trail
program? Which I believe also follows a
portion of Route 12 that borders the Saint
Lawrence River, as you described it, Senator
Wright.
SENATOR WRIGHT: That is correct.
They would be following a similar path of
5359
highway. But there is no inherent conflict in
the two statutes.
The only potential conflict would
be in signage. By virtue of federal
requirements for the trail designation of the
Seaway Trail, there are federal restrictions
on appropriate utilization of signage.
However, State DOT signage of course would
conform with those federal requirements. So I
don't envision any conflict or problem.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Mr. President. I'll be very brief.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Dollinger, on the bill.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Route 12,
which I am well familiar with in my experience
in the North Country, is an important source
of revenue for the communities along its way.
It has that wonderful distinction of going 55
at some times and then immediately going
through a small town where the speed limits
drops to 30.
And a number of my clients, even in
Rochester, New York, have been found to be
going somewhere in excess of 30 miles an hour
5360
as they pass through these innumerable small
communities along Route 12.
It's a familiar experience, I
think, to those of us who have traveled in the
North Country to meet some of the fine
officers either of the State Police or of
these small communities on Route 12 when we
have been moving at a speed slightly more than
the town restriction.
But I agree with Senator Brown. I
think this is an interesting highway from the
early development of New York State's highway
system, flowing one way in the north, to the
northwest, and then eventually turning around
and driving down through the northeast along
the Saint Lawrence River.
I was concerned about the Seaway
Trail question, but I think Senator Wright is
correct, that even though they will have the
same designation, the difference in signage
could explain that.
So I appreciate Senator Wright's
preparation in response to the questions from
Senator Brown, and I will be voting in favor,
Mr. President.
5361
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Gentile.
SENATOR GENTILE: Yes, thank you,
Mr. President. If the sponsor would yield to
a question or two.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Wright, do you yield?
SENATOR WRIGHT: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR GENTILE: Senator, in
looking over the legislation, and particularly
the sponsor's memo, you do go into how bravely
the POWs and MIAs have fought and why we need
to designate or why we should designate this
portion of Route 12 as POW-MIA Memorial
Highway.
However, in reading part of this
sponsor's memo, there's something that strikes
me here that sounds as if it's a step back
from trying to honor our POWs and MIAs. And
by that, I mean in the sponsor's memo it says,
"To avoid confusion and to limit any possible
disruption of commerce, this designation shall
5362
be one of ceremonial nature and the official
name of such highway shall not be changed."
I don't understand that, Senator,
in the sense that either we're naming it for
POW-MIAs or we're not. And if we are, why not
make this an official name change?
SENATOR WRIGHT: Well, I believe,
Senator, that that's the kind of language that
is used throughout several pages of
designation in Highway Law.
And it's simply a distinction that
while we are recognizing the nature of the
acknowledgment, at the same time, for very
specific legal purposes, it remains the
designated route numbers to ensure
coordination of federal and state highway
systems. And I'm sure there's a corresponding
linkage there with federal and state highway
assistance as well.
SENATOR GENTILE: If the Senator
would continue to yield.
SENATOR WRIGHT: I will, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
5363
SENATOR GENTILE: Through you,
Mr. President. What would be the downside of
making this -- the official title as Route 12,
slash, POW-MIA Memorial Highway? Would there
be any downside to making that the official
name of it?
SENATOR WRIGHT: Well, frankly,
I'm not aware of any, Senator.
But I'm assuming that the counsel
that prepared this memo, based upon the
research that was done, anticipated that that
might have the potential at the current or
future date, so made sure that we avoided and
precluded that problem.
SENATOR GENTILE: Through you,
Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Wright, do you yield?
SENATOR WRIGHT: Yes, Mr.
President, I will.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR GENTILE: So, Senator,
then you're suggesting that because only this
portion of Route 12 is designated as such,
5364
POW-MIA Memorial Highway, that that may cause
some confusion with other parts of Route 12?
I'm just trying to understand what you're
saying.
SENATOR WRIGHT: No, no, Senator.
I don't believe I suggested that. I believe
what I clearly indicated was I was not
personally or specifically aware of the reason
for that language.
But I made a reasonable assumption
that the counsel that included that did so in
anticipation of either known or potential
problems, and therefore would try to avoid
those in the future.
I don't believe it changes or
diminishes in any way our efforts to designate
and recognize the highway.
SENATOR GENTILE: Through you,
Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Wright, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR WRIGHT: Yes, Mr.
President, I'll be glad to respond.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
5365
SENATOR GENTILE: So then if we
take this to the next step, would there be any
restrictions on, sometime in the future, also
naming this portion of Route 12 for some other
group; for example, recipients of the Purple
Heart? Could we then add that designation to
this portion of Route 12, since the POW-MIA
designation is not an official name change?
SENATOR WRIGHT: I'm not aware of
any restriction that would apply.
SENATOR GENTILE: So I would
assume the answer is yes, we can -
SENATOR WRIGHT: No, I said I'm
not aware of any. That's my answer.
SENATOR GENTILE: Okay. Thank
you, Senator.
SENATOR WRIGHT: Thank you,
Senator.
SENATOR GENTILE: On the bill,
Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Gentile, on the bill.
SENATOR GENTILE: And I
appreciate the responses from Senator Wright.
Certainly POW-MIA Memorial Highway
5366
is a designation that has, as indicated, been
used around the state. It's been used in my
county, in Richmond County. Certainly as a
member of the Veterans Committee here in the
State Senate, I have been in full support of
these types of measures.
I believe that we should make it an
official name change, or a -- the old name,
Route 12, slash, POW-MIA Memorial Highway. I
don't see why we cannot make it an official
name change. I think veterans deserve to have
it officially named Route 12/POW-MIA Memorial
Highway. And I say that for anywhere in the
state, not just for Route 12.
Given that, nevertheless, I will
support this legislation. I thank Senator
Wright for his answers, and I think this a
good bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Onorato.
SENATOR ONORATO: Senator Wright,
will -- Mr. President, will the Senator yield
to a question?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Wright, do you yield for a question?
5367
SENATOR WRIGHT: Yes, I will, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR ONORATO: I'd just like
to know, basically, will this have any
enabling legislation if any other community
would like to opt into it in the future to
name a particular portion of the state highway
that runs through their particular
communities? Or will we have to do a separate
bill again to enable that particular community
to opt into this very, very worthwhile bill?
SENATOR WRIGHT: This bill does
not provide for inclusion of any other region
in the state other than the region
specifically defined and described in the
bill.
I have at least two pages of
various designations throughout the state that
have been done in a like fashion. So my
belief is it would probably, absent a much
broader bill being introduced, would require
specific legislation of a like nature.
SENATOR ONORATO: Through you,
5368
Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Wright, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR WRIGHT: I do, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR ONORATO: Would it be
possible to have a broader bill that would
basically cover the thought that I just
referred to you, making -- giving enabling
legislation to any community that so desires?
So long, of course, that it doesn't overrun
with another portion of the highways that -
SENATOR WRIGHT: Correct. I
don't know, and it would be presumptive for me
to offer an opinion, since that's not an issue
that we've researched. I'm not aware of
anything that would preclude a general
enabling legislation, thereby designating the
authority to perhaps the Commissioner of
Transportation or to a local designation. But
I'm not aware of any prohibitive . . .
SENATOR ONORATO: One final
question through you, Mr. President.
5369
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Wright, do you yield?
SENATOR WRIGHT: Yes, Mr.
President, I do.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR ONORATO: This is only
applying to state highways? In other words,
it would not prohibit a city of New York or
the city council from designating a particular
portion of their community with the same
designation, provided, of course, it is not a
state highway?
SENATOR WRIGHT: That would be my
understanding, there is nothing in this bill
that would restrict any local designation.
SENATOR ONORATO: Thank you.
SENATOR WRIGHT: Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Any
other member wish to be heard on this bill?
Senator M. Smith.
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: Thank you
very much, Mr. President. On the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Malcolm Smith, on the bill.
5370
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: I have no
question for the Senator. I just think he is
so right on the mark in terms of what he is
trying to do.
As one who has a very special place
in my heart for all veterans, I couldn't help
but speak to this particular bill in just
support of it and indicate that probably there
is nothing more that we could do, if not more,
than designate certain areas of highways or
physical facilities, whether it was a
building, institutions -- I just believe that
every day of our life we should be doing
something related to veterans, devoting
something to them, whether it's a specific day
or a specific street or a specific holiday,
whatever you want to call it. Because
clearly, we owe much of our existence to them.
And I know from time to time one
might consider this to be very repetitious,
but I will tell everyone in this chamber that
as long as I'm living, I'm going to do all
that I can every day to make sure that
something is said on behalf of veterans or
done on their behalf.
5371
And, Senator Wright, my kudos to
you. And if at any point in time any of my
colleagues want to question you again about
something like that, you come see me.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Does any
other member wish to be heard on this bill?
Debate is closed.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
Senator Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Mr.
President, at this time can we take up
Calendar Number 189.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read Calendar 189.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
189, by Senator Nozzolio, Senate Print 224, an
5372
act amending the Correction Law, in relation
to requiring.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN:
Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Nozzolio, an explanation has been requested of
Calendar 189 by Senator Schneiderman.
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Thank you, Mr.
President.
This bill has passed the Senate
each year since 1997. The purpose of the
measure is to require inmates in our state
correctional facilities to make a modest
copayment for medical treatment. The
legislation models the copayment after the
copayment that is made by other state
employees, by all state employees through
their own health insurance. If it's good
enough for our state workers, it should be
good enough for our prison inmates.
This legislation also ensures that
no inmate would be denied medical treatment
for lack of ability to pay.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Schneiderman.
5373
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Yes, thank
you, Mr. President. Through you, if the
sponsor would yield for a few questions.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Nozzolio, do you yield for a question?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you.
I'm curious as to -- we have had a
debate on this bill in past years relating to
other needs inmates may have for money in
prison and other uses for it. What other
services, if any, are inmates required to pay
for while serving their sentences?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Mr. President,
through you, that all too few. All too few
services are being borne by inmates as opposed
to the burden borne by the taxpayers of this
state, including victims.
That commissary expenses of some
sort are paid for out of inmate
expenditures -- candy, cigarettes, that sort
of thing sold in commissaries. But other than
5374
that, there really isn't too many services
paid for by inmates.
Although last year we did succeed
in a filing fee. That there is a sport that
was engaged in in our prison system called
prisoners' litigation, and that that sport now
has a fee to it. That those who engage in
litigation will have to pay, just as other
citizens do, a modest filing fee when they
initiate their lawsuits.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you.
Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor
will continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Nozzolio, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: And you
may have covered this when you were referring
to the commissary, but isn't it true that
inmates have to provide themselves with any
sort of toiletries or supplements of any kind,
even if it's not really of a medical nature,
5375
for the basic prison meals, any kinds of
vitamins or treatments that aren't covered by
the prison medical system, which is in fact
fairly spartan in terms of treatment
facilities?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Mr. President,
I don't really understand what that question
is.
But I think that there may be
things that inmates pay for by themselves -
extra vitamins, extra things that they're able
to bring in. That's possible. But it's
certainly not part of the program.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Through
you, Mr. President, aren't inmates required to
pay for -- make payments for correspondence
and communication with the outside world?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Nozzolio, do you yield for a question?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Yes, Mr.
President.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Yes, you
yield, or yes, yes?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: I
believe he said yes.
5376
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you.
Then through you, Mr. President,
has any consideration been given to the fact
that as a policy in this state I think at many
levels we encourage inmates to maintain
contact with their home communities, with
their loved ones, since they all or just about
all at some point rejoin society -- has there
been any consideration given to the fact that
this bill may limit their ability to maintain
such communication?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: No, Mr.
President.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Through
you, Mr. President, if the sponsor will
continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator,
do you continue to yield?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you.
How was the $7 amount arrived at?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Mr. President,
5377
the response to that, as I mentioned in my
opening remarks, this $7 fee, as I stated in
my opening remarks -- I'll repeat it again -
that this fee was arrived at by looking at the
copayment made by those who are in state
service who are in a healthcare plan sponsored
by the state service.
And that is the copayment that
legislators here pay, that the state employees
who are participating in the health insurance
program pay. We thought that that would be a
good model to use for the copayment.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Finally,
through you, Mr. President -- by the way,
Senator Breslin keeps saying "I pay 8, I pay
8." I hope you can help counsel him on how he
got on that sort of a plan. Senator Stavisky
pays 10. Obviously, you've got some
information we need to get.
One final question, if the sponsor
would continue to yield, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Nozzolio, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
5378
sponsor yields.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: I note -
and I think that it may be a very good
provision. I'm very curious how this was
arrived at -- that inmates will not be
assessed copayment for psychiatric visits.
What was the genesis of that
distinction, since it seems almost to run
counter to many of our other laws that
actually make it more difficult for people to
have mental health illnesses covered by
insurance or treated and treated the same as
physical illnesses?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: We, Mr.
President, excluded the psychiatric cost,
because in many cases the psychiatric -- the
psychotic inmate is not working. In many
instances, the psychotic inmate is not aware
of what they're doing. So it made sense
that -- for those types of calls that those
would be excluded.
If Senator Schneiderman would like
to amend this measure, we'd certainly
entertain inclusion. But we thought that
initially we would make this provision only
5379
apply to medical payments.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: I'm sorry,
I couldn't hear the last part.
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Medical.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Mental?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Medical.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Medical.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: I
understand.
And through you, Mr. President, who
will make the assessment of whether -
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Nozzolio, do you yield to another question?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Yes. I
yielded to one more question a question ago,
but I'd be glad to yield again.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you.
I'm just curious as to how will the
assessment be made that a particular inmate's
needs are for mental health rather than
physical health or psychiatric rather than
medical.
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Mr. President,
each facility has a separate psychiatric
staff, a psychiatric unit, requests for
5380
psychiatric services. I think that there's
certainly enough delineation within the system
that no special delineation needs to be made
in this legislation.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you,
Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Stavisky.
SENATOR STAVISKY: If the Senator
will yield for a number of questions.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Nozzolio, do you yield to a question from
Senator Stavisky?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Yes.
SENATOR STAVISKY: I have a
number of questions.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: He
yields.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Would you
explain how the medical treatment system works
in our prison system? I assume the prisoner
does not have a choice the way we do. But how
does the system work in the prisons?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: There is -- to
answer this question, an extremely broad
5381
question, that each -- to answer it as simply
as I can, that each prisoner receives whatever
medical services are necessary.
SENATOR STAVISKY: But who
provides the service? Through you, Mr.
President, I'd like to know who provides the
service.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Nozzolio, do you yield to another question?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR STAVISKY: How is the
service provided? I assume that there is no
choice, no HMO, for example.
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Yes, that's
correct.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: He said
yes, that's correct.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Mr.
President -
SENATOR ONORATO: Mr. President,
point of -
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
5382
Onorato, why do you rise?
SENATOR ONORATO: I'm having a
very, very difficult time to hear -
SENATOR STAVISKY: Me too.
SENATOR ONORATO: -- anything
that's going on. I don't know if these
microphones are on, and if they work. And if
they don't, I think, in view of the fact that
we have a budget surplus, I think it's time
that we replaced these antiquated microphones
so that we can actually hear what's going on
in this chamber.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Stavisky, do you have another question?
SENATOR STAVISKY: Or else we can
see an ear doctor.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Stavisky, are you asking Senator Nozzolio to
yield to another question?
SENATOR STAVISKY: Yes, I'm
asking Senator Nozzolio to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Nozzolio, do you yield to another question?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Yes, Mr.
President.
5383
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR STAVISKY: How does the
telephone system work in the state
correctional facilities? I'm looking for
comparability along those lines.
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Mr. President,
through you, that this bill has nothing to do
with the telephone system in our state
facilities.
SENATOR STAVISKY: I understand
that, but -
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Stavisky.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Mr. President,
perhaps I didn't make my question clear
enough.
Can we use the telephone system as
a comparable system for the prisoners? In
other words, what I'm asking is how do the -
do the inmates pay for telephone service? Let
me ask you that question.
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Do I have to
yield, Mr. President?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: I
5384
believe so. Do you yield for that question?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: The question,
I believe, was do inmates pay for telephone
services. The answer is yes, they do.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Stavisky.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Are they -
through you, Mr. President -
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Are you
requesting the sponsor to yield for another
question?
SENATOR STAVISKY: Yes, that's
what I just -
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Nozzolio, do you yield to another question?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR STAVISKY: In other
words, if an inmate were to place a telephone
5385
call, they would be paying for their own
telephone calls without a surcharge?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: That, Mr.
President, inmates make collect calls. They
have the opportunity to make those collect
calls through pay phones which exist in the
prison system. Every prison across the system
has pay phones that inmates are allowed to use
pay phones.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Mr. President,
I'm having a lot of trouble hearing that
answer.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Nozzolio, Senator Stavisky says she can't
hear.
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: I'd be glad to
repeat my answer, Mr. President.
That to answer Senator Stavisky's
question, again, that each inmate is allowed
to make and utilize calls on the pay phones
that exist in each of the correctional
facilities. Some may be barred because of bad
behavior, but the inmates by and large are
allowed to make those calls. They also are
allowed to make collect calls in those
5386
prison -- in those pay phones at each prison.
SENATOR STAVISKY: And the monies
that are -
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Stavisky, are you -
SENATOR STAVISKY: Yeah, I only
have a few more questions, if the Senator
would yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Nozzolio, do you yield to another question?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR STAVISKY: The monies
collected from the telephone calls, those that
are not made collect, do they go into a
segregated fund or into the prison's general
fund?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Mr. President,
that this question relating to telephone
calls, I've gone through the legislation that
I have before us today and I see no reference
to telephone calls. And this is a bill on
medical copayments.
5387
I think the distinguished Senator
might have this mistaken in some way. But I
see no relevance or germaneness to this
question.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: I tend
to agree with your point, Senator.
Senator Stavisky.
SENATOR STAVISKY: I will tie it
together when I make my comments at the end.
And I have just one last question.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Nozzolio, do you yield for a question?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Can you tell
us if there's comparability in the federal
prisons? In other words, do they have a
surcharge for health care in the federal
prisons?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Mr. President,
this requirement is -- yes, it is in the
federal system as well as the states of
California, Connecticut, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
5388
New Jersey. Each have established this
copayment system.
SENATOR STAVISKY: That was not
my question. My question was in the federal
penitentiary, for example, in Allenwood or -
what's the other one? -- Marion, do they
charge the inmates a copayment for health
care?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Federal
inmates are billed directly to the
jurisdiction which was agreed to by the
federal agency. That we're not certain about
the other copayment system that every federal
prison may utilize.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Mr. President,
we -- I'm not the only one. I -- I cannot
hear.
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Senator, that
the -- I am not certain about whether a
federal -- I didn't understand your question,
first.
That those federal inmates who may
be in our state facilities are going to be
billed to the appropriate federal agency. But
in terms of the federal system, I listed the
5389
states that have a copayment system. I am not
certain whether or not the federal system has
copayment requirements for medical services.
SENATOR STAVISKY: And my last
question, if the Senator will yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Nozzolio, do you yield for another question?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Another last
question? Yes, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: I'm not
going to comment.
The Senator will yield.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Mr. President,
are the monies that are going to be collected
from the copayments, are they going to be held
in a segregated, separate account to take care
of expenses for the inmates' medical care?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Mr. President,
the answer is that these monies will go into
the account for each facility, and the
facility will determine the needs of its
inmates and utilize those funds appropriately.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Thank you, Mr.
President.
On the bill.
5390
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Stavisky, on the bill.
SENATOR STAVISKY: The reason I
asked about the telephone surcharges and
payments received, the monies received on
telephone calls, is because I think there is
comparability. The monies from copayments
made by the inmates going simply into the
correctional facilities general fund.
It seems to me that if you're going
to collect money for health care, then it
ought to be segregated and used for health
care. And the same is true of other special
surcharges.
It seems to me that this is a bad
bill. I voted against it last year, and I
intend to vote no again this year.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, Mr.
President. I just have one question for
Senator Nozzolio.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Nozzolio, do you yield for a question from
5391
Senator Montgomery?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: I'd be happy
to yield to Senator Montgomery.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Okay. Thank
you.
Senator Nozzolio, in the memo, the
sponsor's memo on this bill, under the
justification you say that New York currently
spends 121 million each year on prison health
services. You also state that instituting a
copayment on inmates for medical treatment
will reduce the large number of abusive
medical visits and hold inmates partially
responsible for their own health care expenses
and provide a revenue source.
And I'm just wondering, Senator
Nozzolio -- Mr. President, through you -- what
percent or how much of this 121 million do we
expect to recoup from this copayment program?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Mr. President,
it's estimated that between seven and
$8 million a year will be realized as a result
of the establishment of a copay.
5392
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Through you,
Mr. President, I didn't hear -
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Nozzolio, do you yield to another question?
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: -- I didn't
hear if it were 7 or 70 million.
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Mr. President,
between 7 and 8 million a year. Between
$7 million and $8 million a year it is
estimated that copayment would reap into the
utilization of our correctional facilities.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: All right.
Thank you. So that's not quite 10 percent, it
seems to me, Mr. President.
I would just like to read into the
record some information that is available to
all of us, from DOCS, a statement from Senator
Nozzolio himself, as well as some of the news
outlets across our state.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Montgomery, on the bill.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: On the bill.
Under the heading "Public Views
Inmate Work for Taxpayer Projects," this is an
article that talks about the exhibit that we
5393
had here in the State Capitol about two weeks
ago. It says that seating desks and other
furniture produced for use in schools and
government offices and institutions, Braille
signs, which are regularly produced to ensure
compliance with the Americans Disabilities
Act, and many other items were displayed for
us to review and to view.
There is a quote by Governor Pataki
which says, inmate -- who said -- this is
Governor Pataki's direct quote, "Inmate labor
inside our prisons continues to provide
wide-ranging benefits for taxpayers of New
York State. Through these efforts and other
successful prison initiatives, inmates are
helping to help offset the cost of their
incarceration while at the same time providing
something of value to tens of thousands of New
Yorkers." That was a quote by Governor Pataki
at the opening of the DOCS exhibit.
"Almost everything that is used
inside our prisons, from clothing for staff
and inmates to bedding supplies, is made by
inmates. Braille textbooks for blind
schoolchildren, prescription eyewear for some
5394
Medicaid clients, brochures for visitors to
New York State parks, cleaning items, and
dozens of other products." That was a quote
by Commissioner Goord when he described some
of the activities of inmates in our
facilities.
"Inmates long have assisted New
Yorkers in recovering from natural disasters
like blizzards, floods, tornados, and ice
storms. Earlier this year," says Commissioner
Goord, "their efforts and those of our
correction officers were instrumental in
helping residents of Western New York recover
from the heavy snows which blanketed the
region."
I also have a quote from Senator
Nozzolio: "The division of industries remains
one of the key, unknown, unsung success
stories of the Department of Correctional
Services. That statement comes directly from
Senator Nozzolio himself.
In the same issue of the DOCS
report, they go on to talk about inmates who
have sorted and bagged 1500 tons of food for
needy New Yorkers. Inmates at seven state
5395
prisons in western and northern New York
recently sorted and bagged in excess of
300,000 pounds of surplus onions for
distribution to needy individuals and families
throughout New York State.
In another article, "Inmates' Work
Helps Preserve a Cemetery in Elmira. 30
Elmira correctional facility inmates, in a way
of giving back to the community and boosting
their own self-esteem and making lengthy
prison sentences pass more quickly, became
involved in a project to rebuild a fence for a
cemetery.
"It took the inmates about six
months to transform 26 tons of iron into 232
ten-foot fence sections and the same number of
11-foot posts. More than 3 miles of bar stock
was cut by hand into 3,712 six-foot pieces and
welded onto the frame. Inmates used a hand
torch to cut the posts and then buffed the
metal's rough edges with a grinder.
"Inmates from the prison's machine
shop built the brackets to connect the
sections, while others in the maintenance
department hand painted and completed
5396
sections.
"When the trucks delivered the
iron, all 26 tons were unloaded by hand. We
had a 62-year-old inmate spend four days
straight doing nothing but cutting the
pieces."
In another article, inmates build
playhouses for charity. "At the Elmira
correctional facility, in a unique program
that helps abused and neglected kids in
Chemung and Schuyler counties, nearly twenty
inmates at the prison built two dollhouses and
an 8-foot-tall playhouse for CASA of Chemung
and Schuyler counties, which is a nonprofit
children's advocacy program. The walk-in,
wood frame playhouse features clapboard
siding, scroll work on the gable ends, and
other detailed craftsmanship. About 14
inmates spent three weeks building it."
Each month -- and we additionally
have a thank-you letter from a Rochester
gentleman who noted that there were several
inmates in front of his home removing snow
from a fire hydrant which had been covered for
some days, and he thanked them for that.
5397
I wanted to read this into the
record, Mr. President, because each time this
report comes out, there are articles in it
which describe what inmates do to pay back to
communities across the state in some small
way; sometimes, very large ways.
So I think that it is very
shortsighted for us to have a bill before us
which would charge them a copayment which does
not even recoup 10 percent of what it
theoretically costs to provide health
services, while at the same time we reap a
tremendous benefit as taxpayers from the
activities of inmates within the prisons.
Certainly, Mr. President, I would
like to see more productive programs for
inmates and by inmates. But nonetheless, the
little that we have produces an enormous
benefit for taxpayers in New York State.
So I certainly do not support this
attempt to charge inmates for their health
care, because I don't believe it is fair to
ask inmates to pay for their health care. We
at least should provide health care for them,
because they in fact do come out of the
5398
facilities, do work in communities, and
certainly eventually will return to
communities from which they originated. And
the least that we should be looking to do is
make sure that their basic health needs are
provided for while they're incarcerated.
So I will be voting no on this
legislation. Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Lachman.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Will the
Senator yield for a question?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Nozzolio, will you yield for a question from
Senator Lachman?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR LACHMAN: I'm aware of
the fact that prisoners get a certain stipend
when they work. Do you know what the stipend
is? Is it consistent throughout the state, or
does it vary from county to county?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: It's a
5399
statewide system, Mr. President. It varies
depending on the job. An inmate can -
SENATOR LACHMAN: How much is it?
I'm sorry. Through you, Mr. President.
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Inmate wage
amounts, hourly wages, depending on the grade,
the type of work, it could go anywhere from 7
cents to 65 cents an hour.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Seven -
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: -- cents to
65 cents an hour.
SENATOR LACHMAN: -- to 65 cents
an hour.
And, Mr. President, may I continue?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Nozzolio, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR LACHMAN: What is the
maximum amount of hours that a prisoner can
work?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: I'm not quite
sure, Mr. President. I believe it depends on
5400
the job, the availability. Usually there is
much more work in our prison system than there
are inmates to fill those positions.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Mr. President,
my final question, if the Senator continues to
yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator,
do you continue to yield?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR LACHMAN: If the prisoner
is not currently working and therefore can't
afford to pay the copayment, will he be
covered by the state if his health is at risk?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Yes, Mr.
President. That although this makes a modest
responsibility for an inmate to take care of
their own medical care expenses, no inmate is
going to be denied medical services for their
lack of ability to pay.
SENATOR LACHMAN: No prisoner
will be denied medical service even if he
lacks payment for copayment?
5401
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: That's
correct.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Thank you, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Onorato.
SENATOR ONORATO: Mr. President,
will the sponsor yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator,
do you yield for a question from Senator
Onorato?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR ONORATO: Senator
Nozzolio, if an inmate's family has a health
plan currently in effect, a family plan, are
they covered while they are in prison? Can
they use that as coverage for medical
benefits?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Mr. President,
the question certainly depends on the plan. I
assume most families do not have HMOs of
certain correctional facilities located in
5402
their plans.
I think you have to look at the
plan, Senator, that individual families have.
But I doubt too many include your state prison
facilities as part of the HMOs covered under
those family plans.
SENATOR ONORATO: Through you,
Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator,
do you continue to yield?
SENATOR ONORATO: If in fact they
do have a health plan coverage, has the state
at any time made an attempt to collect their
medical payments from an HMO plan whether they
belong to an HMO or not, or if they belong to
simply a private health plan that they -- just
like us, we have a health plan and we have a
copay.
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Mr. President,
I'm unaware of any attempts in the state to
recover from individual, private health care
insurers.
SENATOR ONORATO: Through you,
Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
5403
Nozzolio, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR ONORATO: Senator
Nozzolio, you state that you would charge a $7
medical copay for an individual who is
currently earning anywhere from 7 cents an
hour to 65 cents an hour. We here in the
Legislature are very, very blessed that we are
charged $8 as a copay and we're making $90,000
a year.
Don't you think that, by
comparison, that charging a $7 copay for an
inmate making 7 cents an hour is a little bit
beyond their means?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Mr. President,
I think it's an affront to the working men and
women in this state who are working for this
state that support those who are in prison -
through three meals a day, through their
housing, their clothing, their education, all
other items that are given to prisoners in an
effort to rehabilitate them. Those costs are
5404
borne by the taxpayers of the state.
And I think it's an insult -- you
asked my opinion, Senator. I think it's an
insult to those who are footing the bill that
they themselves, as state employees, must
provide not just their own copay for their own
health insurance but for all the other
benefits given to prison inmates.
Let's not forget these inmates are
there for a reason. And the reason is they
victimized society. And in many cases, they
bludgeoned their victims. That we need to
keep that in focus here. This is an hourly
wage issue. This is an issue of fairness, of
equity to crime victims, and of setting up a
modest system.
As I mentioned, the states of
California, Connecticut, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
New Jersey, they've all respected their
taxpayers and said to their taxpayers that we
believe inmates should pay for part of their
medical treatment. New York should be the
same.
SENATOR ONORATO: Through you,
Mr. President, if the sponsor will continue to
5405
yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Nozzolio, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR ONORATO: Senator
Nozzolio, in view of the fact that they -- and
I don't have any problem with a prisoner who
really comes from a wealthy family and can
really afford to pay that. I'm having a
problem fathoming the fact that they make
below the minimum wage while they're actually
working in prison to pay this off.
And if they are unfortunate enough
to become sick at one time or another and
require treatment and they've got to pay $7,
is there any provisions in here to allow them
to make up for it so that they'll have some
money to go to the PX in the prison system at
a later date to recoup some of that money?
You know, while they're sick, they're not
going to be able to work.
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Mr. President,
5406
I direct Senator Onorato's concerns to lines
15 through 20 on page 1 of the legislation.
That each inmate account is credited and
debited for their copayment. No one will be
refused medical treatment if they do not have
enough money in their account for making this
copayment. And that certainly we're trying to
establish balance here.
SENATOR ONORATO: Through you,
Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Nozzolio, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR ONORATO: My concern was
if they don't have -- if they don't have
enough money to make the copayment. I don't
know if you've established a minimum amount
that they have in their account. But assuming
that they have $25 in their account that
they've earned and they required to go to the
medical facility for four visits, they are now
completely wiped out and they have no further
5407
means of going to get any other items that
they would require from the -- will there be
provisions to allow them to earn some other
additional funds to make up for it?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Mr. President,
there are more jobs in our correctional
facilities than there are inmates willing to
fill those jobs. That we have inmates not
forced to work in New York, although that
certainly could be debated on another occasion
as to the viability and wisdom of making
inmates work while they're incarcerated.
That's not the issue before us today.
What's before us today is the
payment of a small medical copayment fee.
That no inmate, according to this legislation,
is going to be denied that medical treatment
if they do not have enough money in their
account to meet the satisfaction of the small
copayment this legislation requires.
SENATOR ONORATO: Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Mr.
President, just briefly on the bill.
5408
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Dollinger, on the bill.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I voted in
favor of this bill in the past. I'm going to
vote for it again.
I would just encourage Senator
Nozzolio to basically challenge our colleagues
in the Assembly to bring this bill out, and
this whole concept of inmate health, out to
part of our debate both in this chamber and
the other chamber.
I think there's been a recent
episode in Rochester, New York, with respect
to the county jail and the private concern
that was hired to provide health care in the
county jail, which has led to serious
questions raised about the quality of inmate
health.
I think there's a critical issue
facing New York, as we have 70,000 people in
our prison system, a rising incidence of
hepatitis and tuberculosis which can
significantly influence the entire population.
I'm not opposed to the concept of copays, but
I think that this bill merits a full
5409
discussion with our colleagues in the
Assembly.
And this whole concept of inmate
health and the quality of health care we
provide in our prisons is critically important
now. There's a huge population that is going
to go back into the general population, be
released from prison. And the question of the
quality of their health care, especially with
respect to infectious diseases, is I think a
critically important part of our public
health.
So I'm going to vote in favor of
this bill, and I'm going to urge Senator
Nozzolio to call out our friends in the
Assembly. And what I would think should
happen is there should be a joint Assembly and
Senate committee that should analyze the
questions related to inmate health and make a
full report to the Legislature on the steps
necessary to provide quality health care in
our prisons. So that we don't have the
unfortunate consequence not only of a rising
incidence of infectious diseases in our
prisons but the enormous danger that that
5410
poses to our general population.
This is a tip of the iceberg. I'm
willing to vote in favor of it, Mr. President.
But the iceberg, the portion that remains
submerged, is what is dangerous to our public
health. And I would just encourage Senator
Nozzolio to take my yes vote to the Assembly
and to challenge them to come forward and
address this issue.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Hassell-Thompson.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Yes,
thank you, Mr. President, if the Senator would
yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Nozzolio, do you yield to a question?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank
you, Mr. President. Through you. Prison
health is an outside contracted entity and is
supported by the general revenue fund.
Senator, can you tell me currently, since
5411
there is no mechanism to receive funds, how
does this bill intend to do that?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Mr. President,
I don't understand the question.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: I'll
repeat the question.
We're talking about prison health,
and we're talking about copayments that
prisoners would pay. And currently we
contract outside services for prison health.
There is a mechanism to dispense, but there is
not a mechanism to collect.
How, then, will this legislation
impact that? And will we be creating a
superstructure that would allow for these
payments to be collected? And what would be
the fiscal impact to the state if we had to do
that?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Mr. President,
the procedures established under this
legislation require inmates to log in to
schedule their visits, providing their name,
ID, and documentation and description of their
complaint. We also allow, under Section 6,
that no inmate shall be refused any treatment.
5412
That it's a very simple procedure, as simple
as it is to stand in a sick call is now.
That I do not understand the
complicating factors that are suggested by
this question.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON:
Through you, Mr. President, then let me ask
the question this way.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator,
do you yield for another question?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Is the
money deducted from the inmate's account and,
in that deduction, how is it paid into -- back
into the general revenue fund?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Mr. President,
the process where each inmate is debited their
account and the account is frozen, those
descriptions are placed in the bill. Also, as
is that the commissioner is allowed to
promulgate, under this legislation, rules
necessary for the implementation of the
5413
provisions. That the commissioner will then
put in his formal rule-making authority the
process where these individual funds will be
expended and collected.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: And
collected. Was that the response?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Yes, Mr.
President.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: I
still -- through you, Mr. President -
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator,
do you wish the sponsor to continue to yield?
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Yes, I
would.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator,
do you continue to yield?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: My
question continues to be you explained the
process in terms of the how. But you have not
explained -- the question that I asked was,
how does the mechanism trigger -- for the
5414
money that is collected from the prisoner,
there is no mechanism currently, in public
state law, in Public Health Law within the
prison to collect. How will that be
structured?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Looking at
page 2, lines -- line 5 through 8, it's
listed, Mr. President, that monies collected
pursuant to the section -- I'll read it -
will be plead available for the operation of
the correctional facility.
Section 10, line 7, says the
commissioner shall promulgate rules and
regulations necessary for the implementation
of the -- of this section. That the monies
collected will be, as the statute will
require, made available for the operation of
the correctional facility where they're
collected from.
If an inmate is in Attica and is
seeking medical treatment in Attica, the
monies collected will be used in Attica, and
the commissioner will set up the necessary
regulatory process where those monies will be
utilized.
5415
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: If the
Senator will yield for one other question.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator,
do you yield for another question?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Your
statement was that this money would then go
back into the general use fund, as -- using
Attica as an example of how this would occur.
Would then -- my question, then,
would the amount of general revenue fund that
is appropriated for that prison be reduced by
that amount of money?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Mr. President,
the answer is no.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: I will
honor my last -- that as my only question.
Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you.
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: For the
information of the Senators, we're running a
list of the order that people have sought
5416
recognition. We have Senators Brown, Espada,
and Mendez, in that order.
Senator Brown is next.
SENATOR BROWN: Through you, Mr.
President, will the Senator yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Nozzolio, do you yield for a question from
Senator Brown?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR BROWN: I know that
through this bill, as I understand it, the
inmate will be assessed a copayment for
medical treatment received. If the inmate
never builds up an account where they never
have money that can be subtracted from, at the
end of their stay in prison, once that inmate
is released, could an inmate conceivably leave
a state facility owing the state money for
medical treatment?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Mr. President,
yes.
SENATOR BROWN: Through you, Mr.
5417
President, would the sponsor continue to
yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Nozzolio, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR BROWN: So understanding
that an inmate could conceivably leave a
prison owing the state money for medical
treatment, would that amount, after the period
of incarceration, be waived, or would this
inmate actually be faced with the burden of
having to pay that indebtedness to the state?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: That the
process upon which the copayment is collected
would result in the inmate receiving medical
services if he did not pay that copayment.
Because this legislation specifically says no
inmate will be denied medical services if they
could not afford the copay, if there was not
enough money in their account to establish
that copay.
The legislation also establishes a
5418
logging and a posting on the inmate's account
of the charge. So that, in effect, there
would be a debit on that inmate account.
I think the regulations certainly
could address that issue that the commissioner
would have to promulgate on the process.
There is no compulsion in this legislation
that the state go after that amount. Assuming
a hundred visits that would result in $700, it
would probably cost the state more to go after
that once an inmate left.
And I think it would have been to
be -- it's a very good question, Mr.
President. I think it would have to be
something subject to the regulations that the
commissioner would have to promulgate.
SENATOR BROWN: On the bill, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Brown, on the bill.
SENATOR BROWN: I want to thank
Senator Nozzolio for responding to my
questions.
I'm inclined to vote in favor of
this measure. I think this is fiscally
5419
responsible. I've read the bill memo that
indicates the amount of money that we spend as
a state on the health care of persons
incarcerated in the state. And I think it is
reasonable for inmates to be able to
contribute toward the health benefits that
they do receive from the State of New York.
And I certainly am also mindful that people
incarcerated are people that have committed
crimes against their fellow citizens in the
state.
My one concern, upon hearing the
responses to the two questions that I asked,
is that inmates could conceivably complete
their term of incarceration owing the state
money. And I was happy to hear Senator
Nozzolio say that he would be willing to look
at that.
Because certainly I think it would
be reasonable and make sense for some kind of
procedure to waive the amount owed at the end
of an inmate's period of incarceration or cap
the amount owed so an inmate, depending on
what kind of medical treatment they receive -
say an inmate develops some form of cancer or
5420
some other expensive form of medical illness,
medical procedure while they are incarcerated,
that they wouldn't leave a correctional
facility owing the state an exorbitant amount
of money.
But with that being said, I do
support this legislation. I think citizens
who are not incarcerated certainly have to pay
for their health care. And I think just
because someone is incarcerated should not
exempt them from being able to contribute to
the cost of their health care.
So I will be voting in the
affirmative when it's time to vote. Thank
you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Espada.
SENATOR ESPADA: Thank you, Mr.
President. On the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Espada, on the bill.
SENATOR ESPADA: The sponsor has
asked us to focus and to keep a focus, and I
ask us to visit reality. I mean, we're
talking about people who have lost their
5421
freedom. We're talking about, in many
instances, 23 hours of solitary confinement,
as documented by my colleagues Senators Duane
and Montgomery, a high incidence of rape and
other forms of violence, daily rituals of
degradation. We're talking about telephone
surcharges of family members, just basic forms
of communication.
We're talking about chronic
illnesses -- TB, hepatitis, HIV, sexually
transmitted diseases, cancers, heart ailments,
greater than the average member of the free
society.
We're talking about a country that
is the greatest democracy on earth but that
jails over 2 million people. This is well
known throughout the world.
And so we're putting people in jail
that need to be in jail. We're also not
providing a system of quality -- or shall I
say we do provide a system of legal
representation that has been chronicled to be
clearly inadequate and way below anyone's
exceptions. 1600 people in a caseload for a
public defender, meeting their clients for the
5422
first time in court.
I share this context because
context is important. And the details of this
bill are only important, I think, in an
abstractual sense. Because the fact of the
matter is that we're clear where the sponsor
is coming from, we're clear where others who
support him come from. They want to pile
punishment on top of punishment.
And I just cite the other realities
because just think for a moment how silly we
would be, how nonproductive we are when we
curtail and erect barriers to getting basic
health care, basic health care that for anyone
that dares look at it would not wish that upon
their worst enemy, and now we are erecting
these other barriers, on top of continued
exploitation of these people who are in there
making lots of folks rich on the outside.
This too has been chronicled and documented.
So my basic question is yes, we
have a focus, we have a reality, and we have a
continuation of piling punishment on top of
punishment to people, then denying them basic
access to care. They're going to make their
5423
way back into society, and we want them to be
integrated back with their families, back into
their community, and not do some of the things
that have been done to them on the inside to
us once they reach the outside.
I'm not talking pampering here, I'm
talking about you've kept them in jail. They
have no quality legal representation. Maybe,
maybe some of them. I'll take your
percentages. 1 percent of them are inside and
innocent of the crime that they were accused
of.
But this is a wholesale mix of an
angry, ill-informed, pro-getting-elected-in
certain-districts kind of approach to
legislating something that makes no sense when
you visit the reality of people in jail, when
you visit their conditions, and when you visit
what we still maintain should be basic
rehabilitation. Even if you don't buy that,
how about basic humanity?
I would vote, Mr. President,
against this bill for all those reasons and
many, many more.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
5424
Mendez.
SENATOR MENDEZ: Thank you, Mr.
President. I wonder if Senator Nozzolio would
yield for a question.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Nozzolio, do you yield for a question from
Senator Mendez?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR MENDEZ: Senator
Nozzolio, you mentioned that there are other
states that do have in fact this same kind of
legislation into law. Tell me, aren't inmates
supposed to be wardens of the state?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Mr. President,
I apologize, I could not hear Senator Mendez's
question.
SENATOR MENDEZ: My question is a
simple, little one. Aren't inmates supposed
to be wardens of the state? Wards of the
state, I'm sorry.
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Yes, Mr.
President, inmates are considered wards of the
5425
state.
SENATOR MENDEZ: So once the
state -
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: You want
Senator Nozzolio to yield to another question?
SENATOR MENDEZ: Yes, thank you,
Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Nozzolio, do you yield?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR MENDEZ: Once the state
takes the responsibility of having wards,
wouldn't you say it is the responsibility of
the state to provide for health, education,
counseling or whatever?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Yes, Mr.
President, I believe it is the responsibility
of the state to provide those services.
SENATOR MENDEZ: And, Mr.
President -- thank you. And, Mr. President, I
understand that all medical services in the
New York State prison system are given to
5426
outside corporations. There was a time, I
believe I'm correct, in which doctors within
the facilities would take care of the medical
problems of the inmates.
And I understand that -- and I
understand that some of those corporations are
not delivering the kinds of medical services
that we are paying for. Is that a reality,
Senator Nozzolio?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Nozzolio.
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: I'm sorry, Mr.
President, the question was so long I couldn't
understand it.
SENATOR MENDEZ: Mr. President,
Senator Nozzolio, I understand that the
medical services in the state prison system is
given out to private organizations. Is that a
fact?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Mr. President,
there are a number of services provided to
inmates that are not located right on the
prison itself. For instance, those prisoners
at Auburn that require serious medical
5427
attention might have to go to Syracuse and be
taken care of at Upstate Medical Center and
other private or public health providers.
So it's not exclusively provided by
state doctors or the like. I think that's the
gist of Senator Mendez's question.
SENATOR MENDEZ: Thank you, Mr.
President. I understand that there has been
some discontent with the kind of medical
services that are being provided by some of
those organizations because we are not
receiving the good medical services for the
kinds of monies that the state is paying for
those. Is that a fact, Senator Nozzolio?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Senator Mendez
may be correct.
SENATOR MENDEZ: Well, I'll tell
you, I happen -- on the bill.
Thank you, Senator Nozzolio.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Mendez, on the bill.
SENATOR MENDEZ: Mr. President, I
think that this is a very bad bill. I don't
care if the other 49 states do have similar
bills like this already made law. The fact is
5428
that all these inmates, they committed a
crime. In our civilized society, they have to
go back to prison and pay for it, pay back to
society for their transgression.
However, being wards of the state,
the state should pay for their rehabilitation,
they should pay for their medical services,
and they should pay for all the things that
are needed so when they reenter society, they
will be useful not only to their families and
their neighborhood but to all of us.
Thank you. I'll vote no.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Does any
other member wish to be heard on this bill?
Debate is closed.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the 120th day.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Montgomery, to explain her vote.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, Mr.
President. I'm voting no on this bill, and
5429
I'm joining my colleagues Senators Duane,
Markowitz, Mendez, Onorato, Oppenheimer,
Paterson, Sampson, Santiago, Schneiderman,
Seabrook, Senator Ada Smith, Senator Stavisky,
and Senator Marchi, who we all voted no in the
year 2000, and we're voting no, most of us,
again.
We are talking about many different
needs in terms of health care. I don't know
how people who are in the SHU units, doubled
up, how are they going to get -- receive
health care, how will they ever pay for it?
They don't work and they are in there for long
periods of time, some of them.
How do we treat inmates who are
injured? That's not apparent in this
legislation. There are no exemptions. We -
we're charging people who earn 65 cents an
hour or less. There are no exemptions from
payment, because even though there's a clause
that says that if they don't have money they
don't have to pay, their account gets frozen.
So whenever they do get money, they will be
charged.
And in some instances, as my
5430
colleague Senator Brown has pointed out, they
could possibly leave prison owing money for
their health care, and how will they get
money, earn money to repay? So they'll
probably end up back in prison because they
didn't pay their health care bill.
So there are many, many flaws with
this legislation, in addition to the fact that
it's just plain mean-spirited and does not do
anything, not even recoup enough money to pay
for the costs of implementing it.
So, Mr. President, I vote no.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Montgomery will be recorded in the negative.
Senator Oppenheimer, to explain her
vote.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Thank you,
Mr. President.
I'm voting no because it occurred
to me that if there wasn't any money in the
account that the patient would not be getting
health care. And not to receive health care
in our society when, number one, there might
be a contagious disease there -- I mean,
things that could be transmitted to other
5431
people within the prison -- it sounds like an
absurd and kind of stupid thing to be doing,
to deprive them of health care because they
don't have the money, and that might cost us
much more as a society.
The other point I would like to
make is this is an opportunity for me to say
that what we are providing in the form of
education in prisons is almost meaningless.
And that we have proven with statistics that
if an inmate is able to access a college
degree, that you will probably never see that
inmate again. And that might be one of the
reasons that we are not putting the kind of
education into prisons that we ought to be.
We can show that with a four-year
degree, that the typical inmate comes back at
a rate of maybe 5 percent. With a two-year
degree from a junior college, the equivalent
of a junior-college degree, chances of that
inmate coming back is something like
18 percent. And that without education and
with only the slimmest degree of education,
that the likelihood of that prisoner returning
is very high, somewhere around 60 or
5432
70 percent.
It makes no sense not to be
providing higher education to our prisoners
that are capable of higher education, because
it then puts them on a path of leading a
productive life and joining and becoming part
of our society.
Thank you very much. I'm voting
no.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Oppenheimer will be recorded in the negative.
Senator Onorato.
SENATOR ONORATO: Thank you, Mr.
President, to explain my vote.
As I've stated earlier, I believe
in the concept of this here. But this
particular bill does not fit my idea of the
concept. It's so full of flaws. Prison is a
very, very violent place. We have people who
have committed violent crimes that are in
there. We're asking them to pay a copayment
of $7, which is not commensurate with the
amount of money that they're actually earning
while they're in prison.
And it doesn't even -- I just went
5433
over the bill again. It doesn't cover a
prisoner who is attacked and savagely beaten
by another inmate and requires
hospitalization. You're telling him now that
while he's in prison and he's getting beaten
and he's a victim of a crime within the prison
system, he is required to make a copayment for
being victimized while they're in prison.
Now, you know, this bill needs a
lot of work on it. And when they do that work
and they make sense out of it, I will vote
yes. But under the current form, I will vote
no.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Onorato will be recorded in the negative.
Senator Schneiderman, to explain
his vote.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you,
Mr. President.
I think that one of the issues that
is raised by this bill and is an incredibly
important issue is something that we really
need to address in a more comprehensive way,
and that is the cost of our state's correction
system. We are told that we are entering a
5434
period of economic downturn. We are told that
several years from now our budget surpluses
will turn into deficits.
We need money for schools, we need
money for health care, we need money for
housing. And there's no greater drain on
state's resources than the unreasonable
expenses of operating this correction system.
I would respectfully submit,
however, the way to deal with that issue is
not to require copayments from inmates but to
deal with the fact that we have a lot of
people serving much too much time in the
prison system. And if we don't take the
opportunity presented to us this year to
reform the Rockefeller Drug Laws and deal with
some sentencing reform issues, which everyone
seems reluctant to address because I guess you
can never be hurt by appearing to be too tough
on crime, we are going to suffer and our state
is going to suffer.
And I think that the only thing for
us to do is deal with the issue of cost that
Senator Nozzolio has identified here in an
honest way. Let's reform our sentencing laws.
5435
Let's get people who don't need to be in
prison out of prison. Let's save the state
some money we can spend better in other ways.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Schneiderman will be recorded in the negative.
Senator Stavisky, to explain her
vote.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Mr. President,
I wish to vote no on this bill. It seems to
me that it would set a dreadful, dreadful
precedent. The next thing you know, when
teachers come to teach inmates, we're going to
start charging them tuition payments.
I can see that as the next step,
and I think we ought to draw the line at this
point and say no.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Stavisky will be recorded in the negative.
Senator Hassell-Thompson, to
explain her vote.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank
you, Mr. President.
I too will be voting no. I believe
in concept there are some remunerations and
5436
different areas where in prison reform I think
that we ought to be looking at how inmates can
pay back some costs. But I don't think that
this is the bill to begin to do that.
And even though the Senator's
legislation speaks to saving the state money,
when asked the question what happens to this
money, will this be used to pay down some of
the bill, the answer to that was that it would
not.
And it would seem that it would
give the commissioner a slush fund as opposed
to going to reducing the cost of inmates'
expenditures to the state. So therefore, it's
in opposition to what his own legislative
intent seems to be, so I will be voting no.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Hassell-Thompson will be recorded in the
negative.
Senator Gentile, to explain his
vote.
SENATOR GENTILE: Thank you, Mr.
President.
While this bill may not be perfect
and may have some flaws, it is not without
5437
precedent. As Senator Nozzolio has indicated,
this bill is similar to bills that have been
introduced and passed in Arizona, Minnesota,
Pennsylvania, and Nevada. In each of those
cases, this bill has produced savings for the
state and has sent a message to the inmates
and to the people of the state that copayments
are some form of remuneration for the state.
It's not a perfect bill, but it's a
good bill, and I will be voting with Senator
Nozzolio in the affirmative.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Gentile will be recorded in the affirmative.
Announce the results.
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
the negative on Calendar Number 189 are
Senators Duane, Espada, Gonzalez,
Hassell-Thompson, Marchi, Markowitz, Mendez,
Montgomery, Onorato, Oppenheimer, Paterson,
Sampson, Santiago, Schneiderman, A. Smith, M.
Smith, and Senator Stavisky. Ayes, 42. Nays,
17.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
Senator Marcellino.
5438
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Yes, Mr.
President. At this time can we call up
Calendar Number 250.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read Calendar 250.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
250, by Member of the Assembly Lentol,
Assembly Print Number 5305, an act to amend
the Judiciary Law and the Penal Law.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Lack, an explanation has been requested by
Senator Breslin of Calendar 250.
SENATOR LACK: Thank you, Mr.
President.
Mr. President, this bill would
amend the Penal Law. It's a bill we passed
last year -- the Assembly has now joined us
and passed it this year -- which would create
the new crime of providing a juror with an
unlawful gratuity based upon an actual case
that occurred in the City of New York a couple
of years ago.
We introduced our own bill two
years ago. We've then substituted a bill that
5439
we received from the judiciary that's
virtually the same as what we passed. And it
basically would establish a Class A
misdemeanor when a person who had been party
to an action tries to confer with the intent
to reward a juror for said service on a jury
with an unlawful gratuity.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Breslin.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Mr. President,
through you, would the sponsor yield to a
question?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Lack, do you yield for a question?
SENATOR LACK: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Under the
existing law as it is now, what would happen
if someone offered a gratuity to a juror after
either a criminal or a civil trial?
SENATOR LACK: He'd pocket the
money and pay taxes to the IRS and the State
Tax Department.
5440
SENATOR BRESLIN: Mr. President,
if the sponsor would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Lack, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR LACK: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Under the law
as proposed, if there was a situation during a
long trial, as a number of us have had,
there's a bonding between a -
SENATOR LACK: Excuse me, Mr.
President, I can't hear Senator Breslin.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Can we
have a little order in the chamber, please.
Keep the conversation down so we can all hear
the debate.
Senator Breslin.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Again through
you, Mr. President, through long trials at
times there's a bonding between the defendant,
either in a criminal or a civil trial. And if
a defendant is exonerated in a criminal trial,
again one of length, he's built up a bond with
5441
that juror. And if he sent them fruit baskets
or things like that, would that be accountable
under the new proposed law?
SENATOR LACK: No, Mr. President,
of course we're talking about an amendment to
the Penal Law, which in and by itself has to
be strictly construed. In addition to that,
the body of the bill itself, in line 15, says
there has to be intent to reward such
person -- in this case, the juror -- for said
service.
So unless -- and indeed, flowers, a
bottle of liquor, "come on out and have a
drink" or any other such situation is not
termed to be an unlawful gratuity unless same
is meant to reward such person for such
service, in the same way that Abe Hirschfeld
passed out checks for $2,500, which was the
gravamen that led to the submission of the
instant bill.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Again through
you, Mr. President, if the sponsor would
yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Lack, do you continue to yield?
5442
SENATOR LACK: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Were there any
other cases other than the Abe Hirschfeld case
which precipitated the introduction of this
legislation?
SENATOR LACK: No, I'm happy to
say that as far as I know, in the annals of
modern-day New York penal law, Mr. Hirschfeld
seems to have been unique and thought about
this all by himself. And there are no other
recorded instances of anybody, including
former candidates for office in the Democratic
Party, like Mr. Hirschfeld, who has paid off
people for serving on a jury.
And the whole point of this
particular bill, Mr. President -- by the way,
which poses no penalties for those who receive
the money -- is to pose penalties for those
who try to give the money specifically as a
reward.
And in Mr. Hirschfeld's case, since
that has been brought up, he specifically, Mr.
5443
President, did just that. It was not a
"thanks so much for sitting for a month right
here, here's a bottle of liquor," or "can we
get a drink, I know it was a long time in
which you people had to serve," or "please
accept these flowers so you can smell them
nicely for a couple of days because you had to
sit in a jury box for a month," this was,
"Hey, you guys did a great thing, and I want
to pay you, here's $2,500," and he passed out
checks to whoever wanted to take them.
SENATOR BRESLIN: One final
question, if the sponsor would yield, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Lack, do you yield for another question?
SENATOR LACK: Yes, I will.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR BRESLIN: In the summary
of the legislation, it indicates that there's
no financial impact. But it also says that
there's -- that the OCA would undertake a
significant amount of advertising to let
people know that this law exists. It seemed
5444
to be somewhat contradictory.
Is there the thought of any
expenditure of dollars to accomplish that
goal?
SENATOR LACK: From what I
understand, Mr. President, we're talking about
a minimal amount. And the, quote, unquote,
advertising is in and around the courthouse,
in the same way that OCA posts all sorts of
things. One of which is, don't give unlawful
gratuities to jurors to reward them for their
service.
I mean, as far as I'm concerned,
OCA has chosen a very neutral term in terms of
"unlawful gratuity." Personally, I think it's
bribery. But I will go along with unlawful
gratuity. It would establish a Class A
misdemeanor. We have separate penalties for
bribery.
But I do have to hand it to
Mr. Hirschfeld. He found in what he was doing
that technically, as a former assistant DA
myself, of course it isn't bribery, and
therefore there was no violation in his
writing out checks to jurors. But be that as
5445
it may, from now on anybody who tries that
type of thing will have committed a Class A
misdemeanor.
SENATOR BRESLIN: And I
apologize, there is one question that led
through the answer to the prior question.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Lack, do you yield to another question?
SENATOR LACK: Absolutely.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR BRESLIN: I happen to
agree with the bribery designation. And given
that, was there any consideration given to
making it a felony rather than a Class A
misdemeanor?
SENATOR LACK: There was some
consideration, Mr. President. But by the way
the Penal Law is structured and other offenses
that constitute something close to tampering
with a witness or a juror, and since this
occurs allegedly after the fact, after the
completion of whatever the instant trial that
gave rise to the factual situation to be
accomplished here, it was decided to leave it
5446
as a Class A misdemeanor.
I would assume, if somebody comes
up with a new or more novel approach on how to
handle this -- I mean, because I can think of
ways -- I mean, I can think of ways to violate
this immediately. This was put in
specifically for what it was supposed to do,
not allow for a repeat of what Mr. Hirschfeld
did. If indeed somebody wants to get more
innovative or ingenious and create new and
better ways to carry on the purpose that
Mr. Hirschfeld has managed to establish in our
law, I can think of further ways to structure
this that would have resulted in what I would
consider to be felonious behavior for which
this unlawful gratuity statute -- assuming
it's passed by this house and signed into law
by the Governor -- would just be the
misdemeanor compared to the felonious statute,
I'd be only to happy to draft.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Thank you, Mr.
President. On the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Breslin, on the bill.
SENATOR BRESLIN: I think I first
5447
will compliment Senator Lack on the bill
itself. It does close a loophole that when we
read about Abe Hirschfeld offering $2,500 to
jurors after a trial, and particularly a
Democrat doing that, I think we were all,
quite frankly, shocked. And the quicker we
close that loophole, the quicker we make sure
that that doesn't happen again, the better off
all of us will be.
And for that reason, I will vote in
the affirmative.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Paterson, on the bill.
SENATOR PATERSON: And in
somewhat response to Senator Breslin's
question to Senator Lack, it is my awareness
that in November of 1992, when Lemrick Nelson
was convicted in the state trial for the
murder of Yankel Rosenbaum -- I'm sorry, he
was acquitted in 1992. He was later convicted
of civil rights violations in that same act on
5448
the federal level. But in 1992, in November,
when he was acquitted on the state trial, that
the defense attorneys held a party for the
jurors that was estimated to have cost over
$2,000.
And it not only, in many people's
opinions, really did a lot of disservice to
the process but it also heightened already
existing tensions in communities around
New York City after that case.
So this was another example,
Senator Lack, of an act occurring after a
trial, as a gratuity for what was the
perceived result of the trial, but it also
tampered with the legal process. Because if
you were in the second trial and were a juror,
you might have expected the same treatment.
So these things do happen, and this
legislation is very much in order.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Mr.
President, I voted for this bill in the past,
I'm going to vote in favor of it again. I
think it continues to preserve the integrity
5449
of both the criminal and civil jury process,
but the grand jury process as well.
There's only one suggestion I would
make to OCA if this bill becomes law, and that
is to require that the instructions that be
given in the empaneling of a grand jury
include an instruction that the offer of a
gift at any point in the process could
constitute either a bribe or, after the
process is concluded, the offer of a gift
could constitute a misdemeanor under this
statute.
I think that it would be important
to inform jurors at the time of their charge
in a grand jury, at the time of their charge
in either a civil or a criminal case, that the
offer of a gift, even after their jury duty is
committed, would nonetheless violate the laws
of this state.
I think with that suggestion to OCA
that the sponsor, as the chairman of the
Judiciary Committee, could clearly convey that
to the chief judge, that that should become a
permanent part of the instructions of the
empaneling judge at either -- empaneling of
5450
the grand jury or either the civil or the
criminal jury in these cases.
With that bit of advice, Mr.
President, I'll be voting in favor.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Does any
other member wish to be heard on this bill?
Debate is closed.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
November.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Announce
the results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58. Nays,
1. Senator Duane recorded in the negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
Senator Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Yes, Mr.
President. Is there any housekeeping at the
desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Yes, we
5451
have one substitution, Senator.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Make the
substitution, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read the substitution.
THE SECRETARY: On page number
16, Senator DeFrancisco moves to discharge,
from the Committee on Energy and
Telecommunications, Assembly Bill Number 1270
and substitute it for the identical Senate
Bill Number 579, Third Reading Calendar 157.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:
Substitution ordered.
Senator Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Yes, Mr.
President. Would you recognize Senator
Dollinger, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Mr. President, and thanks to the Minority
Leader.
I hereby give notice to the Senate,
pursuant to Rule XI, of my intention to amend
Rule XV to create a new rule for the Senate
5452
with respect to the ethical standards of
officers, employees, and members of the
New York State Senate.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
notice is at the desk. It will be entered in
the Journal.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Would you
recognize Senator Paterson, please.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
there will be a conference of the Minority
tomorrow morning at 10:30 in the Minority
Conference Room. So that's on Wednesday,
April the 18th, all members of the Minority
and those who would like to become members can
report to Room 314 to a conference.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Minority
conference tomorrow morning at 10:30 a.m.
Senator Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Mr.
President, there being no further business, I
move we adjourn until Wednesday, April 18th,
at 11:00 a.m.
5453
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: On
motion, the Senate stands adjourned until
Wednesday, April 18th, at 11:00 a.m.
(Whereupon, at 5:50 p.m., the
Senate adjourned.)