Regular Session - April 18, 2001
5454
NEW YORK STATE SENATE
THE STENOGRAPHIC RECORD
ALBANY, NEW YORK
April 18, 2001
11:13 a.m.
REGULAR SESSION
LT. GOVERNOR MARY O. DONOHUE, President
STEVEN M. BOGGESS, Secretary
5455
P R O C E E D I N G S
THE PRESIDENT: The Senate will
please come to order.
I ask everyone present to rise and
repeat with me the Pledge of Allegiance.
(Whereupon, the assemblage recited
the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.)
THE PRESIDENT: In the absence of
clergy, may we each bow our heads in a moment
of silence.
(Whereupon, the assemblage
respected a moment of silence.)
THE PRESIDENT: Reading of the
Journal.
THE SECRETARY: In Senate,
Tuesday, April 17, the Senate met pursuant to
adjournment. The Journal of Monday, April 16,
was read and approved. On motion, Senate
adjourned.
THE PRESIDENT: Without
objection, the Journal stands approved as
read.
Presentation of petitions.
Messages from the Assembly.
Messages from the Governor.
5456
Reports of standing committees.
Reports of select committees.
Communications and reports from
state officers.
Motions and resolutions.
Senator Skelos, we have one
substitution.
SENATOR SKELOS: Would you please
make it at this time, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: On page 11,
Senator Padavan moves to discharge, from the
Committee on Cities, Assembly Bill Number 3145
and substitute it for the identical Senate
Bill Number 1793, Third Reading Calendar 124.
THE PRESIDENT: Substitution is
ordered.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
could we please adopt the Resolution Calendar,
with the exception of Resolution 1239.
THE PRESIDENT: All those in
favor of adopting the Resolution Calendar
signify by saying aye.
5457
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The Resolution
Calendar is adopted.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
may we please take up Resolution 1239, by
Senator Marcellino, have it read in its
entirety, and move for its immediate adoption.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: By Senator
Marcellino, Legislative Resolution Number
1239, commemorating the 31st Anniversary of
Earth Day on April 22, 2001.
"WHEREAS, It is the sense of this
Legislative Body to recognize and pay tribute
to those organizations dedicating their
purposeful work to increasing public awareness
of, and appreciation for, the natural
resources of New York, recognizing the role
all citizens have in protecting the
environment and the quality of life in this
Empire State; and
5458
"WHEREAS, on April 22, 1970,
approximately 25 million Americans
participated in the first Earth Day
demonstration to express their concerns over
the environment and the fate of the planet;
and
"WHEREAS, In the 31 years that have
passed since the original Earth Day, the
planet has been subjected to the continuing
burdens of world population growth, increasing
commercial and residential development, ocean
pollution, increasing stores of toxic and
nuclear waste, and other similar assaults
which have exacerbated the growing dangers of
global climate change, ozone depletion, toxic
poisoning, deforestation and mass species
extinctions; and
"WHEREAS, Following the first Earth
Day and the demonstrations of concern of over
20 million Americans, a collective national
action has resulted in the passage of sweeping
new laws to protect the invaluable resources
of air, land and water; and
"WHEREAS, April 22, 2001 marks the
31st Anniversary of Earth Day; a day set aside
5459
to celebrate the beauty and bounty of our
environment and to revitalize the efforts
required to protect and maintain respect for
the environment and its resources; and
"WHEREAS, Earth Day 2001 activities
and events will educate all citizens on the
importance of acting in an environmentally
sensitive fashion by recycling, conserving
energy and water, using efficient
transportation, and adopting more ecologically
sound lifestyles; and
"WHEREAS, Earth Day 2001 activities
and events will educate all citizens on the
importance of supporting the passage of
legislation that will help protect the
environment, and will highlight the importance
of a heightened awareness of environmental
concerns amongst our State's leaders; and
"WHEREAS, The goal of Earth Day
2001 is not to plan only one day of events and
activities, but to continue worldwide efforts
to protect all aspects of the environment;
now, therefore, be it
"RESOLVED, That this Legislative
Body pause in its deliberations to commemorate
5460
the 31st Anniversary of Earth Day on April 22,
2001; and be it further
"RESOLVED, That this Legislative
Body congratulate all the concerned citizens
of New York State who have embraced the
responsible work of protecting and preserving
the environment for future generations."
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Thank you,
Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: You're welcome.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Madam
President, it has been 31 years since we set
aside a day to commemorate and remember this
planet and the environment we all live in and
depend upon for our lives. I would just hope,
and I know it's everybody's hope in this
chamber, that it would not be limited to just
one day of concern, but that we are concerned
about the environment and preserving and
protecting it in all its aspects 365 days of
the year.
This chamber can be congratulated
for the fine bills that we've passed over
5461
these many years to preserve and protect our
environment. In partnership with Governor
Pataki and the other house, we will continue
to do great work in protecting the
environment, and I look forward to many more
years of good environmental legislation.
I would also, Madam President, ask
that, with your permission, that we open the
resolution to all members of the chamber.
THE PRESIDENT: Any member who
does not wish to be included as a sponsor of
this resolution please notify the desk.
The question is on the resolution.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The resolution is
adopted.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
there's a privileged resolution at the desk by
Senator Farley. May we please have it read in
its entirety and move for its immediate
adoption.
5462
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: By Senators
Farley, Nozzolio, and Bruno, Legislative
Resolution Number 1351, memorializing Governor
George E. Pataki to proclaim the week of
April 22 through 28, 2001, as National Crime
Victims' Rights Week in New York State.
"WHEREAS, Every man, woman and
child who is victimized by crime in America
deserves to be treated with dignity and
compassion, and deserves services and support
to help them in the aftermath of crime; and
"WHEREAS, Annually there are 28.8
million Americans who are victimized by crime,
7.4 million of whom are victims of violent
crime; and
"WHEREAS, Crime Victims' Rights
Week activities will begin with a Crime
Victims' Vigil at the Presbyterian New England
Congregational Church in Saratoga Springs,
New York, on April 22, 2001, and a Memorial
Brick Dedication will take place at the
New York State Crime Victims' Memorial at the
Empire State Plaza on April 28, 2001, and
5463
activities will take place on Long Island and
New York City and throughout New York State;
and
"WHEREAS, The Capital District
Coalition for Crime Victims' Rights includes
organizations, both public and private, that
advocate and support the rights of all crime
victims; and
"WHEREAS, While New York State has
adopted laws to protect the rights of victims
of crime and provide them with essential
services, it remains the responsibility of all
citizens to ensure that these laws are upheld;
and
"WHEREAS, Important efforts have
been implemented to ensure treatment to help
victims to begin healing; volunteers and
professionals who work toward this end include
law enforcement officers, prosecutors, victim
service providers, corrections officers,
parole and probation officers, counselors,
physicians, health care professionals, and the
many others whose dedication and service to
crime victims helps to lessen trauma and
assists in personal recoveries; and
5464
"WHEREAS, Victims' rights
organizations in America have for nearly two
decades dared to dream of a nation that is
free from violence and where crime victims are
consistently provided supportive services to
help cope with the trauma of crime and
victimization; and
"WHEREAS, As we carry crime
victims' rights into 2001 and beyond, we must
'Reach for the Stars,' striving to create a
world where respect and dignity will be basic
rights for everyone who has been victimized by
crime, and where those responsible for
necessitating the rights of victims are
accountable for their actions; now, therefore,
it be
"RESOLVED, That this Legislative
Body pause in its deliberations to memorialize
Governor George E. Pataki to proclaim the week
of April 22 through 28, 2001, as National
Crime Victims' Rights Week in New York State;
and be it further
"RESOLVED, That copies of this
resolution, suitably engrossed, be transmitted
to the Honorable George E. Pataki, Governor of
5465
the State of New York, the Capital District
Coalition for Crime Victims' Rights Week, the
Long Island Metropolitan Area Chapter of
Parents of Murdered Children, Incorporated,
and the Downstate Coalition for Crime Victims,
along with the National Crime Victims' Rights
Week Coalition."
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Farley.
SENATOR FARLEY: Thank you, Madam
President.
Let me just say that this house has
been in the forefront of recognizing crime
victims. And, you know, it's only in recent
years that the victims of crimes have been
recognized by our society. And I think it's
so very, very important that every one of us
who have crime victims in our Senate districts
recognize this, and we urge the Governor to
declare it Crime Victims' Week.
Let me just say that on behalf of
the Senate Majority, I'd like to open up this
resolution to every member of the Senate,
because you've all been part of Crime Victims'
Week.
And I think it's so very, very
5466
important that we go forward in this area,
because particularly throughout the state,
different organizations are recognizing crime
victims. And I think it's very significant
that we have Crime Victims' Week in the month
of April.
Thank you, Madam President. The
resolution is opened.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Skelos,
Senator Farley wishes to open this resolution.
SENATOR SKELOS: No objection.
THE PRESIDENT: Hearing no
objection, then, the resolution is open. And
any member who does not wish his or her name
to be included on the resolution, please
notify the desk.
Senator Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you,
Madam President. I -
THE PRESIDENT: First, Senator,
on the resolution.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Yes, thank
you.
I want to thank Senator Farley for
opening this.
5467
The Capital District Coalition for
Crime Victims' Rights, which someone who I
personally work with has been very involved
with, is a great example of people who go into
what for many people would be a tragedy that
would cause them to withdraw from society, but
instead returning with a commitment to make
things better for others. It is a tremendous
example in our state of people bringing out
the best in themselves.
The problems of crime victims were
neglected for many decades, where the focus
was always on prosecution of the accused. And
I think that we are moving in a direction of
dealing more effectively with issues relating
to crime victims. But I think that that's
really largely a tribute to the coalitions
that have formed around this state educating
us, working with community groups, working
with law enforcement. We are moving in the
right direction, but we have a ways to go.
I'm very grateful that we're joined
today by some members of the Capital District
Coalition, and I think this is a very, very
fine occasion for the Governor to recognize
5468
this important work.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you very
much, Madam President.
I also want to rise and say that I
think that a lot of the good work that the
Legislature has done on this issue is in part
due to the hard work of Pat Joya and the
Capital District Coalition. I know that Pat
Joya, who worked for one of our predecessors
here, Senator Leichter, was one of the driving
forces on this.
And I also have had the privilege
of working with many of the groups in New York
City as well.
And it's really a tragedy that we
have to do this kind of recognition at all,
because so many people have suffered as a
result of crime. But it is good that people
can find the strength to be involved and to
support this wonderful cause even in light of
their own personal tragedies.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The question is
on the resolution. All those in favor signify
5469
by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The resolution is
adopted.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
there's a privileged resolution at the desk by
Senator Hassell-Thompson. I ask that the
title be read and move for its immediate
adoption.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: By Senator
Hassell-Thompson, Legislative Resolution
Number 1363, congratulating Helen Roach Bayne
Lightbourne upon the occasion of her 100th
Birthday.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Please adopt the
resolution.
THE PRESIDENT: The question is
on the resolution. All in favor signify by
saying aye.
5470
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The resolution is
adopted.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
there's a privileged resolution at the desk by
Senator Sampson. I ask that the title be read
and move for its immediate adoption.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: By Senator
Sampson, Legislative Resolution Number 1364,
honoring Dr. Cynthia Perry Ray upon the
occasion of her retirement as President of the
Women's Auxiliary to the National Baptist
Convention, USA, Incorporated.
THE PRESIDENT: The question is
on the resolution. All in favor signify by
saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The resolution is
5471
adopted.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
there will be an immediate meeting of the
Finance Committee in the Majority Conference
Room.
THE PRESIDENT: There will be an
immediate meeting of the Finance Committee in
the Majority Conference Room.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
if we could go to the noncontroversial
calendar at this time.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
131, by Senator Farley, Senate Print 1994, an
act to amend the Environmental Conservation
Law.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
213, by Senator LaValle, Senate Print 2355A,
an act to amend the Education Law.
5472
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside,
please, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
216, by Senator Hoffmann, Senate Print 532, an
act to amend the Agriculture and Markets Law.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay that one
aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
218, by Senator Padavan, Senate Print 1814, an
act to amend the Agriculture and Markets Law.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay that
aside, please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
229, by Senator Wright, Senate Print 2198, an
act to amend the Penal Law.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
5473
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
252, by Senator Skelos, Senate Print 399, an
act to amend the Family Court Act and the
Criminal Procedure Law.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay that one
aside also, please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
291, by Senator Alesi, Senate Print 1128, an
act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
293, by Senator Maziarz, Senate Print 1897, an
act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay that
aside, please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
301, by Senator LaValle, Senate Print 2589, an
act to amend Chapter 554.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay that
5474
aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
366, by Senator Morahan, Senate Print 3715A,
an act to amend the Penal Law.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
Senator Skelos, that completes the
reading of the noncontroversial calendar.
SENATOR SKELOS: Thank you, Madam
President. If we could go to the
controversial calendar and start with Calendar
Number 218, by Senator Padavan.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read Calendar Number 218.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
218, by Senator Padavan, Senate Print 1814, an
act to amend the Agriculture and Markets Law,
in relation to spectators.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Explanation.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Padavan,
an explanation has been requested.
5475
SENATOR PADAVAN: Thank you,
Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: I believe by
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PADAVAN: Over the years,
we have attempted, somewhat successfully, to
deal with the issue of inhumane treatment of
animals by virtue of their use in organized
fighting among the animals. Cockfighting,
fighting among pit bulls bred for that purpose
are some of the more well-known activities
that we've attempted to deal with.
We've passed laws going back to
1984 imposing strong penalties against the
operators of those events. More recently, we
passed a law dealing with those who
participate by buying tickets and gambling at
those events.
The ASPCA brought to our attention
in the enforcement of those laws a loophole;
namely, that they would raid an activity that
I've described and there would be people
standing around who obviously at that moment
in time were not wagering a bet nor had a
ticket on them or any other indication that
5476
they had paid for admission. Yet those
individuals are part and parcel of this odious
activity which we are seeking to eliminate.
And so this bill expands those who
would be subject to the appropriate penalties
as spectators or those who facilitate the
endeavor that we are talking about.
That is the explanation.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you.
SENATOR PADAVAN: You're welcome.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Lachman.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Yes, Madam
President. Will the sponsor yield for a
question or two?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Padavan,
will you yield?
SENATOR PADAVAN: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Lachman.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Senator
Padavan, I'm interested in understanding the
scope of the bill throughout -- how it applies
throughout New York State and whether it is
more prevalent, animal fighting, in rural
areas or in urban areas such as New York City.
5477
SENATOR PADAVAN: It's probably
more prevalent in urban areas. I understand
they have that problem in various parts of the
state. Long Island, I'm told by one of our
colleagues, has been plagued by this activity.
Certainly in New York City, according to the
reports from the ASPCA where they've raided
and taken action against a number of
promoters.
But I would guess that it's more
prevalent in urban centers.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Madam
President, through you, another question.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Padavan,
do you yield?
SENATOR PADAVAN: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Lachman.
SENATOR PADAVAN: Speaking of the
issue at hand.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR LACHMAN: Siamese twins.
Could we possibly, Senator Padavan,
receive some statistics relating to where this
takes place, primarily in rural areas, in
5478
urban areas, and how many of these incidents
take place in the City of New York?
SENATOR PADAVAN: I don't have
that information at hand, Senator. We could
get it from the enforcement folks at ASPCAs
and other humane societies throughout the
state, as well as local law enforcement
agencies.
However, I would suggest to you
that no matter where it is or to whatever
extent it might be prevalent in any geographic
area of the state, it is still wrong, morally
and otherwise. And we are attempting to deal
with it.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Madam
President, will the Senator yield?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, will you
yield?
SENATOR PADAVAN: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Has the State
District Attorneys Association taken a
position on this, Senator Padavan?
SENATOR PADAVAN: Not to my
5479
knowledge. I have no memos from them.
Obviously, if they were opposed to it, I would
have heard of it. They've never been opposed
to any of the prior statutes that we've put in
law. So I would assume they have no problem
with this bill either. But to answer your
question directly, I have not heard from them
directly.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Madam
President, will the Senator continue to yield
for one or two more questions?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, will you
yield.
SENATOR PADAVAN: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Do we know the
impact of gambling in the area of animal
fighting in the state?
SENATOR PADAVAN: The impact?
SENATOR LACHMAN: Yes.
SENATOR PADAVAN: Well, obviously
that's one of the major reasons for having
these animal fighting events, is people come
there and gamble on one of the two
participants in the ring. And so gambling is
5480
certainly a factor, a major factor. It's both
a spectator sport and a gambling activity.
SENATOR LACHMAN: One more
question, and then on the bill.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, will you
yield?
SENATOR PADAVAN: Well, I
wouldn't use the word "sport" in any term that
you and I would normally accept.
SENATOR LACHMAN: I agree.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, will you
yield to a question?
SENATOR PADAVAN: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Lachman.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Am I correct in
assuming that this would be -- the bill is a
felony for those who organize the events and a
misdemeanor for those who participate in the
events?
SENATOR PADAVAN: That's correct.
SENATOR LACHMAN: On the bill,
Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Lachman.
5481
SENATOR LACHMAN: Thank you
kindly.
I think it is an excellent bill. I
think we're long overdue in strengthening such
bills that have existed in this area. When
you realize that the State of New York
approved a bill denying animal fighting in
1886, in Massachusetts in 1831, it is shocking
for me to learn that there are three states
today -- Oklahoma, Louisiana, and New
Mexico -- that permit animal fighting.
I think it's disgraceful, it's
outrageous, and it leads to many, many
negative problems, one of which, of course, is
the whole issue of gambling in the State of
New York.
I will support this bill, Senator
Padavan, and congratulate you in sponsoring
it.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you,
Madam President. If Senator Padavan would
yield for a couple of questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, will you
yield?
5482
SENATOR PADAVAN: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, I
think you quite properly described this
conduct as odious. And I just have a little
bit of worry about some of the people at these
events. You say that they don't have a
ticket, and you also point out that they're
not gambling at the events. What you're
saying is that they probably paid their way
in, but there's no real way of making a
record, and it's a loophole but they actually
did pay their way in and they are a part of
the event, they're observing it.
In other words, it's such a
ghoulish thing that there are people that
would see something and just kind of stop, you
know, just out of their own sense of
excitement or whatever. And while, you know,
you would find their conduct to be somewhat
prohibitive, I don't know that I would
consider it to be a misdemeanor. In other
words, they're not part of the organizing,
they might not have bought a ticket.
5483
So I just wanted you to clarify to
me who the people are that we're charging
under this statute.
SENATOR PADAVAN: Senator, I've
never been to one of these events, but I've
seen videos of them. Typically, it's in the
basement of a vacant building, a warehouse or
some other establishment. The people who are
there, even though you may not catch them in
the process of making a wager, are there for a
purpose. You may not find a ticket on them,
but they gained admission. And therefore,
they are culpable, because without them these
events could not exist.
Now, there are other people who
participate in a fashion that the current law
would not identify. A guy stands on the roof
looking for the cops and rings a bell when he
sees them coming. The security individuals at
the event, to make sure if there's anything
happening that shouldn't happen, they take
action. There are many individuals associated
with this activity who neither are gambling
nor paid admission, and they are also an
integral part of the activity.
5484
We wish to involve all of them in
some level of penalty so that we can eliminate
this activity.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, on the bill.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator, on the bill.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator
Padavan has answered my questions. I have
never witnessed one of these events, nor have
I, such as Senator Padavan did, seen a video
of these types of events. And what I got from
his answer that relieves my concern is that
you have to know where you are when you go to
these events.
In other words, that they're not
being held on the street, they obviously would
attract a lot of attention and the police
would therefore come. So in other words, you
have to go out of the regular path of seeing
something that looks interesting or strange,
to a basement or someplace where there's
obviously some security, there's a lookout.
And so those, I think, are the
perimeters in which you have willingly gone
5485
beyond where I think the people who are there,
to my satisfaction, the explanation is that
they understand that they're at what's
basically an illegal event.
Now, I'm going to restrain myself,
Madam President. I accept Senator Padavan's
explanation. I'm dying to ask him if he
thinks it should be a misdemeanor to watch
videos of these events. But I'm not going to
ask him that question, I'm going to vote for
the bill.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any other
member wish to be heard on this bill?
Then the debate is closed.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
November.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 55. Nays,
1. Senator Duane recorded in the negative.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
Senator Skelos.
5486
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
would you please call up Calendar Number 366,
by Senator Morahan.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read Calendar 366.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
366, by Senator Morahan, Senate Print 3715A,
an act to amend the Penal Law, in relation to
requiring.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Morahan,
an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Yes, Madam
President. This is an appropriate bill for
today, after having passed the crime victims'
resolution proclaiming next week as crime
victims' recognition, if you will, of their
plight in the State of New York.
We have today two crime victims who
lost their sister in a heinous murder that was
committed in New Jersey, but the body of the
victim, who was killed by a schoolteacher from
my county, was found in my county. The family
has appealed and has worked for several years
5487
to amend the law in New Jersey. They now are
asking to amend the law here in the State of
New York.
This bill would amend Penal Law by
adding a new subdivision 5 to Section 125.25
that would expand the definition of a sexual
degree murder to include sexual molestation
and the murder of a child under 14, with a
mandatory sentence of life without parole.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, when I read a bill like this,
sometimes I wonder why it took us so long to
get around to looking at what Senator Morahan
is proposing.
And if the Senator would yield for
a couple of questions, I just want to learn a
little more about it.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, will you
yield?
SENATOR MORAHAN: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, would
5488
you be willing -- Madam President, would
Senator Morahan be willing to share with his
colleagues what the current law is and what
the discretion of the trial judges has been
in? Other words, in these types of
situations, what is the usual outcome as it
stands under the law now?
SENATOR MORAHAN: Well, under the
law now, the crime that was committed in 1973
that affects this bill, which we're calling
Joan's Law, that was only given, as under
second degree murder, 25 years to life or 20
years to life, which makes the perpetrator
eligible for parole after five years.
The family has been fighting the
release of this killer for several years. And
each time that the killer is up for parole,
they have to marshal the family, they have to
marshal support to keep the person in prison.
Under current law, prosecutors have
a discretion in charging under murder one or
murder two. A murder one conviction, as you
realize, can carry a sentence of death if
agreed -- if put on by the jury, life without
parole, or 20 to 25 years to life. Murder two
5489
can only carry a sentence of 15 years to life,
with the eligibility for parole.
I don't know if I answered your
question, Senator.
SENATOR PATERSON: Yes, Senator,
you did answer my question.
Madam President, if the Senator
would yield for another question.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
continue to yield?
SENATOR MORAHAN: Yes, I do.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
with a question, Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, I'm
trying to imagine the situation where a parole
board would actually release someone in this
situation even if they had the authority to do
so. I'm just curious, have there been any
instances where this has actually occurred?
SENATOR MORAHAN: I don't know of
any incidents where specifically parole was
given that met a crime with all the specifics
of this particular crime.
I do know, however, as long as that
authority to release is there, the possibility
5490
of parole is there. And I think that's what
I'm trying to eliminate in these particularly
heinous crimes.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, I want to thank Senator Morahan for
his answers.
On the bill.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR PATERSON: These are such
macabre circumstances that bring us to our
deliberations today that there's no doubt that
all of us sitting here -- and you can feel it
in the room -- feel the anxiety and the
frustration that the members of this family
are feeling and what causes them to have to be
diligent on an issue sometimes many years
after the act that created the pain that they
feel has existed.
And we would not want them to have
to conduct, in some cases, lifelong crusades
to try to have to intervene every time a
period has elapsed and there's a further
opportunity for parole.
And I think that's what Senator
5491
Morahan is trying to point out, that between
the perpetrator and the surviving victims,
that we don't want to put anyone through this
process if we already know what the outlook
is.
I would just like to point out that
these issues of sentencing and issues of
parole have different types of effects on
people. And it's something that we debate and
we deliberate here in this chamber. But that
should never confuse anyone to the heartfelt
anxiety that we feel hearing about these
loathsome cases and the fact that it is in all
of our minds that people who commit these
types of crimes be punished most severely, not
only for the crimes that they have committed
but for the damage that they've done to those
who still try to carry on in the midst of it.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Yes, Madam
President, through you, if the sponsor will
yield for one question.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Morahan,
will you yield?
5492
SENATOR MORAHAN: Yes, I do,
Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you.
This is really technical question.
The way this statute is drafted, does this
provide that if -- and again, these are such
bizarre circumstances it's even hard to talk
about it -- that the victim of the murder has
to be the same person that is the victim of
the sexual assault or -
SENATOR MORAHAN: Yes. The
victim has to be the same and the perpetrator
has to be the same. The perpetrator has to be
the one who did the molestation and the
murder.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you.
Through you, Madam President, on
the bill.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: I don't -
I mean, these are such horrendous
circumstances, you know, as a parent, this is
the kind of thing you never even want to allow
5493
into your consciousness.
I would note, though, to the extent
that I'm aware of any actual crimes being
committed that would fall into the parameters
outlined by this bill, I think there have been
occasions -- in fact, one of the instances
that has been cited -- where there was an
interstate element. And I think this really
speaks to the need for us to pass a federal
Violence against Women Act, which we have
sought to pass and unfortunately the current
Supreme Court has indicated that they believe
it to be unconstitutional.
But this is an area of law where I
think the need for interstate cooperation and
interstate law-making is very, very much
necessary, and I hope that we will be able to
address this at the federal level before too
much time goes by.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any other
member wish to be heard on this bill?
Then the debate is closed.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This
5494
act shall take effect on the first day of
November.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 55. Nays,
1. Senator Duane recorded in the negative.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
there will be an immediate meeting of the
Civil Service and Pensions Committee in the
Majority Conference Room.
THE PRESIDENT: There will be an
immediate meeting of the Civil Service and
Pensions Committee in the Majority Conference
Room.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
if we could call up Calendar Number 301, by
Senator LaValle.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read Calendar 301.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
301, by Senator LaValle, Senate Print 2589, an
5495
act to amend Chapter 554 of the Laws of 1996,
relating to creating.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN:
Explanation.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator LaValle,
an explanation has been requested by Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Thank you,
Madam President.
Before I explain some of the
details of this chapter amendment to Chapter
554 of the Laws of 1996, I think it's
important to know why that law came into
effect as well as why we are doing this
chapter amendment to that law.
During the period shortly before
1996, there was a leak of the nuclear reactor,
small reactor that had been housed on the
grounds of Brookhaven National Lab for a
period in excess of twenty years. Leading up
to that leak, however, there had been
environmental damage done on the property of
Brookhaven National Lab and there had been
much debate within the surrounding communities
5496
about tritium leaks into the Peconic River and
its environs.
And so the community really wanted
changes at the lab, because, believe it or
not, environmental safety and procedures were
really not a priority at the lab at the time.
Subsequent to the leak of the
reactor, in 1995, there were changes made at
the lab in terms of not only change in
director but a change in the management agency
at that oversees and runs the lab. And today,
State University at Stony Brook is that
management agency, and the new director is the
former president of State University at Stony
Brook, Dr. John Marburger.
But at the time, there had been no
oversight of the community or even
governmental agencies until we passed Chapter
554 of the Laws of 1996.
In the intervening years, with the
help of various members of environmental
organizations, we have come to make changes
that are before us today in terms of
increasing the number of voting members on the
oversight board. And that's really the
5497
changes that we are making.
We increase from 7 members to 13
voting members, plus 5 ex officio members who
are nonvoting members. Four appointments are
made by the Governor, two of whom must be
residents of Suffolk County, and a third
member, of an established environmental
organization on Long Island, and also an
additional member of the four a member of an
established public health organization on
Long Island. And that had not been in the
previous bill.
So these additional appointments
really strengthen the appointments. We have
three appointments by the county executive,
two of whom must be residents of Suffolk
County and one a member of an established
environmental organization. And that's one
that -- other than the environmental
organization that has been appointed by the
Governor.
We have one member appointed by the
Majority Leader of the Senate who must be a
resident of Suffolk, one member appointed by
the Speaker of the Assembly which must be a
5498
resident of Suffolk County, and one -- the one
appointment which is the Commissioner of
Suffolk County Department of Health, the
Commissioner of Health, or her designee.
We also have an appointment, the
president of the Citizens Affiliated
Brookhaven Civic Association, or his or her
designee. That is already in the present law.
I wanted to make sure that civic association
participation was important in the oversight
board.
One appointee, the supervisor of
the Town of Brookhaven, or his designee. And
one member who shall be a current employee or
a retired employee from Brookhaven National
Lab and shall be selected by the Department of
Energy.
The five ex officio members are as
follows: The Commissioner of New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation, or
her designee; one appointment is the Secretary
of the U.S. Department of Energy, or his or
her designee; one member of the Brookhaven
Roundtable, by members of the Brookhaven
Roundtable; and one member chosen by the
5499
Congress member from the First Congressional
District, and that person must be a resident
of the county of Suffolk. And also the
director of the Waste Reduction and Management
Institute at Stony Brook, or their designee.
The other and most critical piece
of this bill is, under the present law, the
chair of the committee is the director of the
Brookhaven National Lab. And we believe that
while that served some purpose to get the
oversight committee up and running, that that
is not a good appointment, the director being
the chairperson. And so the members of the
committee would appoint both the chair and
vice chair of this oversight board.
That basically is the major changes
here in this chapter amendment, is to
really -- once we got running and operating,
we saw that the appointment system in the
existing chapter presented some problems in
terms of day-to-day operations or regular
operations of the oversight committee.
This legislation in its development
had input from the environmental community and
the legislation, as many of the members know,
5500
has a memorandum of support from the Sierra
Club, the Atlantic Chapter, which is the Long
Island chapter of the Sierra Club.
Madam President, that's my
explanation in its entirety of this bill
before the body.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you.
Through you, Madam President, if
the sponsor would yield for a few questions.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. You
may proceed, Senator Padavan, with a few
questions.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Or Senator
LaValle.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you.
Through you, Madam President.
Certainly even at the far western end of
downstate New York we hear about Brookhaven,
although there are many people who live in my
district who also spend time out in the
5501
eastern end of Long Island. And I'm concerned
about what we frequently hear in situations
like this, and I gather this is an attempt to
address that, which is that these are -- that
we have some committees or commissions that
are supposed to provide oversight but don't
necessarily do everything they're supposed to
do.
So my question is, has the local
oversight committee been in existence been
fulfilling its mandate, have they been issuing
reports, have they been meeting?
SENATOR LAVALLE: Senator
Schneiderman, yes, they have met. They have
issued one report, is my understanding.
And of course this legislation
before us I think would strengthen the
membership body and help provide the kinds of
quorums and so forth that you need to have the
kind of attendance that we require.
Under the law in this chapter
amendment, they must meet at least quarterly,
or they can meet more frequently at the call
of the chair. And I believe that they have
met their mandate of meeting at least
5502
quarterly.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you.
Through you, Madam President, if
the sponsor would continue to yield.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator LaValle,
you will yield.
You may proceed, Senator
Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you.
Is there any estimate of how much
will need to be provided by way of resources
so that the staff necessary to perform all of
the commendable tasks set forth in this
legislation, that it would actually be able to
take place?
SENATOR LAVALLE: That's actually
a very good question. And it's always a
problem that money has to come from various
government sources -- the town, the county
throws in some money, Brookhaven Lab throws in
some money to make this operative.
I am sure, and it's something that
we as members always put off, that this
oversight committee will at some juncture need
5503
a sustainable stream, revenue stream in order
that they properly -- and I underline that
word "properly" -- fulfill and execute their
duties and responsibilities.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you.
Through you, Madam President,
again, if the sponsor will continue to yield.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator LaValle,
you will yield.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Yes, I will.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: And again,
I very much appreciate the intent here, which
as I gather it is to reenergize the oversight
of Brookhaven, which is a concern.
But as I evaluate or look at this
list of changes in the appointees, it strikes
me that the portion of the committee that is
really just a -- forgive the expression,
political appointees by the Governor, the
county executive, and others -- gets larger
and the appointee who is represent sort of
independent, public-interest-type groups
5504
actually gets smaller. Is there some
reasoning behind that?
SENATOR LAVALLE: No, that is not
true, Senator Schneiderman. Because what we
have done here is we went out of our way in
this chapter amendment to provide, in the
additional members, both public health
consideration and environmental appointments,
three additional appointments that really were
not included in the first -- in the law as it
exists today.
And as I indicated, as we went
through this, we literally -- I literally met
and dealt with the environmental community and
how these appointments would be made and so
forth.
So we actually strengthened outside
public intervention in the committee.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Through
you, Madam President, maybe I'm then just
reading it wrong. I see one environmental -
someone who is a member of a Long Island
environmental organization is to be one of the
appointees of the Governor, and one of the
Suffolk County executive.
5505
SENATOR LAVALLE: That's correct.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Are there
more appointments here that are required to be
environmentalists?
SENATOR LAVALLE: Yes. There
should be -- there's one appointment for a
public health organization, of an established
public health organization. That's one of the
Governor's appointments. And we also, as I
had indicated with some pride, have civic
association involvement on the committee.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Okay.
Thank you. Then I accept that. That does
sound like a good addition.
Through you, Madam President, if
the sponsor would yield for one more question.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, you
will?
You may proceed, Senator
Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: A concern
with oversight panels such as this one, I
think, is that while they have authority -
and I notice that this statute provides fairly
5506
broad authority -- to monitor, to investigate
complaints of residents, which I gather there
are more than a few, I don't see in here any
requirement that this panel actually perform
any of these reviews, investigations, or
evaluations.
Is there any mandatory review,
evaluation, or investigation set forth
anywhere in this?
SENATOR LAVALLE: Yes. Senator,
it has the authority to review and investigate
local concerns, complaints and observations,
to establish a comprehensive list of materials
that can be considered a contaminant used at
Brookhaven National Lab, review previous sites
of potential sources or sites of contamination
at the lab and report on present condition,
evaluate and report on all remediation plans
that Brookhaven Lab puts forth, evaluate
laboratory analyses that are undertaken at
Brookhaven Lab to ensure credible findings,
ensure that all Brookhaven National Lab
contaminant generation, storage and removal
conform to federal, state, local laws, rules
and regulations. And, you know, we go on and
5507
on.
And having said all of that, which
just delineates specific responsibilities, you
know, of course, in your own dealings that
once you have an oversight board, it creates a
whole different synergy at the lab. Because
now they are responsible, there is someone
looking over their shoulder so that they must
be better in the safety programs that workers
must use and make sure that the workers abide
by those safety rules and regulations that the
lab may put forward.
So other than the specific list
that I mentioned, there is -- just their being
there as an oversight committee creates a new
dynamic that was never there before.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you.
Through you, Madam President, on
the bill.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you.
Thank the sponsor for his answers.
This is, I know, a subject of
tremendous concern in Suffolk County. I guess
5508
in 1947 when Brookhaven was established, they
thought we're putting this so far out away
from people it's not going to be an issue.
Obviously, that hasn't been the case for a
very long time.
My only concerns are that -- and I
hope that it is true that this committee will
get the synergy and the energy to pursue
everything that the sponsor has suggested. My
concern that while there are certain things
that the committee is required to do in this
legislation, one that is notably absent and is
just discretionary is that the committee has
the authority to review and investigate local
concerns, complaints, and observations
relating to contamination.
I would suggest that that opens the
door to the possibility that there's some
complaints that will be investigated and some
that will not. Having said that, obviously
there's nothing that precludes the committee
from doing that. Hopefully they will do so.
My other concern really is when you
expand an oversight board, it doesn't
necessarily achieve good results. Sometimes
5509
you end up diffusing the accountability. And
with four appointments from the Governor,
three from the Suffolk County executive, the
Senate Majority Leader and Speaker of the
Assembly -- not that those two gentlemen ever
make bad appointments. But there is a certain
diffusion of responsibility that can take
place in these situations which would be a
source of concern.
I would like to see more people
representing environmental organizations on
this board. And I guess we'll have to see
what appointments actually come through. But
it's a worthwhile cause. I hope we will have
the courage to provide the funding necessary
for them to undertake all of these tasks.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Madam
President, will the sponsor yield to a couple
of quick questions?
SENATOR LAVALLE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator LaValle,
you will yield.
5510
You may proceed.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Madam Senator. Senator LaValle, how do we get
jurisdiction over the Brookhaven Laboratory?
I mean, this is, I assume, a federal creation.
We can't compel them to undertake -- to comply
with state law, can we?
SENATOR LAVALLE: Senator, while
the funding is operated by the Department or
comes through the U.S. Department of Energy,
the management is delegated to a third party.
In other words, the management is not part of
the Department of Energy but a vendee that
provides that.
In this case -- and it doesn't
necessarily always have to be the State
University at Stony Brook, but certainly we
have a state university that is providing the
management -- running the lab, in the case of
Brookhaven National Lab.
So that is our hook. But we always
had a hook, because it was not really a -- the
management was always through a third party.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Madam President, if Senator LaValle will
5511
continue to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator LaValle,
will you yield?
SENATOR LAVALLE: Yes, I will.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Dollinger.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
if I could just interrupt for a minute, there
will be an immediate meeting of the Children
and Families Committee in the Majority
Conference Room.
THE PRESIDENT: There will be an
immediate meeting of the Children and Families
Committee in the Majority Conference Room.
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Madam President, is it possible, Senator
LaValle, that if this is a state university,
that the board of trustees could set up this
monitoring and oversight committee as part of
its regulation of campus activities and as
part of its regulation of Stony Brook, could
this be done even without legislation? It
would seem to me it's within the power of the
5512
trustees to do that.
It may not have the same
configuration that your bill talks about. But
the need to achieve an interaction between the
community and this operation which does -- and
apparently, based on past experience, in fact
has in the past created environmental
contamination, a threat to health in the
vicinity, is it possible the trustees could do
this themselves?
SENATOR LAVALLE: There are a
couple of things here. Senator, I think as we
all know here in this Legislature, when we put
something into statute, that has an enormous
impact, to have statutory presence. And this
is the only oversight board or committee that
is statutorily rooted. The county legislature
and the county have after or from time to time
create ad hoc committees to have oversight.
But in the case of the state
university, I think what is important here is
that you don't have the fox looking at the
henhouse. We really need an independent
committee outside of whether, in this case,
the state university, or another management
5513
company, whether it would be Battelle, to
really go through and oversee something.
So I think it is important to have
an independent, statutorily rooted committee
that can oversee the operation here.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Madam President. Just briefly on the bill.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I understand
and appreciate Senator LaValle's final work on
this bill. I agree with some of the
sentiments expressed by Senator Schneiderman
with respect to the composition of the new
board.
My other concern, Madam President,
is I always find it fascinating that we pass
these bills by what I can only describe as
Nebraska margins. You know, in Nebraska
football, they always beat Prairie View by 58
to nothing, 61 to nothing. We pass these
bills without a single voice of opposition in
this house. And yet for some reason in 1999
and the year 2000, the other house didn't
approve this bill and didn't pass this bill.
I find it fascinating that -- and I
5514
would suggest to Senator LaValle that a
message to the Assembly that says let's get
serious about doing the changes in this bill
or negotiating the terms of the changes, the
composition and the scope of authority of this
committee -- it seems to me this is an easy
one.
And I would suggest that, Senator
LaValle, I would not only vote in favor of
this bill, I'd vote in favor of a message to
the Assembly telling them to convene a
conference committee or some other mechanism
to negotiate the differences with the other
house. This is clearly an important issue for
a part of Suffolk County that has experienced
environmental contamination in the past.
And that kind of legislating I
think is exactly what we should be here for.
I regret that this proposal or something very
much akin to it has not become law. And,
Senator LaValle, I will not only vote for it,
but I'll vote for a message to the Assembly
telling them that they ought to put this on
the priority list and get a bill or a
negotiated conference-committee settlement of
5515
this issue before both houses so that this
good piece of thinking can become a good law.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any other
member wish to be heard on this bill?
Then the debate is closed.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
would you please call up Calendar Number 131,
by Senator Farley.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read Calendar 131.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
131, by Senator Farley, Senate Print 1994, an
act to amend the Environmental Conservation
Law, in relation to making technical
corrections.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Explanation.
5516
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Farley,
an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR FARLEY: Thank you, Madam
President.
This bill would repeal
authorization for the following three
compacts: The Champlain Basin Compact, the
Mid-Atlantic States Air Pollution Control
Compact, and the Delaware River Basin Water
Commission Compact. These compacts were never
established. And they are no longer
necessary, as they have been replaced by other
interstate agreements.
This is a housekeeping bill. I
think there's several of them that I'm kind of
cleaning up the law. By repealing these
obsolete provisions, this bill will try to
keep our laws up-to-date and prevent any
confusion.
Now, let me just say about the
Champlain Basin Compact, this was passed in
1966, the first year that Senator Stafford was
here, and was intended to provide for
cooperative efforts in watershed management
and orderly development of the region.
5517
However, Vermont passed a slightly different
version of the compact, and these differences
were never reconciled. Vermont subsequently
repealed its authorization in 1989.
So this compact is no longer
needed, as other cooperative efforts have been
undertaken. For example, New York, Vermont,
and Quebec signed an agreement in 1988 to
foster and ensure cooperation in management,
protection, and enhancement of Lake Champlain.
In 1990 the federal legislation created the
Lake Champlain Management Conference, which
developed a management plan for the lake.
This plan was adopted by the two states and
the United States EPA in October '96.
The Mid-Atlantic States Air
Pollution Control Compact was passed in 1967,
and it would have created a commission to
address interstate air pollution problems.
However, the required Congressional consent
was never granted, and that compact never went
into effect.
This compact is no longer needed,
and subsequent initiatives were taken at the
federal level to address air pollution through
5518
multistate efforts. For example, the Federal
Clean Air Act of 1970 significantly
strengthened air pollution laws and programs
and established a tristate air quality control
region for parts of New York, New Jersey, and
Connecticut. In addition, a 1990 federal law
established a 12-state Ozone Transport
Commission which includes New York.
The Delaware River Basin Water
Commission Compact, this compact should not be
confused with the existing Delaware River
Basin Compact. The Delaware River Basin Water
Commission Compact was an earlier version that
was never authorized.
This proposed compact, which passed
in 1952, would have created a commission to
exercise powers relating to developing,
utilizing and controlling and conserving the
water resources of the Delaware River Basin.
Although it was approved by New Jersey and
Delaware, it failed to receive the approval of
Pennsylvania and consequently never went into
effect.
This compact is no longer needed,
as these four states and the U.S. federal
5519
government entered into the Delaware River
Basin Compact in 1961.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you.
Through you, Madam President, if the sponsor
would yield just for some brief questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, will you
yield?
SENATOR FARLEY: Yes, I will.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you.
I guess this raises a concern that
we just were discussing in connection with
Brookhaven about committees and commissions
that are supposed to perform oversight or to
establish policies in areas where individual
state legislatures and local organizations are
lacking.
Is there some improvement in the
case of the Champlain -- on the Champlain
Basin Compact that is provided by this new
organization that's being performed?
SENATOR FARLEY: We're not
5520
forming a new organization.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Through
you, Madam President, there is something
called the Champlain Management Conference.
Was that disbanded?
SENATOR FARLEY: That does exist.
That exists now. That's not disbanded. We're
not repealing that.
We are repealing the Champlain
Basin Compact, which has no existence or no
meaning in the law.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: I see.
And what is the -- through you, Madam
President, if the sponsor would continue to
yield.
SENATOR FARLEY: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: What has
the Champlain Management Conference actually
accomplished since it was established, which I
believe was in 1990?
SENATOR FARLEY: Well, it has
undertaken agreements between Vermont and New
York State for the development and management
5521
of Lake Champlain. I think that that's one of
the greatest assets that we have, certainly in
Senator Stafford's area and certainly for
New York and Vermont.
As a matter of fact, I recall -- I
think it was Senator Leahy that passed a bill
I think that didn't go anywhere to make that a
Great Lake.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you.
Through you, Madam President, if
the sponsor will continue to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Farley,
will you yield?
SENATOR FARLEY: Yes, I will.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Well, it
is a great lake, if not one of the Great
Lakes. But it certainly is a great lake.
Has the Champlain Management
Conference issued any reports since it was
formed in 1990?
SENATOR FARLEY: I believe they
have. You know, but actually that's not very
relevant to this bill, because this bill is
5522
repealing the Champlain Basin Compact, which
has no reason or basis to be in our laws.
I'm not fully prepared to address
all the reports that was issued by the current
compact. But yes, I think they have issued
some reports. I'm sure they have.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you.
Through you, Madam President, if
the sponsor will continue to yield.
SENATOR FARLEY: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Farley,
you do yield.
SENATOR FARLEY: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Moving
along to the Ozone Transport Commission, which
is one of my favorite government names, do you
know if the other states that were involved in
the Mid-Atlantic States Air Pollution Control
Compact have also repealed or rendered
inactive their participation in the compact?
SENATOR FARLEY: Yes, they all
have.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: And what
5523
is the current status of the Ozone Transport
Commission? Is it still conducting business?
SENATOR FARLEY: As far as I
know, it is.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you.
Thank the sponsor.
Through you, Madam President, on
the bill.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
on the bill.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: I think
this is -- I think this is perfectly
reasonable. I think it sounds as though we've
got organizations that are trying to fill the
needs that the original interstate compacts
were designed to address.
I think that it does point up a
problem that we tend to have here where we
appoint commissions, we set up compacts and we
probably are lacking in the area of oversight.
I am not sure what these various commissions
and organizations are actually doing on a
month-to-month basis. And I think the -
probably it changed from administration to
administration, and the Executive branch
5524
doesn't necessarily keep us as well-informed
as we should be.
I think this seems perfectly
reasonable, but I hope that we'll be able to
do a better job of oversight over these
organizations as we go forward. I will vote
for the bill.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Farley.
SENATOR FARLEY: On the piece of
legislation.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR FARLEY: I think this
speaks to the point that we're trying to look
at these things that never existed, never did
anything, and are still on our books. And
we're just cleaning them out.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any other
member wish to be heard on this bill?
Then the debate is closed.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 5. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
5525
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
could we call up Senator LaValle's bill,
Calendar Number 213, at this time.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read Calendar Number 213.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
213, by Senator LaValle, Senate Print 2355A,
an act to amend the Education Law, in relation
to information.
SENATOR ONORATO: Explanation.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
can we lay that bill aside temporarily and
call up Calendar Number 216, by Senator
Hoffmann.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside temporarily.
The Secretary will read Calendar
216.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
216, by Senator Hoffmann, Senate Print 532, an
act to amend the Agriculture and Markets Law,
5526
in relation to defining dangerous dogs.
SENATOR ONORATO: Explanation.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Hoffmann,
Senator Onorato has requested an explanation.
SENATOR HOFFMANN: Thank you,
Madam President.
This legislation has not been voted
on before in this house. It does amend the
definition of "dangerous dog" by amending
Section 108, subdivision 24 of the Agriculture
and Markets Law. This is a definition and
section of law. The definition is
inconsistent at the present time with the
dangerous dog section of the law, Section 121
of the Agriculture and Markets Law.
Section 108 does not mention
domestic animals in the definition, while
Section 121 does. The legislation has no
impact on penalties. It just conforms the two
sections of law.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Yes, Madam
President. Through you, Madam President, will
the sponsor yield to a question?
5527
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Hoffmann,
do you yield?
SENATOR HOFFMANN: I do.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: The
conformity provision, that conforms with what
other provision of state law, if I could
just -
SENATOR HOFFMANN: I can't hear
Senator Dollinger, Madam President.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: The bill that
you're proposing is to bring this section into
conformity with another section of the law; is
that correct?
SENATOR HOFFMANN: Yup. 121.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: And what does
the other section of the law provide?
SENATOR HOFFMANN: Senator
Dollinger, in 1978, Section 121 stated: "If
any dog shall attack, chase or worry any
domestic animal," and so forth. And it deals
with the killing or the injury of a domestic
animal.
But in 1997 we passed a measure,
5528
Section 108, subsection 24, which defined
"dangerous dog" meaning a dog which attacks a
person.
So the 1997 and the 1998 statutes
are right now not reconciled, and this piece
of legislation would simply those two
disparate pieces of legislation.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Madam President, if Senator Hoffmann will
continue to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Hoffmann,
will you yield?
SENATOR HOFFMANN: Yes, I will,
Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Is the lack
of irreconcilability due to some factor? I
mean, we have a different penalty for the
destruction by a dog of an animal versus an
attack on a human being. Is that the
distinction that we're talking about?
And if so, why was that done? I
assume there's some well-reasoned basis for
the first amendment that we did in 1996 or
'97.
5529
SENATOR HOFFMANN: In 1997, when
the Governor signed the bill dealing with
dangerous dogs, he made the following comment,
and I quote from his approval memorandum of
1997: "The above amendment strengthens the
law with regards to the serious problem of
dogs which attack human beings and properly
places responsibilities for such dogs on their
owners. Therefore, I am approving the bill
despite certain deficiencies that have been
brought to my attention.
"For example, by limiting the
definition of dangerous dog to a dog which has
attacked a person or poses a serious threat of
harm to a person, an attack by a dog on a
domestic animal will no longer provide a basis
for a judge to declare a dog to be dangerous."
The Governor very wisely stated in
his approval memorandum that we needed to take
action to bring into compliance both pieces of
the statute so that both attacks on humans and
on animals, domestic animals, including the
definition of livestock previously in statute,
would be covered.
And all of this discussion today
5530
really deals with the need for us to reconcile
these two provisions of law, Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Madam
President, I yield to Senator Skelos.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Thank you,
Senator Dollinger.
Madam President, there will be an
immediate meeting of the Crime Victims, Crime
and Corrections Committee in the Majority
Conference Room.
THE PRESIDENT: There will be an
immediate meeting of the Crime Victims, Crime
and Corrections Committee in the Majority
Conference Room.
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Madam President, if Senator Hoffmann will
continue to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Hoffmann,
will you yield?
SENATOR HOFFMANN: I will.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Is there a
5531
definition of "domestic animal" in the
Agriculture and Markets Law that this
particular bill would apply to that -- my only
concern, Senator, is that obviously there's
some dogs that might attack a cat or some
other thing.
Ferrets? Parrots? Parrots or
ferrets?
And my question is purely, is there
a definition of what animals are included in
the domestic animal category?
SENATOR HOFFMANN: Madam
President, I will find that section. I have
it here. It is in Section 7 of 108.
And interestingly enough, from a
lay perspective, I was satisfied that it would
not exclude livestock as we know it.
Section 108, subsection 7:
"Domestic animal means any domesticated sheep,
horse, cattle, fallow deer, red deer, sica
deer, white-tailed deer which is raised under
a license from the Department of Environmental
Conservation, llama, goat, swine, fowl, duck,
goose, swan, turkey -- confined to domestic -
hare or rabbit, pheasant or other bird which
5532
is raised in confinement under a license from
the State Department of Environmental
Conservation before release from captivity,
except that the varieties of fowl commonly
used for cockfights shall be considered
domestic animals for the purpose of this
article."
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Madam President, just briefly on the bill.
I appreciate Senator Hoffmann's
response -
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Just briefly,
I think Senator Hoffmann's description of
those animals that are involved might be an
indication that the inclusion of the phrase
"domestic animal" is too broad.
I would suggest that a dog
attacking a rabbit or a dog attacking some
other form of animal, which would be a natural
reaction on the part of any dog, wouldn't -
shouldn't put that dog in a position or its
owner in a position where they're going to
have to be subject to fine and penalties under
Agriculture and Markets, or where someone who
5533
destroys that animal is then alleviated from
any responsibility in the event it's
destroyed.
My concern is that the definition
of "domestic animal," as Senator Hoffmann has
read it, may be far too broad. And while I
agree that vicious propensities on behalf of
dogs should be dealt with, and I'm willing to
concede that an attack on human being could
be -- or could justify the same kinds of
penalties that would be incurred if they
attacked and killed a cow or a sheep, an
animal of value in our farm system, it seems
to me that this bill may go too far if it says
that a dog attacking a rabbit and destroying
the rabbit, killing the rabbit, is a
sufficient justification for obviating the
penalties that would otherwise accrue to
someone who is destroying an animal without
the owner's permission or that it would
subject the owner to penalties and fines under
the Agriculture and Markets Law.
I would just suggest to Senator
Hoffmann that what's needed is a special
definition of "domestic animal" in this
5534
portion of the bill that will achieve her
laudable goal of saying certain animals who
are vicious to domesticated animals would be
subject to those penalties.
But I think that, frankly, the
natural propensities of dogs to chase rabbits
or chickens or other forms of domesticated
animals really may take this bill too far.
And so, Madam President, I'm going
to think about it and then make up my mind and
vote.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Hoffmann.
SENATOR HOFFMANN: Yes, thank
you, Madam President.
I think that Senator Dollinger
might be reassured to know that the Unified
Court System Advisory Committee on Local
Courts rendered an opinion on the need for
this law, and in a memo received earlier this
year, and I quote: "Local court judges,
particularly town and village justices, often
address issues related to dangerous dogs. It
would be most helpful for those judges if the
definition could be clarified to include dogs
that attack domestic animals."
5535
The advisory committee went on to
ask to be advised on the progress of the bill
and requested that we contact them with any
additional need for clarification. And I'm
happy to say that they've supported the change
in legislation that has been proposed today.
I also have, just anecdotally, a
good example of why the judges have felt
somewhat handcuffed by not having a good
definition that would include domestic dogs.
A family living in Ballston Lake
contacted this office and the Assembly sponsor
to give an example of why they were interested
in having the language clarified. They stated
that they had been forced to sit through a
trial to have a dog euthanized for having
attacked and killed their Nubian goat, one of
their Nubian goats. The dog in the same
attack also mangled one of the pigmy goats.
The goat which was killed was a
family pet raised as a kid from a bottle. At
the time of his death as a result of the dog
attack he weighed in excess of 200 pounds.
For reference, Nubian goats do not have top
teeth. And without horns, as Willy was -
5536
Willy is the name of the Nubian goat -- goats
are defenseless except for being able to run.
The attack by a neighborhood dog -
well, the dog resided a quarter mile away.
The attack occurred on their own property and
took place inside a securely latched goat
house which was completely enclosed by a
four-foot-high wire mesh fence. The dog
surmounted the fencing and killed the goat
inside its own house. Because the goat could
not get back out the way it entered, the floor
of the enclosure being part of the outside, it
had no way to escape.
And then they go into some rather
lured details describing what they found.
They discovered the dog inside the goat house
with blood covering its mouth, "lunging at and
menacing and snarling in an extremely
aggressive attitude towards our other goats.
The goats themselves were unable to rise due
to multiple bites and puncture wounds and were
profusely bleeding from the attack, which the
veterinarian stated must have occurred over a
sustained period of time."
They go on to discuss the trial.
5537
At the trial, counsel for the defense raised a
legal challenge to the prosecution on the
basis that the term "dangerous dog" as defined
in subsection 24 of Section 108 of Ag and
Markets Law is one which attacks a person and
makes no reference to domestic animals.
So the bulk of this letter goes on
with a very poignant plea in memory of their
sadly destroyed goat, Nubian goat, Willy, to
please consider making this amendment as
quickly as possible.
And I'm sure that Senator Dollinger
and all of my colleagues in this house would
want to see that domestic animals are
respected and treated fairly, and recognize
that the judges of this state would have
discretion and would recognize that penalties
for the destruction of an animal and any harm
to a person would obviously be somewhat
different, depending upon the circumstances,
but domestic animals should not be omitted
from the justice system in this case.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Explanation
5538
satisfactory.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any other
member wish to be heard on this bill?
Then the debate is closed.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the 30th day.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
please call up Calendar Number 213, by Senator
LaValle.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read Calendar Number 213.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
213, by Senator LaValle, Senate Print 2355A,
an act to amend the Education Law, in relation
to information.
SENATOR ONORATO: Explanation.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator LaValle,
an explanation has been requested.
5539
SENATOR LAVALLE: Senator
Onorato, this bill deals with faculty ratios
at both the State University and the City
University.
And what we are requiring on each
state-operated campus or, in the case of City
University, its senior college, that in its
course catalog the percentage of classes in
each department that are taught by adjunct
faculty, the percentage of classes in each
department taught by teaching assistants,
and/or the percentage of classes in each
department taught by graduate students.
And of course what we're really
doing here is this is a disclosure bill hoping
that students understand what courses, what
percentage of courses in their department are
being taught by full-time faculty or other
instructors or professors.
So I believe this bill was reported
by our Higher Education Committee unanimously.
And I hope it will be another tool that will
help us build up our numbers of full-time
faculty.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Stavisky.
5540
SENATOR STAVISKY: Madam
President, if Senator LaValle will yield for a
number of my concerns about the bill.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
with a question, Senator Stavisky.
SENATOR STAVISKY: If this bill
were to be enacted and students were able to
determine whether they were going to be taught
by a regular full-time faculty member, an
adjunct, a teaching assistant, or a graduate
student, what would be the impact upon the
courses that are going to be taught at that
university?
SENATOR LAVALLE: Well, Senator,
as you know, only in an ideal world would you
have a hundred percent of the courses taught
by full-time individuals. You can even take
it one step further and say full-time faculty
that are tenured in a university, because of
the dynamics we use, variety, adjunct
professors should be used, have expertise,
should be used, as well as in some cases
teaching assistants and graduate students.
What this bill simply does -- it
5541
doesn't take a particular course, but in a
department it at least allows a student to see
in the department that they are taking a
course or a department that they are majoring
in, they should see a good balance between
full-time faculty, adjunct professors, and
teaching assistants. And that's all this bill
really attempts to do.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Madam
President, if Senator LaValle will yield.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Stavisky.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Line 6 and
line 13 in the bill refer to adjunct faculty,
teaching assistants, and graduate assistants.
How do you define those terms?
SENATOR LAVALLE: I think what
you're probably parsing over are the words
"teaching assistants" and "graduate
assistants," Senator, is that -
SENATOR STAVISKY: Yes.
SENATOR LAVALLE: I think those
terms and the reason we use them, because in
different institutions the -- they may be used
5542
interchangeably or they may be used in one
institution and maybe not in another, and we
wanted to make sure that both situations were
covered in the legislation.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Thank you,
Senator. A couple of other questions, if the
Senator will continue to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator LaValle,
do you yield?
SENATOR LAVALLE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR STAVISKY: It seems to me
that the problem here -- and this is a step,
as far as I can see, in the right direction.
But it seems to me the real problem here are
the full-time-equivalent ratios. The
legislation says faculty ratios, in the bill
itself.
And yet isn't the problem really
the low percentage of full-time faculty -
regardless of how you define full-time
faculty -- the low percentage in CUNY and, to
a lesser extent, at SUNY? It's a little bit
better at SUNY than at CUNY. But isn't that
the real problem?
5543
SENATOR LAVALLE: Easy answer?
One word, yes.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Yes. I knew
you were going to say yes too, because I agree
with that.
The problem -- Madam President, if
the Senator would yield for another question.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, you do
yield.
You may proceed, Senator Stavisky.
SENATOR STAVISKY: From what I
understand from my expert at SUNY Albany, the
problem is often the fact that the classes are
not available, that the courses may be set
aside. The student may know that the class is
being taught by an adjunct faculty member and
that adjunct faculty member may, for example,
have, let's say, six sections of 30 students,
but there are 300 students who wish to take
the class. And this maybe a class required
for graduation, a requirement for graduation.
How would this legislation solve that problem?
SENATOR LAVALLE: This
legislation would not solve that problem,
5544
Senator. But I think it is a good question to
bring up in this debate as a kind of a sidebar
issue.
Certainly our community has been
involved over many, many years, as we have,
both as committee members and as Senator -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Bonacic.
SENATOR BONACIC: Thank you,
Madam President. I'd like to apologize to
Senator LaValle and Senator Stavisky. We
would like to call immediately a Senate
Consumer Protection meeting at the Majority
Conference Room, please.
THE PRESIDENT: There will be an
immediate meeting of the Consumer Protection
Committee in the Majority Conference Room.
Please proceed, Senator LaValle.
SENATOR LAVALLE: To continue, we
have received input directly from constituents
who have said, Look, I'm supposed to take
Course 101, and I need that for graduation and
it's not being given, it's oversubscribed, I
can't get in.
I would say to you, Senator, that
in more recent years the input from students,
5545
the input to the committee has been less,
which means that State University and even at
City University -- but you would know better
than I about City University -- that they're
doing a better job in addressing that problem.
Are they a hundred percent? No, they're not.
This bill, however, again does not
address that concern. But that concern that
you raise as a sidebar issue is something we
need to be vigilant about and we need to make
sure that both City University and State
University are doing the best jobs to get the
students in four years out the door with their
degrees.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Thank you.
On the bill, Madam President, very
briefly.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Very briefly
on the bill. I'm going to vote for the bill,
but I truly wish we would address the issues
that higher education presents, both at SUNY,
at CUNY and in the private colleges, in terms
of the budget resolution which we seem to be
5546
doing in a piecemeal manner.
I have attended a number of Senator
LaValle's hearings on this very issue of
full-time faculty and the inadequate ratios
and the public colleges. It seems to me
perhaps we could add a section to the bill
which talks about how many seats are
available. If you're going to say how many
faculty, how the classes are taught by
part-time faculty, we ought to let the
students know how many seats are available for
the students who wish to take the course.
The problem is a larger one,
obviously, where we've had a serious decline
in the last ten years or so in the percentage
of faculty who are full-time. And while this
bill is helpful, it does not address the real
basic issue of full-time faculty. And I hope
that as we get -- if we ever get closer to a
budget, I certainly hope we do, because this
is one of the issues that has to be addressed
in whatever budget resolution we come to.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Lachman.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Yes. Time is
5547
afleeting, so rather than ask questions of
Senator LaValle, on the bill.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: You're welcome.
SENATOR LACHMAN: I also feel
this is a first step but does not get to the
overall issue involved, which is not only the
full-time-equivalent ratios, which in my
opinion are unconscionable when SUNY has
70 percent faculty full-time ratio, CUNY has
between 50 and 55 percent, depending upon the
full-time ratio, and the private universities
and colleges have much more.
But this goes further. Because,
Senator LaValle, there is a -- Madam
President, through you. Senator LaValle,
there are distinct differences between
full-time faculty, adjuncts, and graduate
assistants. And these distinctions are
exemplified by the salaries they get.
And since in the past I have and
Senator Stavisky have brought to the fore -
and I know that Senator LaValle agrees with
us -- the issue of full-time ratios, I would
5548
like to bring to the fore something which has
not come to the surface as yet, and that is
the abominably, abysmally low salaries that
graduate students who are working on their
Ph.D.s. receive in both SUNY and CUNY. We
have men and women in their thirties, forties,
and fifties who cannot make a living and have
to sometimes drop out of their Ph.D. programs
because of the salaries that they receive as
graduate assistants to full-time faculty.
I had one student who had to drop
his course work in the Ph.D. program in
anthropology, another one in sociology, when
they were working for me, because their
salaries are abysmally low, even much lower
than adjunct faculty and certainly much, much
lower than full-time faculty.
And I think we have to address that
problem if we consider ourselves, both in SUNY
and CUNY, a full-time university on many
levels that produces some of the best Ph.D.s
in the country. Thank you.
But I will support this bill.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any other
member wish to be heard on this bill?
5549
Then the debate is closed.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
Senator Bonacic.
SENATOR BONACIC: Madam
President, we'd like to return to reports of
standing committees. I believe there is a
Finance report at the desk.
THE PRESIDENT: Reports of
standing committees, Finance Committee report.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Stafford,
from the Committee on Finance, reports the
following bills:
Senate Print 5102, by the Senate
Committee on Rules, an act making
appropriations for the support of government.
And Senate Print 5103, by the
Senate Committee on Rules, an act to amend
5550
Chapter 20 of the Laws of 2001.
Both bills ordered direct to third
reading.
THE PRESIDENT: Without
objection, both bills ordered direct to third
reading.
SENATOR BONACIC: Madam
President, we'd like to call up Calendar 406,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read Calendar 406.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
406, by the Senate Committee on Rules, Senate
Print 5102, an act making appropriations for
the support of government.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Explanation.
SENATOR BONACIC: Madam
President, is there a message of necessity and
appropriation at the desk?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, there is,
Senator Bonacic.
SENATOR BONACIC: I move to
accept.
THE PRESIDENT: The motion is to
accept the message of necessity and
5551
appropriation. All those in favor signify by
saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Nay.
THE PRESIDENT: The message of
necessity and appropriation is accepted.
Senator Stafford, Senator
Stachowski has asked for an explanation.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Thank you,
Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: You're welcome.
SENATOR STAFFORD: It is a
pleasure, my colleagues, to rise and to
continue government here in this great Empire
State. Without this bill, we would not have
services, we would not have really any
government at all. And of course that is not
a viable alternative.
I would say, Madam President, that
I no doubt will be saying this a number of
times today, that we all look forward to a
budget being enacted. It will be. But we
also have to have cooperation. And I refer to
the north side of the third floor. I have it
5552
right today. And we are of the -- we
understand that it is the position of those
who are in that area of the Capitol that it is
their position that they will not negotiate
unless the Governor gives up his right to
veto. And of course the Governor should not
and will not give up his constitutional right.
So we hope we will have
cooperation, we hope we will have
understanding. And I have pointed to where we
feel the juggernaut is.
With that, Madam President, Senate
Bill 5102, it appropriates $6.6 billion to
meet scheduled payments for the period
April 23 through May 20, a four-week period.
Included in this bill is $1.4 billion in
scheduled school aid payments, $2 billion in
Medicaid payments, and $330 million in capital
contracts. These appropriations reflect
required commitments as they come due within
this coming four-week period.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stachowski, why do you rise?
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: I'm glad I
was looking up before I just jumped up and
5553
said something improper.
But, Mr. President, if Senator
Stafford would yield to some questions.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stafford, do you yield to a question from
Senator Stachowski?
SENATOR STAFFORD: By all means.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: And ahead of
time, I'll say that I'm going to ask a few,
and I may come back after some other members
ask, but I have a few that I'm going to ask.
And to start out with, I notice the
length of this emergency appropriation is four
weeks. It would lead the cynical people among
us in the Capitol to say that it looks like
we're not planning on getting anything done
for another month. And since April 1st has
come and gone, and since the March avails
economic forecast meeting took place and we're
supposed to agree on avails shortly after
that, and no one, regardless of whether the
Assembly is waiting for a veto-proof
negotiation, or anyone else in the building
5554
has moved forward to try to bring together on
agreement, which we were supposed to do, by
law, shortly after the economic forecast
meeting on what the avails are so that we
could move ahead with conference committees.
And I might point out that we did conference
committees once before without agreement on
avails, at which time the large committee or
the mother ship, as some other people casually
refer to it, eventually said this is the
avails agreement that we're going to work
with.
Having said that, is there a
specific reason why we're doing a four-week
extender rather than a two-week extender or a
one-week extender?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Well, I think,
Mr. President, I would point out the length of
the extender I don't really think is what it's
all about. I think what it's all about is for
the Assembly to do, as has been done here in
the Senate -- conference committees have been,
appointed, and we certainly are ready to
negotiate.
We have to have the other house to
5555
negotiate with. That's where the problem is.
You could have two weeks, you could have one
week. I think really we just keep working
toward doing our best.
I can remember one of the first
things I was told when I became involved in
the work of serving in public office, I was
told, Don't become cynical. I have to admit I
have not always lived up to that suggestion or
advice, but I do my best. We can't become
cynical. We have to continue.
But again, I get right back to what
I said before. We have to have cooperation
from the other house.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stachowski.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: If the
Senator can please continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stafford, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator continues to yield.
5556
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: I found it
an interesting comment, because we had a brief
conversation earlier in the committee about
conference committees, and this is the second
time I've heard the comment that conference
committees in this house are already set, but
nobody has seen them. Maybe you have in your
conference, Majority conferences, but publicly
they're not out there.
However, that's not the question.
Maybe it should be, but it's not. At least
not by me and not at this time.
In the various state agencies -
Legislature, judiciary -- there's some amounts
for Social Security. There's one amount for
$42,200,000 in Social Security for April 25th
and May 9th administrative payrolls,
18,600,000 for Social Security for May 3rd and
May 17th institutional payrolls, and
$1,900,000 for PEF longevity payments for the
April 25th administrative payrolls.
Why would we be making the Social
Security payments again on PEF longevity
payments? Why wouldn't we have done that the
first time in the emergency appropriation?
5557
SENATOR STAFFORD: Well, as I
mentioned -- first, since you did not ask the
question, I will answer the issue about
conference committees. They are public and
they were released, I believe, today. So we
look forward to you having those, and I think
you will enjoy the reading and find that we
are moving forward.
The next question, on Social
Security, you will find as we do these
extender bills that we do the appropriations
as they come due. And the appropriations you
have suggested, pointed out, they are now
coming due or will be coming due within the
next four-week period.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Mr.
President, if the Senator would continue to
yield.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stafford?
The Senator yields.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: There's a
$19,000 payment to the TIAA and CREF fund.
Does -- what does this cover? And it
5558
certainly -- and the second part to that, I
don't mean to make complicated questions, but
on this one, it -- the 19,000 doesn't possibly
cover the over 50,000 employees in CUNY and
SUNY, does it?
SENATOR STAFFORD: No, it's
called -- you find -- you and I, and I always
like to recall, because you pointed it out,
you and I are simple people. And we're proud
of it, proud of it. Well, we have a number of
colleagues also.
And it's called TIAA-CREF. And
that's the lingo that is used here. But it is
very important. Because it involves, as you
just mentioned, the retirement for the
employees that are involved in higher
education. And this $19,000 is due and it's
an appropriation that was required and that's
why, of course, we included it.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: If the
Senator -- Mr. President, if the Senator would
continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stafford, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Yes.
5559
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator continues to yield.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: In the area
of workers' comp there's an appropriation for
$100,000. The schedule of payments requires
one payment in April, which we made last
month, and one in September. Last month we
appropriated 18,200,000 for judiciary -- oh,
that's another one.
What is this payment for, this one?
Is that -- the 100,000 is that separate from
the workers' comp we made on the first
appropriation bill?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Oh, sure.
They're all -- they're all separate.
Again, these are all required and
commitments that will come due or are due for
this next four-week program.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Mr.
President, if the Senator would continue to
yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stafford, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
5560
Senator continues to yield.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Mr. President,
I would also point out there's other ways of
stating this. I believe my answer was
accurate, because it is due.
But also, when we do an
appropriation, often it's an estimate. And
then when it is actually fulfilled, you find
that maybe some additional money is necessary
because of not -- it isn't exact, what was -
what we were planning on.
I get back to what I often said,
Mr. President, budgets are -- budgeting is
indeed a science. And I'd even go so far as
to say it's not an exact science.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: If Senator
Stafford would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Before we
ask that question, Senator Bonacic, why do you
rise?
SENATOR BONACIC: Mr. President,
I just apologize for the interruption to this
important discussion between Senator Stafford
and Senator Stachowski.
But there will be an immediate
5561
meeting of the Senate Veterans Committee in
Room 328, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Immediate
meeting of the Senate Veterans Committee,
immediate meeting of the Senate Veterans
Committee in the Majority Conference Room.
SENATOR BONACIC: No, the small
room. Room 328.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: In Room
328. Room 328.
Senator Stachowski, the floor is
yours.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: If Senator
Stafford would continue to yield.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Senator, the
last time we were doing an appropriation bill
we had a little extended conversation on DOT
and the letting program. So far, I don't
know, maybe your area are satisfied, but my
information has it that a lot of the upstate
areas are terribly dissatisfied. The
contractors are in a mild uproar, so to speak.
5562
There's a tremendous fear that by the time we
do a budget or we start letting out at a
decent amount, the construction season for in
year will have passed us by.
In particular, not only the fact
that they put contracts out to bid, but that
when they are let to individual contractors,
it's not just getting men and their equipment
there. There are certain materials that they
have to sometimes have custom-made to do the
job -- for example, certain types of piping
and things of that nature -- that may not be
available for that job this season if we
continue to push back the letting program.
Now, my understanding is that there
is some letting in some areas, and as mine is
also. But, for example, in Rochester there
was just a big job let -- I mean bid but not
let yet, a very large job. Secondly, in my
area a lot of jobs are being held, they're not
being let.
The fact is that I understand that
we had a bond issue. I also understand that
because of lack of effort on some people's
parts, that bond issue lost. I'm not going to
5563
saw whose part, but some of the major people
that were supposed to support the bond issue
sat on their hands, and it lost. But the fact
is that because of that, we have a hole in the
transportation budget.
There are a lot of people that work
in that industry, there are a lot of companies
that survive or may not survive because of the
tremendous overhead they have because of the
large equipment that they have to pay for that
if they're not working isn't being used and
they're losing a tremendous amount of money.
Now, the fact is that there are
some things being let. Can you tell me at
what level are we letting projects now? Is
it -- the second part of that is, will it
continue to be that slow and that low and so
that we can tell contractors that it's not
looking like a good year, that because we
can't get a budget we can't let at a better
level?
If the first answer is that it is a
low level. For example, maybe it's last
year's level, we all know that was a terribly
low level, hoping for the bond issue to pass
5564
so that we'd have a big boost this year.
So I don't know if I confused you
with all that conversation, but the fact is,
what is the letting level? Is something going
to move on this? Or is the construction
season going to pass us by this year before we
get moving?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Mr. President,
the Senator never confuses me.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Thank you.
SENATOR STAFFORD: One thing
about it, you and I can communicate. And as
far as I'm concerned, it's clear as a hound's
tooth.
There's no question that, again, we
are very desirous of having a budget passed.
And I point out to where we are suggesting
that the problems are.
I would suggest that there's a
$1.6 billion appropriation or program going on
right now, being let. It is done through the
Thruway Authority. It's complicated. But we
are going to see the contracts let, and the
construction will carry on.
No question about it, it would be
5565
much better if we could have a final budget.
I would be in favor. But again, I point out
that we're going to see the required -- you
got it, $1.6 billion. Your aide has it.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Thank you,
Senator. For this time that's all I'm going
to ask at this point. I may come back and ask
some more later. But I know there's other
people that want to ask some questions, so I
don't want to take up all the Senator's time
and drag this on too long. If those questions
that I have in mind aren't asked, then I'll
get up again.
Thank you, Senator.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Is there
any other Senator wishing to speak on the
bill?
Senator Dollinger, why do you rise?
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Yes, Mr.
President. Will Senator Stafford yield for a
for a couple of questions?
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stafford, do you yield to a question from
Senator Dollinger?
SENATOR STAFFORD: By all means.
5566
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: One of the
things, through you, Mr. President, that's
contained in this bill is a bailout for a
company called Developmental Disabilities
Institute, which is currently in bankruptcy.
Could you tell me why the State of New York is
making a policy judgment to intervene in the
bankruptcy process with our funds to an entity
that is now currently bankrupt?
SENATOR STAFFORD: I was asked
about this a week ago, and it was explained to
me. Then I asked, and it was explained to me.
And now it's been explained again. I think
maybe on the second explanation I'll be able
to throw light on the subject.
If this goes into bankruptcy, the
State will have to take over this facility. I
believe there are 1500 employees involved.
And it is very, very important that they
continue their work. It's for disabilities
and for education and for health. And it's
very worthwhile and it is something that, yes,
on a policy level we feel that the State
5567
should take this action.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President, if Senator Stafford will
continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stafford, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator continues to yield.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Senator
Stafford, are you aware of any other
institutions such as this that when it's in
bankruptcy -- my understanding is that it
filed bankruptcy in February, it's been in
bankruptcy for about 2½ months.
My question is (a) are you aware of
any other instance in which we have undertaken
this kind of emergency loan to an entity in
bankruptcy? And, secondly, is this a policy
initiative that the administration is going to
embark on whenever institutions -- albeit
doing beneficial work for the people of this
state, which I won't dispute for a second.
But are we making the policy choice that we
will now be involved in the bankruptcy of
5568
these organizations?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Mr. President,
I'm sure Senator Dollinger is -- you know
exactly what I'm going to say, I can tell.
You can tell.
I'm sure Senator Dollinger is
acquainted with New York City.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Mm-hmm.
SENATOR STAFFORD: The answer is
yes. And I refer to -- by the way, the judge
that came up here that time is Judge Rifkind.
We tried to remember that name. He came up
here with Felix Rohatyn during the problem.
So that certainly is a precedent.
And I would point out that I think the policy
was correct then, and I think the policy is
correct now.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President, if Senator Stafford will
continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stafford, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator continues to yield.
5569
SENATOR DOLLINGER: The Bundy Aid
provision in this I guess emergency
appropriation, is it consistent with last
year's funding, or is there a reduction in the
funding for Bundy Aid?
SENATOR STAFFORD: As I pointed
out, Mr. President, a number of times, these
extensions are at the level of what the
appropriations were last year. So to answer
the question, there is no reduction.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President, if Senator Stafford will
continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stafford, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: So I
understand, Senator Stafford, how can you tell
that in this budget, in this appropriation?
My understanding is there is $14 million in a
continuing appropriation. But there's no
commitment to fund the Bundy Aid at
$47 million, which is what the number was last
5570
year, 47 million and change. And there's no
guarantee that we won't fall back to the
Governor's appropriated number in his
executive budget as delivered to us, which was
about $40 million, a $3 million cut.
How can we be assured that this
appropriation for only a partial period of
time reflects the higher level of funding?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Mr. President,
once again, Senator Dollinger's question is on
target. But it goes to the theory of our
representative democracy. And remember, back
in the days of the '70s there was a precedent
where there were appropriations but the money
wasn't provided.
We appropriate the money, the
Executive follows the appropriation with the
expenditures. And the Executive has the power
for the expenditures. So I think that clears
up what you're -
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I'll accept
that, certainly, Mr. President, as an answer.
Will Senator Stafford yield to two
more questions, Mr. President?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Yes.
5571
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you.
The first one deals with the EPIC
program continuation. About two-thirds of the
EPIC program is supported by HCRA funds that
are raised from the tobacco tax. Yet there's
no appropriation in this piece of legislation
that appropriates the HCRA tax portion to the
EPIC support. Can you tell me why that's the
case?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Yes. These
funds, Mr. President, are spent -- the first
one to authorization of the statute. And we
do not appropriate HCRA funds. And my
expert -- two experts are nodding yes.
And I'm sure you might want to
ask -
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I think,
Senator Stafford, under the Senate rules I'm
not permitted to ask Senator Hannon a
question, because he is not the sponsor of
this bill and has not previously spoken. So
despite his invitation and readiness, I
believe -- I would ask Senator Hannon a
5572
question, of course, but I am sure that the
President would rule me out of order. So -
SENATOR STAFFORD: Well, you and
I are doing well. We're doing very well.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Well, I think
we are.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Let me just
ask, if I can, Mr. President, just a
clarification of that. My understanding is -
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Are you
asking Senator Stafford to yield again?
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Yes, I would,
Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stafford, do you yield?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: My
understanding is that two-thirds of the HCRA
money comes out of the additional funds
created from the tobacco tax.
And my question is, why doesn't the
emergency appropriation, if we're going to
5573
fund the EPIC, why doesn't it include an
appropriation from the tobacco tax money, as
it was originally designed to do? Is this a
change in the policy of using the extra HCRA
funds to support EPIC?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Mr. President,
I'm very surprised that Senator Dollinger
didn't get the answer, because he usually
does, and he is a person who really
understands. So I'll say it once again.
The funds you are asking about are
spent pursuant to authorization by statute.
And they aren't appropriated through the
budget. The statute hasn't expired, and it's
still operating. Of course I think that's de
minimus, really, as far as the explanation.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Okay. I'll
deal with that in one second, Mr. President.
Just one final question, through you, Mr.
President, if Senator Stafford would continue
to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stafford, do you yield to another question
from Senator Dollinger?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Yes.
5574
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Senator, in a
recent announcement from the Department of
Transportation, they were withholding about
$160 million in contracts that were to be let
in early April, early May, and middle May from
the market, apparently without explanation, at
least to the contractors that I've spoken to.
And my question is, does the
capital project spending in this emergency
appropriation provide for the letting of
contracts by the Department of Transportation
that were scheduled for early and late April
and early and late May, for those contracts to
be let so we can put the people of the State
of New York to work?
SENATOR STAFFORD: To answer
Senator Dollinger's question, as far as
appropriations, we don't really let contracts
through appropriations. They're done through
authorizations, which are statutory, and then
we appropriate the payments.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Dollinger.
5575
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President, if Senator Stafford would yield
to one final question.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stafford, do you yield to another question?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Is it your
understanding, Senator Stafford, that if we
pass this emergency appropriation that the
contracts that have been designed, evaluated,
cost-estimated, that the contracts pending
from the Department of Transportation for
April and May will be let and offered for bids
in that period of time?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Yes, Mr.
President. As I pointed out earlier, they
will be let within the $1.6 billion that's
been appropriated. And that's really where we
are.
The $1.6 billion wasn't really
appropriated. Authorized, not appropriated.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Okay.
Through you, Mr. President, I'd like to thank
5576
Senator Stafford for his colloquy on some of
the budget issues.
I think that one of my concern as I
read through the massive materials with
respect to this emergency appropriation -- and
that's what it is. It's an emergency. The
emergency is that the constitution of this
state, which requires us to get something done
on time, has once again been repealed through
the lethargy of the Legislature. We have once
again allowed a command from the people to
this Legislature to go unheeded.
And I would suggest to all my
colleagues -- we had a debate about this
briefly in the Finance Committee, where all
this discussion was about it's a three-person
tango. We've got a dance, three people have
to dance.
Anybody who believes that in this
state, it is absolutely, totally, completely
untrue. It isn't true. We in this
Legislature, right here in this room have the
power to pass a budget that is veto-proof. We
can pass a budget with two-thirds of the votes
of this house. The other house can pass a
5577
budget with the two-thirds of the votes of
their house. If those budgets are identical,
the Governor can wield his veto pen till the
cows come home. He can wield his veto pen and
take every penny out of it that he wants. He
can take every appropriation favored by the
Senate Republicans, he can take every
appropriation favored by the Assembly
Democrats, or by the Senate Democrats, or by
the Assembly Republicans, he can veto them
till eternity. And guess what? By two-thirds
of the votes of this house, we can take back
the power of governing this state.
We have, in the last twenty years,
completely abdicated that responsibility.
We've given the Governor a place at the table
that he doesn't deserve. We've let him into
this dance. This is a two-piper music. We
blow one of the pipes, the Assembly blows the
other pipes, and if two-thirds of us get
together, we can do whatever we want.
What I don't understand is why the
partisanship chasm between these two houses,
between the two sides of this chamber, is
apparently so broad that we can't agree on
5578
taking back the power of governing.
Senator Stafford, you said that
government needs to go on. I would suggest to
you that what's not going on is governing, the
action of governing. It's so simple. I
believe there's so many similarities in this
house between Democrats and Republicans, about
appropriations for working people, about tax
cuts, about relief for the EPIC program, about
use of the HCRA funds to support the EPIC
program. There's an enormous, an enormous -
in my judgment, an enormous unity in this
house for state spending that we could take
back and we could control.
But instead, for some reason, the
Majority in this house says, No, we're not
going to invite the Democrats in. We don't
want a veto-proof budget. We want our version
of the budget. We'll let the Governor have
his. We'll let the Assembly have theirs. And
if we don't get it till August or September,
that's okay.
Mr. President, I think that the
problem here is not that we're going to
continue government -- which we should do.
5579
The people are entitled to it. But what we're
not doing is governing the way the
constitution said we should.
Let's pass a veto-proof budget.
Let's cut the Governor out of the deal
completely. Let's let him sit on the second
floor and do whatever he darn well pleases.
He gives us the budget, let's work together.
Let's have a joint conference committee with
the Assembly and forget the Governor. And
we'll get to a deal. The only deal we need is
that when that budget is produced and handed
to the Governor, two-thirds of both of these
houses will vote to override any veto. That's
all we have to agree to do.
The minute we do that, we take back
the power of governing. And I guarantee the
first time we do that, the very first time we
have the guts to do that, there will never be
a late state budget again. We will simply
say, We're going to take control of the
process. Give us the budget on January 17th,
we're going to get give you a budget back on
April 1st. And if you touch any portion of
it, we will then debate overriding the veto.
5580
And when we do, we will take back
the power that we have abdicated to this
Governor and governors before him and
governors in the future.
Frankly, I'm tired of hearing about
three men in a room. One of them doesn't
belong there. And if we did what we were
constitutionally required to do and what makes
good sense, he wouldn't have to be there. And
we could forever say to him, We in the
Legislature going to control this process, we
are going to band together and decide the
important spending objectives in this state.
We can do it, except for some reason we don't
want to.
And I would suggest to my
colleagues on the Republican side who say,
We're ready to go, frankly, I don't believe
that either. I know Senator Bruno was
committed to try and get it on time. I know
he's worked hard. I don't mean to undercut
those efforts. But the bottom line is, he
hasn't called for the conference committees,
he hasn't put the meetings together to make
this thing happen.
5581
My strong suggestion is let Senator
Bruno tomorrow announce that we're going to
start conference committees. Let us start
working together on fashioning a veto-proof
budget to present to this Governor, and I
guarantee we'll have a budget by Monday.
I'll be voting no, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Schneiderman, why do you rise?
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Recognize
Senator Bonacic.
(Laughter.)
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Bonacic.
SENATOR BONACIC: Mr. President,
I'd like to interrupt this discussion and have
an immediate meeting of the Senate Local
Government Committee in the Majority
Conference Room, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: There
will be an immediate meeting of the Local
Governments Committee, immediate meeting of
the Local Governments Committee in Room 324,
the Majority Conference Room.
Senator Schneiderman, why do you
5582
rise?
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you.
Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor
would yield for a few brief questions.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stafford, do you yield to a question from
Senator Schneiderman?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you.
Is there an appropriation in the
proposed legislation for the state Superfund
program?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Mr. President,
the capital appropriations can be used for the
Superfund where there are requirements.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Through
you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stafford, do you yield to another question
from Senator Schneiderman?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
5583
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Is there
any provision in this legislation that
designates any portion of those capital funds
for the state Superfund program? Through you,
again, Mr. President.
SENATOR STAFFORD: As I mentioned
earlier, Mr. President, you have to really get
the big picture here and to really get a feel
for what we're doing. These are emergency
appropriations. And really, these are
appropriations just to really keep the
requirements that we have during this next
four-week program, four-week period. And the
answer is no specific appropriations.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Schneiderman.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Thank you.
Again through you, Mr. President, I'm just
trying to find it in the bill. What is the -
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Excuse
me, Senator Schneiderman.
Senator Stafford, do you yield to
another question?
SENATOR STAFFORD: I didn't hear,
Mr. President.
5584
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Well, I
was just asking if you yield to another
question from Senator Schneiderman.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields to another question.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you,
Mr. President. What is the capital
appropriation, if you could help me identify
it, that could conceivably include some funds
for Superfund?
SENATOR STAFFORD: The capital
appropriation, Mr. President, is of course
included in the bill. And it of course can be
used for such appropriations. And
$330 million of those funds are appropriated
for payments on new and existing capital
contracts. So that money could be used,
$330 million, Mr. President.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you.
Thank the sponsor.
On the bill, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Schneiderman, on the bill.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Before I
5585
go to the big picture, I just wanted to
address the smaller picture of the issue
relating to Superfund. I spoke about this
when we did our last extender, that there were
not funds in the last budget extender to cover
the need of the Superfund program. As fate
would have it, several days after that, on
March 30th, the Commissioner, Erin Crotty,
stated that the Department of Environmental
Conservation is in a crisis mode -- her
words -- crisis mode regarding Superfund
cleanups.
We have still 766 toxic sites that
have been abandoned and that we do not have
funds to address. I don't really see any
reason why Superfund should be treated
differently from any of the other programs
addressed in this bill. We have a need. The
Commissioner states that we're in a crisis
mode. It would not be too difficult to add
some funds in this budget extender to deal
with the program.
I think what is happening, quite
frankly, is that the Governor is holding this
up in an effort to get us to pass his version
5586
of a Superfund bill. I don't think that's
proper, I don't think that is something this
house should support. And I strongly urge
that if we are forced to do another budget
extender, which I hope we are not, that we
include funds for the Superfund program in
this extender.
This is a crisis. And I urge the
sponsor that I have obtained a list of sites
that are not where action has ceased or action
cannot go forward due to this lack of funds.
And that includes a site in upper Manhattan,
very close to the rolling hills of Morningside
Heights, it includes sites in Nassau and
Suffolk County and really throughout -- all
throughout the state of New York. This is an
important need, and I urge that we address it.
On the big picture of the bill, I
concur with Senator Dollinger. I do not think
it is reasonable for us to tell the people of
the State of New York that we have to pass a
four-week extender to get a budget done. We
have more money than we thought we had when we
started this process. We are told that
there's really not much going on in the way of
5587
negotiation or conversation about the budget.
I don't understand that. My constituents
don't understand it. And I think all that
we're doing here is showing a certain level of
cynicism in relying on the fact that the
public's attention span on these matters is
short.
I think we should pass a budget. I
think four weeks is way too long. And I think
that, frankly, If we were all required, Senate
and Assembly, to stay here till we got it
done, I think we could get it done. I think
we would also have to require the Governor to
stay in Albany, which I think would result in
the budget being passed immediately.
But short of that, I don't think
that these sorts of extenders are appropriate,
certainly not for four weeks. I know we can't
bring government to a halt, but this is just
too much for me and I will be voting against
this bill.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Oppenheimer, why do you rise?
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: I hadn't
5588
yet. Thank you, Mr. President.
Well, my colleague has just covered
some of the questions I was going to ask on
the Superfund. I think we have to face the
fact that the Superfund is bankrupt and that
it is in a crisis mode and that we have to do
something and do something quickly. And this
casualness about it is very worrisome.
Particularly worrisome is something
that we have just read about in the last few
days, which is that the PCBs that were just in
the Hudson River have now been found in much
of the dredge spoils that is found between
Glens Falls and Albany. It's on land, where
crops are growing. And this is a new, serious
concern and I think a significant threat to
our health.
I'll move away from the Superfund
to ask a couple of questions, if the Senator
would yield for a couple of questions.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stafford, do you yield to a question from
Senator Oppenheimer?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
5589
Senator yields.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: We talked
about this earlier, Senator. It concerns the
Summer Youth Jobs Program. And in this
continuing resolution, we see that $10 million
which had been spent last year is not proposed
for the coming year, because the Governor saw
fit to put a budget out of $25 million instead
of $35 million.
The reason I raise the question and
urgently do so at this time is that this is a
Summer Youth Employment Program, jobs program.
It isn't something that can be postponed. The
summer is coming up. I would like to know if
this can be moved in a more expeditious
fashion to bring it to the level that it was
at or, even better, to the level at which the
Assembly wishes to see this funded in the
coming year, at $40 million, two of which
would be from the general fund and the rest of
the money from TANF, as we now get it.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Mr. President,
I haven't made this point today, so I think
it's time that I give my minilecture on the
really where we are today as opposed to where
5590
we were six years ago.
Mr. President, I remember us coming
to January of 1995, and we had a $5 billion
deficit. And all of us saw the state going in
the wrong direction and losing 500,000 jobs in
'92, '93, '94. And also, we had so many
programs that were completely out of hand.
Mr. President, all of us want to do
what's right. We want to provide for programs
that we feel are very necessary. These
programs are very important in my district.
They're important in every single Senator's
district. And on the other hand, we can only
spend what is really there and what makes
sense. And I'm trying to think of the word
when you use -- "prudent." I'm trying to
think of the word "prudent." We only want to
spend what is prudent.
The Governor has provided here
$25 million here in this appropriation, and it
is for the program, of course, to which you
refer.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: If I may,
Senator. The Summer Youth Employment Program
has been a very important step for our
5591
youngsters. It offers them some money in the
summer, it offers them activity, perhaps it
offers them some training in an occupation.
And it has been an important program for us.
This money does not come out of the
general fund, it comes out of TANF money. And
the $35 million in the past has all been
appropriated out of TANF money. And the
importance of what the Assembly did in adding
$2 million to our general fund is to show that
the state also has a role here, that TANF is
going to run out soon and that the state
should be looking to take over this program.
I think this is an important
program for our youth, and we want to do the
best job we can to train them in occupations,
keep them occupied in the summer. And I feel
very strongly about it. I think it's a
prudent investment in the future for all of
our youth.
But let me turn for a moment to the
bill. Like my colleagues, I have a lot of
problems passing an emergency bill when
apparently there is no emergency. Nobody
seems pressured. When you ask some of our
5592
leadership when will the budget be passed, and
they'll give you a humorous comment of "I hope
in my lifetime" or "If you thought August 4th
was late, wait till you see this year."
There simply seems to be no energy,
no emergency here. And to pass the bill for
four weeks instead of for two weeks as we had
in the past shows that perhaps there's
something going on, and maybe in two weeks
we'll have something. But to pass this bill
for four weeks and not see any action occur at
all makes you wonder where is the emergency.
And so I will vote in favor of this
bill this month, but I feel that unless
there's some kind of activity going on in the
next few weeks, I find it very difficult to
continue to pass emergency bills where I see
no emergency, I see no concern, and I see no
activity.
And I know that we have been told
that our leadership is ready. But as one of
the my colleagues said, "Ready just means that
you're at the starting gate, it doesn't mean
that you're doing." And I really have to be
shown that there will be something productive
5593
happening in the next few weeks.
But I'll be voting yes on this
bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Montgomery, why do you rise?
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, Mr.
President, if Senator Stafford would yield for
a question.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stafford, do you yield to a question from
Senator Montgomery?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes,
Senator. Senator Oppenheimer just talked
about the summer youth employment. And I'm
just wondering if the $25 million that we're
talking about that we're voting on today for
summer youth employment represents simply a
portion of the level that we funded it last
year, or does this represent in fact a
$10 million decrease in that funding?
SENATOR STAFFORD: That's a good
question, Mr. President. I would not be
5594
presumptuous and say that it will be increased
to what it was last year. We are of -- we
understand that the Governor and his
representatives want to see how we spend this
money, the $25 million that's in this budget,
in the context of the entire TANF program.
And therefore, it appears that there's a
possibility. And we understand your concerns,
and this is important to all our districts.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: So if I
could continue, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stafford, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Yes.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: I'll take
that. Thank you.
So that means, then, that we in our
house, you and us, are committed to funding at
last year's level, it's just that the Governor
has not put forth the entire amount that we
ourselves are looking to invest in the Summer
Youth Employment Program?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Senator
Montgomery, you're being very perceptive and
also being very effective and also being a
5595
staunch protagonist. You're making the point
very, very well. And we understand.
But I have to answer the question
by saying that, yes, we are willing to look at
the increase, but it would be within the
framework of the entire TANF program.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: All right.
So, Mr. President, I am interpreting that to
mean that we are still negotiating the final
allocation for this program. This is the
Governor's idea, but then we are still
negotiating, Mr. President. I'm just assuming
that that's the answer that I'm getting.
That's how I interpret it.
And I thank you, Senator Stafford.
Just another question, Senator -
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stafford, while you're on your feet would you
yield to another question from Senator
Montgomery?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Okay. Sorry
to antagonize you.
5596
But the Assembly did put in the
$2 million from the general fund. And as
Senator Oppenheimer has indicated, the purpose
of that $2 million is not -- is symbolic in
terms of it establishes the fact that this is
a program that the state is committed to by
virtue of us putting in some of the funding.
One of the issues that the people
who run summer youth employment in our state
have brought to us is the fact that since we
have no program in place, that it's a very -
a situation where we can never really depend
on funding for summer youth employment. Even
though we've done it over the years, there
really is no structure that we have
incorporated into our government and funding
process.
So the next question that I have
is, what is our commitment? I don't remember
what Senator Bruno's and your resolution said
regarding this, and I'm just wondering if
there is an agreement that we should be doing
this. And, if so, have we also proposed,
vis-a-vis our own budget resolutions, a small
commitment now with the intention of making it
5597
part of our structure, our budget structure
for summer youth employment funding?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Mr. President,
I'll go -- I sort of lapse into these
philosophical discussions as I answer these
questions. And this one involves a word that
we hear around here that's kind of a
catchword, but it's rather important. And
it's called avails. And what that means, I
believe, is what's available to be expended,
what's agreed that's available to expend.
And as far as your question goes
with our resolution, we don't specifically
point to this area. But with us, it's subject
to what's available and what's negotiated.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: All right.
Just one last question, if Senator Stafford -
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stafford, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: There's
another related area in this continuing budget
that I wanted to just ask you about. It's
5598
also in the Department of Labor, and it is the
Youth Employment and Training Program. You
have proposed 785,000, I believe it is. And
I'm just wondering what that figure
represents. It is not the same amount that we
budgeted for the same program last year. It's
also a reduction in a similar way that the
$25 million represents a reduction.
So is this -- again, my same
question, is this part of what we are going to
be asking for in our own budget resolutions,
or does this represent in fact a reduction in
that program?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Mr. President,
it would be really premature to call any
appropriation in these bills reductions. It's
what is required for the next four-week
program. And as I point out each time, there
are various requirements for various periods.
And therefore, this really is just what is
needed in the next month.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Okay. Thank
you, Senator Stafford.
Mr. President, briefly on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
5599
Montgomery, on the bill.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Certainly
I'm going to be voting in favor of this
continuing resolution. But again, it's just a
little troublesome that we are voting on
essentially the Governor's version of the
appropriations for programs. Many of them
have such tremendously important implications
for our constituents in our districts across
the state, and we really have not had an
opportunity to negotiate especially some of
the fine points, as in the case of the Youth
Employment Program and many others.
So it's unfortunate. And in
addition to which, we still have all of this
work to be done, we're only passing continuing
resolutions, and we're not being paid.
So if there were any way that I
could line-item out the Governor's pay and
vote against it, I would. Because if we
don't -- if we're not paid because of the fact
that the budget has not been passed, then I
think the Governor should not be paid, because
he is one of the three parties to this whole
process. And if two parties are having to pay
5600
the consequences of our not coming to an
agreement, then I think the third party should
also pay.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Any other
Senator wishing to speak on the bill?
Senator Brown.
SENATOR BROWN: Yes, Mr.
President. I rise to speak on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Brown, on the bill.
SENATOR BROWN: Like many who
have spoken before me I'm going to vote in
favor of this appropriation bill. But I'm
going to do so grudgingly. I feel that we
have a responsibility to pass the state budget
on time. I'm ready and willing to vote for an
on-time budget. But unfortunately, I don't
have the option of being able to do that. And
that saddens me.
One of the things that I said to
voters in my district is that they could count
on me to be prepared to vote for this budget
on time. But as a member of this body, I
don't have the opportunity to do that.
5601
And I think we have taken this
process all too lightly with these
appropriation bills and with these extenders,
and we have lost sight of the fact, in my
estimation, that we have a responsibility to
pass a budget on April 1st.
So I'm going to hold my nose and
I'm going to vote for these. But I have to
say honestly, and maybe this is not as civil
as it should be, but I think it stinks not
passing the state budget on time. I think
it's absolutely rotten that we sit here and
we're not pushing more aggressively for this
budget to be passed on time.
I think it's also terrible that the
conference committee process has not begun. I
mean, for us to be here voting for this
appropriations bill for four weeks when we are
not meeting to discuss the difficulties that
separate the Governor and the two leaders is
distressing. And to me, there's no reason for
it. What stops people from sitting together
in a room and talking about their differences
on the budget when they recognize that this
budget should be passed on April 1st?
5602
So, like Senator Dollinger and
others, I just want to remind you of what you
need no reminder of, that we have a
responsibility and by our action today we're
not living up to those responsibilities.
Senator Montgomery pointed out an
important issue that I just want to touch on
briefly, and that's the Summer Youth
Employment Program. Since I've been here,
we've done a number of things, some of which I
have supported -- and my colleagues have
talked to me about this, but we've done a
number of things to be tougher on crime and to
criminalize certain activities. And at the
same time that we do things to be tough on
crime, in this budget we are making less of a
commitment to providing resources to our youth
in the state of New York.
To me, this is a sad, sad action
and a real serious lack of commitment to the
youth of this state, by saying that instead of
making at least the same commitment that was
made to our youth last year, a commitment of
$35 million for summer jobs, in this budget it
looks like we're making a commitment of
5603
$25 million, $10 million less for the youth of
this state.
The final point that I would make
is that I think that this will be a last
extender, this will be the last appropriations
bill -- if we're not close after this
four-week period, I don't think I could in
good conscience vote for these anymore after
this period. Because while I want to see the
operation of state government go forward, to
me this is an admission that we're not doing
our jobs and this is an admission that it's
going to be business as usual.
So I'm hoping that this is the last
time we'll have to pass an appropriations bill
or an extender bill. But if it is not, it
will probably happen without my vote, because
I'm not prepared to vote for one of these
after today.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 52. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the
5604
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stachowski, to explain his vote.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Mr.
President, I'm going to briefly explain my
vote.
First of all, I'd like to thank
Senator Stafford for his courtesy and his
congeniality in answering all the questions.
Secondly, I'd like to point out
that I still have a major concern about the
fact that although there's money there to
start letting projects, that for whatever
reason DOT is not letting a sufficient amount,
and we're going to end up with a terrible
situation because the construction season will
have passed us by.
Hopefully we'll get going and get a
budget done. I think that Senator Brown made
couple of good points. And the fact is that
there is a problem. And I listened to Senator
Stafford talk about his little lecture on
where we were and how we had a deficit. And,
yeah, we have a surplus, but also our debt has
5605
increased by $10 billion, and that's not
exactly a great thing.
So the fact is that we got to pass
this extender, I think, because it's our job
to keep government going. We don't want to
take the Newt Gingrich style of government.
But I would like to see people moving ahead.
I'm glad to hear that in his answers Senator
Stafford said Senator Bruno is releasing his
conference committee makeup today. So maybe
that will get the Assembly to release theirs
today, and maybe we'll get moving.
And for all the conversation -- and
I'm not going to tell you who said it, but
somebody had a great line today, that with all
the complaints about three men in a room to do
a budget, we found a way to beat that. And
that's with no men in a room and no budget.
I vote yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stachowski will be recorded in the
affirmative.
Senator Oppenheimer, to explain her
vote.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: I thought
5606
my good friend was going to say maybe we
should put three women in that room, but he
lost the opportunity. Knowing what a feminist
we're talking to here.
Earlier we were talking in
committee about how the Governor feels that it
is not possible for him to surrender to the
Assembly's sort of request and demand that he
assure them that he will not veto any portion
of the budget, and the Governor feels that
it's his responsibility not to surrender this
veto power.
Well, I would have to pick up where
my colleague Senator Dollinger left off, which
is we are surrendering our responsibility,
according to our New York State Constitution,
by not bringing the two houses together. And
after the two houses have come together and
changed the Governor's budget, then there is
the opportunity for him to act after we
present him with the budget.
So I feel that, in essence, we are
also surrendering our power which is accorded
to us in our state constitution, and that is
for the two houses to sit down, just two
5607
people in a room or two bodies in the room, to
arrive at changes made to the Governor's
budget.
So I also will be voting for this
continuation of government.
I would like to just take a moment
to say that I'm concerned about what's been
happening recently, which is all of our
committee meetings have been called while
we're in session, and this gives us very
little opportunity to have discourse and also
leaves the chamber with very few people
seated, because we're constantly being called
off into committee meetings. So I would like
to call the attention of the Majority Leader
to perhaps changing this policy, because in
the past it's worked very effectively having
our meetings independent of the session.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Oppenheimer, in the affirmative.
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Mr.
President, I said I was going to vote against
this. I'm going to ask to be recorded in the
negative.
5608
A couple of observations. One is
only in New York State would a body, an
elected body, a statewide elected body say, We
have an emergency appropriation, and we
created the emergency. We can somehow justify
this as an emergency appropriation, and yet
the only basis for the emergency is that we
created it by failing to do what we were
required to do. It's one of those great
anomalies that I don't understand in New York
politic.
The second thing I don't understand
is with all due respect to Senator Stafford
and others who have pointed the finger at our
Democratic colleagues in the Assembly. Why is
it when something good comes out of this
chamber there isn't a single Republican who's
shy about standing up and saying, We did it,
it's our victory, it's the victory of this
house, it's the Majority of this house
speaking with a single voice for the people of
this state. I've heard Senator Bruno said
that numerable times.
Well, let's flip the situation
around. In my view, it's just as easy to say
5609
it's the Republicans' fault, it's the GOP's
fault that this budget isn't done. You want
the credit, you don't want the blame. I think
it's a wonderful legerdemain that you can
bring off this wonderful trick that somehow
fooled the public in this state. But why
don't you face it. If you want the credit,
you ought to take the blame as well.
The other concern I have, Mr.
President, is that this appropriation has a
creeping policy shift. We're not taking funds
out of the HCRA tax account, the tobacco tax
account to fund EPIC. We had done that in the
past. That's a policy shift. We're bailing
out a bankrupt corporation with a million
dollars. That's another policy change. And
we're in danger of changing the way we let
public contracts by not allowing them to be
let at the start of the construction season.
Again, a policy shift.
What's the final casualty of this
process, Mr. President? It's absolutely clear
to me the greatest casualty is the public's
confidence in this body. We don't meet our
time frame, the public looks at us and says,
5610
We don't have any confidence in those guys,
they can't do the job on time, why should we
pay our taxes, why should we obey the rules -
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Dollinger, how do you vote?
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I'm going to
vote in the negative, Mr. President. That's
why we're called the New York State
"Laissez-ture."
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Dollinger will be recorded in the negative.
Senator Stavisky, to explain her
vote.
SENATOR STAVISKY: To explain my
vote, Mr. President.
I'm going to vote for this this
time. But I resent it being called an
emergency appropriation, because when you have
too many emergencies, you begin to wonder.
Secondly, many of the items being
funded in this, both in the language bill and
in the appropriations part, are not being
funded at the proper levels to which many of
us think the appropriations ought to be made.
It seems to me that it's time for three people
5611
to sit down and work out the details. The
longer we wait, the more difficult it becomes.
And I will be very reluctant one month from
now to vote for another emergency
appropriation.
I vote for the bill this time.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stavisky, in the affirmative.
Senator Hassell-Thompson wanted to
be recognized. She's no longer in the
chamber.
The Secretary will announce the
results.
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
the negative on Calendar Number 406 are
Senators Dollinger, Duane, and Schneiderman.
Ayes, 55. Nays, 3.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill
is passed.
Senator Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Thank you,
Mr. President. May we take up Calendar Number
407, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will read.
5612
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
407, by the Senate Committee on Rules, Senate
Print Number 5103, an act to amend Chapter 20
of the Laws of 2001.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Is there a
message of necessity at the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: There is.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: I move to
accept the message.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
motion is to accept the message of necessity
on Calendar Bill 407. All those in favor
signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Opposed,
nay.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Nay.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
message is accepted. The bill is before the
house.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Explanation,
Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
5613
Stafford, an explanation has been requested by
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Thank you, Mr.
President.
Mr. President, we now have the
second of our extender bills. This bill
extends the authorization until May 20th,
again a four-week period, for the following
statutory provisions: The deposit of revenues
into the Division of Military and Naval
Affairs Armory Account, the authorization to
separate rather than sequester juries, and the
Commercial Revitalization Program for Lower
Manhattan.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Dollinger, why do you rise?
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President, will Senator Stafford yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stafford, do you yield to a question from
Senator Dollinger?
SENATOR DOLLINGER: The issue of
the waiver of jury sequestration, how much
money is at stake in this or how much money do
we save through this measure?
5614
SENATOR STAFFORD: Mr. President,
I understand that the savings will be 1
million a year.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: So through
you, Mr. President, can we assume that, say,
about $80,000 per month, the four-week period
in which this extender will be granted?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Once again,
Mr. President, I have to go back on explaining
that every month, every four-week period is
different. And of course with this subject,
it would be, you know, how often you have
situation arise.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President, if Senator Stafford will
continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stafford, do you yield to another question?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: How many
anticipated jury sequestrations would occur in
the next month that by waiving this provision,
continuing this extension in time we would
5615
actually not have to be sequestered?
SENATOR STAFFORD: You know,
there comes a time, Mr. President, when you
make something possible but you don't know how
much will really happen. And it will be
possible not to have sequestration, but how
often that will be the case we really don't
know.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President, if Senator Stafford will
continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stafford, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Will it be
the approach of the Majority in this house to
enact a permanent waiver of sequestration
provision in the context of the next budget so
that we never have to deal with this what
appears to be very minor $80,000 expense month
to month in our need for reappropriations or,
in this case, for continuing the period of
time in which sequestration was not needed?
5616
Can we just do away with that as the -
SENATOR STAFFORD: Mr. President,
that actually is a good question. I'm trying
to think of the years, but I believe, I
believe in 1986 and '87 I was chairman of the
Judiciary Committee. This issue was right
there, and it was being debated and being
negotiated. And the answer is that there will
be -- I'm of the opinion we would suggest that
it will be in budget negotiations.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: The other
area that's affected by this is the budget of
the Naval and Military Affairs, the Armory
rental account. How much income do we
anticipate from the Armory rental account for
one month?
SENATOR STAFFORD: I've got that
right on the tip of my fingers, because I was
thinking about that a minute ago. And as I
look around here -- as I recall, I recall it's
approximately $2 million.
5617
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President, is that $2 million per year or
$2 million per month? Through you, Mr.
President, I apologize. I should ask Senator
Stafford to continue to yield.
SENATOR STAFFORD: That's all
right.
It would be per year, Mr.
President.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Okay. Just
on the bill briefly, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Dollinger, on the bill.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: That's a
savings, as I see it, of about $160,000,
$170,000 a month in revenue, but yet we're
going to extend it and continue to apply it to
this account. It seems to me that we are
bringing before this house an emergency
appropriation to collect, to continue to
accumulate $125,000 for the next 30 days from
the Department of Military and Naval Affairs,
$125,000. And we're going to save somewhere
around $80,000 if we continue to allow certain
juries not to have to be in sequestration. So
5618
for the equivalent of $200,000 for the next
month, we have an emergency appropriation.
Now, we do have the Lower Manhattan
Commercial Revitalization Program, which I
think, based on what I know of it, has lots of
merit. But it just seems to only in New York
would we say it's an emergency, with an
$85 billion budget, to preserve something akin
to $200,000 in income stream to flow for the
next four weeks while we can't pass a budget.
It's just inconceivable to me that that
qualifies as an emergency. $200,000? My
gosh, the interest on our debt alone is
accumulating at this rate of about -- I think
the number is about $10 million a day, to get
up to $4.2 billion. It's something like
$10 million in day in debt that we're paying
out day after day after day after day. But
yet we have an emergency appropriation that
involves the collection of $200,000 in the
next four weeks.
This may be somebody's definition
of an emergency, but I don't think that a
common New Yorker would claim this as an
emergency under any circumstance.
5619
Again, Mr. President, my views on
doing this kind of stuff at this time are well
known. I reiterated them a couple of minutes
ago. The public is out there listening,
looking to us for signs, and all they see,
quite frankly, is that any confidence in the
budget process is unjustified, and that's a
real shame.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Any other
member wishing to speak on the bill?
Senator Paterson, why do you rise?
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
if Senator Stafford would yield for a
question.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stafford, do you yield to a question from
Senator Paterson?
SENATOR PATERSON: By all means.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator
Stafford, I just heard Senator Dollinger make
mention of the Lower Manhattan Commercial
Revitalization Program. And it's kind of
interesting, because I'm pretty familiar with
5620
it. We talked about it here in October of
1995. It's a great program, not only for
Lower Manhattan, but it's something I think
could be replicated around the state.
As you may remember, the whole area
in Lower Manhattan was very adversely affected
by the construction of the World Trade Center
and had really had economic problems really
going back to the late '70s and really all
through the '80s. And this program has
flourished.
And we have only attached a
four-week extender to it in this extension,
and three weeks to get it past its sunset on
March 31st. We've got other programs in here
like Quick Draw, which is very controversial,
which goes through only June, already all the
way to June.
And this was something that was
actually proposed by Mayor Giuliani. This is
something that's had bipartisan support.
Everybody really sees the value of it. And
I'm just wondering why we would want to be
constantly reextending this program at a time
when it's something that the state looks upon
5621
with great admiration.
Why would we want to put it in this
short an extender? As Senator Dollinger kind
of implied, but I just wanted to make it a
specific question.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Once again,
Mr. President, my good people have given me an
answer that I had right in my head. I'm glad
that I agree with them.
First, let me share with Senator
Paterson -- because I know he always likes to
be accurate, and he's always right there when
it comes to the facts -- this bill does not
have Quick Draw in it. We never would want
you to, you know, think that. And I'm sure
that you feel much better now that we sort of
set the record straight.
Now, with all of that, I've
forgotten what your question was. But I'll
explain to you that this is really a request
from the city, and it's a city program, and
therefore it's included in this bill.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Paterson.
5622
SENATOR PATERSON: I actually was
aware that Quick Draw was not in this bill,
and that was actually my point.
Quick Draw was in the last extender
which we voted on, and it's running, I
believe, through June. And that was my whole
point. Why would we do that for Quick Draw,
which is highly controversial around the
state, when in fact we have this program,
which some people at the ESDC are talking
about replicating around the state, which
everybody likes, it's got bipartisan support
and complete success, no matter who you are,
in Lower Manhattan.
And I just thought it was important
enough that if we're really going to try to
extend government, that it would have had a
longer extension than the one it had. That
was my question, why did we choose to just put
it in here for four weeks with the other?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Well, Mr.
President, now that we've put Quick Draw to
rest and Senator Paterson and I understand
each other -- I'll have to go back to the
record, because I understood what Senator
5623
Paterson was driving at, but I think that the
way it was said, it was a bit confusing.
SENATOR PATERSON: Oh, I'm sorry.
SENATOR STAFFORD: But with all
of that, I again point out that yes, this is
an important program, and this is all that the
city asked for, and that's why we've included
it in this bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Yes, Mr.
President. Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Any other
Senator wishing to speak on the bill?
The Secretary will read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Record
the negative votes and announce the results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 56. Nays,
2. Senators Dollinger and Duane recorded in
5624
the negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill
is passed.
Senator Bonacic.
SENATOR BONACIC: Mr. President,
I ask that you recognize Senator Paterson for
an announcement, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Paterson, for an announcement.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
there come those times in government when one
must confer. And to that end, we are going to
have a conference of the Minority in Room 314
immediately. I'd like to bring that to your
attention and would like to invite you to come
and be a part of it.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Is this
an open conference, Senator Paterson?
SENATOR PATERSON: Always.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Is that
immediately?
SENATOR PATERSON: Immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Okay.
There will be a conference of the Minority
immediately.
5625
Senator Schneiderman, did you wish
to be recognized relative to a vote?
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Yes, I
think so. Mr. President, I just request
unanimous consent to be recorded in the
negative on this one.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Calendar
407?
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Without
objection, hearing no objection, Senator
Schneiderman will be recorded in the negative
on Calendar Number 407.
Senator Stachowski, why do you
rise?
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Just as long
as we are making announcements, for those that
aren't aware of it, today, besides being
Wednesday, also happens to be Senator
Smith's -- Ada Smith, not M. Smith -
birthday. And I think she's in the lounge
currently, but I just wanted to make sure
everybody knew that so if you pass her by, you
too can tell her that she's getting better,
5626
not older. Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Thank
you, Senator Stachowski.
Senator Bonacic.
SENATOR BONACIC: Thank you, Mr.
President. The Senate will stand at ease.
The Majority will not have a
conference. We expect to be back reconvening
between 10 to 15 minutes.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senate will stand at ease for 15 minutes.
(Whereupon, the Senate stood at
ease at 2:22 p.m.)
(Whereupon, the Senate reconvened
at 3:14 p.m.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Senate will be in order.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President,
would you please call up Calendar Number 291,
by Senator Alesi.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read Calendar 291.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
291, by Senator Alesi, Senate Print 1128, an
5627
act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law, in
relation to extending.
SENATOR CONNOR: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Alesi, an explanation has been requested of
Calendar 291 by Senator Connor.
SENATOR ALESI: Thank you, Mr.
President.
This bill would increase the
penalties for refusing to submit to a chemical
test from six months to a year in one instance
and from one year to a year and a half in the
second instance.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Does any
other Senator wish to be heard on this bill?
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Does any
other Senator wish to be heard on this bill?
Senator Paterson, why do you rise?
Senator Hevesi.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you, Mr.
President. Would the sponsor please yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Alesi, will you yield for a question?
5628
SENATOR ALESI: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you.
Mr. President, through you, if the
sponsor would please indulge us in the
necessity for this legislation in light of any
numbers that he may have at his disposal
reflecting the need for this legislation in
terms of the number of individuals who have
refused tests and whether those numbers are
trending upwards or downwards.
I'm generally favorably disposed to
this legislation, but I want to gauge the true
extent to which this is necessary.
SENATOR ALESI: Through you, Mr.
President, I don't have any specific numbers.
But the Senator correctly mentioned the
trends. And the trends in this instance do go
up in a corresponding fashion with the amount
of efforts to enforce DWI.
And although I don't have any
specific numbers, even if things were staying
the same or in the event that they're going
5629
down, even, it would be part of our
comprehensive effort to do all we can to make
DWI and anything related to that -- for
example, the refusal to take a chemical
test -- and make that a very serious offense.
And by raising the penalties for failing to
take or refusing to take a chemical test, that
would be part of our comprehensive efforts to
reduce DWI.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you, Mr.
President. Would the sponsor continue to
yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Alesi, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR ALESI: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you.
Through you, Mr. President, does this
legislation apply both to alcohol and tests
for any other narcotic substances?
SENATOR ALESI: It says chemical
tests. And a chemical test in this instance,
through you, Mr. President, would be either
5630
blood, saliva, or urine. And I believe that
under those circumstances those tests would
reveal the presence of either alcohol or any
contraband.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you.
Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor
would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Alesi, will you yield?
SENATOR ALESI: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you.
Through you, Mr. President.
Senator, if you would indulge me, here's where
I'm going in terms of my concern with the
specific language of the bill. My question to
you is whether or not the language of the bill
would require the mandatory revocation that
you're calling for, as defined by a chemical
test, which would include a Breathalyzer test
on the scene, as opposed to a chemical test
which might be taken at the police station or
at some time afterwards. Because it's a
5631
common tactic of those looking to avoid
prosecution to extend the time period from the
time that they are first stopped by the police
so that their reading is lower and lower.
So can you address that for us,
please?
SENATOR ALESI: Well, through
you, Mr. President, in response, I believe
that there's a two-hour window that the driver
has to either take the test or refuse the
test. And any time within that two hours, he
or she can, if they have refused, say that
they will take the test. If that's what you
were driving at.
SENATOR HEVESI: Through you, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Alesi, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR ALESI: Yes, I will.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR HEVESI: If you would
clarify that point. The refusal would apply
to any chemical test given on the scene or
back at a law enforcement facility?
5632
SENATOR ALESI: Yes, it would.
SENATOR HEVESI: Mr. President,
through you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Alesi, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR ALESI: Yes, I will.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR HEVESI: If I refuse -
if I'm stopped by the police and I refuse to
take a Breathalyzer but agree to submit at
some later time to a chemical test, this law
does not take effect because I have in fact
agreed at some point to submit to a chemical
test?
SENATOR ALESI: Through you, Mr.
President, as I understand it, you have two
hours to do exactly that. That as long as you
consent to a test -- again, this is my
understanding -- within that two hours, then
you would be okay with this.
But that would have no bearing,
obviously, on the outcome of the test.
SENATOR HEVESI: Understood.
Mr. President, would the sponsor
5633
yield to a final question?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Alesi, do you yield?
SENATOR ALESI: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR HEVESI: Do we have any
sense or whether or not legislation of this
nature, laws of this nature which may -- I'm
assuming we have laws on the books in other
states that are as strict or more strict as
what we're proposing to do here today -
whether or not the passing of those laws in
other states actually had a positive impact of
either providing a deterrent effect or
reducing the amount of chemical test refusals
by individuals who have been stopped on the
road?
SENATOR ALESI: Through you, Mr.
President, no, we don't. But I would like to
assume that if there even isn't any in the
other 49 states, that we can take a leadership
role in pursuing again what I believe is a
comprehensive effort to do everything we can
5634
to deal with DWI.
SENATOR HEVESI: Okay, thank you.
Mr. President, on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Hevesi, on the bill.
SENATOR HEVESI: Actually, Mr.
President, would the sponsor indulge me for
one final question?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Alesi, do you yield for one final question?
SENATOR ALESI: Mr. President, I
remember that TV show "Columbo:" one more
question. I'd be happy to.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you.
Well, through you, Mr. President,
you'll be happy to know I think this is a
terrific bill. My concern and my final
question is we passed this legislation the
last two years in a row. So I'll give you the
blanket question I often ask, what's holding
this up? What's the problem? Can you shed
some light on that?
SENATOR ALESI: Through you, Mr.
5635
President, it almost seems like I just was
thrown a softball. But I think that the
problem we have would be the Assembly
Majority, who typically is loath to do any
kind of legislation that raises penalties for
any kind of misbehavior.
SENATOR HEVESI: Mr. President,
on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Hevesi, on the bill.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you, Mr.
President. Thank you, Senator Alesi.
This is an important piece of
legislation. I don't know whether the answer
to the last question is in fact the reason why
this has not become law.
I would suggest to everyone,
though, that this is one of those commonsense
pieces of legislation that should not be left
languishing year after year after year,
because it's sending absolutely the wrong
message to those who refuse to submit to
chemical tests.
This is an area where the logic is
fairly clear on why we should be doing this.
5636
And even if it doesn't provide a deterrent
effect, having this type of legislation on the
books, which provides a greater punishment,
more of a punitive result for somebody who
decides that they're not going to take a test,
that's appropriate.
It's much in the same way that I've
always found it was ironic that we have not
outlawed speed -- radar detectors in New York
State, because the only purpose of having a
radar detector is to break the law.
And so if you are refusing a
chemical test, there is -- from my point of
view, there's really no other reason why you'd
be choosing to take that route unless you
wanted to hide from the authorities the fact
that you may have been breaking the law by
whatever intoxicants that you had consumed.
And as a result of that, we should not be
lenient at all with individuals who refuse to
take the test.
So I think this is a good piece of
legislation. I would like to know -- it
doesn't hinder me from voting for it -- I
would like to know whether this works, whether
5637
other states have done this, and whether it's
had an impact. But notwithstanding that, it's
a good bill. We should act on it.
And whomever is responsible for
this legislation having passed in this house
for the past two years and it not being law
should take a closer look at it. I'm not sure
I agree with Senator Alesi's assessment of
that, because I know that there are a number
of bills that we've have passed here in this
house before that haven't become law, and it
wasn't because the Assembly decided to act out
of some nefarious reason. In fact, I will go
so far as to suggest to you that I don't know
anybody in the Assembly who wouldn't want to
take measures to reduce the incidence of drunk
driving or driving while under the influence
of a controlled substance to protect our
citizens on the roadways.
This is a commonsense bill. I
think we can reach consensus on it. I would
urge the other house to adopt this immediately
and for the Governor to sign it, for all my
colleagues to support the bill today. And I
commend you, Senator Alesi, on bringing this
5638
bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you.
Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor
would yield for a couple of very brief
questions.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Alesi, do you yield?
SENATOR ALESI: Be happy to.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you.
I find this whole area of the
Vehicle and Traffic Law to be a little bit
confusing in general. Does this legislation
only apply to people under the age of 21, or
does it apply to everyone?
SENATOR ALESI: Through you, Mr.
President, it applies to everyone. The
circumstances are different for those people
who are under the age of 21.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: And
through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor
will continue to yield.
5639
SENATOR ALESI: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: And does
this have an exemption for a person who
operates a commercial motor vehicle, which is
a provision in another section of this area of
law?
SENATOR ALESI: Through you, Mr.
President, this bill does not specifically
mention commercial driver's license.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: So through
you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Alesi, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR ALESI: Yes, I will.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: So that
unlike some provisions of this statute, the
extension of the time of suspension of license
would apply to a driver of a commercial
vehicle equally with the driver of a
noncommercial vehicle; is that correct?
SENATOR ALESI: Through you, Mr.
5640
President, that would be a logical assumption.
However, I'd like to reiterate that
the bill doesn't specifically identify what
type of driver we're talking about under these
circumstances. With the exception of a driver
under the age of 21 versus someone over the
age of 21.
And I am advised by counsel as far
as commercial driver's licenses are concerned,
they already have higher penalties.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you.
Thank the sponsor.
Mr. President, on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Schneiderman, on the bill.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: This seems
like a perfectly reasonable piece of
legislation. I must say that the concern that
I expressed is a concern with other areas of
the law. It appears to me -- and this has
come up earlier in this session -- that there
are times when we penalize people driving
their own private vehicles more than we
penalize drivers of commercial vehicles.
And in my mind, if anything, it
5641
should be the other way around in every
section of New York law, that if you come here
for the purpose of doing business by driving a
vehicle, the standards should, if anything, be
higher and we shouldn't be giving anyone a
break in terms of alcohol consumption while
driving.
But this -- I'm assured by the
sponsor's remarks and the great staff work
behind the sponsor's remarks that that's not
the problem with this particular section, and
I do intend to vote yes.
Thank you.
SENATOR CONNOR: Last section.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Does any
other Senator wish to be heard on this bill?
Hearing none, debate is closed.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
November.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
5642
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President,
would you please call up Calendar Number 382,
by Senator Saland.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read Calendar 382.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
382, by Senator Saland, Senate Print 3435, an
act to authorize the payment of ordinary
disability benefits.
SENATOR CONNOR: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Saland, an explanation has been requested by
Senator Connor.
SENATOR SALAND: Thank you, Mr.
President.
Mr. President, this is a bill which
we have seen in this house on, I believe, two
prior occasions, on each of which I believe
this house has seen fit to pass it
unanimously. It deals with a rather tragic
situation which occurred in my district
involving a gentlemen, now deceased, named Kim
5643
Harvey, who was a state employee and who, in
February of 1999, as he was terminally ill,
languishing, quite literally, on his deathbed,
chose to change his retirement option so as to
make specific provision for his then wife and
now his widow.
Apparently he accomplished that
change on, I believe, the 12th of February.
The option that he chose would have permitted
his wife to secure a death benefit from the
retirement system.
His family at about that time was
summoned to his bedside. Apparently he
lingered for a couple of days thereafter, two
or three days thereafter. The form had been
signed on February the 12th. It had been
notarized on February 12th. Unfortunately, it
was not mailed.
Mr. Harvey passed away, I believe
on February 16th, with the notarized form,
signed, notarized form not having been mailed.
It was subsequently mailed by his family. It
was rejected by the retirement system for not
having been received prior to his death.
And the family now has found
5644
itself -- and particularly his widow -- found
themselves hard-pressed. She has managed to
get by the past couple of years, apparently
based on the proceeds of an insurance policy.
And the community in which she
lives held a fundraiser, some type of a
Chinese auction and, I believe, a spaghetti
dinner that managed to raise several thousands
of dollars, I believe somewhere in the area of
$15,000.
Those monies have since run out.
She is now threatened with the loss of her
home -- a home which, incidentally, her
husband had substantially built himself -- by
way of foreclosure. And she finds herself in
a desperate and time-is-of-the-essence
situation, and that is the purpose of my
bringing this bill before this house at this
time.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Connor.
SENATOR CONNOR: Thank you, Mr.
President.
I would note that the Senate passed
unanimously this bill last year and the year
5645
before, and the Assembly hadn't acted on it.
I'm delighted that the Assembly is taking
action, apparently, today.
I think it's something that we all
supported in the past. I know it requires a
two-thirds vote here. I'm sure it will get
the overwhelming support of all of my
colleagues, in view of the extraordinary
circumstances in which this widow finds
herself.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Does any
other Senator wish to be heard on this bill?
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Mr.
President, will the sponsor yield to just a
question?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Saland, do you yield for a question?
SENATOR SALAND: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President, my understanding is that the
5646
retiree selected an ordinary retirement option
which would have been solely on his own life;
is that correct?
SENATOR SALAND: I'm going to
assume that is correct. I do know what he
chose subsequently, and I can't tell with
absolute certainty that was his choice. But
he chose what I think is called the joint
allowance pop-up as his option, under which he
received a -- would have received a lesser
amount had he lived, and his wife would
receive that lesser amount.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Right.
Payable over both years -
SENATOR SALAND: Correct.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Mr. President.
First of all, Senator Saland, I
think that, again, this effort, like many
others, is a good piece of legislative work.
We recognize there's a problem. The problem
is we have set up a retirement system with
enormous constrictions on the ability of
people to make optional choices and then
change them.
5647
And, Senator Saland, there are two
things that I'd just like to call to your
attention which I think are part of which this
bill demonstrates the flaws in our retirement
system. First of all, under New York State
law, a retiree in our system can file a
retirement request without the approval of
their spouse. In every other pension system,
by, as a matter of federal law -- private
pension systems like the Eastman Kodak
Company, IBM -- in order to select your
annuity under your pension system, you need
the approval of the husband and the wife if
they're married.
We are one of the few states which
still has a pension system which allows a
single individual, the retiree, to make the
choice without consultation with their spouse.
And I just call that defect in our
law to your attention, because I think it's
something that should be remedied. I have a
bill that does it. I know there are a number
of other bills that do it. But the whole
notion of allowing couples who have been
related while they earn their pension
5648
benefits, a single couple -- one of the two
people to make that election is, in my
opinion, unfair. The federal government
recognized it in private pension plans. We
ought to do the same here in the State of
New York.
And the second thing -- through
you, Mr. President, I'm just going to talk on
the bill. And again, I commend Senator
Saland. But there's a woman from my district
whose name is Sylvia Kless, in a bill that I
carry, and what happened in that bill is
almost the same exact circumstances.
A father of two children, an
8-year-old and a 6-year-old boy, elected a
single life annuity. When he found out he had
melanoma, he attempted to change the annuity
and was told that he couldn't change it
because he'd already retired. And therefore,
the state retirement system wouldn't let him
change his option.
As a consequence, the 32 years that
he worked in the state teachers' retirement
system, his wife drew three payments. Her
children won't be able to go to college
5649
because she can't get her hands on the $44,000
that is in the pension plan to be paid to her
under the joint allowance that you talk about,
the fact that you could select the benefit
that is payable over your life and the benefit
for the life of the spouse.
I've brought that bill back before
the house. I hope that if that bill comes to
the floor, and I'm going to do everything I
can to bring it to the floor this year, that
the same intensity of bringing the bill to the
floor to rectify a wrong in our pension
system, that we will vote that so that Sylvia
Kless, who happens to live in my district, can
get the same benefit.
My view is -- and, Senator Saland,
I know you've done a lot of these similar
kinds of bills -- we ought to look at the very
tight restrictions we put on people's
elections under the state retirement system,
because as this case graphically demonstrates,
this can be the only major asset that a
hard-working state employee gets to leave for
the benefit of a spouse.
And I think we ought to look at
5650
establishing that spousal consent -- not just
the retiree, but the spouse as well -- and we
should also look at providing the pension
system with the ability, much as we did when
Senator Trunzo was working on -- remember the
bill we did to allow people to buy back into
the system and make certain changes in the
system? We ought to do the same thing with
this as well.
Because the injustice of someone
working so hard for so long and then finding
out that they've suffered an infirmity and not
being able to pass the retirement benefits on
to their spouse and their children is a
drastic tragedy. It's present in this case.
I'm going to vote in favor of it.
It's present in Mrs. Kless's case.
And I would hope that she could count on both
your support and the support of the Majority
of this house to rectify the wrong in her case
as well.
And with that in mind, Mr.
President, I'll vote in favor of this bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Does any
other Senator wish to be heard on this bill?
5651
Hearing none, debate is closed.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. 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 Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President,
would you please call up Calendar 36 on the
Supplemental Active List, by Senator Balboni.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read Calendar Number 36.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
36, by Senator Balboni, Senate Print 853A, an
act to amend the Civil Rights Law, in relation
to confidentiality.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
SENATOR BALBONI: Mr. President,
this bill would amend the Civil Rights Law so
as to prohibit the disclosure of a witness's
or a victim's telephone number, home address,
5652
or business address during the pendency of a
hearing or a trial.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Gentile.
SENATOR GENTILE: Yes, Mr.
President. If the sponsor, Senator Balboni,
would yield to some questions.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Balboni, do you yield to a question?
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, I do.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR GENTILE: Thank you, Mr.
President.
Through you, Mr. President.
Senator, you're aware, obviously, having
worked in the courtroom, that on a fairly
frequent basis there are situations in which,
in choosing a jury, a juror will ask -- rather
than elicit information in public, will ask to
approach the bench or the judge will ask that
juror to approach the bench. And so
technically information that is given at the
bench between a juror and the judge and the
5653
attorneys is not in open court.
Would that situation be covered in
the bill that you're proposing here today?
SENATOR BALBONI: No, it would
not.
SENATOR GENTILE: So in that
situation -- through you, Mr. President, if -
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Balboni, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, I do, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR GENTILE: So, Senator, in
that situation, where the questioning is being
done at the bench, outside the hearing of the
open court, a witness would then still, if
asked, be required to give an address or a
phone number if that occurred at the bench and
not in open court?
SENATOR BALBONI: Mr. President,
I understood the Senator's question to involve
a juror.
SENATOR GENTILE: A juror, yes.
SENATOR BALBONI: Okay, so
5654
your -- this bill would not cover jurors.
This bill would cover only witnesses or
victims.
SENATOR GENTILE: Okay, I'm
sorry. Then I correct myself. Victims or
witnesses.
Okay, even in that situation there
have been occasions, there have been occasions
whereby a witness, a witness, has asked the
judge to allow the witness to speak to the
judge with the attorneys present. And so I'll
repeat my first question, then. In that
situation, since it's not technically in open
court, would you -- would that situation be
covered under this bill?
SENATOR BALBONI: The bill as
currently drafted does not make a -- I'm
sorry, Mr. President, through you. The bill
as currently drafted does not make a
distinction in the statutory language as to
whether or not the colloquy needs to be on the
record, off the record, in open court, in
camera, or pursuant to a discussion with the
judge, known as a sidebar.
SENATOR GENTILE: A sidebar,
5655
right.
SENATOR BALBONI: However, the
court is given specific authority to determine
when the disclosure is relevant to the nature
of the proceedings and therefore can direct
that the information in fact be disclosed. It
is that discretion that would guide the court
in determining what information would be
available.
It would work this way. Now, under
this law, victims, particularly in domestic
violence cases, and witnesses in domestic
violence cases, that if you talk to any of the
DAs in this state, will tell you it is so
difficult to get people to testify, they will
now have a presumption not to disclose their
information about where they live, where their
businesses are, what their telephone numbers
are, so as to prevent further -- or not
further, but intimidation by people who don't
want them to testify, whether it be an abusive
spouse, whether it be -- in fact, right now
they do this in witness protection cases
dealing with organized crime, it's done all
the time. And we do have similar exemptions
5656
for undercover police officers.
So now what this will do is it sets
up a presumption that the information not be
disclosed, and the burden would fall upon the
defense attorney to make an application for
the disclosure of the information, in an
attempt to bring their defense forward.
An example would be the witness
says that they saw the incident, but they live
in Alaska, you know. And this is several
months later, and he says, you know, that he's
lived there all his life, but we know that
he's been living in Alaska for the last -- to
attack the credibility of the witness, if
there was something that obvious, you can make
that application. And the court in their
discretion would decide whether or not to
disclose that information.
SENATOR GENTILE: Through you,
Mr. President, if -
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Balboni, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
5657
sponsor yields.
SENATOR GENTILE: My concern,
Senator, is just the words "open court" as you
use it in the bill, shall not be disclosed in
open court.
Should there be a sidebar or an in
camera discussion in which the defendant is,
by right, able to be present, the fact that
this only covers open court, do you see that
there is a gap here where that is not covered
by this legislation whereby, should it be in
camera or at sidebar, where that information
is being elicited, this bill would not cover
that situation?
SENATOR BALBONI: Mr. President,
through you, I would respectfully disagree,
Senator. I think that open court is the
broadest description we can have for any
proceedings that take place in court. And of
course the intent behind it is open and
readily accessible information. And that's
why the phrase "open court" was utilized.
This bill was drafted in
conjunction with the DAs Association, who came
up with this language. And they felt it was
5658
broad enough to cover all instances. And any
prosecutor worth their salt would make an
objection to the disclosure and cite the Civil
Rights Law as the basis for their denial of
revealing the question. And therefore, it
would be up to the judge in that regard in any
event.
SENATOR GENTILE: Through you,
Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Balboni, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, I do, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR GENTILE: Thank you, Mr.
President.
Might it, then, Senator, be maybe
more instructive to say on the record, any
testimony on the record as opposed to
testimony in open court? Because if that's
the case, that would cover the in camera
hearings or the sidebars.
SENATOR BALBONI: No -- I'm
sorry, Mr. President, through you. Actually,
5659
Senator, sidebar discussions are frequently
held off the record.
SENATOR GENTILE: Some are, some
aren't.
SENATOR BALBONI: Most of them -
I mean, put yourself in a courtroom just a
second. You know, you have the jury sitting
there. Unless you make a motion for the jury
to retire for the purposes of a discussion in
front of court, they're sitting there. So you
go up to the bench and you then lean over the
bench, and you now have the discussion with
the court. Very rarely -- in fact, I've never
seen it in the 12 years of trial work where
there's been a reporter taking down the
minutes of that discussion. Just because if
you're going to do that, then you're going to
make a formal discussion, a formal argument
with the jury absent. So I've never seen a
sidebar conducted in such a way that a
reporter would be taking down the minutes of
the actual discussion itself.
So that's why we used "open court."
Because it's my belief that saying testimony
or saying on the record would in fact narrow
5660
the scope. And that's not what we want to do.
SENATOR GENTILE: Through you,
Mr. President, if the sponsor would -
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Balboni, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, Mr.
President, I yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR GENTILE: I would agree
with you, Senator, in the instances where
there's a sidebar involving just the two
attorneys and the judge. But there are
instances where a witness -- either the judge
or the witness asks to speak in that -- in
camera. And whether the jury is present or
not, that type of situation is on the record.
SENATOR BALBONI: Not
necessarily. Not necessarily.
SENATOR GENTILE: I would say -
in criminal prosecutions, I would say it is.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:
Gentlemen, Senators, I'm delighted that you
can have this exchange, but will you both
please address the chair.
5661
SENATOR GENTILE: If the Senator
would continue to yield, I just have one or
two more questions.
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, I continue
to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR GENTILE: In the event -
and I notice here that you've indicated it's
up to the discretion of the judge. This
legislation, am I correct, doesn't set forth
any guidelines as to the parameters of that
discretion?
SENATOR BALBONI: No, it does
not.
SENATOR GENTILE: So it's the
total discretion of the judge.
SENATOR BALBONI: Mr. President,
through you, I'm not sure what the concern is
with the phraseology of "total discretion." I
mean, almost every ruling in these cases as
regards the testimony of a witness is at the
discretion, whether the testimony is relevant
or whether it's something that should be
disclosed, whether it's privileged
5662
communication, that's always -- you know, it's
hearsay. Those are all the types of
evidentiary decisions that a judge makes on a
day-to-day basis.
SENATOR GENTILE: If the Senator
would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Balboni -
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, Mr.
President, I yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR GENTILE: The only reason
I say that, Senator, is because indeed Senator
Skelos has a bill on today, on today's
calendar, dealing with child witnesses. And
in those child witnesses, there is in the law
a series of guidelines for a judge to
determine, in his or her discretion, whether
that child who is to be a special witness,
special child witness, fits those parameters.
So there is precedent for
guidelines being placed in the law, although a
judge has discretion. So my concern to you
was that this situation does not have those
5663
same guidelines.
SENATOR BALBONI: Mr. President,
through you, in drafting the bill I was aware
of Senator Skelos's legislation. However, his
deals with children in their role as a
witness. And there are other aspects involved
that are not involved with general witnesses
or victims in this case.
And remember the information we're
talking about. There, the context of that
bill is to prevent the trauma of the actual
testimony of a child. So -- and the
difficulties associated with trying to get
truthful examination of a child witness
without causing problems for the child.
Here, you're just talking about a
specific set of information that deals with
where they live and what their business phone
number is, what their home phone number is.
So it's a much more narrow scope of
information and it does not go to the manner
in which the witness would testify, which is
what Senator Skelos's bill takes into account.
SENATOR GENTILE: Thank you,
Senator.
5664
On the bill, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Gentile, on the bill.
SENATOR GENTILE: I want to thank
Senator Balboni for this legislation and
certainly for his discussion and responses to
the questions.
Certainly, in bringing forth a bill
like this, I personally have experienced many
instances as a prosecutor where a victim or a
witness to a crime has expressed great
reservations about having to testify and being
subject to questions as to where they now
live, where they now work, and whether or not
those are relevant or whether or not where
they worked or lived at the time of the crime
was relevant. And we'd always get into
discussions and debates and arguments in the
courtroom as to whether or not this testimony
was necessary to a case.
So to have a bill like this that
gives the presumption that this testimony is
not to be elicited and prohibits disclosure is
a good step in the right direction in
protecting victims, protecting witnesses to
5665
crimes, particularly, as Senator Balboni said,
in protecting victims of domestic violence.
So in that, I think Senator Balboni
has done a good job on this bill. Whether or
not there should be guidelines for the
discretion of the judge remains to be seen.
But certainly I think the way it's drafted now
is a good step in this state, protecting those
witnesses and those victims who otherwise have
a very difficult time in getting on the stand
and responding to those questions.
So, Senator Balboni, I think this
is a good bill. Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Does any
other Senator wish to be heard on this bill?
Debate is closed.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Dollinger, to explain his vote.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Just briefly,
5666
Mr. President.
I appreciate the questioning of my
colleague Senator Gentile, who I think
highlighted a number of the issues in this
bill.
I would just add one caution. I
guess I'm always afraid of the use of the
phrase "open court," only because that may
lead to the temptation on the part of judges
to try to close the courtrooms. And whenever
I see that phrase -- I'm not so sure it's a
phrase of art, I can't remember seeing a lot
of that phrase, "open court," in our CPL, our
Criminal Procedure Law, and my fear is that
may be an inducement to the courts to start
closing our courtrooms at any stage of the
criminal process.
I believe that the open court
process, the right to a public trial and the
right of the public to know what goes on in
our courtrooms is, oh, so critical. And I
would just want to make sure that this is
never interpreted to suggest that the judges
in this state should be closing portions of
the criminal proceedings simply because
5667
there's a chance that the witness's name,
address, location and other information might
be disclosed.
So with that caveat, I'm still
going to vote in favor, Mr. President. Record
me in the affirmative.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Dollinger will be recorded in the affirmative.
Announce the results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Mr.
President. With unanimous consent, I'd like
to be recorded in the negative on Calendar
Number 291.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Without
objection, Senator Duane will be recorded in
the negative on Calendar 291.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President,
would you please call up Calendar Number 252.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read Calendar 252.
5668
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
252, by Senator Skelos, Senate Print 399, an
act to amend the Family Court Act and the
Criminal Procedure Law, in relation to the age
of child witnesses.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Explanation,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Skelos, an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR SKELOS: I'm delighted to
give an explanation and expound on Senator
Balboni's explanation of my bill during the
previous debate.
Presently, a child victim of a
sexual offense and/or incest who is 12 years
old or less is allowed to give testimony in a
criminal proceeding by means of live, two-way,
closed-circuit television if the child is
declared vulnerable by the court. This bill
merely raises the child witness age from 12 to
16.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Hassell-Thompson.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank
you, Mr. President. If the Senator will yield
5669
for some questions.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Skelos, do you yield to some questions?
SENATOR SKELOS: Yes, Mr.
President.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank
you, Senator. This is a bill that very
obviously I'm not going to be able to vote
against, but it is a bill that I need you to
help me with some questions, if you will.
Through you, Mr. President.
The sponsor's memo cites the
increased incidence of teenage sexual victims
as the reason for the change in age. Do you
have any numbers of studies to show why we
have changed the age from age 12 now to age
16?
SENATOR SKELOS: Well, there was
a couple of incidences in Nassau County where
14-year-old girls that had been raped were
forced to be cross-examined by the rapist, the
alleged rapist, in the courtroom, in his
presence, because he had opted to defend
himself. This was a traumatic experience.
And, Senator, many times we don't
5670
necessarily need statistics and studies to
pass good legislation. A lot of it comes from
our own thinking, our own philosophy, our own
heart, our own common experience. And I think
this legislation, which has passed unanimously
in the Senate four times noncontroversial, is
certainly legislation that is good legislation
to protect young children that have been
sexually victimized. And they should not have
to be subject to being in the courtroom with
their -- the aggressor.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank
you, Senator.
On the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Hassell-Thompson, on the bill.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Mr.
President, I'm in appreciation of the
sensitivity of Senator Skelos in his approach
to this bill. And I certainly, like him,
would not need to have a long list of
statistics in order to make me want to make
those kinds of changes.
The reason I posed the question,
however, had a lot to do with the fact that
5671
this legislation seems to turn on whether a
young person, someone between the ages of 13
and 16, is considered vulnerable under the
law. And I think that this bill raises a
number of important issues relating to how
young people are treated under our criminal
justice system, not just as victims but as
offenders as well.
In researching this legislation, I
found that this house, as recently as 1998,
approved the Juvenile Justice Accountability
and Procedural Reform Act. And among its
provisions, that legislation would have
expanded the coverage of current law to make
12-year-olds eligible to be prosecuted as an
adult where certain Class A felonies had been
committed. And also, it expanded the class of
designated felonies for which youths under the
age of 18 could be prosecuted as adults to
include a long laundry list of felony
offenses.
I hope my colleagues see, as I do,
the obvious incongruity between the bill
before the house today and the so-called
Juvenile Justice Reform Bill this house has
5672
approved in the past.
And while I share Senator Skelos's
concern about the need to protect young people
who are victims of sexual crimes, and I would
mean to add that even though the numbers of
sexual crimes that we hear most prevalently
about are females, we have a very, very high
number of males who also are sexually abused.
And so knowing that, any sexual offenses are
heinous crimes and the very nature of the
offense means that we should be treating it in
a special fashion by prosecutors in the
courts.
But I can't help but be disturbed
by the mixed message that this house sends to
the public when it passes legislation of this
nature while also lowering the minimum age at
which a young person can be prosecuted.
So let's be clear. Young people
are not simply small adults who can be treated
in the same way under the law. Young people,
especially those in their early and mid-teens,
are not yet adults. And we who make the laws
must keep this simple, undeniable fact in mind
when we write the laws.
5673
In a day and an age when the
Columbine type of school shootings have become
all too commonplace, we have do remember the
inherent vulnerability of young people, no
matter whether they are victims or the perps.
They are not adults and cannot be treated in
the same way as adults.
So I thank you, Senator Skelos, for
reminding us of that fact. And know that I
will be supportive of this bill, primarily
because in these situations teenagers are
already been victimized once and by having to
appear before the court and before their
accusee, they are victimized again.
But know that it continues to
disturb me when there is not a balance between
how we speak about young adults one day and
how we speak about them another day.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Gentile.
SENATOR GENTILE: Yes, Mr.
President. If Senator Skelos would yield to
some questions.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Skelos, do you yield to a question?
5674
SENATOR SKELOS: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR GENTILE: Thank you, Mr.
President. Through you.
Senator, obviously when this
legislation was first passed in 1985, this was
groundbreaking legislation, because in effect
what it does is take a party outside the
courtroom to render testimony outside the
courtroom, and in that case being the
vulnerable child witness who is not physically
in the courtroom but somewhere outside the
courtroom rendering testimony.
Certainly we've talked about the
implications for the child witness and why we
think that needs to be done. I'm just
curious, Senator, from your study of this bill
and this law, whether or not we have the
implications here, the constitutional
implications of a defendant having the right
under the constitution to face their accusers,
particularly in cases where it might be a
sexual abuse or a rape or things of that
5675
nature.
Has that issue been addressed and
resolved as to the constitutional implication
of having the defendant and the person
testifying in separate rooms?
SENATOR SKELOS: There's a very
simple answer to that, if I may, Mr.
President. The law has been held
constitutional for 12 and under. All we're
doing is saying 16 and under. So obviously it
would continue, in my opinion, to be
constitutional legislation. All we're doing
is raising the age. That's it.
SENATOR GENTILE: But if you will
continue to yield, by that I -
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Hold on.
Hold on.
SENATOR GENTILE: Okay, I'm
sorry.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Skelos, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR SKELOS: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
5676
SENATOR GENTILE: By that I take
it there have been constitutional challenges,
that the court has upheld the fact that this
is a constitutional way of providing
testimony?
SENATOR SKELOS: I'm told by
learned counsel Maryland v. Craig.
SENATOR GENTILE: That's a U.S.
case or -
SENATOR SKELOS: U.S. Supreme
Court.
SENATOR GENTILE: So I assume
that under that case -
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator,
do you wish Senator Skelos to continue to
yield?
SENATOR SKELOS: Yes, I will
continue to yield, saying that it is
constitutional. It is now 16 years later; it
is still in effect for 12 and under. So as
you assuming something -- and we know at times
we shouldn't assume, but I'm assuming that it
is totally constitutional and we should be
focused on raising it from 12 to 16. This is
what this legislation is doing, 12 to 16.
5677
SENATOR GENTILE: And certainly I
understand exactly what this legislation -
but it comes within the context of the larger
bill, which is setting up this system of
vulnerable child witnesses. Am I correct?
SENATOR SKELOS: It's not a
larger bill, it's -- if I may, Mr. President,
it's existing law.
SENATOR GENTILE: The law. I
should say the law.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Gentile, can I ask you please to address the
chair.
SENATOR SKELOS: The bill that
we're passing today changes from 12 to 16.
SENATOR GENTILE: Through you,
Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Skelos, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR SKELOS: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR GENTILE: Under this
bill, is the vulnerable child witness limited
5678
only to the prosecutor, or is that available
to either side or the court sui sponte?
SENATOR SKELOS: Either side can
make a motion. Either side can make a motion.
SENATOR GENTILE: So it can be
any party, any party including the judge, as
sui sponte, to render this decision?
SENATOR SKELOS: Yes.
SENATOR GENTILE: Through you,
Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Skelos, will you continue to yield?
SENATOR SKELOS: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR GENTILE: And again,
Senator, I'm talking about not only your bill
to increase it, but the law itself, is it
limited only to the trial phase, a criminal
trial phase?
SENATOR SKELOS: If I may, Mr.
President, again, I'd like to narrow it down
to the issue of 12 to 16. The existing law is
the law. If you disagree and, in your
5679
opinion, a 15- or a 14-year-old girl, like I
mentioned, that is raped should have to sit in
front of her accusee and be cross-examined by
him, then you should vote against this
legislation.
In my opinion, raising the age to
16 is appropriate. And this is what this is
about. It's not -- the constitutionality of
the bill has obviously been decided. The
issue here should narrow it down in focus, 12
to 16. That's what this legislation does.
SENATOR GENTILE: In that realm,
then -
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Skelos, I think Senator Gentile in his
eagerness for this debate has forgotten to ask
if you would yield.
SENATOR SKELOS: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR GENTILE: Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. President. In that realm,
then, Senator, I obviously was not here in
1985 when the law passed making it up to age
12. You may have been, I don't know offhand.
5680
SENATOR SKELOS: I was here. But
I believe I've heard you mention on numerous
occasions how you've prosecuted cases in the
DA's office, so I'm sure you would be very
familiar with this legislation.
SENATOR GENTILE: Absolutely.
And that dovetails into my question. I'm
curious and always have been why it had been
12, what caused the law to be made at 12, and
now that we're revisiting it and increasing it
to 16.
SENATOR SKELOS: You would have
to ask the sponsor of the bill back in 1985.
I'm not familiar with who that was. But as
you know, we amend bills constantly in this
Legislature. And this is what this bill is
about, changing it from 12 to 16.
SENATOR GENTILE: Then, Senator,
if I may -
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Skelos, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR SKELOS: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
5681
SENATOR GENTILE: I'll ask you on
the other end, then. Why is it that you've
determined that 16 as opposed to 17 would be
the appropriate age at which to cut off the
availability of a vulnerable child witness?
SENATOR SKELOS: Because I feel
that -- if I could, Mr. President -- that this
is an appropriate age. And perhaps down the
road, a few years from now, if I think in
another bill, or another member does, that it
should be raised even higher, as some states
have done, we could certainly consider that
legislation. Right now, it's 12 to 16.
SENATOR GENTILE: Great. Thank
you, Senator.
On the bill, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Gentile, on the bill.
SENATOR GENTILE: Mr. President,
I appreciate Senator Skelos's discussion. And
certainly he is correct, this bill deals with
increasing the age from 12 to 16.
I might say that I have always been
perplexed by the fact that the original
legislation limited vulnerable child witnesses
5682
to the -- up to the age of 12.
Back in 1985, I was one of the
first prosecutors in the County of Queens to
use this new legislation in putting on a
vulnerable child witness via closed-circuit
television. I've also had the unfortunate
experience of having 14-year-olds and
15-year-olds who were just as vulnerable as
the 12-year-old that I put on the stand not
eligible for this law and not eligible to be
declared vulnerable child witnesses, and they
were as vulnerable as the 10- and the
11-year-olds that I put on the stand via
closed-circuit television.
So this legislation addresses an
issue that has bothered me for many, many,
many years, that it should be at least to 16,
and maybe even more. So, Senator Skelos, you
hit a home run on this one. And I can go home
happy now knowing that I voted for it.
Thank you, Senator.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Will Senator
Skelos yield to a question, just one, Mr.
5683
President?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Skelos, do you yield?
SENATOR SKELOS: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: The
definition of vulnerable -- and I know there's
case law emerging on that. But why would we
have any age restriction at all? Why wouldn't
the court be able to say if you're 24 or 25 or
if you suffer from a psychiatric illness or a
psychological impairment, why wouldn't you
just abolish the age limit and say if you're
determined to be vulnerable, in essence, you
engage in an enormously stressful or an
unreasonable pressure of testifying, why
wouldn't you just make it -- forget the age
specific and just say if there's a
determination of vulnerability regardless of
age, you should be able to testify?
SENATOR SKELOS: Well, first of
all, we're dealing with sexual offense cases
right now.
5684
And I don't know the answer to
that, Senator Dollinger. Maybe there are
other sections in the Mental Hygiene Law or
the Penal Law that I'm not familiar with that
would permit this. But right now, I'm focused
on this one section of the law.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Mr. President. Just briefly on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Dollinger, on the bill.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I think I've
voted in favor of this in the past. I'm going
to vote in favor of it again.
But I think the point that Senator
Skelos makes with this legislation is a
correct one. In instances in which sexual
offenses, sexual predators are involved, it
seems to me that the declaration of
vulnerability involves so many factors -- it
can the psychiatric impairment, psychological
impairments, physical intimidation, a whole
gamut of potential reasons why a witness would
be determined to be vulnerable.
And if the court reaches that
determination, then the otherwise requirement
5685
that they actually appear in the courtroom and
testify in front of a jury and all the defense
counsel and the prosecution and, of course,
the judge, it seems to me that we should make
the determination of vulnerability based on
the fact that this will have an enormous and
unwarranted impact on the witness rather than
simply setting it at a specific age.
I'm going to vote in favor of this
bill because I don't mind expanding the
protection from children between ages 12 and
16. But I would suggest to Senator Skelos
that the amendment that he talked about in his
discussion with Senator Gentile about perhaps
expanding it to other ages or why it's
age-specific, I don't think it should be.
I think we should say that anybody
who is vulnerable -- that means uniquely
threatened by testifying because of
psychological impairment or other
impairments -- if they are vulnerable, then
they should be in a position where they don't
have to testify in an open courtroom because
of the enormous pressure, intimidation with
relation to these offenses, sexual offenses,
5686
that it can involve.
So I'm going to vote in favor, but
I would look forward to that day when we just
wipe out the age restriction completely and
look at vulnerability alone.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Any
other Senator 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: Ayes, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President,
if we could return to motions and resolutions,
I believe there is a resolution at the desk by
Senator Bruno. Could we have the title read
and move for its immediate adoption.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Motions
and resolutions.
5687
The Secretary will read the title
of the resolution.
THE SECRETARY: Legislative
resolution by Senators Bruno, Velella,
Maltese, and Mendez, Number 1379, urging the
New York State Congressional Delegation to
seek the permanent cessation of all United
States Navy military training activities on
the Puerto Rican Island of Vieques.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
question is on the resolution -- Senator
Mendez.
SENATOR MENDEZ: Mr. President, I
really want to congratulate Senator Bruno and
my colleagues who are in this resolution,
because it speaks to an issue that is of great
importance to all Puerto Ricans, whether they
reside in the island of Puerto Rico or in the
mainland.
We all feel that for 60 years the
Navy has been bombarding continuously the
Island of Vieques. The environment has been
totally reduced to practically nothing.
Because of the trade winds, the winds bring
the chemicals of those bombs into the area
5688
where the people live in the island. And that
explains why so many people are suffering from
cancer in that island.
We visited, with the Governor,
Vieques, and we saw house after house how the
relatives of people who live there are
suffering, have been suffering from cancer in
inordinate fashion.
And we all Puerto Ricans feel that
if in fact the security of this nation, this
nation that we love so very much, would depend
on keeping the bombings going on, we will just
swallow hard and keep -- and don't do anything
to prevent the bombing. But that is not the
case.
In fact, let me tell you, Japan,
who is a less wealthy country than ours, built
an island to engage in that sort of training
for their troops.
Also, Puerto Ricans, Puerto Rican
men and women have fought in every single war
that our country has engaged in. They have
defended the freedoms that we all enjoy with
valor and with dignity. Many have died.
So it is kind of poignant to me and
5689
to many other Puerto Ricans to see that our
co-American citizens are engaging in that kind
of a situation.
So I am most appreciative, Mr.
President, of Senator Bruno and the other
colleagues that in fact are following the
leadership of Governor Pataki and joining us
in fighting for something that is just, for
something to stop that bombing. Because the
nation doesn't need it, and the arrogance of
the Navy should be stopped.
I thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
question is on the resolution. All those in
favor signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Opposed,
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
resolution is adopted.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President,
if a member wishes to be on the resolution,
they should notify the desk, please.
5690
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Members
wishing to be placed on the resolution, please
notify the desk.
Could I ask Senators wishing to go
on the resolution to come up to the desk after
we get through the session.
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
would it be easier for all of us to come up?
Or might it be possible -- all of us here in
the Minority would like to be on the
resolution.
SENATOR SKELOS: No objection.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: All
right. Senator Skelos, should we follow the
custom of anyone who doesn't want to be on
the -- for the Minority, I'm saying. No?
SENATOR SKELOS: No, why don't we
do it if you wish to be on the resolution, you
should notify the desk. The Minority has made
a request that all members be on it. We have
no objection to that.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: All
right. All Minority members will be placed on
the resolution. Other Senators inform the
5691
desk if they wish to be on the resolution.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Is there any
housekeeping at the desk?
I'm sorry, if we could return to
motions, Senator Dollinger has a motion.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Yes, Mr.
President. I hereby give notice, as required
by Rule XI, that I will move the Senate to
amend and add a new rule, XI, which pertains
to the ethical standards for members,
employees and officers of the New York State
Senate.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
notice is received, and it will be entered in
the Journal, Senator.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Is there any
housekeeping at the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: No,
there is not, Senator. It's clean.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President,
there being no further business, I move we
5692
adjourn until Monday, April 23rd, at
3:00 p.m., intervening days being legislative
days.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: On
motion, the Senate stands adjourned until
Monday, April 23rd, at 3:00 p.m. Intervening
days will be legislative days.
(Whereupon, at 4:15 p.m., the
Senate adjourned.)