Regular Session - May 14, 2001
6966
NEW YORK STATE SENATE
THE STENOGRAPHIC RECORD
ALBANY, NEW YORK
May 14, 2001
3:11 p.m.
REGULAR SESSION
LT. GOVERNOR MARY O. DONOHUE, President
STEVEN M. BOGGESS, Secretary
6967
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 please
rise and repeat with me the Pledge of
Allegiance.
(Whereupon, the assemblage recited
the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.)
THE PRESIDENT: In the absence of
clergy, may we bow our heads in a moment of
silence, please.
(Whereupon, the assemblage
respected a moment of silence.)
THE PRESIDENT: Reading of the
Journal.
THE SECRETARY: In Senate,
Sunday, May 13, the Senate met pursuant to
adjournment. The Journal of Saturday, May 12,
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.
6968
Messages from the Governor.
Reports of standing committees.
Reports of select committees.
Communications and reports from
state officers.
Motions and resolutions.
Senator Farley.
SENATOR FARLEY: Thank you, Madam
President.
This is a motion to amend a bill
which was recalled from the Assembly. I wish
to call up Senator Volker's bill, Senate Print
1697, which was recalled from the Assembly,
which is now at the desk. If the Secretary
will read the title.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
108, by Senator Volker, Senate Print 1697, an
act to amend the Penal Law.
SENATOR FARLEY: I now move,
Madam President, to reconsider the vote by
which this bill was passed.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will call the roll upon reconsideration.
6969
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 42.
SENATOR FARLEY: Madam President,
I now offer the following amendments.
On behalf of Senator Kuhl, Madam
President, on page 35 I offer the following
amendments to Calendar 221, Senate Print 2905,
and I ask that that bill retain its place.
THE PRESIDENT: The amendments
are received, and the bill will retain its
place on the Third Reading Calendar.
SENATOR FARLEY: Madam President,
on page 62 I offer the following amendments to
Calendar 613, Senate Print 1219, and I ask
that that bill retain its place.
THE PRESIDENT: The amendments
are received, Senator, and the bill will
retain its place on the Third Reading
Calendar.
SENATOR FARLEY: Thank you.
Madam President, on page 68, on
behalf of Senator Maltese, on Calendar 679,
Senate Print 3122, I ask that that bill retain
its place.
THE PRESIDENT: The amendments
6970
are received, Senator, and the bill will
retain its place on the Third Reading
Calendar.
SENATOR FARLEY: Thank you, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You're welcome.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
there's a privileged resolution at the desk by
Senator Stafford. Could we have the title
read and move for its immediate adoption.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: By Senator
Stafford, Legislative Resolution Number 1813,
mourning the death of Bernard F. McPhillips,
distinguished lawyer and devoted member of his
community.
THE PRESIDENT: On the
resolution, all in favor signify by saying
aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The resolution is
6971
adopted.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
I believe there are some substitutions at the
desk. If we could make them at this time.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: On page 5,
Senator Bonacic moves to discharge, from the
Committee on Housing, Construction and
Community Development, Assembly Bill Number
6976 and substitute it for the identical
Senate Bill Number 5230, First Report Calendar
943.
And on page 4, Senator Morahan
moves to discharge, from the Committee on
Elections, Assembly Bill Number 659 and
substitute it for the identical Senate Bill
Number 4214, First Report Calendar 929.
THE PRESIDENT: Substitutions
ordered.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
if we could take up the noncontroversial
calendar.
6972
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
66, by Senator Marcellino, Senate Print 128,
an act to amend the Labor Law.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
178, by Senator Farley, Senate Print 2006, an
act to amend the Election Law and the State
Finance Law.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
198, by Member of the Assembly Magee, Assembly
Print 4935 -
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
279, by Senator Spano, Senate Print 2901, an
6973
act to amend the Labor Law.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
280, by Senator Spano, Senate Print 2930, an
act to amend the Labor Law.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
360, by Member of the Assembly Galef, Assembly
Print 3960, Concurrent Resolution of the
Senate and Assembly.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 48.
THE PRESIDENT: The resolution is
adopted.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
393, by Senator Wright, Senate Print 3930, an
act to amend the Public Service Law, in
relation to avoiding.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside,
6974
please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
400, by Senator Stafford, Senate Print 847, an
act to amend the Racing, Pari-Mutuel Wagering
and Breeding Law.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
445, by Senator Nozzolio, Senate Print 3239,
an act to amend the Executive Law.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
492, by Senator Stafford, Senate Print 3760 -
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
567, by Senator Balboni, Senate Print 856 -
6975
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
612, by Senator Larkin, Senate Print 1039, an
act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
659, by Member of the Assembly Glick, Assembly
Print Number 3535A, an act to amend Chapter
942.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
703, by Senator Farley, Senate Print 4633, an
act to amend the Banking Law and others.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
6976
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
708, by Senator LaValle, Senate Print 1210, an
act to amend the Education Law.
SENATOR BALBONI: Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Balboni.
SENATOR BALBONI: Would you
please lay that bill aside for the day.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside for the day.
SENATOR BALBONI: Thank you very
much.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Balboni,
that completes the reading of the
noncontroversial calendar.
SENATOR BALBONI: Madam
President, could we please have the reading of
the controversial calendar.
Actually, would you recognize
Senator McGee, please. Thank you.
SENATOR McGEE: Madam President,
I did not have the opportunity to say anything
on the passing of the resolution, which in
fact changes -- amends the constitution, the
Constitution of the State of New York, to make
6977
it gender-neutral.
Let me take this opportunity to say
thank you very much to my colleagues in this
great chamber. I think that this is a
magnificent step forward to indicate to the
State of New York and in fact the nation, the
United States, that men and women are created
and treated equal in the State of New York.
And I'm very pleased to be a part
of this resolution, which will now go onto the
ballot in the general election in November.
So may I say again thank you to
everyone.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read the controversial calendar.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
66, by Senator Marcellino, Senate Print 128,
an act to amend the Labor Law, in relation to
criminal penalties.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Explanation.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Marcellino, an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Thank you,
Madam President.
This bill establishes the penalty
6978
for the first violation of the Unpaid Wages
Act, which is a misdemeanor, and sets a fine
of $500 to $1,000 and an imprisonment of not
more than a year. It also increases the
penalties for a second violation, which would
become a felony under the Unpaid Wages Act, to
a fine of $1,000 to $20,000 and a jail term of
not more than a year and a day.
The original bill did not clearly
differentiate between the term of
imprisonment, between a misdemeanor and a
felony, it left -- where we increased the
fines, we did not increase the length of the
terms. So some of our legal people said that
was a confusion that could add problems if
someone was prosecuted and sentenced under
this legislation. So we added the extra day
to the felony to clearly differentiate between
the two.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, with the hope that you are
impressed with my ability to get an
explanation from Senator McGee without even
asking for it, I will now ask if Senator
6979
Marcellino would yield for a question.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Certainly.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you.
You may proceed, Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, if
you would revert back to your teaching days
and tell me if I have this correct. The year
and a day basically establishes the threshold
for the penalty, and that's the reason you put
it in, because the original bill doesn't make
it clear. Is that correct?
SENATOR MARCELLINO: That's
correct.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, if the Senator would yield for
another question.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, will you
yield for a question?
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR PATERSON: Technical
though the improvement exists, was it so
unclear the way the law it is now that we
would actually need a correction that we would
codify today?
6980
SENATOR MARCELLINO: According
to, Senator -- and, Madam President, through
you -- according to the legal people who have
spoken to us on this situation and have asked
for this bill to be passed, yes.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you.
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 2. This
act shall take effect in 30 days.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 54.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
178, by Senator Farley, Senate Print 2006, an
act to amend the Election Law and the State
Finance Law, in relation to requiring.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Explanation,
Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Farley,
6981
an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR FARLEY: Thank you, Madam
President.
This legislation would help
strengthen the regulation of the money
transmitters' industry in New York State. It
includes amendments which would ensure that
licensed money transmitters are subject to
certain general regulatory powers of the
Superintendent of Banks. It authorizes -
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Point of
order.
SENATOR FARLEY: Yeah.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Point of
order, Madam President. Is this Calendar
Number 178?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, it is,
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Just -
Senator Farley, I believe, is explaining
another bill on the calendar.
SENATOR FARLEY: Oh, I've got the
wrong bill.
Yeah, I'm explaining another bill.
Sorry. Thank you, Senator.
6982
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Your point is
well taken, Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR FARLEY: We'll be
explaining that one a little later.
This is an Election Law bill that
requires that -- this is one you've been
interested in for several years. It amends
the Election Law, and it requires that the
bond issue propositions on the state ballot
contain an estimate of the total amount to be
repaid by the taxpayers, both in principal and
interest. At present only the principal is
listed.
The bill also provides that the
descriptive documents prepared by the state
relating to the bond issue list both the
principal and the interest.
This bill passed through the Senate
in '93 and in '89, and at all times, except a
few other years, by a unanimous vote. In
those years, Senator Dollinger voted nay.
And the 2000 and '99 transcripts
and summaries of my debates with you, I have
6983
them here if you'd like to see what you said a
few years ago.
You know, actually all this tries
to do, Senator Dollinger, is to improve the
information that is available to voters when
they decide on a bond issue proposition.
Generally speaking, they're kind of shocked
when they see what the overall payback will
be. It's designed to reflect administrative
reality, providing an estimate of the total
cost.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Madam President, if Senator Farley will yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, will you
yield?
SENATOR FARLEY: Certainly.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Senator
Farley, you're correct. I've voted against
this bill in the past. I'm going to vote
against it today. But I have a technical
question about it that I don't know that I've
raised in other years.
Through you, Madam President, how
6984
is the interest rate calculated under the
bill, and who does it?
In other words, I understand your
point, Senator Farley. It's much like a
mortgage-financing statement, which, as you
know, under the Truth in Lending Act at the
federal level, you borrow $100,000 and they
have that one little number right next to
your -- you know, they say you're borrowing
$100,000, and oh, by the way, if you pay it
all back over the term of the loan, you're
actually going to pay back $250,000.
And frankly, my clients always gasp
when they see that number, but that's the cost
of borrowing money.
My question to you is, how under
your bill would the interest rate be
calculated? As you know, it can float up and
down. We could do a bond resolution in May or
June and by the time it actually is borrowed,
assuming that the voters approve it, it may
not actually be borrowed for as long as a year
or a year and a half after we pass the
resolution sending it off to the voters.
What mechanism is there in the bill
6985
to determine what the interest rate is?
Which, as you know, drastically affects the
amount of the payback.
SENATOR FARLEY: Well, I don't
know that it drastically affects it. I mean,
we know, generally speaking, what our bonds
are going off at. And I think that that's a
reasonable figure that can be tested.
Is it absolutely perfect? No. But
it will be a ballpark figure as to what the
interest rate would be and what the interest
rate over that period of time, whether it's a
30-year bond or whatever it might be.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Madam President, just on the bill. I won't -
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
on the bill.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Senator
Farley has my versions of earlier debates.
Not much has changed. Except there's one
added fact.
And that is, Senator Farley, you
may recall last year when we did the
Transportation Bond Act for this state, one of
the things I proposed was an amendment to
6986
require public disclosure of the costs of
borrowing and financing with respect to that
debt. This was unanimously rejected by all
the members of the Majority, because they for
some reason concluded that that wasn't the
right thing to do in last year's
Transportation Bond Act, when we would have
given to the voters what we were going to do
was borrow $3.1 billion.
And I think, Senator Farley, you
and I both agreed that when all was said and
done, over the 30-year term of that bond, even
though the rate was only -- I think we talked
about it -- 4 3/4 percent or 5 percent,
tax-exempt borrowing, that nonetheless, over
the course of the term of that bond, we'd end
up paying back about a billion and a half
dollars in interest costs.
So we had a chance to do it last
year, and we didn't do it. And I just -- I'm
always concerned that we talk about these
things as being good ideas, but we don't seem
to implement them. We've now done, I believe,
four bond acts since you and I had the first
debate about this bill.
6987
I think it's a good idea. I think
it would really strike a chord in New Yorkers
to realize not only how much they're going to
spend on a particular bond act but how much we
spend now.
As you know, our bond costs, our
direct bond costs for New York State as an
entity is, I believe, about $2 billion a year
that we spend just in interest payments. That
doesn't include the vast amount that we're
financing through our back-door borrowing
practice, which is another thing you and I
have talked about.
If they knew what we were doing to
pay those costs through the Dormitory
Authority and the Thruway Authority and the
Facilities Development Corporation, they would
know that that number is significantly greater
than that, perhaps as much as double if not
triple that size. We're actually paying back
somewhere between 4 and $6 billion of
interest.
The policy choice to do that is, is
that a reasonable number to pay back
considering our long-term needs. And we
6988
should be financing certainly some
appropriations and some expenses through
long-term borrowing. But the broader question
is should we disclose to the public what
interest we put on all this, what we're
paying, how much more they're paying. I
absolutely, completely agree with you.
And I will continue to vote against
this bill until we have a bond act in which we
actually do it. Because rather than vote in
the abstract for your bill, I'd rather vote in
reality for a disclosure on a bond act.
And I would just ask you, Senator
Farley, if perhaps the next time a bond act
comes to the floor and someone from this side
stands up and says, Remember Senator Farley's
very good idea? Let's put it into practice -
and yet everybody that votes in favor of this
bill today will vote against that amendment to
actually do it.
I think it's a good idea. I think
we ought to have the courage of our good ideas
and put them into practice. We get to the end
of the session, it's June, nobody wants to
deal with it, nobody wants to see that
6989
headline that says we're borrowing $3.1
billion, it's really 4.6 billion, that's what
it's going to cost to pay it back.
But I agree with you, Senator
Farley, it's the right thing to do. Let's
just do it. And until such time as we do do
it, I'm going to vote no. Simply to say I
like the idea, I'd like the reality even
better. I'll vote for the reality when it
comes along.
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
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 53. Nays,
1. Senator Dollinger recorded in the
negative.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
6990
198, by Member of the Assembly Magee, Assembly
Print Number 4935, an act to amend Chapter 668
of the Laws of 1977.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Balboni.
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, Madam
president, would you just lay this aside
temporarily, please, and go on to the next
bill.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside temporarily.
SENATOR BALBONI: Thank you.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
279, by Senator Spano, Senate Print 2901, an
act to amend the Labor Law, in relation to
providing.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Explanation,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Spano, an
explanation has been requested.
SENATOR SPANO: Yes, Madam
President.
Currently the review of the minimum
wage under the Labor Law is conducted either
upon the Commissioner of Labor's directive or
after a petition of fifty or more residents is
6991
sent off to the Department of Labor.
This legislation would direct the
Commissioner of Labor to undertake, every two
years, a review of wages that are paid
throughout the state.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Madam President. Just so I understand this
bill, what's the current time period under
which the Commissioner of Labor does that
bill -- does the investigation?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Spano,
will you yield?
SENATOR SPANO: Yes, I will
yield.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I apologize,
Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Dollinger.
And you may answer, Senator Spano.
SENATOR SPANO: Senator
Dollinger, current law requires the
commissioner to investigate the adequacy of
wages only if a petition has been filed with
6992
fifty or more signatures on there. There's no
provisions in the law right now to allow for
or to mandate that the Commissioner of Labor
would in fact do this.
This would put in place a mechanism
to require the Commissioner of Labor every two
years to make that type of report and report
its findings to the Legislature.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Madam President, if Senator Spano will
continue to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Spano,
will you yield?
SENATOR SPANO: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Is this
investigation of wage levels in the state, is
it confined simply to the commissioner's power
with respect to minimum wage, or does it
relate to the commissioner's ability to set
prevailing wages as well?
SENATOR SPANO: No, this is just
minimum wage issues, Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: And through
you, Madam President, if the sponsor will
6993
continue to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Spano,
will you yield?
SENATOR SPANO: Yes.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Could you
briefly describe for me how that investigation
is conducted, what tools the Commissioner of
Labor uses?
SENATOR SPANO: There's a number
of price indexes that the commissioner can
use, the CPIs, that have different components,
whether it be price of groceries to
construction to gasoline. There's a number
of -- dozens and dozens of statistics that
would be made available by the U.S. Department
of Labor that would -- that the commissioner
would take into account.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor will continue
to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Spano,
will you yield?
SENATOR SPANO: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Dollinger.
6994
SENATOR DOLLINGER: As I
understand this bill, one of the other changes
is that we're going to take the phrase
"maintenance" and we're going to substitute
"support of a family of three" as the criteria
for determining the adequacy of the prevailing
wage.
Could you explain to me why that
determination of a three-member family is the
criteria for determining it?
SENATOR SPANO: In looking at the
criteria that the commissioner would have to
take into account for making a report and
finding to the Legislature, much of those
reports are written in such a way where they
talk about -- instead of maintenance, they
talk about a family of three.
So in order for the commissioner to
maintain some consistency in the accuracy of
the information as it's sent to us and then -
to the commissioner and then to us, we felt it
was important to be consistent with those
guidelines.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor will continue
6995
to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, will you
yield?
SENATOR SPANO: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: The bill
also -- current law also includes reference to
the health of the persons. It's not just for
the wage level of -- to support -
"maintenance" is the phrase now used. You're
going to substitute "family of three." But
you're also going to substitute a provision
that talks about the health of the person in a
region.
And my question is, does that mean
that the Health Commissioner will evaluate the
cost of health insurance in the bill?
SENATOR SPANO: What section of
the bill are you referring to, Senator
Dollinger?
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Well, I
assume this is Bill Number 279; correct?
SENATOR SPANO: All right. No,
no, I see it. In -- in -- that is the -
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I believe I'm
6996
making reference to -- through you, Madam
President, I'm making reference to the
provision at lines 8 through 10.
SENATOR SPANO: The reference to
protecting the health of the persons employed
is current law. We're not changing that.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Correct. But
through you, Madam President, you're changing
the phrase "occupation or occupations" into
"regions."
SENATOR SPANO: This goes back to
the same answer as previously. All of the
statistical information that we receive from
U.S. Department of Labor tells us that we
would be better equipped to make intelligent
decisions relative to all of that information
if we maintain some consistency.
This is one of those
recommendations that frankly was presented to
us by the AFL-CIO as the way that they feel
would put us in a better position to make
judgments on the working men and women across
the state.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor will continue
6997
to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Spano,
will you yield?
SENATOR SPANO: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Do you
envision, Senator Spano, that this bill would
be the first step down the road to a regional
minimum wage established in this state in
which the minimum wage would be differentiated
depending on where you lived in the state?
SENATOR SPANO: Under current
law, the commissioner has that option right
now.
I don't know if that's a direction
that we want to see the state going, frankly,
in terms of establishing that type of
differential. But the commissioner could,
under current law, move forward in that
direction right now.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: A final
question, Madam President -
SENATOR SPANO: And that would
all be part of the recommendation, Senator
6998
Dollinger, and the findings after he or she
conducts that investigation.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, will you
yield for a question? A final question.
SENATOR SPANO: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I just want
to make sure I understand. Current law
provides that minimum wage is calculated
basically by occupation. That's what the
current law reads. And you're substituting -
you're removing the occupational
classification and substituting the phrase
"region."
Could you just explain to me why
are we -- is the commissioner not going to be
required to collect it by occupation and
simply by region, or will we keep that old
occupation relationship for our minimum wage?
SENATOR SPANO: The only reason
we changed that, Senator Dollinger, is to
maintain the consistency. The information is
given to us, very often, by the U.S.
Department of Labor by region. So it would
make sense for us to analyze and make reports
6999
to the Legislature by regions as well. And
that's why we changed it.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Madam President. Just briefly on the bill.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
on the bill, Senator.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I always find
it's interesting to read these bills. I'm
going to vote in favor of this bill, but I do
so with two cautions.
First of all, I think that the
change that Senator Spano is talking about,
which is taking an old-time phrase like
"maintenance" and substituting some standard
for that maintenance -- the support of a
family of three -- I would just suggest, Madam
President, that that isn't enough. Support
for a family of three is not going to be
enough to significantly drive the minimum wage
in this state to a point where it will really
do the job that needs to be done.
And I would suggest that simply
supporting a family of three is not enough. I
would change the criteria, if I had had time
to do an amendment, if those amendments might
7000
be germane -- which Lord knows, under these
rules these days, I'm never quite sure whether
they will be. But I would suggest that doing
it for a family of three is not enough. We
ought to look to a family of five, given the
enormous responsibilities that families
encounter.
Because it's not just the number of
family members. It can easily be the
responsibilities for adults and parents. It
can be other responsibilities outside the home
beyond the family members that drive up the
cost of keeping a family in New York.
And I would suggest that while I'm
going to vote in favor of this bill, I don't
want anybody to interpret the fact that I
believe the minimum wage ought to be pegged
simply for a household of three. It should be
pegged higher than that.
And the last thing I would just
suggest -- I highlighted it in my question
with Senator Spano -- is that if what we're
going to do is break down this state into
regions and start collecting data on regions,
so that what we might someday end up driving
7001
this toward is a minimum wage based on the
region of the state in which you live, which
would then put competitive disadvantages and
other problems into the way we administer the
minimum wage, I don't want to be a part of
that.
I understand from Senator Spano
that this is done to create a correspondence
with the way the federal government reports
this data. But I for one, by voting to change
from an occupational-based evaluation to a
regional-based evaluation, do not want my vote
to be interpreted as avoiding the consequence
of a statewide minimum wage, which I think is
one of the things that defines us as a state.
And if we someday get a proposal
for regional minimum wages, I think that would
be enormously counterproductive,
counterproductive to our regions in competing
against one another and counterproductive to
the people of this state and the community of
interests that binds them together.
So, Senator Spano, I understand
this bill -- I think I understand it. And
with those two caveats, I'm going to vote in
7002
favor of it. But next time around, let's
think about raising the family from three to
five and maybe getting this question of
regional collection of data better qualified
so that it doesn't lead us down the path to a
regional minimum wage.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Oppenheimer.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: I'd just
like to speak on the bill.
I understand what my colleague
Senator Dollinger is saying, and I perfectly
well agree that the minimum wage is absurdly
low and that it has to be moved up
considerably.
But I have to speak on behalf of
this study of -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, would
you like the sponsor to yield?
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: I said I
wanted to speak on the bill, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: All right, you
may proceed on the bill.
7003
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: But I
really have to speak out on this issue of the
adequacy of wages in different regions.
Because very often I am told:
Well, your wages are so high, for example, for
your teachers in Westchester County, it's just
drawing people from all over to Westchester
County. Well, the fact is the cost of living
is so much higher that, were we not to pay
this amount of money, we would not have any
teachers in our county.
Because you can't live in our
county when you see that the median cost of a
house is $440,000. So how are you going to
live unless you have a wage that is going to
support your living in that county?
And, unfortunately, what has
happened is that we have very few people who
are working at lower-wage salaries; i.e.,
let's say median -- middle income, middle
income. They cannot live in the county
anymore. So they are living in a variety of
counties all around us, which are causing
incredible problems on our transportation
networks. And crossing bridges to come into
7004
our county, you have to count on one hour's
wait to get into the county. It's an absurd
situation.
So I think we really -- there is a
great need to regionalize some of our costs
and to see what the cost of living is in that
county so that we can pay a wage that is
reasonable for people who want to work and
live within the county.
I'll be voting yes.
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
January.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
280, by Senator Spano, Senate Print 2930, an
act to amend the Labor Law, in relation to
7005
registration requirements.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Spano, an
explanation has been requested.
SENATOR SPANO: A couple of years
ago we passed a bill that would require that
apparel manufacturers who intentionally fail
to comply -- require apparel manufacturers to
maintain some registration requirements.
What this bill does is make those
people who would knowingly permit those
violations be guilty of a Class B misdemeanor.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, if Senator Spano would just yield
for a couple of questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, will you
yield?
SENATOR SPANO: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, when
you talk about those people who knowingly
would do this, it's really more the board of
the corporation, rather than attacking the
7006
corporation as a whole, which may have
defaulted and gone out of business and then
you have a shell of a corporation or you have
assets that are transferred to some other
corporation and the individuals who were
involved have shielded themselves from
culpability.
So what you're saying is that we're
going to put the onus of responsibility
squarely on the individuals who took the
responsibility; is that correct?
SENATOR SPANO: That's correct.
We will -- we will -- the Class B misdemeanor
will be held against the officers of the
corporation.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, if the Senator would yield for
another question.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Spano?
SENATOR SPANO: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, quite
often in these types of corporations the board
delineates itself by dividing a lot of the
7007
responsibility and has a supervising executive
board, which are usually the officers, that I
think too many times -- or at least it's been
written about in a lot of literature on the
operation of corporate boards, particularly in
the profit area, where the executives are
making most of the decisions. And so some of
those whose names may be listed as members of
the board are really not privy to that
information.
Does your bill at all distinguish
in terms of prosecution between those who are
aware and those who are not?
SENATOR SPANO: Yes, this bill
would be directed at the specific individuals
who knowingly make the decision to violate the
law.
SENATOR PATERSON: 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 2. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
7008
November.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
198, by Member of the Assembly Magee, Assembly
Print Number 4935, an act to amend Chapter 668
of the Laws of 1977.
SENATOR DUANE: Explanation,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator LaValle,
an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Madam
President, this is a two-year extender for
the -- what we call the heart bill for the
volunteer firefighters. This would extend the
law that has consistently sunsetted every two
years, would -- would expire in the year 2003.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor would yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
SENATOR LAVALLE: Yes.
7009
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Duane, with a question.
SENATOR DUANE: I'm curious, the
bill is not very lengthy. And I'm wondering
if the sponsor could just help me out a little
bit with the -- more specifics about the
disability, what that is, and what's meant by
malfunction of the heart or coronary arteries.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Senator, I'd be
delighted to.
I was the sponsor of this
legislation in the year 1977 when it became
law. Before 1977, volunteer firefighters,
under the Volunteer Firemen's Benefit Law,
VFBL, were not eligible for compensation if,
while fighting a fire, they suffered a heart
attack and died.
Under the Volunteer Firemen's
Benefit Law, it provides for disabilities for
firefighters. And of course the families, the
widows of firefighters tried to put in claims,
and of course the insurance companies
disregarded them because it was not viewed as
a disability.
And, for paid firefighters, there
7010
was a heart bill where a paid firefighter who
died while fighting a fire was able -- the
widow was able to receive compensation.
And so what we did is to say, under
the law, that where a firefighter introduced
evidence that they suffered a malfunction of
their heart that caused them to be disabled or
to die, and, number two, that the disease or
malfunction resulted from duties and
activities of the volunteer fire person while
they were engaged in the performance of their
duties.
And so that's what the bill laid
out, a very specific protocol that had to be
established in order to receive benefits under
the Volunteer Firemen's Benefit Law, whether
they were disabled, just had a heart attack
and survived, or had a heart attack and died.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator LaValle,
will you yield for a question?
SENATOR LAVALLE: Yes, I will.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
7011
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Who is
responsible for providing the evidence that
shows that the damage was not due to the job?
In other words, the -
SENATOR LAVALLE: If -- as I
indicated in the first part of my remarks, the
claimant introduces that they had a heart
attack, number one. Number two, it was -
they received this heart attack while in the
performance of their duties.
On the other hand, if the insurance
company wants to show that it was some other
reason, then they must show by substantial
evidence that the evidence has shown, contrary
to the fact, that it was not done in the
performance of their duties. Or they could
show, number two, that the injury or death
resulted because the volunteer was
intoxicated. Or, number three, that the death
had nothing to do with the fact that they
suffered a coronary, but it was because of
some willful act that the volunteer did that
brought their death or their injury, having
nothing to do with the heart or coronary
7012
disease.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator LaValle?
SENATOR LAVALLE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: In that the bill
has been extended since 1977, I'm wondering
whether or not any statistics have been kept
on how many firefighters have used this
benefit and how many firefighters had the
benefits disapproved.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Senator, I
don't have any statistics.
But one of the reasons why we
sunset this legislation is to ensure that the
claims that are being filed are legitimate
claims, that it is not abuse.
And I can tell you that -- I don't
believe that there are any memos in opposition
to this legislation. So that means that the
insurers are satisfied that there is not abuse
to this law by volunteer firefighters.
7013
SENATOR DUANE: Through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator LaValle,
will you yield?
SENATOR LAVALLE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: I was under the
impression that the bill also covers, in
addition to a heart attack, chronic artery
disease. Is that one of the areas that's
covered in the legislation as well?
SENATOR LAVALLE: Yes.
SENATOR DUANE: And through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: I appreciate the
comment that there are no memos in opposition.
But I am wondering whether NYCOM,
the New York Conference of Mayors, has ever
taken a position in opposition to it in the
7014
past, to the sponsor's memory.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Senator, as I
had indicated, this has been extended -- was
put into law in '77 and extended every two
years since. To the best of my knowledge,
there have only been memos in support, from
the Association of Fire Districts, from FASNY,
and from the State Chiefs Association.
I have not seen, nor do I recall,
memos in opposition.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you.
Madam President, on the bill.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
on the bill, Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you.
I don't in any way want to make it
unnecessarily difficult for firefighters or
survivors of firefighters who have died in the
line of duty of fighting fires or who have
been permanently disabled from getting
benefits that are due to them.
However, I do think, though, that
the burden of proof should be reversed and
that the person claiming the benefit should
have to prove that their disability was due to
7015
what had happened to them on the job.
I am also concerned -- and I don't
know for sure, but it seems to me that
different -- smaller cities and towns around
the state might have to be incurring more of a
cost than they should, even while not wanting
to make it more difficult to recruit people to
volunteer firefighters' offices.
I'm going to vote against this,
even though I do think that we have to make it
possible for a larger pool of people, for a
whole host of different conditions, be able to
get disability or tax-free disability
benefits. However, I do think, though, that
the responsibility should be on the person
who's getting the benefits to prove that they
deserve it because of what happened on the
job.
So with somewhat mixed emotions,
because these are volunteer firefighters, I'm
going to be voting in the negative on it,
Madam President. Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any other
member wish to be heard on this bill?
Then the debate is closed.
7016
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 57. Nays,
1. Senator Duane recorded in the negative.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
393, by Senator Wright, Senate Print 3930, an
act to amend the Public Service Law, in
relation to avoiding.
SENATOR ONORATO: Explanation,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Wright,
an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR WRIGHT: Thank you, Madam
President.
The bill this afternoon amends the
Public Service Law. There's currently a
provision in the Public Service Law that
requires six months' notice for a change in
terms of the county systems. This changes
that provision so that it no longer requires
7017
six months but is left to the discretion of
the commission to direct the date or order
that it be effective immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Onorato.
SENATOR ONORATO: Madam
President, will the sponsor yield to some
questions?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Wright,
will you yield?
SENATOR WRIGHT: I will, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR ONORATO: Senator, why
was it necessary to put this notice
requirement into statute in the first place
back in 1910? What need did it meet?
SENATOR WRIGHT: Well, Senator,
since neither one of us were here then, I'm
told that the rationale for it was to deal
with the systems that were in place in those
days. And of course that was essentially a
manual accounting system, and would therefore
require significant changes. And an automatic
six-month provision was built into the system
7018
to allow for sufficient notice and time to
make the necessary changes.
That of course is not necessary in
today's age of modern technology and
computerization.
SENATOR ONORATO: If the Senator
will continue to yield, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Wright,
will you yield?
SENATOR WRIGHT: I will, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Onorato.
SENATOR ONORATO: Why is it
necessary to replace an outdated statute with
another statute? If we can deregulate the
entire electric industry without a statute, it
seems unnecessary to statutorily mandate a
deadline for a required accounting change.
Why not just repeal the statute and require
that the accounting change comply with the
federal requirements?
SENATOR WRIGHT: That's a very
good question, Senator. I asked the same one
of my counsel.
7019
And basically the answer was that
there are two accounting systems at the
present time, one that is developed by the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC,
that is applicable to gas and electric; the
second, which is a uniform system of accounts
established by the FCC applicable to
telecommunications.
New York has adopted conformance
with one and not the other, so we are at a
point that we are between systems. And
therefore, the changes made at the federal
level are then adopted and authorized by the
Public Service Commission.
SENATOR ONORATO: If the Senator
will continue to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, will you
yield?
SENATOR WRIGHT: I will, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR ONORATO: Senator Wright,
are you aware of any objection from Bell
Atlantic or Verizon regarding this particular
legislation?
7020
SENATOR WRIGHT: I'm sorry, Madam
President, I didn't hear that.
SENATOR ONORATO: Are you aware
of any opposition from Bell Atlantic or
Verizon regarding this piece of legislation?
SENATOR WRIGHT: No, I am not,
Madam President.
SENATOR ONORATO: If he'll
continue to yield, Madam President.
SENATOR WRIGHT: I will, Madam
President.
SENATOR ONORATO: What kind of
accounting changes are required by the federal
government?
SENATOR WRIGHT: I'm not familiar
with the specific changes themselves, Senator.
But it's a uniform set of
accounting standards, trying to apply it to
all of the systems nationally, since we're
trying to move to a competitive market and
want to create a level playing field for all
of the participants.
SENATOR ONORATO: Through you,
Madam President.
SENATOR WRIGHT: I will continue
7021
to yield, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Onorato.
SENATOR ONORATO: I have two more
questions.
Senator, do the new accounting
methods improve the ability of the Public
Service Commission to monitor if market power
abuse is being exercised?
SENATOR WRIGHT: Frankly, I don't
know, Senator, whether or not it would enable
them to monitor market power. It certainly
would be beneficial in terms of being able to
compare the financial information of
respective utilities.
And to the extent that in that
comparison and reviewing that data, that can
reveal the ability to drive market forces, it
probably would be beneficial. But I don't
know that that's the cause and effect
directly.
Secondarily, I think you'll find
that the ISO, as an oversight organization,
will spend greater time looking at that issue
than the PSC would.
7022
SENATOR ONORATO: Through you,
Madam President, one final question.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Wright,
will you yield?
SENATOR WRIGHT: I will, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR ONORATO: Now, do these
accounting requirements apply to generators of
power or just the regulated industry that
transmits and delivers the power?
SENATOR WRIGHT: It would apply
to all of the gas and electric corporations;
therefore, generators as well as distributors.
SENATOR ONORATO: Thank you,
Senator.
SENATOR WRIGHT: Thank you.
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 3. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
7023
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
400, by Senator Stafford, Senate Print 847, an
act to amend the Racing, Pari-Mutuel Wagering
and Breeding Law, in relation to subjecting.
SENATOR ADA SMITH: Explanation.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Meier.
SENATOR MEIER: May we lay that
aside temporarily, please, and proceed in
regular order.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside temporarily.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
445, by Senator Nozzolio, Senate Print 3239,
an act to amend the Executive Law, in relation
to enacting.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Nozzolio,
an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Who asked for
the explanation, Madam President?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson
asked for the explanation.
7024
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Thank you,
Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: You're welcome.
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: My colleagues,
this measure replaces the existing outdated
interstate compact for the supervision of
probationers and parolees. It adopts a more
comprehensive, workable interstate compact and
allows New York to participate in this
compact.
That there are currently a quarter
million offenders that would be subjected to
this compact among states which engage and
join the same.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, if Senator Nozzolio would yield for
a question.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Nozzolio,
do you yield for a question?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, the
7025
concern has been raised to me about this
legislation that all of the parties involved
who are traveling are in a sense immunized
from any type of legal action taken against
them, but I'm not sure if that's actually the
case. Could you familiarize us to whether or
not that's true or not?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: I'm not sure I
understand the question, Madam President.
Would the questioner be so kind as to repeat
it or somehow rephrase it?
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, I'm talking about the members of
the commission. Are they immunized from any
type of action that would be taken legally
against them?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: I'm advised by
counsel, Madam President, that those who are
making the decisions as members of the
committee would not be subject to personal
liability for those decisions.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, if the Senator would continue to
yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Nozzolio,
7026
will you yield for a question?
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, why
would we want that to be the case?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: I'd be pleased
to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you,
Senator Nozzolio.
You may proceed with a question,
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you,
Madam President.
I was wondering if the Senator
would enlighten us as to why we would want
that to be the case. In other words, we've in
a sense created a bar to any type of action
which puts the onus of responsibility in the
law rather than in the courts.
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Madam
President, these decisions made by board
members would be indemnified under the action
here. It does not make them totally insulated
from litigation. There would be questions
raised if they did act outside of the scope of
their authority.
However, it is not inconsistent
7027
with other insulations that we provide -
judges, probation officers, parole officers,
and the like.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, if the Senator would continue to
yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Nozzolio,
will you yield for a question?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Yes, Madam
President, I'd be glad to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR PATERSON: What I'm
seeing, Senator, is in a sense a conflict -- I
think it's a conflict -- where the legislation
in a sense indemnifies officers for what would
be gross liability and yet at the same time it
immunizes them from any action taken.
So I see that as something that -
I supported the bill last year, and I suppose
I will now. But I guess I'm just saying that
I don't see that as consistent.
And so if the Senator would explain
to me and to the rest of our colleagues how we
rationalize that, it would make it a little
7028
easier for me.
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Madam
President, I'm not in the business nor will I
pretend to rationalize anything for Senator
Paterson. That he can make his own
rationalizations in any way, shape, or form
that he wishes.
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 3. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 57. Nays,
1. Senator Paterson recorded in the negative.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
492, by Senator Stafford, Senate Print 3760,
an act to amend Chapter 485 of the Laws of
2000 amending the State Finance Law.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
7029
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.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
567, by Senator Balboni, Senate Print 856, an
act to amend the Insurance Law and the Public
Health Law, in relation to the
confidentiality.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Explanation.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Balboni,
an explanation has been requested by various
colleagues.
SENATOR BALBONI: Madam
President, this bill, which has been before
the house before and has received unanimous
support, I might add, is a bill that would
amend Sections E and F of Section 2612 of the
Insurance Law to direct that insurance
companies who receive notice of orders of
7030
protection then do not disclose the address or
telephone number of the insured, so that we
can prevent domestic violence occurring as a
result of an industrious perpetrator that
would want to use the insurance policy as a
means to try to obtain information as to the
current residence or whereabouts of the
victim.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, I think this is a very good bill.
SENATOR BALBONI: Thank you.
SENATOR PATERSON: And I think
that Senator Balboni clearly thinks it's a
very good bill.
But I just want to ask Senator
Balboni, even if we pass this legislation -
and we will, probably unanimously -- do you
see my concern that I had raised previously
with Senator Nozzolio that even if someone
who's put in the position as is described in
your bill errs, not even as a matter of duty
but errs benevolently, that to set up a system
where they're immunized from any type of
action taken against them is generally not a
7031
good principle?
It may be one we want to make an
exception for in this piece of legislation
because it's such a serious problem that we're
addressing, but it's generally not the
greatest practice.
SENATOR BALBONI: Madam
President, through you. Senator, you raise
the point that has been the subject of some
controversy regarding this bill.
Just a quick comment before I
address your concern. This is one of these
bills that wind up in this chamber where
everyone sits around and says good idea, good
idea, but yet it never sees the light of day
because it never goes anywhere in the
Assembly.
Now, in this case the Assembly is
concerned with what you're concerned about.
And that is on the second page, line 22 to 24,
for those folks following at home -
SENATOR DOLLINGER: What about
those in attendance?
SENATOR BALBONI: Those in
attendance, yes. For those people listening
7032
in the chamber too.
A health care plan that complies
with paragraph (a) of the subdivision and acts
in good faith shall not be subject to civil or
criminal liability on account of compliance
with such paragraph.
The policy reason for why that's in
there is to encourage compliance with this
section. We could have made a penalty, we
could have made a violation. We instead said
let's give the companies an incentive to
comply and shield the victims of domestic
violence from their perpetrators.
The concern, particularly from the
Trial Lawyers -- which is why they have issued
a memorandum in opposition to this bill -
centers around the fact that this is an
immunity clause that, quote, eviscerates the
effectiveness of the bill and leaves domestic
violence victims with a false sense of
security and no remedy from the harm that
results from the failure of insurers to comply
with the bill.
That's reading from the first
paragraph of the May 1, 2001, Trial Lawyers'
7033
memorandum in opposition.
But I would ask -- and there are
several very good attorneys in the chamber -
I would ask you to read the actual language
and see if you don't agree with this
statement. Notwithstanding the language of
the bill itself, a court of competent
jurisdiction can analyze this section as
saying if you receive a valid order of
protection against a policyholder and then you
do not disclose to the policyholder the
address or the telephone number, then you have
complied with the section. Anything short of
that is noncompliance, which is outside the
scope of protection as provided in lines 22 to
24.
So therefore, I respectfully
disagree with the Trial Lawyers' position that
says that this is an immunity clause. It is
not an immunity clause. It says you must
comply with the requirements of the statutory
language, which is the point of the bill. And
if you don't, you can be liable.
As the sponsor of this bill, that
is my legislative intent.
7034
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, if Senator Balboni would continue
to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Balboni,
would you yield?
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: All right,
Senator, I demur to your complaint. Let's say
that you're right and the Trial Lawyers are
wrong, that there is a scope in this
legislation in lines 22 to 24 that delineates
how far it goes, but that there is a -- there
are actions that could be considered to be not
in compliance. What would those actions be?
SENATOR BALBONI: Madam
President, through you, the insurer receives a
valid order of protection against the
policyholder. And in response to a written
inquiry from the policyholder, they send
correspondence indicating where the individual
lives. That would be in violation.
They reveal through a telephone
7035
conversation -- you know, a phone call comes
in to the company, and an individual says, you
know, Mary Jones, look, I've got a check here
for her and I'm trying to find a forwarding
address. Do you have anything in your
records? And instead of checking for the
existence of a valid order of protection, they
simply say, Oh, she's at, you know, 22
Maryland Drive. That would also be outside
the requirements of the bill.
The same conversation: Oh, yeah,
you can reach her at X phone number. All
those actions are outside the mandate of this
particular piece of legislation.
Is that the Trial Lawyers? Tell
them we're still debating.
(Laughter.)
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson,
did you just signal you'd like to have the
floor?
SENATOR PATERSON: Excuse me,
Madam President?
THE PRESIDENT: Do you wish to be
heard?
SENATOR PATERSON: Yes, thank
7036
you.
THE PRESIDENT: All right. You
may proceed.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, we've
just gotten a call from the Trial Lawyers, and
they don't necessarily agree.
But just to clarify what you were
saying, the scenario that you just described,
in that situation you think the insurance
company would not be immune from civil or
criminal liability?
SENATOR BALBONI: Right. It is
my view as the sponsor of this bill that the
insurance company would be liable.
SENATOR PATERSON: Okay. I'm
glad that -- Madam President, on the bill.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
on the bill, Senator.
SENATOR PATERSON: I'm glad that
Senator Balboni would qualify that and put it
on the record here, because if that's the
case, I really have to take a different look
at it than I did before.
So that Senator Balboni, who often
wonders if I'm actually listening to him, I
7037
want all of you here to tell him the next time
we have a disagreement that there was at least
one time that you were a witness that I
listened to him.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Breslin.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Madam
President, would the sponsor yield for a
question?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Balboni,
will you yield for a question?
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Breslin.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Did I
understand you correctly, Senator, that you
said those different examples that you
presented, that in fact the insurance company
would be liable?
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, would be
liable.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Okay. Again
through you, Madam President, were there any
examples prior to the presentation of this
7038
legislation where insurance companies did in
fact provide information which resulted in
somebody who has an order of protection being
injured or harmed?
SENATOR BALBONI: Senator, I do
not know if there's any specific instances.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Again through
you, Madam President, if the sponsor would
yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Balboni,
will you yield for a question?
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Do you envision
a great deal of expense to the insurance
company in order to set up an apparatus to
control this?
SENATOR BALBONI: Madam
President, through you. Senator Breslin,
through the course of the two years that I've
been sponsoring the legislation, we've heard
from many different representatives of the
insurance industry. Most of the concerns
7039
center around liability and that they are
afraid that they're going to be put now into
the loop of liability as a result of this and
somehow become parties to the order of
protection process.
They have not come to me with
concerns about costs associated with setting
up a database.
I mean, as you and I know, the very
nature of insuring an individual means
establishing a file, keeping it updated, from
anything from number of dependents to
occupation to where they live to send any
information in the policy. This would be one
more item, albeit a very important and
critical item, that would need to be put into
the file also.
I mean, I don't believe in this
electronic age that the actual, physical entry
of this data is any way, shape, or form a
burden.
SENATOR BRESLIN: I think one
final question, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Balboni,
7040
will you yield?
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR BRESLIN: In your
scenario, if an employee checked a file,
didn't find any order of protection but there
was one there, and gave information out which
resulted in injury to the person who possessed
the order of protection, that would be, in
effect, negligence under which the person with
the order of protection would be able to sue
the insurance company; is that correct?
SENATOR BALBONI: Madam
President, in response, it's always a
difficult -- in my opinion, it's always a
difficult cause of action to bring against a
third party when you don't instigate or
perpetrate the assault. As we all know, it's
a third party coming in, breaks the chain of
liability, necessarily. You know, a criminal
act can never be foreseeable. That's the tort
concepts I remember from school and from my
practice.
So I think it would be difficult
7041
from a purely legal perspective to hold the
insurance companies liable.
However, there are certainly very
creative members of the bar. And the question
becomes were they in violation of this, did
they facilitate the assault and could they be
held responsible. That's going to be for the
court to decide.
SENATOR BRESLIN: One final
question, again.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Balboni,
will you yield?
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, I will
yield.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Would it not
increase the level of foreseeability just by
the fact that there's an order of protection
in existence?
SENATOR BALBONI: I would agree
with that.
SENATOR BRESLIN: On the bill.
I think that -- and this bill I
voted for last year, and I will vote for it
again this year. But I do see the possibility
7042
of litigation when in fact an insurance
company might be trying to adhere to the law
as it's been presented and inadvertent
mistakes are made, thus bringing an insurance
company -- and I think -- I'm not trying to
defend insurance companies, but I would
suggest that with an order of protection in
existence and the name of an insurance company
as the defendant, that might present the
opportunity for, as my friend Senator Balboni
has said, for creative lawyers to increase the
amount of litigation.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any other
member wish to be heard on this bill?
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Madam
President, I'll be very brief.
THE PRESIDENT: On the bill.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I have just a
couple of thoughts for Senator Balboni. I'm
going to vote in favor of this bill.
One, I think that the bill should
be redrafted to specifically state that the
terms of the protection order prohibit the
7043
release of information from any person to the
protected party. Because, as I think Senator
Balboni well knows, there are all kinds of
protection orders. There are protection
orders that require no contact at all, there
are protection orders that prohibit physical
contact, there are protection orders that
prohibit locations of particular places or
things.
What I would rather have, to
minimize the liability to the insurance
company or the health care plan, is a specific
direction in the order that says that the
order applies and prohibits the disclosure of
information about the whereabouts of the
protected party by any party.
That way the insurance company,
upon reading the protective order, would know
that they have a specific direction not to
release the kind of information that this bill
deals with.
I would rather see the protection
of the protective order be more explicit about
requiring that information in disclosure to
the insurance company so there would be no
7044
question about whether they could release the
information. There's a wide scope of
potential protective orders in this state. We
give judges lots of flexibility.
What I would recommend you do,
first and foremost, is include a provision in
the standard protection order that says that
you shall prohibit any third party from
disclosing the whereabouts, the identity, or
the name and location of wherever the party
lives. That way there would be no question.
The second thing I would just
suggest is I think you have to redraft the
liability clause because, in my judgment, it
doesn't do what I think you want it to do.
The way it reads right now is it says if they
comply with the paragraph (a) and they do what
they're told and they act in good faith -
which I'm always wary of, because if you
comply with the statute, who cares about good
faith.
I think Senator Breslin made much
the same point. Good-faith compliance with
the statute doesn't mean much. They either
comply with the statute, and therefore they
7045
get immunity. Good faith isn't needed.
Then the last thing I would suggest
is, at least from my point of view -- again,
I'm not comfortable with granting anybody
immunity. But it would seem to me that you
accomplish that by saying they shall be
subjected to criminal or civil liability,
period. You've got the phrase in "on account
of compliance" with the section. I think that
ends up being confusing.
I'm going to vote -- I think I'm
going to vote in favor of this bill because I
like the concept. But I would just suggest
that whether you -- if you're saying that upon
compliance with the statute they shall not
have any civil liability, that's one thing.
But if you're suggesting that they have to
comply and have to exercise some other concept
of good faith and that -- I just think it gets
too convoluted.
I think it's a good idea. I would
suggest, through you, Madam President, that
the bill be redrafted in discussions with the
Assembly to specifically -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Balboni.
7046
Excuse me, Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR BALBONI: Would you yield
to just one inquiry -
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Sure. I'd be
glad to, Madam President.
SENATOR BALBONI: -- point of
information?
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Balboni.
SENATOR BALBONI: Would your
opinion as to that "good faith" language
change if I told you that when we were
discussing this bill with insurance companies
they were very wary of a straight compliance
standard, because you would then have to get
much more specific?
In other words, an order of
protection is mailed to an insurance company.
Well, if it arrives on a Tuesday morning, when
must it be up in the system? Immediate? 24
hours? 48?
And so what we did was we gave
courts who would review this a standard
against which they would view their compliance
as being in good faith. Because to have an
7047
absolute compliance policy, I think you would
need more. Because otherwise, everyone would
sit back and say, Well, what do you mean by
compliance? You know, when would I have to
register this? How would I have to do it?
And when would it be up in the system?
You know, what if your mail only
came on -- what if one company got mail on a
Saturday and registered, but the other company
decided as a matter of policy they didn't open
their mail that they received on Friday until
Monday? Would one company be in compliance
and the other company be out of compliance?
So I don't know if that would
change your opinion, Richard, but that's why
we included the good faith.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Madam President, to respond to Senator
Balboni's question.
I'm always nervous -- and we do
this all the time, but it doesn't make my
nerves any less jangled. Because what we do,
Senator Balboni, is we cast these big, huge
concepts for a court to interpret, and then
what we do is when they interpret the good
7048
faith and it comes out contrary -- because of
the exigencies of the case, it comes out
contrary to what we wanted or what we
intended, we're suddenly aghast that they're
not applying the statute that we've enacted
into law.
Which is why what I would suggest
is that if we get to a point where this is in
serious discussions with our colleagues in the
Assembly, that we be very specific about what
the protective order says, if it says you may
not -- to all third parties, do not disclose
information of the whereabouts of the
protected party to the person against whom the
order is issued.
Number two, if we set up a standard
that said we'll give you three days or five
days to comply, then we eliminate that
good-faith exception, because we define it.
We create a standard, which could be three
days, five days, seven days -- 30 days, for
heaven's sakes -- but some standard that we
could rigidly hold them to.
And then the final question is -
you know, and I'm putting aside sort of that
7049
issue of when the immunity attaches. It seems
to me that we ought to set those standards for
what good faith is. We ought to make
compliance absolute with a reasonable period
in which to do it. We should define that
period rather than punt that issue to the
courts.
Because what they will inevitably
do is create some other good-faith exception
that defeats the purpose for which this
laudable bill aims, and you end up with a
judicial gap that we'll try to go back and
fill later.
I'm always nervous about including
the phrase "good faith" because I think it
gives tons of discretion to our courts. It
may be the only way that we get an agreement
with the Assembly to do the bill. But I just
think it's -- from the point of view of a
judge looking at this, he'd say, what does
this thing really mean? What did the
Legislature -- and I appreciate your effort to
provide a guidance to the courts through this
debate and through the discussion on the
floor. But the bottom line is I think the
7050
good-faith exception, we ought to define
exactly what it means to really make it work
right.
I'm going to vote in favor of the
bill. I think it ought to go off to a
conference committee. Senator Balboni, I'll
extend this invitation as I have to other
people. If what you need is a message from
this house, a formal message from this
house -- we don't send a lot of messages to
the Assembly, but we ought to send a message
to the Assembly at some point before the end
of this session that there is a backlog of
good bills that we've passed which we think
are good ideas to attend the significant
problems in this state.
We ought to send that over to the
Assembly and ask them to convene a conference
committee to resolve disputed bills between
the two houses this year so that we can put
this bill or something close to it into law.
I'll be voting in favor, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any other
member wish to be heard on this bill?
7051
Then the debate is closed.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This
act shall take effect on the 120th day.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
612, by Senator Larkin, Senate Print 1039, an
act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law, in
relation to authorizing.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER:
Explanation, please.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Larkin,
an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR LARKIN: Madam President,
who asked?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Oppenheimer and others, I believe.
SENATOR LARKIN: Senator
Oppenheimer, this bill here is requested by
the City of Newburgh. They're looking for a
tribunal that is similar to that which is in
7052
Peekskill, Yonkers, portions of Suffolk
County, which has a district court, in all
cities with a population over 200,000.
The main problem here with this,
there are over 58,000 outstanding tickets with
fines totaling over 2½ million dollars. And
the only way that they can get this done is to
have this tribunal. They've looked at every
other way to do it, and this is the
recommendations the courts give them.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Thank you,
Senator.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Oppenheimer.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: If the
Senator would yield for a question.
SENATOR LARKIN: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Larkin
yields.
You may proceed, Senator.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Senator
Larkin, how much backlog is there, please?
SENATOR LARKIN: Right now,
there's 58,000.
7053
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Oh, my God.
SENATOR LARKIN: Nobody shows up
to pay the bill.
And this is the key to doing it, as
was done when we did one for Peekskill over in
your neck of the woods. We did one for the
City of Yonkers, which is near and dear to
your heart and Senator Spano's heart. And we
did it in Suffolk County, and we did it for
cities with a population of over 200,000.
This is a city that has one
full-time judge and a half-time judge. It is
home to about 27,000 people. It's a
cornerstone on the eastern end of the county
where they have quite a bit of development and
entertainment and whatnot. They never can
seem to get these cases up to doing.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Madam
President, if the Senator would yield again.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Larkin,
will you yield?
SENATOR LARKIN: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Oppenheimer.
7054
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Would this
tribunal take place in the same location as
the judge? In other words, the person would
first go to -
SENATOR LARKIN: It doesn't have
to. The tribunal can be set up in some other
location within the city.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Well, then
through you, Madam President, the person would
not first go to the judge and then be referred
to the tribunal?
SENATOR LARKIN: No, they
wouldn't have to be.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Direct to
the tribunal?
SENATOR LARKIN: Yes. That's the
only way you're going to clear up the backlog.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: No, I
understand what you're saying.
SENATOR LARKIN: They've been
looking for this out of this legislative body
for the last couple of years, and we haven't
made it. But if we really talk about helping
municipalities, here's a good way to help a
municipality recoup 2½ million dollars.
7055
And you represent a city, and you
know the small cities are hurting. They're
always coming here to Albany, to us, looking
for extra money. Here's something that's on
their plate that they can use if we're willing
to help them.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Through
you, Madam President, if you would continue -
if the Senator would continue to yield.
SENATOR LARKIN: Yes, Madam
President.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Last
question.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR LARKIN: Promises.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: No, this is
it. Unless you answer wrong.
This only refers to nonmoving
traffic violations?
SENATOR LARKIN: Yes.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Okay,
thanks very much.
Okay, on the bill. I think this is
7056
a great bill -
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
on the bill, Senator Oppenheimer.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: I cannot
understand, and maybe -- maybe -- I actually
did have one more question. But I don't
understand why this hasn't moved. This makes
such incredibly good sense that it sometimes
is mind-boggling some of the things that don't
happen here that ought to be happening.
With 1½ judges, I don't know how
they get to 58,000 violations. I think they
either need another judge or this tribunal
court. And I can't imagine why there wouldn't
be an administrative tribunal. So I'm
certainly voting for it. I can't understand
why it hasn't passed in the past.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any other
member wish to be heard on this bill?
Then the debate is closed.
There is a home rule message at the
desk.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
7057
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
659, by Member of the Assembly Glick, Assembly
Print Number 3535A, an act to amend Chapter
942 of the Laws of 1983.
SENATOR KUHL: Would you lay that
bill aside temporarily, please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside, Senator Kuhl.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
703, by Senator Farley, Senate Print 4633, an
act to amend the Banking Law, the Criminal
Procedure Law, and the Penal Law, in relation
to the regulation of licensed transmitters of
money.
SENATOR ONORATO: Explanation.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Farley,
an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR FARLEY: Thank you. I
already started to explain this bill, I think.
But if you've got more questions, I'll be
7058
happy to answer them.
Actually, this would strength the
regulations of money transmitters and the
whole industry in New York State. It includes
some amendments which would ensure that
licensed money transmitters are subject to
certain general powers of the superintendent.
It authorizes the issuance of
eavesdropping and video surveillance warrants
for illegal money transmission activities,
which are designated as felonies, and it
ensures that money-laundering laws apply to
any money laundering which utilizes or
involves subagents -- that's kind of
important -- of a money transmitter. Current
law only applies to licensed transmitters.
And this is these subagents that are doing
mischief.
It also increases the daily penalty
for the failure of a money transmitter to make
a required report to the Banking Department.
Money transmitters provide a
valuable service to consumers. They can wire
money from a New York residence to family
members in other states and countries. They
7059
may also sell money orders and travelers
checks and that sort of thing.
But this bill is kind of important
to strengthen the regulatory and enforcement
provisions. Because what we're talking about
here is looking after drug money and so forth
that is being transmitted illegally.
One of the major problems, and
something that this does, misdemeanors, I
think that you know, are not usually
prosecuted because the prosecutors are pretty
busy doing felonies. And this kind of
strengthens the law in this area.
Federal law officials have
continued to be concerned about this in the
area of money laundering. And over the past
two decades, much progress has been made in
preventing money laundering in banking
institutions. As a result, money launderers
have increasingly turned to other methods,
including using these transmitters, money
transmitters.
Now, the industry is anxious to
have these subagents licensed, because this is
where the mischief is taking place. So that's
7060
a very important facet, that these subagents,
at least the Banking Department and the
enforcement industry can monitor them.
And I think with that, I'll be
happy to answer any questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Onorato.
SENATOR ONORATO: Madam
President, will the sponsor yield to a couple
of questions?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Farley,
will you yield for a question?
SENATOR FARLEY: Sure.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
with a question.
SENATOR ONORATO: Senator Farley,
this bill appears to give the Superintendent
of Banks additional powers for regulatory
oversight. Doesn't he already have these
powers?
SENATOR FARLEY: No.
SENATOR ONORATO: He currently
does not have these powers?
SENATOR FARLEY: No, he does not.
In this respect, Senator Onorato.
That, for instance, subagents are not
7061
licensed. Okay? They're going to be licensed
by the Banking Department now, and the Banking
Department can monitor them. And that's again
where I said a lot of mischief takes place.
SENATOR ONORATO: If the sponsor
will continue to yield.
SENATOR FARLEY: It also ups the
penalties.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield?
SENATOR FARLEY: I certainly
will, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Onorato.
SENATOR ONORATO: Has there been
some specific violations of money transmitters
that have prompted this legislation?
SENATOR FARLEY: Yes, there has
been. There's been specific violations,
particularly that -- on behalf of these
subagents and so forth.
And we're concerned about
monitoring this. The federal government has
really cracked down on money laundering pretty
heavy. And this is just another avenue which
7062
has become a loophole, if you will, for these
criminals to try to -- you know, no matter
what we do, Senator Onorato, the crooks and
the thieves will find some sort of another way
to skirt the law or to find a loophole.
This is one of the loopholes we're
trying to plug.
SENATOR ONORATO: Madam
President, will the sponsor continue to yield?
SENATOR FARLEY: Certainly.
SENATOR ONORATO: This bill
allows for the use of eavesdropping and video
surveillance against money transmitters that
have committed certain felonies. Can you give
me some example of the felonies that it would
cover?
SENATOR FARLEY: You realize I'm
a law professor in the civil law more than -
I'm not that schooled in the criminal law.
But let me just -- I think I can answer your
question.
In this area, money-transmitter
felonies relate to unlicensed persons who know
they are dealing with criminal proceeds.
Okay? In other words, if a licensed money
7063
transmitter is dealing with a criminal and
they know that they're dealing with criminal
proceeds -- drug money, for instance, since
that's what we're talking about -- for
investigators to prove such knowledge, it is
almost always necessary to conduct a
surveillance.
This will -- the bill will ensure
that law enforcement can use this tool in
investigating money transmitter felonies.
It's one of the few areas ways -- it's about
the only way that they can catch them.
SENATOR ONORATO: Thank you,
Senator.
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 8. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 60.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
7064
Senator Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Yes, Madam
President. Could you call up Calendar Number
659, please.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read Calendar Number 659.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
659, by Member of the Assembly Glick, Assembly
Print Number 3535A, an act to amend Chapter
942 of the Laws of 1983.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Saland,
an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR SALAND: Thank you, Madam
President.
Madam President, this is a bill
which extends the foster family care programs,
programs which effectively provide care for
the elderly. It's treated as a local -- in
effect, a local treatment at some local site,
instead of resorting to some type of
institutionalized program.
It's a cost-effective program and
one which was originally introduced a number
of years ago, is due to expire at the end of
7065
this calendar year, has been already passed by
the Assembly. And we would very much like to
follow on the heels of the Assembly and extend
this for an additional two years.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any other
member wish to be heard on this bill?
Senator Hassell-Thompson.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Yes,
thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: You're welcome.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON:
Through you, if the Senator will yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Saland,
will you yield for a question?
SENATOR SALAND: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank
you. I just had a couple of questions. And
it's always the question that I continue to be
the one that asks, it seems.
These programs have been very
successful, or considered to be. Why aren't
we making it permanent?
7066
SENATOR SALAND: Senator, this
program is one which I would welcome
permanentizing.
On the whole -- and I can't tell
you that I've had any recent discussions with
the Assembly regarding this, but on the whole
the resistance generally to permanentizing
these types of programs have been really
resonating through or coming from the
Assembly. I'd be more than happy to
permanentize the program.
The fact of the matter is this
program has been on the books for nearly
twenty years now, and certainly permanentizing
it would be most appropriate.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: If the
Senator will continue to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Saland,
will you yield for a question?
SENATOR SALAND: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Hassell-Thompson.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Has
there been any consideration or any interest
7067
expressed in opening up more? I'm assuming
that there's ten entities that I've read
about. Is there an interest in increasing
that number?
SENATOR SALAND: My experience
has been -- because one of these programs is
found in my district, and I helped create it a
number of years ago when I was serving in the
Assembly -- it certainly has been a very
successful program.
I can't tell you that somebody has
contacted me in my capacity as the chairman of
the Senate Children and Families Committee nor
as the chairman of the Human Services Budget
Conference Subcommittee asking for yet some
additional programs in some other venue.
I think the best source of that
would probably be either the Office for the
Aging or the Department of Health.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: On the
bill.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
on the bill, Senator.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Just
very briefly.
7068
You know, from the information that
I've been able to discern, Burke Rehab, which
is a part of the Westchester community, is one
of these such centers. And in terms of people
with long-term care, this is always a greater
option, a better option than nursing homes.
So I am in support of this bill,
and I commend you, Senator Saland, in the
continuance of proposing it.
And I would like to hope that as we
talk about continuing resolutions that we
would use some standard by which we can
determine a success or failure rate to ensure
that programs that are successful, fiscally
sound, has all the proper components, will be
made permanent. As opposed to every two years
waiting for the sunset, as opposed to
something much more long-term that we have the
capacity and we have the ability to do.
Thank you. 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.
7069
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 60.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
Senator Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Is there any
housekeeping at the desk?
THE PRESIDENT: No, there isn't,
Senator.
SENATOR KUHL: Would you
recognize Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I just give
notice -- there is at the desk a written
notice of our intention to move to amend the
rules. That notice is given pursuant to Rule
XI. The notice is an indication of an
intention to create a new rule, XV, which will
establish ethical standards for members,
7070
Officer, and employees of the Senate. I would
ask that it be recorded in the Journal, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: The notice has
been received, Senator, and it will be
recorded in the Journal.
Senator Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Madam President,
would you recognize Senator Paterson, please.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, there will be an immediate meeting
of the Minority in the Minority Conference
Room, 314, where we may discuss this
long-awaited Rule XV and other things.
But right after session, an
immediate meeting of the Minority Conference
in the Minority Conference Room, Room 314.
THE PRESIDENT: Immediately after
session there will be a meeting of the
Minority in the Minority Conference Room,
Room 314.
Senator Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Yes, Madam
President. There being no further business to
7071
come before this house this date, I move the
Senate stand adjourned until tomorrow,
Tuesday, May 15th, at 11:00, I say 11:00 a.m.
THE PRESIDENT: On motion, the
Senate stands adjourned until Tuesday,
May 15th, at 11:00 a.m.
(Whereupon, at 4:50 p.m., the
Senate adjourned.)