Regular Session - May 30, 2001
8267
NEW YORK STATE SENATE
THE STENOGRAPHIC RECORD
ALBANY, NEW YORK
May 30, 2001
11:16 a.m.
REGULAR SESSION
LT. GOVERNOR MARY O. DONOHUE, President
STEVEN M. BOGGESS, Secretary
8268
P R O C E E D I N G S
THE PRESIDENT: The Senate will
come to order.
I ask everyone present to please
rise and repeat with me the Pledge of
Allegiance.
(Whereupon, the assemblage recited
the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.)
THE PRESIDENT: In the absence of
clergy, may we bow our heads in a moment of
silence.
(Whereupon, the assemblage
respected a moment of silence.)
THE PRESIDENT: Reading of the
Journal.
THE SECRETARY: In Senate,
Tuesday, May 29, the Senate met pursuant to
adjournment. The Journal of Sunday, May 27,
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.
8269
Messages from the Governor.
Reports of standing committees.
Reports of select committees.
Communications and reports from
state officers.
Motions and resolutions.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
if we could adopt the Resolution Calendar at
this time.
THE PRESIDENT: All in favor of
adopting the Resolution Calendar please say
aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The Resolution
Calendar is adopted.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Skelos,
we have a substitution.
SENATOR SKELOS: Senator Morahan
has consented that Resolutions 2052, 2056,
2057, and 2058 be opened for sponsorship.
So with the consent of the
8270
Minority, we'll put all the members on the
resolutions. If they do not wish to sponsor
the resolutions, they should notify the desk.
THE PRESIDENT: All those members
who do not wish to sponsor the resolutions as
expressed by Senator Skelos please notify the
desk.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
are there any substitutions at the desk?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, there are,
Senator.
SENATOR SKELOS: I ask that they
be made at this time.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: On page 40,
Senator Maltese moves to discharge, from the
Committee on Elections, Assembly Bill Number
8463 and substitute it for the identical
Senate Bill Number 4913A, Third Reading
Calendar 699.
THE PRESIDENT: The substitution
is ordered.
Senator Skelos.
8271
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
if we could go to the noncontroversial
calendar.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
433, by Senator Rath, Senate Print 4096, an
act to amend the Municipal Home Rule Law.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 5. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 37.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
486, by Senator Farley, Senate Print 2148, an
act to amend the Executive Law, in relation to
designation.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
8272
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 37.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
505, by Senator Stafford, Senate Print 2923,
an act to amend the General Municipal Law, in
relation to taking of billboards.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
573, by Senator Leibell, Senate Print 5086, an
act to amend Chapter 510 of the Laws of 1996.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 37.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
8273
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
603, by Senator Seward, Senate Print 4485, an
act to amend Chapter 607 of the Laws of 1999.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 40.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
609, by Senator Wright, Senate Print 3750, an
act to amend the Environmental Conservation
Law, in relation to notification.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
613, by Senator Padavan, Senate Print 1219A,
an act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law
and the Administrative Code of the City of
New York.
8274
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 40.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
739, by Senator McGee, Senate Print 869, an
act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law, in
relation to requiring.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
November.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 40.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
Senator Velella.
SENATOR VELELLA: Madam
8275
President, there will be an immediate meeting
of the Local Governments Committee in the
Majority Conference Room.
THE PRESIDENT: There will be an
immediate meeting of the Local Governments
Committee in the Majority Conference Room.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
740, by Senator Johnson, Senate Print 1367 -
THE PRESIDENT: 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, 40.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
760, by Senator Saland, Senate Print 2976, an
act to authorize the Town of Poughkeepsie in
the County of Dutchess.
THE PRESIDENT: There is a home
rule message at the desk.
8276
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, 42.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
768, by Senator Balboni, Senate Print 3691, an
act in relation to allowing the -
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
810, by Senator Meier, Senate Print 4307, an
act to amend the Social Services Law, in
relation to guaranteeing.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Lay it
aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
820, by Senator Larkin, Senate Print 2338A, an
8277
act to amend Chapter 672 of the Laws of 1993.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger, to explain your vote.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Madam President.
This is another bill in a line of
bills that we've passed that affect libraries
and the use of Dormitory funding. I'm going
to vote in favor of this bill, as I believe I
have on both bills sponsored by Senator Larkin
and I believe Senator Saland and others this
year.
I would just encourage the sponsor.
This, I think, is a very good idea. It will
reduce borrowing costs for libraries around
the state. And while I understand Senator
Larkin's advocacy on the behalf of the Monroe
Free Library, it really is a benefit that
should be available to all libraries.
8278
We ought to look at making the
Dormitory Authority as the borrowing entity
for all library new construction and
renovation. It would reduce their costs.
It's in our best interests to do that. And
it's a way to give an indirect financial
benefit to large numbers of libraries that are
becoming more and more valuable, not only in
the Monroe Free Library but throughout the
state.
This is a good idea. We should do
it statewide. I'll vote aye, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will announce the results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 45.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
830, by Senator Bonacic, Senate Print 5141, an
act to amend the Public Authorities Law, in
relation to the power.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
8279
843, by Senator Nozzolio, Senate Print 3936,
an act to amend the Penal Law, the Vehicle and
Traffic Law, and the Insurance Law.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 9. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
November.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 45.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
844, by Senator Volker, Senate Print 3937, an
act to amend the Penal Law, in relation to
endangering the welfare of a child.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 5. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
November.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 47.
8280
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
846, by Senator Saland, Senate Print 4234, an
act to amend the Penal Law, in relation to
establishing.
SENATOR ADA SMITH: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
847, by Senator Volker, Senate Print 4283, an
act to amend the Criminal Procedure Law, in
relation to proof.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
876, by Senator Wright, Senate Print 4869, an
act to amend the Public Service Law.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
896, by Senator Goodman, Senate Print 1725 -
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
8281
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
913, by Senator Volker, Senate Print 4957, an
act to amend the Alcoholic Beverage Control
Law.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 47.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
914, by Senator Leibell, Senate Print 5135, an
act to amend Chapter 929 of the Laws of 1986.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 47.
8282
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
949, by Senator Stafford, Senate Print 3481,
an act to amend the Executive Law, in relation
to the Emergency Management Assistance
Compact.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay that
aside, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
962, by Senator Volker, Senate Print 2228, an
act to authorize the reopening of the optional
twenty-year retirement plan.
THE PRESIDENT: There is a home
rule message at the desk.
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, 48.
8283
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
966, by Senator Stafford, Senate Print 4236,
an act to amend Chapter 688 of the Laws of
1955.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
969, by Senator Marcellino, Senate Print 5269,
an act to amend the Environmental Conservation
Law, in relation to continuing.
THE PRESIDENT: 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, 48.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
970, by Senator Hoffmann, Senate Print 84, an
act to amend the Penal Law, in relation to
8284
inciting to riot in the first degree.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Lay it
aside.
SENATOR DUANE: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
SENATOR VELELLA: Can we lay that
aside for the day.
THE PRESIDENT: That bill is laid
aside just for the day.
The Secretary will continue to
read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
971, by Senator Alesi, Senate Print 1133, an
act to amend the Penal Law, in relation to the
minimum sentence.
SENATOR DUANE: Lay it aside,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
972, by Senator Saland, Senate Print 1342, an
act to amend the Criminal Procedure Law, in
relation to authorizing.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
8285
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 48.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
974, by Senator Santiago, Senate Print 2205A,
an act authorizing the City of New York to
reconvey its interest.
THE PRESIDENT: There is a home
rule message at the desk.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 5. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 48.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
976, by Senator Alesi, Senate Print 3374, an
act -
8286
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
978, by Senator Johnson, Senate Print 4512, an
act to amend the Criminal Procedure Law, in
relation to prohibiting.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
979, by Senator Velella, Senate Print 4722, an
act to amend the Penal Law, in relation to the
crime of criminal mischief in the third
degree.
THE PRESIDENT: 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, 50.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
8287
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
980, by Senator Velella, Senate Print 4723, an
act to amend the Penal Law, in relation to the
crime of unauthorized use.
THE PRESIDENT: 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, 50.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
981, by Senator A. Smith, Senate Print 5308,
an act authorizing the City of New York to
reconvey its interest.
THE PRESIDENT: There is a home
rule message at the desk.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 5. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
8288
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 50.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
Senator Velella, that completes the
reading of the noncontroversial calendar.
SENATOR VELELLA: Madam
President, can you recognize Senator
DeFrancisco.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
DeFrancisco.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Madam
President, I'd request unanimous consent to
vote in the negative on Calendar 739, Senate
Print 869.
THE PRESIDENT: You will be so
recorded as voting in the negative, Senator.
Senator Velella.
SENATOR VELELLA: Madam
President, can we proceed to the controversial
calendar in order, please.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President. With unanimous consent, I'd like
8289
to be recorded in the negative on Calendar
Number 433 and Calendar Number 739.
THE PRESIDENT: You will be so
recorded as voting in the negative, Senator
Duane.
Senator Velella.
SENATOR VELELLA: Madam
President, there will be an immediate meeting
of the Education Committee in the Majority
Conference Room.
THE PRESIDENT: There will be an
immediate meeting of the Education Committee
in the Majority Conference Room.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
505, by Senator Stafford, Senate Print 2923,
an act to amend the General Municipal Law, in
relation to taking of billboards.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN:
Explanation.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Stafford,
an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Thank you,
Madam President.
8290
These bills are no strangers to any
of us. This is a bill whereby if you have
property and it's taken by eminent domain, you
will be paid for that property. And we feel
that it's a bill that should prevail.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Oppenheimer.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: I guess
the -- I do have a couple of questions. This
is 505.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Stafford,
will you yield for a question from Senator
Oppenheimer?
You may proceed, Senator.
SENATOR STAFFORD: We all work
together, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: I ask for order
on the floor. If the members would take their
conversations outside the chambers so that the
debate may be heard clearly.
Go ahead, Senator Oppenheimer. You
may proceed with a question.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Thank you.
Senator Stafford, if this bill were
to pass, the municipality would no longer just
8291
be able to require the removal of a billboard;
is that true?
SENATOR STAFFORD: I'm asking
what the question is, Madam President. I
didn't hear it.
No, it's not true.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Okay. If
the Senator would yield again.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Stafford,
will you continue to yield for a question?
You may proceed, Senator
Oppenheimer.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: If the
municipality could require the removal of the
billboard without going to eminent domain
proceedings, then why do we have this bill?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Madam
President, I understand -- and I'm sure that
some members of Senator Oppenheimer's family
who are good lawyers -- I believe it's one of
the real fine firms, I think it's the
Proskauer firm. And I'm sure that if you
talked to any of those lawyers, they would say
if you have some property, no matter what the
situation is, and it's taken, then there would
8292
be payment. And the procedure is eminent
domain.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: If the
Senator would yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, will you
yield for another question?
I believe that was a yes. Senator
Oppenheimer, you may proceed.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Yes.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER:
Unfortunately, I don't have the entire
environmental legal staff of Proskauer at my
disposal. Therefore, I must pursue this with
my limited abilities.
SENATOR STAFFORD: That is what
we all do, Madam President, on most issues.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: My fear is
that if there is only the eminent domain
procedure available to the municipality, that
they will not pursue this because they do not
want to get entangled in the legal costs,
rather than just simply prohibiting the
billboard, as has been the situation in the
past.
8293
SENATOR STAFFORD: Madam
President, I hesitate to go back to John
Locke, but I find it necessary here today for
just a second. And if you read John Locke, he
discusses property.
And in our system, which is great,
in our jurisprudential system, in our
democracy, if we have property -- and we may
not agree with the people that have that
property, but if it's taken from them, we have
eminent domain. And then we have a situation
where the issues are raised and the equities
are balanced.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: I'm not
sure what that meant.
One last question, and then I -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Stafford,
will you yield for a final question?
You may proceed, Senator
Oppenheimer.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Then I
think I will let the legal entities on this
side of the aisle take over.
You say -- I believe you said that
there still would be available to
8294
municipalities, outside of this resorting to
eminent domain, the ability to take -- to
require a billboard to be removed. Is that
what you said earlier? Because I believe this
replaces that.
SENATOR STAFFORD: I'm going to,
Madam President, ask the Senator to please ask
the question again. We've got to do something
about the microphones here, I think.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: My question
is I thought earlier you had said that if this
goes into effect, this bill, that
municipalities still would have the authority
to remove the billboard without going to
eminent domain proceedings.
That isn't my understanding of the
bill. That's why I'm asking again.
SENATOR STAFFORD: No, Madam
President, I did not say that.
I did say, though, that -- I get
back to the point. And please, it's always
good to try to get to the heart of the issue
to get really to the point. So I'll try to
say again, we may not agree, we may not agree
with individuals or businesses that have
8295
property. But still, if the property is
legal, then we find that they should be
reimbursed for that property.
That's what we're talking about
here. And I think that's really the heart of
the issue.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Well,
that's a good question.
One last question.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Stafford,
will you yield for another question?
SENATOR STAFFORD: By all means.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Oppenheimer.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: My
colleague is questioning, are we talking about
the billboard itself or the leasing of the
billboard?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Madam
President, this is the entire package. We all
know, in business, if you have a -- if you
have the -- it's actually a lease, now that I
think about it. Yes, it's a lease. It's a
lease, really.
The entire package.
8296
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Okay. I'm
going to let my colleagues speak now.
But I -- on the bill, please, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
on the bill, Senator Oppenheimer.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: As I stated
earlier, I fear that moving to eminent domain
proceedings for a municipality is a costly
undertaking, and I think that they will not
pursue it.
And therefore, I'll be voting
against this bill, because I think the
municipality has the right to move ahead
without going to eminent domain if they
consider a billboard to be in a place or in a
situation which they think is undesirable for
their municipality. So I'll be voting no.
And I turn it over to my legal
counsel.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you,
Madam President. If the sponsor would yield
for a few questions.
8297
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Stafford,
will you yield for a question?
SENATOR STAFFORD: By all means.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: I
appreciate the sponsor's efforts to cut to the
heart of the issue before us. But it seems to
me that the heart of the issue in this bill is
not whether or not a billboard can be removed,
but how much money it costs a municipality to
remove a billboard.
Is it not true that under the
current law there is a provision for payment
to someone who erects a billboard in a
residential area provided for through an
amortization schedule?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Well, first, I
would say, discussing what the heart of the
matter is, I don't know whether I've ever
shared with you, Senator, but we often find
that one man's floor is another man's ceiling.
So sometimes we don't agree on exactly what
the issue is.
But you're actually correct in what
8298
you asked.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you,
Madam President. If the sponsor would
continue to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Stafford,
do you continue to yield?
You may proceed, Senator
Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you.
I appreciate the sponsor's
metaphor. Living in Manhattan, I'm very
familiar with this floor-ceiling issue. It's
something that is an issue on a daily basis in
my life.
However, I think that given the
answer to the last question, it seems clear
now that in areas that are zoned industrial or
for manufacturing purposes, municipalities
already are required to follow an eminent
domain procedure to remove a billboard. The
law now, though, provides that municipalities
can pay somewhat less than would be required
under such a procedure in other areas, in the
pristine residential neighborhoods or open
space areas of the state.
8299
And the question is, why should we
change the law and essentially transfer money
from municipalities that are trying to prevent
the visual pollution of billboards, why should
we transfer money from those municipalities to
the billboard erectors?
And that's, it seems to me, what
this bill does. Why should we make that sort
of a change to transfer more money to those
who would erect billboards in the bucolic
hills of northern New York or the bucolic
hills of Morningside Heights?
SENATOR STAFFORD: It's working
well in those areas, and we think it should be
extended.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Mmm.
Through you, Madam President, is
there any indication from any municipality or
any other source that the provision for an
amortization schedule in residential
neighborhoods is not working well?
SENATOR STAFFORD: In -- yes,
there's been problems, Madam President.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Could the
sponsor describe any of those problems or
8300
identify a particular problem?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Yeah.
People -- you know, really, it hasn't been
equitable, and this would be much more
equitable as far as the people who are in this
industry.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you.
Thank the sponsor for his answers.
On the bill, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
on the bill, Senator.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: I think
that the situation here with -- I'm not sure
if it's a floor or a ceiling -- is that what
this bill would do is simply transfer money
from municipalities that are seeking to
regulate the erection of billboards in
residential areas, transfer money from the
municipalities to those who erect such
billboards.
I think it is tremendously
important that this bill does not apply to
industrial and manufacturing areas. That is
already covered by the state's eminent domain
proceedings. What we have in the law now is a
8301
lesser requirement for payment for a
municipality that seeks to take down a
billboard in a residential neighborhood. That
makes good sense.
We do not have to proceed with
eminent domain proceedings in every case in
which a municipality attempts to regulate what
goes on in a residential community. In fact,
if a municipality zoned -- provided through
its own zoning regulations that you can't put
up any billboards in a particular area, that
would not require an eminent domain
proceeding. That would not be a taking under
the United States Constitution.
So it seems to me that here we have
a situation where environmentalists and
advocates for open space are opposed to this
change in the law. They feel that the current
amortization schedule provides enough
compensation for a billboard erector.
The local governments -- the
statewide organization that represents local
governments is opposed to this, because they
understand this would just make it more
expensive for municipalities -- many of which
8302
have their backs against the wall as it is as
far as expenditures in their budgets go -
make it more difficult for municipalities to
remove billboards, make it more expensive.
I think that the current system is
working well. The current system of requiring
eminent domain proceedings in manufacturing
and industrial areas but allowing
municipalities to provide something of a
lesser payment in residential areas, that's
working well. I don't see any reason to
change it.
I think that we have a need in this
state to be conscious not just of pollution in
the air and pollution in the water but to be
conscious of visual pollution. A lot of
communities, a lot of people in the
communities of this state find that their
lives are better if they can be in areas that
don't have billboards all over the place.
That's a reasonable use of our legislative
power, to help the municipalities achieve that
goal.
And I would strongly urge a no vote
on this legislation. I think my floor for the
8303
number of billboards in this state may be
somewhere around Senator Stafford's ceiling,
but I think in this case we can agree to
disagree on this. But I just don't see a
reason to change the existing law, and I urge
a no vote.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Madam President. Just briefly on the bill.
I have two thoughts to add to
Senator Schneiderman's observations. One is
remember that the value of a billboard is
largely built, is largely based on its
visibility from public highways. The public
has already paid to create the value in the
billboard.
We created the major highways to
which these billboards are adjacent, and so as
a consequence the billboard is more valuable
if it's located next to Route 87 in the North
Country than if it is on a small country road.
So the value of the billboard from
the point of view of its renting is created by
8304
public money. It's not created by the
value -- the value does not lie in the cost of
simply putting up the billboard. It's its
proximity to publicly funded highways that
make it valuable.
And the second problem with this
bill is, if you get into eminent domain, the
question is what's the fair market value of
the billboard, which will be in large measure
based upon its rental income. Which means
that its proximity to a public investment will
make it more expensive for a community to buy
and retire.
It seems to me that that means, in
essence, we are using the public money to
create value in an asset that makes it more
costly for the public to acquire and remove.
That doesn't make any sense to me.
What makes sense is the current
approach, which is the community simply says:
We want this bulletin board removed because
it's in a residential area because it's
blocking the landscape or a seascape. We
think it should be removed so that people can
enjoy the views of New York, what New York
8305
looks like in its natural glory without the
message from an advertiser in the middle of
it.
And this bill currently says that
under those circumstances, you give notice and
the billboard can continue to exist for a
significant period of time to allow the
erector of the billboard or the owner of the
billboard to recoup part of their investment,
they get something back, and then the
community eventually gets it removed.
But to suggest that this is a
completely private investment I think is to
mistake the whole purpose for which billboards
serve. The value of billboards is created by
the public. The public can put a reasonable
restriction and a reasonable requirement on
their removal when they're blocking the public
assets in an unobstructed view of the beauty
of New York.
I agree with Senator Schneiderman,
this is the wrong way to go. It will only
make it more expensive for communities to
acquire these billboards, because they'll have
to pay fair market value, the cost of rentals
8306
amortized over time. In essence, this means
that no billboards next to public highways
that are located in residential areas will
ever be removed, it will be far too expensive.
I think that's a bad idea for the
future of New York.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Stafford.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Madam
President, I seldom rise again, but I do have
to point out that I think I can help us all.
We're arguing here over something,
but this bill will have billboards removed
immediately. Immediately. They just don't
stay there, they're gone. And then people are
paid for what -- or the owners are paid
through eminent domain, and we will not have
this waiting period of ten years or more. So
I think even some of my friends now are
thinking about that.
So please think about it. And
maybe we can get on with the bill.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Stavisky.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Madam
President, on the bill.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
8307
SENATOR STAVISKY: While I
appreciate Senator Stafford's comments and I
respect his feelings about this, after
listening to my colleagues, my concern is
theirs plus another area. And that's the
question of safety. Because people take their
eyes off the road to look at the billboard and
endanger other people.
And for that reason, Madam
President, in addition to all of the others, I
will vote no.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any other
member wish to be heard on this bill?
Senator Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Madam
President, if I may, just in response to
Senator Stafford's last, clearly articulated,
but I believe somewhat erroneous point, the
eminent domain procedure is available to
municipalities now. They can condemn a
billboard under eminent domain now. What we
have also available to them is a cheaper way
to remove the billboard.
This law would remove the cheaper
way to remove a billboard and limit them to
8308
the eminent domain procedure. This is not an
act that speeds up the removal of billboards
or in any way aids in the removal of
billboards. It just makes it harder and more
expensive for municipalities to remove them.
And again, I urge a no vote. 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 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger, to explain your vote.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Just briefly,
Madam President.
I completely concur with Senator
Schneiderman. You can use eminent domain now
if you want to. The reason why it isn't being
used is because it's too expensive, because
you in essence have to pay the fair market
value of an asset that is generating
8309
significant income because of its proximity to
a public road.
I would suggest, Senator Stafford,
you could now use it. Nobody does, because
it's just way too expensive. Then you have a
huge cost associated with trying to remove
billboards.
What we've done by the current law
is we've given an easy, economical way to
allow the owner to recoup part of their
investment, and at the same time they have
these unsightly billboards removed from
residential areas. That's what we should
continue to do.
That's why I'm voting no, Madam
President.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Madam
President, could I have my name called.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Stafford.
SENATOR STAFFORD: This is the
first time in 37 years I've ever asked my name
be called to explain my vote, but they're
actually -- they're -- I just can't stand it.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, please
proceed and explain your vote.
8310
SENATOR STAFFORD: You people are
making such mistakes. This will just be a
uniform procedure now for the industry, and it
will get the assets removed immediately. It's
a much better way to do what some of us want
to get done.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: You will be
recorded as voting in the affirmative, Senator
Stafford.
Senator Dollinger will be recorded
as voting in the negative.
The Secretary will announce the
results.
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
the negative on Calendar Number 505 are
Senators Breslin, Brown, Dollinger, Duane,
Goodman, Hassell-Thompson, LaValle, Leibell,
Markowitz, Onorato, Oppenheimer, Padavan,
Paterson, Schneiderman, Stachowski, and
Stavisky. Also Senator Connor. Ayes, 37.
Nays, 17.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
Senator Balboni.
8311
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, Madam
President. I'd like to make an announcement
of an immediate meeting of the Civil Service
and Pensions Committee in the Majority
Leader's Conference Room, please.
THE PRESIDENT: There will be an
immediate meeting of the Civil Service and
Pensions Committee in the Majority Conference
Room.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
609, by Senator Wright, Senate Print 3750, an
act to amend the Environmental Conservation
Law, in relation to notification.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Wright,
an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR WRIGHT: Thank you, Madam
President.
We're proposing to amend the
Environmental Conservation Law today by adding
a provision that requires a 45-day notice of a
tightness test on a petroleum bulk storage
tank.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
8312
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, if Senator Wright will yield for a
question.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Wright,
will you yield for a question?
SENATOR WRIGHT: Yes, I will,
Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, in
the long run I think this is actually a good
idea and is environmentally sound. But I
thought we might have a little public
discussion on the uniqueness of it that DEC,
in this case, is actually going to notify the
party that theoretically should know, because
they're operating in this type of business,
what the requirements for a tightness test
would be.
And I wanted to know, was there
anything that had happened in the past or
anything that you would like to bring to our
attention that is relating to why we're going
to divorce ourselves from the usual procedure
and have the department notify the parties in
8313
this case, where normally the parties should
already know that, it should be within their
contemplation when they take possession of
this type of a tank.
SENATOR WRIGHT: I would
certainly be glad to share with you some of
the history, Senator.
The bill has its origins by virtue
of a problem that a dairy farmer had in my
district. And like many of the individuals
that own petroleum bulk storage tanks, they
are not used on a recurring basis. And this
is true of many farmers and many small
businesses. So when you have a five-year
permitting system, frankly, it's not at the
top of their list of priorities.
And in this instance, the gentleman
was presented with a consent order and what I
considered to be an excessive fine, because no
sooner had he been informed that the permit
had expired, he immediately had the necessary
inspections completed and processed the
necessary permits. Unfortunately, he still
had an obligation for the penalty and the
consent agreement.
8314
It seemed to me, and I believe to
others, since this bill is endorsed by both
the Farm Bureau as well as the Environmental
Advocates, that a practical solution was to
ensure that notifications were sent to the
holders of these permits. And by doing so, we
would facilitate the regulatory process,
hopefully enhance compliance, and, while there
would be some minimal cost involved in terms
of a notification, that minimal cost would be
more than avoided by avoiding consent
agreements, prosecution, and a number of other
expensive measures where simple notification
would ensure compliance.
Therein the bill.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you,
Madam President. And thank you, Senator
Wright.
I had two other questions relating
to how the notification would occur and
whether or not there was a cost, and Senator
Wright in his first answer answered all three.
So I thank him for his answers and for his
extrasensory perception.
SENATOR WRIGHT: Thank you,
8315
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 3. This
act shall take effect on the 30th day.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 54.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
SENATOR HEVESI: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Hevesi.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you, Madam
President. I rise to request unanimous
consent to be recorded in the negative on
Calendar 505, Senate Print 2923.
THE PRESIDENT: Without
objection, you will be so recorded as voting
in the negative.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
8316
768, by Senator Balboni, Senate Print 3691, an
act in relation to allowing.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Balboni.
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, thank you
very much.
This bill would allow the Jain
Center, which is a religious organization that
has facilities in Elmhurst, Queens, and in
North Hempstead, Long Island, to apply for a
real property tax exemption rebate as a result
of the acquisition of real property after the
taxable status date. And therefore placing
themselves in the unenviable position of not
being able to get on the tax-exempt roll for
purposes of not paying real property taxes and
enjoying their religious exemption.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, would Senator Balboni yield for a
8317
question.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Balboni,
will you yield for a question?
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, I do,
Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, I'm
actually hoping that Senator Dollinger will be
able to come in and continue with the
questioning. This is an issue that's very
important to him -
SENATOR BALBONI: You think he'd
have an objection, Senator?
SENATOR PATERSON: And it's
obviously very important to you.
In the meantime, what are your
ideas on perhaps a tax exemption rebate task
force and seminar jointly cohosted, a
bipartisan effort, by you and Senator
Dollinger, somewhere in Long Island or perhaps
Rochester, so that perhaps we could find a way
to concretize these issues on a statewide
basis once and for all?
SENATOR BALBONI: Madam
8318
President, in response to the gentleman's
question, I would wholeheartedly endorse the
concept of bipartisan committees. I think
it's a great thing for folks on both sides of
the aisle to get together. Like our budget
conference committee this morning. That would
have been another great opportunity for all of
us to get together and talk about different
things.
But be that as it may, that
wouldn't help the Jain Center. And so we need
to do this legislation so they can be the
recipients of the benefits that we as a
society have deemed they should be
appropriately given.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you,
Madam President, the explanation is
satisfactory.
And I guess we'll go ahead and
accommodate the Jain Center, since this is the
only means possible for us to do this now,
with the addendum that I have a feeling that
before this session is completed that Senator
Dollinger will comment on this at some point.
8319
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, 54.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
810, by Senator Meier, Senate Print 4307, an
act to amend the Social Services Law, in
relation to guaranteeing.
SENATOR BALBONI: Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Balboni.
SENATOR BALBONI: Could we please
lay that bill aside temporarily.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside temporarily.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
830, by Senator Bonacic, Senate Print 5141, an
act to amend the Public Authorities Law, in
8320
relation to the power of the State of New York
Mortgage Agency.
SENATOR BALBONI: Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Balboni.
SENATOR BALBONI: Could we please
lay this bill aside temporarily. There are a
lot of committee meetings going on, and we're
trying to accommodate the different schedules
of the Senators.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside temporarily.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
846, by Senator Saland, Senate Print 4234, an
act to amend the Penal Law, in relation to
establishing a presumption.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Balboni.
SENATOR BALBONI: Madam
President, could we please lay this bill aside
temporarily.
THE PRESIDENT: This bill is also
laid aside temporarily.
SENATOR BALBONI: Madam
President, would you please go to Calendar
896, by Senator Goodman.
8321
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read Calendar 896.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
896, by Senator Goodman, Senate Print 1725, an
act to amend the Tax Law, in relation to the
seizure and forfeiture.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, more so than an explanation, if
Senator Goodman could just explain what the
due process is in the procedure, I'd be
satisfied.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Goodman,
an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR GOODMAN: Madam
President, this bill seeks to amend the law to
authorize peace officers designated pursuant
to subdivision 5 of Section 210 of the
Criminal Procedure Law to -- well, let's skip
this and get to the core of this -- to seize
vehicles used to transport unstamped or
unlawfully stamped cigarettes.
This is a step forward in our
battle against cigarette bootlegging, which,
as you probably are generally aware, Senator,
8322
is a very grave problem in New York State as a
result of the increases, successive increases
in cigarette tax.
Previously, as the finance
commissioner for the City of New York, I waged
war against the cigarette bootleggers and
indeed was the only person I know who's ever
personally been sued for $8 million by a group
of organized crime people bringing illegal
cigarettes into the State of New York. It was
necessary to mount a vigorous defense, and we
of course won that suit.
But the people who bring in
cigarettes are not only organized crime
figures, although that's a major source of
funds for organized crime, they're also
individuals who may go across the border and
drive across the George Washington Bridge with
a trunkful of cigarettes which they obtain
tax-free and sell in the city at markups which
are exceedingly profitable.
Presently the city tax inspectors
have the power to seize bootlegged
cigarettes -- unstamped or fraudulently
stamped cigarettes, that is -- and vending
8323
machines that dispense bootlegged cigarettes.
New York State tax enforcement agents, in
addition, have the power to seize vehicles in
which bootlegged cigarettes are being
transported. New York City police officers
also have the power of seizure to seize
vehicles that are subject to forfeiture.
The bill will improve enforcement
of New York City's tax laws, both state and
local, by giving New York City tax inspectors
the same power as New York City police
officers and New York State tax enforcement
agents to seize vehicles in which bootlegged
cigarettes are being transported.
The enactment of the bill will aid
in the collection of cigarette taxes, deter
unlawful conduct, and generate revenue through
the sale of forfeited vehicles. It's strongly
backed by the City of New York.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Onorato.
SENATOR ONORATO: Madam
President, will the Senator yield?
SENATOR GOODMAN: Yes, I will,
Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Senator does
8324
yield. You may proceed, Senator Onorato.
SENATOR ONORATO: Senator
Goodman, is there a limitation on the amount
that you're talking about? Somebody traveling
who runs out of cigarettes, buys a couple of
cartons while they're in Virginia or something
and is coming home with it, maybe he still has
a carton and a half left, would he still be
subject to forfeiture of his vehicle, or her
vehicle, coming home from vacation under these
circumstances?
SENATOR GOODMAN: This bill makes
no distinction. If there is an illegal
importation of cigarettes, they're subject.
You understand what this is doing.
It's simply expanding to the tax employee of
the department the same powers already
possessed by the police and by the official -
by various other officials. This is just
giving one more set of officials the right to
make these arrests. And this is not plowing
any new ground.
SENATOR ONORATO: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
8325
President, if the Senator would yield for a
brief question.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Goodman,
do you yield?
SENATOR GOODMAN: Yes, surely,
Senator.
THE PRESIDENT: He does yield.
You may proceed.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, I'm
interested in the rights of the city as they
impinge upon the concept of due process.
Moreover, what are the ways in which the owner
of the vehicle can challenge the seizure?
What are the processes by which we determine
where the burden of proof is?
And when these matters take place,
I'm just trying to ascertain what the actual
procedure is by which someone who wants to
aver that they have not acted in this fashion
can move to try to restore their possession.
SENATOR GOODMAN: A determination
will be made if there is a wrongful seizure in
the matter. And that's the law as it stands
on the books at this time, Senator. It's a
familiar law and one with which I'm sure you,
8326
as a jurisprudential scholar, are fully
familiar.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Stachowski.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Senator -
just a couple of questions, if the Senator
would yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Goodman,
will you yield for a question?
SENATOR GOODMAN: Yes, I will.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: I'm a little
confused, only as to how would they know what
cars they're stopping, these tax guys? Would
somebody else stop the car? And then once
they stop it, what would give them the right
to go through the person's car? I mean, what
would be the reason they stopped this car?
For example, if it's a car, like
you mentioned, with a trunkful of bootlegged
cigarettes, how would they just happen to pick
this car going over the George Washington
Bridge?
SENATOR GOODMAN: There are
8327
various intelligence sources which indicate
when illicit purchases, illegal purchases have
been made of cigarettes. Often it's those
that constitute the tips which enable them to
stop cars or really trucks, frequently, which
have the cigarettes on board.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: If the
Senator would continue to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Goodman,
do you continue to yield?
You may proceed, Senator.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: I understand
that they have this tip. But what would give
them -- that alone would give them enough
right to stop this car? I mean, they wouldn't
get thrown out of court?
I'm not a lawyer, so bear with me.
That would give them enough right to just have
the car stopped and searched?
SENATOR GOODMAN: Yes, it would.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: And it would
be just -- would it be all the tax people in
the City of New York or just certain tax
people in the City of New York who would then
become peace officers?
8328
SENATOR GOODMAN: This refers to
that group known as tax inspectors.
Excuse me, let me be a little more
clear on this, Senator. Hold on just a
moment.
This would be various employees of
the Department of Finance not now authorized
to do this. They would be peace officer -
have peace officer designation. And those
employees with such peace officer designation
would have the right to make these arrests.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Madam
President, if the Senator would yield for one
final question.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Goodman,
will you yield?
SENATOR GOODMAN: Yes, I will.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Senator, do
you have any idea how many people we're
talking about that have peace officer
designation currently that would then be given
this power? I'm just trying to get a -
SENATOR GOODMAN: I can only
8329
reflect on what I knew at the time I was the
commissioner of the department. I'd say
approximately 25.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Madam
President, I was going to stop, but I have to
ask one more question.
SENATOR GOODMAN: Go right ahead.
THE PRESIDENT: You have
authorization. You may proceed, Senator.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Senator, you
don't -- through you, Madam President, you
don't believe that that may have increased?
Because we're talking about a long time ago.
Because obviously you've been here for quite
some time.
SENATOR GOODMAN: I gave you the
information that's now available to me. If
you'd like to research it further, that can be
arranged.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Thank you,
Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any other
member wish to be heard on this bill?
Then the debate is closed.
Senator Montgomery, do you wish to
8330
be heard?
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, Madam
President. If the sponsor would answer just a
question that I have, a clarification.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Goodman,
would you yield for a question?
SENATOR GOODMAN: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, thank
you. Senator Goodman, does the law currently
allow for more than the seizure of the
bootlegged items? Or in other words -
SENATOR GOODMAN: You mean for
legitimate cigarettes?
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Is it now
possible for a person who is carrying
bootlegged cigarettes, as your bill implies,
to have those seized but not the vehicle? Or
do we currently have the authority to seize
vehicles carrying these cigarettes or carrying
bootlegged cigarettes?
SENATOR GOODMAN: We presently -
as I've indicated, the present law exists for
a wide variety of officers. But this
8331
simply -- the purpose of this legislation is
simply to add one more category; namely, the
peace officers of the Finance Department who
are not presently authorized to make such
seizures. And the seizure would include the
vehicle itself.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: All right.
One more question.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield for an additional question?
SENATOR GOODMAN: Yes, I will.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Senator, do
we have any idea how many of these seizures
have taken place, say in the last couple of
years?
SENATOR GOODMAN: Senator, may I
just say I can't give you a precise number,
but I know that the problem is one that's
burgeoning and will be even ever greater as we
increase the tax on cigarettes.
As you may recall, recent
legislation passed by us does increase it very
sharply. And the higher the increase in the
8332
cigarette tax goes, the more likelihood there
is smuggling of cigarettes. So I'd anticipate
there'd be a very substantial expansion in the
need for this type of policing.
And, frankly, I don't think it will
scratch the surface. I'm quite certain from
my own experience administering this law
previously that there will be very significant
leakage of illegal cigarettes into the state
of New York, and there will be very little we
can do to stop it. But we'll make our best
effort.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: One other
question, if I may.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Goodman,
will you yield for a question?
SENATOR GOODMAN: Yes, I will.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes.
Senator Goodman, what do we have in place to
collect based on a person bringing in
bootlegged cigarettes? Is there any
compensation that the state gets for evasion
of taxes or anything other than just to punish
8333
the person, seize the vehicle?
SENATOR GOODMAN: I'm not quite
sure of the purpose of your -- you're asking
is there a bounty on cigarette seizures? I'm
not -
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Is there
an avenue to compensate the state for the loss
in taxes based on this bootlegging problem?
SENATOR GOODMAN: No, no,
Senator, there's no avenue in place. I'm not
sure what type of an avenue you have. If
you've got one, please let me know. Because
it would be nice to think there's someone up
above the clouds who could intervene and
compensate us for these losses, but that
doesn't exist in the real world.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: So in
addition to seizing the person's vehicle,
there is no fine involved in terms of tax
evasion?
SENATOR GOODMAN: Oh, I see,
you're asking about a fine. Just a minute.
Let me check that.
There are criminal prosecutions for
evasion, and there are fines that are
8334
appertaining thereto. And there are also
restitution provisions within the law.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Okay. 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 immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 57.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
Senator Balboni.
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, Madam
President. Would you please call a Rules
Committee meeting in the Majority Conference
Room.
THE PRESIDENT: There will be an
immediate meeting of the Rules Committee in
the Majority Conference Room.
SENATOR BALBONI: Thank you,
Madam President.
8335
THE PRESIDENT: You're welcome.
Senator Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, Madam
President. May I have consent to be recorded
no on Calendar 505.
THE PRESIDENT: Hearing no
objection, you will be so recorded as voting
in the negative, Senator.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Balboni.
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, Madam
President. Would you please call up Calendar
Number 971.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read Calendar Number 971.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
971, by Senator Alesi, Senate Print 1133, an
act to amend the Penal Law, in relation to the
minimum sentence.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Explanation.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Alesi, an
explanation has been requested.
SENATOR ALESI: Thank you, Madam
President.
8336
This bill simply makes a technical
correction to existing law by removing the
word "indeterminate" as it applies to the use
of a firearm during the commission of a Class
B violent felony.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, if I
can just ask a question of Senator Alesi.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Alesi,
will you yield for a question?
SENATOR ALESI: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes.
Senator Alesi, if I understand the
legislation, it is -- it provides
additional -- an additional consecutive
sentence of five years of imprisonment upon
conviction for criminal use of a firearm. And
that sentence should be added to any minimum
sentence for any underlying Class B felony.
So that means, then, that in
addition to any sentence that a person
8337
receives if there is a firearm involved, they
get an additional five years automatically, no
matter what the primary charge is?
SENATOR ALESI: Through you,
Madam President, with all respect to Senator
Montgomery, you began your remarks with "if I
understand it correctly." I would
respectfully submit that you perhaps don't
understand it.
That is existing law that you have
already described. This bill simply takes the
"indeterminate" and removes it, from saying
"indeterminate sentence" to "a sentence."
And the reason for that is as
applies to this section of law two years ago,
those classifications of B felony would all be
determinate. And so this simply closes a
loophole. And the net effect of that is that
anyone who is a repeat offender would be
covered under this law, just as someone who is
a first-time offender already is.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Through you,
Mr. President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Alesi,
will you yield for an additional question?
8338
SENATOR ALESI: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Thank you.
Is it the case, Senator, that some
of the -- someone with a B felony may not be
in fact -- it may not be a violent felony
offense, but with this law it would be
automatic, an automatic additional five years,
determinate?
SENATOR ALESI: Through you,
Madam President. As the law currently exists,
passed in this house several years ago and
signed into law by the Governor, relative to a
B violent felony, anyone who is convicted of a
crime such as that while using a gun in the
commission of that crime would have an
automatic five year add-on.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Thank you.
Thank you, Senator.
SENATOR ALESI: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any other
member wish to be heard on this bill?
Then the debate is closed.
8339
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: Those recorded in
the negative on Calendar Number 971 are
Senators Duane, Hassell-Thompson, and
Montgomery. Ayes, 54. Nays, 3.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President. I was out of the chamber at a
committee meeting, and I wish to be recorded
in the negative, without objection, on
Calendar Number 896.
THE PRESIDENT: Without
objection, you will be so recorded as voting
in the negative.
Senator Balboni.
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, Madam
President. Could you please call up Calendar
Number 976, by Senator Alesi.
8340
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read Calendar 976.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
976, by Senator Alesi, Senate Print 3374, an
act to amend the Retirement and Social
Security Law, in relation to retirement of
deputy sheriffs.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Alesi, an
explanation has been requested.
SENATOR ALESI: Thank you, Madam
President.
This is in response to a home rule
message that would provide for deputized court
security to have the 25 year at 50 percent pay
privilege upon their retirement at 25 years.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, I have one question for Senator
Alesi.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Alesi,
will you yield for one question?
SENATOR ALESI: It's always my
pleasure to yield to Senator Paterson.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
8341
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you,
Madam President.
I'm just asking if there had been
any changes or corrections to the bill from
last year when the Governor vetoed it. And I
voted for the bill last year and just wouldn't
like to see it get vetoed by the Governor
again. And I just wanted an update on what
the bill's status for becoming law is.
SENATOR ALESI: Through you,
Madam President, thank you, Senator. There
have been some changes.
Most significantly, the veto
message centered around the fact that last
year's bill included civil as well as
deputized court security.
This bill does not deal with civil.
It is strictly relative to deputized court
security and recognizes that those deputized
court security share some of the same
dangerous duties as deputized sheriff's
deputies in the jail as well.
So in response to your question,
the reference to "civil" has been removed.
8342
And that was the main objection in the
Governor's veto message.
Thank you, Madam President.
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 5. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
SENATOR MEIER: The bill is
passed.
Senator Balboni.
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, Madam
President. Can we please call up Calendar
Number 949, by Senator Stafford.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read Calendar Number 949.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
949, by Senator Stafford, Senate Print 3481,
an act to amend the Executive Law, in relation
8343
to the Emergency Management Assistance
Compact.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Stafford,
an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Madam
President, I'm very pleased to sponsor and
support this bill, which will really put
New York State in an organization where many
of us feel that it would be helpful to us and
others. It's always good to think of others.
And this will establish the
Emergency Management Assistance Compact. It
authorizes the state to join this compact, a
compact where a number of states cooperate and
assist each other if a disaster occurs.
Member states are required to formulate
procedures for cooperating with other states.
A state may also only request assistance after
it has declared a state of emergency.
Thirty-four states and Congress
have already approved the compact. And this
is a department bill from the State Emergency
Management Office. We think it's a good bill.
And, Madam President, I can go back
8344
on some of my experience. I've been a member
for a number of years -- I won't tell how many
years -- of the Forest Fire Control
Commission, which is a group of Northeastern
states that support each other on forest
fires. That's changed a bit, however, because
of the way that we fight fires. But
cooperation is very important.
There is not a concern for a fiscal
impact at this time. And I think it is the
right way to go, and I agree with the
department. Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, certainly in an emergency or some
type of disaster we would want to make it easy
for people to come in from out of state or for
even our workers to go out of state to assist
other states. And that's probably a real good
reason why 34 of the states have ratified the
Emergency Management Assistance Compact.
However, I'm curious as to why we
exact an immunity standard on those workers
for any type of misfeasance of duty, rather
than an indemnification.
8345
Certainly, such as in Good
Samaritan-type legislation, we don't want a
person who in good faith goes to the aid of
another to be victimized or even sued or in
any way be held responsible for a situation
that was not caused by them.
And certainly we would want a
limited standard -- if there was some kind of
an accident that occurred during the
commission of a Good Samaritan act, we would
not want for that person to be held to the
same standard as if they were actually just in
their day-to-day activities.
But nonetheless, there are
situations where the definition of good faith
certainly calls for subjective determinations.
And in the present case, because we're talking
about activities that involve what is really
an amalgamation of the laws of different
states, there are conflicts in those laws.
And different states have different standards
for what constitutes recklessness and what
constitutes improper behavior.
And last year I voted against this
legislation because I didn't feel that I could
8346
totally understand what those standards are
going to be. So if Senator Stafford would
yield for a question.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Stafford?
SENATOR STAFFORD: By all means.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR PATERSON: My question
is, why are we using an immunity standard for
any worker who participates in one of these
emergency management situations, as opposed to
indemnification, if the action -- if the faith
of the action is in question?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Madam
President, I say this with good humor, I hope.
My question is, why doesn't Senator Paterson
understand what I told him last year?
(Laughter.)
SENATOR STAFFORD: But I will say
it again, Madam President.
When we're talking about a
situation where there's a disaster and we're
interested in people cooperating and we're
interested in meeting that disaster and we
want as many people to get the help as we can
get, I suggest, Madam President, that we're
8347
not really having on the front burner holding
those people liable for what they do. We want
them to be there, to be of assistance.
I understand why Senator Paterson
asked the question. I understand the
interests involved. And this time I would
suggest that the interest is the people who
would be harmed by this disaster.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Balboni.
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, Madam
President. Please permit me to interrupt
briefly, Senator Stafford.
Please call an immediate meeting of
the Crime and Corrections Committee in the
Majority Conference Room, if you would,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: There will be an
immediate meeting of the Crime and Corrections
Committee in the Majority Conference Room.
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.
8348
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
Senator Balboni.
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, Madam
President. Would you please call up Calendar
966, by Senator Stafford.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read Calendar 966.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
966, by Senator Stafford, Senate Print 4236,
an act to amend Chapter 688 of the Laws of
1955.
THE PRESIDENT: There is a home
rule message at the desk.
Read the last section.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
THE PRESIDENT: I would ask that
the members take their conversations outside
the chambers.
Senator Paterson, you did ask for
an explanation?
SENATOR PATERSON: Yes, I did,
8349
Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Stafford,
an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Thank you,
Madam President.
This bill involves the Schroon Lake
Park District. And for those of you who don't
get into the woods that often, or into the
real rural areas, dams are very, very, very
important. And if they aren't replaced and
repaired, they can wipe out villages, wipe out
highways. It can be very, very serious.
We have a situation in the Schroon
Lake area where a dam has to be replaced. And
therefore, they are asking for an increase in
the amount that they can borrow so that they
can bond this project and amortize it.
And it is very important for the
environment, it's very important for the
wildlife, and it's very important for the
people.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: There is a home
rule message at the desk.
Does any other member wish to be
8350
heard?
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Yes, Madam
President, a brief question, if Senator
Stafford would yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Stafford,
will you yield for a question?
SENATOR STAFFORD: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, does
this legislation cover all of the residents of
the town or just those in the park district?
Who are -- tell me the class of people that
are affected by this legislation.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Just those,
Madam President, just those in the park
district.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any other
member wish to be heard?
Then the debate is closed.
There's a home rule message at the
desk.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
8351
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 Balboni.
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, Madam
President. Would you please call up Calendar
Number 830, by Senator Bonacic.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read Calendar 830.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
830, by Senator Bonacic, Senate Print 5141, an
act to amend the Public Authorities Law, in
relation to the power of the State of New York
Mortgage Agency.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Bonacic,
an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR BONACIC: Thank you,
Madam President.
This is a legislation that will
amend the Public Authorities Law in relation
to the power of the State of New York Mortgage
8352
Agency, SONYMA, to invest in obligations in
which the Comptroller of the State of New York
is authorized to invest.
Right now we want to give SONYMA
the same powers as those of what we call the
New York State Housing Finance Agency, HFA, to
invest in obligations which the Comptroller is
authorized to invest in.
This organization, SONYMA, uses
their proceeds to lend for one-to-four-unit
affordable housing. And one of the problems
is their bonds become due every April 1st and
October 1st. So they're sitting on these
revenues, it could be anywhere from
$180 million to $200 million. They want to
keep them invested so they're gaining
interest, so when the maturity of the debt
comes due they can access the money.
Right now, they have to look into
only long-term security investments and
they're prohibited in what we call repurchase
agreements.
So this is what the purpose of the
legislation is.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
8353
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, that was outstanding.
SENATOR BONACIC: Thank you very
much, Senator Paterson. I always thought you
were intelligent and wise. Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: The debate is
definitely closed.
(Laughter.)
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 5. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
Senator Balboni.
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, Madam
President. Would you please call up Calendar
Number 810, by Senator Meier.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read Calendar 810.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
810, by Senator Meier, Senate Print 4307, an
8354
act to amend the Social Services Law, in
relation to guaranteeing.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON:
Explanation.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Meier, an
explanation has been requested.
SENATOR MEIER: Madam President,
with some trepidation following the preceding
act, I'll try.
The purpose of this bill really is
to clarify the legislative intent behind a law
that we passed two years ago. The law that we
passed two years ago makes it possible for
public assistance recipients who may be
working or in other circumstances to forgo
their cash assistance and to still maintain
their eligibility for child support.
What this bill does is makes it
quite clear that it is the intent of the
Legislature that we are guaranteeing that
child support benefit.
In order to more fully explain, I
can just briefly give you three examples that
pretty much covers all of the instances under
8355
which a public assistance recipient would find
this beneficial.
One would be where a public
assistance recipient is actually working but
is not receiving enough earnings to fully get
off public assistance. They might be
receiving a cash benefit of $20 or even less.
It permits them to forgo the cash benefit,
keep the public assistance or -- and keep the
child support assistance, childcare
assistance. That stops the five-year clock
from running on federal participation.
The second would be where the
absent parent may be faithfully paying child
support and where the custodial parent may
have little or no cash benefit in actuality
coming. Again, they have the ability then to
forgo the cash assistance portion but to
remain eligible for childcare.
And the third would be where one is
an applicant for public assistance. They may
be working and might be eligible for a very
small cash assistance allowance. This permits
them, once again, to forgo that cash
assistance but to remain entirely eligible for
8356
childcare.
This gives the public assistance
recipient the option to avoid the catch-22
situation, where they can give up the cash
assistance, stop the five-year clock from
running, but still remain eligible for
childcare.
Before we passed the 1999 law, the
catch-22 was that if you gave up the cash
assistance to stop the five-year clock from
running, even though it might be as little as
$20 or even $10, because you're no longer a
full-blown public assistance case, you lose
your eligibility for childcare.
So we're trying to clarify the
legislative intent and to make it easier for
that public assistance recipient to work.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Hassell-Thompson.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank
you, Madam President. If the Senator will
yield just for a couple of questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Meier,
will you yield for a question?
SENATOR MEIER: Yes, I would,
8357
Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: First,
let me say I am truly in support of the bill,
particularly in the way that you've explained
it. But there are just a couple of concerns
that I have, not about the bill but the bill
intent.
If the intent of the legislation is
to guarantee childcare assistance to families,
wouldn't be it be feasible to attach funding
to this legislation, since the Executive's
proposed budget for 2001-2002 supports the
current level of 174,000 childcare subsidies?
SENATOR MEIER: Well, Madam
President, the answer to that is the funding
is there. Because remember, this is an
either-or situation. This is someone who
would be eligible for public assistance in any
event. And what this does is it permits that
person to receive only the childcare portion
and to forgo a very minimal amount of cash
assistance.
So what it seeks to avoid is the
8358
type of catch-22 situation where we have some
Social Services districts literally requiring
someone, in order to receive childcare so they
can continue to work, to be a full-blown
public assistance recipient.
So I would argue, Madam President,
that really that instance costs more money
than when we simply permit someone to receive
childcare so they can work.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: If the
Senator will continue to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Meier, do
you continue to yield?
SENATOR MEIER: Yes, I would,
Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: You've
explained -- in your explanation of the bill,
you very carefully talked about the recipient
who has not yet used up their five years of
federal benefits.
My question is, are families
eligible for childcare subsidies after they
have used up their five years?
SENATOR MEIER: Yes, they are.
8359
They would be eligible for transitional
benefits for a period of up to one year, where
the children are 13 years of age or younger.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Or
whichever comes first?
SENATOR MEIER: You're talking
about -- when you say whichever comes first,
you mean the age of the child or the -
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Age of
the child or the year of the benefits.
SENATOR MEIER: No, I think the
benefit would end when the child reaches 13
years of age.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: If the
Senator would continue to yield, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Meier, do
you continue to yield?
SENATOR MEIER: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Hassell-Thompson.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: How
many families do we anticipate will roll over
to the safety net program at the end of this
8360
year, and how many will be eligible for
guaranteed childcare subsidies?
SENATOR MEIER: I think we're
looking at around 90,000 families statewide,
at the present time, look like they might wind
up in the safety net. Approximately 75,000 of
those families would be in the New York City
area; the balance in the rest of the state, of
course.
It would depend upon whether they
meet the existing eligibility criteria of
having a child 13 years of age or younger and
requiring the childcare assistance to meet
some activity approved as work.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: If the
Senator would continue to yield, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
continue to yield?
SENATOR MEIER: Yes, I do, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank
you. Madam President, through you.
Senator, are you aware that in
8361
New York City alone that there's a waiting
list of over 40,000 children for subsidized
childcare slots?
SENATOR MEIER: I'm aware there's
a waiting list in the City of New York as well
as some other counties around the state.
And the interesting thing about
this bill, once again, is that I think it may
encourage local Social Services districts to
try to do more planning to make more childcare
available without a waiting list.
Because -- and I would point out
that Governor Pataki has consistently
increased funding in budgets for childcare
slots.
But not only that. Remember, under
this legislation, these local Social Services
districts, be they the City of New York or
counties on the Island or upstate, are paying
this money out anyway to people as full-blown
public assistance recipients. It would
certainly be much more to their advantage to
pay the money out in the form of childcare and
to make planning for those slots.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: If the
8362
Senator would continue to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Meier, do
you yield?
SENATOR MEIER: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank
you, Madam President. Through you.
Senator, you just generated another
question. Having met just this past week with
people from parts of my district, the
Childcare Council, to talk about some of these
childcare issues and what the impact is just
currently, not even including those that at
the end of this year that will -- where the
sunset will fall on those who will no longer
be eligible, my sense is that this bill will
kick in and will continue to support a
tremendous number of them.
But the problem goes to the issue
that you just raised. Counties -- and
particularly Westchester County has threatened
not to continue to pay its portion and wants
the state -- wants to see the state pay a
8363
greater portion of childcare support payments,
as opposed to what is currently being paid.
And also, the Childcare Council is pushing to
have parents -- have a cap put on the portion
that parents can afford to pay.
What do you think this bill is
going to do in terms of the number of slots
that are -- currently that are needed, and in
addition to those slots that may not be filled
because there is not the kind of county
support, and if -- and if the state does not
up the ante in terms of the amount that it is
currently putting in?
SENATOR MEIER: Well, we're
getting into something that is somewhat apart
from this bill. But let me just peel that
apart a little bit.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Okay.
SENATOR MEIER: In terms of the
amount that parents are required to pay, we
are working on a bill and we're trying to get
a handle on the fiscal implications of what
happens when we play with that cap. And I'd
be happy to separately have a discussion with
you about that.
8364
And, you know, this gets
complicated. We have to be very careful that
we don't impose additional unfunded mandates
on the county. This bill works with money
that is guaranteed, that flows in any event.
The question is whether it flows to fund a
full-blown public assistance case or a
childcare-only case with perhaps some other
supportive benefits.
But I think, Senator, you're
highlighting something that is very critical.
The people have children, the children have to
be cared for if we expect them to work. And
it's something that I know the Governor has
paid a great deal of attention to, we have
paid attention to. And -- but we need to look
at it further.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank
you.
On the bill.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
on the bill, Senator.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Just
briefly.
As I see the bill, potentially
8365
New York State could save a lot of money. And
having had a conversation with Senator Meier,
I know that that was not the intent of this
bill. But certainly New York State is always
happy if in fact it does save money. But this
bill, however -
THE PRESIDENT: Excuse me,
Senator.
Senator Balboni, why do you rise?
SENATOR BALBONI: I apologize.
We're just trying to get some committee
meetings going.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: And
it's my Transportation, so I hope you'll wait.
SENATOR BALBONI: No, it's not.
It's Higher Education.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Good.
SENATOR BALBONI: Higher
Education in Room 328, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: There will be a
Higher Education Committee meeting in
Room 328.
SENATOR BALBONI: Thank you. My
apologies.
THE PRESIDENT: Excuse us. You
8366
may proceed, Senator Hassell-Thompson.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank
you. I was just hoping to get this bill done
before Transportation. Thank you.
But this bill, as I see it, does
not address the problems -- some of the
problems of childcare, such as the lengthy
waiting lists, standard care, and high cost to
families.
I do appreciate the thoughtfulness
of the way in which Senator Meier not only
answered the questions but certainly in the
way that he is crafting the bill. And I would
like to say to him that I will support this
bill and will accept his invitation to
participate with him in an ongoing way to
craft other portions of this bill as we look
at childcare for the state of New York.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any other
member wish to be heard on this bill?
Senator Oppenheimer.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Thank you.
On the bill.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
8367
on the bill, Senator.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: This is a
very good bill.
And one of our concerns is that
either when people leave government assistance
that they don't have the care necessary for
health for their children, they don't have the
money necessary for transportation. Too many
things evaporate when you give up the basic
subsidies.
So this is an excellent bill,
because it says we will continue paying for
childcare or a portion of that subsidy.
I just want to underline what
Senator Hassell-Thompson has said. We are so
far from meeting the needs of our low-income
residents as far as childcare that there
simply has to be some new thinking, somewhat
out of the box, which is going to address the
issue of subsidizing our low-income neighbors.
They are working full-time, in many
cases, both parents. And the situation that
presents itself with a lack of available
subsidized childcare in a quality setting with
teachers who are skilled is simply appalling.
8368
And we must turn our attention to it.
And I'd be delighted to sit down
with anyone and discuss this, because we must
do something.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Balboni.
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, Madam
President. Would you please call a meeting of
the Transportation Committee in the Majority
Conference Room.
THE PRESIDENT: There will be an
immediate meeting of the Transportation
Committee in the Majority Conference Room.
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, 58.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
Senator Dollinger.
8369
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Madam
President, could I have unanimous consent to
be recorded in the negative on Calendar Number
768, which is one of Senator Balboni's
property tax exemption bills.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Without
objection, you will be so recorded as voting
in the negative, Senator Dollinger.
Senator Balboni.
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, Madam
President. Could we please return to the
reports of standing committees. There is a
Rules report at the desk.
THE PRESIDENT: Reports of
standing committees.
The Secretary will read.
SENATOR BALBONI: Thank you.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Bruno,
from the Committee on Rules, reports the
following bills:
Senate Print 85, by Senator Skelos,
an act to amend the Civil Rights Law.
2540, by Senator Leibell, an act in
relation to maintaining.
8370
2546, by Senator Marchi, an act to
amend the Not-for-Profit Corporation Law.
2711, by Senator Padavan, an act to
amend the Penal Law.
3408, by Senator Velella, an act to
amend the Penal Law.
4327, by Senator Volker, an act to
amend the Criminal Procedure Law.
4371A, by Senator Seward, an act to
amend the Criminal Procedure Law.
4454, by Senator Leibell, an act to
amend the Public Officers Law.
4517, by Senator McGee, an act
authorizing the conveyance.
4840, by Senator Stafford, an act
to authorize the reopening.
5090A, by Senator Connor, an act to
authorize the St. Anne's School.
5297, by Senator Volker, an act to
amend the Public Authorities Law.
5299, by Senator Johnson, an act to
amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law.
5322, by Senator LaValle, an act to
amend the Town Law.
5368, by Senator Skelos, an act to
8371
amend Chapter 704 of the Laws of 1991.
5377, by Senator Balboni, an act in
relation to authorizing.
And 5394, by Senator Lack, an act
to amend Chapter 83 of the Laws of 1995.
All bills ordered direct to third
reading.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Balboni.
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, Mr.
President. I move to accept the report of the
Rules Committee.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: All
those in favor of accepting the report of the
Rules Committee signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Opposed,
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
report of the Rules Committee is accepted.
All bills directly to third
reading.
Senator Balboni.
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, could we
8372
please take up Calendar 984.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read Calendar 984.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
984, by Senator Lack, Senate Print 5394, an
act to amend Chapter 83 of the Laws of 1995
amending the State Finance Law.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President,
is there a message of necessity at the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Yes,
there is, Senator.
SENATOR SKELOS: Move to accept.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
question is on accepting the message of
necessity. All those in favor signify by
saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Opposed,
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
message is accepted. The bill is before the
house.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
8373
Lack, an explanation has been requested by
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR LACK: This is a
three-way agreement to end sequestration.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Mr.
President, will the sponsor yield to just one
question.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Lack, do you yield for a question?
SENATOR LACK: One question, yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields for one question.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: How does this
bill and the permanent repeal of the
sequestration rule, how does it affect a death
case? How would you see it being handled in a
death case?
SENATOR LACK: There was
consideration given, Mr. President, to special
rules in a death case. After due deliberation
and discussions between the Senate, the
Assembly, and the Governor's office, up to and
including last night, there is no effect
8374
whatsoever given to a death case over any
other case, except for the fact, of course,
that a judge in any trial in which he or she
determines it's necessary can order a jury
sequestered.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President. First of all, thank you to
Senator Lack for the response to the question
and the update on those negotiations.
I'm going to vote in favor of this
bill, as I have for other extensions of the
repeal of the sequestration rule, but I do it
with one caveat. And that is, I would
strongly urge judges in death cases to very
carefully review the issue of jury
sequestration during the process of
deliberation.
Because, while sequestration may
not be required during the presentation of
evidence, at the point of deliberation, when
we rely on our twelve-member juries to decide
both the effect -- the liability portion of
the trial and the sentence portion of the
trial, I'm actually more concerned about the
sentence portion because of the risk that, as
8375
oftentimes has happened in our county, where
we've had three death cases, there's constant
speculation in the media and in the printed
newspapers about what effect certain evidence
will have on the imposition of the death
sentence.
And I'm concerned, and I would
strongly urge -- while I believe we have to
vest trial judges with the discretion to do
this, I would just strongly urge that the
trial judges of this state, who I have a lot
of confidence in, should very, very carefully
examine a request for sequestration during
both the liability but, even more importantly,
during the sentence portion of capital cases,
because of the great danger that commentary in
the media during the deliberation phase could
substantially impact the result.
I've agreed with eliminating
sequestration. I think -- I have confidence
that our judges will do the right thing. I
would just strongly urge, Mr. President, as my
own little commentary on this bill, that the
state trial judges look very carefully and
strongly consider sequestering trial jurors
8376
during the deliberation of both liability and
sentencing phase in capital cases.
And I thank, by the way, the
chairman of the Judiciary Committee for his
work on this bill in making this happen.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
I concur with Senator Dollinger's feelings but
would add to them that if the issue is one
that there will be a greater onus on our trial
judges, particularly during the liability
stage, to be making the determination as to
whether or not the jury is sequestered, I
would just like to point out that it also has
a kind of corollary effect on the use of
cameras in the courtroom.
If there are going to be cameras in
the courtroom and the juries are not going to
be sequestered, that only adds to the fears
that Senator Dollinger just expressed, where
you might have an unintentional taint of the
process because of the heightened interest in
the case and also the tremendous availability
of the media in that regard.
8377
So if we are going to continue
cameras in the courtroom, I think that's
something that the judges are going to have to
take into consideration, along with the issues
that exist in terms of jury sequestration as
it stands.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Any
other Senator wish to be heard on the bill?
Hearing none, debate is closed.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 4. 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 Number 983.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read Calendar 983.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
983, by Senator Skelos, Senate Print 5368, an
8378
act to amend Chapter 704 of the Laws of 1991.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Skelos, an explanation has been requested by
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR SKELOS: Thank you.
This bill would extend the sunset
provisions of Article 25 of the Arts and
Cultural Affairs Law, also known as the
ticket-scalping legislation, to June 20, 2001.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
a brief question, if Senator Skelos is in a
mood to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Skelos, do you yield for a question?
SENATOR SKELOS: I shall.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR PATERSON: I assume that
what we're really trying to do is to negotiate
for something a lot longer and more
8379
comprehensive, and that's what we need the
time for.
SENATOR SKELOS: I'm delighted to
yield to you and answer yes.
SENATOR PATERSON: Then I am
similarly delighted.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Any
other Senator wish to be heard on the bill?
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 Duane, why do you rise?
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Mr.
President. With unanimous consent, I'd like
to be recorded in the negative on Calendar
Number 949. I was out of the room in a
committee meeting when it came up for a vote.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Without
8380
objection, Senator Duane will be recorded in
the negative on Calendar Number 949.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President,
would you please call up Calendar Number 978,
by Senator Johnson.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read Calendar 978.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
978, by Senator Johnson, Senate Print 4512, an
act to amend the Criminal Procedure Law, in
relation to prohibiting issuance.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Johnson, an explanation has been requested by
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR JOHNSON: Mr. President,
this provides that those convicted of sodomy
and rape in the second and third degrees,
which are D and E class felony sex crimes,
would not be released -- those convicted of
those crimes would not be released upon their
own recognizance or upon bail pending appeal
8381
of their conviction.
And the process of appeal is being
expedited in this case by -- the appeal must
be perfected within 60 days and completed
within 120 days.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President, if Senator Johnson will just
yield to one question.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Johnson, do you yield for a question?
The sponsor yields.
SENATOR JOHNSON: Yes.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Senator
Johnson, just so I know, how have generally
the rules for expedited appeals worked in
other contexts?
My only concern is, Senator
Johnson, as a practitioner largely in the
Fourth Department, we can wait sometimes as
long as a year for an opinion or for a
decision to come down from the appellate
courts. And I'm just concerned that even with
an attempt to expedite it, we may not get to
8382
that goal.
I understand that the purpose is to
deny an order of recognizance or bail for
someone who is convicted while they await
their appeal. But my only question is, how
realistic is this that you think we'll get
quicker decisions from the appellate division?
SENATOR JOHNSON: I hope it's
more realistic than the rule about getting our
budget on time.
I trust that the courts will see
that this is expedited according to the law
which we're passing today.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: So, Senator
Johnson, you're suggesting that expedited for
the courts should mean something different
than April 1st for the Legislature?
SENATOR JOHNSON: Jim Lack told
me judges are special people.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President, I'm going to vote in favor of
this bill. I think this is a reasonable
restriction to reduce both bail and ROR
releases for those who have already been
convicted.
8383
And I think it's important, as
Senator Johnson points out, these are people
who have been found guilty. And the question
is if we can arrange an expedited appeal. I'm
just always a bit leery about the notion of
expedited appeals. It means they're processed
quicker to the courts, but it doesn't
necessarily mean the court's decision is
rendered as promptly as we would like it.
So I'll vote in favor and I'll wait
and see what happens, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Any
other Senator wish to be heard?
Debate is closed.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 5. 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: Please call up
8384
Calendar 846, by Senator Saland.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read Calendar 846.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
846, by Senator Saland, Senate Print 4234, an
act to amend the Penal Law, in relation to
establishing.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President,
if we could just stand at ease, I believe
Senator Saland is in a Higher Ed Committee
meeting.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Senate will stand at ease.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President,
while we're waiting, could we please lay aside
for the day Calendar Number 847 and Calendar
876, at the request of the sponsors.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:
Calendars 847 and 876 will be laid aside at
the request of the sponsors.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President,
8385
is there any housekeeping at the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: We have
some motions, Senator Skelos.
Senator Farley.
SENATOR FARLEY: Thank you, Mr.
President.
On behalf of Senator Rath, would
you please remove the sponsor's star from
Calendar 136.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: So
ordered.
SENATOR FARLEY: On behalf of
Senator Wright, Mr. President, I move, on page
51, the following amendments to Calendar
Number 836, Senate Print 3499, and I ask that
that bill retain its place on the Third
Reading Calendar.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
amendments are received and adopted, and the
bill will retain its place on the Third
Reading Calendar.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President,
at this time would you please call up calendar
846, by Senator Saland.
8386
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read Calendar 846.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
846, by Senator Saland, Senate Print 4234, an
act to amend the Penal Law, in relation to
establishing.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Saland, an explanation has been requested of
Calendar 846 by Senator Paterson.
SENATOR SALAND: Thank you, Mr.
President.
Mr. President, this is a bill which
in many respects is a companion to the bill
that we did yesterday, the purpose of which
really is to deal with the issue of abduction
of children by family members.
What this bill would do would be to
create a rebuttable presumption that a person
who removes a child does so -- who removes a
child in violation of a court order does so
with the knowledge that in fact he or she is
violating that court order.
And we create a mechanism whereby
substituted service can be accomplished to
8387
give notice to that person of the entry of
that order. And the order is critical in that
it triggers the involvement of the FBI.
Without having this order of
custody, which can be stymied by a parent
abducting with the child and absenting
themselves from a jurisdiction, you cannot
bring in the FBI. And obviously, the earlier
you bring in the FBI, the greater the
likelihood of a successful investigation.
The numbers are staggering. Some
350,000 or more children are abducted during
the course of the year nationally, and some
75 percent of those children are generally
taken by a family member.
This is an effort to, at the very
least, level the playing field and give the
aggrieved parent the opportunity to as quickly
as possible regain access to his or her child,
and certainly to spare the extraordinary
trauma and anguish associated with these types
of abductions, to spare the child that type of
anguish.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Paterson.
8388
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President,
may I interrupt for one second.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: I'm
sorry, Senator Paterson.
I'm sorry, Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: There will be an
immediate meeting of the Veterans Committee in
the Majority Conference Room.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:
Immediate meeting of the Veterans Committee in
the Majority Conference Room.
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
this bill was laid aside by Senator Smith.
The record will reflect that last year
Senators Smith and DeFrancisco voted no. She
is currently in the Transportation Committee
meeting, and therefore she may want to record
her vote later.
But I just wanted to put that on
the record.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Any
other Senator wish to be heard on the bill?
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
8389
act shall take effect on the first day of
November.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 57. Nays,
1. Senator Montgomery recorded in the
negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President,
perhaps we can just stand at ease for a
moment, as members come back from the
committee meeting, so they could record their
votes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Senate will stand at ease.
(Whereupon, the Senate stood at
ease at 1:10 p.m.)
(Whereupon, the Senate reconvened
at 1:15 p.m.)
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Skelos.
8390
SENATOR SKELOS: Would you please
recognize Senator Ada Smith.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Ada Smith.
SENATOR ADA SMITH: Thank you,
Mr. President. I request unanimous consent to
be recorded in the negative on Calendar Number
846, Bill Number S4234.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Without
objection, Senator Ada Smith will be recorded
in the negative on Calendar 846.
Senator Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, Mr.
President, I would like unanimous consent to
be recorded in the negative on Calendar Number
844.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Without
objection, Senator Montgomery will be recorded
in the negative on Calendar 844.
Senator Lachman.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Yes, Mr.
President, I would request unanimous consent
now to be recorded in the negative on Item
505, Calendar Number 505.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Without
8391
objection, Senator Lachman will be recorded in
the negative on Calendar 505.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President,
is there any housekeeping at the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: No,
there is not, Senator.
SENATOR SKELOS: There being no
further business, I move we adjourn until
Thursday, May 31st, at 11:00 a.m.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: On
motion, the Senate stands adjourned until
Thursday, May 31st, at 11:00 a.m.
(Whereupon, at 1:17 p.m., the
Senate adjourned.)