Regular Session - June 13, 2001
9277
NEW YORK STATE SENATE
THE STENOGRAPHIC RECORD
ALBANY, NEW YORK
June 13, 2001
11:21 a.m.
REGULAR SESSION
LT. GOVERNOR MARY O. DONOHUE, President
STEVEN M. BOGGESS, Secretary
9278
P R O C E E D I N G S
THE PRESIDENT: The Senate will
please come to order.
I ask everyone present to please
rise and repeat with me the Pledge of
Allegiance.
(Whereupon, the assemblage recited
the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.)
THE PRESIDENT: In the absence of
clergy, may we each bow our heads in a moment
of silence.
(Whereupon, the assemblage
respected a moment of silence.)
THE PRESIDENT: Reading of the
Journal.
THE SECRETARY: In Senate,
Tuesday, June 12, the Senate met pursuant to
adjournment. The Journal of Monday, June 11,
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.
9279
Messages from the Governor.
Reports of standing committees.
Reports of select committees.
Communications and reports from
state officers.
Motions and resolutions.
Senator Meier.
SENATOR MEIER: Thank you, Madam
President.
Madam President, amendments are
offered to the following Third Reading
Calendar bills.
By Senator Goodman, page 14,
Calendar 326, Senate Print 733.
By Senator Stafford, page 16,
Calendar 392, Senate Print 3918.
By Senator Marchi, page 29,
Calendar 668, Senate Print 3382.
By Senator Johnson, page 37,
Calendar 777, Senate Print 4604.
Also by Senator Johnson, page 38,
Calendar 791, Senate Print 3257.
By Senator Trunzo, at page 48,
Calendar 1097, Senate Print 5401.
By Senator Velella, page 15,
9280
Calendar 371, Senate Print 3209.
By Senator Seward, at page 34,
Calendar 723, Senate Print 3795A.
Also by Senator Seward, page 34,
Calendar 728, Senate Print 5213.
By Senator Balboni, page 47,
Calendar 999, Senate Print 5377.
By Senator Goodman, at page 24,
Calendar 561, Senate Print 3903.
And by Senator Morahan, at page 23,
Calendar 544, Senate Print 3146A.
Madam President, I now move that
these bills retain their place on the Third
Reading Calendar.
THE PRESIDENT: The amendments
are received, and the bills will retain their
place on the Third Reading Calendar, Senator
Meier.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
are there any substitutions to be made?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, there are,
Senator.
SENATOR SKELOS: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
9281
will read.
THE SECRETARY: On page 50,
Senator Oppenheimer moves to discharge, from
the Committee on Rules, Assembly Bill Number
8343 and substitute it for the identical
Senate Bill Number 4815A, Third Reading
Calendar 1118.
THE PRESIDENT: The substitution
is ordered.
Senator Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Thank you,
Madam President.
On behalf of Senator Maziarz, I
wish to call up Senate Print Number 4057,
recalled from the Assembly, which is now at
the desk.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
822, by Senator Maziarz, Senate Print 4057, an
act to amend the Not-For-Profit Corporation
Law.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: I now move to
reconsider the vote by which the bill was
passed.
9282
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will call the roll upon reconsideration.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 47.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: I now offer
the following amendments.
THE PRESIDENT: The amendments
are received, Senator.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Madam
President, on behalf of Senator Wright, I wish
to call up Senate Print Number 3525, recalled
from the Assembly, which is now at the desk.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
674, by Senator Wright, Senate Print 3525, an
act to amend the Environmental Conservation
Law.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: I now move to
reconsider the vote by which the bill was
passed.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will call the roll upon reconsideration.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 47.
9283
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: I now offer
the following amendments.
THE PRESIDENT: The amendments
are received, Senator.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Madam
President, on behalf of Senator Farley, on
page number 32 I offer the following
amendments to Calendar Number 702, Senate
Print Number 3792, and ask that said bill
retain its place on Third Reading Calendar.
THE PRESIDENT: The amendments
are received, and the bill will retain its
place on the Third Reading Calendar.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
if we could go to the noncontroversial
calendar at this time.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
123, by Senator Goodman, Senate Print 1729, an
act to amend the Real Property Tax Law and the
Administrative Code of the City of New York,
in relation to the mailing requirements for
documents.
9284
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 52. 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
221, by Member of the Assembly Canestrari,
Assembly Print Number 5822B, an act to amend
the Education Law, in relation to instruction
in motorcycle safety.
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.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
245, by Senator Lack, Senate Print 1916, an
9285
act to amend the Real Property Law, in
relation to requiring.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the 90th day.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 49.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
442, by Senator Skelos, Senate Print 420A, an
act to amend the Correction Law, in relation
to the registration of sex offenders.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 23. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
November.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 49.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
9286
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
443, by Senator Skelos, Senate Print 1264, an
act to amend the Correction Law, in relation
to requiring.
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, 49.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
446, by Senator LaValle, Senate Print 3368A,
an act to amend the Correction Law, in
relation to additional crimes.
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, 49.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
9287
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
522, by Senator Skelos, Senate Print 3946, an
act to amend the Correction Law, in relation
to the registration of sex offenders.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay that
aside, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
530, by Member of the Assembly Schimminger,
Assembly Print Number 7710, an act to amend
the Retirement and Social Security Law -
SENATOR SKELOS: Lay it aside for
the day.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside for the day.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
555, by Senator Maziarz, Senate Print 2166A,
an act to amend the Tax Law, in relation to
the distribution.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
9288
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect December 1, 2001.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 49.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
644, by Senator Volker, Senate Print 2305, an
act to amend the Penal Law, in relation to
assaults against transit employees.
SENATOR HEVESI: Lay it aside,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
733, by Senator Larkin, Senate Print 4251, an
act to amend the Racing, Pari-Mutuel Wagering
and Breeding Law, in relation to authorizing.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
782, by Member of the Assembly Rivera,
9289
Assembly Print Number 7699A, an act to amend
the Estates, Powers and Trusts Law, in
relation to the authority.
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, 49.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
828, by Senator Bonacic, Senate Print 5118A,
an act to amend Chapter 555 of the Laws of
1989.
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, 49.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
9290
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
829, by Senator Bonacic, Senate Print 5119A,
an act to amend Chapter 915 of the Laws of
1982.
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, 49.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
866, by Senator Trunzo, Senate Print 5202, an
act to amend the Canal Law, in relation to the
jurisdictional transfer.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 74. This
act shall take effect in 90 days.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 49.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
9291
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
926, by Senator McGee, Senate Print 3065A, an
act to amend the Election Law, in relation to
the declination of designations.
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, 49.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1068, by the Assembly Committee on Rules,
Assembly Print Number 8503A, an act to amend
the Labor Law and the Public Officers Law, in
relation to public access.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 7. This
act shall take effect on the 60th day.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
9292
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 49.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1111, by Senator Gentile, Senate Print 1615,
an act to amend the Penal Law, in relation to
disseminating indecent material.
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, 49.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1112, by Senator Alesi, Senate Print 2193A, an
act to amend the Alcoholic Beverage Control
Law, in relation to certain violations.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
9293
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 49.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1113, by Senator Meier, Senate Print 2723 -
SENATOR SAMPSON: Lay it aside,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1114, by Senator Volker, Senate Print 3093A,
an act to amend the Real Property Tax Law, in
relation to providing a tax exemption.
SENATOR HEVESI: Lay it aside,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1117, by Senator Trunzo, Senate Print 4720, an
act in relation to authorizing the inclusion.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
9294
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 52.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1118, substituted earlier today by the
Assembly Committee on Rules, Assembly Print
Number 8343, an act to amend the Town Law and
the Public Officers Law, in relation to
removing.
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, 52.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1119, by Senator Spano, Senate Print 5253, an
act to amend the Workers' Compensation Law and
Chapter 729 of the Laws of 1993.
9295
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, 53.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1120, by Senator Padavan, Senate Print 5318,
an act in relation to establishing the
calendar flexibility pilot program.
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 Malcolm
Smith, to explain your vote.
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: Thank
you, Madam President.
Just very briefly on the bill,
1120, I just wanted to give kudos to my
9296
colleague Senator Padavan. What this bill
would do for many schools in the borough which
I have been fortunate to be a part of and
represent is actually open up close to 8,000
slots for additional students.
It will have a year-round
educational program which will be very
supportive and very helpful to many of the
youngsters throughout Queens -- and hopefully
eventually throughout the state, if it so
chooses -- to keep them off the street, keep
them busy, keep them active, give them
additional educational incentives to be
involved in different programs that are going
on.
I think this is a bright day for
the borough of Queens. And again, to Senator
Padavan, who is always pointed and has the
right issues for schools, kudos to him. Thank
you very much, Senator.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Hevesi,
to explain your vote.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you, Madam
President.
I want to echo the comments of the
9297
Senator who just referred to the need that we
have in New York City, the acute need for
additional space. And we always focus on
capital school construction. And
unfortunately, that's not going to solve our
problem.
We have an influx of immigrants
coming into the borough over the next five or
ten years that will far outpace the massive
capital school construction program that we
currently have underway. So we have to start
looking at new and innovative approaches.
And I do commend Senator Padavan on
bringing this legislation. I also commend
Terri Thomson, the Queens representative on
the Board of Education, for pushing through
what is a complicated proposal here that's
going to create additional school space
without building any additional school space.
This is the kind of innovative
approach that we need to look to in the
future, because we're just not going to be
able to build the number of seats required to
ensure that every child in New York City has a
desk in a classroom in a school building that
9298
is in good condition.
So this is smart government, and I
commend the sponsor for bringing it. I hope
everyone supports it.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Smith and
Senator Hevesi, you will both be recorded as
voting in the affirmative.
The Secretary will announce the
results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 53.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1121, by Senator Bruno, Senate Print -
SENATOR SKELOS: Lay it aside for
the day, please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside for the day.
Senator Skelos, that completes the
reading of the noncontroversial calendar.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
if we could go to the controversial calendar.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
9299
522, by Senator Skelos, Senate Print 3946, an
act to amend the Correction Law, in relation
to the registration of sex offenders.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Skelos,
an explanation has been requested.
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, that was a reflex response. I
actually understand this bill. I don't need
an explanation.
And actually, I thank Senator
Skelos for the legislation.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you wish to be
heard on the bill, Senator Paterson?
SENATOR PATERSON: I was just
heard. Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 13. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
November.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 53.
9300
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
644, by Senator Volker, Senate Print 2305, an
act to amend the Penal Law, in relation to
assaults against transit employees.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Volker,
an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR VOLKER: Madam President,
this is a bill that frankly has been around
for a couple of years in different forms -
more than a couple of years, in fact. And
I'll be very honest with you, it results from
a problem that many of us believe, that the
penalties for assault is grossly undermanaged,
as we call it.
Presently, a D felony is provided
only for assaults against police officers,
firefighters, paramedics, and emergency
medical service technicians. This would
increase the penalty for attacks on transit
workers, which we are told are happening at a
quite decidedly and unfortunately quite a
rapid and -- quite a rapid increase.
9301
This bill is a little broader than
some of the bills that we've had in the past,
and I think points up my personal opinion as
to the problem here. And this is particularly
true in New York City, because the penalty in
most cases for such assaults is an A
misdemeanor.
If you know anything about the
New York City criminal justice system these
days, a misdemeanor is about the same as a
traffic offense or less in upstate New York,
where they hand you a notice to come into
court at some point. The problem is I think
that the district attorneys really pay little
attention to any of these unless it's at least
an E felony.
So this bill -- what this bill
would do would be to increase the penalty for
what amounts to a serious attack on transit
workers to a Class D felony, for which the
maximum sentence would be seven years in
prison.
And, you know, the retort to that
is, Well, why don't you just pass a bill that
would generally raise the assault penalties?
9302
Well, we've done that in this house a number
of times. And what we tend to find is that in
all candor, with the Assembly, that the way
that you can eventually pass increases in
assault penalties is to specify certain
groups.
And I've done that over the years,
and others have done it, and that's the way
we've increased the penalty in the assault
area.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Hevesi.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you, Madam
President. Would the sponsor please yield?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Volker,
will you yield?
SENATOR VOLKER: Why, certainly.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you.
Am I understanding correctly, we're
moving from the potential from an A
misdemeanor to a D felony?
SENATOR VOLKER: Yeah. For
serious assaults. The ordinary assaults would
probably be more like harassment.
But what we're doing is we're
9303
saying assault second, which is a serious
assault, as you know, would be punishable by a
D felony with a maximum term of seven years in
prison. And as you know, it's not a mandatory
sentence, it's an indeterminate sentence of up
to seven years in prison.
SENATOR HEVESI: Madam President,
would the sponsor continue to yield?
SENATOR VOLKER: Sure.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Volker
yields.
You may proceed, Senator.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you.
So we're talking about assault in
the second degree that we're elevating from an
A misdemeanor to a D felony?
SENATOR VOLKER: Right. Right.
SENATOR HEVESI: I guess my first
question here is, why are we moving to a D
felony as opposed to an E felony? That's the
first question.
SENATOR VOLKER: Well, that's a
good question. I think the reason is is
because the assault seconds that we have
already done in the areas of police officers,
9304
firefighters, and so forth have been in the
D felony area. So we're just moving these
people, these names, into that section.
SENATOR HEVESI: Madam President,
would the sponsor continue to yield?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Volker,
will you yield?
SENATOR VOLKER: Why, certainly.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Hevesi.
SENATOR HEVESI: I'm not clear.
If the maximum penalty for assault in the
second degree is an A misdemeanor, why are we
jumping two levels to provide additional
protections to this classification of people?
SENATOR VOLKER: Because
essentially that's what we did, virtually did
with police officers, firefighters, and
emergency personnel.
Might I say -- and I probably
hesitate to say this on the floor, but I
will -- of course, there's always the
possibility that we can get a compromise with
the Assembly for an E felony.
(Laughter.)
9305
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you, Madam
President. Would the sponsor continue to
yield?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Volker,
will you yield?
SENATOR VOLKER: Yes, certainly.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR HEVESI: I thank the
sponsor for his subtle candor.
Can you define for us what
assault -- what would constitute an assault in
the second degree?
SENATOR VOLKER: Well, assault in
the second degree is basically where there is
a fairly severe injury.
And the reason I say fairly severe,
the courts have really limited assault second
over the years, which is one reason why we
increased the penalty, to what amounts to
either a broken bone or a -- in some cases
broken cheekbones. I mean, fairly serious
injuries. It says serious injury.
Now what, you know, is a serious
injury is a determination that is made -
someone, you know, hits somebody, uses a club
9306
or something of that nature. Otherwise, it
would be what we would call an ordinary
assault, which would still be a misdemeanor is
what it would be. And that's an ordinary
assault third, which is a misdemeanor
generally. And that's what it would be.
So it has to have a serious injury
in order to be classified as an assault
second.
SENATOR HEVESI: Madam President,
would the sponsor continue to yield?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Volker,
will you yield?
SENATOR VOLKER: Yes, certainly.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you.
Just for my edification, assault in
the first degree, what is the additional
element that has to be present?
SENATOR VOLKER: Assault in the
first degree, you have intent to commit an
assault with a serious injury where a person
is seriously injured. And it adds the element
of intent to seriously injure.
9307
And in other words, in that case
you virtually have to have a weapon. And so
in other words, it isn't just a matter of
punching someone or hitting them, you have to
have clear intent to commit a serious injury
and can actually seriously injure them.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you, Madam
President. Would the sponsor continue to
yield?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Volker,
will you yield?
SENATOR VOLKER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Hevesi.
SENATOR HEVESI: It seems to me
that if we are going to recognize that
assaults on certain individuals -- and I guess
I'll address that in a moment -- where there
is serious bodily damage inflicted, that that
should be a -- that additional penalties
should be a protection afforded to everybody
in the citizenry.
So why don't we elevate
second-degree assault to a felony-level
offense? I'm not suggesting a D, maybe an
9308
E felony. Is there an argument against doing
that?
SENATOR VOLKER: No. I think
you're absolutely right.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you.
Madam President -- Mr. President,
would the sponsor continue to yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Volker, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR VOLKER: I certainly do.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you.
Let me just for a minute -- because
I am somewhat troubled about the prospect, the
notion of providing additional penalties for
this particular class of people. Let me state
at the outset this is quite different than
what we did with hate crimes legislation or
the like.
And I have always supported
additional penalties, both as a deterrent and
as an a justifiable punitive measure, for
individuals who assault police officers or
peace officers or anybody else who is engaged
9309
in some type of law enforcement activity.
My question to you -- and I believe
you mentioned this in your opening comments
about this bill -- aside from police officers,
firefighters or EMS workers, ambulance
workers, all of whom must put themselves in a
position of physically being present in
tension-filled situations where there is
conflict occurring, where the danger that is
present to them is greater than the danger of
an assault being inflicted on the average
person, is there any other type of government
worker in New York State who enjoys the
protections that would be afforded under this
bill?
SENATOR VOLKER: No. But I guess
I would ask the question -- you know New York
City better than I do. And I guess the
question is, do you think that train operators
and bus dispatchers and ticket inspectors are
not in a pretty tough situation in many cases?
I think unfortunately they are, and
they've been assaulted at a fairly increasing
rate. And I think that's why they have looked
for an additional penalty, because there have
9310
been some pretty serious assaults that
apparently have ended up with almost no
penalties or extremely minor penalties.
And by the way, I just want to say
that I wasn't trying to be a wise guy when I
said I think you're right about the fact we
should upgrade the total penalties. That has
been my argument. And we've passed bills here
that would upgrade the penalties in general.
We have been unsuccessful for a decade in the
other house.
So I guess what I'm saying to you
is that this is an alternative. I'm not
saying it's the best alternative, but I'm
saying that it is an alternative that has been
asked of us and asked of me by people who feel
that they've been attacked and assaulted. And
so we feel that it's something that we should
move.
If the Assembly -- and I'll be
perfectly honest -- said how about if we make
it an E felony, that bill would be printed by
this evening and we'd probably get it on the
floor as soon as possible and we'd send it
over. I mean -- but in all honesty, we
9311
haven't got that breakthrough yet.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you.
Mr. President, would the sponsor
continue to yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Volker, do you yield?
SENATOR VOLKER: Why, certainly.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR HEVESI: Is there any
statistical or anecdotal evidence that shows
that -- and I'm not disputing that transit
workers are sometimes assaulted. And if
they're being assaulted and there's serious
bodily damage being inflicted upon them and
the perpetrators are not being prosecuted
sufficiently, that may not be a problem with
New York State law, that may be a problem with
whatever prosecutor has jurisdiction there.
That's the first point I want to make.
The second point I'd like to make
here is, is there any evidence to show that
transit workers -- who of course, by
definition, they are going to come into
contact with more people than the average
9312
person would. But is their level of assault,
their percentage of assault any higher than,
for example, parks workers who, during the
summer, may be dealing with people who are
intoxicated or what have you, or any other
municipal worker? Why this group, is my
question.
SENATOR VOLKER: And the answer
to that one is, the transit workers union -- I
can assure you a few years ago that question
was asked of us when we did a bill similar to
this. And they brought in all sorts of
statistics that showed, particularly in
New York City and in Buffalo and I think in
Rochester, that they had an increasing
number -- I think in New York City it was -
my recollection is, and I'd have to go back -
and I'll be very honest with you, I didn't
bring that material. But I know they brought
in statistics that showed like a hundred
percent increase in assaults.
This was years ago. I mean,
New York City now is a calmer place,
thankfully, and there aren't as many violent
felonies and as much crime. But it's still -
9313
you know, we know, and you know as well as I
do, that there's still a lot of
confrontations, and in the city of Buffalo
also.
And I would say to you this, that I
think there is evidence -- and by the way,
I'll look for it, now that you've brought it
up. But I think there is evidence that these
types of individuals, in the crowded
situations that they are, are much more likely
to be in assaultive situations than, for
instance, parks people and so forth. Who, by
the way, may well be peace officers and
therefore would be covered also under a higher
standard. That's one of the things about it.
These are people that are not
covered under any of those categories unless
the person who's there -- for instance, a
police officer standing right next to, say, a
ticket inspector or a conductor would be
covered by assault second, and the same person
right next to him, who is in the same
situation, would not.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you.
Mr. President, on the bill.
9314
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Hevesi, on the bill.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you, Mr.
President. I want to thank the sponsor for
his thorough explanation and responsiveness to
my questions.
I'm going to vote against this
bill. And I want to be clear about why I'm
voting against it, notwithstanding the fact
that I recognize, because I know, that the
unions that represent these very able and
dedicated workers have a real concern about
the safety of their employees.
Having said that, I don't think
that this is the remedy that we should be
implementing in order to address that
situation. And I'm very concerned that this
will throw completely out of whack our system
of equity, of justice in the penal code.
I don't know why it is that a
cleaner or a porter or a station maintainer is
more likely to be assaulted, the victim of an
assault than anybody else in the general
public, save the fact that they are in contact
with more people. I don't understand why
9315
that's true.
I fully support any additional
penalties in order to (a) provide a deterrence
and (b) to provide the appropriate punishment
for anybody who assaults a police officer or
an EMS worker or a corrections officer or the
protection that we afford to individuals in
New York City who give tickets out, parking
tickets, who have frequently come under
assault.
All of these individuals are a
target because of what they do, not as a
consequence of the fact that they are in a
situation and may happen to be assaulted.
I may be walking down the street
and happen to be assaulted. And if I was
walking down crowded streets with greater
frequency and regularity than noncrowded
streets, I would be more likely to be
assaulted too. But nothing inherent about Dan
Hevesi, I don't think, makes me more likely to
be assaulted -- except some of my political
positions sometimes, maybe.
So I don't think we should be
providing these extra additional penalties
9316
just for this category of worker, because then
we would have to do this for anybody who came
and said that we want additional punishment
for people who assault those clerks in
New York State, maybe, who are at a ticket
window and deal with people who are coming to
protest moving violations, for example.
That's a dangerous road to go down.
But I will suggest the following.
I don't understand why it is in our penal
code -- and Senator Volker kind of intimated
the reason why this is, and I respect what he
said, and it's a problem. If a second-degree
assault is only a misdemeanor offense and
because of that situation we're not adequately
deterring people, that's a real problem.
And if I'm assaulted and my arm is
broken, or somebody else's, be they a transit
worker or anybody else in society, an
A misdemeanor seems to me grossly insufficient
to (a) deter and (b) punish. So I would
support any effort that Senator Volker or
anybody else would make to make a felony
offense out of a second-degree assault.
In addition, if the transit workers
9317
who would come under the protections of this
legislation want to do additional things to
ensure the safety of their employees, without
doing a twofold increase -- I shouldn't say
twofold -- by jumping two levels in a felony
offense, not to an E but to a D, there are
other things that can be done.
They should request additional
protection by the police department in New
York City. They can have more stringent work
rules. They can provide greater on-the-job
protection for their employees by having
better lighting, by having two employees
together at once instead of one employee, all
these other things. I'd be amenable to all of
them.
But going in and saying that
transit workers should be -- the assaulters of
transit workers should be eligible for
D-felony-level penalties, or even
E-level-felony penalties, when nobody else in
society is eligible for them is just not the
right thing to do.
And, you know, we had a whole
debate when hate crimes was passed here, and
9318
there were a whole bunch of people who didn't
want to provide additional penalties for
people who were assaulted just because they
were elderly, disabled, gay, because of their
race or ethnicity or anything else. And a lot
of people said even if somebody is assaulted
based on those intangible characteristics, we
shouldn't provide additional protection. A
person is a person is a person.
And I fought against them
strenuously, along with Senator Duane and most
of my colleagues on this side of the aisle,
saying no, we have to protect individuals if
they're assaulted based on that
characteristic.
And I fully support any penalties
to protect individuals who are by definition
working in a situation where they are more
likely than the average person to be
assaulted. That is not true of transit
workers, and therefore I oppose this bill.
And I would ask that my colleagues
oppose this bill, and would commend Senator
Volker for his work in the criminal justice
area and urge him, instead of this, let's move
9319
forward and criminalize second-degree assault
as an E felony and provide everybody with the
protections that the transit workers are now
calling for, because everybody could benefit
from those protections.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Hassell-Thompson.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank
you, Mr. President. On the bill.
I find myself in a very awkward
position to my colleague here. I very rarely,
as you know, in this chamber have supported
any or many of Senator Volker's bills.
However, today I have -- I find myself, as I
said, in a very peculiar situation because of
having a husband who was a transit worker for
21 years and remembering the numbers of
incidences where he felt he was in danger,
where he personally was put in danger and his
colleagues and workers were put in danger.
It is interesting that because the
term "transit workers" includes not only bus
drivers but also people who work for the
Transit Authority, it seems to give rise to a
9320
concern that maybe people who clean stations
and whatever are not in danger or may not be
deserving of the same protections that
everybody else is entitled to. I find that a
strange -- I found that a strange argument.
One of the things that concerns me
about this bill, which is the real horns of my
dilemma, is, again, why are we jumping from a
misdemeanor to a D felony as opposed to an
E felony?
I have argued many, many times that
the way in which sometimes we look to remedy
situations may be a little bit drastic. And
I'm not sure that perhaps I'm not
contradicting myself when I say that I'm in
support of the intent of the bill but I still
have problems with increasing penalties that
don't seem to be the appropriate response and
answer to how to come to a conclusion.
I am in support of this bill
because I know that there are transit workers
in the broadest definition, and perhaps not as
the porters and whatever, but certainly those
who drive buses and trains who find themselves
in situations that we might not think of as
9321
being dangerous, but they are.
And so, Senator Volker, I find
myself supporting you in this bill, and the
unions, because I have had firsthand
experience as to the kind of dangers that
transit workers and other public workers may
find themselves in.
But I do have a dilemma about your
increasing it from a misdemeanor to a
D felony, and I wish we could address that
piece of the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Volker.
SENATOR VOLKER: I just want to
say, Senator Hevesi, Senator Hassell-Thompson,
I happen to agree with Senator Hevesi. I mean
that in a way, having served with your father,
having been here so long, I was just thinking
about the fact that virtually every one of
these people who are in the Class D felonies
already, the assault second, that it took a
lot of years to do this.
I hesitate to tell you, but under
the system that we are in now, unfortunately
sometimes you have to do things that are
9322
not -- that on its surface are things that we
would prefer we didn't have to do it in that
way.
By that I mean we've had bills
before this house, and I think we passed one
this year, that would upgrade the penalties
generally for assault second. And you are
absolutely right, that is the best way to do
it. The only unfortunate part of it, we
haven't been successful.
So what we've found is that
eventually the way that we have been able to
do things here is to continue to put pressure
on and pass what you could term special bills
or whatever. And frankly, the reason there is
the number of people in here, as long as we're
going to do a bill for transit workers, we
might as well put all the people listed in
there.
I would be willing to bet you -
and that's probably a bad term. I would not
be surprised if next year, which happens to be
an even year, we may well do a bill here, and
frankly it will probably be a Class E felony,
although I don't know, and probably will be a
9323
little more limited in that area, that may
well deal with this issue. That's just a
thought of mine.
But I don't say -- I don't disagree
with you. I guess my problem is sometimes the
philosophy of criminal justice and the
practicality of it tend to merge together.
And that's really the reason that this bill is
here.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
if Senator Volker would yield for a question.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Volker, do you yield?
SENATOR VOLKER: Sure.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, what
is the point of view of the uniformed services
regarding these types of bills?
Because my fear is what will
happen, after we finish adding to the
protected classes, is that the police will
come back and say, Listen, we're the ones who
9324
are really under attack, and they'll be right.
And they'll say, We need to upgrade
this further, because we want to be set apart
from these other municipal employees, or
employees of an entity, because we're the ones
who are really at risk and we're the ones who
annually endure casualties and even death.
And they will be absolutely right.
So in an attempt to maintain this
kind of sliding scale of who is preferred to
who in terms of the victimization of crime,
what we're actually doing is just upgrading
criminal penalties. And I thought what we
wanted to do was to set aside those who have a
special duty, like the police or perhaps
firefighters.
But we're getting to a point now
where it's so broad that I would, if I were a
police officer, I think I might resent the
idea that others who, you know, are not merely
in the danger that I'm in, don't nearly go to
protect the public in the form that I do, get
the same treatment under the law.
It would be better, then, to just
have a uniform standard for everybody if we're
9325
going to be too inclusive.
SENATOR VOLKER: Senator, you are
right. And I think there probably would be
some police officers who might be a little
upset over it, except for one thing.
As a former police officer myself,
I do talk to some law enforcement people.
They're happy, and they are happy when the
present statute is upheld. And by that I mean
they'll be happy to have other people in the
same category as long as they feel that the
assault-second process is done in a proper
way.
They still feel that a police
officer is in a different position from
ordinary people. That is, that they -- I know
of judges who say, Well, you're a police
officer and you're expected to get beat up. I
mean, I've heard that. I heard that with
myself. That really bothers law enforcement
people.
I don't really think that they -
I've never heard them oppose any bill that
would extend the penalties as long as the
penalties are upheld and as long as the judges
9326
and the prosecutors are willing to enforce the
penalties against the people who assault them.
So while there might be some people
who would feel that way -- and I understand
what you're saying. But I think you will find
that -- most of the law enforcement people
that I know totally agree that assault is
grossly underdone and that the penalties need
to be increased. Because remember, there's
assault on themselves and assault on people
whose crimes they investigate. And they feel
very strongly that there has been a laxity by
many judges and sometimes prosecutors.
And, Senator, that's what brought
on mandatory minimum sentences in this state.
The gross inequities between downstate
New York and upstate New York in sentencing is
what brought on the minimum sentences.
So I only point that out to you
because I think that I have never heard law
enforcement groups rail against extending this
statute. But I think there are some that
would probably say, Well, maybe you should
increase it some more. But we know that you
can only do so much.
9327
And I think if this statute is
upheld -- that is, the present law against
police officers and law enforcement people,
they'll be very happy.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, Mr.
President, I would like to ask a question.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Volker, do you yield for a question?
SENATOR VOLKER: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, Senator
Volker, I just want to be sure I understand
exactly what we're doing here.
It is that an assault in the second
degree currently is classed as an
A misdemeanor, which carries a maximum penalty
of one year -
SENATOR VOLKER: Essentially,
that's what it is.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: -- up to one
year in prison.
SENATOR VOLKER: Essentially,
9328
that's what it is.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: And we're
changing it, but your bill would change that
to be a Class D felony with a maximum of seven
years.
SENATOR VOLKER: Up to seven
years, that's correct.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Up to seven
years. Thank you very much.
SENATOR VOLKER: You're welcome.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Any
other Senator wish to be heard on this bill?
Debate is closed.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
November.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 55. Nays,
2. Senators Hevesi and Montgomery recorded in
the negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
9329
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
733, by Senator Larkin, Senate Print 4251, an
act to amend the Racing, Pari-Mutuel Wagering
and Breeding Law.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Explanation.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Larkin, an explanation has been requested of
Calendar 733 by Senator Paterson.
SENATOR LARKIN: Thank you, Mr.
President.
Senator Paterson, this is a Racing
and Wagering bill that creates a new
Article 11 to the Racing and Wagering Law to
authorize New York to enter interstate
compacts on licensures in live racing, and
permits a simple application to satisfy all
member states' requirements for licensing.
The compact is responsible for
investigating license applications, license
renewals, entering into agreements with
government agencies to provide these services,
and charge and collection of fees.
Once a license is issued, the
licensee can participate in horse racing in
9330
all of the member states. New York will still
issue its own license to those that want to
race just in the state of New York.
For information, the member states
now include Delaware, Louisiana, Florida,
Virginia, West Virginia, Kentucky, Nebraska,
and Washington. States that are in the
process of application, such as New York,
include California, Texas, and New Jersey.
And the states that automatically today accept
the compact's license are Pennsylvania,
Maryland, Iowa, Colorado, and Ontario.
Under the compact, New York could
accept either the compact license or the
New-York-issued license for the following
positions: owners of horses, trainers of
horses, jockeys in thoroughbred, and drivers
on the harness tracks.
In issuing licenses, the compact
will use the strictest standard combined from
all of the member states. The compact, in
issuing a license, will look at the character,
competence, financial backgrounds, criminal
histories, all past violations of the racing
law, all of the items that are used now by
9331
New York to issue a license.
As an additional protection, this
legislation provides that if any state within
the compact objects to the issuance of a
license to an individual, that such license
shall become null and void. The compact
states have agreed to amend the compact
agreements to include this New York provision.
This compact has worked. It's
endorsed by the international organization.
Now, what are the benefits to
New York when you look at it? Member states
will be able to share financial and criminal
information to ensure that only qualified
persons of unquestionable integrity will be
permitted to participate in the horse racing
industry. It will reduce New York's annual
financial outlays to regulate this industry,
since it will share its expenses with other
states.
For the racing industry, it will
reduce overhead costs that are entailed for
licensing separately in each state that a
person races in.
Now, the question, Senator
9332
Paterson, comes up with the trial lawyers'
opposition. Well, let's look at what they
state in their opposition. They oppose the
bill because it would immunize compact actions
if they were done in good faith instead of
using the negligence standard of care.
The good-faith standard is commonly
used for all activities conducted by public
officials. Changing the standard now would
expose these specific racing officials to a
higher standard of care than is used against
all other state employees.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
if Senator Larkin would yield for a question.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Larkin, do you yield for a question?
SENATOR LARKIN: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR PATERSON: Well, I didn't
know that we were talking about state and
federal employees. I thought we were talking
9333
about employees of the compact. So they're
not, in a sense, public servants. They would
be the equivalent of what I think other
workers would be.
And the negligence standard is one
that presumes that the individual is going to
act reasonably to protect the public from
foreseeable harm.
The good-faith standard is a very
hard standard to disprove. You have to prove
that the person acted in bad faith, which
means that you have to really convince a court
of what's going on in the individual's mind.
Which is a whole lot harder than to say what
the reasonable person would have done in a
similar situation.
And all I'm asking is even if we do
apply the standard of what public servants
are, there's a wide range of individuals who
are going to be working for the compact -- the
party states, different areas -- and are going
to have a wide range of responsibilities.
I probably could accept this
legislation if it was more narrow and was
specific about those individuals who take
9334
action that is analogous to what would be the
public-servant standard.
But here we have individuals who
are not going to be public servants. They
are, at the same time, going to be making
decision on contracts and a lot of other
decisions.
The compact itself I have
absolutely no problem with. I think it's a
great step in the right direction, and I
certainly want to compliment you for your work
on that.
But it's just this one issue of why
all of these employees are going to be
considered to be public servants and,
secondly, why we are going to use a standard
in an area where we certainly are going to
recruit the best employees and the ones who
evidence the greatest integrity, but
similarly, as we find even at the highest
levels of government, or at least so they say,
that there are misfeasances of duty to that
regard.
So it's sometimes hard to judge
integrity. And what I'm saying is that there
9335
are people who are victimized by these
actions -- people who don't come from other
planets, they're people who you and I know.
And I don't know what right they're going to
have when it's so hard to disprove a
good-faith standard.
SENATOR LARKIN: Well, Senator
Paterson, we're only using the standards that
are used now when we have the NAIC compact.
We'll be doing the same -
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: I'm sorry, was
the Senator finished?
SENATOR LARKIN: No, I didn't
want to interrupt you, you were -- I didn't
want to finish. You were talking.
SENATOR PATERSON: Oh, thank you.
SENATOR LARKIN: We have this on
NAIC compacts. We'll be doing it on NCOL [ph]
compacts. And we have a lot of other
compacts.
And don't forget, these are
employees of our states. And what higher
standard are we leveling them to? These are
9336
state employees. Are we saying now that -
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
maybe -
SENATOR LARKIN: -- we're going
to change the rule and, just because the
compact has to do with the racing industry,
we're going to have a new standard?
SENATOR PATERSON: Then, Mr.
President, perhaps a clarification is in
order. If Senator Larkin would yield for a
question.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Larkin, do you yield?
SENATOR LARKIN: Yes, sir.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR PATERSON: So you're
saying, Senator, that the coverage is
restricted to state employees and employees of
the compact?
SENATOR LARKIN: Yes.
SENATOR PATERSON: No one else
had asked privately, or just who's employed by
the pari-mutuel, these -
SENATOR LARKIN: David, these are
9337
the people that are going to work on the
issuance of licenses.
The biggest thing we did in
New York was they had some things in there, as
I mentioned before, that we didn't agree with.
They have taken it out and they've inserted
New York laws, which as far as I'm concerned
were more strict.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Well, Mr.
President, if it is only the employees, if
it's not, you know, the jockeys that work for
the racetrack and that type of thing getting
the coverage, then I think that Senator Larkin
is correct, that the standard of care that's
used there is a good-faith standard, because
of the wide range of responsibility that we
understand that state public servants have.
I would -- I guess that persuades
me to vote for the bill. I will do it in good
faith of my own, assuming that that's actually
the case. And I will rely on the assurance
that Senator Larkin has given me that it only
applies to that strict standard of
9338
employment-employee relationship as it's
transversed through the states.
I would assume that anyone else
employed in different fashion would not be
eligible for this -- what I think it would be
in those cases extreme coverage, to the
detriment of the plaintiff in a prospective
lawsuit.
SENATOR LARKIN: Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Mr. President
will the sponsor yield to a question?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Larkin, do you yield for a question?
SENATOR LARKIN: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Senator, I'm
concerned about the voting strength of the
various parties in this bill. Could you tell
me the names of the states that are currently
in the compact?
SENATOR LARKIN: Yes. Member
9339
states include Delaware, Louisiana, Florida,
Virginia, West Virginia, Kentucky, Nebraska,
and Washington.
And other states right now in the
process, similar to New York, include
California, Texas, and New Jersey. And the
states right now that automatically accept the
license include Pennsylvania, Maryland, Iowa,
Colorado, and Ontario, British Columbia.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Larkin, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR LARKIN: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: If we did not
join this compact and simply passed a bill
that said if you get a license from the
compact you can then race in New York, would
we have the same effect? Would the practical
effect be the same?
SENATOR LARKIN: No. What this
9340
compact is trying to do, it's something,
Richard, like they're trying to do in the milk
compact or what they're doing at the federal
level with the Gram-Leach-Bliley, that if you
don't do it, the feds are going to take it
over.
What this allows us to do is
cooperate with the states sharing information.
And as David pointed out, these are public
employees that we're going to have that are
going to be working on this.
I'm convinced, having talked to
Mr. Hoblock and having talked to some of the
people in the industry, the sharing of the
information is going to save a lot of time,
computerized, it's going to be cost-effective,
and it's going to benefit all of the tracks.
It's going to benefit the states specifically.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: But again
through you, Mr. President, if Senator Larkin
will continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Larkin, do you yield?
The sponsor yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: We could get
9341
that benefit of -
SENATOR LARKIN: We could not do
that today, Richard, unless we join the
compact.
If you're in Pennsylvania, you're a
part of the compact, and I want to know about
the X,Y,Z branch of horse breeders or what,
and I need that information because they're
coming to New York, you will not transfer that
to me because I'm not a member of the compact.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President, if Senator Larkin will continue
to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Larkin, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR LARKIN: Yes, Mr.
President.
SENATOR SAMPSON: The sponsor
yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Then I need a
clarification. I thought you suggested that
Pennsylvania was not in the compact, but
yet -
SENATOR LARKIN: No, I was giving
you a -- Richard, I made an explanation to you
9342
of what could happen. If we have a state that
is in the compact and we're not in the
compact, they're not required to share any
information with us.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: But if we -
through you, Mr. President, if Senator Larkin
will continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Larkin, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR LARKIN: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: But if we
passed a law that said if you have a license
from the compact you can come here without
further licensure in New York, wouldn't we get
the benefit of the compact without belonging?
In other words, we could recognize a license
granted by the compact.
SENATOR LARKIN: You know,
there's a thing called the Privacy Act. We
could not share that, nor could they share it
with us.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Okay.
Through you, Mr. President, if
9343
Senator Larkin will continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Larkin, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR LARKIN: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Let me tell
you my concern about this compact. And I had
the same concern with the milk compact for
another reason, but I voted against that too.
The reason I'm concerned is that we
would end up, New York will end up with one
vote on the compact; is that correct?
SENATOR LARKIN: Yes.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: And Delaware
will end up with one vote on the compact. And
West Virginia will end up with one vote on the
compact.
And I would just -- Senator,
through the President, we're going to end up
in a compact where we have a huge, a very
significant racing industry, and we're going
to end up with one vote. And much smaller
states -- and I know Kentucky is in the
9344
compact, which has a very large industry. But
nonetheless, we're going to end up in a
compact with a bunch of very small states.
And I would suggest, Senator
Larkin, don't we really have that Madisonian
problem? We're in essence going into a body
which is governed like a senate, and, instead,
shouldn't we be in a body in which the compact
is governed like a house? In other words, the
people who bring the most to the table should
have greater strength inside the compact?
SENATOR LARKIN: Richard, to
change the rules of the compact you need a
two-thirds vote. That I think gives us the
protection that we need.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: But through
you, Mr. President, isn't it more difficult to
get the two-thirds vote if we only have one
vote and Delaware and West Virginia and
Louisiana, much smaller states -- which I
assume have much smaller track handlers and
much smaller racing industries -- they're
going to each have a vote? We've only got one
too.
We're a big state with a -- as you
9345
well know, Senator; you've been one of its
biggest advocates, as have other members of
the Majority, about our horse racing industry,
the importance of this industry to the state,
the importance to the tourism, the importance
of our state breeding programs. Are we going
to be in a compact where we only get one vote
with Delaware?
SENATOR LARKIN: Well, Richard,
I've discussed this not just with Racing and
Wagering, who submitted it, but I've talked at
length to the track owners, I've talked to the
breeders, I've talked to every entity of the
racing industry. And they believe that this
is in the best interest of New York.
New York racing is not at its peak,
as it was 25 or 30 years ago. We're on the
decline. What we need now is to join
something that can be of benefit to us. If
we're going to be able to exchange information
and still comply with all of the privacy acts,
we believe that we will be in the best
position.
In the state of Pennsylvania, for
example, the question arose just like you did,
9346
Richard: You know, we're doing more track
work than West Virginia is. But when they
looked at what it could do for them, what it
would bring to the track, what it would do to
make sure that people want to race in your
state, it was deemed to be in the best
interest of the state of Pennsylvania.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Senator
Larkin, I greatly appreciate that explanation.
I agree with you in concept. The
problem is I think that the governance system
of the compact is tilted in favor of small
states.
We're about to join a compact in
which we're going to bring a very significant
industry to the table. We have, as you know,
Senator Larkin, a century-long scheme of
organized state involvement in the race
program, very careful controls of the stewards
and of our entire racing program, which we've
spent a hundred years setting up rules that
work, to try to keep the tracks alive, to make
the industry work.
And yet we're going to join a
compact in which, when we go into a room and
9347
someone says "Let's vote on this," we're going
to say, We're the State of New York, we're
going to cast our vote in favor of X, and
Delaware is going to show up with a little
tiny -- which I assume, I don't know a lot
about the Delaware racing industry -- but
they're going to show up and say, Well, guess
what, New York? I'm sorry, but we're going to
cast our vote against you.
And we just wiped out, we just
neutralized the vote of New York State.
I know that these compacts are
becoming enormously fashionable. I mean,
we've come to the conclusion we're not going
to have the federal government control racing
programs, so we're going to have the states
get together and do it. We're going to
recreate this image of the United States of
America. We're going to govern these things
by compacts between the states.
I don't mind those compacts except
for one thing. And that is that when a big
state like New York shows up at the table and
Delaware says to us, Guess what, we'll let you
in, but you only get one vote. All those
9348
people, all that industry that you have there,
you only end up with one vote.
I would just strongly suggest that
the compact formulators go back to the theory
of a bicameral governance system in which the
big states have more oomph and more power in
these contracts because they bring more to the
table. And if there were a weighted voting
system in this, if there were a size of the
handle or size of the tracks or size of the
industry handle, I might be willing to go
along.
But at least as it's drafted
currently -- I agree with you, Senator Larkin,
it's advantageous to New York to join this
compact. I don't think it's advantageous for
us to join it when we get the same vote as
Delaware or the same vote as West Virginia.
I would suggest the compact
thinkers go back and come up with a solution
that says if you bring more to the table, you
get a bigger weighted vote. Until we get
that, I think it's a mistake for us to join.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Marcellino.
9349
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Mr.
President, there will be an immediate meeting
of the Rules Committee in the Majority
Conference Room.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:
Immediate meeting of the Rules Committee in
the Majority Conference Room.
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: Those recorded in
the negative on Calendar Number 733 are
Senators Brown, Dollinger, and M. Smith.
Ayes, 54. Nays, 3.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
Senator Montgomery, why do you
rise?
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, Mr.
9350
President, I would like unanimous consent to
be recorded in the negative on Calendars 446
and 522.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Without
objection, Senator Montgomery will be recorded
in the negative with regard to Calendars 446
and 522.
The Secretary will continue to
read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1114, by Senator Volker, Senate Print 3093A,
an act to amend the Real Property Tax Law, in
relation to providing.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Volker, an explanation has been requested by
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR VOLKER: Yeah, Mr.
President, this is a bill that is on the floor
because of the problem we're having all over
upstate New York with volunteer firefighters
and volunteer ambulance workers. We're having
a great deal of difficulty in finding enough
people.
Essentially, what this bill would
9351
do, very quickly -- and if you read it, it may
not be -- it's a little difficult sometimes to
read. It says that in Erie County, the County
of Erie, the towns and villages in Erie could
provide -- could provide, it's not that they
must -- could provide up to a 10 percent
assessment reduction for volunteer
firefighters and ambulance workers who comply
with certain rules that are written into the
bill. Which the maximum, however, of the
assessed valuation that they would be granted
a reduction in would be $3,000.
It's a fairly modest, I think, bill
designed to provide an incentive for volunteer
firefighters and volunteer ambulance people in
the towns of Erie County.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Oppenheimer.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: If the
sponsor would yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Volker?
SENATOR VOLKER: Sure, I do.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: He
yields.
9352
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: This is a
valuable bill. And I would like to see it
also in Westchester County. Since it's up to
local option, it really is the municipal
government's call on the issue.
I seem to recall that we had a bill
similar to this that affected the state. Or
is my recollection wrong?
SENATOR VOLKER: You mean a
statewide bill?
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Yeah. You
don't recall?
SENATOR VOLKER: I don't know if
there's a statewide bill or not. But the
difficulty, I guess, has been that -- there
may have been a bill. It may not have been
local option.
I think the problem here relates to
the question of mandates. I understand
there's a number of other bills that provide
for local -- the possibility of local counties
that could provide this. But I don't know of
an overall bill.
Personally, I think it might be a
good idea. I think the NYCOM would probably
9353
oppose it. Because even though there's an
option, they would probably say it's one of
those indirect mandates, if you know what I
mean. In other words, if you offer it, it's
pretty tough for them not to accept it.
And I'll be frank with you, the
County of Erie is not excited about this bill.
In fact, I was told today by their lobbyist
they don't like it.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Thank you,
Senator.
On the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Oppenheimer, on the bill.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: While
Senator Volker says this is an upstate issue,
I guess, I guess we are now calling
Westchester County upstate. Because we have
many departments, including the village I live
in, which are a hundred percent volunteer.
And the problem is that we are
having a lot of difficulty attracting younger
members to the department. And I think that
if a community option, at the municipal
government's option, they offer a 10 percent
9354
discount on the property tax, I think that
might attract some additional people.
It's a serious consideration. We
feel that our volunteer fire department in the
village of Mamaroneck probably saves us
probably $1.5 million to $2 million a year.
So for us, it's big bucks, as it is for most
of the communities that have volunteer
firefighters. And I think anything we can do
to attract a younger cadre would be great.
So I'm supporting this. I'd like
to see it statewide.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Any
other Senator wishing to speak on the bill?
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
January.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Announce
the results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 57.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
9355
is passed.
Senator Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Would you
just continue in the regular order, please,
Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
chair recognizes Senator Hassell-Thompson.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank
you, Madam President. I rise to request
unanimous consent to be recorded in the
negative on Calendar Number 733, Senate Print
4251.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: So
noted. Thank you, Senator.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank
you.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Sampson.
SENATOR SAMPSON: Yes, Madam
President. I rise to ask for unanimous
consent to be recorded in the negative on
Calendar Number 733.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Secretary will so note.
The Secretary will read.
9356
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1113, by Senator Meier, Senate Print 2723, an
act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law, in
relation to authorizing.
SENATOR SAMPSON: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Meier, an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR MEIER: Thank you, Madam
President.
This bill amends the Vehicle and
Traffic Law to permit the Commissioner of
Motor Vehicles to establish a program that
would either deny a license upon application
or suspend an existing driver's license where
someone is the subject of a warrant for
arrest.
It provides for a minimum of 90
days' notification. It provides that the
suspension would be pulled back upon proof
that the warrant had been vacated or upon
proof that the warrant doesn't exist.
The principle behind the bill is a
simple one. A driver's license is a privilege
granted by this state. And citizens who don't
take care of one of the most fundamental
9357
obligations that there is, which is to respond
in court to a warrant of arrest, should not be
accorded privileges.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Sampson.
SENATOR SAMPSON: Yes, Madam
President. Through you, would the sponsor
yield for a few questions?
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Meier, will you yield?
SENATOR MEIER: Yes, Madam
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR SAMPSON: Yes, through
you, Madam President, how would the DMV be
linked up or how would the DMV be notified if
a bench warrant or whatever warrant was
outstanding?
SENATOR MEIER: Well, Madam
President, that information is contained in a
database maintained by the Division of
Criminal Justice Services. And the bill does
provide for cooperation between the Department
of Motor Vehicles and the Division of Criminal
9358
Justice Services to have access to that
database.
SENATOR SAMPSON: Through you,
Madam President, will the sponsor continue to
yield for a question?
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Meier, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR MEIER: Yes, Madam
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator continues to yield.
SENATOR SAMPSON: And through
you, Madam President. Once the driver is
notified that his license may be suspended for
an outstanding warrant, he subsequently then
goes to the court and has that warrant
vacated, how soon thereafter does DMV -- is
DMV notified by the court system, or the
individual himself has to present such
documentation to DMV?
SENATOR MEIER: Madam President,
actually the requirement to prove that either
the warrant has been vacated or never existed
to begin with could be satisfied either way,
by submission of satisfactory proof from
9359
either the individual concerned or by the
court itself.
I might note, parenthetically, as a
practitioner my experience in the past has
always been that it's best to secure a
document from the court and to transmit it
oneself.
SENATOR SAMPSON: Through you,
Madam President, will the sponsor continue to
yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Meier, will you continue to yield?
SENATOR MEIER: Gladly, Madam
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR SAMPSON: Through you,
Madam President. Once that document is
submitted to the DMV, how long would it take
DMV to make that correction within its system?
SENATOR MEIER: Well, Madam
President, that is -- I don't know if I can
give a definitive answer to that. But again,
understanding that this is anecdotal, based on
personal experience, my own experience has
9360
been that that doesn't take that long, a
matter of days.
SENATOR SAMPSON: Through you,
Madam President, would the sponsor continue to
yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Meier, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR MEIER: Certainly, Madam
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator continues to yield.
SENATOR SAMPSON: Through you,
Madam President. My concern is that once you
submit that notification to DMV and DMV fails
to put it in the system, then a person's
license is therefore suspended. And, say,
while driving in town or driving in his
village, he is then stopped by the police on a
routine check, and it comes up that this
gentleman's license is suspended.
Subsequently, the individual is arrested. But
for a mistake, by failing to put such a
notification in the system, the person is
arrested.
So through you, Madam President, so
9361
how can that be prevented?
SENATOR MEIER: Well, Madam
President, how can that be prevented? I mean,
obviously that can be prevented by the
department putting together a program that
ensures the efficient processing of these
kinds of -- of this kind of information and
these kinds of documents.
And I understand, Madam President,
that human frailty being what it is, that
mistakes occur sometimes and there's no
guarantee that we can ever do that. We in
point of fact do have some parallels to this
in other portions of our law. For example, a
similar suspension can take place if someone
is delinquent in the payment of child support
and so forth.
And so I would be being
disingenuous if I said that a mistake can't
happen. But the fact that there are any
number of scenarios where a mistake might
happen doesn't necessarily argue against the
bill. I don't think we can let the perfect be
the enemy of the good.
SENATOR SAMPSON: Through you,
9362
Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Sampson.
SENATOR SAMPSON: Would the
sponsor continue to yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Meier, will you continue to yield?
SENATOR MEIER: Certainly, Madam
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR SAMPSON: Looking at the
bill, it seems that there really is -- no
fiscal impact would be placed on the
Department of Motor Vehicles if such a bill
was to pass.
And my question is, if we're asking
that a program be created, we're asking that
certain mechanisms be put in place so
situations can be prevented where a person who
has, one, a warrant has been vacated,
notification has been sent to the DMV, and,
but for human frailty, an incident, it
happens, a mistake is made, shouldn't there be
additional monies so we can prevent such a
9363
thing from occurring?
SENATOR MEIER: Well, Madam
President, the implementation of this bill
requires the use of existing information
technology resources, computers, existing
personnel. The fiscal impact, if there is
any, I think would be exceedingly limited.
And I'm not -- I don't really
believe it would require anything additional
in the way of appropriation. I think it would
most probably be absorbed.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Sampson.
SENATOR SAMPSON: Through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor would yield
for just one more question.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Meier, will you yield for one more question?
SENATOR MEIER: Certainly, Madam
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR SAMPSON: In the memo it
talks about how Massachusetts puts out over a
thousand letters per day. I think if that was
9364
to occur in New York State, we would be
putting out more than 1,000 notices per day.
And where is the money that's going
to be necessary for us to fulfill our
commitment under such legislation?
SENATOR MEIER: Well, first of
all, Madam President, the number would not -
probably not be greater than what's contained
in Massachusetts. Because under New York law,
the Department of Motor Vehicles will
currently issue suspensions where there's
failure to respond to a traffic ticket under
the existing scofflaw statute. Massachusetts
folds all of that into their statute which
deals with other criminal law offenses.
So what we're talking about here
are probably, for the most part, some fairly
minor or local-criminal-court grades of
offenses. So the number probably would not be
greater than, it would be somewhat less than
the Massachusetts number, probably in the
range of 300,000 or so.
And so you're looking at postage,
you're looking at the ability to print this
stuff out, which is done by computer. And far
9365
be it from me to be critical to the fine
people who do business in the various
departments of state government, but I think
you're looking at a couple of hundred thousand
bucks. And I think anybody with a sharp
pencil can find that in most places in
New York State government.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Sampson.
SENATOR SAMPSON: Thank you,
Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Is there
any other Senator that wishes to speak on the
bill?
The Secretary will read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
January.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Announce
the results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 55. Nays,
9366
2. Senators Montgomery and Sampson recorded
in the negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Madam
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Oppenheimer.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: If you
would, I'd like unanimous consent to be
recorded in the negative on Calendar 733.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Secretary will note, please.
Senator Stavisky.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Madam
President, I too request unanimous consent to
be recorded in the negative on Calendar 733,
Senate Bill 4251.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Secretary will note.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, Madam
President, I would also like to be recorded in
9367
the negative on Calendar 733, with unanimous
consent.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Secretary will note.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Ada Smith.
SENATOR ADA SMITH: Thank you,
Madam President. I was in the Rules
Committee, and I would like to have unanimous
consent to be recorded in the negative on
Calendar Number 733.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Secretary will note.
Senator Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Madam
President, can we return to the reports of
standing committees. I believe you have a
report of the Rules Committee, and we'd ask
that it be read.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Reports
of standing committees.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Bruno,
from the Committee on Rules, reports the
9368
following bills:
Senate Print 114, by Senator
Marcellino, an act to amend the Labor Law.
2360, by Senator Leibell, an act to
amend the Public Authorities Law.
2736, by Senator Padavan, an act to
amend the Education Law.
3013, by Senator Spano, an act to
amend the General Municipal Law.
3316, by Senator Velella, an act to
amend the Administrative Code of the City of
New York.
3546, by Senator Hoffmann, an act
to amend the Agriculture and Markets Law.
3562, by Senator Seward, an act to
amend the Education Law.
4011, by Senator Spano, an act to
amend the Labor Law.
4390, by Senator Hannon, an act to
amend Chapter 483 of the Laws of 1978.
4525, by Senator Nozzolio, an act
to amend the Correction Law.
4600, by Senator Trunzo, an act to
amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law.
4909, by Senator Velella, an act to
9369
amend the Correction Law.
5036, by Senator Hannon, an act to
amend Chapter 535 of the Laws of 1983.
5329A, by Senator Stachowski, an
act to amend Chapter 276 of the Laws of 1993.
5339A, by Senator Libous, an act to
amend the Real Property Law.
5402, by Senator Trunzo, an act to
amend the Public Authorities Law.
5462, by Senator Marcellino, an act
to amend Chapter 203 of the Laws of 1999.
5478, by Senator Padavan, an act to
amend the Criminal Procedure Law.
And 5482, by the Senate Committee
on Rules, an act to amend the Education Law.
All bills ordered direct to third
reading.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Madam
President, I move to accept the report of the
Rules Committee.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: All in
favor of the accepting the report of the Rules
Committee signify by saying aye.
9370
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Opposed,
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
report is accepted.
Senator Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: At this time
can we take up Calendar 1123, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1123, by Senator Libous, Senate Print 5339A,
an act to amend the Real Property Law.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Madam
President, is there a message of necessity at
the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Yes,
Senator Marcellino, there is a message of
necessity at the desk.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Move to
accept the message of necessity.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: All in
favor of accepting the message of necessity
say aye.
9371
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Opposed,
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
message is accepted.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
March.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Announce
the results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 57.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
Senator Hevesi.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you, Madam
President. I rise to request unanimous
consent to be recorded in the negative on
Senate Calendar 733, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Secretary will note.
9372
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Madam
President, can we now take up the supplemental
calendar.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
673, by Senator Bonacic, Senate Print 2283A,
an act to amend the Environmental Conservation
Law, in relation to mining exploration.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER:
Explanation, please.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Lay it
aside.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is laid aside.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
675, by the Assembly Committee on Rules,
Assembly Print Number 8973, an act to amend
the Environmental Conservation Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
9373
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 57.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
693, by Senator Meier, Senate Print 4865A, an
act to amend the Social Services Law, in
relation to receipt.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Announce
the results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 57.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
9374
969, by the Assembly Committee on Rules,
Assembly Print Number 8974A, an act to amend
the Environmental Conservation Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Announce
the results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 57.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
Senator Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Madam
President, in regard to Senator Bonacic's
bill, which has been laid aside, he's on his
way, and we'll hold for that.
But in the meantime, is there any
housekeeping at the desk? And if there is,
let us take that up now.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Yes,
there is housekeeping.
9375
Senator Meier.
SENATOR MEIER: Thank you, Madam
President.
On behalf of Senator Nozzolio, I
wish to call up his bill, Print Number 3239,
recalled from the Assembly, which is now at
the desk.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
445, by Senator Nozzolio, Senate Print 3239,
an act to amend the Executive Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Meier.
SENATOR MEIER: Madam President,
I now move to reconsider the vote by which
this bill was passed.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll on reconsideration.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 57.
SENATOR MEIER: I now offer the
following amendments.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE:
Amendments received.
9376
SENATOR MEIER: Madam President,
I wish to call up Senator Goodman's bill,
Print Number 729, recalled from the Assembly,
which is now at the desk.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
800, by Senator Goodman, Senate Print 729, an
act to amend the State Finance Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Meier.
SENATOR MEIER: Madam President,
I now move to reconsider the vote by which
this bill was passed.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll on reconsideration.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 57.
SENATOR MEIER: I now offer the
following amendments.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE:
Amendments received.
Senator Meier.
SENATOR MEIER: Thank you, Madam
President. I wish to call up Senator
9377
Maziarz's bill, Print Number 1899A, recalled
from the Assembly, which is now at the desk.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
184, by Senator Maziarz, Senate Print 1899A,
an act to amend the Real Property Tax Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Meier.
SENATOR MEIER: I now move to
reconsider the vote by which this bill was
passed.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll on reconsideration.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 57.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Meier.
SENATOR MEIER: I now offer the
following amendments.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE:
Amendments received.
SENATOR MEIER: Madam President,
I wish to call up Senator Volker's bill, Print
Number 204, recalled from the Assembly, which
9378
is now at the desk.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
228, by Senator Volker, Senate Print 204, an
act to amend the Penal Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Meier.
SENATOR MEIER: I now move to
reconsider the vote by which this bill was
passed.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll on reconsideration.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 57.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Meier.
SENATOR MEIER: Madam President,
I now offer the following amendments.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE:
Amendments received.
Senator Meier.
SENATOR MEIER: Thank you, Madam
President.
Amendments are offered to the
9379
following Third Reading Calendar bills:
By Senator Nozzolio, at page 4,
Calendar 55, Senate Print 218A.
By Senator Spano, page 24, Calendar
551, Senate Print 4385.
And I now move that these bills
retain their place on the Third Reading
Calendar.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
amendments are received and adopted, and the
bills will retain their place on the Third
Reading Calendar.
Thank you, Senator Meier.
SENATOR MEIER: Thank you, Madam
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: At this
time, Madam President, can we take up Calendar
Number 673.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
673, by Senator Bonacic, Senate Print 2283A,
an act to amend the Environmental Conservation
9380
Law, in relation to mining exploration.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER:
Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Bonacic, an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR BONACIC: Thank you,
Madam President.
This is a piece of legislation that
will amend the Environmental Conservation Law
in relation to mining exploration. It's aimed
specifically to help the bluestone mining
industry while also protecting the integrity
of the environment.
Right now the way it works is we
have so many small bluestone miners in,
basically, Delaware County. That's where most
of the bluestone is located in the state of
New York.
In order to get a permit, the
requirements are such that you have to hire an
engineer, you have to spend quite a bit of
money on engineering services. You also
prepare surveys outlining the area that you're
going to explore. You then have to post a
bond. And then it may run you $5,000, $6,000,
9381
$7,000 just to put a shovel in the ground.
And what happens is when they start
to explore, there's no bluestone there. They
have to close the hole, let -
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Excuse
me, Senator Bonacic. Would you suffer an
interruption.
Senator Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Excuse me,
Senator Bonacic.
We have a couple of members that
I'd like to have recognized for purposes of
voting. If you can call the roll.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
chair recognizes Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I'd just ask
that I be recorded in the negative, Madam
President.
9382
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: I ask to
be recorded in the negative.
Thank Senator Bonacic for his
courtesy.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: So
recorded.
Roll call is withdrawn.
Senator Bonacic.
SENATOR BONACIC: So as I started
to say, they could spend anywhere from $5,000
to $10,000, start to explore the ground, and
there's no bluestone. So they close the
ground, reclamation, and walk away, having
suffered a terrible financial loss.
A lot of these mom-and-pop
bluestone miners have been in the business
three, four generations. They don't have the
financial means to do these test explorations.
So we worked with the DEC to come
up with a plan that would allow a minimum
investment, a minimum amount of land to put a
shovel in to see if there's bluestone there.
And that's what the purpose of this bill is.
9383
These are the safeguards. It's a
one-acre piece of land. The permit is only
good for a year. There must be an application
made 45 days before you put a shovel in the
ground. The DEC still can require a bond if
they deem it suitable. But at the same time,
if they don't think they have to put up any
financial security, the DEC can make that
decision.
We're trying to be friendly to the
small business in the bluestone industry,
recognizing that there are a lot of small
operations with minimum capital. It's a vital
industry in the state of New York. Much of
the bluestone goes throughout New York City
for a lot of their exhibits.
And this will allow the little guy
to stay in the bluestone industry who doesn't
have the means to keep putting up $5,000 to
$10,000 every time he wants to go dig a hole.
That's the purpose of the legislation.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Oppenheimer.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: If the good
Senator would yield for some questions.
9384
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Would
the good Senator Bonacic yield?
SENATOR BONACIC: I would. Of
course.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The good
Senator yields.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: I mean, it
sounds like Passover.
But why is this mining operation
different from all other mining operations?
SENATOR BONACIC: I think that's
a great question. And I'm going to answer
that question.
Back in 1991, the State of New York
wanted to get tough on people involved in
mining with gravel operations and
construction. People used to go in, dig these
big holes, use the materials for construction,
and never fill them up.
It was never intended -- when we
passed that Omnibus Mining Law with strict
regulations to protect the environment, we
should never have allowed it to apply to
bluestone. Bluestone is not in the same
category as those deep, extensive excavations
9385
of the ground that -- and those rules were
good for the mining industry, for gravel and
stone quarries, but not bluestone.
Bluestone is totally different.
When you go in the ground, you never know what
you're going to find. And you're really
looking for a particular bluestone that's
located in a rock. And when you find it, then
you go and you get the bluestone, to the
extent that it's there.
It's not that when you find it
you're digging up -- for example, if a permit
was for 26 acres, you never find 26 acres of
bluestone. You may find 3 acres. And
therefore, you're only extracting that
particular product out of the ground.
So what we're trying to do is to
say we're not going to allow, even for the
bluestone industry, we're not going to allow
this huge digging. We're going to confine it
to one acre. We're going to let you go dig
your holes to see if it's there. If it's not
there, reclaim it, fix the one acre, and go on
to another site. That's all we're doing.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: If the
9386
Senator would yield again.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Bonacic, will you continue to yield?
SENATOR BONACIC: I yield to the
other good Senator.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator continues to yield.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: You know, I
would like to be able to do something to help
these small mining operations. But you said
something that I don't agree with. And that
is that they're only extracting bluestone.
So here's the question. There is,
as you and I know, something called
overburden. It's that amount of additional
stone taken out that is not bluestone. And
the -- what do you feel the ratio of this
overburden is to the bluestone? Because I
have been told the ratio of the overburden,
which is the stone that is taken out that is
not bluestone, is seven times the amount of
bluestone.
That is an enormous amount of
tonnage. If the bluestone can go up to
999 tons, staying under the 1,000 limit, if
9387
you figure seven times that amount is what's
called the overburden -- it's the other stone
that's taken out that is not bluestone -- we
are talking about a huge environmental impact.
SENATOR BONACIC: Well, first of
all, the bluestone is ingrained with larger
stone. And there's no process they can do
while it's in the ground to separate the
bluestone from the rest of the stone. So from
that point of view, they have to take the
stone out which contains bluestone.
And I'm not sure if the figures are
right, but let's stay with your 7-to-1 ratio.
They're still going to fill the hole with
proper materials. So when you were to drive
by or walk by that one-acre hole, you'll never
know that that stone is missing. It will
still be level, it will not be unsightly to
the eye, and you haven't really ruined the
environment.
Because you've taken some stone out
of the ground, I don't see how that hurts the
environment. What hurts the environment is if
there's no reclamation. Under this bill,
there's reclamation for the one acre.
9388
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Oppenheimer.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: If the
Senator would yield again.
SENATOR BONACIC: I do yield to
the good Senator.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Bonacic yields again.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: The
question is -- and I don't know the answer to
this -- the overburden, is that ever really
removed from the site? Isn't that what is
utilized to reclaim the area? Is it ever
removed from the site? Why would anyone
remove that huge tonnage?
SENATOR BONACIC: I would say to
you to keep their expenses down, they put it
back in, they put it back into the ground.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Okay.
Well, that's what I was thinking as far as all
mining operations, that it would not make
sense to remove the excess amount that would
be utilized in order to refurbish the area.
I think the question is, do you
perceive, which I do, that there is a good
9389
deal of serious potential environmental damage
in potential soil erosion, in potential runoff
from the site into waterways? That happens
while the digging is occurring.
SENATOR BONACIC: First of all,
we're talking about a very small industry
that's in Delaware County. It's about -- it
provides about 600 jobs. The DEC has agreed
to this arrangement. Mining of bluestone has
been going on in this state for, I would
think, close to fifty years. And then it
started in Sullivan and they found all the
bluestone and took it out. Now it's just
moved up to Delaware.
And so all of the local
municipalities don't have a problem with it.
I don't know of any DEC violations that's
polluting our waters, or else the DEC would
never allow this to go forward.
And Assemblyman Gunther from
Sullivan County is carrying the bill in the
other house.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Oppenheimer.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Then I
9390
guess the last question would be what we're
trying to do here is to overturn a recent
Supreme Court, New York Supreme Court decision
that found that the thousand-ton threshold
would count the overburden, as I was talking
earlier about, as well as the bluestone in the
999-ton total amount. In other words, what
would happen then would be that the overburden
amount as well as the bluestone amount would
be counted in the just under 1,000-ton limit.
The bill before us would remove the
overburden and say the bluestone can be up to
a thousand tons.
SENATOR BONACIC: Up to.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Now, since
the Supreme Court has spoken, you are putting
this bill before us which would overturn that
decision.
I guess there's nothing more that
really can be said on the subject. And so I
guess that's not so much of a question,
Senator Bonacic, as a statement.
And the statement is that the
courts have found that when they said under a
thousand tons, they were referring to the
9391
total amount of stone that is removed, the
overburden as well as the bluestone. And what
this bill would say is that it is just the
bluestone that should be that amount of
tonnage.
I have difficulty with that. The
Sierra Club also has difficulty with that.
And as much as I would like to help the small
businessman, I feel that the potential for
environmental damage is substantial and that
soil erosion does occur and that we are
talking about a very large quantity of
material here.
So I'll be voting no, and I hope
I've convinced some of my colleagues.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Stavisky, why do you rise?
SENATOR STAVISKY: On the bill,
Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Stavisky, on the bill.
SENATOR STAVISKY: I too will be
voting no. The legislation states that the -
let me just find it -- the material that's
left in the excavated area is to remain there,
9392
it's not going to removed. It seems to me
that this is going to be damaging to the
environment, which is a very fragile
environment.
The legislation, I see, very
clearly defines what bluestone is and what
they may take and what they may not take. But
the residue still remains there. And because
of the environmental hazards, Madam President,
I wish to be recorded in the negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Any
other Senator wishing to speak on the bill?
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Bonacic.
SENATOR BONACIC: Thank you,
Madam President. To explain my vote.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Secretary will call the roll first.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Bonacic.
SENATOR BONACIC: There is a body
9393
of thought out there that whenever you want to
do anything to the environment, they don't
want you to touch it. They don't want you to
remove a leaf from a tree, they don't want you
to put a shovel in the ground, they don't want
you to create a speck of dust in the area.
When we have these concerns about
the environment and runoff, I don't know of
any violations that have been cited where they
have concerns of overburden with this
particular industry.
As I said, this industry has worked
with the DEC as a partner in trying to balance
the integrity of the environment and keeping
it clean, as well as the cost of doing
business in the State of New York in providing
jobs. And I think it's important that we try
to keep that balance as legislators.
I'll be voting in the affirmative.
Thank you, Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Bonacic will be recorded in the affirmative.
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, it appears to me that there is a
9394
great deal more debris and rocks and just
territory that is going to be unearthed to
accommodate this 999 tons of bluestone. So it
could be as much as 6,994 tons of whatever
else comes up with the bluestone.
And as Senator Bonacic pointed out,
you have to separate the bluestone out from
other rock, which you can't do on the site.
So we're not talking about a little digging
around the garden, we're talking about quite a
lengthy and complicated procedure that's going
to take place. That's going to be a lot of
moving of land.
And in my opinion, without a
permit, if that's the permit limitation, then,
you know, really at what point do we start to
establish a permit? A thousand tons, in my
opinion, is too much.
I vote no.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: How do
you vote, Senator Paterson?
SENATOR PATERSON: I vote no,
Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Paterson will be recorded in the negative.
9395
Announce the results.
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
the negative on Calendar Number 673 are
Senators Connor, Dollinger, Gentile,
Hassell-Thompson, Onorato, Oppenheimer,
Paterson, Schneiderman, and Stavisky. Ayes,
48. Nays, 9.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
Senator Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Madam
President, is there any housekeeping at the
desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Yes.
Senator Alesi.
SENATOR ALESI: Thank you, Madam
President.
On page 50 I offer the following
amendments to Calendar Number 1121, Senate
Print Number 5359A, and ask that said bill
retain its place on the Third Reading
Calendar.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE:
Amendments received, and the bill will retain
its place on the Third Reading Calendar.
9396
Senator Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Madam
President, there being no further business, I
move we adjourn until Monday, June 18, at
3:00 p.m., intervening days being legislative
days.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: On
motion, the Senate stands adjourned until
Monday, June 18th, at 3:00 p.m., intervening
days being legislative days.
(Whereupon, at 1:14 p.m., the
Senate adjourned.)