Regular Session - June 20, 2001
10085
NEW YORK STATE SENATE
THE STENOGRAPHIC RECORD
ALBANY, NEW YORK
June 20, 2001
11:26 a.m.
REGULAR SESSION
LT. GOVERNOR MARY O. DONOHUE, President
STEVEN M. BOGGESS, Secretary
10086
P R O C E E D I N G S
THE PRESIDENT: The Senate will
come to order.
I ask everyone present to please
rise and repeat with me the Pledge of
Allegiance.
(Whereupon, the assemblage recited
the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.)
THE PRESIDENT: In the absence of
clergy, may we bow our heads in a moment of
silence.
(Whereupon, the assemblage
respected a moment of silence.)
THE PRESIDENT: Reading of the
Journal.
THE SECRETARY: In Senate,
Tuesday, June 19, the Senate met pursuant to
adjournment. The Journal of Monday, June 18,
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.
10087
Messages from the Governor.
Reports of standing committees.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Lack,
from the Committee on Judiciary, reports the
following nomination:
As a justice of the Supreme Court
of the Ninth Judicial District, Edward D.
Carni, of Syracuse.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Lack.
SENATOR LACK: Thank you, Mr.
President. Good morning.
THE PRESIDENT: Good morning.
SENATOR LACK: I rise to move the
nomination of Edward D. Carni, of Syracuse, as
a justice of the Supreme Court for the Ninth
Judicial District.
We received the nomination of this
fine candidate from the Governor. The
committee has examined the credentials of
Judge Carni. They have been found to be
eminently satisfactory. He appeared before
the committee earlier this morning and by
unanimous vote was moved to the floor for
consideration at this time.
10088
And I would most respectfully yield
to my colleague Senator DeFrancisco for
purposes of a second.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
DeFrancisco.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Madam
President, I really like this job. I enjoy
doing what I'm doing. But there are certain
occasions when it's very, very satisfying,
more than most of the time, and that's an
occasion such as today, when a good friend, an
outstanding attorney, a good judge -- and
basically the best compliment I can give him
is a good man -- Ed Carni is going to ascend
to the Supreme Court judgeship.
I've known Ed for a very long time,
and I've known his family, his wife Sula,
who's here, his children, Joe, Alex, and
Gabriel, budding politicians, all of them, his
parents, Mr. and Mrs. Carni, his mother and
father-in-law, Mr. and Mrs. Masouras. They're
all here. It's a strong, strong family,
strong background, and maybe that's why his
character is what it is.
I try a lot of cases, and there's
10089
no question that as a judge you have to know
the law, as a judge you have to have certain
decorum, you have to make sure that fairness
is the result. There's no question in my mind
that Ed Carni has all of those qualities to
provide a fair trial and justice to all those
who go before him.
So as I started at the outset, it's
a wonderful pleasure for me to second the
nomination and to congratulate the Governor
for having the good judgment of appointing
judicial candidates like Ed Carni and all of
the rest that are before us today.
So I second the nomination.
THE PRESIDENT: The question is
on the confirmation of Edward D. Carni, of
Syracuse, as a justice of the Supreme Court of
the Ninth Judicial District. All in favor
signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The nominee is
hereby confirmed.
And on behalf of the Senate, as its
10090
President, I want to congratulate Justice
Carni and his family on this wonderful
elevation and wish you the best of luck.
(Applause.)
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: As a judge of the
Court of Claims, Dora L. Irizarry, of New
York.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Lack.
SENATOR LACK: Thank you, Madam
President.
I rise once again to move the
nomination of Dora L. Irizarry as a judge of
the Court of Claims. Her credentials have
been examined by the committee, have been
found to be eminently satisfactory. She
appeared before the full Judiciary Committee
meeting earlier this morning, was unanimously
moved to the floor for consideration at this
time.
And I would most respectfully yield
to my colleague Senator Goodman for purposes
of a second.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Goodman.
10091
SENATOR GOODMAN: Madam
President, it is a privilege and a pleasure
for me to second this nomination. Judge
Irizarry is presently seated on the Court of
Claims, where she's had a very distinguished
record indeed. She has presided over felony
hearings and trials in the New York County
Supreme Court. Prior to this, she's managed a
caseload of over a thousand cases annually in
the Kings County Supreme Court, Criminal Term,
from arraignment to disposition or until ready
for trial.
She managed weekly caseloads of
over a thousand cases in criminal court,
presided over criminal hearings and trials in
the State Supreme Court of Kings County and
New York City Criminal Court.
At a time when the court system is
exceedingly crowded and jammed in many areas,
it's very refreshing to know that we have a
judge of high administrative skill who will be
able to break these logjams and move the cases
expeditiously but thoughtfully through the
system.
Her employment background is very
10092
substantial, and I will not be able to touch
upon all of her distinguished record. But let
it be said that she was an assistant district
attorney in the office of Robert Morgenthau,
she was a special assistant district attorney
prior to that in the office of the special
narcotics prosecutor, an assistant district
attorney in the office of the Honorable Mario
Merola in Bronx County.
She was educated at Columbia
University Law School and is an alumna of Yale
University, from which she received her B.A.
degree. She was admitted to the bar of course
in various jurisdictions, including the
federal court in the Southern and Eastern
Districts. She is fluent in English and
Spanish, with a command of French.
So here we have a citizen of the
world, someone of great skill and capacity
whose demonstrated record surely warrants our
immediate approval of her nomination.
Thank you very much.
THE PRESIDENT: The question is
on the confirmation of Dora L. Irizarry, of
New York, as a judge of the Court of Claims.
10093
All in favor signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: Judge Irizarry is
hereby confirmed. And congratulations on
behalf of the Senate, and best wishes to you
in your new term.
(Applause.)
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: As a judge of the
Court of Claims, S. Michael Nadel, of
New York.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Lack.
SENATOR LACK: Thank you, Madam
President.
I rise once again to move the
nomination of S. Michael Nadel, of New York,
as a judge of the Court of Claims, to succeed
himself.
Judge Nadel's credentials have been
examined by the committee, they have been
found to be exceedingly in order. He appeared
before the committee earlier this morning, was
10094
unanimously moved from the committee to the
floor for consideration at this time.
For many members of this chamber,
Mike Nadel's past is well known. He was a
first assistant counsel to Governor Hugh
Carey, deputy chief administrator of the
Unified Court System under Chief Judge
Lawrence Cooke, a judge of the New York City
Criminal Court, counsel to the district
attorney of Kings County, and of course now,
currently for the last few years, a judge of
the Court of Claims, an exceedingly varied,
well-known legal career and an excellent,
excellent reappointment to the Court of
Claims.
And I would respectfully move the
nomination, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The question is
on the confirmation of S. Michael Nadel, of
New York, as a judge of the Court of Claims.
All in favor signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The nominee is
10095
hereby confirmed.
And on behalf of the Senate, I'd
like to congratulate Judge Nadel on this
wonderful achievement. Best wishes.
(Applause.)
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will continue to read.
THE SECRETARY: As a judge of the
Court of Claims, Mario J. Rossetti, of
Williamsville.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Lack.
SENATOR LACK: Thank you, Madam
President.
I respectfully rise to move the
nomination of Mario J. Rossetti, of
Williamsville, to succeed himself as a judge
of the Court of Claims.
We've examined the judge's record,
it was found exemplary. He appeared before
the committee earlier this morning, was
unanimously moved from the committee to the
floor for consideration at this time.
And I most happily relinquish the
floor to my colleague Senator Rath for
purposes of a second.
10096
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Rath.
SENATOR RATH: Thank you, Senator
Lack, Madam President.
Judge Rossetti, I'm happy to
welcome you here on this wonderful day with
your wife, Helen, and your family who have
come down from Western New York for a very
auspicious occasion.
You were first, of course,
appointed in 1987 by Governor Cuomo,
reappointed in 1991 for a nine-year term to
the Court of Claims. Your experience and your
credentials, as Senator Lack has indicated,
have been examined; you are more than
qualified, with your 26 years of experience in
general practice of law, civil court, criminal
court, in front of the Port Authority general
counsel -- I should say not in front of, but
as assistant general counsel to the
Niagara-Frontier Port Authority.
And I say that because Judge
Rossetti is a man of our community, not only
has legal and professional credentials but,
when you look at his civil credentials, his
activities throughout our community for so
10097
many long years.
And as so many of you, as you've
stood up and recognized the judges in your
community, I am proud to be able to second the
nomination for Judge Rossetti, because he is a
friend, he has worked in the trenches with us
before he was in the courts, he has been a
follower, he has been a leader, and he has
indeed raised the opinion and the stature of
all judges in the state of New York.
And I'm proud to be able to second
you, Judge, welcome you to a new term and say
thank you for being here today and thank you
to your family for joining you.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Maziarz.
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Thank you,
Madam President.
I too rise and second this
nomination of Judge Mario J. Rossetti. And as
Senator Rath pointed out, Judge Rossetti has
been a member of the court now for many years,
and I remember him from another life a long
time ago. And I just can't think of a finer
person or a more fair person to act as a
10098
member of the judiciary in the state of
New York, and it's an honor for me to also
second his nomination.
And, Madam President, I will now
yield to Senator Volker, the senior Senator
from Western New York, who was probably up
before I was.
SENATOR VOLKER: Senator Maziarz,
I'm used to being disregarded. I know you're
powerful -
No, anyways, I just want to say
that I've known Mario Rossetti, Judge Rossetti
for a long, long time. He was first appointed
under former Governor Mario Cuomo. He
served -- frankly, I think he could have been
appointed by any governor in my time in the
Legislature because of his stature.
He's a good friend. He's also the
father of six children, which is probably
enough in itself to take people's time. But
he's one of the most respected judges in Erie
County, and I think it's an excellent choice,
and I know he'll continue to serve as he has
in the past.
And I wish him good luck.
10099
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Stachowski.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: I too would
like to rise and second the nomination of
Judge Rossetti.
He's been a long-time friend of my
family's, and he's done a great job,
obviously, with the reappointments, and he'll
continue to do a good job. And as proud as we
are of the job he does, I'm more proud to say
he's my friend.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: The question is
on the confirmation of Mario J. Rossetti, of
Williamsville, as a judge of the Court of
Claims. All in favor signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The nominee is
hereby confirmed.
As President of the Senate, I want
to congratulate you, Judge. I had the
opportunity to work with your son when I was a
district attorney, and apparently his
10100
excellence is only a reflection on the
excellence he inherited from you.
Best wishes to you.
(Applause.)
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: As a judge of the
Court of Claims, Edward A. Sheridan, of
Clifton Park.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Lack.
SENATOR LACK: Thank you, Madam
President.
I rise to move the nomination of
Edward A. Sheridan, of Clifton Park, as a
judge of the Court of Claims. We have
examined Judge Sheridan's record; it is
exemplary. He appeared before the committee
earlier this morning, was unanimously moved to
the floor for consideration at this time.
And I most respectfully yield to my
colleague Senator Hannon for purposes of a
second.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Hannon.
SENATOR HANNON: Yes, Madam
President.
10101
In speaking on behalf of Senator
Bruno, who on this last scheduled day of
session is trying to do several different
things at once and can't come out, I simply
want to commend to this body the confirmation
of Judge Sheridan.
I had a chance to work with Judge
Sheridan before he ascended to the bench, and
I want to tell you that he is one of the
finest lawyers I've ever had a chance to work
with.
He had toiled in the Department of
Motor Vehicles as their counsel, and even had
served for a couple of years as their
executive deputy, a truly thankless job, but
he was there at a time when that agency
really, truly turned around.
Before that, he had been the chief
law assistant at the Court of Appeals,
preceded by being a law secretary to Matthew
Jason, coming out of the Notre Dame School of
Law.
And besides all that, not just
bringing service on the bench, service in the
executive branch, but also service as a
10102
private practitioner, something I think is
very essential to our bench.
I want to commend a highly
qualified candidate who has done a good job in
ten years as Court of Claims and acting
Supreme Court justice, Edward Sheridan, to
this body.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Breslin.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Thank you,
Madam President.
I would echo the remarks of Senator
Hannon. As a practicing member of the bar in
the Capital District, I've interacted with
Judge Sheridan and many people who appear in
front of Judge Sheridan, and he is really a
lawyer's lawyer. He's very, very bright, as
evidenced by the remarks of Senator Hannon,
hardworking, fair, and compassionate. And
he's really someone we can all be proud of.
And I join with the rest of this
chamber to reconfirm Judge Sheridan.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The question is
on the confirmation of Edward A. Sheridan, of
10103
Clifton Park, as a judge of the Court of
Claims. All in favor signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: Judge Sheridan is
hereby confirmed.
As President of the Senate and
former Rensselaer County district attorney in
particular, I want to congratulate Judge
Sheridan as my friend and former colleague. I
had the opportunity to work with Judge
Sheridan, who reviewed my record frequently as
acting county judge in Rensselaer County.
I know personally of his fairness,
his compassion, his diligence, his fine
intellect. And in all other qualities that
would go into making an able judge, he is
stellar.
So I wish you the very best, Judge
Sheridan, in your reappointment, and continued
diligence and service in the Capital Region.
(Applause.)
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will continue to read.
10104
THE SECRETARY: As a judge of the
Court of Claims, Rena K. Uviller, of New York.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Lack.
SENATOR LACK: Thank you, Madam
President.
I rise once again to move the
nomination of Rena K. Uviller as a judge of
the Court of Claims, to succeed herself.
Judge Uviller's credentials have
been examined by the committee. She is
actually very well known to the committee. We
were very happy to move her nomination earlier
this morning before the full committee, which
was done so unanimously, for consideration on
the floor at this time.
Judge Uviller has been a very well
known judge for over 20 years in Manhattan,
first elected to the Civil Court in November
of 1978, assigned a couple of years thereafter
to the Criminal Court, appointed by the
Governor to the Court of Claims, and has been
an acting Supreme Court justice for 20 years
in New York, handling some very noteworthy
cases -- at the same time, always staying in
touch with the community and doing exactly
10105
what we expect of well-known, well-regarded
acting Supreme Court justices, handling her
caseload and staying actively involved as a
member in the community, and, quite frankly,
with some of the highest known credentials of
any judge in the State of New York.
It is a pleasure, Madam President,
to move once again the nomination of Rena K.
Uviller to succeed herself as a judge of the
Court of Claims.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Stafford.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Madam
President, I started to say that Judge Uviller
and I go way back, but it's not way, we
just -- we go back. But we attended a certain
law school in Manhattan. And we knew at the
time that the judge was going to do well, and
she certainly has.
And she's a credit to the bench,
and we're so pleased to join in moving her
confirmation.
THE PRESIDENT: The question is
on the confirmation of Rena K. Uviller, of
New York, as a judge of the Court of Claims.
All in favor signify by saying aye.
10106
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The nominee is
hereby confirmed.
And on behalf of the Senate, Judge
Uviller, I wish you the very best continued
success.
(Applause.)
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will continue to read.
THE SECRETARY: As a judge of the
Court of Claims, William A. Wetzel, of
Briarcliff Manor.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Lack.
SENATOR LACK: Thank you, Madam
President.
I rise to move the nomination of
William A. Wetzel, of Briarcliff Manor, as a
judge of the Court of Claims, to succeed
himself.
Judge Wetzel has appeared before
the committee before, and again earlier this
morning. His credentials were examined and
found to be perfectly in order. He appeared
10107
before the committee, which unanimously has
moved him to the floor for consideration at
this time.
Judge Wetzel has had a long and
extraordinary background in public service, as
a village trustee, deputy mayor and mayor of
Briarcliff Manor, then as a village justice of
Briarcliff Manor. He was appointed to the
Court of Claims in 1995. Before that, he was
a founding partner of the firm of Plunkett,
Wetzel, and Jaffe, and has performed admirably
as a member of the Court of Claims.
And I am most happy to move his
nomination for consideration by the full
Senate at this time.
THE PRESIDENT: The question is
on the confirmation of William A. Wetzel, of
Briarcliff Manor, as a judge of the Court of
Claims. All in favor signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The nominee is
hereby confirmed.
And on behalf of the Senate, Judge
10108
Wetzel, congratulations and best wishes for
continued success.
(Applause.)
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: As a judge of the
Court of Claims, Michael A. Corriero, of
Brooklyn.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Lack.
SENATOR LACK: Thank you, Madam
President. I rise for the last time to move
the nomination of Michael A. Corriero, of
Brooklyn, to succeed himself as a judge of the
Court of Claims. We have reviewed his record,
which is exemplary. He appeared before the
committee this morning, was unanimously moved
to the floor for consideration at this time.
And I would most respectfully yield
to my colleague Senator Connor for purposes of
a second.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Connor.
SENATOR CONNOR: Thank you, Madam
President.
First of all, I should disclose to
the house and to my colleagues any potential
10109
conflict. I intend to vote on this, but I
think it's only fair to disclose that my sons,
Brian and Marty, have a dog-walking business,
and their very best customer is Judge
Corriero, for his dog Cicero. And these past
three or four years, my boys have done quite
well, as well as a 10- or a 12-year-old can do
walking a dog, thanks to Judge Corriero and
his lovely wife Mary Ellen.
But I first spoke ten years ago in
favor of the judge's confirmation to the Court
of Claims. He came to that position at the
time with extensive judicial experience. And
since 1980, he had served as a Criminal Court
judge of the City of New York, and since 1983
had been an acting Supreme Court justice.
He presided even then over special
youth parts in criminal courts and had been
appointed an acting Supreme Court judge. He
served a brief term as a Supreme Court justice
on the appointment of the Governor, and then
was appointed to the Court of Claims.
He has served in Manhattan with
distinction in the Supreme Court. He
generally presides in a youth part, which is a
10110
court set aside to try 13- and 14- and
15-year-olds who are being tried as adults for
crimes. He has handled some of the most
sensitive -- some notorious cases, in fact,
from the standpoint of the press coverage and
interest in them. Regrettably so, that those
cases were so covered, because they were in
many cases shocking to the public's
conscience.
He has a wonderful reputation as a
jurist. He has published, he has taught. He
has been a credit to the bench. I am proud to
say he is not only my neighbor, he is the
resident of the apartment across the hall from
mine.
And I'm proud to second his
nomination because of his excellent record as
a judge. I know he will continue to serve the
people of New York in this next term of
office.
So, Madam President, I move the
confirmation of Judge Corriero's nomination.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, in my long friendship with Senator
10111
Connor it never came up that we had this
mutual friend in Judge Corriero.
I was in the Queens DA's office
when he moved from the criminal court to
acting Supreme Court. I remember him also in
Brooklyn. And I've been in the courtroom when
he was presiding over the special youth parts.
And, you know, sometimes when you
are speaking in those environments you don't
know who's actually hearing you. But all of
you should have gotten the opportunity to hear
some of the things that Judge Corriero said to
some of the young people who had run afoul of
the law: his encouragement, at the same time
admonishment.
Some of those statements were
things that I kind of borrowed or repeated in
some of the opportunities that we get as
legislators to go and speak to younger people,
and even to go and speak in some of the
correctional institutions.
He's a person who not only has
outstanding ability, but the reason I think
they gave him the sensitive cases is because
he does have this personal sensitivity.
10112
And I guess that you meet people in
life sometimes who are that special, and I
think we are really very well off as a state
to have him on the Court of Claims, to
reappoint him, and perhaps in some other
service. And I'm very proud to be voting for
him.
I would wish that my colleague
Senator Connor would reconsider what he said
about his 10- and 12-year-old sons and their
dog-walking business, that they're doing as
well as a 10- or 12-year-old can do. I think
they're doing a little better than you and I
are right now, Marty.
But we join in our admiration, our
respect, and our regale of the efforts and the
achievements of Judge Corriero.
THE PRESIDENT: The question is
on the confirmation of Michael A. Corriero, of
Brooklyn, as a judge of the Court of Claims.
All in favor signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The nominee is
10113
hereby confirmed.
And on behalf of the Senate, I wish
Judge Corriero every success.
Congratulations.
(Applause.)
THE PRESIDENT: Reports of select
committees.
Communications and reports from
state officers.
Motions and resolutions.
Senator McGee.
SENATOR McGEE: Thank you, Madam
President.
On behalf of Senator Marchi, on
page number 24 I offer the following
amendments to Calendar Number 668, Senate
Print Number 3382A, 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 McGEE: Thank you, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Fuschillo.
10114
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Thank you,
Madam President. There will be an immediate
meeting of the Higher Education Committee in
Room 332.
THE PRESIDENT: There will be an
immediate meeting of the Higher Education
Committee in Room 332.
Senator Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Madam
President, may we now take up the
noncontroversial reading of the calendar.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
255, by Member of the Assembly Weinstein,
Assembly Print Number 4203, an act to amend
the Domestic Relations Law.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect 180 days.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 50.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
10115
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
371, by Senator Velella, Senate Print 3209A,
an act to authorize the Village of Pelham
Manor.
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, 50.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
417, by Senator Volker, Senate Print 2980, an
act to amend the General Business Law, in
relation to providing.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
January.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
10116
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 50.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
525, by Member of the Assembly Vitaliano,
Assembly Print Number 4379, an act to amend
the Civil Service Law, in relation to the
authority.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
544, by Senator Morahan, Senate Print 3146B,
an act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law,
in relation to the registration fee.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 8. This
act shall take effect on the 120th day.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 50.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
10117
571, by the Assembly Committee on Rules,
Assembly Print Number 8566, an act to amend
the Insurance Law, in relation to clarifying.
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, 50.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
680, by Senator Morahan, Senate Print 3981A,
an act authorizing Rita C. Kelly to apply.
THE PRESIDENT: There is a home
rule message at the desk.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 50.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
10118
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
754, by Senator Goodman, Senate Print 4777, an
act to amend the Real Property Tax Law, in
relation to extending.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 7. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 50.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
789, by Member of the Assembly Gottfried,
Assembly Print Number 5522, an act to amend
the Public Health Law, in relation to
prohibiting.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect 120 days.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 50.
10119
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
817, by Senator McGee, Senate Print 4878A, an
act to amend the Education Law, in relation to
developing.
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, 50.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
879, by Senator Kuhl, Senate Print 3947, an
act to amend the Education Law, in relation to
the total salary.
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.)
10120
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 50.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
921, by Senator Goodman, Senate Print 4086A,
an act to amend the Real Property Tax Law, in
relation to income eligibility.
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, 50.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1069, by Senator Spano, Senate Print 5355A, an
act to amend the Labor Law, in relation to
granting.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
10121
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 48. Nays,
2. Senators Libous and Nozzolio recorded in
the negative.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1105, by Senator M. Smith, Senate Print 5442,
an act authorizing the City of New York to
reconvey its interest.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 5. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: There is a home
rule message at the desk.
Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 50.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1122, by Senator Volker, Senate Print 5469, an
act to permit the reopening of the optional
twenty-year retirement plan.
10122
THE PRESIDENT: There is a home
rule message at the desk.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 50.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1131, by Senator Spano, Senate Print 4011, an
act to amend the Labor Law, in relation to the
reclassification.
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, 50.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1149, by the Senate Committee on Rules, Senate
10123
Print 3761A, an act in relation to authorizing
the City of New York.
THE PRESIDENT: There is a home
rule message at the desk.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 6. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 50.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1166, by Senator Padavan, Senate Print 5556,
an act to amend the Real Property Tax Law, in
relation to the determination.
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, 50.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
10124
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1167, by Senator Goodman, Senate Print 5565,
an act to amend -
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1201, by Senator Lack, Senate Print 3959B, an
act to amend the Judiciary Law and others, in
relation to judges of the city courts.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 9. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 50.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1209, by Senator Saland, Senate Print 5042A,
an act to amend the Real Property Tax Law, in
relation to providing.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
10125
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1237, by Member of the Assembly Nolan,
Assembly Print Number 7458, an act to amend
the Labor Law, in relation to prevailing wage
supplements.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1247, by Senator Trunzo, Senate Print 4672, an
act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law, in
relation to the length of semitrailers.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
November.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 49. Nays,
1. Senator Duane recorded in the negative.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
10126
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1252, by Senator Trunzo, Senate Print 5271, an
act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law, in
relation to school-zone speed limits.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Lay that bill
aside, please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1257, by Senator Libous, Senate Print 5486, an
act to amend the Mental Hygiene Law and the
State Finance Law, in relation to enacting.
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, 50.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1264, by Senator Fuschillo, Senate Print 5589,
an act in relation to state intervention.
10127
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Lay it
aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1266, by Senator Farley, Senate Print 5592, an
act to amend the Banking Law, in relation to
the powers.
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, 50.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1267, by Senator Morahan, Senate Print 5595,
an act to amend the Penal Law, in relation to
authorized dispositions.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
10128
1268, by Senator Morahan -
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1269, by Senator Meier, Senate Print 5610, an
act to amend Chapter 953 of the Laws of 1983.
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, 51.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1270, by Senator Volker, Senate Print 5612, an
act to amend the Penal Law, in relation to
excluding.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect in 60 days.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
10129
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 50. Nays,
1. Senator Duane recorded in the negative.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1271, by the Senate Committee on Rules, Senate
Print Number 5616, an act to amend the
Education Law, in relation to the
distribution.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1272, by the Senate Committee on Rules, Senate
Print 5622 -
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Lay it aside
temporarily.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside temporarily.
Senator Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Madam
President, may we now have the reading of the
controversial calendar.
10130
THE PRESIDENT: Controversial
reading of the calendar.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
525, by Member of the Assembly Vitaliano,
Assembly Print Number 4379, an act to amend
the Civil Service Law, in relation to the
authority.
SENATOR DUANE: Explanation,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Leibell,
an explanation has been requested.
Senator Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Madam
President, upon consent we'd like to call the
roll on that bill.
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, 51.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
10131
Senator Duane, why do you rise?
SENATOR DUANE: Madam President,
I'm a little confused. Is there a revised
active list?
THE PRESIDENT: No, there is not,
Senator. The bills that are high, that
haven't aged to be read, are not being read.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You're welcome.
The Secretary will continue to
read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1167, by Senator Goodman, Senate Print 5565,
an act to amend the Tax Law, in relation to
authorizing.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 26. This
act shall take effect immediately.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Goodman,
an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR GOODMAN: This bill is a
10132
$100 million tax package, and it's sponsored
by the City of New York. It is divided into
various component parts which I'll be glad to
take you through quickly.
The first is a mortgage recording
tax, first-time homeowners' exclusion of
$150,000 of the first $300,000 in mortgages
from the 1 percent city recording mortgage
tax, and from the half-percent state mortgage
recording tax that produces revenues dedicated
to the city's general fund. This would affect
10,000 -- or, excuse me -- yes, this appears
to be a typo in this note, 10,000 homebuyers.
Going on to the next facet of this,
it relates to an earned income tax credit, a
refundable credit equal to up to 5 percent of
the federal tax credit against the city's
personal income. It would benefit 600,000
households with an average credit of $80.
Third is sales tax on clothing and
footwear. The sales tax exemption on clothing
and footwear with a value of $110 or more for
all cities and counties, including New York
City, at local option, to eliminate the state
sales tax also.
10133
Dependent care credit of up to
40 percent of the state credit through 2003,
after which it becomes 32 percent of the state
credit. It affects 124,000 tax filers with an
average credit of $185.
Fifth is the hotel tax, an
elimination of the $2 flat tax on hotel rooms
costing $40 or more. Also an exemption of
small bed-and-breakfasts from the hotel tax
totally. There are 29 of these in New York
City. This would save travelers approximately
$40 million.
And let me remind you that the
previous reduction in the hotel tax had a very
salutary benefit on the city's economy, and it
is believed by the hotel industry and those in
charge of tourism in New York that it had a
very salutary stimulative effect.
Next is the co-op/condo abatement,
extension, and enhancement. It continues the
co-op/condo abatement program at current
levels and allows for an enhancement at local
option. An abatement program was implemented
in 1997 to reduce the disparity in property
tax burdens between co-ops and condos, Class
10134
2, and single-family homes of Class 1.
The abatement is currently 17½
percent of the tax for residential units with
an average assessed value of over $15,000 and
25 percent of the tax-free units with an
assessed value of less than $15,000. This
would benefit 300,000 households, providing an
average benefit of $730 per household.
Finally, 1 percent of the green
buildings -- 1 percent of eligible property
for five years, capped at $5 per square foot
for buildings, which meet "green standards"
for major components.
And that's the overview of the
bill.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Madam
President, will the sponsor yield to a
question?
SENATOR GOODMAN: Yes, I will,
Senator.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Goodman
does yield.
You may proceed, Senator Dollinger.
10135
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Senator,
what's the overall financial or fiscal impact?
Once these tax cuts accumulate and are phased
in, what's the final reduction in revenue that
the City of New York would see?
SENATOR GOODMAN: $200 million in
city fiscal year 2003.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: 200 million?
SENATOR GOODMAN: 200 million,
yes.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor will continue
to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Goodman,
will you yield?
SENATOR GOODMAN: Yes, I will,
Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: What I need
to understand, Senator Goodman, is why, at a
time when the City of New York is claiming
that it can't afford to pay a teacher raise in
its teacher contract, when there's a serious
question about the funding for schools in
New York, which I know you're well aware of
10136
under the CFE litigation, why is the City of
New York asking us to drop its revenue by
$235 million each year when it appears, from
an outsider, a nonresident of the city, that
the city is crying for additional resources
for education?
SENATOR GOODMAN: As I've
indicated to you, this emanates from the Mayor
of the City of New York, who has requested
that the bill be passed expeditiously. It is
his judgment, obviously, that the city's
economy will derive a net benefit from this
approach.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Well, again,
through you, Madam President, is it the
Mayor's position that by passing this tax cut
we'll actually get more revenue into the City
of New York and therefore be more likely to
put money to work for education?
SENATOR GOODMAN: This is
believed to be beneficial to the city's
economy and presumably, if that were the case,
it would be beneficial to the education
10137
budget, which is obviously an issue that's
pending.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Madam
President, thank you. I thank Senator
Goodman.
I know, Senator Goodman, you've
carried the Mayor's bills in this house
before, and I appreciate your advocacy on
behalf of the City of New York and on behalf
of its Mayor in this house.
Madam President, I stand here today
as a nonresident of the city of New York. I'm
from 300 miles away. But seems to me it
becomes more difficult for everyone in this
state to look at the problem of financing
education in the city of New York, the problem
that was so graphically described in Judge
DeGrasse's decision in the CFE case, in which
he talked about the fact that there weren't
sufficient resources in the city of New York
to provide the quality of education that our
constitution requires we provide to every
single student.
Now, when we're faced with the
consequences of that decision, up on appeal,
10138
which could require that we spend billions of
dollars in additional resources for education
in our urban areas and in our nonperforming
school districts, the City of New York says:
We're willing to give away $235 million in
additional annual revenue that could go into
education.
I'm struck by what seems to be the
paradox of those two movements, one in favor
of more money for education, of which the city
would have to contribute and we may have to
contribute, and now a tax cut that says we can
give away large sums of money and -
THE PRESIDENT: Excuse me,
Senator Dollinger. I think you can be heard
better now. Hopefully you can be heard better
now. Go ahead.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you
very much, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: You're welcome.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: And I'll
conclude briefly, Madam President. It seems
to me that there's an irony that just as the
City of New York needs more money for
education, we're about to bless a $230 million
10139
annual tax cut which will take more money away
from education and, in my opinion, will lead
to the inevitable argument that the City of
New York is not doing its fair share to help
produce quality education.
It seems to me that this tax cut,
while I've voted for lots of tax cuts, is
going to create a problem for this
institution, for this government, for state
government in the future time, and may in the
long run be ill-advised for the City of New
York as well.
I would caution the Mayor to
reconsider. This is not a time, when we need
more funds for education, to be giving away
$235 million on the if-come of some greater
economic benefit in the future. I disagree
with the Mayor on this one. I think this
money ought to go into education and not in
the form of a tax cut.
I'll vote no.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, Madam
President. I just have a question for Senator
10140
Goodman.
SENATOR GOODMAN: Yes, Senator.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, thank
you, Senator. Thank you, Madam President.
Senator Goodman, this budget that
New York City just passed, the Governor cut
education by approximately $130 million. So
my question is, should we be concerned that
education funding has been cut despite the
fact that we need additional funding, based on
the Chancellor's plea to us and to the Mayor
and the City Council that we need more money,
but we're now giving away $250 million?
Is this a wise idea, do you think,
or -- I'm just wondering, how do we support
giving a $250 million tax cut, tax break to
citizens in New York City when in fact we need
an additional $130 million, at least, in order
to make the Board of Ed whole?
SENATOR GOODMAN: Senator, I
share your concern, as does, I think, every
citizen who's alert and following this action
here in the Legislature and at the Governor's
level and at the city budget level. Obviously
10141
we want to be assured that we're going to
maximize the available funds for various
crucial purposes in the city, none more
crucial perhaps than that in the area of
education.
As you know, my colleagues and I on
this side, such as Senator Padavan, Senator
Velella, Senator Maltese, et cetera, are all
of the view that we want to do everything we
can to increase available funding for
secondary education. And you are familiar, I
think, with the package that has been probably
a bipartisan one for some time.
The DeGrasse decision relates to
the question of available state aid. This
does not directly relate to state aid, this
matter. This is a matter of city tax policy
which is designed for the purpose of enhancing
the city's economy by virtue of the basic
principle that a tax cut can at times produce
more money than it loses for the entity doing
the cutting.
So that's the premise on which this
is based, and it's an arguable premise but one
which I think history suggests has great
10142
merit. I would cite to you the federal
experience under President Reagan when he
proposed tax cuts. The fact was that we did
net more revenue. Unfortunately, certain of
his cabinet secretaries got out of control on
the expenditure side, which undermined the
long-range effort.
But fundamentally, the notion of
tax cutting being productive of increased
revenues is a valid one. And that's what I
think underlies this idea as well.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Thank you,
Senator Goodman, for that explanation.
Madam President, briefly on this
legislation.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: We in
New York City have, as I understand it, a
surplus. And I certainly agree that we want
to in every way possible do whatever we can to
stimulate the economy. We want to give
citizens a tax break.
But I think that in this instance
it is clearly a contradiction that the system
10143
in New York City is in crisis, and a major
part of the crisis is that we are not funding
education in New York City to the extent that
we need to.
I know that we are doing as much as
we can in New York State, but New York City
also has a responsibility to fund education to
the maximum possible. And I think that the
citizens of New York City would prefer to have
us use the option of surplus to fund education
in New York City so that we can begin to see
the kind of improvement that we have all been
waiting for and working for at both the state
and city board of ed levels.
So I'm going to vote no on this
because I think that the children in New York
City should come first, must come first. And
we now have -- the teachers in the City of
New York are paid less than their counterparts
in other counties around the state. They're
waiting for a settlement on their negotiations
for an increase in salary. I think we need to
do that. The Board of Ed needs more money.
So for us to be giving a tax cut
which will in fact deplete and make it more
10144
impossible for our city to be able to meet the
demands of the teachers and the Board of Ed
for other reasons, I think it is
unconscionable. So I will be voting against
this bill.
And hopefully we will be able to
ourselves do a budget in some reasonable time
so that we can help to offset the cut that the
Mayor has already and the City Council have
already done for the Board of Ed and the City
of New York.
I'm voting no, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 26. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Duane, to
explain your vote.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President.
Let me first preface what I'm going
to say by saying that I believe cities should
have the right of creating their own budgets
10145
and should have autonomy in what they are
doing.
This particular tax reduction
program has some good things and some not so
good things in it. Allowing the city to
create an earned income tax credit is actually
a very good thing and will help the working
poor in the City of New York.
But, for instance, I think it's a
big mistake for the city to repeal the hotel
occupancy tax. You know, it's easy enough to
eliminate taxes; it's very hard to reinstate
them. And I think that particularly with the
booming tourism that's going on in New York
City, this is a tax which we could ill afford
to get rid of.
There are other good things in the
bill. Certainly continuing to help co-op and
condo owners and moving towards equalizing the
rates they pay as compared to one-and-two
family homes is good, although institutionally
there are still problems in the way that we
levy the property taxes on that class of
property.
But again, to come back full
10146
circle, I think because it's important that we
allow New York City the autonomy to do what
they want to do, I'm going to vote yes on
this. But I also think that I'm going to have
some difficulty making it so that we don't
have a shortfall or continue to have such a
shortfall in what would be fair funding for
our city's school system.
Thank you, Madam President. I'm
voting yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You will be
recorded as voting in the affirmative, Senator
Duane.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Madam
President, if I could just -- before you -
there will be an immediate -
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Marcellino first, and then Senator Stachowski.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Thank you
very much.
There will be an immediate meeting
of the Rules Committee in Room 332.
THE PRESIDENT: There will be an
immediate meeting of the Rules Committee in
Room 332.
10147
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Excuse me,
gentlemen.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Stachowski.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Madam
President, to briefly explain my vote.
I'd just like to say that I'm going
to vote for this bill because I always let a
locality cut their own taxes.
But I'd like to comment
particularly that the Mayor of New York
obviously was paying attention to a lot of the
things coming out of this side of the aisle as
he picked up on the childcare tax credit, the
mortgage recording tax, first-time homeowners
idea that came out of this side, and the
elimination of the sales tax on clothing and
footwear that we've long supported,
particularly Senator Gentile.
I do have a little problem with
taking the $2 hotel tax off. I could
understand that we did that once when the
hotels were in trouble. But they're all
running at full capacity. The $2 probably
won't be reduced. And I think most of the
10148
tourists could afford it, and the City of
New York needs that particular money.
But in spite of that, I'm going to
support the bill. Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: You will be so
recorded as voting in the affirmative,
Senator.
Senator DeFrancisco.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: To explain
my vote.
A couple of mentions have been made
of the hotel tax. I just wanted to mention
that when we did allow the reduction in the
New York City hotel tax, there was an
exponential growth in the use of the hotels.
There were other reasons as well, but it was
one of the reasons cited for an increase in
the activity of tourism in the New York City
area.
So I agree with Senator Goodman
that this part is a good part as well, in view
of the fact that more revenues ultimately come
in by reason of people coming into the city
and being tourists in the city and spending
money. So I think that aspect of the bill is
10149
as good as all the rest.
I vote aye.
THE PRESIDENT: You will be
recorded as voting in the affirmative, Senator
DeFrancisco.
The Secretary will announce the
results.
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
the negative on Calendar Number 1167 are
Senators Hassell-Thompson, Montgomery, and
Paterson. Ayes, 49. Nays, 3.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
Senator DeFrancisco.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: I would
request unanimous consent to be recorded in
the negative on Calendar 1069, Senate Print
Number 5355A.
THE PRESIDENT: You will be
recorded as voting in the negative on that
bill, Senator DeFrancisco.
Senator Malcolm Smith.
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: Thank you
very much, Madam President. I -
THE PRESIDENT: To explain your
10150
vote?
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: To
explain my vote, yes.
Let me just say on behalf of some
of my other colleagues down in the City of
New York, while these tax cuts are clearly an
incentive for many in the city to do more
business, obviously it will also provide an
incentive for additional revenue for the city
in some shape or form.
What I do have to admonish, and I
have explained this to many of my colleagues
in the city as well, I do have to admonish my
City Council members. Because at the same
time that they have voted for these tax cuts,
the problem that we have is at the same time
we have this issue of education. And based on
these tax cuts, we're talking about almost
$3 billion within five years.
And the problem for us is that we
are now -- within this package, there is a tax
cut -- or not even the tax cut, but there is a
cut for the Board of Education somewhere to
the tune of $130 million, which actually works
out to about $5 million per district.
10151
So in retrospect, what it does for
us is we offer tax cuts of close to $3 billion
or $4 billion -- 200-and-some million one
year, 300 million the next year, 400-something
million the next year. By 2005, $707 million.
But at the same time, we are cutting support
for our education.
We're going to look bad up here as
we run and appeal to the Governor not to
appeal the CFE decision but at the same time
our City Council members are cutting the Board
of Education down in the city. I have to go
on the record as admonishing my City Council
members for not having the insight or at least
not conferring with us in the Legislature here
so that we wouldn't find ourselves in such a
position where we have to support a tax cut
but at the same time we've got to argue for
putting for more money in the Board of
Education.
I'm recorded in the positive on
this bill because I believe it is worthwhile
for us. But I do want to be on the record as
telling our City Council members that there is
need for more communication on their part with
10152
us, as this does not put us in a good position
to negotiate more money for the Board of
Education with the state.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1209, by Senator Saland, Senate Print 5042A,
an act to amend the Real Property Tax Law, in
relation to providing.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, Senator Dollinger is in the Rules
Committee meeting. Could we lay that aside
temporarily until he returns?
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Lay it aside
temporarily.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside temporarily, Senator.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1237, by Member of the Assembly Nolan,
Assembly Print Number 7458, an act to amend
the Labor Law, in relation to prevailing wage
supplements.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
10153
section.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Lay it aside
temporarily, please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside temporarily.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1252, by Senator Trunzo, Senate Print 5271, an
act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law, in
relation to school-zone speed limits.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 8. This
act shall take effect in one year.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 52.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1264, by Senator Fuschillo, Senate Print 5589,
an act in relation to state intervention.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Fuschillo, an explanation has been requested.
10154
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Thank you,
Madam President.
The legislation would provide for a
state takeover and removal of the board of
education in an effort to improve the
education provided to the children in the
school district. The Commissioner of
Education will assume all of the powers and
duties of the board of education until the
initial interim board of education is put in
place with the transition to the community.
Originally the Commissioner of
Education, in a proposal to the body, had
requested that there be five members of the
interim board, with the first being elected in
May of 2002. We revised that legislation to
have it elected in May of 2003, with a quicker
turnaround to get the community more involved.
The interim board will be
responsible for the fiscal and educational
oversights, description of the measures to be
taken of the district to involve and obtain,
which is very important in this situation,
parental and community involvement.
This year an SED audit, which was
10155
issued on March 8th of 2001 -- and I'm just
going to brief it, the background about the
Roosevelt Union Free School District is
responsible for providing the educational
services to approximately 3,000 children in
the six schools.
Only 30 percent, 37 percent of the
district's students -- 91 students -- met the
state's standards for the Grade 4 English
Language Arts examination, compared to a
statewide average of close to 50 percent.
Only 3 percent of the district's students,
four, met the state's standards for the Grade
8 Mathematics examination, compared to a
statewide average of approximately 40 percent.
And only 3 percent of the district's students,
four students, graduated with a Regents
diploma, compared to a statewide average of
approximately 45 percent.
Below-average student performance
has been achieved even though the district
spends approximately $11,500 per student to
provide educational services.
Prior audits and reviews over the
past decade by the State Education Department
10156
and the Office of the State Comptroller, the
district's independent auditors, educational
consultants, and others have identified the
need for additional management controls and
improvement in district operations.
In July of '95, the State
Legislature required the district to develop a
corrective action plan to address student
achievement and performance, the maintenance
of school facilities, fiscal and
administrative practices, accountability, and
internal controls. It also required the
establishment of a state review panel to
oversee the actions of the district and
implementing the goals of the corrective
action plan. The department established the
Roosevelt Task Force in 1996 to help address
the district's needs for improvement.
However, despite these efforts,
improvements have been minimal at best. In
November of 2000, the department's
commissioner provided the district with
specific student performance targets. Failure
to meet these targets by June 30th of this
year will result in further action from the
10157
commissioner.
About a year ago -- actually, a
report was issued on March 13th of 2001, this
year. Approximately a year ago, Dr. Shelley
Drazen -- which is commonly known now as the
Drazen report -- was selected through a
bidding process through the State Education
Department to evaluate the Roosevelt Union
Free School District for the past five years,
from 1995 to the year 2000.
There is an executive summary which
I am going to try to brief, just to provide
you with some more information to the ongoings
of what's happening in the district. And this
is a brief of the executive summary of the
Drazen Report.
Throughout the district's history,
some of the board members have been viewed by
district staff and residents as trying to
further their political careers or enrich
themselves and their families through the
positions of the board. After many years of
low levels of student achievement, the
district was first placed on the Schools Under
Registration Review -- SURR -- list in 1989.
10158
In May of '95, the legislative body
here passed Chapter 145 of the Laws of 1995,
after student achievement failed to improve
and visits by SED-appointed teams found
ill-maintained and potentially unsafe
facilities. The legislation established
several means of effecting change in the
district. First, several advisory and
governing groups to be appointed by the Board
of Regents were established.
A district review panel of three
and later five experts in education was set
up. It was charged with developing a
corrective action plan, known as CAP, in
consultation with the community. The panel
was to advise the Roosevelt Board of
Education's implementation of the plan and
monitor all the board's activities. If the
board failed to fully implement the plan, the
legislation authorized the removal of the
school board and the panel would assume the
duties until the next general election.
Chapter 145 also created another
advisory group called the Citizens Advisory
Council, composed of 11 members from the
10159
Roosevelt community appointed by the Regents.
The legislation was later amended to add two
more members.
Chapter 121, also passed in 1996,
specified action relief to the district's
financial situation to allow the district to
sell serial bonds and receive $4 million in a
state advance which has yet to be repaid.
In view of nearly all sources
interviewed for the report, the legislation
was flawed in that it didn't specify clear and
separate roles and responsibilities for the
panel, the board, and the CAC, so control over
the educational decisions was diffusive,
leaving no one accountable for the results.
Although the intervention was aimed
at improving student achievement and improving
the facilities, no assessment need was
conducted in order to determine the underlying
cause of the problems.
The intervention was met with
hostility and resistance by many in the local
community, especially the board of education.
Most of the original panel members were
perceived as overly ambitious to further their
10160
own careers or financial situations through
their service. Certain actions by the panel
members were viewed as particularly
objectionable and the appearance of conflict
was quite evident.
Most panel members have resigned
their positions within a year or two, voicing
frustration at their lack of authority over
board decisions and a lack of effect on the
educational process in the district. Both
panel and board members complained that the
panel-board relationship had often been
problematic due to a lack of communication,
resentment, and personal conflicts.
The Citizens Action Committee was
also viewed with suspicion. Its chair was
reportedly viewed as interested in only
furthering his own interests and his
associates' financial gains, and his apparent
hold over board members was also reported to
be a matter of concern by those who were
interviewed for the report.
The board of education at the time
of the intervention not only resisted the
intervention but it was also reported to have
10161
engaged in inappropriate and irresponsible
behavior in their management of the district.
An SED audit report in '94 and '95 cited
mismanagement of district funds, including
payment for personal expenses such as
limousines and flowers. The audit report also
cited irregular procedures such as paying
employees not entitled to money, excessive
spending, and lack of financial controls,
leading to a deficit in the district funds.
The board was also found to have
failed to carry out a corrective action plan
and was removed in January of 1996, according
to the procedures established in Chapter 145
of the laws.
The panel then ran the district
until May of '96, when a new board was held to
assist daily operations. The first panel
chair appointed an executive administrative
team. The superintendent remained in his
position, but many of his roles were taken
over by the executive administrator, creating
an awkward situation. The first executive
administrator left for a permanent position
elsewhere after only a few months. The second
10162
administrator's tenure only lasted a few
months, after he found another job.
The panel also requested from SED
the creation of a task force composed of SED
experts in a particular subject or other
educational areas. The task force was viewed
as a generally positive influence in the
district. However, a continued lack of
administrative support and follow-through and
high rates of teacher turnover reportedly
prevented the task force from a substantial
impact on the educational process.
Between 1996 and the fall of 2000,
the board ran the district with an intimate
involvement by the panel and little or no
input from the Citizens Action Committee.
There were five superintendents or acting
superintendents during this time, two high
school principals, two middle school
principals, several treasurers and assistant
superintendents of curriculum, instruction,
and business. Many questions were raised
about the qualifications or the job
performance of these individuals, particularly
regarding those hired by the board over SED
10163
and panel objections.
One superintendent, who had been
the first administrator, fired the high school
principal in January of '99, and the police
department had to be called to escort her out.
Superintendents and other administrators at
all levels reportedly became discouraged and
soon left the district.
The board elected in 1996, like the
earlier one, was removed, having been accused
of mismanaging funds, lack of attention to
educational issues, and micromanagement of the
district operations, and their actions have
been viewed as obstacles towards progress.
An audit report of 1999 and 2000
cited irregular procedures such as not using
competitive bidding when required by law,
hiring consultants without contracts,
inappropriate spending of grant money, and
hiring staff and consultants who were
unqualified for their position.
One board member was reported to
have called one administrator 28 times in a
single day and has reportedly used district
personnel to repair her car and perform other
10164
non-school-related duties. She and two others
reportedly opposed most spending which would
benefit educational process in the district.
This impression was reportedly
heightened when one of the board members of
the board of directors joined a charter school
which was recently enacted in the Roosevelt
School District, thereby draining much-needed
funds to the school district of approximately
$1.8 million.
There were also some questions
about some of the newer board members. One
currently has a pending lawsuit against the
district after he was not hired for a job he
applied for.
High levels of turnover in teaching
and administrative staff were also attributed
to a chronic lack of money for salaries as
well as reported inappropriate actions by
board members. Many of those interviewed for
the Drazen report reported that unfavorable
information about the intervention was kept
from the Board of Regents and the
Commissioner.
Voters have defeated the budget,
10165
leading to austerity budgets, in four of the
last six years of the intervention. The
recent opening of the Roosevelt Charter School
has further left a strain on the school by
draining more than $1.8 million from it.
District achievement through all of
this has improved somewhat in certain areas.
Early elementary achievement in math and
reading has been near-average level for the
state and continues to be near the state
average. There are now more students taking
the Regents course and taking and passing
certain Regents examinations such as English,
math, and social studies.
However, very low achievement
continues on Regents examinations in science
and foreign language and on the junior high
school level.
Most of the areas of improvement
continue to experience academic levels far
below those of other state districts. Very
few students receive Regents diplomas, as the
percentage of students taking and passing
sufficient numbers of Regents examinations and
taking Regents courses remains far below other
10166
districts in the state.
The district now has a new
superintendent that came from Yonkers that has
been there approximately one year. He has
initiated a series of meetings of community
forums which have been met with a tremendous
amount of success. Approximately 80 people
from the community are now attending his
meetings.
However, the fear of further
instability reportedly remains. The intensive
media coverage of this school district has
caused significant problems. Many teachers
have left and have sought outside employment.
The Drazen Report makes certain
recommendations. One is to increase state
funding for the district operations, which is
provided under this legislation in the form of
a grant. The second recommendation is the
charter of the Roosevelt School District
should not be renewed after its five-year
period. The third recommendation, in order to
ensure that additional state aid will not be
misspent, removal of the current board is
recommended. Mismanagement of money,
10167
micromanagement by the board of education
remains to be a serious problem in the
district. Three to five years should elapse
before the replacement of the board with all
its powers in order to allow time for change
to occur.
The Commissioner should appoint an
administrator experienced in improving failed
schools to run this district or who has shown
promise in the position to carry out a
corrective action plan. The current
superintendent and his team, including the
assistant superintendents of business and
curriculum and instruction, are likely
candidates, given their success in managing
the district finances and operations over a
short period of time.
The board could be reconstructed
several years later. It might be more
effective to have only one or two board
members transitioned on the team. A panel
model is not recommended, as it has been in
the past.
A campaign to raise community
support and interest in the district is also
10168
recommended. A thorough needs assessment
should be done, which is ongoing right now by
the new superintendent. A comprehensive and
adequate attendance and discipline policy is
badly needed. More attention to the
curricular issues is warranted. Quality of
instructional leadership, teaching and
learning is also required for improvement.
Accountability at all levels of intervention
should be assured. Guidance and placement of
needs should also be considered.
The Roosevelt School District is
probably one of the most problematic and
troubled school districts in this state. I've
spent a lot of time in the community meeting
with the clergy, the NAACP, parents, and just
last week, as I have been doing throughout my
term, in speaking at the classes there. The
parents tell me they want the state to take
over the school.
One focus has been lost with the
almost 3,000 kids there. It's educating the
children. My sole purpose for this
legislation -- and Earlene Hooper in the
Assembly is considering it as well -- is to
10169
get back to the fundamental rights that these
kids have, and that's having a quality
education throughout their tenure for school.
Thank you.
SENATOR CONNOR: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Connor.
SENATOR CONNOR: Thank you, Madam
President. Madam President, if Senator
Fuschillo would yield for a question.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Fuschillo, will you yield?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Connor.
SENATOR CONNOR: Thank you.
Senator, I read in the bill it
says -- in Section 5 it amends Section 11,
subdivision 11, and in Part B it says: "To
the Roosevelt Union Free School District there
shall be paid $4 million."
My question, Senator, is this an
appropriation to the Roosevelt Union District?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: No. No, it
isn't, Senator.
SENATOR CONNOR: So that by
10170
virtue of this bill they're not getting
$4 million; is that correct?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: That's
correct, Senator. It's just setting up the
method for a grant process.
SENATOR CONNOR: And, Madam
President, if the Senator would continue to
yield for a question.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Fuschillo
does yield.
You may proceed, Senator Connor.
SENATOR CONNOR: So is it fair to
say, then, Madam President, if Senator
Fuschillo would comment, is it fair to say
that his bill would provide that the State
Education Department takes over the Roosevelt
School District but it does not ensure that
they give any money to that district?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: As of now,
yes, Senator.
SENATOR CONNOR: Thank you.
On the bill, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
10171
on the bill, Senator Connor.
SENATOR CONNOR: I certainly am
aware of the problems that the Roosevelt
School District has had. Clearly it has had
management problems.
It's not the only school district
in the state that's had management problems.
We have a long tradition, as old as this state
has provided for public education, of local
control of public education. And that in fact
means very often well-meaning people -
occasionally, regrettably, in a lot of school
districts, sometimes not-so-well-meaning
people -- run for school board and get
elected.
I in my experience have seen people
who were really concerned about the schools,
many times parents, get on school boards and
suddenly realize they have to deal with the
budget, for example. And in their trade or
enterprise or professions outside of this
part-time office of school board member,
they've never had to deal with a budget
before. They either fall under the sway of a
superintendent -- sometimes that's good, and
10172
sometimes it's bad. But they're not equipped,
they're not equipped with the kind of skills
or background to deal with the management
questions that a school board has to deal
with.
In fact, I believe, Madam
President, that Senator Stavisky has had a
bill to actually provide for a state program
to give rather intensive training and advice
and counsel to school board members in some of
the intricacies of managing a district.
Probably about 12 years ago, in a
task force of the Democratic Conference headed
or cochaired by the late Senator Joseph
Galiber -- I'm not sure, I think Senator Perry
was the other cochair -- an extensive study of
Long Island school districts was done. And
the conclusion was -- and anybody familiar
with Long Island knows there are many, many,
many school districts.
The conclusion of it was there were
too many school districts. There are school
districts on Long Island that have as few as
seven or eight schools in them, yet they have
to maintain the overhead of a superintendent
10173
and a whole bureaucracy to run a school
district, at great expense, for really a few
schools.
So I suggest that what has gone on
in Roosevelt exemplifies what can happen with
a small school district that's underfunded.
Because the fact is that school district has
virtually no commercial property tax base.
The per-pupil property tax valuation in
Roosevelt is $116,000. That's the valuation
per pupil. It's the lowest in Nassau County,
and it compares with, for example -- I'll pick
a few others. The number for the Baldwin
School District is $293,000. For Bellmore,
it's 370,000. Bethpage, 468,000. Carle
Place, 599,000 in valuation per pupil. And on
and on and on.
Great Neck, $904,000 per pupil in a
property tax base. Herricks, 467,000.
Hicksville, 544,000. Island Park, 815,000.
And on and on and on, school district after
school district where the per-pupil tax base
is -- Oyster Bay, 990,000, for example -- is
six, seven, eight hundred thousand. In some
of the poorer districts in Nassau, nonetheless
10174
it's $350,000 a pupil, $300,000 a pupil. Here
is Roosevelt, per-pupil property tax base,
$116,000 in valuation.
Leaving aside all the other
problems, is it any wonder that year after
year after year, for a couple of decades, that
the Roosevelt School District has these
problems, that it can't educate its students?
It's a built-in formula for failure, Madam
President.
And the inequities, the inequities
in a school funding system relying on a local
property tax base are proven by these numbers.
Of course a district with a million dollars
per pupil in valuation or $400,000 or $500,000
per pupil in valuation is going to provide a
whole different level of support for public
education than one that has a mere $116,000.
So I suggest, Madam President,
there may have been management problems, but a
state takeover isn't the answer here
necessarily. I am very loath to supplant
local control. Yes, oversight boards,
perhaps. Other measures short of a total
displacement of a local school board I could
10175
support.
But really what we're looking at
here is something that this Legislature has
not come to grips with yet this year, and
that's the implications of the court decision
in the Fiscal Equity case. Which, as we know,
apply to New York City, but now there are
pending cases and motions to join other
districts around the state. Because the
problem isn't just New York City, it involves
urban areas, it involves a lot of rural school
districts that have special needs yet they
don't have the local tax base to meet it.
And remember, that case was based
on the New York State Constitution that
guaranteed our children an adequate public
education. And it found that the effort being
made did not result in students who were
educated to meet the minimum standards to
serve on a jury or be a voter.
I.e., if we don't fulfill that
obligation, we've failed to sustain our
democracy. Because we need our citizens to
have the level of education to at least
participate in the process as voters, as
10176
jurors, and otherwise take part in civic
involvement, as well as, of course, to engage
in gainful economic activity to support their
families and their communities.
We have to deal with the education
aid. We have to do that in the budget. We
haven't done that yet. As Senator Fuschillo
points out, while the language says the
Roosevelt district gets $4 million, we can't
appropriate $4 million to Roosevelt here
today. The State Constitution says we cannot
appropriate any money until we've passed the
budget, unless the Governor provides us with a
notice of appropriation, a message of
appropriation. And there is none attached to
this bill.
So this bill would supplant the
local school board, provide no money -
because when we get around to doing a budget,
if the school aid formula doesn't -- well,
let's not call it a formula, if the school aid
deal doesn't result in more money going to
Roosevelt -- because as we all know, Madam
President, the formula was all myth, driven by
dollars.
10177
But I respectfully submit this is
the wrong way to go. Roosevelt may be the
worst-performing district in New York State,
but there are others that could give it some
real competition. And when you look at these
funding factors -- and I'm not suggesting just
throwing money is the answer always. But
these are rather stark.
How, when it has one-eighth or
one-ninth of the tax base of surrounding
school districts, can we think that this
district would perform the way -- and this is
a district in the suburbs, and that's the real
gravamen of the Fiscal Equity decision.
It's not just about New York City,
it's about urban, rural, and suburban areas
that find, for a variety of reasons, they
can't sustain a quality school system that
produces quality education for its students,
because of accidents of history. They don't
have the property tax base that other areas
do.
And that's really something we as a
State Legislature have to address. And we
have to address it on a bigger scale, a
10178
statewide scale. This conference proposed an
amendment to the Majority's budget resolution
that tried to address the needs of those
underserved districts. And we had a little
color map there.
And it's not just in New York City,
it's not just in the big cities, it's -- these
districts that are underfunded are spread
throughout the state. Indeed, a large number
of them are in rural areas that a lot of the
members of the Majority represent.
So I appreciate Senator Fuschillo's
desire to address the problem of Roosevelt,
but at this time I'm not prepared to vote for
this kind of takeover. Particularly when his
bill can't even guarantee another nickel to
that school district.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Any
other Senators wishing to speak on the bill?
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Madam
President, this bill is an echo for me. On
June 29, 1995, I had about a twenty-minute
debate with Senator Fuschillo's predecessor,
my good friend Norman Levy, and he and I
10179
talked about the implications of a bill that
he was carrying at that time to do much the
same thing that this bill does, to allow the
Commissioner of Education, in the unique
circumstances of the Roosevelt School
District, to take the district over and run it
as a State of New York project.
And I've thought long and hard
about this bill today, and there are two
things that strike me about it which I think
are consistent with what I talked about in
1995.
And that is, there's one line in
this bill on page 2, line 53, that says it all
for me when it makes a reference to "the
qualified voters of the Roosevelt Union Free
School District." And what this bill seeks to
do is to tell the qualified voters of the
Roosevelt Union Free School District that
they're wrong, that they've been wrong, and
that they haven't done their job in voting.
I would suggest that it is
unprecedented for this state to sit down and
say to any group of voters anywhere: We're
going to take away your power to elect the
10180
people that will decide educational policy in
your community.
We are taking away the power of
people to vote for their school board. Just
so everybody hears that clearly, we are taking
away the power of people to vote for their
school board. This is unprecedented. This is
something that doesn't happen in New York
State. And to the best of my knowledge, I
don't know that it's happened in the United
States of America.
We're telling them that we're going
to take over the school district and we, the
State of New York, even through the beneficial
work of Richard Mills, despite the best of
intentions, we're taking away your power to
vote for who you want on your school board.
I cannot countenance that. I
understand that there are terrible problems in
Roosevelt. But I'll just read what I told
Senator Levy in 1995. This is a quote from
the debate of that day.
"What we're doing is we're saying
we've got a way to change Roosevelt, and the
change is going to come from the top down.
10181
The long-term change for this school district,
as I believe it is for every school district
in this state, to improve the quality of
education, is to have the parents in the
community stand up and say, 'We don't need the
Commissioner of Education to tell us to do
this, we don't need anyone at the top to
assist us in doing this. We can empower
ourselves to do it. We can demand the change.
We can demand that our children get educated.'
"Until that happens, we won't have
fundamental growth in education, and at
least -- and it is unfortunate, but at least
in my judgment, based on what I have heard in
the room today" -- that was in June of 1995,
and I haven't heard anything different
today -- "we will not have this change unless
the people in this school district stand up
and say: We want more accountability, we want
a better school district, we want better
education.
"No matter what we do today" -
back in 1995, no matter what we do today in
2001, "we will not really change the quality
of education in Roosevelt."
10182
I said to Senator Levy, "This is an
issue which for me is a very close one and a
very difficult one, but I believe we send the
wrong message throughout this state if we try
to impose a solution from the top down rather
than let it percolate up from the bottom
through empowered parents who want to make
necessary changes."
Senator Fuschillo, I understand
your advocacy for this community. I
appreciate it. But it seems to me that based
on what I've heard, to take away the power of
the people to change it themselves, to
acknowledge that the community has failed and
that we cannot rally them to bring about the
necessary changes is an admission that I am
unprepared to make.
I think this bill creates an
enormous and dangerous precedent for our
state. I have favored and supported the
Commissioner's efforts to go in and deal with
the SURR list, to provide additional
resources, to require remediation plans in
schools that are troubled, in school districts
that are in trouble in our state. But
10183
imposing a solution from Albany, when what
we're doing is telling the school district
that you have failed and you can never change
it, is the wrong message to be sent in
education.
I voted against this concept in
1995. I was the only member of the Senate to
do so. I still believe, as I did then, that
the solution lies with empowering a community
and not taking away its fundamental power to
vote for people of their own choosing. I
believe that that is the most sacred power we
give to everyone in this state, and especially
to parents to demand quality education. This
bill takes it away.
And I believed in 1995 it was
wrong, I believe it is wrong today, and I
believe it sends the wrong message to
Roosevelt and to everyone else in this state
about the importance of local control of
school districts. I voted no then, Madam
President. I will vote no again in 2001.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Thank you,
10184
Madam President.
I was here when that debate took
place. I sat there and I watched and I
listened to my colleague and good friend
Norman Levy stand up and explain his reasons
why he felt that he had to take a very drastic
step, and that is to bring state aid and the
State Education Department into the Roosevelt
School District.
The reason why there wasn't a
complete and total takeover then was because
Norman believed, and we all hoped, that it
could be done without the drastic and
draconian methods that have to be taken at
this point in time.
The system has failed, my
colleagues. The system is broken in
Roosevelt. The schools had to be closed down
days ahead of time because the kids in the
schools could not be controlled by the staff.
Assaults, fights. Mayhem ruled. Not the
authority, mayhem.
I suggest to you the parents of
this district have voted, Senator. They have
voted. They've been rejecting school budget
10185
after school budget. Not because they don't
want to fund their schools, not because
they're bad parents. That was the only means
they could voice. The system has been taken
over in Roosevelt by a small group who for
their own self-interest or political
advantages have been using the system for
their own gain and not for the kids.
The kids have suffered. The kids
have gotten a mediocre and poor education at
best. Is there a capability to educate in
that system? Absolutely. It was proven by
some of the statistics read by Senator
Fuschillo earlier. There have been some
marked improvements in the lower levels. But
in the upper grades and in the high school and
in the middle schools, nowhere. No good
improvement. Parent after parent has been
saying, Help us, help us. We can't do it
alone. We need your help and need your
assistance.
I commend Senator Fuschillo for
taking this step, as I commended Senator Levy
back then. As a teacher and a former
educator, I know what makes a school work. I
10186
was a school board member. I know what it
takes to work on school boards and to make the
system operate and to make it work. It's
hard. It's not easy.
But when you don't have support and
you have a group out there that is actively
working in opposition for their own gain and
they're well-organized and well-funded and
they are working in opposition to everything
that has been tried -- they wanted a disaster
and, ladies and gentlemen, they got it. It's
an educational horror in Roosevelt.
If you are a parent living in that
community sending your kids to those schools,
you fear, you fear every day that those young
people are going to be hurt. You don't know
if you send them that they're going to come
home in one piece. It is a crime to do that.
It is a crime to consider that we cannot and
we should just leave it alone.
The comments I heard from my
colleagues, I respect them. I don't want to
take anybody's right to vote for any system.
I think that is a last resort. We're there.
We're at a last resort. Senator, if we just
10187
let it go the way it is now, more young people
will not get the education they have a right
to have and that they deserve and that we have
an obligation to provide.
We have a constitutional obligation
to provide quality education to every child in
New York State and every child in every
district. Roosevelt, last time I looked, was
in New York State.
I think we have to support this
legislation. I know Senator Fuschillo doesn't
put it up here easily. I know this is not
what he would like to do. He would prefer, as
we all would, that the system work to help
itself. The system cannot. The people over
there need our assistance. They're asking for
it. They're begging for it.
If we turn a blind eye to them now,
we do not assist. We do not help. And I
state, ladies and gentlemen, we would be in
dereliction of our constitutional duty. More
important, we would be telling young people
that you are condemned to a less-than-adequate
education because we will not help you.
I urge my colleagues to vote
10188
unanimously for this bill, because it sends a
strong message that the State of New York
supports quality education everywhere,
everywhere, and will not tolerate those, will
not tolerate those who would do anything or do
things to disrupt it and to disturb and to
prevent it from occurring.
I urge a yes vote, ladies and
gentlemen.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Balboni.
SENATOR BALBONI: Madam
President, I rise in support of Senator
Fuschillo's effort to bring stability to the
school district.
What the irony is about this bill
is that this will continue the educational
process in Roosevelt. Now, why is that
ironic? Because as we stand here today, we
are talking about the amount of money that we
have given to the school district and how they
should have the right to their own destiny.
Ladies and gentlemen, the stories
of this chapter have been written for years
and years. This is about the sixth or seventh
10189
time that this question has been put before
this Legislature. And the question becomes,
for all of us, do we engage in a process where
we try to come in through this piece of
legislation and provide guidance with a firm
hand or no guidance at all? Do we relegate
these students and families to a dysfunctional
system, or do we try to continue to come in
and provide relief that is extraordinary but
it is extraordinary circumstances in this
community?
Senator Connor read the amount of
money that the different school districts have
around it. And then he said, But we can't fix
that with the school aid formula. And perhaps
he's right. But what he's not taking into
account is if you go back to the budgets and
you take a look at Senator Norman Levy's
efforts and Senator Fuschillo's efforts, you
will see, year after year, whether it is
bullet aid or extraordinary grants of aid,
millions and millions of dollars on top of the
school aid formula, recognizing that one size
does not fit all, in an attempt to smooth over
the inequities with the surrounding school
10190
districts, aid that the other districts have
not received but Roosevelt has.
But notwithstanding that infusion
of money, it is still a system that is not
working, that has not worked for many, many
years. All of us around this community hope
that the next step we take will be the one
that shakes this system and says here's the
road we should follow. Because in truth, as
much as we may want to control the outcome -
that is, that students are not left behind,
they receive an education, graduate and have
productive lives -- we realize that our own
inabilities will leave us only to relegate
ourselves to a small portion of their lives.
It is always going to be up to their parents,
to their community. That's the people -- that
is the group of individuals we have to entrust
the ultimate result that we all want.
This is not an easy bill. This is
not an easy approach. But it is a bold
approach, and it is taking a step. When, in
this state right now, everyone is folding
their arms and not moving on so many other
issues, Senator Fuschillo is standing up and
10191
saying, I'm going to put my name behind a
process that at least will be able to move
towards making this a better situation.
I would really ask all of you to
take a look at this through a unique
perspective. And as much as other people have
said there are other districts that are
challenged, I respectfully disagree. This is
really unique. Please give your thoughts to
supporting this.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Hassell-Thompson.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank
you, Madam President. On the bill.
I don't live in Roosevelt. And I
have attempted, as I've sat here, to not make
judgments about or try to second-guess the
people who do live in those districts.
But it's very interesting that I
heard in this chambers today exactly the same
message that I heard in the city of Mount
Vernon about Mount Vernon five years ago, that
Mount Vernon children could not learn and that
the state should take over the Mount Vernon
school district.
10192
But those of you who may have read
the papers, the New York Times, two weeks ago
may have read the monumental turnaround in
reading scores and learning scores of the
children in the city of Mount Vernon. The
state did not do that. The people of Mount
Vernon did. There was a recommitment by the
Board of Regents.
There's a T-shirt that I had
intended to wear today. I didn't want to
break dress code, so I did not wear it, but I
should have. Because what that T-shirt
represents is a world-class group of students,
through the aid of government, students on top
and in the lower level, it showed government,
parents and administrators, supported by
children, going in both directions, we were
able to turn our school district around.
Last Saturday we gave 160 bicycles
to children in the school district who read
more than fifty books. We gave special prizes
to those who read 80 books. The state
standard was 25. And they said that the city
of Mount Vernon should be exempt from the
standard, because those children cannot learn.
10193
The board, the community, and the city is not
committed to making those children learn.
Well, I want to tell you that we
have three banners that hang on three of our
elementary schools that shows an increase in
90 percent of the reading and learning scores
of those students. And one of the
lowest-achieving schools in the state, which
was the Williams School, a feeder school for
shelters, increased their reading scores by
53 percent.
Now, these are not things that I
made up in my head. These are things -- this
is information that you can read. I know that
it took us a very long time. We lost a
generation of children while we waited to turn
our district around. But three years ago, we
fired our board of education, every trustee.
We fired our superintendent. And we gave the
power to change those things that needed to be
changed.
And believe me, if any of you have
been following this school district, you know
that we have fought tooth and nail. And even
the people who were in support of us in the
10194
beginning turned on us halfway through the
process, because some of the changes that they
made were very difficult for them to abide by.
It meant moving teachers and people that a lot
of people felt a great deal about, including
myself.
But we gave the power to make that
change to the superintendent and to the board,
and we got out of their way and allowed them
to make the changes that they need to change.
I had the opportunity to talk with
many of the members who came up to visit from
Roosevelt the other day. And I happened -
there were three people in the group who knew
me from Mount Vernon. One of them used to be
the band leader, Mr. Abel, from our school
district. And he recognized me, and we
started a conversation. And I asked why they
were there.
We talked about the need to talk
with Senator Fuschillo, and I was disappointed
that they did not take advantage of the
opportunity to share with him some of the
concerns that they had.
Because a part of what I think
10195
needed to happen is that rather than have the
state commissioner take over the school
district, we may need to have an oversight
committee to monitor that school district and
put them on a very short leash.
But we need to allow that school
district to make the determination for its
children, with the appropriate and proper
help. And we do not need to be the Mounties
who ride in and think that we know better than
they about what they need to do with their
school district.
I will probably not be popular for
voting no on this measure, but I have a belief
in the people in Roosevelt in very much the
manner that I do in the people in Mount
Vernon. Because people, given the right
opportunities, the right wherewithal and
direction, can change their destiny. But
other people have to get out of the way to
allow that to happen.
I will vote no on this bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Malcolm Smith.
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: Thank you
10196
very much, Madam President.
I know this is a tough bill. It's
a tough bill for Senator Fuschillo. It's a
tough bill as I heard my colleague Senator
Dollinger talk about local takeover and taking
the responsibility away from individuals that
have the right to select who is going to
determine what happens in their communities.
However, you know, there are ten
two-letter words in the dictionary that I kind
of took my own personal oath for, and they're
very powerful ten two-letter words. And the
phrase simply says, "if it is to be, it is up
to me." Ten words, two letters each. If it
is to be, it is up to me.
And it is clear to me that if I am
going to have any impact whatsoever on the
children of this state -- and I took a
personal oath to make sure that that would
happen -- we've got to make some very, very
hard decisions.
There's no doubt in my mind we
know, we all feel, and we all want the
Governor not to appeal the CFE decision.
Clearly, doing one piecemeal project at a time
10197
is not the way to go. There's no doubt about
it, there are districts in Buffalo, Rochester,
New York City, high-need districts. Everybody
needs their fair share to better educate our
children.
However, the problem that exists in
the Roosevelt district is a unique problem. I
personally have had parents come to me crying,
saying to me, "I am not going to send my child
to school in that district. I'm going to keep
them at home."
And I respect what Ruth
Hassell-Thompson said. However, there has
been a series, just as Senator Marcellino
said, of solutions that have tried to be
employed to fix this system. In '95, there
was a corrective measure, did not work. '96,
there was the task force. But the bottom line
is, nothing happened. Nothing happened.
We need to understand, there is a
clear nexus with education and the bill we
just passed, GE-NY-SIS. If we don't educate
our kids, who is going to be dealing with the
GE-NY-SIS of the year 2003?
There is a clear nexus between
10198
education and the tax base. If the kids
aren't educated, who is going to be supporting
that tax base?
There is a clear nexus between our
children and Social Security. If we don't
educate them, who is going to be supporting
that bailiwick of money to support us as we
grow older?
There is a clear nexus between the
State of New York maintaining its stature as a
state in a global market. However, if we
don't educate our children, all is lost.
It is clear to everybody, $30,000,
$40,000 to incarcerate, $18,000 to educate.
There is a system that we are not working
fairly with and not doing the right thing.
This is not an easy bill, there is
no question about it. But the bottom line is
this Roosevelt system is just not working. We
have to take some drastic measures. Drastic
measures have to be taken for that district to
send out a message that we are not going to
tolerate not educating our kids anymore.
I understand what the problem is.
There's politics, there's public interest,
10199
there's unions. Sure, Malcolm, you just said
some of the words that you shouldn't say. You
may not be here a year from now. But the
bottom line is, we got to get to that point
someday where we take all of that out.
We have took an oath as public
stewards to stand up for what is simply right.
And the bottom line right now is the kids in
this particular state. This is the number-one
issue in the state of New York, educating our
children. If we do not educate our children,
all of this will fail.
Senator Fuschillo, you have taken
the hard line, there is no question about it.
But this is the right thing to do. And I'm
telling all of my colleagues here as well, you
have to search your heart. Search your heart.
If you believe in your heart that what Senator
Fuschillo is doing is passing this bill to
hurt or to kill our children off, then don't
vote for it. If you believe in your heart
what he is actually standing here as a Senator
taking an oath to correct this measure is to
hurt our children, then don't vote for this
bill.
10200
The bottom line is, this is a
message that has to be sent and it has to be
sent today. I'm voting yes, and I'm asking
everyone else to take that same stand, because
this is the day that we have to take a stand.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, I have the highest respect for
those who are voting for this bill, for a
little different reason, perhaps, than some of
us who may vote against it.
I advocated for this. From the
time I got to the Senate in 1986, it was my
opinion that when the dropout rate exceeded
30 percent in any district, it was almost a
valid indicator of the mismanagement of the
district. And I wanted those districts taken
over by the state. And I said it just about
every place that I went. It was almost like a
mantra with me. I don't even think I thought
about what the reality of that transference
would actually mean.
The statements that Senator Malcolm
Smith and Senator Marcellino made are
10201
absolutely right. This is a school district
that's under siege. This is a situation that
has been brought on by some mismanagement, as
Senator Connor pointed out, and a situation
that does relate very much to the funding and
also a lot of problems when a district starts
to falter.
One of the reasons that the
students in Roosevelt couldn't pass the
Regents is in many instances they didn't have
teachers, particularly in the foreign
languages, that would even teach in that
particular area. So it wasn't that the
students couldn't always pass the Regents,
they couldn't take the Regents. They didn't
have the resources.
Because of that, I tried to look at
alternative forms of education. And one thing
that Senator Marcellino pointed out I think is
exactly right. And it just amazes me the
comfort zone that people have with failure. A
school district is lowering its standards and
its expectations of itself into the abyss, and
when somebody comes along and suggests a
different way to change it, people fight
10202
harder to resist the change than they would
have to try to improve the educational system
in the first place.
I saw that happen in New York City
when there was a proposal for some alternative
ways of running some schools by, in a sense,
farming them out to a private company. I
don't know if this was the best idea. I don't
know if the company's record was particularly
stellar in some of its other ventures around
the country. But I know this. People that
never even stopped to think about the issue
were carrying on around a school in my
particular district, P.S. 161, and ever since
they defeated the idea, they haven't been seen
since. They haven't been seen in the vicinity
of that district, and won't be.
But if someone tries to come along
and bring an idea, there is certainly a
resistance to it that absolutely amazes me.
I think that the intentions of
Senator Marcellino and the sponsor of the
bill, Senator Fuschillo, and the person who
originally sponsored the bill, Senator Levy,
God rest his soul, were certainly the best of
10203
intentions. But what I could hear even in the
conversation today is how distant we have
become from the district and the people who
live there, how the blame is being cast on
individuals who are reacting to situations.
And now we've got scenarios where
people were invited to come and talk to
Senator Fuschillo, who is a very reasonable
person, and they didn't do it. And at the
same time, there's a castigation of some
people who live and work in that district who
oppose this, and they oppose it for valid
reasons. And what we're really doing is
casting aspersions on each other rather than
really trying to solve the problem.
In the end, I think there's more
that can actually be done. I think that we
really owe a debt of gratitude to Senator
Hassell-Thompson, who explained how in the
district that she lives and now represents,
how they were able to do that in Mount Vernon,
in that Williams School, where they raised the
performance of the students by 53 percent.
In the end, I think that we have to
understand, living in a democracy, that it
10204
would be easy to do what the American
government did in Grenada, do what the Soviet
government did in Afghanistan. It's maybe
sincerely thinking that things aren't the way
they should be and going in and trying to
change them.
But in the end, what sets us apart,
or what should set us apart as this democracy,
is that we don't do that. We respect the fact
that an election was held, a school board was
elected. If we have rules about people who
are elected to the school board while they're
engaging in lawsuits against the district,
then we should enforce those rules and maybe
not allow the person to sit.
However, when we do hold an
election, it has to mean something. If it
doesn't mean anything, we're beginning to lose
something, a little compromise, that in the
end will take us all down. And that
compromise is the value that we place on our
electoral system.
I think that there are drastic
changes -- we might even have to privatize the
whole school district in Roosevelt. But we
10205
cannot set aside the will of the people when
it comes to the school board in terms of the
management of that school. I think it's not a
utopian concept, I think it's the one that we
have to believe in or we're losing our value
as the society that we purport ourselves to
be.
So I'm going to vote no, Madam
President, with absolutely no malice or
negative feeling toward the people who are
voting yes, because I not only understand that
point of view, I have held that point of view.
It's just that when we actually finally did
it -- and I voted for the bill in 1995, and I
saw what we did. I guess I would certainly
invoke the right to be educated in public as
an elected official, and I think that that was
the wrong way to go. I think that there are
actually some drastic measures we can take in
that district, similar to what Senator Malcolm
Smith was proposing, without setting aside the
will of the people.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Oppenheimer.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: I don't
10206
want to belabor some of the points made,
because I concur and I see both sides of this
issue.
Certain salient points are
influencing my decision to vote no. One is
I'm very close to school boards, having been
on them. And I feel that a school board is
elected, it is the will of the people of that
community. And I feel strongly about home
rule for school districts.
The second point is I'm very
familiar with what has happened in Mount
Vernon, also in parts of Yonkers, where Mount
Vernon went from only 33 percent of their
student body passing the test -- this year,
75 percent passed. That's an enormous
accomplishment. And it was an accomplishment
made not only with the people of that
community but with, I must admit, a very, very
extraordinary superintendent of schools who
stood his ground and took on everyone and
accomplished.
This has also happened in many of
our schools in Yonkers. So I know it can be
done. These were some of the very hardest hit
10207
schools as far as students passing the Regents
exams.
I think our standards are showing,
our new standards, the Regents standards are
showing to be effective in some of our more
difficult schools. It takes a while. Things
don't improve overnight. But we do have the
standards, and hopefully we will have the
support of fiscal equity for schools.
And I certainly did not support the
Governor's decision to question that decision
and appeal it. I feel that if we are going to
help thousands and thousands of our children
in New York State, not just in Roosevelt -- we
have many examples of really some deplorable
conditions and results in many of our schools
around the state. We have to make a
commitment as a state to finance schools and
to provide the additional assistance where it
is needed. We need to put in Saturday school.
We need to put in more summer school. We need
to put in additional time after school ends.
And that is going to cost us money.
And I think we as a state have to
make that commitment. It is not just
10208
Roosevelt that has enormous problems. We can
name dozens and dozens of other schools with
terrible problems where the children need our
assistance. And we as a state have to make
that commitment.
But I cannot overrule a school
board's decision. I'll be voting no.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Brown.
SENATOR BROWN: Thank you, Madam
President. Would Senator Fuschillo yield for
a few questions?
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Fuschillo, will you yield for some questions?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR BROWN: Thank you.
Let me say during my short tenure
I've come to appreciate Senator Fuschillo's
thoughtful and fair approach to issues.
My question one would be, when was
the last school board election in the
district, Senator?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: This past
10209
month.
SENATOR BROWN: And would Senator
Fuschillo continue to yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator,
do you continue to yield?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: He
continues to yield.
SENATOR BROWN: So there was an
election for the school board this past month.
How many new school board members were
elected?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Senator, to
the best of my knowledge, one, maybe two.
SENATOR BROWN: Would the Senator
continue to yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Fuschillo?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR BROWN: Out of how many,
Senator?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: There were
three that ran. I believe there were three
10210
members that were up this year.
SENATOR BROWN: And would the
Senator continue to yield?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Yes.
SENATOR BROWN: How many members
in total are there on the school board?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: I'm sorry,
Senator, I didn't hear your question.
SENATOR BROWN: How many school
board members in total are there in Roosevelt?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: There are
four now. There are five positions.
The president resigned, I believe a
month ago. The vice president became the
president. There's no vice president of the
board. I believe there's one vacancy.
SENATOR BROWN: And my final
question is in the legislation, Senator, I
gues an interim board would be selected.
Would there be any residency requirements for
the interim board members that would be
selected?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: No, there's
not. There's nothing in the legislation to
preclude any member from the Roosevelt
10211
community from being selected to be put on
that board.
SENATOR BROWN: Thank you,
Senator.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Stavisky.
SENATOR STAVISKY: On the bill,
Madam President, very briefly.
I've been listening intently to
what everyone has said, and I could almost
argue either side. However, it seems to me
that the solution involves the leadership in
the district but, more specifically, in the
schools, particularly the superintendent, the
principals, and the assistant principals. I
think that's where the accountability lies,
where the oversight seems to be lacking.
I'm very troubled by what's
happening in Roosevelt, and this is -- I get a
feeling that nobody is really right on this
situation. You can only hope that you're
doing the proper -- taking the proper
position. It must be terribly frustrating to
be a parent in Roosevelt.
10212
I'm going to vote no on this bill,
because I do have confidence that -- at least
I certainly hope the school board will finally
get it right, select a superintendent who can
put an end to the anarchy and the chaos that
seems to be going on in the Roosevelt school
system.
And if there is mismanagement, as
Senator Fuschillo described, then it seems to
me that the district attorney should come in
and either prosecute or investigate, turn it
over to a grand jury or whatever the law will
provide.
Madam President, I don't think
there are any winners on this or any -- and
certainly the children seem to be the big
losers. But I think we have to give it the
best try that we can, and that's to err on the
side of having confidence in the school system
itself. And if the superintendent can't do
the job, then it's certainly time -- perhaps
the superintendent from Mount Vernon could
give some help, or have some mentoring program
or whatever.
But, Madam President, I will vote
10213
no.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
LaValle.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Thank you,
Madam President. On the bill.
I'd like to congratulate Senator
Fuschillo for the action in bringing this
legislation before us. Because, as witnessed
by the debate, it is not an easy issue.
Local control is ingrained both in
our constitution and in the laws that we pass.
It is appropriate for this body to scrutinize
decisions that will move away, even in the
slightest, from that principle, to have those
closest to the issues who are elected by
people to control their own destiny.
This issue is not being debated for
the first time. It has been debated before.
Steps have been taken, and individuals who
have -- the Board of Regents, the
Commissioner, and others have tried to take
steps to ensure that local control and
decision-making is honored.
This is not unique. We in this
body have allowed local processes to run its
10214
full course. But when we felt that things
have gotten away locally, we have intervened,
by creating control boards, to get the ship
running straight and steady.
We have in this state, through the
Board of Regents, taken over a college,
Adelphi University. And I must tell you, I
was not happy with that. But I must admit
that the appointees on the board of directors
of the university put new life, new vision
into that university and have stabilized what
was once a great university to continue that.
It is appropriate for us to debate
and scrutinize this, as we are here today.
But we are talking about something that is so
precious and so important. Senator Malcolm
Smith talked about the nexus and the
importance of taking our young people, which
are the vitality and the hope and the future
of this state and this nation, to make sure
that they have all that they can have, through
education, to meet their hopes and their
expectations.
This is not a permanent solution,
but this is a solution that will bring new
10215
energy, new hope and, as we have seen in the
past with cities and other municipalities and
the university, to make a change and to bring
the people in the community back into the
process, to give them hope.
Senator Marcellino was right on
point when he said, and Senator Malcolm Smith,
that people had given up hope, they don't want
to send their children to school. That's not
fiction. That's fact. I have sat on panels
and listened to the textbooks -- or
nontextbooks -- that students in the Roosevelt
School District have. It's shameful. The
building conditions, it's shameful.
No student should lose that hope.
We are not making this decision and this
legislation was not brought before us lightly.
It wasn't taken lightly. It was done through
much thought, much deliberation. And so I
hope that we could give the children and the
parents of Roosevelt that hope. And I would
hope we could support Senator Fuschillo.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Dollinger was next.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
10216
Madam President. I'll be very brief. I've
already spoken on the bill.
Senator LaValle, I think you're
absolutely correct when you describe the fact
that the State of New York has imposed control
boards. We have exercised our oversight
function.
We have never, Senator LaValle, to
my recollection, never said: You can't vote
for your school board person. We've never
taken away that power to vote for the mayor of
the City of New York. We've never said: You
can't vote for city council. We've never said
you couldn't vote for the mayor of Troy when
we bailed out Troy.
We're saying today that you can't
vote to elect your school board president in
the Roosevelt School District, that we're
going to decide who sits in that chair. I
would say that makes this bill very different
from all its predecessors.
And I'll close with one other
prophecy. I may be right, I may be wrong.
But, Senator Marcellino, your strong advocacy
for this bill struck a chord in me. There is
10217
a judge in this state who has said to us,
right here in this room, the 61 members of
this room, that you have done to education for
children in this state what we now claim the
school board in Roosevelt has done to their
children, that we have not given proper
funding to allow them to meet the
constitutional mandate of a quality education.
That judge has said -- he ordered
this Legislature to produce a remedial plan by
September 15th to ensure that our children
would get their constitutional right. The
Governor of this state has chosen, as is his
right, to appeal that decision.
There may come a day when the Court
of Appeals of this state agrees with that
judge and says to this Legislature: You have
failed to do the job. Just like this bill
says to the Roosevelt School District: You
failed to do the job.
We will have to submit a remedial
plan. And when that judge says, Guess what,
the remedial plan doesn't do the job and I'm
going to take over the power to put money into
public education in New York State -- and he's
10218
going to take that power away from us -- I
daresay that people in this chamber, including
me, are going to stand up and say, That's
wrong. That's wrong. It's our judgment. We
were elected to decide how that constitutional
right is enforced. We were given the power by
the people of this state.
Even though the Majority in this
house, even though the Majority in this house
has been from one political party for the last
40 years, I would stand up and defend their
prerogative to decide how much money goes into
education. And I will not let a judge tell
us, unless it's the absolute last thing we
have to do, that we don't have the power to do
it. We were elected to do it. Our judgment
should control.
And all I would ask is that those
who will vigorously defend the power of this
chamber to decide the future of educational
opportunity in this state, all I'm asking
today is that you not take away that power
from the Roosevelt School District. Because
there's an argument that says we have failed
too, and that in the near future we may face
10219
the same command from someone who says: I
know better than the New York State Senate who
should get what money for education.
I will stand with my Republican
colleagues and say, Do not take that power
away from us. While we may have vast
disagreements about how money should be spent
and where it should go, and we may not -- I
may not have the power that my vision for
education be implemented because I'm not in
the Majority in this house, but I will stand
shoulder to shoulder with the members of this
house and say, It's not right to take away our
power as elected officials. We are stripping
the people of this state of the power of their
vote.
I will protest when a judge tells
us to -- threatens to take it away from us.
And I will stand up today when this bill takes
it away from the elected officials in the
Roosevelt School District. This is something
that needs to be solved by them. It can't be
solved from the outside by this bill.
I caution all of you, there may
come a time when we have this debate and it's
10220
us that's having its power taken away. I
would be very careful with how you allow that
power to be taken away anywhere in this state.
It's going to come back to haunt us.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Onorato.
SENATOR ONORATO: On the bill,
Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Onorato, on the bill.
SENATOR ONORATO: I've been
listening to the debate on both sides of the
issue here quite a bit, and I just want to
point out a little story that I heard one
time.
It had to do with a flash flood
that was occurring in a town. And as the
floodwaters were rising, there was a preacher
in the center of town, where the church was
flooding, and he went up to the higher level.
And a boat passed by, and he says: "Reverend,
would you please come in?" The water was
rising. He says, "No, don't worry." He says,
"The good Lord will provide."
The water kept rising. He went a
10221
little higher. The state troopers came to try
to rescue him. They said, "Reverend, please
come in. The water is rising. You'll soon be
overwhelmed." He says, "Don't worry, the good
Lord will provide."
Finally the flood crest hit the
roof, and a helicopter passed by: "Reverend,
please get on. The water is rising, there's
no further hope." He says, "Don't worry, I'm
a good servant of the Lord, and the Lord will
provide."
Well, to make a long story short,
the reverend drowned. And he went up to
heaven. And when he was there, he said, "I
would like to speak to the Lord." So when
they guided him before the Lord, he says, "I
can't believe that You abandoned me in my hour
of need. I asked for Your help, and You
refused me."
The good Lord looked at him. He
says, "Reverend," he says, "I sent the boat, I
sent the state troopers, and I sent the
helicopter. I can't help it if you can't read
the signs."
This is what's happening now. We
10222
sent help to the Roosevelt School District.
We gave them additional funding. We took away
some of their board members, we replaced them.
The people themselves replaced them.
Now Senator Dollinger says that we
have to worry about them taking some of our
powers away. Well, they do that every two
years. When they don't think we're doing the
right job, they throw us out.
Well, this is what we're telling
the people of Roosevelt: You're not doing the
job that you were elected to do to provide
quality education to your children. We have
to send out that life raft, and we've got to
make sure that all of the children of
Roosevelt get into that boat and on to higher
education.
I urge my colleagues to join me in
throwing out that life raft to save the
children of Roosevelt. I vote yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Thank you,
Madam President.
I am going to talk out of both
10223
sides of my mouth, if you will. I agree with
everyone.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: I agree with
my colleagues who have raised these very
important issues about the idea of throwing
out the vote of the electorate in Roosevelt.
And I certainly am impressed to see
the passion that has been exhibited in the
debate. Senator Marcellino I certainly
respect. He's been a teacher in the city of
New York and knows firsthand, on the front
lines. And certainly Senator Smith over here.
Let me say I've been thinking of
myself here in this chamber and feeling sorry
for myself, and I'm putting myself in the
shoes of those young people in this Roosevelt
School District. I really feel so frustrated
that our system is not working. Certainly
it's not working to my satisfaction as an
elected official who represents the same
number of people that every other Senator
represents.
There are some Senators who have
millions of dollars that they can bring to
10224
their constituents. I can't do that. There
are some Senators who have access to travel,
to make decisions on legislation, to do the
work that a Senator should be doing. I can't
do that.
I'm terribly frustrated. And if
there was anyone who could fix this place, I
would be very happy. But I'm not the Majority
Leader, I'm not the Speaker. I'm not in the
Majority, I'm not a Republican, I'm not a
white male. So there are many things
operating against me. I'm -- I'm here. But
at the same time, I believe in this system,
I'm proud to be part of it. But I can tell
you, I'm very frustrated.
Now, if I were a student in
Roosevelt, stuck in a school where I was not
likely to be able to graduate on time with the
kind of background and foundation that would
propel me into a successful college
experience, career experience, I would be
terribly frustrated. And those students in
Roosevelt, the same as I am here, are not able
to do for themselves, to make the kinds of
decisions that will make a difference in their
10225
school so that that school works.
So here we are. We are in a
position to make a decision on their behalf.
And I, similarly to Senator Smith, similarly
to Senator Marcellino -- for once, we have the
Republicans and Democrats weighing on my
decision equally in this instance. A
Republican and a Democrat, at least -- I want
to represent the interests of those young
people who are not in a position to represent
themselves.
I rail all of the time against all
kinds of legislation that I think will be
unfairly disadvantageous to young people that
I represent in my district. I think the same
thing about those young people in Roosevelt.
But if I'm not willing to make a decision that
will help to improve their opportunities, then
I can't stand up and complain about those
issues that I think are to their detriment.
So I'm going to vote yes today.
And I feel that I am voting on behalf of the
young people, those students in Roosevelt who
are crying out for some help from somewhere,
somebody. And I think that we're that body
10226
and we should do something on their behalf.
So I'll be voting yes, Madam
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Is there
any other Senator that wishes to speak on the
bill?
Senator Fuschillo, to close.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Just briefly,
Madam President.
This is probably the best debate,
full of compassion and passion for people.
And I appreciate all the comments.
Senator Montgomery, I agree with
everything that's been said too, in one
fashion or another.
Senator Hassell-Thompson isn't
here.
We've gone through it all in the
last five years. Senator Stavisky, you talked
about superintendents. We've had five in five
years. Five. The one now is the one, in my
opinion. He's the one who's reaching out to
the community. He's the one who I believe is
going to bring back what everybody is talking
about.
10227
And, Senator, I wish I could wear
that shirt that you want to wear for the
successes in Mount Vernon. It's been tried.
Five years of failure.
Senator Hannon laughs when I say
when is enough enough. It's going.
Senator Onorato, they're drowning.
They're going down. I spoke last Friday at
the sixth grade in Centennial, an elementary
school in Roosevelt, 25 kids. And when these
kids walk into the school, they should see a
subliminal message that says "the land of
opportunity, something that is going to enrich
my life." They don't see that. They see
failure. Because the school board, the
Citizens Action Committee, the oversight
committee by the state, the task force by the
state can't get their act together.
Senator Onorato, I need that life
preserver right now. And that's what this
legislation does.
And Senator Marcellino, to Senator
Balboni, to Senator Malcolm Smith, thank you.
And Senator Smith, it has to come
from the heart. I have three children who go
10228
to school, one not yet. I want the best
education that we can give them.
And the kids from Roosevelt can
learn. I want to emphasize that, they can
learn. Two years ago I spoke at the
graduation ceremony. The valedictorian got a
full scholarship to an Ivy League school.
Last year the captain of the football team got
a scholarship to an Ivy League school. They
can do it. But the teachers don't have the
mechanism that the school board and the
community as a whole and all these other
things that we've done in the last five
years -- they don't have it. It's not there.
So I need, they need that clear
line of authority from that superintendent,
who is from Yonkers, who is reaching out to
the community -- and he's doing a terrific
job. I talked to him this morning and I told
him this bill was coming to the floor. And I
told him that for one year they're going to be
an interim school board and they can be from
Roosevelt, but there's no requirement. And
that after that, in 2003, we're going back to
the elected body. And we're going to
10229
transition it back to the community, because
that's where it belongs.
I love what I do, and I love when
my bills come to the floor. If you think this
is easy for me, it's not. It's not. But the
superintendent said to me, by having that
transitional period, it's going to allow me to
breathe life into that community that is
choking.
I thank you for all your comments,
and I urge a yes vote on this bill.
Thank you, Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 10. This
act shall take effect July 20, 2001.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Gonzalez.
SENATOR GONZALEZ: Thank you,
Madam President.
I think that I'm frustrated with
the education of the city, I'm frustrated with
10230
the education that's going on in the state, in
various parts of the state. It's no different
in Roosevelt as it is in New York City.
And I want everybody to take
notice, that we got to do something about it.
So I vote yes.
Thank you, Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Gonzalez in the affirmative.
Senator Oppenheimer.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Thank you,
Madam President.
For the very same reason, I'm
voting no. We have to do something about it
in the state of New York. The difference now
from five years ago, Senator Fuschillo, in my
opinion, is that we have the courts talking to
us now. And the courts are saying: New York
State, get your act together, you're not doing
the right thing and educating your students.
They're not getting a sound, basic education.
And it's a statewide problem, in
pockets. Even in pockets in my county,
supposedly the wealthy county of Westchester.
So we need help too, in certain areas. We
10231
need leadership and we need money. And we
need additional help for children in need.
And it has to come from us. And
that's the difference. The difference is the
Campaign for Fiscal Equity.
I'm voting no.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Oppenheimer, in the negative.
Senator Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, Madam
President. Briefly to explain my vote.
In 1995 I was one of the people
that Senator Levy spoke with, along with the
Commissioner of Education, along with Regent
Adelaide Sanford, in an attempt to really
examine for himself, with us, those of us that
he thought would give him some opinion that he
would integrate into his decision about what
he was doing for the Roosevelt School
District.
And I also remember the difficulty
we had in coming to a conclusion for New York
City governance reform. It was also painful,
similarly to what we're doing today. But we
had to do it. I'm very, very thankful that we
10232
did it. I think we can all feel proud of
ourselves because we have changed the
environment for education in New York City.
And so I hope that today, by taking
this step, that though it is drastic we will
change the environment for education in
Roosevelt. And by doing that, we can begin to
see some significant improvements.
So I'm voting yes. And I certainly
appreciate Senator Fuschillo and Assemblywoman
Earlene Hill Hooper for their efforts to
improve that district.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Montgomery recorded in the affirmative.
Senator Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you,
Madam President.
I am also going to vote yes on
this, although I hear Senator Oppenheimer.
You know, you can make the arguments either
way.
My vote is based in part on the
commitment that I sense from people in support
of this legislation to actually intervene and
do something about the most fundamental crisis
10233
in our state, which is the failure to educate
our children.
I hope that we are going to get
that same level of commitment and passion as
we undertake the task of saving all of the
other children in this state who are getting
educations just as lousy as the children in
Roosevelt, just as bad.
And I have been in the courtroom in
the Campaign for Fiscal Equity case and seen
the evidence. And if you sat there for a
couple of days and heard about kids who are
basically treated like they're, you know, in
prison, kids who can't read, who are reading
three and four years behind their grade level,
all over the state, then the question of what
we're doing about that and the question of
what this Governor is doing about that should
be first and foremost in our minds.
And I hope that we will pass a
resolution, if you're sincere about what
you've said today, as the Assembly has done,
calling on the Governor to drop the appeal.
Let's comply with the Campaign for Fiscal
Equity case. Let's save all the Roosevelt
10234
districts. We can do it.
And this house is not moving
forward on the big issue. I support you on
this one. I hope you'll come around and echo
the language and the arguments you've used
today when we go to all the other districts in
the state that have these same problems.
I vote yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Schneiderman, in the affirmative.
Senator Hassell-Thompson.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank
you, Madam President. Just to explain my
vote.
I made the impassioned plea and did
not try to persuade anybody else to vote the
way I voted, because nobody else was in
Mount Vernon to see the changes and to see
structurally what happened and how we came to
the point that we did.
My no vote does not mean that I do
not believe, Senator Fuschillo, that you are
doing the right thing as you see it for that
school district. My concern becomes when the
state takes the power away from school
10235
districts and away from the voters to do what
is their constitutional right to do. That is
a major stroke that I cannot support.
I support every other aspect. I
support your intent and your desire to give
more power to the Commissioner that will allow
him to intervene, to assist and support. But
I cannot support the ousting of a school board
that has been duly elected by the people of
Roosevelt.
All of the assistance and support,
all of the concerns, those are major. We
experienced them in Mount Vernon. And people
can tell me that Mount Vernon was different.
It wasn't different. Because we had schools
where we had metal detectors on our schools.
We had parents who literally took their
children out of the public school because they
did not want them to be in that environment.
Those parents are bringing their children back
into the public schools today because of the
commitment that the city of Mount Vernon has
been able to make.
So my vote no is not against the
children and the efforts of Roosevelt. But it
10236
is no against the state taking a major step in
taking away the power of the electorate in
Roosevelt.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator,
you vote in the -
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: No.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Hassell-Thompson in the negative.
Senator Stavisky.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Madam
President, to briefly explain my vote.
Last Friday I visited a school in
my district in Flushing, downtown Flushing, in
District 25, which is the most improved school
district in the City of New York. And at
P.S. 20, where 75 different languages are
spoken, I saw a school that works. I saw a
school where the children were doing very
well. And I'm convinced it's because of the
leadership in that particular school.
I'm delighted, Senator Fuschillo,
that you have a superintendent -- you finally
hit the right superintendent. And that
convinces me to give him the opportunity, give
him the resources and let us hope that he can
10237
do the job without someone breathing down his
neck.
And I very reluctantly vote no on
this bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Stavisky, how do you vote?
SENATOR STAVISKY: No.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: In the
negative.
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, in spite of the prodding from
Senator Schneiderman, I'm still going to vote
no.
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: We'll see
you later.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR PATERSON: And I'd like
Senator Onorato to know that after the
preacher drowned, I heard the state took over
his church.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR PATERSON: But I wanted
to add that to the discussion, because it's
been a rather fierce discussion. And I really
10238
think that -- I hope people come together.
This is the vote that we've taken. The people
have spoken through our elected officials.
Obviously this bill is going to pass. The
Assembly member in that district is a good
friend of mine. She's in favor of it.
And I really hope that those who
did oppose this, such as myself, will work
with the people who are coming in to try to
improve that district. Because it is really
the best interests of the children that we're
talking about.
And I think that the no votes in
this case were needed, because we have to make
sure that this doesn't open the door to
rampant state takeovers. There are
situations, such as in the civil rights
movement, as Senator Schneiderman just told
me, where, you know, sometimes governments do
need to be taken over. And I guess maybe in
this case that's the case.
I'm going to vote no, but I hope it
will stand as an admonishment. I think what
Senator Hassell-Thompson said about
Mount Vernon is something that we might want
10239
to look at before we have to go down this road
the next time.
I wish all the people in Roosevelt
well. I grew up very close to there. That
school district had problems 30 years ago.
And I hope that the great talent that is in
that geographic area comes forth with the help
of the state.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Paterson in the negative.
Announce the results.
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
the negative on Calendar Number 1264 are
Senators Connor, Dollinger, Hassell-Thompson,
Oppenheimer, Paterson, Santiago, Stachowski,
and Stavisky.
Ayes, 47. Nays, 8.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
Senator Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Madam
President, can we return to reports of
standing committees. I understand there's a
report of the Rules Committee at the desk.
May we have it read now.
10240
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Bruno,
from the Committee on Rules, reports the
following bills:
Senate Print 1048, by Senator
Santiago, an act authorizing the City of
New York.
3179, by Senator LaValle, an act to
amend the Criminal Procedure Law.
3180, by Senator LaValle, an act to
amend the Criminal Procedure Law.
3246, by Senator Leibell, an act to
amend the Education Law.
3330A, by Senator Volker, an act to
amend the Education Law.
5309A, by Senator Alesi, an act to
authorize the Town of Henrietta.
5443, by Senator Wright, an act to
amend the Public Service Law.
5463, by Senator Volker, an act to
authorize.
5619, by the Senate Committee on
Rules, an act to amend Chapter 141 of the Laws
of 1994.
10241
5626, by Senator Bruno, an act to
amend the Insurance Law and the Public Health
Law.
And 5627, by Senator LaValle, an
act to amend the Insurance Law.
All bills ordered direct to third
reading.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Move to
accept the report of the Rules Committee,
Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: All in
favor accepting the report of the Rules
Committee signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Nay?
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
report of the Rules Committee is accepted.
Senator Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Madam
President, may we return to the controversial
calendar and take up Calendar Number 631 at
this time, please.
10242
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
631, by Senator Kuhl, Senate Print 3230A, an
act in relation to authorizing the Southern
Tier.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Is there a
message of necessity at the desk, Madam
President?
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Yes,
there is.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Move to
accept.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
motion is to accept the message of necessity.
All in favor signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Those
opposed, nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
motion is accepted.
The Secretary will read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
10243
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 55.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
Senator Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Yes, Madam
President. May we continue in regular order
with the controversial calendar.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Secretary will read.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Thank you.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1267, by Senator Morahan, Senate Print 5595,
an act to amend the Penal Law, in relation to
authorized dispositions.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Explanation,
Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Morahan, an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Yes, Madam
10244
President.
This bill adds another section, 5,
to the Penal Law, for second-degree murder,
which would allow a mandatory
life-without-parole sentence for anyone who
would be committing a murder on a child of
14 or under while engaged in another criminal
act.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 5. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
November.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Announce
the results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 55.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1209, by Senator Saland, Senate Print 5042A,
an act to amend the Real Property Tax Law, in
10245
relation to providing a tax exemption.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Saland, an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR SALAND: Thank you, Madam
President.
Madam President, this is a bill,
not unlike others that we've seen in this
house, which would permit Dutchess County to
enact legislation or a local law whereby the
county and any of its cities, towns, or
villages would be authorized at local option
to provide for a 10 percent real property tax
exemption for volunteer firefighters and
volunteer ambulance workers.
That would occur after a public
hearing and would require, again, a vote by
either the local municipality or the county.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Dollinger, why do you rise?
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Madam
President, just briefly on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
10246
Dollinger, on the bill.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I'm not going
to vote against this bill. I understand
Senator Saland attempting to use the tool of a
property tax exemption or a reduction of
property taxes as an incentive for recruitment
for our volunteer fire departments and
ambulance departments.
My only regret, Madam President, is
this is only a Dutchess County bill. This
should be a statewide bill. With the
importance of using tax incentives to get
volunteers in this very busy time of American
life, it would seem to me the best way to do
this is with a statewide bill.
I continue to look forward to the
adoption of a statewide bill, because that's
really the right way to go, and not end up
with a balkanized system in which certain
counties get this benefit and others might
not, in part because of the political
affiliation of their elected representatives.
I think a statewide bill is the
better way to go, and I look forward to
casting another yes vote on a statewide bill
10247
in the future.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: 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.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1237, by Member of the Assembly Nolan,
Assembly Print Number 7458, an act to amend
the Labor Law, in relation to prevailing wage
supplements.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the 90th day.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
10248
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Announce
the results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 55.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1268, by Senator Morahan, Senate Print 5596,
an act to amend the Penal Law, in relation to
penalties for assault and manslaughter.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Explanation,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Morahan, an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Thank you,
Madam President.
This bill would establish a more
appropriate penalty for criminal conduct that
results in unintended serious physical injury
or harm or death.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
November.
10249
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Announce
the results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 55.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1271, by the Senate Committee on Rules, Senate
Print 5616, an act to amend the Education Law,
in relation to the distribution.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Explanation,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Skelos, an explanation has been requested on
Calendar 1271.
Senator Kuhl, an explanation has
been requested, sir.
SENATOR KUHL: And who requested
the explanation?
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: By
Senator Dollinger.
10250
SENATOR KUHL: Senator Dollinger,
okay.
Senator, it's very simple in
purpose. This bill, as you can see, is being
offered up by Senate Rules. And it does two
things. Number one, it provides that instead
of a hearing possibly being held relative to
the creation of a charter school district
within a public school district that the
public school district now, under this bill,
would be required mandatorily to hold a
hearing.
And then also it goes on to say
that if a school district -- this is a little
Section 1A that's added on. It says that if
in fact a school district fails to conduct a
public hearing that in fact the Board of
Regents or the charter entity shall conduct a
public hearing to solicit comments from the
community in connection with the issuance or
renewal of a charter.
And one of the things in the
Education Committee that we've been dealing
with, Senator, is that oftentimes we hear from
school districts who all of a sudden, in the
10251
middle of a budget year or whatever, find that
there in fact is being a charter school
established within their district which they
didn't anticipate.
And as you know from the charter
school legislation that was passed three years
ago in this state that there is a trail of
public monies that goes into that charter
school that would no longer go to the public
schools. So there is a -- I won't call it
significant, but there is certainly a loss of
revenue because of the transfer of students.
What we have heard from school
superintendents across the state who have had
charter schools established within their
school districts is that oftentimes there are,
for lack of a better word, recurrent expenses
that they have incurred and will continue to
incur that even with the loss of students they
cannot eliminate. So that there are some
additional revenues that are needed but that
are taken away from them on a per-pupil basis.
What this bill does is attempt to
essentially give them as much forewarning and
fair warning of the possibility of a charter
10252
school being created, so that they can make
the appropriate accommodations.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President, if the sponsor will yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I have just
two short questions.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Kuhl, will you yield for some questions?
SENATOR KUHL: I'd be happy to.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Under this
bill, Senator, when is the hearing supposed to
occur? As I understand it, the bill says the
school district shall hold the hearing and, in
the event they don't, then it defaults to
either the Board of Regents or the charter
entity. When would that hearing be held? Is
there a time -
SENATOR KUHL: We didn't define
that, Senator. We've kind of left that up to
the discretion of the school district as to
when to schedule.
10253
I mean, what's happening is that
these applications are coming in at different
times. And so obviously we left it to their
discretion to do it when they saw fit.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Okay. And
through you, Madam President, if Senator Kuhl
would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Kuhl, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR KUHL: I'd be happy to,
Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator continues to yield.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I raised this
question in the Rules Committee deliberation
on this bill, and I think it's been answered.
But at line 17 of the bill it says that "the
Board of Regents or their charter entity."
Would that be the SUNY Board of
Trustees, because they're the other entity
under state law that has the authority to
charter schools?
SENATOR KUHL: Yes. Yeah, there
are only two entities, as you know, that have
the power to grant charters.
10254
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Great.
Just on the bill briefly, Madam
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Dollinger, on the bill.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I want to
thank Senator Kuhl and his staff for their
work on this bill. I raised a question in the
Rules Committee about whether it would apply
to the Board of Regents and to the SUNY
trustees, the requirement that the default
public hearing be held by the chartering
entity. The bill certainly seems to have
attended to that.
I think it's a good bill. I think
that Senator Kuhl is correct, that oftentimes
school districts are caught unawares, not only
about the creation of the charter school but
about the relevant costs and the extent to
which they will take students away and take
revenue away from the school district.
This is a good idea and a necessary
amendment to the charter school process. I
recommend people vote aye.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
10255
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, 55.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
Senator Saland.
SENATOR SALAND: Madam President,
I would request unanimous consent to be
recorded in the negative on Calendar 1069,
Senate 5355A.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Without
objection.
Senator Rath.
SENATOR RATH: Madam President, I
would request unanimous consent to be recorded
in the negative on Calendar 5355A.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Without
objection.
Senator Balboni.
10256
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, Madam
President. Could we please return to motions
and resolutions.
There are three privileged
resolutions at the desk, two by Senator Skelos
and one by Senator LaValle. Could we please
have the titles read and move for their
immediate adoption.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Motions
and resolutions.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: By Senators
Skelos, Bruno, LaValle, and Onorato,
Legislative Resolution Number 2576,
celebrating the memorable life of Brian Fahey,
dedicated father, husband, firefighter and
friend.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
question is on the resolution. All those in
favor signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Opposed,
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
10257
resolution is adopted.
Senator Balboni.
SENATOR BALBONI: Please continue
to read the resolutions.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: By Senators
Skelos, Bruno, LaValle, and Onorato,
Legislative Resolution Number 2599, mourning
the tragic death of Harry Ford, dedicated
father, husband, firefighter and friend.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
question is on the resolution. All in favor
signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Opposed,
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
resolution is adopted.
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, is that resolution open to -
SENATOR BALBONI: Senator
Paterson, at the conclusion of the next
10258
resolution's reading I will make the usual -
the customary and usual practice in this house
is to open all the bills for sponsorship -- I
mean open all resolutions. Thank you.
SENATOR PATERSON: And thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: By Senators
LaValle, Bruno, Skelos, and Onorato,
Legislative Resolution Number 2600, mourning
the tragic death of John Downing, dedicated
father, husband, firefighter and friend.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
question is on the resolution. All in favor
signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Opposed,
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
resolution is adopted.
Senator Balboni.
SENATOR BALBONI: Madam
President, as I mentioned before to Senator
Paterson, we'd like to open up all these -
10259
the three resolutions for sponsorship.
And the prayers of everyone in this
chamber go to the families of the firefighters
who we honor today.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Thank
you, Senator Balboni.
Senator Onorato.
SENATOR ONORATO: Madam
President, I rise today to pay tribute to the
memory of three extraordinary men, Brian
Fahey, John Downing, and Harry Ford.
This past Sunday, on Father's Day,
these three courageous firefighters made the
ultimate sacrifice on our behalf. They died
in an effort to serve and protect the people
of Astoria, Queens, which I represent, from
the ravages of a devastating explosive fire.
Brian Fahey, John Downing, and
Harry Ford exemplified in word and deed what
we have come to expect from these firefighters
and police officers we call New York's finest.
They were dedicated public servants and loving
husbands and fathers. In passing this
resolution today, the State Senate joins with
the many others in New York City and New York
10260
State in honoring their memories and
expressing heartfelt condolences to their
families.
We can never hope to repay our debt
to Brian Fahey, John Downing, and Harry Ford,
but we can pay tribute to their memories and
reaffirm our deep respect for the firefighters
in our city and state who stand ready, every
minute of the day, to give their lives in an
effort to save the lives of others.
As we honor their lives and these
three men who were taken from their families
and their communities so suddenly and so
prematurely, we must remind ourselves never to
take our firefighters for granted. We must
honor their bravery and dedication to public
service every day. That, I believe, would be
a fitting and lasting tribute to the memories
of Brian Fahey, John Downing, and Harry Ford.
These were true heroes, and their
legacy of courage and commitment to the people
of the City and the State of New York will
live on.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
10261
three resolutions will be open to all members.
Any member wishing not to be on the resolution
should notify the desk.
Senator Balboni.
SENATOR BALBONI: Madam
President, is there housekeeping at the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Yes,
three substitutions.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Senator LaValle
moves to discharge, from the Committee on
Rules, Assembly Bill Number 6146 and
substitute it for the identical Senate Bill
Number 3179, Third Reading Calendar 1279.
Senator LaValle moves to discharge,
from the Committee on Rules, Assembly Bill
Number 6145 and substitute it for the
identical Senate Bill Number 3180, Third
Reading Calendar 1280.
Senator Volker moves to discharge,
from the Committee on Rules, Assembly Bill
Number 6697A and substitute it for the
identical Senate Bill Number 3330A, Third
Reading Calendar 1282.
And Senator Wright moves to
10262
discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
Assembly Bill Number 8952 and substitute it
for the identical Senate Bill Number 5443,
Third Reading Calendar 1284.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE:
Substitutions ordered.
Senator Balboni.
SENATOR BALBONI: Madam
President, could we just stand at ease for a
moment, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
house will stand at ease.
SENATOR BALBONI: Thank you.
(Whereupon, the Senate stood at
ease at 2:25 p.m.)
(Whereupon, the Senate reconvened
at 2:30 p.m.)
SENATOR BALBONI: Madam
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Balboni.
SENATOR BALBONI: Madam
President, now that the clock is right -- I'd
like to thank the sergeant-at-arms for
correcting the clock -- it's time to take up
10263
the Supplemental Calendar Number 1, if
possible. Could we please have the
noncontroversial reading of that calendar.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Thank
you, Senator Balboni.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
384, by Senator Marcellino, Senate Print
1110A, an act to amend the Education Law, in
relation to establishing.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Lay it aside,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is laid aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
683, by Senator Leibell, Senate Print 4772, an
act to amend the Retirement and Social
Security Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: A home
rule message is at the desk.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
10264
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Announce
the results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 55.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
745, by Senator Alesi, Senate Print 1504A, an
act to amend the General Business Law, in
relation to misrepresentations.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Lay it aside,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is laid aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
801, by Senator Seward, Senate Print 1050, an
act to amend the State Finance Law and Chapter
83 of the Laws of 1995.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
10265
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Announce
the results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 55.
SENATOR SKELOS: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
886, by the Assembly Committee on Rules,
Assembly Print Number 8485B, an act to amend
the Education Law, in relation to safety
devices.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect in one year.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Announce
the results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 56.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
10266
917, by Senator Marcellino, Senate Print
105 -
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Lay it aside,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is laid aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1278, by Senator Santiago, Senate Print 1048,
an act authorizing the City of New York to
reconvey its interest.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: A home
rule message is at the desk.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 5. 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, 56.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1279, substituted earlier today by Member of
10267
the Assembly Thiele, Assembly Print Number
6146, an act to amend the Criminal Procedure
Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Lay it aside,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is laid aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1280, substituted earlier today by Member of
the Assembly Thiele, Assembly Print Number
6145, an act to amend the Criminal Procedure
Law.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Lay it aside.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is laid aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1281, by Senator Leibell, Senate Print 3246,
an act to amend the Education Law and the
Retirement and Social Security Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect immediately.
10268
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Announce
the results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 56.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1282, substituted earlier today by Member of
the Assembly Eve, Assembly Print Number 6697A,
an act to amend the Education Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This
act shall take effect September 1.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 56.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1283, by Senator Alesi, Senate Print 5309A, an
act to authorize the Town of Henrietta.
10269
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: There is
a home rule message at the desk.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 4. 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, 56.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1284, substituted earlier today by the
Assembly Committee on Rules, Assembly Print
Number 8952, an act to amend the Public
Service Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Lay it aside,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is laid aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
10270
1285, by Senator Volker, Senate Print 5463, an
act to authorize.
SENATOR BALBONI: Lay that bill
aside temporarily.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is laid aside temporarily.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1286, by the Senate Committee on Rules, Senate
Print 5619, an act to amend Chapter 141 of the
Laws of 1994.
SENATOR BALBONI: Please lay that
bill aside temporarily also.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is laid aside temporarily.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1288, by Senator LaValle, Senate Print 5627,
an act to amend the Insurance Law, in relation
to coverage.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Lay it aside.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is laid aside.
That completes the reading of the
noncontroversial supplemental calendar.
SENATOR BALBONI: Madam
President.
10271
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Balboni.
SENATOR BALBONI: Could we please
have a reading of the controversial calendar,
in order.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Secretary will read in order.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
384, by Senator Marcellino, Senate Print 110A,
an act to amend the Education Law.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Marcellino, an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Yes, Madam
President.
This bill is similar to the one
we've done recently with regard to daycare
centers. We're simply asking that school
districts develop a procedure -
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Excuse
me, Senator Marcellino.
Could we have some quiet in the
house, please.
Thank you.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Thank you,
10272
Madam President.
We're simply asking that school
districts develop a procedure in the schools
that asks anyone coming into the school to
check in, to identify themselves and state the
purpose of their visit.
This ensures -- this would
hopefully ensure the safety of the youngsters
so that people just do not feel they can walk
into schools at any point in time and just
wander around. We'd like to know who is in
the building and what the purpose is of the
person in the building. If it's legitimate,
that's fine. They'll be directed to the place
they have to go.
This would at least allow a record
to be maintained and we know who's in the
building. And those who shouldn't be there
are forewarned that they will not be permitted
to enter.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Dollinger, why do you rise?
SENATOR DOLLINGER: If the
sponsor will yield just to one question, Madam
President.
10273
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Marcellino, will you yield for one question?
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Certainly.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Senator, is
there any reason why local school boards
couldn't do this for themselves? And isn't
there significant evidence that most of them
have done this kind of check-in protocols for
entering public schools?
SENATOR MARCELLINO: The answer
to your question, Senator, is absolutely yes,
they could do it for themselves, and many
have. Many have not. And we are simply
saying it is time that all districts take the
precaution to identify people who come into a
building where children are to be found.
It wouldn't be the first time that
adults have walked into buildings unchallenged
by anyone. I mentioned the case in the prior
bill we passed in this house for my video
surveillance bill where the person walked into
the building unchallenged -
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Excuse
10274
me, Senator Marcellino, will you suffer an
interruption?
We must have order in the chamber.
Would you please take your conversations
outside so that we can hear the debate.
Senator Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: That person
entered the building of a school unchallenged,
went to the locker room, secreted a camera,
left, a few days later came back,
unchallenged, to pick up the camera.
We don't think that's the way to
go. We believe that a parent whose child is
in these buildings deserves to know that there
is a security system there that will check to
see who is walking into the school. Teachers
deserve the right to be safe and secure and to
know that people in the halls have been
identified, we know who they are and they're
not just some person deciding to wander around
the building for whatever reason.
These are schools of learning and
education. And certainly peace, quiet, and
control is an essential element to learning
and education.
10275
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Madam
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Just briefly
on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Dollinger, on the bill.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I'm going to
vote in favor of this bill. It seems to me
that -- I guess I regard this as a bill that
will be duplicative of most districts'
efforts. The protocols that Senator
Marcellino's bill outlines are in effect in
every school district that I know of in Monroe
County and every building in Monroe County.
And my only concern is that by
giving the Commissioner broad-based authority
to promulgate regulations he will promulgate
some regulations that are not in current
effect, and what we'll do is have overly broad
regulatory authority that will require school
districts in many cases that have effective
protocols for visitors to change those, and
may require an additional expense and time and
10276
effort.
And I'm going to vote in favor of
it. But whenever we do this where we seem to
be duplicating what's already in existence, I
question how pervasive the need is for this
particular bill.
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: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Announce
the results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 56.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
745, by Senator Alesi, Senate Print 1504A, an
act to amend the General Business Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Balboni.
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, Madam
10277
President, could you please lay this bill
aside temporarily and go to the next bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is laid aside temporarily.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
917, by Senator Marcellino, Senate Print 105,
an act in relation to granting.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Explanation,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: A home
rule message is at the desk.
Senator Marcellino, an explanation
has been requested.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Thank you,
Madam President.
This bill was introduced a number
at the times at the request of the Town of
Huntington. We have passed this bill on many
occasions. It would grant a person by the
name of Gladys Raso a retroactive senior
citizen tax exemption for the years 1986-'87
through 1990-'91 inclusively.
They agree there was a mistake made
on their part. She is entitled to the
10278
exemption. They have sent us the home rule
message. They are willing to grant it, they
just would like us to give them the authority
to do so. They feel we need to give them the
authority to do so. Their lawyers tell them
that, so we're here to do that.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Madam President, I'm going to vote in favor of
this bill -
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Dollinger, on the bill.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: -- even
though, quite frankly, I've voted against
partial property tax exemptions for all the
not-for-profit groups on Long Island, and
because it appears in this case, based on what
Senator Marcellino said, that the fault lies
exclusively with the government entity.
And in those circumstances, I think
it's justifiable to grant an exemption that
they would otherwise be entitled to except the
government made the mistake. In this case, I
think this is distinguishable from that long
10279
list of property tax exemptions where the
entity that's entitled to it didn't take the
steps to perfect it.
Under those circumstances, this is
a different deal from the one I usually vote
against, and I'll vote in favor.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: A home
rule message is at the desk.
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, 56.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
SENATOR BALBONI: Madam
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Balboni.
SENATOR BALBONI: There will be
an immediate conference of the Senate Majority
10280
in the Senate Majority Conference Room.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: There
will be an immediate conference of the Senate
Majority in the Senate Majority Conference
Room.
SENATOR BALBONI: Please
recognize Senator Dollinger.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I would
yield, Madam President, to Senator Mendez.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Mendez.
SENATOR MENDEZ: Thank you, Madam
President.
There will be an immediate
conference of the Minority in Room 314. Thank
you.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: There
will be an immediate meeting of the Senate
Minority in Room 314.
The Senate stands at ease.
(Whereupon, the Senate stood at
ease at 2:45 p.m.)
(Whereupon, the Senate reconvened
10281
at 4:00 p.m.)
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: If we could
return to the original active list, would you
please call up Senator Balboni's bill,
Calendar Number 1275.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1275, by Senator Balboni, Senate Print 5646,
an act to amend the Penal Law and the Criminal
Procedure Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: There's
a message of necessity at the desk.
SENATOR SKELOS: Move to accept
the message of necessity.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
motion is to accept the message of necessity.
All in favor answer aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Opposed,
nay.
(No response.)
10282
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
message is accepted.
Read the last section.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: May we have
an explanation, please.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: A brief
explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Balboni, an explanation has been requested.
Brief.
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, thank you,
Senator Dollinger and Senator Schneiderman.
I'd be pleased to offer an explanation, a
brief one.
This is the Governor's program bill
as it relates to creating the crimes of
promoting, soliciting or hindering the
prosecution of acts of terrorism. It
essentially mirrors the federal laws on
terrorism, and it creates new penalties and
new crimes.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Just briefly,
10283
Madam President.
I understand that this bill is the
subject of some discussions with our
colleagues in the Assembly. There are parts
of the bill that I think bear some serious
examination in those discussions. My
understanding is that they will be the subject
of a needed scrutiny.
And my hope is that with a reasoned
scrutiny of those provisions we can end up a
bill that protects us from acts of terrorism,
is well-married to our federal law and the
system of federal control of terrorism, and
that we'll end up with a bill that can come
back to this house and become law.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 9. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
November.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Announce
the results.
10284
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Would you please
call up Calendar Number 1276, by Senator
Volker.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1276, by Senator Volker, Senate Print 5653, an
act to amend the Penal Law and others.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Explanation.
SENATOR SKELOS: Is there a
message of necessity at the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: There is
a message of necessity.
SENATOR SKELOS: Move to accept.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: All in
favor of accepting the message of necessity
say aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Opposed,
10285
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
message is accepted.
Senator Volker, I understand an
explanation has been requested by Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR VOLKER: Thank you. I
appreciate the opportunity to explain it.
Last year when we passed the Sexual
Assault Reform Act of 2000 there was an
unusual provision in the end of that bill that
basically said that we had run out of time and
that we intended in the future -- presumably
meaning 2001, this year -- to continue to make
some changes in the laws involving sexual
assault that we were unable to get through to
last year.
This bill represents those
continued changes. And the reason I am a
little bit hesitant is the Governor, the
Senate, and the Assembly have been negotiating
on this issue for about four months, on and
off. What this bill represents is about as
close to an agreement as we've been able to
10286
get to.
The Governor and the Senate are on
board. We're not exactly sure where the
Assembly is, since the Assembly has sort of
backed away. They didn't object, but they
have not completely agreed to this bill. I
want to be perfectly candid.
But this was approximately where we
were when, as I understand it, we stopped
negotiating. Now, there may be a couple of
things in here that they were still
questioning, but basically this is an
extension of last year's bill.
I will give a quick description.
For the aggravated sexual assault, for
instance, there was some question about the
age of a person, if a person over 18 assaults
a person under 13. And that is a higher
crime. We have reduced that in this bill to
11. So in other words, if a person over 18
assaults someone under 11, the crime is a
higher crime against that person.
This adds the crime of forcible
touching to the list of crimes which will
permit prosecution for a crime of persistent
10287
sexual abuse. It permits a persistent
misdemeanor sexual offender to be punished as
a felon. It expands the Sex Offender
Registration Act by including sex crimes of
forcible touching, persistent sexual abuse,
aggravated sexual abuse 4, and facilitating a
sex offense with a controlled substance.
The bill amends the Family Court
Act to ensure that children from 9 to 12 are
presumptively able to testify in a Family
Court proceeding.
It creates a marital-exemption
defense for certain acts of consensual sexual
relations. That's where the person is either
incapable because of drugs or capacity to
consent.
And it changes some of the terms
from "sodomy" to "deviant sexual intercourse"
and so forth, because many of the activists
were saying that the terms were such that they
preferred for the victims to have different
terms. And that's what's in this bill.
Finally, the bill makes it a felony
to possess or sell amounts of what is called
the date-rape drug, which is GHB. Sale of
10288
28 grams -- this is quite a bit -- would be a
C felony, and the possession of 28 grams a D
felony. And that's basically it.
And a lot of technical corrections
to the SARA bill of last year.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Hassell-Thompson.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Yes,
if the Senator would just yield for a question
of clarification.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Volker, will you yield?
SENATOR VOLKER: Sure, I yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank
you. Through you, Madam President, just
explain for me, please, if you will, Senator
Volker, what creating a marital exemption
relative to certain appropriate sex acts
means.
SENATOR VOLKER: This is a
situation -- and as you know, we have changed
the rules on marriage as it is, so it is
possible to have a sexual assault in a
10289
marriage even -- even -- as long as the person
does not consent and so forth.
What this legislation does is add
although the person may have consented
technically, that the consent was because of
drugs, induced drugs -- that is, the other
spouse or whatever used drugs on that person
or used some sort of coercion, very similar to
what occurs outside the marriage. Or where
the person for reasons, for instance, of
incapacity -- for instance, their skill or
whatever -- and unable to consent, as another
person would be, for instance, who is disabled
or whatever. Then in that case, you could
charge someone with a sexual assault also.
It kind of mirrors the law outside
of marriage, and -- but still using the
understanding that there is still the
potential defense of marriage as long as some
other intervening act -- if another
intervening act occurs, then you could still
charge somebody in a marriage.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank
you. Thank you, Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
10290
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 74. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
November.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Announce
the results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
would you please call up Calendar Number 1277.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1277, by Senator Skelos, Senate Print 5656, an
act to amend Chapter 549 of the Laws of 2000.
SENATOR SKELOS: Is there a
message of necessity at the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: There is
a message of necessity at the desk.
SENATOR SKELOS: Move to accept.
10291
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
motion is to accept the message of necessity.
All in favor say aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: All
opposed say nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
motion is accepted.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Skelos, an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
this is a chapter amendment to legislation
that we passed last year that would allow
victims, prosecutors and sentencing courts to
be given notice when a prisoner makes
application to change his or her name.
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.)
10292
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: To explain my
vote, Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Dollinger, to explain his vote.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I expressed
my displeasure last year about the fact that
this was a piece of legislation I had worked
on. In fact, I'd actually appeared on the
"Today Show" nationally to talk about the
concept underlying this bill, because this
bill was an idea that I had worked on when a
woman came to me and we had found out that the
murderer of her 4-year-old child was
attempting to change his name in a faraway
corner of New York, and we'd only through
happenstance found out about the fact that
that name change was underway and that it
designed, in the words of the murderer, to
protect him from the publicity that
accompanied his crime.
I proposed a bill, there were a
number of bills passed. The bill was finally
passed by this house, signed into law, all of
10293
which occurred without the name of the person
who had done all the work actually appearing
on the bill.
I stand here again today, we're
doing a chapter amendment. It's one of the
Governor's program bills. There are 27
Senators on this bill as sponsors. Except,
quite frankly, the one who did the work and
brought the idea was never even asked to be on
the bill.
I will never understand the code of
courtesy in this house that allows something
like that to happen. I asked last year if
there were a way to change it. Apparently, I
can only conclude now that there is not. And
when we talk about courtesy to members, I
guess I will always remember what I believe is
this tremendous lack of courtesy in this
instance.
I'm going to vote in favor. It was
a good idea when I had it. It was a good idea
when I did all the work on it. It's still a
good idea. But when someone reminds me about
what this house means, I will never forget it.
I said I wouldn't forget it last year. I
10294
won't forget this year either.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Dollinger, in the affirmative.
Announce the results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
on Supplemental Active List Number 1, would
you please call up Calendar Number 745, by
Senator Alesi.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
745, by Senator Alesi, Senate Print 1504A, an
act to amend the General Business Law, in
relation to misrepresentations.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Explanation,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Alesi, an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR ALESI: Thank you, Madam
President.
This bill simply addresses an
10295
interesting situation in the existing law that
makes it illegal to represent the mileage on
an odometer on a vehicle when it is sold; in
other words, at the point of sale.
This bill addresses the situation
by saying it's illegal to misrepresent the
mileage prior to the sale.
Thank you very much, Madam
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
November.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Announce
the results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
Senator Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Madam
President, will you just continue in the
10296
regular order, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Yes, we
will. Thank you, Senator Fuschillo.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1279, substituted earlier today by Member of
the Assembly Thiele, Assembly Print Number
6146, an act to amend the Criminal Procedure
Law.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Madam
President, could we have an explanation of -
I believe this bill was vetoed last year. If
we could have an explanation of the veto
changes.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
LaValle, an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Yes. This -
we have two bills for -- one -- this bill is
for -- Calendar Number 1279 is for the town of
East Hampton. And it would allow animal
shelter officers to have peace officer status.
That would give them the ability to issue
appearance tickets.
And we had some disagreement with
the Governor because the Governor felt that
10297
issuing peace officer status was not necessary
for both the East Hampton bills, for the
village and the town. We obviously are in
disagreement and hope -- had some discussion
with counsel on this issue in the intervening
period between sessions.
And we hope that the counsel will
see matters a little differently during this
year on both bills.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Dollinger, why do you rise?
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Madam President, I believe that both these
bills passed unanimously or close to
unanimously.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Yes, that is
correct.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I'll address
both bills, even though they're not
simultaneously before the house.
Senator LaValle, I think these are
just the kind of bills that, whether the
Governor likes them or not, ought to become
law. And there's an easy way for us to do
that: just say to the Governor we think they
10298
should be peace officers, we're fully aware of
what peace officer status is, we've done it a
number of times throughout this state.
There is a growing tide, for
municipal liability reasons, that they have
peace officer status. I have expressed
sometimes my frustration that we seem to be
doing it all willy-nilly, group by group. But
nonetheless, it's the unequivocal sentiment of
this house that they should be peace officers.
I would just encourage you, if
these bills are vetoed this year, please bring
them back. Let's override the Governor's
veto -- which I think is a somewhat silly
reason. Let's bring those bills back to this
house. And I believe you will see today that
there's a two-thirds majority that will stand
up and say we're going to make these laws
whether the Governor likes it or not.
We have tended, as I think Senator
LaValle's experience indicates, to, quote,
negotiate these bills with the Governor. But
they're bills that have a strong Senate
sentiment behind them that we should make them
law regardless of what the Governor thinks.
10299
That's what our constitution allows us to do.
We should do it in this instance.
With all due respect, he's got 40
votes here. If we have more than 40, if we
have 41, we ought to pass these bills into law
regardless of his lack of signature.
I'd encourage you, Senator LaValle,
not only to accept our yes votes but to accept
a vote that says we'll vote for an override on
these bills if the Governor vetoes them
because he doesn't like the rising incidence
of peace officer status. That's not reason
enough to justify it to me.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Any
other Senator wish to speak on the bill?
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, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
10300
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1280, substituted earlier today by Member of
the Assembly Thiele, Assembly Print Number
6145, an act to amend the Criminal Procedure
Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
LaValle, an explanation has been requested by
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Senator
Dollinger, this is the same bill for the
Village of East Hampton, and this would allow
peace officers to issue appearance tickets.
The difference with code
enforcement officers, really, they have no
more standing than a normal, ordinary citizen.
And so, as you had indicated in the prior
bill, this has an additional piece to
indemnify when a person has peace officer
status in the actions that they take.
10301
So this would again give the peace
officers the ability to issue appearance
tickets to enforce the codes in the laws
within the municipality.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Dollinger, why do you rise?
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you for
the explanation from Senator LaValle.
I'd simply point out for the record
that Senator Montgomery, Senator Duane, and
Senator Hevesi voted against this bill the
last time around.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Thank
you, Senator Dollinger.
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: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 57. Nays,
1. Senator Montgomery recorded in the
negative.
10302
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1284, by the Assembly Committee on Rules,
Assembly Print Number 8952, an act to amend
the Public Service Law.
SENATOR ONORATO: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: An
explanation has been requested, Senator
Wright.
SENATOR WRIGHT: Thank you, Madam
President.
The bill before us this afternoon
amends the Public Service Law and provides for
an expedited proceeding when applying for an
application to repower or site an electrical
generating facility.
As my colleagues will remember, it
was two years ago that we made amendments to
Article 10 establishing a one-year time frame
during which a decision has to be made. And
within that one-year time frame, you have the
ability to extend an additional six months.
What this bill does is takes
circumstances where either we are repowering a
10303
plant and thereby reducing the emissions
significantly, the threshold being a minimum
of 75 percent, or we are relocating a facility
on an existing -- on the site of an existing
facility, again achieving emissions reductions
of at least 75 percent.
In those instances, the siting
procedure has to be completed with a decision
within a six-month time frame, so we're
reducing it from one year to six months. And
it also allows an extension of three months.
So we're reducing six-month extension to a
three-month extension.
The intent is frankly relatively
simple. It is to provide an incentive to
build new capacity, to put that capacity
online where it replaces existing capacity
where we will have a significant reduction in
emissions, thereby improving the air quality.
Let me also say that it is not the
intent to exclude any new generation of plants
from repowering. They would follow the normal
procedure, since they may not be a position to
achieve a reduction of 75 percent. But
new-generation plants certainly could achieve
10304
improvements. And that being the case, they
would utilize the existing procedure.
So this is really targeted and
focused at older, old-generation facilities
that tend to be the facilities with the
highest levels of emission, the facilities
that we are currently using to meet our
capacity requirements. And it would certainly
be in the interest of all parties to replace
that capacity with new generation.
As evidence of that, we can point
to memorandums of support from both the EPL as
well as the American Lung Association.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Onorato.
SENATOR ONORATO: Madam
President, on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Onorato, on the bill.
SENATOR ONORATO: I'd like to
congratulate and thank Senator Wright for
putting this bill forward. I represent the
district in Queens County that provides the
City of New York currently with about
48 percent of its current power. With some of
10305
the new plants being proposed, we'll be able
to provide over 60 percent of the total power
needed in the City of New York.
This bill is certainly a step in
the right direction, and one of the things
that we have been stressing time and time
again regarding the old, grandfathered plants
that are currently operating at a much higher
rate of pollution than the newer plants are.
And while this will give them an incentive to
upgrade their plants, it does not mandate it
currently.
And I'm looking forward that,
giving them the opportunity to take the steps
on their own, that they will do so. But if
they don't, that I hope we will revisit this
legislation and make it necessary for them to
comply in the future.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Any
other Senator wishing to speak on the bill?
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
10306
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Announce
the results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1287, by Senator Bruno, Senate Print 5626, an
act to amend the Insurance Law and the Public
Health Law.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Please lay
that aside temporarily.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is laid aside temporarily.
Senator Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Madam
President, please call up Calendar Number
1220.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: There is
a message of necessity at the desk.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1220, by Senator Skelos, Senate Print 5523, an
act authorizing the assessor of the County of
10307
Nassau.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Is there a
message of necessity at the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: There is
a message of necessity at the desk, Senator
Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Move to
accept.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
motion is made to accept the message of
necessity. All in favor will say aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: All
opposed say nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
message of necessity has been accepted.
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.
10308
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 57. Nays,
1. Senator Dollinger recorded in the
negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Madam
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Are there any
substitutions at the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Yes,
there are.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Can we make
them at this time, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: On page 10,
Senator Volker moves to discharge, from the
Committee on Rules, Assembly Bill Number 8529
and substitute it for the identical Senate
Bill Number 2835, Third Reading Calendar 241.
On page 13, Senator Farley moves to
discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
Assembly Bill Number 1736 and substitute it
10309
for the identical Senate Bill Number 3129,
Third Reading Calendar 370.
On page 15, Senator Saland moves to
discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
Assembly Bill Number 5026A and substitute it
for the identical Senate Bill Number 4231,
Third Reading Calendar 413.
On page 16, Senator Morahan moves
to discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
Assembly Bill Number 7733B and substitute it
for the identical Senate Bill Number 4023B,
Third Reading Calendar 451.
On page 29, Senator Fuschillo moves
to discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
Assembly Bill Number 4955 and substitute it
for the identical Senate Bill Number 2586,
Third Reading Calendar 759.
On page 30, Senator Fuschillo moves
to discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
Assembly Bill Number 4042A and substitute it
for the identical Senate Bill Number 4758A,
Third Reading Calendar 778.
On page 30, Senator Fuschillo moves
to discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
Assembly Bill Number 6061A and substitute it
10310
for the identical Senate Bill Number 4759A,
Third Reading Calendar 779.
On page 30, Senator Saland moves to
discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
Assembly Bill Number 7752 and substitute it
for the identical Senate Bill Number 5144,
Third Reading Calendar 785.
On page 36, Senator Larkin moves to
discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
Assembly Bill Number 6527 and substitute it
for the identical Senate Bill Number 3405,
Third Reading Calendar 919.
On page 38, Senator Volker moves to
discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
Assembly Bill Number 2149 and substitute it
for the identical Senate Bill Number 1092,
Third Reading Calendar 959.
And on page 42, Senator Spano moves
to discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
Assembly Bill Number 3884 and substitute it
for the identical Senate Bill Number 5330,
Third Reading Calendar 1189.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE:
Substitutions accepted.
Senator Duane.
10311
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President. I was hoping to have unanimous
consent to vote no on the following pieces of
legislation, which I'll do slowly: Number
1264, that's S5589; 1267, that's S5595; 1268,
that's S5596; 1275, S5646; Number 1277, S5656;
1279, S3179; 1280, S3180; and 1284, S5443.
Thank you, Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Without
objection, so ordered.
Senator Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Madam
President, will you please take up Calendar
Number 1288.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Secretary will read Calendar Number 1288.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1288, by Senator LaValle, Senate Print 5627,
an act to amend the Insurance Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
LaValle, an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Madam
10312
President, this is an issue that this house
has discussed and debated before. This bill,
as I had said in my remarks previously, is one
in which our government, that is formed to
protect the health, safety and welfare of
people, really allows us to help people be
pro-family, to have a family.
Today there are many couples who
for a variety of reasons are marrying later
and are trying to start a family later in
life. This bill would require that every
group or blanket health insurance policy that
is delivered or issued in the state of
New York provide medical coverage for
physician services, hospital, surgical, major
medical or similar comprehensive type
coverage. And it must also include coverage
for the diagnosis and the treatment of
infertility.
Such coverage would be subject to
annual copayments, coinsurance, and
deductibles which the contracts or policies
provide for other diseases.
Additionally, this bill would
require that a person be insured for 12 months
10313
before receiving such coverage, and a $60,000
lifetime limit on benefits would be imposed.
Prescription drugs, however, would not be
subject to this lifetime cap.
It should be noted that this bill
would provide that certain procedures -- and
we had discussed this before on this floor -
such as the reversal of sterilization,
reversal of sex-change operations, cloning or
sperm or egg retrieval from deceased
individuals would not be covered. However, if
a deceased individual had provided for prior
approval, then the use of sperm or eggs from a
deceased individual would be approved.
This bill would permit religious
and denominational employers and health
insurance providers to be exempt from the
mandates of this bill if such mandates would
be contrary to the religious tenets of such
religious or denominational entity.
This is the conscience clause. And
this was discussed at great length and seemed
to be a major point of contention for many of
the members in this house.
I must say, in the intervening
10314
months, in discussion with staff, we tried to
think outside of the box and talked also to
people who had objections to this particular
provision. There are many people who said it
was important to them that access for all
people was something that they sought.
And so we went to work and said how
can we achieve this, how could we recognize
constitutional rights not to trample or impede
upon one's religious beliefs, whether they be
personal or institutional, and yet at the same
time provide for coverage.
And so what we established was a
New York State infertility health insurance
pool. We have used this device in other
circumstances, whether it be for med-mal
insurance, auto insurance, to provide the
ability of people to be able to get coverage.
And so the way this really works is
that the religious organization would indicate
that this was contrary to their belief. They
would go to the insurance company that is
providing general coverage for their employees
and say, We have a problem with providing this
coverage. The insurance company would then
10315
make application to the Superintendent of
Insurance. And at that juncture, the
Superintendent of Insurance would then contact
each of those individuals and tell them that
they would be entitled to and have available
to them coverage, infertility coverage.
And so we believe that we have
bridged a gap, have put forth a balance, as I
have said, and I can't say it enough, to both
recognize and not trample on one's religious
beliefs but at the same time to ensure that
individuals, couples in our state would have
available to them infertility coverage.
This legislation also, as we have
discussed -- and this is, by the way -- this
is, what I have just discussed, the creation
of the infertility pool insurance pool is
really the major change in this bill. We have
really mirrored in every other way the
legislation that had been discussed and
debated on this floor and we have, as I have
said, made sure that access is provided.
This bill and all its provisions
would take effect on October 1, 2001, and
would sunset on October 1 in the year 2003.
10316
Madam President, that is the
explanation on the bill that is before this
house.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Thank
you, Senator LaValle.
Senator Dollinger, why do you rise?
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Madam
President, will Senator LaValle yield for a
couple of questions?
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
LaValle, will you yield?
SENATOR LAVALLE: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Thank
you.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Senator, you
and I, I think, had a strong debate about this
bill and its science and the technology and
the cost and other issues behind this bill the
last time around.
I want to focus my attention on the
pool concept and how it's going to work.
Since I have to commend you, Senator LaValle,
you -- the best I can tell, you did think
outside the box and came up with an idea that
I think is an interesting idea. I want to
10317
make sure I understand it. As I think I'll
explain later, it may not quite overcome what
my objection to this bill was, but let me just
make sure I understand it.
This bill sets up a pool of people
who request infertility coverage but who work
for or are connected to an organization whose
religious tenets are against infertility
treatments; is that correct?
SENATOR LAVALLE: The answer is
yes.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Again through
you, Madam President, if Senator LaValle will
continue to yield.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Yes.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Approximately
how many people in New York would you expect
would be in the pool?
SENATOR LAVALLE: We believe it
to be in the tens of thousands. In other
words, greater than 10,000. I can't say
whether it's 20,000 or 30,000, but certainly
more than 10,000.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Madam President, if Senator LaValle will
10318
continue to yield.
SENATOR LAVALLE: And, Senator,
remember -
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
LaValle, will you continue to yield?
SENATOR LAVALLE: I just want to
finish my answer to Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I withdraw
the question.
SENATOR LAVALLE: You must
remember, Senator, that the Superintendent of
Insurance will be contacting individuals who
are employees of the religious organizations
that have filed with the insurance company
saying that they will not be providing this
coverage. The insurance company contacts the
employees.
And the question that cannot be
quantified is we do not know whether each of
those employees will say, "Yes, I want the
coverage," and so it's very difficult to
determine. We just can't take all of the
people who work for a religious organization
and say, yes, they're going to all want this
coverage.
10319
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Madam President -
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: -- if Senator
LaValle will continue to yield.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I guess,
then, I need to rephrase my first question.
The 10,000 number, the tens of thousands
number that you indicated, are those the
number of people that would be covered by
group policies that work for religious
organizations in which infertility would
violate the tenets of their faith, or are
those -
SENATOR LAVALLE: The answer is
yes.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: And then
through you, Madam President, if Senator
LaValle will continue to yield.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Yes.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: How many of
10320
that group would you expect would then request
the infertility coverage?
SENATOR LAVALLE: Senator, that's
why I went through that lengthy answer. I
just don't know how you would quantify at this
time how many of those individuals who are
covered with a policy would execute the
infertility provisions. We just don't know.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Senator, do
you have an estimate -
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Do you
wish the Senator to continue to yield, Senator
Dollinger?
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
LaValle, will you continue to yield?
SENATOR LAVALLE: Yes, I will.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Approximately
what would be the cost of this bill to provide
10321
infertility coverage to couples in New York
that needed it? What would the annual cost be
to the overall insurance system in New York?
SENATOR LAVALLE: That would be
the rate of increase per capita across the
entire state. So that we're not just looking
at one region and so forth, it's on a
per-capita basis across the entire state.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Madam President, if Senator LaValle will
continue to yield.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Yes, I will.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Approximately
how many people who do not have this coverage
now would utilize the $60,000 cap of expenses
for infertility treatment in this state under
this bill on an annual basis?
SENATOR LAVALLE: Senator, since
this is -- should this become law, this would
be the first time that there would be a
$60,000 cap. And therefore, again, it's
difficult to quantify it.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
10322
Madam President, if Senator LaValle will yield
just to one more question.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Yes, I will
yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I just want
to make sure I understand the pool concept.
As I understand it, all those who
work for religious organizations for which
infertility violates the tenets of their faith
will be placed in a pool, and then from the
pool, the people in the pool, they will be
able to elect who gets infertility coverage;
is that correct? They will be able to
purchase the rider or participate in a rider
that would provide the infertility coverage?
SENATOR LAVALLE: The first part
is that people will be eligible to be in the
pool.
The second part is we don't know
how many people will trigger, by saying, Yes,
I want to be in the pool -- we don't know what
that number is who will want this coverage.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
10323
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Madam President, if Senator LaValle will yield
just to one more question.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Yes, I will
yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Is it fair,
then, to say, Senator LaValle, that what we'll
end up with is a pool that will be relatively
sizable, we will end up with a group of people
from that pool who will elect this coverage,
and that there's a very good chance that that
smaller subset, that smaller group will then
draw down extensive costs because they'll be
the -- I mean, they're going to select the
election in order to deal with infertility.
They will immediately begin to draw on the
funds out of the pool.
The reason why I ask, Senator
LaValle, is because this is an unusual use of
the term "pool." Usually we put in the pools,
insurance pools, people who have a risk -- in
some cases, as you know, in our other
10324
insurance areas, people who may be at a higher
risk for needing automobile coverage or other
types of coverage.
In this case, we're going to create
a pool for which we will then have a group of
people self-select this coverage in which
there's a very good chance that they'll use
infertility coverage. I mean, it's not a risk
pool. We know they're going to use it if
they're in that group. Is that a fair
statement?
SENATOR LAVALLE: Senator, this
is a little different than an insurance pool
where there are greater risks in some parts of
the state as opposed to other parts of the
state.
Here -- and I go back to the cost
is based on per-capita unit across the state,
across the entire state. Not taking into
consideration -- in other words, by setting
that rate you're going to look at peaks and
valleys across the state and set a uniform
rate. So we'll be a statewide rate.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: A final
question for Senator LaValle if -
10325
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Fuschillo, why do you rise?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Madam
President, thank you. There will be an
immediate meeting of the Rules Committee in
the Majority Conference Room.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: There
will be an immediate meeting of the Rules
Committee in the Majority Conference Room.
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Madam President, if Senator LaValle would
yield for just one final question.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator,
just one final question.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Senator, in
the debate we had earlier on this bill we
talked about the cost of the treatments, the
success of the treatments, the ratio of the
success of the treatments, and the potential
overall cost of including infertility coverage
into the standard insurance policy. And we
10326
had talked about the $60,000 expense, about a
27 percent chance of success, and that the
estimate of a cost increase to the overall
insurance system was somewhere in the 3 to 6,
7 percent potential range, again, depending on
how many people annually avail themselves of
this service.
Is there anything in this bill with
the pooling concept that would change any of
that information that you gave to me last
time?
SENATOR LAVALLE: Senator, the
answer is no.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Okay.
On the bill briefly, Madam
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Dollinger, on the bill.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I spoke at
some length about this bill last time we
debated it. And seems to me that while
Senator LaValle, I think, has thought out of
the box with respect to the use of the pool
requirement -- it's an unusual term for a
pool. It doesn't really -- it's a different
10327
type of pool than we may often have dealt with
in the insurance concept.
But nonetheless, I go back to what
I said back, I believe, in January. And that
is, from my perspective these types of
insurance mandates that have the potential to
increase the cost from 3 to 8 percent have a
consequence of driving up the number of
uninsured in this state.
I used a simple test then, and I'll
use the same test now. It's a question of how
effective the treatments are. It's the number
of people that are going to be covered by the
treatment and the overall impact on the health
care system.
In this case, the cost of the
treatments are very, very expensive. The
science is such that they're not effective
universally. They only are successful,
Senator LaValle properly acknowledges, about
27 percent of the time. There aren't -- the
incidence of infertility, although enormously
difficult for couples, is not widespread.
Clearly there's an incidence that I
understand, but the benefit of this will be
10328
confined to probably less than 10 percent of
the people in this state. My information is
it may be as small as 3 or 4 percent.
And the final point, Madam
President, is that this benefit is enormously
expensive from the point of view of our
overall insurance system. The high number is
about 8 percent, the low number is about 3½
percent. If, as most people acknowledge, a
1 percent increase in premium drives up
additional uninsured in this state 40,000 to
50,000, we could, by passing this measure,
take the population of the uninsured up as
much as 300,000 just by passing this measure
alone.
For all of those reasons, I voted
against this bill last time. I appreciate
Senator LaValle's effort to deal with the
conscience clause issue. But for me, this is
about science, this is about cost and the cost
to our uninsured. And those issues, in my
mind, are still significant and require that
this bill be voted against.
I thank you, Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
10329
Lachman.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Madam Chair, on
the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Lachman, on the bill.
SENATOR LACHMAN: First, I want
to commend Senator LaValle for shepherding
various versions of this bill through the
State Senate over the last four years.
Secondly, and equally important, I
think there has been an attempt at creativity
to make this bill more acceptable to the
Assembly.
Now, I look upon this bill in many
ways. I don't think it's fair that wealthy
people can have treatments for fertility that
poorer people and working-class people are
denied. Infertility is a disease that we know
results from the abnormal function of the
reproductive system. Infertility prevents
people from creating a family.
If one does not want to have a
family, that is their right and privilege. If
one does want to have a family, why should
poor or working-class people be penalized?
10330
A recent Supreme Court decision
concluded that reproduction is a major life
activity, as defined by the Americans With
Disabilities Act. And infertility affects all
people of all ethnic, racial, religious and
socioeconomic backgrounds. Today, in America,
infertility impacts upon 6 million Americans
of reproductive age. The average age is 32.
Furthermore, 1 out of 6 Americans cannot bear
a child without having some infertility drug.
As with other diseases, infertility
can lead to depression and anxiety, affecting
job performance and productivity.
Now, the question was asked by
Senator Dollinger about insurance coverage for
infertility treatment. Today, in the United
States, 13 states mandate some form of
coverage for infertility treatment. A 1997
study by benefits consultant William Mercer
found that the cost of including assisted
reproductive technology as a covered benefit
is $2.49 per member per year. In
Massachusetts, which has the most
comprehensive state mandate, one insurer
reported that in 1993 infertility coverage
10331
represented only 0.4 percent of the total
family health insurance premium.
I don't know, you don't know what
the cost will eventually be to New York.
Therefore, I also commend you for having a
prototype trial period for two years, when we
can then reevaluate the entire situation.
Insurance coverage for infertility
allows the use of the most appropriate
procedures. Most infertility treatment is not
in-vitro fertilization, and that's a very
important thing to realize. I mean, even
middle-class people can't afford $10,000,
$12,000 a year for IVF. The vast majority of
treatments for infertility are far, far less
expensive. I look upon this bill as giving a
right to poor people that wealthy people now
have in America.
In conclusion, Madam Chairperson, I
would hope that the Senate leadership and the
Assembly leadership meet again on this bill.
But the changes in this bill give me the
realization that further accommodation might
be possible between the Senate version and the
Assembly version and that this Legislature,
10332
this year, will finally pass an infertility
bill.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Morahan.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Thank you,
Madam President.
I rise in support of this bill,
obviously. This Thursday night I'm going to
attend the graduation of my first two
grandchildren from high school. These two
children, by the grace of God and science,
were brought forth by infertility treatments
to my daughter and her husband.
This is an important bill for many,
many people in this state. It's my
understanding that one out of five couples
have difficulty in conceiving. And it crosses
all ethnic lines, all religious lines. And to
merely say to people, Well, just adopt, that
may not fulfill the need of many, many
couples.
I want to congratulate Senator
LaValle and those who worked on this bill for,
as he said, thinking out of the box, trying to
10333
accommodate, trying to avoid a dogmatic war or
conflict, to do something that will help many
New Yorkers.
Now -- that's for the broad base of
the bill. As to the science and the expense,
we had a bill in here the other day called
GE-NY-SIS. And in that bill we talked about
science and health. And we heard some very
moving stories on the floor of personal
experiences and the hope that science would
move forward to treat those diseases. Because
as we know, while there is some success in
treatments, it's not all successful and not
everyone has a cure or a successful resolution
to their disease.
But as Senator Lachman said, this
is truly a disease. And I don't know that we
should be saying to people, Well, we know you
have this disease, we know it's going to have
a tremendous impact on your life, your
lifestyle, your marriage, whatever, but the
science isn't all that great, it's a little
bit of a hit and miss, and, notwithstanding
that, it's too expensive.
Now, please understand, the
10334
majority of New Yorkers will be covered
through their insurance companies. And
another point made by Senator Lachman is that
many people now who are in an economic class
that can afford these treatments, they can
fulfill their life's dream. They can get a
cure. But working poor people, working middle
class can't afford infertility treatments that
take us out to the nth degree of the
treatments.
And I think what's important to
note is that not every treatment winds up at
the last juncture of in vitro, which is indeed
the most expensive phase. But there are drug
treatments, there are other infertility
treatments, as they phase those treatments
along till they have some success.
So I think when we talk about the
cost -- and if someone said, Well, the cost is
the issue, well, then we shouldn't do an
infertility bill at all. We shouldn't be hung
up on a conscience clause or getting around
with a pool. It ought to be, Hey, we don't
mandate any expensive treatments.
But we're going to have a women's
10335
health and wellness bill coming out in a few
minutes, at the end of this one, that's going
to talk about cervical cancer, that's going to
talk about osteoporosis, it's going to talk
about breast cancer, mammography treatments,
contraceptives. For the most part, I think
that's expensive too, to mandate that to
everyone.
And it will be interesting to see
those Senators who vote against this bill
because it is expensive to vote against that
bill, which probably is equally expensive, and
I don't know that we know the full impact of
the cost of that bill. And I don't know that
we have all the numbers of the people who will
be impacted by that bill. I would think it
would be. I would think it would be far, far
in excess of those who would avail themselves
of the infertility treatments.
So I think this bill is a good
bill. I think Senator LaValle and his team
and those legislators working together as a
team came up with something that ought to
address the issue, afford the coverage, and
make it available to all at modest cost.
10336
And I think the Senate bill, which
puts a cap, versus the other house, that has
no cap, the Senate bill that does provide some
copay, that the other doesn't provide copay -
I think our bill is more reasonable, it's to
the point, gets the job done.
I ask sincerely that we vote for
this bill. Congratulations, Senator LaValle,
and thank you very much from the Morahan
family.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Breslin.
SENATOR BRESLIN: On the bill,
Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: On the
bill.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Briefly.
I don't disagree with the positive
elements of what Senator Lachman said about
this bill or Senator Morahan, but I will focus
on the cost.
And the cost, in my opinion, is
prohibitive. Each time you raise medical
insurance rates by 1 percent in New York State
you drive 60,000 people off the insurance
10337
rolls. We are now a state that has over
3 million people without any basic health
coverage other than the emergency room. And
that's unacceptable.
We have to look for ways not to
increase the mandates, but look for ways with
a finite dollar -- that is a given, is a
premise -- look for ways to give all the
people of this state basic health coverage.
And I accordingly will be voting in the
negative.
Thank you, Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Thank
you.
Any other Senator wishing to speak
on the bill?
Senator LaValle.
SENATOR LAVALLE: I rise to
explain my vote, Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This
act shall take effect October 1, 2001.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
10338
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
LaValle.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Thank you,
Madam President.
Just briefly, I want to thank my
counsel, Mike Kinum, and also Robert Farley,
who's been on loan to me by Senator Leibell.
And, Senator Leibell, thank you for giving Bob
Farley to me so that we could follow through
on this insurance pool concept that they
worked on very, very hard.
Early on -- and I've said this in
the two previous debates -- one of the charges
by Senator Bruno was that we balance the need
with the cost. Cost was very important. It
was mentioned that the Assembly bill had no
limits. It was important to us to put
limitations. Senator Lachman is right on
target when he said that the vast majority of
cases do not go to in-vitro fertilization.
They simply do not.
The last thing that I want to say
is that we will look at, there will be a
report to this Legislature on the cost issue.
10339
And so for the two-year period, I think we
need to ensure that individuals be able to
fulfill the ultimate dream of what marriage is
all about, and that is having a family. And I
think that this two-year period is worth
moving forward.
And I feel very, very confident,
Senator Breslin, Senator Dollinger, that both
of you will be surprised by the cost figures
that this -- by enacting this legislation.
Madam President, I vote aye.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: You will
be recorded in the affirmative, Senator
LaValle.
Anyone else?
Announce the results.
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
the negative on Calendar Number 1288 are
Senators Breslin, Brown, Connor, Dollinger,
Duane, Hassell-Thompson, Kuhl, McGee, Meier,
Montgomery, Onorato, Oppenheimer, Sampson,
Schneiderman, Seward, M. Smith, Stachowski,
and Stavisky.
Ayes, 40. Nays, 18.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
10340
is passed.
Senator Balboni.
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, Madam
President, could we please take up the
Supplemental Calendar Number 2. And I would
ask for a noncontroversial reading of that
calendar.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
604, by Senator Hannon, Senate Print 4560A, an
act to amend Chapter 331 of the Laws of 2000.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
Senator Balboni.
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, Madam
President, is there a message of necessity at
the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Yes,
there is a message of necessity at the desk.
SENATOR BALBONI: And while I
have you, Madam President, I'd like to call an
immediate meeting of the Committee on Finance.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: There
will be an immediate meeting of the Committee
10341
on Finance in the Senate Majority Conference
Room.
SENATOR BALBONI: In the Senate
Majority Conference Room, thank you.
Move to accept the message of
necessity.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
motion is to accept the message of necessity.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Opposed,
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
message is accepted.
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.)
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Lay it aside,
please.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
632, by Member of the Assembly Gottfried -
10342
SENATOR HEVESI: Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Hevesi.
SENATOR HEVESI: Madam President,
I rise to request that we pause for a moment.
We don't have the bills. They have not yet
been provided to us. And we can lay every
bill aside, or we can wait until we have the
bills before we continue with the calendar.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Hevesi, all these bills are from your regular
calendar, if you will look at your -
SENATOR HEVESI: These are on the
Supplemental List Number 2.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: If
you'll look in your calendar books, they're
there, all there.
Senator Balboni.
SENATOR BALBONI: Again, Senator
Hevesi, for your information, they're in the
calendar in front of you. Everyone should
have them on their desk.
This is an active list, not a Rules
report. An active list, not a Rules report.
Thank you very much, Madam
10343
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Secretary will read Calendar Number 632.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
632, by Member of the Assembly Gottfried,
Assembly Print Number 7184, an act to amend
Chapter 640 of the Laws of 1997.
SENATOR ONORATO: Lay it aside.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is laid aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
638, by Senator Morahan, Senate Print 357C, an
act to amend the Penal Law, in relation to
creating.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Balboni.
SENATOR BALBONI: Madam
President, is there a message of necessity at
the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Yes,
there is a message of necessity at the desk.
SENATOR BALBONI: I would move to
accept the message of necessity.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
motion is to accept the message of necessity.
10344
All in favor will say aye.
(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 immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Announce
the results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
733, by Senator Larkin, Senate Print 4251A, an
act to amend the Racing, Pari-Mutuel Wagering
and Breeding Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Balboni.
SENATOR BALBONI: Is there a
10345
message of necessity at the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: There is
a message of necessity at the desk.
SENATOR BALBONI: I would move to
accept the message of necessity.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
motion is to accept the message of necessity.
All those in favor will say aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Those
opposed will say nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
message is accepted.
The Secretary will 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.)
SENATOR ONORATO: Lay it aside.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is laid aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
10346
778, substituted earlier today by Member of
the Assembly Sweeney, Assembly Print Number
4042A, an act to authorize.
SENATOR ONORATO: Lay it aside.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is laid aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
779, substituted earlier today by Member of
the Assembly Sweeney, Assembly Print Number
6061A, an act to authorize.
SENATOR ONORATO: Lay it aside.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is laid aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
804, by Member of the Assembly Eve, Assembly
Print Number 5242A, an act to amend the State
Finance 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
10347
the results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
961, by Senator Kuhl, Senate Print 1963B, an
act to amend the Alcoholic Beverage Control
Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Balboni.
SENATOR BALBONI: Is there a
message of necessity at the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Yes,
there is a message of necessity at the desk.
SENATOR BALBONI: I move to
accept the message.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
motion is to accept the message of necessity.
All in favor will say aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: All
opposed will say nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
message is accepted.
10348
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect in 90 days.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Announce
the results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1025, by Senator Balboni, Senate Print 5303A,
an act in relation to allowing.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Is there a
message of necessity at the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Yes,
there is a message of necessity at the desk.
SENATOR BRUNO: Move to accept
the message.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
motion is to accept the message of necessity.
All in favor will say aye.
10349
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Opposed
will say nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
motion is accepted.
The Secretary will read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect -
SENATOR ONORATO: Lay it aside.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is laid aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1064, by Senator Skelos, Senate Print 4654A,
an act to establish the Baldwin-West End Canal
Improvement District.
SENATOR BRUNO: Is there a
message of necessity at the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Yes,
there is a message of necessity at the desk.
SENATOR BRUNO: Move to accept
the message.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
motion is to accept the message of necessity
10350
at the desk. All in favor will say aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Those
opposed will say nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
motion is accepted.
There is a home rule message at the
desk.
The Secretary will read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 12. 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, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1065, by Senator Skelos, Senate Print 4655A,
an act to -
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
10351
Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Is there a
message of necessity at the desk, Madam
President?
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Yes,
Senator, there is a message at the desk.
SENATOR BRUNO: Move to accept
the message.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
motion is made to accept the message of
necessity at the desk. All those in favor of
accepting this motion will answer aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: All
opposed will say nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
motion is accepted.
There is a home rule message at the
desk.
The Secretary will read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 12. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
10352
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Announce
the results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Madam President,
can we at this time call up Calendar Number
1287.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Secretary will read Calendar Number 1287.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1287, by Senator Bruno, Senate Print 5626, an
act to amend the Insurance Law and the Public
Health Law.
SENATOR ONORATO: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Bruno, an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR BRUNO: Thank you, Madam
President.
This bill that's before us is
referred to as the women's wellness bill. And
this bill expands the coverage for millions of
10353
women here in New York State. It covers
breast cancer screening, cervical cancer
expanded screening, accessing gynecologists
without referrals, osteoporosis screening that
afflicts 50 percent of women in New York
State.
And it also has a
contraceptive-by-prescription clause in it.
And it has a conscience clause. And the
conscience clause, so-called, allows those who
against their religious beliefs don't want to
provide contraceptives.
One of the criticisms of the
previous bill that we passed in this chamber
was that women wouldn't have access to
contraceptives because of the conscience
clause where there was some religious
prohibition from the employer providing it.
We have, by way of compromising, changed this
bill so that we create access for any woman
that wants and needs the contraceptives by
paying a small monthly charge. And that
monthly charge will be the same rate that the
employer would pay.
So we open up the access so that no
10354
one is denied the coverage that would want to
have the coverage. And that is mandated that
that must be provided.
Now, we in the Senate and in this
house and in this Majority, with our
colleagues on the other side of the aisle,
have provided the leadership in this state on
almost every major women's-health piece of
legislation that is now law. Like the 48-hour
after-birth hospital care, early detection for
cancer, breast reconstructive surgery, an end
to drive-through mastectomies. Millions of
women have benefited from these efforts.
Now, the question comes up whether
or not we have agreement with the Assembly on
this bill. We have no agreement on this bill
with the Assembly. The Assembly has not been
willing to negotiate this bill because of the
conscience clause. There have been no
discussions with them. And many of the
advocates that are out there have partnered
with the Assembly and seen fit to be
nonsupportive. And that's their decision and
that's their choice.
But I want to applaud the efforts
10355
of my colleagues here, especially Senators
Rath and Bonacic, who chaired our task force
that went on over the last couple of years.
And our chair of Health, Senator Kemp Hannon,
chair of Insurance, Jim Seward, and all the
members that served on this task force and
spent a lot of time, a lot of energy trying to
make something happen.
And we are here in what should be
the last hours of the session doing our best
to compromise this issue so that the women
that truly need this additional health
coverage that will prevent illness and save
lives can get it.
So before we leave here, we would
like to have been able to reconcile our
differences. This is a sincere, honest
attempt do that. And there is no reason,
none, why this bill should not pass the
Assembly, because it does all of the things
that those that were objecting to the previous
bill that we passed here, it contains all of
their objections.
And the main objective was to
create access for contraceptives, and we have
10356
managed that and handled that in a way that
the Catholic Church is comfortable, the Jewish
community is comfortable, and most of the
women's groups, we think, feel that this is a
real effort to get this done.
So with your support here in this
house, hopefully, we will pass this bill and
send it to the Assembly before they leave. If
they pass it, this will become law, because
the Governor has indicated his willingness to
sign it.
Thank you, Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Hoffmann.
SENATOR HOFFMANN: Thank you,
Madam President. I rise to proudly salute my
colleagues and thank the members of the Senate
Majority, specifically Senator Bruno for his
leadership in this area.
And I'm reminded at how there were
so many naysayers even a few months ago that
failed to believe this measure could come
forward here in the New York State Senate.
It is a sensible, it is a
reasonable, and it is an appropriate
10357
compromise. We have to be reminded of the
fact occasionally that we have a
constitutional separation of church and state
in this country. And although people can
split hairs about the different points at
which that separation of church and state has
to be analyzed, it is very clear in this area
there are some extremely sensitive areas.
And for us to require that the
Catholic Church as an employer be forced to
provide contraceptive coverage to female
employees who are not of the same belief would
be a violation of that constitutional
separation of church and state.
Notwithstanding that reality,
however, this Senate has come up with a
provision that would allow women who are
employed within a diocese responsibility, in a
diocese occupation, to obtain that coverage.
Now, those who are dissatisfied
with that provision of the bill note that
there would be an added cost. Yes, there
would. There would be a cost even though we
have attempted to minimize the cost by
providing that it must be at the lowest
10358
possible group rate. There is, in fact, an
increase in cost coverage for women in that
unique category.
But the vast majority of women who
have been denied contraceptive coverage under
their insurance plans in the state would be
able to have that coverage at the same copay
they have for all other medications.
Now, from a purely personal
perspective, I will note for the record that
those copays are often much too high. And in
some instance, the cost of the copay plus the
cost of the added group rate insurance
differential for the religious exemptions
might in fact come close to or equal the
drugstore price for contraceptives.
I think we all recognize that it is
not a perfect solution. But, by golly, it's a
darn good one. And it's an important
reflection on how far we have come in this
state recognizing women's health.
And while we're talking about the
contraceptive aspect of this bill that has
been a sticking point, let me rephrase
something that Senator Bruno said a moment
10359
ago, because I want people to understand from
a woman in this Senate who feels passionately
about these issues, from a woman who is here
precisely because she wants to see that
women's issues are better addressed in this
state and at all levels of government, I'm
proud of the fact that we are doing more
through this measure to provide early
detection for mammography screening, for
cervical cancer, for the vast array of other
women's health issues.
Let us not lose sight of the large
increase in attention to women's health that
will occur through this bill because we're
looking so often at the contraceptive-coverage
aspects of it. This is a major breakthrough.
It's one that will allow us to say with great
pride that we care about all of the people of
this state, that we are not gender-blind in
some cases, and it also gives us a starting
point. Because in future years I anticipate
there will be more pieces of legislation that
deal with insurance, that deal with the
differentials in copay. We have frequently
tinkered in these areas.
10360
And to do this important measure
today sends a message that we value women's
health care, it is in fact a priority of this
state government, and we want all women to
receive that care to which they are rightfully
entitled.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Bonacic.
SENATOR BONACIC: Thank you,
Madam President. On the bill.
First of all, I'd like to commend
Senator Bruno, Senator Rath, Senator Hannon,
and Senator Seward, plus you, Madam President,
and Nancy Larraine Hoffmann. All of the women
in our conference have contributed to the
piece of legislation that is before us.
Before I talk about this specifics
of the bill, I would like to classify this
session as outright gridlock, political
polarization that I have seen in the worst
that I have been here in 11 years. And it's a
shame, because what we see happening is we
never have good-faith attempts from the other
side to negotiate women's wellness.
When we started the fight to try to
10361
improve on women's wellness, the premise was
that women in general were paying more for
their health needs not covered by insurance
than men. And we said we have to do something
to rectify that, to bring more parity in what
a man and a woman pay for their health needs
beyond insurance coverage.
And we listened to the advocates,
and there are over a hundred women's
organizations in the State of New York, that
said breast cancer, cervical cancer, ages 40
to 49, very important, we want you to do
something about that.
Now, under existing law, a woman
age 40 to 49, unless there's a history of
cancer in her family, can only get insurance
companies to pay for mammograms once every two
years. We say, under this bill, once every
year. Now, 12,000 women in the state of
New York get cancer every year. 3500 die each
year. And 70 percent of the women don't know
they have it until it's too late.
So this legislation, in detection
and prevention, is something that the women of
this state are crying out for. And it is
10362
delivered in this legislation. Cervical
cancer, same thing. Now -- and by the way,
women get afflicted with breast cancer at five
to six times the rate of men.
Osteoporosis, not covered by our
health insurance policies, another area
identified by the women's groups. It afflicts
women eight times the rate of men. This bill
covers osteoporosis. Mandated coverage. When
you pay a premium for a policy, you will have
mammogram coverage, 40 to 49, you will have
osteoporosis coverage.
And by the way, breast cancer, the
leading killer of women ages 40 to 55. Heart
disease generally number one, but in that age
group, breast cancer.
Now we get to the third leg of the
legislation, and that was the contraception
piece. When this started out, it was women's
wellness, get the breast cancer done, get the
osteoporosis done, and then we went to the
contraception, which didn't seem -- I wouldn't
say as important, but not as vital as the
others.
So we came up with a piece of
10363
legislation knowing that there is a
constitutional right of religious freedom,
that there were religious organizations out
there that said, We shouldn't have to pay for
something we don't believe in. So this Senate
said we're going to cover contraception but
for those religious employers there would be
an exemption.
Now, under that legislation, which
this house passed on January 23rd, it affected
3.2 million women, approximately, in the state
of New York. The others are not covered
because they're in ERISA plans or they're
uninsured. So this legislation, for the women
that are covered by it, came to 3.2 million.
The women's advocates came forward
and said, There's some women we're leaving
behind. And then there was conflict as to
what the numbers were. We talked about and I
talked about the IRS qualifications as to who
would qualify. We talked about the Catholic
directory. And we came up with a number of
less than 3 percent of the women would not be
covered of that 3.2 million.
And the opponents said, No woman
10364
shall be left behind. I can remember that as
a knockout punch. And we don't care about all
the good benefits, but we're not going to
abandon one woman.
Okay, we went back to the drawing
board. And we came up with this legislation
that preserves the integrity of the religious
freedom clause and now says not one woman will
be left behind, every woman of that
3.2 million will have access to contraception.
It will cost a little bit more, because
they'll have to get a rider, and it was
estimated $8 to $10.
Now, some of those small opponents
are saying it's not enough, you're
discriminating because it's costing them a
little bit more money, $8 to $10, and with the
copay. And we don't determine copays,
employers determine that. And depending on
the business and the health menu selection,
they decide what's covered. We don't do that.
So a copay can range from $5 to $20.
So it's an affordability issue.
And that is true. It will be a little
expensive for that woman, for that 3 percent
10365
that work for an organization that has a
religious objection.
I can't get the Assembly to sit
down and talk about this bill. And I want you
to know, and I'll say it again, 3500 women a
year die from cancer. And probably we could
save about 1100, that's what our board of
health says, if we had early detection.
So while we play, while we're in
gridlock, while we're in political
polarization, women are dying because the
Assembly fails to come to the table, like this
and a host of many other things.
And I'm coming to the conclusion.
And, you know, it's tough for me to say this,
but they'd rather have the issue for politics
rather than do something good for the women of
the state of New York.
Thank you, Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Rath.
SENATOR RATH: Thank you, Madam
President.
Well, here we are again with this
bill in front of us. What's happened since
10366
the last time we had a women's health bill in
front of us? A few things. We've had a
conference committee. And I want to thank
Senator Bruno for his confidence and for his
leadership and willingness to go forward with
the Assembly. I want to thank the Assembly
leader and the members of the persons in the
Assembly who served on the conference
committee, and my colleagues Senators Bonacic
and Seward and Hannon who served with me on
the conference committee.
It was an attempt to get somewhere
that didn't happen. We closed it down because
we could not come to an accommodation and an
agreement. We had lots of conversation, we
learned a lot about each other. I thought we
made a lot of progress, frankly. There were a
number of fronts that we were either very
close on or had that we had virtual agreement.
And I think Senator Bonacic clearly stated
many of them; Senator Hoffmann very
articulately and clearly stated the purposes
and some of the places that we had arrived at
in our good-faith effort. But we couldn't
complete it, so we shut it down.
10367
But going back to why we even got
that far, the Senate passed a bill in January,
we passed a bill. It was the first time we
had passed this bill. We had the conference
committee, and it did not go forward, we shut
it down.
Then we talked about dividing the
bill. We talked about two bills, maybe a bill
that covered all the kinds of things that we
thought we were close to agreement on and that
we would be able to move forward with the
Assembly and send to the Governor, the kind of
items that Senator Bonacic just talked
about -- the kinds of coverage for mammography
and cervical screening and osteoporosis and
the dramatic need in New York State for
additional coverage. We've been talking about
this for a long time. We know that need.
It's clear that we need to move forward in
that area.
But we were advised by the
advocates that dividing this bill was not the
thing to do. And we backed off. We said
we'll leave the bill together and we'll try to
improve the bill. And that's exactly what we
10368
did, because you wanted us to do that. And
that's what we did.
But it still wasn't enough. It's
not enough today. We've got dinosaurs in the
lobby making fun of the bill, making it look
silly. I don't think the women of New York
State expect us to look silly. I don't think
that they expect that of you who are out there
advocating on their behalf and those of us who
are elected to serve on behalf of the
interests that we represent in our districts.
And, frankly, it saddens me. It
really saddens me. Because if we had divided
that bill, we could have passed a large
portion of it that had nothing as
controversial as the conscience clause in it.
Senator Bonacic very clearly went through the
fact that 97 percent of the women who would be
eligible for this coverage would be covered
with contraceptive coverage, with the services
of the contraceptive clause in this bill.
We've made allowances for the other
3 percent. Granted, there's a small cost.
Are we finished with trying to find if people
that can't afford that $8 to $10 a month, if
10369
they can't afford it, can we help them? I
don't know. I don't know what the future
holds for that part of this particular issue.
But now the Senate has passed a
bill in January, we backed off of dividing the
bill because we were told that wasn't good, we
didn't divide the bill. We are about, I
believe, to pass another bill. And you know
what? We're going to be told again it's not
enough.
Well, again, that makes me feel
very badly. Because someone used the words a
few minutes ago a "good-faith attempt." Any
of you here who have ever been involved in a
successful relationship of any kind know that
there are some things that you have to do.
You have to have confidence in the people that
you're with in this relationship, you have to
trust them, that their motives are good and
that they're trying to do the right thing, and
you have to be willing to compromise.
You can't pit the children against
the mother and expect the father to cave. You
can't pit the father against the children and
expect the mother to cave. It doesn't work
10370
that way in my household; I don't think it
works that way in your household. Because the
mother and father eventually figure out that
the kids are trying to work a deal, and the
mother and father say, "Okay, kids, go to your
rooms, all bets are off, we've figured out
what you're trying to do and it's not going to
happen."
That's the kind of confidence
that's in a marriage between mother and father
when the kids are trying to figure out a way
to make something happen. You can't do it.
It's not right. You try to do the right
thing.
We've tried to do the right thing
here in this Senate. The Assembly has tried
to do the right thing. They care about how
they are trying to make this happen, leaving
no woman behind, as Senator Bonacic has said.
We're trying to leave no woman behind. But
what we need to do is to move forward, in my
opinion, with some confidence, some trust and
willingness to compromise. To play one side
against the other is not really an appropriate
measure in a trusting and willing
10371
relationship.
I hope that that relationship can
change, that we can trust each other and have
some confidence that we're trying to do the
right thing for the women of the state of
New York, as well as some others who have
different viewpoints on it. But I think we
need to move forward on this, and I hope that
you all will support this.
And I urge you to consider how many
people will be affected by a bill that is
vastly different from what we started with in
January.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Mendez.
SENATOR MENDEZ: Madam President,
I first want to congratulate Senator Bruno and
the task force -- if I understand correctly,
chaired by Senator Bonacic -- on presenting
this bill here today. What the bill does
already has been stated and articulated
wonderfully well.
I was lobbied by family planning in
an effort to convince me to vote against this
10372
bill, and I told them that the bottom line is
that all those services that all these women
need so very badly and that they are so
expensive, are we going to throw them out the
window because they are not getting -- only
3 percent of the women are not getting a
little -- are not getting the contraceptives?
I mean, in terms of the balance, I
think it would be a very callous thing if an
agreement is not achieved to prevent all those
women that suffer from cancer -- and as a
cancer survivor myself, I resent enormously
that a situation that could be compromised for
the benefit of all the women in the state of
New York to benefit from those services
that -- health services that in fact will be
saving their lives. And because a small
number, 3 percent, are not covered by
contraceptives because religious organizations
do not want to push for something that runs
against the grain of their beliefs, I think
that in the balance of justice and
consideration it would be a very terrible
thing to do.
So I hope that the Assembly and the
10373
Senate will get together. This compromise, I
believe, is a good one. And I don't see any
reason on earth why it cannot be accepted by
the parties concerned. What should be placed
in the front burner is not political
partisanship, not political rhetoric, but what
this really means, which is the health of the
women of the state of New York.
I support this bill. Thank you,
Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Oppenheimer.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Well, to
present the opposing view.
And I must say I'm very concerned
about the health of the women of this state.
And like Senator Mendez, I also am a survivor
of breast cancer. So I can't say it doesn't
have an important impact for me.
But I have to discuss why I am not
supporting this bill. And it isn't that I
distrust the motives of Senator Bonacic or
Senator Rath. I think they're trying their
darnedest to move this legislation. And it
does have many beneficial benefits to the
10374
women of this state.
But there's a couple of things that
I have trouble countenancing, and I have to
discuss that. It maintains financial
barriers, as I said the last time this bill
was -- a similar bill was before us. Not as
good a bill as this bill, but this bill is,
while heading in the right direction, still
not a good enough bill.
There are financial barriers as far
as accessing mammograms and Pap smears,
because we still require copays and
deductibles. It also contains a more
restrictive definition for bone density
screening than is in the Assembly bill. That
is the osteoporosis screening.
I think one of the things that
distresses me the most in the bill is that it
definitely treats women -- definitely,
definitely treats them differently than men.
And it's not only the copay, it's also the
rider. Right now women pay perhaps $8 to $10
per month, or would have to pay $8 to $10 per
month for the rider. Now, right now, when
they buy their prescription for contraception,
10375
they're copaying about $20. Now, that means
they're ending up saving very little, maybe $2
per month.
Now, what do they give up for that
$2 saving per month? They give up their right
to privacy on their very private reproductive
decisions. Why is that? Because now the
employer will know what those decisions are.
It is such a small savings to the woman to
disclose this kind of information to her
employer. The employer has no right to know
what a woman's decision is, either to take
contraception or to stop taking contraception
and get pregnant.
I find this a fatal flaw. And I
hope we will continue to work on this bill,
because I do see the need for the various
coverages that are offered by the bill. But
because of the fatal flaw, I will not be
supporting it.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: I will
yield to Senator Bonacic if he needs to
respond at this time.
10376
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Bonacic.
SENATOR BONACIC: I was wondering
if Senator Oppenheimer would yield to a
question.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Oppenheimer, do you yield?
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Absolutely.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR BONACIC: You mentioned
your concern with the woman's right to
privacy. This legislation allows her to
retain her right to privacy. Nowhere in this
legislation does her employer know that she is
accessing or utilizing contraception. That's
between her insurance company, her HMO, and
her.
And as you know, we are under the
limits, today it's the law, of maintaining a
right of privacy between HMOs, the insurance
company, and the employee.
So I don't know where you got that
idea about privacy. If you want to point it
out to me in the bill, I'll gladly -- I don't
10377
think it's in there. So I only ask you that
question.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: If Senator
Bonacic would yield for a question.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Bonacic?
SENATOR BONACIC: Yes, of course.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: How is the
employee going to pay for the health
insurance?
SENATOR BONACIC: Okay, you said
two things. You said the women would have to
pay more for contraceptive coverage. The
women we're talking about are not the
3.1 million women that don't come under the
conscience clause. That's part of their
policy, so there's no extra charge for them.
We're talking about that percentage
that would be a religious employer. And our
numbers are anywhere from 50,000 to 90,000 of
those women.
Now, let's take those women. Under
this bill, that HMO or that insurance company
10378
that that Catholic employer would work with
has to have a rider. They must have a rider
to allow every employee the right to exercise
that rider privately with their HMO or
insurance company. The employer is not in
that line of communication under this
legislation.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: If Senator
Bonacic would yield for another question.
SENATOR BONACIC: I would.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: The rider
is going to cost additionally over the basic
amount of the insurance that is offered to all
employees. So that those women choosing to
take contraception coverage through the rider
will be paying an additional amount each
month.
Is this not -- here's the
question -- is this not going to be paid by or
out of their wages so that it would be visibly
seen as an additional amount and therefore
easily determined to be the rider?
SENATOR BONACIC: The answer to
that is the woman who works for the religious
organization that exercises the rider will pay
10379
more money than a woman that doesn't work for
a religious organization.
But my questions to you are on the
issue of privacy. And you said that -- you
used the word generically "women." But it's
not true, because 3.1 million women are not
going to be involved with the rider. It's
going to be part of their package, and they're
not going to -- it's going to be a mandated
coverage, and they will never have to get
involved with a rider. That was my point.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: And I will
stand corrected in being so general in my
statement. Really, I was referring to those
women who work for organizations where this is
not provided as part of the basic insurance.
My point that I was trying to make
about privacy is that in those cases where the
female employee of an institution that does
not cover contraception as part of their basic
package, in those institutions the employee
will have the medical-expenses insurance costs
paid out of her salary.
And since it is a rider, it will be
an additional amount paid to the insurance
10380
company than all the other employees will be
paying, be it $8 a month. But it will show up
very visibly in the additional amount that the
rider costs, and therefore the amount that
will be paid to the insurance company will be
quite visible.
And so those women that are taking
the rider will have that additional charge
on -- deducted from their salary for their
insurance coverage. That is why I say that
the employer will know what the decision is
that that woman is making, either when to use
contraception and when to stop and have a
pregnancy.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Hannon.
SENATOR HANNON: There's a number
of things I could say on this, but I just want
to address myself to this whole point of the
drugs.
With all due respect to Senator
Oppenheimer, I think she's dead wrong. And I
think this whole argument is a total red
herring, trying to do what people would rather
do, which is preserve an issue instead of
10381
coming to agreement and getting a benefit to
the women of this state.
Now, why do I say that? For two or
three reasons. First of all, under every
comprehensive policy that we regulate in this
state -- and that means there are a number
that are not regulated by the state government
but are regulated by the federal government.
Those are called the ERISA plans. We're
preempted from dealing with that.
So let's just talk about the ones
we can regulate. Guess how they treat drugs?
It's an optional coverage. It's not a
mandate. It's not a mandate. If the employer
wants to cover it. They do. If they don't,
they don't. Because we have employer, you
know, sponsored insurance in this state. It's
not a mandate.
We can't force the employer to give
insurance. That's what the whole debate is
for Children's Health Plus, Family Health
Plus, expanding Medicaid, because we're trying
to get more people covered.
So we first of all have to realize
we're trying to get people -- leading them
10382
down the path to do good things. And if we
don't do it correctly, they can just opt out.
So the basic structure here which
Senator Bonacic has constructed of getting
coverage for women is a way to try to balance
the interests so we will get all of the women
with an opportunity to access this coverage.
Second, frankly, your argument
about privacy is a real red herring. You try
to say the opt-out somehow creates a paper
trail. What you don't realize is most
employers will keep track of what drugs you
use. And the best employers make sure that's
kept private in a human resource division. So
that somebody who is covered by the mandate
for contraception, that record is kept.
And I will tell you something else.
I'm not so sure it's as sensitive as it used
to be. Society has changed.
We ought to be concerned, perhaps,
about some other things in drug use that would
be more sensitive, because we've had
revolutions to benefit people in regard to the
coverage of mental illness. Depression,
schizophrenia can now be treated beneficially
10383
to help people be productive and work. That
would seem to me, in terms of society's mores
that go on in the year 2001, to be a lot more
sensitive as to whether someone opts to have
contraception.
So I think we're dealing with red
herrings. What's really being done here?
These are interesting arguments, but we have
to look at what's going on with this bill.
We're extending coverage.
And you bring up the other point,
and it's probably one of the most boring
things, but I brought it up during the
conference committee, and it was the question
of, well, copays, are we creating barriers?
We did some research on it, and we came up
with a federal study done through the National
Institute of Health, and they found out that
with copays it created a sense of benefit,
that there was a greater utilization of
mammograms, that there was more regular
appointments kept. And, yes, they put it on
the sliding scale, but they found it was a
benefit to it, not a barrier.
Once again, just another
10384
illustration where the facts of delivering
health care services I think are met by what
we have proposed as a piece of legislation.
And the arguments by people who for some
reason don't want to come to an agreement
remain to me of a greater puzzle and a greater
puzzle. Because I think what we have done is
come to a major advance.
And I thank Senators Bonacic and
Rath for having led the way on this.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you,
Madam President. If the sponsor would yield
for a few brief questions.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Bonacic, will you yield?
SENATOR BONACIC: I do.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you.
There appears to be some confusion
as to actually how this bill would operate in
practice for someone who is, say, a woman who
10385
works as a clerk or a janitor or a professor,
say, at, you know, a Catholic university or
something like that who wants to avail herself
of contraceptive coverage.
What would that person do, what
notice would she receive, and what steps would
she have to take?
SENATOR BONACIC: Let's assume
it's a Catholic university, she's a professor,
and the Catholic university contracts with
Aetna or an HMO for all of the health
benefits. But they say, We're not paying for
that professor for contraception. Okay?
The Superintendent of Insurance
would require that HMO or that insurance
company to have a rider to their plan. And
that insurance company or HMO, when that plan
goes into existence, probably January 1, 2002,
to make everything uniform statewide, she
would be notified, every employee in that
Catholic university would be notified that you
have the option to exercise a rider for
contraception coverage at a price of.
That's how it would work. She
would notify them, and then she would have
10386
that coverage.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Through
you, Madam President, if the sponsor would
continue to yield.
SENATOR BONACIC: I do.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator continues to yield.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: So then
the employee would directly deal with, in this
hypothetical case, the insurance company. And
then, as Senator Oppenheimer was discussing,
would the amount that's withheld out of
paychecks be increased?
SENATOR BONACIC: No, there's no
payroll deduction. I know that Senator
Oppenheimer said that. But this is like a
customer would handle car insurance or house
insurance. You pay directly from your
checkbook to have that coverage. There's no
payroll deduction.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: So the
individual would have to, in addition to
dealing with whatever other provisions of
their insurance coverage they dealt with
through their employer, would have to have a
10387
separate arrangement and write a separate
check annually or monthly for contraceptive
coverage?
SENATOR BONACIC: For that rider.
Just like you would for jewelry. If you
wanted a ring covered or something, you pay
extra.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Well, I
think I understand how that works.
So every employee, if I understand
correctly, then, of all of the institutions
covered under this what to me is a very broad
exclusion clause, would have to have
individual contact with an insurance company,
make individual arrangements and individual
payments, they wouldn't have the benefit of
the payroll deduction in this one area?
SENATOR BONACIC: There's no
payroll deduction.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Okay. In
the exclusion clause, is there any -- I don't
see it here -- is there any limitation that
would prevent this from being applied to a
for-profit corporation?
SENATOR BONACIC: It's
10388
irrelevant. I mean no, the answer is no.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you.
Thank the sponsor.
Madam President, on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Schneiderman, on the bill.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: I listened
with great fascination to the arguments that
were made. And I think we are so deep inside
the spin machine that we're in danger of
getting dizzy.
This is not a bill that deals with
the fundamental issue that has been raised by
the advocates and was raised by the Assembly.
The issue is simply this. This is not a
conscience clause. This is a conscience
usurpation clause. People have consciences.
People have religious beliefs. Insurance
companies do not have consciences.
Corporations do not have consciences. HMOs do
not have consciences. Even our beloved alma
mater, the university, does not have a
conscience.
The notion that this is a
conscience clause, the rhetoric suggesting it
10389
is a conscience clause I think is at the heart
of the problem of getting a law passed in both
houses. This is very simply the problem.
This exclusion, this
conscience-usurpation clause is so broad that
any employer with the remotest connection -
and it does use the words, in fact, "in
connection with a religious institution."
This means some -- a joint venture, a
for-profit corporation that's a joint venture
of Fordham University and IBM? This is the
broadest exclusion clause that I am familiar
with, and I've reviewed quite a few of these.
The difficulty here is that it
creates two classes of women, two classes of
employees in this state in this bizarre effort
to promote the notion that corporations and
institutions have consciences. I think that
this is something that I would appreciate
hearing a coherent response to at some point.
I have religious beliefs, employees
have religious beliefs. No one is telling
someone who is a devoted Catholic: You have
to get contraceptives. You make the decision
for yourself. You have a conscience. But if
10390
you are an employee and you're working at
Columbia University and then you transfer to
be a professor at Fordham University, why on
earth should you fall into this second-tier
category of women who are discriminated
against just because their employers have some
connection, however remote, to a religious
institution?
The advocates have not said we want
to make, you know, churches, religious
institutions whose primary purpose, and I
gather in canon law there's some expression
that is "the inculcation of the faith,"
subject to this sort of a provision. We're
talking about everything else.
If you're working for the Goddard
Riverside Community Center or St. Mary's
Community Center, you shouldn't have this type
of discrimination imposed on you. If you're
working at New York Hospital or St. Peter's
Hospital, you shouldn't have this kind of
discrimination imposed on you. Your
conscience as an individual should not be
usurped by an institution or a corporation.
And I think that if we're going to
10391
be serious about this -- and we're here at the
last days of session, and my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle have raised the issue
of the negotiations with the Assembly and the
history of this bill. One great, important
piece of the history of this legislation was
left out of this story. Senator Bonacic has a
wonderful bill he was the sponsor of last year
that had no conscience-usurpation clause, that
had no exclusion clause. Same as the bill in
the Assembly. There were lots of Republican
sponsors on that bill.
Put that bill on the floor. Put
that bill on the floor. That will pass. That
will pass the Assembly.
The way this is going to be
resolved, I respectfully submit, is to cut
down on the conscience-usurpation clause.
There is no legitimate rationale, in my mind,
for pretending that insurance companies and
corporations have consciences, denying
women -- and men, because if you're the
employee and you want your spouse to be
covered, you could be discriminated against
also -- from exercising their own consciences
10392
and, because of this fiction, holding up a
critical piece of legislation.
I think that it is absolutely clear
that the bill that Senator Bonacic was good
enough to sponsor last year would pass if it
was put on the floor of this house. It has
already passed in the Assembly. Let's cut
down on this bizarre conscience-usurpation
clause and get serious about passing a law.
I do not see any moral or legal
impediment to it. And I have to say that, you
know, this -- and this is the same issue,
really, as in the fertility bill. You know,
at some point you have to acknowledge some of
the cynicism that is generated by the
legislative process. We all know this is a
poison pill. We know the Assembly is not
going to pass this.
If we really want to get this done,
let's cut down on the conscience clause.
Let's do what has been done in other states.
Other states have language that are much
narrower provisions.
Let's get to the heart of this
dispute and resolve it. I take it we're going
10393
to be a little bit longer this year. Maybe by
the time we come back in July or August or
September, however long this budget gridlock
goes on, we can get something done. But the
way to get it done is not with this bill.
Let's go back to the Bonacic bill from last
year and actually pass a law.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Thank you,
Madam President, just on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Montgomery, on the bill.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, I also
want to compliment Senator Bonacic. I know
that he is trying very desperately to bring
this issue to some negotiated conclusion, and
I appreciate that.
I must say, however, that the
problem with it is that no matter how we
approach it, as long as we have this
conscience clause, which I refer to as an
exclusion clause, it creates an inequity for
women. And everyone knows that women are
10394
already receiving only a percentage of the
pay, on the average, that men receive. So
there already is an inequity that we have
worked very hard to try to address, but it
still exists.
And so we now come with
legislation, a proposal that will create
further inequity in terms of women's access to
health care, specifically for the area of
contraceptive and other aspects of
reproductive health care.
When I think of my own district,
even though Senator Bonacic has said on
several occasions that this is a very small
number of women, it's not -- it's a small
percentage of the women that we're talking
about. But I think about my district, and I
sort of go down a list of the sites in my
district. I have St. Mary's Hospital, I have
St. Joseph's College, I have St. Christopher
Ottilie. That's a very large family service
program. I have at least two Catholic high
schools. Bishop Laughlin is one of them, the
mayor's own high school. I have several
elementary schools that are sponsored by the
10395
diocese. Many of the people in my district
work for the Fidelis HMO.
I can count a very large percent of
people who work in those institutions. And
whether or not they subscribe to the religious
tenets of their church is their own private
decision and business. But I do know that
there are large numbers of people who do not
and therefore are not necessarily bound by
those tenets. But yet we are establishing an
insurance legislation which essentially forces
them to abide by such tenets.
And as I look at this legislation,
not only is it contraceptives, I believe, but
it's any other procedure that relates to -
that is contrary to religious tenets. And it
says with respect to such cases an insurer
shall not be required to issue the rider
required. With respect to such cases, the
superintendent shall promulgate regulations
providing for alternative arrangements for
access to the coverage, provided that such
arrangements shall not be contrary to the
religious tenets of the insurer.
So it's not clear to me that even
10396
though we have said there shall be a rider for
which the women shall pay, it's not clear to
me that, one, there is an enforcement of that
based on this legislation, and, two, how in
fact will that rider be accessed.
Because the insurer -- the
religious institution or the institution that
has an objection based on their religion is
not required to issue the rider. So the
person who is seeking the rider must go out
and access it, and I'm not sure, the
legislation is not clear on just how that is
to happen.
So we have really created a
barrier, and we have also created an
additional cost to women who are least able to
afford that additional cost, in addition to
their requirements for copay.
So I have to oppose this. And I
speak, yes, on behalf of all of those women
and men and their daughters who might need to
have access to contraceptive services and will
not be able to get it. And if they don't, if
they are not able to purchase it because they
don't earn enough to afford them to get the
10397
rider, then they may go without.
And I have figures here that
60 percent of all pregnancies each year in the
United States are unintended. So it means
that we need to have, especially the women
that I'm talking about, that I'm thinking
about, need to have access to contraceptive
services.
And lastly, Madam President, I just
want you to know and I would like Senator
Bonacic to know that the women in my district
have made it very clear to me that even though
it is very important to have a women's
wellness bill, that they want a women's
wellness bill that includes all women and all
services that they need. And if we don't have
a bill that includes all of those services, we
are not -- we will not reach an agreement that
they will appreciate.
Thank you very much.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, would Senator Montgomery yield for
a question?
10398
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Montgomery, will you yield for a question?
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, Madam
President.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, Senator Montgomery raised a point
that I hadn't thought about, which is these
employees of Fidelis Care, the HMO, how are
they going to get insurance?
Or if you worked, say, for a
religious institution that was insured by
Fidelis Care, and that's not going to be a
coincidence, that's going to happen a lot,
what is going to be the coverage for those
women? They can't get a rider from Fidelis
Care.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Right now,
Senator Paterson, you're absolutely correct,
those women who are covered by Fidelis Care do
not have access to contraceptive or
reproductive health services at all, so they
must already go outside of that HMO in order
to access those services.
Under this legislation, the
employees also will not have that coverage.
10399
They already don't have it at -
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Hannon, why do you rise?
SENATOR HANNON: I wanted to ask
Senator Montgomery if she'd yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Montgomery, will you yield?
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, I'll
yield.
SENATOR HANNON: Senator
Montgomery, do you realize that Fidelis Care
only provides Medicaid services? And that's
not covered under this bill, so the
hypothetical you were asked is not germane.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Well, no,
it's germane, Senator, in that in my statement
regarding Fidelis I was referring to people
who work for the HMO.
But Senator Paterson's question
went to how do we -- how do people now access
these services who are already either covered
by Fidelis or work for them. And my answer is
that they are not covered by Fidelis.
I understand that. They are not
covered, they have to go outside of Fidelis in
10400
order to access those services if they are in
the Fidelis HMO, because they do not provide
those services. If you work for Fidelis, you
also don't have the coverage. And under this
legislation, they would have to have the
rider.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Stavisky.
You have spoken, Senator -
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: I just
wanted to ask Senator Hannon to yield for a
question.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Hannon, will you yield for a question?
SENATOR HANNON: But I don't have
the floor.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: I know
you don't have the floor.
SENATOR STAVISKY: I yield it to
Senator Hannon.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: I would
like to ask, through you, Madam President -- I
appreciate the point about Fidelis. There's
an insurance company called MDNY, a
Long-Island-based HMO partially owned by a
10401
group of Catholic hospitals.
And I'd like to ask Senator Hannon,
would not that insurance company, under this
bill, be exempt from having to write
contraceptive coverage?
SENATOR HANNON: First of all, it
wouldn't be eligible, as I understand it,
because they're going to exercise their
conscience clause. That would be for what
they would be offering.
Second, for their employees, the
employees would be subject to the opportunity
to go around and be offered this directly,
like the other employees covered by the
conscience clause.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Through
you, Madam President, they would go around and
get it from who? They wouldn't get it from
their insurance company, but they would have
to go to a second insurance company, is that
what you're saying?
SENATOR HANNON: They would -
the provisions -- they would -- each enrollee
covered under the contract issued shall have
the right to directly purchase the rider
10402
required by the subsection from the insurer or
the health maintenance organization which
issued the group contract.
That would be on page -- I have the
typewritten copy -- 7 of 10 of this 5626.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: But again,
I guess maybe I'm not being clear in my
question, because I don't think I'm getting a
clear answer.
When the insurance company that
writes the policy won't do it because it's
partially owned by a Catholic institution,
where do the employees go?
SENATOR HANNON: No, no, no, no,
no. No, no. They're not going to be able to
issue that policy whatsoever because, I
presume, they will say, "That's not something
we're going to write," and therefore no one
will purchase it from them because they're not
going to write it. It's somewhat like a, you
know, circular argument.
But they're not going to be
offering it, so therefore you don't have to
worry about the situation. It won't arise
under your hypothetical.
10403
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: My
hypothetical is the following. If there's an
employee of an institution whose insurance
company is MDNY, which does not have to
write -- provide these riders, where does that
employee go, since he can't get it from their
insurer, the insurer that provides all the
other coverage for this person through their
employer, where does the employee get the
rider, get contraceptive coverage if they want
it?
SENATOR HANNON: In that case I'm
told that they must go through the Insurance
Commissioner, who will provide alternative
ways to write. Obviously, saying one of the
third-party administrators will make the
arrangements, one of the people who do issue
those policies will issue the coverage, and
they will be covered that way.
I mean, I think there will be a
fairly large number of people who will be
covered in the ordinary course of business.
And therefore, the Commissioner, as is done in
many other health policies, such as those that
we create for single individuals or that we've
10404
created in any of the New York health
programs, he will be able to direct this
coverage.
Frankly, I think that is a very
easy, logical, and accessible thing that will
happen.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Stavisky.
SENATOR STAVISKY: If the sponsor
will yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Bonacic, will you yield?
SENATOR BONACIC: Yes, I will
yield.
SENATOR STAVISKY: For just one
question. Mercifully, just one question.
If a woman has the rider and it
includes birth-control coverage and she has a
daughter in college, would the daughter in
college also be entitled to the same
protection, the same coverage that she has?
SENATOR BONACIC: If she -- if
the employee took the family plan as opposed
to, you know -
10405
SENATOR STAVISKY: Obviously.
Obviously.
SENATOR BONACIC: The answer is
yes.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Madam
President, on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Stavisky, on the bill.
SENATOR STAVISKY: And I will be
very, very brief.
I have a number of problems with
the bill that haven't been discussed
previously. One is to limit the exclusions
for religious purposes. Because some of the
purposes of these not-for-profit
organizations, while they are under the aegis
of a religious institution, they are
nonsectarian in their approach and in their
mission.
For example, Catholic Charities has
an extensive senior program with senior
centers in Queens County. And in fact, I
happen to have a cousin who is a social worker
at one of the senior centers. She does not
subscribe to the tenets of the Catholic
10406
Church, and yet she would have to ask for the
rider. And yet the mission of this senior
center is to provide programs -- a congregate
meals program, et cetera -- to every senior
eligible, unrelated to religious mission.
And that's the first problem that I
have with the bill, that I think we ought to
apply the conscience clause to religious
entities exclusively.
Secondly, I have a problem with the
privacy area. Senator Bonacic has assured us
that there will not be payroll deductions, but
I'm still not convinced that the employer, the
religious institution -- whether it be an
orthodox Jewish institution or a Catholic
institution, it makes no difference -- the
employer will not become familiar with the
person's birth-control practices.
I do commend everyone for their
concern for this issue, and I really wish this
were a more comprehensive bill. And I think
for that reason, for those reasons, I'm going
to vote no.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Is there
10407
any other Senator that wishes to speak on the
bill?
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 16. This
act shall take effect -
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Dollinger, why do you rise?
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Is debate
still open on the bill? I'd like to address
the bill, if I could, on the merits.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Dollinger, on the bill.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Yes. Madam
President, I'll try to be very brief.
A number of my colleagues have
addressed the overexpansive conscience clause
that's a part of this bill. And let me tell
you why I think it's too broad and I think it
sets up a barrier that is unnecessary.
I said in this debate the last time
we did this bill that to the extent a
religious organization uses the funds that are
raised through its religious activities -- as
we would call it in the Catholic Church, from
the collection plate -- that it is entitled to
10408
impose its conscientious choices for health
care or, for that matter, for anything else
upon its employees. I believe that they have
the power to do that. I believe that that
power should be respected by this Legislature.
But if you look at the definition
of this conscience clause, it includes those
connected to religious organizations. And
here's why it's too broad, Madam President. I
was the vice president of the Catholic
Families Center in Rochester. It's about a
$10 million agency. $9.5 million of the money
it uses to pay its employees comes from the
government. It's the public's money. These
are people who work under a connection to the
Catholic Church but the money that pays their
salaries and buys their health care,
95 percent of that money comes from the
government.
And I would suggest if you look at
those who work for hospitals and you look at
those who work for social service agencies and
you look at those who work for senior centers
like Senator Stavisky talked about, you will
find that they have an affiliation with the
10409
religious organization but most of the money
that pays their salary comes and originates in
public funds.
And I would just suggest that for
any religious organization that uses public
money to pay the salaries of its employees and
then imposes a conscience exemption on public
funds when they spend public funds, it seems
to me that that goes too far, that that in
essence permits us, during the course of the
last two decades as we privatized former
government services, whether it's care for the
mentally retarded, whether it's care for the
mentally ill, job training services -- all
kinds of services that we now provide through
religious-affiliated organizations like the
Catholic Families Center in Rochester, they're
using our money, they're paying the salaries
with our money.
And I would suggest that since
that's public money paying for their health
care, and only a small portion of the premium
is paid for with what I would call the
ecclesiastical dollars that come out of a
collection plate -- and in fact, in most
10410
religious organizations they completely divide
the employees that are performing public
services from those who are performing
ecclesiastical services.
And it seems to me that while
sponsoring of an organization does give the
sponsor some right to control what the
employees do, it really stretches our
credibility to say that when 95 percent of the
dollars that pay salaries and health insurance
premiums originates in public money, that then
we can allow the sponsor to impose
conscientious objections on what's available
to their employees for health care.
I think that's unfair. And I don't
know why we would erect a barrier to women
getting contraceptive care when most of what's
being used to buy their premiums is public
dollars. It's our money that's being used to
pay their salary.
With all due respect to the
Catholic Church, whose tenets I respect and am
a part of, I think when they're ecclesiastical
employees being paid by the church's money,
when the church's money is being used to pay
10411
their health insurance premiums, I'll under
those circumstances agree with the conscience
clause.
But when the church and it's
not-for-profit corporation created by this
government -- we charter those not-for-profit
corporations. They are created by the power
of the State of New York -- when we create
them, we fund them, we give them our money, I
think it's unfair for their sponsor to say:
We're going to control what kind of health
care they get with public dollars.
I think that's a mistake. That
sets up a barrier to health care for women
across this state that we shouldn't
countenance. The churches have a right, a
duty, and an obligation to impose their
religious views on their employees that they
pay for. When they're their employees that we
pay for, it's clearly within our power and our
right to say to them: You must provide
certain types of women's health care to them
without any barriers whatsoever.
Let's redefine the conscience
clause more narrowly. Let's tell the churches
10412
that we will respect their views when they use
their money. Let's tell them when they use
our money that we have the power to say no
barriers to appropriate women's health care.
That's the message we should send.
Unfortunately, this bill -- and I credit
Senator Bonacic for trying to wrestle with
this difficult problem. Unfortunately,
Senator, this bill doesn't get us there.
Follow the money. When it's the public's
money, we should be able to tell them what
health care they have to provide.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, very briefly.
I think that Senator Dollinger's
point speaks to what is the real issue that
troubles some of us who cannot support this
bill.
And it really is favoring the value
of the ecclesiastic institutions, not because
of the spiritual beliefs that they have, but
because to some degree they have a great deal
of weight with government in terms of their
10413
impact on our capacity to resolve issues. And
in favoring that value, we are diminishing the
quality of care that women are going to
receive.
If we are going to make women leave
their insurers, seek riders -- or now I
understand if they work for insurance
companies that are also religiously based,
they'll have to go to the Commissioner of
Insurance -- it's going to be so remote from
the basic insurance that they deserve that
they're going to be in the position where
they're either going to pay more or not get
insurance at all.
Now, at a certain point if it
becomes so difficult for women to receive
insurance to the degree that women who are
working for institutions that are not
religious are getting, there's going to be a
distinct difference in the coverage, a
definite difference between the coverage that
men get.
And I think that opens the door for
the situation, a repeat of the situation that
occurred in the state of Washington where a
10414
pharmacist sued a chain of drugstores for
failure to provide insurance for
contraception. And in that case, Erickson
versus Bartell, the plaintiff prevailed.
I would not be surprised if
New York State winds up in a lot of lawsuits
relying, to our detriment, on the fact that
this program that we've set up is going to be
equal. I think it's unequal, it was even said
that it was unequal by those who advocated for
it. They said it's just a little bit more of
a charge. A little bit to some is a lot to
others. And it all adds up to discrimination.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Brown.
SENATOR BROWN: Thank you, Madam
President.
I must confess I am torn on this
piece of legislation, this women's health and
wellness bill that we look at today. I'm torn
because I desperately want to provide coverage
to women's health needs. And I think all of
us in this room want to provide coverage to
women's health needs. And I recognize the
work of Senators Bonacic, Rath, and Hannon in
10415
trying to work out some differences in this
bill.
But unfortunately, this is a
one-house bill. I mean, let's face the fact
that this bill is not going anywhere in the
Assembly. So what this essentially means is
again we are not going to address the health
care needs of women in the state of New York.
Last year when I campaigned, I
campaigned and I told citizens that I would
fight and vote to pass a bill that would
safeguard women's health. And sadly, it
doesn't look like this year that's going to
happen. And I think that's a value that we
all share in this room. And while this bill
has moved closer to where we need to be, I
don't think this legislation goes far enough,
unfortunately.
I think what we have done here for
the last two years ago, clearly, is we've
treated women's health in this state
differently than we've treated men's health.
There's a difference in the coverage that men
receive and the coverage that women receive.
And to set up a situation that exempts certain
10416
organizations from providing coverage for
prescription contraception, coverage that
citizens want, that women want, and allows
uncovered employees to purchase a rider at a
group rate, that might sound like it's a good
thing, but the riders will cost additional
money. So again, that is an unfair additional
burden.
Now, some say it's not that much
more money, it's 7 or 8 bucks more. But it's
still different. It's still more. And there
are those in our state in the community that
oppose this difference.
So I rise to say that I think it's
sad that again we, the Senate and the
Assembly, have not been able to convene these
conference committees and to keep the
conference committees going. I know the
process was started, but the process was not
completed. And because the process was not
completed, we have two one-house bills, a
one-house bill in the Assembly and a one-house
bill in the Senate. And again this year
nothing will be done on these critical issues
for women's health.
10417
This bill that would provide
mammograms to detect breast cancer, cervical
examinations to detect cervical cancer, and
bone density measurement to be able to detect
osteoporosis is not going to happen.
And some people will say, Well,
vote for the bill to reflect your strong
support, to reflect the value that you have to
protect women's health. And some will say,
Don't vote for the bill because some women are
left out. Well, I've got to tell you, I'm
terribly torn.
But because some women are going to
be left out, and because this bill clearly is
not going to pass this year, I think I'm going
to find myself in the difficult position of
voting no to this piece of legislation that I
know many of my colleagues very thoughtfully
and in earnest worked to try to get something
that would be an acceptable compromise.
Thank you, Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Hassell-Thompson.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank
you, Madam President. On the bill.
10418
In January when this bill was
presented before, it was my first opportunity
to really hear Senator Bonacic in one of what
I consider to be one of his most passionate
discussions in this chamber. And I certainly
don't mean that sarcastically at all, I mean
that very sincerely.
And I told him then that he almost
convinced me, because his argument was very
compelling. But I've had an opportunity to
study this bill, and I've also had an
opportunity to listen to and to read, in the
last couple of days, the new provisions in
this bill.
And I want to personally say that I
think that you have done a very good job in
trying to examine and to look at those
issues -- as Senator LaValle said, look at
those issues that created barriers and try to
do the kinds of things that would make this a
better bill that we can all live with.
We're close, but no cigar. We're
not close because one of the statistics that
you quoted, and I quoted back to you, was that
3 percent of the women would be left behind.
10419
And many of you don't think that 3 percent of
the women is a very large number, but it's too
large a number for me, particularly because
most of those women are in my district. And I
can't go back home and say to them that you
now have to pay a copayment as well as the
payment for a rider when already budgetarily
you can't afford to pay for food for your
children.
I can't say to them, after the
years of trying to educate them about the need
to seek and get good health care, that it's
available but, I'm sorry, it's not accessible,
because you can't pay for it. I cannot
support any legislation that is going to
create a barrier for any woman to get the
much-needed health care that is needed for
women in this society.
And I do commend you. I commend
all of you who have worked strenuously. But
we still have to work harder. And we need to
not talk about the politicizing, because
that's not what this is about. And it's not
about polarizing. Because I think the people
in this chamber -- and I'm not talking about
10420
the advocates outside, but I'm talking about
the people in this chamber -- I think are
honestly together trying to create the best
health facilities, the best health care
services and ensure that health care is more
than available but that it is truly
accessible.
This makes it just out of the reach
of many of the women that I serve, and
certainly for those who have voted for me. So
I can't vote for this bill. And I will take
the heat when Senator Spano and some of the
others in Westchester say "She voted against
the bill again."
But I think that the people that I
educate and try to educate about good health
care will understand why we have to hold out
to get a better bill than this is to meet the
health needs of women in this state.
Thank you, Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Is there
any other Senator that wishes to speak on the
bill?
Senator Bonacic, to close.
SENATOR BONACIC: First of all,
10421
I'd like to thank my colleagues on both of the
sides of the aisle for sharing their thoughts
on this legislation.
Just a couple of points. Nine
states have conscience clauses. The language
of this conscience clause was taken
substantially from our existing Executive Law,
which we have in our human rights, our
housing, and our employment legislation. So
that's where the language came from.
We're trying to maintain and
safeguard the constitutionality of religious
freedom, and at the same time we want all
women to be able to access better health
benefits. And under this legislation,
3.2 million women, including the women in your
districts, will have access to breast cancer
mammograms, osteoporosis screening, and
3.1 million of them will have access to
contraception.
Now, the less than 100,000, which
we've talked about for an hour and a half,
we've given you through this legislation
accessibility, but you've said affordability
may be too high to deny some access. That's
10422
basically what you're saying.
And I look at the entire bill on
balance, and I say there's so much more good
here that we can do and move forward, and then
come back another day to try to iron out other
pieces that may not be satisfactory. Because
that can be said of all legislation. It's
always a work in progress. We always can make
things more better.
But with breast cancer and
osteoporosis, these are life-threatening.
When people do not have early detection and
prevention, they die. And on contraception,
most of the women are covered. And those that
might not might get pregnant and shouldn't,
but they will live.
So on balance, I think it's good
legislation. I think it should be supported.
And I thank you all for taking the time and
sharing with me how you feel.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 16. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
January.
10423
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
LaValle.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Madam
President, to explain my vote.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: To
explain his vote.
SENATOR LAVALLE: I just want to
say to Senator Bonacic, Senator Rath, I think
a job well done. As a member of the task
force, I think we approached this matter in
very deliberative way. The conference
committee worked very energetically, very
openly, very honestly to try and meet the
other house halfway.
I want to say that this legislation
really would protect women, will save lives.
And I think Senator Bonacic said that very
clearly. I think we have heard excuses,
excuses, excuses in why this legislation
should not be enacted both in this house and
passed in the Assembly.
I've worked, you know, behind the
10424
scenes and openly with some of the people who
oppose this and was led to believe that if two
doors were created, one with a conscience
clause and the second with access for all
women, that a bill would be acceptable. I
think, very honestly, people simply do not
want religious institutions to be protected
under the constitution. And no matter what we
change or what we do, as long as there is a
conscience clause, women will be deprived.
Our process is supposed to be to
represent the majority point of view. I've
spoken to women in my district, and I would
say that this bill, if every woman were
polled, they would unanimously be behind this
legislation. I think by not passing this
legislation we are merely responding to a
minority point of view. And a minority point
of view will not allow women to receive proper
health care and have their lives protected.
I vote in the affirmative, Madam
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Schneiderman, to explain his vote.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you,
10425
Madam President.
I think this has been a good debate
on this issue. I want to -- I'm voting no for
the reasons I've stated already.
I also want to say several of my
colleagues have raised the sort of specter of
religious discrimination and constitutional
rights. There are other bills in other states
that have been upheld. There's no
constitutional issue here. There's no
discrimination against religion in the
Assembly bill, as there was not in the Bonacic
bill which many of you sponsored and which had
no exclusion clause.
This is not a constitutional issue.
This is a conscience issue. And I still have
not heard a response to my point that people
have consciences, corporations do not. This
is a very, very misguided effort to sidetrack
us from the real issue.
I vote no. Let's narrow the
exclusion clause, then we'll get a law.
Thank you, Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: How do
you vote, Senator Schneiderman?
10426
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: No.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: In the
negative.
Senator Rath.
SENATOR RATH: Madam President, I
rise a second time to explain my vote.
And I had thought about whether I
really wanted to raise this point or not, but
something Senator Schneiderman just said
caused me to go back to some notes I've been
writing here that I felt really pulled
together my thoughts for the day. And he
spoke about a collective conscience.
And my question to myself was, and
to you, my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle, and to the advocates and friends that
we've worked with, as we leave here this year
and it doesn't look like we're going to have a
bill, I think we've got to look at our own
individual consciences and start to think
about where we are and where we're going.
But there's a bigger question that
arises here. Do we have a circumstance where
the individual conscience is going to be
subjected to a collective conscience, or are
10427
we going to subject the collective conscience
to the individual consciences?
Now, the collective conscience, in
my mind, is the basis for many of our
government, religious, civic, volunteer
organizations. And as we are an emerging
society, and continue to emerge, we have to
look to something as we make decisions, as we
move forward as a society. And our actions
are so often guided by our consciences.
Our consciences have been shaped by
our upbringing. Our families have helped
shape those consciences. But also by the
churches and the synagogues and the
organizations that we were encouraged to go to
and be a part of through our families. So our
consciences are important to us.
But does the question now become
the jurisdiction of the conscience? Is it an
individual conscience that we follow, or is it
a collective conscience that we follow? Is
there room for both in our society? Are we
going to jeopardize a God-given right that we
have to religious freedom by jeopardizing
either our collective conscience or our
10428
individual conscience?
I don't think we can answer that
question in this room today. I think there
may be a much larger forum that is going to
have to address that question. But I ask you
to look at it yourself. Think about it some
this summer. When we come back next year,
maybe we'll have a chance to review our
individual responsibilities and our collective
and individual consciences.
Thank you. I vote aye.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Rath, in the affirmative.
Senator Goodman.
SENATOR GOODMAN: Madam
President, this bill is many ways poses a very
perplexing question. As you might note, my
name appears on the bill as a sponsor and thus
reveals a degree of ambiguity in my own
thinking with respect to how to vote on it.
Let me say, however, after careful
reflection, my judgment is that the bill
should not attract an affirmative vote, for a
reason I'd like to explain. It's my view that
it is imperative that we pass some form of
10429
legislation which will give women the
protection that they need, and I think we
should credit this side with every tangible
goodwill effort to try to accomplish that.
The conspiratorial notion that
there is a plot to try to deprive women of
these rights is, I think, not an accurate one.
In fact, I would say it's an absolutely
untenable position for us to even consider.
The fact of the matter is I know for a fact
there's been sincere effort to craft a bill
which would pass muster in many respects.
But let me say that I think one of
the compass points in this issue is the recent
federal court decision in Erickson versus
Bartell Drug Company which reaffirmed how the
failure of an employer to cover birth control
constitutes sex discrimination.
By supporting a broad religious
exemption clause, my side I believe are
sanctioning, without intending to, a certain
degree of employer -- I don't want to use the
word "discrimination," but employer
selectivity.
Rather than allowing such
10430
selectivity, the Senate should seek, in my
opinion, to limit the unfair treatment of
women by their employers and insurance
companies.
Now, let's be practical once again
and position this in its true spot at the
moment. This is not going to pass in the
other house. Therefore, this becomes a
one-house bill. I think it's fair to say that
we are in a position where this should be
regarded as a step in the right direction, but
one that is a tangible indication of the need
for further intense negotiation which
hopefully would bring about a solution to
this.
And in making this suggestion it is
certainly my hope that we will put an end to
the type of recrimination which can be nothing
but destructive in regard to the consideration
of where we go. We all agree that women need
the coverage provided by the bill, and the
narrow, rather bizarre piece that relates to
the conscience clause is one that I think can
readily be surmounted by individuals of
goodwill.
10431
It's my hope that we can get on
with this promptly, because the sooner the
bill is adopted, the better things will be for
the health of women and the welfare of the
people of this state.
Thank you very much, Madam
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: How do
you vote, Senator Goodman?
SENATOR GOODMAN: I vote in the
negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Goodman in the negative.
Announce the results.
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
the negative on Calendar Number 1287 are
Senators Breslin, Brown, Connor, Dollinger,
Duane, Goodman, Hassell-Thompson, Montgomery,
Oppenheimer, Santiago, Schneiderman, and
Stavisky. Also, Senator Paterson. Ayes, 45.
Nays, 13.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
Senator Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Madam
10432
President, may we return to reports of
standing committees for a report of the Rules
and Finance Committees, respectively.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Reports
of standing committees.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Bruno,
from the Committee on Rules, reports the
following bills:
Senate Print 214, by Senator
Nozzolio, an act to amend the Civil Service
Law.
415A, by Senator LaValle, an act to
amend the Executive Law.
416A, by Senator Morahan, an act
enacting.
434A, by Senator DeFrancisco, an
act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law.
473A, by Senator Alesi, an act to
amend the Education Law.
3826, by Senator Breslin, an act
authorizing.
3950, by Senator Maziarz, an act to
amend the Executive Law.
4467, by Senator Marcellino, an act
10433
to amend the Environmental Conservation Law.
4624A, by Senator Hannon, an act to
amend the State Technology Law.
4641A, by Senator Seward, an act to
amend the Insurance Law.
4742, by Senator Morahan, an act to
reopen.
4898A, by Senator Saland, an act
relating to establishing.
4924A, by Senator DeFrancisco, an
act to authorize.
4942, by Senator Leibell, an act to
amend the Civil Service Law.
5404A, by Senator Lack, an act to
amend the Uniform Commercial Code.
5420, by Senator Kuhl, an act to
amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law.
5428, by Senator Nozzolio, an act
to amend the Judiciary Law.
5467, by Senator DeFrancisco, an
act in relation to the apportionment.
5498, by Senator Meier, an act in
relation to contracts.
5510, by Senator Johnson, an act to
amend the Retirement and Social Security Law.
10434
5559, by Senator Marcellino, an act
to amend the Parks, Recreation and Historic
Preservation Law.
5588, by Senator DeFrancisco, an
act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law.
5634, by Senator Kuhl, an act to
amend the Town Law.
5639, by Senator Wright, an act to
amend the Public Authorities Law.
5649, by Senator Seward, an act
authorizing.
And 5666, by Senator Bonacic, an
act to amend the Public Authorities Law.
All bills ordered direct to third
reading.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Madam
President, I move to accept the report of the
Rules Committee.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: All in
favor of accepting the report of the Rules
Committee signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Opposed,
10435
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
report is accepted.
Senator Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Madam
President, can we read the report of the
Finance Committee.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Stafford,
from the Committee on Finance, reports the
following nominations:
As a member of the Administrative
Review Board for Professional Medical Conduct,
Robert M. Briber, of Schenectady.
As members of the Small Business
Advisory Board, Catherine Crowley, of New York
City, and Judith B. Russell, of Albion.
As a member of the Fire Fighting
and Code Enforcement Personnel Standards and
Education Commission, Gerald W. Lynch.
As a member of the Veterans'
Affairs Commission, Harold G. Cronin, of Lake
Luzerne.
10436
As members of the Board of Trustees
of the New York State Higher Education
Services Corporation, William P. Beckman, of
Bronxville, and Christopher Walsh, of
Jamesville.
As a member of the Board of
Directors of the Roosevelt Island Operating
Corporation, John B. Mannix, of New York City.
As a member of the State Camp
Safety Advisory Council, Robert Geraci, of
Baldwinsville.
As members of the State Hospital
Review and Planning Council, James X. Kennedy,
of Geneva, and David O. Simon, of Chappaqua.
As a member of the Board of
Visitors of the New York State Home for
Veterans and their Dependents at St. Albans,
Ruth Lillian Young, of Jamaica.
As a member of the Board of
Visitors of the Capital District Psychiatric
Center, Angelo T. Muccigrosso, of Niskayuna.
As a member of the Board of
Visitors of the Rockland Psychiatric Center,
Margot Vazquez, of Suffern.
And as sheriff of Monroe County,
10437
Patrick O'Flynn, of Penfield.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Stafford.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Move the
nominations, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Nozzolio.
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Madam
President, I defer to Senator Alesi.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Alesi.
SENATOR ALESI: Thank you, Madam
President.
Last week my colleagues Senators
Nozzolio, Maziarz, and Dollinger, we all had
the opportunity to speak on a privileged
resolution recognizing the resignation of a
great, nationally recognized sheriff from
Monroe County.
And today we have the opportunity
to recognize Patrick O'Flynn, who has been
nominated by the Governor. And again, showing
the Governor's exceptional wisdom in this
nomination, Patrick O'Flynn has served for
over twenty years on the Monroe County
10438
Sheriff's Department and has worked his way up
from every position imaginable, gaining
invaluable experience to assume the role of
Monroe County sheriff.
Aside from his very impressive
resume, however, I would like to say that not
only as the Senator representing him, as he is
my constituent, but as a personal friend of
him and his family, I am extremely proud and
have firsthand knowledge of his abilities and
his ability also to inspire the people that
will be working under him.
Patrick O'Flynn is a very good
personal friend of mine, and it's a deep honor
for me to be able to speak on his behalf.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Nozzolio.
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Thank you,
Madam President.
Certainly I wish to echo the
comments of Senator Alesi on the nomination of
Patrick O'Flynn to be Monroe County sheriff.
Officer O'Flynn, Patrick O'Flynn is a
dedicated public servant. He has devoted his
life to law enforcement.
10439
And as Senator Alesi said, although
he certainly has extremely big shoes to fill
in succeeding our beloved sheriff Andy Meloni,
that Patrick O'Flynn is up to the task,
serving at Sheriff Meloni's side for many,
many years.
He has worked as undersheriff, is
uniquely qualified, extremely qualified to be
the Monroe County sheriff. And we certainly
look forward to working with him to better law
enforcement efforts in the County of Monroe.
I support the nomination.
Thank you, Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
question is on the appointees as read by the
Secretary. All in favor signify by saying
aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Opposed,
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
appointees are hereby confirmed.
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Madam
10440
President, I was out of the chamber. I
understand one of the issues before us is the
nomination of Patrick O'Flynn as the sheriff
of Monroe County, and I believe it has been
voted on by the house.
I'd like to be recorded in the
negative, Madam President. I was disappointed
that Mr. O'Flynn was not here before the
Senate Finance Committee. I had thought he
would be. I understand the protocol is that
unless requested, the sheriff wouldn't have
been here. He was here yesterday.
I am concerned about a number of
issues under the jurisdiction of the sheriff,
the health care at the county jail. It's been
highly publicized that there was a death at
the jail, in a heroin overdose situation, in
which the Commission on Corrections in this
state found that there was gross negligence on
the part of the operation by the sheriff of
the jail.
And I wish I had had the
opportunity to discuss that issue with
Mr. O'Flynn before his appointment.
But I'm also concerned, Madam
10441
President, because I don't quite understand
why we're doing this. County law makes it
very clear that the undersheriff serves as the
acting sheriff until such time as an election
occurs. I think we've perhaps burnished
Mr. O'Flynn's credentials to be in the
election coming this fall.
But I wish he had been here for a
more thorough discussion about some of the
critical issues that face the county sheriff's
department, and I regret I didn't get a chance
to do that, Madam President.
But I'd ask to be recorded in the
negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
record will reflect your vote.
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, with unanimous consent I'd like to
be recorded in the negative on Calendar Number
1288.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Without
objection, so ordered.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
10442
is there any housekeeping at the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Yes.
Senator Seward.
SENATOR SEWARD: Yes, Madam
President. On page 27, I offer the following
amendments to my bill, Calendar Number 728,
Senate Print Number 5213A, and ask that the
bill retain its place on the Third Reading
Calendar.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
amendments are received and adopted, and the
bill will retain its place on the Third
Reading Calendar.
SENATOR SEWARD: Thank you, Madam
President.
And on behalf of Senator Goodman, I
wish to call up his bill, Senate Print Number
5565, which is now at this desk.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1167, by Senator Goodman, Senate Print 5565,
an act to amend the Tax Law.
SENATOR SEWARD: Madam President,
I now move to reconsider the vote by which
10443
this bill was passed and ask that the bill be
restored to the order of third reading.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Secretary will call the roll on
reconsideration.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
SENATOR SEWARD: Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is restored to Third Reading Calendar.
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President. With unanimous consent I'd like to
be recorded in the negative on Calendar Number
638, Senate 357C, and Calendar Number 961,
Senate 1963B.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Without
objection, so ordered.
Senator Wright.
SENATOR WRIGHT: Thank you, Madam
President. With unanimous consent, I wish to
be recorded in the negative on Calendar Number
1288, Senate 5627.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Without
objection, so ordered.
10444
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
if we could go to Supplemental Calendar
Number 2, controversial.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
604, by Senator Hannon, Senate Print 4560A, an
act to amend Chapter 331 of the Laws of 2000.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Madam
President -
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
on Calendar Number 604, is there a message at
the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: There is
a message at the desk.
SENATOR SKELOS: Move to accept
the message.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: All in
favor signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Opposed,
nay.
(No response.)
10445
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
message of necessity has been accepted.
Senator Dollinger, an explanation
of the bill? Just one moment, Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR SKELOS: Lay it aside
temporarily.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is laid aside temporarily.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
632, by Member of the Assembly Gottfried,
Assembly Print Number 7184, an act to amend
Chapter 640 of the Laws of 1997.
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, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
10446
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
668, by Senator Marchi, Senate Print 3382B, an
act to amend the Navigation Law, in relation
to pilotage fees.
SENATOR SKELOS: Is there a
message at the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Yes,
there is a message at the desk.
SENATOR SKELOS: Move to accept.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
motion is to accept the message of necessity.
All in favor will say aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Opposed
say nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
message is accepted.
The Secretary will read the last
section.
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: May we have
an explanation, Madam President?
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Marchi, an explanation has been requested.
10447
SENATOR MARCHI: Madam President,
this provides for an increase in the pilotage
tariff for the Sandy Hook pilots. They pick
up these vessels when they -- foreign-flag
vessels when they pass the sandbar and -
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Pardon
me, Senator Marchi, for just one moment.
Could we have some quiet in this
chamber, please, while this distinguished
gentleman answers Senator Dollinger's request.
SENATOR MARCHI: Thank you. This
bill provides for a pilotage an increase in
the pilotage tariff charged or accounted for
by the services provided by the Sandy Hook
pilots for piloting foreign-flag vessels over
the sandbar and into the harbor.
It provides for an immediate
increase of the rate of 5 percent until
July 1, 2002, and, beyond that, 4½ percent.
Now, the nature of the vessels, for
those of you who have had any seagoing
experience -- and if you don't, you probably
know about it -- have changed dramatically.
You have much larger vessels, a smaller number
of vessels.
10448
So the economics of it bring in
some very serious burdens on the provision of
those services to correspond to the changing
nature of the transport of the product. So
that there has been a two-step increase to
meet these expenses.
I don't think there's any -- I
think there's general consensus that this is
an orderly response to the changing nature of
the provisioning of these services.
You have to realize, and I assume
those of you who have had seagoing experience,
as I have, that you have a very serious
problem when you bring in vessels, very, very
large vessels, where one serious accident
could wipe out all of the costs that are
involved, in the absence of enlightened and
high professional competence in the delivery
of this service.
And this has indeed been the
experience. These are the finest pilots in
the world, carrying the most expensive and
difficult vessels -- perhaps not on distances
that are as long. There are some areas of
Chesapeake Bay where you may have to travel
10449
longer. But the burdens and the tensions and
the pressures that are on pilots require
people of a high degree of competence.
And this represents an enlightened
consensus of the best way to meet this. We
have not had a reflection of the changing
nature of the dynamics of this process, and
this would bring it into rough parity.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, I don't know if I have a problem
with this bill. It just kind of jumped off
the page when in 1999 we gave a 15 percent
increase and also a $75 per trip fee, and now
we're going to add an additional 40 percent.
And one of the memos believes that if you add
up all of the fees for pilotage and the
increases over the last three years, it would
be about 59.2 percent.
And I just wanted to ask Senator
Marchi if we're going to have a 13 percent
increase annually. Does this final increase
really bring the pilotage vessels that -- you
know, the industry up-to-date? In other
10450
words, they're not going to be back here in
another two years looking for a 30 percent
increase? There might have to be an increase.
But does this put the workers and everyone on
par with where they should be?
SENATOR MARCHI: Did I give you
those statistics here? It's 5 percent until
2002, and 4½ percent beyond that, in our
second step.
The total is -- no, this -- the
present arrangement terminates, and these are
the dynamics of the problem as they exist
today. And there has been that change.
I don't anticipate any -- unless
there's -- I really don't anticipate any
large-scale increases. Because of the very
nature and the depth of the channels and the
configuration of the ships, I don't think that
they can expand very much anything that adds
appreciably to the distance from the waterline
down to the keel. We are at the outer limits
right now. In the absence of even -- in the
presence, you wouldn't have the berthing
quarters.
So I don't -- I feel very confident
10451
that this will enable them to go forward and
to make the needed replacement of vessels that
have outworn their usefulness. There are a
whole series of problems that would require
more extended presentation. But I there's a
general consensus that we're on the right road
here.
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: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Announce
the results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
733, by Senator Larkin, Senate Print 4251A, an
act to amend the Racing, Pari-Mutuel Wagering
and Breeding Law.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
10452
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: An
explanation has been requested, Senator
Larkin.
Lay the bill aside temporarily.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
778, substituted earlier today by Member of
the Assembly Sweeney, Assembly Print Number
4042A, an act to authorize the Shaw Temple.
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, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
779, substituted earlier today by Member of
the Assembly Sweeney, Assembly Print Number
6061A, an act to authorize.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
10453
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, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I'd ask to
vote in the negative on that.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Without
objection, Senator Dollinger will be recorded
in the negative.
Senator Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Madam
President, will you please call up Calendar
Number 604.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
604, by Senator Hannon, Senate Print 4560A, an
act to amend Chapter 331 of the Laws of 2000.
10454
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Hannon, an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR HANNON: This allows the
Miracle Christian Church in the town of
Hempstead to file an application for a real
property tax exemption.
Previously this house had passed
such an authority for them to file an
exemption with the County of Nassau on behalf
of the taxing districts for which the County
of Nassau provides the assessment. This would
add to that earlier statute the village of
Hempstead, which is a separate assessing
district.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, if Senator Hannon would yield for a
brief question.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Hannon, will you yield for a question?
SENATOR HANNON: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator yields.
10455
SENATOR PATERSON: Was it that
there was a ministerial filing and that it was
late, or that they went to the wrong entity?
SENATOR HANNON: No, neither,
Senator, in this sense. They had been late, I
believe, originally. But when we passed the
original statute, it didn't cover the village
of Hempstead.
We had gotten the draft in this
house from the Assembly and had passed it as
they had passed it. Because of the timing of
when we could pass, we couldn't go back and
get another bill from them.
SENATOR PATERSON: Okay, thank
you.
SENATOR HANNON: So we have to do
this as a nature of a chapter amendment to an
already existing exemption application
statute. Which I must admit, if we pass a
more general statute, we wouldn't need this
series of minor statutes.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, stop him before I change my mind.
(Laughter.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
10456
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: With all due
respect to my good friend Senator Hannon, I
have to vote against the chapter amendment to
the bill that I voted against the first time
around.
I couldn't agree with the chair of
the Committee on Health more than ever. Let's
do the statewide bill and get out of the
business. Which Senator Hannon's bill exactly
exemplifies the problem, is that these bills,
we make a tiny mistake in the deed description
or we leave out the village taxing entity, and
we have to bring the whole bill back.
It just highlights the continuing
problem, Madam President, and I hope my
continuing negative vote will continue to
highlight why we should change it.
10457
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Announce
the results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 57. Nays,
1. Senator Dollinger recorded in the
negative.
The bill is passed.
Senator Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Madam
President, will you kindly call up Calendar
Number 733.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
733, by Senator Larkin, Senate Print 4251A, an
act to amend the Racing, Pari-Mutuel Wagering
and Breeding 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.
10458
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
Senator Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Madam
President, will you please call up Calendar
Number 1025.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1025, by Senator Balboni, Senate Print 5303A,
an act in relation to allowing.
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. Nays,
1. Senator Dollinger recorded in the
negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
10459
is passed.
Senator Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Madam
President, will you please recognize Senator
Dollinger.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Madam President. I'd just ask unanimous
consent to be recorded in the negative on
Calendar Number 778.
Thank you to the Acting Majority
Leader.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Without
objection, so ordered.
Senator Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Madam
President, if we can take up the
noncontroversial reading of Supplemental
Calendar Number 56B.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: In relation to
Calendar Number 1289, Senator Nozzolio moves
to discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
10460
Assembly Bill Number 3938 and substitute it
for the identical Senate Bill Number 214,
Third Reading Calendar 1289.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE:
Substitution ordered.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1289, by Member of the Assembly Destito,
Assembly Print Number 3938, an act to amend
the Civil Service Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
Senator Nozzolio, to explain his
vote.
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Madam
President, this bill before us is one of the
most important measures ever adopted by this
house to recognize the incredibly difficult
conditions faced every day by the brave men
and women who serve as correction officers in
this state. Without a doubt, they walk the
10461
toughest law enforcement beat in America.
And that this measure provides them
with the respect that is afforded law
enforcement officials across the state,
including the state police, city, town, and
village police departments.
Correction officers need binding
arbitration. This is a tremendous victory,
and I thank Senator Bruno for his leadership.
I respect certainly and thank those correction
officers who worked so hard for this measure.
That this is a very important
measure to enhance the workplace environment
for correction officers. And, Madam
President, I move the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Announce
the results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: In relation to
Calendar Number 1290, Senator LaValle moves to
discharge, from the Committee on Finance,
Assembly Bill Number 295A and substitute it
for the identical Senate Bill Number 415A,
10462
Third Reading Calendar 1290.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE:
Substitution ordered.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1290, by Member of the Assembly Tokasz,
Assembly Print Number 295A, an act to amend
the Executive Law.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Lay the
bill aside.
THE SECRETARY: In relation to
Calendar Number 1291, Senator Morahan moves to
discharge, from the Committee on Finance,
Assembly Bill Number 294A and substitute it
for the identical Senate Bill Number 416A,
Third Reading Calendar 1291.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE:
Substitution is ordered.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1291, by Member of the Assembly Gunther,
Assembly Print Number 294A, an act enacting
the Greenwood Lake Commission.
10463
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 8. This
act shall take effect upon enactment into law.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1292, by Senator DeFrancisco, Senate Print
434A, an act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic
Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the 120th day.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Announce
the results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
10464
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1293, by Senator Alesi, Senate Print 473A, an
act to amend the Education Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
August.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Announce
the results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1294, by Senator Breslin, Senate Print 3826,
an act authorizing William P. Soronen, Jr., to
file retroactive membership.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect immediately.
10465
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Announce
the results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1295, by Senator Maziarz, Senate Print 3950,
an act to amend the Executive Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. 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, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1296, by Senator Marcellino, Senate Print
10466
4467, 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, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1298, by Senator Seward, Senate Print 4641A,
an act to amend the Insurance Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 12. This
act shall take effect December 31, 2001.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Announce
10467
the results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1299, by Senator Morahan, Senate Print 4742,
an act to reopen.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: There is
a home rule message at the desk.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. 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, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1301, by Senator Saland, Senate Print 4898A,
an act relating to establishing.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
10468
THE SECRETARY: Section 4. 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, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1302, by Senator DeFrancisco, Senate Print
4924A, an act to authorize.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: There is
a home rule message at the desk.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 4. 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, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
10469
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: In relation to
Calendar Number 1303, Senator Leibell moves to
discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
Assembly Bill Number 8440 and substitute it
for the identical Senate Bill Number 4942,
Third Reading Calendar 1303.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE:
Substitution ordered.
There is a home rule message at the
desk.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1303, by the Assembly Committee on Rules,
Assembly Print Number 8440, an act to amend
the Civil Service Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: 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
10470
the results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1304, by Senator Lack -
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is laid aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1305, by Senator Kuhl, Senate Print 5420, an
act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law and
the State Finance Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect 180 days.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Announce
the results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
10471
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1306, by Senator Nozzolio, Senate Print 5428,
an act to amend the Judiciary Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect January 1, 2002.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Just briefly
to explain my vote, Madam President.
I'm going to vote in favor of this
bill, and I do so with a bittersweet twinge in
my casting this ballot. This is a salary for
a position that I once ran for and was
unsuccessful in attaining. The man who beat
me in that election quite frankly deserves to
be paid the same amount as Surrogate Court
judges throughout the major counties in
upstate New York. And it seems to me it's
only fair.
I commend Senator Nozzolio for
10472
putting this bill on the floor. This is a
bill about the fairness in what we pay our
county Surrogate Court judges. And when you
live by the voters, Madam President, sometimes
you die by the voters, but you respect their
choice. I respect their choice in this case,
and I vote to raise this salary for this
particular gentleman, with best wishes to him.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Announce
the results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1307, by Senator DeFrancisco, Senate Print
5467, an act in relation to the apportionment.
SENATOR HEVESI: Lay it aside.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is laid aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1308, by Senator Meier, Senate Print 5498, an
act in relation to contracts.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
10473
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, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1309, by Senator Johnson, Senate Print 5510,
an act to amend the Retirement and Social
Security Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. 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, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
10474
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1310, by Senator Marcellino, Senate Print
5559, an act to amend the Parks, Recreation
and Historic Preservation 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, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1311, by Senator DeFrancisco, Senate Print
5588, an act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic
Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
10475
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Announce
the results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
Senator Fuschillo, that completes
the reading of the noncontroversial
supplemental calendar.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Madam
President, can we now take up the
controversial reading of the calendar.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1290, substituted earlier today by Member of
the Assembly Tokasz, Assembly Print Number
295A, an act to amend the Executive Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take -
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Paterson.
10476
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, I had had a question relating to
the recent Supreme Court case involving the
restrictions on police when it comes to
thermal imaging. But this is the fire
department, as it was explained to me by
Senator LaValle.
If the police were to approach the
fire department for any of that information,
that would be in violation of the court
decision. But what the fire department does
with it on its own is not going to have any
Fourth Amendment implications, so I withdraw
the need for an explanation.
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, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
10477
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1304, by Senator Lack, Senate Print 5404A, an
act to amend the Uniform Commercial Code.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Explanation.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Lay it aside
temporarily.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Lay the
bill aside temporarily, please.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1307, by Senator DeFrancisco, Senate Print
5467, an act in relation to the apportionment.
SENATOR HEVESI: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Lay the
bill is aside temporarily.
Senator Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Madam
President, will you please take up Calendar
Number 1304.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1304, by Senator Lack, Senate Print 5404A, an
act to amend the Uniform Commercial Code.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Explanation.
10478
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Lack, an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR LACK: Thank you, Madam
President.
While this is a 109-page bill, it's
actually fairly simple. It's the agreed-upon
revision of Article 9 of the Uniform
Commercial Code. Article 9 applies to any
action in which a security interest is created
in personal property. Forty-five states have
enacted the revised Article 9. It's been 25
years since there was a revision of this
particular article of the code.
Of course, I'd be more than happy
to stand here and tell you that I revised it
all myself, except to say that this effort
began in 1993 with the effort by the National
Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State
Laws. They have produced thousands of pages
of documents which were then discussed among
the various national commissioners, law
schools, professors, et cetera, across the
country.
The Article 9 drafting committee
worked between 1993 and 1998 to complete its
10479
work, and then the revised Article 9 was
unanimously approved by the national
conference and the American Law Institute. As
I said, 45 states have now considered it.
The national effective date is
July 1, 2001. That is very important for the
State of New York, because the basis of many
secure transactions in the United States is
according to New York law because of the
place, New York, where the root of many of
those transactions do take place. If by
July 1st of this year our law is nonconforming
with at least 44 and perhaps 49 other
states -- because bills are pending in other
state legislatures, the few that have not
passed it -- suffice it to say there would be
a rather extended crisis in terms of such
financial transactions.
What is basically done is that the
scope of Article 9 was expanded to cover where
technology has come into play over the last
25 years. Rules have been simplified and
clarified governing the creation, perfection,
priority, and enforcement of security
interests. These changes lower the cost,
10480
increase the availability of secured credit.
It also, in the case of New York,
does away with what was the dual filing
requirements, which, considering
computerization, availability of the Internet,
is no longer needed in the state.
It provides for central filing for
agricultural collateral instead of local
filing currently required under old Article 9.
And it provides significant new
benefits and protections to consumers by
expanding the definition of "good faith" to
include honesty in fact and the observance of
a reasonable commercial standard of fair
dealing, has enhanced description requirements
applicable to certain types of collateral,
special presale and postsale notice rules,
limitations on recovery in certain low-priced
dispositions, enhanced rights as a buyer in
the ordinary course of business, inclusion of
consumer transactions in certain new rules
that enhance the rights of secured
creditors -- that is, rules related to deposit
accounts and partial strict foreclosure -- and
the adoption of the holder in due course rule,
10481
the FTC rule, protecting the consumer where a
claim is made by an assignee of the consumer
credit contract.
As I said, the immediate enactment
is needed so that on the nationwide, universal
commencement date of July 1st New York is in
conformity with the laws of all the other
states that have already enacted this
Article 9.
For the most part, these elements
of the Uniform Commercial Code are outside the
normal political give-and-take and are handled
by the national conference and the uniform
laws commissioners who, in my opinion, have
done an excellent job over the eight years
that they have worked on bringing about the
revised Article 9.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
LaValle.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Will Senator
Lack yield for one question?
SENATOR LACK: Yes, Senator.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Senator Lack,
in looking through, and other members here
looking at the 111-page bill, those of us who
10482
are attorneys and must fulfill CLE credits
wonder, do we receive one credit for passage
of this bill and the explanation and receiving
the briefing book such that you have?
(Laughter.)
SENATOR LACK: Senator LaValle,
if you look at the 14th line on page 69, you
would find that CLE credit has been included.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR LAVALLE: Explanation
satisfactory.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 61. This
act shall take effect July 1, 2001.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Just to
explain my vote.
I appreciate Senator Lack
shepherding this bill. This bill, at least
based on what I know -
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Dollinger, could you hold it for one moment.
We're on a roll call right now. We've got to
10483
get to the roll call.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 61. This
act shall take effect July 1, 2001.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Madam President.
I just want to commend Senator Lack
for shepherding this bill through, the
109-page, 111-page bill. I predicted in our
short discussion back here with my colleagues
from Long Island that this will be the CLE
curse of lawyers in New York.
And lo and behold, Senator Lack, I
have no doubt that someday you will be called
back to the board of bar examiners to explain
this to them when they in turn correct the
exams from those young law students who are
trying to figure out what Article 9 is, what
it means, and what are all those security
interest filings they do at the time of
10484
closing of commercial transactions.
But I think Senator LaValle made a
good point when we were discussing, that the
electronic commerce of the future means that
we won't wait another 25 years to review
Article 9, that the door is open for
transactions that even today we can't
necessarily envision. When they come, we have
to preserve the rights of creditors and
lenders to be able to reclaim collateral and
assets in order to make our financial system
work.
So this is a bravo in getting it to
this point, Senator Lack. And when my clients
call me and ask me what Article 9 really
means, the new Article 9, I will no doubt be
referring them to you, Senator Lack, wherever
you may be.
SENATOR LACK: My cards are being
distributed as we speak.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR DOLLINGER: That's all
based on the assumption that Senator Lack
knows what it means himself. And I'm willing
to concede that, but we'll wait and see.
10485
Thank you, Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Announce
the results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
Senator Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Madam
President, will you please take up Calendar
Number 1307.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1307, by Senator DeFrancisco, Senate Print
5467, an act in relation to the apportionment.
SENATOR HEVESI: Explanation,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
DeFrancisco, Senator Hevesi has asked
requested an explanation.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes. This
bill was done in response to a request from
the superintendent of the North Syracuse
School District.
Apparently during the years
10486
1991-1992 to 1995-1996, during those school
years, the district submitted information
concerning its attendance, its number of
pupils at various schools. It wasn't until
four years after the '95-'96 school year that
the school was notified that their numbers -
the State Education Department said that their
numbers were inaccurate and that they were
overpaid by $486,000 plus. They were
notified, as I say, four years after the years
in question.
The school district went back to
the State Education Department during the
year -- the end of the year 2000 to go over
these numbers after they were notified of the
information. By April of 2001, the State
Education Department agreed that their
original conclusion was erroneous.
However, by that time the time
within which to appeal a determination by the
State Education Department of overpayments or
underpayments, their time limitation had run.
And the Education Department says the only way
that they could be paid what they were
required to be paid and not have to reimburse
10487
the so-called overpayment, since it was proven
that it wasn't an overpayment, was by
legislative action in view of the limit of
time that the school district had to contest
the overpayment.
So all this really does is allow -
it will mean that the North Syracuse School
District will be in line with everybody else
as far as when they get payments for -- on
additional sums that they were entitled to by
the State Education Department. And whenever
they're reached in the ordinary course where
they're entitled to more payments from prior
years, they will be able to get this money
back.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Hevesi.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you, Madam
President. Will the sponsor please yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
DeFrancisco, will you yield?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you.
10488
That was an excellent explanation,
and your final point hit on my concern here.
So let me just clarify, you did a good job
doing it, but there's a specific provision in
this bill that I want to ask you about in
terms of the payment.
It's in line 7: "Such aid shall be
payable pursuant to the provisions of
paragraph C of subdivision 5 of Section 3604
of the Education Law, but not subject to the
provisions of any other paragraph."
My question to you is, this will be
treated, as a result of that language that I
just read to you, as any other prior-year
school aid claim is treated by any school
district in New York State?
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: That is my
understanding. I didn't bring the entire
Education Law with me to verify that.
But if you would like to, we could
lay this aside temporarily and I could
double-check on it. But that's the way it was
explained to me.
SENATOR HEVESI: Madam President,
I would very much appreciate if you would do
10489
that. Because if that's not the case, I have
a major problem with this bill.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Okay.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
DeFrancisco.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Can we lay
the bill aside temporarily?
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is laid aside at the sponsor's request.
Senator Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Madam
President, may we please take up the
Supplemental Calendar Number 3,
noncontroversial calendar.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
484, by Senator Balboni, Senate Print 855, an
act to amend the Executive Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 7. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
10490
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
797, by Senator Hannon, Senate Print 4255A, an
act to amend the Public Health Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Is there a
message of necessity at the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Yes,
sir, there is a message of necessity at the
desk.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Move to
accept.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
motion is to accept the message of necessity.
All those in favor say aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Those
opposed say nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
motion is carried. The message is accepted.
10491
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.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Madam President,
I just wanted to make sure that I was seen
voting in the negative on Calendar Number 484.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Calendar
484?
SENATOR DUANE: Yes, Madam
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Without
objection, so ordered.
SENATOR DUANE: It wasn't my
fault. It was the lamps.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: It was
the lamp? Oh, okay. Well, that happens.
10492
Thank you very much.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
799, by Senator Hannon, Senate Print 4545, an
act to amend the Public Health Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect in 90 days.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Hannon.
SENATOR HANNON: Yes, Madam
President. I just want to explain my vote.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: That's
okay. Thank you.
SENATOR HANNON: Okay. This
legislation would deal with the question of
access to tobacco products, aimed at
curtailing the access by minors.
One of the difficulties we have in
trying to diminish the number of people in the
state who smoke is the fact that so often when
a person is a minor, they begin smoking, get
10493
addicted, and continue. Studies have found
that if we could cut that cycle, we would do a
great deal to improve the individual's health
and our society's costs in curing the health
problems that result from smoking.
So that what we do here is say that
products, tobacco products and cigarettes must
be stored behind a counter in an area
accessible only to the personnel of such
business or in a locked container. And the
idea is so that the product can be visible but
not accessible to the consumer from the
selling side of the counter, and it would only
accessible to the personnel of the business
from behind the counter.
And we feel by doing this we'd be
adding a great deal to what happens in
disposal of the cigarettes and thinking
therefore we'd add a great deal to the public
policy of this state.
And I thank you very much.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Announce
the results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
10494
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
617, by Senator Trunzo, Senate Print 5027, an
act to amend the Public Authorities 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, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
Senator Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Madam
President, would you read Calendar Number
1307.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1307, Senate Print 5467, an act in relation to
the apportionment.
10495
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
DeFrancisco, an explanation has been
requested.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: I think
we've already explained it, if you were paying
attention, Senator Paterson.
I requested this bill be
temporarily laid aside, and I checked the
statute. And my reading of the statute is
what I explained earlier; namely, that the
school district would wait in line behind any
other school district that had a prior claim
that had been approved.
SENATOR HEVESI: Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Hevesi.
SENATOR HEVESI: Very briefly on
the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Hevesi, on the bill.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you, Madam
President.
I fully support this bill and just
wanted to take a moment to commend Senator
10496
DeFrancisco. That's the way you conduct
business. That spirit of collegiality will
advance public policy interests in addition to
the normal discourse in this chamber. He is
to be commended.
And this is a worthy bill, and I
applaud his efforts to bring fruitful results
to the students of the North Syracuse Central
School District.
Thank you, Madam President.
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, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
Senator Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Madam
President, is there any housekeeping at the
10497
desk?
THE PRESIDENT: No, there is no
housekeeping at the desk.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Madam
President, would you recognize Senator
Paterson, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, there will be an immediate
conference of the Minority right after
session, an immediate conference of the
Minority.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: There
will be an immediate meeting of the Senate
Minority in Room 314, immediately following
session.
Senator Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Madam
President, there being no further business to
come before the Senate, I move we adjourn
until 10:30 tomorrow morning.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: On
motion, the Senate stands adjourned until
10:30 tomorrow morning.
10498
(Whereupon, at 8:00 p.m., the
Senate adjourned.)