Regular Session - June 21, 2001
10499
NEW YORK STATE SENATE
THE STENOGRAPHIC RECORD
ALBANY, NEW YORK
June 21, 2001
10:45 a.m.
REGULAR SESSION
SENATOR RAYMOND A. MEIER, Acting President
STEVEN M. BOGGESS, Secretary
10500
P R O C E E D I N G S
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Senate will come to order.
I ask everyone to please take their
places and join me in reciting the Pledge of
Allegiance.
(Whereupon, the assemblage recited
the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: In the
absence of clergy, may we each bow our heads
in a moment of silence.
(Whereupon, the assemblage
respected a moment of silence.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Reading
of the Journal.
THE SECRETARY: In Senate,
Wednesday, June 20, the Senate met pursuant to
adjournment. The Journal of Tuesday, June 19,
was read and approved. On motion, Senate
adjourned.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Without
objection, the Journal stands approved as
read.
Presentation of petitions.
Messages from the Assembly.
10501
Messages from the Governor.
Reports of standing committees.
Reports of select committees.
Communications and reports from
state officers.
Motions and resolutions.
Senator Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Yes, Mr.
President. Are there any substitutions at the
desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Yes, we
have one, Senator.
SENATOR KUHL: Could we make that
at this time, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read the substitution.
THE SECRETARY: On page 33,
Senator Trunzo moves to discharge, from the
Committee on Elections, Assembly Bill Number
2422 and substitute it for the identical
Senate Bill Number 1683, Third Reading
Calendar 925.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:
Substitution ordered.
Senator Kuhl.
10502
SENATOR KUHL: Move for the
adoption of the Resolution Calendar.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: All
those in favor of adopting the Resolution
Calendar in its entirety signify by saying
aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Those
opposed, nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Resolution Calendar is adopted.
Senator Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Could we now have
the noncontroversial reading of the calendar,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read the noncontroversial
calendar.
Senator Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Before we have the
noncontroversial reading of the calendar, it's
my understanding that Senator Breslin would
like to make an announcement relative to a
resolution that was just adopted.
10503
So if you would recognize Senator
Breslin, who has now reached his seat, that
would be wonderful.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Good
morning, Senator Breslin. You're recognized.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Thank you, Mr.
President.
On the Resolution Calendar there is
a resolution honoring Paul Weafer, who as you
all know is one of the heads of bill drafting
for so many years. And I would like to open
it for everyone in the house, on both sides,
to be a part of it.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:
Resolution 2479, then, is opened up. Any
member who wants to cosponsor that resolution
can inform the desk.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Thank you very
much, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: May we now have
the noncontroversial reading of the calendar.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Kuhl, on the resolution, rather than -
10504
SENATOR KUHL: Good idea. I
think we put everybody on, and then those who
do not want to go on will then notify the
desk. Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: We'll
follow our usual custom, then. Any member who
does not wish to be on, notify the desk.
Otherwise, you'll be listed.
And may we now have the
noncontroversial reading of the calendar.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
63, by Senator Skelos, Senate Print 400A, an
act to amend the General Business Law, in
relation to the sale, use and application.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
November.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 40.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
10505
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
269, by Senator McGee, Senate Print 3187B, an
act to amend the General City Law, the Town
Law, and the Village Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 40.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
546, by Member of the Assembly Luster,
Assembly Print Number -
SENATOR LACK: Lay it aside.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is laid aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
623, by Senator Velella, Senate Print 4325, an
act to amend the New York City Civil Court
Act, in relation to housing court judges.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
10506
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 40.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
943, by Member of the Assembly Cymbrowitz,
Assembly Print Number 6976, an act to amend
the Public Housing Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 40.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
946, by Senator Padavan, Senate Print 5B, an
10507
act to -
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Lay it aside,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Lay the
bill aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1031, by Senator Stachowski, Senate Print
2558A, an act to amend the General Municipal
Law, in relation to notification.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the 120th day.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 40.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1125, by Senator Leibell, Senate Print 2360,
an act to amend the Public Authorities Law, in
relation to the oversight.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
10508
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the 60th day.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 40.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1274, by Senator Stafford, Senate Print 5642,
an act to authorize certain health care
professionals.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Lay it aside.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Lay the
bill aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1313, by Senator Wright, Senate Print 5639, an
act to amend the Public Authorities Law and
the Energy Law, in relation to energy
efficiency.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
10509
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 41.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
Senator Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Yes, Mr.
President. May we now have the controversial
reading of the calendar.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
noncontroversial calendar having been
completed, the Secretary will read the
controversial calendar.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
546, by Member of the Assembly Luster,
Assembly Print Number 980, an act to amend the
Labor Law.
SENATOR KUHL: Lay it aside
temporarily.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Lay the
bill aside temporarily.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
946, by Senator Padavan, Senate Print 5B, an
act to amend the Education Law and the
Administrative Code of the City of New York.
10510
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Explanation,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Padavan, an explanation has been requested by
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR PADAVAN: Thank you, Mr.
President.
Before I talk about the bill before
us, I'd like to just report to you briefly on
something we did a year ago that was signed
into law last June by the Governor called
Teachers-2. In it we tried to address a
number of ways of attracting teachers into our
systems, our school systems in New York State.
We wanted to see the result of that
effort, and we turned to the city of New York,
where certainly a significant problem related
to teacher shortages exists. We determined
that last summer there were 192 young people
in colleges and universities in New York State
and elsewhere who did their internship last
summer in the city of New York. And
currently, applications of almost 400 have
been received for this summer under that bill.
Over a thousand teachers opted into
10511
that provision encouraging them to work in
schools that have not been performing to
Regents standards, because we provided a
$3,400 stipend in that bill of last year.
There are a number of other
provisions of Teachers-2 which were put into
effect that have worked extremely well.
However, despite those good
efforts, we still have an enormous problem
looming up ahead. It's estimated that in
New York State over the next five to seven
years we will lose, as a result of retirement,
primarily, over 100,000 teachers, 54,000 of
them over the next five years in the city of
New York alone.
So obviously we have to do many
more things to encourage teachers to work in
our systems here in this state. And that's
what the bill before you does. Its provisions
are outlined in the bill, but let me go over
them very briefly and then I'll answer any
questions you might have.
One provision of the bill, acronym
STAY, allows one additional month of credit
for each year a teacher has been an inactive
10512
member of the retirement system. For
instance, a teacher who is 55 and has taught
for 24 years would receive 24 months of
additional service credit for remaining in the
classrooms for three more years. And here is
an attempt to encourage teachers not to
retire, to stay in the system.
Another provision, called START,
State Teacher Attraction and Retention,
encourages teachers from other states and
other systems, perhaps employed in nonpublic
schools, by allowing them to purchase pension
credit in these systems for up to ten years
for their earlier service elsewhere.
The third component deals with the
salary earnings waiver. Here we allow retired
teachers to return to the system without
having imposed upon them the income limitation
of $18,500 currently in the law. Which means
a teacher who is retired, receiving a pension,
now can come back and earn whatever the salary
is for that teaching position without
impacting on their previously earned pension.
Obviously their pension doesn't increase or is
not affected. But this is a way of getting
10513
teachers back into the system.
The bill would provide a $3,400
bonus to teachers who successfully complete
the National Board for Professional Teaching
Standards. As part of the Teachers of
Tomorrow program, which we enacted last year,
a $10,000 annual was provided last year, and
this particular provision would bring it up to
$13,400.
Teachers today who seek their
certification, State of New York
certification, have to pay a fee. The current
fees for taking these two exams is $140. As
an encouragement to them to take the test, we
are waiving the fee in this bill.
And then, finally, we have the
Teacher of the Year awards of $10,000 to
Teachers of the Year in recognition of their
achievement.
Those are the essential components
and provisions of this bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Lachman.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Yes. Through
you, Mr. President, will the Senator yield for
10514
a question?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Padavan, do you yield for a question?
SENATOR PADAVAN: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR LACHMAN: I admit I
haven't read the entire bill. I just was
reading through it when you spoke. And I
think that the -- Mr. President, I think that
the description of the bill, 946, S5B, is
inadequate in that it does not describe the
bill in total. That's beside the point.
This bill, Senator Padavan, is, as
I gather, not for a limited amount of time but
is a bill that will be law from now on?
SENATOR PADAVAN: No, there are
certain parts of the bill which expire at
various time frames.
The effective date for the STAY and
START program -- those are the two provisions
that I described -- shall be effective
June 30, 2001. The START program, the START
program, that was the one that allows teachers
to come into our system from elsewhere and buy
10515
in, that will sunset in 2006.
The salary earnings waiver program
and the waiver of certain testing fees would
sunset five years from the effective date of
this enactment.
So there are time limits. However,
we obviously will have the option, when those
sunsets arrive, to extend it, amend it, do
whatever we wish. Obviously I think it's
important to see how it works and to see what
the benefits are. And obviously, again, I
repeat myself, we will do that.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Mr. President,
through you, will the Senator yield for a
question?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Padavan, do you yield?
SENATOR PADAVAN: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR LACHMAN: I look upon
this bill as having many components. But the
major component that it has is that the
heretofore limit of $18,500 that a retired
teacher would earn will now be eliminated, and
10516
that teacher can come back to the school
system, collect his or her pension, and earn a
salary at his or her seniority ranking for
five years. Is that correct or incorrect?
SENATOR PADAVAN: That's correct.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Okay.
On the bill, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Lachman, on the bill.
SENATOR LACHMAN: I think this is
a very major piece of legislation. I think
it's a most important piece of legislation.
And it puts our pockets where our mouths
usually are.
We all talk about teaching and
teachers as being the most important element
in the American firmament in terms of the
growth of the Union, in terms of knowledge, in
terms of competence, and in terms of
fulfillment of the American dream.
Now, this is going to cost money,
there's no question about it. Because you
might have a teacher earning, at retirement,
$70,000, under what is known as Tier 1, and
collecting a pension of $50,000. Which means
10517
that we will pay that teacher $120,000 a year.
Am I correct, Senator Padavan?
SENATOR PADAVAN: Pardon me?
SENATOR LACHMAN: Am I correct in
those numbers?
SENATOR PADAVAN: Yes.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Okay. Some
people might be frightened by this, but I'm
not. Because we call the teaching profession
the most noble profession in the nation, and
we don't pay them that. We pay them as if
they're the least noble profession in the
nation.
And 50 percent of teachers that are
now under Tier 1, which is the highest pension
rate, will be retiring in the next few years.
I hope, Senator Padavan, that this changes
that process. And we will have five years in
which to review it.
So I want to commend Senator
Padavan and his colleagues for sponsoring this
bill. And I can assure you that the
supervisors, the assistant principals, and
principals will shortly demand a bill of their
own, and we should give them equal
10518
consideration.
Congratulations.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Oppenheimer.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: This is a
good bill, and I support it. But I have some
questions, if the sponsor would yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Padavan, do you yield?
SENATOR PADAVAN: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: What is the
cost of this bill to the local school
districts?
SENATOR PADAVAN: The costs being
borne here are state costs, and it's
$4 million. There are no costs to the local
school districts. There will be some impact,
obviously, on various pension programs, as
people buy in, things of that sort. But there
are no costs to local school districts. This
is state funding.
The costs figure in the fiscal note
for this coming fiscal year is $4 million.
10519
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Okay, that
raises another question.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Padavan, do you yield for another question?
SENATOR PADAVAN: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Do you
think that $4 million is a sufficient response
to the need to draw in thousands and thousands
of teachers? Do you feel that's a sufficient
commitment by the state?
SENATOR PADAVAN: Senator, this
is not the state aid bill, nor is it the
budget.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: I know.
SENATOR PADAVAN: The costs are
directly relevant to those things that will be
incurred by individuals and districts relevant
to the proposal.
There is no cost to a local
district for allowing a teacher to transfer
into our system from another state by allowing
them to buy into a pension program for up to
ten years. There is obviously impact on that
10520
pension system, but there's no cost to the
school district. There is no cost to the
school district to allow a teacher to collect
his or her pension and continue to work as a
teacher. There's no cost associated with
that.
But yet we hope that in doing these
things as we've described them we will
encourage teachers not to retire, we will
encourage teachers who have retired to come
back into the system and encourage teachers
from other systems to come into our public
schools. There's no cost associated with
that. We're facilitating this.
There are costs when we waive fees
for certification tests, a variety of other
things. The stipends we're providing to
teachers who excel, teachers of distinction,
yes, and that's where the $4 million comes in.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Another
question, if the Senator will yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Padavan, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR PADAVAN: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
10521
sponsor yields.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Am I
correct, then, that the cost that's being
borne by those teachers coming into the system
from, let's say, another state is then being
borne by the teachers? They will be
purchasing those pension credits?
SENATOR PADAVAN: Yes, they will
have the option of buying into the pension
system up to ten years. And obviously, it's
their costs.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Okay.
Thank you, Senator.
SENATOR PADAVAN: You're welcome.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: On the
bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Oppenheimer, on the bill.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: I think we
have to do everything we can to provide
incentives. And this has a variety of
options, both for the new teacher and for
attracting teachers to our state who have had
experience.
This meets one of the goals that I
10522
was interested in. I always saw that what we
were trying to do in attracting students to go
into teaching was a good avenue, a good way to
hopefully draw them down that path. But then
I was concerned what would happen in the three
to four years till these young women or men
graduated and went into teaching.
And this is certainly a partial
answer to what will happen in year one, two,
three, and four to sustain us while we wait
for these young people to enter the teaching
profession.
So it's a very good bill, and I
certainly pray it begins to answer some of our
serious need.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Mr.
President. If the sponsor would yield,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Padavan, do you yield for a question from
Senator Duane?
SENATOR PADAVAN: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
10523
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you.
I just wanted to clarify something.
I understood the sponsor to say that there
would not be a cost to the municipality. I'm
just wondering if I heard accurately.
SENATOR PADAVAN: That's correct.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you, Mr.
President, if the sponsor would continue to
yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Padavan, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR PADAVAN: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DUANE: I am concerned,
though, in the bill there is a fiscal note
that says that the cost to the City of
New York in fiscal year 2001-2002 if this is
enacted would be approximately $125 million
and would remain constant as a percent of the
payroll, which means it would be that year
after year. Is that not correct?
SENATOR PADAVAN: This has to do
with the teacher's retirement program. That's
10524
what I said before. The actual out-of-pocket
costs associated with this bill and its
provisions would not be borne by the City of
New York or any locality. There would be
impact on the pension system, but that's all
somewhat prospective because you really don't
know how many teachers are going to opt in,
buy in, and do the -- continue to work even
though they're collecting their pension.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you, Mr.
President, if the sponsor would continue to
yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Padavan, do you yield?
SENATOR PADAVAN: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DUANE: Though the bill
also says that the annual cost to the members
of the New York State retirement system is
estimated to be $350.1 million, or
3.18 percent of the payroll, which I think is
what refers to what happens with the pension
system.
However, the bill seems to quite
10525
clearly say, unless it's an error, that the
cost to the City of New York -- it doesn't say
to the pension plan, it says to the City of
New York -- is approximately $125 million.
SENATOR PADAVAN: I'm sorry, I
don't understand your question. Will you
repeat it?
SENATOR DUANE: In the two
paragraphs above the fiscal note, which is the
very end of the bill, there's a paragraph
which talks about the annual cost to the
New York State Teachers Retirement System,
which it says is estimated to be
$350.1 million, or 3.8 percent of the payroll.
Then in the fiscal note it talks about the
cost to the City of New York, which is
$125 million.
So it is true that the larger cost
is to the pension fund, but the bill quite
clearly states that at least in the case of
the City of New York -
SENATOR PADAVAN: Well, there are
two pension systems, obviously. We have a
state one and we have a city one.
SENATOR DUANE: Well, through
10526
you, Mr. President, if the sponsor would
continue to yield.
SENATOR PADAVAN: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DUANE: Then the bill
should be changed to say -- the fiscal note of
the bill should be changed to say the cost to
the pension plan of the City of New York is
$125 million.
SENATOR PADAVAN: If everyone
took advantage of those opt-in provisions of
continuing to work while drawing a pension, or
buying into the system, these would be the
costs associated with those pension systems.
But keep this in mind, Senator. If
we didn't do this bill at all and somehow we
were to hire 100,000 teachers statewide, we'd
have the same costs. There would be no
difference.
Keep in mind also, we have teachers
who we anticipate retiring in great numbers.
And that is the genesis of the issue that
we're attempting to solve.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you, Mr.
10527
President, if the sponsor would continue to
yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Padavan, do you continue -
SENATOR PADAVAN: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DUANE: I may be
mistaken, but I read this to mean that because
a teacher would continue to get their pension,
which means that the cost would be the same,
the $125 million refers to the salary that
those teachers would be making if they joined
the system -- I mean, if they started to teach
again, and that would just be their basic
salary.
And so then either the fiscal note
is wrong and it should say there's no cost to
the city, or there will be an additional cost
of $125 million.
SENATOR PADAVAN: I don't know
how to answer your question, Senator. It is
what it is. The costs will be associated with
those hirings and those people who opt into
pension systems.
10528
Which would be exactly the case if
they came from other means, meaning they
didn't opt in, having already retired, or they
didn't decide to stay rather than take their
retirement and leave. Either way, there would
be obvious costs associated with replacing
teachers with other teachers.
SENATOR DUANE: Mr. President, on
the bill. Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Duane, on the bill.
SENATOR DUANE: You know, it's
always difficult when, you know, you see a
bill for the first time and then you're
expected to vote on it. And even if there is
a cost to the City of New York, I would
still -- I'm still in favor of this bill and
have been in favor of this policy for a long
time to encourage retired teachers to come
back or, for that matter, other workers,
including police, et cetera, to be able to
come into the schools and teach and not have
their pension suffer. So on that I have no
problem at all.
But I am concerned that the bill is
10529
unclear about what the cost is going to be.
And if the bill is unclear about that, I'm
wondering if some of the other language in the
bill is not clear also. I mean, that just
stood out in, you know, sort of a big way, the
fiscal note.
You know, I'm going to vote for the
bill because of the principle of the bill, but
I do think maybe we all better take a longer
look at this bill to make sure that it's
actually written in the right way.
And one of my colleagues also said
that he hadn't had a chance to go all the way
through it and had some questions based on
that. So I just -- I want to caution us that
while our intentions are very good, I am
concerned that this bill might come back to us
again with amendments to fix what the problems
are.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: We're
keeping a list.
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Mr. President. Will the sponsor yield to a
10530
couple of questions, please?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Padavan, do you yield?
SENATOR PADAVAN: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Senator
Padavan, if we pass this bill are we
abandoning our practice of establishing a
annual teachers' retirement incentive as part
of what we've done in this Legislature?
SENATOR PADAVAN: Are we
abandoning -
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Well, as you
know, Senator Padavan, just about every year
I've been here we've put in, at the tail end
of the year, an incentive for teachers to
retire. We allow them to buy extra years in
the pension system to retire.
My question is, if we pass this
bill are we never going to do that again?
Because, after all, we're now saying we don't
want them to retire.
SENATOR PADAVAN: Senator, I
would suggest that your question is somewhat
10531
rhetorical if not somewhat facetious.
We're not repealing anything here,
we're trying to encourage them to stay and not
retire. So if they do that, if they opt into
those options then obviously they're not
taking advantage of any incentives to retire.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President, if Senator Padavan will
continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Padavan, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR PADAVAN: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Is there
anything in this bill that prevents a teacher
from taking a retirement incentive and then
going back to work under this bill?
SENATOR PADAVAN: If someone is
already retired under any prior program that
this Legislature or the State may have
adopted, and is sitting out there retired and
wants to come back, there's obviously nothing
we can do to undo historically what has taken
place.
10532
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President, if the sponsor will continue to
yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Padavan, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR PADAVAN: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Senator
Padavan, does a teacher who retires and then
is rehired give up their tenure under this
plan?
SENATOR PADAVAN: There are no
tenure provisions included in this
legislation, and therefore that is not
provided for by either giving or taking away.
That would presumably, in my view, be a
decision that local school districts would
make relevant to that person's position in
regard to tenure.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President, if the sponsor will continue to
yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Padavan, do you continue to yield?
10533
SENATOR PADAVAN: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: What about
their collective bargaining rights? Will they
still be members of the bargaining unit in the
teachers system if they've retired and gone
back to work? Will they be entitled to
participate and able to avail themselves of
all the protections including, as you know, in
most cases the right to be fired only for just
cause, the protections of 3020-A of the State
Education Law? Will all those benefits and
protections be available to teachers who come
back to work?
SENATOR PADAVAN: My
understanding is that the teacher in the
system is afforded the same protections as any
other teacher, irrespective of how he or she
may have come into the system. So obviously,
whatever protections exist would apply. It
also obviously would be subject to any
collective bargaining agreements that took
place.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Okay. Thank
10534
you.
Mr. President, just briefly on the
bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Dollinger, on the bill.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I appreciate
Senator Padavan's candor.
I think this bill, while it has
many good aspects to it, needs a little
additional thinking about some of the issues
that I just raised. The question of to what
extent the teacher would benefit from tenure
and therefore, when they're retired and
they're rehired, do they automatically assume
their new tenure? Are they hired as a
probationary teacher like we allow school
districts to hire other teachers for a
two-or-three-year period before they get
tenure? It's not addressed in this bill.
The question of the collective
bargaining rights, not addressed in this bill.
What rights do they have? They've already
been through the system, they've already
taught in the system, they've retired, they're
now serving a whole new tenure as employees.
10535
I think that needs to be thought about.
Lastly, I guess I'm somewhat
intrigued by the possibility that we have
retirement incentives currently for teachers.
Those were put in largely at the request of
either the teachers' unions or school
districts because we wanted highly paid
teachers to retire in order that school
districts could save some money and hire new
teachers and try to get them through the
system and save some of the money in the
difference between hiring a new teacher at
$30,000 and paying an experienced teacher at
$70,000.
I wonder whether we're going to
abandon our practice of providing retirement
incentives. And, if we provide a retirement
incentive, what happens if we have a teacher
who decides to retire, we let them buy more
retirement time, and then they go back to work
the next week? It seems to me that that needs
to be thought about as well.
I also agree with Senator Duane
that the fiscal note that attaches to this
bill should just remind us of one thing,
10536
Senator Duane. If we're going to do this bill
and make it law, we need to put far more than
a billion dollars to work in education in this
state. Because as I read it, if we only give
them $350 million in new education aid and
pass this bill, we're not giving them a
nickel. Because we're going to tell them that
they're going to have to pick up $350 million,
$360 million in new costs to pay for the costs
associated with this bill.
If we want to pass this bill, if we
want to make this bill a reality, I think this
house needs to sit down and come up with a
number for education that's $350 million
higher than we originally thought it was.
Because, Senator Duane, based on the fiscal
note in this bill, which takes into account
the anticipated numbers that would apply, the
numbers that would use it, if we pass this
bill and pass this very costly mandate -
that's what it is, it's a mandate onto local
school boards in this state, we've got to give
them $350 million in additional funds just to
get them to break even.
I'm not necessarily opposed to
10537
doing that, Senator Duane. I just think if we
look at the big picture, that's the real cost.
We need to realize that either they're going
to pay it or we're going to give them the
money to pay it. I would toss that additional
$350 million this year, to show that this bill
is a reality, I would throw it into the
Senate's education number as we continue our
discussions with the Assembly over a budget.
Because if we don't do it, Senator
Duane, all we're doing is telling the school
districts around the state: We like this
bill, but you have to pay for it. Where I
come from, that's called a mandate. It may be
a beneficial one, but it's a mandate
nonetheless, and we should be well aware of
what we're doing before we do that.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Padavan.
SENATOR PADAVAN: Mr. President,
I just want to clarify for Senator Dollinger's
benefit. The provision that he talked about,
the state provision which allows teachers to
continue to teach -- or those who have
retired, rather, to come back and teach would
10538
be optional in terms of the local school
district's decision. Meaning the school
district will decide whether or not they want
to opt into this program.
So it's not a mandate on the school
districts. It's something they can take
advantage of. The City of New York, from the
discussions we've had with the Chancellor and
his representatives, this is something they
very much want to take advantage of, because
they're losing 54,000 teachers.
So when he talks about mandates,
I'd like to clarify it is not a mandate.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Onorato and then Senator Stavisky, according
to our list.
Senator Onorato.
SENATOR ONORATO: Mr. President,
will Senator Padavan yield to a couple of
questions?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Padavan, do you yield for a question?
SENATOR PADAVAN: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
10539
SENATOR ONORATO: I'm concerned
about the -- when you're referring to the
out-of-state teachers, or out of the district
coming in to be able to go into the system and
purchase up to ten years' of past service. Is
that only their particular cut, or are you
dealing with a portable system where they can
transfer the pension built up in the other
system to here?
SENATOR PADAVAN: No. No.
SENATOR ONORATO: Also, do they
have to pay the city's portion, the matching
funds to it, what they contributed and what
the city would have been contributing during
that ten-year period of time?
SENATOR PADAVAN: The pension
system will determine what the cost to the
individual will be to, in effect, accrue up to
ten years' of retirement benefit, whatever
that amount may be.
As an example, as you know, during
the fiscal crisis when many police, firemen,
sanitation people were laid off, we passed a
bill allowing them to buy that time back
because they had not been laid off due to
10540
their own -- it wasn't their fault.
And there have been other things
over the years where we've allowed people to
buy time in a pension system in which perhaps
they unwittingly -- there have been many bills
that I've been aware of over the years -- did
not sign up for a pension system, now found
out they hadn't signed up and they wanted to
get in that system, and we allowed them to buy
back that time.
Same thing occurred here.
SENATOR ONORATO: Will the
Senator continue to yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Padavan, do you yield?
SENATOR PADAVAN: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR ONORATO: Now, assuming
that the teacher that comes in with a ten-year
buyback comes into the system, what is their
starting salary? Are they starting brand-new
in the system, or are they credited at the
starting salary of a person with ten years of
experience?
10541
SENATOR PADAVAN: That would be
determined by the school district.
SENATOR ONORATO: Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Stavisky.
SENATOR STAVISKY: If the sponsor
would yield to a couple of questions.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Padavan, do you yield for a question from
Senator Stavisky?
SENATOR PADAVAN: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Do you have
any idea how many people might participate in
either return -- or you have no -- do you have
any idea?
SENATOR PADAVAN: No, Senator, I
don't. I did give you a brief report on
Teachers-2 last year -
SENATOR STAVISKY: I know.
SENATOR PADAVAN: -- in the sense
to give you an idea that when we did that, it
did produce some positive results.
How many teachers who have not
10542
retired stay, how many will come from other
states or other nonpublic school systems I
have no way of knowing. That's why we have
sunsets here, so that we'll evaluate the
effect, make a determination at those time
frames as to whether or not to continue the
program.
SENATOR STAVISKY: If the Senator
will yield for a couple more questions.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Padavan, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR PADAVAN: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR STAVISKY: You're talking
here about two different pension systems, the
New York City retirement system and the New
York State retirement system.
Is there going to be any problem in
switching from one pension system to another
or carrying over accrued pension benefits?
SENATOR PADAVAN: I'm sure there
will be issues that will have to be resolved
by the pension system administrators and local
governments that administer those pension
10543
systems, in the case of the City of New York.
But those problems obviously are those -- they
are to be resolved by them. We're not going
to be able to resolve them here.
SENATOR STAVISKY: That was my
next question. Are we going to have to pass
legislation for each person to enable them to
transfer within pension systems?
SENATOR PADAVAN: Not to my
knowledge, no.
SENATOR STAVISKY: I have a
couple more questions.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Padavan, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR PADAVAN: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Since this is
optional on the part of the school district,
is there going to be a disparity between
school districts? Are we going to have a
greater differential between the so-called
better school districts and the poorer school
districts?
SENATOR PADAVAN: I'm not sure I
10544
understand your question. Would you restate
it, please?
SENATOR STAVISKY: Let's assume
that School District A is doing very well and
School District B is not. Are we encouraging
more teachers to return to School District A
and fewer to come to School District B?
And the reason I asked the question
was based on the lengthy discussion we had
yesterday on the Roosevelt School District,
where it seems to me that the better
teachers -- really, we ought to be encouraging
the better teachers to return to the Roosevelt
School District or school districts that are
having problems, where they need the better,
more experienced teachers.
SENATOR PADAVAN: I would
presume, Senator, that if a school district
has needs that relate to getting more teachers
into their systems, such as the City of
New York, that they would want to opt into
these programs and in so doing enhance the
quality of the education being provided in
those districts.
The State Education Commissioner
10545
would continue to have the prerogatives he
has. He has mandated that certified teachers
in the City of New York go to certain schools.
SENATOR STAVISKY: That's right.
I know that. That was my next question.
SENATOR PADAVAN: Okay? That
would apply.
So obviously if the Board of
Educations encourages certified teachers to
come from another system, a nonpublic school
system into the Board of Education, that would
still apply. And no waiver on these
requirements.
SENATOR STAVISKY: That was my
next -- Mr. President, if the Senator would
continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Padavan, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR PADAVAN: I'm pleased to
anticipate whenever I can.
Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR STAVISKY: In other
words, in the case of the City of New York we
10546
can assume that the teachers either returning
or from nonpublic schools or teachers from
outside the City of New York will be sent to
the SURR schools?
SENATOR PADAVAN: If they are
certified teachers under the state regulations
currently in effect, the answer is yes.
And by the way, we provided an
incentive in the Teachers of Tomorrow program
last year by giving them a $3,400 stipend in
addition to their salary, and a thousand
teachers in the system have voluntarily done
that in the City of New York.
SENATOR STAVISKY: And my last
question -
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Padavan, do you yield for a last question?
SENATOR PADAVAN: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Does this
apply to teachers who may have left during the
fiscal crisis that you described and who never
returned to the school system?
SENATOR PADAVAN: Did they
10547
retire?
SENATOR STAVISKY: People who may
not have taught long enough. As you know, the
younger teachers are the ones who started and
they're the ones who are excessed during the
fiscal crisis and, let's say, left education
completely and became the firefighters and the
police officers.
SENATOR PADAVAN: There's nothing
to stop them from coming into the system
whether we pass this bill or not. I'm at a
loss to understand the nature of the question
as it relates to the legislation.
SENATOR STAVISKY: It doesn't
give them any incentives to return, that's
what I'm saying.
SENATOR PADAVAN: Well, the
incentives here are for retired teachers to
return. There's incentives here for teachers
not to retire. The incentives here are for
teachers in other systems to join our public
school system. That's where the incentives
are.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Thank you.
On the bill very briefly.
10548
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Stavisky, on the bill.
SENATOR STAVISKY: I think this
is a terrific bill, and I certainly hope that
it will help stem the tide of retirees. And I
agree with Senator Lachman, I certainly hope
we have incentives for retired administrators
also to return to teaching and to supervision.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Any
other Senator wish to be heard?
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 13. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Duane, to explain his vote.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Mr.
President.
As I said before, I am going to
vote for this bill. But just as the debate
went on, I found myself more and more
confused, and I didn't find the answers to my
10549
questions by listening to the answers or by
reading the bill myself as the questions came
up.
I still don't know what the cost is
to New York City. The more I thought about
it, the more I thought maybe the cost would be
less to New York City because teachers who are
coming back in to teach won't be contributing
to the retirement system the way that new
teachers will, so the city will have to kick
in less money. So there may be a savings for
those teachers coming in. Maybe I'm wrong; I
don't know.
I can't really tell if we're going
to need to pass special legislation based on
the unique circumstances of different teachers
wanting to utilize the system.
So these are just, you know, three
of the questions.
You know, I'm sure that we're going
to vote on amendments to this bill because
this bill wasn't drafted as well as it could
be. Which is why -- and I know people get
tired of me saying it -- it would be helpful
if we actually had a committee meeting on this
10550
so that we could talk to the people from the
pension fund and the Board of Education and
find out -- and, for that matter, the city's
Office of Management and Budget or the
Independent Budget Office, for that matter,
just to find out what the real fiscal impact
could be. Because, in fact, this may be a
cost-saver, not a cost -- you know, not
something that's going to cost more or, you
know, cost-neutral.
So we're going to pass this bill
not knowing the answer to that question, and I
just think that we could do better here in the
Senate. And again, I'm going to vote for it,
but believe me, I have no doubt but that this
bill is going to come back to be fixed at
least once if not more times.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Duane will be recorded in the affirmative.
Senator Lachman, to explain his
vote.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Just briefly to
explain my vote. I think I spoke sufficiently
in favor of the bill previously.
10551
There are, of course, minor details
to be worked out on the financial basis. But
in my opinion, I think we all agree with the
words of Abe Lincoln that the only thing more
expensive than education is ignorance. And
unfortunately, we haven't acted in that
direction in this Legislature.
This could be an expensive bill,
but it's worth it for the sake of educating
our children. Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Lachman will be recorded in the affirmative.
Announce the results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 53.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
Senator Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Yes, Mr.
President. Could we at this time place a
sponsor's star on Calendar Number 546, by
Senator Lack.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: At the
request of the sponsor, place a star on
Calendar 546.
Senator Kuhl.
10552
SENATOR KUHL: Then could you
call up Calendar Number 1274, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read Calendar 1274.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1274, by Senator Stafford, Senate Print 5642,
an act to authorize certain health care
professionals.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect July 22, 2001.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 53.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
Senator Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Yes, now could we
do a noncontroversial reading of the
Supplemental Active List Number 1 which is on
all the members' desks, consisting of three
bills.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: With
10553
regard to Supplemental Active List Number 1,
the Secretary will read the noncontroversial
portion.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
414, by Senator Nozzolio, Senate Print 222B,
an act to amend the General Business Law and
the Executive Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Lay it aside.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Lay the
bill aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
647, by Member of the Assembly Grannis,
Assembly Print Number 235B, an act to amend
the Vehicle and Traffic Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
November.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 53.
10554
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
Senator Kuhl, that completes the
noncontroversial portion of Supplemental
Active List 1.
SENATOR KUHL: Now could we have
the controversial reading of the supplemental
list.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Of
course.
SENATOR KUHL: Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read the controversial portion
of Supplemental Active List 1.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
414, by Senator Nozzolio, Senate Print 222B,
an act to amend the General Business Law and
the Executive Law.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Explanation,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Nozzolio, Senator Dollinger has requested an
explanation with regard to Calendar 414.
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Mr. President,
this measure before us amends the General
10555
Business Law and the Executive Law relative to
the sale and use of certain smoke alarms with
long-life batteries. This measure defines
long-life batteries.
And what we are trying to do -- the
measure is supported by a number of
organizations that we have. The National Home
Safety Project, the New York State
Professional Firefighters Association, the
Firemen's Association of the State of
New York, and Kidde, which is a nationwide
producer of smoke and fire alarms, have all
joined together to support this legislation
because they believe that the most essential
element of the smoke alarm is often
overlooked, and that's the battery that powers
that smoke alarm.
The firefighters have all too often
found that defective smoke alarms have led to
the deaths and serious injuries of individuals
trapped in fires. Fires may have been
certainly mitigated if people had adequate
smoke-alarm warnings. And the problem is the
battery. The batteries are not long-life,
they're not lasting, and as a result serious
10556
injury and death have been the occurrence.
This is an effort to ensure that a
long-life battery is placed in a smoke alarm
and that battery in effect powers that smoke
alarm and protects the individual from death
or serious injury.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President, if the sponsor will yield just
to a couple of questions.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Nozzolio, do you yield for a question?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Yes, I do, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President, one of the questions that's
been raised by at least a couple of parties
about this bill is the question of freezing
the technology at a particular point. That
what we should do is not dictate what kind of
batteries ought to go in fire alarms or smoke
alarms, but that we should require that the
10557
people use the best, most affordable battery
and not pinpoint a particular type of battery.
Is that a fair -- I just -- I don't
want to cripple innovation in not only battery
production but in these smoke alarms
themselves by putting it into statute. Is
that a fair observation on their part, or -
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Mr. President,
I am certainly not pretending to be an expert
on the scientific definition and composition
of batteries.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Neither am I,
Senator Nozzolio, as you well know.
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Well, I know
the learned Senator from Rochester is a
technocrat and gets into much more of the
detail of these measures than I normally do.
But I can say that the reaction of
those in the fire service are what committed
me to push this legislation. And it was -
certainly the technology is not the issue,
it's the length and strength of the battery.
And that if somebody can make it a
longer-lasting battery through different
chemical and physical properties, that's fine.
10558
I don't think this bill impedes that at all,
Senator Dollinger.
However, certainly I am tending to
listen to the expertise of the firefighters
and the fire-fighting community in looking to
the length and strength of a battery as
opposed to whether or not it uses a particular
technology.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Just one
other final question, Mr. President, if the
sponsor will yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Nozzolio, do you yield for another question?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Senator, what
about the cost factor of all of this? Are
these batteries going to be significantly more
expensive? Would the implementation of this
bill create a cost disincentive for people to
arm their smoke alarms and fire alarms with
these type of batteries?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Mr. President,
10559
that the information we have provided us by
the fire-fighting community -
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I'm having
some difficulty hearing Senator Nozzolio.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Nozzolio.
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Yes, Mr.
President.
The fire-fighting community has
provided us with some information regarding
the cost of conventional smoke-alarm batteries
that don't need to be replaced annually. That
it's estimated that some have a one-year life
span that can cost as high as $40 during that
10-year life span. The retail price of most
10-year batteries is anywhere from a third to
a quarter of that price.
So it -- you'd be buying one
battery, Senator Dollinger, for 10 years as
opposed to 10 batteries each year. The cost
averages out that it would be far less,
actually, to have the cost of a 10-year
battery than 10 one-year batteries.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Just on the
bill briefly, Mr. President.
10560
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Dollinger, on the bill.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I guess I'm
willing to go along with the explanation from
my colleague from Monroe County that the
introduction of these batteries will give
continued life to smoke alarms and fire
alarms, especially in our urban communities.
I'm concerned about the cost,
because I know that that oftentimes can be a
big deterrent to keeping the batteries
up-to-date. But it seems to me that this
measure works in the right direction.
I would just suggest, if the bill
ends up in discussions with the Assembly, that
the question of the technology -- I think that
some of the opponents are the NEC, the
national electrical association, which makes a
valid point when they talk about the freezing
of technology at a particular point.
I would like to think that that
technology should be more fluid. That if we
come up with a better mousetrap as respects
the operation of smoke alarms and fire alarms,
I wouldn't want to see the Legislature impede
10561
the development of that technology.
With that caveat, I'll vote in
favor of this bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Any
other Senator wish to be heard?
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 5. This
act shall take effect January 1, 2002.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 53.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
Senator Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: May we return to
the order of motions and resolutions. I
understand that Senator Wright has a motion to
make.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Motions
and resolutions.
Senator Wright.
SENATOR WRIGHT: Mr. President, I
move to recommit Senate Print Number 5448A,
Calendar Number 1106, on order of third
10562
reading, to the Committee on Rules, with an
instructions to said committee to strike the
enacting clause.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: So
ordered.
Senator Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Yes, Mr.
President. Looking at the time on my watch,
because I note that the Senate clock is not
working, but -- and I have at this point about
11:45. So I would like to announce at this
time that there will be a Rules Committee
meeting in the Majority Conference Room,
Room 332, at 11:50, in five minutes, and that
the Senate will stand at ease pending the
report of the Rules Committee.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: There
will be a meeting of the Rules Committee at
11:50 in the Majority Conference Room.
The Senate will stand at ease
pending the report of the Rules Committee.
(Whereupon, the Senate stood at
ease at 11:45 a.m.)
(Whereupon, the Senate reconvened
at 12:02 p.m.)
10563
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Yes, Mr.
President. May we now come back to order.
It's my understanding that there
are several messages on several bills that
have arrived at the desk. And what we'd like
to do before the next Rules calendar comes out
is to take those up, starting on the
Supplemental Active List Number 1.
Would you call up Calendar Number
186, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read Calendar 186.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
186, by Senator Hannon, Senate Print 2820A, an
act to amend the Public Health Law, in
relation to establishing.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Is there a message
at the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Yes,
there is, Senator.
SENATOR KUHL: Move we accept the
10564
message.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: All
those in favor of accepting the message of
necessity signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Opposed,
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
message is accepted.
The bill is before the house.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Hold it
a minute. Did you ask to be recognized,
Senator?
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: I had
just asked for an explanation.
SENATOR KUHL: Lay the bill
aside.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Lay the
10565
bill aside.
SENATOR KUHL: Mr. President,
could you call up, on the Active List Number
1, the original active list, Calendar Number
1011.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read the original active list,
Calendar 1011.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1011, by Senator Saland, Senate Print 4895A,
an act to amend Chapter 566 of the Laws of
1967.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Is there a message
of necessity at the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: There is
a message at the desk.
SENATOR KUHL: Move we accept the
message.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: All
those in favor of accepting the message of
necessity signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Opposed,
10566
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
message is accepted.
The bill is before the house.
The Secretary will read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 6. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 55.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
SENATOR KUHL: Would you call up
Calendar Number 1261.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read Calendar 1261.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1261, by Senator Fuschillo, Senate Print 5545,
an act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law,
in relation to equipping.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Kuhl.
10567
SENATOR KUHL: Is there a message
of necessity at the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: There is
a message at the desk.
SENATOR KUHL: Move we accept the
message.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: All in
favor of accepting the message of necessity
say aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Those
opposed, nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
message is accepted.
The bill is before the house.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
the negative on Calendar Number 1261 are
Senators Kuhl, Meier, and Wright. Also
10568
Senator Farley. Also Senator Seward. Ayes,
50. Nays, 5.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
Senator Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Mr. President,
would you now call up Calendar Number 1312.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read Calendar 1312.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1312, by Senator Kuhl, Senate Print 5634, an
act to amend the Town Law and the Public
Officers Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Is there a message
of necessity at the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: There is
a message at the desk.
SENATOR KUHL: Move we accept the
message.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: All
those in favor of accepting the message of
necessity signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
10569
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Those
opposed, nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
message is accepted.
The bill is before the house.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 55.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
Senator Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Could you call up
Calendar Number 1314, by Senator Seward,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read Calendar 1314.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1314, by Senator Seward, Senate Print 5649, an
act authorizing the reopening.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
10570
Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Is there a message
of necessity at the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: There is
a message at the desk.
SENATOR KUHL: Move we accept the
message.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: All
those in favor of accepting the message of
necessity signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Those
opposed, nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
message is accepted.
The bill is before the house.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: There is
a home rule message at the desk.
Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 55.
10571
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
Senator Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Mr. President,
would you now call up Calendar Number 1315, by
Senator Bonacic.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read Calendar 1315.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1315, by Senator Bonacic, Senate Print 5666,
an act to amend the Public Authorities Law, in
relation to the power.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Is there a message
of necessity at the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: There is
a message at the desk.
SENATOR KUHL: Move we accept the
message.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: All
those in favor of accepting the message of
necessity signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Those
10572
opposed, nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
message is accepted.
The bill is before the house.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 5. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 55.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
Senator Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Would you call up
now Calendar Number 186, which was previously
before the house, and the message was
accepted, which was laid aside temporarily.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read Calendar 186.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
186, by Senator Hannon, Senate Print 2820A, an
act to amend the Public Health Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
10573
Hannon, Senator Hassell-Thompson previously
requested an explanation of Calendar 186.
SENATOR HANNON: Yes. Thank you
very much, Mr. President.
This bill would establish a program
to be run by the Governor so that there would
be an annual public recognition of organ
donors, their families. It would also include
bone marrow donors.
The point would be to publicize the
need for organ donation, to commemorate those
who have been donors, and to elevate this
issue in terms of public awareness. This is
in harmony with what we have put in this
resolution of this house for our budget
resolution, which is a part-year payment of a
comprehensive program to increase organ
donation in the state.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Hassell-Thompson.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank
you. If the Senator will yield just for a
couple of questions.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Hannon, do you yield for a question?
10574
SENATOR HANNON: Yes, I do.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank
you. Mr. President, through you.
Senator, since the current Public
Health Law only codifies the work of the
Transplant Council, how will the Medal of Life
be funded?
SENATOR HANNON: I'm sorry, I
didn't hear the question because of chatter
around me. Would -
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Okay.
Since the current Public Health Law only
codifies the work of the Transplant Council,
how will the Medal of Life be paid for?
SENATOR HANNON: I would presume
out of the monies available to the department.
Since we're not talking about a
valuable medal, but more of an honorary
commemoration, I do not believe there's much
of a cost to this program.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Okay.
It was just an interesting concern because
it's a codifying agency as opposed to a funded
10575
agency.
SENATOR HANNON: Senator, we
appropriate billions of dollars to the
department. There are over a hundred
different councils that we appropriate -- that
are existing in the department. We have them
staffed through the general administration
monies that go to the department. I am
confident that in those monies this program
would be fully funded.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Good.
Okay. Thank you.
On the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Hassell-Thompson, on the bill.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: I just
asked that question because -- again, for the
purpose of the concern that I raised.
But I think the bill itself has
tremendous merit, and I commend you for this
bill, Senator Hannon, and the Governor. As a
person who has a family member who has
constantly been on a list looking for and
seeking a donor for a kidney, for a proper
match, I think that anyone who comes forward
10576
and who does bone marrow participation and
anything that helps to enhance the quality of
life for people should in some way be
recognized.
And I think that the Governor has
done a tremendous thing in helping to raise
the consciousness of us about the need to
participate in a donor's program as well as
recognizing and acknowledging those who
participate.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Any
other Senator wish to be heard?
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 55.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
Senator Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Yes, Mr.
President. May we now return to the order of
10577
reports of standing committees. I understand
there's a report of Rules Committee at the
desk. I ask that that be read.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Reports
of standing committees.
The Secretary will read the report
of the Rules Committee.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Bruno,
from the Committee on Rules, reports the
following bills:
Senate Print 2227A, by Senator
Morahan, an act to amend the Vehicle and
Traffic Law.
2312A, by Senator Kuhl, an act to
amend the Parks, Recreation and Historic
Preservation Law.
2383C, by Senator Marcellino, an
act to amend the Education Law.
2402B, by Senator Seward, an act to
amend the Public Health Law.
3978, by Senator Stafford, an act
to amend the Public Officers Law.
4014, by Senator Marcellino, an act
to authorize the New York State.
4304, by Senator Spano, an act to
10578
amend the Public Health Law.
4639A, by Senator Farley, an act to
amend the State Finance Law.
5006B, by Senator Farley, an act to
amend the Banking Law.
5279A, by Senator Leibell, an act
to amend the General Municipal Law.
5376A, by Senator Mendez, an act to
authorize the commissioner.
5397, by Senator Meier, an act to
authorize the Town of Verona.
5514, by Senator Lack, an act to
amend the Surrogate's Court Procedure Act.
5535A, by Senator M. Smith, an act
authorizing the City of New York.
5583, by Senator Seward, an act to
amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law.
5617, by the Senate Committee on
Rules, an act to amend the Labor Law.
5651, by Senator Gonzalez, an act
to authorize the New York Public Library.
5658, by Senator Velella, an act to
amend the New York City Charter.
And 5659, by Senator Nozzolio, an
act in relation to authorizing.
10579
All bills ordered direct to third
reading.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Move to accept the
report of the Rules committee.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: All
those in favor of accepting the report of the
Rules Committee signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Those
opposed, nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
report of the Rules Committee is accepted.
All bills directly to third
reading.
Senator Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Yes, the members
have had placed on their desks Senate
Supplemental Calendar 57A. May we now have
the noncontroversial reading of that calendar.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: With
regard to Supplemental Calendar 57A, the
Secretary will read the noncontroversial
10580
calendar.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1300, by Senator Morahan, Senate Print 2227A,
an act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the 30th day.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 55.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1316, by Senator Kuhl, Senate Print 2312A, an
act to amend the Parks, Recreation and
Historic Preservation Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect 180 days.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
10581
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 55.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1317, by Senator Marcellino, Senate Print
2383C, an act to amend the Education Law and
others.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 11. This
act shall take effect in 18 months.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 55.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1318, by Senator Seward, Senate Print 2402B,
an act to amend the Public Health Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
10582
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 55.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: In relation to
Calendar Number 1319, Senator Stafford moves
to discharge, from the Committee on Finance,
Assembly Bill Number 8932 and substitute it
for the identical Senate Bill Number 3978,
Third Reading Calendar 1319.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:
Substitution ordered.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1319, by the Assembly Committee on Rules,
Assembly Print Number 8932, an act to amend
the Public Officers Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 55.
10583
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1320, by Senator Marcellino, Senate Print
4014, an act to authorize the New York State
and Local Police and Fire Retirement System.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: 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 MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 55.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1321, by Senator Spano, Senate Print 4304, an
act to amend the Public Health Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
10584
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 55.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1322, by Senator Farley, Senate Print 4639A,
an act to amend the State Finance Law -
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Lay it aside.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Lay the
bill aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1323, by Senator Farley, Senate Print 5006B,
an act to amend the Banking Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 54. Nays,
1. Senator Spano recorded in the negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
10585
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1324, by Senator Leibell, Senate Print 5279A,
an act to amend the General Municipal Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 5. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 55.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1325, by Senator Mendez, Senate Print 5376A,
an act to authorize the Commissioner of
General Services.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 6. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 55.
10586
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1326, by Senator Meier, Senate Print 5397, an
act to authorize the town of Verona, Oneida
County.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: There is
a home rule message at the desk.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 5. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 55.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: In relation to
Calendar Number 1327, Senator Lack moves to
discharge, from the Committee on Judiciary,
Assembly Bill Number 7345 and substitute it
for the identical Senate Bill Number 5514,
Third Reading Calendar 1327.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:
Substitution ordered.
10587
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1327, by Member of the Assembly Rivera,
Assembly Print Number 7345, an act to amend
the Surrogate's Court Procedure Act.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 55.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: In relation to
Calendar Number 1328, Senator M. Smith moves
to discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
Assembly Bill Number 9133B and substitute it
for the identical Senate Bill Number 5535A,
Third Reading Calendar 1328.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:
Substitution ordered.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
10588
1328, by the Assembly Committee on Rules,
Assembly Print Number 9133B, an act
authorizing the City of New York.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 54. Nays,
1. Senator Dollinger recorded in the
negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1329, by Senator Seward, Senate Print 5583, an
act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
10589
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 55.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: In relation to
Calendar Number 1330, Senator Bruno moves to
discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
Assembly Bill Number 9202 and substitute it
for the identical Senate Bill Number 5617,
Third Reading Calendar 1330.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:
Substitution ordered.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1330, by the Assembly Committee on Rules,
Assembly Print Number 9202, an act to amend
the Labor Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect in 60 days.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 55.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
10590
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1331, by Senator Gonzalez, Senate Print Number
5651, an act to authorize the New York Public
Library.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 54. Nays,
1. Senator Dollinger recorded in the
negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: In relation to
Calendar Number 1332, Senator Velella moves to
discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
Assembly Bill Number 4283 and substitute it
for the identical Senate Bill Number 5658,
Third Reading Calendar 1332.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:
Substitution ordered.
10591
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1332, by Member of the Assembly Nolan,
Assembly Print Number 4283, an act to amend
the New York City Charter.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 55.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
Senator Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Yes, Mr.
President. May we now have the controversial
reading, beginning and ending with Calendar
Number 1322, by Senator Farley.
SENATOR SPANO: Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Spano, why do you rise?
SENATOR SPANO: On Calendar 1323
I would like the record to reflect I'd be
10592
voting in the affirmative.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
record will so reflect, Senator.
The Secretary will read Calendar
1322.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1322, by Senator Farley, Senate Print 4639A,
an act to amend the State Finance Law.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Farley, an explanation has been requested of
Calendar 1322 by Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR FARLEY: Thank you, Mr.
President.
Senator Dollinger, this is a bill
that will encourage the placement of state
deposits by the Comptroller in local community
banks. You know, this should help stimulate
economic development throughout the state and
the communities by supporting the ability of
local banks to make these commercial loans.
This is based on a very successful program in
California.
This is an opportunity for New York
to stimulate the local economy by expanding
10593
the placement of state deposits with eligible
New York financial institutions.
Now, let me just say this. One of
the concerns is, and I suspect-- anticipate a
question, why aren't the savings banks into
it? Well, this bill was drawn by the
independent bankers. They did all the work on
it. And at this stage I'm more than happy,
and I spoke with my ranker on that, to
introduce legislation to include the savings
bank and maybe a bill to even include the
credit unions.
Could the Comptroller do this? He
probably could do it right now, except he
would like authorization. He feels
uncomfortable doing it without the express
consent, if you will, or direction of the
Legislature.
It's a good piece of the
legislation, and it's one that will allow the
Comptroller to help economic development, in
my judgment, throughout the state.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Mr.
President, briefly on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
10594
Dollinger, on the bill.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Senator
Farley raised properly the question that I was
going to air, which was why we didn't provide
for the savings bank and other depositary
institutions in this state that would be -
clearly have the same kinds of benefits that
the community bankers enjoy through this bill.
That's no reason to vote against
it, Senator Farley. I think it's a good idea.
But I would encourage that amendment to come
forward as quickly as possible. Because it
seems to me if we're going to, in essence,
give the Comptroller the ability to lay out
more of our cash in community banks, which is
a good idea, it would be appropriate that we
do it throughout the spectrum of our banking
alternatives in this state.
So I'll vote in favor and encourage
that maybe next year we'll see an amendment
that will allow that to happen.
SENATOR FARLEY: -- instead of a
separate bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Any
other Senator wish to be heard?
10595
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the 120th day.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 55.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
Senator Kuhl, that completes the
controversial reading of Supplemental Calendar
57A.
SENATOR KUHL: Thank you, Mr.
President. My colleagues, the members, have
been so attentive to their bills and being
here to debate them and to ask questions and
to pass them quickly that we are temporarily
out of work. So we will stand at ease pending
a call of another Rules Committee meeting
shortly.
But the members should be around,
because as the messages of necessity arrive
from the second floor we will be taking those
bills up as they come up, and hopefully we'll
move to conclusion.
10596
So the Senate will stand at ease.
(Whereupon, the Senate stood at
ease at 12:25 p.m.)
(Whereupon, the Senate reconvened
at 12:35 p.m.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Mr. President,
another batch of outstanding messages has
arrived from the second floor. So could we
call up Calendar 1333, by Senator Nozzolio, at
this time.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read Calendar 1333.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1333, by Senator Nozzolio, Senate Print 5659,
an act in relation to authorizing.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Yes. Is there a
message of necessity at the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: There is
a message at the desk.
SENATOR KUHL: Move we accept the
message.
10597
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: All
those in favor of accepting the message of
necessity signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Those
opposed, nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
message is accepted.
The bill is before the house.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 8. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Stachowski.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Explanation,
please. Just in case anybody wants one.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Nozzolio, an explanation has been requested by
Senator Stachowski.
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Thank you, Mr.
President.
10598
I am very pleased to provide an
explanation of this legislation. It's
something we have worked long and hard to
achieve, and that is the establishment of an
ag-tech park adjacent to the lands of
Cornell's experiment station in Geneva.
This is part of the biomed-biotech
revolution that we have seen in New York State
that was discussed in this chamber just two
nights ago regarding the future of biomed and
biotech. And this is a biotech plant
development where Cornell University is the
repository of the Germ C. plasm that is
essential to the major crops and continuation
of the major crops and is world-renowned in
terms of its agricultural research.
What this project is about is
marrying what is done with the ag research at
Cornell, the plant research at Cornell, and
the development of agribusiness and other
business related to life sciences. It is an
exciting prospect to be able to develop jobs
at a place where agricultural research has
been in existence now for over 150 years.
This language was developed in
10599
conjunction with Cornell University and the
State University of New York.
It does have an Assembly companion;
Assemblyman Magee is the sponsor. And I'm
certainly excited by this prospect of bringing
jobs to Geneva and the Central Finger Lakes to
this ag-tech park.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Stachowski.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: If Senator
Nozzolio would yield to one question, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator,
do you yield for a question?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: I'd be happy
to yield to Senator Stachowski.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Senator, do
you know if there's any truth to the rumor
that besides the land exchange that OGS will
get one plant to be named later?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: I am not an
expert in botany or biology, Senator
Stachowski, but I'm sure there will be a place
for a "Senator Stachowski tomato" or some type
10600
of offspring that we could develop there.
(Laughter.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 8. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 55.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
Senator Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Yes, Mr.
President. We will be having a Rules
Committee meeting in 15 minutes. My time
right now is approximately twenty minutes of
1:00. So at 12:55, five minutes of 1:00,
there will be a Rules Committee meeting in the
Majority Conference Room, Room 332.
And we should stand at ease until
the report of the Rules Committee.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: There
will be a meeting of the Rules Committee at
12:55 in the Majority Conference Room.
10601
The Senate will stand at ease
pending the report of the Rules Committee.
(Whereupon, the Senate stood at
ease at 12:40 p.m.)
(Whereupon, the Senate reconvened
at 1:05 p.m.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Mr.
President, may we please return to the reports
of standing committees, for the report of the
Rules Committee.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Reports
of standing committees.
The Secretary will read the report
of the Rules Committee.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Bruno,
from the Committee on Rules, reports the
following bills:
Senate Print 2231, by Senator
Padavan, an act to amend the Vehicle and
Traffic Law.
3799A, by Senator Padavan, an act
to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law.
3917, by Senator Saland, an act to
10602
amend Chapter 748 of the Laws of 1991.
4168A, by Senator Bruno, an act to
amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law.
4399, by Senator Spano, an act to
amend the Retirement and Social Security Law.
4541, by Senator Leibell, an act to
amend the General Business Law.
4550A, by Senator Leibell, an act
to amend the County Law.
5062, by Senator Saland, an act to
amend the County Law.
5063A, by Senator Saland, an act to
amend the Public Officers Law.
5293, by Senator Seward, an act to
amend the Insurance Law.
5327, by Senator Morahan, an act to
amend the Education Law.
5383, by Senator Larkin, an act to
amend the General Municipal Law.
5454, by Senator M. Smith, an act
authorizing the City of New York.
5464A, by Senator Balboni, an act
to amend the Judiciary law.
5503, by Senator Hannon, an act to
amend the Public Health Law.
10603
5506B, by Senator LaValle, an act
to amend the Education Law.
5543, by Senator Lack, an act to
amend Chapter 689 of the Laws of 1993.
And 5549, by Senator Farley, an act
to amend the Banking Law.
All bills ordered direct to third
reading.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Move to
accept the report of the Rules Committee, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: All
those in favor of accepting the report of the
Rules Committee signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Those
opposed, nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
report is accepted.
All bills directly to third
reading.
Senator Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Mr.
President, on the first active list, will you
10604
kindly call up Calendar Number 1232.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read, from the first active
list, Calendar 1232.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1232, by Senator Velella, Senate Print 842A,
an act to amend the Insurance Law.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Is there a
message at the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: There is
a message at the desk.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Move to
accept.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: All
those in favor of accepting the message of
necessity signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Those
opposed, nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
message is accepted.
The bill is before the house.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
10605
act shall take effect on the 180th day.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 55.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: May we please
have the noncontroversial reading of the
Supplemental Calendar 57B, please.
Before we start, could we have some
order in the chamber.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Can we
have some order in the chamber. Senator
Fuschillo is very upset that we don't have
order in the chamber.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Thank you,
Mr. President. You may proceed.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read the noncontroversial
portion with regard to Senate Supplemental
10606
Calendar 57B.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1334, by Senator Padavan, Senate Print 2231,
an act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 54. Nays,
1. Senator Duane recorded in the negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1335, by Senator Padavan, Senate Print 3799A,
an act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law
and the Public Officers Law.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Lay that bill
aside, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Lay the
bill aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1336, by Senator Saland, Senate Print 3917, an
10607
act to amend Chapter 748 of the Laws of 1991.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 55.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1337, by Senator Bruno, Senate Print 4168A, an
act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law, in
relation to distinctive license plates.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 55.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
10608
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1338, by Senator Spano, Senate Print 4399, an
act to amend the Retirement and Social
Security Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: 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 MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 55.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1339, by Senator Leibell, Senate Print 4541,
an act to amend the General Business Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect January 1, 2002.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
10609
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 55.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: In relation to
Calendar Number 1340, Senator Leibell moves to
discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
Assembly Bill Number 6987A and substitute it
for the identical Senate Bill Number 4550A,
Third Reading Calendar 1340.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:
Substitution ordered.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1340, by Member of the Assembly Galef,
Assembly Print Number 6987A, an act to amend
the County Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 55.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
10610
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1341, by Senator Saland, Senate Print 5062, an
act to amend the County Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 55.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1342, by Senator Saland, Senate Print 5063A,
an act to amend the Public Officers Law, in
relation to residency.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Lay it aside,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Lay the
bill aside.
THE SECRETARY: In relation to
10611
Calendar Number 1343, Senator Seward moves to
discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
Assembly Bill Number 8950 and substitute it
for the identical Senate Bill Number 5293,
Third Reading Calendar 1343.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:
Substitution ordered.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1343, by the Assembly Committee on Rules,
Assembly Bill Number 8950, an act to amend the
Insurance Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 55.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: In relation to
Calendar Number 1344, Senator Morahan moves to
discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
10612
Assembly Bill Number 7913 and substitute it
for the identical Senate Bill Number 5327,
Third Reading Calendar 1344.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:
Substitution ordered.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1344, by Member of the Assembly Vitaliano,
Assembly Print Number 7913, an act to amend
the Education Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 55.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: In relation to
Calendar Number 1345, Senator Larkin moves to
discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
Assembly Bill Number 7310A and substitute it
for the identical Senate Bill Number 5383,
10613
Third Reading Calendar 1345.
SENATOR DUANE: Lay it aside.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:
Substitution ordered.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1345, by Member of the Assembly Gromack,
Assembly Print Number 7310A.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Lay the
bill aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1346, by Senator M. Smith, Senate Print 5454,
an act authorizing the City of New York to
reconvey its interest.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 5. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: There is
a home rule message at the desk.
Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 55.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
10614
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1348, by Senator Hannon, Senate Print 5503, an
act to amend the Public Health Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 55.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1350, by Senator Lack, Senate Print 5543, an
act to amend Chapter 689 of the Laws of 1993.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
SENATOR DUANE: Lay it aside,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Lay the
bill aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1351, by Senator Farley, Senate Print 5549, an
act to amend the Banking Law, in relation to
10615
credit unions.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 55.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
Senator Fuschillo, that completes
the noncontroversial reading of the calendar
with regard to Supplemental Calendar 57B.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Can we now
take up the controversial reading.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read the controversial
calendar.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1335, by Senator Padavan, Senate Print 3799A,
an act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law
and the Public Officers Law.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Explanation.
SENATOR LACK: Senator Padavan,
10616
Senator Dollinger has requested an explanation
for Calendar 1335.
SENATOR PADAVAN: Thank you, Mr.
President.
This bill, which applies only to
New York City, would allow a demonstration
project that would sunset in five years that
during the first year would allow 10 speed
cameras, and in the second year 20, and no
more than 20 thereafter, to be put in place in
certain critical locations in the city of
New York.
Now, speed cameras are not a new
thing. They've been used in various capital
cities throughout Europe for over 30 years.
In this country, places like Denver, Colorado,
the city of Washington, and a couple of other
places have used them to good effect for a
number of years.
We have some problems in some of
the major thoroughfares in the city of
New York. Despite the best efforts of traffic
police and others, we've had people killed and
injured. One major boulevard, called Queens
Boulevard, in my county, this year alone over
10617
63 people were killed or injured due to
speeding.
And so while this is not a panacea
or an ultimate answer to that problem, we
think it may help. However, it is a pilot
program, and we'll see if our thoughts are on
proper course.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Hevesi.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you, Mr.
President.
I'm pleased to be supporting this
bill that's before us. This is an important
bill for residents in New York City. We've
got a real problem with slowing people down on
the roadways. I've spoken about it a number
of times on the floor of this house.
I actually sponsor a similar bill
to the one that we're now considering. But to
be honest with you, I really -- I care less
about the politics and more about the policy.
So the fact that we're going to
have a policy that enables the City of
New York to go ahead and install speed cameras
in New York City, which will, we know -- based
10618
on our experience with the red light camera,
we know that the speed camera program will be
a deterrent, it will slow people down. And
this is one of the leading factors in fatal
car crashes and in auto accidents that result
in death and serious injuries to people in
cars -- and to pedestrians, by the way.
And as the State Senator
representing the greatest share, the greatest
portion of Queens Boulevard, a ten-lane
boulevard in my district, which is really more
analogous to a highway, where we've taken ten
or fifteen measures to make the streets safer
for people, this is yet another measure that I
think will go a long way to making the roads
safer for drivers. We've got to stop cars
from violating the law flagrantly, and this is
one of the ways we're going to do it.
And it's not Big Brother, for all
those who are concerned about it. These
cameras only photograph the license plate of
the automobile. There's no points put on the
person's driver's license, because there's no
way to know who actually was driving the
vehicle. This is not somebody looking over
10619
your shoulder or government intruding, this is
government protecting the citizenry in a very,
very responsible way.
I commend the sponsor for bringing
it. I don't care whether it's my bill or
Senator Padavan's bill. I care that it gets
done and that it saves people's lives.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Balboni.
SENATOR BALBONI: Will Senator
Padavan yield to a question, please?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Padavan, do you yield to a question?
SENATOR PADAVAN: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR BALBONI: Senator
Padavan, I have, as I think many people in the
chamber have always had, some concerns about
the use of cameras for traffic enforcement,
though I understand that the program with the
cameras and the lights has been very
successful for the city of New York.
And just to be clear, and I know
10620
Senator Hevesi had mentioned it, this program
now and the demonstration project, the pilot
project specifically for Queens Boulevard, if
an individual is given, issued a ticket as a
result of traveling in excess of the speed
limit -- in any excess; in other words,
whether it's 5 miles over or 25 miles over -
they'll be issued a ticket and then the fine
will be assessed by the traffic or parking
violations agency in the city of New York?
SENATOR PADAVAN: Right.
SENATOR BALBONI: It's an
administrative proceeding.
SENATOR PADAVAN: It is
administrative, that's correct.
SENATOR BALBONI: But no points
will be assigned -
SENATOR PADAVAN: No points
assigned, for obvious reasons. You don't know
who's driving.
And that's very similar -- not
identical -- to the program that's in effect,
as you mentioned, going through red lights,
where you get a photograph of your vehicle
with your license plate and a ticket to pay,
10621
but no points or anything else associated with
that.
SENATOR BALBONI: Thank you.
On the bill, Mr. Speaker -- sorry,
Mr. President. Sorry about that.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Balboni, on the bill.
You're in the Senate now.
SENATOR BALBONI: Thank you for
the reminder.
I understand very much what Senator
Padavan is doing and the concern, particularly
of the Queens delegation, over the tragedies
that have occurred on Queens Boulevard in
particular. My constituency also drives in
the great city of New York. And as a
representative from the suburban communities,
I have great concern over the use of
photoelectronics to enforce traffic
regulations.
I support the concept as it is here
in a demonstration program in a very limited
sense. Without doing points, you will get rid
of some of the problems attendant to trying to
prosecute a case when you can't be sure of
10622
who's driving. However, there's a difficulty
associated with this scheme. And that is that
if you have somebody who drives recklessly and
at such a speed -- so let's say they're doing
100 miles an hour down Queens Boulevard, and
then the picture is taken of the vehicle.
You're going to have law
enforcement put in a peculiar situation,
because now it's not just a traffic
infraction, it's reckless endangerment. And
so now you're going to -- the DA might want to
get involved.
See, the thing with running a red
light is that very rarely is there a potential
of a felony violation involved with that
incident. Speeding at a certain level can
become a felony offense, depending upon the
circumstances. And so I think that what we
have here is a potential conflict in the
prosecutorial capabilities when it comes to
enforcing traffic violations in excessive
situations.
With that reservation, I support
the concept, but I'm going to be voting in the
negative.
10623
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Any
other Senator wish to be heard?
Senator Velella.
SENATOR VELELLA: Mr. President,
may I explain my vote briefly?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: We'll
have to do the roll call first.
SENATOR VELELLA: Oh, I'm sorry,
I thought we were on it. I'm sorry.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Mr.
President, I didn't have an opportunity to
talk to the sponsor. Will he yield for a
question?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Padavan, will you yield for a question from
Senator Fuschillo?
SENATOR PADAVAN: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Senator
Padavan, just one quick question. And I'm
looking at the bill itself, and it mentions
10624
photographs, microphotographs, videotape, or
other recorded images produced by the
speed-limit photo device.
My one question to you is, what is
the privacy policy that is associated with
this as far as who maintains the photos and
where the photos go after the violation has
been sent to the driver?
SENATOR PADAVAN: As I understand
it, again, very similar if not identical to
that procedure that's followed with going
through a red light, a program that's been in
effect for a number of years. The photos and
the other documents associated with the
infraction would remain in the possession of
the Traffic Violations Bureau.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Thank you,
Senator. Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: There is
a home rule message at the desk.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 16. This
act shall take effect on the 30th day.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
10625
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Velella, to explain his vote.
SENATOR VELELLA: Mr. President,
I sympathize with the problem that Senator
Padavan has in his district. And we've been
talking about this bill almost all session.
I have seen what the Parking
Violations Bureau has done and what the Motor
Vehicle Department has done with the
permission we gave them to put cameras in to
catch people passing red lights in the city.
Many of our colleagues in the chamber have
called my office to ask me what I can do to
help them because their constituents are
getting tickets for passing red lights when
they weren't even there.
I know there's supposed to be a
photograph, and I know there's supposed to be
a visible view of the license plate. I have
seen a lot of people try to fight these and
get the short end of the stick and have to
wind up paying for these tickets. I don't
believe, in spite of what the city says or
what the sponsor may say, that sufficient
10626
technology is available to make this accurate
and make it a secure type of conviction for a
person. I don't believe we have the right to
impose these fines on people with the slipshod
type of photography that goes on. I don't
think they're accurate.
I think a lot of the people in this
chamber are going to have constituents
contacting them and saying they got tickets,
they were cited. And probably the answer,
unfortunately, is going to be your best bet is
to pay the fine because it doesn't go on your
license.
I'm not going to vote for this.
But I ask all of my colleagues, when you get
the calls from your constituents, don't call
me; remember, I voted against it.
SENATOR LACK: Senator Velella
will be recorded in the negative.
Senator Lachman, to explain his
vote.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Several of my
colleagues have spoken through the box in my
office. I ran over to explain my vote.
I strongly endorse the speed-camera
10627
approach. It has not been tried out in any
city in the United States as of now, but it
has been successfully used in many European
countries. And I think, as several of my
colleagues have said, it will probably cut
down the rate of accidents in this country.
What I don't completely understand,
there are two methods of using this. There's
the method of rubberizing part of the
streets -
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Excuse
me a moment, Senator.
Can we have some order in the
chamber so the stenographer can hear.
Go ahead, Senator Lachman.
SENATOR LACHMAN: -- to rubberize
part of the streets where you have the speed
camera, or through radar. But I'm sure that
will be more fully explained afterwards.
I think this is a major safety
issue for the city of New York, for major
areas of crossings such as has been mentioned,
Queens Boulevard in Queens, Ocean Parkway in
Brooklyn, and the Grand Concourse in the
Bronx, plus every other street in the city of
10628
New York.
I think it's a worthy experiment,
and I commend the sponsor of the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Lachman will be recorded in the affirmative.
Senator Stavisky, to explain her
vote.
SENATOR STAVISKY: To explain my
vote, Mr. President.
As the representative of the
western part of Queens Boulevard that has been
such a dangerous roadway, I am delighted to
vote for this bill. I saw it in operation
last winter, in the outskirts of London, and
it seemed to be working very, very well. And
I'm delighted to vote in the affirmative.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Stavisky will be recorded in the affirmative.
The Secretary will announce the
results.
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
the negative on Calendar Number 1335 are
Senators Balboni, Bonacic, Farley, Fuschillo,
Lack, Larkin, LaValle, Leibell, Marcellino,
Maziarz, McGee, Meier, Saland, Skelos, M.
10629
Smith, Stachowski, and Senator Velella. Ayes,
39. Nays, 17.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1342, by Senator Saland, Senate Print 5063A,
an act to amend the Public Officers Law.
SENATOR DUANE: Explanation,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Saland, an explanation has been requested of
Calendar 1542 by Senator Duane.
SENATOR SALAND: Thank you, Mr.
President.
Mr. President, this is a bill which
attempts to deal with the number of
30-some-odd -- in fact, somewhere between 30
and 35 is the exact number -- City of Yonkers
police members who currently reside in
Dutchess County or beyond the current
residential limits, as would otherwise be
required of them as City of Yonkers police
employees.
This bill, which has been supported
by a resolution of the Yonkers City Council,
10630
would enable these 30-plus City of Yonkers
policemen to continue to reside in the
communities that they're currently residing
in. I believe they've been there anywhere
from five to approximately thirty years.
It is limited in its scope to only
those employees, effectively grandfathering
them in. It does not expand that opportunity
to anybody else.
And it effectively also prevents
these people from being placed in a situation
in which they effectively would have to sell
the most valuable asset that they probably
possess, which is their home, at what would be
a fire sale, to buyers who might be apprised
of the situation that their positions were at
risk and they were required to leave their
current homes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Mr.
President. If the sponsor would yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Saland, do you yield for a question?
SENATOR SALAND: Yes, I do, Mr.
10631
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DUANE: Under what
circumstances did those 30 or 35 officers move
out of Yonkers?
SENATOR SALAND: I don't have any
idea whatsoever, Senator.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you, Mr.
President, would the sponsor continue to
yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Saland, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR SALAND: I'm advised by a
member of my staff that at least some of these
people may have been residing in Dutchess
County prior to their employment with the City
of Yonkers. That, I would assume, would apply
to some of the folks at the very least who
have been there the longest, but that's just
an assumption on my part.
SENATOR DUANE: And through you,
Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
10632
Saland, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR SALAND: Yes, I do, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DUANE: So it is possible
that some of the officers have broken the law
by not living in Yonkers?
SENATOR SALAND: I wouldn't
hazard a guess as to what they did or didn't
do. I would say that under the law that -
under the Public Officers Law it certainly
would raise a question at this point as to
whether their residences are appropriate.
SENATOR DUANE: And through you,
Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Saland, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR SALAND: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DUANE: What is the
thinking about giving these particular
10633
officers only the chance to remain in their
homes but not extending this to other officers
to not live in Yonkers?
SENATOR SALAND: I'm not sure I
understand the question.
SENATOR DUANE: Why is it only
these officers who are going to be allowed to
live in Dutchess County and not other
officers?
SENATOR SALAND: This is an
effort, in as limited a fashion as possible,
to address a problem that affects 30-some-odd
families that in the absence of this
legislation could find themselves at risk
under the Public Officers Law. It's not an
effort to open the door to have other folks
seek the opportunity to find residences that
might not comport with the Public Officers
Law.
It's the narrowest possible
application that we could come up with that
would address the needs of these people, who
to some extent are at financial risk, without
opening the entire system to wholesale
questions of whether people should be residing
10634
in certain locales or not. This is as limited
as limited could be.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you, Mr.
President, if the sponsor would continue to
yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Saland, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR SALAND: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DUANE: Can the sponsor
tell me what the vote was in the Yonkers City
Council on the resolution on this matter?
SENATOR SALAND: I don't know how
many members of the council -- how many
members comprise the council. But according
to the copy of the resolution, it was
unanimous, seven to nothing.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Hevesi.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you, Mr.
President. Would the sponsor please yield?
10635
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Saland, do you yield for a question?
SENATOR SALAND: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you, Mr.
President.
You'll forgive me, I want to be
totally clear about this. And I don't have
the sponsor's memo here, because this is one
of the bills that came out of the Rules
Committee.
So is the reason this bill is
necessary because Yonkers enacted a residency
requirement that was not prospective and now
we have to go back and grandfather in
individuals who are currently residing outside
of the city of Yonkers but have already been
employed by the Yonkers Police Department? Is
that accurate?
SENATOR SALAND: Senator, I can't
tell you whether it was not prospective. I
don't know when whatever action was taken by
the City of Yonkers may have been taken.
10636
I am basically attempting to deal
with a situation in which a number of people
who reside in my district, many of whom have
been there for prolonged periods of time, have
been advised that they are in violation of the
Public Officers Law.
As I mentioned in response to the
questions by Senator Duane, we've attempted to
do this in a fashion that would not impose or
attempt to interfere with the City of Yonkers,
only attempting to deal with these 30-some-odd
people who are currently living in Dutchess
County who would find themselves in a
situation in which, were they forced to comply
with the Public Officers Law, they would be
required to put their homes up for sale in
certainly a situation in which the
transactions would be less than arm's length.
It doesn't take much for the word
to get out that people are required to sell
their residences. If those residences are, as
would commonly be the case, the most valuable
asset that most families have, these people
would be put at great financial risk.
Again, it's an effort to deal with
10637
the problems that these people have, enable
them to continue to be employed as law
enforcement personnel within the City of
Yonkers. It's been unanimously supported by
the City of Yonkers. And we've attempted to
do it in a fashion that is so limited as to
not provide a precedent for repetition.
If there are others in other
communities that have similar problems or
similar situations, then certainly it's
incumbent upon them, if they wish to address
it, to seek similar local legislation.
SENATOR HEVESI: Mr. President,
would the sponsor continue to yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Saland, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR SALAND: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you, Mr.
President.
I'm still not clear. And the
reason I have a concern here, and I know some
of my colleagues do, I'm the sponsor of a bill
10638
that would allow New York City to adopt a
residency requirement prospectively for newly
hired police officers. And while I understand
the explanation you gave, I need to know why
it is that this is necessary now for these
individuals.
So I guess -- you know, we can do
it -- I could ask several questions that I
guess would lead us down that road. So let me
do that, then.
My first question, does the City of
Yonkers have a residency requirement for
police officers?
SENATOR SALAND: I thought I had
answered your question. I'm not aware of what
the City of Yonkers may have for its residency
requirement. I'm attempting to deal with the
Public Officers Law, which seems to be what is
at issue here.
If there is a City of Yonkers
residency requirement, then this similarly
would take care of the problem. I'm not aware
of it. If it's been enacted, I couldn't tell
you when, how long ago. I mean, it's truly
beyond my capacity. I'm not attempting to be
10639
disingenuous. It came to me as a Public
Officers Law problem, and that's what I'm
attempting to deal with.
SENATOR HEVESI: Mr. President,
would the sponsor continue to yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Saland, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR SALAND: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you.
Through you, Mr. President, I don't
mean to be difficult here, but it's very
difficult for us to know whether or not we
should support this bill, which would
essentially exempt, I believe, from a
residency requirement police officers who are
current police officers in Yonkers who live
elsewhere. And we don't even know whether or
not there is a residency requirement in
Yonkers, when it happened, whether or not it
was prospective.
So I don't understand why we're
doing this, Senator Saland, without that
knowledge. How do we vote on this without
10640
knowing that?
SENATOR SALAND: Well, if that's
the question, let me suggest to you that you
try and focus on what I'm saying, and that may
be helpful for you. So listen carefully.
I'll do it once more.
There are 30-some-odd Dutchess
County residents who are members of the City
of Yonkers police force.
Are you with me so far?
SENATOR HEVESI: I've been with
you since the beginning, Senator.
SENATOR SALAND: Okay. There's a
resolution, which I'll be happy to share a
copy, passed unanimously by the City of
Yonkers. It makes no mention whatsoever of a
City of Yonkers residency requirement. It
does, however, mention a Public Officers Law
requirement.
If you'd care to check the Public
Officers Law, Section 3, perhaps -- why don't
you have somebody get a copy -- that will show
you where the issue lies. And that's what
we're attempting to deal with.
If there is in fact a City of
10641
Yonkers residency requirement, as I explained
to you before, I'm not aware of it, nor do I
believe anybody else in this chamber is aware
of it. But regardless of whether it exists or
not, this resolution, passed unanimously,
attests to the will of the City of Yonkers
City Council. If in fact there's such a city
requirement, they are saying with respect to
these 33 people -- and it specifically
mentions 33 people -- with respect to those 33
people, they are willing to waive that
requirement.
I am the Senator from the 41st
Senate District. Dutchess County is part of
that district. This is a request that comes
to me by local residents, supported by the
affected community. I am doing what I'm
supposed to do. I am taking, effectively, a
request from the local residents, supported by
a home rule request by the affected community,
and attempting to provide the enabling
legislation to make this happen.
Now, if you don't understand that,
ask all of the questions that you'd like to
ask. I'll be very happy to answer them. But
10642
I think I've explained to you how we got here.
SENATOR HEVESI: Mr. President,
I'm going to speak on the bill here.
ACTING PRESIDENT BALBONI:
Senator Hevesi, on the bill.
SENATOR HEVESI: Based on that
response -
ACTING PRESIDENT BALBONI:
Senator Duane, why do you rise?
SENATOR DUANE: I was hoping the
Senator would yield for a question.
ACTING PRESIDENT BALBONI:
Senator Hevesi, do you yield for a question?
SENATOR HEVESI: Sure, I'd be
happy to yield.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you.
Senator Hevesi, is it your concern
on this bill that perhaps -- or is one of your
concerns that potentially -- and no one in the
chamber seems to know, even the ones that
claim to be doing their jobs, whether or not
these officers have actually broken perhaps
local law or, even worse, the State Public
Officers Law. Is that one of your concerns?
SENATOR HEVESI: It's one of the
10643
six or seven concerns I have about this,
Senator Duane. Since we don't know whether or
not these police officers who we are now going
to exempt from a section of the Public
Officers Law, and maybe local law in Yonkers
which requires them to live inside the
district, whether or not these officers are
currently in violation, whether or not there
are any other officers who are currently
required to live in the city of Yonkers
because they are current police officers but
live in other counties and now we're going to
have an equity issue, and only Dutchess County
police officers who live there but work in the
Yonkers Police Department are going to be
extended this benefit -- where somebody else,
in Orange County, perhaps, who works for the
Yonkers Police Department now will have to
move into the district to be in compliance.
That may not be a problem, because
maybe they should be in compliance; I don't
know. I don't even know if there's a
residency requirement for Yonkers police
officers. But it certainly opens the door for
a slew of questions, including the equity
10644
question.
And frankly, Senator Duane, I don't
understand -- and I was not trying to be
antagonistic towards the sponsor, but I don't
understand why I received a hostile response,
that it was disconcerting for me to ask
whether or not there was a residency
requirement for Yonkers police officers in a
bill that seemingly would exempt them from not
only the Public Officers Law but, by
extension, a requirement that they should live
in the city of Yonkers.
And I'm very concerned about it,
since I fully support a residency requirement,
prospective -- and this is a major issue in
the bill that I sponsor, because in the bill
that I sponsor current police officers who
work for the City of New York but live outside
the city of New York are grandfathered in.
So the third or fourth question I
would have asked the sponsor was when the
Yonkers residency requirement was enacted -
and I believe there is one; otherwise, none of
this makes sense -- did they forget to
grandfather certain people in, did they mean
10645
to, were the same seven people who voted yes
for this resolution, are they the ones who
voted not to grandfather people in, did they
mean to do that or did they make a mistake?
And there are a slew of questions
here that I and my colleagues -- and I believe
you too, Senator Duane -- need answered before
we know whether or not we should be voting on
this bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT BALBONI:
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: And through you,
Mr. President, if the Senator will continue to
yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT BALBONI:
Senator Hevesi, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you, Mr.
President, I'd be happy to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT BALBONI: Please
proceed, Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Mr.
President.
First let me just first say how
pleased I am that even in these closing,
rushed days of our time here in Albany that
10646
you, Senator Hevesi, have continued to keep an
air of civility. Which, as you know, was one
of the rules which were touted so much at the
beginning of this session. And I'm glad that
you haven't forgotten that rules change from
earlier on in this session which encouraged us
to be so very civil, particularly when we're
asking questions.
And with that, Senator Hevesi,
though I know if this had been your bill you
would have known all the answers to these
questions -- but I'll try anyway, since you
seem to be the person most willing to actually
engage in a discussion about this bill, which
has implications not just for police officers
in Yonkers but in fact having to do with
residency requirements for people in all kinds
of professional categories throughout the
state.
Saying all that, Senator Hevesi, do
you also feel that this has implications for
other employees in other job categories in
Yonkers who may or may not be living in the
city of Yonkers and what would happen in terms
of the Public Officers Law or local Yonkers
10647
law?
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you,
Senator Duane. It's another excellent
question.
And I should like to point out for
everyone that the bill that I sponsor does not
enact the residency requirement for New York
City police officers. What it does, and it's
much more broad, which is why I'm answering
your question this way, it enables the City of
New York, if they choose to, to enact a
prospective residency requirement for any
member of the uniformed services in New York
City.
And again, I don't know -- because
the sponsor has not shared with us, and I
don't know if he knows -- whether or not there
is a residency requirement, prospective or
otherwise, for not only police officers in the
City of Yonkers but firefighters or sanitation
workers or corrections officers or anybody
else.
So it certainly would beg the
additional question -- and I commend you,
Senator Duane, for realizing that and bringing
10648
it up. That's another equity issue -- are we
now providing a benefit, an exemption here for
police officers, not just in one county -
which could disenfranchise individuals who
live in other counties but are still required
to live in Yonkers because they work in the
police department -- but folks in the same
situation, irrespective of the county where
they work in, depending on whether or not they
are corrections officers or some other type of
municipal employee in Yonkers?
The answer to your question is I
don't know, because we don't have the
information on the purpose of this bill.
SENATOR DUANE: And through you,
Mr. President, if the Senator would continue
to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT BALBONI:
Senator Hevesi, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you, Mr.
President, I'd be happy to continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT BALBONI: Please
proceed, Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Mr.
President.
10649
There is a scenario that occurred
to me that is really quite distressing, and
I'm not sure whether it's true or not, but I
feel it's important to put it out there so
that we can think about it as we decide how we
want to vote on this particular piece of
legislation.
We've all heard stories of
politicians who had fake addresses and that
sort of thing. And I guess other people do
it, not just politicians, civil or uncivil.
And I'm wondering if perhaps some
of these officers had fake addresses in the
city of Yonkers, got caught, and are now
trying to legislatively rectify their having
done something inappropriate about their
residences.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you for
raising that point, Senator Duane. The answer
is I don't know whether that's the situation.
Presumably, if that was the case,
there has been for some time a residency
requirement for Yonkers police officers. And
under that potential scenario, which I don't
know if that's true, I'm not suggesting it's
10650
true -- and I don't think you have suggested
it's true, you've simply raised the
possibility -- it is possible.
And if that's the case, then there
was a residency requirement, though we don't
know when that was enacted, and these
individuals were probably in violation of the
law in that scenario.
And if that's true and it's been
discovered for some reason and we're now
exempting these police officers who have been
in violation of the law for some time, my
question is not only do we not know if that's
the circumstance that has led to this bill, I
want to know whether the seven members of the
city council in Yonkers know that that's the
situation or we're just doing this as a gift
to some individuals who may have been in
violation of the law without our knowledge,
without the sponsor's knowledge, and possibly
even without the knowledge of the local city
council members.
It's an excellent question. I
don't want to suggest or disparage in any way
anybody who works for the Yonkers Police
10651
Department. I'm sure that they are terrific
and fine public servants who put their lives
on the line every single day. But, you know,
when we don't have the answers to the
questions as to what that bill is all about
and why it's necessary and what its
implications could be, we are forced to
explore in our own minds -- and this is not to
do a mental exercise here, but this is because
it's our responsibility to ascertain the full
ramifications of the policy measures that we
adopt here -- whether or not that situation
that you outlined, Senator Duane, which to me,
if that occurred -- and I hope that's not the
case. I don't even think it is the case,
because that would just be too egregious to
think about.
But if it was the case and we were
voting on this without that knowledge and did
in fact grant an exemption to individuals who
knew they were in violation of the law, that
would be wrong.
SENATOR DUANE: And through you,
Mr. President, if the Senator would continue
to yield.
10652
ACTING PRESIDENT BALBONI:
Senator Hevesi, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR HEVESI: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT BALBONI: Please
proceed, Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: I know that
Senator Hevesi shares a concern that I have,
and has voiced it, about precedents on
something like that. And one of the more
interesting and unique qualities of this bill,
which the sponsor did mention, as it had to do
with an area that he represents, is that the
exemption only goes for a distance of two
counties.
And I'm wondering if we've gotten
the full idea of what -- we know that Dutchess
County is potentially two counties away from
the city of Yonkers. But what if you were,
for instance, to look at -- are each borough,
each county in the City of New York considered
one county?
I'm wondering how that works and
whether or not, for instance, Staten Island
then would be included in this and, if a
10653
police officer had an address in Staten Island
but worked in Yonkers, would that count?
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you.
Through you, Mr. President, that's another
question that I don't have the answer to.
And which leads me to ask another
question, which is though I understand why
Senator Saland is the sponsor of this bill,
because he is the individual who represents
the individuals who are seeking, presumably,
an exemption, it does raise the question as to
why we don't have as the sponsor an individual
who actually represents Yonkers.
And if we had a sponsor who
represented Yonkers, you know, we might then
have the answer to the question of why we have
this contiguous -- two-county contiguous
provision. The answer is I don't know.
And now I think we're up to five or
six different questions which we now don't
have the answers to. And as I explore this,
and I'm sure as you explore it, it's becoming
increasingly unlikely that I'm going to
support this bill. There are too many
unanswered questions here. And I don't know
10654
the answer to that question too, Senator
Duane. It's a good question.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you.
Mr. President, I'm having some
trouble hearing, though.
ACTING PRESIDENT BALBONI: Ladies
and gentlemen, could we please have some order
in the chamber.
Please take your conversations
outside. There's a debate that's proceeding.
Thank you very much.
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Mr.
President. If the Senator would continue to
yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT BALBONI:
Senator Hevesi, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR HEVESI: Yes, Mr.
President, I continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT BALBONI: Please
proceed, Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you.
And may I just preface this. I
very, very, very much appreciate your patience
with my questions, Senator Hevesi. And I'm
10655
really learning a great deal from your
answers. It's terrific in this body, in this
chamber when we can have civil debates on
issues when I guess it has to be acknowledged
that we don't always know as much about our
bills as perhaps we should know about our
bills. And that is embarrassing, but really
nothing to get testy and nasty about.
And I very much appreciate, though
you're not an expert on this bill, that you're
to the best of your ability answering my
questions in a civil and polite manner.
Saying that, let me continue with
my question, if I may, Senator Hevesi. I know
that you also share a concern with me on the
issue of localities being able to control
their destiny and that you're concerned about
local control. We both represent districts in
the City of New York. A lot of what happens
in the City of New York is controlled by the
State of New York. I assume that's a similar
situation in Yonkers, that so much of what
happens in Yonkers is also controlled by the
State of New York.
And I'm wondering what your
10656
thinking is, as we debate this bill, as to the
impact of how we vote on this bill in terms of
local control in Yonkers, particularly insofar
as there's confusion about what the intent of
this bill is.
SENATOR HEVESI: That's a good
question. I again thank Senator Duane for
raising a number of good questions here.
And, you know, I don't know if this
is out of order, but the questions that we
have are questions that we need to have
answered about the law in Yonkers. And though
the sponsor of this bill, which deals with the
law in Yonkers -- even though the bill doesn't
have that language, that's what this bill
does.
I know that Senator Spano, who is
in the chamber right now, represents that
area. And I'm sure he knows whether or not
there's a residency requirement, whether or
not it was prospective, whether or not there
are other police officers who would be -- who
need to be grandfathered in or whether or not
these offers should have been living in
Yonkers in the first place. I'm sure he can
10657
answer all those questions. And I'd be happy,
Senator Duane, to yield the floor to him at
some point.
But the question that you directly
asked regarding local control is one that
seems to me would indicate that there should
either be cosponsors of this measure or that
the Senator representing the area where the
police officers work should be the one who
actually brings this legislation. At the very
least we would have our questions answered,
which we now do not.
ACTING PRESIDENT BALBONI:
Senator Hevesi, would you like to proceed on
the bill? You were on the bill.
Senator Duane, are you still -
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Mr.
President.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT BALBONI:
Senator Hevesi, on the bill.
SENATOR HEVESI: Yeah, I'm going
to continue on the bill here.
This is a somewhat distressing
10658
situation. Let me tell you why. In all
sincerity, in all sincerity, Senator Saland is
one of the most knowledgeable Senators in this
chamber. He is always up-to-date and up to
speed on the bills that he brings to the
floor, has a complete understanding of the
policy issues not just on bills which he
sponsors but on other pieces of legislation,
and has always been exceptionally patient in
answering the questions.
So I'm a little troubled by today's
exchange. I know that he didn't mean anything
personally by it. But I'm surprised that the
Senator, and I take him at his word on this,
doesn't know the ramifications of this bill as
it pertains to what the current law is in
Yonkers.
So I'm going to stop on that point,
having said that. I think it's clear where
I'm heading with that.
On the bill, it seems to me that it
would be -- a couple of things. And I'm just
going by logic here, since I don't have the
answers. One, there is a residency
requirement for Yonkers police officers. It's
10659
hard to believe that there wouldn't be.
Number two, that residency
requirement may not have been a prospective
residency requirement, or it may have been.
I'm still not sure whether that's the case,
because I'm not even sure whether the police
officers that we're exempting under this
legislation, whether these officers are ones
that we are anticipating are going to be hired
or whether they are current police officers in
Yonkers.
If they are current police officers
in Yonkers and they're living in this other
county, then we'd have to know, wouldn't we,
Mr. President, when in fact Yonkers enacted a
residency requirement, and we'd have to know
whether or not it was a prospective
requirement to know whether these individuals
are currently in violation of the law and
whether or not we are then exempting them from
these requirements.
And if we're not, then why are we
doing this, and how did the inconsistency
arise in the Public Officers Law -- that is
the one point that Senator Saland was
10660
absolutely clear on -- if there is a conflict
right now where these individuals who live in
Dutchess and work for the Yonkers Police
Department, where these individuals are
currently in violation of the Public Officers
Law.
So that's the one inconsistency.
But I'd like to know how they came to be in
violation of the Public Officers Law and
whether or not they're in violation of any
other law. And it may be prudent to take this
action, what Senator Saland is suggesting.
But I can't vote for this, having
articulated a number of times, and again
today, whether or not I'm going to support
this bill, because I support residency
requirements, but only prospectively, for
newly hired police officers. I don't want to
take a vote on a measure here today that is in
fundamental conflict with my position that
would in any way undermine bringing that bill
to the floor and passing it, which is
something we have not been able to do in this
chamber for years and years and years -
which, by the way, is a tremendous, tremendous
10661
problem.
It is one of a series of measures
that we need to take in New York City to
better diversify our police force in a day and
age when we have a great problem with
fractured relationships between the minority
communities and police officers in New York
City.
And I want to know, by extension,
what's the implication in Yonkers if we go
ahead and do this? What kind of message are
we sending? Is this the message that the
Yonkers City Council, who voted seven-nothing
to do this, is that the message they want to
send? Do they, as Senator Duane brought up,
do they in fact know what they're doing here?
I know that they wanted to create this
exemption. But is the question of Senator
Duane a valid one, or could it be valid? Has
anybody investigated whether or not these
individuals are currently in violation of the
law and were just caught doing it right now?
And then all the further questions.
What's the ramification of doing this in terms
of equity for any other police officer who's
10662
employed by the City of Yonkers and who may
live in Orange or Putnam or any other of the
other counties -- what's the implication for
them? What happens if there suddenly become
other police officers who move to Dutchess
County? Are they in violation of the
residency requirement of Yonkers? I don't
know. Is it only prospective or is it not? I
don't know.
The bottom line, Mr. President, is
I think we've now raised probably 12 or 13
questions surrounding this legislation. And
I'll state again, this may be a good idea. I
have no way of knowing.
And since I have no way of knowing
and I haven't heard any responses to any of
the questions I've asked or any of the
questions that Senator Duane has asked -- and
I'd be happy to yield the floor to anybody who
wants to shed light on this -- I will not be
supporting this bill, because I don't know
whether or not this is a good idea, for all of
the reasons that I've enumerated here.
So I'll be voting no on this bill,
Mr. President.
10663
ACTING PRESIDENT BALBONI: Thank
you, Senator Hevesi.
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Mr.
President. On the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT BALBONI: On the
bill.
SENATOR DUANE: Let me collect my
thoughts. It's been a long week here in the
chamber of the State Senate. And I know it's
sometimes difficult for us to keep our good
humor and to not take out our frustrations on
others.
In fact, yesterday, two days ago I
was annoyed about something and I feel as if I
said something nasty to a staff member. And
not to pat myself on the back, but just to
show an example of something, I did go back
and apologize to him for having been so
unpleasant to him when in fact it wasn't that
person's fault.
And I think actually that's the
kind of thing that plays into what we call
civility here in the Senate chamber. And
civility can't just be a one-sided thing,
10664
civility really has to be something that's
shared by everyone. And sometimes civility
entails saying you're sorry when you've been
uncivil.
That said, perhaps it's because I
haven't been here as long as some others that
I'm able to keep somewhat better humor about
some of the ironies that go on here in the
Senate chamber. Certainly I'm frustrated that
we're doing bills like this one when
unfinished business, like all the poor people
who are languishing in state prisons under the
Rockefeller Drug Laws more than two counties
away from their homes are not getting any
redress here.
I don't want to begrudge these
police officers redress for what may or may
not have been a mistake on where they have
gone to live. But I am concerned that we're
sending a bad message, maybe a message about
Yonkers, the City of Yonkers. It seems to me
it's possible that a better sort of exception
would be to say that someone would live in the
county and not to live within two counties.
It's hard to -- it's really hard to determine
10665
that.
You know, I'd like to start, you
know, banging the desk and just say how sad it
is that, you know, when someone has made a
mistake they're completely unwilling to say
that they're sorry and they maybe spoke too
sharply or too quickly. But instead I think
I'll just voice my disapproval for that kind
of behavior, especially from someone that I
respect so much.
All of that said, there are way too
many questions about this piece of legislation
which have not been answered. And I don't
even think that there could be a claim made
that there was a hearing about this bill,
since it came out of Rules. And I just would
encourage my colleagues to vote no.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT BALBONI: Is
there any other Senator wishing to be heard on
this particular item?
If not, please read the last
section.
Senator Hassell-Thompson, why do
you rise?
10666
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: I rise
to hopefully -- Mr. Chairman, on the bill -
to hopefully bring a little bit of -
ACTING PRESIDENT BALBONI:
Senator Hassell-Thompson, on the bill.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: On the
bill.
I was in and out of the chamber
during the discussion because I was attempting
to get some clarity from the City of Yonkers
before I voted on this bill. Because I live
in the city of Mount Vernon, and the City of
Mount Vernon does in fact have a residency
requirement.
However, the City of Yonkers does
not have a residency requirement, but it only
has the state law that there is an attempt
here to clarify -- to change and to clarify in
order to rectify and to allow the ability of
police officers who may or may not live within
the City of Yonkers, but to give them the
appropriate latitude in Yonkers.
I think the only reason I'm
participating in the discussion is, as someone
who lives in a contiguous city, there is
10667
always the concern on the part of local
government to attempt to look for and to
attract police officers, any uniformed
municipal workers, from a larger stream than
may locally be available. Many times we find
ourselves, however, being very parochial, in
that we feel in some ways that we're not
giving our local residents the best
opportunities to apply for and to be given the
best incentives in order to work in those
localities.
I am normally opposed to lifting
the ban on the ability of police officers and
some other municipal workers from living
outside the locality because it is my sense
that we get a better quality of officer or
worker who has a commitment to that community.
However, having had an opportunity
to talk with one of the cosponsors of the
bill, I have a better sense that some of the
concerns that I raised earlier have been
dissipated, particularly because once I was
clear that the city council in the city of
Yonkers in total had approved this, then I
have no discomfort -- I am at least alleviated
10668
from the fact that there is an awareness on
the part of the local government to make that
kind of decision for themselves.
And I would be in dereliction -
particularly since I stood here so eloquently
yesterday and talked about Roosevelt having
the ability to make these decisions for
themselves, I certainly would not vote against
the right of the city council in Yonkers to
support this bill.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT BALBONI: Any
other Senator wishing to be heard on this
bill?
If not, read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT BALBONI: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT BALBONI:
Announce the results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 55. Nays,
2. Senators Duane and Hevesi recorded in the
negative.
10669
ACTING PRESIDENT BALBONI: The
bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1345, substituted earlier today by Member of
the Assembly Gromack, Assembly Print Number
7310A, an act to amend the General Municipal
Law and the Executive Law.
SENATOR DUANE: Explanation,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT BALBONI: An
explanation has been requested, Senator
Larkin.
SENATOR LARKIN: Mr. President,
this bill is going to amend the General
Municipal Law to decriminalize many aspects
with respect to the conduct of free bingo.
I didn't know it, and a lot of
others didn't know it, that you can't have
free bingo. Under the current law, when 15 or
more persons play bingo in a residential home,
or individuals play bingo without paying, this
is considered to be a misdemeanor. And it was
brought to my attention by a town clerk. So
that is how this all came about, Senator.
This legislation allows any number
10670
of people to play bingo in a residence as long
as participants do not pay money to
participate. In addition, this bill broadens
the exempt organizations that can conduct it.
The bill broadens the kinds of organizations
that conduct free bingo to include bona fide
religious, charitable, educational, fraternal,
civic.
It also imposes stricter standards
to ensure that these free bingo games are
conducted purely for the amusement of
participants and not for the profit of
charitable organizations, other for-profit
companies, or the participants.
The bill makes a technical
amendment to the Executive Law so that no
license is required to sell or distribute
bingo supplies used in the lawful conduct of a
free bingo.
This bill allows TV or Cablevision
to broadcast live, free bingos into nursing
homes, hospitals, and private homes for the
free entertainment of the elderly and those in
nursing homes.
I personally, Senator, as I
10671
explained to Senator Padavan and Senator
Dollinger, have gone into the Office of the
Aging in the two counties that I represent,
and to about a half a dozen nursing homes.
They would greatly accept this as a medium of
entertainment for those confined therein.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT BALBONI: Thank
you, Senator Larkin.
Is the explanation satisfactory?
SENATOR DUANE: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT BALBONI: The
explanation is satisfactory.
Please read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT BALBONI: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 57.
ACTING PRESIDENT BALBONI: The
bill is passed.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
10672
1347, by Senator Balboni, Senate Print 5464A,
an act to amend the Judiciary Law.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Is there a
message at the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
There is, sir.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Move to
accept.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: All
in favor of accepting the message signify by
saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
message is accepted.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect September 1, 2001.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 57.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
10673
bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1350, by Senator Lack, Senate Print 5543, an
act to amend Chapter 689 of the Laws of 1993.
SENATOR DUANE: Explanation,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: If
we can have some order in the house, we can
get this done.
If we can have some order in the
house. Take the conversations out of the
chamber, please.
Senator Lack, an explanation has
been asked for.
SENATOR LACK: This is a
three-year extender of the Electronic Court
Appearance Law.
SENATOR DUANE: I didn't hear
that, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator, Senator Duane did not hear the
explanation. Could you kindly repeat it for
him?
SENATOR LACK: This is a
three-year extender of the Electronic Court
10674
Appearance Law.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you, Mr.
President, if the sponsor would yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Lack, would you yield?
SENATOR LACK: Yeah.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR DUANE: Are there any
test results from the original test, pilot
program?
SENATOR LACK: I can't hear him.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Duane, Senator Lack is having a
problem hearing you now.
SENATOR DUANE: Are there any
results from the original pilot program?
SENATOR LACK: Are there any
results? Is that what you're asking, Senator?
Yeah. Works great.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Mr.
President. On the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: I'm
sorry, Senator Duane on the bill.
SENATOR DUANE: I'm sorry for the
10675
pause. I'm just collecting my thoughts so
that I can speak with a civil tongue.
Mr. President, I'm not going to
speak at this time.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: Any
other Senator wish to be heard on the bill?
Read the last section, please.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 56. Nays,
1. Senator Duane recorded in the negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
bill is passed.
Senator Fuschillo, why do you rise?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Mr.
President, at this time could we please take
up Supplemental Active List Number 2, the
noncontroversial calendar.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
Secretary will read the noncontroversial
calendar, Supplemental List Number 2.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
10676
496, by Senator Padavan, Senate Print 4331, an
act to amend the General City Law and
Chapter 772 of the Laws of 1966.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
There is a home rule message at the desk.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 25. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 57.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
587, by Senator Maziarz, Senate Print 1905A,
an act authorizing the Town of Greece.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Is there a
message at the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
There is, sir.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Move to
accept.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
motion is to accept the message of necessity
10677
at the desk. All in favor signify by saying
aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
message is accepted.
There is a home rule message at the
desk also.
The Secretary will read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay that
aside, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: Lay
the bill aside, please.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1027, by Senator Kruger, Senate Print 917, an
act authorizing the City of New York to
reconvey its interest.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
10678
There is a home rule message at the desk.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 5. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 57.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1030, by Senator M. Smith, Senate Print 2342,
an act authorizing the City of New York to
reconvey its interest.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
There is a home rule message at the desk.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 5. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 57.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
bill is passed.
10679
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1128, by Senator Velella, Senate Print 3316,
an act to amend the Administrative Code of the
City of New York.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
There is a home rule message at the desk.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 56. Nays,
1. Senator Duane recorded in the negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
bill is passed.
Senator Paterson, have you risen?
SENATOR PATERSON: Yes. Just
recently, Mr. President.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
is Senator Malcolm Smith's bill out of the
house?
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Yes, it -- it has passed.
10680
We could recall it, and you could
lay it aside.
SENATOR PATERSON: Nah, that's
all right.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: I
think it's a bill worthy of lengthy
discussion.
SENATOR PATERSON: That's all
right.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Mr.
President, please call up Calendar Number 587.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
Secretary will read.
We've already accepted the message
of necessity.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
587, by Senator Maziarz, Senate Print 1905A,
an act authorizing the Town of Greece.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: As
we said before, there is also a home rule
message at the desk.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
10681
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Dollinger, to explain his vote.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Mr. President.
In my nine years in this chamber
there have been big indignities, being a
member of the Minority of this house, there
are small indignities that sort of happen from
here to there, and then there's the indignity
of having a bill that originates in your own
community, in your own district, that you're
not even asked to be a sponsor of.
I guess those indignities are part
and parcel of this house. We have a rule that
requires civility between members. I'm not
quite sure I understand what it means when
that kind of action occurs. I guess someday
I'll appreciate what this house, maybe, in its
courtesy to its members means, but for some
reason I doubt it will happen when I'm still a
member.
10682
I'll vote in favor, Mr. President,
because it's the right thing to do, even
though I don't understand it.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Dollinger will be recorded in the
affirmative.
Senator Duane, to explain his vote.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Mr.
President, to explain my vote.
I'm also going to vote yes on this
bill and take my lead from the home Senator of
the town of Greece, who's Senator Dollinger,
and just acknowledge that I know that I'll be
able to sleep tonight with a clear conscience
that I've done the best job I can today and
tried to be as good to my fellow woman and man
as I possibly can. And I hope that Senator
Dollinger will sleep well tonight as well,
knowing that he's a gentleman and a person
with a very civil tongue.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
You're welcome.
Announce the results, please.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 57.
10683
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
bill is passed.
Senator Fuschillo, why do you rise?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Mr.
President, could we just restore order to the
chambers.
Will you please recognize Senator
Alesi.
SENATOR LACK: Senator Alesi.
SENATOR ALESI: Mr. President, I
ask unanimous consent to be recorded in the
negative on Calendar 1335.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: So
ordered.
Senator Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Mr.
President, could we restore order in the
chambers?
Upon restoring order, please
recognize Senator Spano.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Spano.
SENATOR SPANO: Mr. President,
I'd like the record to reflect that I'd like
to be voted in the negative on Calendar 1335.
10684
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
record will so reflect.
SENATOR SPANO: Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Mr.
President, there will be an immediate meeting
of the Finance Committee in the Majority
Conference Room.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
There will be an immediate meeting of the
Finance Committee in the Majority Conference
Room, please.
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
there will be an immediate meeting of the
Minority in the Minority Conference Room.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Senator Paterson, could you repeat that,
please?
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
upon reflection, it's come to me that maybe we
10685
don't need to have a Minority conference just
yet. But I have a feeling that one will come
eventually.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Thank you, Senator.
Just to repeat the announcement,
the Finance Committee will be meeting in the
Majority Conference Room immediately.
Senator Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Mr.
President, can we restore order to the
chambers.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: I
believe we have order, sir.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Will you
kindly call up Calendar Number 786.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The
Secretary will read Calendar Number 786.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
786, by Member of the Assembly Sidikman,
Assembly Print Number 1722A, an act to amend
the Public Health Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO:
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
10686
act shall take effect on the 180th day.
SENATOR DUANE: Lay it aside,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: Can
we lay the bill aside, please.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Will you lay
the bill before the house aside temporarily.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Calendar
786 will be laid aside temporarily.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Thank you.
Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: There will be
an immediate meeting of the Rules Committee in
the Majority Conference Room.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:
Immediate meeting of the Rules Committee in
the Majority Conference Room.
Senator Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Mr.
10687
President, could we restore order to the
chambers and return to Calendar Number 786,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Senate will come to order.
The Secretary will read Calendar
786.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
786, by Member of the Assembly Sidikman,
Assembly Print Number 1722A, an act to amend
the Public Health Law.
SENATOR DUANE: Explanation,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Marchi, Senator Duane has requested an
explanation of Calendar 786.
SENATOR MARCHI: I'm groping
desperately, Mr. President, for the fact sheet
on it.
But in any event, the requirement
is that certain listed places that -- on
premises where food is served, you must have
this resuscitation equipment available. You
don't have to have somebody available to use
it, but when something happens and a life or
10688
death situation -- and I'm just going from
memory. And if I -- if you're not satisfied
with it, I'll -- oh, okay, very good. Thank
you.
Availability of resuscitation
equipment in certain public places. And by
that is devoted to where there's the sale of
alcoholic beverages for on-premise
consumption, and also food. And it includes
health chubs and owners and operators of
restaurants.
So that if you need mouth-to-mouth
resuscitation, you can still do it, but you
have to have the equipment available. So if
there is someone there that can operate it, it
would facilitate matters.
So at this point, I would assume
that after we've had some experience with it,
that there will be further address to it on
either rules and regs and amplification by
other means of its utilization.
But at this time if you have it on
the premises, that will be sufficient. So
that if there is someone available within the
premises that can use it or knows how to
10689
operate it, they can do so.
You also invoke the Good Samaritan
law, so that you're not exposed to a lawsuit
by reason of your use of that equipment.
So I think that it's desperately
needed to have it at least available, at this
point, for as much as we know about it. It
does beg further amplification, I think. But
with the provisions that are in there, it does
not expose anyone to greater liability. But
on the other hand, its availability may save
lives. Certainly if it's available and there
are people who can see that it functions, it
will save lives.
So I think it's a good bill, Mr.
President. And I would hope that most of you
can support it. The Assembly, I believe, has
passed it.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Any
other Senator wish to be heard?
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect on the 180th day.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
10690
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 57.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
Senator Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Mr.
President, may we please return to the reports
of standing committees. I believe there's a
report of the Rules and Finance Committees,
respectively, at the desk.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Reports
of standing committees.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Bruno,
from the Committee on Rules, reports the
following bills:
Senate Print 1582, by Senator Rath,
an act to amend the Racing, Pari-Mutuel
Wagering and Breeding Law.
And Senate Print 1894A, by Senator
Libous, an act to amend the General Business
Law.
Both bills ordered direct to third
reading.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Move to
10691
accept the report of the Rules Committee.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: All
those in favor of accepting the report of the
Rules Committee signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Those
opposed, nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
report is accepted.
All bills directly to third
reading.
The Secretary will continue to
read.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Stafford,
from the Committee on Finance, reports the
following bill direct to third reading:
Senate Print 5680, by the Senate
Committee on Rules, an act to amend Chapter 20
of the Laws of 2001.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Without
objection, directly to third reading.
Senator Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Mr.
President, will you please call up Calendar
10692
Number 1352.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read Calendar 1352.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1352, by the Senate Committee on Rules, Senate
Print 5680, an act to amend Chapter 20 of the
Laws of 2001.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Is there a
message of necessity at the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Yes,
there is a message at the desk.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Move to
accept.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: All
those in favor of accepting the message of
necessity say aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Those
opposed, nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
message is accepted.
The bill is before the house.
Read the last section.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Lay it aside
10693
temporarily.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Lay the
bill aside temporarily.
Senator Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Mr.
President, will you please call up Calendar
Number 1353.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read Calendar 1353.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1353, by Senator Libous, Senate Print 1894A,
an act to amend the General Business Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: May I be
heard on the bill, Mr. President? I'll waive
the explanation from the sponsor.
SENATOR DUANE: Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Dollinger has the floor. Just a minute,
Senator.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: If Senator
Duane wants an explanation, I'll yield to him.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
10694
Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Explanation,
please, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Libous, an explanation has been requested by
Senator Duane.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Thank you, Mr.
President.
This is a piece of legislation that
was before us a couple of years ago. And like
many things that come before this house,
sometimes the second time around is much
better.
We have made a number of amendments
to the legislation, and what we have here is a
piece of legislation that is consumer-friendly
and it protects the car rental industry but at
the same time protects the consumer.
And some of the safeguards that we
put in this bill that we didn't have last time
was protection for the consumer against
discrimination by car rental agencies, where
there would be fines if discrimination took
place; posting of the nature of the collision
damage waiver, not only on the contracts but
10695
also well-posted within the car rental
facility.
And what it does is it lifts the
hundred-dollar cap. Right now in New York
State if you rent a car, you are liable for
only up to a hundred dollars. And what that
has caused is a tremendous problem where we
have lost hundreds of rental agencies,
particularly small ones who basically would
rent a car, the car might cost them $25,000 or
$30,000, the car would be totaled, and the
consumer was only liable, under present law,
for a hundred dollars.
This corrects that. This provides
opportunities for coverage. And we believe
that it will be good for the car rental
industry, it will bring car rental rates down,
and at the same time will protect the consumer
from any discrimination that may have taken
place in the past.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you.
Through you, Mr. President, would the sponsor
yield?
10696
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Libous, will you yield for a question?
SENATOR LIBOUS: Certainly.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you.
I'm wondering, is there an Assembly
sponsor of this bill?
SENATOR LIBOUS: Mr. President,
the Assembly version is active on the Assembly
calendar today. It is a same-as.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you, Mr.
President, if the sponsor would continue to
yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Libous, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR LIBOUS: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DUANE: Does that mean
it's a Rules bill in the Assembly at this
time?
SENATOR LIBOUS: No, it is not.
Assemblyman Klein has the bill on
the calendar.
10697
SENATOR DUANE: And through you,
Mr. President, would the sponsor continue to
yield?
SENATOR LIBOUS: Sure.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DUANE: On page 10, line
40, starting on line 40, there is a notice
about discrimination. Is that language that's
only -- is that new language?
SENATOR LIBOUS: That language
covers current law, Mr. President.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you, Mr.
President, if the sponsor would continue to
yield.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Yes, I will.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DUANE: I understand it
covers current law. But is this law a part of
the actual text of the legislation?
SENATOR LIBOUS: Yes, it is. But
it refers to current law.
SENATOR DUANE: And through you,
Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue
10698
to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Libous, do you yield?
SENATOR LIBOUS: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DUANE: In the
discussions about this bill was any thought
given to including discrimination based on
sexual orientation?
SENATOR LIBOUS: Mr. President,
the discussions during the bill dealt with
current law.
SENATOR DUANE: And through you,
Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Libous, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR LIBOUS: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DUANE: Then am I to
assume that the issue of discrimination based
on sexual orientation did not come up?
SENATOR LIBOUS: Mr. President,
10699
if it is covered under current law, then it
would be covered under this bill. If it is
not covered under current law, therefore it
would not be covered under this bill.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you, Mr.
President, if the sponsor would continue to
yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Libous, do you yield?
SENATOR LIBOUS: Yes, I do, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DUANE: If I make the
assertion that current law does not include
sexual orientation, then am I safe to assume
that it did not come up in the discussions
regarding this law as well?
SENATOR LIBOUS: That is correct,
Mr. President.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you.
If the sponsor would continue to
yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Libous, do you yield?
10700
SENATOR LIBOUS: Yes, I will.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DUANE: Right now, under
New York State law is there a charge for
insurance for rental vehicles?
SENATOR LIBOUS: Right now, under
the current law, Mr. President, as I stated
earlier, if you rent a vehicle in New York
State you are only liable for up to a hundred
dollars for damages.
SENATOR DUANE: And through you,
Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Yes, I will, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DUANE: Under current
law -- let me phrase it a different way.
As a result of this legislation,
what would the liability be to the consumer?
SENATOR LIBOUS: Mr. President,
under this legislation it lifts the
hundred-dollar cap. Therefore, the consumer's
10701
present auto policy would cover, as it does
now. The only difference is right now the
insurance company is only liable for up to a
hundred dollars.
They would be covered under their
credit card companies if they do not have
personal auto insurance. Or they could
purchase optional vehicle insurance at the
counter. That's what the postings and the
notifications would refer to.
That optional vehicle insurance
could cost them up to $9 a day on a vehicle
that is valued at $30,000 or under, or it
would be capped at $12 a day for a vehicle
that would be over $30,000.
SENATOR DUANE: And through you,
Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Yes, I will, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DUANE: I'm wondering if
the sponsor has put together a list or can
give me an idea of how many states use the
10702
system presently used in New York State and
how many states use the system that is
proposed in the legislation.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Mr. President,
we are the only state with the hundred-dollar
cap.
SENATOR DUANE: And through you,
Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Libous, do you yield?
SENATOR LIBOUS: Yes, I will.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DUANE: Are there
protections in the law which would protect the
consumer from onerous insurance charges if the
consumer chooses to buy insurance from the
rental car company?
SENATOR LIBOUS: If the consumer
chooses to buy the insurance from the rental
car company, it would cost them, as I said,
Mr. President, $9 a day or $12 a day,
depending on the value of the car.
SENATOR DUANE: And through you,
10703
Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Libous, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR LIBOUS: Yes. Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Absolutely, Mr.
President.
SENATOR DUANE: Are the rental
car companies doing business in New York
State, will they be required to inform the
consumer that their own insurance or their
credit cards may cover the cost -- may already
include insurance protections?
SENATOR LIBOUS: Absolutely, Mr.
President. Senator Duane brings up a very
good question.
That was one of the provisions we
put in this bill through notification. There
will be adequate notification available at the
counter and through the contracts. And, yes,
that is one of the provisions here, that they
would be notified.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you.
10704
And, Mr. President, if the sponsor
would continue to yield.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Yes, I will, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DUANE: What are the
various types of insurance coverage that will
now be offered by the rental car company when
a consumer goes in to rent a car?
SENATOR LIBOUS: Well, they will
offer them coverage on the vehicle, to protect
both the consumer and the company from any
damages. So it would be a policy based on the
rental of that vehicle for the time that the
vehicle was rented.
SENATOR DUANE: Mr. President,
for the moment I'm finished with my questions.
But I think I'll have some more a little bit
later on.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
10705
Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: For the
purpose of allowing Senator Dollinger to vote,
could we read the last section and then call
the roll.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This
act shall take effect on the 90th day.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Record me in
the negative, Mr. President.
Could I just explain my vote for 20
seconds? If I could.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:
Certainly.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I'll be very
brief.
Senator Libous, I agree this is a
better bill. I still don't think it's a good
consumer bill. I think the $9-per-day charge
10706
will result in a very significant cost to
consumers.
And, two, the problem that gave
rise to this originally, the danger is that at
the time of the point of sale there will be
tremendous pressure on the individual to make
sure they've got insurance coverage. They
won't know what their primary coverage is,
they won't know what their credit card
coverage is. And you may find that the
primary insurance rates are raised to cover
this cost.
For those reasons, I vote no.
Thank you, Mr. President, and I
thank the Majority for its courtesy.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Dollinger will be recorded in the negative.
We'll withdrawal the roll call now.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Withdraw the
roll call, thank you.
SENATOR HEVESI: Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Hevesi.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you, Mr.
President. Would the sponsor yield?
10707
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Libous, do you yield?
SENATOR LIBOUS: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR HEVESI: Just a quick
question or two to clarify this.
If I go to rent a car and I own a
car, I'm therefore covered for the rental car
on my own insurance. If I don't own a car and
therefore don't have that coverage, am I
required in current law to be covered through
an additional policy such as the $9 or $12 a
day?
SENATOR LIBOUS: No.
SENATOR HEVESI: Mr. President,
would the sponsor continue to yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Libous, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR LIBOUS: Yes. Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR HEVESI: Okay. And as a
result, if I then don't have any coverage and
I go and wreck that car, I only have to pay a
10708
hundred dollars to the rental car company; is
that correct?
SENATOR LIBOUS: That is correct,
Mr. President.
SENATOR HEVESI: Okay. Mr.
President, would the sponsor continue to
yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Libous, do you yield?
SENATOR LIBOUS: Certainly, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR HEVESI: By extension and
logic, if we do this, then it could result in
increases -- I think Senator Dollinger was
just alluding to this -- in premiums for
everybody, because they might at some point
rent a vehicle -- not that this might not be
justified, but they might rent a vehicle and
now they would actually -- these folks would
be forced to have additional -- provide
additional coverage.
Am I correct in that assumption?
SENATOR LIBOUS: Mr. President,
10709
I'm a little unclear on the question. When
you say these folks would have to have
additional coverage -
SENATOR HEVESI: Well, let me do
it this way.
Mr. President, would the sponsor
continue to yield?
SENATOR LIBOUS: Yes, I will, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: He
yields.
SENATOR HEVESI: Who is required
to underwrite the $9 or $12 a day insurance?
SENATOR LIBOUS: The car rental
will underwrite that.
SENATOR HEVESI: Okay, the car
rental underwrites the -
SENATOR LIBOUS: It's a waiver,
it's a collision damage waiver that they would
underwrite, that's correct.
SENATOR HEVESI: Okay. Mr.
President, would the sponsor continue to
yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Libous, do you continue to yield?
10710
SENATOR LIBOUS: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR HEVESI: Let me do it as
just an open-ended question, and then I -- I'm
pretty satisfied with my understanding of the
bill.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Mr. President,
let me try to clarify that. Staff has advised
me that it's a waiver, is what it is.
SENATOR HEVESI: Okay. I believe
the sponsor -
SENATOR LIBOUS: It's purchased
through the car rental company.
SENATOR HEVESI: I'm sorry?
SENATOR LIBOUS: If it's
purchased through the car-rental company.
SENATOR HEVESI: An open-ended
question, if you would.
Do you anticipate any ramifications
for auto insurance rates as a result of the
passage of this bill? Whether it's for
individuals who are already covered through
their own insurance or the increase by the
insurance companies covering the rental car
10711
companies.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Actually, Mr.
President, in all of the other states that
have provided this a number of things have
happened. Rates did not go up, and at the
same time car rental costs came down, because
it was more active to the marketplace.
And we see that the same thing
would happen here as happened in all the other
states that it took place in.
SENATOR HEVESI: Mr. President,
one last question.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Libous, do you yield?
SENATOR LIBOUS: Sure.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR HEVESI: My understanding
is that most car rental companies support this
bill. I'm also privy to information that
certain insurance companies don't support the
bill.
Am I correct in my assumption that
the insurance companies that don't support the
bill are the insurance companies who are not
10712
underwriting the insurance for the car rental
companies, they are -- they have other
interests in this matter? Is that a correct
assumption?
SENATOR LIBOUS: Mr. President,
I'm not sure of the answer to that question,
to be perfectly candid.
SENATOR HEVESI: Okay. Thank
you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Mr.
President. If the sponsor would continue to
yield.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Sure.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DUANE: Why is there a
five-year sunset on the legislation? Why was
five years chosen and not two years?
SENATOR LIBOUS: We thought that
that would be a reasonable time, Mr. President
and Senator Duane, to evaluate the entire
bill. There are many times when we pass
legislation here in New York State that a
10713
sunset provision is always wise to put in.
So that in the wisdom of this
Legislature, and if the house across the
street here for some reason felt that it
wasn't working properly, then the sunset would
give us an opportunity to review it. Or, as
we have with other legislation, if we think
it's doing a grand job, we would then continue
it.
So the sunset provision we thought
was reasonable to evaluate the status of the
bill.
SENATOR DUANE: And through you,
Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Libous?
The sponsor yields.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you.
In that this is in effect in, as
the sponsor has said, in all other states, I'm
wondering if any groups likes the AAA or other
organizations like that have actually done a
study on the effectiveness of doing the
10714
insurance coverage in this manner.
SENATOR LIBOUS: We have gotten
data from other states, Mr. President, in
working with those advocates who support this
legislation. And as I said, to the best of
our knowledge we believe that this will have a
positive effect in New York State, as it has
in other states, whether it be reducing the
cost of rentals or being consumer-friendly and
protecting the consumer against discrimination
when the car is rented.
I must add too, Mr. President, that
we had had involved in this negotiation the
Attorney General's office, who also supports
this legislation. They too think that it is a
better bill than it was a few years ago and it
is protection for the consumer.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you, Mr.
President, if the sponsor would continue to
yield.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Yes, I will.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DUANE: If a renter
declines to take the insurance and to pay the
10715
$9 to $12 for the insurance, will the rental
company be allowed to look at the finances of
the renter to see if they are capable of
paying or if they could afford to cover the
loss?
SENATOR LIBOUS: I'm sorry, Mr.
President, what was that about the loss?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Duane, I think he's asking you to repeat the
question.
SENATOR DUANE: If a consumer
declines to take the coverage and pay the -
SENATOR LIBOUS: They would be
liable.
SENATOR DUANE: No, I understand
that. But will the insurance company be
allowed to look at the finances of the
consumer to see if they're capable of covering
the loss?
SENATOR LIBOUS: I believe that
credit checks are involved in this process.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you, Mr.
President. And if the consumer, if their
credit check doesn't go through, then can the
rental company decline to rent the car?
10716
SENATOR LIBOUS: No, sir.
SENATOR DUANE: And through you,
Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Do you
yield, Senator Libous?
SENATOR LIBOUS: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DUANE: How much time
will the rent-a-car company have to check on
the credit of the renter?
SENATOR LIBOUS: Mr. President, I
would assume that if an individual needs to
rent the vehicle, that that could be checked
in a short period of time.
But again, there are so many
options available I would make the assumption
that if I were renting a vehicle and I weren't
covered under my present policy or under the
credit card that I use, that I would then
purchase the waiver for a mere $9 or $12 a
day.
In some states, the extra taxes
alone on rental vehicles are much more than
10717
the protection of insurance.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you, Mr.
President, if the sponsor would continue to
yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Libous, do you yield?
SENATOR LIBOUS: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DUANE: I'm just trying
to understand it. If you can't discriminate
against someone based on their income, then
even if someone had no credit, why would you
even bother to check their credit if you
couldn't deny renting them a car anyway?
SENATOR LIBOUS: Well, that's
certainly up to the option of the car company.
Some may choose to check it, some may choose
not to.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you, Mr.
President, if the sponsor would continue to
yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Libous, do you yield?
SENATOR LIBOUS: Sure.
10718
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DUANE: But as I
understand it, they wouldn't be allowed to not
rent the car to anyone, regardless of their
credit. So even if someone had bad credit,
you couldn't deny them the ability to rent the
car; is that correct?
SENATOR LIBOUS: Yeah, Mr.
President, I would ask Senator Duane if he
might yield. I'm a little confused as to the
point of his question.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: I
believe Senator Libous is asking if he can ask
you a question.
SENATOR LIBOUS: I'm confused as
to the point of your question. Where are you
taking us with this, Senator Duane?
SENATOR DUANE: Through you, Mr.
President, I'm just trying to find out
specifically how the legislation is going to
work, particularly because I do have concerns
about people who don't have enough credit to
buy a car or good enough credit or no credit
and can't buy a car and therefore, due to
10719
economic circumstances, need to rent a car.
And I'm wondering whether -- I'm trying to
ascertain what happens to that consumer.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Well, that
consumer, Mr. President, is liable. I mean,
whether that consumer chooses to purchase the
optional vehicle coverage or not, that
consumer is liable. And if that consumer in
good faith rents a car with the intention
that, God forbid, something happens and they
can't pay for that car, well, then, that is an
issue between the company and the consumer. I
would assume that the company will go back and
sue the consumer.
But by no means is this legislation
designed to keep someone from purchasing a
car. What it is is good, common sense to
allow the fact that we have lost several
hundred rental car companies because of the
provisions that now exist, and what we're
doing now is protecting the right of an
individual.
You know, it's no different if you
were to go and rent a tuxedo and pay for an
insurance policy on that tuxedo for one
10720
evening.
I just think that we're not looking
here -- I would hope that Senator Duane is not
confusing the legislation. We are not looking
not to rent vehicles, we are looking to
protect the consumer and we are looking to
protect the car rental company.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: If that was a
question, I'm not -
SENATOR LIBOUS: That was an
answer, Mr. President, to his last question.
SENATOR DUANE: No, he was asking
me a question.
SENATOR LIBOUS: No, I asked you
the question and you answered it.
SENATOR DUANE: I'm confused
about that, not about the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Well, I
believe the exchange consisted of Senator
Libous wanted to ask you where your line of
questioning was headed, and you responded and
he then responded to your overall thrust of
questions. And you now -
10721
SENATOR DUANE: It's my turn.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you. If
the sponsor would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Libous, do you yield?
SENATOR LIBOUS: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DUANE: Then is the
intent of this bill that the actual rental of
the car and ability to rent the car is at the
discretion of the consumer, not the company?
SENATOR LIBOUS: Yes.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you.
And if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Sure.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Libous yields.
SENATOR DUANE: I'm anticipating
also that it's possible that we would need to
enact legislation dealing with renters who get
into accidents and are unable or unwilling to
10722
pay.
Has any thought been given to that
scenario and whether or not car rental
companies will come back to us and ask us for
legislation making it so that they can collect
damages?
SENATOR LIBOUS: No, Mr.
President. I believe, Mr. President, that
this legislation is a responsible piece of
legislation. Whenever an individual, a
consumer, is to rent a car, what we're asking
here is that there be good faith on both
parties. And that under current law, the
consumer is liable for up to a hundred
dollars.
We're saying that that is not fair,
that the consumer has availability for
coverage. If they have an insurance policy,
it is already law that it is covered for a
rental car. If they have a credit card, it
would be covered under the credit card. And
if they didn't have a credit card, they can
certainly purchase the policy.
I would then say that if someone
did not have coverage or could not pay the
10723
optional insurance, then certainly that's a
situation -- God forbid, if an accident were
to happen, that's going to be between the
rental company and the individual later on.
SENATOR DUANE: And through you,
Mr. President, if the sponsor would yield for
one final question.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Libous, do you yield?
SENATOR LIBOUS: Yes, I would.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DUANE: I know that the
original vehicle rental protection law -- or
not the original, but the last vehicle rental
protection law was enacted in the late '80s, I
think 1988. I'm wondering if there have been
any hearings on the efficacy of that law or
any hearings on this legislation before us
today.
SENATOR LIBOUS: I can tell you,
Mr. President, that there were no formal
hearings. But there were dozens of meetings
with people who rent cars, with the car rental
industry, with the insurance industry, with
10724
individuals -- I can share with you, if I
may -- and I'd like to, actually -- meetings
that took place over the last six years.
And in talking with companies and
individuals who own companies and people who
rent cars, you know, it was brought to our
attention -- and, by the way, this bill has
been discussed publicly in the media, it was
written on in the New York Times and in other
publications. And I can tell you that it was
pretty compelling to me, after spending
countless hours and listening to individuals
and meeting with them and listening to stories
like a Thrifty rental company owner from Long
Island who told me that 60 days after the
original $100 cap was instituted that he had
$60,000 in damage in rental vehicles. Or from
a Budget car owner in Buffalo who told me that
one week after it took place, three of his
SUVs were wrecked and cost him $100,000
because of the $100 cap. Or an owner in
Westchester that told me that the damages that
keep coming in are to the point where he may
have to go out of business.
These kinds of discussions took
10725
place over, I would say, a six-year period.
They were open discussions. And as I say, the
bill actually -- a version of this bill passed
this house two years ago. It was openly
debated at that time.
So I believe that there was a lot
of discussion. And I think sometimes it's
time to end the discussion and take action,
and that's where we are today.
SENATOR HEVESI: Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Hevesi.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you, Mr.
President. Would the sponsor yield?
SENATOR LIBOUS: Sure.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you.
I'm curious as to what happens in
the following -- well, let me ask the blanket
question to begin with. Why didn't we just go
ahead and mandate that anyone who doesn't have
insurance because they own a car, when they go
to rent a car, why wouldn't they be
required -- we could haggle about how much it
10726
should cost. Why didn't we just go and
mandate they take a rider our or a waiver out
and buy insurance for the $9 or $12 a day?
Why do we allow this -
SENATOR LIBOUS: Mr. President, I
don't think we would do that, for a couple of
reasons. Number one, if you are an automobile
owner, you already have coverage in your
policy. So why make you pay twice?
And why would we mandate? I mean,
this is not something we want to do, to
mandate this issue, because I just think that
it would be the inappropriate way to move on
legislation. I think this is an open,
free-market way of protecting renters.
SENATOR HEVESI: Mr. President,
would the sponsor continue to yield?
SENATOR LIBOUS: Sure.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR HEVESI: Maybe I was not
clear. What I'm suggesting is if you don't
have your own insurance through your own
vehicle, and so you go in to rent a car and
you don't have that, why wouldn't we require
10727
anybody who rents a car who doesn't have any
other coverage to buy additional coverage?
SENATOR LIBOUS: Well, the cost
may be prohibitive. I would think the
insurance companies would have a field day
with that, Mr. President.
SENATOR HEVESI: Okay. Mr.
President, one final question for the sponsor.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Libous, do you yield?
SENATOR LIBOUS: Sure.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR HEVESI: What happens in
the following situation? I go to rent a car,
I don't have insurance from the purchase of my
own car, I don't take the rider. I go out
with the rental company's car and I crack it
up and damage somebody else's car.
Two questions. One, if I injure
somebody, the insurance carrier of the rental
company would pay for that, would cover that;
is that correct?
And the second is if I don't have
any money because I was destitute or what have
10728
you, or because they didn't do a credit check,
what have you, I didn't take out the rider,
now I go and crack up the car, I understand
that I'm liable if we've removed the cap. Who
pays for the guy's damage who I went and
damaged his car? Who pays his damage?
SENATOR LIBOUS: I would believe
the car rental company does.
Yes, to your first question, Mr.
President, you're correct. And I would
believe that the car rental company does.
SENATOR HEVESI: Mr. President,
would the sponsor continue to yield?
SENATOR LIBOUS: Sure.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR HEVESI: Whose car rental
company? The car rental company I rented the
car from, or the insurance company -- oh, I'm
sorry, the car rental company would be liable
for the damage that I did to somebody else's
car even though I haven't taken out insurance?
SENATOR LIBOUS: Yes.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you, Mr.
President. Thank the sponsor.
10729
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Any
other Senator wish to be heard?
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This
act shall take effect on the 90th day.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Breslin, to explain his vote.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Thank you, Mr.
President. I rise to compliment Senator
Libous on his patience, but I also rise to
oppose this bill.
A consumer who comes into a car
rental agency, if they do in fact have
insurance through their credit cards or
through their own car insurance is confused
and will often duplicate that coverage, which
makes the car rental $9 or $12 a secondary
insurance. Which means it's a windfall for
the car rental places.
Secondly, the car rental places
have the ability to evaluate their risk when
they rent to people, to make sure they're
10730
fastidious and careful when they rent to
people. And that risk is borne, then, by the
car rental place and their insurance companies
and not passed on, through the waiver, to the
insurance companies in general.
This is not a consumer-friendly
bill, and I urge the members of both sides to
vote against this bill.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Breslin will be recorded in the negative.
Senator Duane, to explain his vote.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Mr.
President. I echo my colleague Senator
Breslin. I also agree and had intended to ask
about which was primary and secondary
coverage.
I believe that really the only
groups that feel that the system that we have
in New York State now is broken are the car
rental companies. And I think that while they
may have legitimacy for some of their
concerns, I believe that this bill has swung
too far in opposition to the rights and needs
of consumers, particularly in urban areas
10731
where a lot of people don't own their own
cars.
This legislation I think is very
problematic for those people who need to, from
time to time, rent a car. And they tend to be
people that don't have credit cards and have
other things which prevent them from having
the same opportunities and options that other,
more well-heeled people might have.
So on balance, though I appreciate
the efforts to make a bill which balances the
needs of consumers and insurance companies and
the rent-a-car company, I don't think that
this bill is doing that. And I'm going to be
voting no on it.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Duane will be recorded in the negative.
Senator Balboni, to explain his
vote.
SENATOR BALBONI: Mr. President,
I have supported this measure in the past. I
believe this is a bill that was long overdue.
This year, however, I believe
timing is important. In this bill we're
10732
putting the cart before the horse. We have
not dealt with the rise in auto insurance
rates. We have tried mightily. Jim Seward
has carried the ball on that. We have not
found a way to reduce the fraud that is agreed
to by both houses. We do not know what rates
are going to be this next year.
To do anything to change the
climate of automobile insurance rates this
year before we have solved that issue I think
is premature. I'll be voting in the negative,
Mr. President.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Balboni will be recorded in the negative.
Announce the results.
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
the negative on Calendar Number 1353 are
Senators Balboni, Breslin, Brown, Dollinger,
Duane, Fuschillo, LaValle, Marcellino,
Gonzalez, Onorato, Padavan, Paterson,
Santiago, and Stavisky. Ayes, 43. Nays, 14.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
Senator Fuschillo.
10733
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Mr.
President, will you please call up Calendar
194.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read Calendar 194.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
194, by Member of the Assembly Schimminger,
Assembly Print Number 4693A, an act to amend
the Real Property Tax Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 57.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
Senator Nozzolio.
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Thank you, Mr.
President. I ask unanimous consent to be
recorded in the negative on Calendar Number
1535, Print Number 3799A.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Without
10734
objection, Senator Nozzolio will be recorded
in the negative on Calendar 1535.
SENATOR SEWARD: Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Seward.
SENATOR SEWARD: Yes, while we
are awaiting our next action I would ask
unanimous consent to be recorded in the
negative on Calendar Number 1335. It passed
earlier today when I was unavoidably out of
the chamber.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Without
objection, Senator Seward will be recorded in
the negative on Calendar 1335.
Senator Hassell-Thompson.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Mr.
President, I rise to request unanimous consent
to be recorded in the negative on Calendar
Number 1353.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Without
objection, Senator Hassell-Thompson will be
recorded in the negative on Calendar 1353.
Senator Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Mr.
President.
10735
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Excuse
me. Can we have some order in the chamber.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Mr.
President, there will be a meeting of the
Rules Committee at ten minutes after 4:00.
The Senate will stand at ease.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: A
meeting of the Rules Committee in the Majority
Conference Room at ten minutes after 4:00.
The Senate will stand at ease.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Will you
please recognize Senator Bonacic.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Bonacic.
SENATOR BONACIC: Thank you, Mr.
President. I'd ask for unanimous consent for
Bill Number 1353, I'd like to be recorded in
the negative on that bill.
SENATOR LACK: Without objection,
Senator Bonacic will be recorded in the
negative on Calendar 1353.
10736
SENATOR BONACIC: Thank you, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: The Senate
will continue to stand at ease.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Senate will stand at ease.
(Whereupon, the Senate stood at
ease at 3:58 p.m.)
(Whereupon, the Senate reconvened
at 4:15 p.m.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Please
restore order in the chambers.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Senate will come to order.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: May we please
return to the reports of standing committees.
I believe there is a Rules report
at the desk.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Reports
of standing committees.
The Secretary will read the report
10737
of the Rules Committee.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Bruno,
from the Committee on Rules, reports the
following bills:
Senate Print 3875, by Senator
Santiago, an act authorizing the City of
New York.
4296, by Senator Spano, an act to
amend the Uniform City Court Act.
5099A, by Senator Rath, an act to
amend the Public Authorities Law.
5379, by Senator Bonacic, an act
authorizing.
5577A, by Senator Johnson, an act
to amend the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law.
5593, by the Senate Committee on
Rules, an act to amend the Administrative Code
of the City of New York.
5652, by Senator Hoffmann, an act
authorizing the City of Rome.
And 5667B, by the Senate Committee
on Rules, an act to amend the Election Law.
All bills ordered direct to third
reading.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
10738
Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Move to
accept.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: All
those in favor of accepting the report of the
Rules Committee signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Those
opposed, nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
report is accepted.
All bills directly to third
reading.
Senator Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Mr.
President, could we return to motions and
resolutions for the adoption of Senate
Resolution Calendar Number 2.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Motions
and resolutions.
All those in favor of adopting
Resolution Calendar Number 2 signify by saying
aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
10739
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Those
opposed, nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senate
Resolution Calender Number 2 is adopted.
Senator Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Is there any
other housekeeping at the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Yes, we
have some housekeeping, Senator.
Senator Farley.
SENATOR FARLEY: Thank you, Mr.
President.
On behalf of Senator Sampson, I
wish to call up his bill, Print Number 1720,
recalled from the Assembly, which is now at
the desk.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
960, by Senator Sampson, Senate Print 1720, an
act authorizing the City of New York.
SENATOR FARLEY: Mr. President, I
now move to reconsider the vote by which this
bill was passed.
10740
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll on reconsideration.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 57.
SENATOR FARLEY: Mr. President, I
now offer the following amendments.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
amendments are received and adopted.
SENATOR FARLEY: On behalf of
Senator Balboni, Mr. President, I wish to call
up his bill, 4208A, which was recalled from
the Assembly, and it's now at the desk.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
813, by Senator Balboni, Senate Print 4208A,
an act to amend the Environmental Conservation
Law.
SENATOR FARLEY: Mr. President, I
now move to reconsider the vote by which this
bill was passed.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll on reconsideration.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 57.
10741
SENATOR FARLEY: Mr. President, I
now offer the following amendments.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
amendments are received and adopted.
Senator Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Mr.
President, from the original active list, will
you please call up Calendar 1297.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read Calendar 1297.
THE SECRETARY: In relation to
Calendar Number 1297, Senator Hannon moves to
discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
Assembly Bill Number 2358B and substitute it
for the identical Senate Bill Number 4624A,
Third Reading Calendar 1297.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:
Substitution ordered.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1297, by Member of the Assembly Sweeney,
Assembly Print Number 2358B, an act to amend
the State Technology Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
10742
act shall take effect 180 days.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 57.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
Senator Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Mr.
President, there will be an immediate meeting
of the Majority Conference in the Majority
Conference Room.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:
Immediate meeting of the Majority Conference
in the Majority Conference Room.
Senator Mendez.
SENATOR MENDEZ: Mr. President,
there will be an immediate conference of the
Minority, Room 314.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:
Immediate meeting of the Minority Conference
in the Minority Conference Room.
Senator Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Mr.
President, the Senate will stand at ease.
10743
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Senate will stand at ease.
(Whereupon, the Senate stood at
ease at 4:19 p.m.)
(Whereupon, the Senate reconvened
at 6:15 p.m.)
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senate will come to order. I ask the members
to find their places, staff to find their
places.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Would you please
call up Calender Number 1354, by Senator Rath.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: In relation to
Calendar Number 1354, Senator Rath moves to
discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
Assembly Bill Number 2164 and substitute it
for the identical Senate Bill Number 1582,
Third Reading Calendar 1354.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
substitution is ordered.
The Secretary will read the title.
10744
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1354, by Member of the Assembly Tokasz,
Assembly Print Number 2164, an act to amend
the Racing, Pari-Mutuel Wagering and Breeding
Law.
SENATOR CONNOR: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Rath, an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR RATH: Thank you, Mr.
President.
The item before us is a bill that
deals with, as it says, the racing and
wagering industry in Western New York. And
the purpose of it is to give the off-track
betting, Western Off-Track Betting an
opportunity to run a track which it purchased,
Batavia Downs, as it had gone out of business
and was available, with the property and the
attendant buildings.
And more than that, though, as this
was coming to a place where the economic
impact became more than aware to everyone
involved -- it was not only Batavia that was
going to be impacted but Buffalo Raceway was
going to be impacted, to the amount that
10745
$40 million that could be recognized as an
economic engine in Western New York, 15 or so
of it in the Batavia area, the other 25 in the
Buffalo area -- it became extremely important
that the opportunity go forward for Batavia
to, through economics of scale and through
Western Region OTB, to work with Buffalo
Raceway and be able to make this happen.
There are a number of other issues
that were caught up in it with other tracks
around the state. All of those have been put
to rest, all of the other tracks that had
concerns in terms of their signal, et cetera.
The counties, 11 counties have sent
in resolutions in favor of this. And frankly,
if harness racing is to stay alive in the
western part of New York State, and through
the oldest lighted nighttime harness track in
America, Batavia Downs, acting as the agent
for -- working through OTB to keep Buffalo
Raceway alive and well also, then we need to
pass this.
All of the racing and wagering
legislation that runs Racing and Wagering
through the OTBs, under the Racing and
10746
Wagering Board, will be in effect. They will
be no different than any other track owner,
and they'll come under all of those
regulations.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Connor.
SENATOR CONNOR: If Senator
Stachowski had a question, so -- I just want
to speak on the bill, so -
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Okay,
fine.
Senator Stachowski, why do you
rise?
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: If Senator
Rath would yield to a couple of questions.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Rath, do you yield to a question from Senator
Stachowski?
SENATOR RATH: Surely.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Senator, I'm
struck by the $40 million number. And I see
in the memo you're taking that from a study
that was done by Arizona State University that
10747
was given to the people up here, I believe, by
Western OTB.
If opening Batavia would mean
$40 million to Erie County and Genesee County
because of harness racing, then why is it that
Batavia closed in the first place if everyone
is making so much money with harness racing?
And why is it that the agricultural
society had to underwrite the racetrack at
Buffalo Raceway for the last three years for
close to a million dollars, if not over a
million dollars, if in fact harness racing is
such a beneficial money-making proposition,
according to that study?
And I quite honestly am baffled by
how someone could write that study, put their
name on it, and why they would want to put
their name on it.
So if you could basically -- if
that wasn't -- if I didn't cloud that question
too much, if you could answer that for me.
SENATOR RATH: I know where you
are, Senator. And I appreciate the question.
The $40 million is the spinoff
revenue that would happen as the two tracks
10748
are functioning at a level that neither of
them can function there alone. It has to do
with the whole industry of the horsemen in the
area that go to both tracks and the
agribusiness and the attendant kinds of things
that happen in the tourism world, the
restaurants, the -- all of the kinds of things
that happen if the lights are up at Batavia
and they're running again and Batavia is able
to, through economies of scale, help Buffalo
Raceway.
Because I agree with you, Senator,
the agricultural board and the fair board at
Buffalo Raceway, which has been something that
we've all been concerned about since the days
you and I served in the Erie County
Legislature together, they've been laying off
their costs that they weren't able to cover
against the fair board. The fair board isn't
going to go along with that anymore. They're
either going to have to make it or not make it
as Buffalo Raceway.
They can't make it without better
purses. They can't have better purses unless
the horsemen are doing better. And the
10749
horsemen can't do better unless there are more
races. There won't be more races unless
Batavia is running.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Any other
Senator wishing to speak on the bill?
SENATOR CONNOR: Yes, Mr.
President. Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Connor, on the bill.
SENATOR CONNOR: I'm opposed to
this bill because frankly, Mr. President, I
think it's bad public policy. It's bad public
policy to permit an OTB to operate a racing
facility.
In effect, what we're doing here,
we're taking about a half a million dollars
from Erie County and giving it to a racetrack.
Because we're taking the surcharge money that
ordinarily would go to the counties and we're
putting it into operate a racing facility.
Realistically, it's a publicly
funded bailout of what should be a private
financial rescue. The Erie County and Genesee
County governments are putting up their money
10750
to promote gambling. And the reason they have
to do this is there is no private investor.
Because you can't make money, unfortunately,
operating Batavia under the current economy of
harness racing in this state.
Harness racing over the past
15 years has been going steadily downhill.
There are a number of reasons for that, Mr.
President: an aging fan base, support base
for what's one of the oldest sports in
America.
Secondly, the fact of the matter is
that throughout this state OTBs have not been
supporting the track to the extent that they
should.
What we're really doing here is
allowing public investment in a racing
facility. And I know all the arguments, Mr.
President -- save jobs, standardbred breeding
industry generates jobs, that kind of economy.
But the reality is Batavia won't make it under
this arrangement. There's a reason it's been
closed for three years. It's unfortunate,
it's sad, but it's economic reality.
Mr. President, maybe I'm just an
10751
old-fashioned conservative, but Batavia
couldn't make it in the private market. The
market forces worked against it,
unfortunately, the market forces that govern
harness racing. And I just don't think the
government should be coming in here and using
public money to bail out what was a failed
private enterprise.
Mr. President, I'm just a very
old-fashioned free-market person. I think the
free market spoke. Batavia couldn't make it.
I don't think the government should be bailing
it out, take money away from Genesee and Erie
Counties and put it in this racing facility.
And frankly, Mr. President, absent
VLTs, the video lottery terminals, in a
harness racing facility, it's not going to
make it. It's just not going to make it. No
matter who owns it, no matter who operates it,
the market won't sustain this operation. It
hasn't in the past. Nothing we're doing here
will sustain it. All we're doing here is a
government subsidy, a government bailout.
Indeed, harness racing welfare, if you will,
Mr. President.
10752
That doesn't mean I'm in favor of
VLTs in harness racetracks. I agree with the
decision that was made earlier, apparently by
the Majority Leader, that we shouldn't do
that.
And I harken back to a few years
ago when someone made a pitch and said, "But,
Senator, if you give us slot machines for
harness racetracks, we'll make money. Harness
racetracks are in trouble." And my answer to
this person was, "You know what? The
hospitals in my district are in trouble. And
if you gave them shot machines, they'd make
money and they'd be out of trouble."
I don't think we ought to do that
kind of cross-subsidization. Enterprises
ought to make it based on the market, based on
how they respond to the market. And if there
is no market, it's unfortunate, but that's
capitalism, Mr. President.
I'm voting no because I don't think
the answer to every economic failure or
problem is a government subsidy or a
government bailout.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Any other
10753
Senator wish to be heard on the bill?
Senator Stachowski, do you wish to
speak on the bill?
Senator Stachowski, on the bill.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Just briefly
on the bill.
I happen to agree with Senator
Connor in the fact that I don't know that we
should put an OTB in charge of a racetrack.
The problem I have with that is that OTBs were
created to generate another revenue stream for
local governments.
In this package and only listed in
this bill is the fact that OTB is going to get
a license to run a racetrack and then the
profits will be shared among the counties.
Net profits, that is, after all of their
expenses. Some of their expenses are $300,000
a year guaranteed at Buffalo Raceway for the
next five years, $300,000 to Finger Lakes,
$200,000 to Monticello. That's $800,000 up
front.
Now they got to pay to have a
racetrack run. They bought the track by
floating bonds that their board okayed. I
10754
don't know that the municipalities, if asked
was that a good idea, would have been in favor
of it.
Genesee County would have been, and
I can understand that. I can understand
Senator Rath carrying the bill. She
represents Batavia, and it's a serious loss to
them.
This particular answer for harness
racing I don't think is the right answer.
We've been trying to find an answer to help
harness racing since I've been here. There
were a lot of good suggestions. Pass a bill
that would give the tracks and the horsemen a
better takeout out of the OTB revenues that
they generate from the bets on the various
tracks that need that money.
We could have done that. We always
refused. I find it interesting that the same
people that refused to vote for an issue like
that, or even put it on the floor, now are
suggesting to us the way to save the harness
tracks, both Buffalo and Batavia, is to let
OTB run it.
And I understand the horsemen are
10755
desperate. Most of the Western New York
horsemen now aren't -- there are still a few
racing at Buffalo. Their purses are
minuscule. Most of the drivers are taking
their good horses and racing at Delaware,
because Delaware is flourishing. And the
reason it's flourishing is VDTs, video display
lotteries or video -- whatever they call
those. And that's why they're making money
and have bigger purses there.
Obviously, on this end of the
state, if they don't like the New York
tracks -- and fortunately, some people running
the tracks on this end are doing better -- but
they can take their horses to Meadowlands,
where they still have large, large purses.
And crowds, by the way.
The interesting thing is most
persons that bet harness tracks bet it at the
OTBs. The main reason that harness tracks are
on their knees now, Batavia closed and Buffalo
Raceway gasping for breath, is from the stake
that OTB's driven through its heart. It's
taken all their fan base. Those people now go
to the local OTB, they don't have to drive all
10756
the way to the track. They bet the same
races, they get the same money, more or less,
and the only loser are the horsemen and the
racetrack itself.
And we've had many opportunities,
as I said earlier, to change that, but nobody
would take that -- those kinds of suggestions
up. Nobody would do any bills for harness
racing in particular that would really make a
difference. And by changing OTB's structure,
we could have done that. But we were
concerned about taking the revenue stream away
from the localities.
And so it's really strange to me at
the same time all those people that were
concerned about taking some of the revenue
stream away are thinking nothing about taking
most of the revenue stream away to keep a
harness track open.
Quite frankly, in my honest
opinion, and another reason why I can't vote
for this is the only reason Western OTB wants
this track is because they believe that within
this five-year agreement with the other tracks
they'll get video lotteries, that the
10757
terminals will come to the harness tracks.
And I think they're willing to bet on it, so
to speak.
And I think if they don't get them,
that within a couple of years they're going to
too close this racetrack. Maybe sell it,
maybe use it for something else, maybe develop
something else there themselves or sell it to
a developer that he can develop something else
there.
But I don't believe for a minute
that they think that with the nature of things
as they are they can successfully run a
harness track when no one else can. I just
have a real problem with that. I think that
in the end result, after a few years, Batavia
is going to close, Buffalo is going to close
if we don't do some changes in the way they
get purses. And only people that will have
made any money will be the increased salaries
of the people that currently get paid to run
Western OTB.
It's my understanding, and I don't
know if that's -- we'll see if this comes true
or not, that they're going to create another
10758
corporation that's going to run the racing and
pay themselves another salary, maybe be smart
enough to hire at least a manager that knows
how to do horse racing, and that way they'll
try to run the track.
So the real winners tonight are
going to be the people that get paid to run
Western OTB. I wish there was a way to help
Buffalo Raceway other than this. I would do
it in a heartbeat. I wish there was a way to
help all the harness tracks. But this is not
the way. It's a bad idea. Putting an OTB in
charge of a racetrack is just not a good idea.
If this bill said let's let Batavia
and Buffalo Raceway take over Western OTB, I
would vote for it in a heartbeat. But not
vice versa. I suggest we vote no.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 8. This
act shall take effect -
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Volker.
SENATOR VOLKER: I'm sorry.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: So am I.
10759
(Laughter.)
SENATOR VOLKER: Very quickly.
I know that.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR VOLKER: But I -- my good
friend Senator Stachowski and I rarely
disagree, but on this one we disagree. And
it's interesting that when we started out, I
guess in many ways I was on the other side.
But I understand the problems that Senator
Stachowski has, and he knows the industry
fairly well.
Let me give you just a couple of
things. First of all, it is not just the
salaries of the OTB people but something like
400 to 600 jobs that are involved here in the
Batavia area, which is a small city. It once
was the largest employer.
Let me just say to you that the
reason, the main reason they couldn't make out
very well at Batavia had to do with, it's
true, it had bad leadership. We all knew
that. We saw it coming. It was years that
Batavia was going down.
I think the thing that convinced me
10760
was that here you have a small city that has a
track that's not functioning. A
nonfunctioning track is about as useless as a
nonfunctioning stadium, which unfortunately
some people have. A track obviously is useful
when it's open and running.
Now, I don't particularly like the
idea that the Off-Track Betting Corporation is
coming in when you're talking about public
money. But let's remember, you're using -
when you say "public money," you're
essentially using the money of the people,
ironically, who bet. And you're churning it
in, to a great extent, into this track.
I've been told by people who know
racing -- I'm not an expert on racing, but in
my district is Hamburg Raceway, Buffalo
Raceway. The people there tell me that if
this bill does not pass, if Batavia does not
open, then almost certainly Buffalo Raceway
will be right behind. But the feeling is that
if Batavia does open and is able to survive
and do reasonably well, that actually Buffalo
Raceway, because of the way horses are -- I'm
not really sure about that sort of thing -
10761
the way horses come into the state, that they
will actually do better than they are doing
now, that the take will be bigger and that the
amount of money that is given to the horsemen,
which will bring in better horses, will
increase.
So I think, much as I -- I voted
against OTB, by the way, years ago. I was
here that long. But I have to say that this
bill is important to Senator Rath's district.
I think it's important to Western New York.
And whatever misgivings some people may have,
it needs to be passed.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 8. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Record
the negatives and announce the results.
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
the negative on Calendar Number 1354 are
Senators Bonacic, Breslin, Connor, Duane,
10762
Mendez, Montgomery, Onorato, Oppenheimer,
Paterson, Santiago, Schneiderman, Stachowski,
and Stavisky. Ayes, 45. Nays, 13.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill
is passed.
Senator Schneiderman, did you wish
to be recognized?
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you,
Mr. President. I'd request unanimous consent
to be recorded in the negative on Calendar
1353, Senate Bill 1894.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Without
objection -
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: -
hearing no objection, Senator Schneiderman
will be recorded in the negative on Calendar
Number 1353.
Senator Sampson, why do you rise?
SENATOR SAMPSON: Mr. President,
may I have unanimous consent to be recorded in
the negative on Calendar 1353.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Without
objection, hearing no objection, Senator
Sampson will be recorded in the negative on
10763
Calendar Number 1353.
Senator Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Mr.
President, is there any housekeeping at the
desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Yes,
there is.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Can we take
care of that, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: We have
two substitutions at the desk, Senator
Marcellino. We'll take those at this time.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Please take
up the substitutions also.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: On page 33,
Senator LaValle moves to discharge, from the
Committee on Rules, Assembly Bill Number 7211A
and substitute it for the identical Senate
Bill Number 3498A, Third Reading Calendar 932.
And on page 12, Senator Goodman
moves to discharge, from the Committee on
Rules, Assembly Bill Number 2650 and
substitute it for the identical Senate Bill
10764
Number 733, Third Reading Calendar 326.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
substitutions are ordered.
Senator Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Thank you,
Mr. President.
On behalf of Senator Nozzolio, on
page number 18 I offer the following
amendments to Calendar Number 523, Senate
Print Number 5110, and ask that said bill
retain its place on Third Reading Calendar.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
amendments to Calendar Number 523 are received
and accepted. The bill will retain its place
on the Third Reading Calendar.
Senator Marcellino, that takes care
of the housekeeping.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Just wait
one second, sir.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Yes, Mr.
President. May we have the noncontroversial
reading of Calendar Number 57C.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
10765
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: In relation to
Calendar Number 1355, Senator Santiago moves
to discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
Assembly Bill Number 7436 and substitute it
for the identical Senate Bill Number 3875,
Third Reading Calendar 1355.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
substitution is ordered.
The Secretary will read the title.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1355, by Member of the Assembly Towns,
Assembly Print Number 7436, an act authorizing
the City of New York.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: There is
a home rule message at the desk.
The Secretary will read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill
10766
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: In relation to
Calendar Number 1356, Senator Spano moves to
discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
Assembly Bill Number 2988 and substitute it
for the identical Senate Bill Number 4296,
Third Reading Calendar 1356.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
substitution is ordered.
The Secretary will read the title.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1356, by Member of the Assembly Tokasz,
Assembly Print Number 2988, an act to amend
the Uniform City Court Act and the Civil
Practice Law and Rules.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 57. Nays,
1. Senator Duane recorded in the negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill
10767
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: In relation to
Calendar Number 1357, Senator Rath moves to
discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
Assembly Bill Number 8486A and substitute it
for the identical Senate Bill Number 5099A,
Third Reading Calendar 1357.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
substitution is ordered.
The Secretary will read the title.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1357, by the Assembly Committee on Rules,
Assembly Print Number 8486A, an act to amend
the Public Authorities Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: In relation to
10768
Calendar Number 1358, Senator Bonacic moves to
discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
Assembly Bill Number 8871 and substitute it
for the identical Senate Bill Number 5379,
Third Reading Calendar 1358.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
substitution is ordered.
The Secretary will read the title.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1358, by the Assembly Committee on Rules,
Assembly Print Number 8871, an act authorizing
Gary Weyant.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1361, by Senator Hoffmann, Senate Print 5652,
an act authorizing the City of Rome, County of
10769
Oneida.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Is there a
message of necessity at the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: There is.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Can we take
that up.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
motion is to accept the message of necessity
on Calendar Number 1361. All those in favor
signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Opposed,
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
message is accepted.
The bill is before the house.
There is a home rule message at the
desk.
The Secretary will read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 5. This
act shall take effect immediately.
10770
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1362, by the Senate Committee on Rules, Senate
Print 5667B, an act to amend the Election Law.
SENATOR CONNOR: Lay it aside.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: For the
1362, is there a message of necessity?
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
motion is to accept the message of necessity
on Calendar Number 1362. All those in favor
signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Opposed,
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
message is accepted.
The bill is before the house.
10771
And the bill is laid aside.
Senator Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: May we now
have the controversial reading of the
calendar.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1362, by the Senate Committee on Rules, Senate
Print Number 5667B, an act to amend the
Election Law.
SENATOR CONNOR: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Maltese, an explanation of Calendar Number
1362 has been requested by the Minority
Leader, Senator Connor.
SENATOR MALTESE: Yes, Mr.
President.
This is a bill that we've spent
considerable time refining, and at the present
time it seems to contains the main thrust of
the bill as it was originally was, to
alleviate problems that were generated as a
result of a case called the Gelb case. And
these bills are at the request of the Board of
10772
Elections, Danny DeFrancesco and his
assistant, Joe Gentili, which they are the
Democratic and Republican directors of the
City Board of Elections.
The first portion was refined so
that what it enables us to do is react to
court decisions, federal court decisions and
state court decisions which would mandate
write-in votes for all party and public office
candidates.
The New York City Board of
Elections has machines, lever-action machines
with 40 spaces for votes. And as a result,
they are unable to provide enough spaces in
the forthcoming elections for the September
primary so that they can accommodate not only
the offices, the public offices on the ballot
but the party offices on the ballot.
As a result, they have come up with
the first portion of this multipurpose piece
of legislation, which would provide that in
any county where the Board of Elections deems
it necessary, and then they have some reasons,
that the ballot shall provide a slot or device
to permit voters to write in the name of an
10773
undesignated person with respect to public
office. And that would accommodate all the
public offices on the primary ballot for the
September primary.
Second, they shall provide a slot
on the ballot for only those party officers
where a petition for opportunity to ballot has
been filed, based on the decision by -- and I
think it's a well-founded decision by the
Commissioners of the Board of Elections that
it would simply be impossible for the board to
have all the elections, both party and public
office, on the ballot and provide for the
voting by paper ballot in those cases.
Second, if the voting machine -
this is something that in the past has been
mandated in the law and not observed. And
that was that all the paper ballots were
supposed to be counted at the actual voting
site. In the past, what has been happening,
because -- and it's a combination of causes,
but basically it is extremely difficult for
persons who have been either untrained or
inadequately trained, in situations where we
have such great difficulty having election
10774
inspectors in the City of New York, to train
people to properly count write-in ballots from
the back of machines on paper rolls.
As a result, where attempts have
been made, the paper ends up on the floor, it
ends up incorrectly counted, the paper roll
gets ripped, and it does not provide a fair
and efficient count of the write-in votes.
As a result, this provision would
provide that where, if the voting machine
records write-in votes on a register or roll
in a separately sealed compartment, and that
is the case on all these lever-action machines
in the City of New York, a Board of Elections
may, by resolution adopted 30 days before,
either count the votes at the polling site,
where you may have people with the knowledge
and the ability to count it, or count them
back at the warehouse where the machines would
be brought. All safeguards -- providing that
members of both parties be there, that members
of Board of Elections observe the count -
would be observed.
The third section in this omnibus
bill would provide for a problem that has been
10775
brought up in this house before, a problem
where there was a hiatus between the term
of -- the conclusion of the term of a
commissioner of the Board of Elections for the
State of New York, where the person in
question was not able to continue her health
insurance. And it was an inequity in that
where an appointment was not made under the
Public Officers Law, that at the conclusion of
the term or a reappointment, the term would
end and there would be a hiatus before
somebody else took over. That is corrected in
this.
And in the last portion, it would
provide also an inequity, a severe inequity
that the terms of the chairman and the vice
chairman of the State Board of Elections,
where they change positions -- one would
become the chairman, the vice chairman would
move up to chairman, and vice versa -- the
inequity was that the Democratic member of the
board was able to serve an extended term, I
believe it was something like 17 or 18 months,
and the Republican member would only serve six
months. This bill would correct that.
10776
And there are some other
prohibitions that were worked out with the
Executive branch and with the Senate, and I
believe there were discussions -- in fact, I
know there were discussions held with the
Senate Minority. And we appear to have a bill
that meets -- would meet muster in this house.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Connor.
SENATOR CONNOR: Thank you, Mr.
President.
The fact is, we don't have a bill
that meets muster in the house. And I'll
explain why.
And let me say generally, on the
background, Senator Maltese's explanation of
the need for this is on the mark.
If my colleagues would suffer a
little more details, Irving Gelb is one of
these gadfly candidates, he's a cab driver in
the Bronx, and he ran for borough president in
the Democratic primary and was kicked off the
ballot. He went to federal court complaining
of being denied his rights under the 14th
Amendment.
10777
Unfortunately, the corporation
counsel of the City of New York, in answering
that -- and I've answered similar cases
involving the general election. One of the
things the federal courts look to, if you're
complaining that your voters are being totally
denied of the opportunity to vote for someone,
is the federal courts will say: You don't
have a need a ballot line, they can write you
in. Those voters who want to vote for you
aren't losing their franchise right.
That works in a general election,
Mr. President. Unfortunately, the corporation
counsel must have used an old brief from a
general election case and went in there on
this primary case and represented to the
federal court "They can write in Mr. Gelb."
The federal judge dismissed the
case, Mr. Gelb went to vote for himself on
election day as a write-in in the primary,
found out he couldn't do it on the Shoup
machine, went back to federal court.
Actually, Mr. Gelb also ran for U.S. Senate, I
think, last year.
The litigious Mr. Gelb went back
10778
into court and complained that he couldn't
write in himself. And suddenly the city's
attorneys reversed themselves and said, Well,
there are no write-ins in a primary in
New York City.
Mr. President, as much election law
as I have done for the last 30 years, I
believe that must be the law: No write-ins in
a primary in New York City. What we learned
in the Gelb case was that 46 years ago, when
the city bought the present Shoup machines,
the City Board of Elections realized they
could not accommodate write-ins in most
primary elections, so they made a rule, no
write-ins in primary elections in New York
City.
And they used to justify that the
rationale that the law provides for an
opportunity to ballot petition. And
therefore, unless you file an opportunity to
ballot petition for a write-in, there will be
no write-ins.
Actually, Mr. President, state law
provides for write-ins in primaries
everywhere, including New York City. So for
10779
46 years, everybody in New York City believed
there were no write-ins. Mr. Gelb
demonstrated to the federal court that in fact
state law -- he had been denied equal
protection because state law did, in fact,
provide for write-ins in a primary.
That left with the city with a
dilemma that it can't possibly, in a
primary -- I mean, this year we have primaries
in more than one party citywide. We at least
citywide have Republican and Democratic
primaries. There may be in other parties, I
don't know. There's a lot of parties now.
Seven of them, I think? Eight. Eight
parties.
And we have party offices in some
counties all the way down to county committee,
in both the Democratic and Republican parties,
and maybe in other parties. A crowded ballot
in any event. But to accommodate write-ins,
even trickier. It can't be done on these
machines.
The answer, the preferred answer, I
think on a multipartisan basis, has been to
take party offices and provide that you can't
10780
write in for those unless you file an
opportunity to ballot petition.
Obviously the opportunity to ballot
petition always afforded people, even in
New York City, a write-in opportunity in a
primary, but it was really intended to apply
to an otherwise uncontested primary where the
office wouldn't even appear on the ballot, but
for the OTB.
The problem is the bill we all
looked at at the beginning of this week said
no write-ins for party office applied only to
New York City. Okay. Except, Mr. President,
in some political parties. I believe the
Conservative Party elects its state committee
from Congressional districts. I'll hold that
as an example. I think the Right to Life
Party does a similar thing. I think other
parties do that.
Except the Congressional districts,
Mr. President, run -- one runs from
Westchester through the Bronx into Queens, one
runs from Queens to Nassau and Suffolk. They
don't respect the city's borders.
That would give rise, Mr.
10781
President, to a similar equal protection -
oh, I know, my Republican colleagues are going
to say: Equal protection in an election? No
court ever applied equal protection to an
election. And that was true until last
December. And we now have the very close
decision in Bush v. Gore which suggested equal
protection considerations do apply to the
conduct of elections. Not to access to the
system, but to the conduct of elections on
Election Day.
Ergo, Mr. President, it doesn't
take much of a stretch to say if we had passed
that version of early this week, someone
running for party office in one of those
Congressional districts, they or their
supporters would have been able to go to
federal court and say: Equal protection. My
supporters in Westchester can write in my
name, my supporters in the Bronx can't write
in my name, and so on.
We then got a second draft that
provided statewide, statewide, no write-ins
for party office. And that solved our
problem.
10782
For some reason -- I suspect for
the reason that many bills that have passed
this house have not seen the light of day in
the other house -- that got ignored in the
other house, notwithstanding the obvious
merits.
The reaction is this B print, which
says county option. But, Mr. President, the
problem with allowing each county to decide
this is the same equal-protection problem.
Only it's more. There are parties that elect
their party officials from Assembly districts,
and there are Assembly districts that include
more than one county.
And as soon as you -- say you
had -- for example, electing someone to a
party office from a certain Assembly district
and one county said write-ins are permitted
and the other county in that Assembly district
said they're not, you have a federal equal
protection problem. That's why we are opposed
to this bill in this print.
If you go back to the A print -- or
the straight print, the statewide feature,
then we support it.
10783
As to the second provisions about
straightening out the term of office of the
chair of the State Board, I won't mention his
name but last year I pointed out the esteemed
Republican lawyer who drafted that in 1974 and
made a drafting error that has for these last
27 years cost his party untold months enjoying
the chairmanship or chairwomanship of the
State Board of Elections. A situation that
somehow or other has been uncorrectable ever
since.
I might point out that the
provision, Mr. President, which has so
offended the Republican Party and which time
and again has been attached to bills in an
effort to bring equity to the Republican Party
was passed by a Republican-controlled Senate,
a Republican-controlled Assembly, and signed
by a Republican Governor. And I'm sure all
they were trying to do, because they owned
everything in this Capitol, was give the
Democrats a break. I think it was
intentional, Mr. President, that they let the
Democrats serve as the chair for 18 months
versus a six-month Republican chair.
10784
But I have no problem with that
provision, and I appreciate addressing the
holdover problem that has not recently, thanks
to the late, great Republican chair -- and I
don't mean late in the sense that he's
demised, but he's not the Republican chair
anymore. We did not have any holdover problem
this year with respect to Senator Berman's
reappointment; we had had it the two previous
times.
But I have no problem with those
provisions. I think it's silly, Mr.
President, to attach those provisions to this
bill, because this bill must pass both houses
and be signed in an acceptable fashion that
doesn't violate the equal protection clause,
or else the elections, particularly in
New York City this September, are going to be
utter chaos, utter chaos.
In many and most council districts
there are six, seven, and eight candidates
running for City Council in the Democratic
primary. In some districts there are more
than one candidate running in the Republican
primary. There are party offices down to
10785
county committee. We have four candidates
running for Mayor on the Democratic line, two,
at least, on the Republican line, who knows
how many other people for other offices.
We are actually, in our usual petty
partisan Albany way, dancing on the edge of
disaster with respect to the right of the
public to a relatively error-free, smooth
election. And if chaos ensues because whole
elections have to be put off onto paper
ballots, there is no way, with respect to
citywide offices, there can be a resolution in
time to effectuate the run-off provisions of
law with respect to those offices.
So, Mr. President, I urge -- and I
apply this not just across this aisle, I apply
it across this Capitol. We have all the other
things that are caught up in that large, huge
morass that someday this summer we'll come
back and see explode into reason. I urge
people in both houses, take this out of that
play. Let's just straighten this out and do
it right, because too much is at stake.
And if we miscalculate and those
elections are a disaster, after all the task
10786
forces and joint commissions and whatever
we've had to study the fairness of New York's
elections, we ought not dance on the head of
this pin. We shouldn't be playing with the
possibility of disastrous elections. It will
render everything, so many people in both
houses and in the second floor, all the lip
service as well as the genuine hours spent in
hearings will look like a big joke if we mess
up this year's elections because we don't in
both houses adopt the correct bill to address
this federal court decision.
Mr. President, I'm voting no,
because this doesn't do it.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Any other
Senator wish to be speak on the bill?
Hearing none, the Secretary will
read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This
act shall take effect immediately.
SENATOR CONNOR: Party vote in
the negative.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Party vote
in the affirmative.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the
10787
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Record
the party-line votes and announce the results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 36. Nays,
22. Party vote.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill
is passed.
Senator Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Yes, Mr.
President. At this time can we take up
Calendar Number 1360, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will read Calendar Number 1360.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1360, by the Senate Committee on Rules, Senate
Print Number 5593, an act to amend the
Administrative Code of the City of New York.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: There is
a home rule message at the desk.
The Secretary will read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 7. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the
10788
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill
is passed.
Senator Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Mr.
President, at this time can we take up
Calendar Number 1352, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1352, by the Senate Committee on Rules, Senate
Print Number 5680, an act to amend Chapter 20
of the Laws of 2002.
SENATOR CONNOR: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stafford, an explanation has been requested of
Calendar Number 1352 by Senator Connor.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Mr. President,
everyone probably would not remember here in
this chamber, but a number of years ago we had
what is called a banker's decision. And
therefore, after that, we had to have
legislation which would be language that is
10789
connected to the budget.
Everyone has such a blank look, I
had to make sure that I was correct. But
fortunately, I was correct. Now -- because
I'm not using my notes, as you can see.
This bill includes continued
extensions for the Lower Manhattan Commercial
Revitalization Program, the Quick Draw lottery
game, and the legislation known as the Loft
Law. The bill extends provisions of the
Insurance Law relating to excess medical
malpractice insurance coverage, but excludes
the Executive's proposed tax on insurance
companies.
The bill also authorizes a payment
of up to $54.5 million for CHIPS, capital aid
to localities, and extends the life of
legislative commissions.
I could go and do much more detail,
but I already see people nodding their heads.
And therefore, I think it's time for us to
vote on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Connor, why do you rise?
SENATOR CONNOR: Yes, Mr.
10790
President, I have an amendment to the bill at
the desk.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Yes,
Senator Connor, there is an amendment at the
desk.
SENATOR CONNOR: Thank you. I'd
like to waive its reading and explain it.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: We will
waive the reading of it, and you're now
afforded the opportunity to explain it.
SENATOR CONNOR: Thank you, Mr.
President.
This amendment relates to one
section of this bill that deals with the
extension of the life of the Legislative Task
Force on Demographic Research and
Reapportionment, a commission in whose -- a
task force, I should say, a joint task force
on which I had the privilege of serving from
probably 1979 till 1990, 1991.
The task force, as generally in its
various renewals, and it's been renewed from
time to time, consisted of six members, two of
whom are appointed by the Majority Leader of
this house, one of whom may not be a member of
10791
the Legislature, and two of whom are appointed
by the Speaker, one of whom may not be a
member of the Legislature, and one member
appointed each by the Minority Leaders of each
house.
In hearings, some witnesses raised
the issue of the lack of diversity in the
present composition of the task force. And I
don't think that lack of diversity, by the
way, is the result of any calculated effort.
I think it's just the result of a confluence
of factors.
In a letter I received last week
from Senator Skelos, he raised this issue.
And I think his focus in that letter, which
I've answered, was misfocused. Both
majorities, as their nonmember appointee -- at
least in the case of the Assembly, they've
appointed a staff member who's in charge of
redistricting. The Majority Leader in this
house has appointed someone who has in the
past been a staff member and has been a
consultant. Both of whom are very competent,
by the way, at doing what they do, extremely
competent.
10792
And I respectfully suggested to
both majorities that those individuals could
do what they do for their conferences without
being members of the task force, thus
affording each majority, each of whom gets two
appointments, the opportunity to search for
more diversity in their appointments, keeping
in mind that they are forbidden from
appointing another member of the Legislature,
so the ethnic, racial, or whatever -- gender
composition of each of those conferences is
irrelevant.
I know there are out there in the
public good and loyal African-American
Republicans, good and loyal active Republican
women, and so on and so forth. And I know in
the case of the Assembly the same is true.
There is, out there in the public, good and
loyal Democratic Puerto Rican and Latino and
African-American and women and so forth. Both
parties have, among their membership,
certainly individuals who reflect the
diversity of our great state.
This amendment is designed to
alleviate that situation another way. And let
10793
me come right to it. Of the six individuals,
there is no African-American, there is no
Puerto Rican or Latino, there is no woman.
And indeed, there is no one from New York
City. Which I think, if it hasn't been
pointed out, somebody is going to point it out
sooner or later at one of these hearings.
And this task force is really about
listening, developing a record, hearing what
the public wants to say as well as making
proposals. And again, it did a very good job
ten years ago and is on the path now of
soliciting public participation in the
process. And part of that ought to be just a
comfort level to the public that, gee, they
seem to represent the rainbow that's New York
State -- geographically, genderwise, racially,
ethnically, in all ways.
So what my amendment would do is
simply give each of the legislative leaders
another appointment. In the case of the two
majorities, they would appoint three members,
one of whom may not be a legislator. In the
case of the two minority leaders, they would
get two appointments, one of whom must be a
10794
member.
So you would certainly end up with
maybe anywhere from four to six members of the
Legislature on it, and at least four
nonmembers of the Legislature. I wish I could
do something about this, but the majorities
would still be the majorities and still have a
majority on it. And I don't think the
politics, the partisan politics would change
at all, but more people would get to
participate as members.
And presumably -- I know all four
legislative leaders, I know, are concerned
about this situation. And we could use these
additional appointments to address those
concerns.
So, Mr. President, I humbly suggest
I don't see any legal downside to this. I
don't think it has any effect on the legal
position in redistricting or anything else. I
mean, there's no trick here. It's just a
straightforward let's put four more people on
the task force.
You know, regrettably, the majority
in this house will still be the majority and
10795
the majority in the other house will still be
the majority, but we'll get some more people
involved in the process, and that will be
good.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Any other
Senator wishing to speak on the amendment?
Senator Malcolm Smith, on the
amendment.
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: Thank you
very much, Mr. President.
You know, this is an exciting
amendment. And it's exciting to talk about it
because, if you will forgive me for presenting
this analogy, but for the trial lawyers in the
room, one of the things that's very
interesting for them when they're going to
trial, in the very short version, is they try
to make sure they present enough evidence so
by the time the jury hears everything and the
judge charges the jury, they hope the decision
comes back in their favor.
And I guess the challenge that
attorneys have in that regard is they have to
try to convince the jury about their position.
10796
And in order to do that, you have to present
evidence. And the evidence has to be so
compelling and so overwhelming that those 12
individuals, assuming that's the size of that
jury, will then, after the charge from the
judge, say: You know something? I agree with
that attorney; he gave a compelling argument.
It all works. But you have to have
good evidence.
Well, Mr. President, what's so good
about this particular amendment is that the
evidence is standing in front of you. Maybe
you can call it a conscience clause manifested
in its own way.
Now, you'll probably say, Malcolm,
what are you talking about? How are you
calling yourself a conscience clause and how
are you the manifestation of a conscience
clause?
Well, I had the pleasure of
testifying at a hearing regarding
reapportionment. And when I testified, one of
the points that I raised to Skelos and a few
others that were there was just the fact that
Senator Connor brought up.
10797
And that was I went in front of a
panel that was deciding on how they're going
to reapportion the State of New York, but yet
and still there was no representation from the
female persuasion, there was no representation
from any ethnic persuasion of my background,
or Hispanic or Asian or East Indian or others.
So the question was raised. And
then, subsequently, letters were communicated
to Senator Skelos, to Shelly Silver, to Marty
Connor. And as a result of that, there was a
response. And the response kind of manifested
itself today with this amendment.
So what I'm trying to explain to
you, Mr. President, is the interesting thing
about all of this is what occurred was exactly
what we wanted to happen. And what we wanted
to happen and was trying to show everybody was
there has to be some representation of another
ethnic persuasion on this particular panel
because there needs to be some kind of
conscience.
And it was interesting, I received
a letter from Assemblyman Ortloff -- and let
me just read what he said real quickly. He
10798
says: "Your proposal raises serious concern
about the balance of representation and, if
implemented, would set a dangerous precedent
for both minority party conferences into the
future."
Now, what's interesting about this,
if we were talking about Democrat and
Republican, this would be an interesting
document with some real insight. However,
we're not talking Democrat/Republican, we're
talking about an ethnically diversified panel
that needs to happen. So unfortunately,
Assemblyman Ortloff didn't get it.
The bottom line is you need to have
some type of ethnic persuasion on this panel
because it's just the right thing to do. Now,
it's the right thing to do because if you look
around the city of New York, you look around
the state of New York, you know ethnic
diversity is the state of affairs today.
There's nothing new about it, everybody knows
about it.
At one point in time immigrants
were -- people were saying to them, You are
taxying our system because you don't vote.
10799
Now, because of immigration, it's going to
allow us to change the demographic
reapportionment lines in our state that may be
to the favor of one party or another.
But the bottom line, as I stand
before you, Mr. President, is very simple.
This is not about Democrat or Republican.
This is just the right thing to do. And, if
you will, what you see standing before you is
a conscience clause. Just simply by raising
the issue to Dean Skelos, to Marty Connor, all
of this has come about.
So while we may not pass this
amendment today, what everybody in the room
needs to understand is this is not going to go
away. It's not going to go away because it's
not about Malcolm, it's not about Byron, it's
not about Senator Santiago, it's not about
Dean Skelos, it's not about Senator Marchi.
It's about fairness and just doing the right
thing.
So when we complete this day -- and
I'm assuming that the other side of the aisle
will say, Sorry, we're not going to do this.
That's okay. That's okay, because this
10800
particular problem represents itself in the
larger scheme of things. It represents itself
in the larger scheme of things because it is
the right thing to do. Everyone in the state
knows it's the right thing to do.
And you have to, you just have to,
by balance, show representation. Not just for
the individuals who may have the intellectual
capacity to make some right decisions, but you
have to have some representation of what
surrounds this state as it relates to the
ethnic population.
So I'm just simply saying, Mr.
President, that just simply by raising the
issue one time in a very small way made the
entire task force respond. And they responded
because someone of another ethnic background
raised it at the time when it needed to be
raised.
And so I'm simply saying to you,
when the time comes for the lines to be drawn,
not that Dean Skelos, not that my good
colleague Senator Dollinger, who I respect,
not that any other person on that panel does
not have the intellectual capacity to make the
10801
right decision with the right data.
The bottom line is, you have to
have some conscience that represents what Olga
Mendez looks like, just what Senator
Montgomery looks like, what I look like. We
don't have an Asian in here, but what they
look like. It's just the right thing to do.
It's not a matter of, well, we got to do this
because we are oppressed or anything else is
happening. The bottom line is it's just the
right thing to do.
So, gentlemen, ladies, I know what
you're going to do with the amendment. I've
talked to Silver on the other side, I've
talked to some of the people on this side, and
we know where it's going. This is again part
of the conscience clause manifestation.
Because after today, it's not going
to go away. After today it will manifest
itself again, whether it is in the media,
whether it is in more testimony, whether it is
in when the lines are drawn, whether it is in
the legal courtrooms. Wherever it is, it is
not going to go away, because it's the right
thing to do. And you can't get around the
10802
right thing to do. It is just that simple.
It is not a difficult equation. It
is not some fantastic econometric model that
you got to try to figure out whether it's on
the beta side or the alpha side. It's just
simply the right thing to do.
So when you finish and you've done
all that you have to do, remember that this is
going to be the right thing to do.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Any other
Senator wishing to speak on the amendment?
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Skelos, on the amendment.
SENATOR SKELOS: Yes, I would
like to speak on the canvass.
What I'd like to point out, just to
the body and for the transcript, is the
problem that Senator Connor raises and Senator
Smith raised at a task force hearing and other
individuals had raised can be solved very
simply by Senator Connor appointing Olga
Mendez and replacing Senator Dollinger as a
member of that task force. He has the
ability, as the Minority Leader -
10803
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Connor, why do you -
SENATOR SKELOS: -- to make an
appointment.
SENATOR CONNOR: Would Senator
Skelos yield for a question?
SENATOR SKELOS: No.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator refuses to -
SENATOR CONNOR: My question
would have been, Have you no shame, Senator?
Have you no shame?
SENATOR SKELOS: Senator Connor,
you had the ability -- just as you have the
ability to go to the general budget conference
committee, you have the ability to appoint a
person such as Senator Mendez, such as Senator
Paterson as the representative of the Minority
on the task force.
In the last three redistrictings
there was a member of the minority from the
Assembly: Angelo Del Toro, David Gantt, and
Larry Seabrook. At no time -- and the Speaker
also has the ability to appoint an individual
so that there would be the diversity.
10804
As I pointed out in the letter to
you, we as a conference at times, including
twice against Senator Dollinger, have run
individuals of color, and they have not
succeeded. And unfortunately, they have not
succeeded, because they would be welcomed into
our conference.
There is no member of color in the
Minority Conference in the Assembly, despite
the fact that they have tried to elect
individuals.
The bottom line is you complain
about no representation from the city. Well,
Speaker Silver is from the city. Why hasn't
he appointed a member to the task force from
the city of New York?
So I really believe the problem can
be solved very simply. Rather than adding a
number of members so that all of a sudden we
have to charter a plane to go around the state
with our hearings, very simply, Senator
Connor, appoint a person from your conference.
You have so many capable individuals to do
that. Speaker Silver, very capable
individuals, as he had in the past. He could
10805
do it. But both of you have opted not to do
it, so it's in your conscience that this has
not occurred.
SENATOR CONNOR: Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Connor, why do you rise?
SENATOR CONNOR: You know, I
raised this not as a partisan thing. I think
we've all heard what he said, what the Deputy
Majority Leader said. I am thankful he
doesn't get to appoint anybody to the task
force. I hope he never will.
The fact of the matter, since he
raised it, is those fine African-American
Republicans that ran against Senator
Dollinger, let Senator Bruno appoint them to
the task force instead of Senator Skelos's
sidekick Vinnie Bruy from Nassau County.
That's the way this place ought to operate.
I am ashamed that he politicized
and made this partisan. It's typical of what
we've come to expect from the Deputy Majority
Leader.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President -
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
10806
Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: -- if I could
respond to that, very simply. You can replace
Mr. Bruy, who has the institutional knowledge,
but the bottom line is then you're satisfied
with crumbs.
I would rather have an elected
official from your conference as a member of
that task force, or the Speaker could do it,
rather than a person who's a nonelected
official.
SENATOR CONNOR: Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Connor, why do you rise?
SENATOR CONNOR: We've run a lot
of Democrats for office who have lost, but I
never call them crumbs. I think those fine
African-Americans that have run for State
Senate as Republicans, if they were appointed
to the task force, wouldn't be crumbs.
SENATOR SKELOS: No -
SENATOR CONNOR: And I'm offended
that Senator Skelos said we'd be left with
crumbs.
SENATOR SKELOS: Senator Connor,
10807
that is your interpretation. What I said is
the nonelected members of the task force, and
you know it. It would be settling for a
nonelected person on that task force rather
than the fine elected officials that you have
on your side of the house like Senator Mendez,
like Senator Paterson, like Senator
Montgomery, like Senator Smith, and I can go
on and on. That's what I'm saying.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Is there
any other Senator wishing to speak on the
amendment?
Hearing none, the question is on
the amendment. Those Senators in agreement
with the amendment please signify by raising
your hand.
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
agreement are Senators Breslin, Brown, Connor,
Duane, Hassell-Thompson, Hevesi, Mendez,
Montgomery, Onorato, Oppenheimer, Paterson,
Sampson, Santiago, Schneiderman, M. Smith,
Stachowski, and Stavisky.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
amendment is lost.
Senator Marcellino, the Assembly
10808
bill has arrived. Could we substitute that at
this time?
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Please take
up that substitution, sir.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: I'll ask
the Secretary to read the substitution.
THE SECRETARY: In relation to
Calendar Number 1352, Senator Stafford moves
to discharge, from the Committee on Finance,
Assembly Bill Number 9268 and substitute it
for the identical Senate Bill Number 5680,
Third Reading Calendar 1352.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Any other
member wishing to speak on the bill?
Senator Padavan.
SENATOR PADAVAN: Thank you, Mr.
President. What I'm about to say is going to
appear mild compared to this previous
dialogue.
One provision of this bill -- and
by the way, this bill has a great many good
things in it -- relates to the extension of
Quick Draw.
There are three entities that have
something in common. One of them is the State
10809
Commission on Problem Gambling, the other is
the Office of Mental Health, and the third is
the National Gambling Impact Study Commission.
All three organizations in recent years,
recent time frames, put out reports that
addressed directly the issue of Quick Draw.
And I'll read just very briefly,
because I know the hour is late -- and
parenthetically, let me say if you want to
know all there is to know, at least all that
we feel there is to know, this report is
available to you and you can look it up.
But the fact remains last year the
Quick Draw study conducted by the Office of
Mental Health -- at our bidding, it was in the
law -- found that regular players at Quick
Draw are three times more likely to be problem
gamblers than players of other lottery games.
Which, as we know, also has its own inherent
problems.
The New York State Council on
Problem Gambling in their study determined
that New York has the nation's highest
percentage of lifetime problem gamblers. And
they identified a relationship between alcohol
10810
abuse and problem gambling, which is of
particular concern because Quick Draw is
largely played in bars and taverns.
And the third that I referred to is
the national commission, where they stated
that Quick Draw is an example of the
rapid-fire electronic gambling that should be
rolled back. And they said the states should
no longer do this, and those that have it
should withdraw, because of the inherent
problems that relate to people, compulsive
gambling, the silent addiction, on and on it
goes.
So in the face of what we have
asked to be done -- the OMH study, State
Council on Problem Gambling, and so on,
telling us that this is a mistake -- we
continue to do it, because we know better,
apparently. The State Lottery is just
addicted to figuring out ways of raising more
money.
The only people who are making out
on this deal is GTECH -- those are the folks
that operate Quick Draw -- and the lobbyists
who represent them here in the Capitol. Those
10811
are the ones that make out.
Because if you look at where these
Quick Draw outlets, 3200 of them, are,
virtually all of them are in low- to
low-middle-income communities, people who can
least afford it.
So regrettably, I will vote against
this bill, despite all the other good things
in it, because I cannot be hypocritical and
accept this part. Which, if it stood on its
own, I think would have a great deal of
trouble passing this house and this
Legislature.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3 -
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Excuse
me. Senator Schneiderman, did you wish to
speak on the bill?
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you,
Mr. President. I will be brief.
I am -- I feel that I am
constrained also to vote against this bill.
Something else that's incomprehensible to me
is the fact that we have once again failed to
10812
include any funding for the State Superfund
program or any directive of how to proceed.
The Commissioner of the Department
of Environmental Conservation declared that
the department was in a crisis mode on
March 30th of this year. On April 4th, I
wrote to Senator Bruno, copy to Senator
Marcellino. No action.
And if you are someone in a
community that has a toxic site as to which
action has stopped because the Superfund has
run out of money, this is not a minor matter.
We should take action on this.
My second point that I made earlier
this week is, again, these extensions are way
too long. We need to pass a budget. We need
to stay here and do our work. I do not accept
the notion that it will not put more pressure
on us if we stay here. I think that just
staying here late tonight seems to have put
pressure on a lot of my colleagues.
We need to work on passing a
budget, and I think these extensions of time
reduce the pain. You reduce the pain and you
don't get the public's business done.
10813
I will be voting no.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will read the last section.
Oh, excuse me. Senator Brown.
SENATOR BROWN: Thank you, Mr.
President.
In all due respect, I'm going to
have to be compelled to vote no as well. I
was recently informed that my Senate district
has 20 Superfund sites. One site is near a
church, near a community that is full of
residential homes.
And people are fearful, people are
afraid, people are concerned about their
health, their well-being, the health and
well-being of their children and loved ones
and neighbors. And when they call me, as
their Senator, I have to tell them there's no
money to clean up this Superfund site. And
I'm not happy about that.
Like Senator Schneiderman, I think
that this one-month extender is too long. I
think we should be doing our work on this
budget. I voted against the emergency
appropriation bill a couple of days ago, and
10814
the month before I voted against that
emergency appropriation bill, because I don't
believe that the negotiations that should be
taking place right now around this budget are
taking place.
Another thing that disturbs me
about this bill is provisions are not being
made for summer jobs for our youth. And as I
mentioned a couple of days ago, there are many
youth across this state that would like to
work for the summer, that have worked through
the Department of Labor and the funding that
is provided in that agency. And this bill
doesn't provide the kind of funding at the
level that we think it should be at to provide
the kind of jobs that our youth are looking
for.
And so because of those two reasons
and many others, and because of the length of
this extender being a month, this
emergency-language bill being a month, I'm
going to be compelled to vote in the negative.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will read the last section.
10815
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Record
the negatives and announce the results.
Senator Marcellino, to explain his
vote.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Just as a
way to make one minor correction to my
colleague. To my knowledge, and we've just
been doing some checking, there have been no
sites shut down for lack of funds or for any
money that's been lost. All the money that's
been necessary has been appropriated and will
continue to be appropriated.
I vote aye.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Marcellino will be recorded in the
affirmative.
Senator Schneiderman, to explain
your vote.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Just to
respond briefly to my colleague, who I know
10816
shares my concern that we have not been able
to resolve the gridlock over Superfund
extension, Commissioner Crotty herself that
stated that there are sites awaiting cleanup.
Inspection has stopped. Cleanup on sites that
wasn't already underway is not going forward.
So there is a serious effect from
this. I hope we will be able to work
something out in the next month, and maybe
next month we can get something done. I know
that Senator Marcellino is working trying to
negotiate things with the Assembly, and that's
not been easy. But I think there is a
concrete effect to this.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: How are
you voting, Senator Schneiderman?
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: I'm voting
no.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Schneiderman will be recorded in the negative.
Senator Duane, why do you rise?
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Mr.
President. Just briefly to explain my vote on
one area of the extender.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
10817
Duane, to explain his vote.
SENATOR DUANE: I just think it's
a terrible miscarriage of justice that we're
doing such a puny and punitive extension of
the Loft Law. Clearly, people that have
rejuvenated such a large part of the city of
New York deserve to feel safe and secure in
their homes. And to extend only until the end
of August their ability to stay in their homes
is just a disgrace.
And while I know that this extender
will extend the length of time they can stay
in their homes, to not -- to make it so
they're going to have to come back here and
fight to stay in their homes is just an
outrage. If there was a real extender in
here, I would vote for it.
I also think it's just a -- it's a
disgrace that we tie Quick Draw together with
something like the ability of people to stay
that their homes and lofts. It's just, you
know, one of the many outrages that we see
here in this Legislature, that we combine such
totally disparate issues as extending the Loft
Law and extending the life of Quick Draw.
10818
I'm voting no on it, and I know
that the loft dwellers in my district will
understand why I'm casting this vote.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Duane will be recorded in the negative.
Announce the results.
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
the negative on Calendar Number 1352 are
Senators Brown, Duane, Montgomery, Padavan,
and Schneiderman.
Ayes, 53. Nays, 5.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill
is passed.
SENATOR HEVESI: Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Hevesi, why do you rise?
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you, Mr.
President. I rise to request unanimous
consent to be recorded in the negative on
Calendar 1354, Senate Print 1582.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Without
objection, hearing no objection, Senator
Hevesi will be recorded in the negative on
Calendar Number 1354.
10819
Senator Fuschillo, why do you rise?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Mr.
President, I request unanimous consent to be
recorded in the negative on Calendar Number
1354.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Without
objection, hearing no objection, Senator
Fuschillo will be recorded in the negative on
Calendar Number 1354.
Senator Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Mr.
President, can we at this time take up
Supplemental Active List Number 3.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will read, beginning with Calendar
Number 540.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
540, by Senator Paterson, Senate Print 4764,
an act to amend the Public Authorities Law, in
relation to authorizing.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the
10820
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
813, by Senator Balboni, Senate Print 4208B,
an act to amend the Environmental Conservation
Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Mr.
President, is there a message of necessity at
the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: There is.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Move to
accept.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
motion is to accept the message of necessity
on Calendar Number 813. All those in favor
signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Opposed,
nay.
(No response.)
10821
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
message is accepted.
The bill is before the house.
The Secretary will read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 7. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill
is passed.
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 PATERSON: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Marcellino, an explanation of Calendar Number
1286 has been requested.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Yes, Mr.
President. This bill simply extends for one
year the duration of legislative commissions.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
10822
Paterson, explanation satisfactory?
Senator Paterson, why do you rise?
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
I'm sorry, what was your question?
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Is that
explanation satisfactory?
SENATOR PATERSON: If you'd give
me just a second, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Paterson, why do you rise?
SENATOR PATERSON: Related to
this bill, we are going to offer the same
amendment in the -
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: I would
note for the record, Senator Paterson, that
there is an amendment on this bill at the desk
that has the same substance as the amendment
before that was offered up on Calendar Number
1352.
It's my understanding that you're
waiving the explanation and -- for the record,
you waive the reading of it and you're
afforded an opportunity to explain it, but
that you don't feel the necessity to explain
the amendment because you did -- or Senator
10823
Connor did it before.
So with that, the question is on
the amendment. Those Senators in agreement
with the amendment signify by saying aye.
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: We can
record the same vote as was recorded on the
prior amendment if that is your desire and the
desire of the Majority Leader.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: We have no
objection.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Same vote
on the amendment.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
how do you know the answers to my questions
before I ask them?
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: In the
words of a former basketball coach, Senator
Paterson, you telegraph real well.
The amendment fails. Prior vote -
same as on Calendar Number 1352, I should say.
The vote is the same.
The bill is before the house.
Is there any other Senator wishing
10824
to speak on Calendar Number 1286? Then the
debate is closed.
The Secretary will read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill
is passed.
Senator Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Yes, Mr.
President, we are anticipating something at
this point.
Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: At this time
could we call up Calendar Number 1349 on
Supplemental Calendar 57B.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: If the
members go to Calendar 57B, the Secretary will
read Calendar Number 1349.
10825
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1349, by Senator LaValle, Senate Print 5506B,
an act to amend the Education Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Is there a
message of necessity at the desk, sir?
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: There is.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Move to
accept.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
motion is to accept the message of necessity
on Calendar Number 1349. All those in favor
signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Opposed,
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
message is accepted.
The bill is before the house.
The Secretary will read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect -
10826
SENATOR DUANE: Explanation,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
LaValle, an explanation of Calendar Number
1349 has been requested by Senator Duane.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
LaValle.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Senator Duane,
this bill really -- since 1947, the scope of
practice in dentistry has not been changed.
This legislation would allow for common
practices in dentistry, such as implants, that
this would allow for and cover in the new
definition that was provided for here in this
legislation.
And I believe that everyone -- this
has been a negotiated bill and has everybody
on board. I believe it's passed the -- I
don't know whether it's passed the other
house, but I believe that everyone is on board
on this new definition.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you.
Explanation satisfactory, thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
10827
Secretary will read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill
is passed.
Senator Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: If we could
stand at ease for a few moments, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senate will stand at ease for a few moments.
(Whereupon, the Senate stood at
ease at 7:47 p.m.)
(Whereupon, the Senate reconvened
at 8:04 p.m.)
ACTING PRESIDENT BALBONI:
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President
Balboni, there will be an immediate conference
of the Majority in the Majority Conference
Room.
10828
ACTING PRESIDENT BALBONI: There
will be an immediate meeting of the Majority
in the Majority Conference Room.
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: The last
President could guess what I was going to say.
ACTING PRESIDENT BALBONI: You're
going to call for a conference, aren't you, of
the Minority?
SENATOR PATERSON: There you go.
Thank you, Mr. President.
Immediate conference of the Minority. Brief,
very brief. Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT BALBONI: The
Senate stands at ease for a brief period of
time while both Majority and Minority
conference.
(Whereupon, the Senate stood at
ease at 8:05 p.m.)
(Whereupon, the Senate reconvened
at 8:49 p.m.)
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Yes, at the
10829
direction of Senator Bruno, our Majority
Leader, we will be starting session promptly
at five to 9:00.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: And what
time do you have right now, Senator?
SENATOR SKELOS: Right now I have
about 10½, 11 of 9:00 right now. So in six
and a half minutes we will be starting
session.
So I would urge all members,
members of the Minority and the Majority, to
be in session in six and a half minutes.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Session
will reconvene in six and a half minutes.
The Senate will continue to stand
at ease.
(Whereupon, the Senate stood at
ease at 8:50 p.m.)
(Whereupon, the Senate reconvened
at 8:56 p.m.)
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senate will come to order. I ask the members
to find their places, staff to find their
places.
10830
Can we have quiet in the chamber.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President,
there will be an immediate meeting of the
Rules Committee in the Majority Conference
Room.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:
Immediate meeting of the Rules Committee,
immediate meeting of the Rules Committee in
the Majority Conference Room, Room 332.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Would the
members please take their places in their
chairs.
Senator Saland -- Senator Saland,
if you have to have a conversation, take it
out of the chamber, please. If not, sit in
your chair.
Thank you, Senator Leibell.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President,
would you please call up Calendar Number 523.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will read Calendar Number 523.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
10831
523, by Senator Nozzolio, Senate Print 5110A,
an act to amend the Executive Law and others,
in relation to making funds of a convicted
person available.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Is there a
message of necessity at the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: There is.
SENATOR SKELOS: Move to accept.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
motion is to accept the message of necessity
on Calendar Number 523. All those in favor
signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Opposed,
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
message is accepted.
The bill is before the house.
The Secretary will read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
10832
SENATOR DUANE: Explanation,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Duane wishes to have an explanation.
Senator Nozzolio, an explanation of
Calendar Number 523 has been asked for by
Senator Duane.
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Yes, Mr.
President. I'd be glad to explain this
measure.
That this measure before us expands
the Son of Sam Law, expands victims' rights to
recover funds received by convicted criminals.
In our view, this is a major victory for the
crime victims of the state, Mr. President.
It's going to enhance their ability to obtain
compensation from convicted criminals for the
wrongs done to them.
This legislation improves the Son
of Sam Law by allowing crime victims or their
representatives to sue convicted criminals who
cause them harm, and it provides them an
opportunity to ensure that those who are in
prison and receive a windfall, whether that be
from a lottery winning, whether it be from a
10833
judgment in their favor -- that those crime
victims, who were left in many cases
destitute, in a number of other cases without
any recourse whatsoever -- and certainly the
criminality scars the victim far beyond the
prison sentence for particularly violent
crimes -- we allow, under this statute, crime
victims to seek redress, to obtain monetary
compensation from the perpetrator of their
crime when that perpetrator, while in prison,
reaps an economic windfall from a variety of
sources.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Duane, why do you rise?
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you.
Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor
would yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Nozzolio, do you yield to a question from
Senator Duane?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Mr. President,
I'd be happy to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you.
10834
Under the proposed legislation I'm
hoping that you can tell me what would happen
in a case where a convicted person received a
settlement as a result of some kind of
brutality on the part of law enforcement.
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Mr. President,
the statute before us does not discriminate
for the types of awards that a perpetrator of
a crime may receive. If that perpetrator of
the crime is in prison for a violent act
enumerated under the statute, that criminal,
be he or she the recipient of a judgment, the
recipient of a largesse coming in to them
beyond the scope of the original Son of Sam
Law -- which this legislature enacted to
prohibit those criminals to receive a windfall
from the profits of their crime, be it profits
from a book, a movie, newspaper articles,
whatever that source may have been as a result
of the notoriety caused by the crime -- we
believe that that same criminal who receives a
judgment while they're in prison, by a federal
court or a state court, that the profits or
the amount of that money should first go to
the crime victim, minus 10 percent which the
10835
statute allows the criminal to keep.
So this is a major step that the
crime victim, in effect, would receive
compensation for the damages which Senator
Duane had asked about, Mr. President, that the
criminal in effect would receive 10 percent of
that damage award. And that is an incentive
to continue their efforts in pursuing
litigation when they are in fact damaged.
But frankly, the bulk of their
crime, 90 percent of the largesse, would be
going right directly to the crime victim.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you.
Through you, Mr. President, if the
sponsor would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Do you
yield to another question, Senator Nozzolio?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR DUANE: Does the proposed
legislation -- well, let me ask the question
this way. If the sponsor would give me an
outline of the categories of crimes that are
10836
covered under this legislation.
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Mr. President,
would Senator Duane be so kind as to repeat
the first part of that question.
SENATOR DUANE: I was wondering
if the sponsor would be able to give us an
outline of the categories of crime which are
to be covered under this legislation.
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Mr. President,
I'd be happy to.
That all violent felony offenses,
offenses for which merit time is not allowed
under the Correction Law, all Class B felony
offenses, any offense titled as a first-degree
offense in the Penal Law, certain grand
larceny and criminal possession of stolen
property offenses, offenses in federal or
out-of-state courts involving a state resident
which have the same elements as any of the
above-referenced crimes.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you, Mr.
President, if the sponsor would continue to
yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Nozzolio, do you continue to yield to another
10837
question?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR DUANE: The question has
come up with members of our conference
regarding coverage for crimes, so-called
white-collar crimes -- securities fraud, cases
where older people's savings have been wiped
out through unscrupulous activities on the
part of others -- are these so-called
white-collar criminals also covered in the
legislation?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Mr. President,
it's a very good question by Senator Duane.
Yes, the answer is they could very
well be. That any offense titled in the first
degree under the Penal Law, whether that be a
white-collar crime in effect perpetrated in
the first degree, and certain grand larceny
and criminal possession of stolen property
offenses are also included in this statute.
And I'm not sure -- there is no
legal definition of a white-collar crime. But
10838
those certainly are, in effect, of the major
larceny nature, less likely to be of the
violent nature, but would be nonetheless
covered by this statute.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you, Mr.
President, if the sponsor would continue to
yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Nozzolio, do you yield to another question?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR DUANE: So it does seem
that the intent of the legislation is not just
to cover perpetrators of violent crime, but
also perpetrators of crimes against property?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Mr. President,
if the offense is a first-degree offense,
rises to the level of a first-degree offense,
the answer to the question is yes.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you.
And through you, Mr. President, if
the sponsor would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
10839
Nozzolio, do you yield to another question?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR DUANE: In the case of
persons who are convicted of a crime but have
had a funding stream coming in with which they
have shared the revenue with their spouse,
under this legislation would the revenue
that's been dedicated to the spouse in a
partnership also be subject to the terms of
the legislation?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Mr. President,
the statute exempts income, wages from a
spouse from seizure or recovery by the crime
victim.
However, if the spouse becomes the
recipient or, I should say, a representative
of the criminal spouse, that those sources of
revenue would in fact be obtainable to the
crime victim under this provision -- under
these provisions.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you, Mr.
President, if the sponsor would continue to
10840
yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Nozzolio, do you yield to another question?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you. In a
case where there's a death benefit being paid
to a spouse or a family, is that money subject
to confiscation as well?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Mr. President,
under that hypothetical presented by Senator
Duane, the monies as I understand them would
be paid -- payable to the spouse under this
hypothetical inheritance example. That would
be payable to the spouse, it would not be
payable to the criminal, and therefore it
would not be subjected to garnisheement under
this statute.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Yes, thank you,
Mr. President. Through you, if the sponsor
would continue to yield.
10841
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Nozzolio, do you yield to another question?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR DUANE: Under
circumstances where an action may have been
started on the part of the perpetrator before
they were a perpetrator on a completely
unrelated matter in which both the perpetrator
and his or her spouse could also be the
beneficiary, in a case such as that would the
spouse be able still to get his or her share
of the proceeds of an action that was begun
prior to the commission of the crime?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Mr. President,
under this hypothetical I'm not certain
whether Senator Duane means an action by
coplaintiffs in a lawsuit. I would
respectfully ask him to further elaborate on
his hypothetical.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you, Mr.
President, if the sponsor would allow me to
give more detail.
10842
For instance, in a case where there
had been an accident and the perpetrator and
the spouse had both been injured in that and
an action was commenced to deal with hospital
bills and pain and suffering, et cetera, and
if that accident and the suit began before the
commission of the crime, would the spouse
still be eligible or, for that matter, the
perpetrator still be eligible to collect in
the case of the success of the suit?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: The answer to
that question, Senator Duane, I believe would
depend on whether this was in fact a joint
action.
And the judgment from that action,
directing funds to either both spouses in an
apportionment or one spouse in a direct way,
if the judgment delineated the amount of
recovery for each individual spouse under this
statute, the criminal spouse would in effect
have their portion of the judgment taken from
them, minus 10 percent, under this provision.
If it was to the noncriminal
spouse, it would not be subjected to seizure
under this statute.
10843
If it was unclear as to the
apportionment, then it certainly would be
incumbent upon the plaintiffs' attorneys to
make it clear through the alternate judgment.
Barring all that, I believe the
Crime Victims Board then would have to make an
individual assessment. And they are so
empowered to do so under this statute.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you.
Through you, Mr. President, if the
sponsor would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Nozzolio, do you yield to another question?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you.
In a case where a person who has
been incarcerated for a crime is assaulted
while incarcerated or injured while
incarcerated and, frankly, against all odds is
able to wage a lawsuit based on what had
happened while they were incarcerated, is
the -- are the -- whatever settlement
10844
resulting from that, is that also eligible to
be garnished, and at what level?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Mr. President,
I believe we have covered that ground before,
but let me try to plow it again.
That this statute clearly covers
those items where a convicted criminal is
behind bars and seeks, through a private court
action, their remedy, for whatever reason.
That 90 percent of the eventual award, if
there is one, would go to the crime victims
under Senator Duane's hypothetical. Ten
percent would be retained by the criminal
themselves.
SENATOR DUANE: And through you,
Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Nozzolio, do you yield to another question?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR DUANE: Is there a point
at which the garnishing of an award -- is
10845
there a point at which the perpetrator can be
made whole or have -- finish paying off their
debt? Or is the debt paid in perpetuity?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Mr. President,
this measure is designed to make as whole as
possible the crime victims who are injured by
dangerous actions, significant actions against
them.
This measure does not limit the
amount of recovery a crime victim could have.
Just as, in effect, if this was a civil
litigation, if the perpetrator of a civil
wrong was a wealthy individual, they certainly
would be subjected to a large amount of
potential liability, damages, based on their
ability to pay.
The crimes that we're talking about
and the injured victims here in all likelihood
will never be compensated. That the time
period of which the recovery is severed is
after the sentence and parole is over. And
for three years -- after three years, that
there is no requirement that the criminal give
notice to the Crime Victims Board of any
recovery.
10846
That this is intended to ensure
that those damaged are in fact given
compensation should that ability to pay ever
arise by the perpetrator of the crime. Let's
face it, in most cases that ability doesn't
exist or will ever exist. But we are going to
make every effort to ensure that day trading
in prison, or that the Arthur Shawcrosses who
are sharing and selling their artwork, that
the monies coming in to those individuals, for
whatever purpose, are going to be designated
in some part -- in most part to the crime
victims.
SENATOR DUANE: And through you,
Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Nozzolio, do you yield to another question?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you. And I
am grateful for the indulgence that the
sponsor is giving on this.
10847
But just to help me, I'm going to,
if I may, give another example, just so that I
can help understand how this law would work.
In the case of someone who, say, has been
convicted of robbing a bank of $100,000 and is
incarcerated for having done that, and there
isn't specifically a person that's been harmed
by that but perhaps a class of people, the
people who have deposited money in the bank or
the -- whoever they may be, and this
particular perpetrator is sentenced to, you
know, a finite period of time and parole, and
in the course of that is left a sum in excess
of that $100,000 -- say their aunt died and
left them $500,000 -- are they made whole
after they've paid the hundred thousand
dollars? Or do they have to continue to pay
$100,000 plus interest? Or do they have to
continue to pay after they have made up the -
what they've stolen?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Pardon my
indulgence -- pardon me, Mr. President, as I
needed to consult with counsel on that
hypothetical.
I've been informed that it would
10848
work this way, Senator Duane. That the crime
victim in a sense would be the bank, on behalf
of all the depositors in the bank. That the
bank, or victim, would make application to the
Crime Victims Board. And the amount of
damages would be certainly the $100,000 plus
costs, maybe interest, and that that in effect
would be the aggregate that the crime victim
would be able to recover under the
circumstance.
SENATOR DUANE: Then through you,
Mr. President, just to nail it down for me,
that means that once they've paid back the
hundred thousand dollars -
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator,
I don't understand what that means, just to
nail it down for you.
Are you asking the Senator to yield
to a question?
SENATOR DUANE: I am asking the
Senator to yield to another question.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Nozzolio, do you yield to another question?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: I will, Mr.
President.
10849
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you.
Just to help make it clear to me,
when -- after the $100,000 plus interest has
been paid back, then the perpetrator is
entitled to keep the rest?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Mr. President,
after the damage award is satisfied, the
perpetrator would be able to -- after they've
made the victim whole -- and really, that's
the intent of this legislation. That's why
we're here standing here, that's why we are
here debating this measure, is to make the
crime victim whole.
And that would occur, under Senator
Duane's hypothetical, after that $100,000,
plus interest, plus costs, whatever the court
would ultimately decide what the damage is,
after that damage is compensated for, the
perpetrator then would be able to keep
whatever they earned or made or received on
their own.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you. And
through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor
10850
would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Nozzolio, do you yield to another question?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR DUANE: Are any of the
funds that are -- that the victim or the Crime
Compensation Board is able to garnish, are any
of those funds -- can any of those funds be
from employment while incarcerated?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Mr. President,
the answer is no, not under the statute.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you.
And through you, Mr. President, if
the sponsor would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Nozzolio, do you yield to another question?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you.
In a case where after the funds
10851
have been paid back, if there is, on top of
that, civil litigation on the part of the
crime victim, does this in any way make it so
the crime victim would not be able to collect
money that they may win in such a civil suit?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Mr. President,
that question at the end became vague. And I
would respectfully ask Senator Duane if he
could reiterate the part about after the
judgment.
SENATOR DUANE: If I may, Mr.
President -
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Proceed.
SENATOR DUANE: After the, say,
the hundred thousand dollars that's been
robbed from the bank has been paid back, plus
interest, if then the bank were to sue the
perpetrator, does -- would this legislation in
any way inhibit the bank from recovering any
money they might win in the civil suit after
the $100,000 has been paid back?
And actually, the bank is not such
a great instance. It would probably be more
fitting in a violent crime.
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Senator Duane,
10852
let me try to help you in this dialog here.
That there would have to be two
causes of action to have two recoveries. That
once a recovery was made, as I understand your
hypothetical, you're suggesting another cause
of action or that the bank may sue under the
same cause of action.
We're not saying that you get that
many bites at the apple under this statute.
We're saying that the intent of this
legislation is to make crime victims whole.
It's very difficult to make a crime victim,
particularly of a violent crime, ever
compensated for their damages. Just think of
those who have been the recipients of violent
crime.
But here, in the hypothetical you
mention about the theft from a bank, I believe
that after that cause of action was satisfied
the bank would be precluded from bringing
additional action, certainly under that cause
of action.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you.
And through you, Mr. President, if
the sponsor would continue to yield.
10853
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Nozzolio, do you yield to another question?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR DUANE: In the case, for
instance, of Shawcross, is there anything in
the legislation that would make it so that
this person -- that would prohibit the
Department of Corrections from punishing in
any way in addition to this civil action, if
you will?
For instance, as I understand it,
Mr. Shawcross was also sentenced to an SHU for
his actions on putting his painting on eBay.
And I'm wondering if this will supplant the
ability of DOCS to use that kind of physical
punishment.
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Mr. President,
let me try to answer that question by saying
that it certainly does not address, under the
statute, any administrative remedies that
DOCS, the Department of Correctional Services,
may impose on an inmate who violates
10854
correctional policy.
In the case of Arthur Shawcross, a
multiple murderer convicted of many murders,
he in effect was engaging in unauthorized
activity by selling or trading his paintings
for compensation, directly or indirectly. And
that's why Shawcross was given additional
sentencing within -- punishment within DOCS in
being sent to solitary confinement.
What this statute is designed to
do, Senator Duane and my colleagues, is to
provide a method, a process for victims of
crime to be compensated for that
victimization. It does not extend to all
prison activity or to all criminal behavior.
What it tries to do, though, is to say simply
that any prisoner who reaps an economic
windfall while behind bars should first and
foremost make compensation in some part, if
not whole restitution, to the victim of the
crime that put them behind bars in the first
place.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you.
Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor
would continue to yield.
10855
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Nozzolio, do you yield to another question?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR DUANE: I wanted to go
into the area of notice. And perhaps before I
ask my questions it might be more prudent just
to ask the sponsor if he would describe for me
the notice which needs to be given when
there's any kind of a windfall, if you will.
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: The
perpetrator of the crime, the criminal, is
under compulsion, under this statute, to
provide the Crime Victims Board with simple
written notice that they received compensation
or received such a windfall.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you, Mr.
President, if the sponsor would yield, then,
so I can question in that area.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Nozzolio, do you yield to another question?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Yes, Mr.
President.
10856
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you.
In a case where funds are being
paid to a spouse or another person involved
with the perpetrator, is the onus of providing
the notice on the perpetrator or on the person
who's actually received the remuneration?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Mr. President,
on the perpetrator. On the perpetrator.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you, Mr.
President, if the sponsor would continue to
yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Nozzolio, do you yield to another question?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR DUANE: Where does the
burden of proof, then, lie if the perpetrator
is unaware that funds are being given, on
their behalf, someplace else, so through no
fault of their own money is being made and
they don't know about it? What redress does
10857
the perpetrator have, or what right of redress
would the perpetrator have in a situation like
that?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Mr. President,
the Crime Victims Board is under obligation,
by this statute, to prove by a preponderance
of the evidence that the perpetrator engaged
in fraudulent activity.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you. And
through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor
would continue to yield.
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
sponsor continues to yield to another
question.
SENATOR DUANE: And what is
the -- if the perpetrator has paid off the
debt but they continue to receive money, are
they under any obligation to give notice to
the Crime Victims Board?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Yes, Mr.
President. The answer is in the affirmative,
that the Crime Victims Board still must
receive that information. They are the
10858
arbiter of whether compensation is adequate to
the victim, not the perpetrator.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you, Mr.
President, if the sponsor would continue to
yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Nozzolio, do you yield to another question?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR DUANE: If the Crime
Victims Board has determined that
compensation, full compensation has been
achieved, is the sponsor saying that the
perpetrator is still under obligation to
continue to give information to the Crime
Victims Board?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Mr. President,
yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. That
remember, there may be multiple victims.
There may be a situation where more than one
was hurt. That the Crime Victims Board is the
arbiter.
The inmate is under the obligation
10859
to report such largesse during the time of his
incarceration and for a period of -- during
the time of his parole and during a period of
three years thereafter.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you, Mr.
President, if the sponsor would continue to
yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Nozzolio, do you yield to another question?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR DUANE: In the occasional
circumstances where a conviction is reversed
but compensation has already begun to be paid,
what is the mechanism by which the perpetrator
can -- or the now-not-perpetrator can be paid
back for funds that they may have received in
the course of that?
In other words, does the Crime
Victims Board take the money away from the
victim, or does the Crime Compensation Board
pay the money out of its own funds?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Mr. President,
10860
I'm informed by counsel that this is one of
those -- of the many hypotheticals Senator
Duane has provided us this evening, that this
is a hypothetical that's akin to a
circumstance like the O.J. situation, where
there was two sets of standards, a criminal
standard, a civil standard. That one who was
not convicted under a criminal statute could
still be subject to compensation or liability
under a noncriminal situation, a civil trial.
So there's a lower level of proof in the civil
versus the criminal.
But under that circumstance, I'm
informed that the -- this statute would apply.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you, Mr.
President, if the sponsor would continue to
yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Nozzolio, do you yield to another question?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you.
I very much appreciate that
response and that scenario, and I should have
10861
been more specific. I was actually more
thinking in a case where, for instance, DNA or
some other evidence has proven that a
perpetrator in fact was not the perpetrator,
despite the fact that they had been paying
compensation to the victim.
How -- under what mechanism and
from where do the funds come for the person
that's no longer considered the perpetrator to
be refunded the money they've paid in?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Mr. President,
that I must hark back to a comment I made
earlier: this is a separate cause of action.
As such, the statute would be tripped once per
cause of action.
That if there are many multiple
causes of action that Senator Duane in his
hypothetical has put forward, that there would
be recovery based on each individual cause of
action, not double recovery on a single cause
of action.
Also, while I may answer Senator
Duane's question, that this statute -- a
question or two earlier -- the criminal's
obligation triggers at $10,000 items. That in
10862
fact, if a criminal receives $10,000, he's
obligated. Under $10,000, he's not obligated
to register with the Crime Victims Board for
that amount.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you. Thank
you.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Montgomery, why do you rise?
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Mr.
President, I would like to ask Senator
Nozzolio a couple of questions, if he would
yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Nozzolio, do you yield to a question from
Senator Montgomery?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes.
Senator Nozzolio, would you clarify the -
what exactly do the funds -
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Montgomery, would you excuse me just a minute.
As close as I am to you, it's very difficult
10863
for me to hear. And I know that Senator
Nozzolio is even farther away from you than I
am. And there is a little motion and a little
activity, more than needs to be in this
chamber.
So if we could just have our staff
who have conversations, take them out of the
hall. Members, if you could take a chair.
Like Senator Libous, Senator Farley. Hughie.
Hughie.
Senator Schneiderman, your chair is
over here, or outside.
Thank you for allowing me to
interrupt, Senator Montgomery. If you would
proceed with your question, please.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes. Thank
you. Mr. President, through you.
Senator Nozzolio, it says in the
bill "funds of a convicted person means all
funds and property received from any source."
Is there an amount -- is there any limit on
the amount that a person should receive
before -
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Mr. President,
I believe this question was asked and answered
10864
two or three times. I'd be glad to answer it
for Senator Montgomery again.
That the amount that an inmate must
report, a criminal must report is any amount
above $10,000. That the amount of recovery is
based on the, as determined by the Crime
Victims Board, the amount of compensation
depending on the nature and extent of the
crime.
The Crime Victims Board, Senator
Montgomery, would be the arbiter of the
amounts going to individual crime victims.
The source of monies would be from any source
derived directly to the criminal in the
amount -- it must be registered in any sum
greater than $10,000.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: So if it's
less than 10,000, it does not fall within this
law?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: I've been
informed by counsel, Senator Montgomery, that
the statute requires a reporting of aggregate
amounts above $10,000. However, amounts under
$10,000 may very well be subjected, and they
are subjected, to seizure by the Crime Victims
10865
Board.
That the inmate is likely to
receive that money in a prison account. The
Department of Correctional Services manages
those prison accounts. That they are under
review. The Crime Victims Board does not
decide how much the victim gets, it's the
court that is the arbiter, final arbiter of
that decision.
So certainly we have set in motion
a process for the crime victim in
compensation, and that those are the
procedural steps.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Through you,
Mr. President, if Senator Nozzolio would
continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Nozzolio, do you yield to another question?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: In another
section of the bill it talks about -- I think
you may have already answered it. It talks
10866
about a legacy, some inheritance that an
inmate may receive from, you know, some family
situation or other situation that -- and it's
totally unrelated to that inmate's crime or
the victim. And it also talks about damages
that are awarded to an inmate.
So are you saying that any
compensatory damages that the inmate may
receive, any inheritance that may come to the
inmate, even though it's not maybe even
directly deposited in any account that the
inmate may have but is part of some
inheritance of the inmate that may be
available to that person once they're out,
that's also included?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Mr. President,
the answer to Senator Montgomery's question is
yes, it's included.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: If Senator
Nozzolio would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Nozzolio, do you yield to another question?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: I'd be happy
to yield to Senator Montgomery.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
10867
Senator yields.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: I note that
one of the crimes that you list, or one of the
classes of crimes is a Class B felony offense,
some of which are nonviolent offenses. Is
that also -- does that kind of -- is that
class of inmate included? Under the section
"Specified Crimes," and it says "a Class B
felony offense."
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Yes, Mr.
President, they are -- Class B felony offenses
are included.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: All right.
And, Mr. President, one other question for
Senator Nozzolio, if he would yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Nozzolio, do you yield to another question?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: I'd be happy
to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: I think
that -- I apologize for repeating the same
question that Senator Duane asked. But
recently we've had several cases where people
10868
have spent a dozen or more years in prison and
then once they have the opportunity to prove
their innocence, through DNA and whatever
additional evidence that they have, their
conviction is overturned.
In an event such as that, inmates
in those categories who may have already been
subjected to this particular law, what happens
to them in those instances? Are they allowed
restitution based on any other law that we
have in the state that would cover them? And
would that include any monies that you may
have seized from them based on this statute?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Mr. President,
Senator Montgomery's hypothetical, a very
important one but nonetheless pretty
complicated, is dealt with in this process by
the courts intervening. It would be a
judicial prerogative, if not responsibility,
to determine the degree of responsibility, the
degree of culpability, the degree or amount of
damages that should be apportioned.
We mentioned earlier, in Senator
Duane's colloquy, regarding the likelihood of
an O.J. situation, where a victim is there
10869
that is held to be a civil -- in a civil court
held to be victimized, in a criminal court
held, because of a different standard of
evidence, a different standard of guilt, in
effect, the amounts -- one could be not
convicted or determined acquitted, determined
not guilty, yet at the same token be subjected
to a large amount of personal damage.
Now, that is to be arbitrated by
the courts. And that the process is what we
establish here, and it's up to the courts to
determine it and to properly adjudicate it.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Mr.
President, through you, I would like to ask
Senator Nozzolio another question.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Nozzolio, do you yield to another question?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: I'd be happy
to yield to Senator Montgomery.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: So, Senator
Nozzolio, there is no automatic restitution in
an event that a person has been falsely
accused and convicted and served time, you
10870
seem to be saying -
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Mr. President,
again -
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: -- other
than through the courts.
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: -- that would
be an item that would require judicial
determination, review, and apportionment.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: One other
question for you, Senator Nozzolio.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Nozzolio, do you yield to another question?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, thank
you, Mr. President.
Is there any way that damages are
determined prior to a person, say, falling
into this category? I mean, is -- are there
any limits at all, or is it just to be
determined by who determines the extent of the
damages and whatever may or may not be left
over from monies that would be seized in
10871
this -- based on your bill?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Again, Mr.
President, that this would be determined -
Senator Montgomery's question would be
determined by the courts, apportioned by the
courts, by the victim bringing an action in
court, to determine the amount of damages that
should be obtained. If you wanted to
establish an upper threshold.
Obviously, the larger the
victimization, the larger incentive there will
be for victims to take their matters to
litigation.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: And
50 percent automatically goes to the
comptroller? Mr. President, through you,
there is a 50 percent that goes to the
comptroller and the other 50 percent is what
we're talking about determining damages for?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Mr. President,
I am confused by Senator Montgomery's
question. Would you instruct her to rephrase
it, please?
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: It's my
understanding that there is a portion of the
10872
funds that you refer to in your bill that goes
to the comptroller automatically, and the
other 50 percent goes to the Crime Victims
Board. Maybe I'm reading it wrong.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, Mr.
President, through you, I'm sorry.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: We're
getting a slow rumble underneath, several
conversations going on. I think there are
three or four other Majority members who are
trying to answer your question before you even
ask it. So if we can just have a little quiet
in the chamber.
You'd like Senator Nozzolio to
yield again; is that correct?
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Nozzolio, do you yield again?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: My question
10873
to you, Senator Nozzolio, was I thought that I
saw in the legislation a reference to a
percent going to -- automatically to the
comptroller, and another -- and I thought that
was 50 percent, and the rest going to the
Crime Victims Board, and that is the portion
that you're looking to settle the damages
with. Is that correct, or am I misreading
your bill?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Mr. President,
I'm not exactly certain where Senator
Montgomery is looking in the statute. But
there is a civil penalty that the Crime
Victims board may impose when there is an
unreported payment. And that assessment could
be up to the full amount of the payment.
That there is -- if the assessment
is not used to pay the crime victim's claims,
50 percent is returned to the person who
failed to give notice and 50 percent is paid
into the State Criminal Justice Improvement
Fund. That's probably where Senator
Montgomery is focused on.
And I hope that answers your
question.
10874
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Thank you,
Senator Nozzolio. Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Sampson, why do you rise?
SENATOR SAMPSON: Mr. President,
would the sponsor yield for one question?
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Nozzolio, do you yield to one question?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: I'd be happy
to yield, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR SAMPSON: Through you,
Mr. President, what position would a crime
victim take in conjunction with, say, perhaps
a secured creditor with respect to this
defendant, according to this bill?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Mr. President,
Senator Sampson's question is a very good one.
This statute, Senator, does not
reorder the priorities of lienholders. It
would be subjected to the law that exists
today. This does not interfere or change that
priority whatsoever.
SENATOR SAMPSON: Through you,
10875
Mr. President, would the sponsor yield for a
last question?
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Nozzolio, do you yield to another question?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Mr. President,
I yielded the last time to what I thought I
heard you say was one question. But I'd be
happy to yield to Senator Sampson's second
question.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR SAMPSON: I just wanted
to clarify what you had just said.
So basically this has nothing to do
with the other secured creditors, it would
just be in accordance with whatever the -- the
other positions of any other secured creditor?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Mr. President,
there again, asked and answered, but I'll be
glad to elaborate that this does not reorder
the position that a secured creditor would
have. It does not establish a different order
of priority.
It does put a priority of crime
victims, though, into a system that
10876
heretofore, until this statute is passed, did
not exist.
SENATOR SAMPSON: Thank you.
SENATOR CONNOR: Last section.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Any other
Senator wish to speak on the bill?
Hearing none, the Secretary will
read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Record
the negatives and announce the results.
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
the negative on Calendar Number 523 are
Senators Duane, Montgomery, and Santiago.
Ayes, 55. Nays, 3.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill
is passed.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Mr. President,
can we at this time call up Calendar Number
728.
10877
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
728, by Senator Seward, Senate Print 5213B, an
act to amend the Insurance Law.
SENATOR BRUNO: Is there a
message at the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: There is.
SENATOR BRUNO: Move to accept
the message.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
motion is to accept the message of necessity
on Calendar Number 728. All those in favor
signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Opposed,
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
message is accepted.
The bill is before the house.
The Secretary will read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This
act shall take effect January 1, 2002.
10878
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill
is passed.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Mr. President,
can we take up Supplemental Calendar 57D,
noncontroversial reading, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: We'll
return to the order of reports of standing
committees.
There is a report of the Rules
Committee at the desk. The Secretary will
read.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Bruno,
from the Committee on Rules, reports the
following bills:
Senate Print 1754, by Senator
Leibell, an act to amend the Administrative
Code of the City of New York.
2765, by Senator Maltese, an act to
amend the Administrative Code of the City of
New York.
10879
2813, by Senator Saland, an act to
amend the Education Law.
3080, by Senator McGee, an act to
amend the New York State Urban Development
Corporation Act.
3211, by Senator Spano, an act
authorizing.
3386B, by Senator Balboni, an act
to amend the Environmental Conservation Law.
3564, by Senator Marcellino, an act
to amend the Environmental Conservation Law.
3616, by Senator Morahan, an act to
amend the Retirement and Social Security Law.
3962, by Senator Maltese, an act to
amend the Administrative Code of the City of
New York.
4469A, by Senator Spano, an act to
amend the Retirement and Social Security Law.
5140, by Senator Padavan, an act to
amend the Administrative Code of the City of
New York.
5288, by Senator Leibell, an act to
amend the Administrative Code of the City of
New York.
5491, by Senator Rath, an act to
10880
amend the Civil Practice Law and Rules.
5499, by Senator Alesi, an act to
amend the Public Health Law.
5568, by Senator Connor, an act to
amend the Parks, Recreation and Historic
Preservation Law.
5580, by the Senate Committee on
Rules, an act to amend the Penal Law.
5581, by the Senate Committee on
Rules, an act to amend the Civil Service Law.
5599, by Senator Velella, an act to
amend the Administrative Code of the City of
New York.
5611A, by Senator Stafford, an act
to amend the Executive Law.
5621, by Senator Marcellino, an act
to amend Chapter 405 of the Laws of 1999.
And Senate Print 5682, by Senator
DeFrancisco, an act to amend the Executive Law
and others.
All bills ordered direct to third
reading.
SENATOR BRUNO: Move to accept
the report of the Rules Committee.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
10881
motion is to accept the report of the Rules
Committee. All those in favor signify by
saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Opposed,
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The Rules
report is accepted.
All bills directly to third
reading.
The Secretary will read the
noncontroversial reading of the Supplemental
Calendar 57D.
SENATOR CONNOR: Excuse me, Mr.
President, we don't have a calendar. We have
the bills, but we don't have the calendar to
go with.
There it is. If we could just -
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: We'll
wait until you have it on your desk.
Any member who doesn't have a copy
now of Supplemental Calendar 57D?
Hearing none, the Secretary will
read the noncontroversial reading of Calendar
10882
Number 57D, beginning with Calendar Number
1363, by Senator Leibell.
THE SECRETARY: In relation to
Calendar Number 1363, Senator Leibell moves to
discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
Assembly Bill Number 2833 and substitute it
for the identical Senate Bill Number 1754,
Third Reading Calendar 1363.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
substitution is ordered.
The Secretary will read the title.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1363, by Member of the Assembly Vitaliano,
Assembly Print Number 2833, an act to amend
the Administrative Code of the City of New
York.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill
10883
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: In relation to
Calendar Number 1364, Senator Maltese moves to
discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
Assembly Bill Number 5115 and substitute it
for the identical Senate Bill Number 2765,
Third Reading Calendar 1364.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
substitution is ordered.
The Secretary will read the title.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1364, by Member of the Assembly Vitaliano
Assembly Print Number 5115, an act to amend
the Administrative Code of the City of
New York.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: There is
a home rule message at the desk.
The Secretary will read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
10884
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: In relation to
Calendar Number 1365, Senator Saland moves to
discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
Assembly Bill Number 5306 and substitute it
for the identical Senate Bill Number 2813,
Third Reading Calendar 1365.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
substitution is ordered.
The Secretary will read the title.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1365, by Member of the Assembly Tokasz,
Assembly Print Number 5306, an act to amend
the Education Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill
is passed.
10885
THE SECRETARY: In relation to
Calendar Number 1366, Senator McGee moves to
discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
Assembly Bill Number 5862 and substitute it
for the identical Senate Bill Number 3080,
Third Reading Calendar 1366.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
substitution is ordered.
The Secretary will read the title.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1366, by Member of the Assembly Gunther,
Assembly Print Number 5862, an act to amend
the New York State Urban Development
Corporation Act.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: In relation to
10886
Calendar Number 1367, Senator Spano moves to
discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
Assembly Bill Number 6232 and substitute it
for the identical Senate Bill Number 3211,
Third Reading Calendar 1367.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
substitution is ordered.
The Secretary will read the title.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1367, by Member of the Assembly Paulin,
Assembly Print Number 6232, an act to
authorize the reopening.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: There is
a home rule message at the desk.
The Secretary will read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: In relation to
10887
Calendar Number 1368, Senator Balboni moves to
discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
Assembly Bill Number 5352B and substitute it
for the identical Senate Bill Number 3386B,
Third Reading Calendar 1368.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
substitution is ordered.
The Secretary will read the title.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1368, by Member of the Assembly Grannis,
Assembly Print Number 5352B, an act to amend
the Environmental Conservation Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This
act shall take effect the 180th day.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Schneiderman, to explain his vote.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you,
Mr. President.
I don't mean to slow down this
freight train, but I have to stand up to say
10888
this is a terrific bill.
Senator Dollinger and I held a
press conference last week calling on the
Governor and legislative leaders to finally do
something about the need for conservation
legislation in New York State. I'm sorry this
is the only two-house conservation bill we
have done.
But, as usual with Senator Balboni,
this is something with true statewide
implications, and I'm glad we're passing it
tonight.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Schneiderman will be recorded in the
affirmative.
Record the negatives and announce
the results.
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
the negative on Calendar Number 1368 are
Senators Libous, Meier, Nozzolio, Seward, and
Wright. Ayes, 53. Nays, 5.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1369, by Senator Marcellino, Senate Print
10889
3564, an act to amend the Environmental
Conservation Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 12. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1370, by Senator Morahan, Senate Print 3616,
an act to amend the Retirement and Social
Security Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: There is
a home rule message at the desk.
The Secretary will read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 6. This
act shall take effect January 1, 2002.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
10890
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1371, by Senator Maltese, Senate Print 3962,
an act to amend the Administrative Code of
City of New York.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: There is
a home rule message at the desk.
The Secretary will read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: In relation to
Calendar Number 1372, Senator Spano moves to
discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
Assembly Bill Number 8498 and substitute it
for the identical Senate Bill Number 4469A,
Third Reading Calendar 1372.
10891
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
substitution is ordered.
The Secretary will read the title.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1372, by the Assembly Committee on Rules,
Assembly Print Number 8498, an act to amend
the Retirement and Social Security Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: There is
a home rule message at the desk.
The Secretary will read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1373, by Senator Padavan, Senate Print 5140,
an act to amend the Administrative Code of the
City of New York.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: There is
a home rule message at the desk.
10892
The Secretary will read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1374, by Senator Leibell, Senate Print 5288,
an act to amend the Administrative Code of the
City of New York.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: There is
a home rule message at the desk.
The Secretary will read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill
10893
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: In relation to
Calendar Number 1375, Senator Rath moves to
discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
Assembly Bill Number 9113 and substitute it
for the identical Senate Bill Number 5491,
Third Reading Calendar 1375.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
substitution is ordered.
The Secretary will read the title.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1375, by the Assembly Committee on Rules,
Assembly Print Number 9113, an act to amend
the Civil Practice Law and Rules.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will read the last section.
SENATOR DUANE: Explanation,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Lay the
bill aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1376, by Senator Alesi, Senate Print 5499, an
act to amend the Public Health Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will read the last section.
10894
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the 60th day.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1377, by Senator Connor, Senate Print 5568, an
act to amend the Parks, Recreation and
Historic Preservation Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1378, by the Senate Committee on Rules, Senate
Print Number 5580, an act to amend the Penal
10895
Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the 60th day.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1379, by the Senate Committee on Rules, Senate
Print Number 5581, an act to amend the Civil
Service Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
SENATOR DUANE: Explanation,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Lay the
10896
bill aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1382, by Senator Marcellino, Senate Print
5621, an act to amend Chapter 405 of the Laws
of 1999.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 7. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1383, by Senator DeFrancisco, Senate Print
5682, an act to amend the Executive Law and
others, in relation to establishing.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Is there a motion
at the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: There is
a message of necessity at the desk.
10897
SENATOR BRUNO: There is a motion
and there is a message, and I would move that
we accept the motion and the message.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
motion is to accept the message of necessity
on Calendar Number 1383. All those in favor
signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Opposed,
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
message is accepted.
The bill is before the house.
The Secretary will read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 10. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill
is passed.
Senator Bruno, that completes the
10898
noncontroversial reading of Calendar Number
57D.
Before we go to the next step, we
will recognize Senator Schneiderman.
Senator Schneiderman, why do you
rise?
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: I rise
because I guess I was a little slow on the
draw. I'd request unanimous consent to be
recorded in the negative on Calendar 1383.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Without
objection, hearing no objection, Senator
Schneiderman will be recorded in the negative
on Calendar Number 1383.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Mr. President,
can we at this time take up the controversial
calendar.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will read the controversial reading
of Calendar Number 57D, beginning with
Calendar Number 1375, by Senator Rath.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1375, substituted earlier today by the
Assembly Committee on Rules, Assembly Print
10899
Number 9113, an act to amend the Civil
Practice Law and Rules.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Rath, an explanation has been requested by
Senator Stachowski.
SENATOR RATH: Mr. President,
this particular bill provides that the assets
of a plan which satisfy the requirement of
Section 457, or a deferred comp plan, will be
exempt from satisfaction money judgments.
And I know there was some concern
that it was looking to deal with one
particular individual, and that's not the
case. It has to do with the fact that there's
an ongoing issue in court, and it is -- has
been pointed out by the Deferred Comp Board
that we needed to do it this way rather than
having it wait until this particular case is
finished. But it's not -- you know, it's not
directed towards only one case. It's in
general.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Rath, excuse me.
Senator Bruno.
10900
SENATOR BRUNO: Mr. President,
forgive the interruption. But can I ask for
an immediate meeting of the Rules Committee in
Room 332.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: There
will be an immediate meeting of the Rules
Committee, immediate meeting of the Rules
Committee in the Majority Conference Room,
Room 332.
Senator Stachowski, wait just a
minute until we get the room cleared.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: I've got to
clear with it, so . . .
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Thank you
for the interruption, Senator Stachowski. Why
do you rise?
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Would
Senator Rath yield for a couple of questions?
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Rath, do you yield for a question?
SENATOR RATH: Surely.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Senator, in
the committee, in going through the memo -
10901
and I don't know if that's just the memo was
wrong, because I -- ah, here it is.
Here it says, in line 24,
Section 2, it says "This act shall take
immediately and shall be applicable to any
case decided on or after October 1, 2000."
And the thing that strikes me is
you're saying it doesn't have to do with any
particular case. Then why are we making this
applicable to any case that is decided on or
after October 1, 2000?
SENATOR RATH: Senator
Stachowski, the bill is not limited to any one
specific case. The case that you're noting
there was what brought the issue to our
attention.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stachowski.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: If the
Senator would continue to yield, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Rath, do you yield to another question?
SENATOR RATH: Surely.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
10902
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: I understand
it's not limited to one particular case, but
it's directed with that effect. That date
that it takes in encompasses, has a direct
effect on a particular case. Otherwise you
would have just had a bill that says takes
effect immediately and then it would be for
all cases from this point on.
And I just have trouble with the
fact that it was brought to your attention for
one bill and that it affects that particular
case.
And it seems to me like -- I
don't -- I always thought that when we get a
letter like that and we handle an issue like
that we always have a situation where we can't
help you but we can make sure this doesn't
happen to anybody after you.
What makes this different?
SENATOR RATH: My understanding,
Senator, was that this was not done to make it
a specific remedy for the person who's caught
up in this individual case. We were not asked
to do that.
But it was asked that we would
10903
extend it. That case may be concluded by that
time. This person may not be eligible for the
remedy.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Thank you,
Senator.
Briefly on the bill.
I don't mind the bill so much. I
still have trouble with that date. And I'll
probably have to come in and be recorded in
the negative afterwards. But I have to go to
Rules, so -
Thank you. I'll come back and
vote.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Any other
Senator wishing to speak on the bill?
Hearing none, the Secretary will
read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Record
the negative votes.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 57. Nays,
10904
1. Senator Duane recorded in the negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill
is passed.
Senator Duane, why do you rise?
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Mr.
President. I was hoping to get unanimous
consent to be recorded in the negative on
Calendar Number 1383.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Without
objection, hearing no objection, Senator Duane
will be recorded in the negative on Calendar
Number 1383.
Senator Breslin, why do you rise?
SENATOR BRESLIN: Mr. President,
I would request unanimous consent to be
recorded in the negative on Calendar 1383.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Without
objection, hearing no objection, Senator
Breslin will be recorded in the negative on
Calendar Number 1383.
Senator Maltese, why do you rise?
SENATOR MALTESE: Mr. President,
I ask unanimous consent to be recorded in the
negative on Calendar Number 1368.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Without
10905
objection, hearing no objection, Senator
Maltese will be recorded in the negative on
Calendar Number 1368.
Senator Saland, why do you rise?
SENATOR SALAND: Mr. President, I
would also request unanimous consent to be
recorded in the negative on Calendar 1368,
Senate 3386B.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Without
objection, hearing no objection, Senator
Saland will be recorded in the negative on
Calendar Number 1368.
Any other member wishing to change
a vote or record a vote?
The Secretary will read Calendar
Number 1379.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1379, by the Senate Committee on Rules, Senate
Print Number 5581, an act to amend the Civil
Service Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the
10906
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill
is passed.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Mr. President,
would you please at this time call up Calendar
Number 179.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: For the
benefit of the members, this is on the
original calendar for the day.
Calendar Number 179. The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
179, by Member of the Assembly Sidikman,
Assembly Print Number 6958A, an act to amend
the Election Law.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Maltese, an explanation of Calendar Number 179
has been requested by the Acting Minority
Leader, Senator Paterson.
SENATOR MALTESE: Yes, Mr.
President.
10907
First of all, a word of
explanation. Earlier this evening we passed
an election bill, an omnibus election bill
including four sections that I went over in
great detail.
It has now been considered by this
Majority that the great importance of this
bill, to the City of New York especially,
mandates that with the responsibility of
having the election in September, the primary
election in September and the general election
in November, go as flawlessly, efficiently and
fairly as possible, we in the Senate are quite
willing to pass this additional bill so that
the Assembly, in its wisdom, can consider both
as alternatives and decide which of the two
bills they could most responsibly pass to
effectuate this laudatory purpose.
This particular bill provides that,
just as the omnibus bill did, that where a -
the ballot in a primary election in a city
with population of one million or more shall
provide a slot or device to permit voters to
write in the name of an undesignated person
for public office, and that for party
10908
position, as I said earlier, there would have
to be a valid petition for an opportunity to
ballot so that the Board of Elections, with
the old-style lever Shoup machines, can
adequately provide, prepare and conduct a
valid election.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
if Senator Maltese would yield for a question.
SENATOR MALTESE: Yes.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, I'd
just like you to react to this. I am
confused. It just seems to me that this
legislation would be contradicting what was
set forth in legislation we passed earlier
today.
That the party primaries I thought
were -- that the write-ins would be excluded
from them, because in New York City we're
going to have such overcrowding, especially in
this term-limited year where you're going to
have six and seven city council candidates
running, four mayoral candidates, five or six
public advocate candidates.
10909
There just isn't going to be the
space on the voting machine to do this, and
the write-in becomes very difficult in this
kind of a process.
SENATOR MALTESE: Mr. President,
Senator Paterson is indeed quite correct.
But the bills are not inconsistent,
because what we're doing in this case is
passing both versions, essentially, of the
same legislation so that the Assembly would
have the choice. And so that where the
interests of the voters of the city of
New York and the state of New York are
paramount, this house is quite willing, in the
spirit of compromise, to pass both pieces of
legislation, which would provide that the
party positions would only have a write-in if
a petition for opportunity to ballot is
collected and submitted to the Board of
Elections.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
10910
Paterson, on the bill.
SENATOR PATERSON: It just seems
to me that you would have sometimes, say, in
the same Congressional district people in
Westchester would be allowed to write in and
people in New York City might not. In other
words, you'd have within places, Congressional
districts that transcend counties, different
rules operating for the same voters who are
voting for the same candidates in the same
Congressional district.
And therefore, it would seem to me
that it would violate the equal protection
clause of the Constitution. And I just don't
think we can pass this bill, because I don't
think it would meet a court challenge.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Any other
Senator wishing to speak on the bill?
The Secretary will read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
10911
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Record
the negative votes.
Senator Paterson, why do you rise?
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
party vote in the negative.
SENATOR BRUNO: Party vote in the
affirmative.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Record
the party-line vote and announce the results.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 36. Nays,
22. Party vote.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill
is passed.
Senator Stachowski, why do you
rise?
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Mr.
President, can I have unanimous consent to be
recorded in the negative on Calendar 1375,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Without
objection, hearing no objection, Senator
Stachowski will be recorded in the negative on
Calendar Number 1375.
Senator Bruno.
10912
SENATOR BRUNO: At this time can
we take up Calendar Number 699.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will read Calender Number 699 on the
regular calendar.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
699, by the Assembly Committee on Rules,
Assembly Print Number 8463, an act to amend
the Election Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill
is passed.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Mr. President,
can we at this time return to reports of
standing committees.
I believe there's a report from the
Rules Committee at the desk, and I ask that it
10913
be read at this time.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: We'll
return to the order of reports of standing
committees.
There is a report of the Rules
Committee at the desk. The Secretary will
read.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Bruno,
from the Committee on Rules, reports the
following bills:
Senate Print 2538, by Senator
Leibell, an act to amend the Retirement and
Social Security Law.
2551, by Senator Padavan, an act to
amend the Public Authorities Law.
5095, by Senator Maltese, an act to
amend the Retirement and Social Security Law.
5276, by Senator Leibell, an act to
amend the Retirement and Social Security Law.
5686, by the Senate Committee on
Rules, an act to amend the Executive Law and
others.
And Senate Print 5688, by the
Senate Committee on Rules, an act to amend a
chapter of the Laws of 2001.
10914
All bills ordered direct to third
reading.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Move to accept
the report of the Rules Committee.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
motion is to accept the report of the Rules
Committee. All those in favor signify by
saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Opposed,
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The Rules
report is accepted.
The bills are ordered directly to
third reading.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Mr. President,
can we at this time call up Calendar Number
932.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will read Calendar Number 932 on the
original calendar of the day.
10915
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
932, substituted earlier today by Member of
the Assembly E. Sullivan, Assembly Print
Number 7211A, an act to amend the Education
Law and the Public Health Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill
is passed.
Senator Bruno, we have some
housekeeping we could take up while we're
waiting for the calendar.
SENATOR BRUNO: Would you at this
time do that, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Thank
you.
We'll return to the order of
motions and resolutions.
Senator Libous.
10916
SENATOR LIBOUS: Thank you, Mr.
President. I wish to call up Calendar Number
144, Assembly Print Number 5121.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
144, by Member of the Assembly Green, Assembly
Print Number 5121, an act to amend the Social
Services Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Libous.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Mr. President, I
now move to reconsider the vote by which this
Assembly bill was substituted for the present
Senate bill, 393, on May 31st.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will call the roll on
reconsideration.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Libous.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Mr. President, I
now move that Assembly Bill 5121 be
recommitted to the Committee on Rules and that
10917
the Senate bill be restored to the order of
the Third Reading Calendar.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: So
ordered.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Mr. President,
can we at this time take up Calendar Number
1388.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will read Calendar Number 1388.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1388, by the Senate Committee on Rules, Senate
Print Number 5686, an act to amend the
Executive Law, the Penal Law, and the General
Municipal Law, in relation to certain gaming.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Is there a
message of necessity at the desk, Mr.
President?
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: There is.
SENATOR BRUNO: Move to accept
the message.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
motion is to accept the message of necessity
10918
on Calendar Number 1388. All those in favor
signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Opposed,
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
message is accepted.
The bill is before the house.
The Secretary will read the last
section.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Bruno, an explanation of Calendar Number 1388
has been requested by the Acting Minority
Leader, Senator Paterson.
SENATOR BRUNO: This bill is a
bill that allows the Governor to negotiate an
agreement with the Senecas to allow for two
casinos, one in Niagara and one in Buffalo,
and a third casino, when and if there's an
agreement someday in the future, that could be
placed on tribal land.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Paterson.
10919
SENATOR PADAVAN: On the bill,
Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Padavan, I had Senator Paterson ahead of you.
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
I would defer to my colleague Senator Padavan.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Padavan, Senator Paterson has waived.
SENATOR PADAVAN: We often get
mistaken for each other.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR PADAVAN: Mr. President,
out of deference to everyone's psyche, and
obviously to the hour, I will try to be as
brief as I possibly can.
If you put ten economists in a room
and give them one issue to deliberate on,
invariably they'll come out with ten different
opinions, except on the issue of gambling and
casinos. Every economist throughout this
country, in every state, that has evaluated
this matter in detail and written about it -
books, articles, pamphlets, memoranda -- all
come up with one inescapable conclusion, that
10920
this is not true economic development in any
sense, Keynesian or otherwise.
And they label it a zero-sum game,
that you move money from people's pockets into
corporate entities and stockholders and
operators of casinos, and others make money
and the people lose.
Now, this is not hypothetical. In
New York State we have a casino recently -
many of you received a letter from the mayor
of a town near there. It was a
two-and-a-half-page letter. I'll just read
one sentence: "I'm writing to you with the
hope of making you aware of the harsh
realities that are undermining the financial
integrity and social fabric of our
communities, specifically the City of Oneida."
And that letter was written by the mayor, who
had come to Albany previous to writing that
letter and told us about all the problems that
he's experiencing in his city as a result of
the casino.
Now, the promise of Atlantic City
is well known to everyone. I think it's
twenty years ago, something like that, the
10921
people in the Atlantic City, New Jersey, were
told: This will solve all your problems. We
will provide jobs. There will be economic
development. We will have revenues. There
will be great things in store for you. As the
people in Buffalo and Niagara are being told
today.
And they bought into it there, as
they're buying into it here. But what
happened? Well, the only economic development
is about a dozen different pawnshops, plus
another twenty-some-odd, total of 50, where
they'll just buy stuff from you, period. Over
50 establishments grew up as a result of
casinos.
What happened to all the other
businesses -- the restaurants, the theaters,
the shops? They all evaporated. What
happened to employment? Unemployment went up.
What happened to crime? Crime went up,
dramatically. As a matter of fact, people
tell me who go to Atlantic City that you're
advised by the casinos not to go out at night,
not to leave the grounds of the casinos at
night because of the crime problem.
10922
And political corruption, as
evidenced by five of the last seven mayors of
Atlantic City going to jail, directly related
to activities on their part involving either
the casino industry but, more generally, those
industries that feed into it.
Now, there's a great deal more that
could be said. If you want to read about it,
it's in this report. It's a few years old,
but what's in there is as relevant today as it
was then.
Obviously this is going to pass
this house. What happens thereafter is
problematic.
One of the things in the bill
before you which underpins much of what is
attempted here is the fact that slot machines
are being legalized. Now, there have been a
number of discussions on this point as to
whether or not constitutionally, and if you
look at our State Constitution, whether or not
constitutionally you can legalize slot
machines, which are currently illegal by
statute. And that issue, I'm afraid, will be
joined at some point in time should this
10923
legislation become law. Or perhaps even
before.
Now, why is this critical? Slot
machines are the major revenue-producing
element of every casino. They produce much of
the gains that a casino operator would
realize. Why? Because they're programmed.
There's no faith involved. Those machines are
programmed that X amount of the people playing
them will lose and X amount will win.
Now, if the slot machines go down,
this whole deck of cards is significantly
diminished and it will go down. So I would -
and no pun intended. Thank you, Senator.
So I would certainly suggest to
anyone who may be listening to us that that be
examined very, very carefully. Economic
development is something we all need. And we
all took pride, and said so, when our Majority
Leader, only days ago, presented to us one of
the most comprehensive economic development
programs this state has ever seen, GE-NY-SIS.
And you applauded him for that, and rightly
so. That is the economic development this
state needs. That is the kind of thing
10924
Buffalo needs. And that is the kind of
Niagara needs.
As far as tourism is concerned,
people were going over that bridge to Canada
before Canada had casinos, because Niagara
wasn't doing what it could do to keep the
tourists on this side of the border, on this
side of the river. Yes, they're going over
there, and you'll hear that said. They're
going over there and they're spending their
money. Let them stay in New York and do the
same thing.
We had the same argument with
Atlantic City. They're getting on buses and
they're going to Atlantic City. Let them stay
in New York and spend their -- lose their
money here.
Well, there's something unethical
about that. Because someone told me, I think
it was Senator Stachowski, he says when you
leave Canada on your way back to the States
there's a sign that says "If you have a
gambling problem, call this number." And
where is the number? It's a Buffalo phone
number. So they are helping us develop more
10925
compulsive gamblers.
So they're doing it, so we want to
do it.
And finally let me tell you -- and
it's in the report, the references, the
studies and everything, the source of it is
irrefutable -- New York State currently is the
worst state in the nation in terms of
compulsive and problem gamblers on a
per-capita basis. We're the worst, thanks to
the lottery, thanks to all of the activities
that we slowly but surely have added to this
morass of gambling in the state of New York.
Now, I'm not preaching to you, I
don't claim to be a moralist, nor am I a
prohibitionist on this issue. But I know
black and white when I see it, and this, to
me, is a black hole that we go deeper and
deeper into every time we deal with one of
these issues.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Connor.
SENATOR CONNOR: Thank you, Mr.
President.
10926
While in the past I have shared
many of the concerns articulated by Senator
Padavan with respect to the wisdom of casino
gambling and gaming in general as revenue
raisers and quick fixes for ailing economies
and so on, I have to preface my remarks by
saying that I have been to Niagara Falls
several times. I've been on the other side of
the river. It's a rather stark, stark
contrast between what's happened on the
New York side and the Canadian side.
I remember as a child hearing aunts
and uncles and grandparents -- my
grandparents' honeymoon in 1917 was in Niagara
Falls. They'd go back and visit. And they
would always say, "Oh, you're going to Niagara
Falls, you've been there?" And when people
said no, they'd say, "Well, stay on the New
York side, it's really nice. Go over to the
Canada and look at the falls. There's nothing
else there, but you get a good view of the
falls."
I hadn't been there in many years,
and I was recently -- well, not recently, a
couple of years ago kind of shocked to see the
10927
enormous economic development taking place in
Ontario, right across the river.
None of the workers on the
construction are American citizens, we're not
allowed to work there. We have unemployed
construction workers, far too many, in Niagara
County, in Niagara Falls. And Niagara Falls,
large parts of it, frankly, look like the
Third -- when you cross that border, you think
you're coming into the Third World, and you're
coming into the state of New York.
So I've quite altered my viewpoint.
I think if there's anyplace in New York State
or if there's one place in New York State
where casino gambling is appropriate and a
necessary evil to restore the tourist economy,
it is in Niagara Falls.
In general, I want to congratulate
the Governor, I want to encourage further
efforts to bring about a casino in Niagara
Falls. I just fear -- I just have too many
reservations about this bill. And let me tell
you why.
I've been here since we did casino
gambling bills in 1978, first passage. We've
10928
done them since then. They were always like
this. This is three pages. Ah, but we have
an MOU for the compact. This is the MOU.
This is a real compact. This is
what we did for the Oneidas. This is what a
compact looks like; it's pages and pages of
details. This is a compact that's in effect
with the Oneida Nation.
This is the MOU we're given. It's
like the outline you did before you did your
thesis, if you ever did a thesis or a long
term paper. Useful information in it, kind of
tells you the topics that will be included in
the compact, but not a whole lot of details.
And we're dealing with a serious
subject here, casino gambling. We want to
ensure, when it happens in Niagara Falls and
Buffalo, that it's honest, that everybody
understands what the deal is. And I just have
concerns.
The bill says notwithstanding any
other law in effect, we are authorizing -
now, a little history. When IGRA became law,
it seemed to indicate that the governors of
states could in fact enter into compacts -- in
10929
fact, must negotiate in good faith and enter
into compacts with federally recognized Indian
tribes for gaming on their reservations, to
the extent that gaming or types of games were
otherwise permitted in the state. And as we
know, in New York we had permitted charity
Las Vegas Nights which included games like
blackjack, dice, and so on.
In fact, there were some court
cases -- I think one in Oregon, in federal
court, and some other places -- that said wait
a minute, how can governors enter into
compacts without legislative approval. That
was an issue here. That was an issue here.
In fact, this Oneida Nation thing
was done in secret by Governor Cuomo. He did
one with the Mohawks. I got a copy back then
stamped "Confidential," from a friend on the
second floor who made me promise not to show
it to anybody. And I was a State Senator at
the time, and I was quite offended by that. I
made as many copies as the Majority afforded
me paper to copy at the time.
But it was a concern. And as we
know, there was a -- two copies.
10930
And in fact, though, there's been
subsequently, as you all know, very recently a
state case that said what all of us I think
kind of knew instinctively, and many of the
legislative leaders had written letters
insisting upon, and that's the prerogative of
the Legislature. By our State Constitution,
the people of the State of New York act
through the Legislature and Governor, not just
through the Governor. Certainly when it comes
to things like this.
So we're like the U.S. Senate. The
Governor negotiates a compact or treaty with a
sovereign Indian nation, and we ratify it.
But what we're doing here in this bill is as
if the U.S. Senate said to the President:
We're ratifying your treaty with Russia, now
go to Russia and negotiate it and write it and
consider it ratified.
That's simply not the way you do
it. It's a blank check. And I don't -- not
for a minute do I doubt the good faith of the
Governor or the Seneca Nation, don't doubt it
for a minute. I think the Governor's
intentions not only are good, I think they're
10931
superb. Bringing economic development to
Western New York is very, very important. And
I think the Seneca Nation's aspirations and
ambitions are very, very important.
And I don't want to stand here at
this late hour like a former colleague,
Senator Leichter, and go on about process,
process, process. But in this case, process
is everything. The details are everything.
This bill is a blank check. Here I
have Article 1, Section 2 of the State
Constitution. And if you review the notes of
the Constitutional Convention of 1938, you
will see they specifically debated this
section and wrote it because they wanted to
exclude from the state of New York slot
machines. In the Constitution.
Someone very cleverly decided we
can get around that by decriminalizing slot
machines in these two reservation casinos.
You know, it kind of reminds me,
Stanley Fink used to have a saying, "Don't
shoot dice with Big Julie, because when the
dice come out, there's no dots on them."
That's what we're doing here. We've got Big
10932
Julie's dice here right on the table, we know
they're dice, and there are no dots on them.
We can't count the numbers here.
The fact of the matter is I think
this will fail as a -- you know, lawyers come
up with artful devices: How do you get around
this provision, how do you get around that.
I've spent a large portion of my life figuring
out how to get around or through parts of the
Election Law. We all know that.
They're trying to very cleverly get
around the State Constitution. I don't think
the court's going to be fooled by the
difference between legalizing and
decriminalizing a slot machine.
And I think when Big Julie down in
Coney Island gets arrested having four slot
machines in the back of the candy store, he's
going to go to federal court and say, equal
protection under the law. Equal protection
under the law. The New York State Legislature
said if I'm standing on this block in Niagara
Falls with my slot machine, it's okay, but I'm
going to jail because I've got a slot machine
in Coney Island.
10933
It's a serious problem. I don't
think this will survive. And I don't think
that's good for Western New York or the Seneca
Nation if we hand them three or four pages
that aren't going to do the job. I can think
of better ways to possibly authorize those
kinds of devices under our constitution. This
isn't the way.
Now, why are we doing slots? It's
just like Connecticut. Well, Connecticut did
not have a constitutional ban. It had a
legislative ban. And it granted the
Mashantucket Pequot and then later the
Mohegans exclusive rights to slot machines in
return for 25 percent back to the state. Good
deal, made Connecticut a lot of money, made
them a lot of money.
You know, under IGRA you cannot, by
the way, take anything. We cannot tell the
Oneida, You're making a lot of money, we want
25 percent. We can't take 1 percent. We
can't tax them a penny. Because the games
they play are games that we let charities
play. And the Department of the Interior will
not let a state hold up an Indian tribe for a
10934
payout or a tax or whatever in return for a
compact.
But they approved the Connecticut
model because Connecticut was giving them
something they didn't have, slots, something
they couldn't get. And the Seneca can't get
slots under New York law. So this is the
25 percent payout. It's 18 percent for five
years, and then it's 22 percent and then
eventually 25 percent of the draw. Okay?
We're going to get that because we're giving
them slots.
Well, if the courts say, They got
their casinos but, gee, the slots were
illegal, they don't get slots, they get the
casino, we don't get 25 percent.
I got a bigger problem with it.
What did I say before? The Oneida compact.
There's one with the Mohawk too. They're
entitled to anything New York makes legal.
Right? That's why they can play blackjack,
that's why they can play the big-wheel game
and shoot dice.
Well, if we let somebody in
New York have slots, I don't see how they
10935
don't get slots. Okay? I don't see how they
don't get slots. We're giving slots to the
Seneca tribe, why can't the Oneida put slots
in at Turning Stone? They can.
And like all good treaties, this
one -- and even this MOU, that's not yet this
but it outlines it, have what are known, when
they do international treaties, when they do
contracts -- those are your lawyers -- when
they do do contracts, a most-favored-nations
clause which says we'll give you 22 or
25 percent, depending on the year, on the
slots as long as you don't give a better deal
to somebody else. And if you give a better
deal to somebody else, we get the same price.
Those of you who are lawyers know
that you put that in contracts all the time.
Right? Favored-nations clause. There's one
in here, with the Oneida. There's reference
to similar things in the MOU which will become
a contract.
So if, under IGRA, because we let
the Senecas ostensibly exclusively have slot
machines, then the Oneida are entitled to say,
Well, we get slots now, and we don't have to
10936
pay you because you give it out in New York.
And if the Oneida doesn't have to
pay us to have slots, then you can rip up
this, because the Senecas will get the slots
and we won't get the 25 percent and the
localities won't get the 3 percent.
This is a problem. Major problem.
I know it's attractive to say to legislators:
Look at all the revenue you're going to get.
I'm not sure we're getting it. I'm not sure
they're getting the slots, and I'm not sure,
if they get the slot machines, that we get the
revenue anyway. That's a problem.
Perhaps it's somehow negotiable or
addressable, but not in this document. And
it's not in this little slim bill that we're
presented with. And I really -- I have
regrets, because I am committed to supporting
casinos for Niagara Falls. Absolutely. But I
have great concerns about this. I cannot
believe this will end up being the law. I
can't believe if it passes both houses and is
signed like this that the courts won't throw
it out because of these defects in here.
I don't think the attempt to get
10937
around the ban, the constitutional ban that
goes back to the 1938 convention will be
effective legally. I think we're buying a
pair of dice from Big Julie without the spots
on it.
And I in good conscience can't -- I
mean, I don't know what some of this stuff in
the MOU means. I think it's admirable that
the second provision is entitled "Cultural
Exchange" in the MOU. I think it's very
admirable. And I know that the Senecas are
quite concerned with their traditions and
culture, and they're going to have a
referendum and it's important for the members
of the tribe to know that's been addressed in
this compact.
Because I forgot to remind you, all
my colleagues, none of this is effective if
the tribal members don't vote in favor of it
within the next 30 days. My question is, why
is the Legislature of the State of New York
voting first? We're going to adopt this law
and then if it's rejected by the tribe, what's
that say about us? It's another cart before
the horse.
10938
We're ratifying the treaty before
it's written, we're ratifying the deal before
there's a deal, because there's no deal if the
Seneca Nation doesn't vote in favor of it.
I don't understand. There may
be -- I think there are political reasons for
this. I think some of them are not our
politics. I think some of them are not our
politics. They're Seneca Nation politics.
And I respect that.
But what does this provision mean?
Parties agree and understand that the Nation
possesses its own unique social customs,
traditions, laws and history. Yes. In order
to make persons working at a Class 3 facility
established pursuant to the compact more aware
of the Nation's culture, traditions, laws and
history, the Nation may conduct periodic
cultural seminars in a manner of its choosing
for all facility employees. That's great.
It shall be the policy of the
Nation and the State that the employees at the
facility shall attend such seminars. The
State is going to help ensure that the
employees attend cultural, traditional
10939
seminars?
I know part of the cultures and
traditions are religious. I hope the State is
not making the facility's employees, as a
condition of employment, attend something
that's of a religious nature.
And I have another question.
They're employees. Are they getting paid for
the time at these seminars, or is the State
forcing them to go to it and not get paid? I
don't know from this. Maybe, if I could ever
see this, I'd know the answer to that. But I
don't know if they're getting paid.
I don't know if we're agreeing to
help force employees who are nonmembers of the
tribe to go to a seminar like this without
compensation. You can't tell that from this.
You can't tell it at all.
Here it talks about sharing the
revenues with localities. But it's not in the
compact, it's not here, and it's up to us.
Now, I do know there's another bill coming
that has prefatory language indicating that
the Legislature wants to do that. That
seems -- actually, that's the tightest
10940
language I've seen in any of this stuff, to
tell you the truth, Mr. President.
Law enforcement. Law enforcement
at the facility shall be pursuant to
applicable law governing law enforcement
jurisdiction on Indian lands.
That's not quite accurate. New
York's Iroquois, for better or worse, have a
unique jurisprudential and sovereignty
situation compared to the rest of the nation,
due to a member of this body who represented
Salamanca in the early part of the 20th
century -- got to get these centuries right
now -- and to his influence and the influence
of a committee of the State Senate under his
guidance that influenced the United States
Congress in the early thirties to pass a
series of laws giving New York criminal
jurisdiction over Indian reservations,
Iroquois reservations, federally recognized
reservations.
We're the only state that has that
kind of criminal and concurrent civil
jurisdiction over reservation lands. No state
has that kind of civil jurisdiction. Doesn't
10941
mean a New Yorker can sue the tribe in state
or federal court. But it does mean, as to
individual matters, there is civil
jurisdiction within the reservation.
When we start -- and look, I know
that's not popular among our Iroquois nations.
Traditionalists argue they shouldn't do that,
troopers shouldn't be allowed on the
reservation, shouldn't bring matters to
New York courts. But it is the law of the
land. Congress has passed it. This
Legislature has validated that, before and
after. Actually, Congress passed it to
validate things that the Legislature had done.
So for us to say the normal law
enforcement jurisdiction on Indian lands, I'm
concerned. There's a difference between
normal jurisdiction on Indian lands and normal
jurisdiction on New York Indian lands. Quite
different. Quite different if you know Indian
law.
Nation Tort Claims Act. The Nation
will establish its own tort claims act which
will provide due process in an impartial forum
for the bringing of private tort claims.
10942
That's good. But that's under the
general principles of jurisprudence as to due
process. You have to have a hearing, you have
to have an impartial judge. It doesn't say
you need to have a jury.
Tort liability? Certainly nothing
wrong with capping everything at $5,000 or
whatever. We don't know what they'll do. It
won't be in the compact. It's just the Nation
trying to undertake that it's going to pass a
tort claims law. We don't know what that
means if New Yorkers are injured in the middle
of downtown Buffalo, right, when they're
walking on the pavement outside of the block
that becomes part of the reservation and
something falls off the parapet of the
building and hits them on the head.
New York law, according to this,
won't govern. And the Indian tort claims law,
whatever that turns out to be, will govern.
We don't know what that's going to be. Is it
going to have a wrongful death limit at
$10,000? Some states have that. They could
have that. That would meet due process
requirements. But we don't know. They're
10943
going to have something, but we don't know
what it is.
I also have a concern that
importing something like this, it ends up in a
compact, that we have waived our concurrent
civil jurisdiction over the reservation. We
have it now. If we're acknowledging, no,
they're going to take care of tort claims,
have we in fact waived something that New York
has enjoyed for decades, civil jurisdiction on
reservation lands?
Something that the state of
Arizona, something that the state of
Colorado -- something New York has that is
unique in these United States. Are we, by
treaty, now giving that up? I don't know. It
well could be. Hard to figure out from these
few pages. Maybe it can be determined from
here.
This compact says that the State
Racing and Wagering Board will license and
supervise gaming at the Oneida casino.
Similar provision in the Mohawk compact.
This slim document says that the
Nation commission, the Nation, Seneca Nation
10944
Gaming Commission will regulate and supervise
gaming. Quite different. Quite different.
Now, I've been told by advocates
for the Nation, Oh, no, no, we intend to have
troopers on-site like the others. We intend
to have Racing and Wagering.
That's not what this says. It says
the Nation will issue the license to the
employees, the Nation will supervise the
gaming. In fact, there is a provision for the
BCI, Bureau of Criminal Investigations, State
Police, to do background checks and notify the
Nation commission of someone's prior felony
record. There is a provision in there where a
felon, by the way, the Nation can have it
reviewed and actually hire a felon if it's
only one felony more than five years ago.
I don't think a felon can get a job
in Las Vegas or Atlantic City. But there is
forgiveness in this little document for
felons. There's a review process so some
felons can get licenses to work in gaming. I
don't know how that fits in with the rest of
the world.
It's a slim document, but there's
10945
a -- I'm talking about the things that aren't
in here. Why isn't the State Racing and
Wagering Commission supervising gaming there
and making sure that those dice do have spots
on them and a different spot on every side of
the cube, as happens in the other Indian
casinos? I don't know. It's unique.
I read this years ago, I reread it.
This is different. It's not the same old
thing. There are a lot of faults. And my
concern is that at the end of the day the
people of the State of New York don't get what
they think they bargained for, the Seneca
Nation doesn't get what it thinks it bargained
for, and, most importantly, the people of
Niagara Falls and Western New York don't get
what they bargained for.
Mr. President, I will vote against
this. I suspect that before this summer is
out we will see a bill, an amendment to this
that will have far more meat on the bones,
that will fill out a lot of these things. I
would really like to see -- after the Nation
votes, I'd like to see this document.
And I suspect that if all the
10946
promises are kept and met -- I can't pass on
promises. Can't pass on promises. If all the
promises or promise of this, with some
corrections, ends up met in a document like
this, I will vote for it then. I'll gladly
vote for it, for Niagara Falls.
While I'm at it, the other bill,
which we'll take up shortly -- to save time,
I'll comment on it briefly -- in addition to
doing the local revenue sharing, which is
good, it purports to invoke and apply the
state's labor laws, workers' compensation
laws, and so on to these two casinos. But we
can't do that by law. We can't apply our
labor laws.
So what it says is, in effect, it's
the policy of this Legislature that when they
negotiate this they include and get the tribe
to agree to workers' compensation, labor
protections, nondiscrimination of employee
protections, and that sort of stuff. And I
think we all want to see that.
But make no misunderstanding, when
we pass the second bill, it doesn't mean it
has to be in here. Because it's not in the
10947
MOU, and it doesn't have to be in the compact.
And we're never going to get another chance to
ratify the compact, because we're ratifying it
in advance.
So in the second bill we're saying:
And we hope this thing we ratified that we
haven't seen will end up having the labor
protections in it. Because when we pass a
bill saying the labor protections apply,
that's not legal. The Nation must agree to
it. They have that degree of sovereignty.
So it's a good sentiment, and I'm
going to vote for the second bill, but I don't
think it has any legal effect. It only has
legal effect if it ends up in the compact.
But we're already ratifying the compact that
hasn't been written yet.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Thank you, Mr.
President.
The hour is late. We have another
calendar that we're going to take up after
this bill. And we're going to finish the work
10948
that we have to do.
Now, I'm only rising because
Senator Connor went on at great length talking
about a document that he seems to be very
proud of, that huge compact with the Oneidas
that was negotiated by Governor Mario Cuomo,
which is the worst agreement put together in
the entire United States, where we in New York
State receive absolutely nothing, nothing, as
a result of the document that you're so proud
of that you point to with your
hundred-and-some pages.
Let's be very clear here in this
chamber. Many of us in the chamber would like
not to have casinos in New York State. I
would like not to have casinos anywhere in the
world, certainly not in North America. But,
Senator, we have casinos. We have casinos
surrounding us here in New York State. We
have two of them across the bridge in Canada.
And I was just glancing through,
trying to occupy myself while you were
talking, that there is $600 million in revenue
from one casino across the bridge in Canada.
$600 million in revenue, with 8½ million
10949
people crossing the bridge, half of them from
New York State and the United States.
That's what this is all about. Not
whether or not we're going to have casinos.
We have casinos. They're all around us.
People take buses to go to Foxwood, the
largest casino in the whole world, with the
greatest participants being from New York
State. That's what this is all about.
So we should be applauding the
Governor for recognizing that 4 million
Americans are crossing the bridge to go into
Canada to deposit $600 million in revenue over
there, while Niagara suffers and Buffalo
suffers and people here who represent that
area, their constituents are suffering.
So in the real world -- in an
idealistic world, there would be no casinos in
the world. That's not what this is all about.
And when you talk about the fact
that slots will be illegal, maybe they will
and maybe they won't. I'm not going to make
that judgment. What we have before us here is
an agreement to allow our chief executive of
New York State to negotiate with the Senecas
10950
an agreement. And when he's done, that
agreement may be thicker than the one that
you're looking at, and it will answer all the
questions that you were asking and it will
correctly identify some of the comments and
statements that you made that are not
accurate, I'm sorry to have to report to you.
And how do I know? My very learned counsels
tell me so.
So one of the things that you've
got to be aware of is that there is revenue
that will come from the slots. And if it is
true that the Oneidas in Turning Stone and the
Mohawks will also have slots, because this is
going with the Senecas' compact -- and when
it's approved, you're right, they then have a
right to get the slots. But you're wrong,
they don't get them free. They pay, unlike
what the Oneidas pay now, up to 25 percent
when this is fully implemented, according to
this agreement. They will have to pay, to the
state, up to 25 percent.
And unlike that compact that goes
on forever, past all of our lifetimes, this
has a sunset, in 21 years. That has none.
10951
And that's the worst deal that could have been
made here in New York State by anyone.
So you want to be critical of the
Governor, you can be critical. But I'd be
interested in your comments as relates to the
individual that negotiated that that you have
before you.
So I only say this because Niagara
presently is the most, pardon me, economically
devastated area in all of New York State. I
don't think there's any area that is suffering
more deprivation economically than Niagara.
While $600 million goes across the bridge,
4 million New Yorkers and Americans go across
the bridge. That's wrong. That is wrong.
So what the Governor is trying to
do, with the Senators and other legislators,
is correct a wrong. That's what this is all
about.
Now, will this change? It
certainly will. We are allowing our elected
chief executive of New York State to go
forward and to negotiate the details of a
compact.
Now, again, I'm not standing here
10952
talking about how great this is if we'd had
our druthers. We don't. And if I could close
those casinos in Canada, I would. And if I
could do away with Foxwood and the other one,
whatever they call it, Mohegan whatever,
Sun -- and I've never been there. And there
are many of you in this room that can probably
say you've never been there. I've been to a
casino once in my life. And I only went
because I wanted to see what it was all about,
because I keep hearing about casinos.
So let's be clear. There are any
number of speakers that can speak. And that's
what, you know, this discussion is all about
and that's what legislating is all about.
What we are doing tonight -- and we are going
to pass this legislation with 34 votes on this
side of the aisle and any other votes that you
want to share in moving this legislation
forward -- we are empowering our Governor, our
elected chief executive to negotiate a compact
with the Senecas, one that will be a huge
improvement over what his predecessor did in
the casinos that presently exist here in
New York State.
10953
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Connor.
SENATOR CONNOR: Mr. President,
to answer the question, let me clarify. I
only held this up for its heft, not its
content.
No, no, no, I was just showing how
long and complicated a compact gets. I'm not
standing by anything that's in this compact.
And you may be right, and hopefully
you are. Maybe the one that Governor Pataki
negotiates will be twice as big. I can't wait
to read it.
Unfortunately, at the time this was
done, though, under the Indian Gaming Act, the
state couldn't hold them up for any money
because there weren't slots in it.
But -- and let me say, Senator
Bruno, just a couple of weeks ago I
contributed about $600 to that $600 million in
Ontario. So I've been there and I've seen it.
But I would point out something we
ought to give thought to, something we haven't
done that I know Speaker Fink once advocated
10954
years ago. That casino in Ontario is owned by
the government of Ontario. And they get all
$600 million. They don't get 25 percent of
it, they don't get 18 percent in the first
five years and so on. They get it all. And
I'm usually not in favor of government running
business, but maybe that's something we ought
to think about if we're really going down this
road someday.
And I don't mean that to stand as a
bar to this Niagara Falls casino. I think we
ought to do the casino in Niagara Falls. I
look forward to supporting this bill when it's
amended to answer some of the questions I've
raised.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Any other
Senator wishing to speak on the bill?
Senator Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you,
Mr. President. On the bill.
I will try to be brief. I know
it's late. But I must say that in the two and
a half years I've been here, this strikes me
as really the most irresponsible effort to
pass legislation I've seen.
10955
This bill simply requires -- the
Governor can negotiate the compact now. We're
not empowering him to do that. He can
negotiate it now and then present it to us
after -- and if -- it's ratified by the tribe.
What we're doing is giving him a
blank check based on requiring it to be
consistent with the memorandum of
understanding, which I respectfully submit may
prove to be a disaster.
And I hear Senator Padavan's
articulate case against gambling generally. I
agree with much of what he said. But I think
that if this MOU is followed you're going to
see things worse in Niagara Falls than you've
ever seen in Atlantic City or anywhere else
that gambling is allowed.
Why do I say that? The screening
process, the felony review process is a joke.
It is not up to the standards of New Jersey,
Las Vegas, or any other jurisdiction that I'm
aware of. Add to that the fact that you're
not going to have tort law applying. So if
you commit assaults or any other types of
activities -- and who knows what the criminal
10956
enforcement is going to be, because that's not
clear. You may have weak tort laws, you
clearly have inadequate screening procedures.
Niagara Falls, you may have a big infusion of
people there, but a lot of them may not be
people you want in Niagara Falls.
And I respectfully submit that this
is not necessary to move this process forward.
I don't know why we have to do this in the
middle of the night the last day of session
when the Governor can go and negotiate the
compact himself now.
This is -- maybe we're giving him
political cover. I don't know what the
background discussions have been. It is clear
that the Governor has got a big problem. And
the big problem is that the upstate rebound is
a lie and everyone knows it's a lie, and he is
going to do whatever he can do to try and
salvage some little scrap of his reputation
for economic development.
This is not the way to do it. And
I'm very sorry to see this house -- which I
may disagree with what goes on on the other
side of the aisle, but I've never seen an
10957
abdication of our responsibility like this
since I've been here. I think I'm sensitive
to all the arguments about economic
development. I don't think it's necessary -
I know it's not necessary to pass this bill
tonight in order for economic development to
go forward, the Governor to negotiate the
compact, the tribe to consider this.
This is a very embarrassing way,
for me, for us to end this session. I urge
everyone to vote no. And I am sure that
Senator Connor is correct, that we will see a
version of this legislation again. I hope
it's a lot better than this.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will read the last section.
Senator Brown, do you wish to
speak?
SENATOR BROWN: Yes, I'd like to
speak on the bill, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Brown, on the bill.
SENATOR BROWN: First let me say
that both of these proposed casinos are in the
10958
57th Senate District, which is my district in
Buffalo and in Niagara Falls.
I would have preferred to have seen
a referendum on the ballot to give the voters
an opportunity to express their preference on
this issue, to be very honest with you. I
would have liked to have seen the voters in
Niagara Falls and the voters in Buffalo, the
people that we represent here, be able to tell
us what they will like to see.
But failing that, I want to make it
quite clear I'm going to be supporting this
bill. I understand the reason for concern.
But I also believe that this should move
forward. The city of Niagara Falls is
hurting, and it's hurting desperately. Every
day there are thousands of people that take
that five-minute ride right across the border
to Casino Niagara and spend American dollars
in Canada. We need to keep our dollars in
Niagara Falls, America.
Let me just read some of the
statistics about what's happening in Niagara,
Ontario. By 2002, visitors to the Niagara,
Ontario, region are projected to be 20 million
10959
visitors just to that casino alone. More than
$6 billion in new development is either
planned or under construction throughout the
Niagara, Ontario, region. Since opening in
December 1996, more than 30 million people
have walked through the doors of casino
Niagara.
Tourism spending is growing faster
than the entire Canadian economy as a whole in
Ontario. By 2002, tourism will account for
approximately 21.8 percent to 26.3 percent of
employment in this area. Nearly half a
million Ontarians work in tourism.
Let me just share you with some of
the Casino Niagara's fourth-quarter fiscal
figures for the fiscal year which is from
April 1, 2000, to March 31, 2001. The gross
gambling revenue for that year that I just
mentioned, just one year, is $49.7 million a
month, on the average. The yearly gross
gaming revenue was $5,963 million,
$5,963 million, over half a billion dollars on
gaming.
Now, the daily average of people
that walk through the doors of Casino Niagara,
10960
over 25,000 people walk through the doors of
Casino Niagara every single day, most of them
U.S. citizens. U.S. citizens.
Now, clearly Casino Niagara is
killing tourism on Niagara Falls on the
American side. And I know that we can't solve
all of our problems looking for one silver
bullet that's going to answer all of our
questions. But this is certainly, I believe,
one part of an overall economic recovery
strategy that we need in this region.
So I'm going to support this
because from my representation of Niagara
Falls, every meeting I go to, every block club
meeting, every dinner, every lawn fete, there
are citizens that say, "Please, please talk to
the Senators, talk to your colleagues in
Albany, make them understand that we want to
see casino gaming in Niagara Falls so that we
can compete with Casino Niagara in Niagara
Falls, Ontario."
So I'm going to urge my colleagues
to have a little trust, to believe that the
final agreement will be worked out in the best
interests of the citizens of our state, and to
10961
support this piece of legislation.
I know that there are many
unanswered questions. I understand that. I
have concerns myself. I'm concerned about the
return to local governments. There is a
25 percent return to the State, and this
agreement gives the Governor, gives the State
the ability to reach final agreements with
host local governments. Well, I hope those
host local governments are the cities of
Niagara Falls and Buffalo, not the cities of
Niagara Falls, Buffalo, and the counties of
Niagara and Erie. Because the real impact of
gaming is going to be in those cities where
these casinos are located, in the city of
Niagara Falls and in the city of Buffalo. The
impact is not going to be as great in the
counties, in the larger counties.
So I hope when we look at those
host local governments that get a percentage
of this revenue, we are talking about those
cities where the brunt of the negative
impact -- where the problem gamblers will
live, those people that Senator Padavan talks
about, those that are least able to afford to
10962
go to a casino and gamble that will be hurt
the most, those people that are most likely
going to be coming from the city. I hope
those are the communities that are going to
get this revenue sharing.
Also, I'm concerned about the Grand
Island land claim. I have to put that on the
table because I represent the town of
Grand Island. And I know that there's going
to be separate legislation that will indemnify
that community. I want to see that, because I
know that the people in the town of Grand
Island are very concerned about their homes
and very concerned about that land claim. And
for them it's an issue that they live with
each and every day.
I'm also concerned about diversity
in the construction of this casino, the
contracts that will be let and the jobs that
will be created. Because for this to work for
those communities, the entire community has to
be a beneficiary. The entire community has to
be able to participate and reap the benefits
of these casinos.
Is this agreement perfect? No, it
10963
is not perfect. But is this something that I
believe these communities need? Absolutely.
I'll be supporting this piece of legislation
and I urge all of my colleagues on both sides
of the aisle to support this legislation.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 5. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
SENATOR CONNOR: Slow roll call,
Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Are there
five members in the chamber who -- there are.
Okay, the Secretary will ring the
bells.
Call the roll.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Alesi.
SENATOR ALESI: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Balboni.
SENATOR BALBONI: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Bonacic.
10964
SENATOR BONACIC: To explain my
vote.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Bonacic, to explain his vote.
SENATOR BONACIC: I'd like to
congratulate Governor Pataki and my colleague
Senator George Maziarz for the work they've
been doing to bring this package together.
It's very difficult to get a tribe
to agree to enter into a compact with the
governor of the state. We know that the
western region is suffering economic
deprivation. Tourism is the second most
important industry in the state of New York.
Casinos never guarantee prosperity,
but they are a catalyst for economic vitality
that will bring people in. And when a family
visits the Buffalo or Niagara Falls area,
maybe one will go into the casino but the rest
of the family will go into recreational
activities, eat in the restaurants, stay in
the hotels, and it will be a tremendous boost
to that area which they need.
I heard Senator Connor speak that
this compact should be negotiated and then we
10965
should ratify it. We can't agree on the most
simplest bills in this chamber. Can you
imagine us trying to agree on every item in
the compact? It would never get done.
I trust our Governor to do this
intelligently and comprehensively when he does
this compact, to look at the return to
education, to look at project labor
agreements, to look at host fees to the local
governments, to look at protecting the
businesses around the casino to restrict the
Senecas from competing other than in the
gaming industry.
And when that is done, I expect
this to be a blueprint for other areas that
are suffering economic deprivation. And I can
tell you that we in the Catskills have been
working for six years now trying to bring back
the Catskills, who are having the same
economic deprivation that we are seeing in the
western region.
So it's important for my colleagues
on both of the sides of the aisle, and I'm
very pleased to vote in the affirmative.
Thank you, Mr. President.
10966
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Bonacic will be recorded in the affirmative.
Continue to call the roll.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Breslin.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Nay.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Brown.
SENATOR BROWN: To explain my
vote, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Brown, to explain his vote.
SENATOR BROWN: Right now
Niagara Falls and Buffalo have all of the
downside of casino gaming.
Casino Niagara is five minutes away
from the city of Niagara Falls. It's twenty
minutes away from the city of Buffalo. People
from the city of Niagara Falls and the city of
Buffalo are going over to Niagara Falls,
Ontario, in record numbers, spending their
U.S. dollars in Canada.
We want to keep those U.S. dollars
in Niagara Falls and Buffalo, and one way to
do it is through this agreement.
I vote yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
10967
Brown will be recorded in the affirmative.
Continue to call the roll.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Connor.
SENATOR CONNOR: Thank you, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Connor, to explain his vote.
SENATOR CONNOR: Again, I don't
like other people characterizing what I say.
I did thank the Governor and praise
his efforts here. I hope his continued
efforts will in fact bear fruit with a real
compact.
And frankly, I think -- I don't
propose for a minute that the Legislature in
ratifying a compact would take up each section
individually. You take that thing and you
either vote up or down on it. That's the way
treaties are done. So I just do have a
process problem.
But I want to congratulate my
colleague Senator Byron Brown, who represents
the city of Niagara Falls and the city of
10968
Buffalo, who will, for better or worse, have
two casinos in his district. He's in favor of
it, I know he's influenced a number of other
members to vote in favor of this, and that's
fine.
And I look forward -- something
tells me that this version is a one-house
version and it will be back. And when it's
back with a better version, I'll be happy to
vote for it.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Connor will be recorded in the negative.
SENATOR CONNOR: I vote no.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Continue
to call the roll.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
DeFrancisco.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Dollinger.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Espada.
(No response.)
10969
THE SECRETARY: Senator Farley.
SENATOR FARLEY: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Gentile.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Gonzalez.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Goodman.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Hannon.
SENATOR HANNON: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Hassell-Thompson.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Hevesi.
SENATOR HEVESI: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Hoffmann.
SENATOR HOFFMANN: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Johnson.
SENATOR JOHNSON: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Kruger.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Kuhl.
10970
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Lachman.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Lack.
SENATOR LACK: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Larkin.
SENATOR LARKIN: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator LaValle.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Leibell.
SENATOR LEIBELL: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Libous.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Maltese.
SENATOR MALTESE: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Marchi.
SENATOR MARCHI: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Markowitz, excused.
Senator Maziarz.
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator McGee.
10971
SENATOR McGEE: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Meier.
SENATOR MEIER: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Mendez.
SENATOR MENDEZ: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Morahan.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Nozzolio.
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Mr. President,
I ask unanimous consent to be excused from
voting and explain my vote.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Nozzolio, to explain his vote.
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Thank you, Mr.
President.
Mr. President and my colleagues,
that the measure before us is one that has
been endorsed by Governor Pataki and promoted
by the Western New York delegation, although I
certainly would have preferred this matter to
be part and parcel, as Senator Brown had
indicated, of one that settled Indian land
10972
claims.
I too have an Indian land claim in
my district and, as such, am very concerned
for the property owners who are under the
direct litigation by certain Indian tribes.
That the Seneca Nation has a land claim, as
Senator Byron Brown indicated, and as such I
certainly would have preferred, before we
dealt with this compact, to have that land
claim resolved.
But I believe it's also up to the
local Senators -- Senator Brown, Senator
Volker, Senator Maziarz, Senator McGee,
Senator Rath -- who are directly representing
the land owners in the Seneca Indian Nation.
Those representatives are the ones that should
determine whether or not certain aspects
should or shouldn't be resolved prior to
entering into this compact.
As such, I respect their judgment,
I respect their position, and I hope that
they, certainly when other compacts or other
Indian matters are brought before this
Legislature, that they respect the individual
legislators who represent the particular areas
10973
under Indian litigation or under question of
particular sovereignty issues.
As such, Mr. President, I vote in
the affirmative.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Nozzolio will be recorded in the affirmative.
Continue to call the roll.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Onorato.
SENATOR ONORATO: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Oppenheimer.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Padavan.
SENATOR PADAVAN: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Rath.
SENATOR RATH: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Saland.
SENATOR SALAND: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Sampson.
SENATOR SAMPSON: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Santiago.
SENATOR SANTIAGO: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
10974
Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Seward.
SENATOR SEWARD: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator A. Smith,
excused.
Senator M. Smith.
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Spano.
SENATOR SPANO: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Stachowski.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Stafford.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Stavisky.
SENATOR STAVISKY: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Trunzo.
SENATOR TRUNZO: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Velella.
SENATOR VELELLA: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Volker.
SENATOR VOLKER: Yes.
10975
THE SECRETARY: Senator Wright.
SENATOR WRIGHT: Aye.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the
absentees.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Dollinger.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Espada.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Gentile.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Gonzalez.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Goodman.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Kruger.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Lachman.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Announce
the results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 39. Nays,
13.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill
is passed.
10976
Senator LaValle, why do you rise?
SENATOR LAVALLE: Mr. President,
may I have unanimous consent to be recorded in
the negative on Calendar Number 1365.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Without
objection, hearing no objection, Senator
LaValle will be recorded in the negative on
Calendar Number 1365.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Mr. President,
can we at this time call for an immediate
meeting of the Rules Committee in Room 332.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: There
will be an immediate meeting of the Rules
Committee, immediate meeting of the Rules
Committee in Room 332, the Majority Conference
Room.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Mr. President,
can we at this time take up Supplemental
Calendar 57E, in regular order.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL:
Noncontroversial, Senator?
SENATOR BRUNO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
10977
Secretary will read the noncontroversial
reading of Supplemental Calendar 57E.
THE SECRETARY: In relation to
Calendar Number 1384, Senator Leibell moves to
discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
Assembly Bill Number 4870 and substitute it
for the identical Senate Bill Number 2538,
Third Reading Calendar 1384.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
substitution is ordered.
The Secretary will read the title.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1384, by Member of the Assembly Vitaliano,
Assembly Print Number 4870, an act to amend
the Retirement and Social Security Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill
is passed.
10978
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1385, by Senator Padavan, Senate Print 2551,
an act to amend the Public Authorities Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will read the last section.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Lay the
bill aside.
THE SECRETARY: In relation to
Calendar Number 1386, Senator Maltese moves to
discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
Assembly Bill Number 8480 and substitute it
for the identical Senate Bill Number 5095,
Third Reading Calendar 1386.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
substitution is ordered.
The Secretary will read the title.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1386, by the Assembly Committee on Rules,
Assembly Print Number 8480, an act to amend
the Retirement and Social Security Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: There is
a home rule message at the desk.
The Secretary will read the last
section.
10979
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: In relation to
Calendar Number 1387, Senator Leibell moves to
discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
Assembly Bill Number 6878 and substitute it
for the identical Senate Bill Number 5276,
Third Reading Calendar 1387.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
substitution is ordered.
The Secretary will read the title.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1387, by Member of the Assembly Abbate,
Assembly Print Number 6878, an act to amend
the Retirement and Social Security Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
10980
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1389, by the Senate Committee on Rules, Senate
Print Number 5688, an act to amend a chapter
of the Laws of 2001.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: There is
a message of necessity at the desk.
SENATOR BRUNO: Move to accept.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
motion is to accept the message of necessity.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Opposed,
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
message is accepted.
The bill is before the house.
The Secretary will read the last
section.
10981
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the same date as a
chapter of the Laws of 2001.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill
is passed.
Senator Bruno, that completes the
noncontroversial reading of the calendar. We
have one bill left on the controversial
calendar.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Mr. President,
can we take up Supplemental Calendar 57C,
Calendar Number 1359.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will read.
SENATOR BRUNO: Thank you.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1359, by Senator Johnson, Senate Print 5577A,
an act to amend the Alcoholic Beverage Control
Law.
SENATOR BRUNO: Is there a
10982
message at the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: There is.
SENATOR BRUNO: Move to accept.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
motion is to accept the message of necessity
on Calendar Number 1359. All those in favor
signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Opposed,
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
message is accepted.
The bill is before the house.
The Secretary will read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 7. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Record
the negatives and announce the results.
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
the negative on Calendar Number 1359 are
10983
Senators Alesi, Maziarz, and McGee. Ayes, 55.
Nays, 3.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill
is passed.
Senator Rath, why do you rise?
SENATOR RATH: Mr. President, I
request unanimous consent to be recorded in
the negative on Calendar 1359.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Without
objection, hearing no objection, Senator Rath
will be recorded in the negative on Calendar
Number 1359.
Senator Bruno, the Rules report is
at the desk.
SENATOR BRUNO: I would move that
we accept the Rules report.
And we first must return to reports
of standing committees and then ask that the
report be read. Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: We'll
return to the order of reports of standing
committees.
There's a Rules report at the desk.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Bruno,
10984
from the Committee on Rules, reports the
following bills:
Senate Print 140A, by Senator
Volker, an act to amend the Vehicle and
Traffic Law.
2515B, by Senator Padavan, an act
to amend the Education Law.
4318B, by Senator Velella, an act
to amend the General Business Law.
5168A, by Senator Johnson, an act
to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law.
5280, by Senator Leibell, an act to
amend the Retirement and Social Security Law.
5283, by Senator Leibell, an act to
amend the Retirement and Social Security Law.
5400A, by Senator Marcellino, an
act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law.
5413, by Senator Leibell, an act to
repeal paragraph E.
5414, by Senator Leibell, an act to
amend the Civil Service Law.
5539, by Senator Leibell, an act to
amend the Administrative Code of the City of
New York.
5576, by the Senate Committee on
10985
Rules, an act to amend the Labor Law.
5685, by Senator Bonacic, an act to
amend the Insurance Law.
And Senate Print 4832, by Senator
Oppenheimer, an act to amend Chapter 711 of
the Laws of 1907.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
motion is to accept the report of the Rules
Committee. All those in favor signify by
saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Opposed,
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The Rules
report is accepted.
The bills are ordered directly to
third reading.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Mr. President,
can we at this time call up Calendar Number
1385.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
10986
1385, by Senator Padavan, Senate Print 2551,
an act to amend the Public Authorities Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Paterson, why do you rise?
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
I don't want to prolong the proceedings, so I
would just like to report for the record that
last year there were ten negative votes.
Included in those votes were the no votes of
Senators Duane, Hevesi, Montgomery, Mendez,
Schneiderman, Sampson, Smith and Smith, and
myself.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the 120th day.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Record
the negatives and announce the results.
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
the negative on Calendar Number 1385 are
Senators Duane, Hassell-Thompson, Hevesi,
Paterson, Sampson, Schneiderman, and M. Smith.
10987
Ayes, 51. Nays, 7.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill
is passed.
Senator Padavan, why do you rise?
SENATOR PADAVAN: Mr. President,
by unanimous consent, having been in the Rules
Committee at the time, I'd like to be recorded
in the negative on Calendar 1389, Senate Bill
5688.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Without
objection, hearing no objection, Senator
Padavan will be recorded in the negative on
Calendar Number 1389.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Mr. President, is
there housekeeping to be done at the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Yes.
SENATOR BRUNO: Can we do that at
this time.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Thank you,
Mr. President.
On behalf of Senator Saland, on
page number 9 I offer the following amendments
10988
to Calendar Number 223, Senate Print 3148A,
and ask that said bill retain its place on
Third Reading Calendar.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
amendments to Calendar Number 223 are received
and adopted. The bill will retain its place
on the Third Reading Calendar.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Can we at this
time, Mr. President, take up Supplemental
Calendar 57F, noncontroversial.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Calendar
57F is on the desks of all the members.
The Secretary will read the
noncontroversial reading.
THE SECRETARY: In relation to
Calendar Number 1390, Senator Volker moves to
discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
Assembly Bill Number 2226A and substitute it
for the identical Senate Bill Number 140A,
Third Reading Calendar 1390.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
substitution is ordered.
The Secretary will read the title.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
10989
1390, by Member of the Assembly Smith,
Assembly Print Number 2226A, an act to amend
the Vehicle and Traffic Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1392, by Senator Velella, Senate Print 4318B,
an act to amend the General Business Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect 180 days.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Record
the negatives and announce the results.
10990
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 56. Nays,
2. Senators Libous and Spano recorded in the
negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1393, by Senator Johnson, Senate Print 5168A,
an act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law
and the Education Law.
SENATOR BRUNO: Is there a
message at the desk, Mr. President?
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: There is.
SENATOR BRUNO: Move to accept
the message.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
motion is to accept the message of necessity
on Calendar Number 1393. All those in favor
signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Opposed,
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
message is accepted.
The bill is before the house.
10991
The Secretary will read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 14. This
act shall take effect April 1, 2002.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: In relation to
Calendar Number 1394, Senator Leibell moves to
discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
Assembly Bill Number 8586 and substitute it
for the identical Senate Bill Number 5280,
Third Reading Calendar 1394.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
substitution is ordered.
The Secretary will read the title.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1394, by the Assembly Committee on Rules,
Assembly Print Number 8586, an act to amend
the Retirement and Social Security Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Read the
last section.
10992
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: In relation to
Calendar Number 1395, Senator Leibell moves to
discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
Assembly Bill Number 8588 and substitute it
for the identical Senate Bill Number 5283,
Third Reading Calendar 1395.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
substitution is ordered.
The Secretary will read the title.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1395, by the Assembly Committee on Rules,
Assembly Print Number 8588, an act to amend
the Retirement and Social Security Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
10993
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1396, by Senator Marcellino, Senate -
SENATOR STAVISKY: Lay it aside.
THE SECRETARY: -- Senate Print
5400A, an act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic
Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Is there a
message at the desk, Mr. President?
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: There is.
SENATOR BRUNO: Move to accept.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
motion is to accept the message of necessity
on Calendar Number 1396. All those in favor
signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Opposed,
nay.
10994
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill
is before the house and laid aside.
The Secretary will continue to
read.
THE SECRETARY: In relation to
Calendar Number 1397, Senator Leibell moves to
discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
Assembly Bill Number 8589 and substitute it
for the identical Senate Bill Number 5413,
Third Reading Calendar 1397.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
substitution is ordered.
The Secretary will read the title.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1397, by the Assembly Committee on Rules,
Assembly Print Number 8589, an act to repeal
paragraph E of subdivision 4.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
10995
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill
is passed.
Senator Hoffmann.
SENATOR HOFFMANN: Mr. President,
I request unanimous consent, please, to be
recorded in the negative on 1393.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Without
objection, hearing no objection, Senator
Hoffmann is recorded in the negative on
Calendar Number 1393.
The Secretary will continue to
read.
THE SECRETARY: In relation to
Calendar Number 1398, Senator Leibell moves to
discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
Assembly Bill Number 7325 and substitute it
for the identical Senate Bill Number 5414,
Third Reading Calendar 1398.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
substitution is ordered.
The Secretary will read the title.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1398, by Member of the Assembly Lentol,
Assembly Print Number 7325, an act to amend
10996
the Civil Service Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: In relation to
Calendar Number 1399, Senator Leibell moves to
discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
Assembly Bill Number 9028 and substitute it
for the identical Senate Bill Number 5539,
Third Reading Calendar 1399.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
substitution is ordered.
The Secretary will read the title.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1399, by the Assembly Committee on Rules,
Assembly Print Number 9028, an act to amend
the Administrative Code of the City of
New York.
10997
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: In relation to
Calendar Number 1400, Senator Bruno moves to
discharge, from the Committee on Rules -
SENATOR BRUNO: Lay it aside for
the day.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Lay the
bill aside for the day.
THE SECRETARY: In relation to
Calendar Number 1401, Senator Bonacic moves to
discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
Assembly Bill Number 4395 and substitute it
for the identical Senate Bill Number 5685,
Third Reading Calendar 1401.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
substitution is ordered.
10998
The Secretary will read the title.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1401, by Member of the Assembly Grannis,
Assembly Print Number 4395, an act to amend
the Insurance Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 57. Nays,
1. Senator Seward recorded in the negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: In relation to
Calendar Number 1402, Senator Oppenheimer
moves to discharge, from the Committee on
Rules, Assembly Bill Number 8759 and
substitute it for the identical Senate Bill
Number 4832, Third Reading Calendar 1402.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
substitution is ordered.
The Secretary will read the title.
10999
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1402, by the Assembly Committee on Rules,
Assembly Print Number 8759, an act to amend
Chapter 711 of the Laws of 1907.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: There is
a home rule message at the desk.
The Secretary will read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill
is passed.
Senator Saland, why do you rise?
SENATOR SALAND: Mr. President, I
would request unanimous consent to be recorded
in the negative on Calendar Number 1392,
Senate 4318B.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Without
objection, hearing no objection, Senator
Saland will be recorded in the negative on
Calendar Number 1392.
11000
Senator Nozzolio, why do you rise?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: I ask
unanimous consent, Mr. President, to be
recorded in the negative on Calendar Number
1392.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Without
objection, hearing no objection, Senator
Nozzolio will be recorded in the negative on
Calendar Number 1392.
Senator Maltese, why do you rise?
SENATOR MALTESE: Mr. President,
I ask unanimous consent to be recorded in the
negative on Calendar Number 1392.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Without
objection, hearing no objection, Senator
Maltese will be recorded in the negative on
Calendar Number 1392.
Senator Bruno, that completes the
noncontroversial reading of the calendar.
SENATOR BRUNO: Mr. President,
can we at this time call up Calendar Number
1396.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will read Calendar Number 1396.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
11001
1396, by Senator Marcellino, Senate Print
5400A, an act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic
Law.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Marcellino, an explanation has been requested
by Senator Stavisky.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Yes, Mr.
President.
This bill requires that no person
operate a motor vehicle while using a handheld
mobile phone.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stavisky.
SENATOR STAVISKY: On the bill,
Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stavisky, on the bill.
SENATOR STAVISKY: This is the
bill that bans the use of cellphones while
you're driving except for the handheld
variety. And it seems to me that many of the
people in this chamber are affected by this
legislation, because I notice, driving on the
Thruway, that many people are using
11002
cellphones.
This was originally brought to our
attention back in 1997 when researchers at the
University of Toronto published an article in
the New England Journal of Medicine. And in
that article it explained that using a
cellphone while driving increases the
possibility of an accident fourfold. And the
study also said that you have the same risk as
driving under the influence of a 0.1 blood
alcohol level.
In other words, using a cellphone
while driving is extremely dangerous. And
it's dangerous because of a lack of
concentration, no other reason. You're not
paying attention to the road, you're paying
attention to your conversation.
As a result of the study in the New
England Journal of Medicine back in -- it was
published in February of 1997, my predecessor,
Senator Leonard Stavisky, introduced the first
cellphone bill, as far as I know, in the state
and certainly, as far as I know, in the United
States. And it was based on that -- as I
said, that New England Journal of Medicine
11003
study.
His legislation called for an
outright ban. I have modified that bill, and
it's been languishing in the Senate -- well,
since Leonard introduced it in 1997. That
bill calls for an outright ban.
There's a second bill which
requires research when an accident occurs by
the State Police. In other words, on the
motor vehicle accident form there would be
space to report whether a cellphone was
involved when there's a vehicular accident.
That aspect has been incorporated
in the bill that's before us today. But it
seems to me that the problem is the use of the
telephone. And while I intend to vote for
Senator Marcellino's bill, I think we have to
recognize that the problem is the lack of
concentration. Not the use of the hands, but
the distraction. Newspapers have called it
driving while distracted.
And it seems to me that hands-free
is not hazard-free, and I caution all my
colleagues to be very careful, if we do adopt
this bill this evening, to keep their
11004
concentration on the road and not on the
conversation.
Thank you, Mr. President. I vote
yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Any other
member wishing to speak on this bill?
Hearing none, the Secretary will
read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 8. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Balboni, to explain his vote.
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, Mr.
President.
I'd like to thank Carl Marcellino
for his leadership on this issue. He's been
absolutely terrific. He had this bill in two
years ago.
If it was a perfect world, I would
ask that people do not drive and use the
cellphone. And I'd like to vote in favor of
this bill on behalf of Dina Lesser, the former
11005
town clerk of the Town of North Hempstead, who
lost her husband due to a chauffeur on a
cellphone who absolutely did not pay
attention. And you know how they know that,
ladies and gentlemen? There were no skid
marks in a broad-daylight crash in an
intersection.
It's on behalf of that family I
vote aye. Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Balboni will be recorded in the affirmative.
The Secretary will announce the
results.
Will the negatives please raise
their hands one more time.
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
the negative on Calendar Number 1396 are
Senators Farley, Hoffmann, Kuhl, Libous,
Meier, Nozzolio, Seward, and Wright. Ayes,
50. Nays, 8.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill
is passed.
SENATOR SEWARD: Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Seward, why do you rise?
11006
SENATOR SEWARD: I would ask
unanimous consent to be recorded in the
negative on Calendar Number 1392, which passed
earlier this evening.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Without
objection, hearing no objection, Senator
Seward will be recorded in the negative on
Calendar Number 1392.
Senator Farley.
SENATOR FARLEY: 1392, I'd like
to be negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Without
objection, hearing no objection, Senator
Farley will be recorded in the negative on
1392.
Any other members wishing to
register votes?
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Mr. President,
can we at this time ask for the last Rules
Committee meeting, in Room 332.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: There
will be an immediate meeting of the Rules
Committee, immediate meeting of the Rules
Committee in Room 332.
11007
The Senate will come to order. I
ask the members to take their chairs, staff to
find their places.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Mr. President,
can we at this time return to reports of
standing committees.
I believe there's a report of Rules
Committee at the desk. I ask that it be read
at this time.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: We'll
return to the order of reports of standing
committees.
There is a report of the Rules
Committee at the desk.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Bruno,
from the Committee on Rules, reports the
following bill direct to third reading:
Senate Print 5689, by the Senate
Committee on Rules, an act to amend the
Election Law.
SENATOR BRUNO: Move to accept.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
motion is to accept the report of the Rules
11008
Committee. All those in favor signify by
saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Opposed,
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
report is accepted.
The bill is ordered directly to
third reading.
SENATOR BRUNO: Mr. President,
can we at this time call up Calendar Number
1403.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1403, by the Senate Committee on Rules, Senate
Print Number 5689, an act to amend the
Election Law.
SENATOR BRUNO: Is there a
message at the desk, Mr. President?
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: There is.
SENATOR BRUNO: Move to accept
the message.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
11009
motion is to accept the message of necessity
on Calendar Number 1403. All those in favor
signify by saying.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Opposed,
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
message is accepted.
The bill is before the house.
The Secretary will read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill
is passed.
Senator Rath, why do you rise?
SENATOR RATH: Mr. President, I
request unanimous consent to be recorded in
the negative on Calendar 1392. Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Without
11010
objection, hearing no objection, Senator Rath
will be recorded in the negative on Calendar
Number 1392.
Senator Montgomery, do you wish to
be recognized?
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, I want
to note no. Are we voting?
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: No, we're
done with the roll calls.
Senator Paterson, why do you rise?
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
with unanimous consent I'd like to be recorded
in the negative on Calendar Number 1403, which
is, I believe, the bill we just did.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Without
objection, Senator Paterson will be recorded
in the negative on Calendar Number 1403.
Senator Montgomery, is that your
request also?
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, I would
like to request no.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Without
objection, Senator Montgomery will be recorded
in the negative on Calendar 1403.
Senator Stavisky, is that your
11011
request?
SENATOR STAVISKY: Yes, that's my
request also.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Without
objection, hearing no objection.
Senator Onorato, same request?
SENATOR ONORATO: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Without
objection.
Senator Smith?
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Without
objection.
Senator Sampson?
SENATOR SAMPSON: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Without
objection.
Senator Hevesi? Hassell-Thompson?
Schneiderman? Breslin? Duane? All the same
request? Without objection.
Senator Brown also.
And Senator Stachowski, similar
request?
For the benefit of the members,
just to make sure that you all wish to be
11012
recorded as you are, I'll have the Secretary
read the negatives on Calendar Number 1403
again, those who have now been recorded in the
negative.
The Secretary will read the
negatives.
SENATOR BRUNO: Mr. President,
can we at this time recognize Senator Libous
for purposes of making a motion.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Can we
just read the negatives on Calendar Number
1403 first?
Oh, okay. Senator Libous, motions
and resolutions.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Thank you, Mr.
President. I wish to call up Calendar Number
1395, Assembly Print 8588.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1395, by the Assembly Committee on Rules,
Assembly Print Number 8588, an act to amend
the Retirement and Social Security Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Libous.
11013
SENATOR LIBOUS: Mr. President, I
now move to reconsider the vote by which this
Assembly bill was substituted for Senate Print
Number 5283 on 6/21.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will call the roll on
reconsideration.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Libous.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Mr. President, I
now move that Assembly Bill Number 8588 be
recommitted to the Committee on Rules and that
the Senate bill be restored to the Third
Reading Calendar.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: So
ordered.
For the benefit of the members, the
Secretary will read the negatives on Calendar
Number 1403.
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
the negative on Calendar Number 1403 are
Senators Breslin, Brown, Connor, Duane,
Hassell-Thompson, Hevesi, Mendez, Montgomery,
11014
Paterson, Sampson, Schneiderman, M. Smith,
Stachowski, and Stavisky. Also Senator
Onorato. Ayes, 43. Nays, 15.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill
is passed. It was passed before.
Senator Oppenheimer, why do you
rise at this wee hour in the morning?
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: I didn't
rise.
If you would be so good, I would
like unanimous consent to be recorded in the
negative on 1403.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Without
objection -
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: I need
coffee so that I can rise.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: -- and
hearing no objection, Senator Oppenheimer will
be recorded in the negative on Calendar Number
1403.
The Senate will come to order.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Mr. President, at
this time I would move that we recommit all
bills to Rules.
11015
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Without
objection, all bills are recommitted to Rules.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: There being no
other business to come before the Senate at
this time, I would move that we stand
adjourned at the call of the Majority Leader.
Have a nice weekend and a nice
early July. Amen.
(Applause.)
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Without
objection, the Senate stands adjourned,
subject to the call of the Majority Leader.
(Whereupon, at 12:29 a.m., the
Senate adjourned.)