Regular Session - January 29, 2002
331
NEW YORK STATE SENATE
THE STENOGRAPHIC RECORD
ALBANY, NEW YORK
January 29, 2002
11:18 a.m.
REGULAR SESSION
LT. GOVERNOR MARY O. DONOHUE, President
STEVEN M. BOGGESS, Secretary
332
P R O C E E D I N G S
THE PRESIDENT: The Senate will
please come to order.
I ask everyone present to please
rise and repeat with me the Pledge of
Allegiance.
(Whereupon, the assemblage recited
the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.)
THE PRESIDENT: With us this
morning to give the invocation is the Reverend
Peter G. Young, from Blessed Sacrament Church
in Bolton Landing, New York.
REVEREND YOUNG: Let us pray.
As we gather in the chamber, let us
remember all of our Senators so that they will
guide our government for a just and caring
society.
May God strengthen them, lead them,
and give them wisdom and understanding as they
work for the good of all of our New York State
citizens.
Amen.
THE PRESIDENT: Reading of the
Journal.
THE SECRETARY: In Senate,
333
Monday, January 28, the Senate met pursuant to
adjournment. The Journal of Sunday,
January 27, was read and approved. On motion,
Senate adjourned.
THE PRESIDENT: Without
objection, the Journal stands approved as
read.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
there will be an immediate meeting of the
Local Governments Committee in the Majority
Conference Room.
THE PRESIDENT: There will be an
immediate meeting of the Local Governments
Committee in the Majority Conference Room.
Presentation of petitions.
Messages from the Assembly.
Messages from the Governor.
Reports of standing committees.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Kuhl,
from the Committee on Education, reports the
following bills:
Senate Print 833, by Senator
Morahan, an act to amend the Education Law;
334
1785, by Senator Kuhl, an act to
amend the Education Law;
3061, by Senator Kuhl, an act to
amend the Education Law; and
5485, by Senator Kuhl, an act in
relation to authorizing.
THE PRESIDENT: Without
objection, all bills reported direct to third
reading.
Reports of select committees.
Communications and reports from
state officers.
Motions and resolutions.
Senator Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Thank you,
Madam President.
On behalf of Senator Balboni, I
move the following bills be discharged from
their respective committees and be recommitted
with instructions to strike the enacting
clause: Senate Number 2072, Senate Number
5321A, Senate Number 5646.
THE PRESIDENT: So ordered,
Senator.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: On behalf of
335
Senator Johnson, I move the following bill be
discharged from its committee and be
recommitted with instructions to strike the
enacting clause. And that's Senate Bill
Number 5065.
THE PRESIDENT: So ordered.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: On behalf of
Senator Volker, I move the following bill be
discharged from its respective committee and
be recommitted with instructions to strike the
enacting clause. That's Senate Print Number
3313.
THE PRESIDENT: So ordered.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Madam
President, on behalf of Senator Volker, on
page number 9 I offer the following amendments
to Calendar Number 81, Senate Print Number
5313, and ask that said bill retain its place
on the Third Reading Calendar.
THE PRESIDENT: The amendments
are received, Senator, and the bill will
retain its place on the Third Reading
Calendar.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Madam
President, on behalf of Senator Wright, on
336
page number 7 I offer the following amendments
to Calendar Number 58, Senate Print Number
5709A, and ask that said bill retain its place
on the Third Reading Calendar.
THE PRESIDENT: The amendments
are received, and the bill will retain its
place on the Third Reading Calendar.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Thank you,
Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: You're welcome.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
may we please adopt the Resolution Calendar,
with the exception of Resolution 3859.
THE PRESIDENT: All in favor of
adopting the Resolution Calendar, with the
exception of Resolution 3859, please signify
by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The Resolution
Calendar is adopted.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
337
may we please have the title read on
Resolution 3859 and move for its immediate
adoption.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: By Senator
Padavan, Legislative Resolution Number 3859,
memorializing Governor George E. Pataki to
proclaim February 4 through 8, 2002, as
National School Counseling Week in the State
of New York.
THE PRESIDENT: The question is
on the resolution. All in favor signify by
saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The resolution is
adopted.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
Senator Padavan would like to open up the
resolution for cosponsorship. With the
consent of the Minority, we can put everybody
on the resolution. And if anybody wishes not
338
to be on the resolution, they should notify
the desk.
THE PRESIDENT: The resolution is
opened for cosponsorship. And if you do not
wish to be a cosponsor, please so notify the
desk.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: If we could have
the noncontroversial reading of the calendar.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
26, by Senator LaValle, Senate Print 2589, an
act to amend Chapter 554 of the Laws of 1996.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 43.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
339
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
85, by Senator Fuschillo, Senate Print
5476A
SENATOR HEVESI: Lay it aside,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
86, by Senator Saland, Senate Print 6120, an
act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law, in
relation to suspension of certain driver's
licenses.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Lay it aside,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
90, by Senator Maltese, Senate Print 1854, an
act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law, in
relation to increasing the penalty for
obstructing access.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
340
November.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 43.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
93, by Senator Johnson, Senate Print 6264, an
act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law, in
relation to implementing.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Would you lay
that aside, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
is there a message of necessity at the desk?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, there is,
Senator.
SENATOR SKELOS: Move to accept.
THE PRESIDENT: All those in
favor of accepting the message of necessity
please say aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The message of
341
necessity is accepted.
And the bill is laid aside at the
request of Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Skelos,
that completes the reading of the
noncontroversial calendar.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
if we could go to the controversial calendar.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
85, by Senator Fuschillo, Senate Print 5476A,
an act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law
and the Penal Law, in relation to enacting the
DWI Omnibus Act of 2002.
SENATOR HEVESI: Explanation.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Fuschillo, an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Thank you,
Madam President.
This bill had passed the house last
year and is probably one of the most
comprehensive DWI bills that we've done in
342
many years. It lowers the blood alcohol level
to .08. It institutes mandatory jail terms or
community service for repeat offenders. It
also provides for stricter fines. It relates
to license revocations, deals with unlawfully
dealing with a child in the first degree.
New York State has made significant
strides over the years. In fact, since 1982
the DWI fatalities have decreased by
approximately 34 percent. But last year
1999, to compare it to the year 199 -- to
compare it to the year 2000, the fatalities
with respect to DWIs unfortunately have
increased. And in 2000, 419 alcohol-related
fatalities were in New York State.
Throughout the nation, states are
making great strides by lowering the blood
alcohol level to .08. If enacted, New York
State would be the 31st state. By enacting
this legislation, we will conform with the
federal requirements in lowering the blood
alcohol to .08, and also the federal
requirement of the ISTEA Restoration Act.
By failing to enact this
legislation, New York State would be subjected
343
to losing approximately $13 million in 2003.
It increases as time goes on.
SENATOR HEVESI: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Hevesi.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you, Madam
President. Would the sponsor please yield?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Fuschillo
yields.
Senator Skelos.
Excuse me, Senator Hevesi.
SENATOR SKELOS: Pardon me for a
minute.
There will be an immediate meeting
of the Cities Committee in the Majority
Conference Room.
THE PRESIDENT: There will be an
immediate meeting of the Cities Committee in
the Majority Conference Room.
Senator Hevesi, you have a
question? You may proceed.
SENATOR HEVESI: Yes, thank you,
Madam President.
My question to the sponsor is which
specific components of this bill, or do all of
344
them, constitute the requirement under the
federal guidelines that would obviate the need
to forfeit the money? Is it every particular
piece of this bill, or is it just the
reduction in the blood alcohol level?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: There's two
requirements. One is for repeat offenders,
which the bill addresses. And one is for .08.
So together it addresses both of them.
SENATOR HEVESI: Madam President,
would the sponsor continue to yield?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Fuschillo, do you yield for a question?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you, Madam
President.
We passed this legislation last
year. I supported this legislation last year,
and I'm going to support it again this year.
My concern, however, is that my
understanding -- and the sponsor can correct
me if I'm wrong -- is that this legislation
could conceivably wait to be enacted until
345
late next year before we would forfeit any of
the money.
And I'm concerned, as a result,
that since we passed it last year and it
didn't pass in the other house and become law,
that there may be some reason why it didn't
pass in the other house.
And I guess my question to the
sponsor is two parts. One, is it true that we
do in fact not forfeit any money unless this
is enacted by October of next year, or is
there a graded time period?
And the second component of it: Is
there some obstacle contained within this that
is preventing its passage into law?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Madam
President, through you.
To answer the first part of your
question, you're correct. We would not
forfeit, lose any funds if it's not enacted by
October.
One of the things, Senator Hevesi,
that has come to me is that the Assembly was
reluctant on passing the legislation that it
increased fines and mandatory jail sentences
346
in going after the repeat offenders.
Now, if you look at the trend in
the last ten years in the state and throughout
the country, 55 percent of those who have been
arrested have had prior convictions.
I don't want to make it a fiscal
issue, and it shouldn't be a fiscal issue.
And I appreciate the support that you've given
on this.
SENATOR HEVESI: Madam President,
would the sponsor continue to yield?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Fuschillo, do you yield?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR HEVESI: I just want to
understand correctly. One of the issues that
you think is an obstacle to passage in the
Assembly is the mandatory jail time. I
believe that that is one of the criteria that
you stated that the federal government will
require of us. Is that accurate?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Or community
service.
347
But it's not just that, Senator
Hevesi, that the Assembly has taken an issue
with. They have just taken an issue with
going after repeat offenders. They were
pushing primarily just passing .08.
And I believe, if you look at the
stats, as I just mentioned, we should combat
the problem by going after the repeat
offenders and also lowering the blood alcohol
level to .08.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you.
Madam President, on the bill.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you.
There are a couple of points I want to make
here.
The first is I very much appreciate
the sponsor's efforts in this area. This is
an important move that we should have made a
number of years ago.
Unfortunately, as is often the case
here in New York, we don't make public policy
decisions, even though they're prudent
sometimes, until we are forced to do it. And
348
I would suggest that we're going to do this
because of the forfeiture of funds that would
come along with not doing this.
Having said that, while I respect
the Assembly's position in terms of their
concerns with jail sentences, that's not a
concern that I share. But I do believe that
they do have a concern, which in committee
yesterday my colleague Senator
Hassell-Thompson mentioned, which was that
none of these bills -- specifically, the one
we're talking about today -- provide mandatory
treatment and the requisite funding to ensure
that you are able to take individuals who have
been convicted of DWI offenses and ensure that
they are treated.
And we have all kinds of
statistics, and I've spoken on the floor of
this house many times about this, that if you
provide funding for mandatory treatment and
impose a mandatory treatment requirement, you
will greatly diminish the recidivism rate of
those individuals who are predisposed, for
whatever reason, be it that they are
alcoholics or that they are just unethical
349
individuals who don't worry about the risks to
themselves or to others and therefore
compromise their lives and the lives of others
on the road.
But we know for a fact that if you
treat these people, that they are going to
reoffend less often.
And so while this is a good bill
and we need to pass it and I very much hope
that the Assembly can look past that
particular deficiency in this bill, which I'm
looking past by voting yes for this, that they
will in fact go ahead and pass the bill and
that we will, as a whole Legislature, take up
this issue of treatment.
Because in Senator McGee's
committee so often we see pieces of
legislation that are good bills that I vote
for, that many members on that committee vote
for, and that both sides of the aisle support,
but don't have the treatment component in it,
which is penny-wise and pound-foolish.
Because the latest stats show that
it costs $32,000 a year to incarcerate
somebody, $18,000 a year to treat them. And
350
if you spend less money to treat them, you are
more likely to incarcerate them in the future
at a higher price.
So I support this legislation and
commend the sponsor for bringing it.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Madam
President, thank you.
And, Senator Hevesi, thank you for
your support. What you said is the most
important part of this, to keep them off the
street and help them.
But there is a provision that as a
part of sentencing the DWI offenders, they
must undergo an alcohol or drug dependency
assessment which will allow the judicial
system to place them if need be.
You know, as somebody who ran a
nonprofit agency before I got elected to the
Senate, and ran the alternative to
incarceration programs and alcohol and drug
dependency programs, I couldn't agree with you
more. One of the most successful programs we
351
ran at the agency was TASC, Treatment
Alternative to Street Crime, which did exactly
what you are saying, lowered the cost to the
state, kept them out of jail and gave them
opportunity for a better life to get off of
drugs or alcohol.
But there is an assessment
provision in the bill.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger.
Excuse me, Senator Skelos first.
Thank you, Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
there will be an immediate meeting of the
Civil Service and Pensions Committee in the
Majority Conference Room.
THE PRESIDENT: There will be an
immediate meeting of the Civil Service and
Pensions Committee in the Majority Conference
Room.
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Madam
President, will the sponsor yield to a
question?
352
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Fuschillo, do you yield?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead, Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Senator, in
reading this bill -- I think I've voted for
this in the past, and I'm going to vote for it
again. But I have two questions on the text
of the bill.
On page 12 of the bill we establish
a new offense of aggravated driving while
intoxicated. And I note that in this bill,
Senator, you have been very careful to make
the enhanced penalty provisions apply not only
to the driving of a motor vehicle but to the
operation of a boat.
And my question is, is it your
intention to take this aggravated driving
while intoxicated, which only refers to a
motor vehicle, and make that applicable to
those who operate a boat with a blood alcohol
content of higher than .20?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Yes.
353
SENATOR DOLLINGER: But my
concern is, Senator, it doesn't actually say
that. It says "operating a motor vehicle,"
and it doesn't make a reference. Is there a
prior reference to "motor vehicle" that would
make this apply to both the operation of an
automobile and a boat?
The reason why I ask, Senator, is
that this amends a portion of the Vehicle and
Traffic Law. And I think in every other case
in the bill where you talk about lowering the
blood alcohol content and making other
provisions, you also refer to the Navigation
Law, which is the provision that includes
boats.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Right. I
believe it is mentioned in here, I just don't
have the section it is.
And if it's not, Senator, I can
assure you during negotiations it will be.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Okay.
Secondly -- through you, Madam
President, if Senator Fuschillo will yield to
one other question about the text of the bill.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
354
Fuschillo, do you yield for a question?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Go ahead, Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Also on
page 12, the new provision that we're
including about the original record of the
chemical test to be included as part of the
accusatory instrument, we are relieving the
requirement that it be certified, that it be
sworn to, the authenticity of the test.
Why are we relieving that
provision? That's part of the requirement
that in charging someone with a felony or with
a class A misdemeanor, that the test actually
be certified, that someone swear to the
authenticity of the test.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: And I
remember, Richard, I think you asked me
this -- Senator Dollinger, you asked me this
question last year. And I think it's -- and I
believe my answer was for streamlining the
procedure and to try to deal with it in an
expeditious manner.
355
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Okay.
Through you, Madam President, just briefly on
the bill.
I appreciate Senator Fuschillo's
continuing clarification. I think I did raise
that issue last year about -- and my concern
is, Madam President, that generally in the
indictment for a felony or in the prosecution
of a Class A misdemeanor, we require the
government to certify the test results, that
the test results -- there's a simple
certification and it says: You've conducted
the test properly.
The results are administered,
there's a chain of evidence and a chain of
control of the test results that would meet a
simple verification by someone in authority
that these -- that the fundamental foundation
for the admission of this test has been
established.
I think that's a good provision.
And I'm concerned about relieving the
government and relieving the prosecution from
the obligation of certifying that the test was
performed accurately as a predicate to a
356
charge either for a Class A misdemeanor or a
felony.
Nonetheless, Madam President, I'm
going to vote in favor of this bill. I think
the concept of lowering the blood alcohol
requirement is a good one. And I think it
will continue, as Senator Fuschillo has well
articulated, the trend in New York to drive
down the number of deaths and unfortunate
mishaps, accidents, and senseless loss of life
and pain and suffering that occurs because of
excessive drunken driving and operation of
other vehicles as well.
I do hope, however, Senator
Fuschillo, that when this bill passes the
Senate, as I think it will, that we do get to
a conference committee. This is just the type
of bill to put into a conference committee.
We have done it before with Vehicle and
Traffic Law issues -- I know right from the
start your predecessor, Senator Levy, when we
did the 65 mile-an-hour bill.
It seems to me that this is just
the kind of thing we ought to take to the
Assembly and that we should not only bring
357
ourselves in compliance for federal purposes
but, quite frankly, send a clear message that
whether you live in New York or come here as
our guest, you're going to comply with a very
stringent restriction on driving while
intoxicated.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any other
member wish to be heard on this bill?
Then the debate is closed.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 36. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 54.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
86, by Senator Saland, Senate Print 6120, an
act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law, in
relation to suspension of certain driver's
licenses.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Explanation,
please.
358
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Saland,
an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR SALAND: Thank you, Madam
President.
This bill is a bill which arises
from a set of very unfortunate -- in fact,
tragic -- circumstances that occurred within
my district.
There was a young man who was a
passenger in a vehicle shortly after the turn
of the New Year, New Year's Day, early morning
hours, a car being driven by another young
man, a friend of his. Both of these young
people were 17 years old. There were a couple
of other passengers in the car. And the
driver of that car was involved in an
automobile accident in which the passenger,
Sean French, was killed.
A second passenger, badly injured,
I believe has been recently discharged from
the hospital, paralyzed, at least in part.
And the driver of the vehicle, a
young man who was also 17, was previously
arrested less than three weeks prior to this
incident for driving while ability-impaired.
359
And at that time he was permitted, as the law
provided, to continue driving.
And in response to the fact that
this junior-licensed driver was in fact
somebody who was a high-risk driver, given his
history less than three weeks previously, and
in response to conversations with the family
of young Sean French, we have drafted this
legislation to accomplish, hopefully, three
things.
The first would be that if a
junior-licensed driver is charged with driving
while ability-impaired, his or her license
would be suspended virtually immediately, upon
first appearance, in conjunction with
arraignment. That were the vehicle that he or
she was driving to be registered in his or her
name, the registration would similarly be
suspended.
And there would be a duty imposed
upon the court to make a reasonable effort to
notify the parents of the fact that the driver
of the vehicle -- their child, the parent or
guardian -- had in fact been driving under the
influence or while ability-impaired and that
360
their registration had been suspended, as had
their license.
This is an effort to deal with not
merely the tragedy -- we obviously can't
that has since occurred, but this is an effort
to try and learn from the horrific experiences
that the Frenches have endured, to try and
create some type of a mechanism that will take
higher-risk young drivers who
disproportionately are involved in fatal
automobile accidents, and in accidents, to try
and craft some way by which we can limit the
likelihood of these terrible human tragedies
occurring.
The French family full well knows
that it's obviously beyond their ability to do
anything that will in any way enable them to
recover the horrible loss that they've
experienced, and they are hopeful that this
will provide a mechanism that may spare other
parents the absolutely anguishing and horrific
tragedy that they have been forced to endure
and are still far from recovering from.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any other
member wish to be heard on this bill?
361
Senator Oppenheimer.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Is this the
graduated driver's license bill, Madam
President?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Saland,
will you yield for a question?
SENATOR SALAND: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
with your question, Senator Oppenheimer.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Actually, I
was just questioning, because I was out of the
room, if this is the graduated driver's
license bill.
SENATOR SALAND: No, this is not,
Senator Oppenheimer.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Thank you
very much.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any other
member wish to be heard on this bill?
Then the debate is closed.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the 90th day.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
362
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Duane, to
explain your vote.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President.
I'm going to vote no on this. My
concern has to do with the removal of the
registration for a vehicle and the negative
impact that could have on an entire family.
In some cases there is only one car
for an entire family, and removing the
registration would make it difficult if not
impossible for other members of the family to
get to work or to get rides to school.
I certainly agree that we have to
be very strict and stern, in fact harsh, on
the issue of drunken driving. However, I
don't think that a whole family should be at
risk of being punished for a terrible and
dangerous mistake made by one member of the
family.
So I'll be voting no on this bill,
Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: You will be so
recorded as voting in the negative, Senator
363
Duane.
The Secretary will announce the
results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 54. Nays,
1. Senator Duane recorded in the negative.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
93, by Senator Johnson, Senate Print 6264, an
act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law, in
relation to implementing.
SENATOR DUANE: Explanation,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Johnson,
an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR JOHNSON: Thank you,
Madam President.
This bill has been designed to deal
with the untimely deaths of young people. The
principal cause of death of teenagers in this
state -- and indeed in the nation -- is
automobile crashes. Those crashes are
usually -- the cars are driven by teenagers,
and usually those who die in the cars are
teenagers.
364
And it's really because they get
their license at a young age, they don't have
sufficient experience before they get a
license and are turned loose on the highway.
This bill will provide that
everyone with a permit must have six months'
experience before they can take the test and
get their junior license. And of course it
limits, even when they have a junior license,
the number of passengers in the car, thereby
seeking to limit not only the number of
accidents, because they have more experience,
but the number of passengers in the car itself
at the time of the accident.
There are many other provisions in
this law, but let's just say that to save the
lives of our young people and make them safer
and better drivers and give them a little more
experience before they're turned loose on the
road, this bill has been designed.
And they will be able to get their
junior license only after six months'
experience on a permit, and they'll only be
able to get their senior license at age 18.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Duane.
365
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President. Would the sponsor yield, please?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Johnson,
will you yield for a question?
SENATOR JOHNSON: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR DUANE: The statistics
that say that the greatest cause of death for
young people is driving accidents, I'm just
wondering where those statistics are from.
SENATOR JOHNSON: Senator, are
you asking me where the statistics came from?
That's background material gathered by my
staff.
SENATOR DUANE: And through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Johnson,
will you yield for a question?
SENATOR JOHNSON: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Excuse me,
Senator Duane.
Senator Skelos.
366
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
there will be an immediate meeting of the
Corporations, Authorities and Commissions
Committee.
THE PRESIDENT: There will be an
immediate meeting of the Corporations,
Authorities and Commissions Committee, I
assume in the Majority Conference Room.
Senator Duane, you may proceed with
your question.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President.
I'm just wondering if the Senator
could be slightly more specific about what
those studies are.
SENATOR JOHNSON: Yes, I can,
Senator. My staff informs me it's the
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
which gave us those figures.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you. And,
Madam President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Johnson,
do you yield?
SENATOR JOHNSON: Yes, Madam
367
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: I'm wondering if
the sponsor knows what the second-highest
statistic of people dying by accidents is, and
how does that compare to the young people
statistic.
SENATOR JOHNSON: No, I cannot,
Senator, because I didn't research that -- oh,
let me see.
My trusty staff has it. What do
you have here?
SENATOR DUANE: And more
specifically, Madam President, the age group.
SENATOR JOHNSON: I don't think
so. No, Senator, we don't have a list of all
the causes of teenage deaths in our country or
in our state. We don't have that available.
SENATOR DUANE: Madam President,
just a clarification. What I meant to ask was
what age group is second in terms of the
number of accidents.
SENATOR JOHNSON: Well, Senator,
up to age 25 there are more crashes and deaths
368
in automobiles than there are over 25. That's
the next category. Up to 19 and up to 25.
And among adults, automobile
accidents and deaths have gone down quite a
lot over the past ten years, because of safer
roads, safer cars, and more experience,
perhaps. But among teenagers, they've
doubled. So that's why we really have to deal
with this issue now.
SENATOR DUANE: Madam President,
if the sponsor would continue to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Johnson,
do you continue to yield?
SENATOR JOHNSON: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Duane, with a question.
SENATOR DUANE: Does that mean
that drivers between the ages of 16 and 21
have double the number of deadly accidents
than those between 21 and 25?
SENATOR JOHNSON: All right.
With your permission, I would like to read you
some figures here.
They're not applicable. We don't
369
have the figures here between 21 and 25,
but -- I don't have the list of all the
statistics.
We're dealing with this group of
people who are not permitted to have a senior
license. Above 18, they have a senior
license, and we don't have all those figures.
But we know they are much greater than they
are for people over 25. I'd say perhaps up to
18 is twice as much as 18 to 25.
I've seen figures in the past, but
I don't have them here before me.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Johnson,
will you yield for another question?
SENATOR JOHNSON: Yes, Senator.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President.
I'm wondering if the sponsor is
familiar with the statistics which show that,
in addition to alcohol being at issue, so too
370
is the issue of having more than one teenager
in the car, and if he's aware of a correlation
between the number of accidents, even without
alcohol being involved, and the number of
other teenagers in the car.
My point being maybe one of the
bans should have to do with the number of
passengers and their ages in the car as
opposed to just grading it by age.
Actually, Madam President, I'm
going to withdraw that question, because I see
it's actually -- it is spoken of in the bill.
I'm sorry about that.
THE PRESIDENT: Do you have an
additional question?
SENATOR DUANE: I'm just
wondering what other states have implemented
this system.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
yield for an additional question?
SENATOR JOHNSON: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Would you mind
repeating your question, Senator?
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
371
President.
I'm just curious whether any other
states have implemented this system.
SENATOR JOHNSON: Yes, they have.
Forty-three states have implemented this, and
they've had decreases in accidents and deaths
from 5 percent to 57 percent, over a various
range of states.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President.
I do have one final question which
I think -- I'm not sure -- I guess it goes to
the sponsor. But I'm just wondering why
there's a message of necessity attached to
this bill.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, the
question -- do you yield for this question?
SENATOR JOHNSON: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Could you repeat
the question, Senator Duane?
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President.
I'm wondering why there's a message
of necessity attached to this bill today.
372
SENATOR JOHNSON: Yes, there is.
There is a message.
Why is there a message of
necessity? Because we desire to do the bill
today, and that was required in order to have
it on the floor.
SENATOR DUANE: Well, through
you, Madam President, if the sponsor would
continue to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Johnson,
do you yield?
SENATOR JOHNSON: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Why is it
important that we do this bill today instead
of maybe next week? Why is it so urgently
needed that we pass it today? Because I don't
think the Assembly -- I don't think this is an
agreed-upon bill with the Assembly.
SENATOR JOHNSON: Senator, I
don't know if you get the newspapers we get in
the suburban areas, in upstate. But every
weekend we see stories of youngsters in a
373
car -- one, two, three, four in a car
having accidents and dying on the roads.
Now, this bill has been before this
chamber for two years running. Two years ago,
it passed. Last year it didn't pass. We
tried to get an agreement, we couldn't get
one. We don't want to see another weekend
with stories of children being killed on the
roads or killing each other in automobile
accidents with three or four people in the
car. So we want to get this on the floor
immediately.
We hope the Assembly will join us
in doing this bill or communicate with us very
promptly in order that we may get one on the
books, let's say within the month, or just as
soon as we can, because we want to stop this
continuing carnage on the highways.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Johnson,
will you yield for a question?
SENATOR JOHNSON: Yes, Madam
President.
374
SENATOR DUANE: I certainly don't
want to see another person die in a traffic
accident.
But I am curious as to whether or
not there's an agreement with the Assembly and
the Governor that they would sign this bill
today, and that's why we have the message of
necessity.
Because my understanding of
messages of necessity means that it has to be
that there's an urgency to signing it into law
today. And yet I haven't heard from the other
chamber or from the Governor that everyone has
agreed that this will get signed into law
today. And I'm wondering if the Senator has
other information about that.
SENATOR JOHNSON: My staff has
been in touch with two different sponsors of a
similar bill in the other house. We do not
have an agreement with them at this point.
But this is a Governor's program
bill. Obviously he is in favor of this
iteration of the bill, and he will sign the
bill just as soon as it gets passed in the
other house.
375
SENATOR DUANE: And through you,
Madam President, one final question.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Johnson,
will you yield for a final question?
SENATOR JOHNSON: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
with a final question, Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President.
Isn't it true, though, that even if
we did pass this law today and the other house
passed the bill and the Governor signed it
into law that it couldn't take effect until
January 1, 2003?
SENATOR JOHNSON: Unfortunately,
that's true, Senator. And the reason it's
true is because the DMV feels it will take
them that long to get up to speed.
I think we should put a little heat
under them and it should be a shorter time
period. But that is -- they also had input
into the drafting of the bill, and that's
their provision.
But however long we take to pass
376
it, add that week or month or year to the time
it finally takes to get it into place. So
let's try to get it going right away.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Oppenheimer.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Thanks.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
have a question?
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: All right.
Senator Johnson, will you yield for a question
from Senator Oppenheimer?
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Well,
actually I guess it's a question and a
statement.
And I want to applaud Senator
Johnson for sticking with this. We, as some
of us who have been working on this bill, I
think it's been not two years, not four years,
probably more like six or seven. And there's
been a lot of division between different
geographic areas of our state on this bill.
And that's why we're seeing a bill
377
now that is just New York City and the five
suburban counties, because that is where we
have the most traffic on our roads. And it
permits the more rural areas and the farm
areas to still have different criteria. And
so the bill is really separated into two
parts, one which deals with downstate and the
other which deals with upstate.
My question or concern is that
there are certain areas, issues that we were
very concerned about in prior bills that, in
order to get passage in both houses and have
it signed by the Governor, we have taken out.
And I guess my question is, can
there be some interaction between the two
houses concerning some of those other areas
that you and I have talked about, Senator
Johnson, such as designating the number of
hours -- be it 30 hours, 50 hours -- where the
driving, which is being done in the company of
an adult who will be supervising the driving,
where we can see that a certain number of
hours has been fulfilled?
And in those hours there would be
time spent not just driving in parking lots
378
and in country roads, but also on highways, in
nighttime driving.
Because it is, as we all agree, the
lack of experience under different
circumstances that causes many of our
youngsters to have these crashes. And the
crashes are not just fender benders, usually.
They do result in very horrible accidents or
deaths.
So my question, I guess, is will we
be able to see some more attention to the
detail, not -- we now are down, in this bill,
to one person in the car, in addition, so
there can't be what Senator Duane was talking
about, several youngsters in the car. But
some of these other pieces that I know you
were very interested in, will we be able to
see some accommodation between the two houses
on some of these other pieces?
SENATOR JOHNSON: Senator
Oppenheimer, I'm not sure if I heard you
clearly, but there is a provision that a
person with a permit or a junior license can
only have one other person in the car under
21. That is in this law too.
379
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Yes.
SENATOR JOHNSON: The other
provision is about the number of hours that
you must have behind the wheel, certified and
verified. That was not acceptable to this
house or to the Governor's office.
And so essentially we've kept all
the good ingredients of this cake that we
could possibly keep in it. And those which
are not in it, which you and I have supported
in the past, have gone the way of all flesh, I
guess, and they will not be in this bill as
far as I know.
Now, we will be discussing it with
the other house, as you said. Maybe there
will be some changes that can be made that
meet with your suggestions, and I hope so, but
I cannot be sure of that.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Thank you,
Senator Johnson.
And I know we're in agreement on
these other issues. And the question is
merely what can be passed in both houses and
made into law, because that's what we're all
seeking.
380
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Madam President, will the sponsor yield to a
question?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Johnson,
will you yield for a question?
SENATOR JOHNSON: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Senator
Johnson, as I understand this bill -- and I'd
like you just to use an example which is
pertinent to my own family. I have a
17-year-old son who doesn't have a senior
driver's permit. He plays for the
number-25-ranked basketball team in the
country.
We play away games, and he gets in
the car with his license and he drives and
picks up three other members of the team.
They're all under age 18, and not one of them
has a senior driver's license.
Is he breaking this law when he
drives them to the next game?
381
SENATOR JOHNSON: I believe he
would be breaking the law if he did not have
an exemption which is provided or will be
available north of New York City and the
suburbs.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor will continue
to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Johnson,
will you yield to another question?
SENATOR JOHNSON: Yes.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Could you
tell me, Senator Johnson, how does he get that
exemption when he leaves my house to pick up
his fellow players to go to the game?
SENATOR JOHNSON: Any exemption
which might be provided would be in accordance
with the regulations of the Motor Vehicle
Department.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: But as I
understand it, Senator Johnson, if he were
going to an approved school event, he's not
violating this rule; is that correct?
SENATOR JOHNSON: Apparently, if
he has more than one, he is violating. If he
382
doesn't have more than one additional
passenger, he isn't.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: But through
you, Madam President, if Senator Johnson will
continue to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Johnson,
will you yield to an additional question?
SENATOR JOHNSON: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: So he can
pick up one player, but he can't pick up two;
is that correct?
SENATOR JOHNSON: Unless he has a
senior license, that's correct.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: And through
you, Madam President, if Senator Johnson will
continue to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Johnson,
will you yield?
SENATOR JOHNSON: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
383
SENATOR DOLLINGER: And under
this legislation, those two basketball players
can both sit in the back seat but they can't
sit in the front seat; is that correct?
SENATOR JOHNSON: That's not
correct.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: That's
correct?
SENATOR JOHNSON: It is not
correct. One of them may sit in the front
seat.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Excuse me, I
didn't
SENATOR JOHNSON: One of them may
sit in the front seat. Not more than one.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: So again, I
just want to be clear. If my son picks up
these other basketball players and drives to a
game, he is in violation of the law of the
State of New York under this bill; is that
correct, Senator Johnson?
SENATOR JOHNSON: Well, of
course, he's going to be 18 by the time the
bill becomes effective, as was pointed out by
Senator Duane. So don't worry about it.
384
(Laughter.)
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Senator
Johnson, I've sat in this chamber for ten
years and that's one of the best answers I've
ever heard.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR DOLLINGER: But if this
bill became law today, Senator Johnson, would
he be in violation of the law of this state,
if this bill becomes law?
SENATOR JOHNSON: He wouldn't be,
because as your son he would obey the law, of
course. He would obey the law, of course. So
he wouldn't be in violation of it.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: But my
question -- through you, Madam President, if
Senator Johnson will continue to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Johnson,
do you yield to a question?
SENATOR DOLLINGER: As I
understand this bill, if he picks up two of
his high-school classmates and goes to a
basketball game, he doesn't violate this law
because he's doing something that's part of
his education; isn't that correct?
385
SENATOR JOHNSON: Uno, in every
case.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: So through
you, Madam President, if my son picks up two
people who are the same age as he is and
drives around in his car, he's violating the
laws of the State of New York because it turns
out he's not 18, he's only 17 3/4. He turns
18, Senator Johnson, about 45 days from today.
Is that correct, he'd be in
violation of this law?
SENATOR JOHNSON: Unless he took
driver ed, in which case he could have the
license at 17½.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Correct. In
other words, unless he gets a senior license
privilege.
SENATOR JOHNSON: Right.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Madam President, if Senator Johnson will
continue to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Johnson,
do you continue to yield?
SENATOR JOHNSON: Yes, Madam
President.
386
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: If I as a
parent send my 17-year-old son out to pick up
his niece and nephew, who are 14 years old and
8 years old, and he puts them both in the car,
can he drive with those two children in the
car?
SENATOR JOHNSON: He should take
his siblings, which would be legal, but not
his cousins.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Okay.
Through you, Madam President, if I sent my
17-year-old son -- if Senator Johnson will
continue to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Johnson?
SENATOR JOHNSON: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: If I sent my
17-year-old son to pick up his 14-year-old
nephew and his 7-year-old niece, he couldn't
do that without violating the laws of the
State of New York under this bill; isn't that
correct?
387
SENATOR JOHNSON: He could pick
up one, but not two.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Okay.
Through you, Madam President, if Senator
Johnson will continue to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Johnson?
SENATOR JOHNSON: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Maybe I don't
understand the operation of this bill. But if
my son were to pick up two children in the car
that he was driving, and he was doing it as
part of his employment -- he was, let's say,
taking his friends, he picks up two friends
who work at the same golf course, as they all
did last summer, and they get in the car and
they drive to employment, is that a violation
of this law?
SENATOR JOHNSON: Senator, I'd
like to explain something about this bill.
This bill intends to do something about the
carloads of kids who are dying in accidents on
the highways.
388
Now, if you want a bill which has
no restrictions on the number of people in the
car, that could be your bill. That can't be
my bill.
This bill has to have restrictions
on the number of children in the car, to save
lives. And that's what it is. And if it
passes, yes, you'd have to live with it.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: But through
you, Madam President, my question, Senator
Johnson, deals with who are the children in
the car. That's the point I'm trying to make.
If my 17-year-old son goes to pick
up two 4-year-olds, he won't communicate with
them, he's not going to be distracted by them,
he straps them in their childcare seats in the
back seat -- he's picking up two 4-year-olds.
This is not the same situation that
your bill addresses, which is that notion that
somehow they're all 17 years old, they're
playing music, they're distracting the driver,
doing those things that 17-year-olds do.
My question is, when I send my
17-year-old to pick up two 4-year-olds who are
strapped into their car seats, under this
389
bill, does he break the law?
SENATOR JOHNSON: Senator, how
would you feel if your son had a fatal crash
with the two 4-year-old friends or neighbors?
Is that something that you would be satisfied
with and say that's just one of those things
that happens? Or maybe those kids shouldn't
have been picked up except by an adult.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Madam President, did Senator Johnson ask me to
yield in response to my request to ask him to
yield?
I'm not sure where we stand, Madam
President. I understand the rhetorical
nature
SENATOR JOHNSON: That was just a
P.S. It wasn't really a response or a
question.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Just for the
record, Madam President, I would feel terrible
if my son were killed or injured in a car all
alone, whether there's anybody else in the car
with him. I mean, I would regard that as an
added tragedy. But quite frankly, Senator
Johnson, I would feel terrible if my son were
390
in the car all alone.
My point is I understand what
you're trying to get at with this bill, but it
seems to me you're using the wrong tool.
You're trying to deal with an incision when
you've got a hammer in your hand.
And that is, you're trying to cut
down on the number of fatalities that occur,
the difference between fatalities that occur
when an underage driver is driving all by
himself and the possibility that when he's
driving with others there will be others who
are impacted by his lack of judgment. Which I
think is a very laudable goal.
But I would suggest, Senator
Johnson, that this bill acts like a bludgeon.
Because what it says to everyone under the age
of 18 who doesn't have a senior license is
that we don't trust you to go pick up anybody.
I would give you another example.
When I make a decision to send my 17-year-old
son to pick up my other two children, if
they're my children -- that happened all the
time when I had a 17-year-old son who was a
driver who didn't have a senior license, and I
391
would say to him, "Would you drive and pick up
your younger brother and your younger sister?"
I would suggest that's a decision
that I make as a parent, to entrust a motor
vehicle to my child.
And quite frankly, Senator Johnson,
it just seems to me that this is going to
create enormous havoc for families with new
drivers, it's going to create enormous
difficulties for parents.
It's going to create enormous
difficulties for the McQuaid Jesuit High
School basketball team, because their players
tend to drive to games, they're all under the
age of 17, they want as few drivers on the
road as possible, so they tend to carpool.
They tend to have a 17-year-old driver go up
and pick up the 15-and-16-year-olds who also
play on the team.
They will, under this bill, be
breaking the law. And I would suggest that
that's not a prudent way to deal with this
problem, with the heavy-handed bludgeon nature
of a total restriction.
In addition, Senator Johnson, I'm
392
enormously concerned about the potential that
this bill has to become a tool for harassing
kids that are driving a motor vehicle. Every
time a young person is behind the wheel of a
motor vehicle -- look at the line of interns
sitting in the chamber. Look at all those
young faces. They'll be driving down with
four people in a car, and some police officer
is going to say: "My gosh, if they're under
age 18, we ought to stop them, because they're
breaking the law."
We're going to demand proof from
all of them that they're at least 18 years old
and have a senior driver's license, or that
one of them is an adult, that one of them is
21 and therefore capable of supervising what
goes on in the car.
I think this is a noble idea, an
interesting idea, and potentially even a good
idea. But I don't think this bill is the way
to do it. And I would just suggest that we're
going to empower the police in this state to
stop every single car in which there are more
than two young people in it. I don't know
that we have the capacity in the police
393
departments in this state to do that. I don't
know that it's the right thing to do.
I also question why we would have
one rule for those very urban areas like
Nassau, Suffolk, Kings, Queens, New York,
Bronx, Richmond, Westchester, Rockland,
Putnam. With all due respect to my colleague
from Westchester, those other rural and farm
counties could have another rule.
Well, there are two other counties
called Monroe and Erie that look very much
like Rockland and Bronx and Westchester and
Nassau and Suffolk, but they're not included
in the bill.
I would suggest this is going to be
an enforcement nightmare. It is going to lead
to the police surveillance and questioning of
thousands of young people who are out driving
legally, trying to perform the family duties
and the driving of the McQuaid basketball team
to their next game.
I would suggest under these
circumstances I'm not going to vote in favor
of it. I don't mind the idea, but I think
that the solution here is wrong-headed. If
394
this ever gets to a conference committee, come
up with a different way to do it.
This bill is going to be an
enforcement nightmare and unfortunately cast a
pall over every young driver in this state who
happens to be driving to work, driving to pick
up his brothers and sisters, driving to pick
up his parents with brother and sister in the
car.
I suggest this is a nightmare.
I'll be voting no.
SENATOR JOHNSON: Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Johnson.
SENATOR JOHNSON: I would like to
correct what I feel is a misapprehension on
the part of Senator Dollinger.
There are no restrictions on
picking up or carrying siblings in your car.
If they want to pick up members of the
basketball team, if there's a coach or a
teacher or other adult with them, they can
take as many as they like, as fit in the car.
So it's not quite as bad as you may
have pictured it, Senator.
395
Thank you.
SENATOR HEVESI: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Marcellino asked to speak first.
SENATOR HEVESI: Oh, I'm sorry.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Thank you,
Madam President. I appreciate being
recognized.
I wish to congratulate my colleague
Senator Johnson for bringing up this bill at
this time. The statistics are undeniable.
The status quo is unacceptable. Too many
young people are dying on our roads. The
carnage is outrageous.
I look to my own personal
experience with this, when my children were
graduating from high school and couldn't wait
to get their driver's licenses, going off to
college. And I noted that over the first
year, each and every one of my daughters'
friends -- and I mean each and every one of
them -- who had access to a vehicle wiped it
out in the first year. They all came from
good homes, they're all decent kids, not
lawbreakers, but they're children. They're
396
kids. And they're subject to the same
problems that any young person suffers from
that's out there.
We've all done it, we've all been
there. Some of us a lot further back than
others, but we can remember. The gray doesn't
necessarily indicate a lack of memory.
Fortunately, none of them were
killed or seriously injured. It's also
fortunate that none of them injured other
people in their actions in any serious way.
And that's where I have a problem
with Senator Dollinger's points. Some of them
are well-taken. But when a parent gives
permission, when you give permission to your
child to get in a vehicle and drive on the
public roads, you're not only impacting your
child, who you have a right to give permission
to, you're impacting me and my child and my
friends and relatives and other people in the
community.
That's not a decision we can allow
just by "Well, it's my right to do this."
Because you're impacting, by that decision,
who knows how many thousands of others that
397
that child will pass on the road or come in
contact with. We're trying to save lives.
Everybody says it's a terrible
thing that young people are dying. And it is.
It's a tragedy. It's an absolute tragedy.
I've been to those funerals. They're no fun.
The families are destroyed as a result of
that.
We have a chance here to take some
action that will just simply say: Take your
time before you get that license. Give them
some chance to mature. Give them some
experience behind the wheel with an
experienced driver sitting next to them. I
don't think that's a bad thing.
We can all look for every possible
exception to this rule. We can all go to the
extremists and find a point that would negate
this thing and say, We can put this aside,
don't do it now.
Every day we waste, more kids are
going to die. Every day we waste, more kids
are going to die. Let me say that again.
Every day, more kids are going to die on the
roads when we don't act.
398
This is not budget negotiations
where we're talking about money going here and
there, because money can go anytime. We're
talking about people dying. So, yes, it may
not be perfection personified, and Senator
Johnson recognizes that. It's a product of
negotiations. The final bill will be the
product of more negotiations.
Why should we wait? Move on.
Let's get this bill out there. Let's do that.
Let's start those negotiations. Let's
jump-start it with action. Let's send a
message out there that we care in this
house -- and I know we do, and I don't mean to
imply that people out there who may have an
opposing point of view don't care. I know you
all do. Everybody does.
I suggest we have to move. I
suggest this is the right bill at the right
time. I suggest we can't afford to wait.
It's common sense that we have to act. And if
it has to be negotiated further, fine. Let's
put this bill on the table and get the
negotiations started now.
I will vote aye on this bill, Madam
399
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Hevesi?
Does any other member wish to be
heard on this bill?
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Madam President.
I appreciate my colleague Senator
Marcellino's comments, and I think they have
merit.
I think, however, there are two
things, Senator, that I think we need to
differentiate about this bill. And that is
that there's no question that having young
drivers on the road increases the potential
that we're all going to be in accidents.
You talked about your daughters'
friends being involved in motor vehicle
accidents. I don't have to go any further
than to look at the back bumper of my Dodge
Intrepid. My Dodge Intrepid has the Senate
license plate on it, Senator. It is crumpled
into little pieces. Each one of my children
has had an accident in my car. They don't get
involved in accidents with their mother's car,
400
they don't get involved in accidents with the
car that we bought for our children. They
always seem to be driving my car when they get
into an accident.
And quite frankly, my little Senate
license plate is rippled like a potato chip
because it's been involved in three
collisions.
But my point is this, Senator
Marcellino. You make the point about the
danger that young drivers pose to all of us.
This bill doesn't address that danger. What
this bill addresses is the incremental danger
that's created when there's more than one
person in the car. Because this bill doesn't
say that my 17-year-old can't go out and drive
a car all by himself. He can clearly do that.
And he clearly poses a danger because his bad
judgment, as you properly point out, is
dangerous to all of us.
But this bill doesn't say that a
young driver can't get behind the wheel all by
himself and drive anywhere he wants. This
bill says that there's some incremental danger
created by having a second passenger in the
401
car who happens to also be underage. This
bill deals with that fact alone.
And I'm not convinced that that
incremental danger is of such a gravity as to
warrant the penalty that's imposed here,
because I have not seen evidence that suggests
the mere presence of another person in the car
substantially decreases the judgment on behalf
of the driver.
That's what this bill does, Senator
Marcellino. It is different from a bill
and this bill I would vote for, Senator
Marcellino. If we had the courage to say to
the kids in this state "You don't get a
driver's license until you're 18," I would be
willing to vote for that. Because I agree
with you, Senator Marcellino. Bad judgment
behind the wheel is devastating to all of us.
It's devastating to our children, it's
devastating to the general population that we
expose them to.
But we have a law in this state
that says you can qualify for a license at 16,
you qualify for a permit, you get a license,
you can't drive at night, under certain
402
conditions. Those are conditions that create
risks to all of us.
My point is simple. If you want to
reduce that risk of drivers between 16 and 18
and the danger they pose to all of us and to
themselves and to their friends and to their
relatives who are in a motor vehicle, let's do
what is necessary to eliminate that risk.
Change the age of eligibility for driving from
16 to 18.
If what we do instead is come to a
stopgap measure that says we're going to start
to police who's in the car, we're going to
have the police of this state stopping every
single young driver and saying: "Excuse me,
how old are you, Mr. Passenger? Are you
related to the driver? Are you 21? Could you
prove to me that you're 21? You're only 20.
You're only 17. You're only 18. This driver
is violating the law."
Senator Marcellino, I agree with
you that reducing the risk of children driving
motor vehicles is something we should be
concerned about. But it seems to me that what
this bill does is this says there's some other
403
risk associated with more children in the car,
and yet we're going to allow -- we're going to
give the police the ability to restrict those
numbers.
I would predict, Senator
Marcellino -- and I understand your view. And
believe me, as a father of young children, I
would love to reduce that risk. I'm willing
to vote for the other bill which says they
don't get a license until they're 18. Then
we'll minimize that risk as well. And the
goal that Senator Johnson wants to achieve,
which is reducing the number of fatalities of
children between 16 and 18, we will actually
get there when we do that.
To do this is not the right stopgap
measure.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Alesi.
SENATOR ALESI: Thank you, Madam
President.
Just listening to my friend and
colleague Senator Dollinger, I'm also familiar
with McQuaid Jesuit High School, having
attended it myself for a while. I'm also
familiar with the high level of excitement
404
that goes with McQuaid's basketball, even
though it was 1962, I think, when I first
experienced that.
And I can't help but think that
when Senator Dollinger mentioned that the
school wants as few cars on the road as
possible -- to paraphrase what the Senator
said -- that implied in that statement, I
would assume, is a recognition by the Senator
that
(Cell phone interruption.)
SENATOR ALESI: The auto club.
-- implied by the Senator that he
is recognizing the dangers when he says that
the school itself wants as few cars on the
road as possible.
And when the Senator says that he
has no statistical proof, I believe that the
State of Massachusetts has made that law and
the statistics bear out, first of all, by
having a large number of similarly-aged people
in the car, that there is a distraction. And
based on those statistics that Senator
Dollinger lacks, they can now show that the
safety factor has been improved by eliminating
405
the number of people similarly-aged in the
car.
And finally, then, I would say, to
Senator Dollinger's proposal to raise the age
of licensing to 18, with all due respect, then
probably none of the basketball players at
McQuaid Jesuit High School would have the
ability to drive themselves to these
basketball games, because a large number of
those 18-year-olds will have been graduated
and will have moved on to college.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any other
member wish to be heard on this bill?
Senator Johnson.
SENATOR JOHNSON: Madam
President, I don't want to drag this out,
certainly. But we do have statistics about
the number of accidents taking place with a
certain number of children in the car. And
I'd just like to read this for Senator
Dollinger's edification.
For 17-year-old drivers, the
percentage of fatal accidents, say, of -- the
average is 48 percent higher if they have a
406
teen passenger than if they're driving alone.
This is for 17-year-old drivers. 158 percent
more accidents occur than the norm with two
teen passengers, and 207 percent more
accidents with three or more teen passengers.
Proving that the distraction of the
teenagers in the car, and probably the desire
to race the teenagers in the next car, all
increases with the amount of excitement in
this car, and it leads into many more
fatalities as a result.
The other thing I'd like to tell
you, Senator Dollinger, is that one of the
principal provisions of this bill requires six
months with a learner's permit before you can
get a license, and that's very significant.
Carl knows about it, I know about
it from family and friends that these kids can
get a learner's permit and they can go out in
three days and take their test and get a
junior license. I mean three weeks; you don't
get an appointment in three days. But within
three weeks, I know they've gotten it.
And we're trying to restrict that.
We're trying to have a longer period of
407
driving under some adult supervision before
they get a junior license. I think this is
one of the major provisions of the bill. But
I don't want you to dispute it with me, I just
want to explain it to you.
So there is a very definite
correlation between the number of people in
the car and the number of accidents that take
place.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Morahan.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Thank you,
Madam President.
There is no perfect bill, nor is
there legislation that I've seen that
addresses the needs and concerns of every part
of the constituencies that we represent.
This bill, frankly, says we're
trying to give the children, the young people
who get their license for the first time,
their permit, more time behind the wheel in a
more responsible way, with some supervision,
so the experience they gain will make them
better qualified.
So it's all about experience. When
408
you talk about distractions in the car and how
many people they can carry and not carry, it
seems just common sense to me that if you have
limited experience and greater distraction,
the opportunity for a tragedy or an accident
is increased.
Therefore, this bill, while maybe
not meeting everyone's needs or all concerns,
or covering every eventuality, moves us in the
right direction and, in the final analysis,
protects the young people of this state.
I've had seven daughters, who all
beat a path down there at age 16 to get their
license, save one. And I could see, as they
went around -- I don't know that they had
three accidents, Senator Dollinger, but I know
there were some fender benders.
And I know young people do have a
way of getting boisterous, exuberant, talking
about the basketball game, talking about the
one they're going to, that may present a
greater distraction.
Even adults face those
distractions. We did that with the cellphone
bill, recognizing that distractions in cars
409
are a potential for fatalities.
Thank you, Madam President. I'm
going to vote in the affirmative.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any other
member wish to be heard on this bill?
Then the debate is closed.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 13. This
act shall take effect January 1, 2003.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger, to explain his vote.
THE SECRETARY: Madam President,
I rise just to explain my vote.
Senator Johnson, I'll bet you those
statistics are absolutely correct. I'm
willing to concede they're absolutely correct.
And I am also willing to bet,
consistent with the theory that there are lies
and there are statistics, that the facts that
you brought out about the number of people in
the car affecting the judgment of the driver
is true in every single age. It's true at 17,
it's true at 25, it's true at 35, it's true at
410
45.
And you know when else it's true,
Senator Johnson? It's true at age 75, when
you have drivers who are on the other end of
their life spectrum who are out driving
around, talking and chitchatting in the car
and not necessarily paying attention.
I would suggest if we're going to
have one rule for young people in this state
we should have another rule, the same rule,
for those who maybe are in their older years.
And when we have the courage to
pass those bills in which we say they
shouldn't have a license until they're 18
Senator Morahan is correct. Give them more
time, give them more time for judgment.
Senator Alesi is correct. Maybe the
basketball team couldn't drive around. Maybe
they'd have to change their habits.
But the bottom line is this bill is
going to be all but unenforceable, or it's
going to be stringently enforced and the
police are going to be stopping every car with
a young face behind the wheel and a series of
people behind it.
411
I see the problem, Senator Johnson.
I have tremendous sympathy for the problem.
I'd like to solve the problem. This bill, in
my judgment, will not do it. I vote no.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
DeFrancisco, to explain his vote.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: When this
bill was first drafted, I was going to vote no
for many, many different reasons. I looked at
the bill initially as a bill that really picks
out one age group and assumes for the sake of
that age group that they're more irresponsible
than people of other age groups.
But as this bill has been debated
over the years, I really have looked at it in
a different way. And I think Senator Morahan
hit it right on the nose, where what we're
talking about is we're talking about someone
being able to put themselves in a vehicle that
has such substantial danger to themselves and
others when they have but a week or two or
three or four weeks of experience.
Now, that just doesn't make sense.
It's not a question of responsibility.
There's irresponsible teenagers; there's
412
responsible teenagers. But to have that
privilege of driving, I think it's very
important that the experience that goes with
it has to be developed.
This is really only pushing the age
six months later. I mean, we're not
penalizing anybody for a very significant
period of time. I think the limited
additional requirements are definitely
justified in view of the need for experience
in driving for young people.
As far as older people, there's
other ways to get licenses away from older
people if they're causing accidents or if
they're violating the law.
But this is a question of
experience. First-time drivers should have
that opportunity. I vote yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
DeFrancisco, you will be so recorded as voting
in the affirmative.
Senator Dollinger will be recorded
as voting in the negative on this bill.
The Secretary will announce the
results.
413
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 55. Nays,
1. Senator Dollinger recorded in the
negative.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
Senator Balboni.
SENATOR BALBONI: If we could
return to motions and resolutions, I believe
there are two privileged resolutions at the
desk by Senator Morahan. May we please ask
that the titles be read.
THE PRESIDENT: Motions and
resolutions.
The Secretary will read.
SENATOR BALBONI: Thank you very
much.
THE SECRETARY: By Senator
Morahan, Legislative Resolution Number 3900,
paying tribute to the life of Timothy P. Finn,
founder of the Rockland County Shields, on
January 30, 2002.
And by Senator Morahan, Legislative
Resolution Number 3904, honoring outgoing
President John J. Crapanzano upon the occasion
of his designation for special recognition by
414
the Rockland County Shields on January 30,
2002.
THE PRESIDENT: The question is
on these two resolutions. All in favor
signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The resolutions
are adopted.
Senator Balboni.
SENATOR BALBONI: Madam
President, can we please return to reports of
standing committees. There are apparently two
reports at the desk.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: We will return to
the order of reports of standing committees.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Leibell,
from the Committee on Civil Service and
Pensions, reports the following bills:
Senate Print 2365, by Senator
Leibell, an act to amend the Civil Service
Law;
415
2536A, by Senator Leibell, an act
to amend the Civil Service Law;
And 5630A, by the Senate Committee
on Rules, an act to amend the Retirement and
Social Security Law.
Senator Marchi, from the Committee
on Corporations, Authorities and Commissions,
reports:
Senate Print 1433, by Senator
Marchi, an act to amend the Not-for-Profit
Corporation Law;
And 5160C, by Senator Marchi, an
act to amend the Public Authorities Law.
Senator Rath, from the Committee on
Local Government, reports:
Senate Print 2655A, by Senator
Larkin, an act to amend the General Municipal
Law and the Town Law;
4030, by Senator Wright, an act to
amend the General Municipal Law;
4096, by Senator Rath, an act to
amend the Municipal Home Rule Law;
And 4159, by Senator Rath, an act
to amend the General Municipal Law and the
State Finance Law.
416
And Senator Padavan, from the
Committee on Cities, reports:
Senate Print 67, by Senator
Velella, an act to amend the General City Law
and the Penal Law;
2089, by Senator Maltese, an act to
amend Chapter 164 of the Laws of 1907;
And Senate Print 3089, by Senator
McGee, an act to amend the General City Law
and others.
Senator Hannon, from the Committee
on Health, reports:
Senate Print 520, by Senator Alesi,
an act to amend the Public Health Law;
2218A, by Senator Alesi, an act to
amend the Public Health Law;
2451, by Senator Hannon, an act to
amend the Public Health Law;
2471, by Senator LaValle, an act to
amend the Public Health Law and others;
2820A, by Senator Hannon, an act to
amend the Public Health Law;
And 4625, with amendments, by
Senator Hannon, an act to amend the Public
Health Law.
417
All bills ordered direct to third
reading.
THE PRESIDENT: Without
objection, all bills ordered direct to third
reading.
Senator Wright.
SENATOR WRIGHT: Madam President,
on behalf of Senator Volker I move that the
following bill be discharged from the
committee and be recommitted with instructions
to strike the enacting clause: Senate Number
6082.
THE PRESIDENT: So ordered.
SENATOR WRIGHT: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Balboni.
SENATOR BALBONI: Madam
President, is there any housekeeping at the
desk?
THE PRESIDENT: No, there isn't,
Senator.
SENATOR BALBONI: There being no
further business, I move we adjourn until
Monday, February 4th, at 3:00 p.m., the
intervening days being legislative days.
THE PRESIDENT: On motion, the
418
Senate stands adjourned until Monday,
February 4th, at 3:00 p.m., intervening days
being legislative days.
(Whereupon, at 12:38 p.m., the
Senate adjourned.)