Regular Session - March 18, 2002
1237
NEW YORK STATE SENATE
THE STENOGRAPHIC RECORD
ALBANY, NEW YORK
March 18, 2002
3:05 p.m.
REGULAR SESSION
LT. GOVERNOR MARY O. DONOHUE, President
STEVEN M. BOGGESS, Secretary
1238
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
afternoon to give the invocation is Rabbi
Shmuel M. Butman, from Lubavitch Youth
Organization, in Brooklyn, New York.
RABBI BUTMAN: Thank you, Madam
Chairman. Let us pray.
Our Heavenly Father, we ask You to
bestow Your blessings upon all the people of
this great State of New York, and upon the
members of the New York State Senate.
These are the people who have
suffered so much in the last seven months.
Nevertheless, they have proven that the people
of New York are made of a special fiber.
Nothing will break them. Nothing will defeat
them. The people of New York have proven that
they are made out of special strength and
1239
special inspiration. And with God's help,
they are going to rebuild the city of New York
and the state of New York to be even stronger
than it was before.
And we ask You, our Heavenly
Father, to bestow Your blessings upon the
great people of the city of New York and of
the state of New York, and upon this Assembly
and the Senate of the State of New York, to
give us strength and inspiration and to give
us health and to give us the ability to serve
You properly with all our might and with all
our strength.
We are here also today because we
are dedicating 100 days of education in honor
of the Rebbe's 100th birthday, which we have
done for so many years. We have dedicated
days of education in honor of the Rebbe. And
now it's 100 days of education in honor of
100 years of the Rebbe's birthday.
And it's the greatest gift to the
Rebbe, because when the Rebbe speaks about
education, he speaks about education of every
child: of the American child, of the African
child, of the Chinese child, of the Italian
1240
child, of all the children of the world.
The Rebbe says we should teach our
children that the world is not a jungle -
these are the Rebbe's words -- the world is
not a jungle, and there is an eye that sees
and an ear that hears, and that we will have
to render an account for everything that we
are doing.
And this is why education is so
important. If we educate the child when he is
young, then we know that he is going to grow
up to be an honest, decent, and hardworking
member of our society.
I remember when I opened up another
senate, a maybe less important senate, the
United States Senate, in Washington. And I
came to the Rebbe and I said, "I'm going to
open up the United States Senate."
The Rebbe said to me, "Take a
pushkeh with you, a tzedakah box, a charity
box, and you should offer one dollar for
charity while you are giving the prayer so
that everybody would see what you are doing
and everybody would know what charity has to
be used for."
1241
So I'm going to do what the Rebbe
asked me to, and I'm going to offer a dollar
for charity. And I'm going to ask you later
if anyone wants to join me.
But I don't want you to be scared,
Madam Chairman. This is not a fund-raising
effort. If we were asking for funds, we would
ask you for more than one dollar each.
This is an activity of doing more
goodness and more kindness, an activity of
doing another just thing, another act and
another activity of charity.
I want you to know also that in our
prayers every Saturday in our shuls we offer a
special prayer for you, and we say [in
Hebrew]: All those who serve the public
faithfully. And we ask Almighty God for a
special blessing for each and every one of
you. You should have a lot of naches. Naches
means fulfillment. Naches means success.
Naches means contentment. You should have a
lot of fulfillment and happiness in your
personal lives as well as in your communal
lives.
And as the Rebbe says, this is the
1242
last generation of exile, the first generation
of redemption. We hope that by doing more
acts of goodness and kindness we will bring
about the redemption for all people throughout
the world. The redemption will bring everyone
a better day to all people, regardless of
race, religion, color, and creed.
And we want to end our prayer by
asking Almighty God again to bestow His
blessings upon each and every one of you for
happiness and fulfillment in your private
lives as well as in your communal endeavors.
And let us say amen.
THE PRESIDENT: Reading of the
Journal.
THE SECRETARY: In Senate,
Friday, March 15, the Senate met pursuant to
adjournment. The Journal of Thursday,
March 14, was read and approved. On motion,
Senate adjourned.
THE PRESIDENT: The Journal
stands approved as read.
Senator Lachman.
SENATOR LACHMAN: It's a great
pleasure to stand and say a few words about
1243
the wonderful work of the Lubavitcher World
Movement, which is based in Brooklyn but
exists throughout the United States, Canada,
Europe, North Africa, South Africa, Latin
America, and Asia.
Usually I follow our Aristotelian
philosopher, and also student of Maimonides,
Senator Marchi. But since he walked in a few
minutes late, I unfortunately am starting
first.
The Lubavitcher World Movement has
changed university campuses throughout the
world. They have brought spiritual, cultural
assistance, they have given housing to young
people, they have given food, and of course
they have given a strong religious basis to
their lives. And they have done this
throughout the world.
As I said before, one of the great
middos, one of the great positive values of
the Lubavitcher movement, which goes back
hundreds of years, is of kiruv, or outreach to
people regardless of income, regardless of
family background. And they particularly are
concerned with the well-being, the welfare,
1244
and the spiritual growth of young people
throughout the world.
So on this, the 100th birthday of
the Lubavitcher Rebbe, of blessed memory, we
give thanks for all that he did, and that this
is continuing in a new century as well as a
new generation, and we are very proud and
happy that this is so.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you,
Senator Lachman.
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, even in spite of the fact that I'm
being assaulted by one of my constituents here
as I try to address this chamber, I wanted to
recognize the presence of Rabbi Butman and all
of those connected with the Lubavitcher
movement who are here today.
They're having a hundred days'
celebration of education, and I would presume
in honor of the hundredth birthday of Rabbi
Menachim Schneerson, who passed away in, I
believe, January of 1994.
Their work is not only
1245
world-renowned, but it is celebrated all over
the city. And they have an organization
affiliated with the movement, the National
Conference for the Furtherance of Jewish
Education, which has done more than enlighten
the world to the issues that affect the Jewish
community, but in many ways has brought a lot
of people of all faiths out of different types
of oppression, particularly emotional and
intellectual, from a number of different
movements that disguise themselves as religion
but actually are mind-control sort of avenues.
And it is very difficult sometimes
for the parents of young people who become
victimized by this to bring them back into a
state of understanding and where they can make
their own choices in life. And the National
Conference for the Furtherance of Jewish
Education is in the forefront of that
movement.
It's always, I guess, my favorite
day when we ask Rabbi Butman to come and
address us, because he is always articulate
and thoughtful and caring as he delivers his
message.
1246
And I couldn't go without saying
that I was fortunate enough to receive an
award from the National Conference for the
Furtherance of Jewish Education, which
interestingly enough was presented to me on,
Sunday, September 9th, of last year. And it's
amazing how the world has changed since I've
seen some of the members from then until
today.
So certainly on behalf of Senator
Connor and all of us here in the Minority,
particularly Senator Andrews, whose district
is the one in which they reside, it's my
pleasure and certainly my honor to recognize
them here today, to wish them well, and to
pray that they will be as successful in the
next hundred years as the Rabbi was from the
time of his conception through the continued
work that the Lubavitcher Movement has
conveyed to the world since his passing.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Andrews.
SENATOR ANDREWS: Madam
President, I rise today, along with my
colleagues Senator Paterson and Senator
Lachman, to give homage and respect to the
1247
United Lubavitcher Movement.
As Senator Paterson alluded to,
this organization is in my district. I have
known Rabbi Butman for many years, back in the
late '80s. And we worked together on many,
many issues. And I know that the youth is one
of the cornerstones and one of the works that
he has been doing over the years with the
Lubavitcher movement.
And it's indeed a pleasure to have
you up here, Rabbi, and I wish you health and
much more success in whatever your endeavors.
And just for the record, I'd like
to also say that the Lubavitcher community are
the friends and neighbors of all of the
community residents of Crown Heights.
Thank you, Rabbi.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Marchi.
SENATOR MARCHI: I have to admit
that I was surprised, Madam President, but
pleasantly surprised to see Rabbi Butman here
today, under auspices that I've had the
pleasure to speak to for the last 20, 25 years
or more.
I did have the pleasure, many years
1248
ago, of meeting Rabbi Schneerson. And what a
marvelous intellect, laden with degrees and
sophistication, and yet having the relevance
that stretches over a period of a thousand
years, back to the days of Maimonides, when
the world was fast asleep and there were only
a few that woke up to it. And he was, I
guess, the first in the long line, followed by
people of other faiths at that time. This is
a thousand years ago.
And it elicited the remarks and the
feelings expressed by my friends Senator
Lachman and Senator Paterson and -- well, just
I think that you can measure a quantitative
and qualitative impact that you represent,
sir, by your presence here today. And it
augurs well that the movement is still alive
and really addressing issues that have over a
millennium of experience.
And so it is dignum et justum est,
we say; it's fitting and just that we do this
under these circumstances. And we wish you a
very productive and felicitous day here in
Albany. And for me, the pleasure of seeing
you from now on.
1249
THE PRESIDENT: Presentation of
petitions.
Messages from the Assembly.
Messages from the Governor.
Reports of standing committees.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Hannon,
from the Committee on Health, reports the
following bills:
Senate Print 2518, by Senator
Hannon, an act to amend Public Health Law;
2653A, by Senator Larkin, an act to
amend the Public Health Law;
4050, by Senator Hannon, an act to
amend the Public Health Law and the Education
Law;
4336, by Senator Hannon, an act to
amend the Public Health Law;
5031, by Senator Hannon, an act to
amend Chapter 314 of the Laws of 1984;
6076, by Senator Marcellino, an act
to amend the Public Health Law and the State
Finance Law;
And Senate Print 6109, by Senator
Bonacic, an act to amend the Public Health
1250
Law.
All bills ordered direct to third
reading.
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 Velella.
SENATOR VELELLA: Please
recognize Senator Meier, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Meier.
SENATOR MEIER: Thank you, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You're welcome.
SENATOR MEIER: Madam President,
may we please place a sponsor's star on my
bill, Calendar Number 174.
THE PRESIDENT: So ordered,
Senator.
SENATOR MEIER: Madam President,
amendments are offered to the following Third
Reading Calendar bills.
1251
By Senator Marcellino, at page 17,
Calendar 274, Senate Print 4754;
By Senator Maltese, at page 18,
Calendar 284, Senate Print 3670;
By Senator Seward, at page 19,
Calendar 294, Senate Print 3795B;
By Senator Trunzo, at page 22,
Calendar 328, Senate Print 2147A.
And by Senator Maltese, at page 24,
Calendar Number 345, Senate Print 6275.
THE PRESIDENT: The amendments
are received, Senator Meier.
SENATOR MEIER: Madam President,
I now move that these bills retain their place
on the Third Reading Calendar.
THE PRESIDENT: The bills will
retain their place on the Third Reading
Calendar.
Senator Velella.
SENATOR VELELLA: Madam
President, are there any substitutions?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, there are,
Senator.
SENATOR VELELLA: Can we please
make them at this time.
1252
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read the substitutions.
THE SECRETARY: On page number 6,
Senator Saland moves to discharge, from the
Committee on Children and Families, Assembly
Bill Number 5026A and substitute it for the
identical Senate Bill Number 4231, Third
Reading Calendar 68.
And on page 24, 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 352.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Velella,
the substitutions are ordered.
SENATOR VELELLA: Madam
President, I believe there are two privileged
resolutions at the desk by Senator
DeFrancisco.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, there are,
Senator.
SENATOR VELELLA: May we have the
titles read and move for their immediate
adoption.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
1253
will read.
THE SECRETARY: By Senator
DeFrancisco, Legislative Resolution Number
4465, honoring the students of Driver Middle
School in the Marcellus School District for
their participation in the 49th Senate
District "Good News! Good Kids!" Youth
Responsibility Program.
"RESOLVED, That this Legislative
Body pause in its deliberations to express
congratulations to this outstanding group of
students: Caitlin Griffin, Jen Young, Hannah
Vaughn, Catherine Scott, Julie Kilcoyne,
Jackie Lundblad, Lenora Garrison, Lauren
Longo, Elily Zimmerman, Michelle Piorkowski,
Kaya Liner, Kaylyn Winosky, Sarah Potter, Emmy
Lou Potter, Heather Hart, Cassie Weeks, Alyssa
Przydrozny, and Amanda Stessen, who have
demonstrated outstanding leadership and good
citizenship; and be it further
"RESOLVED, that this Legislative
Body pause further to welcome the members of
the Marcellus School District's Driver Middle
School Girls Modified Volleyball Team to the
Senate Chamber with praise and pride in
1254
recognition of their selection as the winner
of the middle school level 'Good News! Good
Kids!' Award; and be it further
"RESOLVED, That a copy of this
resolution, suitably engrossed, be transmitted
to Coach Kathleen Kusnierczyk, Driver Middle
School Girls Modified Volleyball Team."
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
DeFrancisco.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Thank you.
We didn't read the entire
resolution, but what it really says, all the
whereases that were in the resolution were
really honoring all you fine young people from
Marcellus.
This group won our middle school
award this year and were brought to Albany to
visit us and to be honored by us because they
showed outstanding leadership in providing for
the less fortunate in their community by
raising funds for families who maybe wouldn't
have been able to have a good Christmas
because of the lack of funds.
And I'm not even going to tell you
the amount of money; it was a substantial
1255
amount of money that they raised for this
group of people. Something they didn't have
to do. And when every day we see something
bad in the paper about kids, remember there's
always good news and good kids.
And you're all congratulated, and
thank you very much for appearing here with us
today.
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.
And on behalf of the Senate, I want
to wish you congratulations and continued
success in your endeavors. Good celebration.
Senator Velella.
SENATOR VELELLA: Madam
President, I believe there's another
privileged resolution at the desk by Senator
DeFrancisco. May we please the title read,
and I move for its immediate adoption.
1256
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: By Senator
DeFrancisco, Legislative Resolution Number
4464, honoring Catie Vaughn, a student of
Marcellus High School, as a winner in the 49th
Senate District "Good News! Good Kids!" Youth
Responsibility Program.
"RESOLVED, That this Legislative
Body pause in its deliberations to express
congratulations to Marcellus High School
junior Catie Vaughn, who has demonstrated
outstanding leadership and good citizenship;
and be it further
"RESOLVED, That this Legislative
Body pause further to welcome Catie Vaughn,
daughter of Lisa and Alec Vaughn, to the
Senate chamber, with praise and pride in
recognition of her selection as the winner of
the senior high school level 'Good News! Good
Kids!' Award; and be it further
"RESOLVED, That a copy of this
resolution, suitably engrossed, be transmitted
to Catie Vaughn of Marcellus Senior High
School."
1257
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
DeFrancisco.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: This is the
first year we've had this program where the
winners for the senior high and the middle
school were from the same school, Marcellus.
So there must be either something in the
water, or they're teaching things right at
Marcellus High School and middle school.
Catie Vaughn is an outstanding
individual. She's probably going to be
sitting in these chambers one day. She had an
idea after September 11th to try to help in
overcoming the tragedy that everyone knows
about.
Now, this is one individual. She
organized a fund-raising effort for Red Cross
relief in Central New York. And she made the
centerpiece of this particular effort the
Marcellus March for Heroes, a 5K run and a
one-mile family fun run and walk. She wrote
letters to local businesses to get them to
participate and raised $800 in four days.
To promote the event, she was her
advertising agency as well. To promote the
1258
event, she wrote and published articles
advertising the event in a local newspaper,
and secured coverage on local TV. Maybe we
could learn from her a little bit.
She had T-shirts designed to
commemorate the race and to raise additional
funds. She had 685 participants. This is a
one-woman wrecking team here. And they were
treated to doughnuts and cider during the run.
Due to her efforts, in three weeks
she raised $2,400 for the Red Cross Relief
Fund. Now, that's pretty impressive for an
idea and then the follow-through from one
individual. We could all take a lesson from
her.
And we're very proud of you, Catie,
and we're happy that your parents are here
with you. There clearly are good kids and
good news in our state.
THE PRESIDENT: The question is
on the resolution. All in favor signify by
saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
1259
THE PRESIDENT: The resolution is
adopted.
Senator Velella.
SENATOR VELELLA: Madam
President, I believe there's a privileged
resolution at the desk by Senator Ada Smith.
I would ask that the title be read and move
for its immediate adoption.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: By Senator A.
Smith, Legislative Resolution Number 4408,
commending Joseph K. Robles, Jr., upon the
occasion of his designation for special honor
by the United Club of Bushwick at its annual
dinner.
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 Velella.
1260
SENATOR VELELLA: Madam
President, may we proceed now to the reading
of the noncontroversial calendar.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
21, by Senator Volker, Senate Print 1094A, an
act to amend the Real Property Tax Law, in
relation to a taxing district's obtaining.
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, 56.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
45, by Senator Bonacic, Senate Print -
SENATOR VELELLA: Lay it aside
for the day.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside for the day.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1261
89, by Senator Trunzo, Senate Print 1237B, an
act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law, in
relation to minimum speed limits.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 56.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
173, by Senator Lack, Senate Print 1263A, an
act to amend the Labor Law, in relation to
direct sellers.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
186, by Senator Balboni, Senate Print 853A, an
act to amend the Civil Rights Law, in relation
to confidentiality.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
1262
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 56.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
188, by Senator Padavan, Senate Print 1822, an
act to amend the Criminal Procedure Law, in
relation to the defense of guilty but mentally
ill.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay that
aside, please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
200, by Senator Maziarz, Senate Print 4714, an
act authorizing certain housing authorities.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 6. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
1263
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 56.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
233, by Senator Wright, Senate Print -
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay that
aside, please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
236, by Senator Hoffmann, Senate Print 532, an
act to amend Agriculture and Markets Law, in
relation to defining dangerous dogs.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the 30th day.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 56.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
240, by Senator Nozzolio -
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
1264
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
267, by Senator Farley, Senate Print 1994, an
act to amend the Environmental Conservation
Law, in relation to making technical
corrections.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 5. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 56.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
288, by Senator Lack, Senate Print -
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
319, by Senator Rath, Senate Print 5326, an
act to amend the General Municipal Law, in
1265
relation to authorizing.
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, 56.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Hassell-Thompson, to explain your vote.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: No,
not to explain my vote. I'm sorry, Madam
President.
Did we skip Calendar Number 174?
Or did I miss it?
THE PRESIDENT: That was starred
by the sponsor, Senator.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Okay,
thank you. Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will announce the results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 56.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
Senator Velella.
1266
SENATOR VELELLA: Thank you,
Madam President. Can we now proceed to the
reading of the controversial calendar.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
173, by Senator Lack, Senate Print 1263A, an
act to amend the Labor Law, in relation to
direct sellers.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Lack, an
explanation has been requested.
SENATOR VELELLA: Would you lay
that aside for today, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside for the day.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
188, by Senator Padavan, Senate Print 1822, an
act to amend the Criminal Procedure Law, in
relation to the defense of guilty but mentally
ill.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Padavan,
an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR PADAVAN: Thank you,
1267
Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: You're welcome.
SENATOR PADAVAN: This is, if my
memory serves me correctly, the eighth time
that we have considered this legislative
proposal in this house.
Currently in law there are several
options that relate to an individual who has
been arrested for committing a crime where the
issue of mental state of mind, mental illness,
comes into play. The options are guilty, like
any other individual who would be found such,
having committed a crime. The second might be
acquittal by reason of insanity, the so-called
insanity defense. And the third determination
could be incompetent to stand trial by reason
of mental defect.
As we have seen over the years,
there are instances where individuals, having
been involved in a heinous act, were acquitted
by reason of insanity because the jury felt
that that individual obviously, obviously had
some level of mental illness, and they wanted
to make sure that that illness was treated.
On the other side of the coin,
1268
we've seen individuals who were clearly
incapacitated, diminished in terms of their
capacity by some level of mental illness, but
yet were found guilty and sent to a prison
where no mandate or requirement in law for the
treatment of that illness is provided.
Now, twenty other states in this
country have developed a third alternative.
And some of those states have had this statute
on the books going back to the early '80s,
twenty years or more -- states like Illinois,
Pennsylvania, California, Michigan. And what
they provide for is a third alternative, a
third alternative in the choices of guilty or
acquittal by reason of insanity. And that
third alternative is guilty but mentally ill.
In the bill before you, you will
see outlined in very specific terms the
criteria that apply in such an instance. You
will also read in the bill a mandate that if
someone is found guilty but mentally ill, that
care would be provided either in a state
mental institution or a state prison where
such facilities are available for care and
treatment of that mental illness. So we take
1269
care of both problems, potential problems.
The fundamental issue, I think,
relates to the fact that many jurors are torn.
They're not psychiatrists. They hear from
conflicting psychiatrists, a psychiatrist for
the defense, a psychiatrist for the
prosecution. They are somewhat bewildered by
all of the technical terms that are used
during the course of those presentations.
But yet they know that the person
they're looking at, who may have killed a
child of their own, may have pushed a woman
off a platform under a passing train, may have
killed a boyfriend -- all of these incidents
having occurred -- did know at that moment the
result of the act, but yet at the same time
they're obviously unbalanced. And they don't
know what to do under the choices that they
now have.
And so we provide this alternative.
It's not a situation that you're going to find
frequently in our judicial system. There are
not that many cases that come to the surface
or become a fact. But they do occur. And
when they do occur, it's important that our
1270
laws provide an appropriate remedy for that
particular tragic incident.
Are there any questions, Senator?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, I think I would disappoint Senator
Padavan if I didn't have any questions. So if
he would be willing to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Padavan -
SENATOR PADAVAN: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: He does yield.
You may proceed, Senator.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator
Padavan, it was actually in your explanation
that I located the exact focus of the problem
that I have with this legislation. And it is
that, as you properly pointed out, juries are
torn. They hear about these horrible
crimes -- people killing their mother with a
hedge-clipper, then saying that they thought
their mother was the devil. That was a case
that I remember working on when I was in the
Queens DA's office some years ago.
But the ability of a jury to
1271
distinguish whether or not an individual knew
the difference between right and wrong, which
is our legal definition of insanity -- it's
not necessarily a psychiatric definition of
insanity -- is a difficult undertaking, and
certainly it's hard to reach.
Is it not a viable alternative for
a jury, but not necessarily an accurate
alternative to now, in these types of cases,
presume, as the juror would, that we're going
to get treatment for this person, we're going
to put them in a prison that has proper
psychiatric care facilities, but we're going
to do it in a way by compromising what the
charge to the jury is?
In other words, it's hard to tell
whether or not the person knew the difference
between right and wrong, so it's safer to find
them guilty but mentally ill because we
generally acknowledge that they are the person
that caused the death of the individual for
whom they are being tried for killing.
But the fact is that we're no
closer to really finding out whether or not
the defendant knew the difference between
1272
right and wrong by convicting them and making
them guilty but mentally ill, when in fact
they may not have been able to distinguish as
to what they were doing and may not really be
responsible for the crime.
But my question is, aren't we
giving the jury somewhat of an out by creating
this crime of guilty but mentally ill?
SENATOR PADAVAN: I would not
define it as an out, Senator. I would define
it as an opportunity to apply an appropriate
penalty for the circumstance that they are
confronted with.
There are currently 159 individuals
in facilities in the state of Illinois today
where this particular process was followed,
individuals who are receiving mental health
care but where juries felt that at that moment
in time they knew that the knife in their hand
would kill the person or the gun that fired
would kill the person or any other crime of a
similar nature.
It is not allowing them a way out,
but allowing for a way in, a way into a
determination that makes sense. These issues
1273
are not simple. Psychiatry is often referred
to as less of a science and more of an art.
And obviously psychiatrists disagree all the
time.
I remember spending a whole
afternoon with a psychiatrist who detailed the
famous Son of Sam case and all the insights
that they developed during that trial.
I've talked to the families of
individuals who were outraged because someone
took their child's life, then, after two
years -- and was acquitted by reason of
insanity -- then, after two years, brought up
for review on the basis that they were now
cured of their insanity and potentially would
be released from a psychiatric facility back
into the community.
So we've heard from all sides on
this issue, and it's not a very simple one. I
should also add that the bill provides that in
the event an individual who is found guilty
but mentally ill and placed in a facility is
then subject to parole or probation, that a
condition of that parole or probation would be
the required level of after-care, outpatient
1274
care.
So that you would ensure the fact
that that individual, if on medication,
continued to take the medication, but he
certainly would be followed up so that another
tragedy, as has happened, wouldn't take place.
We've had cases where individuals were
released after a period of time from state
psychiatric facilities and then went out and
killed again. We'd like to avoid that.
Is this a perfect, ultimate,
ironclad solution? Well, I don't know if
there are any in any parts of our law. But I
think it's a sound solution. It makes sense,
and it provides a framework for preventing
tragedies that have indeed occurred under
other circumstances.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, if Senator Padavan would continue
to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Padavan,
do you yield?
SENATOR PADAVAN: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
1275
with a question, Senator.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, you
most appropriately point out that there have
been individuals who were treated and then
released, when defined as insane, and were
acquitted of charges related to an act that
they committed in the past.
And actually, Madam President, the
Senator's point is well taken, because there
were actually situations, and it's written
about in the renowned Supreme Court case of
Jackson versus Indiana, United States Supreme
Court, cite 408, where there were actually
individuals who, because they were found not
guilty by reason of insanity, were sent to
psychiatric hospitals and it was a civil
commitment -- because, remember, the person
has not been convicted of a crime, so they are
not a criminal.
And in many cases the psychiatrist
that signed statements to the effect that they
felt that the individual was cured or
certainly was eligible for release did not
even realize the total history of the
individual and didn't know that they had
1276
actually killed someone. They may not have
been guilty, but that this actually happened.
And these are glitches that Senator
Padavan aptly points out do exist sometimes in
the operation of our psychiatric hospitals.
But that nonetheless, Senator
Padavan, I don't think that the term "guilty
but mentally ill" satisfies that problem. In
other words, I think that there are other ways
that we can actually deal with that.
And if a person is found guilty
because they did know the difference between
right and wrong, it would seem to me that we
can have the appropriate psychiatric care and
even, as you underline to some degree in your
bill, you can follow the person's psychiatric
history even to the point that when they've
served their sentence, there could in a sense
be a determination made as to whether or not
it would be good to let this person back out
on the streets.
So with the current law focusing on
both sides of it, what you do with a guilty
person who has a psychiatric problem or what
you do with a person who is -- and I think the
1277
correct term is "not responsible by reason of
mental disease or defect" -- why can't the
current system handle these cases one way or
the other right now?
In other words, what does your
definition that you'd like to add to the law
of "guilty but mentally ill" give us that we
don't have now?
SENATOR PADAVAN: Senator, first
let's talk about the Indiana -- Jackson versus
Indiana. That case is not to this issue. In
that particular case, the judge determined the
person was incompetent to stand trial. There
was no trial. There was no determination of
acquittal by reason of insanity or guilty.
It's not really applicable to the issue we're
discussing.
However, in our case, if you take a
look at -- well, I bring it up because it's
been in the newspapers -- let me finish,
Senator, and you can go.
By the way, if you want that
Supreme Court case, I have it here in front of
me. You can read it, as I did, because you
brought it up last year.
1278
But in any event, let's talk about
the recent terrible tragedy in Texas where a
mother drowned five children. It was on
trial, and the defense attempted to obtain a
verdict of acquittal by reason of insanity but
failed. And then that person was found
guilty, that lady was found guilty.
I think it's everyone's conclusion
that obviously to have committed such a
heinous act, there had to be a level of mental
instability. This woman was mentally ill. If
that statute had been applicable in that
statute, or the one we're proposing, the jury
could have said she's mentally ill but guilty,
and treatment and all the other safeguards
would have been put in place.
As it turned out, in that state,
because they're not one of the twenty that I
mentioned earlier, they could only find one or
the other.
It recognized the concept of
diminished capacity in a determination of
guilty but mentally ill. Diminished capacity
meaning that you know what's going to happen
as a result of what you're doing, but your
1279
capacity to fully comprehend it and control
that compulsion or whatever it might be has
been diminished.
And this provides the alternative
for juries to recognize that particular
circumstance.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you,
Madam President. On the bill.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
on the bill, Senator.
SENATOR PATERSON: First of all,
Senator Padavan, I was aware that the Jackson
versus Indiana case dealt with the issue of
whether or not the individual is competent
enough to know the nature of the charges
against them and whether or not they can
assist in their own defense.
What I was just saying is that in
dicta of that case, where a lot of those
defendants were converted to civil commitment
and then slipped through the cracks and got
back out on the streets, the Your Honors
pointed out that this had even happened in
cases where the individual was found not
1280
guilty by reason of mental disease or defect
and still somehow managed to get back out on
the streets.
The competency hearings which we
conduct in this state, under Section 730 of
the Criminal Procedure Law, are in compliance
with the Jackson Supreme Court case.
But I was just pointing out that it
further -- moreover, that it demonstrated the
fact that there is this problem, if you have a
finding of not guilty by reason of insanity,
that you don't always -- you can't always
track what happens to the individual even
though they may be a very dangerous person.
On the second point, which is
really the more dialectic point, the issue of
guilty but mentally ill, I still want to aver
here, Madam President, that I think it further
complicates the situation. Diminished
capacity is something that we have in several
areas of the law, not only involving mental
illness but sometimes intoxication, use of
controlled substances, certainly just the
mental level or IQ level, necessarily, of the
perpetrator and even, in the case of children,
1281
where there is a question as to whether or not
there was full understanding of what was
happening in the situation.
But as long as the person knows the
difference between right and wrong, knows that
there could be consequences for the act, in my
opinion, under the definition in our law, they
would be guilty.
Now, there might be a lot of other
mitigating circumstances, as we've always
allowed in our law, that a person may be
guilty -- a manslaughter is a sense of murder
with diminished capacity, which is heat of
passion, and yet the person is still guilty,
we just hold them guilty of manslaughter as
opposed to murder.
My argument is guilty but mentally
ill creates further complication and in many
respects is going to hurt the possibility of
defendants who really didn't understand what
they were doing, had no idea where they were
when they were cutting another human being,
may not have known they were cutting a human
being, may have thought they were cutting a
fruit. And, I mean, it really gets as bad as
1282
that description with some people's
unfortunate mental state at the time that they
commit a crime.
And so I just think that it would
really be a difficult thing to ask jurors to
decipher, and that they would take what would
be the alternative that's offered here and
deny those defendants a right to justice and
even in many cases probably deny those who
should have been found guilty for them to get
the justice they deserve.
I think that it certainly took a
lot of research, Madam President, on the part
of Senator Padavan -- he's worked on this type
of thing for years -- to try to further
delineate a process that we've read in the
newspapers in the last couple of weeks has
further challenged all of us when we read
these horrible cases such as what happened in
Houston, Texas.
But the fact is that there really
in the end were only two things that could
have happened. Either the person knew what
they were doing, or they weren't aware of what
they were doing.
1283
And that's why I would argue that
the charge of guilty but mentally ill really
would not assist us in governing through this
very difficult process.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any other
member wish to be heard on this bill?
Then the debate is closed.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect on the 90th day.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will announce the results.
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
the negative on Calendar Number 188 are
Senators Andrews, Breslin, Brown, Connor,
DeFrancisco, Hassell-Thompson, L. Krueger,
C. Kruger, Lachman, Montgomery, Paterson,
Sampson, Santiago, Schneiderman, A. Smith,
M. Smith, Stachowski, and Stavisky. Also
Senator Duane. Ayes, 39. Nays, 19.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
Senator Paterson.
1284
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, Senator Padavan beat me again.
(Laughter.)
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
233, by Senator Wright, Senate Print 5639, an
act to amend the Public Authorities Law and
the Energy Law, in relation to energy
efficiency and clean energy initiatives.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Wright,
an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR WRIGHT: Thank you, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You're welcome,
Senator.
SENATOR WRIGHT: NYSERDA and NYPA
are currently authorized by various state
budget acts and the Clean Air/Clean Water Bond
Act to undertake both energy efficiency and
clean energy projects. This legislation would
incorporate that into permanent statute.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Schneiderman.
1285
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you,
Madam President. If the sponsor would yield
for a few brief questions.
SENATOR WRIGHT: Yes, I will,
Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Wright
yields.
You may proceed, Senator
Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you.
Through you, Madam President.
On the second page of this bill, in
the definition of clean energy technologies,
it lists "biomass" as one of the types of
clean energy technologies covered under this
bill.
It's my understanding that
"biomass," under the current existing
definitions in New York State law, also could
refer to or includes within the definition of
"biomass" incineration; is that correct?
SENATOR WRIGHT: It's correct
that it reflects a definition of "biomass."
As to whether or not that includes
incineration, I'm not sure.
1286
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Through
you, Madam President, is there anything in the
language of the statute that clarifies whether
or not biomass would include incineration?
SENATOR WRIGHT: Not that I'm
aware of, Madam President.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you.
In addition to biomass -
THE PRESIDENT: First of all,
Senator Wright, will you yield for another
question?
SENATOR WRIGHT: Yes, I will,
Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you.
In the same section of definition of clean
energy technologies, it refers to
microturbines. Some microturbines are run on
diesel fuel.
Is there anything in this statute
or elsewhere in the law which would make it
clear that microturbines that run on diesel
fuel, which are in fact not clean energy
mechanisms, would be excluded from the
1287
definition of clean energy technologies?
SENATOR WRIGHT: There's no
language to that effect in this statute.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you,
Madam President. Thank the sponsor.
On the bill.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator, on the bill.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: I
appreciate the thought behind this bill, but I
do believe that it has a fatal flaw in the
definition section. If we're talking about
clean energy technologies, we should make
very, very sure that we're not including
within that definition technologies that are
in fact bad for the environment.
Biomass, under the existing state
law, is not really defined anywhere. In many
other states, biomass includes incineration.
Now, incineration is an extremely
environmentally hazardous way to generate
energy.
I think anyone who has been
involved in dealing with opposing efforts to
put incinerators in or near our districts
1288
understands what I'm talking about. We should
be passing a statute that gives people credit
for something defined as clean energy
technology if we're talking about
incineration.
Similarly, the problem of
microturbines I think is even clearer, because
microturbines very often are run on diesel
fuel. And that is not an environmentally safe
system of producing energy.
I would suggest that -- I would
urge a no vote on this bill, and I would
suggest that we have a place in our existing
state policies that provides a series of
definitions which, if incorporated into this
bill, would solve these problems. And that is
in the state's nitrogen oxides state
implementation plan, which has been sent on to
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency by
the State of New York, by the Pataki
administration.
If we use the definitions in the
nitrogen oxide state implementation plan, we
would not have these problems. That makes it
clear that biomass does not include
1289
incineration. It makes it clear that
microturbines using diesel fuel should not be
included.
We have available to us the
language we need to change this bill to assure
that the definition of clean energy
technologies is accurate and actually reflects
the state-of-the-art of clean energy
technologies.
I urge that we change this bill and
come back to it later in the session, adopting
those standards which have already been
developed and sent on to the EPA. And in the
meantime, I would urge a no vote, because I
think in the area of definitions this bill has
a fatal flaws.
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 4. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
1290
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
the negative on Calendar Number 233 are
Senators Duane, Gentile, L. Krueger,
Schneiderman, and also Senator Stavisky.
Ayes, 53. Nays, 5.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: In relation to
Calendar Number 233, also Senator
Hassell-Thompson recorded in the negative.
Ayes, 52. Nays, 6.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
Senator Paterson, do you wish to be
recognized?
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, may I be recorded in the negative
on Calendar Number 233.
THE PRESIDENT: You will be so
recorded as voting in the negative.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
240, by Senator Nozzolio, Senate Print 224, an
1291
act to amend the Correction Law, in relation
to requiring.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Nozzolio,
an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Thank you,
Madam President.
Madam President and my colleagues,
this amends the Correctional Law in relation
to requiring inmates to make medical
copayments. The measure has passed this body
each year since 1997.
And the purpose is to ensure that
the copayments are enacted, as is now the case
in the Federal Bureau of Prisons. That no
inmate would be denied medical treatment for
their lack of ability to pay. However, it
would save a cost to the taxpayers directly
and indirectly, not just with inmates who
utilize the services but those who are
utilizing the services as a sport to minimize
other work-related and other activities in the
Prison.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
1292
President, if Senator Nozzolio would yield for
a question.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Nozzolio,
do you yield for a question?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, what
you have accomplished in the legislation is to
try to distinguish between the -- is there any
division between those inmates that have a
capacity to pay and those that don't? And -
well, I'll leave it at that. Is there any
calculation as to those individuals that have
the capacity to pay and those that don't?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Madam
President, there is no means test to this in
the sense that if an inmate is required to pay
a $7 copayment for their medical services -
this was based a few years ago on the same
type of copay that most health recipients,
health insurer recipients at the state level
would pay.
That copayment has gone up since
1293
this legislation has been introduced, but we
have not changed the level of inmate copay.
We've kept it at the $7 figure.
That I should add there are
provisions in this legislation that would not
deny anyone a medical treatment for lack of
ability to pay. That each inmate has an
account; that account is managed by the
Department of Corrections. If there are
insufficient funds or not sufficient funds in
the account, no inmate would be docked or
removed from the med lists. They certainly
would be able to see a physician.
But if they did have money in their
account, that account would be subject to the
copayment.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, if Senator Nozzolio would yield for
a question.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, will you
yield for a question?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Nozzolio
yields.
1294
You may proceed, Senator.
SENATOR PATERSON: Then, Senator,
what I'm to understand what from what you're
saying is that the medical services, if they
are needed, would not be -- in other words,
the inmate would not be turned away from
receiving medical attention.
But on the particular individual's
account, if they are not able to afford it,
this would be something that they would then
owe or would have to work back off of -
they'd have to work back off the arrears; is
that correct?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Yes, Madam
President, Senator Paterson is correct.
SENATOR PATERSON: Okay. Madam
President, if Senator Nozzolio would continue
to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
continue to yield?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Nozzolio
continues to yield, Senator. You may proceed.
SENATOR PATERSON: I guess I'll
1295
preface my question, Madam President, just by
listing my concern, which is that I don't know
how many resources inmates might have. So $7,
or I believe now it's probably $10 for the
copayment for the people who are not in a
facility, the fact is that -- what do
prisoners accrue? A dollar a week or
whatever?
In other words, how big a hit would
$7 be to an inmate if they need medical
attention? And would we not put them in the
same category as the uninsured -- the
uninsured have rights and prisoners don't, I
understand that, but where a person might
refuse medical attention and perhaps
compromise the safety and the health of all of
the other inmates because they don't want to
pay the amount to go to an infirmary and find
out.
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Madam
President, in response to Senator Paterson's
lengthy question, let me state the following.
That I may have been unclear to
Senator Paterson, that the amount of copay is
not $10, Senator, it's $7. The $10 fee, and
1296
in some cases more than that, is the fee that
state employees pay when they, the correction
officers, when they have to go for medical
treatment. To get a prescription, medicine or
other medical treatment, they are often
required to pay a copay, depending on their
insurance plan. It's risen; the minimum is, I
believe, $10 now.
So that the amount of copay that
this measure requires is less than the copay
that other state individuals covered by state
medical insurance would pay.
The issue of the amount should be
tempered with the fact that these same inmates
have an opportunity to buy goods and services
at the commissary. They buy those goods,
candy, cigarettes, other items at their
choice. They have money in their account if
they work. Their wages are small, but they
should be small; they're in prison. We're not
talking about people who are not in prison for
a reason. They're in prison.
And we believe that those resources
that they do acquire while they are in prison
should be utilized to take care of some of the
1297
costs that are associated with incarceration.
Medical treatment is one of those
costs. And that we believe that this
legislation addresses a fair way to establish
this type of reimbursement, in the sense that
we have a copayment requirement. That
requirement is not onerous. That requirement
will not impede on anyone's ability to receive
medical treatment.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson,
do you wish to be heard?
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, on the bill.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
on the bill.
SENATOR PATERSON: I conceded in
my question to Senator Nozzolio that the $7
amount, which was probably the copayment at
the time Senator Nozzolio wrote the bill, is
less than what the copayment is that people
who are not in a facility are paying, which I
estimated these days at approximately $10.
But what I was trying to get at was
what was the ratio between the capacity to pay
for a person who is not in a state
1298
penitentiary and someone who actually is.
I certainly understand that going
to the infirmary might be preferable to an
inmate to conducting a lot of jobs or commands
that are vested upon them in the facility.
But nonetheless, there is a question of
whether or not $7 is an exorbitant amount of
money when health care is not something that
just benefits the individual, it benefits
everybody in that community -- in this case,
not only the other inmates, but the
individuals who are correction officers who
are there to protect the public from these
individuals.
And we wouldn't want them suffering
from some type of contagious disease because
an inmate who didn't want to pay the amount of
money that he needs to go to the infirmary
held back, rather than some system that we
could set up.
Say, for instance, that the person
is not shown to have an actual illness and is
believed to be going to the infirmary to avoid
something. The prison can handle that within
its own jurisdiction and perhaps exact some
1299
type of penalty or separated condition that
could exist at that particular time. I don't
know if a copayment can solve that problem as
easily as it can in the actual facility.
The reason that I have a problem
with this bill is that no one has ever been
able to establish to me that if we have the
inmates pay for dues at the commissary, which
one of the other bills that we've had come
before us does, if we have the inmates pay for
their actual stay as if they were in a hotel,
and if we then add to that that we're going to
have them pay a $7 copayment for medical care,
if there will even be any resources to
actually do that.
Now, we're talking about
individuals who have been convicted of crimes,
they have committed a wrong against society
and maybe sometime a specific violent act
against individuals within our society. So
they really don't derive very much sensitivity
from myself or really anybody else.
But so that there is at least a
civilized way of incarcerating them, what I
would need in order to vote for this bill is a
1300
comprehensive standard of what $7 means to
somebody in an actual facility. I don't know
what it means.
If they make a dollar a week, then
you would have to work two months just to go
to a medical infirmary to find out that you
have a cold. And you might not go there. And
maybe that turned out to be mononucleosis, and
that could be a problem far more costly to the
state.
So not because I necessarily am
particularly worried about inmates, other than
hoping that they're in good health, but have a
great deal more concern for everybody in the
facility, including visitors, perhaps, that
they are in good health, I would recommend
that before I could vote for this legislation,
I would need a more comprehensive
understanding of what that cost actually means
when you are an inmate rather than just a
member of society.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President. On the bill.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
1301
Senator, on the bill.
SENATOR DUANE: I know from past
debates that the copayment amount of $7 was
decided because that was probably the
copayment at the time that most state
employees paid for their insurance plans. But
to me, that's not even a particularly relevant
issue. I mean, the cost -- the minimal cost
is not really the issue.
One of the issues that I'm most
concerned about is that government employees
generally have a range of choices and can
choose what the best health care policy would
be for them. And let's face it, inmates do
not have that kind of choice.
In previous discussions and debates
I had asked, well, you know, if someone was
going to pay their copay, do they get to
choose their HMO. And of course that's
absurd, they don't get to choose anything but
the health care that's delivered to them by
their being in the DOCS system.
You know, the theory of this bill
is that the copayment will assist in funding
the medical treatment of the inmates. Yet the
1302
bill actually doesn't say that. So even if
that's the intention, that's not what would
happen if this legislation passed. The bill
says that all monies collected will be made
available for the operation of the
correctional facility. That's on page 2,
lines 5 and 6. So in fact it just goes into
the general fund.
And the money could go to anything.
I mean, DOCS already makes a lot of money
through inmates getting a high surcharge for
using the telephone and making calls home or
to their loved ones. And as it is, inmates
have to pay for their so-called luxury items,
which really aren't luxury items, like shampoo
and soap. And the prices for those things are
marked up as compared to what we pay on the
outside.
I understand that no inmate will be
denied treatment due to the lack of their
funds. But their accounts on the inside will
be frozen until they're able to pay the bill.
So if you're a poor inmate that doesn't have
money from, you know, working in the facility
or whatever amount of money you might be able
1303
to get from home, you might defer or not get
medical treatment at all because you don't
want your prison bank account frozen.
Because those pennies that people
make, those that make them, are really
precious and go towards items like shampoo and
soap. I mean, we're not even talking about
cigarettes.
You know, I've been to several
prisons where disabled and infirm, elderly
people take up entire units. It's a large and
growing population of people who are
incarcerated: people who are sick and people
who are old and infirm and who generally need
to see doctors more often because, let's face
it, our bodies start to fall apart as we get
older.
And so these older inmates would
always have empty bank accounts, because that
money would continue to be taken out for them
to continue to get health care.
You know, people are always
claiming that inmates abuse sick call. And
I'm sure that there are some inmates who do
use sick call inappropriately. But the vast
1304
majority of people do not.
You know, when I have taken a tour
of medical facilities, and I've done that
quite a bit in the system, I actually see
very, very few people waiting to see doctors
in the waiting rooms outside the infirmaries.
And I have seen lot of empty beds in those
infirmaries. So I don't really understand how
it is that the myth continues that inmates
frequently abuse sick call.
Also, you know, even if you didn't
care about the humanity of it, which I know
some people don't really care about, it's, you
know, an administrative nightmare for DOCS.
To collect this $7 would mean they'd have to
put in a whole new system, hire lots of new
people.
Can you imagine the overworked
correctional officers and administration
making sure that their records are accurate on
collecting the dollars from inmates? I mean,
it's completely ridiculous. It's, you know,
something which I guess is meant to be, you
know, really somewhat punitive but which
actually will punish people who work within
1305
the correctional system as much as it's going
to punish people who seek to get health care.
Anyway, proponents of the bill
argue that inmates deserve this. That, you
know, this is part of the punishment they get
by being incarcerated, and that they're having
their freedom taken away. But really, anybody
who's been to a prison, believe me, prisoners
are not living in the lap of luxury. It's a
very, very, very harsh life. And I don't
really think that many people want to go to
prison just, you know, for the perk of free
medical care.
And plus this whole system of
collecting the $7 would have to go into
effect, by this legislation, within 120 days
of the bill's passage, which would just be a
nightmare for the Department of Corrections.
So from the humanitarian point of
view, from the logistical point of view, this
bill really is not worth it. And I would
encourage my colleagues to vote no on it.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Stavisky.
SENATOR STAVISKY: If the sponsor
1306
would yield for a couple of questions.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Nozzolio,
do you yield for a question?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Through you,
Madam President, what would happen if an
inmate just had a simple headache? Would the
aspirin cost him the $7 copayment?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: If the
infirmary, Madam President, is called into
question to administer this treatment, yes, it
would be.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Madam
President, I have a couple of other questions
for the sponsor if he will yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Nozzolio,
will you yield for a question?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
with a question, Senator.
SENATOR STAVISKY: What would
1307
happen if the inmate were on Medicaid?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Madam
President, I'm not certain I understand the
question.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Madam
President, through you, let me rephrase my
question.
If the inmate, prior to his
incarceration and sentencing, were on
Medicaid, would he still have to pay the
copayments? In other words, would the
Medicaid follow him into prison and would he
then have to continue to pay the copayments?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Madam
President, I don't know if I can adequately
respond to this hypothetical question.
I think that there may be some
disability payments that follow an individual
into prison. If someone was judged disabled
and received funds from federal or state
sources because of that disability, those may
follow. But I'm not certain of all the rules.
I'd have to say generally, in most
instances, Medicaid does not -- or state
assistance terminates at prison. That might
1308
not be true with federal assistance,
particularly assistance that is obtained from
Social Security.
The fact of the matter is, if a
prisoner has an account and has money in that
account, that account will be debited for each
time an inmate goes to sick call.
Every time you go to the doctor,
Senator, that I'm sure your doctor says that
you owe the doctor a payment regardless of
whether something was very wrong with you or
something was not so wrong with you.
So I think that what we're asking
here is the inmates to bear some economic
consequence for going to sick call.
And I might also add that we're not
talking about really punishing someone who has
an occasional headache. Rather, we're having
someone who's a headache to the prison system,
by continually going to sick call to bypass
other important requirements, that -- and I
might add that that inmate gets in the way of
others who may certainly need the services of
medical providers in prison.
SENATOR STAVISKY: If the Senator
1309
will continue to yield.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, do you
continue to yield?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Nozzolio
continues to yield. You may proceed.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Would there be
more than one copayment if more than one
procedure were involved? In other words,
Madam President, if they said, "Well, we have
to do an x-ray," would that be another $7?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Each visit,
Madam President, requires a copay. That when
an inmate -- if the Senator would -- I refer
her to the bill. It's a short bill. That on
page 1 of the bill it lists those times when
copayments are required.
After the inmate logs in and
schedules a visit, the inmate then will
receive a statement at the end of each month
showing how many visits that inmate paid to
the appropriate medical provider.
I should also add, Madam President,
that this provision is provided in our federal
1310
prison system. This is not new. It's not
unique. It's utilized day in and day out
across this nation in our federal prison
system.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, thank
you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: You're welcome.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: I would like
to ask a couple of questions of clarification
of Senator Nozzolio.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Nozzolio,
will you yield?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
with a question, Senator Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Senator
Nozzolio, it's my understanding that a person
who is working in the manufacturing area of
the prison industry who is at the low end of
the scale -- a beginner, a beginner
manufacturing employee inmate -- earns
16 cents an hour, and the top rate is 65 cents
1311
an hour.
At 16 cents an hour, it would cost
pretty much a week's salary to go to the
infirmary. And if there is not enough money
there to pay for the visit in the inmate's
account, the account is frozen until every
dollar that comes in goes toward the medical
expense. Is that how it would work?
So if that is the case, assuming
that an inmate may have one of the diseases
that seems to be extremely prevalent in the
system, throughout the system now, like
hepatitis, like AIDS -- there's a very large
percent of the inmate population who are
suffering from AIDS. There's a very rampant
outbreak of tuberculosis throughout the
system. In the facility that I visited
recently, there were a substantial number of
disabled inmates. There were also a number of
elderly, wheelchair-bound, et cetera.
So my question is -- and a number
of them are unable to work, so they don't earn
any money at all on their own.
So my question to you, Senator
Nozzolio, is how do we treat inmates who are
1312
suffering from these kinds of diseases that
surely we in society, all of us, want to make
sure that they don't spread, that they don't
spread within facilities throughout our
system, and certainly not to come back into
society when people leave there, but they
are -- based on your legislation, you want to
discourage them from seeking medical care.
How, then, do we make sure that
these inmates in fact receive medical care
without having to be concerned that every
single penny that they could possibly earn be
taken for the rest of their time in prison in
order for them to access the appropriate
medical care based on these serious diseases
that so many of the inmates now have?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: The answer to
that is very simple, Madam President. That
under section 6 on page 1 of this measure, no
inmate will be refused treatment for lack of
ability to pay. That's very clear. It needs
to be stated, evidently, time and time again
in this chamber.
Let me state it one more time:
That no inmate will be denied medical
1313
treatment for their lack of ability to pay.
Also, as to Senator Montgomery's
question, for someone as drastically afflicted
with tuberculosis, AIDS, or the like, it's
most probable that those inmates will be
confined to the medical hospital that exists
in virtually every prison facility in our
state.
That what we're talking about here
are outpatient requests, primarily. Those
outpatient requests are requests that are
established and that literally thousands and
thousands of inmates every day are taking
their leave to get medical attention. Many of
those cases may be legitimate; many, I
suspect, are not legitimate.
And that what this copayment does
is simply provide a chilling effect to those
cases that an inmate may not be a legitimate
case, in terms of seeking medical address, by
getting a copayment.
But clearly, if an inmate doesn't
have the money in his account, he's not going
to be charged if he needs the treatment. And
I think if an inmate is really sick, they're
1314
going to demand the treatment, whether or not
they have to pay a copayment.
And frankly, our prisoners at the
federal level are no more sick than those at
the state level -- no less sick, but no more
sick. And the fact of the matter is the
federal system seems to be working quite well
without the -- in comparison to the state, and
that we have at the federal level a copayment
requirement.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Just one
last question, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator, will you
yield for a question?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, thank
you.
Senator Nozzolio, in your bill on
line 15 on the first page, it says "Should an
inmate not have sufficient funds in his
account to cover the charges, then his account
shall be frozen pending receipt of funds
1315
sufficient to satisfy his obligation."
So it seems a little bit
disingenuous to say that no one will be
refused. They will not be refused, but once
they receive treatment, they are obligated to
pay at some point in time. Is that not true?
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: That is
correct, Madam President. That's fully the
intent of our legislation, to require inmates
to pay for some of their medical services.
I should also add, as Senator
Montgomery listed the wages that inmates make,
understand, the taxpayers are certainly paying
enough for prisoners with their room, their
board, their custody. That I think the
Senator understands how large the corrections
budget is. That health care is a major
component of that cost of incarceration.
This simply says that, as the
federal government does, New York State wishes
to qualify inmates to pay for part of their
cost of incarceration, particularly those that
utilize sick call on a more or less egregious
basis.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Thank you,
1316
Senator Nozzolio.
Madam President, on the bill.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
on the bill, Senator.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: I just want
to have the record show that while Senator
Nozzolio apparently views this as having the
inmates pay back to the system for some of
their keep and their care, it is only one
small, small piece of what we do require
inmates to pay back.
In fact, the inmates make all of
the furniture for every agency in the State of
New York, including our chairs, our desks, our
wall units. They make every street sign in
all of the cities and towns across the state.
They make all of the highway signs in our
state. They make all of the traffic signs in
our state. They make the glasses for all of
the Medicaid patients in our state. They
train the dogs that assist disabled people in
our state. And I could go on.
They have been lauded for providing
assistance such as helping to build libraries
and community centers and furniture for
1317
libraries and schools across the state for
those counties that otherwise would not be
able to afford these things if it were not for
the inmates doing it.
So I think that it is a bit
disingenuous, or at least -- I should say a
lot disingenuous to say that the inmates pay
back nothing and that this satisfies what they
should pay back. Obviously, they should pay
back. I agree with that.
But I think that to say we're going
to charge $7 to try to dissuade them from
accessing health care because they should be
paying back goes a bit far. I don't believe
we need to do this. We certainly should not
do this.
And I certainly, as an elected
official who represents an area where a lot of
the inmates come from, where they are coming
back to my community, to families in my
community, I don't want them to come out of a
system where they have not had access to
health care to the point where they are going
to be infecting large numbers of people with
diseases.
1318
I think we need health care and
health education and access to wellness for
them so that when they return, Madam
President, they return hopefully, to some
extent, in good health.
So I certainly oppose this
legislation, and I join the 17 other
colleagues of mine who have in the past voted
against this legislation. I hope they all
will do it again. I certainly intend to.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any other
member wish to be heard on this bill?
Then the debate is closed.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the 120th day.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will announce the results.
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
the negative on Calendar Number 240 are
Senators Andrews, Duane, Espada,
Hassell-Thompson, L. Krueger, Marchi,
1319
Montgomery, Onorato, Oppenheimer, Paterson,
Sampson, Santiago, Schneiderman, A. Smith, and
Senator Stavisky. Ayes, 43. Nays, 15.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
Senator Andrews, do you wish to be
heard?
SENATOR ANDREWS: Madam
President, I request unanimous consent to be
recorded in the negative on Calendar 233, Bill
S5639.
THE PRESIDENT: You will be so
recorded, Senator.
SENATOR ANDREWS: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
288, by Senator Lack, Senate Print 3073, an
act to authorize the State University of
New York to lease and contract.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
1320
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Stavisky,
why do you rise?
SENATOR STAVISKY: I have a
question for the sponsor.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Lack,
will you yield for a question?
SENATOR LACK: By all means,
Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The roll call is
withdrawn.
SENATOR STAVISKY: I apologize.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
That's all right, Senator.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Through you,
Madam President, if I may ask it in the form
of one question.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR STAVISKY: On page 2,
lines 15 through 19, the legislation talks
about "without public bidding" and then says
"not to exceed in the aggregate 60 years."
May I ask why there's no public
bidding and why the period of time should not
exceed 60 years, when the building probably
1321
won't last 60 years?
SENATOR LACK: Thank you, Madam
President.
Yes, Senator. The bill drafted by
university's counsel, of course, is for the
West Village campus at the State University at
Stony Brook. And it's to allow the maximum
ability to attract an anchor tenant in the
proposed West Village so that that tenant, who
would then build and occupy the facilities,
could do so for the longest period of time on
terms most attractive to the state.
The competitive bidding requirement
refers not to the building of the West
Village, of course, but to the tenants who
would become subtenants, as it were, to the
anchor tenant, and to allow for the most
desirable tenants in terms of what would
normally be sold and utilized in such a
facility in a campus not immediately connected
to other commercial space that students could
utilize.
It's not to exceed 60 years, giving
the maximum ability of time for the
university's trustees or their designated
1322
representatives to negotiate the best deal
possible for the state in finding a master
tenant who would build facilities, occupy them
for the maximum period of time under the
lease.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Thank you,
Senator Lack. That agrees with what President
Kenny of Stony Brook told me last year.
And I support this legislation.
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 4. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
Senator Johnson, that completes the
reading of the controversial calendar.
SENATOR JOHNSON: Is there any
housekeeping at the desk?
THE PRESIDENT: No, there isn't,
1323
Senator.
SENATOR JOHNSON: There being no
further business, I move we adjourn until
Tuesday, March 19th, at 3:00 p.m.
THE PRESIDENT: On motion, the
Senate stands adjourned until Tuesday,
March 19th, 3:00 p.m.
(Whereupon, at 4:41 p.m., the
Senate adjourned.)