Regular Session - March 25, 2002
1536
NEW YORK STATE SENATE
THE STENOGRAPHIC RECORD
ALBANY, NEW YORK
March 25, 2002
3:10 p.m.
REGULAR SESSION
LT. GOVERNOR MARY O. DONOHUE, President
STEVEN M. BOGGESS, Secretary
1537
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 again
today to give the invocation is the Reverend
Peter Young, from Blessed Sacrament Church in
Bolton Landing, New York.
REVEREND YOUNG: Let us pray.
God has given us many different
gifts, but it is always Your spirit to guide
us. There are many different ways of serving
as Senators, but it is always You, O God, that
have granted them to be used for the good of
our New York State citizens.
God has gifted each Senator with
their unique potential to help their
constituents. Let us take a moment to thank
God for our talents and our skills. God, we
thank You for these gifts unique to each
Senator.
1538
Let us not be jealous of talent
that we don't have, but rather let us rejoice
in You, who have made us and dedicated our
gifts to the good of our New York State
citizens.
Amen.
THE PRESIDENT: Reading of the
Journal.
THE SECRETARY: In Senate,
Sunday, March 24, the Senate met pursuant to
adjournment. The Journal of Saturday,
March 23, was read and approved. On motion,
Senate adjourned.
THE PRESIDENT: Without
objection, the Journal stands approved as
read.
Presentation of petitions.
Messages from the Assembly.
Messages from the Governor.
Reports of standing committees.
Reports of select committees.
Communications and reports from
state officers.
Motions and resolutions.
Senator Farley.
1539
SENATOR FARLEY: Thank you, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You're welcome.
SENATOR FARLEY: On behalf of
Senator Trunzo, on page 23 I offer the
following amendments to Calendar 375, Senate
Print 5025, and I ask that that 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 FARLEY: Madam President,
I move that the following bill be discharged
from its respective committee and be
recommitted with instructions to strike the
enacting clause: Senate 1996A. That's on
behalf of Senator Kuhl.
THE PRESIDENT: So ordered.
Senator Skelos, we have a
substitution.
SENATOR SKELOS: Please make the
substitution, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
1540
THE SECRETARY: On page 27,
Senator Hannon moves to discharge, from the
Committee on Health, Assembly Bill Number
3638A and substitute it for the identical
Senate Bill Number 4359A, Third Reading
Calendar 411.
THE PRESIDENT: The substitution
is ordered.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
there's a privileged resolution at the desk
that I've sponsored. May we please have the
title read and move for its immediate
adoption.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: By Senator
Skelos, Legislative Resolution Number 4572,
memorializing Governor George E. Pataki to
proclaim March 25, 2002, as Greek Independence
Day in New York State and honoring the
Federation of Hellenic-American Societies of
Greater New York.
THE PRESIDENT: The question is
on the resolution. All in favor signify by
1541
saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The resolution is
adopted.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
I'd like to open the resolution for
sponsorship. If anybody cares not to sponsor
it, they should notify the desk.
THE PRESIDENT: All members who
do not wish to be sponsors please notify the
desk.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
if we could go to the noncontroversial
calendar.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
25, by Senator Leibell, Senate Print 2499A, an
act to amend the Real Property Tax Law, in
relation to providing.
SENATOR HEVESI: Lay it aside,
please.
1542
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
35, by Senator Alesi, Senate Print 473A, an
act to amend the Education Law, in relation to
requiring cardiac pulmonary resuscitation
training.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
August.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 54.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
102, by Senator Hannon, Senate Print 2820A, an
act to amend the Public Health Law, in
relation to establishing a program.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
1543
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 54.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
there will be an immediate meeting of the
Education Committee in the Majority Conference
Room.
THE PRESIDENT: There will be an
immediate meeting of the Education Committee
in the Majority Conference Room.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
108, by Senator Velella, Senate Print 67A, an
act to amend the General City Law and the
Penal Law, in relation to creating.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
173, by Senator Lack, Senate Print 1263A, an
act to amend the Labor Law, in relation to
direct sellers.
1544
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
194, by Senator Volker, Senate Print 3679, an
act to amend the Criminal Procedure Law, in
relation to the disclosure.
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, 54.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
203, by Senator Kuhl, Senate Print 2212, an
act to amend the Agriculture and Markets Law,
in relation to producer referendum under the
Rogers-Allen Law.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
1545
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 55.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
270, by Senator Balboni, Senate Print 849, an
act to amend the Banking Law, in relation to
the maintenance of assets.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Lay it aside,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
272, by Senator Farley, Senate Print 2964, an
act to amend the Banking Law, the Education
Law, and the Surrogate's Court Procedure Act,
in relation to providing.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 6. This
act shall take effect immediately.
1546
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 55.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
292, by Senator Skelos, Senate Print 389, an
act to amend the Insurance Law, in relation to
policy coverage.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect on the 180th day.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 55.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
323, by Senator Rath, Senate Print 6162, an
act to amend the Local Finance Law, in
relation to the issuance.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
1547
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 55.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
325, by Senator Johnson, Senate Print 6281, an
act to amend the Local Finance Law, in
relation to the period.
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, 55.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
327, by Senator Larkin, Senate Print 1039, an
act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law, in
relation to the authorizing.
THE PRESIDENT: There is a
home-rule message at the desk.
1548
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, 55.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
330, by Senator Trunzo, Senate Print 5027, an
act to amend the Public Authorities Law, in
relation to extending.
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, 55.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
337, by Senator Saland, Senate Print 395, an
act to amend the Family Court Act, in relation
to evidence.
1549
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
418, by Senator Marcellino, Senate Print 392B,
an act to amend the Penal Law, in relation to
surreptitious video surveillance without
consent.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
November.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 55.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
Senator Skelos, that completes the
reading of the noncontroversial calendar.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
if we could go to the controversial calendar.
We'll start with Calendar 108. I
believe Senator Hevesi is at a committee
1550
meeting and would like to debate Calendar
Number 25.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
108, by Senator Velella, Senate Print 67A, an
act to amend the General City Law and the
Penal Law, in relation to creating the crimes
of urinating or defecating in public.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Velella,
an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR VELELLA: Senator, this
legislation enables a municipality to set up
an urban commercial zone to regulate the
conduct of individuals within that zone
regarding lying down or sleeping on the
sidewalks.
The second part of the bill would
allow municipalities to make it a misdemeanor
for a second offense, and a violation on a
first offense, for intentionally urinating or
defecating in a public place or on a public
sidewalk.
And the third part prohibits
1551
aggressive begging.
That's the same explanation that I
have given over the last several years,
Senator.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, if Senator Velella would yield for
a question.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Velella,
will you yield?
SENATOR VELELLA: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator
Velella, last year I asked you about the
crimes of harassment, menacing, disorderly
conduct, laws that are already on the books
that -- and I left one out, actually -- that I
think -- accosting; it just came to me -- laws
that I think already cover these types of
circumstances.
With the distinct advantage of
hindsight, thinking about what I asked you
last year, have you had any further thought?
SENATOR VELELLA: Senator, I take
1552
every question and every comment you make
very, very important. And I give a lot of
consideration to that.
And I have spent the last year
looking at the vagrants of my city and looking
at the beggars that aggressively annoy people,
and I haven't found them deterred by the
existing statutes. That's why we need this
statute.
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 8. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
November.
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 108 are
Senators Andrews, Breslin, Duane, L. Krueger,
Paterson, and Senator Schneiderman. Also
Senator Connor. Ayes, 49. Nays, 7.
1553
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.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Explanation,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
Senator Montgomery would like to debate that
bill. If we could lay it aside temporarily.
She's at the Education Committee meeting also.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside temporarily.
Senator Smith.
SENATOR ADA SMITH: Thank you,
Madam President. I request unanimous consent
to be recorded in the negative on Calendar
Number 108.
THE PRESIDENT: You will be so
recorded, Senator.
Senator Duane.
1554
SENATOR DUANE: Madam President,
I would like to be, just to be a little
unique, to be -- I would -- I request
unanimous consent to be recorded in the
negative on Calendar Number 194.
THE PRESIDENT: You will be so
permitted and recorded, Senator.
Senator Santiago.
SENATOR SANTIAGO: I request
unanimous consent to be recorded in the
negative on Calendar Number 108, please.
THE PRESIDENT: You will be so
recorded.
Senator Hassell-Thompson.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Yes,
thank you, Madam President. I too would like
to request unanimous consent to be recorded in
the negative on Calendar 108.
THE PRESIDENT: You will be so
recorded.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank
you.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Krueger.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: Yes, Madam
President, I would like unanimous consent to
1555
be recorded in the negative on Calendar 194.
THE PRESIDENT: You will be so
recorded, Senator.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
if we could please take up Calendar Number
337, by Senator Saland.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
337, by Senator Saland, Senate Print 395, an
act to amend the Family Court Act, in relation
to evidence of child neglect.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
if we could lay that bill aside temporarily.
I think we have members at committee meetings.
So if we could just stand at ease pending the
return of a number of individuals.
THE PRESIDENT: The Senate will
stand at ease.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: If we could call
up Senator Saland's bill, Calendar Number 337.
1556
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
337, by Senator Saland, Senate Print 395, an
act to amend the Family Court Act, in relation
to evidence of child neglect.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Saland,
an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR SALAND: Thank you, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You're welcome.
SENATOR SALAND: Madam President,
this bill is a proposal that deals primarily
with the subject of an individual who is
involved in or participating in a recognized
drug rehabilitation program.
And what it proposes to do is to
take it from part of the fact-finding
considerations, which effectively create the
status of an affirmative defense where someone
is alleged to have neglected their child
because of their dealing with or misusing a
drug or drugs so as to impair their judgment
1557
and their ability to care for their child, and
to say that instead of voluntarily enrolling
in a drug rehab program and have that
considered during the course of the
fact-finding, as I mentioned earlier, as an
affirmative defense, we want to bring it to
the end of the dispositional part of the
proceeding and say that after the proceeding
has been conducted -- after all, this is about
neglect or abuse -- and after the case has run
its course and a disposition about to be had,
that at that point if in fact the parent of
the child or guardian of the child that is
determined to be neglected or abused has
voluntarily engaged in some type of a drug
rehab program, that at that point the court
will make a determination as to the weight or
value of that participation.
Assumedly, somebody who regularly
attends such a program would find that the
court would be predisposed to recognizing the
participation and maintaining the family.
If, however, that person has a
history of engaging in drug rehab program
activity and then withdrawing from a
1558
program -- perhaps withdrawing after, under
the current law, a fact-finding hearing has
resulted in the use of that drug rehab program
as an affirmative defense -- the court would
then be able to either not provide that kind
of weight to the drug rehab program or
effectively monitor the involvement in a drug
rehab program and ensure that the person who
is seeking to use it, as previously had been
used as an affirmative defense, would in fact
maintain the continuity within the program.
The bottom line being that this has
been an abuse or a neglect proceeding and the
idea is what serves the best interests of the
child. And certainly to the extent that
families can be reunited and a parent has a
drug problem, what is of the utmost importance
is that that parent continue regularly in some
type of program.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: If I could
interrupt for a moment, there will be an
immediate meeting of the Rules Committee in
1559
the Majority Conference Room.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Meeting
of the Rules Committee in the Majority
Conference Room.
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
if Senator Saland would yield for a question.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Saland, do you yield for a question?
SENATOR SALAND: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, I
would imagine that the theoretical best
interests of the child would be to be with the
parent. That's not always the case, and
that's why we have to have these proceedings.
But certainly, in the fact-finding
phase of the proceeding, the ability to raise
the affirmative defense that you are
voluntarily seeking counseling for substance
abuse, for alcoholism, in my opinion would
certainly serve as an incentive to people who
are wrought with that type of personal issue
1560
and need this type of service.
What I'm afraid of is that
otherwise -- in other words, to make your
suggestion law, it would delay the inevitable
confrontation where the parent has to take
this action until later on. In other words,
there's no real incentive to mention it early
on in the procedure.
And since one of the real problems
with substance abusers is that they don't
recognize their problem and that they don't
necessarily want to treat it -- and I know
here that your interests and all of our
interests should focus on the welfare of the
child more than this problem. But isn't this
problem in a sense an antecedent to the
possible development of the child?
In other words, isn't it really
that we would want to try to give the
biological parent every possible opportunity
to serve in that function in a way that
doesn't create a safety problem to the child,
rather than taking some of the actions that we
might have to take later on in a further
proceeding?
1561
SENATOR SALAND: Well, let me
just say two things in response to that,
Senator Paterson.
You will recall a couple of years
ago we did the ASFA legislation. At that time
what we did is we recognized that certainly
while family preservation was important,
nothing was more important than the safety and
well-being of a child. That, to some extent,
really was a change in New York's law, because
previously primacy was given to family
preservation.
And while we still recognize the
importance of family preservation, again, it's
not where a child is at risk or his or her
well-being is at risk.
What I would suggest to you would
be that under the evidentiary section of the
Family Court Act dealing with family offenses,
under 1046, the law provides currently that
"proof that a person repeatedly misuses a drug
or drugs or alcoholic beverages shall be prima
facie evidence that a child who is the legal
responsibility of such person is a neglected
child."
1562
We have no desire to prevent
somebody from rebutting that presumption by
saying "I'm in a program and I'm being
rehabilitated as part of that program." And
by all means, they should have the opportunity
to do that.
What I'm saying further, however,
is that by merely saying that, that should not
be used as a means by which you effectively
give yourself, for lack of any other term -
and it really doesn't apply -- it applies more
in a criminal sense than in a Family Court
sense -- but the equivalent of an immunity
bath.
And what we are saying is as part
and parcel of the court's consideration, when
it goes to disposition, that's when it should
consider -- that's when it should consider
whether the person who's the respondent in the
proceeding has in fact been in good faith
voluntarily engaged and hasn't used it in
effect as a shield to avoid a disposition that
might result in the removal of the child or in
some type of structured arrangement that might
not be what the parent was hoping would be the
1563
outcome.
SENATOR HANNON: Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Hannon.
SENATOR HANNON: May I interrupt
for a moment to announce that there will be an
immediate meeting, in the Majority Conference
Room, of the Committee on Investigations,
Taxation and Government Operations.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:
Immediate meeting of the Committee on
Investigations, Taxation and Government
Operations in the Majority Conference Room.
SENATOR DUANE: Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Duane, why do you rise?
SENATOR DUANE: Mr. President,
I'm about to speak on this bill, and I was -
I'm the ranking member of Investigations. I
was hoping they could wait until I've finished
debating and speaking on this bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
I think Senator Duane raises a very good
1564
point. We've had this problem all day, that
we just don't have members here because we are
continuing to call committee meetings.
I'm certainly willing to yield to
the Senator to conduct his questioning now of
Senator Saland, if he chooses. But that means
that he's not in the committee meeting, which
I'm sure they would want him to be at. So I
guess -
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Hannon.
SENATOR HANNON: We'll ask
Senator Spano, the chair of that committee, to
hold off and then take advantage of Senator
Paterson's offer to ask Senator Duane if he
would like to, with your concurrence, Mr.
President, go now.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Mr.
President. And thank you to the Majority and
to my colleague Senator Paterson for their
work just now on my behalf to be two places at
one time. Which I wish I could, but I can't,
so -
1565
SENATOR SALAND: Can I just ask
Senator Duane -- there's either something
wrong with his mike or -- I'm having a problem
hearing him.
SENATOR DUANE: Through you, Mr.
President, it was said that there was a
problem with the mikes last week. Is that
still the -- all right, thank you. And I'm so
tall, and it's so far down.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR DUANE: Actually, this
will be on the bill, Senator Saland.
On the bill, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Duane, on the bill.
SENATOR DUANE: All right. All
right. Calm down.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR DUANE: I previously have
debated Senator Saland on this bill. And he
does make his point of view about the purpose
of this bill very clear. And I have a lot of
respect for that.
But I just disagree with it. And I
have said that before, but I do want to put on
1566
the record again why I disagree with this
bill.
My concerns have to do with making
sure that a mother who enters into a recovery
program has that counted in her favor. As I
understand it, the way this bill is crafted,
going into a recovery program is neither
treated as a good thing nor a bad thing, it's
just treated as a neutral element for the
judge to be making a determination.
And therefore, if a woman decides
to go into a drug or alcohol treatment program
and she slips or she has a relapse, then
that's counted against her. But her actually
trying to recover is not counted for her.
And my understanding of drug and
alcohol treatment programs is that sometimes
it takes a while for the recovery to kick in,
and often people don't make it the first time,
don't make it in a 28-day program -- or now
sometimes it's a two-week program -- and that
recovery actually takes a bigger investment,
both by the person and by the recovery -- and,
by the way, our responsibility to invest in
recovery programs.
1567
So if it's neutral for someone to
go into the program and if they have a relapse
that's counted against them, then in a way
they'd be better off not going into the
program. So I think there's a disincentive to
go into a recovery program.
Also, I'm concerned that in a way,
sometimes the people that are brought forward
on abuse and neglect don't have the resources,
frankly, to hide the dysfunction that might be
happening in their families.
But I think that there are many,
many middle- and upper-middle-class families
where one of the spouses has an alcohol or
drug problem, yet they're not reported to the
authorities, so they're not in danger of
losing their children. And so if when they're
in a recovery program they have a relapse, it
doesn't really count for anything, even though
the children would suffer the same or not
suffer the same by the parent having the
relapse.
So I'm concerned about the families
that -- where the children are in this system
and being brought to Family Court.
1568
But really the thing that I am most
concerned about is that we need to do
everything we possibly can to encourage a
parent with a drug or alcohol problem to go
into a program. And by making that be
something advantageous for them getting their
children back, I think is very helpful.
Because remember, if a parent, if a
mom is in a drug or alcohol treatment program,
they have a relapse, then their children are
taken away from them, there's no incentive at
all, then, to recover, because the damage has
been done and they'll -- and I'm sure that
they're depressed, which is one of the things
alcohol and drugs are used to cover up.
So at that point, if their children
are taken away, there is no hope and there's
no reason to go into drug or alcohol
treatment. Because I'm sure that mom would
fear that she's going to have another relapse
and then that will be counted twice against
her. So it would become sort of a vicious
cycle where a mom has a lot, a lot of trouble
to get her children back.
I mean, if I had my children taken
1569
away from me, I think that would make it
difficult for me to decide to not drink,
because there's a certain hopelessness to
having your children removed.
I understand that we're trying to
save the childhood of children and what
happens to them in families. But I think that
instead of making -- instead of using the
disincentive model to do this, I think that we
need to focus on incentives for parents and
especially moms to get their children back.
So I'm going to vote no on it.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
if Senator Saland would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Saland, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR SALAND: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, I
want to make sure that -- I just want to kind
1570
of qualify this. This is what I believe that
you said. And if you didn't, it's certainly
acceptable.
But I thought that you said in your
earlier remarks that you could understand and
you could accept that someone might raise, in
the disposition phase of this case, the fact
that they are seeking treatment for their
substance abuse. If that is the case, if you
actually did indicate that, I think therein
lies my problem with the legislation.
There's nothing in the law now, as
I understand it, that creates a rebuttable
presumption that you can raise the issue of
volunteerism in any substance abuse and get
any consideration for it. So the only
consideration you can receive under the law
right now is the affirmative defense that
takes place in the fact-finding phase of the
trial, which is that you are seeking this type
of counseling.
Would you be willing to indicate in
the actual legislation that down the line, in
the disposition phase, that there be any
protection for the respondent? Because if you
1571
did, it certainly would cause one to view this
legislation through a different spectrum.
I think your earnest attempt to
protect the children was recognized. Senator
Duane alluded to it as well. But I just think
that if someone really is trying to drive an
addiction out of their life, it might be
something we might want to give some type of
consideration to. Because just that decision,
and the consistency of following through on
it, might establish that the individual is
assuming the full consequences of parenting.
SENATOR SALAND: Senator
Paterson, there is no intention here, and it's
certainly not my intention, to say that
somebody within the fact-finding portion of
the hearing cannot raise their participation
in a drug rehab program.
What I am doing, however, or
proposing to do with this legislation is to
say that the mere fact that you raise it does
not rebut the presumption under 1046 that
says, as I read it before, and I'll read in
part, "proof that a person repeatedly misuses
a drug or alcoholic beverage shall be prima
1572
facie evidence that a child of or who is the
legal responsibility of such person is a
neglected child."
What I'm saying is you can
introduce it. It doesn't give you what I
termed before a, quote, unquote, an immunity
bath. And then when you get to the
dispositional hearing, the new language would
say that the court shall consider whether the
respondent has enrolled in a recognized
rehabilitative program and is participating
therein in a regular and satisfactory manner.
And what I'm attempting to do is to
say it's important to be involved in a rehab
program where you have a drug or alcohol
problem. You should not, however, in fits and
starts have the ability to stymie the best
interests of the child.
To me it's not unlike being stopped
along a road where you're driving erratically
and someone approaches you, a law enforcement
officer, and wants to serve you with a ticket
or a citation or charge you with driving while
ability impaired or intoxicated, and you say,
"Well, no, I'm in a rehab program. I'm taking
1573
some type of course for my drinking and
driving problem. Let me go."
It's certainly a consideration.
But it should not provide some immunity from
what is the underlying charge.
What this is about and what this
section of the law is about is dealing with
issues of abuse and neglect, Article 10. I
don't want to deny somebody the right to
either (a) become involved in a rehab program
or (b) advise the court that they're involved.
I don't want it to be used as a
means to stymie, as the present law provides,
the continuation of a proceeding by asserting
that as, in effect, an affirmative defense. I
want the court to make that consideration.
I believe it's in the best
interests of the child that a court make that
consideration. And that, first and foremost,
that should always be our concern.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Does any
other Senator wish to be heard?
Senator Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, Mr.
President. I would like to ask Senator Saland
1574
a question.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Saland, do you yield for a question?
SENATOR SALAND: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, Senator
Saland, you -- I'm trying to understand this,
not being a lawyer. So please forgive me, I'm
not probably going to be clear with my
question. But I'll try.
You say that you will remove the
assumption or presumption that one will not be
presumed necessarily to be neglectful if they
are enrolled in a program for rehabilitation.
That aspect you are removing and putting that
in essentially at the time of the disposition
phase of the case.
I'm wondering why it's not sort of
reversed, that in fact the presumption remains
that you are not necessarily neglectful, that
you are in treatment with the hope that you
will be recovering, but that at the time of
disposition -- in other words, you would leave
1575
the action at the phase of disposition to
determine the extent to which the treatment
warrants a person's being considered in
neglect or not.
Why do you want to remove some
measure of protection from a person who may in
fact be genuinely attempting to recover before
the disposition phase?
SENATOR SALAND: I'm not removing
the ability of a person to submit as part of
their case that they were alleged to be
neglectful because of their drug or alcohol
abuse.
What I'm saying is that it does not
in and of itself rebut the presumption or the
prima facie finding, under the law as it
stands now, that a person has been neglectful
because they no longer have the ability to
supervise due to their excessive use of drugs
and alcohol.
And under the law now, if you come
forward and say "I'm voluntarily involved in a
drug and alcohol program," that in and of
itself is enough to rebut that prima facie
finding.
1576
Now, I'm perfectly happy and
believe that a person with that type of a
problem should have the opportunity to present
that as part of his or her case. I do not
think, however, that that should be a means by
which you stymie the ability to successfully
consider whether all of the factors involved
in a neglect case are such that a child should
(a) be removed or (b) be put in some other
type of supervised arrangement.
And when the guardian or parent
comes forward and says, "I'm in the XYZ
program," that has the ability and has served
to accomplish the effective conclusion of a
proceeding. Because that in and of itself
rebuts the presumption. And that makes it
extremely difficult to go further.
I'm saying let the court be the
determinant of whether their participation is
genuine, is it regular, are they involved.
And I believe that the best interests of the
child are served by doing that. So the parent
or guardian still has the opportunity to
allege that they're in a program, but the
court is going to have the final say as to
1577
whether their involvement is meaningful, if it
serves to better the best interests of the
child, whether in fact it's being used merely
as some type of a subterfuge to get around
what would otherwise be a finding contrary to
the respondent's interest but perhaps in the
best interests of the child.
I'm not eliminating it, I'm just
moving it to another place in the law.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Mr.
President, just on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Montgomery, on the bill.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, I
understand -- the more we have this debate and
discussion, the more I understand exactly what
Senator Saland is trying to do. And I
certainly agree with the intent that he has.
I do, however, wish that we
could -- that the way to remedy the problem
that he has identified is that he would
propose a way of forcing the second phase even
though there is a presumption or there is not
a presumption of neglect.
In other words, if there were some
1578
mechanism to make it an automatic requirement
that in any case, that that case would be -
would go before the judge, rather than having
the presumption in fact cut off any further
action that the state could take.
But having the ability to use this
process to in fact encourage parents to engage
or at least continue to engage in treatment I
think is extremely important. In fact, I've
had a number of instances where parents have
said to me that they did not want to go into
treatment because of the fear of losing their
children.
So we have had these kinds of
regulations where there was an automatic
presumption of guilt, of neglect, children
being removed from parents. And once people
understand that that is what's going to
happen, they don't want to go into treatment.
It also happens in cases of
domestic violence. If a woman thinks that her
children will be removed because she is
victimized by domestic violence, she won't
seek help.
So these kinds of -- these laws, be
1579
they law or regulation, really in fact operate
to discourage people from doing the very thing
that we would like them to do.
So I'm going to continue to oppose
this, because I just think that it defeats
what Senator Saland actually would like to see
happen. And I think that there is another way
of doing it without automatically, up-front
penalizing a person because they have an
illness which happens to be drug or alcohol
abuse.
So I'm going to vote no again.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Hassell-Thompson, and then Senator Krueger.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank
you, Mr. President. If the sponsor would
yield to just a couple of questions.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Saland, do you yield for a question from
Senator Hassell-Thompson?
SENATOR SALAND: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank
1580
you, Mr. President.
Senator Saland, my question really
is one for clarity. Is it your contention
that the existing legislation says that the
person who comes forward and voluntarily says
that they are participating in a drug or
alcoholism program automatically presumes that
they are exempt from child abuse? Is that -
SENATOR SALAND: What happens is
in the absence of any other evidence, by
making that allegation, you've effectively
defeated the prima facie presumption that I've
referred to several times previously here.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Mr.
President, if the Senator would continue to
yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Saland, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR SALAND: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: The
word "allegation," could you explain how you
meant the word "allegation" in the statement
1581
that you just made?
SENATOR SALAND: Let me read the
section, because I've read it in part and
referred to having read it in part before. It
says -- and this is the part that I've read
before -- "Proof that a person repeatedly
misuses a drug or drugs or alcoholic beverages
shall be prima facie evidence."
Let me -- I'll read now the entire
section, because I omit a portion. "Proof a
person repeatedly misuses a drug or drugs or
alcoholic beverages to the extent that it has
or would ordinarily have the effect of
producing in the user thereof a substantial
state of stupor, unconsciousness,
intoxication, hallucination, disorientation,
or incompetence, or a substantial impairment
of judgment or a substantial manifestation of
irrationality, shall be prima facie evidence
that a child of or who is the legal
responsibility of such person is a neglected
child."
And then it goes on to say "except
that such drug or alcoholic beverage misuse
shall not be prima facie evidence of neglect
1582
when such person is voluntarily and regularly
participating in a recognized rehabilitative
program."
Now, we're not talking about
somebody who may have had too much to drink on
occasion, we're not talking about somebody who
may have merely staggered down the hallway on
occasion, we're talking about somebody who is
hallucinating, somebody who's disoriented,
somebody whose judgment is substantially
impaired.
And I am saying that where you have
people who fall into those categories, that in
fact it should not be enough to defeat the
prima facie finding or determination as it's
set forth in our current law by merely saying
"I have participated or am participating in a
voluntary rehab program."
I am saying, however, that by all
means you should introduce that, because the
question of whether you've done it in good
faith, the question of whether you are
regularly participating is an important
determinant that a court is going to have to
rule on in determining what's in the best
1583
interests of the child.
But to merely in and of itself be
able to refute that prima facie finding in the
law as exists today by saying "I'm in the
program" in my opinion certainly does not
serve the best interests of the child.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: I'm
still not able to get the answer to the
specifics of the question that I'm asking, but
I'll let that go.
But I would like, Mr. President, to
speak on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Hassell-Thompson, on the bill.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank
you.
Senator Saland, I have no
disagreement with your findings. I also
understand that you have had some experience
with many of these cases. I would also like
to offer, however, the fact that I also have
had many years of experience, and I think that
you will be -- it would be just disingenuous
for any of us to believe that a person going
into court merely says that "I am in a
1584
program" -- and I think that's where you use
the word "alleged." It's more than an
alleged; they have to show proof to the judge,
to the court, and to the court guardians that
they are in fact in treatment.
So that prima facie -- in this
case, it's more than prima facie. There is
proof that has to be shown.
What I think becomes my issue is
that we think of alcoholism and substance
abuse treatment perhaps as a cure. Anyone who
becomes an abuser of alcohol and substance
abuse is never cured. They are in a constant
state of recovery. There is no cure for
alcoholism and substance abuse.
Therefore, by virtue of the fact
that it is a constant and ongoing recovery
process, there are always opportunities and
disadvantages of relapse. And in the case of
relapse, even though someone may have
successfully completed a year, two years in a
TC -- which is a treatment center -- for
alcohol or substance abuse, even after two
years, they are still always in a perpetual
state of recovery. By virtue of that, relapse
1585
is always possible.
By putting -- by changing the law
in the way in which I believe your intent -
which is a good one, and I don't question
that. Because I've worked with families that
in many cases I have suggested to them and to
the courts that perhaps their children should
be in a temporary custody situation because of
their inability to give the kind of care
that's possible.
But that is on a case-by-case
basis. And many of the families who go into
treatment -- because we have said on this
floor, that we do not put sufficient money
into substance abuse treatment programs, and
that we are not giving the courts the kind of
judiciary discretion that they need in order
to be able to investigate and monitor these
cases in the way that they do.
Then we then continue to shift the
blame and the responsibility for rebuttal onto
parents in most cases who have the least
resources and least ability to rebut. And so
that we find ourselves with hundreds of
children being put into foster care with no
1586
hope of being returned to families.
Part of why I must continue to vote
no is that only until this Senate sees the
relationship between the numbers of penal laws
that we pass and the support services that
families need in a budgetary process will I
then believe that we're on the right track
toward really trying to resolve the problems
of our children.
But to penalize their parents and
take away the only incentive that they have to
keep families intact, and perhaps reason for
continuing to stay in treatment, does not do
that.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Krueger.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: Mr.
President, I'd like permission to speak on the
bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Krueger, on the bill.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: Well, I
believe that Senator Saland has made some
excellent arguments for his desire to change
1587
our law.
I have to say where I think I
disagree most strongly is in the bill analysis
saying there are no fiscal implications of
this bill either at the state level or the
local level. To me, listening to this debate
today, this proposed legislation is to some
degree parallel to our decision in New York
State to increase educational standards
without providing additional resources for our
educational system.
It's clear to me this bill would
place more demands on our Family Court systems
to extend proceedings and to increase the
oversight responsibilities of the courts -
the Family Courts that in my city are so
overwhelmed that they cannot get attorneys to
take cases.
It would put more demands on a
system that does not have attorneys and will
not pay the attorneys a fair rate to represent
families in dire consequences. It will put
more demands on our child welfare system to
investigate participation in drug treatment
and to assure that we have the increase
1588
available in alcohol and drug treatment
program slots that meets the requirements of
this new law, since we're no longer going to
make the presumption of voluntary
participation.
It will also result in more
children being kept in the foster care system
longer, as these cases are evaluated and
unfortunately, as I expect, backed up further
and further in the Family Court system.
So I don't want to disagree with
the Senator that this bill is intended to
provide greater protection for children who
are at risk, greater protection to children
who otherwise might end up remaining in
families where there are not the basic
standards of care because of the substance
abuse or alcoholism problem of the adults.
But I fear that the bill as laid
out, without monies attached for an expansion
in Family Court, in child welfare, and in drug
treatment, will simply result in more children
being backed up in the child welfare system.
And unfortunately, in my own city
of New York, the assumption that taking a
1589
child away from a bad situation in their home
is going to result in their being put in a
better and more protective situation is a
false assumption, as we know from year in and
year out of child welfare crises in the city
of New York, and I believe throughout the
state.
So while I do agree with the
arguments you make in the bill that we want to
ensure that the children of our state are
protected and that their families, when they
suffer from substance abuse and alcoholism,
get the treatment they need, I fear that your
bill will actually do more harm without
financial commitments by the state than it
will do good.
And that is why I'd like to explain
my vote no on this bill.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Does any
other Senator wish to be heard on the bill?
The debate is closed.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This
act shall take effect 120 days.
1590
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will announce the results.
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
the negative on Calendar Number 337 are
Senators Andrews, Duane, Hassell-Thompson, L.
Krueger, Montgomery, Santiago, A. Smith, and
Stavisky. Ayes, 51. Nays, 8.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
Senator Hannon.
SENATOR HANNON: Mr. President,
can we go to the regular order, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will continue to read in regular
order.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
25, by Senator Leibell, Senate Print 2499A, an
act to amend the Real Property Tax Law, in
relation to providing a tax exception.
SENATOR HEVESI: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Leibell, an explanation has been requested of
1591
Calendar 25 by Senator Hevesi.
SENATOR LEIBELL: Thank you, Mr.
President.
This bill adds a new section, 466C,
to the Real Property Tax Law to provide a tax
exemption on real property owned by members of
volunteer fire companies or volunteer
ambulance services in Putnam County.
Specifically, this bill would
permit a member of a volunteer fire department
or ambulance corps in the county to apply for
and receive a real property tax exemption of
10 percent on any Putnam County property owned
and occupied by such volunteer firefighter or
ambulance corps member on his or her personal
residence.
The difficulty has been in
attracting and retaining the quality volunteer
firefighters and emergency personnel that we
need within the county. It is believed that
this will help us maintain an effective
emergency detection system. It will allow us
to recruit, train, and maintain.
In the absence of these
community-based volunteers, Putnam County
1592
could be faced with a huge financial burden of
paid departments or a dangerous reduction of
services.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Hevesi.
SENATOR HEVESI: Will the sponsor
please yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Leibell, do you yield for a question?
SENATOR LEIBELL: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you, Mr.
President.
I voted for this bill last year. I
understand full well what you're trying to
accomplish here. I'm just trying to get a
more accurate handle on a couple of things.
So my first question to you is, in
Putnam County is there a professional fire
department or ambulance corps?
SENATOR LEIBELL: They're all
professionals. It's just that they're all
1593
volunteer too. They're not paid.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you.
Mr. President, would the sponsor
continue to yield?
SENATOR LEIBELL: Yes, Mr.
President.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you.
Is the problem in Putnam County
particularly acute, where there is a real
threat that if you don't attract additional
volunteers that you really will not be able to
appropriately staff the ambulance and
firefighting corps?
SENATOR LEIBELL: Well, first let
me say that this is not the only time this
sort of legislation has been done. There are
two fairly recent examples in other counties.
I believe Rockland and Chautauqua Counties
have passed similar legislation in the last
couple of years in this house, and they were
enacted into law.
But, yes, it is a more unique
situation, possibly, because it has become
over the course of years a commuting area.
The vast majority of our workers on any given
1594
workday commute some substantial distances,
whether it's to White Plains or New York City
or elsewhere. Which leaves it more difficult
to find volunteers. The commuting time for
those people limits their ability to volunteer
as members of ambulance corps and fire
departments.
SENATOR HEVESI: Mr. President,
would the sponsor yield to what probably will
be a final question?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Leibell, do you yield?
SENATOR LEIBELL: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you, Mr.
President.
My understanding is that this
legislation simply authorizes Putnam County,
if they choose to do so, to offer this
property tax break. That being the case,
there is no fiscal impact to the citizens of
the state of New York, and there's only a
fiscal impact to the citizens in Putnam County
1595
if they choose to do so.
And that being the case, why
wouldn't we offer this option to every
locality, every county in New York State?
SENATOR LEIBELL: It probably -
it possibly should be. And maybe individual
senators could look at doing this and see if
it would work in their areas.
I can only speak to this area,
which has requested it. And you're correct,
it would not be a burden to the State
Treasury, and it would be a local option.
SENATOR HEVESI: Okay. Thank
you, Mr. President.
On the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Hevesi, on the bill.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you, Mr.
President. I fully well appreciate what the
sponsor is trying to do here. And I think
it's a terrific idea.
But I also think it's a terrific
idea not just for the volunteers who would
give of their services and risk their lives in
Putnam County, but everywhere else.
1596
And I guess this issue is
particularly important to me for two reasons.
One is that Senator Rath had another
well-intentioned piece of legislation that was
a little bit more conspicuous in what it did,
in that it provided a similar tax break for
every locality except for the City of
New York. This one just provides it for
Putnam County, but the exclusion is
nonetheless there.
And I'll tell you why this is
important to me and why, though I voted for
this last year, I have a difficult time voting
for it again. In the wake of 9/11, we had
such an incredible response of not just our
professional firefighting units in New York
City, but volunteers. In fact, the Forest
Hills Volunteer Ambulance Corps, in my
district, were one of the first responders.
And when the South Tower collapsed, their rig
was destroyed.
Now, by the grace of God, the
members of that volunteer ambulance corps in
my district, some of the members of whom I
know personally, they survived. But how do I
1597
now tell them that I'm going to vote for a tax
break, a significant and worthy tax break, for
somebody in some other county in New York
State, but that they don't deserve it?
You know, so I'm left to grapple
with the question that often we have to
grapple with, do you vote no on an imperfect
piece of legislation? I think I'm going to
vote no in this case. Because I don't know
how I would face these folks and tell them
that it's okay to offer this benefit to
certain individuals, but not to you.
And as well-intentioned as it is by
Senator Leibell, and as deserving as I'm sure
the volunteers in Putnam County are, not to
simply offer this option -- which doesn't
disenfranchise anybody else, doesn't hurt the
State's Treasury, doesn't do anything
negative -- that we don't include this in the
bill is unfair.
And maybe I would have let it slide
if this was the first time we were seeing a
bill like this. But Senator Rath had a print
where we had this exact same problem and
didn't correct it. And so I have to really
1598
make my thoughts known on this a little
poignantly this time by voting no on the bill.
We should extend this benefit for everybody at
the local option.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Oppenheimer.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: On the
bill, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Oppenheimer, on the bill.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: This is a
very good bill, and a bill that I would
suggest every member who has volunteer fire
departments should ask their county if they
are interested in also considering a bill
similar to this.
I would suggest that Senator Hevesi
might want to put in a bill where this would
be available in the county of Queens. There's
nothing to prevent us from putting in bills
that would offer this as an option to those
communities that wish to opt into it.
I can only say that we have
experienced a serious decrease in the number
1599
of volunteers. My village happens to be a
hundred percent volunteer fire department. It
is very difficult, when you are a commutation
community and many people are going into the
city, and the young people nowadays seem to
have less interest in joining the volunteer
fire departments because they have so many
other burdens on their shoulders. Many of
them have two jobs, and many of them have
families, and it's just hard to fit everything
in.
Even though I must admit that the
community spirit has really increased since
9/11, and those communities that are in the
southern and central part of Westchester
actually have experienced, for the first time,
a sizeable number of volunteers coming
forward. That is not true in the northern
part of Westchester, nor in Putnam, where your
bill is.
But many people feel that,
considering what had happened and that in many
instances they lost friends or they lost
family, they want to do something that they
feel is important for their community. And
1600
it's something rather of recent occurrence,
and it has proceeded from 9/11. So we are
seeing that at least right now.
But I don't know where we will be
another year or two from now, when those
heartwarming feelings and really desire to go
beyond yourself and help other people and help
your community, when perhaps that spirit is
not so high.
So this is a good bill. It does
help to -- I think it will help in attracting
people. After all, our property taxes are so
killer in our area that this might be of some
benefit. And anything we can do to draw upon
the younger people who heretofore did join our
fire departments as volunteers, anything we
can do to attract them is worth trying.
And I think this is a fine bill.
And any other county that wishes to have a
similar bill, any other legislator can put in
a similar bill for their communities, their
area. And it's -- after all, it's at local
option, so it doesn't harm anyone.
I'll be voting yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Does any
1601
other Senator wish to be heard on the bill?
The debate is closed.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
January.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58. Nays,
1. Senator Hevesi recorded in the negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: 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.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Hannon.
SENATOR HANNON: Lay it aside for
the day, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Lay the
bill aside for the day.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
270, by Senator Balboni, Senate Print 849 -
1602
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: I'm
sorry, Senator Stavisky.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Mr. President,
I request unanimous consent on Calendar Number
108, Senate Print 00067A, in the negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Without
objection, Senator Stavisky will be recorded
in the negative on Calendar 108.
Senator Montgomery, why do you
rise?
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, Mr.
President. I would like unanimous consent to
be recorded in the negative also on
Calendar 108.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Without
objection, Senator Montgomery will be recorded
in the negative on Calendar 108.
The Secretary will continue to
read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
270, by Senator Balboni, Senate Print 849, an
act to amend the Banking Law, in relation to
the maintenance of assets.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Explanation,
Mr. President.
1603
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Balboni, an explanation has been requested
with regard to Calendar 270 by Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR BALBONI: Mr. President,
this bill seeks to amend Section 202B of the
Banking Law, which was created in 1960 for the
purposes of requiring foreign banking
corporations to maintain assets within the
state.
This amendment seeks to drive
monies from that regulatory and statutory
system into a new type of investment from the
foreign bank perspective, and that is programs
that fund student loans and affordable
housing; namely, the SALLIE MAE and the
Federal Home Loan Banks program.
You will hear comments today from,
I suspect, Senator Dollinger that will talk
about his concern about who is allowed to now
be the pledgeable asset for purposes of
foreign banks. And I would just remind
everyone here who's listening to this debate
that this amendment does not affect the
regulatory structure that is currently in
1604
place, it merely changes the pledgeable assets
for the purpose, the narrow purpose of foreign
banking corporations.
And though there may be justifiable
concerns about unaffiliated issuers, which I
believe is the crux of the difficulty,
nonetheless the regulatory scheme is not at
issue with this particular legislation,
because we use the same regulatory scheme that
has been in place since 1960.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President, will Senator Balboni yield to a
question?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Oh, I'm
sure he will.
Senator Balboni, do you yield for a
question from Senator Dollinger?
SENATOR BALBONI: Mr. President,
I sought to forestall any of these questions
with my analysis. Obviously, my analysis of
the Senator's objections was not effective.
Therefore, I will yield.
1605
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Mr. President. It's only the first inning.
The first pitch has just been thrown.
SENATOR BALBONI: Uh-oh.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Senator
Balboni, one of the things I'm trying to find
out is, are state-chartered banks, are they
now able -- do they have to make a pledge
requirement to the Superintendent of Banks?
SENATOR BALBONI: I do not know.
I assume they do.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President, if Senator Balboni will
continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Balboni, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, I do, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Do you know
whether state-chartered banks, in filing a
security pledge with the Superintendent of
1606
Banks, can include unaffiliated issuers and
their instruments in the pledge?
SENATOR BALBONI: Mr. President,
through you. No, only because I didn't amend
that section of law.
As you know, this section of law,
202B, only refers to foreign banking
facilities. And therefore, we didn't look
into the state banking or the -- I should say
the domestic banking side of this.
And I might just ask, I'm really
not quite sure of where you're going with the
questioning. But that's -- the narrow
perspective of this particular bill is what
assets foreign banking institutions can use as
pledgeable assets for the purpose of driving
more money into student loans and affordable
housing programs. Which I know, Senator, you
think is a good idea.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: No question
about that.
Through you, Mr. President, if
Senator Balboni will continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Balboni, do you continue to yield?
1607
SENATOR BALBONI: I do, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Senator,
you've suggested that you don't know whether
state-chartered banks have to pledge these
assets. Yet the memorandum that you offer in
support of this bill says that state-chartered
banks are at a marked disadvantage to
federally chartered banks because of the small
scope of securities that state-chartered banks
are permitted to pledge.
Do you know what assets
state-chartered banks are permitted to pledge?
And if you don't, how could you make that
statement in support of the bill?
SENATOR BALBONI: Mr. President,
through you. No, I don't.
And I'll tell you why I don't.
Because I don't do this for a living. But the
guys at the Banking Department, they do. And
the folks who invest in these products, they
do. And that's where I got this idea from.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Okay.
1608
Through you, Mr. President, will the Senator
yield to another question?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Balboni, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR BALBONI: I yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: This bill -
in the bill memorandum you also suggest that
foreign banking institutions may invest in
SALLIE MAE and Federal Home Loan Bank
securities.
SENATOR BALBONI: Mm-hmm.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Is there
anything that currently prevents them from
doing that?
SENATOR BALBONI: No. And, Mr.
President, through you, nor is that suggested
by this particular amendment.
This particular amendment refers
specifically to the characterization or the
utilization of those investments towards the
pledgeable asset requirement by the state law;
again, Section 202B.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Okay.
1609
Through you, Mr. President, if Senator Balboni
will continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Balboni, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR BALBONI: I continue to
yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: We went
through this last time, and I just want to
make sure I understand it now.
Who are the unaffiliated issuers
that this bill will allow to be substituted
for either Federal Home Loan Bank Board or
SALLIE MAE or the other federally insured
instruments that are required to be pledged
now by foreign banks?
SENATOR BALBONI: Mr. President,
through you. It depends.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue
to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Balboni, do you yield?
SENATOR BALBONI: I do, Mr.
1610
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Would that
include marketable securities that are not
guaranteed for repayment by the federal
government, the state government, or any other
level of government?
SENATOR BALBONI: Mr. President,
through you. That would include any of these
unaffiliated issuers who meet the requirements
of the regulators of the Banking Board,
specifically, who, through the vote mechanism
described in this section of law, would make
the determination as to whether or not in fact
these are proper and appropriate investments
for the utilization of this -- against the
pledgeable requirement of this particular
section of law.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President, if Senator Balboni will
continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Balboni, do you yield?
SENATOR BALBONI: Mr. President.
1611
I do.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Would it
include certificates of participation, known
as COPs?
SENATOR BALBONI: Once again -
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Are you
familiar with COPs and the way that it works?
I mean, it's a nonrecourse guarantee from
government that isn't backed by full faith and
credit or by taxing revenue but is a
conventional financing instrument sometimes
used by government.
Could those be pledged as part of
the assets?
SENATOR BALBONI: Mr. President,
again, through you, it depends. It depends on
who applies and what they find appropriate.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Okay.
Through you, Mr. President, if Senator Balboni
would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Balboni, do you yield?
SENATOR BALBONI: Mr. President,
1612
I do.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Senator
Balboni, could it include derivatives? Are
you familiar with what derivatives are as a
form of government financing?
SENATOR BALBONI: Mr. President,
through you. Again, it depends.
And, you know, Mr. President, I
would like to thank the Senator at this
particular point in time for his attempts to
educate myself as to the financial instruments
available for this type of marketing.
I would also like to inform the
body that I'm sure that Senator Dollinger will
be holding a Financing 101 after session
itself today, which I would ask for mandatory
participation.
But as for the purpose of this
particular amendment, again, my suggestion
would be that let's not blur the lines between
what is a regulatory requirement and duty and
a statutory requirement and duty.
And what we are doing here, again,
1613
for everybody watching at home and in the
chamber, this is a bill designed to change the
pledgeable assets universe to include products
such as SALLIE MAE and the Federal Home Loan
Bank issuances. And there are others also.
But once again, the filter through
which those assets could wind up as being a
part of the pledgeable asset requirement for a
foreign bank will be the Banking Board's
determination that they are in fact of the
proper grade, that they have the proper
scrutiny by the rating agencies, and they have
the proper guarantees.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President, just on the bill briefly.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Dollinger, on the bill.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: As for all of
those who are watching back home, I think my
wife and your wife are the only two who are
watching, and they're the only ones who have
an interest, perhaps, in this.
But let me explain why I'm going to
vote against this bill again. I'm not opposed
when a foreign bank comes to do business in
1614
New York and the Banking Board in this state
says: "Wait a minute, you're not from New
York State, you're from a northern
jurisdiction. If you're going to come in and
do business with us, you have to pledge some
assets that we can readily turn into cash for
reasonable value. You have to pledge that for
us in the event that something happens and
your financial wherewithal is compromised,
whether it's through liquidation or
dissolution or receivership."
We require them to pledge this at
the Bank Board. So the very first thing the
Superintendent of Banks can do, if a foreign
bank that does business in this state is in
trouble, he can grab cash to claim part of the
security that depositors or those who have
funds deposited in a foreign bank might lose.
So that's critically important to our banking
system that we do that.
This bill does two beneficial
things which I'm more than willing to buy
into, Senator Balboni. Which is to take the
Home Loan Bank Board issuance, all their debt,
which is federally guaranteed, or SALLIE MAE,
1615
the student loans -- those are all federally
pledged as well. They are, in essence, just
like the instruments that are described at
length on page 1 of this bill: instruments
guaranteed for payment by governments of any
type in the United States. I'm perfectly
willing to do those two things.
What I am unwilling to do, Mr.
President, why I think this bill steps too
far, is because it says despite the fact that
we require foreign banks to give the best kind
of security for our citizens' protection, this
bill says that you can also include not only
these government types of securities, but you
can include those of any unaffiliated issuer.
Who is the unaffiliated issuer?
With all due respect to Senator
Balboni, I've been here for two years of
debates and I've never heard a good definition
of who is an unaffiliated issuer. What do
they issue? What kind of commercial paper is
it, and is it at the same level of security as
all these government notes that we require
that a foreign bank deposit as a condition of
doing business in this state?
1616
I would also suggest to Senator
Balboni that there is one other flaw in your
bill. You suggest that the Superintendent of
Banks is going to review the value of that
collateral before it's deposited, and that it
has to meet certain standards. That's correct
in part. Except if you read the bill, it says
that the Superintendent has to say it's
received the highest rating of an independent
rating service designated by the Banking
Board.
Which means it's not going to be
done by the Superintendent, it's going to be
done by a ratings service, whoever they may
be. That's not the same thing as having the
Superintendent do it.
And secondly, it says if the
obligation is rated by more than one such
service -- in other words, there are two
services, Moody's or some other
organization -- then the highest rating of at
least two such services will dictate whether
it can be used as an asset for the purposes of
collateralizing their activity here in the
State of New York.
1617
Frankly, Senator Balboni, I get
nervous when I see the word unaffiliated or
affiliated issuer. I think about derivatives
in the county of Orange in California. I
wouldn't doubt that there are a number of
other counties and governments that have
speculated in non-government-backed
instruments during the course of the last
decade.
I don't want the Superintendent of
Banks, who is otherwise requiring foreign
banks -- these are banks that don't have a
connection to New York. They come in, they
start doing businesses, they start taking
deposits from our citizens. We require them
to put the best kind of security up so that
our depositors are secure.
This bill steps away from that
ironclad assurance that we will be able to
recover against those banks. I think what
we're doing, with all due respect, Senator
Balboni, is we are diluting the power of the
Banking Department in this state to provide
adequate security for depositors here. I
don't know of any rationalization for it.
1618
I know that you've said it promotes
affordable housing. I'm not quite so sure I
see how that happens. I understand that this
says they can go out and buy the debt
instruments from agencies that are involved in
affordable housing. I hardly think that will
promote affordable housing.
I just believe that this bill steps
away from our long tradition of having the
most secure banking system in the nation.
It's one of the things that has made us the
financial powerhouse that we are. This bill
is a step away from the notion that you can
safely deposit your money in New York, whether
you do it with a domestic bank or a foreign
bank.
I'm unwilling to retreat from our
system, which has stood us in good stead for
the better part of two centuries.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Any
other Senator wish to be heard on the bill?
The debate is closed.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect 120 days.
1619
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Balboni, to explain his vote.
SENATOR BALBONI: Unaffiliated
issuer, for the record, was an amendment that
was suggested by the Banking Department and
refers to no self-dealing by the particular
issuer. There's your definition, Senator
Dollinger.
But I would charge you with the
following responsibility. You have raised
objections regarding this particular bill, but
you've said you back the concept.
Mr. President, I suggest that
Senator Dollinger should go over to the State
Assembly and Aurelia Greene, who is the
sponsor of this bill in that house, and take
out that portion of the bill that he objects
to, but nonetheless get them to move on this
issue at all.
Because though you might not
understand the efficacy with funding these
types of programs, I assure you that the
1620
people who get the loans for their first home
and get their student loans from these
programs surely do understand this investment,
and they want this kind of money to go in
there.
So unfortunately, I am frustrated,
not so much that we have to do this bill again
here, but because there is absolutely no
movement on behalf of the State Assembly -- as
you might imagine are other things, like the
budget.
I vote in favor of it.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Balboni will be recorded in the affirmative.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Just to
explain my vote, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: I'm
sure. Senator Dollinger, to explain his vote.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Senator
Balboni once again leaps from bill to budget
with seeming aplomb, much like the cat always
landing on its feet. So my plaudit to him.
But, Senator Balboni, I would
suggest that this bill does not deal with the
issue of affordable housing. This bill simply
1621
says that the instruments from the Home Loan
Bank Board can be pledged as security when
foreign banks come to New York.
I still think that's a good idea.
I'm willing to back the bill on that basis.
But I still haven't gotten a definition, Mr.
President, of who this affiliated issuer is.
I think that's a scary notion, and let's not
water down our security provisions in our
banking institutions.
Thank you, Mr. President. I vote
no.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Dollinger will be recorded in the negative.
The Secretary will announce the
results.
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
the negative on Calendar Number 270 are
Senators Dollinger, Duane, and Paterson.
Ayes, 56. Nays, 3.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
Senator Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Mr.
President, are we through with the calendar?
1622
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Yes,
that concludes the calendar, Senator.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Thank you,
sir. May we now return to the reports of
standing committees.
I believe you have a report of the
Rules Committee, and I ask that it be read.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: That's
correct.
Reports of standing committees.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Bruno,
from the Committee on Rules, reports the
following bill direct to third reading:
Senate Print 6622, by Senator Kuhl,
an act to amend the General Municipal Law.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Move to
accept the report of the Rules Committee.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: All in
favor of accepting the report of the Rules
Committee signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Those
opposed, nay.
(No response.)
1623
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
report is accepted.
Senator Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Yes, Mr.
President. At this time can we take up Senate
Bill 6622, by Senator Kuhl.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
436, by Senator Kuhl, Senate Print 6622, an
act to amend the General Municipal Law, in
relation to the designation.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The bill
is passed.
Senator Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Can we
continue with the other committee reports that
1624
you have at the desk at this time.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Reports
of standing committees.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Kuhl,
from the Committee on Education, reports the
following bills:
Senate Print 4854B, by Senator
Balboni, an act to amend the Education Law and
the Public Health Law;
6301, by Senator McGee, an act to
legalize, validate, ratify and confirm;
6359, by Senator Bruno, an act to
adjust certain state aid payments;
And Senate Print 6458, by Senator
Bonacic, an act to amend Chapter 447 of the
Laws of 2001.
Senator Spano, from the Committee
on Investigations, Taxation and Government
Operations, reports:
Senate Print 240, by Senator C.
Kruger, an act to amend the Alcoholic Beverage
Control Law;
384, by Senator Skelos, an act to
amend the Executive Law;
1625
493, by Senator Marcellino, an act
to amend the Tax Law;
1036, by Senator Larkin, an act to
amend the Tax Law;
1246, by Senator Skelos, an act to
amend the Tax Law;
1427, by Senator LaValle, an act to
amend the Tax Law;
3451, by Senator Marchi, an act to
amend the Legislative Law;
4180A, by Senator Spano, an act to
amend the Public Lands Law;
4278, by Senator Velella, an act to
amend the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law;
4691, by Senator Leibell, an act to
amend the Public Officers Law;
5056, by Senator Saland, an act to
amend the Tax Law;
6059, by Senator Volker, an act to
amend the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law;
6161, by Senator Rath, an act to
amend the Legislative Law;
6169, by Senator Balboni, an act to
amend the Tax Law;
6103A, by Senator Alesi, an act to
1626
amend the General Municipal Law;
6343, by Senator Seward, an act to
authorize;
6444, by Senator Nozzolio, an act
to amend the Tax Law;
And Senate Print 6518, by Senator
Spano, an act to amend the Arts and Cultural
Affairs Law.
All bills ordered direct to third
reading.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Without
objection, all bills directly to third
reading.
Senator Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Mr.
President, is there any further housekeeping
at the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: We have
three substitutions, Senator.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Please make
the substitutions, sir.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read the substitutions.
THE SECRETARY: On page 5,
Senator McGee moves to discharge, from the
1627
Committee on Alcoholism and Drug Abuse,
Assembly Bill Number 60A and substitute it for
the identical Senate Bill Number 2512B, Third
Reading Calendar 56.
On page 9, Senator Morahan moves to
discharge, from the Committee on Veterans and
Military Affairs, Assembly Bill Number 7407B
and substitute it for the identical Senate
Bill Number 3720B, Third Reading Calendar 145.
And on page 26, Senator Morahan
moves to discharge, from the Committee on
Aging, Assembly Bill Number 2029 and
substitute it for the identical Senate Bill
Number 1376, Third Reading Calendar 403.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER:
Substitutions ordered.
Senator Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Yes, Mr.
President. Can you recognize Senator Breslin
at this time for a motion to petition out of
committee.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Breslin.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Mr. President,
I believe I have a motion at the desk. I
1628
request that it be read and I also request
that I heard on the motion.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Senate Print
1980, by Senator Breslin, an act to amend the
General Obligations Law, the Civil Practice
Law and Rules, and the Public Health Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: Senator
Breslin.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Mr. President,
Bill 1980 is what has been commonly referred
to as HMO liability. It's a consumer bill.
It's a bill that would bring HMOs into
responsibility for their actions relative to
negligence.
Doctors can be sued, hospitals can
be sued, nurses can be sued, even lawyers can
be sued. Health maintenance organizations are
trying to cut costs and generally do a good
job. But when they substitute prescriptions,
release someone early from a hospital, don't
order necessary tests, all of which are done
on a cost-cutting basis, they should be held
responsible for their actions.
1629
Each of my six years here I have
introduced this legislation, and in each of
those six years it has failed to come for a
vote on this floor. Senator Velella has also
introduced legislation comparable to the one
that passed the Assembly 134 to 10 last year.
It's incumbent on this body, the Senate, to
come into the new century and to provide the
kind of care and legislation necessary to
protect patients.
Health care costs increased by just
under 7 percent in the year 2001, the largest
increase since 1993. What will that do? It
will make HMOs try to cut corners further.
And it is important on us -- and
remember, this doesn't increase costs, it
makes the HMOs more accountable. And if you
make them more accountable, they make the
right decisions. And I urge this house to
pass and approve this motion.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: With
regard to Senate Bill 1980, please raise your
hands. The Secretary will record those
raising their hands.
1630
The Secretary will read the results
of those agreeing to the petition.
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
agreement are Senators Breslin, Brown, Connor,
Dollinger, Andrews, Duane, Hassell-Thompson,
Hevesi, L. Krueger, Lachman, Montgomery,
Onorato, Oppenheimer, Paterson, Sampson,
Santiago, Schneiderman, A. Smith, M. Smith,
Stachowski, Stavisky. Also Senator Gentile.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: The
petition is not agreed to.
Senator Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Mr.
President, there being no further business, I
move we adjourn until Tuesday, March 26th, at
11:00 a.m. sharp.
ACTING PRESIDENT MEIER: On
motion, the Senate stands adjourned until
Tuesday, March 26th, at 11:00 a.m.
(Whereupon, at 4:45 p.m., the
Senate adjourned.)