Regular Session - April 10, 2002
1850
NEW YORK STATE SENATE
THE STENOGRAPHIC RECORD
ALBANY, NEW YORK
April 10, 2002
10:46 a.m.
REGULAR SESSION
SENATOR JOHN R. KUHL, Jr., Acting President
STEVEN M. BOGGESS, Secretary
1851
P R O C E E D I N G S
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senate will come to order.
I ask the members to find their
places, staff to find their places.
I ask everybody in the chamber to
rise and join with me in saying the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
(Whereupon, the assemblage recited
the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.)
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: We're
very pleased to have the Reverend Donald R.
Carney with us, from the Stapleton Union
American Methodist Episcopal Church in Staten
Island, for the invocation.
Reverend Carney.
REVEREND CARNEY: Let us pray.
Father God, in the mighty name of
Jesus, Lord, we just want to say thank You for
this day and thank You for this experience.
And, Lord, we just want to thank
Senator Gentile for allowing me this
opportunity to be here.
And, Lord, let that mind that be in
Christ Jesus also be in these men and these
1852
women that have come to represent the
government. And, Lord, let it be done in
decent and in order that Christ may be
glorified through their lives.
In Jesus' name, amen.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Reading
of the Journal.
THE SECRETARY: In Senate,
Tuesday, April 9, the Senate met pursuant to
adjournment. The Journal of Monday, April 8,
was read and approved. On motion, Senate
adjourned.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Without
objection, the Journal stands approved as
read.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President,
there will be an immediate meeting of the
Rules Committee in the Majority Conference
Room.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Immediate
meeting of the Rules Committee, immediate
meeting of the Rules Committee in the Majority
Conference Room, Room 332.
Presentation of petitions.
1853
Messages from the Assembly.
Messages from the Governor.
Reports of standing committees.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Lack,
from the Committee on Judiciary, reports the
following nominations.
As a judge of the Family Court for
the County of Niagara, David E. Seaman, of
Lockport.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Lack.
SENATOR LACK: Thank you, Mr.
President.
It's my privilege to rise and move
the nomination of David E. Seaman, of
Lockport, as a judge of the Family Court for
the County of Niagara. We received the
nomination from the Governor for Assemblyman
Seaman. His credentials were reviewed.
Of course, as a member of the
Assembly, he's well known to us in the Senate
Judiciary Committee. He's been very active on
issues in which we have been involved in.
His credentials were approved, and
1854
within the past hour he appeared before a
meeting of the Senate Judiciary Committee and
was unanimously moved to the floor for
consideration at this time.
And it is with great pleasure I
yield to my colleague who, any time he ever
gets involved with trying to move a judicial
candidate, is always very thoroughly involved.
And that, of course, is Senator George
Maziarz.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The chair
recognizes Senator Maziarz on the nomination.
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Thank you very
much, Mr. President. I appreciate the
opportunity and thank Senator Lack for all the
courtesies extended to Assemblyman David
Seaman and to the members of his family.
It's with mixed motions, Mr.
President, that I rise here today to second
this nomination of Governor Pataki to the
Niagara County Family Court. I was elected to
this body the same day and served for the last
seven years with my very good friend, David
Seaman, although I've known Dave for many
years longer than that.
1855
I know that the challenges that he
is going to face as judge of the Family Court
in Niagara County he is eminently qualified
for, having graduated from Notre Dame,
Georgetown Law School. But more importantly,
Dave has worked in the trenches, worked in the
Niagara County district attorney's office.
He's worked in the public defender's office.
He was a law clerk for former and retired
Judge Aldo DeFlorio.
And certainly for the last seven
years, as a member of the Assembly, where he
served as the ranking member of the Assembly
Codes Committee, he dealt with a great deal of
criminal justice legislation which I'm sure is
going to be used very well during his term
as -- hopefully a long term -- as a Family
Court judge in Niagara County.
We all know, of course, that Family
Court is probably the most challenging aspect
of the judiciary, dealing with child custody
issues, adoption issues and families in
stress. But, Mr. President, I can assure you,
having known Dave for many years, having
worked with him very closely for the last
1856
seven years, that David has the personality,
the temperament to be, I think, an excellent
Family Court judge, to make those decisions
affecting children's lives.
And I want to congratulate Dave in
what I know will be an overwhelming vote of
confidence by this State Senate. I know that
Dave's wife, Bonnie, wanted to be here today,
but because of the scheduling conflicts, with
yesterday not being a session day, she was
unable to be here.
And I know that his very good
friends Bill and Rosie Brown, Mike Norris,
Cindy and Mike Miele, Mary and Dale Donovan,
Tom Landrigan and Shirley Lipp are also here.
So, Mr. President, I highly
recommend to my colleagues that they give a
vote of confidence to somebody that although
I'm going to miss working with him on a direct
basis, somebody that I look forward to,
especially this year, in a very vigorous
campaign for the children of Niagara County.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
McGee, on the nomination.
1857
SENATOR McGEE: Thank you, Mr.
President.
Mr. President, seven years ago a
young gentleman came into the New York State
Assembly, and I was given the honor and the
privilege and somewhat questionable attitude
as to what I was going to do with this young
man, because he was assigned to me as I was
his big sister. At that point I told him I
was not going to be his mother, I was going to
be his big sister.
And throughout those years that I
served in the Assembly with David, he has
shown his support, his concern, his
conscientious movement and helpfulness for the
people of the county and the people that he
represented. David is an excellent
individual, and he's served his people very
well.
And I'm very proud and privileged,
I feel proud and privileged to certainly
support the nomination of David as the Family
Court judge of the County of Niagara, and I
know that he will do a fine job there too.
Congratulations, David. It's been
1858
great serving with you.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Alesi, on the nomination.
SENATOR ALESI: Thank you, Mr.
President.
Like many of my colleagues, I also
come from the Assembly, and that's where I
first met David Seaman. But I got to know him
even better through my very good friend
Senator Maziarz.
And over the years, I can't help
but reflect back on that very first week when
we went to dinner and tried to bring David
Seaman into the fold and get to know each
other. And I suggested that he might park in
a particular place, and he suggested that that
didn't look like the right place to park. He
was right. Unfortunately, the results weren't
very happy for him. And I always thought that
David had a rather bad streak of luck as a
result of that particular evening, and always
kidded him about that.
But I also knew David as someone
who was so completely thorough in his efforts
in the Assembly. We've heard reference
1859
through Senator Maziarz that he was the
ranking member on the Codes Committee, which
we all know is a very important committee.
But we also know that David was probably one
of the best ranking members that have ever
served in that capacity, actually having asked
not only questions but questions that the
Majority came to him to seek answers out on.
So in his thoroughness, he has
established himself as someone who is
eminently well qualified in the law. And I am
very happy to see today that his streak of
luck has changed for the better.
And again, it is with mixed
emotions that I say goodbye to David Seaman
and congratulate him and wish him all the very
best.
I think, as Senator Maziarz
correctly said, Family Court is not an easy
court. But if there's anybody who can handle
that particular position with the thoroughness
that David Seaman had shown in everything he
has done and with the incredible intellect
that he has, it will be him. And that will be
better for the people of his county and for
1860
the people of the State of New York.
Congratulations, David.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Brown, on the nomination.
SENATOR BROWN: Thank you, Mr.
President.
I also rise to support the
nomination of Assemblyman David Seaman to the
Family Court of Niagara County.
I've had the pleasure of being part
of the Niagara County state legislative
delegation, with Assemblyman Seaman and
Senator Maziarz and Assemblywoman Francine
DelMonte, and I have really been impressed
with Assemblyman's Seaman's passion for
service to others. He speaks about that
passion as he goes about his work in the
Assembly. Every day of the week, he
demonstrates that passion.
I, like Senator Maziarz, feel this
is a little bit bittersweet, because I've
really enjoyed working with him, I've enjoyed
getting to know David Seaman better, I've
enjoyed being able to be in forums with him
and listen to his reasoned approach to
1861
legislation, his reasoned approach to service.
He is a person who is very strong
in his convictions. But even with his
strength of convictions, he is willing to
listen to the opinions of others. And I think
that is a quality that will serve David Seaman
well as a Family Court judge.
He has also, in our discussions and
some of the forums that we've been able to
participate in in Niagara County, talked about
his concern for the families of Niagara
County. And I know he has an intense interest
in making the lives of families better. And I
am very pleased that he has been put forward
for this very important position, and I know
that he will serve very well in this capacity.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stachowski, on the nomination.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Mr.
President, I too would like to rise to add my
comments to the seconding of Dave Seaman.
I had the opportunity to work with
him as he was an Assemblyman in the Western
New York delegation. And he was a hard
1862
worker, and he showed up at meetings even if
he didn't agree with the people that were
holding the meeting.
And as a lot of times some of us
will be quiet on that and just listen at the
meeting; well, David always said what his
opinion was on the matter. And it was always
interesting to see the reaction. But I think
that's a real suit that will serve him very
well on the bench.
And he's extraordinarily reasonable
for a guy with a Notre Dame background. So I
think that he'll make a great judge.
And I congratulate David. I will
miss him in the delegation. But he'll be
going on to bigger and better things, helping
people with the problems that they face in
Family Court, and I think he'll be an
excellent Family Court judge.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Is there
any other Senator wishing to speak on the
nomination?
Senator Volker.
SENATOR VOLKER: Mr. President, I
was out doing some things that we were doing.
1863
And I just want to say that I will
particularly miss Dave Seaman, who has been a
very productive member of the Western New York
delegation. He's a bright, insightful guy. I
know he'll be a great Family Court judge. But
we will certainly miss him.
And I wish him the very best. When
we get people of the caliber of David in the
delegation, we like to keep them. But of
course we realize that this is the real world.
And I think Governor Pataki couldn't have made
a better pick than Dave Seaman for Family
Court in Niagara County.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Any other
Senator wishing to speak on the nomination?
Hearing none, the question is on
the nomination of David E. Seaman, of
Lockport, New York, as a judge of the Family
Court of the County of Niagara.
All those in favor of the
nomination signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Those
opposed, nay.
(No response.)
1864
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
nominee is unanimously confirmed.
We're very happy to have
Assemblyman Seaman, now Judge Seaman, in the
chamber with us.
Judge, congratulations and do good
work.
(Applause.)
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Larkin, why do you rise?
SENATOR LARKIN: Mr. President,
there will be an immediate meeting of the
Higher Education Committee in the Majority
Conference Room, Room 332.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Immediate
meeting of the Higher Education Committee,
immediate meeting of the Higher Education
Committee in the Majority Conference Room,
Room 332.
The Secretary will continue to
read.
THE SECRETARY: As a judge of the
Lewis County Court, Scott R. Nortz, of
Lowville.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
1865
Lack, on the nomination.
SENATOR LACK: Thank you, Mr.
President.
I rise once again to move the
nomination of Scott R. Nortz, of Lowville, as
a judge of the Lewis County Court. We
received the nomination from the Governor, the
candidate's credentials have been examined,
they have been found to be excellent. He
appeared before the committee earlier this
morning, was unanimously moved to the floor.
It's a great privilege to have the
nomination of Scott Nortz on the floor today
for this tri-hat judgeship. I will yield to
Senators Meier and Wright.
But before I do, it's a particular
pleasure for me because of the years that I
have served with his father, Assemblyman Bob
Nortz, who of course is in the audience and
for whom this day obviously is very special as
well.
But now, for purposes of a second,
I will yield to Ray Meier, Senator Meier.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The chair
recognizes Senator Meier on the nomination.
1866
SENATOR MEIER: Thank you, Mr.
President.
I'm very proud to second the
nomination of someone I have known as a friend
and a colleague at the bar for some 15 years,
Scott Nortz. As Senator Lack said, this is an
institution that we have in upstate New York,
the three-hat judge. The County Court judge
in Lewis County sits in County Court, Family
Court, and Surrogate's Court. And it's really
sort of a metaphor for what the life of a
lawyer practicing small-town law is in the
North Country. We get to do it all, and we
get to see it all.
And if you look at Scott Nortz's
resume, that's been his career at the bar.
Small-town lawyers in the North Country are
there during happy and hopeful times for
families, during tough times, are there when
people adopt their children and start their
businesses. They're there when there's
difficulty in the family. They're there
through the ins and outs of life.
That's the kind of law practice
Scott Nortz has had, and I think it prepares
1867
him well to approach the bench. But there's
something that is much more impressive about
Scott than maybe what you see on a resume.
This is a lawyer who understands that when
we're called to the bar, this is more than the
way we make our living.
And I think Scott will excuse me if
I make this observation to people in this
chamber. It is popular to beat lawyers up.
It is popular to make fun of them. But let me
tell you something, this is a lawyer who's
representative of a good many people who come
to the bar, who has spent a lot of his time
doing things for people who couldn't afford
lawyers because he believes justice is for
everybody, not just for people who have the
money for a retainer.
This is a lawyer who has spent time
representing indigent clients when he could
have been putting a little more on his
family's own table. But he takes his
responsibility seriously.
And that comes as no surprise,
because most of us who engage in public
service learn it someplace. He had a great
1868
teacher: his dad, Assemblyman Bob Nortz.
This is someone who is well-rounded and
prepared to go to the bench.
Scott, I always like to remind
friends who become judges that judges find the
law in books; they find justice, humility, and
mercy in a wide experience in life and in wide
contact with people. I have every confidence
in seconding your nomination, because you have
those qualities.
Good luck, Judge.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Wright, on the nomination.
SENATOR WRIGHT: Thank you, Mr.
President.
First I'd like to extend my
appreciation to Senator Lack, as chair of the
Judiciary Committee, with the courtesies that
were extended to myself this morning. And
it's an honor to join my colleague Senator
Meier in moving and seconding the Governor's
nomination of Scott Nortz.
As has been noted, Scott is Bob
Nortz's son. No secret there. And anyone who
knows the Nortz family knows that there are
1869
three things that are synonymous with the
Nortzes. The first is an abiding love of
Lewis County. The second is a close but not
equal love of the Ford Motor Company. And the
third is an unparalleled commitment to public
service.
This nominee for the Lewis County
Court judge this morning has those values that
have been demonstrated by previous generations
of Nortzes. In fact, he is the fourth
generation of Nortz going into public life in
Lewis County, following his great-grandfather
and uncle and of course his father.
But that public service is not new
to Scott Nortz. He has served his community
throughout his adult and professional
career -- as a member of the school board, as
a village attorney, most recently as the
regional attorney for the State Department of
Environmental Conservation.
Likewise, he has been committed to
his community, having served the Association
for Retarded Citizens, the Red Cross, Public
Television, as well as his school and church
throughout the community.
1870
Senator Meier invoked the image
that I think we all still have of that
hard-working, Jimmy-Stewart-like country
attorney. They have a wide variety of
experiences, they deal with a wide complexity
of cases. And in fact, that's exactly what
Scott Nortz has done. And when you look at
the tasks that are before him as the Lewis
County judge, he will be facing that wide
diversity.
But he comes well prepared for
that, having served with two very experienced,
very well recognized jurists from Lewis
County, Supreme Court Justice Lynch and
Supreme Court Justice McGuire.
So it should be no surprise to
anyone that Scott has been found highly
qualified to serve as a judge, a testament to
not only his judgement, his integrity, and his
character, but a testimony to the experience
that he brings to the bench.
From a personal perspective, it
seems I've known the Nortz family most of my
adult life, having shared many family
experiences with them, not the least of which
1871
has been hunting camp. And I'm still here to
tell those stories.
Nonetheless, Scott also had the
occasion to serve as my counsel here in the
Senate for two terms. And he of course shows
the good judgment to pursue a judicial career
as opposed to a legislative career. I think
nothing speaks more volumes of his ability to
serve the people of New York.
Let me simply conclude that, as has
been pointed out by my colleagues, Scott
Nortz, like his father, puts people first. He
has never forgotten that throughout his
personal and his public life. There is no
question in my mind he will not forget that as
he is serving on the bench. I think he will
make an excellent judge for this state.
I want to commend the Governor for
his selection and his recommendation. I want
to congratulate Bob and Bev on the job they've
done bringing this young man to where we are
today.
And I want to extend my personal
congratulations to Scott and Linda. You
should enjoy the moment, you should enjoy the
1872
day with your family. You've certainly earned
it. May God bless you throughout a long
tenure, Scott.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Breslin, on the nomination.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Thank you, Mr.
President.
I rise as the ranking Democrat on
the Judiciary Committee and applaud the
Governor for this nomination. When you look
at Mr. Nortz on the plus side, having been a
village attorney, having been a partner in a
major law firm, having worked for
Environmental Conservation, having been
involved in so many civic and community
areas -- and then on the negative side, of
course, his work for Senator Wright.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR BRESLIN: That's said in
a facetious tone.
But the wealth of experience
possessed by Mr. Nortz in and of itself
commands the Governor to make this
appointment.
But added to that, from my
1873
experience, there is no one in this entire
Legislature who has been more courteous to
everyone he meets than Bob Nortz. And I'm
sure he will -- if his son treats those people
who come before his court with half of the
compassion and understanding, he'll do a
marvelous job.
Thank you very much, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Volker, on the nomination.
SENATOR VOLKER: The one problem
that sometimes I have is I went to Judiciary
today and I looked at the resumes of all three
people, and they were much better than mine.
It's a little jarring.
But one of the things I think
that -- one of the legacies, and I just want
to say this of George Pataki, and you can
debate all you want, is that those of us who
have been on Judiciary a long time can tell
you the caliber of judges that we have seen
over the years has been enormously great. In
fact, I think the judiciary has been improved
immensely. And the three nominations today
are classic examples of that.
1874
And I want to say to Scott that you
do jar me a little bit, though, again, because
I remember you when you were, let's say, very
little. I've known Bob since my Assembly
days. And looking at your resume, it's hard
to believe that you could have accomplished
all that.
But there's no question he'll make
a great judge. And as far as Bob is
concerned, we call him "the baron of the North
Country." There hasn't been a finer
legislator, frankly, in my opinion in the
Assembly since I've been here than Bob Nortz.
And I'm sure that you will make the
best judge in Lewis County that's ever been
there.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Farley, on the nomination.
SENATOR FARLEY: Thank you, Mr.
President.
We nominate a lot of judges -- or
at least the Governor does, and we confirm
them. I'll tell you, this morning there were
three spectacular resumes there. All three of
these gentlemen that are here, their resumes
1875
were outstanding.
But I have to say something about
Bob Nortz's son Scott. They are a legend in
Lewis County, that family. And what a job
they have done. And, you know, Bob Nortz's
career has spanned mine. And this has to be a
tremendously proud day for the father to see
his son doing so well.
You know, Senator Meier said an
awful lot for those of us that are lawyers,
that to see somebody that has done so much
pro-bono work, contributed so much to his
community -- that's why you're here today, and
that's why we're so proud to nominate you,
Scott. We're proud of you.
Good luck and God bless.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Maziarz, on the nomination.
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Thank you very
much, Mr. President.
One would get the impression from
listening to this confirmation that we are
confirming Bob Nortz and not Scott Nortz here
today for the judiciary.
But, Scott, that's because of the
1876
admiration and respect that we have for your
dad. And we know that you will be following
in his footsteps, and we know that he will
always, like he is today, be just over your
right shoulder there to give you a lot of
advice.
Mr. President, I second the
nomination. Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Any other
Senator wishing to speak on the nomination?
The question is on the nomination
of Scott R. Nortz, of Lowville, New York, as a
judge of the Lewis County Court. All those in
favor of the nomination signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Opposed,
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
nominee is unanimously confirmed.
We're very pleased to have Scott in
the chamber with us. Scott.
(Applause.)
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will read.
1877
THE SECRETARY: As a judge of the
Court of Claims, Albert Lorenzo, of Armonk.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Lack, on the nomination.
SENATOR LACK: Thank you, Mr.
President.
Again I rise, to move the
nomination of Albert Lorenzo, of Armonk, as a
judge of the Court of Claims.
We received Dean Lorenzo's
nomination from the Governor. His credentials
have been examined by the staff of the
committee. They were found to be excellent
and referred to the full committee. At our
meeting earlier this morning, he was
unanimously moved to the floor for
consideration at this time.
And I'm very happy to yield for
purposes of a second to Senator Balboni.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The chair
recognizes Senator Balboni on the nomination.
SENATOR BALBONI: Thank you, Mr.
President.
The most we can ask for of any
judge is to have the ability to have
1878
displayed, on a daily basis, experience,
temperament, and education. The three
individuals who came before us this morning
have those qualities.
Al Lorenzo has an additional
quality. He began from the street, literally,
as a patrol officer in the New York City
Police Department. He rose through the ranks,
earning his law degree from St. John's Law,
after graduating St. John's University
undergraduate magna cum laude, being in the
top 7 percent of his law class in 1990, and
then worked with the Manhattan DA's office,
New York State Attorney General's office, and
then went to academia, where he taught as an
adjunct professor of law as St. John's.
His job at St. John's: to give
others a start in their legal careers, to help
them with placement, finding work, to take
their law degree and put it to something
useful.
Al Lorenzo is a Latino. Proud of
his heritage, proud of his community, he has
given much back. He is a man who, when the
toughest cases will come before him, he will
1879
handle them with sincerity, understanding, and
intelligence, and he will also handle them
with the experience of having lived the lives
of so many other New Yorkers that he will be
protecting and working with.
Mr. President, this candidate comes
to us well qualified. But perhaps the most
important aspect is his genuineness. As Dale
Volker just said to me: "Give me a judge
who's genuine rather than intellectual."
Mr. Court of Claims Judge Al Lorenzo has both.
I strongly urge this candidate be confirmed.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Is there
any other Senator wishing to speak on the
nomination?
Hearing none, the question is on
the nomination of Albert Lorenzo, of Armonk,
as a judge of the Court of Claims. All those
in favor signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Opposed,
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
1880
nominee is confirmed.
We're very, very happy to have
Judge Lorenzo, his wife, Faith, their son,
Jack, and his parents, Albert and Josephine
Lorenzo, in the chamber with us today.
Judge, congratulations.
(Applause.)
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will continue to read reports of
standing committees.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Lack,
from the Committee on Judiciary, reports the
following bills:
Senate Print 2695, by Senator
Spano, an act to amend the Family Court Act;
And Senate Print 4585, by Senator
Saland, an act to amend the Domestic Relations
Law.
Senator Libous, from the Committee
on Mental Health and Developmental
Disabilities, reports:
Senate Print 3149, by Senator
Libous, an act to amend the Mental Hygiene
Law;
3577, by Senator Libous, an act to
1881
amend the Mental Hygiene Law;
3667, by Senator Libous, an act to
amend the Mental Hygiene Law;
And Senate Print 5511, by Senator
Libous, an act to amend the Mental Hygiene
Law.
All bills ordered direct to third
reading.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Without
objection, all bills are ordered directly to
third reading.
Reports of select committees.
Communications and reports from
state officers.
Motions and resolutions.
SENATOR LARKIN: Mr. President,
are there any substitutions at the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Larkin, we have a couple of substitutions at
the desk.
The Secretary will read the
substitutions.
THE SECRETARY: On page 7,
Senator Marchi moves to discharge, from the
Committee on Corporations, Authorities and
1882
Commissions, Assembly Bill Number 9264C, and
substitute it for the identical Senate Bill
Number 5160D, Third Reading Calendar 112.
And on page 30, Senator Bonacic
moves to discharge, from the Committee on
Housing, Construction and Community
Development, Assembly Bill Number 10408 and
substitute it for the identical Senate Bill
Number 6556, Third Reading Calendar 494.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
substitutions are ordered.
Senator Larkin.
SENATOR LARKIN: May we at this
time adopt the Resolution Calendar, with the
exception of Resolution Number 4818.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
motion is to adopt the Resolution Calendar,
with the exception of Resolution 4818. All
those in favor signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Opposed,
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Resolution Calendar is adopted.
1883
Senator Larkin.
SENATOR LARKIN: Mr. President,
Senator Hoffmann has Resolution 4818. She's
not here.
But could we please read the title
and move for immediate adoption.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will read the title of Resolution
4818.
THE SECRETARY: By Senator
Hoffmann, Legislative Resolution Number 4818,
memorializing Governor George E. Pataki to
proclaim April 2002 as Child Abuse Prevention
Month in the State of New York.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
question is on the resolution. All those in
favor signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Opposed,
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
resolution is adopted.
Senator Larkin.
SENATOR LARKIN: Mr. President,
1884
Senator Hoffmann would like to open the
resolution for cosponsorship. So if anyone
does not want to, they should notify the desk.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: We'll
follow the normal procedure, Senator Larkin.
We'll place all members on the Resolution 4818
unless they wish not to be on the resolution.
In that case, please notify the desk.
Senator Larkin, that brings us to
the -
SENATOR LARKIN: May we now go to
the noncontroversial calendar, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will read the noncontroversial
reading of the calendar.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
264, by Senator Kuhl, Senate Print 6236, an
act to amend the Education Law, in relation to
including.
SENATOR LARKIN: Lay it aside for
the day, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Lay the
bill aside for the day.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
286, by Senator LaValle, Senate Print 1103A,
1885
an act to amend the Education Law, in relation
to establishing.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
July.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 57.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
373, by Senator Kuhl, Senate Print 4268A, an
act authorizing the City of Canandaigua to
impose.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: There is
a home-rule message at the desk.
The Secretary will read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the
roll.
1886
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 57.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
376, by Senator Libous, Senate Print 5697, an
act to amend the Highway Law, in relation to
certain purchases.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: There is
a home-rule message at the desk.
The Secretary will read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
January.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 57.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
389, by Senator Wright, Senate Print 2950A, an
act to amend the County Law, in relation to
the electronic recording.
1887
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 57.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
412, by Senator Trunzo, Senate Print 1564A, an
act to amend the Education Law, in relation to
scholarships for academic excellence.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
August.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 57.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill
is passed.
1888
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
414, by Senator Volker, Senate Print 137, an
act to amend the Penal Law and the Criminal
Procedure Law, in relation to the offenses of
bail jumping.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will read the last section.
SENATOR GENTILE: Lay it aside,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Lay the
bill aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
427, by Senator Saland, Senate Print 4234, an
act to amend the Penal Law, in relation to
establishing.
SENATOR GENTILE: Lay it aside,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Lay the
bill aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
428, by Senator Saland, Senate Print 4235, an
act to amend the Penal Law, in relation to
custodial interference.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will read the last section.
1889
THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
November.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 57.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
434, by Senator Morahan, Senate Print 5596, an
act to amend the Penal Law, in relation to
penalties for assault and manslaughter.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This
act shall take effect on the first day of -
SENATOR GENTILE: Lay it aside,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Lay the
bill aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
438, by Senator McGee, Senate Print 6301, an
act to legalize, validate, ratify and confirm
certain actions of the Franklinville Central
1890
School District.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: There is
a local fiscal impact note at the desk.
The Secretary will read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 57.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
440, by Senator Bonacic, Senate Print 6458, an
act to amend -
SENATOR GENTILE: Lay it aside,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Lay the
bill aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
449, by Senator Velella, Senate Print 4278, an
act to amend the Alcoholic Beverage Control
Law, in relation to photo identification
cards.
1891
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the 90th day.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 57.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
454, by Senator Balboni, Senate Print 6169, an
act to amend the Tax Law, in relation to
exempting.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Lay it aside,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Lay the
bill aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
494, substituted earlier today by Member of
the Assembly Lopez, Assembly Print Number
10408, an act to amend the Private Housing
Finance Law, in relation to an increase.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will read the last section.
1892
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 57.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill
is passed.
Senator Larkin, that completes the
noncontroversial reading of the calendar.
SENATOR LARKIN: Mr. President,
now may we have the controversial reading of
the calendar.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: On page 23,
Calendar Number 414, Senate Print 137, by
Senator Volker, an act to amend the Penal Law
and the Criminal Procedure Law, in relation to
the offenses of bail jumping and failing to
respond.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Explanation,
Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Larkin, an explanation of Calendar Number 414,
1893
sponsored by Senator Volker, has been
requested.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Volker, a request for an explanation of
Calendar Number 414 has been requested by your
friend and neighbor Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR VOLKER: This is a bill
that has passed this house on several
occasions. And I believe, yeah, it was
introduced or sent to me from the City of
New York. And one of the reasons that we
waited a little bit is to make sure that the
present administration wanted this bill.
And what it does is that it is an
increase in the penalty and changes the grace
period during which a person who doesn't
respond to an appearance ticket -- and it
eliminates the so-called 30-day period
currently for those who fail to appear in
court on the required return date for the
appearance ticket. And especially this course
obviously relates to the issue of bail
jumping.
And this bill was requested by the
1894
city because they have such an enormous number
of people who fail or refuse to appear, and it
has become an administrative nightmare. And
as a result, they have asked for this bill.
And in my opinion, and knowing the
way the operations of the city do it, and
having gone down to the city and done some
studies or some hearings, it is pretty obvious
that the situation is virtually out of
control. And it just seems to me that this
legislation makes sense in just from the
administrative side of it.
And I would think -- we've had some
difficulty with the Assembly, because
obviously anytime you're doing this you're
going to impact on some of the constituents in
New York City or in the environs. But the
truth is that this is a bill that attempts to
control -
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Volker. Senator Volker.
SENATOR VOLKER: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Could I
interrupt you just a minute. We've got a lot
of conversation in this chamber, and it's a
1895
little difficult to hear you even up here.
So if we can just take a minute and
maybe get some of the Senators in the back of
the chamber to sit down and some of the staff
to quiet down, take their chairs. And get the
sergeant-at-arms to shut the door.
Thank you for allowing the
interruption, Senator Volker.
SENATOR VOLKER: Let me get right
to the heart of what the problem is in the
Assembly. There is a -- as I've said on this
floor before, that the city specifically, and
there are places upstate where that is true,
bail jumping in the third degree, for
instance, is a Class A misdemeanor. Which
comes to, in the City of New York, be
something like an appearance ticket for a
violation, because nobody pays much attention
to misdemeanors in New York City.
And this would increase the penalty
to a Class E felony for bail jumping, which is
the real thing that has created such havoc in
the city, which is there are so many people
out there failing to appear on bail. It would
increase it to an E felony, so as to give it
1896
at least some status for not only failing to
respond to an appearance ticket but then, even
when they post bail, disappearing into the
woodwork.
So I think if you really look at
it, it makes good sense to do this.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Dollinger, why do you rise?
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Will the
sponsor yield to a question?
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Volker, do you yield to a question from
Senator Dollinger?
SENATOR VOLKER: Yes, I do.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Mr. President.
I understand the volume of problems
in the city of New York. But my question is,
Senator, do you have any sense of how big a
problem this is elsewhere in the state?
SENATOR VOLKER: I don't think
it's near -- but it's a problem -- I know the
city of Buffalo has a pretty substantial
1897
problem also. But -- and some of the smaller
communities at times kind of lose track of
people, because, you know, obviously they're
not going to be pursuing people. They don't
have the ability to do it.
I used to serve some of the
criminal summonses and so forth in these
cases. And the problem was what usually
happens to people, once you get to them, then
they'll come back in and take care of it. But
what's silly about it is that the manpower and
cost and time that's involved in pursuing the
people is just kind of ridiculous.
And if you have some sort of
reasonable penalties to make these people
appear, and to keep them from jumping bail -
because the bail is usually very low, because
nobody is going to charge high bail on these
sorts of things.
So it just seems as if it's more of
a major-cities problem -- New York, Buffalo,
Rochester, Syracuse. I don't know about
Albany. But I know it's a problem in some of
the bigger cities.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
1898
Mr. President, if Senator Volker will continue
to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Volker, do you yield to another question from
Senator Dollinger?
SENATOR VOLKER: Sure.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Senator, do
you have any sense of how the problem breaks
down vis-a-vis actual bail jumping where
someone has been arraigned, bail has been set?
I agree with you: as you know, oftentimes the
bail is nominal, $300, $400. In many cases
these are misdemeanor cases for which the
defendant has been charged.
But do you have any sense of how
big a problem that is -- that is, where
they've actually been arraigned and been a
part of the process -- versus how much of the
problem relates to appearance tickets? Which,
as you know, can stem from anything from
loitering to traffic tickets to a whole host
of violations and other problems.
SENATOR VOLKER: Well, according
1899
to the New York City Police Department, they
have 281,000 -- this was obviously some years
ago -- 281,624 warrants in their warrant
master file. They claim that, I believe, as
many as a quarter of them -- and I'm not sure,
but I think as many as a quarter of them will
be bail jumpers.
So that I think the attitude here
is that although the initial -- here, I'm just
looking. According to the administration, for
the calendar year 1995 they said that 43,020
defendants, 43 percent of the persons issued
desk appearance tickets did not appear on
their designated return dates. Many of them
then, when they finally did come in, were
issued bail. And then a high percentage of
them didn't come back even after that.
So -- but they don't have definite
numbers on exactly how many bail jumpers there
were, because I guess those numbers are kind
of fluid. Because they are more likely to
pursue people who are bail jumpers. But the
problem is that the vast majority of them
apparently they never catch up with.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
1900
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President, if Senator Volker will continue
to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Volker, do you yield to another question?
SENATOR VOLKER: Sure.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Senator,
outside of the cities, do you know how many of
the people who failed to appear for traffic
tickets actually came in within the 30-day
volunteer period?
SENATOR VOLKER: Senator, I
really don't, for outside the city.
In fact, you know, you make a good
point, because we were using the city. We'll
check on that, by the way. That's the only
thing I can say. We do not have numbers here
on that. And I was just looking -- the memo
is a little old, to tell you the truth. But
we'll check on that and see what we have, what
numbers we have.
But I really don't -- I know that
1901
there is a significant number of people who do
not appear for tickets. Probably not as many
as in the major cities, though, jump the bail.
Because I think once you can get them, you
probably have a better chance of holding them.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Mr. President. Just briefly on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Dollinger, on the bill.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Senator
Volker described how in his prior life he may
have been involved in serving some of these
warrants and citations when people failed to
appear for the tickets. I have a confession
to make, Mr. President. I was one of those
perps.
I was 18 years old and issued an
appearance ticket for, of all places, Senator
Volker, the village of Castile. I had driven
down a one-way street the wrong way in
Letchworth State Park. A week later, I'd
gotten the ticket, I was driving around in my
car, and one of my high school friends reached
in the glove department, rolled it up in a
ball, and threw it into the Erie Canal.
1902
I did what every 18-year-old I
think does in those circumstances. I of
course went home and prayed -- not that the
sheriff wouldn't visit my door, but that my
parents wouldn't find out. And sure enough,
about three weeks later a Monroe County
sheriff arrived at the door of my house asking
where I was. My mother knew I wasn't home.
But quite frankly, the penalty
invoked by my mother and father was far more
severe than going to the village of Castile,
being told by the village justice that I had
to be there at 6 o'clock. I arrived at
6 o'clock. He told me "Sit in that room over
there, because court doesn't start till 7:00."
It's only when I realized, after they closed
the door, that it had little bars on the
outside of the door, that that was their
holding cell.
I sat there for an hour, I came
out, the judge assessed me a fine for both the
ticket and not responding, gave me a great
lecture.
I of course, Senator Volker, as you
probably imagine, as you've known me for a
1903
decade, I said to him: "Could you give me the
original arrest warrant with the little stamp
down in the corner? I'd like to take it back
to my college dorm and put it up on the wall."
The village justice was not at all
amused and suggested that if I continued to
insist on wanting the warrant, I could go back
and sit in the cell for a little bit longer.
Even at 18, I came to the conclusion that was
not the right place to be.
Mr. President, the reason why I
rose on this bill is that I understand the
problem that Senator Volker mentions, but I do
think that many of the people who fail to
appear for traffic tickets are similarly
situated as the person I was when I was 18,
19, and 20. They're generally young people
who don't understand the consequences of
failing to appear, who don't bother to read
the back of the ticket.
And we're about, through this bill,
at least in the upstate communities, where
oftentimes the violations can be relatively
minor, we're going to make them Class B
misdemeanants when we do that.
1904
I think that this bill has a huge
impact on teenagers and young people. I
believe that there's a real serious question
about eliminating the 30-day volunteer
appearance period for many of those young
people. I don't want them to be disrespectful
of the law, but I just think that in many
cases they're not fully aware of the
consequences of failing to appear in response
to a traffic ticket.
I voted for this bill last year.
I'll continue to vote for it. But my hope is
that, Senator, you'll go back and look at the
problem in New York City -- which in my
opinion is drastic and perhaps out of control,
as you describe it -- and that we would attend
to that problem.
But let's take a more careful look
at the upstate rural and suburban communities
that may not have a significant problem.
Let's look at the urban communities and see
how much of this is young people who fail to
understand, who don't have the assistance of
counsel and don't see the consequences of it.
I would just suggest, as a caution
1905
to Senator Volker in going forward, I'm not
opposed to increasing the penalty. I do think
that eliminating the 30-day voluntary period
may have a very disproportionate impact on
young people.
And with that, Mr. President, I'll
vote in favor of it, with those cautionary
words in mind.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, Mr.
President. I would like to see if Senator
Volker would yield to a question.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Volker, do you yield to a question from
Senator Montgomery?
SENATOR VOLKER: Sure.
Certainly.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Okay, thank
you.
Senator Volker, it appears to me
that without your legislation it is already in
law that you can spend up to seven years in
1906
prison based on the actions that you're trying
to deal with, bail jumping and ignoring your
desk warrants and whatever have you.
SENATOR VOLKER: Well, only in
the very severe cases. The normal case, right
now it's an A misdemeanor. So you can only
spend the maximum for an A misdemeanor, which
is one year. And by the way, a B misdemeanor
is essentially 30 days.
But I think what you're talking
about is the more severe cases of bail
jumping, repetitive bail jumping and things of
that nature. Traffic summonses and all that
sort of thing will never get to that point.
This is for people in much higher crimes and
so forth.
So an E felony, for instance, is -
the maximum, I believe, on an E felony is,
what is it, three years? I don't remember
now. I think it's generally three years. So
it -- and this is in the very severe cases
that it would occur.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Through you,
Mr. -
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Excuse
1907
me, Senator Montgomery.
Senator Larkin, why do you rise?
SENATOR LARKIN: I'd like to call
an immediate meeting of the Finance Committee
in Room 332.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: There
will be an immediate meeting of the Finance
Committee, immediate meeting of the Finance
Committee in the Senate Majority Conference
Room, Room 332.
Senator Larkin.
SENATOR LARKIN: To be followed
by a meeting of the En Con Committee in the
same conference room, and a Health Committee
meeting to follow that at 12 o'clock in the
Majority Conference Room.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: There
will be an immediate Environmental
Conservation Committee meeting following the
Finance Committee in the Majority Conference
Room, Room 332. And then there will be an
meeting of the Health Committee at 12:00 noon
in the Majority Conference Room, Room 332.
Senator Montgomery, why do you
rise?
1908
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: All right,
thank you. Mr. President, through you, I'm
just trying to clarify what the bill means, if
Senator Volker will yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Volker, do you yield to another question from
Senator Montgomery?
SENATOR VOLKER: Sure, yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: So, Senator
Volker, you are essentially changing the level
of the violation.
SENATOR VOLKER: Exactly.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: From a what
to what?
SENATOR VOLKER: Well, bail
jumping in the first degree, which we are -
we're not talking about -- these are major
people with major charges against them.
What Senator Dollinger was talking
about, traffic tickets, the highest penalty
now is a Class A misdemeanor. Bail jumping or
whatever, we would raise the bail jumping in
those kinds of cases to an E felony, assuming
1909
that someone failed to appear, posted bail,
runs away again or refuses to come in, the
penalty then would go from an A misdemeanor to
an E felony.
Nonappearance would not get you any
felony. Nonappearance just obviously gets you
bail. And the highest, I believe, that you
would get for nonappearance would be a B
misdemeanor, which is about the most minor
offense -- well, it is the most minor offense,
other than the violation, that we have.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Thank you.
Mr. President, just briefly on the
bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Montgomery, on the bill.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: I take the
opposite position of my colleague Senator
Dollinger. I think I don't have as much
problem with the 30-day, changing the -
making the 30-day limit more strictly imposed.
But I certainly would not like to
see that we are now going to have a number of
1910
people serving up to 15 years in prison under
his law just because they did not appear or
the whole issue of bail jumping.
I just think that, you know, the
ultimate result of this legislation is to
extend the length of time, it doubles the
length of time that a person can spend in
prison. And I think that, for all practical
purposes, it costs the state much more per
year to house an inmate than it would to have
some other means of requiring people -
increasing the bail or having some other means
of having people respond to their appearance
requirements.
So I think this is really one of
those cases where we're simply changing the
sentencing, increasing the time in prison,
raising, in fact, increasing the amount of the
cost to the state. And I'm not sure it's
going to make any difference, because we
already have legislation. There is law which
covers this, and I don't see the need for this
legislation.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
1911
Volker.
SENATOR VOLKER: Very quickly,
let me -- I think there's a little confusion.
No one goes to jail for failing to appear for
an appearance ticket. Those higher degrees of
bail jumping are for felons, and they're for
people who post bail, for instance, on felony
charges or on more severe charges -- it could
be even burglary, robbery, and so forth.
That's where the -- for instance,
the number, first. Because you wouldn't give
them a higher sentence than the sentence they
could potentially get. And if they jump bail,
they wouldn't get a higher sentence than they
would get in the first place. So when you're
talking about 15 years, you're talking about
somebody that could be sentenced to 25 years
to life.
So I just want to make that clear.
This is not for the appearance ticket. We're
talking about the lower end, because that's
where the major problem is.
In fact, I was going to say to
Senator Dollinger, being stopped in Castile is
not a -- it happens quite a bit. I was
1912
stopped there myself when I was a young
person. I didn't get a ticket, but I was
stopped there. And I pretty well know what
that one-way street is, because I believe
there's only two one-way streets in all of
Castile. So I have a pretty good idea of
where that is.
But I will say this about the local
judges. You have to realize that these are
peace justices; that is, town justices or
village justices. They don't -- I mean, all
they want is the power to make sure that these
things are disposed of. They're not going to
send anybody for a jail on an appearance
ticket or whatever. First of all, the jails
are really not adequate to do it, in all
honesty. What they want is they want to get
rid of these tickets.
So when you're talking about the
local situation -- that is, in these small
towns -- and I used to appear before these
justices. They just want the ability to make
sure that people just don't ignore them, and
they want a penalty that's enough higher so
that, for instance, they can post enough bail
1913
so that they don't just run away until they
find them.
The city of New York is a much
different problem, though. Remember, these
are minor offenses that we're primarily
talking about. We're not talking about crimes
here.
We're talking about traffic
summonses, failure to appear for driver's
license violations. And some people have 30
of them or 40 of them. And they don't track
each other. So finally they take bail.
Finally, after maybe 20 or 30, they figure out
this person is obviously a scofflaw. They
take bail and the person runs again.
And if you don't increase the
penalties, the problem is just holding them to
get them back in again, and the person
probably gets released on another bail.
So what we're trying to do here is
give some authority that the person
potentially could go to jail. Because what
will happen in virtually all these cases, the
guy or the woman is going to end up paying
what he has to pay, his license will be
1914
revoked, and that will be it.
But they need this additional
penalty to make sure that these people stand
up to the law.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Any other
Senator wishing to speak on the bill?
Hearing none, the debate is closed.
The Secretary will read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 16. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
November.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Record
the negatives and announce the results.
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
the negative on Calendar Number 414 are
Senators Andrews, Hassell-Thompson, and
Montgomery. Ayes, 55. Nays, 3.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill
is passed.
The Secretary will continue to read
the controversial reading of the calendar.
1915
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
427, by Senator Saland, Senate Print 4234, an
act to amend the Penal Law, in relation to
establishing a presumption.
SENATOR ONORATO: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Saland, an explanation of Calendar Number 427
has been requested by the Acting Minority
Leader, Senator Onorato.
SENATOR SALAND: Thank you, Mr.
President.
Mr. President, this bill is a
companion bill with a bill passed earlier on
the noncontroversial calendar, Calendar 428.
What this bill does is it creates a
rebuttable presumption that the person who
takes a child in violation of a court order
establishing custody or visitation knows that
he or she is taking that child wrongfully, and
provides that substituted service under CPLR
308 shall constitute actual knowledge -
again, subject to a rebuttable presumption
which a respondent or defendant would have the
ability to rebut.
What the data shows us is that
1916
there's some 350,000 child abductions by
parents every year. That's national data that
the most recent, I believe, is '98 or '99.
There's another 25 percent more than that
which is abductions by third parties.
New York's law unfortunately makes
it extremely difficult to avail ourselves of
the FBI's resources, because the FBI will not
get involved unless there's a felony warrant
that has been issued. And if you can't get
the court order -- and currently you can't get
it without, in effect, actual knowledge -- you
don't have the ability to get the FBI
involved.
And that's an enormous resource
that is of great assistance to families who
are attempting to find their abducted children
or to the custodial parent who is attempting
to find his or her abducted child.
Similarly, the National Center for
Missing and Exploited Children will not become
involved and make use of their advertising
mechanism -- and many of you have seen the
kinds of advertisements that they provide,
picture profiles of missing children -- unless
1917
there's an outstanding felony warrant.
So this basically would enable us
to more readily avail ourselves of the
additional capacities that are out there, both
by way of law enforcement, the FBI, as well as
the Missing and Exploited Child Registry,
which has been an enormous success in trying
to track down children who have been abducted.
Abduction is just absolutely
horrible. It's not only traumatic for the
children, it's often a very vengeful act by
one or the other of the parents. And it's
something that we really should not tolerate.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Any other
Senator wishing to speak on the bill?
Hearing none, debate is closed.
The Secretary will read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
November.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58.
1918
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill
is passed.
The Secretary will continue to
read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
434, by Senator Morahan, Senate Print 5596, an
act to amend the Penal Law, in relation to
penalties for assault and manslaughter.
SENATOR ONORATO: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Morahan, an explanation of Calendar Number 434
has been requested by Senator Onorato.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Thank you very
much. I'm happy to give an explanation.
This bill is entitled Mathis' Law,
as a result of an incident that occurred in
the city I believe it was last year. This
amends the Penal Code by adding a new section
which defines a Class E felony of manslaughter
in the third degree. A person is guilty of
this new offense if he or she intends to cause
physical injury to another person and causes
death to that person or a third person.
It also moves from an A misdemeanor
if someone is just having a normal fight or a
1919
small fight without the intent of doing
serious harm but does do serious harm, that
would move that up to an E felony.
None of the sentencing is mandated.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Any other
Senator wishing to speak on the bill?
Hearing none, debate on the bill is
closed.
The Secretary will read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
November.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 57. Nays,
1. Senator Duane recorded in the negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill
is passed.
The Secretary will continue to
read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
440, by Senator Bonacic, Senate Print 6458, an
act to amend Chapter 447 of the Laws of 2001.
1920
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: There is
a local fiscal impact note at the desk.
An explanation has been requested
by Senator Onorato, Senator Bonacic.
SENATOR BONACIC: Thank you, Mr.
President.
This legislation amends legislation
that we did last year, Chapter 447 of the Laws
of 2001. It allows the Delhi School District
to repay the state an overpayment over a
six-year period.
It was a $2 million overpayment
given to this school district that was
involved in a new building for its school.
The state aid was based on the estimate and
not the actual cost. Last year we passed a
bill allowing the school district to repay the
state, and that is now law.
When the bill went before the
Governor, the Governor asked for two technical
corrections. One was to state the year the
overpayment was made -- and in this case the
overpayment occurred in the year 1998-1999 -
and the Governor wanted the exact amount
specified as to the overpayment. And last
1921
year's law did not specify the overpayment
amount, and that was for $1,956,634.
We're passing the bill at the
request of the Governor.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Onorato, why do you rise?
SENATOR ONORATO: Mr. President,
will the sponsor yield to a question.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Bonacic, do you yield to a question?
SENATOR BONACIC: I do.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR ONORATO: Senator
Bonacic, why are we extending a tax-free loan
to the school district? Wouldn't it be better
for them to take a loan out over a period of a
few years rather than go through this here?
SENATOR BONACIC: You know, I
pulled the minutes of last year's debate, and
I think at that time it was Senator Dollinger
asked a similar question. He said why doesn't
the school issue a new bond to cover the
overpayment rather than do it with a taxpayer
increase over six years.
1922
And I checked Section 11 of the
Finance Law. And usually, to increase a bond,
you're supposed to do it on the actual cost,
not on the estimate. So it may not be
appropriate to float a bond in this case.
Section 11 talks about a bond for judgments
and claims, which don't apply here.
So I think the appropriate remedy
was to help the school district stretch it
over six years. This is a small school
district with a limited tax base. It's still
going to be a high, double-digit property tax
increase on the school taxes to repay this
overpayment over six years.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Any other
Senator wishing to speak on the bill?
Hearing none, the debate is closed.
The Secretary will read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Record
1923
the negatives and announce the results.
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
the negative are Senators Gentile, L. Krueger,
Onorato, and Stavisky. Ayes, 54. Nays, 4.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill
is passed.
The Secretary will continue to
read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
454, by Senator Balboni, Senate Print 6169, an
act to amend the Tax Law, in relation to
exempting certain tangible personal property.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect December 1, 2002.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Balboni, why do you rise?
SENATOR BALBONI: Can we lay this
bill aside temporarily while we await the
arrival of Senator Dollinger?
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Lay the
bill aside temporarily.
Senator Skelos, why do you rise?
SENATOR SKELOS: Can we return to
1924
the report of the standing committees. I
believe there's a report of the Rules
Committee at the desk. I ask that it be read.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: We will
return to the reports of standing committees.
There is a report of the Rules Committee at
the desk. I ask the Secretary to read.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Bruno,
from the Committee on Rules, reports to
following bill direct to third reading:
Senate Print 6796, by Senator
Skelos, an act to amend the State Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Move to accept
the report of the Rules Committee.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
motion is to accept the report of the Rules
Committee. All those in favor signify by
saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Opposed,
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The Rules
1925
report is accepted.
The bill is before the house.
Senator Skelos, we have the report
from the Higher Education Committee, if you
want to report that out at this point.
SENATOR SKELOS: If we could take
up the report, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Senator LaValle,
from the Committee on Higher Education,
reports the following bills:
Senate Print 6449, by Senator
DeFrancisco, an act to amend Chapter 414 of
the Laws of 1887;
6615, by Senator LaValle, an act to
amend Chapter 453 of the Laws of 2001;
6685, by Senator LaValle, an act to
amend the Education Law;
And Senate Print 6686, by Senator
Seward, an act to amend the Education Law.
All bills ordered direct to third
reading.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Without
objection, all bills are ordered directly to
1926
third reading.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President,
please call up Calendar Number 454, by Senator
Balboni.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
454, by Senator Balboni, Senate Print 6169, an
act to amend the Tax Law, in relation to
exempting.
SENATOR CONNOR: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Balboni, an explanation of Calendar Number 454
has been requested by the Minority Leader,
Senator Connor.
SENATOR BALBONI: Thank you, Mr.
President.
This bill is an attempt to bring
New York State's Tax Law into the 21st
century, and also an attempt to keep
New York's film industry here in New York,
particularly in New York City.
Section 115(a)(12) of the Tax Law
currently provides an exemption for state and
1927
local sales and use tax for receipts from the
sale of machinery or equipment purchased for
the use or consumption directly or
predominantly in the production of tangible
personal property for sale.
Essentially, what this is is that
when you make a film, you have a canister full
of film, and you take the celluloid film and
you transfer it to the person who is buying
the film. That transfer, and all of the
energy utilized in producing that film, are
exempt from sales and use tax.
But what has happened today, Mr.
President, is that we've gone from a res, as
it were, something of a tangible nature, to
the digital age, where now films are done on
digital equipment and the film in its entirety
is e-mailed to the individual who's purchasing
the film.
Therefore, there was a question, if
you didn't have the canister of film, whether
or not it still was exempt from sales and use
tax. This bill would clarify that so as to
keep the industry here.
It is a recommendation of a study
1928
that was done, "Building New York's Visual
Media Industry for the Digital Age: A Recent
Economic Impact study of Film, TV, and
Commercial Production." And it stated that
this industry brings $5 billion a year of
spending and can be attributed with 70,000
jobs in the New York economy in the year 2000.
I move for its adoption, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Dollinger, why do you rise?
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Will the
sponsor yield to a question, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Balboni, do you yield to a question from
Senator Dollinger?
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, I do, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: As I
understand this bill, it will exempt from
sales and use taxes the motion picture film;
is that correct?
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes.
1929
SENATOR DOLLINGER: And what
happens -
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Dollinger, are you asking Senator Balboni to
yield again?
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I am, Mr.
President, if he will yield to another
question.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Balboni, do you yield to another question from
Senator Dollinger?
SENATOR BALBONI: Mr. President,
I do yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: And, Senator,
if the film, as we call it -- because it
really wouldn't be a film if it were shot in
digital format. But the product of the
digital production, would that also be exempt
from sales and use taxes?
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, it would.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Senator
Balboni -- through you, Mr. President, if he
will yield to another question.
1930
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Balboni, do you yield to another question from
Senator Dollinger?
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, I do, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: At the time
the film is produced, actually manufactured
and then sold as motion picture film, is it
subject to sales and use taxes currently?
SENATOR BALBONI: Mr. President,
for a point of clarification, I would direct
Senator Dollinger to subsection -- let's see,
this is 6, of Section 1101 of the Tax Law that
defines tangible personal property. And
specifically, it currently states "corporeal
personal property of any nature."
Now, that exemption of tangible
personal property is the basis for the
elimination of the sales and use tax on the
transfer of the film -- not necessarily its
ultimate sale, but the transfer of the film.
Which, as I state, is currently exempt.
So remember, it's not the end
1931
product, Senator Dollinger, it is the actual
transfer through production.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President, if Senator Balboni will yield
to a question.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Balboni, do you yield to another question?
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, I do, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Senator
Balboni, I understand that it deals with the
transfer. My question is when you originally
buy the film for production in a motion
picture film -
SENATOR BALBONI: No, I'm sorry.
Mr. President, may I get a clarification?
When you say "buy the film,"
Senator, do you mean buy the film after it's
been produced or actually pick up the
celluloid material that is utilized to put the
film on?
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Is he asking
me to yield, Mr. President, just so we -
1932
SENATOR BALBONI: Yes, for a
point of clarification.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I'd be glad
to yield, Mr. President.
Yes, that's what I mean. When the
film producer, the director goes out to buy
the film at the start of the process, is that
film subjected to sales and use taxes even
though it may or may not eventually end up in
a motion picture film, it may be utilized, it
may not be utilized? Do you know whether it's
subject to -
SENATOR BALBONI: I do not know.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Okay.
Through you, Mr. President, just briefly on
the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Dollinger, on the bill.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I appreciate
what Senator Balboni is doing to maintain the
motion picture industry in the state of
New York.
Senator Balboni, I represent about
20,000 people who work for the largest
manufacturer of motion picture film in the
1933
world. And of those jobs that you describe
related to motion pictures, I'll bet you they
don't even include the people that work for
Eastman-Kodak Company that live in the 54th
Senate District.
And what I would suggest, Mr.
President -- I'm going to vote in favor of
this bill. This is a good idea. But I would
just suggest, Senator Balboni, that anytime
anyone buys film, motion picture film that
could in any way be used in the television
industry as you describe it -- the feature
films, documentary films, short television
films, television commercials, and similar
productions -- that all of that film should be
exempt from sales and use taxes.
And that especially you can even
tailor it further, Senator Balboni, that if
the motion picture film is manufactured in the
state of New York, as it is by Eastman-Kodak
Company, that it would be exempt from sales
and use taxes at any time in the process.
So that we could actually look at
this bill and say not only will it keep film
production jobs in New York City, but it will
1934
keep film manufacturing jobs in Rochester,
New York, where they contribute to the upstate
economy.
With that proviso, Mr. President,
my hope is that Senator Balboni's bill, which
is a good idea, will be transformed into a
much better one by a little bit of work with
the pen and the amendment process. With that
to Senator Balboni, I'll vote in favor of the
bill, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Any other
Senator wishing to speak on the bill?
Hearing none, the debate is closed.
The Secretary will read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect December 1, 2002.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill
is passed.
Senator Skelos, that completes the
controversial reading of the calendar.
1935
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: If we could
return to reports of standing committees, I
believe there's a report of the Finance
Committee at the desk. I ask that it be read
at this time.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: We'll
return to the order of reports of standing
committees.
There is a report of the Finance
Committee at the desk. The Secretary will
read.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Stafford,
from the Committee on Finance, reports the
following nominations.
As a member of the State Board of
Parole, Robert Dennison, of Eastchester.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
question is on the nomination of Robert
Dennison, of Eastchester, to become a member
of the State Board of Parole. All those in
favor signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
1936
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Opposed,
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
nominee is confirmed.
We're very pleased to have
Mr. Dennison in the gallery to your left.
Congratulations.
(Applause.)
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will continue to read.
THE SECRETARY: As a member of
the Workers' Compensation Board, Agatha Edel
Groski, Esquire, of Cobleskill.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stafford.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Move the
nomination.
But before moving it, I certainly
would want to yield to the senator -- Senator
Seward.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Seward, I wasn't sure -- there was some
question about whether you represent
Cobleskill or not. But -
1937
SENATOR SEWARD: Mr. President, I
probably represent Cobleskill.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: I know
you do.
Senator Seward, on the nomination.
SENATOR SEWARD: And I probably
represent Agatha Edel Groski as well.
And I just wanted to rise in
support of her reconfirmation. Because when
we think in terms of what makes an excellent
and effective member of the Workers'
Compensation Board, a couple of things come to
my mind. Number one, someone who is
interested in people, and someone who knows
the law. And Ms. Groski has both of those
characteristics.
Her background, professionally, she
was a nursing home administrator, a very
people-oriented, service-oriented individual.
And since that time she has entered the
profession of law and has had a very
distinguished career, in most recent years as
a member of the Workers' Compensation Board.
She's an outstanding member of the
Cobleskill and Schoharie County community as
1938
well as an outstanding member of the Workers'
Compensation Board. And I'm very, very
pleased to rise in support of her
reconfirmation.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Any other
Senator wishing to speak on the nomination?
The question is on the nomination
of Agatha Edel Groski, Esquire, of Cobleskill,
for a term as a member of the Workers'
Compensation Board. All those in favor
signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Opposed,
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
nominee is confirmed.
We're very, very pleased to have
Ms. Groski with us in the gallery to your
left.
Congratulations.
(Applause.)
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President,
1939
if I could interrupt, there will be an
immediate meeting of the Environmental
Conservation Committee in the Majority
Conference Room.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Immediate
meeting of the Environmental Conservation
Committee, an immediate meeting of the
Environmental Conservation Committee in the
Majority Conference Room, Room 332.
The Secretary will continue to
read.
THE SECRETARY: As a member of
the Workers' Compensation Board, Karl A.
Henry, of Buffalo.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stafford, on the nomination.
SENATOR STAFFORD: These three
nominees are just three fine nominees, Mr.
President. They're all reappointments. I
can't say anything but good about everyone.
And I would just move the
nomination of Mr. Henry in complimenting all
three. Thank you so much.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Any other
member wishing to speak on the nomination?
1940
Hearing none, the question is on
the nomination of Karl A. Henry, of Buffalo,
for a term as a member of the Workers'
Compensation Board. All those in favor
signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Opposed,
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
nominee is confirmed.
We're very, very pleased to have
Mr. Henry in the chamber, to our left in the
gallery, with us.
Congratulations on your work, and
continued good luck.
(Applause.)
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will continue to read.
THE SECRETARY: As a member of
the Correction Medical Review Board, Scott S.
Coyne, M.D., of Huntington.
As director of the Municipal
Assistance Corporation for the City of
New York, Kenneth Bialkin, of New York City.
1941
And as a member of the State Home
for Veterans and Their Dependents at
St. Albans, Maxwell H. Phillips, of Valley
Stream.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
question is on the nominations. All those in
favor signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Opposed,
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
nominees are confirmed.
The Secretary will continue to
read.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Stafford,
from the Committee on Finance, reports the
following bills:
Senate Print 1050, by Senator
Seward, an act to amend the State Finance Law;
2280, by Senator Bonacic, an act
requiring;
2383E, by Senator Marcellino, an
act to amend the Education Law;
2392, by Senator Rath, an act to
1942
amend the Executive Law;
2670, by Senator Nozzolio, an act
to amend the Correction Law;
2841, by Senator Farley, an act to
amend the Education Law;
3680, by Senator Volker, an act to
amend the Executive Law;
3706, by Senator Volker, an act to
amend the Executive Law;
5848, by Senator LaValle, an act to
amend the Executive Law;
6174, by Senator Maziarz, an act to
amend the Executive Law;
6367, by Senator Saland, an act to
amend the State Finance Law;
6375A, by Senator Morahan, an act
enacting;
And Senate Print 6409, by Senator
Marchi, an act to amend Chapter 759 of the
Laws of 1973.
All bills ordered direct to third
reading.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Without
objection, all bills are ordered directly to
third reading.
1943
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President,
would you please call up Calendar Number 498.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will read Calendar Number 498.
THE SECRETARY: In relation to
Calendar Number 498, Senator Skelos moves to
discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
Assembly Bill Number 11014 and substitute it
for the identical Senate Bill Number 6796,
Third Reading Calendar 498.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
substitution is ordered.
The Secretary will read the title.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
498, by the Assembly Committee on Rules,
Assembly Print Number 11014, an act to amend
the State Law, in relation to creating
Assembly and Senate districts.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill
is before the house.
SENATOR CONNOR: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Skelos, an explanation of Calendar Number 498
has been requested by the Minority Leader,
1944
Senator Connor.
SENATOR SKELOS: Thank you, Mr.
President.
On behalf of the Legislative Task
Force on Demographic Research and
Reapportionment, I'm very pleased to present
this sound and responsible reapportionment
legislation to the full Senate for its review.
This legislation passed the
Assembly last night by a vote of 109 to 28,
with two "no" votes from the Assembly Democrat
majority.
Ten years ago, I first came before
this body as chair of the task force to
request your consideration and support in
support of legislation redrawing the district
boundaries for the State Senate and the
Assembly. While then, as now, minor
disagreements as to the exact provisions of
the bill existed, I believe that our
underlying support for the fundamental
principles of the reapportionment process -
ensuring that all New Yorkers receive the
representation to which they are entitled, and
expanding the voice of minority communities in
1945
our elected chambers -- remains universal.
Following the 1990 census, the task
force offered a plan that met the needs of our
state citizens and increased the number of
minority districts in this house. This year
we have again developed a plan that ensures
the continuity of representation for the vast
majority of our constituents while
establishing a new district in Brooklyn with a
59 percent African-American voting age
population and a new district in Queens with a
54.2 percent Hispanic voting age population.
This increase increases the overall
percentage of minority districts in the Senate
from 18 percent to 21 percent. As we all
know, the population of the state has
increased. To reflect this growth, the task
force proposal includes the creation of a new
62nd State Senate district to be located in
the New York City.
As many of you may be aware, the
New York State Constitution includes language
providing for an increase in the Senate size.
With the advice of counsel in our review, we
believe that our creation of a 62nd seat is
1946
based upon calculations expressly endorsed by
the courts and best reflect both the spirit
and the letter of the State Constitution.
Like the 1990 redistricting plan,
which was upheld by the New York State Court
of Appeals and U.S. Justice Department, this
plan fully adheres to both requirements and
the spirit of the U.S. Constitution, the State
Constitution, and the Voting Rights Act.
Further, it complies with all laws
requiring substantially equal population in
state legislative districts, preserves the
cause of existing districts and current
representation across upstate and on Long
Island, and enables districts across upstate
New York to remain relatively compact and
reflect the needs of traditional communities
of interest.
As we developed our initial
proposal, Senator Dollinger and I traveled,
with our colleagues on the task force, across
New York State conducting a series of 11
public hearings to solicit the input of
residents, representative organizations, and
local officials. Subsequently, we held
1947
another eight public hearings to provide all
New Yorkers with an opportunity to respond to
the draft plan that we released on
February 15th.
To ensure the success of these
public forums, the task force spent over
$169,000 to place 46 advertisements in
multiple languages for the first round of
hearings. As a result, 319 people registered
to speak at these 11 sites. In addition,
hundreds of others submitted written
statements and letters, and many individually
patiently waited until all of the registered
participants had finished to express their
views.
Following the release of the draft
proposal in February, the task force again
spent in excess of $169,000 to publicize our
second round of public hearings. We ran 42
advertisements, also in multiple languages, to
ensure that everyone had an opportunity to
participate in this process.
At the second round of hearings,
over 600 individuals registered to testify
before the task force. And the volumes of
1948
written submissions and walk-up speakers truly
exemplified democracy in its finest.
Speaking on behalf of my colleagues
on the task force, I would like to publicly
thank all those that participated in this
process and the individual members that worked
with us to develop a better plan.
Specifically, I would like to offer
my gratitude to the representatives of New
York State's African-American, Hispanic,
Asian, and all other ethnic minority
communities that volunteered their time and
insight at each of these public hearings.
Through this involvement, we made numerous
changes to ensure that the needs of local
areas and communities were properly addressed
in the legislation that I present for your
consideration today.
I would also like to specifically
recognize the contributions of the many
members of the Senate Minority with whom we
partnered throughout the development of this
comprehensive plan. You were an invaluable
part of this process and a tremendous resource
for the task force.
1949
I'd like to thank Mark Bergeson,
who worked on the drafting of the lines, as he
did 10 years ago; Steve Boggess, who I work
very closely with; and all of my colleagues.
We tried to accommodate your needs and the
needs of your constituents as best we could.
And certainly we've tried to treat each and
every one of you with the respect that you
deserve as a member of this great Senate body.
As ten years ago, we did try to
meet with individuals and work with them so
that we could make sure the districts again
best represented your constituents. Ten years
ago we did this, and we tried to treat all
with respect. And I point out at that time
Senator Nolan voted for the legislation
because he indicated that Albany County was
intact and he was delighted with that.
Senator Stachowski, whose district has not
dramatically changed, voted yes. Senator
Connor voted yes, because he was concerned
about his district. And we accommodated
Senator Connor, and he voted yes ten years
ago. Senator Mendez, Senator Solomon, and
Senator Ada Smith.
1950
In this redistricting, the task
force had the opportunity on numerous
occasions to meet with individual members at
their request, and certainly no individual,
whether a member of the Majority or the
Minority, was denied their opportunity to
speak either with me, with Steve Boggess, with
Senator Bruno, with Mark, meet at the task
force. We made all our resources available.
And a number of members attended
these meetings and met with us: Senator
Mendez, Senator Gonzalez, Senator Sampson,
Senator Carl Kruger, Senator Gentile, Senator
Santiago, Senator Malcolm Smith, Senator Toby
Stavisky, among others. So I thank you for
your participation.
That is essentially my explanation,
and I'd be delighted to take questions.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Dollinger, why do you rise? To yield to
Senator Connor.
Senator Connor, why do you rise?
SENATOR CONNOR: Mr. President,
just if I may open.
And I appreciate Senator Skelos's
1951
reference back to history. But as he pointed
out, the plan ten years ago was approved by
the Justice Department, was never challenged
on the basis of a voting rights violation
under Section 2, and therefore didn't have any
civil rights problems with it ten years ago.
Mr. President, this year is a
different story.
I would yield to Senator Dollinger.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Dollinger, why do you rise?
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Mr. President.
I rise today to evaluate the end of
a long and critical process, the
reapportionment and redistricting of the
New York State Senate.
As everyone in the chamber knows, I
served as Senator Connor's appointee to the
task force during the last two years. I want
to thank, and I sincerely mean this, Senator
Skelos for his courtesies that he extended to
me during the reapportionment process. We
have our differences of opinion in the past,
Lord knows we'll have them in the future, we
1952
have them today. But I appreciate the
professional courtesies that you extended to
me.
In addition, I want to thank Vinnie
Bruy, Senator Bruno's original appointee, and
Mark Bonilla, his successor appointee, for
their work on the task force. I also extend
similar thanks to Assemblyman William Parment,
the Legislature's most amazing harmonica
player; Chris Ortloff, from the Assembly
Minority; and Roman Hedges, from the Assembly
staff.
And lastly, on behalf of the
Democratic conference, I want to thank Debra
Levine and the remainder of the staff -
Mark -- who worked with us during the
reapportionment process.
I offer a special thanks to Todd
Breitbart, Senator Connor's chief staff
assistant during this process. Todd has done
yeoman's work, there's no other way to
describe it, for our conference. I thank him.
But sadly, this process has
resulted in an unsatisfying and, in my
opinion, sad conclusion. I am convinced both
1953
as a lawyer and a legislator that this plan is
conceived in bad faith and constitutionally
flawed.
More importantly, this plan denies
New York's growing African-American, Hispanic,
Asian, and other Latino populations their
rightful share of chairs in this room -- right
here, right here where they, by virtue of
their numbers alone, are entitled to have a
seat in this, the public parlor of New York
State, where we debate the future.
To understand my complaints, I'd
ask you to simply follow the history of the
task force during the time I've served on it.
In March 2001, New York got the census numbers
from the federal government, our starting
point in the process. At that time, many
New Yorkers were concerned that there might be
an undercount, especially in the growing
immigrant populations in New York City.
However, the task force, without
examining or discussing the breadth of the
undercount, accepted the census numbers, even
though estimates showed that the population in
New York City alone might have been
1954
undercounted by as much as a quarter of a
million.
Armed with these numbers, the task
force went on the road, inviting public input
on new Senate lines and Assembly lines. To
encourage public input, and in the face of
repeated demands for increased public access
to the process, we went, in turn, to the 21st
century: we opened up a website, we provided
detailed information for the public, we
invited them to draw plans, and we encouraged
them at every stop to submit plans for Senate
lines.
At the public hearings in 2001 we
heard from a wide array of New York's voices,
requests for maintaining communities of
interest and repeated demands that the growing
populations in New York City in particular
have districts drawn for them that reflected
the population changes during the last decade.
However, to my dismay, those
hearings were all held during the day,
precluding many working people from
participating and forcing interested persons
to sacrifice a day of work to attend and
1955
testify.
Two voices were the loudest that we
heard: the voices of African-American and
Hispanics on Long Island to end decades of
racial gerrymandering and create a new
majority minority district in Long Island, and
the urgent appeal of Dominicans and other
Latinos to create a new majority minority
district in northern Manhattan and the Bronx.
Why did we hear those voices? Why
were they so loud? Because the populations in
those communities were growing. They wanted
the same treatment that every New Yorker is
entitled to: a chance to vote together and
elect a candidate of their choice who embodied
the characteristics of their communities.
After 11 hearings throughout the
state that ended in August, the task force
adjourned and Senator Skelos and his staff
began the process of drawing the districts.
The process continued through the fall and
winter of 2001 and into the first six weeks of
2002.
During this time, as a member of
the task force, I was often asked "What's
1956
going to happen?" I said I wasn't sure. But
there was one thing that was certain, one
thing. During this entire time, from March
2001 until February 14, 2002, the Senate
reapportionment site contained one unchanged
fact. It said that the proposed population in
each Senate district, the target population,
was 311,089. That number constitutes 1/61st
of the entire population in this state.
Anyone looking at that site, anyone
who tried to get information about what the
Senate would look like post-reapportionment
this year, could draw only one conclusion:
That the new Senate plan in 2002 would have
61 seats. That's what we told the public.
Everybody that testified during
2001 took us at our word. To my recollection,
every single speaker that discussed the Senate
during the first round of hearings said
explicitly or implied that the Senate
post-2002 would have 61 seats. No one, to my
recollection, on the task force ever said that
the Senate would have more than 61 seats. To
my understanding, no one ever suggested to the
hundreds of speakers that there would be more
1957
than 61 seats in the Senate in the year 2002.
And it appears that everyone,
everyone who took the time to truly
participate, took us -- the Senate at its
word. And they proposed plans that had 61
seats, the number we told them that we would
have. The Puerto Rican Legal Defense and
Education Fund, the New York State NAACP, the
African-American Political Action Committee of
New York, the Nassau County Caucus of Black
Democrats, the Suffolk County Caucus of Black
Democrats, and the Hispanic Democratic Club of
Brentwood submitted plans for new districts.
The new plans, the plans submitted by those
groups contained 61 seats.
I should point out I've learned one
unmistakeable thing. These plans are
difficult to draw. I learned a lot about VTDs
and black on border rules that I thought were
almost unfathomable. They are part of the
complications of reapportionment.
But the message from these groups
was simple. They did what the Senate wanted
them to do. They took their time, they drew
their plans, they submitted the plans that
1958
were configured with 61 seats in mind.
However, in what I can only
describe as bad faith, it appears that all
this public effort, all this public
involvement was in vain. Because on
February 14, after 11 months of leading the
public to think that there would only be
61 seats, the Majority unveiled a proposal for
62 seats in the Senate, in a move that in
essence mooted all the work of these community
groups.
In my judgment, the Senate Majority
deceived the public, repeatedly asking for
61-seat plans while, in my judgment, knowing
all along that it would unveil a 62-seat plan
for consideration in this house.
The Senate action by the Majority
was unprecedented. It wasn't until March 7,
three weeks later, that a legal memorandum was
posted on the website which sought to justify
the 62-seat plan.
In my judgment we, the members of
the Senate, owe an apology to all the New
Yorkers who we misled regarding the proposal
for the Senate. In my opinion, you cannot in
1959
good faith ask the public for their input on
an issue as critical as reapportionment and
then without notice, and apparently without
any public discussion, change the fundamental
ground rules.
In my opinion, the process is
tainted by deception and bad faith. The
groups that had submitted plans were left
without meaningful access to the process
because there was no time to redraw new
62-seat plans that reflected those new and
powerful voices that we had heard through the
public participation process.
I note that there is a 62-seat plan
which does reflect the testimony we heard at
the hearings regarding a fair share of seats
in the New York State Senate for New York's
African-American and Hispanic residents. I
presented that plan to the task force this
week. It is a benchmark that proves beyond
doubt that the yearnings of all New Yorkers
for a seat at the table -- or, in this case, a
desk in this chamber -- is not only possible
but easily accommodated along with the
remaining traditional redistricting criteria
1960
that govern the plan that we must vote on.
Apart from bad faith in the process
in deceiving the public about the size of the
Senate, I also believe there is no legitimate
legal basis to increase the size of the Senate
as this plan envisions. In this regard, the
State Constitution governs what the Senate can
do by statute to increase its size. We have
no choice. The people, through their
constitution -- through their constitution -
took the choice away from us. We can only do
what Article 3, Section 4 permits. Simply
put, it does not permit us to draw another
seat and increase the total number from 61 as
to 62.
Since 1972 -- Senator Marchi has
been here through this entire process -- the
Legislature has undergone four redistricting
cycles. In each of the prior three instances,
the Legislature complied with a formula for
Senate seats set forth by the Court of Appeals
in Schneider versus Rockefeller, the last and
certainly the most powerful interpretation of
Article 3, Section 4.
If the Legislature used the same
1961
formula approved by the Court of Appeals and
used in 1972, 1982, and 1992, then the right
number of seats in this chamber is 61, not 62.
Why are we abandoning our fealty to
an established formula and its court-approved
interpretation? To make a bigger government.
When the people of this state, by their
constitution, have dictated a smaller one. I
don't understand. I believe that this
increase is constitutionally unacceptable.
But in closing, it seems that this
year, the Legislature, and in particular the
Senate, has decided to embark on a new course
for reapportionment. It has misled the public
regarding the size of the Senate and ignored
our State Constitution's restriction on its
size.
The process leads to a conclusion
that the majority of this house who devised
this plan have actually sought to thwart
public participation on the most important
principle that rests with us to decide: the
size, the scope, and the representation in the
people's government and the preservation of
the importance of every resident and their
1962
power to vote.
I urge everyone in this chamber who
believes in our democracy, in our state
democracy, and in the underlying fairness for
all that we pledge allegiance to, who believes
that, in the words of Emma Golden [sic] those
yearning to breathe free should also have a
voice with that same breath, and that everyone
who believes that the charting of our future
demands that every single voice be heard and
that it be given the same weight, that's the
only way that we can establish the harmony and
unison necessary to chart a new direction for
this state -- if you believe that, you must
vote no.
Thank you, Mr. President. I'll
yield to Senator Paterson.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Dollinger, it's not the common practice to
yield from one member to another. The chair
has a list of members who have asked to be
recognized, and we'll follow that. I'll put
Senator Paterson next on the list, at the
bottom.
The chair recognizes Senator
1963
Espada.
SENATOR ESPADA: Well, thank you,
Mr. President.
And firstly let me also thank the
Legislative Task Force on Demographic Research
and Reapportionment. As I'm sure all of us
know, we represent one Senate district. To
transverse the whole state and to hold the
public hearings and to put in the nights and
the days that you did deserves special
commendation from all of us, I'm sure.
Indeed, I think the fruits of your
labor are before us today, after a draft plan,
after I think rather massive input by not only
members but the community at large. This plan
that sits before us for adoption today is
responsive, does meet the needs not only of
minorities throughout this state but the
residents of the entire state, Mr. President.
And I applaud the task force. I
applaud the task force as a senator, I applaud
the task force as a Puerto Rican senator, I
applaud the task force as a person that
represents over 180,000 Latinos, a person that
represents over 90,000 African-Americans and
1964
over 20,000 people of diverse backgrounds.
You know, not only does this plan
do justice in enhancing minority
representation, we talked about -- Senator
Skelos talked about the creation of two new
Senate districts, one in Queens, majority
Hispanic, one in Brooklyn, majority
African-American, particularly from the
Caribbean.
And let me just say that every day
when I walk in here and I see three other
Puerto Rican state senators, it is a source of
great pride. And when I see eight other
African-American senators, it is a source of
great pride. Not only do they represent their
districts and their particular constituencies,
they contribute to the public good statewide.
We vote here to promote the public
interest of the residents of the entire State
of New York. This plan does justice to that
when it not only enhances minority
representation from 12 to 14, or 21 percent of
the state Senate districts going to racial and
ethnic minorities, but indeed, this is a
minimum.
1965
This is a minimum, Mr. President
and colleagues, because as I look at this
plan, I identify five other Senate districts
that are majority minority districts. And the
fact that they're represented by Democrats
does not change the fact that they are
majority minority districts not represented by
a racial minority.
We've been taught -- through the
doctrines of the Democratic Party, mostly,
that there's something wrong with that, that
there's something inherently wrong with that.
And much of the language of empowerment that
we're hearing from nonminorities on behalf of
minorities doesn't take this issue into
account.
Indeed, in my own borough of the
Bronx there are five Assembly seats occupied
by nonminorities in clearly minority majority
Assembly districts, yet we don't hear a word
about that.
Now, Mr. President and colleagues,
this plan builds on the basic foundation of
minority representation and offers new
opportunities not only to minorities but also
1966
to New York City as a whole when it adds a new
district and a new powerful voice, come next
year, from New York City. It recognizes the
population increase, it measures the need for
that additional voice. Indeed, we will get
that additional voice.
After 25 years, Mr. President and
colleagues, of being a public servant in the
Bronx, and most particularly in the South
Bronx, I had a personal political
transformation. I sit in the Senate Majority
conference now. That was not just one
person's political transformation,
Mr. President, that was reflective of the fact
that there is a new political paradigm, that
minorities and particularly Latinos will no
longer count on other folks to tell them what
is empowering to them.
We recognize throughout this whole
country now that we need to form new political
patterns and expectations, that in fact the
products of our participation and our ability
to reassess that participation anytime we want
is true empowerment. That we can go against
the expectations created by others about our
1967
political participation is true empowerment.
That we can say we have political capital and
political wealth that can be distributed any
way we want to is political empowerment. We
see that in California, in Texas, in Michigan,
in Florida. Throughout the United States we
see this happening.
It's not welcome in certain
quarters, just like my own personal political
transformation is not welcome in certain
quarters. It's welcome in my district. We
will prove that, Mr. President. It's welcome
in our districts because we reserve that
right, we reserve that right to act in our own
interests, to define our time frame interests.
The diversification of our
political capital is up to us. We won't find
that in data, we won't find that in charts, we
won't find that in reports. We will find that
when we are brave enough and bold enough to
speak truth to a very basic power, and that is
that is there is a monopoly. Let's break
through the rhetoric and get to the bottom
line. This is not about minority empowerment,
this is about Democrat versus Republican
1968
politics.
And the truth is that when I visit
this question and when I hear the rhetoric -
and some may say: You're newborn here?
Sometimes it takes a long time to leave
abusive relationships.
And let me just say that the Latino
and African-American community has been taken
for granted far too long. Others have spoken
about its dreams and expectations and defined
political participation far too long.
And we need to demystify this.
This is not some mystical trip here. Latinos
and African-Americans, in my view, in my
humble view, are no different than anybody
else. When it comes to wanting a public
health system that is accessible, that
provides quality health services, we're no
different. When it comes to the education of
our children, we're no different. Public
safety, we're no different.
And so those political outcomes, if
they're to be had and shared in every
community, requires by our very number, I
think, to form new political coalitions, new
1969
political pathways. Because that, my
colleagues, is true empowerment.
We want economic equity. We want a
full participation in the American dream. The
Constitution speaks to that. Many, many
people have spoken to that. But yet our
political participation, our voting patterns
have been preordained for us by very, very
powerful, powerful advocates, advocates that
speak for us, advocates that are well-paid to
continue to speak for us. I think we need to
break that trend with the adoption of this
proposal.
And so there's been a lot spoken
about the Long Island corridor, the nine State
Senate Majority districts there, where we have
as political entities 30,000, 40,000, 50,000
residents that may be Latinos or
African-Americans. Who among us would take
that for granted? Do we cluster? Do we
presume that we all want to be together and
that we will vote together and that we belong
in one district?
I just ask, in this new political
paradigm that I'm speaking to, that we give
1970
equal weight, if not some consideration to the
fact that if there were Republican Latinos and
African-Americans spread out through nine
districts, wouldn't they get some respect?
Wouldn't they get some recognition? Wouldn't
the products of their political participation
be rewarded also? Couldn't we see one of
them, many of them sit on this side of the
aisle after some time?
I think so. I think so. I think
many people move throughout the city and the
state not to be clustered, but to be
mainstreamed, to have full participation in
their new locale and residences.
And so I don't think the
Constitution or any political lobby can
preordain how these people should vote. The
free exercise of their franchise is their
business. We shouldn't interfere. We
shouldn't block that, we shouldn't vote-block
that.
And so I call, Mr. President and
colleagues, upon all of us, particularly after
the post-9/11 tragedy, I call upon us to set
aside political affiliations, to really be
1971
true to why we're here, and to cast a vote in
favor of this well-thought-out,
constitutionally sound plan.
I thank you, colleagues. I thank
you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
I represent Harlem, the Upper West Side, and
Washington Heights in the Senate, but I
actually grew up in Long Island. I grew up in
Nassau County, in the town of Hempstead, in
the village of Hempstead. I went to primary
school there, junior high school there, I went
to high school there.
And I remember a lot of things very
fondly about living in Long Island, and I
remember a few things not so fondly. And it
had to do with the fact that in spite of a
growing African-American and Hispanic
population, in a compact and contiguous area
that encompasses the regions of Freeport,
Roosevelt, Uniondale, Hempstead, West
Hempstead, South Hempstead, Baldwin, and
Lakeview, these communities have always been
1972
fractured by the drawing of reapportion lines
every ten years.
There are lines that go this way,
there are lines that go that way. But the one
thing that is constant is a line that goes
right through those areas that cuts those
members of the African-American community and
now a growing number of members of the
Hispanic community from each other.
As a result of that, if I were
still living in that area, in Hempstead in
Long Island, there is really no way that I
could be in the Senate.
Now, although that might provide a
lot of comfort to many of you, the fact
remains that there are a number of individuals
of great ability and intellect who live that
region who cannot exercise their right to
participate in the process because, just in
the way those districts are divided, they
could not run or be victorious in a New York
State Senate election.
When you look at this
reapportionment plan, I have to agree with
Senator Dollinger and urge my colleagues to
1973
vote against this plan -- if nothing else,
just to ensure the integrity of the voting
cycle and to save us from what I think will be
an embarrassing situation when we have to go
to court and try to defend it.
How are we going to go into court
and try to explain a plan that has so many
situations as the one that I just described?
The fact is that this plan violates Section 2
of the Voting Rights Act. Section 2 of the
Voting Rights Act is permanent, and it extends
nationwide. It protects minorities from the
lessened opportunity to participate in the
process, and it allows for members of minority
groups to be elected to public office.
Section 2 is probably the most
strict section of the Voting Rights Act
because of its preventative technique of
making sure that people who are
African-American or whether they are Puerto
Rican, whether they are of other Hispanic
descent, whether they are of Asian descent,
get that opportunity to be a part of the
political process.
The problem with this
1974
reapportionment plan is very interesting,
because it is not only not in compliance with
Section 2, it contradicts itself. When you
look at the area in Long Island that I just
described, it actually fractures the voters
from each other, particularly voters from
contiguous, compact areas such as the one I
described of African-Americans. When you get
to the Bronx, it does the reverse. It packs
Hispanic members of our society so as to
preserve another seat.
Both the packing and the fracturing
are not in compliance with Section 2. Yet you
have to wonder who drew up the plan, because
it's actually contradicting itself. This also
has a different name, a name many of us know
all too well. We call it racial
gerrymandering.
When you look at the Bronx, the
34th Senate District in the proposed plan,
this is especially unique. It goes block by
block, fusing together non-Hispanic whites in
the Bronx, in Westchester, and then back into
the Bronx, until it winds up with a
59.5 percent non-Hispanic, white district.
1975
And the only way it can accomplish that is to
pack larger and larger percentages of
African-Americans and Hispanics with each
other.
Which is exactly what Senator
Espada was pointing out, that in this society
these days you can't do that -- not only
because it violates Section 2, but because
it's just plain wrong.
So when we go back to Long Island
and we look at the nine Senate districts drawn
for three decades, where the one consistent
thing is the denial of the opportunity of the
minorities in those particular areas to elect
individuals, this plan fails in that respect.
It's not in compliance with Section 2. In my
opinion, it couldn't withstand any type of
challenge.
What we should do is vote against
this plan and sit down, if we want to work out
some workable, sensible, achievable ways of
bringing ourselves in compliance and not
violating the census, the Constitution of the
State of New York, the Constitution of the
United States, and the Supreme Court of the
1976
United States.
It is certainly a product of a lot
of hard work, and I certainly respect and
congratulate those who performed that work.
I'm just here to tell you that there's more
work to do and we really should act now so
that we can always understand that we have
tried to erase decades of denial of these
opportunities in the past.
If we're all in this new millennium
and this new spirit of cooperation, then let's
sit down now and draw some districts with the
full understanding that one of the problems in
civil rights all over this land has always
been that the only way -- and it's a tragic
reality -- that the only way to provide equity
and equality is going to be to have to take
some things from those who may have had it in
the past. The problem was that it was
unjustified in the past. So in doing so, we
will at least understand that we are now
acting together to move into that new freedom
and justice for all.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The chair
recognizes Senator Ada Smith.
1977
SENATOR ADA SMITH: Thank you,
Mr. President.
Let me first thank Senator Skelos,
Senator Dollinger, and all the members of the
task force, who really performed a yeoman's
job spending many hours putting all of this
together.
But today I want to tell you what
reapportionment means to real people, real
people in the state of New York.
Reapportionment is about giving people a sense
of power. Because when people can come
together and use their power, we can see how
great things can happen and lives may be
improved.
Unfortunately, this reapportionment
plan is not about making sure that all
people's lives are improved, it is about
keeping power away from certain minority
communities. It is about keeping power
focused on the few rather than the whole.
Today's bill continues an unlawful plot to
keep certain black and Latino communities at a
population disadvantage.
By deliberately splitting these
1978
communities among multiple districts, it
weakens them deliberately. It weakens them
purposefully. It weakens them in order to
concentrate power among a few and deny a
majority of minorities the right to select a
representative of their choice.
This bill splits several
neighborhoods where minority populations live
in order to dilute an emerging power, that
power base in certain growing Long Island
communities. Redistricting that splits
minority populations denies representation to
communities defined not just by race but by
actual shared interests.
Education is the best example of
such a shared interest. Education is the
largest single category of government
expenditure in New York State. Funding for
local school districts is the second largest
item in the state budget. And the education
aid formula is the most contentious issue the
Legislature addresses each year.
Yet in Nassau and Suffolk counties,
certain school districts with large minority
populations tend to be less affluent and less
1979
able to finance public education than their
local tax base. This has limited these school
districts' ability to meet the sound, basic
educational requirement provided by our State
Constitution.
In fact, last year State Supreme
Court Justice Leland DeGrasse ordered the
Legislature to address the shortcomings of the
current system and to ensure that every school
district has the resources necessary for
providing the opportunities for a sound, basic
education.
As we set out to deal with
education funding, we need everyone in
New York State at the table. This bill
systematically splits these minority
neighborhoods to keep powerful and informed
groups from coming together to advocate
effectively for a fair share of state
education funding. This allows those
currently in office to limit their response
only to voters who have a stake in maintaining
the status quo.
Splitting these minority
communities also discourages interracial
1980
coalition building. It has been long known
that racially polarized or segregated politics
have a corrosive effect on democracy.
Interracial coalition building should be
encouraged, not discouraged.
As we see here in this plan,
redistricting has been done to dilute
minority-group voting power by drawing
districts in which black or Hispanic voters
are not just a minority but also the smallest
possible minority. This bill reduces their
value as coalition partners and makes it easy
and very tempting for candidates to win
election without appealing for their support
or even addressing their needs or representing
their interests.
We can do better. We must do
better. We in the State Senate should vote
no. Let us uphold the Voting Rights Act.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Lachman.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Mr. President,
I rise today to express my concerns with
regard to the Senate redistricting plan and
its effect primarily on the people of Borough
1981
Park but also on the people of Williamsburg.
And I do not mean Williamsburg, Virginia.
Borough Park and Williamsburg,
Mr. President, are both vibrant and vivid
places that represent a community of common
interest, values, and beliefs. These citizens
read the same newspapers, they attend the same
houses of worship, they go to the same schools
and hospitals, they utilize the same social
services, and they buy their groceries and
other food at the same kosher stores. And
they frequent, therefore, the same merchants.
Undoubtedly these communities
constitute a community of interest. They
therefore were satisfied -- indeed, they were
quite happy that the initial redistricting
plan showed that their communities would not
be divided.
The redistricting plan as currently
constituted fractures the Borough Park
community, replacing the current
representation with five disparate districts
in which the unique concerns of these people
could be lost. Similarly, Williamsburg is
split into two parts. However, no other
1982
community in the State Senate besides Borough
Park has been so severely impacted by this
Senate's redistricting plan.
Borough Park, Mr. President, as you
know, is an incredibly civic-minded community.
Had the initial plan shown this five-part
neighborhood split, these citizens of all
ages, from 9 to 90, would have attended public
hearings and made their concerns known in the
thousands if not the tens of thousands, by
foot, by train, by bus, by car, and by
bicycle.
Compounding the problem is the
fact -- and this is an important fact that
cannot be denied -- is the fact that this
division in representation was finalized on
the Jewish holiday of Passover, when Orthodox
Jews do not work and do not answer their
telephones. It was only confirmed when the
information appeared on websites two days ago.
Many therefore believe that this plan is
insensitive to their beliefs as well as to the
integrity of their communities.
As a matter of principle and as a
matter of conscience, I dare not, I care not,
1983
I cannot, I will not support this flawed plan.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Kruger.
SENATOR KRUGER: Thank you, Mr.
President.
I guess February 15th, when the
initial plan was proposed by the task force,
represents in my judgment a tale of two
cities, the best of times and the worst of
times -- the best of times for many members of
this Legislature, as basically their districts
were either virtually left intact or so
conceived that they were politically whole and
compact.
In my particular case, my
communities were virtually torn asunder. And
when that happened, there was an outcry from
our neighborhoods. That outcry was heard at a
series of public hearings where over 200
people testified, where over 5,000 letters of
support for redefining my district were
submitted to the task force. Over 800 people
came by bus and by car to participate at that
Brooklyn Borough Hall hearing. Literally
1984
hundreds of phone calls were made in support
of reviewing that particular set of lines.
And out of that shared community
voice, the task force recognized its
obligation. And unfortunately, in recognizing
that obligation, we will find that this is a
political document. And within a political
document, there are going to be deficiencies.
But what we were able to see as a
by-product of that community support was that
the neighborhoods of Brighton Beach, and its
Russian community, and Manhattan Beach were
joined together with the shorefront
communities of Sheepshead Bay and Plumb Beach,
along with Mill Island and Mill Basin, and
Bergen Beach and Georgetown and the Futurama
community, along with Flatbush, Borough Park,
and Bensonhurst.
And out of that shared plan we were
able to look at the composite picture that the
task force presented and recognize that the
voices of those communities were heard.
As Senator Lachman pointed out, in
every plan there is a deficiency. I think we
all recognize that the ripple effect as
1985
districts are joined together causes some
fracturing of neighborhoods. But I for one am
somebody that never tripped over a district
line. I view our totality, as Senator Espada
and others pointed out, as a community of
interest, as a community of concern, as a
state working together in partnership for the
good of all the people.
So today I intend to support this
plan, recognizing that my obligation does not
end at a district line. The same way when I
went to Nassau County, not more than several
months ago, to fight for an indigent baby
which was being denied medical care -- because
her family lived in my district -- and we were
successful in cutting through bureaucracy and
red tape and delivering that care. Certainly
my district did not end at the Nassau County
border, but my concerns followed that same
pathway.
Well, today this Legislature has an
opportunity to embrace not one section of any
one community but to talk about communities as
a whole, to recognize that yes, we have
obligations to move forward with an agenda
1986
that deals with safety in the streets, with
educating our children, with developing and
delivering quality health care for all
New Yorkers.
And if we're able to do that and
put aside petty politics, if we're able to do
that and recognize that we have an obligation,
an obligation that says that as elected
officials and as New Yorkers that yes, we have
to represent all segments of our community,
that the by-product of this plan truly
embodies the voices of so many different
neighborhoods.
And it isn't perfect and it is
deficient, but nevertheless it's the best plan
that I believe that could be enacted to
represent all of the interests of all of the
people of this state.
And as I go back to my district
today and as I have meetings in Flatbush and,
interestingly enough, tomorrow morning in
Borough Park, in a piece of Borough Park that
will no longer, under this plan, be part of my
district, I pledge my support to all elements
of those communities, that we will work in
1987
partnership. That this is not so much
necessarily the idea of losing a daughter, but
it's like a marriage, it's like gaining a son.
Because together we are partners.
We are partners in good government, we are
partners in good politics, and we're partners
in representing all of the people of the State
of New York.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Volker, on the bill.
SENATOR VOLKER: Mr. President, I
guess Ronnie and I are two of the only people
who have been here through four
reapportionments -- '72, '82, '92, 2002. It's
kind of frightening. I came in the 1972
election that had a double primary,
Conservative and Republican. John Daly, the
late John Daly, came with me. He had a double
primary too, but he was coming from the
outside. I was from the inside. I got the
nomination.
The reason I mention that is, you
know, a lot of people really don't understand
reapportionments. And I want to tell you
1988
something, I've watched a lot. I was directly
involved in one in particular when Senator
Anderson sent me to the Assembly to sort of
negotiate. And I've been involved in this,
like most of the members have.
Senator Skelos has done a super
job, and his staff, Senator Bruno. I think
Senator Connor and his people I think have
worked very, very hard. And it's their place,
by the way -- so that everybody knows, it's
their place to make objections.
And you find out the best way to do
it, and it -- because the Civil Rights Act is
the most difficult one, it's always been
certainly a good place to launch. The problem
with that issue is that it's gotten more
difficult because of the numbers of minorities
there are and all the conflicted issues that
have come before us.
It's my opinion -- and I've been a
lawyer for 35 years, and I've watched all
those reapportionments -- that this
reapportionment plan is legal, that it follows
the proper way in which reapportionments are
supposed to be done.
1989
Of course there's some objections.
I mean, the Minority is supposed to object.
The Minority is supposed to say "Hey, we could
lose a couple of districts here." So they're
going to be concerned.
But the thing I have to say about
it, where the media doesn't have any clue
about this, this is democracy. And in a sense
it's lowest common denominator. Those people
that want to say we'll have independent people
do reapportionments don't quite understand
American democracy. They tried that in
Canada. It really hasn't worked very well.
And it's one reason why this
country still is so much stronger than many of
the other countries. And this state really
has done a better job than most of the other
states have.
Oh, I know that you're supposed to
say the right things to people and say: Well,
you know, we want to be fair to everybody. We
do. But we're politicians. We want to do
what is proper to do within the guidelines of
the Constitution and of the federal law. One
of the reasons I'm saying that is everybody
1990
realized that what's being said here today -
and one of the reasons the statements have
been read, so everybody understands -- will be
part of the record. And it's part of what's
going to go to a federal judge, ultimately.
Because no matter what we do here, that's
going to happen. You don't even have to make
an argument, because it will end up getting
there, it just depends on the forum.
So all I can say to you is -- and I
can speak for Western New York in particular.
And frankly, in looking at the maps and the
calculations, I don't agree with Senator
Connor, I don't agree with Senator Dollinger.
I think this does comply with the Voting
Rights Act.
I think you could make arguments
all over the place about dividing communities.
There's no way you can avoid, to a certain
extent, dividing communities. It's part of
the landscape, particularly when we had a
situation here, in my humble opinion -- and I
have warned Senator Skelos and Senator Bruno
that my district probably has 50,000 to 75,000
more people than the census people counted.
1991
We were undercounted all over this
state, there's no question about it. But
there's nothing we can do about it. I mean,
we have the numbers. They're there.
If you think New York City is
undercounted, upstate probably is a lot worse,
in my humble opinion. The suburbs around
Buffalo and all of those places. We have one
town that we political people are convinced is
bigger than the town of Amherst -- the town of
Cheektowaga -- and yet they claimed we lost
population.
The reason I'm saying that is that
a lot of the fiction that is going around -
now, there's nothing we can do about it. You
can complain, you can say anything you want.
But don't kid yourself from the fact that
New York City is undercounted. We're all
undercounted. But we have to take the numbers
that we get from the census people.
As Dean has pointed out, and as the
leader and all of us have pointed out, we have
no choice. That's the law. And under the
law, the reapportionment people have divided
this state up and I think done the proper
1992
ratios in Western New York, as an example.
And there were some people who were pushing
hard to merge Democratic districts and all
that sort of stuff. We ignored all that.
And Senator Brown's district is the
most minority district in all of upstate
New York, without question. Senator
Stachowski's district is, I think, a district
that is surrounded by areas that he's
extremely familiar with. And I think all the
people in Western New York have what I call
regular districts that run out toward the
east, given our numbers and given what we had
to work with with the Census Bureau.
If we had real numbers, in my
opinion -- that is, if the census numbers had
been proper -- we'd have bigger numbers, but
that's beside the point. So there's nothing
we can do about it.
The reason I mention that is that I
don't think any of us quite realize the
enormity of such an undertaking as doing a
reapportionment in this state. And I think
that Dean and his people and the Majority
Leader have done a job that I certainly know I
1993
couldn't do. And I think they've restrained
themselves politically to the point where I
think they've done a job which I'm not so sure
that other legislators in this country would
do.
Now, Senator Connor is looking and
smiling. I'm not saying that there wasn't any
politics involved in this reapportionment. Of
course there was politics involved in the
reapportionment. But what I'm pointing out is
that I think that if you look at it generally,
both minorities, majorities, and all the new
minorities I think have an equal standing to
be able to vote for candidates of their
choice.
You know, one of the things I think
we have to be careful of is not to think
somehow we have to put everyone in their
proper place. That's not the way America
works. Just because maybe you don't have
enough people to elect the candidate that you
want doesn't mean that there's something
irresponsible about that, or illegal. You
can't possibly do that in every case.
It just seems to me that we better
1994
all understand that we had better get together
and understand that all of us better help each
other or ultimately we're going to be in an
even bigger problem than we're already in.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Alesi, on the bill.
SENATOR ALESI: Thank you, Mr.
President.
I'd like to make a brief statement,
as my colleagues have done, to thank those
people who have worked so hard on this plan.
There are countless exhausting hours that have
gone into this, meetings all across the state
seeking public input, the priceless, valuable
public input, not just from members of this
body but from members of our respective
communities all across the state, whether it
is from the South Bronx or whether it is from
Monroe County.
With respect to Senator Dollinger's
comments about the State Constitution, I
expect that that will not be answered here
today, but it will be answered further down
the road in what is part of this whole
process, and that will be a judicial review, a
1995
review by the federal government.
But our job here today is to say
how acceptable is this plan, this very
comprehensive plan, to this body, to this very
diverse collection of people who represent a
very diverse population in New York State,
whether it is from the very rural areas of
upstate or the heavily populated, concentrated
areas of the New York City area.
I'd also like to thank my
colleagues in this body for the passion that I
have seen displayed here today. Very often we
stand on the floor, we debate bills, we debate
them mechanically, we debate them for what
legalistically might be in them or not in
them -- but we don't necessarily always debate
bills with the passion that we have seen here
today. Because what we have seen here today
does truly have such a direct impact on what
we do as representatives of the people that we
know at home and the people that we understand
at home, the people that we work for.
And with regard to that passion,
Senator Espada has given us his views on how
he sees his role as a representative,
1996
referring to his political transformation.
Senator Smith has given her passionate
response. Senator Paterson, referring to
racial gerrymandering, certainly no lack of
passion in those comments. Senator Kruger as
well, and others. This is a very passionate
issue for all of us.
But there's also a complexity here,
and it is something that should not escape us.
And that is that in the year 2002 we are
drawing lines for the next ten years that will
represent districts that will continue to
change dramatically. And if these districts
had not changed over the last ten years, there
would be no need for redistricting. But there
is a need for redistricting.
And five years from now, I
submit -- not necessarily in my area, but in
many of the other areas, in the metropolitan
area especially -- you will see continued
changes, especially with the influx of
immigrants. And five years from now anybody
who says that their district doesn't do
justice to their ability to represent their
people will be able to say it didn't do it
1997
five years ago, it doesn't do it today, and it
won't do it in another five years when the
next redistricting plan occurs. That is the
complexity of this.
But it is also the simplicity of it
to understand, that we're dealing with a
snapshot that was provided us by the census
dealing with today's data. And in the
relatively short period of time since we've
had that, the people that have undertaken this
project on both sides of the aisle, and in
fact in both houses, have had to come up with
a plan that serves the people of this state as
well as possible.
And, yes, it is not perfect. Very
little if anything that we do here is perfect,
and I think that we can all agree to that.
And in my own case, I'd like to
offer the opposite view. An area that I
represented for seven years and am invested in
is no longer in my district. It's an area
where tremendous economic activity is
expected. The Governor referred to it in his
State of the State, the "fast ferry" project.
It is an area that has seen racial
1998
tension in its schools because urban students
are moving into that area and there is a
resistance to that. The result was racial
tension in the Charlotte schools.
The CSX railroad just recently
derailed on Christmas Eve, spilling tons of
poisonous chemicals along that whole area that
is no longer going to be in my district.
I have worked there and will
continue to work there. Why? Because we have
a delegation. We have members of the
Assembly, we have members of the Senate on
both sides of the aisle that do work together
that don't necessarily represent a particular
area just defined by lines. We recognize in a
region that we work together to represent
these people regionally.
And we recognize or should
recognize as we sit here today that when we
leave, what we have to do is represent the
people of the state as well as the people in
our own district.
What I will receive in return for
losing that particular area that I mentioned
that I have invested time in is much more of
1999
the city of Rochester in the central urban
area, in an area that is served by the
Rochester City School District which, more
than any other school district per capita in
this state, is suffering from a tremendous
financial burden because of undisclosed
financial problems and a deficit that was
undisclosed.
And this gives me an opportunity
now, with this new population in my district,
to serve them. And I'm looking forward to
that. And we should all look forward to
serving the new people that are in our
district. We should show the dedication and
devotion to the new people that are in our
district.
And in my case, yes, there will be
more minority people that I will be
representing. And I will work just as hard to
represent those minority interests as I have
done to represent everybody in my district in
the last seven years that I've been here.
And so the charge as we leave here
is really a simple one, that there will be new
lines, there will be new people. We will miss
2000
some of the old people. But our
responsibility is to do the job that we were
elected to do and that we will be elected to
do under these new lines. It's a matter of
the devotion and dedication that we imply that
we will exercise when we run for office.
And so although I will miss the
people that I have worked for, in regard to
those charges that there will be some
political gerrymandering, in my district I
will enjoy the benefit of serving a more
racially concentrated area of my district.
And hopefully they'll enjoy the benefit of my
commitment to them -- assuming I win the next
election -- to serve them with as much vigor
and as much devotion to their needs as I have
to my constituents in the past seven years.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The chair
recognizes Senator Connor, to close for the
Minority.
SENATOR CONNOR: Thank you, Mr.
President.
And, Mr. President, let me say, as
Sam Ervin used to say, when it comes to this
2001
stuff, I'm just a country lawyer. But in
1978, Senator Ohrenstein appointed me to the
task force. And if I learned nothing else, I
learned how much work was involved.
And so I do want to thank Senator
Skelos, Senator Dollinger, Vinnie Bruy,
Vinnie's replacement on the task force, as
well as their Assembly colleagues. It is a
lot of work sitting through those hearings.
To the staff of the task force,
Debra, Lou, and their staffs, I recognize and
appreciate their professionalism. They are
thorough professionals and certainly always
treat everyone they deal with with the utmost
courtesy.
One of the smartest things I've
ever done in the State Senate was when Senator
Ohrenstein appointed me, I'd only been here a
few months, and he replaced Senator Halperin
with me, because I was an election lawyer, on
the task force. And by the next year, things
had -- we were preparing for the census and so
on. And by the way, I had virtually no staff.
And I went and I said "Will I get a
staff?" And through the task force I was
2002
entitled to some staff allocation. And
someone who I'd known for a few years, met him
in some political campaigns where he was the,
quote, numbers guy, unquote -- Todd Breitbart.
And I hired Todd. I hired Todd in 1979, and
he's been with us ever since.
Sometime in '81 he got into a
dispute with Senator Ohrenstein's then chief
of staff, who, you know, as these things
happen threatened to fire Todd. We were in
the middle of drawing -- or maybe it was '82.
We were in the middle of drawing districts.
And I called Fred at home and he said, "Well,
Todd Breitbart will have a job for as long as
I'm leader and he's alive." And Todd
certainly knew when I became leader he was our
person.
He works night and day. I've seen
him go three-day stretches without a bit of
sleep. He's really a one-man -- you know,
reality is such that the Minority doesn't get
the resources the Majorities get in this
process. That's the way things are. Todd
makes up for it by doing the work of three
people at least.
2003
So I do want to thank him publicly
and tell him on behalf of all of my colleagues
we -- and, you know, the nature of the work is
that he has members that yell at him. And
that's his job, and he knows it. But he does
a tremendous job for us, and we all do
appreciate and love him.
I do want to, for the record, note
that we have before us a bill with metes and
bounds. The task force had that before them
on Monday. The task force, in voting on
Monday, had this document which we have called
"Proposed Senate and Assembly District Lines
2002, Revised Effective April 7." This is
what every member of the Assembly, when they
voted last night, had in front of them. This
is what we have. It has maps in it and charts
in the back. This is what every member of the
Senate has before us today.
We have no other information before
us but the maps, the bill, and the data in
this document. I note it's all racial data.
There is nothing in that report concerning
communities of shared interests, nothing in
the report concerning politics.
2004
And I do want to say to Senator
Volker I wasn't for a minute suggesting that
any partisan considerations went into this
plan. I was just turning to get to listen
better.
That said, every member of this
body has a vote on this. It's the Legislature
that adopts the plan, not the task force. The
task force merely recommends. That's true, of
course, in the Assembly.
Justice demands, Mr. President,
that I speak against this plan, because what's
at stake is the future of New York and many,
many New Yorkers. This plan quite plainly
violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act in
grossly malapportioning the state between a
region of New York City, Westchester and
Rockland, and upstate. Long Island, in terms
of apportionment, Long Island fairly gets nine
seats.
What's happened in this plan,
though, Mr. President, is if you do the
apportionment, that region of New York
City/Westchester/Rockland is entitled to 29.69
seats, and upstate is entitled to twenty -- I
2005
had the number in front of me -- but it's
twenty -- 24.3, am I correct? Or
23.3 percent, 23.31 percent of the number of
seats.
And what this plan does is it
rounds that 23.31 up to 24 and rounds the
29.69 down to 29. Mr. President, don't tell
my 12-year-old, who's struggling with math,
that that's how you do rounding. It defies
logic.
And if all it did was defy logic
and if all it did was award an extra seat to
upstate, creating a total deviation of 9 point
whatever it is, 73 or such, that would be one
thing. But what it really does is it makes
every single Senate seat in New York City,
Westchester and Rockland larger in population
than every single upstate Senate district.
What that means is it devalues the
vote of an individual voter in every one of
those downstate seats. Your vote is devalued
if it takes more people to elect your state
senator than if it took less people. That's
what the 1960s one person-one vote cases were
about.
2006
But in doing that, we are devaluing
the vote of a region that contains a
disproportionate percentage of the minority
population of New York State. In that region,
where every single Senate seat has its voters'
vote devalued, that region contains
76.6 percent of the state's black voting age
population, 80.8 percent of the Asian voting
age population, and 81.5 percent of the
Hispanic voting age population of New York
State.
I.e., we are devaluing not just
every downstater's vote, but we are denying a
substantial portion of New York State's
minority voters. We're devaluing and diluting
their vote.
The interesting thing is,
Mr. President, if in a 62-seat Senate one were
to round it the other way, round it the way my
12-year-old is taught in school -- 29.7 equals
30, 23.3 rounds down to 23 -- you could, in
New York City, get not one but two additional
minority districts.
Let me say, Mr. President, what a
majority minority district is and what it is
2007
not. The presently constituted Senate has 11
majority minority districts. We have 11
minority districts. We have 12 minority
members, but that's not the issue. We have 11
minority districts.
Under the plan before us today, a
new majority Hispanic district in Queens and a
new majority African-American district in
Brooklyn is created, raising the total to 13
majority minority districts.
And by the way, Mr. President, that
doesn't equate necessarily with those
districts will elect a person of color. The
point, Mr. President, under the Voting Rights
Act, is those residents will elect the person
they choose to elect, be he or she white,
black, Hispanic, Asian or whatever. This is
about the voters, Mr. President. The Voting
Rights Act is about voters. It's not about
politicians, it's not about members of a
legislature. It's about who the voters get to
choose, about empowering voters.
Mr. President, Senator Paterson has
addressed the historic division over 40 years,
by virtually the same line, of the minority
2008
population in Nassau County. We're not
talking, Mr. President, in Nassau County about
some sort of meandering, crab-shaped,
claw/tail kind of district. We're talking
about a very compact district where the people
in it have more in common, more in common
certainly than what racial or ethnic group
they belong to -- where they live in the same
towns and villages and own the same kinds of
homes and send their kids to the same schools
and have a real community of shared interest.
Not forced together by race; put together by
community, by shared interests. Whereas now
they are divided by race.
Mr. President, we're just saying
put them together. That's impermissible. Put
them together. Put their neighborhoods,
towns, villages together in a compact
district. And what you get is not by design,
but the result is a majority minority
district.
In Manhattan, the Bronx, into
Westchester, unpack minority voters, unpack
them, and you get two more majority minority
districts. Instead of 13, instead of going
2009
from 11 to 13, you would go from 11 to 16
majority minority districts.
Now, I know somebody is going to
say, gee, in the beginning I said what's all
this stuff about race. This is not about
race, Mr. President. This is about reflecting
the population of New York State as found in
the census. You don't have to imagine
undercounted residents to get these new
minority districts. We're going with the
population as found by the census.
Frankly, the plan before you is an
attempt to repeal the census. Create an extra
district; you can say -- the extra district is
in Brooklyn -- Brooklyn, New York City, is
getting an extra seat by virtue of the census.
New York City grew. The rest of the state
upstate didn't. The 62nd seat is really, Mr.
President, keeping a seat in upstate that
according to the census it doesn't deserve.
The population of this state -- and
I appreciate Senator Skelos noted, in adding
two minority districts, that the percentage of
minority districts in this body will go up.
But the point is, Mr. President, it won't be
2010
going up by the amount it ought to be. In the
2000 census, 30.7 percent of all New Yorkers,
30.7 percent of all New Yorkers identified
themselves as black or Hispanic.
Now, I'm not suggesting
proportionality here in the sense that now we
have to figure out how 30.7 percent of the
districts can be -- because you can't do that.
Because, thank God, in America, Mr. President,
people can live where they want to be. And
they can choose their own neighbors. And they
don't necessarily have to live in areas that
when you're making compact districts any one
group adds up to anything.
But the fact is, Mr. President, if
we created the 16 compact districts, two
things would happen. That population
malapportionment between upstate and downstate
would go away. Instead a 9.7 percent total
deviation, which is unprecedented for this
house, we'd be back around a 4 percent total
deviation.
Which this Majority, Mr. President,
in Wolpoff urged the State Court of Appeals to
recognize as, while not required, the
2011
consistent policy of this house. And the
court in Wolpoff said: We recognize the plan
divides counties more than is necessary, but
it's justified by the desire of the Senate to
keep its total deviation -- I think it was
4.25 or 4.26 percent at the time.
So why now suddenly, Mr. President,
this house -- which ten years ago urged upon
the Court of Appeals, Oh, we have to split up
upstate counties because we know we can go to
9.7 or 9.8 or up to 10 percent deviation, but
we want to keep it around 4, 4.5. The State
Court of Appeals said, Okay, you can ignore
the State Constitution because that's a good
purpose -- now, suddenly, we want to go to
9.76 percent total deviation, virtually the
maximum allowed, when the effect is to cheat
the minority voters in Manhattan/Bronx/
Westchester of two additional Senate seats.
Two additional Senate seats there.
At 16 out of 62 seats, that's 25.8 percent of
the seats in this house will be controlled -
not occupied by minority legislators,
controlled by minority voters. That's better
than what's in the Majority bill. That's a
2012
higher percentage. Still not in the
30.7 percent of the population, but it's
fairer.
And it's what, Mr. President,
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act requires.
Because the test there is whether a plan has
the effect of denying -- not intent, effect of
denying minority voters their fair opportunity
of participating in the political process.
Mr. President, I urge my colleagues
to vote no.
Recently, in response to questions
from a reporter about the task force plan,
Senator Skelos' spokesman responded
rhetorically: "It's legal. What more do you
want?" I have an answer, Mr. President. It
is not legal when malapportionment is based on
race, it discriminates, it flies in the face
of the census, it is shockingly unfair to all
New Yorkers, especially minority voters.
It's tempting to view this,
Mr. President, as a fight between Democrats
and Republicans, but it isn't about Democrat
and Republican. Indeed, none of the
information in front of us as we vote on this
2013
plan says it a word about Democrat or
Republican enrollments, voting history, or
whatever. It's all about race. It's racial
gerrymandering to deny minorities their fair
share.
Mr. President, I urge a no vote.
This plan -- and a little history, Mr.
President. Senator Skelos talked about 1992.
I'm going to correct Senator Volker. There
was a redistricting in '72, and there was a
redistricting in '74 in this house. It may
not have affected upstaters, it affected my
part of town in Brooklyn. It resulted from an
NAACP case that found that the Voting Rights
Act applied to Kings, New York, and the Bronx.
And it undid a practice of what
they used to do then of pie-ing the minority
communities, dividing them; i.e., what they do
in Nassau County. And as a result of that, we
got our first minority districts in Brooklyn.
Or -- not first, we got our second and third,
as opposed to always having one in Central
Brooklyn.
So we did do -- Senator Volker, we
did redistrictings in '72, '74, '82, '92 and
2014
now.
In 1982, most of the members on
this side of the aisle, with one or two
exceptions -- myself included, actually, even
though I was on the task force -- voted yes.
I voted no only because a colleague who sat
next to me, then Senator Bartosiewicz, ended
up in the same district as me. We both voted
no because we had to go back to the voters and
fight over who would have the seat.
Why was there such comity? The
census showed New York City lost a seat. We
lost a seat. After all the work I'd done on
redistricting, I got the crunch. I ended up
without a primary. But there was no
overriding civil rights or voting rights
issue.
We created new minority seats in
Brooklyn, fairly well packed in those days
because it was thought you had to to defeat
white incumbents. And they were right,
because Senator Babbush held one of them for
the next 14 years, and Senator Markowitz held
the other until December. But we created
those new seats. There was nothing to fight
2015
about. There was no significant court
proceedings thereafter.
In 1992, there was no litigation in
this house over voting rights or civil rights.
The litigation was purely about a reading of a
section of the State Constitution about
dividing county lines. And that's what the
Wolpoff case went to the court about. In
fact, it was the Majority that interjected
voting rights and racial considerations in
defending against that lawsuit.
The court found the plan was okay.
I voted for that plan. No one suggested it
violated Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act
then. Yes, New York City lost population
again, and we lost a seat in Queens. We all
bucked up because the census showed New York
City was losing population, as it had in '82,
and we took the hit.
Mr. President, New York City gained
population, significant population, hundreds
of thousands of more residents, and upstate
lost. The way this bill attempts to duck the
consequences of that census is illegal,
because it does violate Section 2 of the
2016
Voting Rights Act, as I have demonstrated.
Because it fails -- in denying the New York
City/Westchester region that extra seat, it's
also denying the minority voters of that
region the extra two seats they're entitled
to.
I urge a no vote, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The chair
recognizes Senator Skelos to close for the
Majority.
SENATOR SKELOS: Thank you, Mr.
President.
You know, now that we've heard
political people in this chamber, and we've
heard the election lawyers, I'd like to just
talk a little bit about what some of the
people have said at some of the hearings. And
I think that's critically important.
Number one, in terms of Long
Island, whether you were 61, 62, or 63 seats,
there would be nine seats on Long Island. So
whatever your concerns are there, Senator
Connor, it would not be about the number of
people, the number of seats on Long Island.
But let's listen -- and I listened
2017
very closely to Senator Ada Smith concerning
the representation on Long Island of the nine
Senators in terms of the communities being
treated properly and fairly. We should go to
school aid.
School aid, in my home community of
Rockville Centre, the state shares 11 percent.
Elmont, it's 31 percent. Hempstead, it's 44
percent. Freeport, it's almost 41 percent.
And Roosevelt, it's 57 percent. So I believe
that we have done well by those communities in
terms of school aid.
But let's put aside what Dean
Skelos thinks. Let's think about what
Lorraine Cortes-Vasquez said, who's a member
of the Board of Regents and who is also
president of the Hispanic Federation. And as
I mentioned, a member of the Board of Regents
elected by the -- basically by the Assembly,
Democrats. I'm sure you all voted for her.
"The Hispanic Federation is
resolute in its support of the state
senatorial districts as proposed in the
redistricting reports submitted by the
Legislature and cochaired by Senator Skelos.
2018
The numbers don't lie. The region's state
senators are doing their jobs in fighting to
ensure that disadvantaged communities receive
the additional state aid these students need
to escape the cycle of poverty. While I would
certainly support even more aid for our
schools, placing underprivileged school
districts in a sprawling minority-concentrated
district would effectively eliminate the
potential for comparable advances in the
future."
She also said, "Hispanics vote for
candidates, regardless of party affiliation,
who they feel support the issues that are
important to our community."
She also stated: "By adopting the
legislative task force's proposed lines for
Long Island's nine Senate districts, we will
further advance the vital and long-standing
objectives of diversity and multiculturalism,
while ensuring that the necessary resources
are available to lift communities."
Pat Halpin, former Democrat
Assemblyman, Democrat County Executive of
Suffolk County: "Over the years I was elected
2019
with the support of the Democratic Party, and
I served with senators who were elected with
the support of the Republican Party. Never
once was there ever a consideration of an
issue or concern where race was a factor.
Gerrymandering aside" -- which he called the
plans, the alternative plans that were
submitted -- "such a district would weaken the
ability of the Long Island delegation to
advocate for resources to address the needs of
minority communities. You would be creating a
district where only one senator would bear the
responsibility and the burden. The unintended
consequence would be that the resources would
be diminished, not increased.
"The logic is simple. Today there
are six senators who have the responsibility
of representing communities on Long Island
with significant minority populations, and I
believe it's being done well."
Ruth Gaines, regional coordinator
for the New York State Public Employees
Federation: "I prefer the task force plan.
The alternative plan would destroy our
carefully built relationships with the Senate
2020
delegation and our effectiveness in Albany. I
urge the task force to reject the alternative
plan and maintain the current Senate district
configuration to the greatest extent
possible."
Florence Joyner, executive director
of Opportunities Industrialization Center of
Suffolk: "I see no need to isolate minority
communities into one district and diminish our
voice in the State Senate."
Gil Bernardino, founder and
executive director, Circulo de la Hispanidad,
which is a not-for-profit human service
organization serving more than 10,000 families
in two offices in Long Beach and Hempstead:
"The underlying fallacy of the alternative
proposal submitted by the Nassau County Caucus
of Black Democrats, the Suffolk County Caucus
of Black Democrats, and several other
individuals and organizations is that the
African-American and Hispanic populations vote
together as a block. This is simply not the
case." And he talks about how Senators Skelos
and Hannon in his opinion probably receive
over 50 percent of the Hispanic vote.
2021
"It is obvious," he says, "to even
the most casual political observer that the
two districts created under this plan are
intended merely to elect a Democrat."
Anne Briggs, vice president, South
Shore YMCA: "I emphatically and explicitly
support the task force plan."
Reginald Percy, an
African-American: "I think we should look at
each other as people and look at me as a man,
not just a black man. Those factors are
irrelevant, insulting to my intelligence, and
defile the pillars that support our democratic
form of government. I am opposed and I
fully -- repeat, I fully support the Long
Island senatorial legislative task force
district plan."
We move on to other areas that were
mentioned. I'd just like to comment: "In
Brooklyn, as noted above, there are two new
minority districts" -- this is my memo -- "in
the Senate Majority plan. One is an open
African-American seat in Brooklyn, SD21. This
district is generally comprised of the
neighborhoods of Flatbush and Kensington, and
2022
it has a voting age population of about
59 percent African-American.
"In response to the testimony of
numerous witnesses, the proposed 19th Senate
district was reconfigured to include the
neighborhoods of Canarsie wholly within the
19th" -- this is Senator Sampson's area -- "as
well as to reunite the neighborhoods of
Brighton Beach, Manhattan Beach, Mill Basin,
and Bergen Beach with the neighborhoods of the
majority of Sheepshead Bay and Midwood."
And I think Senator Kruger talked
about a bit about his area of the Borough of
Kings.
And additionally, the community of
Williamsburg, which was proposed in a
neighboring district, was returned to a
district represented by you, Senator Connor.
Concerning testimony in Brooklyn,
Rabbi Greenwald, rabbi of the Sephardic
congregation in Manhattan Beach, a 30-year
resident of Manhattan Beach: "I am requesting
that the Manhattan Beach community be returned
to its current Senate district. The way you
are taking Manhattan Beach" -- and this is on
2023
the proposed plan -- "and connecting it will
be such a small part of this new district that
you are creating that whoever will represent
us will not be sensitive to our needs as is
the present." Manhattan Beach was returned.
Avram Hecht, executive director of
the Jewish Community Council of Canarsie, in
requesting that the Jewish community of
Canarsie be kept whole. Now it is totally
within the 19th SD.
Hazel Younger, president of the
board of directors of the Patrick E. Gorman
Housing Company, in requesting several
communities be returned to Senator Sampson:
"I appear here today with a heavy heart" -
and again, this is about the proposed plan -
"and a great concern regarding the proposed
redistricting, which would affect Brownsville,
Canarsie, and East Flatbush. I pray that the
task force will hear the voices of our
communities. Let us keep our Senator, Senator
John Sampson." It was done.
I'd like to move into the Bronx.
Mr. David Burrell, African-American, resident
of the North Bronx, which is served by Senator
2024
Ruth Hassell-Thompson, says he is in full
support of the task force Senate plan for the
Bronx and Westchester. Agrees with Senator
Skelos that the district should be kept the
way it has been drawn.
Ms. Monica Berry, African-American
and president of the Parkside Association,
supports Senator Ruth Hassell-Thompson, agrees
with Senator Skelos that the district should
be kept the way it has been drawn.
Mr. Juan Palanco, Hispanic. He is
not happy with the alternative plans that draw
Senator Velella's district into Queens, thinks
that it is a political gerrymandering, in
response to Senator Dollinger's question. The
Bronx does not share the same issues as
Queens. Thinks it is acceptable to draw lines
based on the relationships a community
develops with their legislator.
Mr. Garth Merchant,
African-American, former resident of the Bronx
who now lives in Queens, does not support the
Velella district going into Queens. The two
counties have nothing in common.
Mr. Manny Sanchez, Hispanic,
2025
believes that the Senate Majority plan is
well-thought-out for the Bronx and
Westchester, which are very similar in its
composition.
Mr. Dwayne Jenkins, vice president
of the Residents Council of Throgs Neck,
supports the lines drawn for Senator Velella's
district.
Mr. Joseph Thompson,
African-American, member of the Community
Board 11, he supports Senator Velella and
Senator Hassell-Thompson's districts the way
they were drawn by the Senate Majority. He
hates to see everything equated along racial
lines because he believes that his community
and its present leadership works for all the
residents of the Bronx.
These are but a few of the
individuals that came and testified at our
hearings, where I have some of the testimony.
I'd like to go even further.
In Queens, the proposed 14th Senate
district, Senator Malcolm Smith's district,
reunites the Rockaway Peninsula, as indicated
during the Queens hearing. And of course, as
2026
I mentioned earlier, the Senate District 13 is
a 54.2 percent voter age Hispanic district.
And northern Manhattan's
neighborhood of Washington Heights was
reconfigured to make it whole and within a
single Senate district, indicated in testimony
received from the Dominican Hispanic
community. Incidentally, a single northern
Manhattan Senate district was also advocated
in the testimony from former State Senator
Franz Leichter.
So, Mr. President, in conclusion, I
believe the plan that is before the Senate,
which passed the Assembly overwhelmingly, is
constitutionally sound, follows the dictate of
the State Constitution, follows the dictates
of judicial precedence. And what's also, I
think, extremely important, follows the
testimony of hundreds if not thousands of
individuals who testified at the meetings of
the task force.
Mr. President, I move for the
adoption of the legislation.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will read the last section.
2027
THE SECRETARY: Section 5. This
act shall take effect immediately.
SENATOR CONNOR: Slow roll call.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Are there
five Senators asking for a slow roll call?
Please rise. There are.
We'll call the roll slowly.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Alesi.
SENATOR ALESI: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Andrews.
SENATOR ANDREWS: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Balboni.
SENATOR BALBONI: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Bonacic.
SENATOR BONACIC: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Breslin.
SENATOR BRESLIN: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Brown.
(No response.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Bruno.
(Senator Bruno was indicated as
voting in the affirmative.)
THE SECRETARY: Senator Connor.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Connor, to explain his vote.
2028
SENATOR CONNOR: Thank you, Mr.
President. I just want to correct something
that Senator Skelos said, not by way of
fighting but by way of what we call covering
ourselves in the district.
I don't know whether by -- I know
ten years ago there was a bill in a chapter to
move the Hassidic community in Williamsburg
back into my district. Senator Skelos, in his
remarks, said that one of the changes they
made was to return the Jewish community in
Williamsburg to my district.
That's not quite true. It is
literally divided in half. And half of the
Jewish residents of that neighborhood have
been moved back into my district, but the
other half remain in the adjacent district.
I vote no.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Connor will be recorded in the negative.
Continue to call the roll slowly.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
DeFrancisco.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
2029
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Espada.
SENATOR ESPADA: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Farley.
SENATOR FARLEY: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Gentile.
SENATOR GENTILE: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Gonzalez.
SENATOR GONZALEZ: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Hannon.
SENATOR HANNON: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Hassell-Thompson.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Hassell-Thompson, to explain her vote.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank
you, Mr. Chairman -- Mr. President.
I had not intended to speak; I was
just going to cast my vote. But in the
2030
reading by Senator Skelos, he read about the
constituents who came forth to the committee
to speak on behalf of the district that had
been drawn on my behalf and to support that
district. I thank them, and I also thank
members of my colleagues who assisted in
making this district look the way it looks.
But I cannot vote for it. And I
cannot vote for it only because the
selfishness with which I needed to keep my
district together was what motivated me to
accept this vote.
That is not a condemnation, that is
merely a change of my position because one of
the things that I forgot for a moment was how
I got here. I got here because my district is
a Voting Rights district.
And I cannot, in good conscience,
if I do believe the findings that this is in
juxtaposition to something that helped to
bring me here, that I could vote against it.
So therefore, Mr. President, I have
to cast a no vote on behalf of this plan.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Hassell-Thompson will be recorded in the
2031
negative.
Continue to call the roll slowly.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Hevesi.
SENATOR HEVESI: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Hoffmann.
SENATOR HOFFMANN: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Johnson.
SENATOR JOHNSON: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator L.
Krueger.
SENATOR KRUEGER: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator C.
Kruger.
SENATOR KRUGER: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Lachman.
SENATOR LACHMAN: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Lack.
SENATOR LACK: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Larkin.
SENATOR LARKIN: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator LaValle.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Leibell.
2032
SENATOR LEIBELL: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Libous.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Maltese.
SENATOR MALTESE: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Marchi.
SENATOR MARCHI: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Maziarz.
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator McGee.
SENATOR McGEE: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Meier.
SENATOR MEIER: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Mendez.
SENATOR MENDEZ: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Morahan.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Nozzolio.
(No response.)
2033
THE SECRETARY: Senator Onorato.
SENATOR ONORATO: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Oppenheimer.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Padavan.
SENATOR PADAVAN: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Rath,
excused.
Senator Saland.
SENATOR SALAND: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Sampson.
SENATOR SAMPSON: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Santiago.
SENATOR SANTIAGO: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Seward.
SENATOR SEWARD: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator A. Smith.
2034
SENATOR ADA SMITH: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator M. Smith.
SENATOR MALCOLM SMITH: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Spano.
SENATOR SPANO: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Stachowski.
SENATOR STACHOWSKI: No.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Stafford.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Stavisky.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Aye.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Trunzo.
SENATOR TRUNZO: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Velella.
SENATOR VELELLA: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Volker.
SENATOR VOLKER: Yes.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Wright.
SENATOR WRIGHT: Aye.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the
absentees.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Brown.
SENATOR BROWN: No.
2035
THE SECRETARY: Senator Nozzolio.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Announce
the results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 40. Nays,
19.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill
is passed.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President,
if we could return to reports of standing
committees, I believe there are several
committee reports at the desk.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: We'll
return to the order of reports of standing
committees.
There is a report from the
Environmental Conservation Committee at the
desk. I'll ask the Secretary to read.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
Marcellino, from the Committee on
Environmental Conservation, reports:
Senate Print 3772A, by Senator
Maziarz, an act to amend the Environmental
Conservation Law;
2036
4467A, by Senator Marcellino, an
act to amend the Agriculture and Markets Law;
4786C, by Senator Marcellino, an
act to amend the Environmental Conservation
Law;
6207, by Senator Marcellino, an act
to amend the Environmental Conservation Law;
6209A, by Senator Marcellino, an
act to amend the Environmental Conservation
Law;
6567, by Senator Marcellino, an act
to amend the Environmental Conservation Law.
6574, by Senator Marcellino, an act
to amend the Environmental Conservation Law;
6575, by Senator Marcellino, an act
to amend the Environmental Conservation Law;
And Senate Print 6576, by Senator
Marcellino, an act to amend the Environmental
Conservation Law.
All bills ordered direct to third
reading.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Without
objection, all bills are ordered directly to
third reading.
Let's have a little order in the
2037
house, please. Session is still in. Members
take their discussions out of the chamber if
you need to have them.
Senator Paterson, why do you rise?
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
with unanimous consent may I be recorded in
the negative on Calendar Number 440.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Without
objection, hearing no objection, Senator
Paterson will be recorded in the negative on
Calendar Number 440.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you,
Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Dollinger, why do you rise?
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Mr.
President, like Senator Paterson, may I have
unanimous consent to be recorded in the
negative on Calendar Number 440.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Without
objection, hearing -
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: -- no
objection, Senator Dollinger will be recorded
2038
in the negative on Calendar Number 440.
Senator Montgomery, why do you
rise?
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Mr.
President, I would like unanimous consent to
be recorded in the negative on Calendar 427,
434, and 440.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Without
objection, hearing no objection, Senator
Montgomery will be recorded in the negative on
Calendar Number 427, 434, and 440.
Senator Smith, why do you rise?
SENATOR ADA SMITH: Thank you,
Mr. President. Having been in Finance, I
request unanimous consent to be recorded in
the negative on Calendar Number 427.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Without
objection, hearing no objection, Senator Ada
Smith will be recorded in the negative on
Calendar Number 427.
Senator Hevesi, why do you rise?
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you, Mr.
President. I rise to request unanimous
consent to be recorded in the negative on
Calendar Number 440, Senate Print 6458.
2039
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Without
objection, hearing no objection, Senator
Hevesi will be recorded in the negative on
Calendar Number 440.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President,
during the debate we did not call any
committee meetings. So there will be an
immediate meeting of the Health Committee in
the Majority Conference Room.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Immediate
meeting of the Health Committee, immediate
meeting of the Health Committee in the
Majority Conference Room, Room 332.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: If we could
return to motions and resolutions, I believe
there's a privileged resolution at the desk by
Senator Meier. Could we have the title read
and move for its immediate adoption.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: We will
return to the order of motions and
resolutions.
There is a privileged resolution by
Senator Meier at the desk. I'll ask the
2040
Secretary to read the title.
THE SECRETARY: By Senator Meier,
Legislative Resolution Number 4846,
commemorating the 175th anniversary of the
Town of Kirkland, to be celebrated April 13,
2002.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
question is on the resolution. All those in
favor signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Opposed,
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
resolution is adopted.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President,
Resolution 4750, by Senator Spano, was adopted
previously. It congratulates former Senator
Flynn on his 90th birthday. So with the
consent of the Minority, I'd like to put all
members of the Senate on the resolution.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The chair
will direct that all members be placed on the
privileged resolution by Senator Spano. I'll
2041
direct the Secretary to do that.
If there's any member who wishes
not to be on it, they should notify the desk
accordingly.
Senator Libous.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Mr. President,
on behalf of Senator Saland, I wish to call up
his bill, Print Number 5131, recalled from the
Assembly, which is now at the desk.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
245, by Senator Saland, Senate Print 5131, an
act to amend the Family Court Act.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Libous.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Mr. President, I
now move to reconsider the vote by which this
bill was passed.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will call the roll on
reconsideration.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 60.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
2042
Libous.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Mr. President, I
now offer up the following amendments.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
amendments are received and adopted.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President,
there being no further business, I move we
adjourn until Monday, April 15th, at
3:00 p.m., the intervening days being
legislative days.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Without
objection, the Senate stands adjourned until
Monday, April 15th, at 3:00 p.m., intervening
days to be legislative days.
(Whereupon, at 2:22 p.m., the
Senate adjourned.)