Regular Session - June 12, 2002
4533
NEW YORK STATE SENATE
THE STENOGRAPHIC RECORD
ALBANY, NEW YORK
June 12, 2002
11:11 a.m.
REGULAR SESSION
SENATOR PATRICIA K. McGEE, Acting President
STEVEN M. BOGGESS, Secretary
4534
P R O C E E D I N G S
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senate will come to order.
I ask everyone present to please
rise and repeat with me the Pledge of
Allegiance.
(Whereupon, the assemblage recited
the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: In the
absence of clergy, may we bow our heads in a
moment of silence.
(Whereupon, the assemblage
respected a moment of silence.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Reading
of the Journal.
THE SECRETARY: In Senate,
Tuesday, June 11, the Senate met pursuant to
adjournment. The Journal of Monday, June 10,
was read and approved. On motion, Senate
adjourned.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Without
objection, the Journal stands approved as
read.
Presentation of petitions.
Messages from the Assembly.
4535
Messages from the Governor.
Reports of standing committees.
Reports of select committees.
Communications and reports from
state officers.
Motions and resolutions.
Senator Espada.
SENATOR ESPADA: Madam President,
thank you. I wish to call up my bill, Print
Number 6368A, recalled from the Assembly,
which is now at the desk.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1247, by Senator Saland, Senate Print 6368A,
an act to amend the Real Property Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Espada.
SENATOR ESPADA: Madam President,
I now move to reconsider the vote by which
this bill was passed.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll on reconsideration.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 37.
4536
SENATOR ESPADA: Madam President,
I now offer the following amendments.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
amendments are received and adopted.
Senator Seward.
SENATOR SEWARD: Yes, Madam
President. On behalf of Senator Marchi, on
page number 51 I offer the following
amendments to Calendar Number 1081, Senate
Print Number 2021, and ask that said bill
retain its place on the Third Reading
Calendar.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
amendments are received and adopted, and the
bill will retain its place on Third Reading
Calendar.
Senator Seward.
SENATOR SEWARD: On behalf of
Senator Leibell, Madam President, on page
number 14 I offer the following amendments to
Calendar Number 348, Senate Print Number 2362,
and ask that that bill retain its place on the
Third Reading Calendar.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
amendments are received and adopted, and the
4537
bill will retain its place on Third Reading
Calendar.
SENATOR SEWARD: Madam President,
on behalf of Senator Hoffmann, on page number
56 I offer the following amendments to
Calendar Number 1162, Senate Print Number
7270, and ask that that bill retain its place
on the Third Reading Calendar.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
amendments are received and adopted, and the
bill will retain its place on Third Reading
Calendar.
SENATOR SEWARD: And finally,
Madam President, also on behalf of Senator
Marchi, on page number 51 I offer the
following amendments to Calendar Number 1083,
Senate Print Number 2546, and ask that that
bill retain its place on the Third Reading
Calendar.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
amendments are received and adopted, and the
bill will retain its place on Third Reading
Calendar.
Thank you, Senator Seward.
SENATOR SEWARD: Thank you, Madam
4538
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
I believe there are some substitutions at the
desk. If we could make them at this time.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: On page 62,
Senator Balboni moves to discharge, from the
Committee on Transportation, Assembly Bill
Number 69 and substitute it for the identical
Senate Bill Number 7462, Third Reading
Calendar 1336.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE:
Substitution ordered.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
if we could go to the noncontroversial
calendar.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
60, by Senator Marchi, Senate Print 4004A, an
act to amend the Public Authorities Law, in
4539
relation to increasing.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 43. Nays,
1. Senator Duane recorded in the negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
104, by Senator Larkin, Senate Print 2655B, an
act to amend the General Municipal Law and the
Town Law, in relation to the continuation.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 6. This
act shall take effect on the 180th day.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 44.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
4540
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
136, by Member of the Assembly Magee, Assembly
Print Number 9599B, an act to amend the
Environmental Conservation Law, in relation to
nuisance wildlife control operators.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
January.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 45.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
322, by Senator Rath, Senate Print 6048B, an
act to amend the General Municipal Law and the
Insurance Law, in relation to the delegation.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect immediately.
4541
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 45.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
339, by Senator Balboni, Senate Print 850B, an
act to amend the Family Court Act and the
Domestic Relations Law, in relation to the
issuance.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: There is
a home-rule message at the desk. Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 8. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 45.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
382, by Senator Larkin, Senate Print 1966, an
4542
act to amend the General Municipal Law -
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is laid aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
385, by Senator Larkin, Senate Print -
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is laid aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
407, by Senator Spano, Senate Print 4161, an
act to amend the Labor Law, in relation to
employer account.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 45.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
4543
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
487, by Senator Nozzolio, Senate Print 3776,
an act to amend the Correction Law, in
relation to compensation.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 45.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
543, by Senator Seward, Senate Print 6370, an
act to amend the Insurance Law, in relation to
certain calculations.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect July 1.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
4544
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 47.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
585, by Senator Rath, Senate Print 6729, an
act to amend the Real Property Tax Law, in
relation to apportionment.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 47.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
652, by Senator LaValle, Senate Print 3017A,
an act to amend the Education Law, in relation
to mandatory continuing.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect January 1, 2004.
4545
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 46. Nays,
1. Senator Padavan recorded in the negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
697, by the Assembly Committee on Rules,
Assembly Print Number 8455, an act to amend
the Real Property Tax Law, in relation to when
a proceeding is deemed abandoned.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 47.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
703, by Senator Saland, Senate Print 3216A, an
act to authorize the Town of Rhinebeck, in the
4546
County of Dutchess.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: There is
a home-rule message at the desk.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 47.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
763, by Senator Larkin, Senate Print 6529, an
act to amend the Environmental Conservation
Law, in relation to solid waste management
facilities.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This
act shall take effect on the 180th day.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 47.
4547
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
773, by the Assembly Committee on Rules,
Assembly Print Number 9030B, an act to amend
the Retirement and Social Security Law, in
relation to deposit.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 47.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
813, by Senator Rath, Senate Print 3819A, an
act to amend the General Municipal Law and
others, in relation to coordination.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 11. This
act shall take effect January 1, 2003.
4548
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 47.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
853, by Senator Trunzo, Senate Print 7280A, an
act to amend the -
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is laid aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1047, by Senator Trunzo, Senate Print 6870, an
act to amend the Highway Law, in relation to
the use and recovery.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 47.
4549
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1068, by Member of the Assembly Tocci,
Assembly Print Number 7063A, an act creating a
temporary state commission on veterans
employment.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 47.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1109, by Senator Kuhl, Senate Print 6653A, an
act to amend the Tax Law, in relation to the
tax on sales and compensating use tax.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This
act shall take effect immediately.
4550
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is laid aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1124, by Senator Saland, Senate Print 2849A,
an act to authorize Thomas F. Salmon to
transfer.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 48.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1139, by Senator Leibell, Senate Print 5286A,
an act to amend the Retirement and Social
Security Law, in relation to allowing.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
4551
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 48.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1176, by Senator Maltese, Senate Print 7367A,
an act to amend the General Municipal Law, in
relation to benefits.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is laid aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1181, by Senator Balboni, Senate Print 4021,
an act to amend the Education Law, in relation
to regulation.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect immediately.
4552
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 48.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1184, by Senator LaValle, Senate Print 5470A,
an act to amend the Education Law, in relation
to mandatory continuing.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect January 1, 2004.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 47. Nays,
1. Senator Breslin recorded in the negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1186, by Member of the Assembly Gunther,
Assembly Print Number 9865, an act to amend
the Education Law, in relation to the
4553
practice.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 49.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1318, by Senator Velella, Senate Print 7334B,
an act to amend the Retirement and Social
Security Law, in relation to certain
impairments.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is laid aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1321, by Senator Padavan, Senate Print 2736,
an act to amend the Education Law, in relation
to certain tuition waivers.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
4554
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
SENATOR DUANE: Lay the bill
aside, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is laid aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1322, by Senator Trunzo, Senate Print 4670, an
act to amend the Highway Law, in relation to
the power.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Lay the bill
aside, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is laid aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1323, by Senator Marchi, Senate Print 6155A,
an act to amend the General Municipal Law and
the Retirement and Social Security Law, in
relation to -
SENATOR DUANE: Lay it aside,
4555
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is laid aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1324, by Senator Leibell, Senate Print 6776,
an act in relation to special accidental death
benefits.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 49.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1325, by Senator DeFrancisco, Senate Print
7171, an act to amend the Economic Development
Law, in relation to regional advertising
programs.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
4556
act shall take effect on the first day of
April.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 49.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1326, by Senator Leibell -
SENATOR SKELOS: Lay it aside for
the day, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is laid aside for the day.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1327, by Senator Leibell, Senate Print 7263A,
an act to amend the General Municipal Law and
the Retirement and Social -
SENATOR DUANE: Lay it aside,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is laid aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1328, by Senator Morahan, Senate Print 7268A,
an act to authorize the Town of Stony Point.
4557
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: There is
a home-rule message at the desk.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 6. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 49.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1329, by Senator LaValle, Senate Print 7292,
an act to amend the Executive Law, in relation
to requiring.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect on the 60th day.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 49.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
4558
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1330, by Senator Bruno, Senate Print 7297, an
act to amend the Tax Law, in relation to
distribution.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: There is
a local fiscal impact note at the desk.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 49.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1331, by Senator Morahan, Senate Print 7301,
an act authorizing the Village of Spring
Valley.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: There is
a home-rule message at the desk.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
4559
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 50.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1332, by Senator Nozzolio, Senate Print 7315,
an act to amend the Parks, Recreation and
Historic Preservation Law, in relation to
designating.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 50.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1333, by Senator Padavan, Senate Print 7338,
an act to amend the Parks, Recreation and
Historic Preservation Law, in relation to the
state park.
4560
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 50.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1334, by Senator LaValle, Senate Print 7358,
an act to amend Chapter 534 of the Laws of
1993.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 50.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
4561
1335, by Senator Andrews, Senate Print 7429A,
an act to authorize the International Baptist
Church, Incorporated.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Lay it aside,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is laid aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1336, substituted earlier today by Member of
the Assembly Gantt, Assembly Print Number 69,
an act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 50.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1337, by Senator Leibell, Senate Print 7465,
4562
an act to amend the Retirement and Social
Security Law, in relation to pension credit.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 7. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 50.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1338, by Senator Saland, Senate Print 7479, an
act to amend the Criminal Procedure Law and
the Executive Law, in relation to entry.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect on the 90th day.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 50.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
4563
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1339, by Senator Rath, Senate Print 7486, an
act to amend Chapter 537 of the Laws of 1997.
SENATOR HEVESI: Lay it aside,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is laid aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1340, by Senator Leibell, Senate Print 7493,
an act to amend the Retirement and Social
Security Law, in relation to providing.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 50.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1341, by Senator Skelos, Senate Print 7497, an
act to authorize the assessors of the County
4564
of Nassau and the Village of Rockville Centre.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
SENATOR PATERSON: Lay it aside.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is laid aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1342, by Senator Volker, Senate Print 7509, an
act to amend the Criminal Procedure Law, in
relation to challenge.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
November.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 50.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1346, by Senator Leibell, Senate Print 7528,
an act to amend the Retirement and Social
Security Law, in relation to the maximum
4565
payment.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 50.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1349, by the Senate Committee on Rules, Senate
Print Number 7542, an act to amend the Tax
Law, in relation to mortgage recording.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: A local
fiscal impact note is at the desk.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 50.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
4566
is passed.
Senator Skelos, that completes the
noncontroversial reading of the calendar.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
if we could go to the controversial calendar
and start with Calendar Number 1318, by
Senator Velella.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: 1318.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1318, by Senator Velella, Senate Print 7334B,
an act to amend the Retirement and Social
Security Law, in relation to certain
impairments.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Velella, an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR VELELLA: Thank you,
Madam President.
This is a bill which takes the
presumption of an event happening and being
caused by a work-related problem for female
firefighters or firefighters.
As far back as 1992, it was
recognized by this house and by the Assembly
4567
and the Governor that during the course of
their duties, firefighters are often exposed
to unusual amounts of chemical products,
compounds, and noxious gases. This has
resulted in excessive incidents of mouth,
throat, intestinal, and lung cancers,
lymphatic cancers and leukemia, which can be
related to the cause of their employment.
This bill removes the
discrimination of female firefighters and
gives a -- and allows presumptively that
evidence of cancer, including neurological,
breast, and reproductive system cancers would
be presumed to have been caused by their
employment and in the discharge of their
official duties.
Of course, the presumption could be
rebutted by the employer, who by competent
evidence could introduce factors that would
show that this was not in fact work-related.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Will the
sponsor yield to a question?
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
4568
Velella, will you yield for a question?
SENATOR VELELLA: Yes, Madam
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Senator, I'm
just intrigued. Why is the bill retroactive
to June 30th of 1999? Has there been a
substantial increase in the number of cases in
the last years? Is there something about it
why we'd make it retroactive to '99 versus
'98?
SENATOR VELELLA: No, because
that's when the problem had first manifested
itself. And what we felt was since these
cancers could be work-related, there were not
a great number of female firefighters in the
past. And for equity and for justice, we felt
that we ought to extend this to those who have
had this problem.
It probably would never have been
done if nobody ever had these cancers that
could be work-related, it was pointed out to
us by the fire representatives. And these
females operate under a discriminatory
4569
practice, and we want to correct it.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor will continue
to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Velella, will you continue to yield?
SENATOR VELELLA: Yes.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Senator, I
understand the theory of this, and I
understand that this is based on evidence that
shows that there's a higher incidence of these
cancers. If that were the case, why wouldn't
we make it retroactive to 1980? Because women
have obviously been in the fire service and
been exposed to these risks. And why go back
to just 1999? Why not take this beneficial
bill and go back to a point where we could
sort of date it with the emergence of -
SENATOR VELELLA: Senator, I
would be happy to do that. But we have no
reported cases of these types of cancers prior
to the date that this bill would take effect.
If we had people who had those
prior types of cancers and it could be
work-related, I'd be happy to amend the bill.
4570
But we don't know of any. And the only people
I have that I can rely on are the officers and
members of the firefighters associations that
tell us this is the date that would be
effective for them.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Mr. President, if the sponsor will yield to
another question.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Velella, will you continue to yield?
SENATOR VELELLA: Yes, Madam
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator continues to yield.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Is the
effective date, Senator, to deal with the
emergence of the disease, or is it with the
exposure to the carcinogens that have caused
it?
SENATOR VELELLA: The effective
date is to address a discriminatory practice
this has prejudiced some female firefighters
and has prejudiced their ability to get proper
compensation for the injuries they sustained.
And that is why we decided to put the bill in
4571
and use that date, because we had no prior
dates. So it would be as of that date.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Madam President, again, just to clarify, if
Senator Velella would yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Velella, will you yield?
SENATOR VELELLA: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: In essence if
the cancer is detected after June 30, 1999,
this bill applies?
SENATOR VELELLA: Oh, absolutely.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Okay.
Nothing further, Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Any
other Senator wishing to speak on the bill?
SENATOR VELELLA: Last section.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
4572
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 52.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: There will be an
immediate meeting of the Rules Committee in
the Majority Conference Room.
And then if we could return to the
controversial calendar, regular order.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE:
Immediate meeting of the Rules Committee in
the Majority Conference Room.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
382, by Senator Larkin, Senate Print 1966, an
act to amend the General Municipal Law, in
relation to reconstituting.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: There is
a home-rule message at the desk.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
4573
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 50. Nays,
2. Senators Duane and Stachowski recorded in
the negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
385, by Senator Larkin, Senate Print 2123, an
act to amend the General Municipal Law, in
relation to establishing.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: There is
a home-rule message at the desk.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 50. Nays,
2. Senators Duane and Stachowski recorded in
the negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
853, by Senator Trunzo, Senate Print 7280A, an
4574
act to amend the Canal Law, in relation to a
Canal Adopt-A-Trail Program.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
SENATOR ALESI: Lay the bill
aside for the day, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is laid aside for the day.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1109, by Senator Kuhl, Senate Print 6653A, an
act to amend the Tax Law, in relation to the
tax on sales and the compensating use tax.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Kuhl, an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR KUHL: This bill is the
bill that would allow for the extension of a
sales tax, which is currently 3 percent, in
the County of Chemung, to 4 percent for a
one-year period commencing December 1, 2002,
4575
and extending through November 30, 2003.
The county seems hard-pressed, with
the increasing costs of Medicaid, and needs
this additional revenue to cover those costs.
They think this is the appropriate way to do
it. And so they have made this request of
this legislator to authorize them the power to
enact this additional tax.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Any
other Senator wishing to speak on the bill?
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 52.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1176, by Senator Maltese, Senate Print 7367A,
an act to amend the General Municipal Law, in
relation to benefits.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
4576
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take -
SENATOR PATERSON: Wait a minute.
Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Just one
moment.
Senator Maltese, I believe Senator
Paterson has asked for an explanation on the
bill.
SENATOR MALTESE: Yes, Madam
President.
This is an act to amend the General
Municipal Law in relation to benefits for
employees of government entities performing
emergency medical services in the City of New
York who suffer any condition or impairment of
health caused by diseases of the heart
resulting in disability or death.
The bill in the Assembly is
currently sponsored by Assemblyman Abbate.
The bill provides for a presumption
that a disease of the heart was incurred in
the performance of duty for EMTs and
paramedics in the City of New York. The
justification is that the presumption that a
4577
disease of the heart was incurred in the
performance of duty would allow EMTs and
paramedics to go out on three-quarters
disability pension without needing to prove
that the disease was incurred on duty.
Currently, they must go through a
series of exams and medical boards, and the
burden of proof is on the members. So
essentially this changes the burden from the
member and gives them a presumption that it
was incurred in the performance of duty.
The presumption granted through the
bill is not absolute. It is a rebuttable
presumption, and the pension board can make a
case against it if they feel justified in
doing so.
In addition, the members are all
from competitive civil service lists. Prior
to being hired, they must go through a
physical exam which tests for diseases of the
heart. Therefore, they start out healthy as
far as the heart is concerned. The bill is
limited to those members for whom that
physical exam failed to reveal any evidence of
such condition or disease.
4578
Police, fire and corrections
already have this same benefit. It seems only
fair that EMTs and paramedics should get
treated equally.
The bill sunsets in 2003. This is
because the benefit for police, fire and
corrections sunsets every two years and is
slated to sunset in 2003 as well. The sunset
was put in so that it would be fair and
equitable and so that all together could be
considered at the same time.
As far as the fiscal aspect, it is
$50,000 in fiscal year 2002-'03, with the
presumption of three individuals going out on
this per year. And as the memo indicates, it
is presumably a high estimate.
It would gradually increase to half
a million dollars in fiscal year 2011-2012,
assuming it was renewed in 2003.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Any
Senator wishing to speak on the bill?
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
4579
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 52.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1321, by Senator Padavan, Senate Print 2736,
an act to amend the Education Law, in relation
to certain tuition waivers.
SENATOR DUANE: Explanation,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Padavan, an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR ALESI: Madam President,
may we lay that bill aside temporarily while
the Rules Committee is meeting.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is laid aside temporarily.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1322, by Senator Trunzo, Senate Print 4670, an
act to amend the Highway Law, in relation to
the power of the Commissioner of
Transportation.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
4580
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 52.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1323, by Senator Marchi, Senate Print 6155A,
an act to amend the General Municipal Law and
the Retirement and Social Security Law, in
relation to benefits.
SENATOR DUANE: Explanation.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation,
please.
SENATOR ALESI: Madam President,
may we lay the bill aside temporarily while
the Rules Committee is meeting.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is laid aside temporarily.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1327, by Senator Leibell, Senate Print 7263A,
an act to amend the General Municipal Law and
the Retirement and Social Security Law, in
4581
relation to increasing.
SENATOR DUANE: Explanation,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Leibell, an explanation has been requested by
Senator Duane.
SENATOR LEIBELL: Madam
President, this bill provides for an annual
3 percent pay raise for all line-of-duty
widows or widowers.
Specifically, this bill would amend
Section 361A of the Retirement and Social
Security Law and Section 208F of the General
Municipal Law to extend the escalation of a
cost of living increase of approximately
3 percent for all line-of-duty widows or
widowers for the fiscal year 2002-2003.
It should be noted that since 1978
the Legislature has passed and the Governor
has signed into law a cost-of-living increase
and a one-year escalation for all New York
State widows and widowers of police officers
and firefighters who are killed in the line of
duty.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
4582
Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President. If the sponsor would yield,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Leibell, will you yield for a question?
SENATOR LEIBELL: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR DUANE: Does this bill
include domestic partners as well as spouses?
SENATOR LEIBELL: This bill does
not. But there is a Rules bill that is in to
discuss that issue. But this bill does not do
that.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Any
other Senator wishing to speak on the bill?
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect July 1.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
4583
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 50. Nays,
2. Senators Duane and Paterson recorded in
the negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1335, by Senator Andrews, Senate Print 7429A,
an act to authorize.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
SENATOR ALESI: Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Alesi.
SENATOR ALESI: May we lay that
bill aside temporarily while Rules is meeting.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is laid aside temporarily.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1339, by Senator Rath, Senate Print 7486, an
act to amend Chapter 537 of the Laws of 1997.
4584
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Rath, Senator Paterson has asked for an
explanation of Calendar Number 1339.
SENATOR RATH: Senator Paterson,
this is a very simple bill. It's an extender
authoring SUNY to extend bus contracts without
going to bid publicly.
We did it a couple of years ago,
and this is an extender.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Madam President. Will the sponsor yield to a
question?
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Rath, will you yield for a question?
SENATOR RATH: Surely.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Senator, as I
understand this bill it says that if there's a
current contract in effect with SUNY and the
4585
amount of the increase in the contract on an
annual basis is less than the Consumer Price
Index, then there's no obligation to rebid the
contract; is that correct?
SENATOR RATH: That's correct.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
Madam President, if the sponsor will continue
to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Rath, will you continue to yield?
SENATOR RATH: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator continues to yield.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Doesn't this
cut off the possibility that if the contract
were put out for bid it could substantially
reduce the cost in a given year?
SENATOR RATH: I think the SUNY
trustees have protocol that they need to
follow here. And I don't think that's the
case, inasmuch as they'd asked for this
extender.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Well, through
you, Madam President, if the sponsor will
continue to yield.
4586
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Rath, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR RATH: Surely.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator continues to yield.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: How do they
know whether they actually bring the price
down unless they send the agreement -- the
contract out for public bidding?
I assume the SUNY Board of Trustees
sits down and says: We're satisfied with Bus
Company X; the price that they've proposed for
us for next year's busing is 2.5 percent,
which is less than the Consumer Price Index.
What's the incentive for them to go
out and find a cheaper way to do it? Which,
as I know you would acknowledge, is beneficial
to the taxpayer of this state.
SENATOR RATH: I would have to
assume that inasmuch as they have asked for
this extender, that they feel that they are
getting the very best deal they can at this
point.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Okay, Madam
President, just briefly on the bill.
4587
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Dollinger, on the bill.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I guess as a
general proposition I'm willing to buy the
argument that Senator Rath makes, which is
that the SUNY Board of Trustees probably think
they're getting the best price.
I would suggest, however, that the
whole purpose of public and competitive
bidding laws is to find the least possible
price for the best possible service.
And by extending this, what we're
doing is we're giving the SUNY Board of
Trustees the ability to sit there and say,
Okay, so the price is less than the Consumer
Price Index. That's not a bad deal. Let's
take it and just flip the contract over with
the current supplier from year to year.
That excludes new and innovative
ways to do busing. It excludes new and
innovative ways to reduce the cost to the
taxpayer. I know that competitive bidding can
be a cumbersome and at times difficult process
for procurement. But it does have an enormous
public benefit that I think we should be very
4588
reluctant to ignore.
So despite my sense that this is a
contract that may have some protections built
in, I go back our fundamental old-fashioned
conservative way of looking at it, and that is
the way to find the best possible price for by
the SUNY Board of Trustees or any public
entity is to allow competitive bidding, even,
if necessary, on an annual basis, Madam
President.
I'm going to vote in the negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Rath.
SENATOR RATH: Madam President,
one more comment. The legislation is not -
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Rath, could you wait for just one moment.
Can we have some quiet, please?
Thank you.
SENATOR RATH: The piece of
legislation before us does not foreclose the
possibility of them going to competitive bid
if they so choose.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Any
4589
other Senator wishing to speak on the bill?
Senator Liz Krueger.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: Thank you,
Madam President. If the sponsor would yield
to a question.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Rath, will you yield?
SENATOR RATH: Surely.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: Thank you.
I'm fascinated by this discussion.
Senator Rath, do you know how much money SUNY
moves through contracts to bus companies per
year that this potentially would impact?
SENATOR RATH: No, I can't tell
you the amount that they use, the amount of -
the dollar amount of their contracts.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: Madam
President, through you, if the Senator would
continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Rath, will you continue to yield?
SENATOR RATH: Surely.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
4590
Senator continues to yield.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: Thank you.
Senator, is this one centralized
contract for bus service throughout the SUNY
system, or does each campus go into its own
bus contracts?
SENATOR RATH: Each campus does
its own.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: Madam
President, if the sponsor would continue to
yield, through you.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Rath, will you yield for another question?
SENATOR RATH: Surely.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator yields, Senator Krueger.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: Thank you
very much, Senator.
So as I read the bill, this
originally was a contract that started in
1997, or the presumption is that they went for
competitive bid in 1997. Now it's 2002, and
they want the extension to not do a
competitive bid again at their choice until
2007. That's correct?
4591
SENATOR RATH: That's correct.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: Thank you.
Madam President, if I could speak
on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Krueger, on the bill.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: Thank you.
Colleagues, I have to agree with
Senator Dollinger's analysis from a
conservative fiscal perspective. This will
mean -- although I understand Senator Rath's
point that the CUNY system might elect to
competitive bid prior to 2007 -- what we'd be
doing with this bill is allowing the entire
SUNY system to go without reevaluating, if
they choose, the cost of bus transportation
services on each SUNY campus throughout the
state for an entire decade.
And certainly there are changes in
the industry that have taken place throughout
the state. I'm sure any number of my
colleagues must know of companies that started
up in their own counties within the last five
years, and have to assume within the next five
years even more companies might be attempting
4592
to compete for the business of the state
through contracts with SUNY.
So I guess I would urge that we do
encourage the model for competitive bidding,
because it both increases competition, it
gives new opportunities for businesses
throughout our state to be able to do business
with the State of New York and, in this case,
the state university system of the State of
New York.
And that while it is, in fact, and
I know from experience can be a headache to go
through a competitive bid process under all of
the requirements that we have for government
entities, it seems to me obvious that we would
want our state university system to maximize
cost-effectiveness for transportation services
and not to go an entire decade without having
to look and evaluate new options and
opportunities to both decrease costs and
increase the universe of businesses the State
of New York might be doing business with more
cost-effectively.
So I will vote no on this bill.
And again, I think it's just bad policy to
4593
allow the state university system to go for an
entire decade without evaluating the cost of
bus services.
And while Senator Rath did not have
an answer to the question how much money goes
into bus transportation throughout the SUNY
system, I have to assume we're talking
multiple millions of dollars each and every
year. And with this bill, if it becomes law,
that would be a decade period without the
State University of New York reevaluating
whether in fact there are more cost-effective
options.
And I would argue if they were
successful in getting more cost-effective
options, it would give them more money to put
into their classrooms and into their faculty
and into the services that students need that
unfortunately we never have the money to meet
all the requests for every year.
So I will vote no for the bill and
urge my colleagues to vote no. Thank you very
much, Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Dollinger.
4594
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Madam
President, just one other comment on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Dollinger, on the bill.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: And I want to
repeat for everyone something that Senator
Krueger said that I think is critically
important. These contracts, I think as
Senator Rath acknowledges, are done on a
campus-by-campus basis. There are many
smaller campuses upstate that have smaller
suppliers who provide those busing
opportunities.
It seems to me that by putting this
in place, we are discouraging small business.
We are telling small entrepreneurs who look at
the busing system and say, Gee, there's a
better way to do it. I can do it with smaller
buses, with jitney routes, with other options,
with, I don't know, GPS, you name it.
Whatever technology that they can use to
reduce the cost.
The entrepreneur won't even try if
he knows that a contractor already has the
agreement locked down and the only thing that
4595
the contractor has to do to stay under the
radar screen of SUNY is to simply raise the
annual cost by something less than the
Consumer Price Index. And so what you have is
a disincentive to entrepreneurial activity
among small businesses.
And Senator Krueger makes another
very good point. My guess, just my guess is
that the transportation costs for the SUNY
campuses are at least $25 million a year
statewide. So my guess is that for a decade,
if Senator Krueger is correct in predicting,
we'll spend $250 million without finding out
whether we're getting the best possible price
and rewarding the best possible small-business
entrepreneur.
I would suggest if you put all
those nickels together, you pull all those
dimes together, we're talking about real money
here. And my sense is if we're talking about
real money this is not ours but owned by the
taxpayers and spent by SUNY, it should fall
back on that good, old-fashioned, conservative
tradition of competitive bidding to make sure
we get our dollars' worth and our taxpayers
4596
get it as well.
I'm going to going to join Senator
Krueger in voting no.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Stavisky.
SENATOR STAVISKY: If the sponsor
would yield to really just one question out of
curiosity.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Rath, will you yield for one question out of
curiosity?
SENATOR RATH: Sure.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Madam
President, this legislation sunsets on
June 30, 2002, about two weeks from now. And
yet this bill was just introduced May 31,
2002. For something that's going to sunset,
it seems to me that there ought to be enough
preparation for discussion, et cetera, on such
an issue.
SENATOR RATH: It seems that way
to me too.
SENATOR STAVISKY: I'm sorry, I
4597
can't hear you.
SENATOR RATH: It seems that way
to me too.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Any
other Senator wishing to speak on the bill?
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
the negative on Calendar Number 1339 are
Senators Connor, Dollinger, Duane, Gentile,
Hassell-Thompson, Hevesi, L. Krueger,
Oppenheimer, Paterson, A. Smith, Stachowski,
and Stavisky. Ayes, 41. Nays, 12.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1341, by Senator Skelos, Senate Print 7497, an
act to authorize the assessors of the County
of Nassau.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Skelos, an explanation has been requested by
4598
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Withdrawn,
Madam President.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Madam
President, if I could just be heard on the
bill briefly.
I will consistently continue my
pattern of voting no.
And I know Senator Skelos is still
out there scouring Monroe County looking for a
bill. He did find one for Senator Andrews,
who of course has one that cropped up again
today -- proof, proof that like West Nile
virus it's spilled over the Nassau-Suffolk
line into the City of New York, and the
contagion is probably going to work -- I
expect Senator Skelos will see a Westchester
bill and then an Ulster bill. Before you know
it, it might even come to Monroe County.
No, Madam President.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Madam
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Oppenheimer.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: I would
4599
urge our good Senator Dollinger to rethink
this particular bill, because the Rosa Lee
Young Childhood Center in Rockville Centre was
founded by my sister.
So I thank you very much, Senator
Skelos.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Any
other Senator wishing to speak on the bill?
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 53. Nays,
1. Senator Dollinger recorded in the
negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
We have some more bills to do. Can
we be quiet while we do them? Thank you.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Madam President,
can we return at this time to reports of
standing committees. I believe there's a
4600
report of the Rules Committee at the desk, and
I ask that it be read at this time.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Reports
of standing committees.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Bruno,
from the Committee on Rules, reports the
following bills:
Senate Print 3479, by Senator
Stafford, an act to amend the State Finance
Law;
3489, by Senator Volker, an act to
amend the Criminal Procedure Law;
5063B, by Senator Saland, an act to
amend the Public Officers Law;
6342, by Senator Padavan, an act to
amend the Real Property Tax Law;
6946, by Senator Marcellino, an act
to amend the State Finance Law;
7032, by Senator Oppenheimer, an
act to amend Chapter 711 of the Laws of 1907;
7138, by Senator Saland, an act to
amend the Executive Law and the County Law;
7350, by Senator Padavan, an act to
amend the New York City Charter;
4601
7373, by Senator Rath, an act to
amend the Local Finance Law;
7480A, by Senator Wright, an act to
amend the Public Authorities Law;
7524A, by Senator Skelos, an act to
establish;
7548, by Senator Velella, an act to
amend the Labor Law;
7551, by Senator Maziarz, an act to
amend the Public Authorities Law;
7556, by Senator McGee, an act to
amend Chapter 402 of the Laws of 1994;
And Senate Print 7588, by Senator
Espada, an act to amend the Civil Practice Law
and Rules.
All bills ordered direct to third
reading.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Move to accept
the report of the Rules Committee.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: All
those in favor of accepting the report of the
Rules Committee signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
4602
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Opposed,
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
report is accepted.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Madam President,
can we at this time call up Calendar Number
1365.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1365, by Senator Espada, Senate Print 7588, an
act to amend the Civil Practice Law and Rules,
in relation to asset forfeiture.
SENATOR BRUNO: Is there a
message of necessity at the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Yes,
Senator Bruno, there is.
SENATOR BRUNO: Move to accept
the message.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: All in
favor of accepting the message of necessity
signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
4603
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Opposed,
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
message is accepted.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Madam President,
this bill before us changes what we always
refer to in this state as the Rockefeller Drug
Laws, that were passed decades ago in this
state and at the time served a purpose, trying
to get criminals off the street who were
peddling drugs and using drugs.
It is time to reform the
Rockefeller Drug Laws. We have before us a
Governor's program bill. And this bill is the
result of negotiations with us, with the
Assembly, and we still have, I will share with
you, some outstanding issues with the
Assembly. But we are hopeful that in our
passing this legislation, they pass, if that's
where they are, where they are, then we can
reconcile what apparent differences there are
and get a law that the Governor will sign.
It's time to do this to help do
4604
three things, really. And that's what is
before us. One, increase the penalties for
hardened criminals who use weapons in a
violent way that's drug-related. We want to
increase the penalties. Put them away and
keep them away.
And for those who are nonviolent,
first-time users, we want to create
alternatives to incarceration, to try and
rehab people.
And, third, we want to give judges
some discretion in how they sentence, based on
specific circumstances that are presented at
the time of the trial and sentencing. So this
is important.
I know all of us know of instances
where people, first-time offenders, have been
put away under the mandatory-sentencing part
of the Rockefeller Drug Laws in a real cruel
and harsh way.
I have personally, with Senators
Volker and many of the others, appealed to the
Governor three years ago on behalf of four
women. And what prompted me was in reviewing
their lives and what they did, they were
4605
first-time offenders, nonviolent. They were
mules. They were carriers.
And one of them was put away 25 to
life -- as I recollect, had already served 15
years -- and had professed not even being
aware of what she was carrying. I don't know
whether she was aware or not; must have been.
She was convicted. She was sentenced.
But the Governor in his wisdom
granted pardons and let them out, three out of
four, several years ago.
Now, in what we are proposing now
becoming law, some of those people that are in
jail now can appeal to have their sentences
reviewed. And their sentences can be reduced
up to fifty percent if they're nonviolent,
first-time, in the judgment of those that will
review. It appears just, it appears fair, it
appears equitable.
At the same time, those people who
are out there who will prey on the innocent,
using minors to pedal drugs, crack, heroin, we
want to put them away and we want to keep them
away and get them off the streets because they
are habitual, violent, hardened criminals
4606
using innocent people who many times are in
desperate situations, trying to help feed
their families, and they have no other
recourse, they think, other than to be led
into a life of crime by these people.
Those people we want to punish, and
we want to punish them severely. Not the
minors, not those innocent people who are
duped because of their life circumstances and
trying to just survive in these challenging
times that are before us.
So I appeal to all of you to
recognize the Governor in his judgment, in his
wisdom is proposing this bill that is before
us. And I applaud the sponsor, Senator Pedro
Espada, who will carry on the discussion on
this critically important issue to all of us
here in New York State, to everybody that is
affected in some way. So that we are able to
punish those that should be punished,
rehabilitate those that need treatment.
Rather than just put them away, we
rehabilitate them.
And I'm proud to say that we added
$1,400,000 to the Road to Recovery program, to
4607
help rehab people who are in jail now or for
the first time commit a crime, drug-related,
trying to rehab them as an alternative. We
got that in the budget, we here in the Senate.
And that money will be used in the pilot
program to help with parts of the Rockefeller
Drug Law.
The Assembly has a plan and they
have a program. And I'm told that, for
openers, to institute everything that they
have in the present bill would take over
$200 million. It's not there, and it's not
going to be there, and it's not going to
happen.
So if they want to posture and do
one-house legislation, that's their
prerogative. But we are here appealing that
we get a result. Let's get a result. Let's
be reasonable. Let's be responsible. We are
open, objectively, for what negotiation makes
sense, to try and see what's before us become
law.
Thank you, Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Espada.
4608
SENATOR ESPADA: Madam President,
I rise to thank the Majority Leader and,
indeed, the Majority Conference, the Governor,
Mr. Chauncey Parker, the director of criminal
justice for the State of New York, who has put
an exhaustive amount of time into this
process, in consulting with advocacy groups,
in consulting with legislators in the
Assembly, here in the Senate, in these
chambers, and throughout the State of New York
since his confirmation in February of this
year.
Most particularly, I'd also like
to, in advance of providing some specificity,
like to thank Senator Volker for his guidance
and support in this particular matter. And
also Senator Sampson, who is a cosponsor of
this bill. We acknowledge and we thank him.
There is a great deal of detail;
indeed, often in these matters the devil is in
the details. But before we get to that and
before we get to a debate that must be had,
the Majority Leader clearly stated the
parameters and the urgency. This is a
requisite, an indispensable start toward a
4609
solution. It's something that we've waited 30
years for.
And in thinking about my comments
last night, the thread that keeps this whole
package together, despite its imperfection,
despite the problems that will be identified,
is the fact that (a) it is a historic and
unprecedented attempt, a timely and necessary
attempt by the Governor. That can't be
debated. That is a fact. We've never had
this opportunity in this house in 30 years to
do this.
We've never had this opportunity in
this state to do this. The mothers, the
grandmothers, the parents, the children that
have been separated from their loved ones have
never had this opportunity to avail themselves
of this relief.
But it is fairness, and it cuts
both ways. Fairness is the cornerstone and
the underpinnings of this legislation. Yes,
there is a profound sense that the Rockefeller
Drug Laws were harsh and created undue
harshness on the lives of so many. The
mandatories, the life mandatories for A-I,
4610
A-II are out, replaced by determinate
sentencing.
We have an obligation to provide
early intervention and treatment, as
delineated by Senator Bruno for those that
want it, for those that deserve it. But we
need to have, simultaneous with the
availability of that treatment, we need to
also have those individuals take
responsibility first.
It was Chief Justice Judith Kaye's
commission in the year 2000 that very clearly
spoke to this. Treatment works. And it can
work statewide, and it can work in a number of
different contours and delivery models. But
early acknowledgement of addiction and
acceptance of personal responsibility are
fundamental to a successful treatment outcome.
And so this legislation is fair.
It provides for a continuity of what district
attorneys and prosecutors have been doing. It
provides for what many have called for in
terms of judicial discretion to weigh in for
first-time offenders, second-time offenders
and, yes, even third-time offenders.
4611
But also, it also takes a look at
some of the loopholes. It takes a look and
defines for the first time and gives force to
these kingpins, these drug dealers, these big
drug dealers that are out there masterminding,
orchestrating, controlling, managing young
people, managing what have been called "mules"
to deliver, to deal that poison.
We want and we must have that
loophole closed. We must put an enhanced
sentence and fix that so that these people do
go to jail. And they do go to jail and they
do get a five-year sentence on top of the
underlying drug offense.
It's tough, it's smart, it's
necessary, it's fair. And if you do your drug
dealing in our public parks, and if you do
your drug dealing through the aid of our young
people, we don't see a need for you to get
relief through this kind of an approach.
Fairness dictates that if you are so low as to
deal through the aid of children, you are
cognizant of the fact that these loopholes
allow you to get away with it.
And so if you're 18 or under and
4612
you're used in this fashion, kingpins will be
responsible. They will be responsible.
Drugs and guns, drugs and guns are
linked and create a violent outcome often.
And so if you have a gun and you use it
through this process of spreading this poison
in our communities, you also deserve no
compassion. Fairness dictates that you also
get enhanced penalties.
You know, I'm sure all of us get
calls from our neighborhood coalitions and
civic groups that would like to band together,
be empowered to do something about the drug
problems that are coming out of private
apartments and what have you in our
neighborhoods. But it's -- the zone of
protection can't be reached. It's out of
reach. These groupings, these associations
don't have standing in court.
This legislation provides for that
standing and creates a wider zone of
protection, about a thousand feet or so.
And so I could go on, and I'm sure
that we'll talk for a while on this. But
indeed, fairness, fairness to provide
4613
treatment, early intervention, fairness to
create a process of supervised delivery of
assistance to those in need, fairness in terms
of enhanced sentence, fairness in terms of
getting away from the life maximum and
creating something that is a standard
statewide and does not allow the Parole Board
to indiscriminately and perhaps unfairly
arrive at different decisions for different
offenders.
With that, Madam President, I thank
you very much for the time and attention.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, would Senator Espada yield for some
questions?
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Espada, will you yield for some questions from
Senator Paterson?
SENATOR ESPADA: Absolutely,
Senator Paterson.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you.
4614
Senator, you were talking about the
tragedy of using a child to transport drugs.
But under the legislation, if a 15-year-old,
for instance, contracted with another
15-year-old to do the same thing, they would
receive the same penalty.
In other words, there isn't a clear
enough delineation, from my view of the
legislation, not only what the penalty is but
who's actually hiring the young person to do
it. If it's another young person, it's a
little different. But it doesn't seem to
augur well for that individual in the
legislation.
Are you comfortable leaving it this
way?
SENATOR ESPADA: This
legislation, Senator Paterson, grabs the
reality that exists in our communities. I
don't know about your neighborhood. We share
similar demographics and experience of those
realities. We're talking about adults here.
We're talking about adults. We're talking
about an industry, an underground economy that
we understand.
4615
And we don't have situations, in my
view, in the main that have that example as a
part of the daily realities of drug dealing,
selling in our communities.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, if the Senator would yield for
another question.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Espada, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR ESPADA: I will continue
to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator continues to yield.
SENATOR PATERSON: The reality
that we're talking about happens every day.
You have younger people who actually hire
other younger people to do this. And the
problem I have with this legislation is the
judges don't have the discretion to go beyond
that scope and actually recognize that there's
a difference between the 30-year-old employing
a 15-year-old and another 15-year-old
employing him.
But we'll go on to another
question. In terms of the issue related to
4616
the ability of the conditional expungement of
the records for individuals who have -- that's
offered in this legislation, it appears to me,
Senator, that things are not always as they
seem, all that glitters is not gold.
Who are the -- what are the
exceptions in which the records of a person
who was accused on some drug charge and then
had the record expunged, would those -- would
that information be made available to agencies
or someone seeking that information?
SENATOR ESPADA: Well, you're
absolutely right, those are conditional
expungements. And the conditions are
generally that if you commit another offense
after you've been given an opportunity to get
treatment and avail yourself of the compassion
and the treatment opportunities in this bill,
that information will become known to any and
all, because indeed the expungement is
conditional.
If I just might, on your comments,
clearly we understand and we read from the
same page. I mean, we are talking about folks
18 years or older.
4617
And again, throughout this whole
process, we can pepper holes into a lot of
things. We pass budgets and all sorts of
legislation that if we had our druthers and we
had a universal and monopolistic hold on the
truth, that we would craft it, I'm sure, 61
different ways and 150-plus on the other side.
The fact of the matter is that this
is a very necessary prerequisite. And it
stands as a whole. As a whole package, it
stands as a start, as a movement forward in
this process of reaching a long-deferred need
to deal with the Rockefeller Drug Laws.
The expungement, by the way, is to
reward people who have changed their lives and
are not engaged in any more criminal activity.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, would Senator Espada yield for
another question.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Espada, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR ESPADA: Let it roll.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator continues to yield.
SENATOR PATERSON: I'm not sure I
4618
really understood the answer to the last
question. If that is the case, something that
we all understand, that there are probably
imperfections in every bill, I'm not sure if
I'm supposed to ask any more questions.
In other words, Madam President,
what I'd like the Senator to explain to me is:
What is the difference between a good bill and
bad bill? I would assume that a bad bill
would be that when you punched enough holes in
the bill, you recognize that it actually
doesn't cure a problem.
SENATOR ESPADA: We take them one
at a time, Senator Paterson. Let me just say
this is a good bill.
SENATOR PATERSON: Okay, let's
take them one at a time. Would the Senator
yield for another question?
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator,
do you continue to yield for another question?
SENATOR ESPADA: Absolutely.
Only to good questions. No, go
ahead.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator yields.
4619
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, isn't
it true that if a person does not commit a
further offense and received a conditional
expungement that these records could be made
available to agencies not because of any
conduct of the defendant -- actually, the
convicted person -- but actually it would
sometimes weigh based on the type of job they
were looking for? If they wanted to become a
bus driver or a daycare worker or perhaps a
healthcare worker.
Isn't that the way this bill reads?
SENATOR ESPADA: Well, you know,
Senator Paterson, I'm involved on the front
line of human service delivery, so I consulted
with legal counsel, who informs me that you're
wrong.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, if the Senator would continue to
yield for a question.
SENATOR ESPADA: Yes, sir.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: He
yields.
SENATOR PATERSON: My
understanding of the legislation is that there
4620
are exceptions to the rule involving
conditional expungement. That in other words,
later on, if the records are not necessarily
destroyed and later on if an agency where the
person applied for a position as a bus driver,
for instance, wanted to seek whether or not
the person had a conviction, that that
information would be made available to them.
And I thought it was made very
clear in the legislation. Perhaps your
counsel could explain to me that it's not in
the legislation at all.
SENATOR ESPADA: Well, if I
might, through you, Madam President, again we
get back to what is the point.
We provide conditional expungement,
we provide the person with treatment, we
provide them with the opportunity to live
their lives in a positive manner, to
reintegrate with their families, to avoid
going to jail.
And without knowing absolutely that
you're right or wrong -- and I'm speaking not
as a legal counsel, but for myself, Senator
Paterson -- I don't know what weight to give
4621
that, because indeed the matter would be
shared if you applied for a pistol license.
The matter would be shared if you were perhaps
applying for some kind of employment.
I am not in the position at this
time to tell you every level of employment and
agency that this information would be provided
to. But I would concede that that conditional
expungement would be triggered by someone
violating the terms of their treatment and
committing another additional offense.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, I'm not talking about whether or
not anyone violates the conditions of
expungement. I certainly would agree that a
person that would get that kind of a break
from society, that if they continued to commit
offenses that that privilege would be taken
away from them.
I'm talking about a person that
didn't do it. I'm talking about a person that
was given a conditional expungement and then
finds out later on, after the big press
4622
conference when they all stand around and say
that we did this and we're so noble and we are
reaching out to people and giving them this
opportunity, for all of the credit that will
be arrogated to those who drafted this
legislation after they've said it -- and I
know they're going to when this bill passes -
later on, down the road, we find out that
actually there are a number of agencies that
could find the prejudicial information, that
it does not really expunge the offense, and
that the word "expunge" shouldn't be used at
all, because it's available for a person to
actually find out later if they apply for
certain types of jobs.
And I'd like, if Senator Espada is
willing to yield for another question, for him
to clear that up for us once and for all,
whether or not it's true or it's not true. It
doesn't have to be Senator Espada. But
somebody over there should know the answer to
this question.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Espada, do you wish to yield for the question?
SENATOR ESPADA: I would love to
4623
yield to a question. I would like to focus in
on what the question is. Can I have it
repeated, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Paterson, will you repeat your question?
SENATOR PATERSON: Does the
expungement, Madam President, the conditional
expungement eradicate the possibility of the
individual having prejudicial information
released about them later on? Does it, yes or
no?
SENATOR ESPADA: Again, I don't
like yes or no questions. But I'll refer to
the part of the legislation -- I know lawyers
like to do this, so we're going to be really
technical and give you the legal answer.
And with respect to a conviction,
the conditional expungement "pursuant to
section 160.65 of the Criminal Procedure Law,
shall not apply to any employer or
governmental licensing body required or
authorized by law to submit fingerprint-based
inquiries to the Division of Criminal Justice
Services. It shall also be an unlawful
discriminatory practice under this subdivision
4624
to act adversely to an individual for his or
her failure to disclose a conviction that was
conditionally expunged pursuant to Section
160.65 of the Criminal Procedure Law."
That's your legal answer, Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, if Senator Espada would yield for
another question.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Espada, will you yield for another question?
SENATOR ESPADA: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR PATERSON: We have to get
on the same page here, Madam President. The
Senator wanted me to ask a simple question,
and then I couldn't get a simple answer. So
we're going to move on to something else.
There is an opportunity in this
bill for a redetermination of sentencing for
individuals who are inmates right now. But
again, when you look further into it and you
read the actual bill, of the over 20,000
people who are in our institutions because of
4625
substance abuse charges, you know how many
would actually be eligible for this? 405.
405.
And this is roughly 2 percent of
the inmates who are in our penitentiaries
right now, because they are the only ones who
are Class A felons.
Therefore, a number of people who
are lower down on the totem pole who really
just what we are calling "mules," who really
are the types of people that Senator Bruno was
talking about before, they won't even qualify
for this review of their sentencing, will
they, Senator?
SENATOR ESPADA: Your math is
absolutely correct. I think those are the
estimates we have, in the hundreds, yes.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, if Senator Espada would yield for
another question.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Espada, will you yield for another question?
SENATOR ESPADA: Surely.
SENATOR PATERSON: My question
is, why was there no consideration given to
4626
individuals who actually committed lower
offenses for the same treatment, that perhaps
their sentences be reviewed at this point?
SENATOR ESPADA: You know, I
think there's a premise, you know, that can't
go unchallenged here. I mean, numbers are
thrown around all the time. I'd like to throw
out some important numbers as well.
You know, 90 percent of the
felony-level controlled substance arrests
involve charges, obviously, of selling or
attempt to sell. And the overwhelming amount
of these cases involving charges of selling or
attempt to sell fall under what's called
B Class felonies.
Now, these massive amounts of
numbers that are cited all the time, only a
small portion of the felony-level drug arrests
result in sentences to prison. And over half
of the arrests are disposed of in lower courts
with a plea to a nonfelony, or even in a
dismissal.
And so although, yes, we provide in
this legislation for first-time offenders, for
second-time Class B felony offenders, and even
4627
repeat offenders to get treatment, we also
provide the opportunity for someone who is in
a Class B mode to get a determinate sentence.
And in essence, when we move to
that, we have the possibility to reduce
sentences, we have the possibility to have
these people reunited with their families.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, if Senator Espada would continue to
yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Espada?
SENATOR ESPADA: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, isn't
it true that under this legislation the
ability of prosecutors to control who is or is
not eligible to receive drug treatment is
solely contained in the prosecutor's
discretion?
That, in other words, it will
purely be the whim of the law enforcement
community as to the determination as to who
would be or would not be eligible for drug
4628
treatment under the legislation?
SENATOR ESPADA: Senator
Paterson, you know, one of the clear
objectives in the Governor's program bill is
to expand judicial discretion. And with the
court-approved drug abuse treatment, it is in
the hands and solely piloted by the judge.
And judicial discretion there is paramount.
Of course, the prosecutors continue
to have a role through DTAP and through the
drug courts, and they're an indispensable part
of this process. But I point you to the CADAT
as an example, a widely available example, of
judicial discretion working to relieve us of
the harshness and to provide early
intervention on treatment for those who
qualify.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, if the Senator would continue to
yield.
SENATOR ESPADA: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Espada -- he yields.
SENATOR PATERSON: That's all
very nice. But in fact, the prosecutor still
4629
has full discretion in terms of undermining
the judicial discretion that's in another part
of the bill.
See, this is my whole theory about
this bill, is when you first hear it, it
sounds great. And if you dig just a little,
you start to find out that it isn't.
In reality, the prosecutor is the
one that controls that destiny. So it in a
sense almost obliterates the judicial
discretion that Senator Espada was talking
about.
And so my question is if we really
wanted to do something about the Rockefeller
Drug Laws, as dangerous as they were -- and by
the way, I don't blame prosecutors. There are
different types of pressures and anxieties
that you feel. I used to work in such an
office. But that's why we have a court, so
that we can balance that with what are the
needs of perhaps the defendant and also what
is the objective reasoning of the judiciary.
And my question is, on an issue
such as drug treatment, where other aspects
other than law enforcement issues come in,
4630
then why would we not be using that judicial
discretion in that particular area? That's my
question.
SENATOR ESPADA: Senator
Paterson, you know, that this is one of the
key balancing acts in this whole matter.
Prosecutors control treatment options now,
under current law. And what we do here is we
take, again, we take a quantum leap forward to
allow for options, to allow for judicial
discretion.
But I point out that 75 percent -
currently, right now, 75 percent of first-time
drug felons are diverted from prison by
prosecutors, through charge reduction,
sentencing deferral programs, probation
supervision, and drug courts.
So that's where we're at now. Some
folks, some district attorneys are doing a
better job than others. It is the prosecutors
that pilot this under current law. We live
with mandatories. We have lives for 30 years
with the results of that. This moves us, this
moves us more than you give it credit for,
into a system where there are no lifetime
4631
maximums, where there are treatment options.
And, yes, not enough is said about
the folks that literally get away with
peddling their poison, using minors, through
new technologies on the Internet. And the
other provisions of this that make our
community safer and make the whole matter much
fairer.
So yes, again, you could point to
situations that would, in effect, keep us from
ever having any movement forward, because the
debate can only be isolated and polarized if
you just want to move in one quantum leap to
total judicial discretion. It simply won't
happen, despite your desire -- or even mine -
to see that kind of a system, perhaps. It
simply won't happen.
And we come back to the essential
merits of the matter, whether it's moving
forward. In my opinion, this matter moves us
forward into the right direction. It moves us
into an active and hopefully prompt
negotiation with the Assembly, where matters
that you're pointing out will surely be taken
up and hopefully compromised upon by
4632
responsible people.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: While I'm
looking up the meaning of the word "quantum,"
I was wondering if Senator Espada would yield
for another question.
SENATOR ESPADA: Let me help you.
Yes. The answer is yes.
And "quantum," as used by Pedro
Espada, Jr., Senator for the 32nd District, in
my neck of the woods it means a whole lot
better than where you're at now. Like more
than automatically putting people into a
life-sentence mode, more than denying all the
folks that are impacted by this on a yearly
basis, tens upon thousands of people -- giving
them the option to get treatment.
It's a quantum leap in that if you
use a gun to prey on our community, we're
going to punish you. It's a quantum leap in
that right now, there is absolutely no ability
to get these major drug dealers, and they hide
4633
behind their deadly deeds and management
scheme by using young people.
So yes, the quantum leap is we're
providing early treatment, we're doing away
with the harshness, we are going to have
determinate sentencing, we are going to have
more protections and punish those that should
be punished.
In my neck of the woods, that's a
quantum leap from where we're at. That's the
way I measure it.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, would Senator Espada be willing to
yield for another question?
SENATOR ESPADA: Yes, sir.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Yes, he
does.
SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, I
want to give you an example on the issue we
just talked about.
There's a decision made by the
court to allow for drug treatment; the
prosecutor doesn't like the decision, the
4634
prosecutor appeals. Next case comes up,
there's a decision not to grant drug
treatment, the defendant can't appeal.
Is that a quantum leap?
SENATOR ESPADA: Well, first of
all, factually, I would have to check whether
factually that is correct. Not that I don't
believe what comes out of your mouth, but you
know how we have varying interpretations of
statutes.
And I am reminded by learned
counsel that there other remedies, legal
remedies available to defendants, including
Article 78 and other procedural matters, that
you as attorneys would know grant the
defendant perhaps more legal options than you
perhaps stated in your remarks.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, would Senator Espada yield for
another question?
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Espada?
SENATOR ESPADA: Absolutely.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator yields.
4635
SENATOR PATERSON: So among those
remedies that are not available would be the
appeal. Is that true?
SENATOR ESPADA: We agree with
Senator Paterson's assessment of the lack of
ability to appeal.
Believe me, that answer was a lot
longer in my ears. So we're definitely
getting better here.
SENATOR PATERSON: Okay, then,
Madam President, I'm going to quit while I'm
ahead.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Thank
you, Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: On the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Paterson, on the bill.
SENATOR PATERSON: In 1970
Governor Nelson Rockefeller was running for
reelection for what would become his third
term as governor. His credo, his real
campaign issue was the amount of drugs and the
use of drugs around the state. For that, he
spent a lot of money on commercials promising
the public that there would be very strict
4636
penalties for this type of thing.
At that type of time, we learned
something about drugs, that they were a vile
and vicious malady that turned family members
against each other. People stole to support
their habits. People would do anything to
support their habits -- particularly heroin,
which was a drug administered by needle, which
was rampant in the inner cities of our state.
And then we found something, we
found that you can't campaign human misery.
It leaps ghetto walls. And we finding that
there were starting to become just as many
drug problems in Forest Hills and in Grove's
Point as there were in the South Bronx and
Central Harlem.
These had been issues that had
riddled our communities for years. But
because of the fact that the faces of those
affected were now more diverse and were now
reflecting the faces of all around the state,
we decided to make a concerted effort to try
to eradicate drug trafficking and drug use.
What we found was that there was
some effect, but that we actually went from
4637
12,385 people in our state penitentiaries and
that that number sextupled. And that's not a
prurient expression from the impeachment
hearings, that means six times.
And so we then found that great
numbers of individuals who were in our
penitentiaries were there for nonviolent drug
offenses. And it got to the point where even
Senator Bruno came forward, along with Senator
Volker and some others, just a few years ago
to try to do something through the Governor's
office to stop the situations where sometimes
if you were even in the same vicinity with
someone who was dealing drugs -- the
girlfriend or someone, a person that
inadvertently was transferring drugs and
didn't know they were doing it would get 25
years to life at times.
So what we thought we were going to
try to do was to recognize that we're dealing
with an impinging on the concept of justice by
the issue of a disease. And what we were
going to try to do, those who talked about
repealing the Rockefeller Drug Laws, was to
really put into place something that's
4638
workable, sensible, and achievable.
What we have is a bill that in my
opinion is one small step for man and one
quantum leap for prosecutors. We have a piece
of legislation that in no way is going to
limit the problems that many people who are
incarcerated right now have, which is that
they have an addiction problem more than that
they are really lawbreakers. They made a
mistake over a short period of time in their
lives, became addicted, and then involved
themselves in other activities that are
criminal, that need to be punished, but are
very much beyond their control.
When the Governor spoke on the last
three years at his State of the State message
about repealing the Rockefeller Drug Laws, we
didn't think that he meant this. And that's
why I would recommend all of my colleagues in
the chamber that we can't support this
legislation, because it is replete with hidden
agendas that actually manifest the problem
rather than cure it.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Hoffmann.
4639
SENATOR HOFFMANN: Thank you,
Madam President.
This is indeed a proud day for the
Senate and for the State of New York. And I
applaud Senator Bruno for his leadership;
Senator Espada, for his leadership in bringing
there to the floor. And I'm especially proud
of the fact that our Governor of the state
that made this a major thrust of his
administration this year.
I think it's very important for us
to stop and reflect how we have come to this
point in time and what a remarkable journey it
has been for the Legislature and for
government in general in this state.
I am reminded that several of the
individuals who were sponsors of the original
Rockefeller Drug Law have recognized that it
did not do what they had hoped that it would,
and even out of office they were brave enough,
bold enough, and willing to admit that perhaps
had not had all of the facts available to them
at the time, could not with a crystal ball
predict the future.
And these individuals, even out of
4640
office, have continued to carry the crusade
forward to change this law. And I believe
that they should be credited for their
pioneering actions in this area. One of them
is a dear friend of mine, former Senator Doug
Barclay. Another one is well known to
everybody in this chamber, former Senator John
Dunne.
And there are other people who were
involved who may choose to speak on this, who
were involved at the time that the Rockefeller
Drug Laws went into effect.
Not often do we see a measure that
has evolved over a 30-year time period and we
have the opportunity to reflect the changes in
our society in quite such an interesting
manner. If you would stop and think about
those days, it's important to note that at
that time, during Governor Rockefeller's
administration, alcoholism was considered a
crime.
It was under Governor Rockefeller
that alcoholism became classified as a
disease. We now have come to recognize that
drug use is often a disease as well. And the
4641
activities of people in the drug world prey
upon the addictive aspect of the disease.
And, as Senator Bruno spoke so eloquently,
people are exploited because of that addictive
and sometimes hopeless manifestation caused by
drugs in their lives.
Clearly, putting people behind bars
in a correctional system that is primarily
punitive is not the answer to the problems of
addiction. When one considers also that we
spend as much a year to put somebody behind
bars as we would if we sent that same person
to an Ivy League college for an education, it
becomes even more clear that the answer is not
punishment alone.
But certainly there is a need for
punishment for those drug kingpins. Now we
understand something that was not understood
30 years ago. Now we understand the modality
of the people in the drug world and how they
utilize young children, how they utilize
desperate people, how they manage to hide
their own actions in the most criminal and
despicable manner and prey upon helpless
people or hopeless people who will take the
4642
brunt of their evil actions. Those are the
people who need to be put away and put away
for a good long time.
During this whole evolution of the
awareness this country has about the drug
culture, there has been another very
interesting and sad side effect. In the last
twenty or thirty years, guns have become
increasingly identified with criminal
activity, and never in a more heinous way than
used in commission of a drug crime, where
innocent victims have been sometimes mowed
down by desperate individuals who are thinking
that they are totally above any kind of legal
responsibility or obligation.
But law-abiding gun owners have
been tarnished in this process. The image of
guns has been so fixed now for a whole
generation as only a violent, negative,
criminal tool that law-abiding gun owners have
been, in effect, stigmatized.
And I hope that by squarely placing
the stronger penalties upon drug-related
crimes that utilize guns in some small way the
law-abiding gun owners, collectors, sportsmen
4643
will be given the respect that they deserve.
And I anticipate that we will have an
opportunity to revisit that particular aspect
of this philosophical evolution in later
debate in the future.
I'd like to acknowledge, as well as
the Governor of this state and his leadership,
his choice in the Division of Criminal Justice
Services, Director Chauncey Parker, already
referenced by Pedro Espada. Mr. Parker has
taken very bold steps here, and we applaud him
today as well.
I'd like to acknowledge the work of
another individual, not in government service
but well-known to many in this chamber, and
someone who has helped to educate all of us
about the importance of recognizing addiction,
whether it be alcoholic or drug addiction, and
that is Father Peter Young. And Father
Young's work has been well-known for many,
many years. He in fact was one of the people
who helped convince Governor Nelson
Rockefeller to change the statute, to take the
lead in changing, decriminalizing alcoholism
as a crime and labeling it as a disease.
4644
And Father Young's work and his
demonstrated success in creating drug
treatment programs help serve as a model for
what we can do as a state to put the priority
where it needs to be placed.
This is indeed a proud day for
New York State. I hope that the Assembly
recognizes the important progress undertaken
by Governor Pataki and by the members of this
house. And I hope that we will be able to
adjourn with an acceptable compromise, if it
is not to be this bill. Indeed, I hope that
the Assembly will very soon sit down with some
meaningful recommendations for modest changes.
Because there should be no excuse for us
leaving this Capitol this year without the
reform of the Rockefeller Drug Laws that are
so long overdue.
Thank you, Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, thank
you, Madam President. If Senator Espada would
yield to a question.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
4645
Espada, will you yield to a question?
SENATOR ESPADA: Yes, Madam
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Thank you.
Senator Espada, I only received
this bill on my desk less than a half hour
ago. And I have not been able to find the
section where we delineate specifically that
we are moving back to a judicial-discretion
position, which is one of the key aspects that
the advocates for Rockefeller Drug Law reform
have been proposing.
I just can't find it in this
legislation. If you could point it to me, I
would like to study it.
SENATOR ESPADA: Through you,
Madam President, I surely will, Senator
Montgomery. But throughout this, there are a
number of different ways that treatment can be
obtained -- and of course the specific
references will be provided to you -- drug
courts, DTAP, and the CADAT program that we
tried our best to describe wherein first-time
4646
felony drug offenders, second-time felony drug
offenders, and third-time felony drug
offenders, with the consent of the DA in the
latter case, could obtain treatment first.
So we would definitely provide the
specific references to you, yes.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: I would
appreciate that, Senator Espada.
If you could continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator,
do you continue to yield?
SENATOR ESPADA: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator continues to yield.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Thank you.
Senator Espada, one of the issues
that I note that Senator Paterson raised and I
was trying to clarify for myself -- and maybe
you could help -- the section where you deal
with the expungement of records or records
that have been expunged except in certain
cases.
And I note that on page 8 of the
bill, it seems to add language under this
section that says "any prospective employer or
4647
governmental licensing body which has, as
required or authorized by state law, submitted
a fingerprint-based inquiry" to DCJS.
Does that mean, then, that any
time, even if your records are expunged, under
this law, those are now open to any employer
who requires fingerprints? In other words,
the expungement has no relevance in this
instance? Or am I talking about the wrong
kind of record?
SENATOR ESPADA: In the first
instance, Senator Montgomery, with respect to
your first set of points, the answer is yes,
in that this information will be available,
with the referenced language on page 8.
I lost the second point you made.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: My question
is if in fact a person has received, for
whatever the circumstances allow, an
expungement of their records, does this
language mean, then, that the exception of an
agency being able to receive information
despite the expungement is now any employer or
governmental licensing body, as this language
states?
4648
In other words, does this open up
your expunged records to any prospective
employer or governmental licensing body which
requires fingerprints?
SENATOR ESPADA: You read the
language correctly, yes. Yes.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Okay. All
right. So then no matter the expungement,
it's still available, essentially? There is
no such thing as being able to live with the
expungement not really following you?
In other words, the expungement
doesn't mean very much. Any time there is a
requirement that fingerprints are part of your
application for employment, those records are
available?
SENATOR ESPADA: Senator
Montgomery, there are any number of folks that
apply for licenses that hold jobs, whether it
be a police officer or many others, that live
with this same burden. I wouldn't conclude,
though, that the expungement or the condition
of the expungement has therefore no value.
That conclusion I can't agree with.
But that it is, in effect, as the
4649
language dictates, yes. There are other
people who apply for jobs who have to do the
same things that have no prior convictions for
drugs or anything else. Yes, that the
expungement is of value for many other things
that confront our lives.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: But, Madam
President, through you, if Senator Espada
would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Espada, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR ESPADA: Yes. Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator continues to yield.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: It's valid
only where there is no requirement for
fingerprinting.
If I can just ask another kind of
question, Senator Espada, under the procedure
for determining whether or not the court will
consider -- would consider drug treatment -
I'm on page 9, Senator Espada. Excuse me for
the delay. I think we're still talking under
the petition to conditionally expunge certain
convictions.
4650
On page 9, line 19, it says: "The
prosecutor shall be accorded an opportunity to
submit materials in support of the petition or
to demonstrate that the interest of justice
would not be served by granting the petition."
So what I'm reading in this
section, it seems to me that it is -- the
final word rests, again, with the prosecutor.
So that even though you are petitioning the
court and you may have fulfilled all of the
requirements that you list in the legislation
for being able to receive expungement,
ultimately the prosecutor will be the last
word.
In other words, they can -- the
prosecutor would -
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Volker, why do you rise?
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: -- would be
able to reject this -- your petition, and it
is not appealable.
SENATOR VOLKER: Madam President,
can I just interrupt? And I don't mean to
interrupt you, Senator Espada.
But having worked on this section,
4651
it is not the prosecutor, it is the court,
Senator. Because that whole section pertains
to the court.
And the reason it is not appealable
is because obviously if you've had your
opportunity to appear before a judge and had
the decision in a case such as this, you would
not normally allow an appeal. Unless, of
course, you were able to find something
absolutely wrong, a false statement or
something. Which is abnormal, frankly, in
these kinds of cases.
I would also point out, if I might,
that the truth is the expungement does have
value. It can't be used for future crimes; in
other words, as a predicate-offender-type
thing. But because of the severity of drugs,
with licensing, it is mainly involved to make
sure that a person with that penalty -- in a
sense, is a penalty -- still remains only for
licensing and only in certain cases for jobs.
And if you'll read, there's an
antidiscrimination clause right in the
legislation, so that -- to deal with the issue
of whether somebody tries to use that
4652
irresponsibly in determining a job opportunity
or government licensing.
Excuse me, I didn't mean to
interrupt.
SENATOR ESPADA: Thanks to
Senator Volker, Madam President.
And clearly, you know, the fact is
that there are some that would want to take
the prosecutor out of all of this process. I
don't think that's in our best interests.
No, as it pertains to this, as we
just heard, as the language makes clear, there
is no last word by the prosecutor. There is
input into the court, and the court will
deliberate, take input from all sides and make
a decision.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Madam
President, I'm sorry, I just -- I'm just only
reading what I see in front of me. And it
says: "The prosecutor shall be accorded an
opportunity to submit materials in support of
the petition or to demonstrate that the
interest of justice would not be served by
granting the petition."
So I don't know what that means.
4653
Maybe I'm just misinterpreting this. It's but
right here in black and white, Madam
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Montgomery, are you speaking on the bill or
are you -
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: I still
would like to ask Senator Espada if he would
yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Espada, will you yield?
SENATOR ESPADA: I will yield.
And if I may just add to that last
point, I think -- again, I think when we read
the language and we give an interpretation, I
think we have to take a little responsibility,
you know, for some conclusions here. And,
yes, we are reading the same English language.
You're provided an opportunity to
be heard. Both sides will be heard. It's as
clear as -- I don't think anybody could make
it any clearer, that we're simply petitioning
the court, submitting information for
consideration.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Thank you,
4654
Senator Espada.
The other -- just one last point, I
suppose. On the list of issues that can be
considered in making a determination by the
court, it says "any other relevant factor."
You know, so in addition to circumstances and
seriousness of offense and character of the
petitioner and evidence of successfully
completing drug treatment and so forth and so
on, the last thing just says "any other
relevant factor."
That seems to be really very, very
highly subjective as to what is a relevant
factor based on one judgement may -- what's
relevant to one person make not be relevant to
another person.
Doesn't that leave it entirely up
to interpretation, and therefore anybody can
use any excuses for denying this petition?
SENATOR ESPADA: If I might,
through you, Madam President, relevance is a
subjective matter. But it is the judge that
will determine relevance, whether it's
germane, what weight it gets.
And so, I mean, we're back to -- we
4655
have to allow -- the bill allows for input,
all relevant input, relevant to be a judgment
made by the judge -
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Exactly.
SENATOR ESPADA: -- weight, a
determination to be made by the judge.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Madam
President, if Senator Espada would continue to
yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Espada, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR ESPADA: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator continues to yield.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Senator
Espada, the -- I wanted to just ask you a
question regarding the issue of drug treatment
and what happens to a person who is
unsuccessful on the first try for their drug
treatment program.
It says on page 35 in the bill,
line 44, the bill talks about "Where the
defendant's sentence of court-approved drug
abuse treatment" -
SENATOR ESPADA: I'm sorry, I
4656
didn't get the line. I'm sorry.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Line 44.
Starting on line 44. "Where the defendant's
sentence of court-approved drug abuse
treatment has been revoked, any time the
defendant has spent in treatment shall not be
credited against the determinate term of
imprisonment imposed."
So my question, Senator Espada, to
you is, does that not prevent people from
possibly wanting to enter the drug treatment
program? Because even if they complete the
drug treatment or they get pretty far along in
it and somehow they -- as we know, anyone who
knows anything about drug treatment, it
usually takes more than one chance, more than
one time, one try at successfully completing a
drug program.
That person who does not
successfully complete the program the very
first time out in fact loses that time and has
to then go back and serve a longer sentence,
essentially, because -- in other words, they
were sentenced to drug treatment, they failed
at the drug treatment, so the time that they
4657
spent in drug treatment is not allowed as part
of their sentence any longer. So essentially
you're extending their sentence.
Why would you want to do that? Why
bother to go into drug treatment if, you know,
if you can't make it the first time, you're
going to extend your sentence?
SENATOR ESPADA: Madam President,
I think, again, for the sake of clarity and
fairness of interpretation here and the
conclusions that are being reached, let me
just first point out with respect to coerced
drug treatment, again the findings of Chief
Justice Judith Kaye, the New York State
Commission on Drugs and the Courts, in their
report of June of 2002. In referring to the
treatment outcomes and the worthiness of it:
"Obviously, a statewide approach to the
delivery of coerced drug treatment to
nonviolent addicts in every jurisdiction
should be made available."
Now, it is recognized, it is
recognized in the field these days that
intensive supervision is a necessary component
in terms of compliance. Developing the kind
4658
of support mechanisms, whether it be for
housing, for jobs, for any number of things
that a case manager would be available to
help. Compliance, a system of encouraging
compliance is in place.
But that doesn't necessarily or
should not necessarily be mixed up with the
revocation issue. The revocation issue
doesn't get triggered necessarily because
someone has relapsed once, did not get a job,
and is not fully compliant. It's a much more
serious matter, again, subject to judicial
review and determination.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Madam
President, through you, if Senator Espada
would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Espada?
SENATOR ESPADA: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator continues to yield.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, Senator
Espada, I certainly agree with you
wholeheartedly that, as Father Young has
pointed out, and every other program, agency
4659
that has provided, including the people in
correctional services who provide treatment
for inmates, former inmates, and reintegration
services, the issue for them, as it is for us,
is how do we provide the necessary supports
for them, as you say. It must be treatment,
must be housing, must be a comprehensive array
of services that will help people to in fact
be successful in moving on.
So my question to you is -- again,
I can't find it in the legislation, so if you
can point it to me -- what have we provided in
your legislation as a mechanism to support
just the comprehensive support programs and
services that you speak of, that you know and
say in your own words that are necessary and
important in order to make this work?
Is there anything in this bill that
refers to funding for that kind of service?
SENATOR ESPADA: Madam President,
through you, the Governor estimates that when
this legislative package is fully implemented
that it will need about $41 million to fund.
And you heard earlier when the Majority
Leader, Senator Bruno spoke, that obviously
4660
there is disagreement on exactly the amount of
resources that would be necessary to get the
job done as you want it done, as I want it
done, as perhaps all of us want it done.
And so no, it is not clearly
stipulated, because we don't know. We don't
know. We don't have an agreement. Throughout
this country we are getting evidence that
suggests that obviously there will be savings
that would accrue that we can use. But
absolutely necessary is to have a wide range
of options, whether it be through DOCS and
improving the capacity to provide treatment
for an inmate in an institution, to provide it
in a residential setting, to provide it in a
outpatient setting -- all of these things,
whether we do it with or without the
prosecutor's lead, whether we fund the early
intervention and education programs that you
and I know are needed in our schools to deal
with young people, all of those things are
possible. But there is no stipulated funding.
And I return to the prerequisite
here -- or the requisite here is to get the
ball rolling, is to, as I tried to explain to
4661
Senator Paterson, to look at the positives
here and to understand that this is not agreed
upon and that we could spend all day picking
it apart, and we have, and we should.
But the key thing, the key thing is
for the first time in 30 years we have an
initiative, we have a well-thought-out plan.
We have a Chauncey Parker that has met with
the advocacy community, that has met with
legislators that have had thousands upon
thousands of hours of input into this process.
This is not just a press release. This is a
well-thought-out plan, subject to
interpretation, subject to agreement, subject
to enhancements with good ideas.
But it is a start, Senator
Montgomery. It is a start. And the
overwhelming and most important thing that we
could do here today is not keep this on hold
any longer. It's been 30 years. The time has
come. The time is now.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Thank you,
Madam President. On the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Montgomery, on the bill.
4662
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, thank
you.
I certainly -- I agree with Senator
Espada that we would hope that we could begin
to discuss the issue of drug law reform in
New York State with some level of sincerity
and honesty and integrity, with the idea that
we could come together and put together a
package that really reflects our intent to
change what we have lived with for over 30
years.
But I'm afraid, as so many other
issues have been dealt with in this way, that
we might end up with two plus two equals a bad
30 additional years. Two bad bills -- you
know, we keep talking about it's a one-house
bill, but I'm not so sure that the houses are
far enough apart to make this meaningful.
So I think we need to discuss this
issue, even though it's a one-house bill,
because we need to talk about what is
absolutely, in my opinion, my estimation,
unacceptable. Because it really is not
reflective of a well-thought-out and
meaningful approach to reform.
4663
Expungement is important because
through this whole process the combination of
the drug law that we have and the problem that
we have with the proliferation of drugs, we've
been unable to deal with the fact that so many
communities are plagued with this disease.
And the fact that between the arrest of people
on the street and the incarceration, we end up
with a system that is 90 to 95 percent people
of color, black and brown people. So there is
a racial implication to this, there is a class
implication to this. And of course there is
the criminal-activity issue.
We are creating, if we cannot
somehow clarify the expungement issue -- and
one of the reasons I spent so much time, Madam
President, with Senator Espada on that, it's
very important because we are creating,
through this system, a permanent underclass
that consists of primarily of black and brown,
mostly men, in this state.
So we need to deal with
expungement. Because if people are unable to
go on with their lives, be able to get
employment, be able to be licensed for some of
4664
the licensed professions, be able to go to
college because they are eligible for TAP
funding or for some assistance, if all of that
is eliminated, then there is no other way for
us to view it and there is no other avenue for
people to exist except in a permanent state of
underclass.
So I think the expungement issue is
critical. The treatment issue is critical.
And if we continue to go with the system that
we have where the district attorney has the
last word on most of the issues, whether or
not you can petition for expungement, whether
or not you can remain in drug treatment,
whether or not you can go to be in drug
treatment, you can continue to be in drug
treatment -- as long as we have a district
attorney with the last word on all of those
issues, we have a system that essentially does
not work, is not fair.
And so it's very, very difficult
for us to assume that this is just a one-house
bill and we should not discuss it because it's
not important. And in fact, this legislation
will increase the number of people who are
4665
going to end up in prison. And those people
are, as they -- if the pattern continues, it's
going to be 90 percent people of color.
So I'm very -- I'm disheartened
that Senator Espada has not presented with us
a legislation that we can take some heart in
saying that this is clearly -- this
legislation is not what Senator Dunne has been
advocating for, it's not the legislation that
the advocates across the state has been
advocating for. This is not what people view
as Rockefeller reform.
So that I'm not thanking the
Governor, because this is really not what
anyone has been talking about, and it's not
what he promised in his State of the State
message when he said he was going to look at
Rockefeller reform and begin to do something
about it.
So I'm very disappointed. And I
certainly hope that, Senator Espada, when we
go back to however the negotiations are going
to go, I hope that you will look at this
legislation very, very carefully to see how
this is going to impact on your district and
4666
my district and all of those areas where most
of the inmates emanate from.
Is this really a legislation that
is going to yield us 30 more years of a
positive upward movement in terms of reform,
or is this going to be worse, so that we're
going to have even more and younger people
from our districts ending up in the
correctional facilities across this state
because your legislation, because this
proposal or a proposal like this came out of
the Legislature under the guise of a
Rockefeller reform law?
I'll be voting no on this, Madam
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Alesi.
SENATOR ALESI: Madam President,
I'd like to speak on the bill, if I may.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Alesi, on the bill.
SENATOR ALESI: This is a very
controversial issue, as we all know. It's one
that is not being dealt with in a similar
fashion in the Assembly. It has come down
4667
from the Governor, I think from the good faith
and best efforts of the Governor and his
office in response to the clamoring for some
kind of change in the Rockefeller Drug Laws.
And as I sit and listen to the
debate, it is becoming clear to me, as it
should with everybody, that the focus is on
treatment to some large extent. And as
Senator Espada said in his earlier remarks, we
must be looking at the whole bill, just as we
do with a lot of legislation that we do here,
whether it's the budget or any other highly
controversial measure.
There are so many good things in
this bill, and there are some things in this
bill that could be improved upon. But I think
that the effort here, as Senator Espada has
said so clearly, is that we must bring this to
the floor. And we have, by way of the
Governor's office, something that we hope will
at least bring the Assembly into the debate so
that we can deal with this issue, so that we
respond to those people who want reform and at
the same time understand that there are people
who are very concerned about reforms.
4668
Part of my concerns about reforming
the Rockefeller Drug Laws don't center on what
seems to have been so far the centerpiece of
our debate, and that is treatment. I'm
entirely in favor of treatment as the front
line of defense against people who have drug
addiction, who will continue their drug
addiction if they're not treated, and who will
then, because of their addiction, become part
of the criminal justice system.
It only makes sense that if we can
treat people, that we do it. This bill
provides a number of ways that treatment can
be given to people.
This bill also, to my chagrin,
doesn't recognize that low-level drug users,
people who have been convicted of a small
amount of drug usage, are part of the problem
of this very nefarious industry that we have
not just in this country but worldwide.
You cannot feel sympathetic for
someone who is part of a system that is a
constant drain not only on our economy, not
only on our police, not only on our military,
a constant drain on our schools, our property
4669
values and therefore the ability of our cities
and municipalities to operate effectively
because property taxes go down. The drains on
our hospitals, drains on our medical services.
The people that are at the very
bottom of the drug trade, at the very broadest
base, are the ones that we need to get
treatment to. I don't disagree with that.
But my concern is that in this legislation we
seem to be overly sympathetic to people that
are part of the conspiracy of drug trade on a
24/7 basis.
And if you understand anything
about what makes a business succeed, you'll
know that, for example, a bakery cannot exist
without somebody growing the wheat, it can't
exist without somebody transforming that wheat
into flour, it cannot exist without somebody
baking it into loaves of bread or distributing
it or wholesaling it or, finally, getting it
down to the retail level where it is sold one
loaf at a time.
And my concern here is the
overemphasis and perhaps a little too much
sympathy for those people who are selling on a
4670
day-to-day basis but who are the essential
ingredient for the success of an industry that
is destroying and has destroyed and
unfortunately will continue to destroy the
fabric of our society.
Yes, treatment is vitally
important, and I agree with that. Education
is vitally important for prevention. But I
also believe that when we have made those
attempts and we have tried to do it as
effectively as possible -- and I believe that
the Governor's bill does try to do that
effectively, it does try to provide treatment
effectively -- that we should not come back
and say those people who have failed to be
treated, those people who have turned their
back on the opportunity because of an
addiction should not also be known as
accomplices in every death on every street
corner of an innocent bystander or someone
else who has been involved in the drug trade.
They're accomplices. Just as the
kingpin is an accomplice in this whole
operation, they are accomplices every time
someone has to sell their body to be able to
4671
provide themselves with the money to feed
their addiction. Low-level users, possessors,
and sellers are accomplices in every murder
that is a result of the drug trade, and make
no mistake about that.
So when we're focusing on
nonviolent drug dealers and nonviolent drug
possessors, let us not fool ourselves here.
In the rush to sympathize with these people
and offer them treatment and forget the fact
that if treatment doesn't work, if treatment
hasn't done its job and if education hasn't
prevented this, that those people who are
involved at the very broadest base of the drug
trade are exactly the same people, just as
much as the kingpin, who are guilty of pulling
the trigger when a young child is killed
because he is a bystander, they're just as
guilty of putting someone on a street corner
selling themselves, they're just as guilty as
someone who has millions of dollars in
nontaxable income that undermines and destroys
our economy on a daily basis as the kingpin,
as the major distributor, as the provider of
the raw goods, as the wholesaler, and as
4672
anybody else involved in this.
You cannot run a bakery if you
don't have someone providing the wheat, the
flour, the transportation, the distribution,
the wholesaling, and the retailing. You
cannot have a successful business if you don't
have someone selling on a day-to-day basis.
And the main intent of the
Rockefeller Drug Laws originally was to focus
on that person selling on a day-to-day basis.
It's not just three-quarters of an ounce, it's
three-quarters of an ounce 24 hours a day,
seven days a week, 365 days a year, multiplied
by thousands and thousands of people.
Do we need to treat them? Yes. Do
we need to educate them in advance? Yes. My
concern here is that in reducing some of the
penalties, and in fact even offering people
who have already been sentenced an opportunity
to have a reduced sentence, that we're sending
a message that if you're a low-level dealer
that you're not really a problem.
The message we should send, and
very emphatically, if we do anything with the
Rockefeller Drug Laws, is that if you are a
4673
low-level dealer that you are just as much a
murderer as the drug kingpin.
I'll be voting for this bill, Madam
President, but I'll be voting with those very
serious concerns that I have. And emphasizing
the fact that I personally do not believe that
anyone who is involved in any way at any level
of the illegal drug trade is involved in
something that is nonviolent. And if I have
any opposition to this bill at all, it is the
use of the word "nonviolent."
Thank you, Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Liz Krueger.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: Thank you,
Madam President. If the sponsor would yield
to a question, through you.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Espada, will you yield for a question?
SENATOR ESPADA: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: Thank you,
Madam President. This has become such a
complex debate, and it's such a an important
4674
bill and such a complex bill. And I have to
tell you I would love the opportunity to vote
for reform of the Rockefeller Drug Laws before
we go home this year.
I don't think I'll be able to do
that today, because I don't think we have a
bill that's the reform that we need. But I
need to go back to some of the basics that I
think we raised before.
Just to clarify, Senator Espada,
you agreed before with a question from I
believe it was Senator Paterson that this bill
would only impact 405 out of approximately
22,000 people who were currently in the New
York State prison system for A-I nonviolent
drug felonies?
SENATOR ESPADA: No. As it
relates to the A-I's, the answer was in the
hundreds. As it relates to that category of
offense, yes.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: Right. So
it was -- I'm sorry, Madam President, through
you, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Espada, do you continue to yield?
4675
SENATOR ESPADA: Yes, Madam
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: Thank you,
Senator.
So assuming, again, we're talking
about several hundred. I believe you said
before the number was 405 before. Maybe it's
350, maybe it's 450. Again, there's 22,000 -
or it's my understanding, and you may have
different numbers, that we have 22,000
low-level, nonviolent felony offenders in our
prison system today who are either there under
categories A-I, B, C, or D.
But your bill only deals with
changing the sentencing options for people in
jail who are A-I -- again, those few
hundred -- in relationship to the 22,000?
SENATOR ESPADA: Well, first of
all, again, I don't know how much degree of
responsibility we have for throwing around
numbers. But I'm not going to split hairs and
get into I have 18,000, you have 22,000. The
issue is bigger than getting the absolute
4676
number right.
There are about 600 or so A-I's who
would be impacted as a result of this
determinate sentencing. A-I, A-II, right now
we're talking life. We're talking life.
We're doing away with life as a maximum.
I don't know -- and we could
pander, we could politicize, and we could do
responsible -- you know, produce responsible
queries and what have you, and arguments, but
let's get this right. I mean, we are moving,
the proposal recommends, from an indeterminate
sentencing scheme to a determinate sentencing
scheme. And to use a person that has been in
jail, sentenced to 15 to life or 25 to life -
as Senator Bruno indicated in his opening
statements, he sought a pardon or clemency for
three or four individuals.
The fact of the matter is that if
this proposal was in place, someone who's an
A-I or A-II category, their sentence could be
reduced by fifty percent. And if you have,
through merit, bonuses and good behavior,
earned additional time off, you could get out
in 7.1 years. And if you're in that category
4677
now, you could petition the court for
resentencing.
So I don't want to, in a broad
brush, you know, indicate that as we go down
through these categories that there's no
impact. There is definite, clear impact in
these proposals on As and A-I's. There is
very clear impact on the Bs or those that get
plea-bargained from As to Bs and on down. The
provision of treatment is clear and real in
this legislative package.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: Madam
President, if the sponsor would continue to
yield to an additional question.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Espada, will you continue to yield?
SENATOR ESPADA: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator continues to yield.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: Thank you,
Senator Espada.
I don't think you and I have any
disagreement over the value within the bill
for the 400 to 600 people that you were so
articulately describing the advantages for. I
4678
think I was trying to point out that it
doesn't address the issue for the other 21,400
to 21,600 other people in the prison system,
that this quote, unquote, reform won't
address.
But I do think the numbers are
important, and I disagree with you there.
I'm curious, Senator, I received no
fiscal unanimous on this bill. Have we looked
at the savings projected from your own bill
versus the cost?
Senator Bruno, when he opened up
discussion today, talked about a million
dollars for the "Road to Rehab" program that
were put in by the Senate. He announced, and
I have not seen the Assembly's fiscal note,
that the Assembly plan will cost $200 million
a year. I don't know that number either. But
1 million, 200 million, we're not really
nitpicking or fine-tuning, we're clearly in
very different places.
So my question is, what are the
projects costs and savings from this bill?
Because this is a dramatic rewriting, as you
yourself have said, of both the criminal drug
4679
laws in this state and the creation of new
discretion by DAs and judges and changing
formulas for how long people will be
penalized, both shortening the sentences and,
as we heard from other senators, in a number
of circumstances lengthening the sentences
that people go to jail for.
So I think that the fiscal costs
and savings here is really a critical
determinant of the pluses and minuses of your
legislation.
SENATOR ESPADA: I would agree
with the importance of analyzing cost savings
and analyzing the type of appropriation that
it would take to get us to accomplish the
various objectives in this legislative
package. I'll get to that point in a second.
But again, I think a responsible
retort on my part requires that I just
challenge you just a little bit on your
insistence on concluding (a) that there is no
impact or little impact within this package
with respect to As, Bs, and the whole flow of
it.
Again, the offender groups as they
4680
fall into those categories, and as you follow
the sentencing ranges that are being
recommended -- I could share this with you,
Senator, but take my word for it. If you're
one of these individuals here in the B
categories under this kind of determinate
sentencing, you benefit. You benefit from
being in that kind of scheme of sentencing as
opposed to what is currently in effect.
The Governor has indicated very
clearly that he expects substantial savings.
The Governor has indicated very clearly that
he is committed to doing what is necessary to
finance this legislative package so that the
objectives therein get done. People throw
around in negotiations -- as you know, we just
got through passing a $90 billion budget.
We're talking millions here in savings,
perhaps, when it's fully implemented.
I don't know, I think we need to
have a cost estimate study. That will be
absolutely important. Advocate groups, others
have proffered those. I've read them, you've
read them. There is clearly a savings that
will accrue.
4681
The appropriation, we'll have to
give that some thought. Clearly, the
Governor, again, is on record as saying that
he will fund what is necessary to get the
objectives met that are included in this
legislation.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: Madam
President, if the sponsor will continue to
yield, through you, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Espada, will you continue to yield?
SENATOR ESPADA: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator continues to yield.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: Senator
Espada, thank you for your answer.
I'm still confused. So the
Governor's -- this is, I thought, the
Governor's program bill as well as your own
bill. So you said the Governor has made a
commitment fiscally to cover the costs of this
bill.
Does the Governor's program bill
have fiscal notes or a fiscal analysis or a
commitment of money separate from the Senate
4682
version we're seeing today?
SENATOR ESPADA: We do not.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: Thank you.
Madam President, if the sponsor
would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Espada, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR ESPADA: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator continues to yield.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: Thank you,
Senator Espada.
So we don't have numbers from the
Governor or a real commitment. We do, I
believe -- again, I'm a little fixated on the
numbers here. I think that Rockefeller drug
reform requires a plan that will address a
large population throughout the state, many of
whom are in fact our constituents in the city
of New York, you and I, and as Senator
Montgomery was highlighting before from
specific communities.
My numbers show that approximately
8700 people per year are likely to enter the
prison system under low-level drug offenses of
4683
the categories covered by your bill.
And thank you for your
clarification before. Yes, I wasn't
challenging that there were changes in your
law that affected B, C, and D at sentencing;
rather, that it didn't affect B, C, and D for
people who were already in the system, only
A-I.
Do we believe that we will have
adequate resources to provide drug treatment
alternatives for some percentage of 8700 new
people per year? Again, for myself, under the
assumption that there's no new money yet and
there's no commitment by the Governor in his
bill, what do we think is going to happen to
those 8700 people under your bill absent a
commitment of expansion of services and
treatment programs at the front door?
SENATOR ESPADA: You know,
Senator, we are in an election year. A lot of
the problems that we hear with the numbers -
and yeah, I think numbers are important too -
is there is, on the one hand -- I'm not saying
you, there is on the one hand a school of
thought that says drive up the numbers that
4684
are not impacted, drive up the numbers that
won't get serviced by this.
The Governor has been very clear.
He will take whatever is required to get the
objectives of providing treatment, of
providing for lower sentencing and a support
system for reentry, of providing the kind of
educational and early intervention resources,
and of providing enhanced, yes, enhanced
penalties for those that deserve it that must
get it. It doesn't get to the point that
perhaps Senator Alesi wants it to, but it
addresses it for the first time.
The question of resource allocation
is one that is important. The Governor in an
election year has made this foremost
commitment to the entire state of New York, in
clearly articulating that he will fund it.
You and I will have our opportunity to
contribute some thoughts to that. Obviously
it has to come through here. But be assured,
I take his word for it.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: Madam
President, if the sponsor would continue to
yield.
4685
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Espada, will you continue to yield?
SENATOR ESPADA: Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Senator continues to yield.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: Thank you.
Senator Espada, of course it is an
election year. And I personally would love to
be able to go home saying that I voted for
Rockefeller Drug Law reform. I think it's a
fundamental and important issue. Again, I'm
not convinced we have that yet.
You now suggest to me that I should
simply trust the Governor because it's an
election year. Again, we have a legislative
duty and responsibility in both houses to
ensure that legislation we pass is real and
meets the need.
And you mentioned driving up
numbers. I'm not trying to drive up numbers.
I'm trying to find out what the numbers are
here. What are the real numbers, what will be
the real costs?
And to repeat myself from another
debate, I'm starting to wonder whether I
4686
should have run for State Senate in Missouri,
because I constantly find myself in the
situation of having to ask the question:
Well, show me. I can't take things on faith
and trust.
Senator Montgomery stated that the
Governor made certain commitments in his State
of the State address. We're being asked to
pass legislation where the money, in theory,
to provide the services under the legislation
will happen later, not in attachment with the
legislation, and after we've already passed
our budget for the state year.
So again, I can't accept the
answer, I'm afraid. So I will ask the
question again. What will happen if we don't
increase the availability of drug treatment
services within the context of this law?
Because from my own experience in the city of
New York, and in participating on the
Committee on Substance Abuse and Alcoholism, I
know that we don't have enough slots in the
city of New York.
So I worry and wonder what your
response is. If we're going to pass this law
4687
without increasing the availability of
treatment beds and slots within our
communities in the city of New York, will we
in fact be in a situation where people with
drug problems who face criminal charges get
access to drug treatment slots while other
people who want and need drug treatment but
are not facing criminal felony charges will be
turned away at the door?
Because I don't think we believe
that's in the best interests of the state of
New York. That in fact would result in
people, perhaps with the assumption earlier on
in their drug problem, or before they have
been involved in, you know, a larger, grosser
process of participation in the criminal
trade, will have had no opportunity to move
into treatment before having to even hit our
courts.
So again, do we have any evidence
that we are going to increase the availability
of drug-treatment slots and beds to match the
intent of this legislation?
SENATOR ESPADA: Madam President,
through you, I want to go back to something
4688
you said, Senator, again, which cannot go
unchallenged. The conclusion you reached for
me (a) you have no license to do that, but you
did, and God bless you. But the fact of the
matter is that when I said it's an election
year, I didn't say by the rhetoric that's
being put out in the press releases.
(A) This is not a press release,
this is a serious package that's being
delivered for our consideration.
(B) What I did say was that those
that oppose the governor in an election year
should not use the occasion to prevent or
distort because it is an election year.
That's what I'm saying. And that let's deal
with this legislative package, let's read it,
let's deal with it, let's digest it. And,
yes, let's advocate so that we're clear that
there are enough funds.
And I ask those that have been
asking the questions, have you met with
Chauncey Parker?
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: No.
SENATOR ESPADA: Have you seen
him in action? Have you gotten the
4689
transcripts and the information that has been
secured through the thousands upon thousands
of hours that have been invested in
consultation with the provider community, with
the advocacy community concerning the
treatment models and agreements on treatment
models that would be effective, whether they
be from -
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Excuse
me, Senator Espada.
Senator Padavan.
SENATOR PADAVAN: Madam
President, I think we're getting very close to
the two-hour limit, are we not?
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Yes, we
are.
SENATOR PADAVAN: And we do have
about six more people who want to be heard.
Now, in courtesy to those senators,
I would hope that you could cut short your
questions and express any other thoughts you
may have during the roll call.
Because we do want to have these
senators be heard, and there's only ten
minutes left.
4690
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: Madam
President, I'd be happy to respect Senator
Padavan's request and give my time to
additional senators. Thank you very much.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Thank
you, Senator Krueger.
Senator Espada, do you wish to
continue?
SENATOR ESPADA: The point is, to
round it out, there is a commitment to
providing the resources, the requisite
resources to get the objectives that have been
delineated here and contained in this
legislation, unequivocally, yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Thank
you.
Again, I remind you, Senator
Dollinger, we're nearing the two-hour limit.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Madam President. I accept the challenge. I'm
only going to be about two minutes.
I'm going to vote against this
bill. Let me tell you why.
First of all, you can't have a bill
that increases demand for drug treatment
4691
across this state and doesn't put one single
penny, not one penny, to work for drug
treatment.
Senator Bruno said at the start the
Assembly bill which proposes drug treatment
that would cost $200 million, there's no money
there for that. There's one simple reason why
there's no money there, and that's because
this house does not have the will to put $200
million into drug treatment.
It's not a question of there being
no money there. There is money, and there
could be money available if this house had the
will to put it to work. This bill will never
work without an increased investment in drug
treatment.
Two, this bill in my opinion does
almost the completely wrong thing. It only
allows the highest level of drug offenders to
go back in and have their sentences reduced.
What about all those B, C and D felons, all
those intermediate felons who payed an
enormous price because of their drug addiction
and have been in jail without drug treatment
for a lengthy period of time? The B, C, and D
4692
felons are the people we ought to be turning
our attention to.
And who are those people? They're
largely Hispanics and African-Americans.
About 95 percent of the people in prison for
drug offenses on those levels are people of
color.
It seems to me that if we don't do
that, we're going to allow a very select few
of the worst of our drug felons to get relief
from this bill, but the people who really had
drug addiction problems, whose behavior
resulted in their criminal activity, will
never get the benefit of it. That's not fair.
I'll close on one other note and
make it very simple. Senator Hoffmann,
Senator Bruno, and of course Senator Espada
have said this is an historic day that we
finally get to debate this.
This, in my opinion, is a day of
tragedy, a tragic failure of policy in this
state when we put the Rockefeller Drug Laws
into place and the tragic failure never to
recognize that they had failed. We should
have had this debate ten years ago when I
4693
first came here, and people who had been
locked in jail because of their addiction
would not still be suffering a cruel and
unjust punishment because of their sickness.
I'm not going to vote in favor of
this bill. It needs a lot more work. And I
appreciate what others have done to bring it
to the table. But this is not a day of
history. This is a day, in my opinion, where
we acknowledge failure and resolve this bill
does not rectify that failure, more needs to
be done.
I'll vote no.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Thank
you, Senator Dollinger.
Senator Paterson, Senator Padavan
is next on the list.
SENATOR PADAVAN: I defer to you,
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: No, mine is
just a point of order, Madam President.
I think that we should clarify to
Senator Krueger and others that there is no
time limit on our debates. There is a point
two hours into the debate where, if someone
4694
moves to close the debate, they can. But this
being the historic day that I've now heard
three senators refer to, I just wanted to make
it clear that at a time like this I would
think we'd discuss this issue until we're all
satisfied that we've reached a decision.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Thank
you, Senator Paterson.
Senator Padavan.
SENATOR PADAVAN: I'll defer to
the next speaker, Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you,
Madam President.
I echo Senator Paterson's sentiment
that this is such an important issue, we
really should not move to close debate
prematurely. We can spend a few more minutes
here today to deal with issues that have cost
others many, many years of their lives.
On the bill, Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Schneiderman, on the bill.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: There is a
4695
level of fundamental dishonesty about the
charade we're engaged in here. We cannot take
our votes on this legislation, our debate on
this legislation out of the context of what is
happening outside the walls of the Capitol.
Let's be honest. There is a
movement in this state to reform the
Rockefeller Drug Laws. There is a more
powerful and significant organizing effort
than there has ever been.
I'm proud to have worked with the
Drop the Rock Coalition, to have stood with
the Mothers of the Disappeared organizing to
reform these laws. And the name of that group
really says all that you have to say about the
significance of this issue: the Mothers of
the Disappeared, women whose children have
been in jail so long that they basically lost
touch with them.
Former advocates for the
Rockefeller Drug Laws, including Senator
Dunne, have spoken up. Judges have spoken up.
Religious organizations have spoken up. We
have momentum now to reform these laws. For
us to then come to the end of session and put
4696
out a bill that does not provide substantial
reform, that none of the advocates support,
and that we know the Assembly is never going
to pass is fundamentally dishonest.
We need to work with this coalition
if we're serious about doing something. If
we're not serious about doing something, then
let's just tell our constituents we're not
serious.
If we really want to expand drug
treatment, if we really want to reduce
unjustifiably long sentences, if we really
want to check the power of prosecutors in
situations where there is currently no
restriction and no check, let us pass a true
reform bill.
This is not that bill. This would
in many situations actually increase sentences
for offenders beyond what the current law
does. This bill makes it so difficult to get
into drug treatment -- yeah, there's some
provisions for drug treatment. You can become
eligible for drug treatment, and then the
judge can decide you don't get it. There are
stiff requirements to get it.
4697
And I would also particularly like
to point out one provision that is as big a
poison pill as you can put in a bill to submit
to the Assembly. And I'm speaking on page 23,
Section 23, subsection 2. This law allows a
prosecutor to appeal a sentence "on the ground
that such sentence was unduly lenient."
That does not exist anywhere in the
criminal law of New York. You can appeal if
the judge violated the law. You cannot appeal
just because you think the sentence is unduly
lenient. And a defendant certainly doesn't
have the right to appeal just based on the
fact that they think the sentence was too
harsh.
This is fundamentally unjust. This
is something we know will never pass the
Assembly. This is something that distorts the
process of our courts and that we should not
be passing here today.
I think we should stay here and
debate this bill and get everything out on the
table, and I don't think we should adjourn
this session and leave Albany until we've
responded to the hundreds of thousands of
4698
people who have organized around this state to
rectify a fundamental injustice.
And this is not an injustice that
was caused by a natural disaster or corporate
misconduct. This is an injustice that was
caused by us. It was caused by the New York
State Legislature, the government of the State
of New York.
And I think it will be truly a
disgraceful situation if we do not stay here
today and stay here next week and stay here
until we address this issue this year.
I vote no. I urge everyone to vote
no. Thank you, Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Hassell-Thompson.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank
you, Madam President.
In the interests of time,
unfortunately, I cannot ask the sponsor any
questions. So on the bill, I just would like
to make a couple of comments.
Number one, the sponsor has stated
that the bill will restore judicial discretion
in the sentencing of drug offenders by
4699
increasing the opportunities for such
offenders to be diverted into treatment
programs.
As someone who has worked in the
substance abusing community for 25 years, I
wish that it were that simple. Under current
laws, prosecutors have the option to send drug
offenders to into drug courts, DTAP, other
types of drug alternative programs.
Unfortunately, drug courts and
DTAPs are not available throughout the state.
Where they do exist, if this bill becomes law,
they will continue to operate. But in those
parts of the state where they do not exist,
nothing will happen.
But this bill adds another option
where DTAP and drug courts are not in
operation, this court-approved drug treatment,
or CADAT, which permits the judge to override
a reluctant prosecutor to divert a drug
offender into treatment. This is a good step.
But then the bill takes a giant
step backwards. It gives the prosecutors the
right to appeal any drug treatment diversion
discussion made by a judge.
4700
I thought we were giving the
authority in drug cases to the judiciary.
Why, then, should we give a prosecutor the
right or the opportunity to appeal this
decision? This undermines the judge's efforts
to divert drug offenders into treatment. It
should be removed, and discretion should
continue to lie with our judges.
The main question here is what will
the million dollars pay for. In the drug
treatment community, one community could more
than absorb one million dollars. I would have
asked the Senator in his judgment, since it's
his judgment that this hinges on, what does he
think a million dollars will pay for? Will it
increase the numbers of beds and slots that
will become available? Will it supplement the
costs of methadone or other alternative
medications? Will it create more drug-free
programs? Will it increase the numbers of
drug court programs across the state?
A million dollars is a tremendous
insult to a discussion, more or less, to the
people to whom we professed to be trying to
help.
4701
Thank you, Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Thank you,
Madam President. Listening to a lengthy
debate, I'll try to be as brief as possible.
I taught in the New York City
school system, as most of you know, for twenty
years. I was a dean of students during about
15 of those 20 years and had to deal with
young people on a firsthand level who were
involved in sometimes trading and sometimes
using and sometimes both.
Users like company. It's a cancer.
It grows. If I'm a casual user, I spread it
around because I want more friends around me.
I don't want to do it alone, I want to have
friends with me. So I spread the cancer to my
colleagues and to my friends. If I'm a
dealer, I want more people to sell to, so I
spread it around. And I provide incentives
for people.
There are ads on television right
now where you see people: "I didn't think I
was murdering a judge." You know, "I was just
4702
buying something, you know, for kicks. I
didn't know I was contributing to the death of
a judge, to the death of a police officer,
that I was contributing to international
terrorism."
We know terrorists use the drug
trade to finance their nefarious deeds. This
is how they get their resources in many cases.
When Senator Alesi said these are
not nonviolent situations, these are. They're
contributing to violence by their very
actions. They may not think so, but they are.
They're destroying lives.
Treatment facilities. Talk to
anyone involved in treatment, and each and
every one of them will tell you if the person
involved doesn't have the desire to get well,
they never will succeed. Sometimes you have
to give them a kick in the rear end to make
them succeed.
And if jail time or lengthy jail
time will provide them with that incentive,
I'd rather do treatment than jail, then I will
go into treatment. That may work. I don't
know if it will, but it may provide them with
4703
some incentive.
On their own, most of them don't go
voluntarily. If anyone is out there telling
me that most people go into treatment
voluntarily and that they are seeking the
service, then how come the failure rate is
like three-quarters to 80 percent who go in,
come out untreated and go back and back and
back again?
We are talking this thing to death.
We are talking and people are dying. We had
school governance talk, talk, talk for years,
mayor after mayor after mayor until this house
passed a bill that was criticized by the other
side of the aisle intently that it was a
one-house bill, it was no good, it was never
going to work. The Assembly didn't move. We
now have a school governance bill passed
because this house acted.
I suggest to you, ladies and
gentlemen, we have to act. It's time to move.
The bill is flawed. Senator Espada has said
this is not a perfect piece of legislation. I
have yet to read one. I have yet to read
anything that's perfect in this place. We're
4704
human beings, and by definition we have flaws.
However, it is time to move. And
this house is taking the first step. The
Governor is to be credited for being willing
to take the first step. The financing can be
worked out. The savings can be worked out.
All of that can come later. Let's move.
People are dying, and it's necessary for us to
make the corrections. Now is the time.
This is the first step. Let's
move. Let's stop the talk. Let's stop the
political gamesmanship that's been going on
here. Let's move. This is too serious to
fool around with.
I vote aye on this bill, Madam
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Connor, to close for the Minority.
SENATOR CONNOR: Thank you, Madam
President.
First of all, I want to acknowledge
and congratulate Senator Bruno for his
statement three years ago that he was open to
reforming the Rockefeller Drug Laws. I think
that was a significant -- at least from a
4705
political perspective, a significant
breakthrough.
Although we're not there yet.
Obviously, we don't have a negotiated bill.
As my colleagues have set forth, there is much
in this bill that makes it a poison pill in
terms of actually becoming law.
Madam President, I was surprised
that the sponsor acknowledged that it wasn't a
perfect bill. In my experience, Madam
President, sponsors of one-house bills always
describe their bill as perfect. From their
perspective, it is. It's when we negotiate
and get the final product that there's always
a little bit disappointment on both sides of
the issue that it's not perfect.
I would suggest, Madam President, I
think every bill that I've filed is perfect.
I know there may be 209 or 210 legislators who
would disagree with me. And we're here, and
we do compromise.
So that rather surprised me. It's
like negotiating against yourself, Madam
President.
The problem with this bill is it
4706
doesn't really accomplish what there is
widespread consensus among New Yorkers ought
to be accomplished. The provisions of the
bill that I certainly have no problem with,
the enhanced, increased sentences for certain
categories of kingpins, dealers who exploit
children, repeat violent offenders, use of a
firearm -- I think there's consensus that we
ought to enhance those penalties.
It's when we get into changing the
sentencing structure, changing the way we deal
with nonviolent drug offenders that we have a
problem. Frankly, Madam President, this bill
still leaves too much power in the hands of
district attorneys when it comes to whether or
not a defendant will be diverted into
treatment. It places a burden on the
defendant in appealing that, to prove by clear
and convincing evidence that that particular
defendant is appropriate for diversion.
In excluding certain categories of
offenders -- i.e., people with a prior felony
conviction -- not violent, a prior nonviolent
felony conviction -- I think we overlook a lot
of people we ought to be putting into
4707
treatment.
No defendant, unfortunately -- the
defendants, the mules, the people who sell to
support their own habit often end up with a
series of nonviolent convictions precisely
because they haven't undergone treatment, yet
they haven't been caught with a sufficient
quantity to get any substantial prison
sentence. I think we ought to include them.
That category of defendant ought to be
eligible in this program.
The change in the sentence
structure, I think at the high end, at the
high end is an important reduction of time
that people have to serve. But I think when
you get into the B and C felony categories,
you actually are going to have some people
doing more time in jail for a particular crime
than you would have before, assuming
defendants in same or similar circumstances.
For example, you know, under
current law, people who are convicted of
possessing a relatively small quantity of
drugs can be sentenced to an indeterminate
sentence of two-and-a-half to seven years.
4708
The judge picks exactly where that falls.
Under this bill, if you look at the
grid, that same person would get six years as
a definite, determinate sentence. Six years.
They get out in a little under six years
because of good time. But on average, I
suggest that that sentence is far more severe,
a far more severe prison sentence than is now
inflicted on that same category of defendant.
Madam President, as I've said in
prior debates over criminal justice matters, I
agree, parole doesn't work very well. Parole
supervision is difficult, at best, to keep up,
given the number of defendants who get
paroled. And I've generally supported fair
determinate sentencing schemes that still
leave discretion with the judge.
That wasn't a conservative idea on
the federal level. I remember 24 or 25 years
ago when Senator Kennedy was the chair of the
Judiciary Committee in the U.S. Senate and he
proposed and held hearings around the country
and actually passed a federal determinate
sentencing law.
The point is, though, when you have
4709
determinate sentencing you have to look at
that grid of sentences, so to speak. And
under the grid here, further down, lower-level
offenders will actually do considerably more
prison time than they do now. I don't see how
that's a step in the right direction.
The other thing I think we have to
do if we're going to have an honest effort at
true reform that involves recognizing the
importance of treatment for nonviolent
defendants is we have to put money into it.
The Assembly bill makes a
reasonable estimation of the number of
correction beds that will be reduced due to
reform of the drug sentencing laws, converts
that money into availability for treatment
beds.
I think that ought to be in any
bill. We ought to know what are we buying.
Are we going to have sufficient resources for
treatment beds? Are we going to reduce
unneeded correction beds? Are we going to
stop making sentencing schemes a
full-employment project for certain parts of
the state and have a rational system that
4710
affords the possibility of treatment?
Madam President, we've talked in
this country, in this state for decades now
about the war on drugs. Whatever it has been
that we have been doing, that's not a war that
anybody thinks has been won. And a new
approach is certainly appropriate.
But we do have to recognize that
while there may be expenses involved, that at
the end of the day there are enormous savings
in terms of the human lives saved, families
saved and, yes, a great decrease in the cost
of crime. Because lots of crimes -- and I'm
not talking about violent crimes, because I
think we need to still be tough on that and
make those distinctions.
But a lot of nonviolent theft
crimes we all know are done because they're
feeding a drug habit, the perpetrator is
feeding a drug habit. We have to get at that
and do it straightforward and honestly.
This bill has no chance in the
Assembly because of all the things that we've
heard in this debate. It's an attempt to
appear to foster real reform. It's called
4711
reforming the Rockefeller Drug Laws, but in
terms of meeting all of the needs and
objections that people, advocates have
spent -- and you know, Madam President, the
advocates, when we talk about advocates in
this case, we're talking about a lot of
public-spirited, concerned people. We're
talking about people, frankly in a different
sense, but supporters of change in the
judiciary, among judges who have had to
sentence people to prison under the
Rockefeller Drug Laws.
The law books are replete with
judges absolutely deploring the fact that they
are forced to sentence people one-time
offenders, mules, low-level people to
extraordinarily lengthy prison sentences. We
have a former colleague of ours who has taken
the lead in reforming this.
We're not talking about advocates
in this sense, Madam President, like in some
other things that if we're dealing with an
insurance bill or a bill with economic
impacts. The advocates here are not a special
interest group.
4712
The advocates here are absolutely
concerned, committed New Yorkers who see a far
better way to deal with this and who recognize
that this Legislature, in perpetuating this
scheme all these years, has failed in our
responsibility as legislators to, one, address
the problem of drugs; two, do it in a way that
makes sense and that leads, at the end of the
day, to a better situation for all New
Yorkers.
Mr. President, I'm urging a no vote
for this bill. I look forward to real
negotiations that bring back not a perfect
bill, but a bill that can become law.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Padavan.
SENATOR PADAVAN: Mr. President,
will you acknowledge Senator Espada, who,
along with Senator Volker, will close for the
Majority.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Espada.
SENATOR ESPADA: Thank you,
Senator Padavan, Mr. President.
4713
Let me just acknowledge that all
that's been said about the harsh Rockefeller
Drug Laws, they were indeed a drive for
punishment. But let's also be honest and
acknowledge that Governor Pataki's initiatives
that have been debated here today are a drive
to treatment. We have learned a great deal
over the last thirty years, and those lessons
are incorporated in the proposals that are
proffered here today.
Also, let me thank my colleagues
here in this protracted but very necessary
debate for the debate, for their questions,
comments. They're taken as good-faith
attempts to impact on this whole process.
Rest assured that the Governor is
very, very, very, very serious about making a
financial commitment. No, we're not talking
about a million dollars. We're talking about
whatever is reasonably necessary, we will do.
And we also must end by indicating
that Senator Connor has make quite a case for
why this bill is so necessary. Because indeed
it has been too long. The time is now.
Paralysis, no action, is the worst thing we
4714
could do. There's no one, no one out there
that has been impacted by this that would
suggest, after a thorough and reasonable
assessment of what is before us, that we
should not act in favor of moving forward.
I urge and invite all of my
colleagues to take this historic move forward
and vote yes. Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Thank
you, Senator.
Senator Volker.
SENATOR VOLKER: Mr. President,
I'll try to be as brief as I possibly can.
I'll be the first to admit to
anyone that this is a little bit of an
emotional issue for me. I was there in 1973.
And I read all this, if you'll excuse me,
nonsense in the paper about what happened back
in '73. And I will be very brief except to
say to you what happened to Nelson Rockefeller
is he had decided back in 1970 -- and I think
one of the people here talked about that. I
remember it very well -- that he was going to
deal with the drug menace.
And in typical Nelson Rockefeller
4715
style he picked up a handful of money, what at
that time would have been probably -- it was
about $80 million, which is the equivalent
today, probably, of about $10 billion, if you
look at the budget at that time, and he threw
it at the drug problem.
He set up -- they set up all these
methadone clinics all over New York City and
Buffalo and all over the place. They became
one of the best sources of drugs in the entire
state. It was an incredible failure. They
tried just treatment, and it didn't work one
iota. In fact, it made the drug problem much,
much worse.
So the next thing was he came up
with an extremely draconian plan. Part of the
plan was that if you grabbed a drug dealer -
I'm trying to remember what the amount was it.
It seems to me it was $5,000 per drug dealer.
I remember saying to my colleagues in the
Assembly at that time that for $500, I would
imagine, you could probably bring in, better
dead than alive, people that had drugs stuffed
in their pockets. And the person would
collect a whole bunch of money because he
4716
acquired drug sellers. In other words, that
is ridiculous.
I only mention that. There were
other things in that bill. I opposed,
vehemently, the Rockefeller Drug Law in 1973.
And you know, there doesn't seem to be an
understanding. At any rate, the Rockefeller
Drug Law that finally was voted into law later
on that year -- by the way, much to the
chagrin of then Nelson Rockefeller, because he
felt it was a huge defeat for him the way it
was amended. You can imagine what it was like
before we amended it.
He was very unhappy with me, to say
the least. And I will only say that there is
some theory that that's the reason I'm in the
Senate, because my days in the Assembly
shortened.
But in any case it has been, to me,
something that I have watched over the years.
And I read the mythology in the paper on a
regular basis that we're amending the
Rockefeller Drug Laws. But this doesn't do
enough to amend the Rockefeller Drug Laws.
Every single person in jail under the
4717
Rockefeller Drug Laws is affected by this
bill, every single one.
I guess you could say there's over
a thousand; it depends. I used to say 400 and
some. Because the A-I's is the only real part
of the Rockefeller Drug Laws that's truly
left. There was some change to the A-II's.
There's been changes all over the place.
When you talk about low-level drug
dealers, that's not the Rockefeller Drug Laws.
That was changed a long, long time ago. And
you can argue over how we should do it,
whether, you know, we should use definite
sentencing, in -- but that's not the
Rockefeller Drug Laws. The people that are in
jail under the Rockefeller Drug Laws are the
A-I's and in certain ways the A-II's. And
there's truth to that.
And, frankly, in this bill every
one of the people in jail in that category
gets the opportunity to have their sentences
reviewed. And a new sentencing structure does
reduce -- and by the way, the one key element
I would like to say in this bill is you will
find no place in this bill that says life.
4718
One of the things that used to
bother me, in a sense, was that a person who
went to jail, and deservedly so, on drugs,
could get a longer sentence than a person who
was in jail for murder. That always bothered
me. Now, that could still happen but it would
have to be on a definite sentencing kind of
thing. In other words, somebody who really is
a bad person.
This nonsense, if you'll excuse me,
that we have this multitude of nonviolent drug
offenders in jail is just -- it's a myth. In
fact, we're having trouble finding enough
people to go to shock incarceration, because
we call them reasonably nonviolent. That
means they've committed some violence, but
they're not real bad violence. I mean, it's
just -- there's just this huge mythology. And
the numbers of inmates has been falling off
rather dramatically.
We believe, right now, those of us
who have studied this issue -- and by the way,
speaking of reports, everybody's asking for
reports, you're going to get one. We've been
waiting for Mr. Parker to get us the bill.
4719
We're coming out with a study that we did, the
committee did, the staff did, that shows the
progress of the drug laws over the years,
shows the number, the tremendous decline in
the numbers of less violent inmates in the
prison system.
It's a fascinating -- I admit to
you I didn't realize it until I really looked
at it. I think New York, frankly, is a huge
success story in criminal justice. The crime
rate is down more than anyplace in this
country. The prison population is falling
off. We probably are treating more people per
capita -- I don't know for sure, because
nobody knows for sure -- per capita than any
state in the union. Certainly more than
California.
California at one time had 40,000
inmates, just as we did, back in 1980. They
now have something in the area of 165,000
people -- 165,000 people, and still climbing.
And here we are, and we've dropped from 72,000
now to about 66,000, 67,000, somewhere in
there. And we're still falling. Which is
good.
4720
What we hope to do, by the way,
with a bill like this and with the system
that's set up here, is to allow people to be
treated not only in the community but also in
prison, because we're going to get some room,
the way things are going. We're shutting
down -- by the way, the argument against
upstate prisons, that people are saying, well,
you guys are building this so you could have
employment and all that? We're shutting down
all the SHUs, virtually, the old prison pieces
are being shut down. And not without some
problems with the correction officers and so
forth.
Although the interesting thing
about it is, in all honesty, you look around
this Capitol and you'll find out why we're not
laying off more correction officers. They're
doing security all over this place. I mean, I
told the union people when they came in, I
said -- they're complaining, and I said:
"What are you complaining about?" I said we
can't -- I said if you think that the
correction officers are going to be -- we need
them. They're part of our security. I mean,
4721
we're spending a ton of money on security
through the homeland security stuff. And it's
got to be done. I mean, I think you agree.
In New York City, here, and all over.
The reason I can only say -- and
you can argue all you want about letting
people out of jail and all that. And Senator
Espada I think has done a really good job of
pointing out the importance that this bill
does in dealing with treatment.
The DAs, by the way, do not support
this bill. They don't oppose it, but they
don't support it because this is a significant
reduction in their authority. There's no
question about it.
It does move toward more
court-appointed treatment. And according to
our studies, as opposed to the Assembly bill,
which I call a jail break, we feel that as
many as 3,000 people that are in jail right
now would be eligible for drug and alcohol
treatment. I say drug and alcohol.
And to be perfectly honest, there
is one provision in this bill that everyone
should understand goes beyond the bill. I
4722
don't know if it was mentioned in the debate;
I didn't hear it. This bill does give the
prosecutor the ability to appeal bail. Not
just for drug offenses, for all offenses. All
offenses. DAs do like that, by the way. I
just want it to be clear, because we've done
that in the past -- or this house has. The
other house hasn't passed it. But I think you
should know that.
Let me just finally say, I've been
around here -- this is my 30th year. And I
tend to agree with you. I know the politics
of this. We all know the politics of it. And
it's hard to deal with the difference between
political philosophies. My only problem is I
like to deal with the facts. The facts are we
have moved a long way, in my humble opinion,
towards getting our streets cleared of drugs.
Have we done it? No, of course we
haven't. And it seems like every time we just
about get into the position to be able to do
it, something like Ecstasy comes along. Or
some other manufactured drug. It's
horrendous.
And I was out there in the streets
4723
fighting marijuana and heroin. And of course
cocaine just flooded our -- cocaine was the
killer. I mean, there's no question. When I
was there, as I say -- the thing I always, by
the way, complain about marijuana, you have to
understand. Marijuana, the problem with it
was not even so much the marijuana itself, it
was the cash flow for heroin. It was the cash
flow. The way in which they bought the
heroin, which was much more expensive, was to
sell the marijuana. And the Mob and all the
rest of the people then used it.
Let me just finish by saying that
Senator Espada's bill does go a long way
toward dealing with the problem of drug
trafficking. Is it the be-all and end-all?
There's nothing that I know of that probably
we can do that's the be-all and end-all. But
I just want to tell you -- and I understand
the politics of the gubernatorial election -
that this bill, a similar bill to this is
going to pass both houses and eventually be
signed into law.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
4724
THE SECRETARY: Section 65. This
act shall take effect November 1, 2002.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
SENATOR PATERSON: Party vote in
the negative, Madam President.
SENATOR PADAVAN: Party vote in
the positive.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 37. Nays,
20. Party vote, with exception.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President. To explain my vote.
SENATOR PADAVAN: The bill is
adopted.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: I'm
sorry, Senator Duane, it was a party vote and
the bill has passed.
Senator Padavan.
SENATOR PADAVAN: Madam
President, we have no objection if Senator
Duane wishes to explain his vote.
4725
However, we would ask that, in the
spirit of keeping this day moving, that you
keep it brief.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Thank
you, Senator Padavan.
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: No. Thank
you, Madam President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Thank
you.
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President.
This -- I can't vote for this bill.
It's really no good. Although I have to in
all honesty say that the Assembly bill, the
previous Assembly bill that was on the table
wasn't very good either. And the compromise
bill is also terrible, the Assembly compromise
bill.
Just on the Governor's bill, merit
time, good time is totally eliminated for
everybody, and that's on page 4 of the bill.
What kind of a reform is that?
You know, like none of the bills
4726
that are being negotiated use a disease model.
None of them really address the problem of
why -- of drugs and violence. It's really
capitalism, it's supply and demand. And these
bills, none of them do anything to address
that.
You know, a lot of families are
going to have a lot of false hope if they hear
that we're passing a reform of the Rockefeller
Drug Laws, because very few incarcerated
people will actually be affected by this
legislation. That's particularly true of the
Governor's bill, but also of the Assembly bill
and the Assembly compromise. All three of
these bills just seek to replace bad drug
policy and bad drug laws with more bad drug
policy and more bad drug laws.
I hope that people will go back and
look at the Minority task force report on the
hearings that we had on the Rockefeller Drug
Laws, because I think that that goes an awful
lot further in actually reforming the drug
laws.
And I also -- I take exception to
Senator Volker saying that the SHUs are not
4727
being used. We just built a whole new prison
that's only SHUs. And every prison I've ever
gone into, the SHUs are filled. So -- in
fact, the policy seems to be if there's an
empty bed in a SHU, put someone in it.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Duane, you've expired on the two minutes. How
do you vote?
SENATOR DUANE: Yes, thank you,
Madam President. I'm voting no on this bill,
and I believe I'm going to be voting no on the
bill if it comes to us in the Assembly
compromise form.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Thank
you, Senator Duane.
Senator Lachman.
SENATOR LACHMAN: On another
issue.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Another
issue.
SENATOR LACHMAN: Madam
President, I rise to ask unanimous consent to
be recorded in the negative on Calendar Number
1339, Senate Number S7486. Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Without
4728
objection.
Senator Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you,
Madam President. I also rise to request
unanimous consent to be recorded in the
negative on Calendar 1339, Senate 7486.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Without
objection.
Senator Gentile.
SENATOR GENTILE: I too, Madam
President, ask unanimous consent to be
recorded in the negative, on Calendar Number
1109.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: 1109,
without objection.
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Madam
President, if we're recording votes, I request
unanimous consent to be recorded in the
negative on Calendar Number 60.
Thank you, Madam President. There
may be another one, but I'll get to that.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Without
objection.
Senator Morahan.
4729
SENATOR MORAHAN: Yes, Madam
President. Could we return to the
regular-order reading of the calendar, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1321, by Senator Padavan, Senate Print 2736,
an act to amend the Education Law, in relation
to certain tuition waivers.
SENATOR DUANE: Explanation,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Padavan, an explanation has been requested by
Senator Duane.
SENATOR PADAVAN: Madam
President, this particular proposal,
legislative form, was patterned after a
program that was in effect a number of years
ago during the '70s and '80s at John Jay
College of Criminal Justice.
In an effort to provide an
opportunity for generally young police
officers to advance their careers, heighten
their level of expertise through college
degree programs, and to help them get into
4730
that curriculum and to begin perhaps the
attainment of a college degree, we are
proposing that these courses be provided by
SUNY or CUNY in the manner articulated in the
bill.
SENATOR DUANE: Explanation
satisfactory.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 57.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Madam
President, could we please return to Calendar
1335.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Calendar
1335. The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1335, by Senator Andrews, Senate Print 7429A,
an act to authorize the International Baptist
4731
Church, Incorporated.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Madam
President, I'll waive the explanation from my
colleague Senator Andrews. I understand this
bill.
I again point out that the -
apparently the inoculation is failing, the
epidemic continues. Partial property tax
exemptions are sweeping from Nassau and
Suffolk through the rest of Long Island.
They'll eventually be in Westchester and
Monroe. It just continues a problem.
Let's have a bill that does this
statewide and allows everything to partake of
it. It would be very easy to do.
No, Madam President. With all due
respect to my colleague.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Read the
last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll.
4732
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 56. Nays,
1. Senator Dollinger recorded in the
negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is passed.
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Madam
President, the alert body here did take note
that that is the first bill Senator Andrews
has passed, and we'd like to congratulate him.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE:
Congratulations, Senator Andrews.
(Applause.)
SENATOR PATERSON: And we're
still waiting for the day when I pass a bill.
But while we're waiting, I would
like to be recorded in the negative on
Calendar Number 1184, after tutelage from
Senator Padavan.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Without
objection.
Senator Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Could I
likewise have unanimous consent to be recorded
4733
in the negative on Calendar Number 1184, Madam
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Without
objection.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Morahan.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Yes, Madam
President. Could we return to Calendar 1323
and lay it aside for the day.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The bill
is laid aside for the day.
Senator Morahan.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Could we return
to motions and resolutions.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Fuschillo has a motion.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Thank you,
Madam President.
On behalf of Senator Hoffmann, I
wish to call up Senate Print Number 4142,
recalled from the Assembly, which is now at
the desk.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Secretary will read.
4734
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
204, by Senator Hoffmann, Senate Print 4142,
an act to amend the Agriculture and Markets
Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Madam
President, I now move to reconsider the vote
by which the bill was passed.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll on reconsideration.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 57.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Madam
President, I now offer the following
amendments.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
amendments are received and adopted.
Senator Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Madam
President, on behalf of Senator Kuhl, I wish
to call up Calendar Number 970, Assembly Print
Number 9980.
4735
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
970, by Member of the Assembly Schimminger,
Assembly Print Number 9980, an act to amend
the General Business Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Madam
President, I now move to reconsider the vote
by which the Assembly bill was substituted for
Senate Print Number 6332 on May 8th.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Call the
roll on reconsideration.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 57.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Senator
Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Madam
president, I now move that Assembly Bill
Number 9980 be committed to the Committee on
Rules and the Senate bill be restored to the
order of Third Reading Calendar.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: So
ordered.
4736
Senator Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: I now offer
the following amendments.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
amendments are received and adopted.
Senator Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Madam
President, on behalf of Senator Hoffmann, on
page number 44 I offer the following
amendments to Calendar Number 978, Senate
Print Number 1741, and ask that said bill
retain its place on Third Reading Calendar.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
amendments are received and adopted, and the
bill will retain its place on the Third
Reading Calendar.
Senator Morahan.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Madam
President, is there a privileged resolution at
the desk by Senator DeFrancisco?
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Yes,
there is.
SENATOR MORAHAN: May I ask that
the title be read and move for its adoption.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
4737
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: By Senator
DeFrancisco, Legislative Resolution Number
6079, congratulating the Syracuse University
Men's Lacrosse Team upon the occasion of
capturing the 2002 NCAA Championship.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
question is on the adoption of the resolution.
All in favor will signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: Opposed,
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: The
resolution is adopted.
Senator Morahan.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Madam
President, is there any other housekeeping at
the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: There is
no more housekeeping at the desk, Senator
Morahan.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Then there
being no other business before the Senate, I
move that the Senate stand adjourned until
4738
tomorrow morning, June 13th, at 11:00 a.m.
ACTING PRESIDENT McGEE: On
motion, the Senate stands adjourned until
Thursday, June 13th, at 11:00 a.m.
(Whereupon, at 2:40 p.m., the
Senate adjourned.)