Regular Session - December 17, 2002
6715
NEW YORK STATE SENATE
THE STENOGRAPHIC RECORD
ALBANY, NEW YORK
December 17, 2002
11:55 a.m.
REGULAR SESSION
LT. GOVERNOR MARY O. DONOHUE, President
STEVEN M. BOGGESS, Secretary
6716
P R O C E E D I N G S
THE PRESIDENT: The Senate will
please come to order.
I ask everyone present to please
rise and repeat with me the Pledge of
Allegiance.
(Whereupon, the assemblage recited
the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.)
THE PRESIDENT: In the absence of
clergy, may we each bow our head in a moment
of silence.
(Whereupon, the assemblage
respected a moment of silence.)
THE PRESIDENT: Reading of the
Journal.
THE SECRETARY: In Senate,
Monday, December 16, the Senate met pursuant
to adjournment. The Journal of Sunday,
December 15, was read and approved. On
motion, Senate adjourned.
THE PRESIDENT: Without
objection, the Journal stands approved as
read.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Madam President,
6717
can we ask for an immediate meeting of the
Judiciary Committee in the Majority Conference
Room.
THE PRESIDENT: Thank you,
Senator.
There will be an immediate meeting
of the Judiciary Committee in the Majority
Conference Room.
Presentation of petitions.
Messages from the Assembly.
Messages from the Governor.
Reports of standing committees.
Reports of select committees.
Communications and reports from
state officers.
Motions and resolutions.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Madam President,
can we at this time adopt the Resolution
Calendar.
THE PRESIDENT: All in favor of
adopting the Resolution Calendar please
signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
6718
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The Resolution
Calendar is adopted.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Madam President,
I believe that there is a privileged
resolution at the desk by Senator Nozzolio. I
would ask that the title be read and move for
its immediate adoption.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: By Senator
Nozzolio, Legislative Resolution Number 6317,
urging the New York City Congressional
delegation to propose an amendment to the
Constitution of the United States modifying
the filling of vacancies in the United States
House of Representatives.
THE PRESIDENT: The question is
on the resolution. All those in favor signify
by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The resolution is
6719
adopted.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Madam President,
I believe there's another privileged
resolution, by Senator Hassell-Thompson. I
would ask that the title be read and move for
its immediate adoption.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: By Senator
Hassell-Thompson, Legislative Resolution
Number 6682, commending the Epic Theater
Center upon the occasion of its designation
for special recognition.
THE PRESIDENT: The question is
on the resolution. All in favor please
signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The resolution is
adopted.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Madam President,
are there any substitutions at the desk?
6720
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, there are,
Senator.
SENATOR BRUNO: Could we make the
substitutions, please.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Spano
moves to discharge, from the Committee on
Investigations and Government Operations,
Assembly Bill Number 1971 and substitute it
for the identical Senate Bill Number 720,
Third Reading Calendar 1705.
Senator Morahan moves to discharge,
from the Committee on Rules, Assembly Bill
Number 11710A and substitute it for the
identical Senate Bill Number 7475A, Third
Reading Calendar 1709.
Senator LaValle moves to discharge,
from the Committee on Rules, Assembly Bill
Number 11744 and substitute it for the
identical Senate Bill Number 7683, Third
Reading Calendar 1730.
Senator Velella moves to discharge,
from the Committee on Rules, Assembly Bill
Number 11835 and substitute it for the
6721
identical Senate Bill Number 7785, Third
Reading Calendar 1731.
Senator Breslin moves to discharge,
from the Committee on Rules, Assembly Bill
Number 11515 and substitute it for the
identical Senate Bill Number 7821, Third
Reading Calendar 1732.
Senator Fuschillo moves to
discharge, from the Committee on Alcoholism
and Drug Abuse, Assembly Bill Number 8429 and
substitute it for the identical Senate Bill
Number 7868, Third Reading Calendar 1734.
Senator Maziarz moves to discharge,
from the Committee on Alcoholism and Drug
Abuse, Assembly Bill Number 8775 and
substitute it for the identical Senate Bill
Number 7874, Third Reading Calendar 1736.
And Senator Paterson moves to
discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
Assembly Bill Number 11775 and substitute it
for the identical Senate Bill Number 7652,
Third Reading Calendar 1743.
THE PRESIDENT: Substitutions
ordered.
Senator Bruno.
6722
SENATOR BRUNO: Madam President,
if we can stand at ease for just a moment,
we're waiting for the return of the report of
the Judiciary Committee.
THE PRESIDENT: The Senate stands
at ease, Senator Bruno.
(Whereupon, the Senate stood at
ease at 12:01 p.m.)
(Whereupon, the Senate reconvened
at 12:24 p.m.)
THE PRESIDENT: The Senate will
please come to order.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Madam President,
can we return to the order of reports of
standing committees.
And I believe that there is a
report from Judiciary at the desk, and I would
ask that that report be read at this time.
THE PRESIDENT: Reports of
standing committees.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Volker,
acting chairman from the Committee on
Judiciary, reports the following nomination:
6723
As a judge of the Court of Claims, James J.
Lack, of East Northport.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Volker.
SENATOR VOLKER: Madam President,
the Judiciary Committee had the hearing today
and voted unanimously to send the name of
Senator James J. Lack, of East Northport, to
the floor.
And to make an opening statement on
the nomination, I will refer to Majority
Leader Senator Joseph Bruno for a statement.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Madam President
and colleagues, I stand to speak about a
Senator that joined the Senate sometime close
to the time that I did, within a year or two
after, and who has, over these past years,
served with great distinction in every way
that he has been asked to serve. He has made
we, his colleagues, proud of him as a Senator.
His wife, Therese, is here, daughter, Kara,
and he's made them proud, I'm sure.
And when Jim Lack goes on, as he
will, to the Court of Claims, he expands his
jurisdiction, he expands his public service,
6724
but he builds on the base that he has had here
as chair of Judiciary, which is one of the
prestigious, powerful, important committees in
the Senate. And he has done that with great
diplomacy, with his superior intellect as he
approaches all the things that have to be
considered, and he has done it in a way that
has been beyond reproach.
So we're indebted to Jim. I
personally, as part of leadership here, Jim,
have been indebted to you for your service in
the Senate for all of these 22-some years, and
am totally confident that as you go on to be
continuing in public service that you will
continue with the excellence that you have
demonstrated here with your colleagues.
So we're sorry to see you leave the
Senate, but we're very, very happy for you,
for your extended constituency, and that you
will continue your good work on behalf of so
many people. So I'm going to congratulate you
in advance, and I urge my colleagues to move
this nomination.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Spano.
6725
SENATOR SPANO: Thank you, Madam
President.
You know, when you look back on the
calendar, and I look at -- in fact, starting
in January, I'll be starting my 25th year in
the Legislature. For those of us who have
been here for a long time, you think back
where we were when we started and how did all
of a sudden, overnight, it seems that 25 years
have passed.
I was very happy and proud to have
been elected back in 1978 to the Assembly, the
same year Jim was elected to the Senate. And
during these past 24 years, I've certainly,
like many of us have, seen many members come
and go. Every member has their own style,
their own temperament, their own way of
impacting the system. But there are a few of
them who have really made a major impact on
this system. There are a few of them who I
have met who have made a major impact on me
personally, in my own life and my own
political career.
And it's Jim Lack who I have spent
hours and hours with, as my seatmate right
6726
here for the past 16 years, sitting alongside
him in the conference for 16 years in the
Majority, sharing offices in -- when I was
first elected for my first day in the Senate,
and sharing conference rooms with him and
fighting with him over whether the conference
table was 6 inches over on my side or his.
But he came to this -- and he talks
about the citizen legislature. He came to
this Legislature with a background in consumer
protection, came here and took that background
and was the prime sponsor of the Bottle Law
that really changed the way that we treat our
environment and our community in this state.
He was a person who was ahead of his time.
You know, before it was fashionable
for many of us Republicans to be friendly with
organized labor, Jim Lack was chair of the
Labor Committee in the Senate and led the way
so often in protecting the rights of workers,
making sure that injured workers, through
workers' comp, were protected, and made sure
that within our Senate Majority conference
there was a voice in reaching out and speaking
for organized labor across the state.
6727
He was a true leader in his effort
when he chaired the National Conference of
State Legislatures, where he rose up through
the ranks and worked real hard in committees
and became the chairman of this national group
and traveled across this country and across
the world, meeting with other legislatures,
but always came back home here to say that we
were the best.
When he chaired the Judiciary
Committee, he took that same passion that he
has shown in his own life and his own
political career to that committee as well.
In all the years I've been here, there is
probably no one that I think has more of an
institutional memory of this house than Jim
Lack, no one who has had more of a commitment
to the rank-and-file members and to this
institution than Jim Lack.
And I know that -- you know, I had
a chance to spend some time with Jim's mom.
And I know that Jim's mom was very proud of
her Jimmy, as she would call him, as a
Senator. And unfortunately, she's not here
today to share this day when we'll be able to
6728
call him a judge.
But it's a day that your family
will certainly all be proud, Jim. All of us
who consider to be your close friends are very
proud of you for what you have done for us,
for your community on Long Island, for the
people of this state, for legislators across
this nation who have looked up to you.
So to Therese, to Kara, to Jeremy,
who is not here, and to your mom, who is here
looking down, we say that we all love you,
we're going to miss you tremendously. But the
Governor made an excellent choice. And what
better time than this holiday season for us to
be able to say some nice things about a real
good guy who's going to be an outstanding
judge.
Congratulations, Jim.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator LaValle.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Thank you,
Madam President. I rise to support this
nomination of a colleague. Senator Lack's
district is the district to the immediate
west.
Jim Lack and I first met in 1977,
6729
which was the first year that I served in this
chamber, and he was the Commissioner of
Consumer Affairs in the County of Suffolk.
At the time, myself and then
Senator Pisani had the notion that there were
food products in cans or elsewhere that were
on the shelf or in the grocery store for a
considerable period of time and, without any
labeling, the consumer did not have an idea of
whether that was a new product or an old
product.
And I reached out for cooperation
and some guidance and assistance from the then
Commissioner of Consumer Affairs. And I must
tell you that he was enthusiastic, he was --
and the people that worked with him in his
department. The things that we did in going
through grocery stores -- and we found that a
grocery store in my village was probably the
greatest offender and the greatest abuser of
having products on the shelf for -- that were
years and years old. And so that was our
first introduction.
We then got to know one another.
And when the Second Senatorial District seat
6730
became available, I received a call from the
county chairman at the time. And the senator,
Jim's predecessor, really kind of late in the
game, as we would say, decided not to seek
reelection, and so the party in Suffolk County
was looking for individuals.
And when he called me, I indicated
that our then -- our Consumer Affairs
Commissioner, now he had moved to the Better
Business Bureau, would be an excellent,
excellent choice. And there were certainly
other people who voiced that approval.
And Jim certainly has, through
elections and through his work in this
chamber, has indicated that he has been a very
focused and knowledgeable legislator.
On a personal basis, we have seen
our children grow up, we have seen them get
married, we have seen our parents pass away.
And so over these 26 years that we've known
one another, it has been not only in a
collegial, professional way but also a way
that we interact on a personal basis.
Jim Lack has been, in the years
that I've been here both as a member and a
6731
staff member and seen people chair the
Judiciary Committee, he has been just a
fantastic chair. The person that succeeds him
will have to reach very high to get over the
bar. And certainly he has made an enormous
contribution to improving the court system,
changes to the Estate Powers and Trust Laws,
the EPTL, and on and on. And I know that Jim
will make a very good Court of Claims judge.
I wish you good luck, Jim, and to
your family, congratulations.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Volker.
SENATOR VOLKER: Madam President,
and as I said at the hearing, in the Judiciary
Committee hearing, I believe I am the second
most senior member of the Judiciary Committee
after Senator John Marchi. I've been in the
Legislature for 30 years.
And I've known Jim Lack for just
about 25 years, whatever he's been in the
Legislature, and knew him actually before,
casually, in his career with consumer
protection and several other areas.
But let me just say that we have
worked together, since he became chairman of
6732
Judiciary, in trying to deal with some of the
complex problems involved not only in the
judiciary but in the entire justice system.
Because one of my charges in Codes, as
chairman of Codes, is to also oversee part of
the civil justice system. And we have worked
on many projects together -- not always
agreeing, but always we have tried to provide
a united front in behalf of the Senate.
And there are a lot of people who
we've confirmed over the years to judgeships,
but I can't think of hardly any who have had
the competence and the ability that Jim Lack
has. And there's no question in my mind he
will make a great Court of Claims judge.
And I wish him the best, and
Therese and Kara and also Jeremy. He has a
great family. And as I tell my wife, without
my wife, I wouldn't be anything. Without
Therese, it would be much more difficult.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Libous.
SENATOR LIBOUS: Thank you, Madam
President. I too would like to join my
colleagues in rising to second the nomination
of my friend and colleague, Senator -- soon to
6733
be Judge -- Jim Lack.
Picking up on some comments that
Senator Spano made, I know that each of us in
this house develop relationships with
individuals both professionally and
personally. And from a professional
standpoint, when certain issues come up and
colleagues are mingling and talking about how
to handle those issues, issues about Senate
rules or often ethics or legal matters that
pertain to certain types of legislation, often
referenced in those conversations are "Why
don't we see what Jim Lack thinks about this,
because he has a perspective on that issue."
Or, as Senator Spano mentioned, he
understands the rules of the house and often
was very proud of the fact that the Senate
stood for something and today still stands for
something.
On a personal basis, I will be
saddened to see my friend and colleague leave
the Senate, but I will have a friend and
colleague who will soon the joining the Court
of Claims.
And just on a couple of personal
6734
notes, I will tell you that in the mornings,
Senators Spano and Maziarz, Senator Lack and I
have been walking for several years. And I
know it might not show on any of us. But he
is probably the fastest walker. He should be
a sprinter, because he moves quite quickly.
And I know that Senator Maziarz in particular
has had trouble keeping up with him.
But, Senator, I think that's
indicative of your entire career, that many of
us have had trouble or will have trouble in
keeping up with you professionally.
So I just want to wish you the
very, very best. And as I said, I will miss
you as a Senate colleague, but you will always
be a good friend.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Stafford.
SENATOR STAFFORD: Madam
President, when you've been here as long as
some of us, you make friends by osmosis. And
what I mean by that is you really learn about
each other, you learn the strengths. All of
us have had that experience.
And I can share with you that one
of the real -- and, as you know, interestingly
6735
enough, you don't make that many close
friends. But one of the real and close
friends that I've made here in the Senate is
Jim Lack.
He has relatives that live in my
district. I was concerned -- this was years
ago, I handled a closing for his brother, and
his brother said, "What can I do for it?" His
brother is a doctor in our area. And he sent
me a case of Beefeater gin. That made me a
little nervous. That wouldn't be the case
today, by the way. But that was -- that's all
history. It's all history. (Laughter.)
But I do say, as has been said here
today, but it should be said over and over,
Jim does have such a great legal ability,
understands people, and will do such a great
job.
And I have to share this with you,
Therese and Kara. You should be recognized,
but Jeremy also has become a friend of mine.
And not being here, I have to share with all
of you there is not a sharper, brighter, plus
personable fellow than Jeremy Lack. So we
certainly are thinking of him at this very,
6736
very important occasion.
We compliment the Governor on
another great appointment. And I know we'll
hear a great deal about the great work that
Judge Lack will be doing.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Breslin.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Thank you,
Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: You're welcome.
SENATOR BRESLIN: For the past
several years, I've served as the ranker on
Judiciary. And Senator Lack has provided not
only myself but all the members, Democratic
and Republican alike, every accommodation.
And he had only one goal as the
chairman of Judiciary, and that goal was the
betterment of the judiciary, whether it be in
the passage of laws that cleaned up or
modernized the EPTL, or whether it be judges
that were being approved and sent down to us
by the Governor. Whether it was 18B, which he
made every effort to make and have it become
law, or court reform, he was always on the
cutting edge of doing what was right and
6737
making things better for the judiciary. And
it isn't a coincidence today that by his
nomination we are in fact making the judiciary
better.
Thank you very much, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: I agree with
Senator Breslin -- as I usually do -- about
the great qualifications of Senator Lack.
Senator Lack I met when I first
came here in 1986. I remember his work on the
Long Island Power Authority bill in 1987. My
favorite incident was the time that we were
having a dispute about Robert's Rules of Order
and Senator Lack came over to show me a
document known as Mason's Rules of Order,
which are the rules of order for government
procedure.
And, from that day in 1996, I have
never seen another copy of Mason's Rules of
Order. I think Senator Lack actually wrote
that document to convince me of his view on
that particular rule.
But it's just an example of his
6738
scrupulous attention to detail, his enthusiasm
and passion for issues, his work on consumer
protection, also labor issues, products
liability, and of course the difficult task of
picking the judges here in the state of
New York.
This time we pick him as a judge.
I think he'll be outstanding. He has always
had a dynamic approach as an individual, an
articulate voice as a speaker. I've never had
the opportunity to get to know him that well,
as Senator LaValle or Senator Stafford have.
I don't know his family, but I'm sure they're
very proud of him, as they should be.
And we certainly here in the
Minority -- Senator Connor spoke to me this
morning about Senator Lack. The former leader
Senator Ohrenstein also spoke to me to
congratulate Senator Lack from their work with
him as leaders of the Minority conference
while Senator Lack served 24 years in the
Senate.
We're all very proud of him and
certainly wish him well. I didn't think that
as a leader the first thing I would do would
6739
be to get up and extol the virtues of a
Republican, but it was most apropos in this
case. And we certainly look forward to
viewing Senator Lack's work on the court and
trying as desperately as we can to replace him
in his service to this chamber.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Johnson.
SENATOR JOHNSON: Madam
President, I'm here to support the nomination
of Senator James Lack for Court of Claims
judge.
Senator Lack has been a confidant
and a friend whose advice has proved
invaluable to me over the years. He's been my
seatmate for 24 years and been part of the
strong Suffolk delegation, which included
Senator Trunzo, Senator LaValle, and myself
and him, and now of course we have Senators
Fuschillo and Marcellino as well.
He has served the public and the
state very well with his legislation over the
years. He's served the people of Suffolk very
well as part of our strong delegation which I
mentioned. He's raised a beautiful family,
has a wonderful wife. He's a special person
6740
and one that we'll not soon forget.
I think there's no doubt in my mind
that I'm going to miss him, and many of us
here will miss him. We wish him well. We
know he's going to be a wonderful judge, and
we wish him well in his future career.
And bon voyage, Jim.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
DeFrancisco.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: I rise
since I'm in the business of doing legal work
before judges, and I want to make sure that I
stand up and speak in case I ever appear
before Jim in any of my cases.
But having tried a lot of cases, I
think the most important thing for a judge is
not only to know the law, the substantive law
and the issues that are being dealt with, the
rules of evidence, the procedural rules, but
also to be able to apply those rules in a fair
and an even-handed manner.
Although on first meeting Jim, he's
a very outgoing, very forceful, intimidating
individual. But on the other hand, deep down,
to those of us who know him, he's a man with a
6741
huge heart and a man with a sense of fairness
second to none.
Jim, you're going to make a great
judge, and I hope I have the honor to appear
before you at some time.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Saland.
SENATOR SALAND: Thank you, Madam
President.
I rise in support of the nomination
of Senator Jim Lack in what is certainly a
joyous and yet I'm sure a bittersweet moment
for him -- perhaps purely joyous for his
family; he'll have the opportunity to return
home now, instead of the trek to Albany that
he's been engaged in for 24 years.
But bittersweet in the sense that
I'm sure that the relationships, the
accomplishments, the commitment that has tied
him so closely to the state capital and to his
constituents in his district will not easily
be transitioned into the judgeship.
Bittersweet for me because Jim Lack
is among my dearest of friends. He and I and
his wife, Therese, and my wife, Linda, spent a
loot of time together. As I mentioned briefly
6742
in the Judiciary Committee, Jim is not only a
friend of enormous standing but a mentor.
And we've all heard from a number
of our colleagues about the multidimensional
Jim Lack. Jim is certainly a superb
intellect, globally bright and, in my opinion,
quite the Renaissance man. He's a man who's
devoted to his family. He's a man who's
devoted to the task, whatever it may be. And
he brings this extraordinary capacity and
energy to whatever it is that the issue may
be.
And I'm sure, although I didn't
have the opportunity to know of his
accomplishments or share the accomplishments
that he had as the chair of the Labor
Committee, I can tell you from firsthand
experience that as the chair of the Judiciary
Committee he has been just unending and
tireless in his devotion to the judiciary.
And there are things that he has done that I'm
confident would have been a far greater task
and maybe not a doable task for another chair
of that same committee.
There are many ways in which I
6743
could thank Jim. One of the ways perhaps
would be if I had my wife, Linda, here to
thank him as well. And Jim and Therese and
Kara are aware that she had every intention of
being here, but unfortunately a personal
situation has required her to stay at home.
Jim is the, as was pointed out, I
believe, by Senator Spano, is the former
president of the National Conference of State
Legislatures. And I tell you from my
involvement that the same type of dedication,
the same type of energy, and the same crisp,
analytical ability that he's demonstrated here
time and again, both on the floor and in
conference, is really his hallmark at the
NCSL.
He's a man whose contributions have
not merely been to the chamber that we reside
in, and to this legislative institution, but
the legislative institutions of all fifty
states.
He's an extraordinarily dedicated
and extraordinarily capable and
extraordinarily judicious man whose analytical
abilities, combined with all of his other
6744
qualities, will make him the superb judge that
I'm confident that he will be.
And God bless you, and I wish you
nothing but the best for you, Therese, Kara,
and certainly Jeremy as well.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Velella.
SENATOR VELELLA: Madam
President, there will be an immediate meeting
of the Rules Committee in the Majority
Conference Room.
THE PRESIDENT: There will be an
immediate meeting of the Rules Committee in
the Majority Conference Room.
Senator Trunzo.
SENATOR TRUNZO: Madam President,
I stand here to second the nomination of
James, better known to me as Lacky, as the
Court of Claims judge.
Jim and I have been working
together very closely over the many years. We
shared offices in the state office building in
Haupauge, and so I got to know Jim very, very
well. And really, when Nick Spano had
indicated the fact that as chairman of the
Labor Committee, when Senator Anderson
6745
appointed him as chairman of the Labor
Committee, and myself as the chairman of the
Civil Service and Pensions Committee,
together, I think we together, Jim, Nick, and
I, have revolutionized the whole labor
movement for the Republican Party here in the
state of New York.
But I know the other side of Jim
Lack, which I ain't going to go into, because
he is a good guy. He has been an outstanding
legislator, one that I've been proud to know
and to work with, to kid around with him, to
insult him at times and whatever else had to
be done, as friends normally do.
But I commend the Governor for
appointing him as a judge of the Court of
Claims. And, Jim, I wish you the best of
luck, and I'm going to miss having you around.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Madam President. I made my remarks in the
Judiciary Committee about Jim Lack. I'm going
to just add one other postscript to those.
Jim, you have proven, in my
6746
judgment, to have the attributes of the great
hitters in baseball: you know how to hit a
curve ball. I threw a bunch of them in the
Judiciary Committee at you when you were the
chair. And I think this is a message perhaps
to those who follow Jim Lack in our
understanding of the judicial system. I would
throw a curve ball at Jim Lack about what
practitioners did, being a practitioner
myself, and he always seemed to have the right
answer.
He would talk about how the
intricacies of what we do here affect lawyers
planning for their clients, judges handling
cases in front of them. That is what the
legal system is all about.
And I think his -- certainly his
spectacular performance in swinging at the
Dollinger curve ball, that's what you're going
to see on the bench, Your Honor. And I know
that you know how to hit it, I've seen you hit
it out of the park. And I only hope that when
you see those pitches as a judge, you will
again use that bat honed in Long Island and in
the politics and experiences in this chamber
6747
and send that ball into the deep stratosphere
in the night.
Congratulations and good luck.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Maziarz.
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Thank you very
much, Madam President. I get up here and sort
of -- almost it's a sad day to see Jim leave.
I know that when I first came here
eight years ago and I kind of looked around
this chamber and our conference, Jim was an
attorney, he was from Long Island, he was
forceful, he was outgoing. We really didn't
have a whole lot in common.
But I have to say that mostly
through working with Jim on judicial
appointments for the area that I represent,
there are a lot of county court judges and
family court judges today that were -- the
system of being appointed and being confirmed
was made much easier, Jim, because of the
advice that you rendered to me.
And Senator Libous mentioned our
morning walks. And he's absolutely right,
Jim; you walk far too fast, particularly for
me.
6748
But I know that there were many
times, tension-filled days, like today is,
when very controversial issues were going to
be coming up, and Jim would give us his
morning analysis of all those. And I'd have
to say that when it came to Spano, Libous and
Lack, Jim Lack was always right, the other two
were almost always wrong. (Laughter.) So I
learned early on to take Jim's advice to
heart.
And, Jim, we just want to
congratulate you. I'm truly going to miss
you, Jim, miss your advice on a lot of
important topics to me and to the constituents
of my district.
And I do have a message for you.
Beverly said that if you need any help with
the Court of Claims, just give her a call and
she'll help you out. Okay?
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Meier.
SENATOR MEIER: Thank you, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You're welcome.
SENATOR MEIER: I'm very pleased
to rise to support the nomination of my good
6749
friend Jim Lack to the Court of Claims.
When you come here as a new member,
you find out pretty quickly that this
institution operates on two principles,
seniority and collegiality. When you're new,
there's a lot of guys willing to teach you
about seniority and how that works. Jim Lack
was one of the guys who taught me about
collegiality.
You quickly learn when you're new
here that Jim Lack is one of the best people
in this body to go to talk to if you have a
question about legislation, about public
policy. And I found out what kind of a guy
Jim Lack was when something occurred in my
second term. It was important to me to have a
seat on the Energy Committee because of the
large Power Authority assets in my district,
and there was no room on that committee. It
was Jim Lack who gave up his seat so that I
could sit on the Energy Committee and
adequately represent the people of the North
Country.
And with Jim Lack, no kindness is
too small. When my daughter was about to get
6750
married, it was Steve Saland and Jim Lack who
counselled me through the process, providing
important tips on how to deal with the bride,
the mother of the bride, and not least of
which was Jim Lack, who counseled me on how to
deal with the macatuna [ph]. For those of you
who don't understand what I just said, you can
look it up or ask Jim Lack, who is an
encyclopedia of such knowledge.
I said once before about another
judge, and I say this proudly about you, Jim:
Judges find the law in books. They find
justice in a life well lived, in a
well-rounded life, and in a sound grounding in
what is important and valuable in life. You
combine all those things. You will be a
wonderful judge. God bless you and good luck.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Hoffmann.
SENATOR HOFFMANN: Thank you,
Madam President. I too want to join my
colleagues in praising our good friend Senator
Lack and wishing him well as he moves on.
And I'm reminded of what a great
success he has been in yet another area, and
that is as a distinguished member of Cornell
6751
University's Board of Trustees. He has
represented this chamber, two separate
majority leaders, as a very earnest member of
that board. And as such, he has developed a
very warm rapport with a number of people in
the Central New York area, in the Finger Lakes
area.
In his travels nationally and
internationally, we have all been fortunate
that Senator Lack has regarded not just his
own district but all of New York State as his
home or as his bailiwick, and he has done
wonderful things to promote us as a state, as
a people, and to explain to those who might be
less informed about our many bounties and our
great strengths.
We have been well served by him,
not only as a legislator but through his
capacity as past president of the National
Conference of State Legislatures. He has been
a representative to all of us in this chamber
and to our constituents in the process.
This gives him a unique background
moving into the judiciary branch of
government, and one which will show temperance
6752
and an understanding and compassion that might
be lacking in other judges.
So for your great breadth of
experience, we are indeed fortunate, and so is
the state. And the Governor is to be
commended in his wise choice in your position.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Seward.
SENATOR SEWARD: Thank you, Madam
President.
It gives me a great deal of
personal pride to stand and to support the
confirmation of our good friend Jim Lack to
become a judge of the Court of Claims.
I arrived as a member of this
chamber 16 years ago. And over those 16
years, as have so many mentioned here today,
we've grown very close in terms of friendship
with Jim Lack, and something that's very dear
to me and something that even though he's
going on will remain with us in the future,
and I'm very pleased about that.
Much of what my colleagues have
said I would echo in terms of Jim Lack's
intellect, his hard work on behalf of his
constituents in Suffolk County, but also on
6753
behalf of the people of the entire state and
of course with his presidency of NCSL; in
fact, his hard work on behalf of people all
over the United States of America. And that's
a great legacy that will remain in terms of
Senator Lack's hard work as a legislator.
And of course, building on what
Senator Hoffmann had mentioned in terms of
Jim Lack's involvement with Cornell
University, I've been privileged to represent
Cornell as part of my district these last 16
years. And I know firsthand, because of Jim
Lack's work as a member of the board of
trustees of that great institution, how much
he has contributed to the ongoing success of
that great research university.
In fact, we're very pleased that
his son, Jeremy, is a student there, an
outstanding student at that.
And so personally, on behalf of my
constituents as well, and specifically on
behalf of the Cornell University, I want to
congratulate Jim Lack on his confirmation as a
judge of the Court of Claims. We also want to
acknowledge his wife, Therese, and his
6754
daughter, Kara, and of course Cornell alum
Jeremy, because you all have meant a great
deal to that community and to me personally.
And for that we thank you, congratulate you.
We know you're going to make an
outstanding judge of the Court of Claims.
Congratulations.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Marcellino.
SENATOR MARCELLINO: Thank you,
Madam President. I'm not going to repeat all
of the great things and good things that I'm
sure my colleagues have said about Senator
Lack.
The Senator has been a good friend
and a mentor of mine since I was elected eight
years ago. We shared a common part of Suffolk
County, and I always looked to Jim for advice
and counsel. Didn't always take it, but I
always looked to him for it. The times I
didn't take it, I probably was wrong, I should
have.
But the Senate will be losing a
sense of institutional knowledge that is hard
to replace; in fact, impossible. When you've
6755
been here as long as Jim and you have served
as well and you've done as much, you learn
things. And Jim is that type of a person.
Whatever job he takes on, he takes it on full
boat, no half-hearted stuff. He goes for it,
he gains the knowledge, he gains the
intuition, and he makes his decisions based on
knowledge.
Jim knows the Senate. There have
been many times I've heard him talking about
rules and this and that that could be used and
could be done. When we were in floor debates
and battles on the floor, Jim always seemed to
know the answer and always seemed to know how
to get things done.
That will be missed in this house,
besides his friendship and besides his --
well, I'm not going to miss his friendship,
because he's going to be in Suffolk County and
I'm going to always have access to him, and we
will get together from time to time. But
we'll miss him here in Albany.
And, Jim, we all wish you well and
I wish you well personally. And to Therese
and Kara and your son, who couldn't be here
6756
but I'm sure wanted to be here, we say God
bless and Godspeed.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Larkin.
SENATOR LARKIN: Thank you, Madam
President.
I too rise to -- someone said
second him, and a couple of people here in the
back row said to say it took a long time for
Therese to convince him to quit.
But, you know, I go back to Jim
when I was a member of the Assembly and we
served on some joint committees. Jim, I think
if you remember when Dan Walsh put together
the joint tax committee and everybody was
looking at everybody else. And Dan Walsh
looked around and said, "Jim, legally, can we
do it?" And Jim Lack said, "I'll think it
over." And that's how that joint tax
committee started that set a lot of the
policies that are being enjoyed today.
And I think that a lot of the
accountants, Jim, would remember that when we
decided to pool everything instead of just
sending something back to the CPAs or the
constituent with a form letter that says "We
6757
got your tax return and one of these days
we're going to look at." We started going
back with the window -- you remember the
window you produced? And the window said "to
John or Mary Smith," so then they were sure
that somebody in the Tax Department had it.
I guess finally, because there's a
lot of other people, when I became the
president of NCOIL, Jim came to me and said:
"Remember, you're just the president of an
insurance organization. You are to lead, not
follow, and every so often listen. They may
have some good ideas."
Jim Lack, you've been a friend and
a supporter. I can't tell you how much I
appreciate everything you've done for me. And
I want to say to his family -- what a
wonderful family -- may God bless you always.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Maltese.
SENATOR MALTESE: Madam
President, I would be remiss if I didn't rise
to add my words and accolades to my good
colleague Jim Lack.
Speaking as a Senator, he always
was a font of good judgment and wisdom and
6758
good advice. In the questions of judiciary,
the questions of potential judges, the
questions dealing with the law, he always was
available, always would get right back to me.
Where we had questions that related
to potential candidates and where you had
apprehension on their parts or you had some
feeling that they wouldn't be acted on, he
always allayed their fears, whether or not
they were ultimately picked.
He was the perfect man for the
perfect position, just as he is as he is sent
to the judiciary. He certainly goes with our
wishes for Godspeed, good luck, and
congratulations on this fine appointment of
the Governor.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Nozzolio.
SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Madam
President, my colleagues, I rise to associate
myself with the remarks, support and adulation
and friendship that we have all shared as
colleagues of this great body, as members of
our conference in particular, with Jim Lack.
I just want to reference two points
among those that have been made. I recall
6759
that one of the first issues that I confronted
as a Senator that Jim Lack was intimately
involved with aggressively supporting, and
that was something near and dear to me, when
Jim was chairman of the Labor Committee
supporting the construction, expansion, of the
library at the New York State School of
Industrial and Labor Relations at Cornell,
something Jim was very much a part of, as M.P.
Catherwood, who was one of my original
mentors, and the library is named after M.P.
Certainly it was wonderful to see
Jim's aggressive approach to that, a chore
that I certainly supported. But we needed a
leader, and Jim was our leader that pushed
that through. And, Jim, for that I will
certainly be forever grateful.
One other anecdote that comes to
mind was when Jim spoke to the Appellate
Division members in the Fourth Department out
of Rochester, New York, and it was very
interesting to see how judges were so
attentive to a senator. I'm sure that had
nothing to do with the fact that Jim made so
many judges through the years in his capacity
6760
as the chairman of the Judiciary Committee.
Jim, I hope that the judges give
you as much respect in your position as a
judge as they gave you as a senator. I'm sure
that will happen. But nonetheless, you will
be missed here.
Godspeed, we wish you well, and we
know you will be a fine member of the
judiciary, as you were a fine member of this
body.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Thank you,
Madam President.
I too rise and just want to offer
my congratulations to Senator Lack and his
family. And I must admit never seen him smile
so much in the five years, almost, that I've
been here. And, Therese, take that as a
compliment.
But he's been a tremendous help to
me. And probably the most discouraging thing
I heard last night when he talked about his
career -- and I say that as the junior senator
from Nassau County, after almost five years --
6761
that he is still the junior senator from
Suffolk County after 25 years. I don't know
what the future holds for me, but I know it's
certainly bright for you.
Jim has certainly been a tremendous
help to me with his insight of the inner
workings of Albany. But for me personally, my
best recollection is going to be of his
friendship. And at a time, a personal time in
my family when there was a crisis, this man
came to rise to the occasion, to help my
family, and I will forever be indebted and
grateful to him. So I just rise to wish him
the best.
And when you look back on your
career here, you should look back with a smile
on your face and say to yourself that in your
25 years in this Legislature, which is a great
body, and I pinch myself every time I walk in
here, you have truly left your mark and made a
difference.
So best of luck. Congratulations
to you.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Thank you, Madam
6762
President. It's my pleasure to rise and to
join in the seconding of the confirmation of
Jim Lack.
You know, it's very difficult in
this house when we have the opportunity to say
goodbye to somebody, at least from this
chamber. I remember saying that when Manny
Gold retired. And it's difficult, whether
it's a Republican or Democrat, whether it's
somebody that you've debated vigorously at
times, like Senator Dollinger. I think we all
have a respect for the institution of the
State Senate.
And Jim Lack has been an integral
part for so many years of this Senate chamber.
He's a person that we've relied upon when
issues of ethics have arisen, in looking for
his guidance. And certainly any chairmanship
of a committee that he's held, whether it was
Labor or Judiciary, he's done it efficiently,
with all his heart, and he's been a pioneer
and an innovator in his chairmanship of those
committees.
So yes, it's very difficult to say
goodbye to a friend, a neighbor on Long
6763
Island, a colleague for so many years. But
it's always time -- our time all comes in this
business where we have to move on, whether
it's by the voter or it's a personal decision,
as Jim has made.
But I just want to mention what a
wonderful family you have, Jim. You know,
Therese, we can say that you are truly a
saint, being married to Jim all these years.
And to Kara and Jeremy, who's not here, both
of you have done a job with your children that
I know how proud you are. And those of you
who have seen them grow up know what a great
job that you've done and how proud you should
be of your children. But what's also
important, Jim and Therese, your children are
very proud of you.
So we wish you the best of luck,
Jim, in your new endeavor.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Rath.
SENATOR RATH: Thank you, Madam
President. I rise to add my congratulations
to soon-to-be-Judge Lack.
There's very little to add after so
much has been said, but there may be a
6764
relationship of mine that has been a little
different the last several years. And it's
been that Jim has served as chairman of the
budget conference committee that worked on
local government issues. And did I have a
chance to learn a lot, sitting next to Jim
Lack, as he was moving us through that. I
appreciate your wise counsel and your patience
with my efforts to learn and understand.
You've always spoken to all of us
too, not only individually but collectively,
in terms of our ethical approach and the need
to be squeaky-clean, as it were. And I don't
think we will any of us forget that, because
that comes from deep experience and
understanding of the challenges we face.
And you've been, of course, very
supportive of the judges association, the
Supreme Court Judges Association, of which my
husband, I was very proud he was president.
And you were there at the meetings, and they
always loved to see Senator Lack come in
because they knew they were going to hear what
was really going on with the judiciary when
you came in.
6765
And finally, as you go to the
judiciary, I would remember a time when
Judge Kehoe ascended to the judiciary. And
one of the wise sages of the Legislature said
to me: "You know, the judges are always
really glad when they get someone from the
Senate to come up to the judiciary, because
they can usually figure out what the senators
meant when they passed legislation."
So good luck. You take a lot of
institutional memory with you. And the people
of the State of New York will be very
fortunate to have another kind of service from
Jim Lack.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Wright.
SENATOR WRIGHT: Thank you, Madam
President. I too join all of my colleagues in
our support for Senator Lack today.
There's very little that I can add
that hasn't been articulated and articulated
very well. I've had the occasion to spend
going on ten years now in the company of my
colleague, and I found over the course of that
time that he was someone you learned to
respect, you took advice from. And on
6766
occasion, I would attend national meetings and
find that they too responded in very much the
same way that all of us here did in the
New York State Senate, seeking his advice,
seeking his input, following his leadership,
following his example.
All of those things that have been
articulated this morning are very much true
and very indicative of the way Jim has handled
himself here in this chamber over more than
two decades. But what I will always remember
is each and every time that I encountered Jim
when we returned from a long recess, were back
after election or whenever the occasion is,
when you're just meeting him, the first thing
he asks is: How is your wife, and how are
your kids?
And through all the business that
we go through here in the Capitol and back in
our district, I think we all respect and
understand the importance of our family, and
he's always put that first -- his family, our
families.
So we're very glad and I'm very
glad to be here to support his confirmation
6767
and say to his family, you can be proud
because we are. Best wishes, Jim.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Leibell.
SENATOR LEIBELL: Thank you,
Madam President.
I think it's pretty clear from the
comments here today that our friend Jim Lack
is going to be sorely missed. Jim has been in
every respect a great legislator, and he has
chaired one of our most influential committees
and has done so with great expertise. More
than that, he's been a colleague and a dear
friend to all of us.
And I guess the vast majority of us
are junior to you, Jim. And so we've all come
in and been able to take your wisdom, your
advice and your counsel. I know I certainly
did.
You're going to be a great judge.
It's a great nomination. And I'll look
forward to many years of our friendship
together.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Hannon.
SENATOR HANNON: Madam President,
I just would like to add my recommendation for
6768
confirmation of Jim Lack, his family.
He's not only been personal
friends, but I think he has added a special
vigor, an intellectual vigor to the
deliberations of this body, to the procedures
of this body, to serving on the Ethics
Committee, to knowing what the statutes are
and having the intelligence and the intellect
and the wisdom to apply them correctly.
And the driving force that Jim has
added to us we will sorely miss. And I am
delighted that he will be in a courtroom, he
will be able to add that to the judicial
wisdom of this state. And I concur in all of
the good things that my colleagues have said
about him.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Padavan.
SENATOR PADAVAN: Thank you,
Madam President.
As has been said here, there's very
little to add after all of these accolades.
But I would like to add one observation.
My first exposure to the expertise,
knowledge and experience of Senator Lack was
6769
as a member of the Consumer Affairs Committee.
We sat there with the chairman. Many issues
came up. And the person who, because of his
background and experience, had the most to say
that made sense was Senator Lack. He knew a
great deal, a great deal more than the
chairman, who happened to be a guy by the name
of Joe Bruno. Now, apparently Senator Bruno
has not remembered that. But I have.
We wish you all the best, and your
family. And we know that this is something
you have yearned for, deserve, and will
benefit the people of this state in
accomplishing it.
THE PRESIDENT: The question is
on the confirmation of James J. Lack as a
judge of the Court of Claims. All in favor
please signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: James J. Lack is
hereby confirmed as a judge of the Court of
Claims.
(Applause.)
6770
THE PRESIDENT: Judge Lack, as
president of the New York State Senate, let me
congratulate you, be the first to congratulate
you with that official title.
I have known Senator -- former
Senator, now Judge Lack for many years. The
first impression of the Senator is definitely
that he is a person of substance. As you get
to know him and work with him, you know that
that impression is definitely a reality.
I have always found Judge Lack in
my dealings with him to be eminently
professional, informed, and in the words of my
dad, who was also a judge, a student of the
law. You always interpret the law and blend
it effectively with the facts. With my
background on the State Supreme Court bench, I
know that you will make an outstanding
addition to the court system in New York
State.
When I was with the Governor at
lunchtime, I congratulated him on choosing my
friend and colleague, Judge Lack, for this
definite benefit to the people of the state of
New York. Best wishes to you and your family
6771
in all of your future endeavors.
Senator Kuhl.
SENATOR KUHL: Yes, Madam
President. May we return to the order of
reports of standing committees. My
understanding is there's a report from the
Rules Committee at the desk. I'd ask that it
be read.
THE PRESIDENT: Report of the
Rules Committee.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Bruno,
from the Committee on Rules, reports the
following bills:
Assembly Print Number 7535A, by
Member of the Assembly Parment, an act to
amend the Education Law;
Assembly Print 11460A, by the
Assembly Committee on Rules, an act to amend
the Education Law;
Senate Print 7597, by Senator
Wright, an act to amend Chapter 519 of the
Laws of 1992;
720, by Senator Goodman, an act to
amend the Executive Law;
6772
6193A, by Senator Leibell, an act
in relation to legalizing, validating,
ratifying and confirming;
7475B, by Senator Morahan, an act
to amend the Public Health Law;
7683, by Senator LaValle, an act to
amend the Environmental Conservation Law;
7785, by Senator Velella, an act to
amend the Insurance Law;
7821, by Senator Breslin, an act to
amend the Public Lands Law;
7859, by Senator Skelos, an act to
amend the Real Property Tax Law;
7868, by Senator Fuschillo, an act
to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law;
7871, by Senator Kuhl, an act to
confirm, ratify, validate and legalize;
7874, by Senator Maziarz, an act to
amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law;
7875, by Senator Maziarz, an act to
amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law;
7876, by Senator Wright, an act to
amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law;
7877, by Senator McGee, an act to
amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law;
6773
7879, by Senator Fuschillo, an act
to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law;
7880, by Senator Rath, an act to
amend the Social Services Law;
7870, by Senator Velella, an act to
amend the General Municipal Law;
And Senate Print 7652, by Senator
Paterson, an act to amend the Highway Law.
All bills ordered direct to third
reading.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Madam President,
I would move to accept the report of the Rules
Committee.
THE PRESIDENT: All in favor of
accepting the report of the Rules Committee
please signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The report is
accepted.
We'll return to the order of
motions and resolutions.
Senator Fuschillo.
6774
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Thank you,
Madam President.
On behalf of Senator Morahan, I
move to amend Senate Bill Number 7475B by
striking out the amendments made on 7/22 and
restoring it to its previous original print
number, 7475A.
THE PRESIDENT: So ordered,
Senator.
Senator Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Thank you,
Madam President.
On behalf of Senator Bonacic, I
wish to call up Senate Print Number 7654,
recalled from the Assembly, which is now at
the desk.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1566, by Senator Bonacic, Senate Print 7654,
an act to amend the Tax Law.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Madam
President, I now move to reconsider the vote
6775
by which the bill was passed.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will call the roll upon reconsideration.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 60.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Madam
President, I now move to recommit the bill to
the Committee on Rules.
THE PRESIDENT: So ordered,
Senator.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Madam President,
can we at this time go through the
noncontroversial calendar.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
260, by Member of the Assembly Parment,
Assembly Print Number 7535A, an act to amend
the Education Law, in relation to the total
salary.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
6776
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect July 1, 2002.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE PRESIDENT: Senator LaValle.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Yeah, to
explain my vote, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: To explain your
vote?
SENATOR LAVALLE: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
Senator.
SENATOR LAVALLE: Thank you,
Madam President.
Madam President, when this bill was
in committee I voted without recommendation.
And my reason for that, although I am going to
vote for the bill today, is that this is an
issue of compensation dealing with our
district superintendents, and that this could
potentially have an impact on superintendent
salaries and other salaries.
It's my feeling, given the budget
constraints that we will be facing, that all
6777
of the issues facing education should be put
on the table at the same time dealing with
mandates and property taxes and school
expenditures and so forth.
I know that the district
superintendents have been waiting for some
relief, and in some cases this has caused us
not to attract some of the best people and
have in other cases allowed individuals to
retire early.
But putting that aside, I will vote
in the affirmative, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: You will be so
recorded as voting in the affirmative,
Senator.
Senator Kuhl, to explain your vote?
SENATOR KUHL: Yes, Madam
President. To explain my vote, yes.
This is a bill that I have carried
in the Senate and actually negotiated with the
chairman of the Assembly Education Committee.
Back in 1993, this body, along with the other
house, with the consent of the Governor,
agreed to put a cap on BOCES superintendent
salaries. At that time there was a tremendous
6778
and very abusive situation which allowed for a
Long Island school superintendent to retire
with a million-dollar golden parachute.
Since that time, this Legislature
has enacted significant reform on the BOCES
level dealing with adoption of the budgets,
et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, so that those
abuses are no longer available and no longer
able to be carried out by various school
boards at the BOCES level.
What we have found now is that
there are 19 BOCES school superintendents who
have been at this cap for some time, out of 38
existing positions in this state. Normally we
view occupational situations where there needs
to be a ladder. A BOCES school superintendent
is the top of the ladder as far as employment
goes, but at the current time they're not at
the top of the ladder salarywise.
Their salary right now is capped at
about $128,500. And while that may seem
significant, people in this chamber should
know that the average salary statewide for
school superintendents is roughly the same,
for school superintendents, and that the
6779
salary average for big schools across the
country are in the neighborhood of $175,000 a
year. So that this position, which is really
the pinnacle of administrative positions in
this state, really is very underpaid.
Keep in mind, and the bottom line
is, this is a local option to be enacted at
the local level. It has nothing to do with
state expenditures of dollars. And so for
that reason, the bill is coming forward.
And it's taken us many years to get
to this position. And certainly I vote in the
affirmative in support of the bill.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Kuhl, you
will be so recorded as voting in the
affirmative on this bill.
Senator Oppenheimer. To explain
your vote, Senator?
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Yes, thank
you. To explain my vote.
This has been very long coming.
And I think there is no county that was in a
worse situation than Southern Westchester
BOCES. We were not able to get anyone to take
the job for well over a year, close to two.
6780
And that was because there was not one
district, individual school district that was
paying as low as the BOCES superintendency.
So we finally convinced someone to take a good
salary cut and accept the job, but that was
only after the BOCES superintendency had been
vacant for a very long time.
This is absolutely essential. I
think when we originally passed the bill a
decade or so ago, maybe not that much, we
certainly didn't mean to cap it at one year
and never let it progress through the years
with the inflation that was going on, with the
increases that were going on in our school
systems and with our superintendents.
So I think this is certainly a move
that will ease the situation. We will
hopefully be able to find BOCES
superintendents who are willing to take the
job. It is an all-encompassing job and one
that has a lot -- offers a lot of support for
all the various school districts.
So I commend Randy Kuhl and am
happy to cosponsor it. Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
6781
Oppenheimer, you vote in the affirmative?
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: I am voting
in the affirmative.
THE PRESIDENT: You will be so
recorded, Senator.
Senator Dollinger, to explain your
vote.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Madam President.
This restriction on salaries I
think originated in Long Island with a
superintendent who probably inadvertently gave
his name to this law. And I'm actually proud,
Senator Kuhl, to be voting in favor of
repealing Murphy's law.
I only wish that the law of
unintended consequences could be repealed as
well, because this is clearly an instance
where the State Legislature got involved in
doing the one thing that I have always railed
against: we shouldn't be in the business of
putting artificial caps, artificial prices,
interfering with the private marketplace in
which we allow people to sell their services
and allow government or the private sector to
6782
buy those services. Let the marketplace
resolve the questions of what they're worth
and what those we charge with paying their
salaries, what they decide to pay them.
This was a bill that grew out of
the ire of a superintendent getting a
million-dollar golden parachute. I think that
I understand the motive for it. I may have
even voted for it. But my lesson in ten years
here is that if the Legislature is doing its
job, it stays out of the business of setting
salaries, setting prices, fixing the terms of
competition. Let the marketplace do it.
We're going back to the marketplace
now. That's where we belonged all along,
Madam President. I'll vote aye.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger, you will be recorded as voting in
the affirmative on this bill.
The Secretary will announce the
results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 60.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
6783
1300, by the Assembly Committee on Rules,
Assembly Print Number 11460A, an act to amend
the Education Law, in relation to appointment.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 60.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1608, by Senator Wright, Senate Print 7597, an
act to amend Chapter --
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Lay it aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1705, substituted earlier today by Member of
the Assembly Sanders, Assembly Print Number
1971, an act to amend the Executive Law, the
Civil Rights Law, and the Education Law.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Lay it aside,
please.
6784
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1707, by Senator Leibell, Senate Print 6193A,
an act in relation to legalizing, validating,
ratifying and confirming actions of the
Brewster Central School District.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 60.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1709, substituted earlier today by the
Assembly Committee on Rules, Assembly Print
Number 11710A, an act to amend the Public
Health Law, in relation to rates of payment.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Lay that bill
aside, please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
6785
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1730, substituted earlier today by the
Assembly Committee on Rules, Assembly Print
Number 11744, an act to amend the
Environmental Conservation Law, in relation to
land use.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 60.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1731, substituted earlier today by the
Assembly Committee on Rules, Assembly Print
Number 11835, an act to amend the Insurance
Law, in relation to permitting.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
6786
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 60.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1732, substituted earlier today by the
Assembly Committee on Rules, Assembly Print
Number 11515, an act to amend the Public Lands
Law, in relation to state aid.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 60.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1733, by Senator Skelos, Senate Print 7859, an
act to amend the Real Property Tax Law, in
relation to including certain vacant.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
6787
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 60.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1734, substituted earlier today by the
Assembly Committee on Rules, Assembly Print
Number 8429, an act to amend the Vehicle and
Traffic Law, in relation to reducing.
SENATOR HEVESI: Lay it aside,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1735, by Senator Kuhl, Senate Print 7871, an
act to confirm, ratify, validate and legalize
certain propositions.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 6. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
6788
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 60.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1736, substituted earlier today by the
Assembly Committee on Rules, Assembly Print
Number 8775, an act to amend the Vehicle and
Traffic Law, in relation to providing.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the 30th day.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 60.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1737, by Senator Maziarz, Senate Print 7875,
an act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law,
in relation to repeat convictions.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This
act shall take effect immediately.
6789
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 60.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1738, by Senator Wright, Senate Print 7876, an
act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law, in
relation to aggravated driving while
intoxicated.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 10. This
act shall take effect March 1, 2003.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 60.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1739, by Senator McGee, Senate Print 7877, an
act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law, in
relation to driving while ability-impaired.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
6790
THE SECRETARY: Section 17. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 60.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1740, by Senator Fuschillo, Senate Print 7879,
an act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law,
in relation to the threshold for driving while
intoxicated.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 11. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 60.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1741, by Senator Rath, Senate Print 7880, an
act to amend the Social Services Law, in
relation to medical assistance reimbursement.
6791
SENATOR HEVESI: Lay it aside,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
SENATOR BRUNO: Is there a
message of necessity at the desk, Madam
President?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, there is,
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: I would move to
accept the message.
THE PRESIDENT: The motion is to
accept the message of necessity. All in favor
please signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The message of
necessity is accepted.
Senator Hevesi, the bill is now
laid aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1742, by Senator Velella, Senate Print 7870,
an act to amend the General Municipal Law --
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Lay it aside,
6792
please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1743, substituted earlier today by the
Assembly Committee on Rules, Assembly Print
Number 11775, an act to amend the Highway Law,
in relation to designating.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 60.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
Senator Bruno, that completes the
reading of the noncontroversial calendar.
SENATOR BRUNO: Madam President,
can we at this time take up Calendar Number
1705.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read Calendar Number 1705.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
6793
1705, substituted earlier today by Member of
the Assembly Sanders, Assembly Print Number
1971, an act to amend the Executive Law, the
Civil Rights Law, and the Education Law, in
relation to prohibiting discrimination.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Explanation,
Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Hoffmann,
an explanation has been requested by Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR HOFFMANN: Thank you,
Madam President.
My first order of business is to
acknowledge the original prime sponsor of this
measure, who has left this chamber to take on
a new responsibility with the City of
New York, working with the United Nations.
And all of us are indeed indebted to Senator
Roy Goodman for his diligence in this area
over the last 30 years.
This marks the 31st year that this
bill has been before the Legislature, but the
first time that it's been before this house.
6794
I think it's appropriate to read
briefly from Senator Goodman's original
preamble, to perhaps set to rest a few of the
misconceptions about this bill, which is known
as the Sexual Orientation Nondiscrimination
Act.
In his preamble, Senator Goodman
wrote: "The Legislature reaffirms that the
State has the responsibility to act to assure
that every individual within this state is
afforded an equal opportunity to enjoy a full
and productive life, and that the failure to
provide such equal opportunity, whether
because of discrimination, prejudice,
intolerance, or inadequate education,
training, housing, or health care not only
threatens the rights and proper privileges of
its inhabitants but menaces the institutions
and foundations of a free, democratic state."
I think that with that preamble we
understand that this is indeed a compassionate
and wholly appropriate measure that is before
us today. The summary of its provisions
include, in Section 1, the intent to reaffirm
the right of every New Yorker to a full and
6795
productive life free of discrimination.
Section 2 amends Section 291 of the
Executive Law to declare the opportunity to
obtain employment, education, and the use of
places of public accommodation, as well as
ownership, use, and occupancy of housing
accommodation without discrimination because
of sexual orientation, to be a basic civil
right.
Section 3 amends Section 292 of the
Executive Law to define "sexual orientation"
as "heterosexuality, homosexuality,
bisexuality, or asexuality, whether actual or
perceived. However, nothing contained herein
shall construed to protect conduct otherwise
proscribed by law."
Section 4 amends Section 295 of the
Executive Law to expand the responsibilities
of the Division for Human Rights to include
studying the problem and working toward the
elimination of discrimination because of
sexual orientation.
Section 5 amends Section 296,
Subsection 1, of the Executive Law to prohibit
discrimination based on sexual orientation by
6796
employers, licensing agents, employment
agencies, and labor organizations. This
section also prohibits employment
advertisements and applications which express
any limitation, specification, or
discrimination as to sexual orientation.
Section 6 also amends the Executive
Law to prohibit discrimination based on sexual
orientation in the advertisement of
apprenticeship training programs.
Section 7 also amends the Executive
Law to prohibit discrimination based on sexual
orientation by owners, lessees, proprietors,
managers, superintendents, agents or employers
of places of public accommodation, resort, or
amusement.
Section 8, also amending the
Executive Law, prohibits discrimination based
on sexual orientation with respect to publicly
assisted housing accommodations.
Section 9, also amending the
Executive Law, prohibits realtors from
inducing the sale of property by representing
that a change has occurred or will -- or may
occur in the composition of a neighborhood
6797
with respect to the sexual orientation of the
neighbors.
Section 10, also amending the
Executive Law, prohibits an education
corporation or association which holds itself
out to the public to be nonsectarian from
denying the use of its facilities to any
otherwise qualified person by reason of his or
her sexual orientation.
Sections 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 also
amend other sections of existing law with
similar provisions, all designed to create
equal opportunity in this state for people of
diverse sexual orientation.
The bill does not amend -- and this
is very important for those people who are
concerned about what this bill does do -- this
bill would not amend the Human Rights Law,
Article 15, Section 11. "Nothing contained in
this section shall be construed to bar any
religious or denominational institution or
organization or any organization operated for
charitable or educational purposes which is
operated, supervised or controlled by or in
connection with a religious organization from
6798
limiting employment or sales or rental of
housing accommodations or admission to or
giving preference to persons of the same
religion or denomination or from taking such
action as is calculated by such organizations
to promote the religious principles for which
it is established or maintained."
There are those who have lobbied
vigorously against this bill, claiming that it
would dictate to religious entities how they
must conduct their internal practices. And it
is very important to establish that that would
not be the case. But where the general public
is affected, in the practice of virtually
every other aspect of our activities in this
state, it would no longer be an acceptable
course of action to discriminate against any
citizen of New York State on the basis of
their sexual orientation, real or perceived.
I want to thank the Governor for
his strong commitment to this measure. He has
established a mark of leadership that all of
us in this chamber must admire for many, many
reasons. But today is in fact a proud day
because he is going into an important area
6799
with his leadership in this measure, and we
admire him for his leadership in leading us
forward in SONDA's discussion today and in the
previous months.
I also would like to thank Senator
Bruno for his willingness to acknowledge that
the times have changed. And he said yesterday
the time has come to bring this measure to the
floor for a vote, and he committed his own
support for it at that time.
I thank all of the people who have
been patiently waiting for more than 30 years
for this measure to come to a vote in the
Senate. I thank those people who kindly and
compassionately shared their own personal
history, their own stories of discrimination,
and helped spark in those members of this
chamber a new sense of compassion and
awareness as to why we should have a law
addressing prohibition of any discrimination
for sexual orientation in New York State.
This is indeed a proud day for the
New York State Senate, Madam President. Thank
you.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Paterson.
6800
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you,
Madam President.
I want to thank Senator Hoffmann
for quite a meticulous and detailed
explanation, particularly the specificity of
Article 15, Section 11, which had become
somewhat controversial, brilliantly stated and
really underscoring that the time has come.
And like Senator Hoffmann, I want
to thank Senator Bruno for acknowledging that
the time has come by allowing this bill to
come to the floor.
In many ways, this is really the
Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 finally
applying to Americans who live in New York
State who in spite of that passage were not
afforded the same protections as those who
were benefited some 38 years ago. The fact is
that there are people in this state who are
gay and lesbian and bisexual who haven't had
the opportunity to receive fair housing and
equal opportunity in employment, credit, and
educational opportunities because of the way
they conduct their lives.
We're talking about people that
6801
have committed no offenses against society,
people who believe in the same ideals that we
do, people who believe in the same values that
we do, and yet we have, as a society, imposed
our judgment upon them.
So it's not only a legal victory
today, it's kind of a celebration. It's a
celebration of the right of people to live the
way they should want to live. In many
respects, it's the type of a life as may have
been described in the Bible in the story of
David and Jonathan that Plato made the very
basis of his philosophy: It is a deep
affection that is as pure as it is perfect.
It dictates, pervades great works of art, like
those of Shakespeare, Michelangelo and, on the
lower frequencies, those people in this state
who are just looking for fair housing and
equal employment. It is misunderstood in this
century, but it is actually fine.
We come here today to make sure
that those rights are extended and that this
historic day gives those rights to Americans
who, just by their birth and their belief in
our American system, should have had those
6802
protections for over 225 years.
And I'm proud to be standing here
as part of it. It's a day that I'll remember
in this chamber as much as any other one. And
I'm very glad to speak in favor of the bill.
I want to thank all of those who
have lobbied, all of those who have lent not
only their voices but their reputations to
passing this legislation. This really is a
time not only to celebrate but to remember
those who 31 and a half years ago first tried
to enact this legislation when they introduced
a bill. Not all of them are here to see it,
but I know wherever they are that they are
smiling on us, who finished a job that those
Americans, not only gays and lesbians but
people who are not, struggled unremittingly
and courageously over the years to try to
achieve.
We'll all remember we were here
today, and I'll bet more of us will say one
day that they voted for this bill.
(Laughter.)
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
6803
President. On the bill.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
on the bill, Senator.
SENATOR DUANE: I'd first like to
say that it's quite a challenge to be the only
openly gay person in the State Senate. It's
hard to be the only one. There are times when
I'm tempted to remain quiet and not speak out
against those issues which are harmful to the
gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender
community.
And honestly, every time I speak
out, it's like coming out all over again.
Maybe it's gotten a little bit easier over
time. But I always have to make the decision
whether to come out by speaking out.
And if I didn't, I guess I wouldn't
get the hate mail and those horrible phone
calls and, you know, hear about jokes which
are not funny at all. You know, sometimes
when I've been in the press -- and I'm often
asked on these issues -- all of a sudden, in
the middle of the night, I'll get phone calls,
people will ring my door buzzer. And I
thought that that came with the territory.
6804
And when I started to go out with
my now partner, Louis, the first time that I
was in the paper when we were together and the
phone started ringing and the doorbell
started, he said: "What is going on? What is
this?" And as I say, I just kind of thought
it came with the territory.
So to put his mind at ease, and I
guess, you know, to be smart, I took my name
off the buzzer and I took my name off my
mailbox so that -- I wouldn't take my address
or phone number out of the phone book, but I
wanted to make it a little bit harder --
actually, something else. What happened was,
one night when we came home from the movies,
there was a person sitting outside our door.
And even I was frightened then.
And so I took my name off the
mailbox and the doorbell, but I didn't take my
name out of the phone book and I didn't take
my address out. So now if someone wants to
get to me in my apartment building, they're
going to have to check on all the doors.
But when I talk to other gay
elected officials from around the country and
6805
right here in New York State, we're all
subjected to the same thing. And you can only
imagine what it's like for people to come out
who aren't that high-profile, who don't have
the protection of a public office. I mean, it
comes with the territory. And I don't want
you to feel badly for me, because I have a job
which I love. But I say it as an example of
what happens in the world.
You know, when I was elected I
vowed that I would bring my voice to the halls
of government, and especially for those who
had no voice, and to demand justice for people
that don't have a voice. And I think it's the
right thing to do, and I'm still committed to
doing it.
You know, history is being made in
New York State today. Today we're voting on
the Sexual Orientation Nondiscrimination Act,
which will protect New Yorkers from being
denied employment, housing, public
accommodations, education and credit simply
due to their sexual orientation. But this
will improve the quality of life for all
New Yorkers, just as it did when we created
6806
these exact same protections for citizens
based on race, sex, creed, color, national
origin, disability, age, and marital status.
New York now joins 12 other states,
including the District of Columbia, in
protecting citizens from discrimination based
on sexual orientation. With your vote today,
we can hold our heads up high, knowing that
for so many of you this will be a politically
courageous thing for you to do as well as the
right thing to do. And I'd like to thank so
many of you in advance for your
open-mindedness, your courage, and your
support.
Sadly, this is also a bittersweet
day for me as well as for many New Yorkers who
wanted to include freedom from discrimination
for everyone as part of today's vote. On the
one hand, we are witnessing an event on the
floor of the State Senate that has been over
30 years in the making. Gay and lesbian
New Yorkers will no longer have to risk losing
their basic necessities merely because of who
they are. And, yes, votes such as this are
the main reason why I entered public service.
6807
There's a glaring omission, though,
which overshadows this bill, and it is of such
importance that it made me pause before
deciding to vote for this bill. And that's
something I never dreamed could happen. The
bill that we are voting on today excludes
those who probably could use these protections
the most, our transgendered citizens.
Madam President, I believe there's
an amendment at the desk and I ask that we
waive its reading and I ask to be heard on the
amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: There is,
Senator, and you may proceed on the amendment.
The reading is waived.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President. Thank you.
The amendment is quite simple but
its implications are enormous. This amendment
replaces the language of the bill and replaces
it with my version of SONDA, S1985. My
amendment is exactly identical to the bill
before us and provides the exact same
protections based on sexual orientation.
However, my bill adds one more category,
6808
gender identity and expression.
"Gender" is defined in my bill as
gender identity, self-image, appearance,
behavior or expression, whether or not that
gender identity, self-image, appearance,
behavior or expression is different from that
traditionally associated with the legal sex
assigned to that person at birth.
This language should be included in
the current SONDA legislation to ensure that
our transgendered citizens are protected from
discrimination. It is vitally important.
"Transgender" refers to
transsexuals, including male and female
preoperative, postoperative, and nonoperative,
as well as drag performers, cross-dressers and
others who do not strictly adhere to
traditional gender roles and expressions. It
includes gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and
heterosexuals, including those with effeminate
or masculine presentation.
Gender-inclusive civil rights is
needed to protect both those who identify as
transgender and gender-variant lesbians and
gay men who are routinely denied access to
6809
basic health care, service in restaurants or
stores, housing, employment, and contractual
services because of their gender identity and
expression.
Many preoperative and postoperative
transsexuals are fired the moment their
employers find out about their plan to undergo
sex reassignment surgery or learn they already
have undergone such surgery. Transgender
people often face severe discrimination when
attempting to find a place to live. Many
transgender and gender-variant people are
denied equal treatment in public
accommodations. They are asked to leave
restaurants, hotels, stores, medical
facilities, and educational institutions.
They are denied credit and even refused access
to rest-room facilities.
Even those who do not express their
gender variance in the workplace live in fear
that their employer will discover the fact
that they cross-dress in their private lives
and fire them because of it.
The leading fact for HIV infections
among people of transgender experience is
6810
discrimination. Every day homeless people are
not afforded a shelter bed because of their
gender expression. Many are forced into
high-risk activities such as prostitution, if
only to obtain a safe place to sleep for
another night.
It's heartbreaking. In fact,
there's a whole category of children who I
call the port kids because they live and work
around New York City's Port Authority. They
have no place to live, they've been thrown out
of their homes, and they make their living in
ways that they do not even want to discuss
because of the shame. And yet they go back
and do it again the next night, because that's
how they survive. The port people live and
work at night around the Port Authority Bus
Terminal.
So affording protections to
transgendered people is not a new idea, and
it's an idea whose time has come in New York.
Two states, Minnesota and Rhode Island,
already afford these protections, and 37
cities have passed nondiscrimination laws
which protect transgendered people. I firmly
6811
believe that the only hope many transgendered
individuals have for a decent, safe and
rewarding life is to pass legislation which
protects them from discrimination. Amending
SONDA can make a really difference in their
lives today, and we should not miss this
opportunity.
By voting for this amendment, we
will send a powerful message that no
New Yorker deserves to be discriminated
against, that no New Yorker deserves to be
homeless and hungry simply because they do not
conform to traditional views of gender
identity.
I offer this amendment today with a
heavy heart. There are those small but
powerful groups in the gay community who are
willing to turn their backs on the transgender
community simply to ensure that a watered-down
version of SONDA passes today. I personally
have been a victim of a vicious and
mean-spirited campaign which accuses me of
trying to kill SONDA merely because I am in
favor of transgender inclusion.
And I want everyone to know I have
6812
no interest in killing SONDA. SONDA is
something which has been a major part of my
platform since before the day I got here. And
I want to make this crystal-clear, that while
I support SONDA wholeheartedly -- and I hope
all of you will -- I will not be bullied,
shamed, or threatened into retracting my
support for the transgender community, and no
amount of money or threats to withhold money
will ever convince me otherwise.
I'm embarrassed today for my
community. Instead of banding together to
ensure protection for all, we are fighting
among ourselves and greedily seeking our own
self-interested version of SONDA. This is
tragic, especially in light of the example
given to us by the African-American,
Puerto Rican, and Hispanic caucuses in their
dealings on hate crime legislation. Hate
crime legislation finally became law in
New York in 2000. It could have been law in
1990, but courageous legislators, including
and especially David Paterson, stood their
ground and insisted that they would not
support any version of hate crimes which did
6813
not include the gay and lesbian community.
Because of their convictions, we
today have a comprehensive hate crimes law in
New York. Thank you. I want you to know that
although some of the gay and lesbian community
have chosen not to follow your example, there
are those including me who will never forget
it and will always fight to include those less
fortunate than ourselves when considering
legislation.
So I urge my colleagues today to do
the right thing and vote for this amendment.
We were elected to the Legislature to protect
all of our citizens, and I believe I have
outlined how essential it is to protect our
transgendered citizens.
SENATOR HEVESI: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Duane,
are you moving that the bill be so amended?
SENATOR DUANE: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: All right.
Senator Hevesi.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you, Madam
President. I'd like an opportunity to be
6814
heard on the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT: On the amendment.
You may proceed.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you, Madam
President.
I rise today in support of Senator
Duane's amendment, and I do so in the context
of being arguably the most conservative
Democrat within the Democratic conference,
possibly with the exception of Senator
Gentile.
And I understand that this entire
issue of SONDA is very complicated, there are
lots of nances to it, and when you add the
transgender component, it becomes even more
complicated for many people.
So let me simplify it for everybody
where I'm coming from so, since I am a
conservative Democrat and my district is a
fairly solidly Democratic district, but a
moderate district, and I've got religious
organizations in my district, and rabbis, and
many of whom have contacted me opposed to not
only a transgendered component but SONDA in
and of itself. So let me simplify it.
6815
I oppose anyone for any reason
being discriminated against. I don't care
whether or not that individual is being judged
by what the color of their skin is or their
gender or their age or their sexual
orientation. I don't care either, Madam
President, whether or not that individual has
a predisposition to some behavior or a
lifestyle that they were born with or whether
they choose to engage in that behavior. I
don't care.
What I care about is that the
people that we attempt to protect through hate
crimes, and through what we're doing today,
are the people who are consistently victimized
because of those characteristics. It's
irrelevant to me whether, even though it's
distasteful to some people, whether they may
find it personally distasteful or whether the
dictates of someone's religion -- and I have
great respect for everyone's opinions on
this -- but whether the religion says that
there is something wrong with a particular
behavior.
In my opinion, as long as the
6816
behavior doesn't harm anybody, even if it
offends somebody's sensibilities, and the
person who practices it through their own
choice or because they don't have a choice, is
victimized consistently and targeted because
of that behavior, then we in the government
have to step in and protect them. That's what
SONDA does.
And I too am disappointed, Senator
Duane pointed out, that the transgendered
community is not included in this bill, for
the reasons that I've just stated. But
particularly because the way this all came
about really was reprehensible.
And, Madam President, let me be
very clear on this, and I'll speak on the main
component of SONDA in a similar context: We
didn't get this bill on the floor today
because we had an open debate and discussion
and people can, if there's a consensus, move a
bill to the floor and vote on it. And I'll
use the hate crimes example. When finally
hate crimes was allowed out onto the floor, it
passed with a strong majority. It even passed
with the majority of the Republican
6817
conference. Yet it had been bottled up for
years.
So the way this came to the floor
today was not through some democratic process,
although I commend the Republican leadership a
little bit -- I want to be a little bit
charitable, because they are finally doing
it -- for bringing it here. But it was done
because Governor Pataki contacted the Empire
State Pride Agenda and essentially said to
them: If you endorse me, I'll push Senator
Bruno to go ahead and bring this to the floor.
I mean, this is not Dan Hevesi
saying this. This has been reported in the
New York Times. And the problem I see is that
we have become so complacent that this is now
just accepted. It's somewhat shameless.
And the Empire State Pride Agenda,
I don't know whether to fault them for their
actions here, because they are trying to
achieve an ends. I don't know whether they
pressed the Governor to include transgendered
individuals. I don't know what they did.
But I will tell you this. When I
first ran for the Senate in 1998, I filled out
6818
a questionnaire for the Empire State Pride
Agenda, a voluminous questionnaire. And I
thought I had agreed with them on almost every
issue. I didn't on one, one question. And
they withheld their endorsement of me in 1998
because of it. They were very principled at
the time.
But Governor Pataki -- and I guess
I applaud him somewhat for finally moving on
this, even though it was done exclusively in
the name of political expediency -- the
Governor has been in office for eight years
now and hasn't done anything on this. And so
the Empire State Pride Agenda gets boxed into
a position at the end where they have to make
a terrible choice. And they made that choice.
And it may be the right choice; I'm not sure.
But the reason I'm saying all this,
Madam President, is that the process here is
just awful. And this is my final day in the
Legislature here. And I guess I'll use this
moment to just beg everybody, we've got to
change the process here. This is just bad,
bad government.
So having said all that, I support
6819
Senator Duane's amendment on transgendered
individuals. They're being targeted. I'm
sorry if it offends some people, their
behavior. It doesn't hurt anybody. The only
people being hurt are the people who are being
targeted. Transgendered people are being
targeted. Gay people are being targeted.
Let's protect them.
It is not an intellectual injustice
to both oppose homosexuality on religious
grounds or because you personally find it
distasteful and at the same time suggest that
even though I have those feelings, I don't
want anybody victimized. Nobody should be
thrown out on the street from their housing
because they're gay or transgendered or a
lesbian or bisexual. They shouldn't. They
shouldn't be denied education. And you can
oppose homosexuality and still support this
bill. And you can still support the amendment
that includes transgendered individuals.
And I respect all the people in
this house who are going to vote against the
amendment, and I respect the people who are
going to vote against SONDA. That is your
6820
right to do it. And God bless us for at least
having the opportunity today, though it came
about through a really bad process, of having
an open discussion about it.
So having said that, I applaud
Senator Duane for his years of advocacy on
this and reject any insinuation that he was
trying to tank SONDA for some improper reason.
I commend Senator Nancy Larraine Hoffmann,
Republican State -- former Republican State
Senator Roy Goodman, who carried this for many
years, and everybody who just keeps an open
mind about this, even if you wind up
disagreeing with the way the vote winds up
going today.
So I support this amendment here
today, and I will be supporting SONDA also.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Those Senators in
agreement with the amendment, please signify
by raising your hand.
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
agreement are Senators Andrews, Breslin,
Brown, Connor, Dollinger, Duane, Gonzalez,
Hassell-Thompson, Hevesi, L. Krueger,
6821
Montgomery, Onorato, Paterson, Sampson,
Santiago, Schneiderman, A. Smith, Stachowski,
and Senator Stavisky.
THE PRESIDENT: The amendment is
lost.
Senator Maltese, on the bill.
SENATOR DUANE: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Maltese,
Senator Duane has indicated he'd still like to
speak on the bill.
Senator Duane, you may proceed on
the bill.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Madam
President, to continue on the bill.
Obviously I'm not surprised at the
outcome, and I'm disappointed that the
amendment failed. But I am encouraged by the
good number of votes and pleased about the
progress that we've seen today.
You know, when I first entered the
Senate in 1999, I don't really think that many
of my colleagues knew very much about the
transgender community. And I think I might
have been the first person to actually say
"transgender" on the floor of the Senate. I'm
6822
not betting on that, but I think it's probably
true. And I think I might have been the first
person to bring someone of transgender
experience onto the floor when I brought on
Barbara Ann Perina.
So we've come a long way in the
short years that I've been here in the Senate.
And just last week Senate Majority Leader
Bruno held a press conference where SONDA and
the issue of transgender inclusion was
addressed. I mean, who could have imagined
that five years ago?
So anyway, I promise the
transgender community I'm not going to forget
and I'm not going to give up the fight for
your inclusion. The battle for that begins
right away.
And on the bill, I am very, very
happy that thousands and thousands of
New Yorkers will no longer have to face fear
of discrimination based on their sexual
orientation. And I can assure you, everyone,
that this legislation will impact the lives of
thousands of New Yorkers.
When I first started to come here,
6823
I would drive along 90 -- or 787, actually --
or right where they meet (laughter), and I
would see a big sign for Cracker Barrel.
Cracker Barrel is a restaurant that fires
people if they think that they're gay or
wouldn't hire people if they thought they were
gay. Now, they did succumb to the pressure of
the shareholders and based on a shareholder
vote, they just a couple of weeks ago changed
their policies. But every time I passed that
Cracker Barrel billboard, I thought: Look at
that, a company here in New York State that's
allowed to discriminate based on sexual
orientation.
So I'm glad that that will no
longer be the case, I hope, and I think, in
New York State today. And I'm very grateful
and I feel an awful lot of humility to be a
member of this body on such a historic day.
You know, the discrimination
against gay people starts at such a young age.
Think about it. If a child is
African-American or Jewish and they're in the
playground and some other child says something
horrible to them, makes some kind of bigoted
6824
remark, what happens? Well, that child goes
home to their parents, whoever the adult is in
their lives, and they say: This terrible
thing happened today, this child called me
this horrible name, my friend, they were
making fun of me in the playground, I can't
take it.
And that parent, who probably looks
like that child, maybe Asian like that child
is Asian, or is raising the child in the same
religion, will say: That's terrible. You
should be proud of who you are. Hopefully
that parent will go to the school, talk to the
teacher, the principal, find out why this is
happening to their child that they're being
made fun of.
Well, what happens if you're a gay
kid -- or not a gay kid, but someone taunts
you because they think you are? What happens
to you? You go home that night and you don't
say anything to anyone because you think what
you are is so terrible that you can't tell the
parent or the adult in your life what happened
to you. And for many of us, that kind of scar
takes a lifetime to overcome. And sadly, some
6825
people never overcome that.
And so what we're doing today is so
very important. Passing SONDA is very, very
important. I would be remiss if I didn't
point out, though, that there are glaring
problems with the New York Division of Human
Rights. Currently, there's a huge backlog
there. Years and years go by before cases are
resolved. With the passage of SONDA, the
challenge in that agency will be even greater.
And so I hope that we will also
take to heart how important it is to reform
that agency, which is the place in New York
State where you can go if you have been
discriminated against, no matter what the
reason.
I also think we ought to have a
private right of action for people who are
discriminated against. But I'll save that for
another day, and I'm sure you're glad to hear
that. (Laughter.)
I want to conclude by thanking the
early activists of the gay, lesbian, bisexual
and transgender community, those brave and
farsighted individuals who fought so hard and
6826
suffered so much so that we could get to this
point today. There are those who lived proud
lives before Stonewall, those who fought
against oppression at Stonewall, and those who
struggled to found organizations, many of
which still support us today, though with
different configurations and many more members
and supporters. Unfortunately, a lot of those
early people, early pioneers, have died before
this bill came to the floor today.
I want to thank the parents of gay
people who have stood with us, as well as the
nongay people who have supported us and fought
for us. I'd like to thank the activists and
organizations, including the Empire State
Pride Agenda, members and staff from the early
days before it was even called the Pride
Agenda, and those who are with the
organization today. In the movement, we're
all family members, we all fight with each
other, we all work with each other, and today
we will celebrate the passage of this
legislation today.
I also want to thank all the
legislators, past and present, who supported
6827
our civil rights. I want to thank Governor
Pataki and Senator Joe Bruno. And I want to
thank those who have supported these civil
rights, especially my friend, the pioneering
Assembly Member Deborah Glick, and Steve
Sanders, the Assembly sponsor of this
legislation. And I want to thank in advance
everyone who is going to vote for this bill.
Today is a day for us to celebrate.
And let's celebrate with those who are now
going to have statewide protections. And you
know what? Tomorrow starts another chapter of
fighting for equality for all New Yorkers.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Maltese.
On the bill?
SENATOR MALTESE: Madam
President, on the bill.
First of all, I would like to
express our appreciation to the leader for
making it very clear to us who oppose this
legislation that this was a question of
conscience and would be determined as a
question of conscience without pressure of any
kind.
6828
I'll be relatively brief, since all
of us have had in excess of 30 years, and
perhaps longer, to study and listen to the
arguments, pro and con. I'd like to express a
couple of concerns that we have, or I have as
an attorney.
My first concern is that while the
legislation specifically excludes
owner-occupied two-family houses from the --
from this legislation, it does not exclude
owner-occupied premises that may be larger and
have more families. In addition, it does not
exempt any non-owner-occupied premises. And I
think that's something that could very well
lead to disquiet in communities that I
represent and other communities, and in the
feelings of many, many people who regard
homosexuality as immoral.
Next, I would like to bring up the
concern that has been expressed to me by
religious leaders, that while the exemptions
do apply to religious educational institutions
as far as the selection of prospective
students, there does not appear to be, in the
advice of counsel, any exemption for religious
6829
institutions in their hiring practices. And
this seems to be an infringement upon their
religious rights and probably would be cause
for court litigation in the future.
There are many, many New Yorkers
that feel that by conferring these rights on
homosexual men and women, they are infringing
on their rights as Catholics or those that are
members and see themselves as the inheritors
of 2000 years of Judeo-Christian morality.
The statute itself in the preamble
cites that it is not intended to promote a
particular course of conduct or a way of life.
I respectfully submit that the passage of this
legislation would in fact do that very thing.
Homosexuals or anyone else, for
that matter, do not have the right to have no
one disagree with them as to the morality of
homosexuality. Nor do they have a right to be
free from what would be called attitudinal
discrimination against their sexual
orientation.
Society will respond to this
legislation as it has responded to
homosexuality over the years. There has been
6830
a definite change in the feelings and emotions
generated by not only homosexuality but this
specific piece of legislation.
The Catholic Church and the
Catholic Conference, which has made its views
well known, have indicated and alluded to the
Catholic catechism, which speaks about
respect, compassion and sensitivity for
everyone, including specifically homosexuals.
The other groups that have come
forward I feel deserve to be respected here in
this house. The church groups, the many
church groups that are concerned about
children and about the morality of their
members have expressed severe concerns and
reservations about the passage of this
legislation.
The bill, there is no question the
bill has profound social, legal, and moral
aspects. The bill itself is, I feel, a step
in the wrong direction. We cannot legislate
politeness. We cannot legislation courtesy.
We cannot legislate the way people feel. I
think that comes through mutual respect.
I do not think that everyone who
6831
opposes this bill can be called a bigot, as
has been done in some quarters, and certainly
not in these chambers, or lacks compassion or
tolerance. Much has been said over the last
few years about the fact that all of us know
or -- know people who are gay or that all of
us, perhaps, in our family or close friends,
have people who are gay. I don't think that
that necessarily means that we have to accept
that as a grounds for voting for this
legislation.
At the same time, because this is
such an emotional issue, I think that we who
oppose the bill can oppose it in good
conscience. As I said at the very beginning,
this has been termed a question of conscience
by the Majority Leader and some of us. And
over the some 30 years that I've been here in
various capacities, I've seen that the three
issues that arouse these same emotions are
abortion, the death penalty, and homosexual
rights.
I think that the persons across the
state and across the nation that feel that
this confers a special status on homosexuals,
6832
I think they're correct. I think that this
will lead to an attitudinal change that not
only still provides for compassion for all of
our citizens, irrespective of sexual
orientation; at the same time, this is a
watershed issue, there's no question. I share
that reasoning with the supporters of this
bill.
This is something that we as
legislators should take a good, hard look at
before we decide to vote whichever way we
decide to vote. In the course of the years
that I've been here, I've had occasion to
speak to legislators, as I indicated, on the
question especially of abortion and the death
penalty, legislators who were sorry that or
expressed remorse -- and as a matter of fact,
even a governor who had expressed sorrow or
remorse at a prior position. And I just ask
respectfully my colleagues, no matter how they
vote, to treat this as a question of
conscience and vote their conscience.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Krueger.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: Thank you,
Madam President.
6833
THE PRESIDENT: On the bill?
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: Yes, on the
bill, thank you. Excuse me, I was listening
to Senator Maltese.
We talk about this as a question of
conscience, or some talk about it as a
question of conscience. And I will make the
argument, and I will make the argument up
front, that I will of course be voting for
this bill. This is simple. We're trying make
this too complicated.
If you ask yourself the question do
you believe that anyone in our state should be
discriminated against, you have to answer no,
you don't believe in discrimination. No one
who sits in this body is going to stand up and
say yes, I want people to be discriminated
against because of who they are. I challenge
that none of you will.
That's all this bill is. Perhaps
31 years ago it was a more complex issue in
people's lives. Times have changed. We do
learn. Sixty years ago, in this country, you
still had people debating the right to
discriminate against people because of the
6834
color of their skin. If you were
African-American in this country, it was okay
to be discriminated against in statehouses.
And it was wrong then, but there were people
in statehouses all over this country who were
prepared to discriminate against people
because of the color of their skin.
This country has a history -- not a
proud history, but a history of discriminating
against people based on their religious
beliefs. And yet today there is no one in
this house, I would argue, who would stand up
and say: Yes, I support discrimination
because of someone's religion.
And there have been points in the
history of this country where people felt it
was okay to discriminate because of your
gender. Women could be discriminated against
under the law.
So this is a progressive process
we've been going through in this country. But
again, it is the year 2002. It is way past
the time when I would argue anyone sitting in
a statehouse anywhere in this country would
stand up for discrimination.
6835
And so for me, I have to ask anyone
who thinks that it is an issue of conscience
to support discrimination: How are you
defining that for yourself today? This is not
a bill that's talking about asking religious
organizations to change their religious
teachings. This is a bill saying that in the
State of New York we will not tolerate
discrimination. It is simple. It is way past
due.
I am sorry that Tom Duane's
amendment to include transgender members of
our community was not included, because I
would argue it's exactly the same question:
Do you support discrimination? We can't
support discrimination. No one in this house
supports it.
And again, don't overcomplicate the
issue. No one should be thrown out of their
job or thrown out of their house or fail to
get equal rights under the laws of New York
State because of their sexual orientation or
their gender identification. It's simply not
okay. It's simply past time that we move this
bill.
6836
I appreciate Dan Hevesi's comments
earlier from a conservative perspective about
why this bill may or may not have gotten here
and his support for it. I will applaud
everyone for their support for this bill today
to get it done, because we need to move
forward. And we need to not continue to
debate in the State of New York whether or not
it is ever okay to discriminate against any of
our citizens.
So thank you to everyone who does
vote for this bill today. And ask yourself
the question, if you vote no, what is your
definition of conscience? Thank you very
much.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Montgomery. On the bill?
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, Madam
President.
I would just like to join my other
colleagues in thanking the sponsor.
Certainly, Senator Hoffmann, you can take
credit, but we do know that Senator Goodman
carried it many years before. And our
6837
Majority Leader, for allowing this process to
take place. I wish we could have this process
for every single issue we have to deal with
that's difficult, that we can open it up and
those of us who decide we can support, do
that, and those of us who can't, vote no.
But today is really a very special
day because I think it reflects one of the
issues that this nation has, from the very
almost inception and certainly very beginning
of our democratic government, has had to deal
with. And that is what do we do to make sure
that every single individual that we consider
an American be granted equal rights. It's
what our Civil War was about. We had to go
through years of struggle for civil rights and
voting rights for women and for
African-Americans, for 18-year-olds. We've
had to deal with this issue. What do we do
about the rights of all individuals to make
sure that what I believe to be -- even though
the Constitution had an error in it, it
referred to some people as 3/5th, we have
essentially, our country has had to live that
down in many, many respects.
6838
So this I think today is an
indication. And there are hundreds and
thousands of people who live in my district --
they are my neighbors, they are my friends, my
staff, my family -- these are the people who
are going to be extremely happy because we are
doing what has been given a charge to us, and
that is to make a legal contract between two
people valid, not based on anything except
that they are a legal family.
And so I feel very good about this.
It removes a sort of weight from our
shoulders. I know that we still have a little
bit more to do -- a lot more to do, actually.
But certainly this is a great step. It's in
the tradition of what America represents. And
I believe that we all can take pride in the
fact that -- certainly those of us who support
this legislation can take pride in that we're
taking this step today.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Stavisky.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Madam
President, many of you in this chamber
remember my husband. What some of you may not
6839
know is that he wrote his master's thesis and
Ph.D. dissertation on skilled black labor in
the antebellum South. He subsequently taught
black history. And people would ask Leonard,
Why black history? And he always had a very
simple answer: Discrimination against one is
discrimination against everyone.
Reminds me of the commercial "You
don't have to be Jewish to like Levy's rye
bread." (Laughter.) And you don't have to be
gay, et cetera, to understand that
discrimination is wrong.
Take a look at the bill we have
before us. It only adds two words to the
various sections that deal with
discrimination. Those two words are "sexual
orientation." Not a very dramatic change, but
I believe a change long overdue.
I vote aye.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Breslin.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Thank you,
Madam President.
I join with many of my fellow
Democrats in applauding the sponsors of this
bill and those who support it. And as my
6840
fellow Democrats have said, whenever there's a
little bit of prejudice against any one of us,
there's prejudice against all of us.
And even though many of us don't
remember actually, we remember by reading when
there were signs in Boston in windows which
said "No Catholics need apply" or when Jews
were precluded from joining clubs or blacks
weren't allowed in West Point. All within
recent memory. And again, whenever there's
discrimination against one of us, there's
discrimination against all of us.
And even though I don't agree that
he's the most conservative member of our
Democratic side, Senator Hevesi was eloquent
in saying that based upon the discrimination,
discrimination against anyone is sufficient
for us to rise and say if we can't do it
amongst ourselves, we must do it by statute.
This statute by the addition, as
Senator Stavisky has said, of including the
words "sexual orientation," makes it the law.
Again, it would be much better if we could do
it between and among ourselves. But when that
isn't possible, when that discrimination
6841
continues to exist, and continues to exist on
a day-in-day-out basis, as Senator Duane so
beautifully expressed, then it's time for us
to come together as a body and time for us to
come together as Democrats and Republicans and
pass this very monumental legislation.
And I urge all of my fellow
Senators to vote in the affirmative.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you,
Madam President. On the bill.
I must say that as I've listened to
the debate and people have come forward to
lobby on this piece of legislation, something
has struck me fairly dramatically. And what
struck me is how much the arguments against
this legislation have in common with arguments
that were made against the efforts to end
discrimination based on race and the efforts
to end discrimination based on religion.
Senator Breslin spoke about this briefly.
But I think that in all honesty I
must agree with Senator Krueger. I think that
6842
as a matter of conscience I don't really
understand the basis for saying we should
discriminate against one group of New Yorkers
because of what they are as opposed to what
they do.
We all discriminate. We
discriminate when we make decisions about what
kind of car we want. The word
"discrimination" is not in and of itself evil.
But there's a difference between
discriminating against someone because they've
committed some sort of act that harms another
and discriminates against someone because of
the way they were born. And that is what this
has in common with discrimination against
religion, discrimination against people based
on race. And I have not heard one argument
that in any way changes my mind on that
central issue.
There are arguments made that this
will disrupt religious institutions and
organizations. Well, in New York City we've
had a law, essentially the same law on the
books since 1986. There's been no such
disruption. Everyone is going on with
6843
business. And the people who are gay in the
City of New York have that additional
protection, that additional assurance that if
they commit some sort of act of misconduct,
then they may face consequences. But just
because of what they are, how they are born
and how they are living their lives, with no
harm to anyone else, they cannot be
discriminated against.
I would urge that any religious
objections to this should really focus in on
the centrality of the legislation and the
moderate nature of this bill. The Republican
mayor of New York City, who's been supervising
the administration of this bill since he was
elected, has submitted a memo in support. The
Republican governor of New Jersey, Christine
Whitman, and I want to quote from her when
they were enacting legislation:
"Discrimination regardless of reason in any
aspect of daily life must be identified,
fought and eliminated. Diminishing the rights
of any individual or any group will inevitably
lead to the diminishing of us all.
So this is not something that is a
6844
partisan issue as a matter of conscience. And
I would respectfully submit it's not a
religious issue as a matter of conscience. I
don't want to let this debate pass without
recognizing the fact that many of the major
religious organizations in the state of
New York support this bill, including the
New York State Council of Churches, including
the Episcopal Diocese of New York, the
American Jewish Congress, the Central
Conference of American Rabbis, New York
Conferences of the United Methodist Church and
the United Church of Christ.
I think that this is a fundamental
step forward. I'm sorry it took so long. I'm
sorry that our transgendered brothers and
sisters are left out. We are not abandoning
that fight here today with the passing of this
bill.
But I would respectfully request
that all of my colleagues who are looking at
this legislation and thinking about it as a
matter of conscience, as Senator Maltese said,
to the extent that you are thinking about your
religious issue views, your fundamental
6845
understanding of what it is to be an American
and what this country stands for on the issue
of discrimination, that you really take a
close look at the reality of life in the city
of New York.
This doesn't hurt anyone. This
protects people. And I don't disrespect
people who have different views from me, but I
certainly do not in any way, shape, or form
accept the argument that there our religions
should require us to accept discrimination
against people based on what they are. There
were arguments like that made against efforts
to integrate the races. There were arguments
like that made against efforts to end
discrimination against Jews and Catholics.
And I think that we're seeing here
today the passing of another barrier. I hope
it passes overwhelmingly. I think it should
pass overwhelmingly. It's been a long time
coming. There are other steps still to take.
But I think that it's important for us as a
state and as a body in the Senate to send a
strong signal that we do not support
discrimination against people based on what
6846
they are as opposed to what they do.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Dollinger.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
Madam President.
I want to just comment on the
politics that brought this here, address for a
couple of minutes the arguments that have been
made against this bill, and then talk about
what I think this bill means.
I want to thank Senator Bruno for
allowing this bill to come to the floor 32
years, 30 years after its first drafting. It
seems to me that we've waited a long time to
create freedom in this state. But I commend
Senator Bruno for his courage in bringing this
to the floor.
To those who have advocated for
this bill, I would simply like to quote an old
line from something my children sang in
kindergarten: "Make new friends, but keep the
old. One is silver, the other's gold." And
those who have stood up, from Senator
Ohrenstein all the way that this bill has been
6847
in this house, I think the gold support of
those who have stood up and argued for this
bill for decades must be recognized.
Secondly, the two arguments that
I've heard most often against this bill in my
judgment, when analyzed in detail, don't hold
water. The first is that this bill creates
special rights for one particular group. Let
me just remind everyone of the history of
New York State's Human Rights Law.
After the bill was first passed in
the '60s, which included just race and color,
there was a question about whether religion,
religious beliefs were protected or whether
you could discriminate against someone, as
Senator Schneiderman said, because they were
Jewish or Catholic or fundamentalist Christian
or Seventh Day Adventist.
The State Legislature in 1967
amended the bill and specifically included
religion. No one on that day said we're
creating special rights for religious people.
No one said that. What they said was, we're
going to prevent people's religious beliefs
from being held against them when they want to
6848
rent an apartment or when they want to take a
job. Because what you believe on Sunday
doesn't affect how you work on Monday.
In 1984, we again amended the law,
and we included provisions about marital
status, so that you couldn't be discriminated
against whether you were married or single.
And no one said we are creating special rights
for those who are married or we're creating
special rights for those who are single.
Then, sure enough, we added a
provision that I think Senator LaValle argued
for: Genetic predisposition. We specifically
included in our Human Rights Law the notion
that your genetic predisposition could not be
held against you, that that which you
inherited from your mother and your father
could not be used as a basis for someone to
say we're not going to allow you or we won't
rent an apartment to you or we won't allow you
to build a house.
And no one said in this chamber
we're creating special rights for people who
suffer from genetic predispositions. No one
said it. It wasn't talked about then.
6849
And lastly, we made changes that
dealt with issues of disability -- blind
people, people who had hearing problems. And
we specifically said you can't discriminate
against them if they have hearing aids or if
they have visual aids, because we said those
are fundamental rights, they're not special
rights. And no one in this chamber said we
were creating special rights for those people.
Why is it today when we extend this
to sexual orientation does anyone say we're
creating a special right? We're not creating
a special right. We're simply extending the
same protections that we now extend on the
basis of -- and I'll read from it -- age,
race, creed, color, national origin, sex,
disability, genetic predisposition or carrier
status, or marital status of any individual.
I would suggest, ladies and
gentlemen, that every person in this chamber
today, every single person, is protected in
one way or another by our Human Rights Law,
because we won't allow other individuals to
prejudge you by what you believe, by what you
look like, by what genes you inherit from your
6850
parents. And neither today should we do that
on the basis of sexual orientation. We're not
creating special rights; we're simply creating
human rights.
The second argument that I've heard
that people have said: This bill today will
somehow condone a lifestyle, that we will
somehow give the power of government to a
particular lifestyle. I would just suggest to
you that when you set people free, when you
give them free will, when you give them free
choice, you are not condoning what they do.
You are telling them that they are free to
make their own choices, to live their own
lives. Government, by simply saying you are
free, isn't being held accountable for what
you do with that freedom.
It seems to me, ladies and
gentlemen, that this bill is all about
freedom. And I'm quite disappointed that
people would say New York should not be a
freer place.
The law of freedom is very simple.
In our Bill of Rights we said that government
cannot do certain things, cannot take away
6851
freedoms for the people. And that Bill of
Rights says that government can't do these
things. And we amended it with the 13th,
14th, and 15th Amendment. And we expanded the
protections that people had so that they could
be free.
And then we decided in the late
1950s that it wasn't enough just to make
people free, but government actually had to
intervene to be an ensurer of that freedom,
that government had to tell private
individuals that they could not interfere with
other people's freedom, with their freedom of
choice, with their freedom of personhood, with
their right to live their own lives without
hurting anyone else and make their own choices
about what they do. Live their own lives.
Ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to
leave this chamber after today and I will not
come back as a member. But today I'm
enormously proud that in one of the last votes
I ever am going to cast, I'm going to make
New York State a freer place. I'm going to
take the words of that old song that we sing
all the time, "My Country 'Tis of Thee:" "from
6852
every mountainside, let freedom ring."
When we pass this bill and it
becomes law, as it should, the freedom to be
free from prejudice for those who have been
discriminated against will become a reality.
New York, in a small way, will be a freer
place.
I'm proud, Madam President, that
one of the last votes I cast will be to make
that freedom a reality for those who have been
denied it in the past. Celebrate freedom,
ladies and gentlemen. Vote for this bill that
sets another group of New Yorkers free from
the stain and the hatred of prejudice.
Thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Connor,
to close for the Minority.
SENATOR CONNOR: Thank you, Madam
President.
Madam President, I certainly
through college and law school knew people who
were gay and who certainly in the rarefied
environs of academia, you know, did not appear
to be discriminated against. It didn't seem
that political then.
6853
But very soon after I was out of
law school, I got involved in this funny
business called politics. And we had a
Democratic Club, what you would call pretty
far on the left then. And I bring this out
because I don't view this as a left or right
issue on the political spectrum. And I found
myself very quickly the president of this
club. And literally the first meeting, and
we're in the early '70s, we're getting ready
for the next year's presidential race. And
they used to have couples could join at a
different rate than individuals. You know,
different rate of dues.
And the then membership secretary
rushed up to me at the end of a meeting, and
she was what you would call old
left-left-left, and said, "These four guys
want to join as two couples." And I said, "$7
a couple." "But they're guys." I said, "I
don't care. If they're a couple, they're a
couple. Take the dues."
That next year, I was very proud to
be part of a campaign that elected one of the
first gay or lesbian -- in our slate, it was
6854
lesbian. I think in the slate in Manhattan it
was a gay person -- to the national
convention, openly.
This all became important to me
several years later, in 1978, late '77, when
there was a big club meeting to pick the
nominee for the State Senate. And several
hundred people crowded into a large hall in a
very closely contested endorsement meeting.
And I looked out there, and the two couples
that I once had invited to join were there,
and they spoke for me, and I won a very narrow
victory.
I pledged during that campaign to
make one of my priorities, one of my
priorities as a senator the passage of a gay
civil rights bill. It had already been an
issue in New York City. What later became
Intro 1 started out as Intro -- and I forget
the number. I forget any number that has more
than two digits in it. And I remember
testifying in the early '70s in favor of that.
But I said one of my priorities will be to
support the passage of -- we didn't call it
SONDA then, it was the gay civil rights bill.
6855
One of the first bills I introduced
when I got here in 1978 was a bill that banned
discrimination in the civil service on account
of sexual orientation. That later was mooted
out by an Executive Order which this governor,
Governor Pataki, has continued as well. The
need for that. I should say.
But here we are, nearly 25 years
later, and I'm proud to say I'm still working
on one of my two or three legislative
priorities. One of the others was election
law reform. We still have to do that one.
But in the meantime -- and let
me -- I want to acknowledge someone who I was
proud to serve with when I first got here,
someone in the Assembly. I remember a couple
of times giving him a ride home to New York,
Bill Passannante. He told great stories. He
had been here for many, many years. And he
was, I believe, the sponsor way, way back,
decades ago, of the first gay civil rights
bill. And Bill has passed on. Many of us
knew Bill. I think he's probably smiling now.
He was way, way ahead of his time.
And, you know, when I first
6856
circulated that nondiscrimination bill in the
civil service, I didn't get so many sponsors
on this side of the aisle at the time. Not
too many. A handful of Democrats. I think
there was actually a couple of Republicans --
certainly Senator Goodman was one of them --
who cosponsored that.
We've come a long way since then,
and America has come a long way, and New
York's come a long way. And New York State
has fallen behind where everybody else has
come. It should not have taken 25 years.
Indeed, while I'm going to support this bill,
I am very, very disappointed that it is not
all-inclusive, that it doesn't include
transgendered people, because there is real
discrimination going on there.
In some respects, you know, the
good side and the bad side get ahead. There
is now, if you will, probably less
discrimination than there used to be, when
this bill was first filed, against gay and
lesbian people than there is against the
transgendered. I mean, if you want to look at
where the real heavy-duty discrimination is
6857
now coming down. Not that there isn't
discrimination otherwise.
But the one thing I've learned in
those 25 years is you take your priorities and
grab them when you can, one step at a time.
So while I certainly support a more
inclusive bill that includes transgendered, I
am going to vote for this. And I'm going to
vote for this because I believe it's the right
thing to do. I'm going to do this for someone
who is one of the closest persons to me, who
I'm happy to say I will be having dinner with
tomorrow night as he visits New York with his
friend. And I want to tell him, I want to
tell him that New York passed SONDA. It will
mean a lot to him.
And if the cameras weren't on and
my mother weren't watching, I'd tell you who
I'm talking about. But the fact is it will
mean very, very much to him and mean very much
to my family. It means a lot to a lot of
New Yorkers that we've passed this.
And I want to thank Senator Bruno
for bringing this bill to a vote. It may have
languished for 25 years, but Senator Bruno got
6858
it out here in eight years, so that's pretty
good. Can't blame him for the other 17 years,
that was a backwards-looking leadership in
those days.
But here we are. I'm just
delighted, I'm just delighted that we can
adopt this. But I really -- my colleagues,
you'll find out -- and I say this to those who
will oppose this -- you'll find out, we're
going to be back here not so long making it a
more inclusive bill. And you'll find out this
wasn't so bad and the amendments we're going
to do in the future aren't so bad from the
standpoint of public reaction. The public
supports this. It's about time the
Legislature adopts it.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Bruno, to
close for the Majority.
SENATOR BRUNO: Thank you, Madam
President, colleagues.
We have been eight years getting
here to this vote. And over those eight
years, this issue has been talked about,
written about, viewed -- the media -- debated.
6859
And after all of this time, we have the bill
before us on the floor. And I guess you can
say better late than never. And it's here.
Now, over these years, I, as I have
lived my life and gotten older each year, as
we all do, maybe I have become more
enlightened. But over the years, I've always
felt that the present antidiscrimination laws
in this state were adequate and they prevented
discrimination against everyone that lives
here in New York State. And that was my
feeling. And I thought legislation like this
was maybe counterproductive, unnecessary.
But as I have moved along, my
feelings have become that if there's such
strong feelings out there that this is
necessary, it just adds "sexual orientation"
to a law that is very expansive and, when you
look at that Human Rights Law here in this
state, covers almost everyone. Race, creed,
color, sex. So we are where we are.
And I am going to vote for this
legislation and have decided that I would vote
for it to express tolerance,
antidiscrimination, and just to recognize that
6860
people are free to live their lives as they
see fit.
So, Madam President, I would
encourage my colleagues to vote in favor. It
is timely. The time has come. And timing in
our lives is everything. Politically, timing
is everything. I think the time has come to
move on with our lives, to get this issue
behind us. And I will, when the vote is
taken, vote in favor.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 18. This
act shall take effect on the 30th day.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Balboni,
to explain your vote.
SENATOR BALBONI: Madam
President, the debate today has been lopsided
on behalf of those who are in favor of the
bill. I know that those people who wish to
vote against this bill have very valid and
sincere concerns. In our attempt to protect
classifications, we dilute those protections
6861
already given. We raise expectations that a
bill such as this will end discrimination or
hatred or prejudice, and it will not.
Many years ago, when I was in the
Assembly, I debated against this bill. And on
that day my mind was full with the intricacies
and the constitutional consequences of this
act. Today my mind is full with the images of
the day the tower fell, how the people running
in terror were of every race, creed, and
religion, rich or poor, fat and skinny, all
New Yorkers, all Americans.
And I'm reminded of the preamble
that says "We the people of the United States,
in order to form a more perfect union, to
ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the
common defense, promote the general welfare,
and to secure to ourselves the blessings of
liberty for our families and for those who
follow, do ordain and establish this
Constitution."
Madam President, it's "we, the
people," not "some people." I vote against
discrimination, and I vote for the bill.
Thank you, Madam President.
6862
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Balboni,
you will be recorded as voting in favor of the
bill.
Senator Farley, to explain your
vote.
SENATOR FARLEY: Thank you, Madam
President.
I think everybody in this chamber
is opposed to discrimination. But I think
there's a flaw in this bill that I'd at least
like to reiterate. It's the lack of a
comprehensive religious exemption. Religious
organizations, ministries, businesses, and so
forth are not exempted. And I think that
alone is enough to make someone vote no.
I vote no.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Farley,
you will be so recorded as voting in the
negative on this bill.
The Secretary will announce the
results.
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
the negative on Calendar Number 1705 are
Senators Alesi, Bonacic, Farley, Fuschillo,
Gentile, Kuhl, Lachman, Larkin, Leibell,
6863
Libous, Maltese, Marcellino, Maziarz, McGee,
Meier, Morahan, Nozzolio, Padavan, Rath,
Seward, Skelos, Stachowski, Velella, Volker,
and Wright. Also Senator Hannon. Ayes, 34.
Nays, 26.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
(Applause.)
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Madam President,
can we ask for an immediate meeting of the
Finance Committee in the Majority Conference
Room.
THE PRESIDENT: There will be an
immediate meeting of the Finance Committee in
the Majority Conference Room.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: And can we at
this time take up Calendar Number 1741.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
Can we please have order. If the
individuals would take their conversation
outside the chamber, please. We have to
proceed with business.
6864
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1741, by Senator Rath, Senate Print 7880, an
act to amend the Social Services Law, in
relation to medical assistance reimbursement.
SENATOR HEVESI: Explanation,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Can we
have some order in the chamber, please. We
have some other business to take care of.
Senator Dollinger, why do you rise?
SENATOR DOLLINGER: I believe
Senator Hevesi is seeking an explanation on
the bill, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Is that
correct, Senator Hevesi?
SENATOR HEVESI: I am.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Rath, an explanation of the bill before the
house has been requested by Senator Hevesi.
SENATOR RATH: Thank you, Mr.
President.
The bill that we're talking about
eliminates the requirement that local
governments repay Medicaid funds which were
advanced to them since 1972 by the state for
6865
certain mental health services. The counties
are in dire straits, everyone knows,
financially, and this is a measure for them to
relieve some of the heavy-duty pressures on
their budget.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Hevesi, why do you rise?
SENATOR HEVESI: Mr. President,
would the sponsor please yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Rath, do you yield to a question from Senator
Hevesi?
SENATOR RATH: Of course.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you, Mr.
President.
I very much appreciate the pressure
on counties and understand the intention of
this bill. If I can just turn your attention
briefly to the sponsor's memo in support, the
budget implications, the statement is that
this legislation will have no impact on the
state budget.
My question is the following. If
6866
the state is essentially forgiving debt to
municipalities in the amount of $170 million,
then presumably that amount, that
$170 million, is currently on the books for
the State of New York as an account
receivable, as money that would be coming in.
So my question is if we forgive this debt,
then wouldn't it be the case that we have
essentially accounted for $170 million in
additional revenue that we will not be seeing,
and therefore it will have a budget impact on
the state because it will increase the size of
the deficit, understanding that we never
expected to receive the cash. But wouldn't
this increase the size of the deficit because
this amount had to have been recorded as
revenue that we expected to receive?
SENATOR RATH: My understanding
is that as the accounting procedures of the
state handle that $172 million, those dollars
will not impact on the budget that we're
presently looking at down the line in the
future, this next future budget that we're
going to deal with.
SENATOR HEVESI: Mr. President,
6867
will the sponsor continue to yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Rath, do you yield to another question from
Senator Hevesi?
SENATOR RATH: Surely.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you, Mr.
President.
I appreciate that. I'm just trying
to figure out how that's the case. So if we
didn't pass the legislation today, is it not
the case that the state has on its books the
expectation of receiving $170 million in the
current fiscal year from these counties?
SENATOR RATH: Senator, the
dollars that the state had extended to these
counties I believe had been handled year after
year after year. And so the use of those
dollars has not been available to the state,
because they were on the books and not being
used.
And so I think that that's
something that the Governor, as he presents a
new budget to us, will make clear how he
6868
expects to move on that.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Hevesi.
SENATOR HEVESI: Okay. On the
bill, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Hevesi, on the bill.
SENATOR HEVESI: Mr. President,
with respect to the sponsor -- and I
appreciate what she's trying to do here -- I
don't understand how it would be possible that
this does not indicate that we are going to
see a larger deficit for the state, even if
this is a worthwhile bill. And it is, and I'm
voting for it. Because I think counties need
this type of relief. They need greater
relief, notwithstanding the fact that the
state is not in a tremendously good fiscal
position in order to be able to do these types
of things.
But I don't know how it's possible,
even if we didn't have an expectation that the
money would be coming, from an accounting
point of view, that we would not have an
increase in our deficit if we passed this
6869
bill. Simply put, if we had an expectation
that we were going to receive $170 million,
irrespective of the fact that the money had
been promised to us or we had been expecting
it for years and years and years, that means
it's on the state's books as money that's
coming in to us.
If we then write it off by
forgiving this loan, the deficit will have to
increase by the exact same amount, because the
revenue we had been banking on we have just
said we're no longer going to bank on it. And
so that would presumably, and I don't see how
this couldn't be the case, that means our
deficit would increase by $170 million.
And I think the problem here, Mr.
President, is that the current gubernatorial
administration seems to want to do everything
piecemeal. We did the 1199 health-care
package piecemeal. There were behind-doors
negotiations on the budget. My understanding
now is that the state is considering bonding
out against receivables from the tobacco
settlement for a short-term infusion of cash,
but the Assembly Speaker rightly doesn't want
6870
to do it until he sees a full fiscal picture
of how the state plans to cope with what we
hear -- we don't know for a fact, but we
hear -- is a $2 billion budget deficit this
fiscal year and up to $8 billion next fiscal
year.
And the Speaker is right. And if
we had that tobacco bill on our desks right
now, there's no way I'd vote for it. I don't
think it's sound fiscal policy. But even if I
did at this current time, I wouldn't vote for
it because I don't know what the plan is from
this administration to deal with the fiscal
crisis that we are in.
And therefore I'm upset that we now
have this bill, however well-intended and
however well-justified, and I'm going to vote
for it because I don't know the implications
of this $170 million, whether it means that we
now have to plug that hole somewhere else or
whether people have been underestimating the
true extent of our fiscal crisis right now.
It's all very upsetting.
And it's yet another indication of
how we don't do government well here in
6871
New York State. We don't do government well
in this house, the Assembly doesn't do
government well, and the Governor doesn't do
government well. And it's a problem.
So I'm going to vote for this bill,
Mr. President, but this is absolutely
symptomatic of the problem that we have in
New York. It's government -- piecemeal
government, it's government behind closed
doors, it's government hopping from one crisis
to the next, it's government in secret, it's
government without full airing and
discussions. And the result is what we've
done for the past, you know, five, six, seven
years is we've cut taxes, we've increased
spending, and we've increased borrowing.
And the result is we are going to
have a fiscal crisis in this state that is
unprecedented in the history of New York
State. And how we're going to deal with it
is -- I'm not very sanguine about how we're
going to deal with it, based on additional
piecemeal approaches that I see such as this
bill here today.
So I guess I applaud Senator Rath
6872
for providing relief to counties. But once
again, it is one within the context of bad,
piecemeal government here in New York, and
it's leading us on a very destructive path.
I'll be voting aye.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Any other
Senator wishing to speak on the bill?
Hearing none, the Secretary will
read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 60.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill
is passed.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President,
would you please call up Calendar Number 1742,
by Senator Velella.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1742, by Senator Velella, Senate Print 7870,
6873
an act to amend the General Municipal Law, in
relation to certain impairments.
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Velella.
SENATOR VELELLA: Yes, Mr.
President.
When we passed a bill, Chapter 461
of the Laws of 2002, it created additional
presumptions for certain cancers for
firefighters; namely, the cancers of the
breast and reproductive systems. When we did
that, we inadvertently omitted New York City's
firefighters, who have a large number of women
in their ranks now.
And this bill will just include the
women in the New York City Fire Department for
equal rights as they do for the rest of the
state firefighters.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Dollinger, why do you rise?
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Mr.
President, I'll just briefly explain my vote
before the vote's cast rather than afterwards.
I'm going to vote against this
6874
bill, Mr. President. I voted for all these
bills. We marched down the road of creating a
presumption of disability for firefighters and
police. So that quite frankly -- and I know
that Senator Velella isn't prepared to take
this bill this far, but my prediction is
sometime in the next ten years, somebody is
going to come up with a bill that says if you
sneeze while you are a firefighter, no matter
where you are -- this may be true of the
police as well -- no matter where you are, if
you sneeze, it's going to be considered,
presumed to be disability- or
service-connected.
I appreciate what Senator Velella
is trying to do. I know there's a
higher-than-normal incidence of cancers among
firefighters. But it seems to me to go so far
as to create the presumption and expand it to
the whole scope without significant
etiological studies -- the etiology being the
source of disease -- it seems to me that it's
not justified.
I understand the politics of this
bill. I understand the implications of this
6875
bill. I think we're foisting onto the City of
New York a continuing obligation that is
just -- originally started with the proper
intention related to heart disease because of
the high stress of the job. I think this bill
just goes too far.
Quite frankly, if I had my chance
to vote on a bill for firefighters across the
state, I would vote no now. Maybe it's my
lame duckness talking, Senator Velella, but it
seems we've got to draw the line somewhere.
The line seems to be endless, and we're
marching down an endless path of just
increasing the exposure of our municipalities
for any, any infirmities suffered by our
police and fire. That's too far.
I'm going to vote no, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
6876
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Paterson, why do you rise?
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
I just want to explain my vote. Briefly.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Paterson, to explain his vote.
SENATOR PATERSON: This bill
appears to omit injuries to the respiratory
system, which have been the greatest worry of
New York City firefighters ever since
September 11th. I am advised that there's
going to be an attempt to include that in a
later bill.
Breast cancer detection,
interestingly enough, is on the rise among
men, in addition to women. That's just
something I want to point out.
And I am in favor. I vote aye.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Paterson will be recorded in the affirmative.
SENATOR VELELLA: Mr. President,
to explain my vote.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Velella, to explain his vote.
SENATOR VELELLA: As Senator
6877
Paterson indicated, the Majority is working on
a comprehensive bill which will be coming up
in hopefully January -- it's not complete
yet -- to include all of the disabilities as a
result of 9/11.
I vote in the affirmative.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Velella will be recorded in the affirmative.
Senator Dollinger, why do you rise?
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Mr.
President, having suggested during the debate
that I would explain my vote, I'd now like to
explain my vote, if I may.
And simply this, Mr. President. I
would vote for the respiratory bill, because I
think there is significant evidence about
linkages between respiratory exposures and
firefighters.
I think that the evidence with
respect to reproductive, breast and
neurological cancers is more removed. And
before we attach the presumption, which as a
practical matter is to make it a covered
disability, it seems to me that that just goes
too far.
6878
I won't be here to vote on the
respiratory bill, Mr. President. I hope that
my successor has the wisdom to vote for it.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Dollinger, you wish to be recorded in the
negative?
SENATOR DOLLINGER: Yes, Mr.
President. Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Dollinger will be recorded in the negative.
Announce the results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59. Nays,
1. Senator Dollinger recorded in the
negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill
is passed.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President,
would you please call up Calendar Number 1709,
by Senator Morahan.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will read Calendar Number 1709.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1709, substituted earlier today by the
Assembly Committee on Rules, Assembly Print
6879
Number 11710A, an act to amend the Public
Health Law, in relation to rates of payment.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER:
Explanation, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Morahan, an explanation of Calendar Number
1709 has been requested by Senator Krueger.
SENATOR MORAHAN: Simply put,
this bill would allow adult homes that are
freestanding -- not adult homes, I'm sorry.
This would allow assisted living
facilities that are freestanding, built only
for that purpose, to include some
reimbursement of the capital expense to build
that facility in the reimbursement aid for
Medicaid, to allow them to compete more fairly
or to make them as competitive as those
nursing homes and other homes and adult homes
that just converted some beds without any
great expense.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
6880
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 60.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill
is passed.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President,
would you please call up Calendar Number 1608,
by Senator Wright.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will read Calendar Number 1608.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1608, by Senator Wright, Senate Print 7597, an
act to amend Chapter 519 of the Laws of 1992,
amending the Energy Law.
SENATOR DUANE: Explanation,
please.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Wright, an explanation of Calendar Number 1608
has been requested by Senator Duane.
SENATOR WRIGHT: Thank you, Mr.
President.
The legislation we're referring to
is referred to as Article X. It's due to
6881
expire on the 31st of this month, 2002. This
bill would provide an extension of the
existing statute.
We've had three different versions
introduced this session. We've been
unsuccessful in achieving negotiations. So
we're suggesting that we extend the existing
statute at the present point in time, continue
discussions, and at the same time send a clear
and precise signal that New York is prepared
and ready to build additional generating
assets.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Skelos, why do you rise?
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President,
can we have the last section read for the
purposes of Senator LaValle voting.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The chair
6882
recognizes Senator LaValle for purposes of a
vote.
SENATOR LAVALLE: No.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
LaValle's vote is cast in the negative.
SENATOR SKELOS: Please withdraw
the roll call.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The roll
call is withdrawn. We're on debate.
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Mr.
President. I believe there's an amendment at
the desk.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: There is
an amendment at the desk, Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: I'd like to waive
its reading.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
motion is to waiver the reading and have an
opportunity to explain the amendment.
Senator Duane is recognized for the
purposes of explaining the amendment at the
desk.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Mr.
President.
6883
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Duane, excuse me just one moment.
Can we have a little order in the
chamber, please. Sarge, would you remove that
conversation in the back.
Senator Duane, on the amendment.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Mr.
President.
My amendment would change the
definition of "major electric generating
facility" from 80 megawatts capacity to
15 megawatts capacity. It would change the
composition of the board on the electric
generation siting and the environment from
seven persons to nine, which would increase
community representatives from two to four,
and it changes those appointments from being
made by the Governor to the highest-ranking
elected county official or, in the case of
New York City, the borough president. And two
community reps would have to reside within
2 miles of the proposed site.
It also modifies existing
facilities, which would increase the capacity
by more than 15 megawatts and put that in the
6884
Article X siting process.
Now, one of the major complaints is
about the preapplication process, and my
amendment addresses that. The health impacts
from the incremental increase of pollution
from other facilities in the area and their
adverse environmental and health impacts would
have to be addressed. And in addition, all of
the residences and places of business within
the local area would be mailed a project
notification in language which they could
understand, and it would describe the proposed
facility, its location, the anticipated
emissions and discharges, and also what will
be the anticipated health impacts.
It increases the intervenor fees to
a dollar for each kilowatt of generating
capacity for the preapplication scoping plan,
which is very important, where a lot of the
shall we say action is, and $4,000 for each
1,000 kilowatts after that for during the
application phase.
The applicant for a certificate
would be expanded to include anticipated
emissions to air and discharges to water and
6885
groundwater, pollution control equipment to be
used, a description and evaluation of
alternate locations, energy supply source
alternatives and demand-reducing measures, as
well as a description of the mitigation
measures proposed to address all of the
environmental and the health impacts.
Also, the cumulative impact of this
facility and other facilities, including a
better analysis of air quality based on
existing and projected emissions, would have
to be put forward, including -- and we know
now the danger of this, it's particulate --
PM2.5, particulate matter.
There would be a federal criteria
of what pollutants and toxins are, a
comprehensive demographic look at the site
that so that we could avoid environmental
racism. And the applicant would include cost
information, which has been difficult to find,
comparative costs of alternate fuels, a plan
for conservation and efficiency.
This legislation, I can tell you
from personal experience, is really sorely
needed. It was virtually impossible, without
6886
the threat of a lawsuit, to have neighborhood
and community environmental impacts closely
looked at. The neighborhood, the community
was at a huge disadvantage, and it was only by
the threat of legal action that finally a
decent though not terrific agreement could be
made between the community and the siting or
the regeneration of a power plant in my
community.
Now, this amendment, which is
really my legislation, would in no way impede
the siting of additional power facilities.
That's not what this is about. What this
amendment is about is making sure that even
more circumstances are taken into account so
we don't just address the energy needs of our
communities, which is incredibly important,
but that we also do that in a manner which
does not threaten the health and well-being of
neighboring residents and people doing
business in that area.
The more involvement we have from
the more people, the more expertise we have on
the impacts of a new power plant, the better
off we're going to be when those plants get
6887
sited. Under present legislation, the
community does not have the say, does not have
the ability to be heard in a manner which they
really need to.
So I urge my colleagues to vote for
this amendment, because it will in no way -- I
repeat, in no way impede the siting of power
plants, it will only make sure that they are
done safely and in the least disruptive, least
harmful ways to our neighborhoods. So I urge
you to vote for this amendment.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Any other
Senator wishing to speak on the amendment?
Hearing none, those Senators in
agreement with the amendment please raise your
hand.
THE SECRETARY: Those Senators
recorded in agreement with the amendment are
Senators Andrews, Brown, Connor, Duane,
Hassell-Thompson, Hevesi, L. Krueger,
Montgomery, Onorato, Schneiderman, M. Smith,
Stachowski, and Stavisky.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
amendment is lost.
6888
Any Senator wishing to speak on the
bill?
Senator Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you,
Mr. President. I will be brief.
We are here at the end of the year
about to vote on what is clearly a one-house
bill that does not address any of the problems
that have been identified with the current
siting process, and not just identified by the
Assembly, which has overwhelmingly passed
legislation incorporating all of the elements
that Senator Duane has just discussed in his
proposed amendment, but also legislation
proposed by the Governor.
Everyone involved in this process
understands that the current law is fatally
flawed. Why we would come forward now to vote
on a four-and-a-half-year extender for a law
we know will not be extended, because the
Assembly is not going to do it, I think is
really beyond me.
I think it sends the wrong message.
I think it sends the message that the Senate
is not really willing to get in with the
6889
Governor and with the Assembly and participate
in the debate to make this a better law, to
protect our communities better, to provide for
more public involvement.
I also would urge everyone from
New York City, from Long Island, from the
Hudson River Valley, areas in which there are
currently laws that provide additional
protection that would be superseded and wiped
out by this legislation, that your
constituents probably do not want those laws
eliminated.
This is not a bill that is going to
go anywhere. I would like our house to join
the Assembly and the Governor in acknowledging
that the current law is fatally flawed. It's
time to sit down and really negotiate
seriously a new law. I urge everyone to vote
no. This sends the wrong message to all of
our constituents as to where the Senate is on
this critical piece of legislation.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
6890
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
SENATOR STAVISKY: To explain my
vote.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stavisky, to explain her vote.
SENATOR STAVISKY: Very briefly,
I hope the advocates of this legislation take
the time to negotiate a proper bill on energy
siting with the Assembly and, when we come
back in January, pass a proper bill.
Thank you. I vote no.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will announce the results.
SENATOR ONORATO: Party vote in
the negative.
SENATOR SKELOS: Party vote in
the affirmative.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will record the party-line vote and
announce the results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 36. Nays,
24. Party vote.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill
6891
is passed.
Senator Skelos. Senator Skelos,
that was a party-line vote with exceptions?
SENATOR SKELOS: Party vote with
exceptions.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Okay.
The Secretary will record the exceptions and
announce the results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 32. Nays,
28. Party vote with exceptions.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill
is passed.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Would you please
call up Calendar Number 1734.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will read Calendar Number 1734.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1734, substituted earlier today by the
Assembly Committee on Rules, Assembly Print
Number 8429, an act to amend the Vehicle and
Traffic Law, in relation to reducing the blood
alcohol level.
SENATOR HEVESI: Explanation,
please.
6892
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Fuschillo, an explanation has been requested
by Senator Hevesi.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Thank you,
Mr. President. The legislation will lower the
state's blood alcohol from .10 to .08 and
allow New York State to conform with the
federal requirement that states lower the
blood alcohol levels to .08 by next year.
But equally as important, we are
taking a giant leap forward in the state's
effort to combat drinking and driving. Now, I
heard an argument the other day from actually
a reporter who called me up, and he said that
there's a report that's going to be issued
shortly that shows in 1982 in New York State
more than a thousand fatalities were related
to alcohol and drinking and driving, and now
in 2001 it's down to approximately 498. One
could only hope that with the continuing
efforts of the state, we would see, someday,
that number down to zero.
I want to thank Senator Bruno for
his support in bringing this legislation out
that has already passed the Assembly, and the
6893
Governor has indicated his support to sign it
into law. Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Hevesi, why do you rise?
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you, Mr.
President. Would the sponsor please yield?
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Fuschillo, do you yield to a question from
Senator Hevesi?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Yes, I do,
Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you, Mr.
President.
I think that the sponsor's work in
this area has been absolutely exemplary. I
just have one brief question, if the sponsor
would indulge me. There have been some press
reports indicating that the state has
forfeited some money as a consequence of not
having passed some aspects of DWI legislation.
Could you just elaborate or clarify for me
exactly what we've lost and why we lost it?
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
6894
Hevesi, the sponsor indicates he can't hear
you. So you want to make sure you speak into
your mike and a little louder, please.
SENATOR HEVESI: I'm sorry.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: And could
we have the conversations in the back of the
room -- Senators, please take your seats.
SENATOR HEVESI: Mr. President,
should I repeat the question?
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Please.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: If you would,
Senator.
SENATOR HEVESI: That's probably
the first time I've been accused of not
speaking loudly enough.
My question, after having commended
the sponsor for his work in this area, was
simply if he would clarify and articulate for
us exactly what monies the state, according to
some recent press reports, has forfeited as a
consequence of not having passed some aspect
of DWI legislation that we're acting on today.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Mr.
President, through you.
The money that the State of New
6895
York has lost, Senator Hevesi, is dollars that
the federal government placed under what was
called an incentive category, which awarded
federal highway transportation dollars to
states that accelerated their approval of .08.
Back in 1998, there was a pool of
dollars that the state could have received,
and I believe it was up to $36 million that
New York State had lost by not doing repeat
offenders last year. And as you know, last
session and the session prior to that, we had
passed a comprehensive DWI package that I had
sponsored, and in there were the conforming
requirements for .08 and also for repeat
offenders.
Because of the inability or
inaction of the Assembly, as I like to say,
federal highway transportation dollars,
because we didn't do repeat offenders, were
lost for New York State for dedicated funds
for highway construction projects. But we
didn't actually lose dollars, they were put
into a public safety category of
$22.6 million.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you.
6896
Mr. President, would the sponsor
yield to one additional question?
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Do you
yield to one additional question?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you. I
just want to be clear about it, because I
think the perception was that the state's
failure to enact a change to .08 had resulted
in the loss of money that would have been
forthcoming.
It was exclusively the failure of
the state to enact repeat offender criminal
increases that resulted in the forfeiture of
that money?
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: It resulted
in the forfeiture of $22.6 million dedicated
for highway transportation projects, which the
state received but can only use it for public
safety projects.
What's important to note, Senator,
is that the federal government has required
6897
states to adopt just the .08 category, have it
enacted by September 30th of '03. The state
must officially certify by July 15th of next
year to the federal government that they have
approved and signed into law .08.
The bill that we're passing right
now has an effective date of November of the
subsequent year when it's approved. We have
already passed an amendment to this bill that
would change the effective date to March of
next year.
SENATOR HEVESI: Understood.
Thank you.
Mr. President, on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Hevesi, on the bill.
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you, Mr.
President.
You know, I have been exceedingly
critical of the Majority in this house on a
slew of different issues. But I would also
like it to be reflected -- and this will
probably be the final things I say on the
floor of this house -- that I have really
called it like I saw it with respect to the
6898
other house too, and been critical of
Democrats when they have failed also.
And I voted for Senator Fuschillo's
omnibus bill that we did earlier this year,
all of the pieces of which we just passed
separately today. They were coupled, the
Assembly was upset by that, and therefore we
didn't pass any of these requirements, and we
had the financial problems as a result.
But let me say this, two things.
First of all, highlighting for the 15th time
one of the ways to solve this problem would be
automatic conference committees, so we at
least have a discussion when similar bills,
like-minded bills are passed. We don't have
that. And it allows both houses to engage in
the passage -- and this is not the case with
this bill, let me be fair about it. But
generally it allows both houses to pass
something, knowing that it's unacceptable to
the other house. They then have political
cover for whatever constituencies are
advocating for it or whom are opposed to it,
and they can say, oh, we did our thing, the
other house didn't do it. And as a result, we
6899
have incredible gridlock. Okay?
I don't believe that that's what
happened here, although the end result here is
that the Assembly -- and I was critical of the
Assembly when we passed Senator Fuschillo's
bill earlier this year on this. There is no
reason why the omnibus bill should not have
been passed by the Assembly. There is no
reason today why any one of the five separate
bills, four of which deal exclusively with
increased penalties for recidivist drunk
drivers, should not be passed by the Assembly.
I don't know why the Assembly
doesn't act on these things. I don't
understand it. I don't understand why the
Assembly doesn't eliminate or extend the
statute of limitations on violent felony
offenses. I don't understand that. Senator
Skelos has sponsored repeatedly a bill that
would do that. I support it. For rape
victims, for victims of the sexual abuse
scandal in the church, they are unable to have
any kind of justice on the criminal level
because -- not because this house hasn't done
it, but because the Assembly hasn't done it.
6900
And I'll give you another example.
Senator Volker sponsors a bill where he
increased the penalties for assaults on
transit workers, and he jumped the
second-degree assault from a current
A misdemeanor to a D felony. Instead of
jumping it to an E felony, he did one greater,
to have leverage with the Assembly, because
they won't do it.
So let me be completely nonpartisan
and completely honest and straightforward here
and fault the Assembly for not having acted on
these recidivist DWI bills and a slew of other
things that they haven't acted on. And a lot
of times, much more than not, I agree with the
Assembly's position over the position of the
Majority in this house. But when they're
wrong, I'll stand up and say it.
And Republicans in this house have
been critical of Democrats in the Minority
here in the State Senate for not putting
pressure on the Assembly. I am putting
pressure on the Assembly, to the extent that
they listen to outgoing State Senator Dan
Hevesi: They should pass these recidivist DWI
6901
bills. There's no reason not to pass them.
The Assembly should pass the
extension of the statute of limitations on
violent felony offenses, particularly the
sexual offenses. They should increase the
penalty to at least an E felony for
second-degree assaults. And there are a slew
of other things that they should do on the
criminal justice area that they haven't done.
They should do that.
And so having said that, Mr.
President, Senator Fuschillo does a great
service today in moving us forward to
hopefully decreasing the incidence of DWI
fatalities and accidents and increased
insurance premiums and all of the other
negative things that go on as a consequence.
So he's to be commended for that.
And let me just say, Mr. President,
as my final words here in the State Senate, I
beg that the members of this house recognize
that we have been in a descent, since I've
been in this house for the past four years, a
descent in terms of openness, in terms of good
government, in terms of advancing policy
6902
through discussion and collaboration. I've
voted thousands of times in this house; not
once has a bill been defeated on the floor.
Put a bill out. Let it be defeated
if it's going to be defeated, if it's this DWI
bill. Let it be defeated if the votes aren't
there. Let's have open, honest discussion,
let's have hearings, let's have automatic
conference committees. Let's not subjugate
the minorities, particularly when it's not
necessary, since so many Minority members,
such as myself, are not marginal members. I
couldn't be beaten by a Republican in my
district. Don't punish us. There's no reason
for it. Nobody has a monopoly on common
sense.
We have to reform the
reapportionment system so we don't lock in
forever this institutional control of the
Democrats in the Assembly, Republicans here,
so there's no accountability, there's no
openness here.
This camera here, this C-SPAN-type
coverage, is the only coverage that we have
here. If the capital -- I've said this
6903
repeatedly -- if the capital of New York State
was New York City, we couldn't get away with
half the stuff that's gotten away with because
of the press coverage that would exist in the
City of New York. That's got to change. The
press has been asleep at the switch here.
And finally, let me say -- because
I want to end this on a positive note --
collectively, Mr. President, the legislators
in this house are terrific. They are caring,
kind, considerate, smart, they want to make
positive change. Individually, they work
hard, they are generally nice people. They
are wonderful. Collectively, this institution
functions in a way that is years past
dysfunctional. It's so bad, it's such an
embarrassment that it's become accepted and
the shame has gone out the window.
And the same is true, I just don't
fault this house. It's the Legislature. It's
both houses. And so let me conclude by
saying, Mr. President, I love this
institution; I hate the way it functions. I
love the individual members of this
institution; I despise the way that
6904
collectively they organize to advance policy
in this house.
Because at the end of the day,
we're all here to do a good thing. We're all
here to advance policy, even if we represent
incredibly diverse interests, and come
together. And if I don't have the votes on
something I want, let it be defeated. But let
me have my say. Let me bring bills to the
floor. Let's have an open discussion.
Having said that, Mr. President --
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Hevesi.
SENATOR HEVESI: I'm concluding.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Hevesi, I was letting you have your say --
SENATOR HEVESI: I'm concluding
right now.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: --
because you're far off the bill that's before
the house. So if you could, please, conclude,
Senator, we'd appreciate it.
SENATOR HEVESI: Having said all
of that, Mr. President, it has been a pleasure
to serve here in this body. It really has. I
6905
will miss it here. But I beg everybody here
to please do reform for reform's sake, not to
pay lip service.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Hevesi --
SENATOR HEVESI: And, Mr.
President, you have been the best presiding
officer of this institution since I've been
here.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: You can
keep going now, Senator, if you'd like to.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR HEVESI: Thank you, Mr.
President.
(Applause.)
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
Secretary will read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 5 --
SENATOR GENTILE: Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Yes.
Senator Gentile.
SENATOR GENTILE: Yes, I didn't
want the opportunity to pass without also
adding my words of congratulations to Senator
Fuschillo and everyone who has worked hard to
6906
bring this bill to the floor.
Certainly the blood alcohol level
is an issue that I've worked with as a
prosecutor, is something that I have been very
concerned about throughout my years in law
enforcement. And to see the fact that we
today have the opportunity to vote on this
bill, probably the last bill that I'll be
voting on, along with Senator Hevesi, in this
house, is significant.
So certainly statistics bear out
that those states that have .08 laws already
in effect -- a 1997 study showed that those
states had 275 fewer fatalities in those 15
states that already had .08 alcohol levels.
So it's clear that .08 saves lives. This is
good legislation.
Of course it doesn't address the
issue of treatment. And treatment also is a
major factor here. Treatment reduces
recidivism. That's an issue that we still
have to work on. It's not part of this
legislation, but nevertheless it is something
that should be companion to this. It doesn't
mean that this isn't a good piece of
6907
legislation.
I want to congratulate Senator
Fuschillo. Certainly it's been a pleasure
working with him, and everyone in this house.
And I will say ditto to what Senator Hevesi
said on his behalf also.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Thank you
for the compliment, Senator. (Laughter.)
The Secretary will read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 5. This
act shall take effect on the first day of
November.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the
roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Fuschillo, to explain his vote.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Thank you,
Mr. President.
I enjoyed the spirited discussion
that kind of got off the issue a little bit.
But certainly let me just bid my colleagues a
farewell. It's been a pleasure working with
you.
6908
And the same goes to Senator
Stafford. It's certainly been an honor and a
privilege to be in the same chambers as him.
I think Senator Gentile said it
best. This is not the answer to get every
drunk driver off the road. But we are taking
a giant leap forward.
There are other components. And
Senator Hevesi, to answer your question, the
argument in the Assembly has been to us in
this house, do .08, get it off the table and
then we'll talk about repeat offenders. I
want to say shame on them, because time has
gone by and people have died and people have
been injured in this state and certainly
throughout the country. But you're correct in
stating that the states that have implemented
.08 prior to the required date that the
federal government states has had a
significant reduction in fatalities on their
roads.
But we must go ahead, and we must
go after the repeat offenders. And you saw
what we've done today. And we must continue
to support the chemical dependency programs
6909
that I had the measure of running before my
life in the Senate. We can't forget about
them. And we put forth a "Road to Recovery"
program last year which was an ambitious
program. Another part of the blame goes to
the Assembly because they couldn't pick it up.
But I want to just rise, Mr.
President, and thank the Mothers Against Drunk
Driving and the advocates throughout this
state that have such a personal attachment to
this issue because of the losses of their
children, of their spouses, aunts, uncles,
friends and certainly loved ones. Today is a
great victory for everybody who has been
supporting this legislation.
And to those that have lost their
lives so tragically in the state of New York
because of a drunk driver, we have not
forgotten and we will continue to on.
So thank you very much.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Fuschillo will be recorded in the affirmative.
Announce the results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 60.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill
6910
is passed.
Senator Skelos. Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President,
if we could at this time return to reports of
standing committees, I believe there's a
report of the Finance Committee at the desk at
this time. I ask that it be read.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: We will
return to the order of reports of standing
committees.
There is a report from the Finance
Committee at the desk. I'll ask the Secretary
to read.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Stafford,
from the Committee on Finance, reports the
following nominations:
As a member of the New York State
Olympic Regional Development Authority, Edwin
H. Weibrecht, of Lake Placid.
As members of the Capital District
Transportation Authority, James S. Cappiello,
of Albany, and Denise A. Figueroa, of Cohoes.
As a member of the Niagara Frontier
Transportation Authority, Gregory Stamm,
Esquire, of Williamsville.
6911
As a member of the Port Authority
of New York and New Jersey, Charles A.
Gargano, of New York City.
As a member of the Board of
Directors of the Great Lakes Protection Fund,
Michael J. Elmendorf II, of Latham.
As a member of the Small Business
Advisory Board, Jennifer L. Carey, of
Freeport.
As a member of the State Board of
Real Property Services, Frank B. Cernese, of
Montrose.
As a member of the State
Environmental Board, Gail S. Port, of Forest
Hills.
As a member of the State Public
Transportation Safety Board, John S. Delaney,
of Selkirk.
As members of the Empire State
Plaza Art Commission, Barbara Kaiser Bray, of
Albany; Georgiana G. Panton, of Rensselaer;
and Amy G. Solomon, of Delmar.
As a member of the Greenwood Lake
Commission, George T. Vurno, Esquire, of
Greenwood Lake.
6912
As a member of the Niagara Frontier
State Park, Recreation and Historic
Preservation Commission, David S. Broderick,
of Lewiston.
As members of the Medical Advisory
Committee, Stoner E. Horey, M.D., of Canisteo,
and Kathleen Benson Smith, of Oswego.
As director of the Municipal
Assistance Corporation for the City of
New York, Edward J. Munshower, of New York
City.
As a member of the Administrative
Review Board for Professional Medical Conduct,
Winston S. Price, of Brooklyn.
As a member of the Advisory Council
on Alcoholism and Substance Abuse Services,
Elaine Ellis, of Tupper Lake.
As a member of the Advisory Council
to the Commission on Quality of Care for the
Mentally Disabled, Jeffry Luria, of Central
Bridge.
As a member of the Passenger
Tramway Advisory Council, James R. Ruhl,
Ph.D., of Ballston Lake.
As a member of the Board of
6913
Visitors of the Binghamton Psychiatric Center,
Frances Felice, of Binghamton.
As a member of the Board of
Visitors of the Brooklyn Developmental
Disabilities Services Office, Celeste
Andruzzi, of Brooklyn.
As members of the Board of Visitors
of the Capital District Developmental
Disabilities Services Office, Sharon Brooks,
of Fort Johnson, and Penelope A. Pajak, of
Scotia.
As a member of the Board of
Visitors of the Creedmoor Psychiatric Center,
Alfred Koral, of Oakland Gardens.
As a member of the Board of
Visitors of the Queens Children's Psychiatric
Center, Annette Aronow, of Bayside.
As members of the Board of Visitors
of the Rochester Psychiatric Center, Barbara
Bates, of Bergen, and John W. Hally, of Avon.
As members of the Board of Visitors
of the Valley Ridge Center for Intensive
Treatment, Tammy J. Carnrike, of Norwich; Irad
S. Ingraham, Esquire, of New Berlin; Alan D.
Pole, of Norwich; and Thomas M. Whittaker, of
6914
Norwich.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
question is on the nominations. All those in
favor signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Opposed,
nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
nominees are unanimously confirmed.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Mr. President, is
there any housekeeping at the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: None
whatsoever, Senator. The desk is clean.
SENATOR BRUNO: None, the desk is
clean.
Mr. President, then we are going to
conclude this session and end the year, and
with the expectation that we will not be back
until regular session, January 8th.
And I'm very conscious and I see
that many of our colleagues have started their
Christmas season early, undoubtedly doing some
shopping.
6915
But for seven members, on both
sides of the aisle, this will be the last
session that we will be adjourning that they
will be part of the Senate. And I really want
to close this last session of the year in
recognition of their great public service and
wishing them well as they go on in their lives
and in their careers, where I'm sure they will
find a place where they will be contributing
in a very positive way.
And those members are Senators
Dollinger, Espada, Gentile, Senator Hevesi,
Lack, Santiago, and Senator Stafford.
Now, Senator Stafford has the
distinction of having served 37 years, and
most recently as the Finance chair.
Thirty-seven years. Before you were born,
undoubtedly.
And my entree into the Senate was
really through Senator Stafford. He was the
youngest elected senator, when I first knew
him, in New York State. And when I first
entered this chamber, ever, it was at a time
when he had just taken office. And he brought
me into this chamber, and I will never forget
6916
the awe and the feeling that I had, just
coming in, feeling as if you are in a very
sacred place.
So to Ron, as we adjourn this
session, and to my colleagues on both sides of
the aisle, I just want to say thank you for
your public service and wish you well.
And there being no further
business -- Senator Stafford.
SENATOR STAFFORD: I have to say
that --
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The chair
recognizes Senator Stafford.
SENATOR STAFFORD: -- I never
want to make a mistake. I told you when I
made my concluding remarks, which were
supposed to be concluding, last summer, that I
had sat behind Senator Bruno's chair for 15
years. I sat there for 22 years.
Now, on a serious note, thank you.
(Laughter; applause.)
SENATOR BRUNO: And again, on
behalf of leaders on both sides of the aisle,
I wish you all a merry Christmas, a happy
New Year, and safe holidays.
6917
And, Mr. President, there being no
further business to come before the Senate, I
would move that we stand adjourned, subject to
the call of the Majority Leader.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Without
objection, the Senate stands adjourned,
subject to the call of the Majority Leader.
(Whereupon, at 4:20 p.m., the
Senate adjourned.)