Regular Session - April 14, 2003
1879
NEW YORK STATE SENATE
THE STENOGRAPHIC RECORD
ALBANY, NEW YORK
April 14, 2003
3:32 p.m.
REGULAR SESSION
LT. GOVERNOR MARY O. DONOHUE, President
STEVEN M. BOGGESS, Secretary
1880
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 bow our heads in a moment of
silence.
(Whereupon, the assemblage
respected a moment of silence.)
THE PRESIDENT: Reading of the
Journal.
THE SECRETARY: In Senate,
Sunday, April 13, the Senate met pursuant to
adjournment. The Journal of Saturday,
April 12, was read and approved. On motion,
Senate adjourned.
THE PRESIDENT: Without
objection, the Journal stands approved as
read.
Presentation of petitions.
Messages from the Assembly.
1881
Messages from the Governor.
Reports of standing committees.
Reports of select committees.
Communications and reports from
state officers.
Motions and resolutions.
Senator Fuschillo.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Thank you,
Madam President.
On behalf of Senator Morahan, I
move that the following bill be discharged
from its respective committee and be
recommitted with instructions to strike the
enacting clause: Senate Print 3476.
THE PRESIDENT: So ordered,
Senator.
SENATOR FUSCHILLO: Madam
President, on behalf of Senator Volker, on
page number 29 I offer the following
amendments to Calendar Number 325, Senate
Print Number 2325, and ask that said bill
retain its place on Third Reading Calendar.
THE PRESIDENT: The amendments
are received, and the bill will retain its
place on the Third Reading Calendar.
1882
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
if we could go to the noncontroversial reading
of the calendar.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
215, by Senator Skelos, Senate Print 553, an
act to amend the Insurance Law, in relation to
policy coverage.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Lay it
aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
330, by Senator Alesi, Senate Print 123, an
act to amend the Banking Law, in relation to
restricting the parties.
SENATOR SKELOS: Lay it aside for
the day, please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside for the day.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
332, by Senator Farley, Senate Print 2242, an
act to amend the Banking Law, in relation to
1883
conforming the personal loan limitations.
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, 49.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
338, by Senator Trunzo, Senate Print 990, an
act to amend the Education Law, in relation to
scholarships for academic excellence.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the first of August.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 49.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
348, by Senator Seward, Senate Print 3467, an
1884
act to amend --
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: Lay it
aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
351, by Senator Larkin, Senate Print 2569, an
act to amend the Agriculture and Markets Law,
in relation to promoting small businesses.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 11. This
act shall take effect on the 180th day.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 49.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
355, by Senator Rath, Senate Print 1680, an
act to amend the --
SENATOR SKELOS: Lay it aside for
the day.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside for the day.
1885
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
360, by Senator Velella, Senate Print 3445, an
act to amend the --
SENATOR SKELOS: Lay it aside
temporarily.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside temporarily.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
370, by Senator Saland, Senate Print 1928, an
act to amend the Criminal Procedure Law, the
Family Court Act --
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: Lay it
aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
379, by Member of the Assembly Lentol,
Assembly Print Number 7482, an act to amend --
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Lay it
aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
395, by Senator Leibell, Senate Print 987, an
act to authorize the Kent Fire District to
1886
contract with the Sloper Willen or Alamo
community ambulance service.
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, 50.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
396, by Senator LaValle, Senate Print 1660, an
act to amend Chapter 643 of the Laws of 2002
relating to the removal of certain property.
THE PRESIDENT: There is a
home-rule message at the desk.
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, 50.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
1887
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
399, by Senator Robach, Senate Print 1784B, an
act to authorize the City of Rochester to
discontinue.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Lay it
aside.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
400, by Senator Volker, Senate Print 1882, an
act to authorize the towns of Bristol and
Canandaigua, of Ontario County.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 50.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
Senator Skelos, that completes the
reading of the noncontroversial calendar.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
if we could continue, please.
1888
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will continue to read.
SENATOR SKELOS: On the
supplemental active list, if you could call up
Calendar Number 443, please.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
443, by Senator Skelos, Senate Print 3938A, an
act to amend the Real Property Tax Law, in
relation to allowing.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
SENATOR DUANE: Lay it aside,
please.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside.
Senator Skelos, that completes the
reading of the noncontroversial calendar.
SENATOR SKELOS: Thank you, Madam
President. If we could go to the
controversial reading of the calendar.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1889
215, by Senator Skelos, Senate Print 553, an
act to amend the Insurance Law, in relation to
policy coverage for persons with cancer.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN:
Explanation.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Skelos,
an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
this bill would prevent the refusal to issue
or renew any policy of life or noncancellable
disability insurance based solely on the basis
of genetic testing or because an individual
has any type of cancer, the latter providing
that the initial diagnosis of such disease
occurred at least three years prior to the
date of the application and a physician has
certified that the disease has not reoccurred.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you,
Madam President. If the sponsor would yield
for a question.
SENATOR SKELOS: Yes, Madam
President.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed,
1890
Senator Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you.
Through you, Madam President.
Has any consideration been given to
the numerous other conditions for which there
might be a genetic predisposition that would
fall really within a similar category and to
which the same rationale would apply as is
applied with cancer in this piece of
legislation?
SENATOR SKELOS: We've done
similar legislation as it relates to breast
cancer, but right now we're just dealing with
any type of cancer.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you.
Madam President, on the bill
briefly.
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed
on the bill.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: I don't
think anyone could argue with this, though I
think the question of genetic predisposition
does require us to examine any other form of
discrimination by insurance companies.
It is good that we are preventing
1891
discrimination based on a genetic
predisposition for cancer, but we really need
to address this on a more comprehensive basis.
And I hope we will have the chance to deal
sooner rather than later with issues related
to insurance denial of coverage for other
conditions based on sometimes questionable
scientific information.
This is an important area, a
critical area, and it is something that
insurance companies are just beginning to
apply. So I hope we can move beyond this bill
soon and get ahead of the curve on this
critical issue.
Thank you, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any other
member wish to be heard on this bill?
Then the debate is closed.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This
act shall take effect on the 180th day.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 53.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
1892
passed.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
there will be 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.
The Secretary will continue to
read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
348, by Senator Seward, Senate Print 3467, an
act to amend the Insurance Law in relation to
homeowner --
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER:
Explanation.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Seward,
an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR SEWARD: Certainly, Madam
President.
This bill would enact the
Property/Casualty Insurance Availability Act.
It's designed to make property and casualty
insurance more available to more New Yorkers.
1893
Because certainly in the last 18 months, and
more so since September 11th and its impact on
our state in terms of our insurance market, we
have seen a deterioration of the market, a
hardening of the market, and the availability
of insurance at affordable cost has become an
issue that is a problem for many New Yorkers.
And this bill is a comprehensive
approach to deal with that by extending, for a
three-year period, the provisions of NYPIUA,
which stands for the New York Property
Insurance Underwriting Association.
It also would extend, for a
three-year period as well, the provisions
related to automobile and property and
casualty insurance rating.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President,
I believe the Minority has a hostile
amendment. There are a number of -- I don't
know why they would have a hostile amendment
to this legislation, but there are a number of
people in the Finance Committee that would
like to be present.
So, Senator Seward, if you could
1894
just lay it aside temporarily.
SENATOR SEWARD: Sure.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside temporarily.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
360, by Senator Velella, Senate Print 3445, an
act to amend the Labor Law.
SENATOR SKELOS: Lay it aside for
the day.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside for the day.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
370, by Senator Saland, Senate Print 1928, an
act to amend the Criminal Procedure Law and
others --
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER:
Explanation, please.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Saland,
an explanation has been requested.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: If we could lay
that aside temporarily.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside temporarily.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
1895
379, by Member of the Assembly Lentol,
Assembly Print Number 7482, an act to amend
the Penal Law, in relation to the minimum
portion.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the first of
November.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Senator
Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: I think we're
running into conflict with the Finance
Committee. So if we could lay Senator McGee's
bill aside temporarily also.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside temporarily.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
399, by Senator Robach, Senate Print 1784B, an
act to authorize the City of Rochester to
discontinue the use of certain lands.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN:
Explanation.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Robach,
1896
an explanation has been requested.
SENATOR ROBACH: Yes, Madam
President.
This bill is a piece of legislation
which would allow a parkland swap, 3.46 acres
in the southern portion of a park adjacent to
the Genesee River, trading for 19.5 acres in
the northern portion, to accommodate a project
bridge linking through the park on the
University of Rochester to the 19th Ward, the
southwest section of the City of Rochester,
which has been talked about for some time,
that we feel would spur economic development
and is supported not only by the mayor and the
City Council in Rochester, but one of the
things we strive for the most in government:
Every single neighborhood group on record is
for this project.
And it would help revitalize that
neighborhood and link the university to a city
neighborhood.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator
Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you,
Madam President. On the bill.
1897
THE PRESIDENT: You may proceed.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: I think
this calls attention, this piece of
legislation calls attention to what can be
done and what should be done before you
alienate parkland, before you take away a
precious resource of any community, parkland.
I would like to note in the City of
New York, where we have more of a need for
open space than anywhere else in the state,
there is a proposal on the table to take away
50 acres of land in Van Cortlandt's Park to
build a filtration plant.
And none of the processes that
Senator Robach has described have been carried
out in connection with that plan. There have
not been public hearings regarding the
alienation, there has not been the effort to
bring together all the community groups.
There is widespread community opposition.
And I hope that before we take that
issue up, we can inform our judgment by the
good work of the citizens of Rochester and
their communities.
Let's not alienate any parkland,
1898
let's not take away parkland over strong
community opposition without going through a
thorough vetting process and attempting to
bring everyone together.
I'm going to support this
legislation, Madam President, and I hope we'll
get support for a similar, thorough process
when we get to parkland in New York City as
well.
THE PRESIDENT: Does any other
member wish to be heard?
Then the debate is closed.
There is a home rule message at the
desk.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 7. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 55.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
443, by Senator Skelos, Senate Print 3938A, an
act to amend the Real Property Tax Law, in
1899
relation to allowing.
THE PRESIDENT: Read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
THE PRESIDENT: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 55.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is
passed.
SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: There will be an
immediate meeting of the Rules Committee in
the Majority Conference Room.
THE PRESIDENT: There will be an
immediately meeting of the Rules Committee in
the Majority Conference Room.
Senator Robach.
SENATOR ROBACH: There will be an
immediate meeting of the Judiciary Committee
in the Majority Conference Room.
THE PRESIDENT: There will be an
immediate meeting of the Judiciary Committee
in the Majority Conference Room.
1900
Senator Robach.
SENATOR ROBACH: Yes, Madam
President. If we could return to the reports
of standing committees, there is a report of
the Rules Committee at the desk. I ask that
it be read.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Bruno,
from the Committee on Rules, reports the
following bills direct to third reading:
Senate Print 4369, by the Senate
Committee on Rules, an act making
appropriations for the support of government.
And Senate Print 4370, by the
Senate Committee on Rules, an act relating to
the state's share of health insurance
premiums.
Both bills ordered direct to third
reading.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Robach.
SENATOR ROBACH: Move to accept
the report of the committee.
THE PRESIDENT: All in favor of
accepting the committee report please say aye.
1901
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The report is
accepted.
Senator Robach.
SENATOR ROBACH: If we could call
up Calendar 447 at this time, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
447, by the Senate Committee on Rules, Senate
Print 4369, an act making appropriations for
the support of government.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Robach.
SENATOR ROBACH: Is there a
message of necessity and appropriation at the
desk?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, there is,
Senator.
SENATOR ROBACH: Move to accept.
THE PRESIDENT: All those in
favor of accepting the message of necessity
and appropriation please signify by saying
aye.
1902
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The message of
necessity and appropriation is accepted.
SENATOR ROBACH: Lay it aside
temporarily, Madam President.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside temporarily.
SENATOR ROBACH: If you could
call up Calendar Number 448.
THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
448, by the Senate Committee on Rules, Senate
Print 4370, an act relating to the state's
share of health insurance premiums.
THE PRESIDENT: Senator Robach.
SENATOR ROBACH: Is there a
message of necessity, Madam President?
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, there is,
Senator.
SENATOR ROBACH: Move to accept.
THE PRESIDENT: All in favor of
accepting the message of necessity please
1903
signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
THE PRESIDENT: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
THE PRESIDENT: The message is
accepted.
SENATOR ROBACH: Lay that aside
also, temporarily.
THE PRESIDENT: The bill is laid
aside temporarily.
Senator Robach.
SENATOR ROBACH: If we could just
stand at ease until the Judiciary Committee
meeting is over.
THE PRESIDENT: The Senate stands
at ease.
(Whereupon, the Senate stood at
ease at 4:02 p.m.)
(Whereupon, the Senate reconvened
at 4:07 p.m.)
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President,
if we could return to reports of standing
1904
committees, I believe there's a report of the
Judiciary Committee at the desk. I ask that
it be read.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Senator
DeFrancisco, from the Committee on Judiciary,
reports the following bill direct to third
reading:
Senate Print 4285, by Senator
Hannon, an act to amend the Estates, Powers
and Trusts Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Without objection, direct to third reading.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President,
if we could return to the controversial
reading of the calendar, I believe Senator
Seward's bill, 348, is up.
And I also know that he explained
it, so, Senator Schneiderman --
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
348, by Senator Seward, Senate Print 3467, an
1905
act to amend the Insurance Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Krueger.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: We had the
explanation, so I don't want to interrupt the
flow for an explanation. But I would like to
ask the sponsor to yield to a question,
Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Seward, do you yield?
SENATOR SEWARD: Certainly.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: Thank you.
Senator Seward, the bill that you
propose today only extends the NYPIUA program
for two more years. Why is this an extender
bill rather than a bill making this permanent?
Since New York State already has a
very successful history with this program, we
have a growing number of individuals and
companies who find it necessary to take
advantage of this insurance program, and we
are now one of only two states left in this
country, Iowa, Alabama, and New York -- three
states in the country that have not made this
"Fair Plan" permanent, why does your bill not
1906
make it a permanent bill?
SENATOR SEWARD: Well, Mr.
President, since the Fair Plan, this so-called
NYPIUA plan was first created back in 1968 --
it's gone through some transformations since
that time -- it has never been permanent in
the state. In fact, in most cases in the past
there have been one-year extenders. Two years
ago, this house, in conjunction with the other
house, passed a two-year extender.
And this particular bill before us
would extend NYPIUA and the Fair Plan for a
three-year period, which is the longest period
of an extension that this house has ever
passed for the Fair Plan.
Now, the reason that this bill
doesn't include provisions that would make it
permanent is this reason. The market is a
very dynamic thing. There are changes
periodically as conditions change that affect
the insurance market in the state and
particularly the segment of the population
that's served under this plan.
And I believe that the fact that
this Legislature needs to review the program
1907
and renew it -- in this case, that would be
three years from now -- it gives us an
opportunity to assess the market, what's
needed, what changes may be warranted. And
it's an opportune time to do that once the
bill is sunsetting and we have to renew it.
In fact, there have been changes in
the program over the years at the very time of
renewals in the past. And so that's the
reason we would not make it permanent: it
gives an opportunity to assess the market and
the need for changes in the program
periodically.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Krueger.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: Mr.
President, thank you. If through you,
Mr. President, the sponsor could continue to
yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Seward, will you continue to yield?
SENATOR SEWARD: Certainly.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: Thank you,
Senator Seward, through the President.
I understand your point about the
1908
industry changes. The demands of communities
change. But when I look at some of the data
that's available, it shows that the
significant change is the growing percentage
of our populations in various parts of the
state that need to take advantage of the Fair
insurance.
I'm looking at some data just for
2001 to 2002; for example, we saw a
235 percent increase in usage in Rockland
County, the President's county. We saw
overall a 57 percent increase in use for
residential purposes and a 118 percent use for
commercial.
And a concern is, and apparently
it's happened in the history of our state
before, that if you go to a time period where
there is a lapse in coverage, that you could
leave these thousands of households throughout
the state of New York without any Fair
insurance.
So again, after all these years of
having extender bills, while I appreciate a
three-year extender is better than a one-year
extender, it still leaves the policyholders
1909
and the companies in a situation of never
knowing -- that would be in a 36-month period
instead of a 12-month period, but never
knowing what the continuation of this program
would be.
So I understand your point about
going from one-year to three-year, but again,
I don't quite understand why we wouldn't just
follow the lead of 47 other states, make this
permanent, decrease the risks for
policyholders and insurance companies of
finding themselves with lapsed coverage
timing, and just go ahead and do what's
clearly been the successful model throughout
our country.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Yes,
Senator Seward, in there someplace is a
question.
SENATOR SEWARD: Well, Mr.
President, I would just simply respond in this
way.
Through this bill we are extending
the NYPIUA program for the longest period of
time ever in the history of the program. I
think that's a commendable thing to do, and
1910
this bill does that.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: Mr.
President, if, through you, the sponsor will
continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Seward, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR SEWARD: Certainly.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: Thank you,
Mr. President.
So your bill, Senator Seward, is
actually a two-parter. It both deals with the
extension of NYPIUA for three years, but it
also ties into it a completely separate
insurance issue, the flex plan rating for auto
insurance.
I'll start out by asking you, why
would we mix these two completely different
insurance issues in one bill?
SENATOR SEWARD: Mr. President,
this bill deals with the efforts to provide
more availability of insurance -- thus the
name of the bill, Property/Casualty Insurance
Availability Act.
1911
And it also deals strictly with
extenders, extenders of the NYPIUA as well as
the various provisions related to primarily
auto, which have been -- there's been a lapse
in those extenders since August of 2001, and
we have seen a deterioration of the market in
that area as well.
And so it's very common when we are
dealing with extenders to put them together in
a comprehensive package, particularly when
they all deal, in this case, with availability
of insurance.
And we have one provision that is
expiring at the end of April, and another
which had expired in August of 2001. It seems
to make perfect sense to me to bring these
together in a comprehensive package and let's
get the job done once and for all.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: Through
you, Mr. President, if the sponsor would
continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Does
the sponsor continue to yield?
SENATOR SEWARD: Certainly.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: He
1912
yields.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: Thank you,
Senator Seward, through the President.
So you've put together two
different sections of insurance law into one
bill in the belief that we could get moving on
both of them.
And clearly a concern for me, and I
think for many members of this house, now
we've put ourselves in a situation where, for
example, speaking for myself I would very much
like to be able to vote for the extension of
NYPIUA. I think it's been a very successful
insurance program, a program I think we should
make permanent, a program I don't think should
be left to the risk of lagging and having a
period of time where, because the two houses
cannot agree, that we won't have a
continuation of NYPIUA.
And yet I am faced with your bill
of having to make a decision, then, to also
support reinstatement of expired flex rating.
And there are many concerns about the flex
rating program.
So to just specifically focus again
1913
on the flex rating side of your bill, it's my
understanding that while this would -- that
this section of your legislation would, on
average, require if an auto insurance company
was going to raise their rates they could do
it by no more than 7 percent without going to
the insurance commissioner, because of the
averaging that an insurance company could
actually raise its rates on an individual as
high as 30 percent without having to go to the
insurance commissioner, under your bill.
Could I ask you for a clarification
of that scenario?
SENATOR SEWARD: Mr. President,
in reference to the first part of the
question, in terms of why combining these
provisions together, there is in fact
precedent for putting the NYPIUA program
together with the auto extenders. That was
exactly done back in 1995. So this has been
done in the past.
And also in reference to your
second question, regarding the flex rating
provisions of the bill, the reason that flex
rating is important and included here with the
1914
extender bill is the fact that these
provisions have been in law up until August of
2001, when they were allowed to expire due to
inaction in the other house.
These provisions, over the years,
have done much to stabilize the auto insurance
market, to make New York State a more
attractive place in which to write business,
provided for more competition, companies
competing for our business. And in fact, they
have helped to stabilize rates over the years.
Now, the fact that a company could
make adjustments to their rates without prior
approval, within certain limits, does not
preclude and does not change the fact that the
State Insurance Department is charged with the
responsibility not for prior approval, but
they are required to review the rates and to
make sure that they are in fact justified.
And so this bill in no way would
take out of the law oversight provisions and
requirements on the part of the State
Insurance Department.
Now, we're all concerned -- we're
all concerned about auto insurance rates. In
1915
fact, what we have seen since flex rating and
the other extenders have gone out of the law
in August of 2001, we have seen, since then,
rates going up more than they would have if
flex rating was in place.
And so I don't think that the fact
that flex rating is out of the law has done
the job in terms of holding auto rates down.
In fact, the opposite has been true.
And I would point out that both
last session and earlier this session, this
house has I believe unanimously approved these
auto extenders both last year and this year
previously.
We're asking you to do it again as
part of this comprehensive package.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: Mr.
President, if through you -- excuse me. I
have an amendment at the desk, I believe.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Yes,
there is an amendment at the desk.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: Could I
waive reading?
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: You
may waive the reading and speak to the
1916
amendment.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: Thank you.
On my amendment.
To highlight again, this is a bill
that addresses two completely different issues
in insurance, as Senator Seward has proposed
it. On the one hand, it extends the NYPIUA
legislation, New York State Property Insurance
Underwriting Association insurance, which is
the insurance of last resort for many
homeowners and businesses. It's a bill that I
think not only should we be extending, but a
bill that we should make permanent in our law
in New York State. But he has mixed his bill
with a completely different insurance issue,
that of pricing in auto insurance.
And as he just referenced a minute
ago, this house has been attempting to deal
with auto insurance rates. And in fact, it's
my understanding that there is supposed to be
a conference committee between the Assembly
and the Senate specific to auto insurance
reform.
And so in my amendment before you
at the desk, I amend his bill in two ways.
1917
One, to make permanent the NYPIUA legislation;
but, second, to repeal the flex rating plan of
auto insurance in the bill. Because I think
it is critical not to put homeowners and
businesses at risk of losing this insurance
because we combine that insurance package with
a completely different auto insurance issue,
putting at risk the continuation of that
important insurance of last resort.
I do not believe the Assembly will
consider these two packages of insurance in
one bill, so I believe it would be critical
for us to pass an amended version of Senator
Seward's bill today.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Thank
you, Senator Krueger.
Senator Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Yes, Mr.
President, briefly on the amendment.
I think this is an excellent
amendment. We are attempting by this
legislation to combine something that the
consumers of this state absolutely need.
New York is, I believe, one of only two states
1918
that has not made permanent -- three states
that has not made permanent these provisions
that Senator Krueger was speaking about.
This is something we're required to
do, this is something that the businesses of
the state need. We talk about being
pro-business; this is an essential piece of
legislation that clearly should be made
permanent.
What's going on here simply is
we're taking something we should do that our
constituents need and using it for political
leverage, to try and force the Assembly to
move on a piece of legislation which I also
join our Assembly colleagues in opposing.
I don't think there's any need to
give an automatic increase or an increase
without hearing of insurance as is provided
for in this legislation. I think the system
of providing hearings and requiring some
process to be followed before increases in
insurance is absolutely essential. I think
it's a fair provision. I don't think it's
having a negative impact to the degree that we
should change the law.
1919
But to try and link the debate over
whether or not we should impose due process
requirements and hearing requirements on the
insurance industry when they seek to increase
insurance, to link that to something that we
know is critical I think is really not the
right way to do business.
Let's pass the bill, let's do
Senator Krueger's amendment, let's renew the
Fair Plan, and then let's fight on the other
issues another day and let's engage in that
debate. This is something we have to do this
session. And I hope it will not be held
hostage to these other ill-conceived ideas.
I support the amendment. I urge
everyone to do so.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Thank
you, Senator Schneiderman.
All those Senators in favor of the
amendment please signify by raising your
hands.
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
agreement are Senators Andrews, Breslin,
Brown, Diaz, Dilan, Duane, Gonzalez,
Hassell-Thompson, L. Krueger, C. Kruger,
1920
Lachman, Onorato, Oppenheimer, Parker,
Paterson, Sabini, Schneiderman, A. Smith,
M. Smith, Stachowski, and Stavisky.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
amendment is lost.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 12. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Breslin, to explain his vote.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Thank you, Mr.
President.
I concur with Senator Krueger in
her presentation of her amendment. But on the
other hand, the flex rating passed this house
58 to 1 in January. It provides some
flexibility for insurance companies in terms
of short increases or decreases in rates and
provides them some ability to cancel a small
percentage of their subscribers.
NYPIUA unquestionably should be
passed and become permanent in law. It's been
1921
around for so long. It doesn't belong with
flex. But NYPIUA also is something that two
years ago passed 56 to 1, and we all agree
what an important, good program it is as the
insurer of last resort.
They each should be independent of
each other. But I think it's important to
remember that both of them are good. It's
posturing by this house to combine them. But
they're still two good bills, and I intend to
vote in the positive on this bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Breslin will be recorded in the
affirmative.
The Secretary will announce the
results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59. Nays,
2. Senators L. Krueger and Senator
Schneiderman recorded in the negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
bill is passed.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
370, by Senator Saland, Senate Print 1928, an
act to amend the Criminal Procedure Law and
1922
others, in relation to testing.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER:
Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Saland, an explanation has been
requested.
SENATOR SALAND: Thank you, Mr.
President.
Mr. President, this is a bill which
we have seen in this house on prior occasion.
This bill, as some may recall, in 1995 we as
part of the then-budget deliberations passed
legislation which required post-conviction
testing that could be requested by a sexual
assault victim, the purpose of that testing
being HIV determination.
What this bill proposes to do is to
provide preconviction testing. It has a
reasonable-cause standard, that
reasonable-cause standard being either an
indictment or an accusatory instrument having
been filed. The bill proposes to provide an
application to the court. Information
gathered in the course of this application
process and thereafter would remain
1923
confidential information.
The bill sets forth a series of
requirements that an applicant or petitioner
would have to be aware of before he or she
would be able to expect that a court would
rule favorably in his or her favor.
The bill is an effort to, in
effect, empower victims, give victims the
ability to choose where they believe they may
have, by reason of the commission of a violent
felony, an assault, a sexual assault, an act
of incest, where they believe that they may
have been infected by a transmissible disease
to apply for the court for that testing. That
testing, should that person choose to do so,
the expense would be borne by the state.
And again, this, as I said, is an
effort to empower victims.
There's probably somewhere in the
area -- I don't know the most recent
statistics, but I believe last year's
statistics, I think there were somewhere in
the area of about 4600 sexual assaults
committed in this state.
And if in fact those people who
1924
choose, after going through this process, not
to make that decision, that's something they
choose of their own free will, that's the
choice that they elect to make.
If those who go through this
process after being informed, as is required
under this bill, elect to in fact require
testing of their assailant, then that too is a
product of the choice of that person and
hopefully will assist that person as they
attempt to deal not only with their physical
well-being but their emotional and
psychological well-being as well.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Thank
you, Senator.
Senator Krueger.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: Thank you,
Mr. President. If the sponsor would yield to
a question, through you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Saland, will you yield for another
question?
SENATOR SALAND: Yes, Mr.
President.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: Thank you,
1925
Mr. President.
I believe that the sponsor and I
are both very strong advocates for victims of
sexual assault. And yet there are many issues
I have with this legislation, so I will just
start.
Senator Saland, if this is about
protecting sexual assault survivors, why does
your bill not have any specific requirements
for counseling about sexually transmitted
diseases?
SENATOR SALAND: What this bill
does, Senator Krueger, is it basically
provides the ability for somebody to make an
informed decision. And if as part and parcel
of that informed decision they elect to choose
counseling, they certainly may. This bill
does nothing to impede anybody's engaging in
counseling. I would certainly hope that that
would be part and parcel.
But I would call your attention to
subparagraph (d) of paragraph 4, which
basically sets forth what I have termed in
prior debates the conditions precedent before
an applicant can hope to have her or his
1926
application entertained. And I think it's
pretty self-explanatory. What it says is:
"In all such applications for
testing filed pursuant to this section, the
applicant must also state that the applicant
has been offered counseling by a public health
officer and then been advised of (1) the
limitations of the information to be obtained
through a blood test on the proposed subject;
(2) current scientific assessments of the risk
of transmission of a disease from the exposure
he or she may have experienced; (3) the need
for the applicant to undergo testing to
definitively determine his or her status with
regard to any disease; and (4) the
availability of prompt, readily accessible and
scientifically recognized laboratory testing
of the applicant, including, where
appropriate, PCR or other advanced testing."
And it goes on for a couple more lines.
It doesn't specifically refer to
therapy, but certainly therapy or counseling
would be something that would be well within
the realm of what someone would choose to do.
They may be able to have that therapy through
1927
their own insurance coverage. They may be
able to receive some kind of assistance with
that through the Victim's Compensation Board
as well.
It certainly does not -- I hope it
wasn't implied that somehow or other it's
intended to preclude that.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Thank
you, Senator.
Senator Krueger.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: Thank you,
Mr. President. If, through you, the sponsor
would continue to yield, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Saland, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR SALAND: Yes, Mr.
President.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: Thank you.
I appreciated the sponsor's
response, and I think that did go to some of
the concerns about counseling about blood
testing of the potential perpetrator.
But that doesn't deal -- and of
course we don't have in state law yet a
requirement that these services would be
1928
available or paid for in our emergency rooms,
where we assume most sexual assault survivors
would end up soon after the sexual assault.
But I'd also like to talk
specifically about the type of counseling
that's so important of assuring coverage for
prophylactic treatment of a survivor of
assault. The current research shows that the
most effective and most important medical
response that a survivor of sexual assault can
take, the best advice is to start prophylactic
treatment to protect themselves from sexually
transmitted diseases, including HIV and other
forms of STDs, within the first 12 hours of
the assault.
So I'm concerned that your
legislation doesn't specifically outline or
even mandate that this is the kind of
counseling and these are the kinds of
resources that we should make sure are
available to victims of sexual assault.
Because if they don't have that information
and if they don't in fact have access to that
treatment -- actually, the CDC recommends
within the first two hours after an assault,
1929
but medical knowledge says within the first
12 hours, that that's really the
state-of-the-art medical prevention and
treatment that we should be providing.
So I'm concerned that I don't see
that in your bill. Is that there?
SENATOR SALAND: I think, being
realistic about this, this is after an
indictment? Or after an accusatory instrument
has been filed? That would not be within two
hours of the incident.
So you're attempting to deal with
an issue that's not possibly dealt with
without having some concern about the civil
liberties of the defendant, the so-called
alleged perpetrator. There has to be some
reasonable-cause standard. You just can't
walk in and say: He or she did this to me;
therefore, test them.
What this says is there must be an
indictment or an accusatory instrument. And
again, that's not going to happen in a couple
of hours.
But I would think that the
counseling by the public health official, if
1930
the victim had not been apprised prior to
that, certainly would apprise him or her of
that at that point. But not, again, within
two hours.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: Mr.
President, if through you I could ask the
sponsor to continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Saland, do you continue to yield for
another short question and another short
answer?
SENATOR SALAND: Yes, sir.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR SALAND: Sorry, I
couldn't hear you, sir.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: We'll just
ignore the President for a moment.
Just to clarify, thank you for your
response. I don't think we were disagreeing
about the timeline of going to court to have
yet the testing of the alleged perpetrator.
But, rather, it's the issue for the survivor;
that the survivor doesn't need to go to court
and shouldn't need to go to court to start
prophylactic treatment to protect themselves.
1931
My point was that from a medical
perspective, if the most important issue here
for a survivor of sexual assault is to try to,
as best possible, protect him- or herself from
the risk of disease transmitted during the
sexual assault, then the number-one priority
is what is the best medical care they could
get upon reporting a sexual assault.
Your bill doesn't address that part
of my concern. Rather, it goes into the "you
would have the right to go to court and within
a five-day period get a test done on the
accused perpetrator," but not -- it does not
take the step closer to the assault where
medical care really is critical, not waiting
to determine whether there's a test result
done on a perpetrator.
That was clarification of your
answer, and I apologize. I should go forward
with an actual question.
Since you do talk about going to
court, getting permission from the court to
test the perpetrator, then having the test
done, what is your understanding -- because
it's not clear from this legislation -- what
1932
the correct protocol should be once a test is
done?
Is it the recommendation from your
legislation that having had one blood test on
a proposed perpetrator, that should be the
basis of some medical determination?
SENATOR SALAND: This bill makes
no effort to define what the protocol should
be. Again, as I said earlier, this is
basically about empowering victims to have the
opportunity when they believe, when he or she
believes that, after having an understanding,
based upon the section that I read to you, of
what is entailed as part of this process,
whether that person in the first instance
wishes to go forward.
And if he or she then wishes to go
forward, that is something that will be
resolved between that person and whatever
professional they deal with in terms of
getting their healthcare.
That is -- no bill could attempt to
define what would be a person's decision and
then how that person should engage his or her
medical professional in terms of what the
1933
protocol or treatment should be. I mean,
that's for a doctor and -- or a medical
professional and the patient.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: Thank you.
Mr. President, if through you the
sponsor could would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Saland, will you continue to yield?
SENATOR SALAND: Yes.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: Thank you.
So based on your previous answer to
the question, we agree that your legislation
doesn't specifically help a sexual assault
survivor to evaluate the meaning of an alleged
perpetrator's test result if they haven't had
counseling, and it doesn't mandate counseling.
We also know that the Center for
Disease Control calls on all tested
individuals to be counseled before testing and
after receiving test results, and note that
specifically for positive test results there
should be a follow-up test using another
technique to confirm that it hasn't been a
false positive or a false negative.
And yet in your bill we also agree
1934
there are no provisions in the law
specifically for assuring counseling or CDC
standards or follow-up counseling or review of
the meaning of a test result by a survivor who
might turn to court.
So my question is, could not all
this confusion and timelines -- going to
court, not knowing what the answers are,
perhaps not having access to counseling about
what test results should be, not knowing there
should be follow-up tests, not knowing that
there's a rate of false negatives and false
positives, false negatives particularly for
people who may have been infected within the
last few weeks or months -- could all of these
requirements in your law that on the one hand
appear to be intended to protect survivors of
sexual assault instead, in reverse, result in
them, in these men and women doing harm to
themselves by not following what is, again,
the best medical protocol, have themselves
tested in over an extended period of time,
have themselves start prophylactic drug
treatment as soon as possible?
So does all of the intended, I
1935
think we would agree, potentially intended
good consequences of your legislation, because
of all the technicalities and the health
technicalities and the going back and forth,
in fact result in survivors choosing to not do
what medical science says they should do,
start the treatment themselves right away?
SENATOR SALAND: You may be
talking apples and I may be talking oranges,
Senator Krueger.
There was, in our earlier dialogue,
reference to what I assumed was therapy. And
perhaps the ambit of counseling is so broad
that it really takes care of a multiplicity of
disciplines.
But this bill does provide that
before you get in the door there has to be
counseling through the public health official.
That certainly is a given.
As I said earlier, the issue that
you wish to deal with is an issue which
certainly is an issue which, at onset, is a
critical issue. This comes much later.
And as I also said to you, this is
about choice. This is about choice, pure and
1936
simple. Choice that empowers people to make
intelligent decisions.
The commissioner, the health
commissioner, under this proposal, has the
ability to promulgate rules and regulations
that will provide whatever type of testing the
health commissioner -- not me, not you -- the
health professionals think would be
appropriate. And certainly it's my
understanding, which may not be as great as
yours, but that multiple testing certainly is
the appropriate protocol.
And anybody who comes into this
system is going to know that. Because if you
just go and follow the footprints which I read
to you earlier, you're going to have to know.
And what you choose after you go through those
what I term condition precedents will be your
decision. You may say: You know what? I
just don't want to go there. But by the same
token, you may say: I do want to go there.
And that's purely a matter of choice.
And as I said, if there are some
4600 cases, if there are a thousand cases and
out of those thousand cases 500 choose not to
1937
go there and 500 do, or 800 choose not to and
200 do, whatever it is, it will be result of
an intelligent decision, with as much
information as can be marshalled for that
person to make his or her decision.
But the decision is not mine, it's
not anybody in this chamber's, it's the
victim's decision. And I'd like to think that
we could certainly provide that people have
the God-given ability to make those types of
choices.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Thank
you, Senator.
Senator Krueger.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: Mr.
President, if through you the sponsor would
continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Saland, will you continue to yield?
SENATOR SALAND: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: Thank you,
Senator. Thank you, Mr. President.
1938
So you were highlighting that this
is a bill to give sexual assault survivors
options. Choices, as you put it. And again,
in theory, choices to make smart medical
decisions for themselves.
What is your understanding of the
smart medical decision that a survivor
could -- the conclusion they could come to if
they were to follow through with your law, go
to court, have the court-ordered test, get the
test results -- what, in your understanding,
are the choices they would then have available
to them that would be different than if they
didn't follow that route?
SENATOR SALAND: My understanding
is -- my understanding is not as important as
whatever may be that which constitutes the
best interests and efforts of the victim.
I mean, it was almost a year ago to
the day that there was considerable notoriety
surrounding an event in New York City
involving a woman taxicab driver. And all
this woman wanted was to basically have her
assailant tested. And she found out that she
couldn't have her assailant tested.
1939
I came to this issue a number of
years ago, in the early 1990s, when I found
that there were at least two reported cases in
the media -- one in a law periodical, one in
the media -- where an assailant refused to
undergo any testing unless in return he got a
plea bargain. Now, that offended me. And I
assume it offends you as well.
And I just want to make sure that
that can't happen. And I want to make sure
that that can't happen in an environment that
provides as much information to the victim as
is humanly possible.
And we may disagree on whether this
is appropriate or not, and obviously we do.
But I believe it's appropriate. I'm not
making that decision for anybody. I just want
them armed with all the tools I can give them
to make that decision.
I want that cab driver to have the
ability to have her assailant tested. And
after she knows the state of the medical
advice that she can receive, if that's what
she wants, if she's not satisfied with the
information that she has received and she
1940
wants that, and there's an indictment filed
against her assailant which rises to the level
of reasonable cause, then I think by all means
she should have it. Pure and simple.
And out of those 4600 cases, if
there's only 10 victims like that, I say let
the ten have it. I'll side with the 10, and
others, you know, can be concerned with other
issues and not side with the 10.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: Thank you.
Mr. President, if through you the
sponsor would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Saland, would you continue to yield?
SENATOR SALAND: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: Thank you.
So if I could shorthand, just --
Senator Saland, you agree that -- excuse me,
your position is that somebody should have the
right to this information because they choose
to want this information. But I think I'm
also hearing you agree with me that there may
1941
be no medical basis or argument in support of
this information leading them to any medically
advised decision-making for themselves as a
victim of sexual assault.
SENATOR SALAND: That may be your
characterization of what I said, but as far as
I know I didn't say that. If I said it, then
I'll try saying something else differently.
I mean, the bottom line is, is that
there are cases in which -- that are in our
criminal courts in which people commit the
most heinous of crimes on other people. This
bill attempts to identify those violent
crimes, and it says if you are a victim of a
transmissible disease -- and we define what a
transmissible disease is here in the bill.
And I'm not going to bother to read the
definition. I'm sure you've seen it already.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: Mm-hmm.
SENATOR SALAND: -- if the
determination is made, then you have the
ability to make an application.
Whether everybody would make that
application, I have no idea. I would assume
everybody wouldn't make that application. And
1942
when you go through that application process,
if you decide that you don't want to see it
through to the end, you can do that.
But if you want to see it through
to the end because you feel that it's
important to you, it's important whether it be
for medical reasons, whether it be for
psychological reasons, if we want to make that
separate and distinct from medical reasons,
for whatever reason, you're the victim. You
should have that ability.
You can't do it willy-nilly,
because we've put in a reasonable-cause
standard. The law permits it. Certainly
New York has recognized that. I mean, there's
nothing unconstitutional about this.
I've seen the most recent Civil
Liberties Union memo in opposition, and quite
candidly I don't think it would stand up for
ten minutes. Maybe you could find a judge
somewhere that will give you a favorable
ruling, but it certainly wouldn't stand up on
appeal.
And I would just suggest they take
a look at Matter of Abe A. and understand how
1943
we take blood from people in New York without
their consent, and they'll understand that the
state, if it has a compelling interest, has
the ability to do that as long as there's some
reasonable nexus for it. And we have that
reasonable nexus here.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: Mr.
President, if the sponsor would continue to
yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Saland, will you continue to yield?
SENATOR SALAND: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: Thank you.
I think that the state's compelling
interest in this case, and the issues that I'm
talking about here, are the health concerns of
the assault victim.
And so a question I have, based on
this continuing discussion, would you support
your own legislation if the result of it was
that people failed to get the healthcare that
they should get for themselves because the
1944
information that was made available to them
through this legislation led them to fail to
get best practical healthcare for themselves?
SENATOR SALAND: I view that as
being so contrived as to not warrant a
response. Not by you, I've seen it in other
memos.
I mean, people have got -- I mean,
if you go from A to B, if you follow the
steps, unless you have some severe
intellectual-capacity problems, you know,
you're going to know what all your options
are, you're going to be able to arrive at,
again, a reasonably intelligent decision. The
health commissioner is going to promulgate
rules and regulations. You're going to be
told what the state of the art is and what you
should do as well as what your rights are with
respect to the perpetrator.
I mean, it's a road map, and it's
not a very complicated road map. Just, you
know, follow the steps. They'll get you
there.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Thank
you, Senator.
1945
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: Thank you,
Mr. President. If, through you, the sponsor
would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Saland, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR SALAND: Yes, Mr.
President. Although I get the impression you
think I should do so reluctantly.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: Thank you,
Mr. President.
I think I will lay out a scenario
because I think I don't agree with your last
answer that anybody, quote, unquote, who was
not intellectually incapacitated couldn't just
follow the road map and go forward.
If I imagine myself to be a victim
of sexual assault and I'm in an emergency
room -- and I would argue that I'm conceivably
in a state of shock, I may be physically as
well as clearly emotional battered. I may not
have somebody standing there in that emergency
room giving me all of the details and the
counseling of the specific best-case scenario
1946
in medical care and treatment. I may not have
an emergency room that has prophylactic drug
treatments available to me without my knowing
to ask for them, and I'm not likely to be in a
state to know to ask for those.
I may, in fact, be told, under your
law, that I have the right to have my accused
perpetrator, on the very slim chance that
they've in fact been arrested in the short
period of time, I may be told that I have the
right to have them tested. And I may,
again -- not necessarily having this road map,
all this information in front of me, clearly
being psychologically if not physically
damaged and traumatized at this time -- I may
believe that if I can have them tested and the
test comes up negative, that I don't have to
go forward with medical treatments that may
not seem too pleasant.
Who wants to take medicine if they
don't have to? Who certainly wants to go
through shots? I personally have a fear of
needles. So who wants to go through shots if
they don't believe they have to?
So I may, again, being of good,
1947
sound mind in normal circumstances, hear this
information and say: No, as long as I have
them tested, I don't have to have myself
tested. I don't have to start this treatment
somebody's telling me I should start in the
first two hours. I just want to put this
behind me for a while and try to calm down.
So I would argue with your analysis
and ask you again to rethink whether there are
circumstances where the right of someone under
your law to go to court and ask for this test
would not in fact be in their best medical
interest.
SENATOR SALAND: You may have
heard me say earlier you're talking apples and
I'm talking oranges. The bottom line here is
that this situation that you describe will not
arise under this bill because it will not
arise in an emergency room. And it will not
occur within the two first two hours of
whatever horrific incident may occur.
The bottom line is, is that I'm
talking about providing people with knowledge;
you're talking about dealing with people in an
emergency room. This is not going to occur in
1948
an emergency room. And, again, there are
those steps that you have to take. It can't
occur within two hours. It will never occur
within two hours. You will never have someone
who's indicted, certainly, within two hours
after an incident. And you won't have anybody
who has an accusatory instrument filed against
them within two hours of the incident.
So it's just not going to happen.
It's a totally unrealistic scenario that you
describe with regard to the application in
this bill. I mean, that -- there's no other
way to answer or respond to you.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: Thank you,
Senator --
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President,
if I could just interrupt for a moment.
If we could have the last section
read for the purposes of Senator Smith voting.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Section 8. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Call
the roll.
1949
(The Secretary called the roll.)
SENATOR ADA SMITH: No.
Thank you.
SENATOR SKELOS: Please withdraw
the roll call.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Okay.
Senator Smith will be recorded in the
negative, and we'll withdraw the roll call.
Senator Krueger.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: Thank you,
Mr. President. If the sponsor would continue
to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Saland, will you continue to yield?
SENATOR SALAND: I will continue
to yield, Senator Krueger, but I'm beginning
to think this is -- unless we're on the same
page, this is getting a little pointless.
So if -- and I say this at the
expense of being less than collegial. And I
don't want to appear to be rude here. But,
you know, if we're on the same page, fine.
You're talking over me and I'm talking over
you. So, you know, if we have something that
brings us together, why don't you do that with
1950
a question, and I'll be happy to answer it.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: All right.
Mr. President, out of respect for my
colleague -- because I think we clearly don't
agree on this legislation -- what I would like
to do instead is there is an amendment at the
desk.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Yes,
there is.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: Thank you.
If I could waive reading of the amendment.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
reading of the amendment is waived.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: Thank you.
If I could speak on my amendment.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: You
may speak on your amendment.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: You're
welcome.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: What I do
believe is that while Senator Saland and I do
not agree, clearly, about his legislation, I
do believe that we both agree that what is
important -- and I think this whole house
1951
agrees that what is important is to provide
the best possible services and treatments and
responses to people in the State of New York
who have been the victims of sexual assault.
And so in hopes of taking a bill
that I in fact cannot support and turning it
into something that I could support, and that
would, I think, make a difference in the lives
of sexual assault victims, I have proposed an
amendment that adds a number of different
items to Senator Saland's bill.
One, in my amendment we would
provide for the dispensing of emergency
contraception by nurses and pharmacists so
that EC can be used when other -- when a woman
is a victim of sexual assault. That that EC,
the emergency contraception should be
available at emergency rooms throughout the
State of New York.
Two, I add a section that in fact I
take directly from a bill of Senator Nozzolio,
S958, which would establish direct
reimbursement by the Crime Victims Board for
exams, counseling, lab tests, and
post-exposure prophylactic costs for victims
1952
of sexual assault.
Because I do believe that Senator
Saland and I agree that what is most important
is ensuring that victims of sexual assault get
the best possible medical care, counseling
services immediately upon being reported as a
victim of sexual assault.
And, third, my amendment would also
remove the statute of limitations for
prosecution of violent felony sexual offenses;
i.e., rape in the first degree, sodomy in the
first degree, sexual abuse in the first
degree, aggravated sexual abuse in the second
degree.
Because while Senator Saland's bill
in fact deals with a tiny scenario of people
who might be caught and then sexual assault
victims who might request blood testing of
those accused perpetrators, what is really the
scandal in the State of New York right now is
the large numbers of rape victims who never
have their perpetrators caught. And that we
have backlogs in warehouses throughout this
state of DNA rape tests that have been done,
and yet we have never done the DNA
1953
cross-matching and testing, meaning that it
can be well beyond the five-year statute of
limitations for rape when the perpetrator is
discovered through a DNA test, and then it is
too late.
So I hope that this house will
consider supporting my amendments to this
legislation.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: You're
welcome, Senator Krueger.
All those Senators in favor of the
amendment please signify by raising your
hands.
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
agreement are Senators Andrews, Breslin,
Connor, Dilan, Duane, L. Krueger, Montgomery,
Parker, Paterson, Sabini, Schneiderman,
M. Smith, and Stavisky. Also Senators
Hassell-Thompson, Oppenheimer, and Onorato.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
amendment is lost.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 8. This
act shall take effect immediately.
1954
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Call
the roll.
Senator Duane, why do you rise?
SENATOR DUANE: Mr. President, I
just want to -- we're on the bill at this
point?
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: We're
on the roll call.
SENATOR DUANE: I wanted to speak
on the bill. I'm sorry, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: On the
bill.
Withdraw the roll call.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Mr.
President.
The most important issue I think
that we can address is that we need to get the
focus off the testing of the perpetrator and
put the focus on the victim or the survivor of
an assault.
Now, I have spoken out on this bill
in the past. And while the bill has improved
in many ways, the bill is still not one that I
think we should be voting on. Particularly
since we already have principles in place
1955
governing mandated HIV testing of persons
accused of certain crimes, which was put
forward by the Governor's own AIDS Advisory
Council in 1996.
Now, the sponsor said that he
didn't want to read the definition of
transmissible diseases in this legislation,
but I think it's important that we know what
that definition is. It's HIV, syphilis,
gonorrhea, lymphogranuloma, venereum, herpes,
genital warts, and hepatitis.
Now, I disagree with this position.
But even if you thought because HIV
unfortunately now is still a deadly disease
and that's why the mandatory testing is so
important, I don't think that you could make
the same argument about herpes or genital
warts or venereum. They are not deadly
diseases.
And so the level of why mandatory
testing would be required is certainly not the
same as it would be for the person who
believes that HIV needs to be mandatorily
tested for.
The legislation also continues to
1956
be flawed in that there is a section in the
legislation that says -- that refers to
exposure to body fluid during the commission
of a crime as "approximate result of the
commission of or in the course of flight from
an offense described in such paragraph in such
a manner that may have involved transmission
of a specified transmissible disease from the
defendant to the petitioner."
And particularly because the
"transmissible disease" is so overbroad and
because of what we know happens in facilities,
particularly where people are incarcerated and
there are other circumstances, the net is just
too wide that's being cast for mandatory
testing.
And again, the principles for that
are already in place. And if we believed that
it was important to change the circumstances
under which a defendant should be mandatorily
tested, well, I don't think we should just do
that here on the floor without having a
hearing from public health experts, people who
know about HIV transmission, and, if we're
going to discuss the other transmissible
1957
diseases which I listed, people who know about
those diseases as well -- infectious disease
experts is the group that I'm reaching for --
as well as those involved in the criminal
justice system.
The proper forum for that would be
in that kind of an HIV advisory panel which
exists now and which has had hearings on this.
Also, I just -- there is another
point which I think is worth mentioning.
Already testing can be done of the
perpetrator -- or the alleged perpetrator, I
should say -- on a voluntary basis to accused
persons. This is a much easier way to go
about combating, I think, what the sponsor is
trying to get at in terms of how the victim or
the survivor would get their information.
And I also think that to have that
level of due process for a defendant is very
important. And there's a practical purpose
that if a defendant willingly agrees to be
tested, there's a lot of time and money and
expense that's saved in doing it that way.
And I think ultimately that would be -- in the
cases where that works, that's a much better
1958
way of going about getting information to the
victim or survivor.
But I want to go back to the
original idea, and that is let's stop the
obsession with believing that all people with
HIV are criminals and all criminals have HIV.
Because that's what starts to -- that's what
these bills lead to when they're put forward
without a thoughtful public health discussion,
a thoughtful criminal justice discussion.
Of course some perpetrators have
HIV, and many, many do not. And of course
some people with HIV are criminals, and many,
many of them are not. Sadly, HIV, unlike the
other diseases that are listed -- like herpes
and venereum, et cetera, gonorrhea, are not
deadly as HIV is deadly.
So the bottom line is let's take
the emphasis off the testing for transmissible
diseases of the defendant and put the
immediate treatment of the victim at the top
of the agenda -- perhaps not at the exact
moment of the attack, but certainly within the
first few moments that the victim arrives at
the hospital. That should be our first
1959
responsibility.
The other issues are those which --
and as I say, the legislation has improved,
but it's still not necessary and it's still
flawed. That's a place to take -- those are
issues to take to public hearings.
But what we should be doing here is
protecting the immediate safety of the victim.
So again, even though this is a new version of
the legislation, I would encourage my
colleagues to vote no.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
Secretary will call the roll.
THE SECRETARY: Section 8. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Krueger, to explain your vote.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: Thank you,
Mr. President.
Some of you might believe I've
already said all I could say about this bill.
And in fact, there's so much more.
1960
But I do want to highlight that
while I don't necessarily believe that Senator
Saland's intention with this bill is to
mislead the public or to mislead survivors of
sexual assault -- that somehow this option for
them, or this choice, as he puts it, gives
them some added protection or information for
their health -- in fact, even the discussion
of this legislation has resulted in misleading
TV and radio ads that have led many in my
district to believe that somehow the right to
test a perpetrator, if they are the victims of
sexual assault, will in fact protect them from
sexually transmitted diseases.
And what I want to just highlight
in voting no against this bill is there is so
much more we can be doing to ensure that
victims of sexual assault get the best medical
care possible. But this legislation in fact
puts them at risk of believing that they don't
need to follow the advice of best medical
practice.
And so I vote no on this bill
because I believe that its risk to do harm is
greater than the good to be coming out of just
1961
one more choice for people.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Thank
you, Senator Krueger.
Senator Krueger will be recorded in
the negative.
The Secretary will announce the
results.
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
the negative on Calendar Number 370 are
Senators Andrews, Connor, Dilan, Duane,
Hassell-Thompson, L. Krueger, Montgomery,
Oppenheimer, Parker, Paterson, Sabini,
Schneiderman, A. Smith, M. Smith, and
Stavisky. Ayes, 46. Nays, 15.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
bill is passed.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Senator Morahan,
there will be an immediate meeting --
Mr. President, there will be an immediate
meeting of the Local Government Committee in
the Majority Conference Room.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: There
will be an immediate meeting of the Local
1962
Government Committee in the Majority
Conference Room.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
379, by Member of the Assembly Lentol,
Assembly Print Number 7482, an act to amend
the Penal Law, in relation to the minimum
portion.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Read
the last section.
Senator Duane, why do you rise?
SENATOR DUANE: I'm asking if the
sponsor would yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator McGee, will you yield?
SENATOR McGEE: The sponsor
yields.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
sponsor yields.
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Mr.
President. Through you, I'm just wondering if
the sponsor would refresh my memory as to what
age, under current law, you can try a juvenile
as an adult.
SENATOR McGEE: Thirteen years --
1963
SENATOR DUANE: With or without
prompting.
SENATOR McGEE: A 13-year-old
convicted of murder would be held in the
custody of the Office of Children and Families
until he or she is at least 16 years of age.
Thirteen years.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Duane.
SENATOR DUANE: Well, no, that's
wrong, actually.
SENATOR McGEE: It's not?
SENATOR DUANE: Well, I'll just
speak on the bill, Mr. President, thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Duane, on the bill.
SENATOR DUANE: Just for
everyone's edification, the answer is actually
17 years old.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: You
knew the answer.
SENATOR DUANE: Anyway, I think
that in modern society, and as civilized
society has moved forward, we decided that
juveniles should be treated differently as
1964
adults in the criminal justice system. That a
child and an adolescent's mind and values and
conscience and virtually everything about them
is different than that of an adult.
The thinking is that a 15-year-old
is really a different kind of living person
than is a 30-year-old or a 35-year-old, that
in fact children are different than adults.
There's a reason why we created a
separate system as to how we treat juveniles
in the criminal justice system than how it is
that we treat adults in the criminal justice
system. For that reason, juvenile detention
facilities are different than adult
facilities. Not just the atmosphere, but the
entire philosophy is different.
And while I would argue that there
should be more of an emphasis on
rehabilitation in adult facilities, certainly
in modern times we have come to believe that
rehabilitation is a very, very important part
of our juvenile justice system. A child
doesn't have the same sets of consequences
that an adult does. A child does not have the
same formation of ideas and values that an
1965
adult does. And that is why we treat them
differently than adults in the criminal
justice system.
Now, if we put a 14- or a
15-year-old -- well, let me say one thing. I
hope perhaps as a result of last year's debate
on this bill, formerly the -- well, under
current law a juvenile could be sentenced to
five to nine years for the kind of crime
that's described in this legislation.
Last year's legislation, this bill
provided that a person convicted -- a child
convicted of this crime could serve a
15-to-25-year sentence, which was so far over
the top and so overblown as to be unimaginable
to sentence a 15-year-old child to be in a
juvenile facility until they're 18 and then go
and do hard time in a DOCS facility for
however many more years after that until
potentially being there to fulfill their
25-year sentence, up to fulfilling their
25-year sentence.
So now, though, the bill calls
for -- instead of 5 to 9, it becomes 7 to 15.
Which is better than 15 to 25, I will
1966
acknowledge that. But it's still a heck of
long time for a 15-year-old who leaves the
youth facilities at 18 to be spending doing
hard time in a state penitentiary.
Now, our laws have called for young
people, children, young teenagers to be
treated differently as adults across the
board. What this bill does is do an end run
around the juvenile offender law and just
makes the decision to start treating more
young people virtually like adults in the
criminal justice system. Well, maybe that is
what we want to do. Maybe we want to treat
all 15-year-olds like they're adults.
If that's what we want to do, then
let's put it on the floor to do that for all
15-year-olds. Then let's go back to Dickens.
Let's put in workhouses for kids if that's
what we want to do. But let's at least have a
debate on that. Let's not just make an end
run and change the rules around for one
circumstance for a 15-year-old, for one
15-year-old, for one case. Let's have the
guts to do it across the board for all
juveniles, and then let's see what happens
1967
when we wake up in the morning after having
done that.
So I ask my colleagues, don't vote
for this. Don't make a special exception to
our juvenile justice laws. You want to change
our juvenile justice laws, then let's change
our juvenile justice laws. But let's not make
an end run around them. Let's not just do it
for one particular case, horrible though it
may be. That's not how we should make our
laws in this state. I urge you to vote no on
this.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Thank
you, Senator Duane.
Does any other member wish to be
heard on this bill?
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect on the first of
November.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
1968
Senator Maziarz, to explain your vote.
SENATOR MAZIARZ: Thank you very
much, Mr. President. To explain my vote.
I want to disagree with my
colleague Senator Duane. I want to
congratulate and thank Senator McGee for
bringing this bill before us today for a vote.
Actually, Senator Duane is one
hundred percent wrong. The better bill, the
better bill was the bill that we passed last
year to make 14-, 15-year-olds responsible for
their actions.
Senator Duane should have sat in a
living room, like Senator Brown and I did,
with the mother of Jennifer Bolender and heard
what a 14- and a 15-year-old did to her
daughter. It's not about the one case that's
mentioned in the bill memo.
Senator Duane should have sat in
that living room like Senator Brown and I did
and talked to that mother about a 14-year-old
and a 15-year-old who almost cut her
16-year-old daughter's head off, cut her eyes
out, because they were afraid she was still
alive and they didn't want her to be able to
1969
identify them. Went back a second time to
make sure, did even more heinous things to her
to make sure that she was dead. That was done
by a 14- and a 15-year-old. Senator Duane
should have sat in a living room like Senator
Brown and I did.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Thank
you, Senator Maziarz.
Senator Volker.
SENATOR VOLKER: Have Pat speak
first, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Well,
I was going to ask the sponsor to close.
SENATOR VOLKER: Actually, we're
on a roll.
I just wanted to say quickly,
Senator Duane, you couldn't be more wrong.
And I don't agree with you at all that all
youths -- and by the way, your 17-year-old was
not right. Pat, Senator McGee, was right.
You're wrong. And I was here when we changed
the law.
It was partly in response to a
young kid, as you call them, a fellow who
1970
killed 14 people by the time he was 15 years
old. And, you know, having dealt with some of
the so-called young people that need treatment
it's pretty hard to treat somebody who just
murdered 14 people and admitted to it in open
court.
The problem is that we have some
so-called youths who are so vicious and so
beyond help that they're worse than adults in
some ways. And the law has recognized that on
a very limited basis. We certainly don't want
to deal with all youth -- they're not
children, by the way -- all youth, because
some of them are much more than children.
But what Senator McGee is doing
here, and I commend her for it, she was the
one who had a bill that would go to 13. Now,
Assemblyman Joe Lentol, in his -- in his
intelligence, was able to get this through the
Assembly, and I commend him for doing that, so
that we could have an agreement on this bill
that has been around for a number of years.
It was called Penny's Law. And Senator McGee
has been fighting for this for many years.
The individual who was involved in
1971
the killing that this bill talks about was
14 years old. And the horror that the family
went through was such a comparatively minor
penalty, it's something that I don't think you
want to go through and I really don't think
any parents really want to go through.
The problem is here this is about
justice. And you may call it a very limited
area, and it is a limited area. We certainly
don't want to do this if we have a real
so-called child. That's not what's happening
here. Violence is the kind of thing that we
must deal with, whether it's a 13, 14, 15, 16,
17, whoever it is. And Senator McGee, in this
bill, is dealing with it.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Thank
you, Senator Volker.
Senator Montgomery, to explain your
vote.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, Mr.
President, to explain my vote.
I'm very sorry to hear that the
bill has already passed the Assembly -- I
didn't realize that -- and that there is an
agreement and it is going to be law.
1972
This is a sentencing bill for
13-to-16-year-olds, simple as that. And so we
can rush and do this -- it took a few years,
but we're still doing it -- before we pass the
budget, a budget which proposes that we have
no funding for after-school programs, no
funding for summer youth employment programs,
no funding for mental health services,
especially to young people, no funding for
school-based health clinics.
So while we pass a sentencing law
for 13-to-16-year-olds, we at the same time
are proposing that we remove all or most, most
of the support services and resources for
young people in our state. I think this is an
absolute outrage.
And I'm sorry, Senator McGee, I
must absolutely disagree with you. We are
not -- this is not a bill to address criminal
activity by young people 13 to 16. It is a
bill to increase the sentencing that they will
receive in any case.
And so while I am opposed to
heinous acts by any person at any age, I am
also opposed to doing an increase in
1973
sentencing for young people to be in prison
for longer periods of time without
rehabilitation and, in addition, to remove
resources so that they will have no other
choice except to be in prison for more years.
So I'm voting no on this
legislation.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Montgomery, you will be recorded in
the negative.
Senator McGee.
SENATOR McGEE: Thank you, Mr.
President.
This truly is a great day. I'm
going to be very pleased to be able to make a
call to Salamanca, New York, to talk to Penny
Brown's mother and father.
Penny Brown was a mother, a wife,
and a nurse. And on Mother's Day, 1999, Penny
Brown took her dogs out for a walk. And her
dogs came back, but Penny Brown did not come
back. Her family found her on a path where
people walked, brutally beaten, brutally
raped, and murdered and strangled with one of
her dog's leashes.
1974
The individual who perpetrated this
crime was a teenager. And unfortunately, the
lowest -- the highest minimum sentence that
the judge could give that young man was nine
years. Nine years for the life of a woman who
was very productive in her community, who had
children of her own, doesn't seem quite right,
does it?
And when you hear the stories that
Senator Maziarz has talked about that took
place in his area, and talking to Senator
Brown, and talking to -- I believe there was
an incident in the city, the same type of
thing that happened with a juvenile who
commits an adult crime, then they need to take
the responsibility for those crimes that are
committed.
I really have to commend the
Assembly for looking at this bill and working
with this bill and the fact that we in turn
can negotiate with the Assembly and bring this
bill forward. This is a bill that we have
worked on in this Senate for at least three
years.
And I would point out that to my
1975
knowledge there was only one negative vote
last year on a bill that was much stronger,
and I believe that was Senator Duane.
This is an excellent bill. I
commend also the Assemblywoman from the 149th
Assembly District who carried the stronger
bill, did a great deal of work and background
for this bill. I commend the Assembly. And I
say thank you on behalf of Mr. and
Mrs. Lockwood and Mr. Brown and their
children. Thank you for bringing this bill to
a vote and passing it in this house.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Thank
you, Senator.
Announce the results.
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
the negative on Calendar Number 379 are
Senators Duane, Montgomery, and Parker. Ayes,
58. Nays, 3.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
bill is passed.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President,
would you please call up Calendar Number 447.
1976
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: In relation to
Calendar Number 447, Senator Johnson moves to
discharge, from the Committee on Finance,
Assembly Bill Number 8036 and substitute it
for the identical Senate Bill Number 4369,
Third Reading Calendar 447.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
substitution is ordered.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
447, by the Assembly Committee on Rules,
Assembly Print Number 8036, an act making
appropriations for the support of government.
SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Johnson, an explanation has been
requested.
SENATOR JOHNSON: Mr. President,
this bill appropriates $2.2 billion to various
state departments to pay our bills from
April 14th to April 127th, including payroll,
including Social Security, including homeland
security, criminal justice, Health Department,
1977
EPIC programs, federal funds for Medicaid
programs and unemployment benefits, among
other wonderful and worthy causes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Thank
you, Senator Johnson.
Senator Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you,
Mr. President. If the sponsor would yield for
a question.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Johnson, will you yield for a
question?
SENATOR JOHNSON: Yes, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: I note
that this extender runs for a longer period of
time than the previous extender. Has there
been any effort made, as far as you're aware,
either in this house or by the Assembly or the
Governor, to contact any of the service
providers whose funding is affected by this
operation of the government through extenders
rather than budget legislation?
1978
SENATOR JOHNSON: Senator, I
explained what's in the bill. I can't explain
what's not in the bill.
Is that sufficient, or do you have
another question?
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Mr.
President, on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: On the
bill.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: My
question really was not directed at what was
in the bill or not in the bill, but what the
effect of the bill is.
And I think that the difficulty we
have now is that the Governor is defining what
is a bare-bones budget. And we are starting
to hear, because we have undertaken, in our
conference, to contact service providers, we
have ascertained that in fact there is real
pain being caused. There are services
stopping around the state.
The business of government is not
getting done here, and it is hurting people in
1979
our districts. We have ascertained that in
the area of alcoholism and substance abuse,
60 percent of the service providers reporting
have had to access their lines of credit to
make payments that are not being provided in
these budget extenders.
We are making this situation worse
with the present piece of legislation that
we're considering now. We have ascertained
that because of the lack of payment for
defense costs for the indigent, the Legal Aid
Society has advised us that if this
legislation passes without change they will
not be able to make their payroll on
April 25th.
There are capital projects all over
the state that are stopping, particularly, I
would note -- and this is of very great
importance to any of us who care about the
long-term economy of the state -- capital
projects at our institutions of higher
education, including York College, City
College, John Jay College, and Lehman College.
So our discussion over past
extenders where there seemed to be some lack
1980
of clarity as to whether or not anyone was
actually being affected by the fact that we
were giving the Governor a rubber stamp on
these so-called bare-bones extenders, this is
causing real pain. We are now at the point
where, by passing these bills, we're hurting
the people in our districts, we're hurting the
people all around the state who depend on us
to consider and pass budget legislation.
We have voted here -- I have voted
against the past extenders. I think that the
information we are receiving with regard to
the present bill underscores the position that
Senator Paterson has taken and many people in
the Democratic conference have taken, that it
is simply wrong under the present
circumstances to rubber-stamp the Governor's
extenders. We have to begin the process of
actually passing a budget, we have to raise
revenues, we have to provide funds for
critical programs.
Two weeks from now, if we adjourn
and we don't finish a budget and this extender
carries us through, there are going to be
millions of New Yorkers who are going to be
1981
hurt by our inability to confront these
issues. I urge all of my colleagues once
again to vote no. This is not the way to do
the business of government.
And we are learning every day of
the pain that's being caused. And this is,
again, just based on the inquiries we've been
able to make. I'm sure that there are other
problems out there that we are not aware of
and that will become apparent over the next
two weeks.
Let's vote no. Let's do our job
and actually pass a budget.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Any
other Senator wish to be heard on the bill?
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Breslin, to explain his vote.
SENATOR BRESLIN: Thank you, Mr.
1982
President.
This bill, as the one we took up
last week, is geometrically hurting
New Yorkers in healthcare and in education.
And we as a body must begin the process of
halting that.
And Democrats last week were
challenged by the Senate Majority to come up
with our own ideas, to make sure that we're
part of that process, with the Assembly and
the Senate, to bring to this state a fair
budget. And we have transmitted to the
Majority our ideas on how we would increase
revenues to make sure that those people in
healthcare and those 735-plus school districts
in the State of New York are able to educate
our children.
And included among those proposals
have been to have a surcharge on the wealthy
of this state, to come up with over $2 billion
that we could help to restore in both
education and healthcare; and, secondly, to
strengthen the corporate franchise tax, which
has created so many loopholes as to not be
productive in collecting.
1983
And, thirdly, to decouple from the
federal bonus depreciation deduction, which
again would generate additional revenues to be
able to provide for placing monies back in for
education and healthcare.
Expand the Bottle Bill would be
fourth. And, fifth, to broaden the sales tax
base. There are many, many areas in the state
of New York -- charter flights, limousine
services -- that don't include a sales tax,
which in many respects are regressive because
of the exclusions that are there.
We've also coupled with that
proposals for cuts at agencies that will
benefit this state.
But again, working in a collegial
way with the Majority and the Democrats on
this side of the aisle, and working with our
brothers and sisters in the Assembly, we can
do as we should -- we can do as we should,
pass a budget that's fair and relatively on
time and provides the place-back of the
programs that all of us know are so critically
important to the people of the State of
New York.
1984
I cannot, though, in conscience
vote for the bill as it exists today. And I
will vote no.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Thank
you, Senator Breslin. You will be recorded in
the negative.
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
I vote no as well.
I think that none of us here in the
Minority would want to be responsible for
shutting down government, and none of us would
give the deciding vote to do that. But we do
think it's important to register a protest at
this time that we are exacerbating the process
by going on and on when it's my belief that
every since April 1st we should have stayed
here every day in order to pass a budget.
I don't know that discontinuing the
payment of legislators makes much of a
difference. I'm sure every legislator has a
salary or has pension funds or can go to a
bank to sustain themselves financially for a
long budget. You've never seen candlelight
1985
vigils for the legislators that aren't getting
paid during the time that the budget hasn't
been passed. You've never seen collections
being taken up for legislators who don't have
money during the time the budget is being
passed.
If you really want to make people
work on the budget and to expedite it, what
you do is you make sure everybody is here
every day, as they did, as we learned from our
colleagues in Washington in the federal
government during the impeachment hearings.
They wanted impeachment hearings to always go
quickly, they didn't want anyone to
overpoliticizes it, they had every day, they
had it done in two weeks.
And I suggest to you that there's
no man or woman who represents people that
wants to be away from their constituents for
more than a week and a half or so, and that
would expedite the process.
But since we didn't even try that
hard, since we voted an extender even two days
before, the day before the time period was
going to elapse, to me it's just an arrogance
1986
being shown about the process. And I think we
could have stayed here and tried something
else.
Last week we were admonished a
little bit by Senator Balboni and Senator
Skelos, and it was a proper admonishment.
Here on this side of the aisle what we could
be doing instead of just lecturing everyone
else on what they're doing is to come up with
some proposals of our own.
And this week, in good faith, we
offer them for the consideration of the
Majority, who has worked very hard on this
budget process. It was the Majority who needs
to be congratulated for putting out a whole
new plan earlier in the session for how it
might be expedited, and we congratulate them.
So what we've done is we've sent a
letter to Senator Johnson giving him some of
our ideas on how we could raise revenues to
help close the gap of the $5.6 billion in cuts
that have been scheduled.
Among them is the surcharge of
1 percent for those who make $300,000 a year
and 2 percent for those who make $500,000 a
1987
year. If that money was to come back to the
state in terms of a tax, it would be
$2.2 billion into our economy.
If you make between $10,000 and
$27,000 a year, you pay 12.8 percent of your
gross salary back to the state in taxes. If
you make between $27,000 and $64,000 a year,
you pay 11.4 percent back to the state in
terms of taxes. If you make $300,000 a year,
you pay 7.1 percent of your annual salary back
in the form of state taxes.
This is not player-hating or
jealousy of the rich, this is just trying to
create a shared sacrifice, so that if we're
going to be having tuition increases of
40.4 percent, or families making $50,000 a
year losing $400 to create a sales tax for
items less than $110, or a subway and commuter
fare increase by the MTA, that we could make
sure that all New Yorkers share in it.
And if a person makes $500,000 a
year, we are asking them to pay a 2 percent
higher rate in taxes, because people who make
$500,000 a year who might be assessed a tax of
an additional $10,000 would get $3,800 back
1988
because of the coupling effect of the Federal
Income Tax Act of 2001. That's really
revenue-sharing on the federal level. So it
would be a contribution, but many of it would
be transposed from taxes already paid from the
federal government.
Now, we think it's a plan that
would really work and would be amenable to the
state. But in our proposal we do something
that may have surprised you. This is not the
tax-and-spend-Democrats that you may have been
familiar with in the past. This is the
Democratic Party that recognizes that when you
have an $11.5 billion budget deficit, there
are going to have to be some cuts.
We think there will probably need
to be about $1.2 billion in cuts, and we've
come up with $700 million in cuts in our
proposal, and we're very specific about where
they come from.
And we're not going to get a pat on
the back from some of the corners of the state
that we're asking to make this sacrifice. But
it's the way that we justify asking you, the
Majority, to go along with us on this tax
1989
surcharge, which will not kill jobs. The
money from people who make over $300,000 or
$500,000 make every year does not create jobs.
Our survey shows that it is usually assessed
for travel or for out-of-state residences.
These are not revenues that inure back to the
state.
So what we're saying is we are
willing to recognize our responsibility, and
we hope that you'll see your way to
recognizing yours.
Regardless, we have certainly
answered the challenge and put forth what our
suggestions are to Senator Johnson, who is an
honorable man and I know, along with the other
members of the Majority, will consider them.
Our understanding is that right now
the Governor is not -- says that he's tired of
negotiating with the Legislature. We're all
tired. But we are going to keep trying and
we're going to keep working, because this is
our responsibility. This is why we put our
name on the ballot, because we wanted the
tough challenges. And we just wanted you to
know that our conference is willing to accept
1990
ours.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Thank
you, Senator Paterson.
Senator Paterson will be recorded
in the negative.
Senator Krueger.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: Thank you.
To explain my negative vote.
So much has been said, and I know
that the vote has already been taken. But
just to highlight, because I know that
regardless of which side of the aisle you sit
on, if you are a Senator, you are concerned
about the fact that money is not being put
into these extender bills to assure that
ongoing services get provided at home in your
own districts.
And so I just want to highlight
again not only that I am voting a third week
in a row against an extender budget bill, but
also the way this is being handled this year
by the Executive chamber.
By this extender bill, compared
with emergency appropriation bills in 2002,
$1.9 billion in aid to education has not been
1991
appropriated in 2003. This is in addition to
the $1.3 billion in March 2003 school aid
payments that have been held by the Governor
through June.
When you look at these monies in
combination, our school districts are now
losing $351,000 per day in interest costs. We
have to move forward on the budget. We cannot
continue with these types of extender bills.
So I hope some people here might
just reconsider if they voted for the bill
today, because it is so important for us to
send the message that we must move forward and
pass a new budget.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Thank
you, Senator Krueger.
Senator Krueger will be recorded in
the negative.
Announce the results.
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
the negative on Calendar Number 447 are
Senators Andrews, Breslin, Dilan, Duane,
Hassell-Thompson, L. Krueger, Lachman,
Montgomery, Onorato, Oppenheimer, Parker,
1992
Paterson, Sabini, Schneiderman, and Stavisky.
Ayes, 46. Nays, 15.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
bill is passed.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Can you please
call up Calendar Number 448.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: In relation to
Calendar Number 448, Senator Johnson moves to
discharge, from the Committee on Finance,
Assembly Bill Number 8037 and substitute it
for the identical Senate Bill Number 4370,
Third Reading Calendar 448.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
substitution is ordered.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
448, by the Assembly Committee on Rules,
Assembly Print Number 8037, an act relating to
the state's share of health insurance
premiums.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Schneiderman.
1993
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you,
Mr. President. On the bill.
This is the companion bill to the
legislation that we just debated, and I would
urge all of my colleagues to vote no for the
same reason that applied to the predecessor.
The same arguments apply. This is
no way to do business. We should not break
for two weeks without passing something that
is a more realistic budget and taking into
account some of the proposals that have been
advanced today.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Thank
you, Senator Schneiderman.
Any other Senator wish to be heard
on the bill?
The Secretary will read the last
section the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Announce the results when tabulated.
1994
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
the negative on Calendar Number 448 are
Senators Andrews, Dilan, Duane,
Hassell-Thompson, L. Krueger, Breslin,
Onorato, Parker, Paterson, Sabini,
Schneiderman, Stavisky. Also Senator Lachman.
Also Senator Oppenheimer. Ayes, 47. Nays,
14.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
bill is passed.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President,
there will be an immediate meeting of the
Rules Committee in the Majority Conference
Room.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: There
will be an immediate meeting of the Rules
Committee in the Senate Majority Conference
Room.
Senator Onorato, why do you rise?
SENATOR ONORATO: Mr. President,
there will be an immediate Democratic
conference in the Democratic Conference Room,
Room 314.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: There
1995
will be an immediate meeting of the Democratic
conference in Room 314.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: If we could
return to reports of standing committees, I
believe there's a report of the Rules
Committee at the desk. I ask that it be read.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Bruno,
from the Committee on Rules, reports the
following bill direct to third reading:
Senate Print 4286, by Senator
Saland, an act to amend the Education Law.
SENATOR SKELOS: Move to accept
the report of the Rules Committee.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
motion is to accept the report. All those in
favor signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Those
recorded in the negative.
(No response.)
1996
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
report is accepted, Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Then would you
please call up Calendar Number 468.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: In relation to
Calendar Number 468, Senator Saland moves to
discharge, from the Committee on Education,
Assembly Bill Number 8023 and substitute it
for the identical Senate Bill Number 4286,
Third Reading Calendar 468.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
substitution is ordered.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
468, by the Assembly Committee on Rules,
Assembly Print Number 8023, an act to amend
the Education Law, in relation to adjournment
of school district elections.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER:
Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Saland, an explanation has been
requested.
SENATOR SALAND: Thank you, Mr.
1997
President.
Mr. President, this is a bill which
a bit earlier this afternoon passed
unanimously in the Assembly. What the bill
does is it takes the current statewide budget
adoption date, which May 20, extends it by two
weeks, taking it out to the 3rd of June.
And whereas, under the existing
law, the date by which school districts have
to adopt their proposed budgets is currently
April 26th, some 24 days counting back from
May 20th, which falls on a Saturday --
everybody has been using April 25th as that
last day -- what this does is it now counts
back 20 days from June 3rd, making the date
for budget adoption May 14th.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Thank
you, Senator.
Senator Oppenheimer.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: If Senator
Saland would yield for a couple of small
questions.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Saland, will you yield?
SENATOR SALAND: Yes, Mr.
1998
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
Senator yields.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: One
question I have, Senator Saland, would be
would the election for school board members
also fall on the date of the budget vote?
It's not involved in this legislation. You
know, the election for our board members is
the same date as our budget vote.
SENATOR SALAND: Well, it is all
delayed. There will not be two separate
votes. There will be the one vote scheduled
for the 3rd of June.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Okay. Oh,
and that was my -- if the Senator would yield
one more time.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator, would you yield for one more question
from Senator Oppenheimer?
SENATOR SALAND: Excuse me, I'll
put my glasses on so I can hear better.
Yes.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: I'll have
to enunciate louder so your eyes will hear.
1999
I've seen two different dates. One
was a June 1st date, one was a June 3rd. I
guess they were two different pieces of
legislation.
But at any rate, you're now saying
the date is June 3rd?
SENATOR SALAND: Yeah, the first
Tuesday in June, which is June 3rd.
And currently, not to confuse --
currently the third Tuesday in May, which is
May 20th, we're moving from the third Tuesday
in May, May 20th, to the first Tuesday in
June, which is June 3rd.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Thank you
very much, Senator.
On the bill, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Oppenheimer, on the bill.
SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Well, this
is a godsend and essential for those of us who
have to draw up budgets and present a proposed
budget, which is required by law, 20 or 24
days before we actually vote.
There is -- there is just an
enormous amount of information, basically
2000
funding information, that is lacking if we do
not have a budget in place in New York State
telling our school districts what they have.
This is an opportunity for us to work out our
differences in the next week or two and
therefore go back to our school districts and
say: This is what you have, you don't have to
be guessing as to what your budgets will look
like.
I urge a yes vote.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Thank
you, Senator.
Senator Alesi, you wish to be
recognized?
SENATOR ALESI: Thank you, Mr.
President. Just briefly on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Senator Alesi, on the bill.
SENATOR ALESI: I'd like to
commend Senator Saland for his efforts in
bringing forth a reasonable approach that will
be of great assistance to our local school
districts, especially in the shadow of the
delayed budget process that we're continuing
to endure here in the state's capital.
2001
The taxpayers and the citizens of
this state rely to a very large extent on
those elected school board members and their
superintendents to put forth budgets that are
reasonable and make sense. So through Senator
Saland's efforts, this will enable them to
have some additional time and, at least in the
case of the Fairport School District, which I
represent, will give them the time that they
have been looking for in their efforts as
well.
So I'd like to congratulate Senator
Saland and thank him for his hard work on this
bill. I'll be voting yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Thank
you, Senator Alesi.
Senator Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
I'd like to join Senator Alesi in
congratulating Senator Saland on this piece of
legislation, and to also thank him because on
April 2nd I held a press conference at which I
was offering a bill similar to this.
What my bill would have done was to
have given the school districts a second
2002
chance to vote on their budget, a chance to
incorporate further resources in their budget,
perhaps to rehire teachers, to revisit
programs that were cut.
Because the problem that both
Senator Saland and I were trying to address is
that we do not want school districts
negotiating in the dark. We don't want them
guessing as to what the state budget should
be, especially when their product is not
revenues, their product is children.
And what we are very happy to see
with this piece of legislation is that with
the further two weeks to June 3rd, hopefully
we would have passed the budget by then.
I think when we're finished with
this, we do have to look at the long-term
problem that 19 years in a row we haven't
passed a budget on time and that these school
districts, many of them are pilloried with the
fact that they can't figure out what direction
we're going and they basically have to guess.
And they'd better be right. They'd better
low-ball where we think we're coming in.
So at the time that I held the
2003
press conference, I got the response back from
the Governor's office that I should spend my
time working on bringing the budget in on
time. Well, I've tried for the 18 years that
I've been here. I would think so has everyone
else.
If we know that there's a
reasonable possibility that the budgets are
going to be late, we should revisit the
opportunity to give these school boards a
second chance to lay out their plan and give
the public a second chance to ratify it.
For this year, I would think that
this is a good plan. We have to remember that
the budget is already two weeks late, so the
school boards theoretically -- so the
districts have no less time, unless we were to
pass the budget tomorrow. But still, it will
give them a greater opportunity to arrive at
an apt decision.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Thank
you, Senator Paterson.
Senator Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Mr.
2004
President, is there a message from the
Governor on this at the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
There's no message from the Governor.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Well, I
think in fact we have gotten a message from
the Governor.
If there is no message from the
Governor to bring Senator Saland's bill to the
floor in the proper manner, I think the
message from the Governor --
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Well,
it's not required, Senator Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: -- to
substitute Senator Saland's bill for the
Assembly bill.
Speaking on the bill, I think we've
got a clear message from the Governor. I
think, while I do prefer Senator Paterson's
approach, Senator Saland is addressing a clear
consequence of our inability to pass a budget.
It becomes apparent at this point that we may
have an unwilling participant in these
negotiations on the second floor. And I hope
that the rest of the legislative leadership
2005
will follow Senator Paterson's and Senator
Breslin's examples of coming up with creative
solutions.
No message from the Governor? I
think there's a very clear message from the
Governor. And I think it is time for us to
undertake our constitutional obligation in the
absence of action from the second floor.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Any
other member wishing to be heard on the bill?
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Call
the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN:
Announce the results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 60. Nays,
1. Senator Duane recorded in the negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
bill is passed.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President,
is there any housekeeping at the desk?
2006
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: Yes,
there is. We have a substitution, Senator.
SENATOR SKELOS: Please make the
substitution.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Hannon
moves to discharge, from the Committee on
Judiciary, Assembly Bill Number 8021 and
substitute it for the identical Senate Bill
Number 4285, Third Reading Calendar 465.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: The
substitution is ordered.
Senator Montgomery.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, Mr.
President, I was erroneously recorded in the
affirmative on Calendar 448. I would like to
be recorded in the negative. Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: So
ordered, without objection.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President,
before we adjourn, on behalf of Senator Bruno
I'd like to mention that there will be a
conference of the Majority called off the
floor tomorrow.
2007
And there being no further
business, I move we adjourn until Tuesday,
April 15th, at 11:00 a.m.
ACTING PRESIDENT MORAHAN: There
being no further business, the Senate stands
adjourned until Tuesday, April 15th, at
11:00 a.m.
(Whereupon, at 6:10 p.m., the
Senate adjourned.)