Regular Session - December 7, 2004
6214
NEW YORK STATE SENATE
THE
STENOGRAPHIC RECORD
ALBANY, NEW YORK
December 7, 2004
1:33 p.m.
REGULAR SESSION
SENATOR JOHN R. KUHL, JR., Acting President
STEVEN M. BOGGESS, Secretary
6215
P R O C E E D I N G S
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The Senate will
come to order.
I ask the members to find their places,
staff to find their places, and ask
everybody to rise and join with me in saying
the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
(Whereupon, the assemblage
recited the Pledge of Allegiance
to the Flag.)
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: In the absence
of clergy, may we bow our heads in a moment
of silence.
(Whereupon, the assemblage
respected a moment of silence.)
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Reading of the
Journal.
THE SECRETARY: In Senate, Monday,
December 6, the Senate met pursuant to
adjournment. The Journal of Sunday,
December 5, was read and approved. On
motion, Senate adjourned.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Hearing no
objection, the Journal stands approved as
read.
6216
Presentation of petitions.
Messages from the Assembly.
Messages from the Governor.
Reports of standing committees.
Reports of select committees.
Communications and reports from state
officers.
Motions and resolutions.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President, I have
a resolution at the desk, 6309. Could we
have the title read and move for its
immediate adoption.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: By Senator Skelos,
Legislative Resolution Number 6309, mourning
the untimely death of First Lieutenant
Ronald Winchester, of Rockville Centre, New
York, and paying tribute to his courageous
actions as a member of the United States
Marines.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The question is
on the resolution. All those in favor
signify by saying aye.
6217
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The resolution
is adopted.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President, there
will be an immediate meeting of the Finance
Committee in the Majority Conference Room.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: There will be
an immediate meeting of the Finance
Committee, immediate meeting of the Finance
Committee in the Majority Conference Room,
Room 332.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Can we just stand at
ease pending the -- you have another
resolution, a privileged resolution?
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: There is
another privileged resolution at the desk.
SENATOR SKELOS: Okay, we'll read.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The Secretary
will read the title.
THE SECRETARY: By Senator Fuschillo,
Legislative Resolution Number 6310,
6218
congratulating Mr. and Mrs. Irving Bernstein
upon the occasion of their 50th Wedding
Anniversary.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The question is
on the resolution. All those in favor
signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The resolution
is adopted.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: And we'll stand at
ease pending the report of the Finance
Committee.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The Senate will
stand at ease.
(Whereupon, the Senate stood at
ease at 1:36 p.m.)
(Whereupon, the Senate reconvened
at 1:45 p.m.)
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The Senate will
come to order.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President, if we
6219
could return to reports of standing
committees, there's a report of the Finance
Committee at the desk. I ask that it be
read at this time.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: We will return
to the order of reports of standing
committees.
The Secretary will read the report of
the Finance Committee.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Johnson, from
the Committee on Finance, reports the
following nominations:
As a member of the New York State
Bridge Authority, Walter A. Paradies, of
New Paltz.
As members of the Rochester-Genesee
Regional Transportation Authority, Leslie M.
Goldstein, of Rochester, and Mark D. Keeler,
of Albion.
As a member of the State Public
Transportation Safety Board, David Berke, of
New York City.
As a member of the Lake George Park
Commission, Thomas Conerty, of Bolton
Landing.
6220
As a member of the Stewart Airport
Commission, Louis Heimbach, of Warwick.
As a member of the Medical Advisory
Committee, Buddhi M. Shrestha, of Rochester.
And as members of the State Hospital
Review and Planning Council, Joan S. Conboy,
of Fort Plain, and Anthony J. Lechich, M.D.,
of New York City.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Johnson.
SENATOR JOHNSON: Move the nominations.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Is there any
member who wishes to speak on the
nominations?
Hearing none, the question is on the
nominations. All those in favor signify by
saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: All those
opposed, nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The nominees
are unanimously confirmed.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President, there
6221
will be an immediate conference of the
Majority in the Majority Conference Room.
SENATOR GONZALEZ: Mr. President, there
will be immediate meeting of the Minority
conference in Room 314.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: There will be
immediate meetings of the conferences, the
Majority conference in the Majority
Conference Room and the Minority conference
in the Minority Conference Room.
And the Senate will stand at ease.
(Whereupon, the Senate stood at
ease at 1:47 p.m.)
(Whereupon, the Senate reconvened
at 3:41 p.m.)
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The Senate will
come to order.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President, there
will be an immediate meeting of the Rules
Committee in the Majority Conference Room.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Immediate
meeting of the Rules Committee in the
Majority Conference Room, Room 332.
Immediate meeting of the Rules Committee in
6222
the Majority Conference Room.
SENATOR SKELOS: And if we could stand
at ease.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The Senate will
stand at ease.
(Whereupon, the Senate stood at
ease at 3:42 p.m.)
(Whereupon, the Senate reconvened
at 4:00 p.m.)
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The Senate will
come to order.
I ask the members to take their places,
staff to take their places. The sooner we
do, the sooner we can proceed.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President, may I
just say you look very congressional up
there.
(Laughter.)
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 at this
time.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: We will return
6223
to the order of reports of standing
committees.
There is a report from the Rules
Committee at the desk. I ask the Secretary
to read.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Bruno, from the
Committee on Rules, reports the following
bills:
Senate Print 7797, by the Senate
Committee on Rules, an act relating to
providing accidental and special accidental
death benefits;
7798, by the Senate Committee on Rules,
an act to amend the Tax Law;
And Senate Print 7801, by the Senate
Committee on Rules, an act to amend the
Public Health Law.
All bills ordered direct to third
reading.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Without
objection, all bills are ordered directly to
third reading.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Move to accept the
report of the Rules Committee.
6224
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The motion is
to accept the report of the Rules Committee.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Those opposed,
nay.
(Response of "Nay.")
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The ayes have
it. The bills are ordered directly to third
reading.
The report is accepted.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President, if we
could take up the three Rules bills,
noncontroversial.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The Secretary
will read.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 1965,
by the Senate Committee on Rules, Senate
Print Number 7797, an act relating to
providing accidental and special accidental
death benefits.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Maltese, to explain his vote.
SENATOR MALTESE: Mr. President, today
6225
we are taking action on a bill at the
request of Mayor Bloomberg. In fact, the
City Council of New York City, at 1:00 p.m.
this afternoon, passed this bill to ensure
that this legislation would see its way to
this chamber today.
The bill provides special accidental
death benefits to a New York City
firefighter killed in Iraq. You may
recognize him --
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Maltese, let me just get the vote on the
bill, okay, first.
There is a home rule message at the
desk.
The Secretary will read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This act
shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Maltese, to explain his vote.
SENATOR MALTESE: Mr. President, you
may recognize this particular hero from the
6226
national attention he received when he
assisted a fellow firefighter to put up an
American flag at Ground Zero while he was
holding the ladder for the firefighter.
That torn flag exemplified the heroism of
all those who perished and those who
assisted them.
And we are taking this step to honor
this great American. His name was Christian
P. Engeldrum. He died in Iraq last week.
He was serving as a sergeant with the
National Guard when his convoy came under
attack protecting the bridge from insurgents
fleeing Fallujah.
He was also a uniformed member of the
Fire Department, and he worked on the
firehouse in Coop City and was part of
Ladder 61. He nicknamed the men he worked
with as the "Coop Crew." He joined the Fire
Department in 1999 after serving in the city
with the New York Police Department.
He was, in addition, an active member
of the United States Army from 1986 to 1991
and served in Operation Desert Storm. He
remained an Army Reservist after receiving
6227
medals for his heroic action in Desert
Storm, and jumped at the opportunity to go
back to war, this time in Iraq, to serve his
country.
This man was a hero. He embodied the
American spirit. And his life serves to
remind us of the tremendous cost of
protecting our freedoms. He was a
courageous firefighter, a soldier, and a
family man. He leaves behind a wife,
Sharon, and two sons, Sean, 18, and Royce,
16.
Mr. President, this man exemplifies
everything that we in America cherish and
hold dear. He embodies the American spirit
of heroism. He served not only as a
firefighter, a policeman, and in the Army --
a triple hero. He deserves this measure to
be enacted in his honor and for his family
and loved ones.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The chair
recognizes Senator Hassell-Thompson to
explain her vote.
SENATOR HASSELL-THOMPSON: Thank you,
Mr. President.
6228
To Senator Maltese and to all
assembled, as the Senator who represents the
Coop City area in the Bronx, I would vote
and speak for anyone who has served. But I
must speak for the Ladder Company 61, who
has lost a very dedicated and committed
firefighter.
I thank you for this on behalf of the
people of the Bronx. And I, with you, am
very proud to serve today.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The Secretary
will announce the results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill is
passed.
The Secretary will continue to call the
noncontroversial calendar.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 1968,
by the Senate Committee on Rules, Senate
Print Number 7798, an act to amend the Tax
Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The Secretary
will read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This act
shall take effect immediately.
6229
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill is
passed.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 1969,
by the Senate Committee on Rules, Senate
Print Number 7801, an act to amend Public
Health Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Is there a message of
necessity at the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: There is.
SENATOR SKELOS: Move to accept.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The motion is
to accept the message of necessity on
Calendar Number 1969. All those in favor
signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Opposed, nay.
(Response of "Nay.")
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The motion is
accepted.
The bill is before the house.
The Secretary will read the last
6230
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This act
shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 59.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill is
passed.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: There will be an
immediate meeting of the Finance Committee
in the Majority Conference Room.
And we'll stand at ease.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Immediate
meeting of the Senate Finance Committee,
immediate meeting of the Senate Finance
Committee in the Majority Conference Room.
(Whereupon, the Senate stood at
ease at 4:07 p.m.)
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The chair
recognizes Senator Little.
SENATOR LITTLE: Thank you, Mr.
President.
For the record, if I may, I wish to
make a statement that on yesterday's
6231
Calendar Number 1886, Assembly Bill 11760A,
if I had been able to be here, I would have
voted in the negative.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The record will
so reflect, Senator Little.
(Whereupon, the Senate reconvened
at 4:26 p.m.)
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The Senate will
please come to order.
I ask the members to take their places,
staff to take their places.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President, if we
could return to reports of standing
committees, I believe there's a report of
the Finance Committee at the desk. I ask
that it be read at this time.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: We will return
to the order of reports of standing
committees.
There is a report of the Finance
Committee at the desk. The Secretary will
read.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Johnson, from
6232
the Committee on Finance, reports the
following bill direct to third reading:
Senate Print 7803, by the Senate
Committee on Rules, an act to amend Chapter
35 of the Laws of 1979 relating to
appropriating funds.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Without
objection, the bill is reported directly to
third reading.
Senator Skelos.
SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President, is
there a message of necessity at the desk?
Move to accept.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The Secretary
will read the title of the bill.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 1971,
by the Senate Committee on Rules, Senate
Print Number 7803, an act to amend Chapter
35 of the Laws of 1979.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: There is a
message of necessity at the desk, Senator
Skelos, on Calendar 1970.
The motion is to accept the message of
necessity. All those in favor signify by
saying aye.
6233
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Opposed, nay.
(Response of "Nay.")
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The message is
accepted.
The bill is before the house.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator Golden,
an explanation of Calendar Number 1970 has
been requested by the Acting Minority
Leader, Senator Schneiderman.
SENATOR GOLDEN: The Jacob Javits
expansion is a 1.3 million square foot
exhibition space that will allow for the
creation of an 86,000 square foot ballroom
and the construction of a 1500-room hotel at
the corner of 42th Street and 11th.
It will create 10,000 permanent jobs,
15,000 construction jobs, and about
$70 million in tax revenue for the City of
New York, to be paid for by -- the project
would cost about $1.2 billion, paid for by
$350 million from UDC, which would be
recouped by refinancing the Javits' present
financing, $350 million from the City of New
6234
York, undetermined how that's going to be
done yet, $500 million from a hotel tax of
$1.50 per night on hotel occupancies.
And an additional $350 million for
economic development for outside the city is
also included with that, and that would be
paid for by ESDC money, on a memorandum of
understanding from the Assembly, the Senate,
and the Governor.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Schneiderman, why do you rise?
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you, Mr.
President. If the sponsor would yield for a
couple of brief questions.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator Golden,
do you yield to a question from Senator
Schneiderman?
SENATOR GOLDEN: Yes, sir.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The Senator
yields.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you.
Through you, Mr. President, is there
any -- other than the New York City hotel
room tax, is there any specific dedicated
tax or other source of revenue that is
6235
identified in this legislation?
SENATOR GOLDEN: No, Mr. President.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: And when does --
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Schneiderman, are you asking Senator Golden
to continue to yield?
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Yes, Mr.
President. Through you, if the sponsor
would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator Golden,
do you continue to yield to another
question?
SENATOR GOLDEN: I do, sir.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The Senator
yields.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you.
Am I correct in my reading of the bill
that the New York City hotel room tax would
be dedicated and the collection of that tax
and dedication to pay for this legislation
would start on April 1, 2005, without regard
to when any project actually got underway?
Is that correct?
SENATOR GOLDEN: That's correct, sir.
Yes, Mr. President.
6236
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you.
And through you, Mr. President, if the
sponsor would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator Golden,
do you yield to another question from
Senator Schneiderman?
SENATOR GOLDEN: I do, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The Senator
yields.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: And is there any
direction of any kind as to how the other
$350 million that is not for the Javits
Center, but for other projects, is to be
spent?
SENATOR GOLDEN: That's going to go --
economic development -- could you repeat the
question, please, Mr. President?
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Through you, Mr.
President. You've stated that it's a
$700 million bill, $350 million would be
going towards Javits expansion, and there's
another 350 million.
The question is what specifications are
there in the bill, what direction, what
limitations on --
6237
SENATOR GOLDEN: $350 million coming
from the City of New York is part of that
$700 million; $350 million from UDC. That
makes up to $700 million.
There's an additional $350 million that
we've got for economic development for
outside the City of New York, and that would
be done by a memorandum of understanding
between the Senate, the Assembly, and the
Governor.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Through you, Mr.
President, just to clarify.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator Golden,
do you yield to another question from
Senator Schneiderman?
SENATOR GOLDEN: I do so, Mr.
President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The Senator
yields.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: So until that
memorandum of understanding is executed,
there is no direction in the legislation
telling us where this other $350 million
would be spent yet?
SENATOR GOLDEN: No spending, yes, sir.
6238
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you, Mr.
President. Thank the sponsor for his
explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Krueger, why do you rise?
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: Thank you, Mr.
President. If the sponsor would please
yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator Golden,
do you yield to a question from Senator
Krueger?
SENATOR GOLDEN: I do, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The Senator
yields.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: Thank you very
much, Mr. President.
So as I look at this bill, we've got
the $350 million for the Javits through a
combination of bonds and refinancing. But
my understanding is under new federal law,
when we refinance bonds for 30 years to help
cover some of the expense on the Javits
package, that there will actually be money
up front, cash up front. My understanding
is it could be as much as $250 million
6239
additional cash up front from the
refinancing of the existing bonds.
What would that money be used for, and
what are the rules in this bill of how that
additional $250 million might be used?
SENATOR GOLDEN: That's part of the
$350 million from the UDC. We're recouping
that money from that refinancing.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: So it's -- so 250
plus another --
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Krueger --
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: I'm sorry, Mr.
President. If, through you --
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Excuse me. Are
you asking Senator Golden to yield to
another question?
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: Thank you so
much, Mr. President. Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator Golden,
do you yield to another question from
Senator Krueger?
SENATOR GOLDEN: I do, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The Senator
yields.
6240
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: Thank you very
much. Excuse me.
So if I understand your answer, it
would be $250 million from the refinancing
plus another $100 million in additional
bonds to total that 350?
SENATOR GOLDEN: No. Mr. President, it
would be $350 million in total from the UDC
money.
We're recouping that $350 million in
UDC money by the refinancing of the debt,
the present debt that's at the Jacob Javits
Center today. That would give us that
250 million plus. The outlay -- outlaying
that money some years later would give us
the return of almost completely
$350 million.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: Thank you. Mr.
President, if through you the sponsor would
continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator Golden,
do you yield to another question from
Senator Krueger?
SENATOR GOLDEN: I do, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The Senator
6241
yields.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: Thank you very
much, Mr. President.
And so again, to follow up on my
colleague's question, if we then move down
the bill to page 30, Section 29, there's an
additional $350 million that is not part of
refinancing or the package you and I just
discussed, and that additional $350 million
would come out of the state treasury General
Fund, to be used for some purpose separate
than anything involving the Javits Center,
and that would not be UDC bond money?
SENATOR GOLDEN: That's correct.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: Thank you.
So -- thank you, Mr. President, if I
could continue to ask the sponsor to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator Golden,
do you yield to another question from
Senator Krueger?
SENATOR GOLDEN: I do, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The Senator
yields.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: Thank you.
So if we add up the dollars from this
6242
bill before us, we include the new taxes
through the hotel tax, we include the
refinancing and monies through UDC for
Javits, and we include the separate
$350 million from the General Fund for
unstated purpose at some point in the future
through an MOU for some, quote, unquote,
economic development activities not in a
city with a million or more people, can you
tell me what this all adds up to as the
total cost for this bill for the Javits
Center?
SENATOR GOLDEN: The Javits Center cost
is $1.2 billion. Plus $350 million for
economic development outside the City of New
York.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: Thank you. Thank
you, Mr. President. Thank you, sponsor.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Is there any
other Senator wishing to speak on the bill?
Senator Montgomery, why do you rise?
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, Mr.
President, I -- would the sponsor answer --
yield for a question?
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator Golden,
6243
do you yield for a question from Senator
Montgomery?
SENATOR GOLDEN: I do.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The Senator
yields.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: My apologies,
Senator Golden, if you have already answered
this. But I note in the information that I
have that the convention center hotel will
be financed with separate hotel bonds,
decreased by hotel revenues and receipts.
Does that mean, then, that there are
additional -- there's additional bonding
that must happen in relationship to the
convention center as a whole vis-a-vis the
hotel that will be part of it?
SENATOR GOLDEN: It is being bonded and
being what I stated to you in the hotel tax,
that's repaying the debt or the financing.
It's all going to be bonded, yes.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: If you would
continue to yield, Senator Golden.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator Golden,
do you yield to another question from
Senator Montgomery?
6244
SENATOR GOLDEN: I do, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The Senator
yields.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: So, Senator
Golden, another question that I have is that
this $1.50 per night hotel tax, does that
mean, then, that the hotels in our borough
will have to pay or help to pay for this
$500 million for the purpose of the
convention center in Manhattan?
SENATOR GOLDEN: Yes, it will. And the
reason, obviously, for that is because the
Javits Center will benefit all the City of
New York, all its five boroughs, by
increased business. That will be increased
hotel rooms, that will be increased dollars,
increased revenues for the City and State of
New York.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: All right. Thank
you, Senator Golden.
SENATOR GOLDEN: Thank you, Senator.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Mr. President,
briefly on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Montgomery, on the bill.
6245
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes. I -- there
are several poison-pill aspects to this
legislation that I wish to point out, one of
them being that we have attached to this
legislation, which is specifically for the
development of the Javits Center, or
expansion of the Javits Center, including a
hotel that will be part of it, and so on and
so on -- we have attached onto here another
$350 million in economic development
projects to take place outside of New York
City.
So in a sense, this -- the Javits
Center expansion is being hijacked by the
$350 million economic development projects
outside of New York City.
I am definitely in favor of economic
development dollars going for upstate,
outside of New York City. But certainly
there's no projects attached to this money.
So who makes the decision? The same three
men that everybody is already looking at as
part of our broken system, the Governor and
the Speaker and the Majority Leader.
My apologies to the Majority Leader,
6246
but this is the truth. It's right here in
the bill.
So there's no parameters. We don't
know where the money is going, how it's
going to be used, for what purposes. And
definitely, definitively we do have needs
for economic development, upstate as well as
in New York City. But that's not what this
bill is doing.
And it's not setting any parameters.
There's no indication that the 350 million
is going to go for real, sustained economic
development that is needed in upstate. So
this is a blank check to a certain three
people. And we all know who they are. I
won't call any more names.
In addition, Mr. President, this
legislation allows the city charter to be
usurped. In fact, it states specifically
that the legislation does not subject the
expansion to the New York City ULURP
process, so that it allows for the decisions
around the convention center development to
be made without the input of
local-government elected officials. And I
6247
think that is wrong. It is a mistake not to
have an official role that they will be able
to play.
I do, however, want to say a couple of
positive things that I think are really good
about this legislation. One of them is that
it does provide for all contracts -- and
it's in the legislation, so that is very
good -- for all contracts for construction
to consider a commitment by the contractors
to include minority- and women-owned
businesses, pursuant to Article 15-A of the
Executive Law.
Every single piece of legislation that
allocate allocates tax dollars in this state
should have that provision. So I certainly
compliment the author of this legislation,
the sponsor and the sponsors, on including
that specifically in the bill. I do hope
that that provision will be one that is very
closely monitored and strictly adhered to.
I think it is also a good thing that we
require compliance with the Wicks Law,
because one of the issues that we need to be
aware of is the fact that we need to spread
6248
the wealth in terms of construction of large
projects and to make sure that there is a
wider possibility for participation.
Certainly I think it's a good thing to
have project labor agreements. But in the
absence of those, at least we should have
the Wicks Law, so that there is a better
chance that small minority- and women-owned
businesses can participate.
Overall, I'm going to vote for this
bill. I think that it's -- obviously, my
colleagues from Manhattan have spoken. They
feel that this is a good bill, it will help
the economy of New York City.
I think there are some real issues
associated with how we are putting together
a package of bonding and funding that to
some extent will have to be paid for by our
children for generations out. And whether
or not they will in fact benefit from that
law, from this legislation, there is a
question. But that's how we do things in
New York, unfortunately.
So, Mr. President, with those
reservations, and with the issues that I've
6249
raised, I will be voting yes on this
legislation. Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator Smith,
why do you rise?
SENATOR ADA SMITH: I rise, Mr.
President, to agree with my colleague
Senator Montgomery. I too will be voting
for this legislation, with reservations.
It has been brought to our attention
that this is the plan that was developed by
the Mayor of the City of New York. And I
happen to represent a portion of Queens that
is bounded by Kennedy Airport, and we have a
great deal of hotels at that location. And
each of them will be paying the tax.
And the Mayor and I have had a
disagreement because he placed a homeless
shelter right beside these hotels, almost
causing many of the other hotels to go out
of business. Right now, if he had of
listened to me, we would have another hotel
to help pay the taxes instead of having
businesses teetering on the brink of
bankruptcy. And I hope that he will
reconsider his previous decision to place a
6250
homeless shelter in a thriving location.
Economic development is certainly the
most important element to communities such
as mine in Southeast Queens. And hopefully
the 15-A will redound to my community, and
that those people who are currently
unemployed or underemployed will have the
opportunity to have meaningful employment.
This is important not only to Manhattan, but
to the other boroughs.
And therefore I will certainly be
voting in the affirmative.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Can we ask for an
immediate meeting of the Rules Committee in
Room 332.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: There will be
an immediate meeting of the Rules Committee,
immediate meeting of the Rules Committee in
the Majority Conference Room, Room 332.
Senator Brown, why do you rise?
SENATOR BROWN: Thank you,
Mr. Chairman. I rise to speak on the bill.
You know, the $350 million in this
legislation that is dedicated to statewide
6251
economic development is something that I'm
certainly very interested in. And certainly
as a representative of the City of Buffalo,
which is experiencing extreme economic
difficulty -- a city with a control board, a
city with high unemployment -- economic
development is something that we critically
need.
I am disappointed that this legislation
does not outline what the specific projects
are that we would be able to see in our
communities --
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator Brown,
excuse me for the interruption.
It just seems to me that there's a lot
of members on both sides of the aisle that
aren't paying too much attention to the
debate. And certainly what you're saying
deserves more attention than they appear to
be giving to you.
So can we have a little quiet in the
chamber, please. If you have to have a
conversation with a staff member or another
member, please take it out of the room.
Thank you very much.
6252
SENATOR BROWN: Thank you,
Mr. Chairman.
So that is one of the issues that gives
me some pause with this legislation. You
know, when we look at an amount as
significant as $350 million and we are in a
position of voting without knowing clearly
what those projects will be, I think it is
cause for concern.
I am certainly hopeful that some of
this $350 million that is being voted on
today will be dedicated to economic
development in the City of Buffalo, and I
wish we were in a position where we were
able to vote knowing what these projects are
going to be and being able to make clear-cut
decisions on projects on a vote based on
having that knowledge.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stavisky, why do you rise?
SENATOR STAVISKY: Mr. President, very
briefly on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Stavisky, on the bill.
6253
SENATOR STAVISKY: I want to echo what
Senator Montgomery said concerning the Wicks
Law. This is a very -- I think a very good
and important section of the legislation.
Wicks is something that's very important to
the people in my district, and I'm delighted
that there is a provision which will require
compliance with Wicks.
And I'm delighted to support the bill.
I think that the economic development that's
going to be engendered is extremely
important, and particularly upstate as well
as in the city of New York. So I will be
voting yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Krueger, why do you rise?
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: Thank you, Mr.
President. On the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Krueger, on the bill.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: Thank you.
Well, I'm faced with one of those
dilemmas I often am faced with in this
chamber, because I'm on record as supporting
the need for expanding the Javits Convention
6254
Center. I do think that it would be a good
thing for the economy of the city of New
York and, in fact, then for the state of New
York. But the devil is in the details.
And so despite the fact that on
November 18th Senator Bruno put out a press
release in a press conference talking about
the need to reform many important things
here in the Senate, I see this bill today as
an epitome of those problems that we have
yet to resolve.
We're doing a bill that when you add up
the numbers is $1.55 billion of state monies
and bond monies and approval for the City of
New York to put their budget money in. So
$1.55 billion for the Javits Center
expansion. Is that good math? Does that
make sense? I'm not sure with such short
notice, without even a three-day timeline to
review those questions and to evaluate the
numbers.
I'm also very concerned that, in the
absence of public authority reform that both
sides of this house say we want to do, that
we are expanding the powers of the public
6255
authority and furthering arrangements
through MOUs without anyone having a chance
to review any of it, the Legislature or the
public. And that's a dangerous warning sign
to me.
We're also not even questioning $1.55
billion being spent or authorized to be
spent by the State of New York, by public
authorities, and by the City of New York at
a point in history where the Governor tells
us we're facing a $6 billion deficit -- as
he plans, I believe, to announce a fee weeks
from now, in January -- where we know for a
fact that we're in crisis for our operating
and capital expenses both for the MTA and
for the school systems of our whole state,
despite the fact that the CFE instructions
are only specific to the New York City
schools.
So I wonder aloud why we would be
making the decision in such short notice,
without any discussion, without any of that
time to evaluate $1.55 billion against the
framework of potentially having billions of
dollars that we need to spend and can't
6256
explain how we're going to get for schools
and public transportation and debt.
And is this stadium, which I say I'm on
record in supporting, more important than
our decisions within the budget context to
decide whether we should be spending money
on building schools and providing teachers
and expanding our subway systems and paying
for the operating costs?
I don't think it is reasonable for us
to make those decisions in a vacuum today --
again, with a message of necessity. And I
think that those are reasonable and real
questions that we should be taking back and
asking ourselves and other experts.
Again, $1.55 billion message of
necessity bill, brand-new bill, three, four,
even five versions between last night and
today. The price tag kept going up. The
details kept getting a little foggier.
So despite the fact that I do think
that, for the right price and the right
situation, expansion of Javits is important,
and while I do argue that for the right
price and the right situation economic
6257
development money for upstate New York or
places outside of New York City also would
be justifiable and worth the discussion and
worth the decision-making by both houses of
the Legislature about what is a good or a
not-so-good use of government money and
bonding authority, I don't see any of that
happening here today.
I see a take-it-or-leave-it bill, $1.55
billion, no answers or unsatisfactory
answers to the question, message of
necessity, no reviews of the public
authority reform roles, no reviews of the
question of how much debt is it okay for the
State of New York to continue to allow
off-budget authorities to build up, with the
state ultimately and, in this case, the city
ultimately liable for the costs. No real
discussion with our communities. How could
you have the discussion? This bill is a few
minutes old at best.
This is how we've done business in
Albany in the past. This is how I believe
the voters of the state have been urging us
to change how we do business. I think that
6258
this bill is the wrong bill on the wrong
day. And I believe we should go back and
reevaluate and get the answers for ourselves
and our constituents.
So again, I would like to be able to
vote for a Javits bill, but I won't be
voting for this one.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Is there any
other member wishing to speak on the bill?
Senator Schneiderman.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you, Mr.
President. Briefly on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Schneiderman, on the bill.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: I have to echo a
lot of the comments of my colleagues. I
feel very strongly that New York City needs
a true convention center. And everyone
knows that we lose business and it's a
problem. I have concerns about some of the
proposals that are on the table.
Whether or not you favor the current
stadium plan or some other expansion plan,
however, I think it is critical that we take
6259
a step forward. I am very troubled by some
of the issues my colleagues have raised
here, particularly with regard to the
process and with regard to the lack of
clarity as to how funds are to be spent.
But there's one issue that really
hasn't been addressed that I want to
underline. This bill continues a pattern of
systematic discrimination against the
taxpayers of the City of New York by the
State Legislature -- by the state
government; let's not leave out the
Governor -- in that the only identified tax
to finance all of those projects is a New
York City hotel room tax.
Now, I would urge my colleagues that we
have a lot of programs and projects,
construction projects and expansion projects
that we would like to undertake in New York
City. We have a crisis, as you know, in our
transit system, in the financing of our
transit system. We want to build a rail
freight tunnel. We want to build a
Second Avenue subway. We want to build
schools. And the New York State Court of
6260
Appeals I think is going to force us to fund
the construction of schools in New York
City.
And yet in piece after piece of
legislation that we pass, the city and the
taxpayers end up footing the bill, making it
almost impossible for the city to finance
its own programs and its own projects and to
develop in the way that the voters and
taxpayers of the city want to develop our
great metropolis.
I would urge all of you that you're
about to kill the goose that lays the golden
eggs. New York City is an economic engine
for this state. We subsidize -- the
taxpayers in my district and the rest of New
York City, we send to Albany between $7
billion and $11 billion a year more than we
get back in funds and services.
How does that happen? That happens
because of bill after bill like this where
you identify a source of funding from the
city and the rest of it is just sucked up by
the state taxpayers, bonds floated that are
paid for by all the taxpayers of the state,
6261
including those in the city.
We need Javits expansion. We need a
Second Avenue subway. We need a rail
freight tunnel. But I would urge my
colleagues that if we continue this pattern,
we're going to have a major problem. And we
are coming into a political season in New
York City where perhaps some people who are
desiring to be elected to higher office, or
reelected, are going to be talking about
this more. This will be an issue this
coming year.
We cannot have a situation in which we
have 53 percent of the statewide
unemployment in New York City but we get
7 percent of the funds from the Jobs Now
program, where we only get 12 percent of the
statewide tourism grants.
Of the 72 Empire Zones in the state,
our signature economic development program,
only 10 are in New York City. And since the
city's economy had the worst hit, took the
worst hit it will ever take on
September 11th, 10 zones have been created,
none in the City of New York.
6262
So I would urge my colleagues, we have
to improve our process, as Senator Krueger
has so eloquently stated. But we also have
to improve the treatment of our state's
greatest city. We are going to have fiscal
problems for years to come in this state.
The problems cannot be solved in school
funding, in transit funding or in economic
development, as in the Javits program, by
placing an unfair burden on the backs of the
taxpayers of our city.
I am going to support this bill with a
view to trying to correct some of these
flaws and with an understanding that we are
going to be having substantial further
negotiations before this project actually is
underway. But I would like to remind
everyone here that as we head into the new
year, if we don't address the imbalance and
we don't start treating the city taxpayers
fairly, we're going to have problems that
are going to start to hurt our state's
economy in ways that will affect every
municipality and every jurisdiction.
Thank you, Mr. President.
6263
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator Bruno,
to close debate.
SENATOR BRUNO: Thank you very much,
Mr. President. And thank you to my
colleagues.
Where we are with this bill -- and,
Senator Golden, thank you for your
leadership, and the other city members and
all the others that have been involved --
Speaker of the Assembly, the Governor, the
Mayor's office -- to get us where we are
today.
And I was listening with great interest
to some of the observations and comments.
And I'm not going to go on at any length,
but I just want to add this to the
discussion.
Our life relates around economic
development and jobs. When you develop the
economy and you expand the economy, you
create jobs, you create, hopefully, profits,
you allow people to earn and pay taxes, and
you fund education, health care, mental
health, all the infrastructure that we're
talking about.
6264
And that's what this is all about, this
Javits expansion, almost doubling the size.
And I read in the papers that this
enhancement is going to create additional
revenue of somewhere along the lines of a
million and a half a day. I think that's a
half a billion dollars a year. Now, that
was in the paper. And if it was in the
paper, it must be true.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR BRUNO: So I believe that, and
I accept that.
So why -- we're going to create
revenue. We're going to create tourism. I
gather that this takes this facility from
the 16th, 17th largest to about the third or
fourth in the country. And that allows us
then to entertain and do the kinds of things
to create the revenue. Not to mention the
construction jobs, all of the construction
jobs, the permanent jobs and the rest of the
development that is potentially there for
that West Side.
And you can debate what's best, and
we'll debate that as to what's best. But
6265
the bottom line is you are doing a great
thing by getting this piece done, creating
jobs, creating additional revenue and
funding education and health care and the
infrastructure and all of the good things
that are important in the lives of people.
So I want to thank those of you that
have been so instrumental in getting us here
and thank you for your support.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The Secretary
will read the last section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This act
shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Record the
negative vote and announce the results.
Senator Golden, to explain his vote.
SENATOR GOLDEN: To explain my vote,
Mr. President.
I just want to clarify very quickly why
I'm voting for this. And I think the leader
did it very well and very eloquently. And
it was about jobs, and it is about jobs.
6266
And this particular $1.3 million
expansion of that exposition space, that
86,000 square foot ballroom, that 1500-room
hotel at 42nd and 11th -- we're looking at
creating 25,000 jobs for just that one
project, 15,000 construction jobs, 10,000
permanent jobs. And that's just one project
that's going to be going on in the City of
New York.
And then you take that with the other
$350 million that will go upstate to the
additional jobs that will be created outside
the City of New York -- and that's what
we're supposed to be doing, is putting the
people to work in the city and the state of
New York.
And this project does that. And this
is at the request of the Mayor of the City
of New York. And we're happy to see the day
come forward that we're having this bill
passed here on the floor so that we can see
these jobs.
And, yes, Leader, they are,
$1.5 million is lost each day that we don't
have an expansion to that center. And
6267
that's exactly what the paper said, and
that's correct. That's $1.5 million per
day.
So I'm hoping to see the Second Avenue
line, to see downtown Manhattan being
rebuilt. I hope to see all these projects,
putting tens of thousands of people to work,
retaining all of that employee taxes,
retaining all of that money coming into the
City and the State of New York so that we
can have a prosperous city and state in the
future.
So I thank this body for voting for
this bill and voting for the future of this
great city.
Thank you, Mr. President. I vote yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator Golden
will be recorded in the affirmative.
Senator DeFrancisco, to explain his
vote.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: I vote yes.
But since all we've been talking about
is New York City, I just want to make it
clear to my constituents that this is not a
new Jets stadium. Because there's been an
6268
awful lot of confusion about that issue.
That's number one.
Number two is that it's also important,
the other component, that this is not only
about New York City, this is about the rest
of the state as well, because there's a
corresponding $350 million for the same
creation of jobs elsewhere throughout the
state.
And for that reason, I vote aye.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
DeFrancisco will be recorded in the
affirmative.
Announce the results.
THE SECRETARY: Ayes, 58. Nays, 1.
Senator L. Krueger recorded in the negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill is
passed.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Mr. President, can we
at this time return to the reports of
standing committees.
And I believe that there is a report
from the Rules Committee at the desk. I
would ask that it be read at this time.
6269
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: We will return
to the order of reports of standing
committees.
There is a report from the Rules
Committee at the desk. I'll ask the
Secretary to read.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Bruno, from the
Committee on Rules, reports the following
bill direct to third reading:
Senate Print 7802, by the Senate
Committee on Rules, an act to amend the
Correction Law, the Criminal Procedure Law,
the Penal Law, and the Executive Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator Bruno,
motion to accept the report of the Rules
Committee?
SENATOR BRUNO: So moved.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: All those in
favor signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Opposed, nay.
(No response.)
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The report is
accepted. The bill is ordered directly to
third reading.
6270
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Mr. President, can we
at this time take up the bill. And is there
a message of necessity at the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The Secretary
will read the title of Calendar Number 1970.
THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 1970,
by the Senate Committee on Rules, Senate
Print Number 7802, an act to amend the
Correction Law and others.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator Bruno,
there is a message of necessity at the desk.
SENATOR BRUNO: I move that we accept
the message.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The motion is
to accept the message of necessity on
Calendar Number 1970, which is at the desk.
All those in favor signify by saying aye.
(Response of "Aye.")
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Opposed, nay.
(Response of "Nay.")
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The message is
accepted.
The bill is before the house.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Explanation.
6271
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator Volker,
an explanation of Calendar Number 1970 has
been asked for by the Acting Minority
Leader, Senator Schneiderman.
SENATOR VOLKER: Mr. President, this is
legislation that we've only been working on
for maybe six or eight years recently.
I will say this, that it is the
absolute end, for those who are out there,
of anything left of the old Rockefeller Drug
Laws.
You know, years ago -- I was here 32
years ago, actually 31 years ago when we did
drug law reform, at that time Rockefeller
Drug Law. Plus it was the second-felony
offender, which was really a lot more
important in many ways than the Rockefeller
Drug Law.
And Nelson took a great deal of umbrage
to me because I opposed him on a number of
things. He even pushed me against a wall
once. Said some very unkind things. I
won't get into the whole details. And it's
why I'm here in the Senate, because I lost
my Assembly seat in part because of it.
6272
So, you know, I have a little history
of drug laws going back a long time. The
funny thing is people have accused me of
being the big defender, when in reality a
fellow named Dominick Di Carlo and myself
were -- and Perry Duryea were responsible
for a major change in the so-called
Rockefeller Drug Laws. The original
Rockefeller Drug Laws were much, much more
draconian, I can tell you.
At any rate, what this bill does is to
do a further drug law reform. On the
so-called Rockefeller Drug Law side, we once
again deal with the A-I and A-II felonies,
drug law felonies. And essentially, that's
what's left of the old Rockefeller Drug
Laws. We allow resentencing, we allow -- in
this case, we even allow an appeal for a
person who is in jail under an A-I or an
A-II if they should be turned down -- and
some have already been turned down, by the
way, because we have actually had merit
time, and we are expanding it here.
We changed the law moving forward for
A-I and A-IIs. Essentially, we get rid
6273
of -- we have had, for instance, 15 years to
life and a maximum of 25 to life. We get
rid of that, and we set up a scheme that is
all determinate. For a first-time A-I
offender with no violence, we provide an 8
years to 20 years determinate sentence. So
a judge, for instance, has to sentence to 8
to a maximum of 20.
A violent offender, however, who has a
VFO, which is a violent felony offender,
obviously, and who gets tangled up in A-I
would be subject to a 15-to-25 penalty. But
of course that penalty would be determinate.
The judge would decide what that penalty
would be. There would be no life term.
We set up a series of changes in
post-release supervision relating to
discretionary parole, which judges are able
to deal with. We do not allow -- and I will
say this, I probably shouldn't say it, but
we will not allow the jail-break provision
that was proposed by some people in the
Assembly on B felons.
The problem was if we allow New York
City judges the discretion to send people to
6274
so-called diversion without any encumbrance
on them, they'll do what they have always
done, and that is a lot of them will
disappear.
We don't do that. We allow diversion,
but only within sentencing structures and
only in a specific sentencing structure.
One of the main provisions, by the way,
that the Assembly -- and by the way, this is
all stuff that was discussed in conference
committees. And the gentleman in front of
me here, the Minority Leader, was a very
important part of that. David Paterson was
a very valuable part of that conference
committee.
And actually what we have here is based
pretty well on that conference committee,
except that the areas where we had some
disputes either with the Assembly or with
the Governor -- because one of the things
that you have to understand, I said it at
the time, was the conference committee
couldn't spend money. And we had a problem
at that time because there was a number of
diversion programs and things that we were
6275
talking about which would cost a lot of
money. And the Assembly and the Senate were
sitting there without the Governor, and we
could make some decision and
recommendations, but we couldn't recommend
money.
What we've done here is basically take
the agreement we made, make a few changes in
the sentencing structure, and put it
together and come to an agreement. We have
excluded things like the Willard program.
And the reason we've done that, there's some
dispute about that. The second-chance
program, the pilot CADAT, guns and drugs and
kingpins.
But having said all that, we have here
set up a system for A-I and A-II felons. We
have raised the possession, the weights,
which was something the Assembly wanted very
badly. We have raised the weights for an
A-I felon, for instance, from two ounces to
four ounces. In other words, at four ounces
they can then -- would be subject to the A-I
and -- I'm sorry, four ounces to
eight ounces. It's A-II would be two ounces
6276
to four ounces, now we're getting it. The
possession. We do not deal with sale. We
only deal with possession.
There is a merit time provision in
here, a much more extensive merit time
provision. And we extend the use of CASAT
and the eligibility time for judicial CASAT.
This is a bill that will impact on a
number of people who are convicted for drug
offenses and will have the ability to do
considerable diversion and will deal with
all those people actually left who are part
of the Rockefeller Drug Laws, which is about
400 or 500 people, actually.
Let me just say, to finish, our system,
our prison system, one of the most
successful in the country, is now down to
about 62,500 inmates from 74,700, I believe
it was, some years ago. No criminal justice
system in the country has a falling crime
rate and a falling prisoner rate the way we
have in this state. You must give some
credit to the Governor and to this
Legislature. And no one seems to want to
pay attention to it.
6277
We've done a good job. What this bill
does is an agreement for drug diversion and
for sentencing changes that I think will be
in the best interests of the people of this
state and the best interests, frankly,
particularly, of those who claim that we
should do more and better prison diversion
for drugs.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Paterson, why do you rise?
SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President, I
hadn't risen yet. But --
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Paterson, I've always known you as a rising
star, so . . .
SENATOR PATERSON: Oh, thank you, Mr.
President. And I read in the newspaper that
you're a rising star. And congratulations.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Thank you, sir.
SENATOR PATERSON: There is -- drugs
are a vile and vicious malady. They turn
family members against each other, they
destroy communities.
I remember in the movie "The Godfather"
when George C. Scott, playing Don Corleone,
6278
admonishes the other leaders in the
syndicate not to start dispensing and
importing drugs, and they said to him
basically that this was something they were
going to do in the minority neighborhoods,
the Hispanic community in California, the
Hispanic community in Florida, the
African-American community in New York.
And that's what was the case for a long
period of time, that drugs were a product
and a problem of the inner city. The issue
of drug abuse was never discussed in a
presidential debate until 1984.
And yet we have found that you cannot
contain human misery. It leaps ghetto
walls. In New York City we've now found
that there are in many respects just as many
problems with drugs in Forest Hills and
Grove's Point as there have ever been in the
South Bronx and Central Harlem. It has
crept to the highest levels of our society.
They have drug problems on Wall Street.
However, it is as much a medical and
psychological problem as it is a criminal
problem. The attempts to portray every
6279
low-level drug offender as individuals who
are also violent is really not true. I know
this from statistics from the Department of
Criminal Justice Services that listed the
figure at about 16 percent.
And then I would add my own personal
history. There were people who I grew up
with, people I knew, people I still know.
There was a generation of a much different
attitude, a much different time, and not the
violence accompanied drug dealing that
occurred later on. Many of these
individuals are still incarcerated and still
become incarcerated. The average age of
people who are arrested is 32 years of age.
They are, in a sense, lifelong problems with
drugs.
At a time when we need to focus on the
aspects of criminality that we still have
not addressed -- murders, rapes, thefts,
robberies and other forms of assault -- it
was our opinion -- and "our" means
Republicans and Democrats, people from
upstate and downstate -- that after laws
were passed some years ago that they were in
6280
need of some transformation, that we were
incarcerating rather than providing any
rehabilitation. In the famous case the
State versus Sirro [ph.] it held that our
state prisons don't really rehabilitate at
all, that they simply detain.
And so it has been a long fight on
which today we can finally claim a victory.
And though we can claim a victory, I am
aware that our service in this area is
incomplete. We need to provide greater
judicial diversion. We need to provide
enhanced treatments, particularly treatment
outside the facilities, prisons. And also
we need to provide some form of probation,
as 32 other states do.
When this conference conducted some
research last year, we found that 32 states
had levels of probation for drug offenses,
12 others had probation with conditions.
Only six had mandatory minimum sentences,
and of the six, New York had 30 percent
higher punishment time than anyone else,
making New York the toughest state on drugs
in the country.
6281
We held public hearings and had
district attorneys from places like Texas
come here and tell us about the amount of
effort that they had waged and the reform of
their drug laws that have been achieved in
Texas. So it is my opinion that we still
have a way to go.
But for this effort, many people have
worked very hard, they've worked for a long
time. Senator Volker talked about the six
to eight years in this most previous effort,
one that I know Senator Volker hopes has
ended.
And as good friends as we are, Senator,
I would really miss having all those
meetings with you. And so January 5th I'm
coming back, I'm going to make an
appointment with you, and we're going to
keep talking about ways that I feel we need
to diminish the drug sentences in this state
and increase opportunity for those who
either made a mistake or made a choice in
their lives that was indeed against the law
but is not tantamount to the terrible
unlawfulness of other crimes that accrue far
6282
less sentences.
And it is really our whole societal
view which is in many ways skewed about the
issue of substance abuse that I think
commands us and compels us to take action.
So this is a victory, it is a temporary
victory. I don't think anyone who is an
advocate really thinks that this is the
panacea to the problem with drugs and
prisons in this state. But it is something
that is the result of efforts of a number of
people -- my colleagues who served on the
Rockefeller Drug Reform Conference
Committee. And it was an issue that I
thought was so important that, as a leader
of one of the four conferences, I appointed
myself to serve on that task force.
It is affecting so many people in our
society. Everybody knows someone who's had
some either unfortunate situation related to
drugs or is in some respects one that uses
drugs -- maybe casually, but it is a
condition, along with alcohol, that has
contributed to the destruction in many
respects of our family units and our
6283
community culture.
I hope that all of us will be as
rigorous as we have been in our negotiations
for this legislation and will go on to
provide some of the remedies that we are
suggesting.
So I thank you, Mr. President, for this
time; Senator Volker, for his efforts;
Senator Bruno, for allowing this bill to be
on the floor; and my colleagues Senators Tom
Duane and Velmanette Montgomery, who served
on our individual task force that
accumulated all of the information that
enabled us to release a report in March of
this year that we hope helped us get to the
point that we are now, much aware that we
have still some ways to go.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The chair
recognizes Senator Hoffmann.
SENATOR HOFFMANN: Thank you, Mr.
President.
I would like to congratulate Senator
Volker for his yeoman's service in this very
significant piece of legislation.
6284
And this marks a milestone for another
very important reason, because for those of
us who serve in this chamber it has been
quite remarkable in recent years to receive
visits from our former colleagues who had
served here and sponsored legislation now
known as the Rockefeller Drug Laws, and with
the wisdom of their years and the
perspective of their time out of the
chamber, chose to come back and very bravely
ask for a review of this legislation.
And I would like to personally thank
one such former Senator, a good friend to
many of us, Senator Doug Barclay -- now
Ambassador Doug Barclay, ambassador to
El Salvador -- one of those people who
shared the perspective that he was here when
these laws were enacted, they seemed like
the right thing to do at the time.
This was a frightened country. It was
a time when people were terrified and they
were worried that any contact with drugs was
of course a downhill spiral that would leave
to violence and degradation of human life
and horrors unforeseen.
6285
Very rarely in those days when the laws
were first enacted was there an awareness
that we now take for granted, that in fact
drug use should be considered in many
instances another illness and a matter that
should be treated in many cases outside the
criminal justice system before it becomes a
matter of criminal justice concern.
Diversion into drug treatment must
continue to be the first priority for those
nonviolent offenders, the first-time users.
And this state has indeed come a long way in
that direction, and this is an important
piece of continuity to further that end.
But there's another category of people
who I think should be recognized when we're
talking about the changes in the Rockefeller
Drug Laws, and those are the women who were
doing what they thought they were supposed
to do for the men they loved or were doing
something for the men they loved because
they were terrified, sometimes victims of
domestic violence, also a subject not well
understood in those years when these laws
were passed.
6286
And many of those women, acting out of
some form of coercion or misguided devotion,
were the ones who wound up taking the rap
for someone else. And to see those women
languish in jail and face a life of great
unfairness because the laws were so
inequitable has been an injustice that we
will now be able to correct.
So I'm especially pleased today to see
that this matter has now finally come to the
floor for a vote. I thank our Majority
Leader for allowing it to happen here in
these final days when I have an opportunity
to vote in support of this measure.
And I know that there will be more
steps in the right direction to help weed
out those serious predicate offenders, who
deserve long sentences for all the right
reasons, from the people who have made a
mistake or who have acted out of some
personal fear and done something wrong and
for that they should have some kind of a
corrective action but not incarceration.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator Duane.
6287
SENATOR DUANE: Thank you, Mr.
President.
Is this it? This is it? After all
this time, this is what comes to the floor?
It would be an unbelievable stretch to call
this Rockefeller drug reform. Maybe, maybe,
maybe, maybe sentencing reform. Rockefeller
drug reform? No. That's not what this is.
Everybody's going to go, Oh,
congratulations, we did this big reform --
and now we can forget about it for years.
When are we going to pick this up again?
It's going to be years.
Yeah, some A-I category offenders,
they'll have a chance to have their
sentences looked at. Looked at. But anyone
with A-IIs or Bs, nothing. You tell those
families that their kids aren't getting out
of jail. You tell those kids that their
fathers aren't getting out of jails.
Nothing in here for them, nothing.
The ones that are stuck in jail, they
get nothing out of this. Nothing. Oh, oh,
maybe, maybe they get an additional
one-sixth off their sentences. But do they
6288
get to go before a judge and have their
sentences looked at again? No. That's not
in here.
What about new people? Nothing.
Nothing. I don't know what bill my
colleague on the other side of the aisle was
looking at. There's nothing about diversion
in here. Bs don't get a chance for
probation. Off to jail with them. What
kind of reform is that?
Treatment. I'm sorry, where's the
money for the treatment? I mean, Willard
isn't even being expanded. People can go
earlier to nonexistent drug treatment
programs? What is that? It's a fool's
search.
If we were serious about treatment, we
would treat this as a public health issue.
Not just a criminal justice issue, but
public health. Oh, the drug war, it's
really worked great. So many less people
addicted to drugs. What planet are you
living on? This drug war makes no sense.
And this bill does nothing to fix it. There
is no more treatment in here. There's no
6289
diversion. There isn't even an expansion of
DTAP. It's not in here.
I can't believe after all this time
this is what ends up on our desks.
Everybody stays in jail. New, newly
convicted people, no -- no chance to go into
treatment. Off to jail. We should be
ashamed of ourselves. Rockefeller drug
reform? Hah. I don't think so.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
DeFrancisco.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: I stand and am
very pleased to support this piece of
legislation. About six years ago, I put
in -- or five years ago I put in the first
Rockefeller Drug Law reform for my
conference. And it has been a long haul.
And unfortunately, there are different
opinions on every issue, but probably none
more diverse than the opinions on this
particular issue. There are some obviously
who are not satisfied about how far it went.
However, those people that are in jail
that have been sitting in jail on an A-I
felony, for example, and had no chance of
6290
getting resentenced and continue to sit in
jail while this conference and this
Legislature does nothing because we can't
get everything one side wants, that I think
is the real tragedy.
This bill does double the amount of
drugs that are required to fit in the
various offenses. It does provide some
relief for those in jail. It does provide
some modification, which in my mind is a
heck of a lot better than where we stand
right now.
And I think that, you know, we heard
the same arguments that Senator Duane has
made during our open conference committees,
and we heard some as emotio -- as strong on
the other side of the issue. And we could
have sat forever not coming up with any
reform or any improvement. And I think that
would have been the wrong way to do it.
So I'm happy that we do have this bill.
It may not go far enough for some. It
probably went a lot too far, much too far
for others. But I think the open conference
committee process by which we bridge many of
6291
our differences is a process that we should
continue in much greater degree. And
hopefully we can get progress -- maybe not
perfection, because there's no legislative
body that does -- in many other issues as
we've done in this bill.
And I'm happy to vote for this bill.
And I urge all others, even though they
might not have gotten everything they
wanted, to vote aye.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator Sabini.
SENATOR SABINI: Thank you, Mr.
President. On the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator Sabini,
on the bill.
SENATOR SABINI: I don't think there's
any doubt that this is coming before us
today as part of a political calculus.
Everything we do in government is subject to
that judgment.
And certainly we saw a district
attorney's race in the county in which we
meet affected by this. And there is clearly
some -- finally some outcry in most of the
general public that these laws are too
6292
draconian and affected too many people.
So I think that by our doing it, we
shouldn't kid ourselves into thinking that
we're doing something here that was noble.
It's overdue.
And I think it's important that we
recognize that Senator Duane's right on the
matter of public health. You know, we're
dealing with the end product here, the
sentenced part. But we need to re-look at
and underline the fact that we need to keep
people off drugs and people who are on
drugs, get them off drugs as a public health
strategy.
Our state aid to localities on
treatment is at the same dollar level it was
10 years ago, and yet costs have gone up,
the problem hasn't gone away. Drug
addiction is a disease, a disease that needs
to be treated. And this is sort of a start
at reforming the sentencing laws. And I
think in -- I agree with Senator Paterson it
should just be a start.
But we also really need to take the
issue seriously in a way larger than we
6293
have, and deal with the prevention end and
the treatment end so that we won't, in the
future, be talking about tens of thousands
of people who are in the corrections system
that have been caught up by what many feel
are unfair laws.
I want to also point out that the
first -- besides the people in this chamber
who have worked hard on this issue, in the
other chamber my constituent and my friend,
Assemblyman Aubry, has made this a very
lonely crusade early on. And his name
appears on this bill. I know he doesn't do
that lightly, because he feels very strongly
about this issue.
And he deserves a whole lot of credit
for keeping this issue alive and keeping the
embers of interest in this issue alive when
others were hoping it would go away and that
we'd stop talking about. So I wanted to
note for the record my admiration for his
courage and persistence on this issue, and I
intend to vote in the affirmative.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator Sampson
6294
had requested to speak, but I don't see him
in the chamber at the moment.
Senator Krueger is next on the list.
Senator Krueger, why do you rise?
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: Thank you, Mr.
President. I rise to speak on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Krueger, on the bill.
SENATOR LIZ KRUEGER: I appreciate so
much Senator Duane's passion and
articulateness about the flaws in this bill.
And he is absolutely right, this is not
reform of the Rockefeller Drug Laws and this
is not the end of the story.
And I'll also point out, yet again,
we're doing this as a message of necessity
bill, not the way I think we should do
business in the State of New York. But I
might argue, given the history Senator
Volker laid out of how frequently we have
circled and yet not moved forward on this
issue, that perhaps this is an emergency,
justifiably a message of necessity bill,
because we seem to be at a place where at
least these two houses, both sides of the
6295
aisle, are willing to make some beginning
steps and progress by passing this bill
today.
I certainly hope that the message of
necessity from the Governor in relationship
to this bill signals that he actually wants
to pass this bill and that we don't find
ourselves where he's sent the message and
then vetoes, as he did on the minimum wage,
where apparently he felt the emergency need
to veto a bill. Because if we make the
progress that I hope we do today, it is only
a beginning. But even that will go to no
end if we don't get this bill signed into
law.
I also just want to reiterate what all
of my colleagues on this side of the aisle
said today. Since there is no money for
drug treatment and there are no
alternative-to-incarceration programs being
funded out of this bill, I say to us we have
to come back immediately in January to
address this, not have discussions for
another six or eight years, Senator Volker.
Because hopefully the State of New York
6296
learned from the problems that we created
when we deinstitutionalized the mentally ill
and did not reinvest that money in
community-based mental health services and
created a generation of chaos for ourselves
and for mentally ill people. We cannot
repeat that mistake when it comes to
ensuring that another public health crisis,
drug addiction, is not addressed fairly and
equitably in the context of sentencing
reform.
So I will vote for this bill, as much
as I truly value the statements made by my
colleague Senator Duane that none of us
should go home and say we finished our work
here today. But I urge that we pass this
bill, and I urge that Governor Pataki
immediately sign this bill and so in January
we can come back to the table and move
forward again.
Thank you, Mr. President.
SENATOR DIAZ: Let's vote.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator Connor.
SENATOR CONNOR: Thank you, Mr.
President.
6297
I realize that a lot of legislators
over the past years have worked very hard on
this. And I have also, in my years here,
always appreciated the necessity for
compromise and the fact that in any
legislation you rarely get every -- any side
of any issue rarely gets everything that
they want.
That said, it's clear to me that the
pressure for Rockefeller drug reform has
been building and building and building
these past years. And many, many various
groups have taken up advocacy for reform of
the Rockefeller Drug Laws. And I understand
someone earlier mentioned about a win; you
know, claim your wins.
I don't look at it that way. I don't
look at it as a contest like we won, you
lost; those who are on the other side lost a
little bit in this, so let's take it.
Before some of these advocates were in
the field, I was in favor of a comprehensive
reform of the whole Rockefeller Drug Laws.
Not just the sentencing provisions -- yes,
they are very important -- but at every
6298
level. Guaranteed diversion programs,
funded diversion programs. The possibility,
as 34 or 35 other states allow, of probation
at that B level. That's reform.
And as Senator Duane said, this may be
some kind of sentencing reform or sentencing
restructuring or sentencing restructuring
downward, but it's not Rockefeller drug
reform. And the fact is I thought we'd
learned a whole lot these past years. You
know, Senator Volker was here and he -- I
wasn't here; I just remember reading about
it as a citizen in the newspaper. Governor
Rockefeller's first proposal I believe was
the death penalty at the A level, the death
penalty for drugs. And the great
compromise, the great softening that went on
then is, oh, we came up with things like
15 years to life. We -- I wasn't here, but
the Legislature did.
It was a time, as someone said, of
great fear. It was a time of ever-growing
crime statistics. Not just drug crimes,
violent crimes. You know, the strong belief
that most robberies, muggings, et cetera,
6299
et cetera were motivated -- and they
probably were at the time -- by addicted
persons needing to get money to feed their
habit.
There were other countervailing
approaches. I remember when I first came
here, Senator Joe Galiber, an esteemed late
member of this body, who advocated for
legalization of drugs on the British model,
on the theory that you eliminate a lot of
the need for the kind of prohibition-driven
need for money and prices and so on, and you
treat it as a health problem and you attempt
to either maintain people and, through
various treatment modalities, cure them.
But, you know, the thing that's always
disturbed me about these Rockefeller Drug
Laws -- you know, and I've read the cases
where judges with tears in their eyes would
say: This is outrageous, but I have to send
this young woman to prison for 15 years to
life, or this young man. Invariably, the
people who got sentenced, it seemed to me,
were young or members of minority groups or,
at the very least, poor.
6300
And in my experience, I've known
doctors and lawyers and businesspeople who
developed really heavy drug problems. And a
very dear friend of mine, unbeknownst to his
friends and all, developed a very heavy drug
problem and died of an overdose. He was
quite a professional.
But those people never seem to get
caught up in this send-them-off-to-jail
thing. They just didn't get busted. Maybe
because they had money and, I don't know,
places to use or possess. Or they didn't
look like the kind of people the cops were
going to frisk or search their car or
anything. They never had the encounters
with the law, albeit they ruined their lives
and their families' lives and very often
cost them lives because of their addiction.
So drugs are a horrible thing. But
this need to take a political win out of
it -- I view the political pressures that
have built up for Rockefeller reform as a
good thing. And that pressure should be
still on until we get real reform. And for
the various reasons people articulated --
6301
Senator Duane said it well -- this isn't
enough.
And I think for political colleagues,
legislative colleagues, and for advocates to
say, Let's take this as sort of a win or
it's a win and go from there, we can
admonish, Mr. President, our colleagues all
we want about "and when we come back here in
January, let's take up this issue again
after this is passed and signed, and we
should do it right away in January." It's
not going to happen. There's not a soul
here who's familiar with the workings of
this Legislature who think we're going to
touch Rockefeller Drug Law again for many
years.
And all that pressure, all that
pressure that's built, and the reason why we
got this attempt, this attempt -- this is
not an attempt to reform the Rockefeller
Drug Laws. This is an attempt to let the
air out of the tires, the pressure that's
been building for Rockefeller Drug Laws.
And once this passes and the Governor signs
it, you will hear that "sssss" of the air
6302
coming out of that tire that's built up with
all the advocates and the editorials and the
public awareness. The air will just go out
of it. And it will be a long, long time
before we get anything that's a rational,
comprehensive reform of the Rockefeller Drug
Laws.
I didn't support reforming the
Rockefeller Drug Laws to score a political
win, to be able to put in my newsletter "We
did a bill at last, great victory." I did
it to get a real Rockefeller drug reform,
and this isn't it.
So, Mr. President, I'm going to vote
no.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Sampson, on the bill.
SENATOR SAMPSON: On the bill.
I rise to ditto what Senator Connor
said, and also Senator Duane. I don't look
at this as a win. But, you know, the old
cliche is that sometimes you have to crawl
before you can walk. We are taking a first
step to put New York State in the
mainstream, and we have to take that into
6303
consideration.
You know, and as everyone said, this is
not a win. We just won a small skirmish.
There's still a battle, and there's still
the war. And we have to understand that
even if the advocates don't keep up the
momentum and the fight, as colleagues, we
need to keep up the fight and keep up the
momentum. Because it takes a period of time
for change to occur, and it did take a
considerable amount of time.
But the writing is on the wall. We
understand that the electorate now is no
longer satisfied with the status quo. It's
all about changes and everybody wants to be
reformers now. And we have to understand,
if we want to come back in 2006 and
thereafter, we have to understand that we
need to take care of this issue.
But once again, this is not a win, and
I don't think we all consider it to be a
win. But it's just a first step in moving
New York State to the mainstream.
Thank you. I vote aye on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
6304
Schneiderman, to close for the Minority.
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Thank you, Mr.
President.
I think that it's very important for
everyone here to recognize that there are
sentencing laws and there is a lot of
confusion about what's a Rockefeller drug
law and what's not a Rockefeller drug law,
however you describe it.
We're talking about reforming the laws,
and this is a very, very small step. It
will benefit thousands of New Yorkers. They
will have their sentences reduced. People
will be in prison for drug possession for
shorter periods of time. But it does also
leave tens of thousands behind.
But more important than the sentencing
grid, and this is what some of my colleagues
I believe have alluded to, is the fact that
we have to change the Rockefeller drug
approach. And let's be honest about this.
There's got to be a fundamental change that
goes beyond tinkering with the sentencing
grid, and that has to be to say: It doesn't
make any sense to put people in prison for
6305
drug possession.
And a lot of you were here when the
District Attorneys Association came up and
gave its presentation. It does not reduce
crime to put people in prison for drug
possession. It does not reduce drug use to
put people in prison for drug possession.
These long sentences haven't worked.
I remember, you know, the presentation
by some of the district attorneys, who I
understand they don't want to give up their
power, the power that they get through this
determinate system of incredibly long
sentences. But their arguments do not hold
water. They say crime has gone down since
we've had the Rockefeller Drug Laws. Well,
crime has gone down in all these other
states that don't have Rockefeller Drug
Laws.
So let's look at this as Senator Duane
and others have said. This is a public
health matter. And prior to the adoption of
the Rockefeller drug approach in New York
State, it was treated as a public health
matter.
6306
So this bill is a very small step
forward. I think that we do have to
recognize the fact that there are thousands
of people whose lives will be better because
of it -- people who will get out of prison,
people who will continue to go to prison,
many thousands of people, and the families
of those offenders who will benefit. So it
is a benefit. It doesn't have any negative
enhancements or any of other things that
have poisoned previous bills.
But it does not change the fundamental
approach. And I would urge all of you that
the advocates have pledged that they're
willing to come back. I know that our
counterparts in the Assembly, Assemblyman
Aubry and others, have pledged that they're
willing to come back. And we have to
recognize that tinkering around the edges is
not going to solve this problem.
We're not talking about something that
really should even be in the realm of
sentencing reform. We're talking about
something that should be in the realm of the
reality of treatment of people with drugs.
6307
And this is not everybody with drugs,
let's also recognize that. I mean,
93 percent of the offenders doing time under
these laws are black and Hispanic. And if
there's anyone here who believes that
93 percent of the drug use in this state
occurs only by black and Hispanic people,
then I would suggest that you really need to
go back to school before you come back and
serve in this body. That is a statement
that these drugs have an impact in
communities based on race, not based on drug
use.
These laws have an impact based on your
ability to afford a good lawyer, not based
on drug use. They don't reduce crime. They
don't reduce drug use.
This is a very small step forward. If
we stop here, we aren't doing our job and I
don't think we really can be proud of our
record on this issue. But I am going to
vote yes, because it is a small step that
will benefit thousands of New Yorkers. It
is a step towards some reform.
And I hope when we come back in January
6308
we'll change our focus and stop talking
about sentencing reform and start talking
about changing the Rockefeller approach.
There is no evidence of any kind that it
reduces crime or drug use.
Let's get real. Let's do what Senator
Paterson did when he surveyed all the 50
states and came back with a report showing
that all these other states that are
supposedly tougher on crime -- Texas,
Alabama, Arkansas -- have far shorter
sentences for drug possession and they're
not suffering a crime wave as a result.
This is a very small step. But we need
to change our approach. We need to change
the approach of this state. I'm going to
support this legislation, but with the
commitment and understanding of our
conference and our conference leader and of
our colleagues on the outside, people who
have come from as far away as Argentina to
help in this fight, people who have come
here over and over again and given their
time, people who are ex-offenders who have
rededicated themselves to this cause, that
6309
we will not let this go. Let's come back
and get back to work on changing this
approach.
I will vote yes, and I urge everyone to
do so. But I urge that more important than
how you vote on this bill is the
reaffirmation of our commitment to change
these laws once and for all, starting in
January.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The chair
recognizes Senator Bruno, to close for the
Majority.
SENATOR BRUNO: Thank you, Mr.
President.
Again, we have legislation before us
that has taken years, years and years and
years, to get where we are today. And
again, you know, when you listen -- and some
feel that this doesn't go far enough.
You're right. You're right. There's no
debate. There's a lot more that can be
done. The rehab programs, the alternatives
to incarceration, you're absolutely right.
We have all concluded and agree, thanks
6310
to the leadership of Senator Volker, of
people who worked through the night, the
Governor, the Assembly, many of you, my
colleagues, to get where we are.
Now, we have passed, just so you know,
something like 12 bills since 1977 to change
the dramatics and the trauma of the
Rockefeller Drug Laws. Now, it wasn't
enough. But we did a lot of things and
we're doing a lot of things today to enhance
and to help people who, yes, they need help.
They don't need to go up, like Elaine
Bartlett, who served 16 years of, I think,
25 to life. And I, with many of you,
appealed to the Governor for her, and for
three others, that pardon. She wrote a
book, maybe you read it, Life on the
Outside, a rather tragic and unhappy ending.
Well, we want to change life for people like
her. She's going on with her life --
16 years.
And I have met, like you have met,
children of people who are incarcerated,
9-year-olds, 10-year-olds, kind of pleading
for help. Well, we're helping. We're
6311
helping. And we are doing something here
that changes people's lives. And don't
minimize it. Please, don't minimize it.
We've had a lot of years to get here.
And what I'm saying to all of you is
something you already know. There is more
to be done. And we're going to get there,
and we're going to do it. Because the
bottom line really is to help people, help
people. Those that are mentally afflicted,
chemically afflicted, just their
environment.
All of us have our life experiences.
And there's someone that's working not too
far from here that went up, with three
little children, and that woman is now
working not too far from where we are, on a
nonviolent drug offense. Now, you talk
about injustice, to put a mother of three
children away for a nonviolent drug offense
when she was helpless in her community and
exposed and caught. That's wrong. That's
tragic. Ruins people's lives.
So we in this chamber, with the
Governor and with the Assembly, are going to
6312
make a huge difference in people's lives.
So let's be proud that we're going to help
thousands and thousands of people -- yeah,
thousands -- presently, in the future, and
some that are incarcerated now. Let's be
proud of that.
And let's resolve that we're going to
go on and continue to talk on how we can
create alternatives for nonviolent drug
offenders and for other offenders.
There are young people going to jail
for first-time offenses who have accidents,
who do things, who are misguided in their
youth, like many of you in this chamber.
Like I was when I was 14 and 15 and 16. And
I thank the good Lord, frankly, that I
didn't end up like some of my friends who
went to reform school. One guy died in
jail, that I grew up with. You have
neighbors, you have friends.
Now, had there been alternatives for
some of these people, they could go on and
lead a constructive, productive life,
instead of putting them in jail for a year,
for two years, for three years. For what?
6313
To teach them what?
So some of my colleagues think that as
I get older that I'm getting more liberal.
It's not being liberal.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR SCHNEIDERMAN: Come on, come
out. Come out.
SENATOR BRUNO: That is not being
liberal. We're talking about humanity.
We're talking about people.
And yeah, I have learned, as I've
gotten older, that there is a way to deal in
life, and the most critical thing that we
can all focus on that we're doing here
today, and that we do tomorrow and the next
day, is to think about those people that get
in trouble and how we can help them get out
of trouble, straighten out their lives, be
productive and constructive citizens.
That's what we have to work on. And that's
what we want to work on, and that's what
we're going to continue to work on.
So let's be proud of what we're doing
here. And, Mr. President, I'm proud to be
supportive and proud of my colleagues and
6314
our relationship with the Governor and the
Assembly and that we can get to where we are
with this vote.
Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The debate is
closed.
Senator Bruno, there is an Assembly
bill at the desk. We have a substitution,
if we'd like to take that at this time.
SENATOR BRUNO: Please do so.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: I'll ask the
Secretary to read.
THE SECRETARY: Senator Bruno moves to
discharge, from the Committee on Rules,
Assembly Bill Number 11895 and substitute it
for the identical Senate Bill Number 7802,
Third Reading Calendar 1970.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
substitution is ordered.
The Secretary will read the last
section.
THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This act
shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
6315
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator Volker,
to explain his vote.
SENATOR VOLKER: Yeah, I'd like to do
this very quickly, if I could. I'll do my
best. And I'm not going to respond to some
of the discussion.
But I do want to thank Senator Bruno.
And it's interesting, because he mentioned
Elaine Bartlett. And I'm going to tell a
story that I probably -- because one of the
people I want to thank in part is a fellow
by the name of Charles Grodin, for what's
happening here.
What happened is I was on a program
with Mr. Grodin, who, as some of you may
know, who's a TV person. And we got to be
friends, and he told me about some people
that were in jail under drug laws. And I
guess they were Rockefeller Drug Laws. I
mean -- by the way, this finishes
Rockefeller Drug Laws altogether. As Eric
says, there's other laws, but there's no
more Rockefeller Drug Laws. The B felonies
are not -- but I don't want to get into
that.
6316
But anyways, of the four people that
were recommended to us -- and Joe Bruno went
to bat, to the Governor and myself. And all
four of those people, if I remember right,
were pardoned. And we looked at a whole
bunch of people, and there were certain
criteria.
And the reason I mention that is that
he is getting a little more liberal as he's
gotten older. Now, I'm not.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR VOLKER: But we all are, a
little bit. But I think we realize and look
at criminal justice, I think, a little
differently.
But I also want to thank the members of
the conference committee, Senators Golden,
DeFrancisco, Nozzolio, and of course Senator
Paterson. I also want to thank two staff
people who have been with this forever. One
is Joe Messina, who's done a super job,
spent all night, by the way, working on
this. I knew we had what we thought was an
agreement last night.
But, you know, I must tell you
6317
something. Senator Bruno is the reason this
is here, because he has sort of baby-sat
this issue between the Governor and the
Assembly. It's just been -- it has been
very difficult. I don't want to -- but I
read these stories about the Senate balking,
and I have to laugh, because we've done
everything we could.
I would like to just finish up by
saying one more thing. I call this a
never-ending story. In fact, you know,
criminal justice is a never-ending story.
And, Senator Connor, I would only say this
to you. And I suppose, you know, I
shouldn't be saying this, because some DAs
and stuff -- this is not over. Senator
Paterson and I are going to talk in January.
We are already planning to deal with those
other issues that we put to the side.
There's a couple of reasons, by the
way, more than just the issue of doing drug
reform. Because we have these
minimum-security prisons sitting out there
that we think are perfect for drug programs,
the diversion programs. We're already using
6318
a lot, you know, in prison.
And by the way, Father Peter Young and
myself worked very hard to get alcohol and
drug programs working in prison, and eight
of our prisons have super alcohol programs,
which we never had before. I don't take
credit myself; it's Father Young who did
that, who I think is a saint.
But I want to point out, we've done a
lot in our prisons. And New York has moved
faster to get rid of nonviolent offenders,
as far as I know, than any state in the
union. We now have --
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator Volker.
SENATOR VOLKER: -- 62,500 inmates --
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator Volker.
SENATOR VOLKER: California has over
160,000. I just want to tell you that.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator Volker.
SENATOR VOLKER: But we have done, I
think, a good job. We're going to continue.
I vote aye.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator Volker
will be recorded in the affirmative.
Senator Montgomery, to explain her
6319
vote.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, Mr.
President, to explain my vote.
Obviously there's a level of
disappointment, and it's certainly expressed
in the debate by my colleague Tom Duane.
But I'm going to also vote no. And the
reason that I'm voting no is because the
central issue in relationship to reform of
these laws in our state is judicial
discretion, and it is blatantly absent from
this legislation.
So without judicial discretion,
notwithstanding all of the wonderful things
that have been said and that we're talking
about here -- it's going to help the women,
it's going to help this one and that one --
it is not going to help them except where
they have a reduced determinate sentence if
they are a first-time nonviolent offender.
Everybody else gets the same that they
already have.
So that's a problem. And I think that
until we do that, we are not really
reforming. We have a sentence
6320
restructuring, to some extent, and for that
I am happy.
Also, for people in my district, I have
walked inside the prisons. And every time I
go in there and sit down with a group of
inmates, it is very clear that they are
there primarily because they were
drug-addicted, initially, and because of
that drug addiction became involved in
criminal activity. They need treatment.
They will come out, they come back to
districts like I represent. A number of
them are already back. And without the
support of a strong treatment program, they
cannot successfully reintegrate. That is
not in this legislation.
So I'm voting no because this -- I can
just see the headlines right now, "New York
State Does Rockefeller Reform Legislation,"
and that will be it for the next 25 years.
I'm sorry to say --
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Montgomery, how do you vote?
SENATOR MONTGOMERY: I'm voting no,
because I don't think that we have done what
6321
we promised that we would do in terms of
Rockefeller reform for this state. I'm
voting no.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Montgomery will be recorded in the negative.
Senator Parker, to explain his vote.
SENATOR PARKER: Mr. President, first
I'd like to acknowledge all of the work that
has been done on this and really thank the
leaders of both houses for all their effort
on this issue.
However, this bill, I'm voting no,
because this bill is change with no real
difference. We have not stood up against
white supremacy, we have not stood up
against the prison industrial complex that
we have here in the state of New York, and
we have not made any significant changes to
the lives of the people who really need
help, including some of the people that
Senator Bruno mentioned in his
illustrations.
I'm glad that there are so many people
who are still interested in reforming. I'm
glad that Senator Bruno indicated that this
6322
is not enough and that we need to do more.
But I'm voting no today because this bill
does not include probation, it still does
not create enough discretion for DAs or for
judges. There's still no treatment in
communities, nor is there enough -- or
actually no money for transition for
prisoners back into our communities.
And we really have to deal with the
issue of people in the B felony category.
And unless we do that, we have not done
Rockefeller Drug Law reform.
Please do not go back to our
communities and start saying that we've done
it, because we haven't. This has been, you
know, some reform of something, maybe
sentencing. But this is not Rockefeller
Drug Law reform.
And I'm really hoping to have an
opportunity to work with you on doing that
in the future, but I vote no on this bill
today.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator Parker
will be recorded in the negative.
Senator Smith, to explain her vote.
6323
SENATOR ADA SMITH: Thank you, Mr.
President.
I've seen the bill, I've read it
closely, and this is not Rockefeller Drug
Law reform. It is a modicum of sentencing
reform. And any bill that does not include
some funding for treatment is clearly not
adequate.
However, the advocates that have worked
on this believe that this is a beginning. I
question their desire to have this bill
pass, but at their request I am voting in
the affirmative. And I sincerely hope that
in January, when we come back, that we will
join together and go do the job that needs
to be done to truly reform the Rockefeller
Drug Laws.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator Smith
will be recorded in the affirmative.
The Secretary will announce the
results.
THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in the
negative on Calendar Number 1970 are
Senators Connor, Duane, Montgomery, and
Parker. Also Senators Andrews and
6324
Hassell-Thompson. Ayes, 53. Nays, 6.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill is
passed.
Senator Paterson, did you wish to --
excuse me.
Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Is there anything else
at the desk, Mr. President, that has to be
done?
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: There is no
housekeeping at the desk.
SENATOR BRUNO: There is nothing else
to be done. I refuse to use the word
"housekeeping," okay? There is nothing else
at the desk.
I would suggest at this time that you
recognize our esteemed colleague and leader
Senator Paterson.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
Paterson.
SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you, Mr.
President.
I'd like to wish Senator Bruno and all
of you a very happy holiday season. We have
members who are leaving, and I think Senator
6325
Bruno is the one who should properly
recognize them.
I would like to point out that one
member that checked in earlier and left is
Senator Lachman. And we will miss Senator
Lachman. I will particularly miss Senator
Lachman's graphic descriptions of his
frequent ailments that he likes to share
with us all the time.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR PATERSON: And he's still going
to continue to work in higher education and
in government with us, and so we'll see
Senator Lachman back here on occasion.
I wish all of you a happy holiday in
spite of the fact that no one in this
chamber, not my colleagues nor staff, could
be kind enough to get up and tell me that it
was Marlon Brando, not George C. Scott, who
played "The Godfather," which won the
Academy Award in 1972. George C. Scott, as
Patton, won the award in 1973.
And that's also the first mistake I've
made in this chamber in 19 years, and I want
the other leader to know that I can admit to
6326
it.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR PATERSON: And finally, to you,
Mr. President, honestly, I was elected to
serve in this chamber in 1985, but I first
came to this chamber when I used to sit on
the page's stools and watch my father in
1965. So I have watched Senate proceedings
off and on for nearly 40 years. And no one
has ever been a better parliamentarian or
temporary president serving in that capacity
than yourself. You have been absolutely
outstanding.
(Applause; standing ovation.)
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Can we have
some order in the chamber, please.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR PATERSON: I still have that
B.B. King CD I promised you ten years ago
when our offices were next to each other,
and I will give it to you before you leave.
Congratulations on your election to the
House of Representatives, Senator Kuhl.
And you really did a terrific job. I
notice that every time there was a difficult
6327
debate, they would always put Senator Kuhl
in that chair. And now that you're leaving,
I can't wait for a controversial issue,
because I thought that you knew the rules
better than anyone, and now I think the
Majority is in a lot of trouble.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR PATERSON: So I really,
seriously, want to wish all of you a happy
holiday and thank the Majority for your
professionalism in working with us in this
session, 2003 and 2004.
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator Bruno.
SENATOR BRUNO: Thank you, Mr.
President.
Thank you, Senator Paterson. And can I
suggest that you enjoy the holidays and stop
working so hard.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR BRUNO: And I say that in all
good nature, thinking about your goodwill
and your health.
And I want to really just wish all of
you -- because the chances are good that we
may not be back here this year. There's no
6328
certainty in our lives, and I just, you
know, want to share that thought with you,
and that there is always the possibility
that your responsibilities and your
obligations in elective office necessitate
your coming back. And I know that you're
all good-natured about that, and willing as
well as able. So I thank you for that.
And I really want to thank you for your
camaraderie, for the goodwill this past
year, most of the time -- especially while
we're in session -- and for the good works
that we have been doing.
And to Senator Kuhl -- and thank you,
Senator Paterson, for that acknowledgment.
And, Randy, to your colleagues here who
really just hold you in the highest regard
and the highest esteem, you're elevated up
there and you're going to be ascending to a
larger constituency that you will represent
as capably and as ably as you have your
Senate district, and we're all proud that
you go into a larger constituency and being
responsible and responsive. It's been a
pleasure having you here as a colleague.
6329
And I hope that we don't see you back
here presiding this year. And I say that
good-naturedly, Randy.
And to Senator Hoffmann, on this side
of the aisle, and Senator Mendez, this may
be their last official session, if we end
the year, and I want to wish them the very
best as they go on, as the other colleagues,
like Senator Lachman, who just go on in a
different phase of their lives. And life
does go on. And in whatever ways, there is
another life out there. And we just wish
you all the very best in enjoying your life
in whatever it is that you're doing.
I want to wish you all just the very
best in this holiday season. Hanukkah, I
believe, starts tonight, for those that
worship in these next eight days, and the
Christmas season. And the Christmas season
is upon us.
So hopefully we can take just a lot of
just good feelings out of this chamber with
us as we go forward, and just go forward
with the respect and the camaraderie that
truly exists in a chamber like this where we
6330
have the ability to affect people's lives in
so many constructive and positive ways. So
thank you.
And, Mr. President, there being no
further business to come before the Senate,
I would move that we stand adjourned,
subject to the call of the Majority Leader,
and intervening days to be legislative days.
And God bless you all. Thank you.
(Applause.)
ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Without
objection, the Senate stands adjourned,
subject the call of the Majority Leader,
intervening days to be legislative days.
(Whereupon, at 6:16 p.m., the
Senate adjourned.)