Tuesday, January 28, 1997

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ALBANY, NEW YORK 10 January 28, 1997 11 11:10 a.m. 12 13 14 REGULAR SESSION 15 16 17 18 SENATOR JOHN R. KUHL, JR., Acting President 19 STEPHEN F. SLOAN, Secretary 20 21 22 23 24 25 1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The 3 Senate will come to order. Ask the members to 4 take their chairs, staffs to find their places. 5 I'd ask everybody in the chamber to rise and 6 join with me in saying the Pledge of Allegiance 7 to the Flag. 8 (The assemblage repeated the 9 Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ) 10 In the absence of clergy, may we 11 bow our heads in a moment of silence. 12 (A moment of silence was 13 observed. ) 14 Reading of the Journal. 15 THE SECRETARY: In Senate, 16 Monday, January 27th. The Senate met pursuant 17 to adjournment. The Journal of Sunday, January 18 26th, was read and approved. On motion, Senate 19 adjourned. 20 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Hearing 21 no objection, the Journal stands approved as 22 read. 23 Presentation of petitions. 24 Messages from the Assembly. 25 Messages from the Governor. 1 Reports of standing committees. 2 Reports of select committees. 3 Communications and reports from 4 state officers. 5 Motions and resolutions. Senator 6 Bruno. 7 SENATOR BRUNO: Mr. President, 8 can we at this time adopt the Resolution 9 Calendar. 10 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The 11 motion is to adopt the Resolution Calendar which 12 is on all of the members' desks. All those in 13 favor signify by saying aye. 14 (Response of "Aye.") 15 Opposed nay. 16 (There was no response. ) 17 The Resolution Calendar is 18 adopted. 19 Senator Bruno, that brings us to 20 the non-controversial calendar. 21 SENATOR BRUNO: And can we take 22 that calendar up at this time, Mr. President. 23 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Secretary 24 will read the non-controversial calendar. 25 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 1 6, by Senator Maltese, Senate Print Number 169 2 A, an act to amend the Penal Law, in relation to 3 the use of an explosive or an explosive device 4 during a robbery. 5 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Secretary 6 will read the last section. 7 THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This 8 act shall take effect on the 1st day of 9 November. 10 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the 11 roll. 12 (The Secretary called the roll. ) 13 THE SECRETARY: Ayes 42. 14 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill 15 is passed. 16 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 17 27, by Senator Kuhl, Senate Print 351, an act to 18 amend the General Obligations Law, in relation 19 to the liability for negligence of owners or 20 operators of pools. 21 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Secretary 22 will read the last section. 23 THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This 24 act shall take effect immediately. 25 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the 1 roll. 2 (The Secretary called the roll. ) 3 THE SECRETARY: Ayes 42. 4 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill 5 is passed. 6 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 7 29, by the Committee on Rules, Senate Print 762, 8 concurrent resolution of the Senate and 9 Assembly, proposing an amendment to Section 9 of 10 Article I of the Constitution, in relation to 11 casino gambling. 12 SENATOR GOLD: Lay it aside. 13 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Lay the 14 bill aside. 15 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 16 45, by Senator DeFrancisco, Senate Print Number 17 484, an act to amend the Civil Practice Law and 18 Rules, in relation to certain privileged 19 information. 20 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Secretary 21 will read the last section. 22 THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This 23 act shall take effect immediately. 24 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Lay the 25 bill aside. 1 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 2 49, by Senator Volker, Senate Print 521, an act 3 to amend the Civil Practice Law and Rules and 4 the Public Authorities Law, in relation to 5 personal service. 6 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Secretary 7 will read the last section. 8 THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This 9 act shall take effect on the 90th day. 10 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the 11 roll. 12 (The Secretary called the roll. ) 13 THE SECRETARY: Ayes 43. 14 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill 15 is passed. 16 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 17 52, by Senator Goodman, Senate Print Number 419, 18 an act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law, in 19 relation to mandatory suspensions of Class E 20 licenses. 21 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Secretary 22 will read the last section. 23 THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This 24 act shall take effect 30 days. 25 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the 1 roll. 2 (The Secretary called the roll. ) 3 THE SECRETARY: Ayes 43. 4 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill 5 is passed. 6 Senator Bruno, that completes the 7 non-controversial calendar. 8 SENATOR BRUNO: Mr. President, 9 can we at this time take up the controversial 10 calendar. 11 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Secretary 12 will read the controversial calendar beginning 13 with Calendar Number 29, Senate Print -- Senate 14 Print 762. 15 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 16 729, by the Committee on Rules, Senate Print 17 Number 762, concurrent resolution of the Senate 18 and Assembly, proposing an amendment to Section 19 9 of Article I of the Constitution, in relation 20 to casino gambling. 21 SENATOR PATERSON: Lay aside. 22 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Chair 23 recognizes Senator Bruno, on the resolution. 24 SENATOR BRUNO: Mr. President, on 25 the resolution, I believe all of the members in 1 this chamber understand that this resolution 2 that's before us presently represents second 3 passage which would move, if approved, this 4 referendum to the voters of this state in 5 November, and that's what is before us, the 6 second passage to amend the Constitution. 7 According to the Constitution, 8 this would then be a referendum if it passes. 9 If it is approved in a referendum, any locality 10 that is specifically mentioned in this 11 resolution would then have a referendum vote on 12 whether or not they would want a casino in their 13 designated area. That is what is before us, a 14 referendum, Mr. President, to take this issue to 15 the voters of New York State. 16 Now, we will have a long debate 17 on this issue, and there are very strong 18 feelings on this issue and this is an issue that 19 is not new. This issue has been before the 20 Legislature a number of times. This issue has 21 been debated since the middle '60s in this state 22 and I say that because I've heard some criticism 23 that we are moving this resolution early in the 24 session and haven't had time to fully debate 25 it. 1 Well, we have had nothing but 2 time to debate whether or not we want a 3 referendum on casinos in this state -- 30 years 4 -- 30 years we have been debating this issue. 5 Many of us in the Legislature, when faced with 6 difficult choices, would rather not make them, 7 but the moment is before us when we must make a 8 decision and the decision will be whether or not 9 we feel the voters of this state would have a 10 right to vote on whether or not they want to 11 legalize casinos in New York State in the 12 designated areas. 13 I am going to, Mr. President, 14 vote for this referendum. I had indicated two 15 years ago, when we gave this resolution first 16 passage, that the members in my Conference would 17 make their judgments for second passage based on 18 their feelings personally in representing their 19 own interests and their constituents, and that's 20 where we are. There isn't anyone that is 21 feeling, hopefully, any pressure other than the 22 pressure of their own conscience, of their own 23 emotions, and of their own constituency and 24 that's how this vote should be taken. 25 I would encourage you, and I say 1 encourage you, because most of the time when we 2 come in this chamber, our minds are all made 3 up. Very few times are any votes changed, as 4 eloquent as we may think we are when we're on 5 our feet. Rarely do we convince our colleagues 6 of the position that we take if they had walked 7 in feeling otherwise, rarely. 8 But I'm going to ask you all to 9 listen, listen to the debate this morning and 10 into this afternoon, and I would ask you all to 11 then make your judgment when you hear it all 12 together, review it all together, on how you 13 feel you should vote and then vote accordingly, 14 and I want to talk to the mechanics so everyone 15 understands what will be happening. 16 If the referendum passes in this 17 chamber, I am told by the Speaker they will take 18 it up shortly; that means within the next week 19 or two. Your reading, and the Speaker has 20 indicated, that there are enough votes in that 21 chamber to pass this resolution, which would 22 take it to the voters in November. 23 If we don't have the votes to 24 pass this resolution today, then we will be 25 certain that, before we leave here, that this 1 issue is dead for this legislative session, not 2 this year but next year as well. This 3 resolution will not be taken up again if, after 4 we debate it and after we deliberate and if the 5 decision is that this will not have a majority 6 of 31 votes, this issue will never be taken up 7 again in this chamber this year or next, and I 8 say that emphatically because we've discussed it 9 in our Conference, and I am representing our 10 Conference and sharing with you the majority 11 opinion of the people in our Conference, and I 12 believe in talking to Senator Connor that he 13 shares that view, that once this issue is 14 decided it will be decided for better or for 15 worse depending on the outcome and depending on 16 your own point of view. 17 I am not going to speak to the 18 issue of casinos and whether or not they make 19 sense. My position has been very clear, and it 20 hasn't changed. I wish that we, in these United 21 States, had never had a casino functioning in 22 the United States. If I had a dream and it 23 could come true, it would be that we never, ever 24 legalized any form of gambling in the United 25 States. 1 But we are way beyond that. We 2 are an island in New York. We are surrounded by 3 casinos. We in New York State have the 4 lottery. We have OTB. We have Quick Draw, so 5 we encourage, by our actions, people to gamble. 6 So the issue before us now is whether or not we 7 will allow the general public to vote on whether 8 or not they want to participate in whatever 9 happens in revenue from casinos. 10 Are there casinos in New York 11 State? We can't debate that issue on the floor 12 of the Senate or in the Assembly. That is an 13 issue that has to be debated in Washington, and 14 I'm very conscious of the fact that there are 15 those that say, Let Washington decide the issue, 16 and I wish that that could be the case, and I'd 17 like to see that happen in my lifetime and I 18 don't expect that it will, so it comes before us 19 to recognize that we have a casino operating 20 about an hour and 15 minutes from here. We have 21 to recognize that there are casinos planned by 22 the Native Americans all over this state. 23 They're planned. They're on the drawing 24 boards. There are discussions taking place, and 25 I only say that as a matter of fact so the issue 1 before us isn't whether or not we will have 2 casinos in New York State. We have casinos in 3 New York State. There isn't anyone that lives 4 in this state that can't get to a casino now in 5 two hours or less, and most of the population 6 can get to a casino in 45 minutes in this state 7 -- 45 minutes -- take a hike out late in the 8 morning, have lunch, be in the casino, be back 9 for dinner, most of the population of this 10 state. So the debate that takes place here 11 ought to be focused on whether or not we move 12 this to a referendum in November. 13 But the debate won't stay there. 14 Debate will discuss, and that's appropriate 15 because in this forum, Mr. President, in this 16 forum, we deliberate as any elected legislator 17 sees fit and that's appropriate and we will 18 debate it and we will talk about it and we will 19 vote. 20 So I will ask you only to 21 participate and, if everyone takes as long as I 22 have, then we'll run out of time. So I would 23 ask you to be conscious, much more than I have 24 been, of the time, in that I believe many of the 25 members want to be heard on this issue and, if 1 you're listening, you won't repeat more than 2 four or five times what's been said before and 3 we can all be heard. 4 But we have a two-hour time limit 5 in this chamber, Mr. President. I think the 6 consensus would be that we not adhere to that 7 strictly, with your indulgence, because if there 8 are people that want to be heard they ought to 9 be heard on this issue because we've waited a 10 while to talk about it. So I share that with 11 you at the beginning, but I would ask you to be 12 conscious of the fact that some time today we'll 13 conclude the discussion and take a vote. 14 Thank you, Mr. President. 15 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The Chair 16 recognizes Senator Connor on the resolution. 17 SENATOR CONNOR: Thank you, Mr. 18 President. 19 Mr. President, I've come to a 20 personal decision with respect to this issue 21 which I will share with my colleagues in a 22 moment, but with respect to the process I want 23 to thank Senator Bruno for moving this issue to 24 the floor. I think it's a good idea that we 25 engage throughout the session important issues 1 rather than following the past practices that 2 we've fallen into of everything suddenly being 3 linked at 11:30 at night, everything from the 4 budget to how much paper the Legislature is 5 going to buy or consume, and it's good that we 6 approach these issues untied, unattached. 7 Senator Bruno has been a person 8 of his word on this issue, and I know we meet 9 not alone Senators but a somewhat skeptical 10 audience facing us right now with pens in their 11 hand, but there have been no deals, negotia 12 tions, talks about that, attempts to link or 13 whatever. We're here on the merits of this 14 issue and each member will vote his or her 15 choice. 16 I am going to vote no on the 17 resolution, and it's not because -- and this 18 debate sort of operates on several levels. I 19 know there are members, and I understand that, 20 who have strong convictions about the moral 21 rightness of casino gambling. We have certainly 22 been lobbied by people. As I said to someone 23 last night, I've been lobbied by everyone from 24 archbishops to arch-villains in this, at least 25 if you read the press. But I'm -- we have 1 before us a specific proposal that I have a 2 great deal of problems with. 3 It's, in a lot of ways, a blank 4 check. It doesn't limit or specify the number 5 of casinos that would be in the Catskills. It 6 leaves it to the tender mercies of a future 7 Legislature to do what we call the follow-up 8 legislation. That means that all these folks 9 who have a concern will be back at this 10 institution year after year after year. 11 I have grave institutional 12 concerns about that, the fact that we may indeed 13 put into place enabling legislation should this 14 pass the voters and only to find that every time 15 they want a rules change to build an additional 16 casino in the Catskills or whatever, people who 17 deal in large amounts of investment money who 18 look to reap large profits will be back lobbying 19 the Legislature. Just let us have one more 20 casino, just let us have one more casino. Just 21 change the rules a little bit. Just change the 22 way whatever commissioner or body will regulate 23 it, and we don't know who will regulate it 24 because we don't have enabling legislation 25 before us. There are models we can adopt from 1 other states, but it's always been my position 2 that before we pass along an amendment to the 3 people, we ought to have in place contingent 4 enabling legislation so everybody knows what 5 they're -- the voters know what they're buying 6 into. 7 Who will regulate it? How will 8 it be done? Will it be strictly regulated or 9 kind of loosely regulated? Both models exist 10 elsewhere in this country. It's a major concern 11 to me that that's not before us, that we don't 12 know what it is, that we're in effect operating 13 in the blind on that. 14 Another major concern I have - 15 and I've not spoken to the Mayor of the city of 16 New York. I've spoken to the hotel and theatre 17 owners, for example -- is there's nothing in 18 this for New York City. New York City can't 19 have casinos under this and, second, and I know 20 it's been suggested, well, if this were to pass 21 the people, we could do another amending process 22 to place on the ballot three or four years down 23 the road including New York City. 24 Well, I can't believe the public 25 wouldn't laugh us out of this place if we 1 confronted them with referenda after referenda 2 over casino gambling; and secondly, obviously, 3 suddenly the people with an interest in the 4 Catskills would become opponents to protect 5 their own economic interests. 6 We have in New York City a 7 vibrant tourist industry. We have more first 8 class hotel rooms than anywhere, I suspect -- I 9 know -- and we have an enormously successful 10 theatre industry. We have occupancy rates that 11 are very high. We helped do that when we 12 repealed that hotel tax. The owners of those 13 businesses are very, very concerned about what 14 impact they believe that this measure would 15 have, a deleterious impact on that status in New 16 York City as a convention center, as a place 17 where large conventions locate. They would - 18 they fear they would lose that business and 19 that's a legitimate concern. 20 I think to say, well, let's - 21 all we're doing here is passing it on to the 22 people, is to deny the judgment the Constitution 23 vested in us. We have to make a judgment about 24 whether we believe in the rightness of the 25 specific measure we're passing on to the 1 ballot. That's our responsibility. 2 Indeed, think about it in other 3 contexts, my colleagues. There are many, many 4 people out there who favor term limits for us 5 and I dare say in this Legislature there 6 probably are not very many people who think term 7 limits is a bad idea who would casually say, I 8 think it's a bad idea but let's pass it on and 9 let the voters decide, and I'm not prejudging 10 where anyone is, but that would be a Constitu 11 tional Amendment. So I think we clearly have a 12 responsibility to use our judgment, and we ought 13 not fall into that trap of, let's pass it on to 14 the voters. We do that enough, and the voters 15 may get the idea they don't need us sitting here 16 making judgments. 17 The other concern I have, 18 frankly, about this is that there's been a lot 19 of talk about we have casinos already, we have 20 casinos already. We have one Indian reservation 21 casino. Now, as Senator Bruno rightly points 22 out, the Indian Gaming Act, we have nothing to 23 do with. The fed's passed it, but I think we 24 ought to be mindful of a few things. 25 The casino we do have on the 1 Oneida reservation was done through a compact 2 between the Governor and that tribe without any 3 legislative approval or referral. There is a 4 case, I believe, emanating out of New Mexico 5 where, in fact, the federal courts are saying, 6 Whoa! Wait a minute. The federal government 7 can't tell a state, that the Governor speaks for 8 the state, the state has a Legislature. If, 9 under state laws, laws are made by the 10 Legislature and the Governor, the Department of 11 the Interior, the Congress either, can't cut the 12 Legislature out. I happen to have believed this 13 was so as well. 14 There is a section of the federal 15 Constitution that guarantees to every state a 16 republican with a small "r" form of government. 17 I'm not referring to the unwritten portion of 18 the state Constitution which seems to guarantee 19 a big "R" Republican Senate, but in the federal 20 Constitution that's there. 21 I wrote a letter last summer. I 22 wrote a letter to the Department of the 23 Interior, Secretary of the Interior, and said, 24 There's a lot of talk about more Indian 25 compacts, Indian casinos, and you know, I 1 believe the Legislature ought to have a say in 2 this, so on and so forth. 3 I got an interesting letter back 4 which said, in effect, that the Secretary of the 5 Interior takes its bent from the chief 6 executive. They don't look into how a state 7 government operates but, because of my letter, 8 they went ahead and called the Executive Chamber 9 in New York and were assured that this Governor 10 has no intentions of entering into any Indian 11 gaming compacts without submitting it to the 12 Legislature. 13 So we -- we're going to end up 14 with the responsibility one way or the other 15 should there be any attempt to expand on Indian 16 gaming in New York. That's my firm belief. So 17 I don't think we ought to hold that out, well, 18 it's here anyway and the litany of gaming and 19 gambling and Quick Draw, et cetera, et cetera, 20 that we have in New York and that, in fact, we 21 seem to encourage our residents to engage in, I 22 don't know if that's anything to point to and 23 emulate. I'm sure we'll hear later from Senator 24 Padavan about how that's the wrong road and we 25 shouldn't go from marching down the wrong road 1 to running down the wrong road. 2 All that said, speaking for 3 myself, on this amendment which leaves out New 4 York City, which has no enabling legislation, no 5 ability from this to tell what, if anyone, will 6 regulate casino gambling; how many; will it be 7 limited or unlimited casinos can go in the 8 Catskills because, under this amendment, it 9 appears to be open ended and unlimited, and 10 indeed do we want to create that kind of open 11 ended situation where casino interests are 12 constantly coming back to this institution, the 13 people's Legislature, constantly seeking 14 changes, expansions, amendments, and so on. 15 I think that's a bad idea. It's 16 the wrong way to go. I don't pre-judge any 17 future proposals, but this one that's before us 18 today I can't vote for. 19 Thank you, Mr. President. 20 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The Chair 21 recognizes Senator -- excuse me. Senator Bruno. 22 SENATOR BRUNO: Mr. President, I 23 understand that the EnCon Committee has some 24 pressing business and would like to ask for an 25 immediate meeting in Room 332, and I understand 1 that it will be very short. 2 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Be an 3 immediate meeting of the Environmental 4 Conservation Committee, immediate meeting of the 5 Environmental Conservation Committee in the 6 Majority Conference Room, Room 332. 7 The Chair recognizes Senator 8 Waldon on the resolution. 9 SENATOR WALDON: Thank you very 10 much, Mr. President. 11 Would the sponsor of this bill 12 yield to a question or two? 13 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 14 Waldon, there is no sponsor. This bill came 15 directly out of the Rules Committee. 16 SENATOR WALDON: But wouldn't 17 Senator Larkin speak on the bill? 18 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 19 Larkin will speak on the bill. He's on the 20 list. Do you want to wait until he speaks? 21 SENATOR WALDON: No, no, I 22 apologize for not recognizing, Mr. President. 23 Let me just speak on the bill. 24 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 25 Waldon, on the bill. 1 SENATOR WALDON: Philosophically 2 Senator Waldon supports casino gambling. That's 3 legend up here. You all have known that for a 4 long, long time, my colleagues, but as this 5 proposal is crafted, I can not support casino 6 gambling. 7 If this were to go to the people 8 of the state of New York and pass, then every 9 act necessitated to build casinos would have to 10 come back to us. There would be a decision made, 11 is it Warren County or Saratoga County where the 12 casino will be built, not far from where we are? 13 That would be our decision. It will be 14 determined at some later point, if this goes to 15 the people and is passed by the people, that New 16 York City will not have any possibility of 17 casinos, whether it be a riverboat which would 18 work in Far Rockaway or a riverboat which might 19 work on the West Side of New York City. None of 20 that will happen if this goes to the people as 21 crafted. 22 There's nothing in this proposal 23 which says that this percentage of money will 24 enure to the benefit of the people of the city 25 of New York. Last year in this state, $3.6 1 billion were spent on lottery tickets, $2 2 billion went to winnings, 1.6 billion was left 3 over. About 1.4 billion went to the schools of 4 the state of New York. A similar amount, but 5 much diminished amount of money in terms of 6 percentages, might enure to our benefit, to the 7 schools or where else -- wherever else in terms 8 of the coffers of New York State, if casinos 9 were to become a fact. But there's nothing 10 written in this which says that this percentage 11 or that percentage will enure to the benefit of 12 the people I represent. 13 The Rockaways are being treated 14 like a motherless child under this proposal, a 15 long way from home, no benefit, no 16 consideration, no possibility of the best strip 17 of sand in New York State which is the best 18 place to build casinos having a possibility of a 19 casino. 20 I can't support it as proposed. 21 But there are some other considerations that you 22 in the gallery and those here who are my 23 colleagues may not be as cognizant of as I. 24 There's nothing here which says who will watch 25 the casinos. We have no commission proposed. 1 As crafted, we can't come back in the fall, we 2 can't come back next year and say, we're going 3 to clearly do what's right in terms of 4 controlling this factor. 5 I think what we've created here 6 if this were to go to the people and be passed, 7 is an opportunity for organized crime to come in 8 to this "cash cow" and milk it until the milk 9 becomes cream. This is dangerous for us. I 10 don't know if you're aware -- you are aware, I 11 should say, of what happened in Louisiana. Not 12 only were the legislators in hot water and 13 indicted, but even the son of the governor was 14 involved in some situations of a nefarious 15 nature. We can not build casinos without an 16 oversight commission. 17 In New Jersey, not one, not two, 18 but it is my understanding that three mayors 19 lost their office because no one was watching 20 the casinos sufficiently to ensure that 21 organized crime or other people with a vested 22 interest could not spread the money around. 23 Somebody said, Show me the money, and it was 24 shown and therefore, they got themselves in a 25 lot of hot water. 1 I think we're better than that. 2 I think that this state can revisit this issue 3 at a later date, can include the Rockaways, can 4 include the city of New York, can make sure 5 there's a fair distribution of whatever monies 6 enure to the state of New York. I believe that 7 we can craft a commission to watch who is doing 8 what with the money generated by the casinos. I 9 think that people in the Rockaways deserve a 10 casino. Those who live in that area would have 11 a chance for jobs other than McDonald's. Maybe 12 some of you would not be so worried about Work 13 fare versus welfare. You deny people the 14 opportunity to receive public assistance, and by 15 this you're denying them the opportunity to have 16 a meaningful job which would eliminate the need 17 for public assistance in the Rockaways. 18 My colleagues, I would encourage 19 you to do as Senator Bruno said, to listen to 20 the debate and to make a considered judgment 21 before you cast your vote and to make it in what 22 is my opinion what he was trying to state to us, 23 in the best interests of the people of the state 24 of New York. 25 As I understand this proposal, 1 the only best vote today is a no vote, so that 2 we can come back and do this right, so that we 3 can come back and do it in a just fashion, in an 4 equitable fashion, so that we can come back and 5 ensure that all of the people of the state of 6 New York would benefit equally from the 7 construction of casinos in this land. 8 There's another little concern, 9 and then I'll sit, Mr. President. As this is 10 crafted, every time down the road, when someone 11 wants to build a casino, they will have to come 12 back and see us. They will have to come back 13 here and touch the palm. They will have to come 14 back here and dip their beaks in the well of the 15 Legislature. I think that portends too many 16 ominous possibilities of bad things happening to 17 members of this Legislature. 18 I would encourage us not to do 19 that, to not build a slippery slope that some of 20 us may fall down. I would encourage us to go up 21 the rough side of the mountain in terms of 22 equity for all of those who are people and 23 citizens of the state of New York. 24 I'm not going to beg my 25 colleagues to vote no, but I can tell you that 1 there are 100,000 people in the Rockaways which 2 would ask that you really consider the 3 possibilities of disenfranchisement, of treating 4 people differently if you pass this and that you 5 would all vote no on this issue. 6 Thank you very much, Mr. 7 President. 8 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Chair 9 recognizes Senator Gold on the resolution. 10 SENATOR GOLD: Thank you, Mr. 11 President. 12 First of all, I want to agree 13 with Senator Bruno, as I said in the committee, 14 that I think getting this out and dealing with 15 it was right, but I agree with him on another 16 point and I think this is our own conscience and 17 what's good for our constituents, and I want to 18 start off by affirming my belief in the honesty 19 of everybody in this chamber and in the other 20 chamber, and I say that looking every one of you 21 in the eye, and I know that when you're at 22 cocktail parties it's considered chic to make 23 fun of legislators and of lawyers and doctors 24 but, believe me, they come around for the press 25 quick enough. But I have a great faith in our 1 honesty. 2 There was a story today which I 3 thought was interesting in the Albany Times 4 Union by Tom (not so) Precious and, for some 5 reason, he spends about -- most of this article, 6 four columns, on a Democratic function and it 7 takes about two and a half columns to find out 8 that there were two Republican functions, very 9 large ones, right next door to the Democratic 10 function. He also mentions that there was a 11 donation by somebody named Donald Trump to the 12 Senate Democrats, and interestingly enough he 13 doesn't mention that there was also money given 14 from that source to Republicans. Interesting 15 way to report. 16 But he mentions in this article, 17 and this is the part I thought was wonderful. 18 He says, and I'm quoting him: "Curiously no 19 lobbyists for Atlantic City casino owner Donald 20 Trump was seen at the Democratic event." Well, 21 Mr. Precious, you should have checked page 6 of 22 your Albany Times-Union where they came out 23 against casino gambling. Maybe they were with 24 your editorial board editor last night. Maybe 25 that's where they were active. If they weren't 1 there, maybe Mr. Trump's lobbyist was with the 2 New York Times editorial board. I mean I assume 3 that, if the Times-Union came out against casino 4 gambling, it had to be the hand of Donald 5 Trump. That's what you imply in your words; I 6 guess that goes for the New York Times, it goes 7 for Saratoga County. Interesting to know that 8 Mr. Trump's people are dealing with the Catholic 9 Conference and with the Conservative Party of 10 the state of New York, et cetera. You see how 11 foolish that story is, and how foolishly some 12 reporters are stretching to find something that 13 ain't there. 14 I know the members of this 15 Legislature, and I don't know how everybody is 16 going to vote, but I believe, Senator Bruno, 17 Senator Connor, and that is that people are 18 going to vote for what they think is right for 19 their constituents, and if there ever was such 20 an issue, I think this is the day and that is 21 the issue. 22 Speaking for myself, I won't 23 repeat what Senator Waldon said or Senator 24 Connor, but I adopt their remarks. I will say 25 that it's important to point out that we are not 1 voting on a label and, with all due respect to 2 Senator Farley, who once said to me, "Manny, 3 you're wrong, we do vote on labels," we are not 4 voting on a label because, as was pointed out, 5 casino gambling is not the issue. It is what's 6 going to happen to the Catskills, or Saratoga or 7 New York City under this bill, this resolution, 8 and while somebody naively says to you that, 9 well, we'll throw in a little bit of an 10 amendment and we'll take care of New York City, 11 it's not a little amendment. It's -- we're 12 talking about the Constitution. We're talking 13 about a process that's not -- going to happen 14 not so quick if you don't insist on it now, and 15 somebody said to me, "Well, Manny, you know, 16 down in the city of New York, you have people 17 going out on boats." Well, I want to tell you 18 something. If I were an individual who wanted 19 casino gambling under this proposal, the one 20 thing I wouldn't do right now is challenge the 21 boats that are leaving New York City, and I 22 would use that argument. New York City, you got 23 your gambling, let us have it, but I guarantee 24 you, if this were to go to the people and if 25 this were to pass and if casinos were to be 1 built in the Catskills, the day after that you 2 would see a lawsuit on the constitutionality of 3 running boats out of New York City that are 4 coming back into New York City and that aren't 5 headed to some place else past the three-mile 6 limit; and who's kidding who. The answer is 7 "nobody's kidding nobody" on that issue. 8 I must repeat something I told to 9 our colleague, Mr. Finnegan, of the Daily News 10 because up until the last few days I can tell 11 you I was not approached by lobbyists in the - 12 in the technical sense of the people we think as 13 lobbyists on this issue, but I did have a group 14 come to see me from Niagara Falls and there were 15 about five of them there from the Chamber of 16 Commerce, and it was wonderful because one of 17 them said to me that Niagara Falls needs this 18 because they've got to compete with Canada and 19 Robert Moses destroyed Niagara Falls, and I 20 said, "He destroyed Niagara Falls? How did 21 Robert Moses destroy Niagara Falls?" He said, 22 "He destroyed it because he told us there would 23 be no more development in Niagara Falls unless 24 we got rid of the honky-tonks and the whores. 25 We did it. They went over to Canada. Their 1 business is booming." I looked at him -- I 2 looked at him, and I said, "Are you suggesting 3 that, if we don't pass casino gambling, that we 4 ought to pass a law to give you back your 5 honky-tonks and whores?" I said, "Personally 6 I'm not putting in that bill, but is that what 7 you're asking for?" There was never an answer 8 to my question. 9 My concern, and I'll finish with 10 this, is the bottom line, and that is that when 11 Senator Bruno says he has his wishes and he has 12 his druthers that we didn't get involved in 13 this, I say to myself, I remember back to one of 14 our dear, dear colleagues, God bless him, Al 15 Lewis, who voted, who debated against the 16 lottery and what have you, and he says "Lookit," 17 he says, "I'm telling you, it's not a question 18 of the lottery being out there and getting the 19 small bookies and the numbers people," he says, 20 "you're going to see what happens," and he was 21 right. They have it so that people who never 22 did play the lottery will play the lottery. 23 I can't believe that in our 24 society, the only way to create jobs, the only 25 way for economic development is to bring in 1 gambling, to bring in the lottery. We can't - 2 we find no obligation in our hearts to support 3 the education of our children except by selling 4 lottery tickets in the poorest neighborhoods of 5 the state. I mean it gets to be a silly thing 6 and I think society at one point has to grapple 7 with that issue. 8 As to whether or not we're 9 throwing up our hands and saying, Look, Native 10 Americans have it, it's here, it's there, and we 11 got to create jobs, and I had hoped that my son 12 would go to college, be a computer genius but if 13 he's going to be a dish washer, at least 14 there'll be a casino and he can do that and 15 sweep floors. I just think that that is not the 16 answer for society. 17 The bottom line is, the mayor of 18 my city -- Senator Waldon said it very well, 19 Senator Connor said it very well -- has asked us 20 not to do this. There is nothing in this for 21 us. There is no enabling legislation. I don't 22 know whether there will or will not be a 23 commission. I don't know whether they will or 24 will not take the proceeds that we make in the 25 state and help New York or help Nassau County or 1 help Suffolk County that have great property tax 2 concerns. Is there a plan to give some of that 3 money so that Senator Skelos' area can be helped 4 in property taxes? I don't know, but I sure as 5 heck think we all ought to know. 6 We ought to know where we're 7 going, and the back -- the bottom line of this 8 is that I cannot vote for this bill hoping and 9 praying that, in the future, somebody doesn't 10 bring a lawsuit against boats leaving New York 11 and that, in the future, somebody will put in an 12 amendment that will then have to go to a 13 statewide vote and then a city vote so that 17 14 years down the line New York may or may not get 15 relief for the Rockaways. 16 The answer is that there are two 17 processes. The process that brought it out here 18 by Senator Bruno sending it out I agree with and 19 I'm voting today. The process that puts this 20 bill out without the inclusion of areas like New 21 York and without enabling legislation, I do not 22 approve of, and I will vote no. 23 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 24 Larkin on the resolution. 25 SENATOR LARKIN: Mr. President, I 1 don't want to reiterate a lot of things that 2 have been said by Senator Bruno, Senator Waldon 3 or Senator Gold. But I think it's very impor 4 tant for us to recognize that what we have to 5 day is an issue that's been around for over 30 6 years. We have told the people we will give you 7 an opportunity, if you tell us or show us that 8 there's a need to assist in the economic growth 9 of certain areas. 10 This legislation is very 11 specific. It cites six areas in the state, 12 Niagara-Buffalo, Saratoga-Warren, and the three 13 counties in the Catskills, Greene, Ulster and 14 Sullivan. It's not the panacea of anything. It 15 just says that we are willing, in conjunction 16 with that, to at nine tracks -- to allow slots 17 at nine tracks. We are competing with other 18 states for that piece of the pie, of the 19 gambling dollar. 20 Having said all of that, I go 21 back to the basics of what this is all about. I 22 heard Senator Connor say, throw it out to the 23 people. I think there's nothing wrong when you 24 look at the Constitution and the Constitution 25 says that we have the right, two consecutive 1 sessions of the Legislature and then it goes to 2 the public. We shouldn't be afraid. 3 I heard stories that say this 4 will go down to the public 48 to 43. I have 5 never seen a poll; I have never taken a poll. 6 I've heard stories say, Well, New York City is 7 not involved in it. Last year there were 8 meetings of people who wanted to include New 9 York City and they were told, go to New York 10 City and get the Mayor, get the City Council, 11 get the Speaker to say -- excuse me -- "I want 12 New York City included in it." Nothing ever 13 happened. Why didn't it happen? We all know. 14 Maybe we're afraid to say it. Some people don't 15 want casinos in New York City. I'm not a casino 16 man. I've been to a casino once, and I was at a 17 meeting, Manny. 18 But having said that, everybody 19 that will talk to you will tell you that we're 20 losing -- we're losing $2.3 billion a year that 21 are going out of this state to facilities that 22 have gambling. The mayor of Buffalo says to us 23 the other day, to me, "20,000 people are going 24 across and taking money from my businesses and 25 spending it on the north side of this city." 1 Ladies and gentlemen, as Senator 2 Bruno said before, most of us have made up our 3 minds, but I personally believe that we ought to 4 sit back and think, why wouldn't we allow the 5 public in this state to vote on how we should 6 address an issue? 7 People will say, Well, gambling 8 is an addiction. Last year the Governor put 9 money into it. There's money into it this year 10 to address that issue. That's not the real 11 issue. 12 I heard someone say casinos are 13 like dogs. They bring fleas. Go back to the 14 basics. We just saw another casino open up in 15 Connecticut. In the past 19 months since we've 16 addressed this issue, casinos have opened up, 17 they've expanded. As a matter of fact, bingo 18 licenses have expanded, and all the other forms 19 of government have expanded, and it goes back to 20 the basics. 21 You have criminal justice people 22 have told us something; the business community. 23 I saw an article that said the horsemen were 24 against it. Well, not only the horsemen are for 25 it, so are some banks because they understand 1 that, if this doesn't get an opportunity by the 2 public, we will have banks let alone race 3 tracks. We have hotels that have 18 and $20 4 million in real property tax that can't pay it 5 because nobody wants to go to them because their 6 facilities are outdated, they're not up to date, 7 and they can go to Atlantic City or Las Vegas or 8 Puerto Rico and they can capitalize on the 9 benefits. We are denying our people those 10 opportunities. 11 The Constitution, as everybody 12 was saying here, has certain restrictions. It 13 also has certain rights, and the public in this 14 state, yes, I've heard people say, I don't like 15 casinos, but I want the opportunity to vote my 16 conscience whether it's yes or no, and I 17 appreciate the Majority Leader bringing this out 18 early to get -- to get it here and let us make a 19 decision. 20 But remember, you were sent here 21 by people and the Majority Leader or the 22 Minority Leader said to exercise our judgment. 23 We allowed the people to exercise judgment last 24 November. They passed a bond issue. That bond 25 issue will tax our grandchildren, but we had no 1 trouble placing it before the public. 2 All we're saying here is that 3 forget about the influence from the pro's and 4 the influence from the con's. Stand up and say 5 to the public that you represent, I'm giving you 6 a chance to make a decision on how this state 7 will operate in the future. 8 We have casinos. We have casinos 9 that are operated by the Indians, the Oneidas. 10 We have the Shinnecocks on Long Island who are 11 talking to the fed's, their lawyers. We have 12 them in Senator Cook's area in Sullivan County, 13 and they will proceed and we will have casinos 14 and, Senator Waldon -- I wish he was here - 15 Senator Waldon talked about we don't know about 16 how we'll arrange for the enabling legislation. 17 I answered that to him off in a private 18 conversation, that if this were to pass, we 19 would finalize enabling legislation. We've 20 looked at the 11 gaming states and the three 21 major states, Nevada, Connecticut and New 22 Jersey, but I think it's premature to say how 23 many square feet you'll have for crap tables or 24 how many square feet you'll have for slot 25 machines when you haven't even decided if you're 1 going to have them. 2 But if this Legislature passes, 3 this proposed amendment, we will, within a 4 month, finalize material that we've been looking 5 at and we would hold public hearings across this 6 state in the six locales and any other areas 7 that would like to have it; but when people 8 start to say we don't know enough about it, it's 9 this, it's that, it's always an excuse. 10 But I served for 12 years in the 11 other house, and I always heard people talk 12 about initiative and referendum and, yes, 13 somebody is going to get up here today and say, 14 well, it is an initiative, it didn't do this, it 15 didn't do that, but it's a referendum on what we 16 might want our people to make a decision on. 17 I, for one, am not afraid to put 18 this on the ballot and let the people that I 19 represent make their decision and, if they vote 20 it up or down, they have had that choice. 21 That's provided for them in the Constitution, 22 and it doesn't talk about gambling and it 23 doesn't talk about economics and it doesn't talk 24 about how much money. 25 You want to talk about the 1 economics of it? Just yesterday the slot 2 machine operators in the two facilities in 3 Connecticut said, just the slots will raise $200 4 million for the state of Connecticut. That's 5 not the issue. The issue here before us is, do 6 we trust the people of this state to make a 7 sound judgment on what they would like to see 8 with regard casinos? 9 Thank you, Mr. President. 10 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 11 Spano, on the resolution. 12 SENATOR SPANO: Mr. President, 13 I'm not going to get into any particular 14 detail. Senator Bruno and Senator Larkin have, 15 to a large degree, spoken on the main specifics 16 of this issue. What I think is, it should be 17 said that it was all said two years ago when, it 18 was then, the Senate Finance Committee 19 Subcommittee on Gaming and Wagering conducted 20 public hearings across the state. We heard from 21 people all across the state where we examined 22 the impact of casino gambling and we took a look 23 at the expanding role that an Indian nation 24 played on racing and gambling in the state. We 25 spoke to representatives from race tracks and 1 the harness tracks, the communities across the 2 state. 3 We had an opportunity to talk to 4 people who represent the other side of the coin, 5 people who were concerned about the issue of 6 compulsive gambling, which is an important 7 issue. I know that Senator Padavan no doubt 8 will speak about that, and it's one that I have 9 felt strongly about as the chairman of the 10 Mental Health Committee in this house for seven 11 years, which is why we put specific language in 12 this resolution to make sure that a portion of 13 the money set aside would help people with a 14 problem with the compulsive gambling disorder. 15 We're talking about stringent 16 licensing procedures. We'll be talking about 17 organized crime and, as I said on the floor here 18 when we had first passage of this resolution, we 19 should not ignore the fact that that's not a 20 serious issue. (probably should read that's a 21 serious issue). 22 The problem of keeping the bad 23 actors and organized crime out of New York State 24 is one that we should hit head-on and take a 25 look at the licensing procedures that exist in 1 Atlantic City that have kept those bad players 2 out of the process, take a look at other states 3 that have passed inadequate licensing procedures 4 that have gotten a lot of people into trouble, 5 and learn by their mistakes. 6 So I think we shouldn't ignore it 7 and we should also recognize that it's organized 8 crime today that does benefit from the lack of 9 casino gambling in New York State because people 10 are going to gamble, whether it's legal or not. 11 They're going to gamble on race tracks or OTB or 12 they're going to gamble, as many people did last 13 week end on a football game, on the Super Bowl, 14 or get a bookie and put some money on the games. 15 So what's happening there, 16 they're going to gamble in some areas of New 17 York State where we do see illegal gambling 18 parlors that do exist. And who do you think is 19 benefiting from that? 20 We've heard a lot about the city 21 of New York, and it should be said that we did 22 reach out during these hearings to our 23 representatives of the city of New York, both to 24 the mayor, both to the Assembly representative 25 and to his people, and it's clear in my opinion 1 that the Assembly leadership was not interested 2 in including the city of New York or we did not 3 hear, although we reached out on a couple of 4 occasions, any interest from the city of New 5 York on being included in this resolution. 6 So we're here today not to look 7 at rewriting history. We can't start by taking 8 a look at this resolution and saying, Let's 9 throw it out and start from scratch, because 10 then we would be in 1999 and some estimates are 11 we'd lose $100 million a year in additional 12 revenues in New York State for every year that 13 we do not pass casino gambling. We are seeing 14 those New York State license plates going across 15 our borders to Atlantic City, to Connecticut, to 16 the new casino in Connecticut, Mohegan Surf, 17 that I had an opportunity to visit a few weeks 18 ago, as I'm standing there after parking the car 19 watching one out-of-state license plate after 20 another of people pulling up. 21 Why aren't we getting a portion 22 in New York State of those 25-cent quarters 23 going into those slot machines right here in the 24 state of New York? 25 So, my colleagues, there's been a 1 lot of -- a great deal of debate, and this is an 2 issue that I think whatever is said, one of 3 those few issues that we could probably look at 4 now and probably -- I have no idea how it's 5 going to turn out at the end of the debate today 6 because it's clear that it's an issue that many 7 of us have said, Let's present it to the 8 voters. I'll take it a step forward and say 9 that I think it's something that we should step 10 -- we should present to the voters and present 11 it in a favorable light that it represents not 12 only to thousands of people and contributes 13 millions of dollars to people in Yonkers and 14 Westchester and New York State. 15 The failure of this amendment 16 today would be a death knell to Yonkers Raceway, 17 a death knell to racing in New York State and 18 also would be a surrender to the Native 19 Americans, to say that they should continue to 20 have a monopoly on casino gambling in New York 21 State. If that's what you want, then you vote 22 against this resolution. If you feel that it's 23 only the Indian nations who should benefit from 24 casino gambling, vote against the resolution. 25 If you are not interested in helping an ailing 1 racing industry in New York State, vote against 2 the resolution, and if you are not interested in 3 bringing the type of total entertainment center 4 that you would see in the Catskills created by 5 bringing those conventions back to New York 6 State, by bringing those families back and in 7 New York State spending their money, then you 8 vote against this resolution. 9 I think that you can look at it 10 two ways. You can say, I support it and vote 11 for it because I feel strongly about it. I feel 12 it is right for New York State, or I'm going to 13 vote for it and give the people an opportunity 14 themselves. 15 Either way, if it gets this 16 resolution passed through this house over to the 17 Assembly so that we can continue the debate 18 there and then there will be ample opportunity 19 between now and November for us to take a look 20 with the leadership of Senator Larkin and his 21 committee, take a look at the enabling 22 legislation. 23 I know Senator Waldon last year 24 had a number of concerns about the specifics 25 that he wanted included and wanted excluded here 1 and Senator Dollinger came up with his reasons 2 last year why not to support casino gambling. I 3 know people will say there are not specifics in 4 this resolution, but while we hark back to those 5 times when we amended the Constitution for 6 legalized gambling in New York State starting 7 back in 1939, when we started the mutuel phase 8 and then went to bingo and the state lottery and 9 then expanded the games of chance for 10 not-for-profit agencies, all it included was 11 that one line, and the specifics were handled 12 under enabling legislation subject to additional 13 hearings that we would have across the state 14 where there would be ample opportunity for 15 people to have input into the process before 16 this is presented to the public for their 17 approval or disapproval in November. 18 I think there's been a lot of 19 time since this was presented through this 20 resolution. It's time to start. I'm glad that 21 the leadership has decided to take this issue up 22 early in the session so that people will have an 23 opportunity to vote for or against this issue 24 and not link it to anything else that has become 25 a pattern around this Capitol, and also I'm glad 1 the leadership has said we're going to deal with 2 it today and, remember, if we deal with it today 3 and defeat this, the death knell would ring not 4 only for legalized gambling in this legislative 5 session, but it will also sound the death knell 6 for thousands, tens of thousands of jobs and 7 hundreds of millions of dollars in additional 8 revenue that we can benefit from all across the 9 state. 10 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Chair 11 recognizes Senator Cook on the resolution. 12 SENATOR COOK: Thank you, Mr. 13 President. 14 With the advent of railroad 15 transportation during the last half of the 1800s 16 and the first half of the 1900s, the Catskills 17 became one of the premier vacation destinations 18 in this whole nation. Families, trying to 19 escape the heat of the summer in the City, would 20 come to the Catskills for a week or a month, 21 enjoy the fresh cool air. What started as farm 22 vacations became boarding houses, bungalow 23 colonies, and finally fine rural class resort 24 hotels offering comfort and recreational 25 opportunities. 1 After World War II, as 2 residential air conditioning became widespread, 3 people's vacation habits changed. No longer did 4 they have to leave the city to escape the heat. 5 They still came to the Catskills for recreation 6 and fresh air, but their stay would be for week 7 ends or for a few days and as there were differ 8 ent modes of transportation easily available, 9 they tended to vary their vacations from year to 10 year instead of annually returning to the same 11 place. 12 This has necessitated a change in 13 the business practices for the hotels. They've 14 concentrated more on attracting conventions, the 15 statewide sporting events. They've opened 16 facilities for non-guests. They have tried to 17 offer a variety of special attractions, but to 18 this point they have not been able to offer the 19 one thing which is luring substantial numbers of 20 their potential market to other states: the 21 opportunity to spend an evening or a day at a 22 casino. 23 For those who have concerns about 24 gambling, I'd only point out that people, often 25 by the bus loads, are traveling to other states 1 to participate in gambling which is currently 2 illegal in New York State. The impact on our 3 resort industry is not inconsequential. Millions 4 of dollars have been invested in expansive 5 facilities, many of which have already closed 6 and others which are in severe financial 7 distress. The mere loss of these capital assets 8 is staggering. 9 Furthermore, these hotels have 10 provided employment for thousands of people in a 11 region where employment opportunities are at a 12 premium. For those concerned with the human 13 impact of casinos, I can only point out that the 14 human impact of massive unemployment on these 15 thousands of families goes far deeper than the 16 immediate jobs. It affects the ability of those 17 families to provide for the future of their 18 children and will have an impact which will 19 carry many years ahead. 20 The "echo" effect is also 21 profound. The store owners, the service 22 companies, the contractors who have been part of 23 the hotel economy will also face major 24 devastation. Also to be considered is the 25 impact on community infrastructure. The hotels 1 are major generators of sales tax which supports 2 county human services. Severe cutbacks in those 3 services will be required if this revenue source 4 is lost. The hotels are major property 5 taxpayers. Their taxes support the schools, the 6 police departments, the fire protection and a 7 whole range of local services. In one case one 8 hotel constitutes half of the property value of 9 a particular sewer district. Loss of that hotel 10 will probably force that district into 11 bankruptcy. 12 So it's no trivial thing of which 13 we speak. People may have legitimate concerns 14 over the various negative impacts of casinos, 15 but it's clear to me that the negative impacts 16 of the loss of our resort economy is much 17 deeper. It's not merely a matter of protecting 18 the investments of these family-owned businesses 19 which have been built up over a century. It's a 20 matter of protecting the financial security of 21 the thousands of families who depend on that 22 industry for their livelihood and for their 23 future, and it's in behalf of those families, 24 Mr. President, that I ask the members of this 25 house to approve this Constitutional Amendment, 1 approve sending it to the voters this fall. 2 Thank you. 3 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: For the 4 benefit of the members, we do have a list 5 running, and I'll give you the order: Senator 6 Padavan is up next, Senator Volker, Senator 7 DeFrancisco, Senator Goodman, Senator Dollinger, 8 Senator Lachman, Senator Abate, Senator Mendez 9 and Senator Hoffmann, in that order, and Senator 10 Marchi now. 11 So the Chair recognizes Senator 12 Padavan on the resolution. 13 SENATOR PADAVAN: Thank you, Mr. 14 President. 15 Only because Senator Cook was the 16 last one to speak, I'd like to reflect on some 17 of the comments that he just made, and let me 18 preface that by saying no one in this chamber 19 has a greater respect for the Senator and the 20 people that he represents. 21 But I love the Catskills. I 22 remember the first two years of my life being 23 brought there and going there ever since. I've 24 probably fished every creek and stream in the 25 Catskill Mountains, hunted there, spent time in 1 one of your hospitals, and own property there 2 and when I retire, Senator Cook, up there in 3 that log cabin, I hope you're still there to be 4 my Senator. 5 But there are three things that I 6 know, three things I know about the Catskills. 7 All the friends that I've made there over the 8 years, people who live and work there and raise 9 families, casinos are not the answer to the 10 economic problems in the Catskills no more than 11 they're the answer to the economic problems of 12 any region, rural or suburban. 13 The people in the Catskills need 14 economic improvement. They need a resurgence of 15 their tourist industry, but instead of looking 16 to casinos, they should look to the Berkshires. 17 They should look to Saratoga County. They 18 should look to other areas that have elevated 19 the attractions that bring families, 20 individuals, that come with beautiful pristine 21 areas such as the Catskills. 22 But as we will discover here in a 23 little while when I talk about some of the other 24 areas of this country, while this would be no 25 panacea, the only people who are going to make 1 money in the Catskills are the large property 2 owners, and you've touched on that. But the 3 average individual, the average family, the 4 farmers and those who live and work there, they 5 won't benefit. They'll suffer, however, in a 6 variety of ways which is why probably the Farm 7 Bureau has come out in opposition to this 8 particular proposal. 9 Mr. President, between the years 10 of 1976 and 1986, I chaired the Senate Committee 11 on Mental Hygiene and Addiction Control. Today 12 we have two separate committees that deal with 13 those issues. On that side of my responsibility 14 dealing with the problems of addiction, I came 15 face to face with the problems of the people of 16 this state as it related to drug addiction and 17 alcoholism, which I have some knowledge of, but 18 the one area that I learned a great deal about 19 was the problem of gambling addiction, and I 20 came face to face with people and individuals 21 whose lives had been ruined, families destroyed, 22 as a result of getting into the gambling way of 23 life, losing their businesses, their resources, 24 going into hock, and it was a problem then and 25 we tried to do some things to address it over 1 the period of the years, but without much 2 success I must admit. 3 Along the way, we created the New 4 York State Council on Problem Gambling, and 5 recently we gave them some funds to open up a 6 Hot Line and most importantly to do a survey of 7 the magnitude of the gambling problems in New 8 York State. 9 In the middle of the latter part 10 of last year, they presented the results of 11 their work to us and, if you haven't read it, I 12 urge you to do so, because what's in this study, 13 if we took it alone and no other issue, no other 14 argument, we would stand squarely in opposition 15 to any more gambling, because this report tells 16 us that New York State is now the worst state in 17 the nation with regard to problem gambling, with 18 over a million people being touched by it and a 19 half a million seriously involved in it, with 20 great social costs to individuals and families 21 and some very real economic costs that we are 22 all paying the price for. 23 Why in heaven's name do we feel 24 that, when we ask for a study and we get the 25 information, should we then ignore it? And what 1 is significant about this study beyond the 2 things that I've said is that it is a replicate 3 study. There was one done similar to this, if 4 not identical to this, in 1986 and what they've 5 demonstrated here is a 75 percent increase in 6 the magnitude of the problem, putting us right 7 to the top of the list. 8 I'd like to go back to the 9 beginning of this debate relevant to the issue 10 of the Constitutional Amendment. As has been 11 said, and properly so, we do not have an issue 12 with the referendum. In this state we are the 13 gatekeepers of the Constitution. We decide by 14 our own good judgment in both houses what should 15 be a Constitutional Amendment placed before the 16 voters and we have been very, very careful about 17 that, and year after year, dozens -- and I 18 looked at the index yesterday -- there are 30 19 Constitutional Amendments proposed by members of 20 this house and 40 in the Assembly, 70 proposals 21 and, I doubt any of them -- by the way, it 22 includes the one before us -- any of the others 23 will not see the light of day because we will 24 look at them individually, collectively through 25 the committee process and we will say to 1 ourselves, This is not the right thing to do 2 and, as our responsibility dictates, we reject 3 it. That's the way it is, and that's the way it 4 should be. 5 The fact is that, when we put an 6 issue on the ballot as we did last fall with the 7 Environmental Bond Act, it has our stamp of 8 approval. We are saying to the voters, We think 9 this is a good idea, but we need, by virtue of 10 our Constitution, your concurrence, your 11 approval. People will view it that way and, if 12 they don't, the casino interests out there will 13 certainly make them view it that way. 14 Secondly, if we look at some of 15 the other states where there have been 16 referendums -- Florida is an example -- $16 17 million dollars spent in that state of reported 18 hard money, how much more than that is anyone's 19 guess, by casino interests trying to convince 20 the people of that state that it was the right 21 thing for them. 8 million in the state of 22 Arkansas. 23 How much would be spent in New 24 York State? Anyone's guess, but probably more 25 than 16 million. It would probably be more than 1 was spent on the last gubernatorial race. There 2 will not be a level playing field. Fortunately 3 in Florida, Disney -- Disney did invest money in 4 trying to present the other side of the 5 argument, through the media and TV, and it 6 prevailed. The people rejected it as they've 7 done in some other states recently. 8 But we don't have a Disney. The 9 coalitions that have formed, the people who have 10 come to us here in the Capitol seeking our 11 support in opposing this amendment are not 12 people of vast resources that can be committed 13 in that fashion; and so we will be "outgunned" 14 to say the least. 15 So for those reasons, anyone who 16 stands here and says, "Why not present it to the 17 voters? Let them decide," is ignoring the 18 Constitution, is ignoring our responsibility, is 19 ignoring the extreme clout in terms of dollars 20 to be spent by the casino interests, is ignoring 21 the moral position, and it's actually exercising 22 a cop-out of that position, in my view. 23 Now, a year or so ago, we had a 24 proposal before this house that dealt with a 25 Keno game that we call Quick Draw. The 1 Legislature was opposed to it; at conference 2 after conference and meeting after meeting 3 members said so. They thought it was a bad 4 idea, would produce problems. And how did it 5 finally get through? And for those of you who 6 were here and those of you who were not, let me 7 refresh your memory. It got tacked together 8 with an income tax cut in the same bill and the 9 legislators stood up and said, "I'm against this 10 video crack game but I certainly am in favor of 11 a tax cut and so I have to vote for it." They 12 knew better because, if they had said no, we'd 13 have had the tax cut and we wouldn't have Quick 14 Draw. 15 I stay at a motel here outside of 16 the Capitol. There's a restaurant and then next 17 to the restaurant is a sports bar, and you walk 18 into the restaurant and the first thing you hit 19 face-on is the vending machine with the lottery 20 tickets, and then if you go from the restaurant 21 into the sports bar, you're faced with the Quick 22 Draw machine and you watch these people sitting 23 there filling out that card, and every five 24 minutes they can wager up to $100, and they're 25 doing it all over the state in 2500 outlets - 1 bars, taverns, convenient stores, and the Hot 2 Line that we created is bouncing off the hooks 3 by people calling in, telling those individuals 4 on the other end of the line, "I got hooked," 5 and 28 percent of them are saying, "I got hooked 6 as a result of Quick Draw," and keep in mind 7 this survey that I referred to a while ago was 8 done with Quick Draw only being on line for 9 seven months, and I will venture a guess that 10 the problem today is even worse. 11 Anyone who says that, if we add 12 another layer of gambling opportunity on top of 13 the ones we already have will not exacerbate the 14 problem, I just can't respond to that because it 15 boggles the mind. The writers of this report 16 tell us very directly, the more gambling oppor 17 tunity, the more the problem increases. It's an 18 axiom. It's irrefutable. 19 And Senator Bruno says you can go 20 to gamble within an hour and 15 minutes of the 21 Capitol, 45 minutes or whatever, but within 10 22 minutes, you can step outside of this Capitol 23 and go to one of these mini-casinos and you can 24 gamble. 25 Do we simply answer that problem 1 by saying let's have more of them? Let's have 2 slot machines and casinos at race tracks all 3 over the state of New York, and when the 4 announcer says five minutes to post time he will 5 follow up by saying, and after the race feel 6 free to take advantage of our slot machines and 7 you can lose money that way too? 8 Slot machines are the most 9 addictive and the most profitable parts of any 10 casino operation. They'll be all over this 11 state. Instead of being the Empire State, we'll 12 be the gambling state. 13 Now, there have been a number of 14 economic studies and I've tried to share all of 15 that with you over a period of time and the most 16 recent study I sent you was done in the state of 17 Illinois where two economists studied the five 18 casinos in that state for a period of a year and 19 people who were sold casinos in that state heard 20 the very same argument you're hearing today. It 21 will improve the economies in these small towns 22 and villages that are suffering. It will make 23 revenues for the state of Illinois that can be 24 used for other purposes. But these economists 25 tell us really what has happened. 1 The state is not making any 2 money. It's losing money, and the localities 3 collectively are losing over $300 million in one 4 way or the other, and the problems of people who 5 have been getting involved unwisely in terms of 6 casinos in those regions, in those communities, 7 is going forward by leaps and bounds. 8 Now, are we going to say New York 9 is different than Illinois? What's happened 10 there is not going to happen to us. If you say 11 that, we're kidding ourselves. Economists from 12 Massachusetts, Professor Goodman, Illinois and 13 all the way from Illinois to Nevada and across 14 this country, who have been analyzing this issue 15 without exception, without exception, are 16 telling us that there is no gain to the economy 17 of any state as a result of casinos, and they go 18 even further to say unless you can entice more 19 than half of the people coming into your casinos 20 from other states and other regions, you're 21 going to lose money. 22 Now, I just can't see the state 23 of New York with planes flying in from all over 24 the country and all over the world, again. It 25 may be true in Las Vegas, but certainly is not 1 going to be true here. It certainly is not true 2 in Illinois. It's certainly not true in 3 Louisiana. 4 One of our colleagues mentioned 5 before the issue of corruption. There have been 6 state legislators in California, four mayors - 7 not three -- in Atlantic City, elected of 8 ficials, appointed officials in Louisiana, from 9 one part of this country to the other, who have 10 gotten caught up in the political corruption 11 associated with the gambling industry, and we 12 could listen to D. A. Morgenthau of the city of 13 New York, or the F.B.I. director, tell us 14 chapter and verse about political corruption, 15 how organized crime follows casinos as sure as 16 night follows day. 17 Even before Atlantic City opened 18 up, the mob was trying to figure out -- by wire 19 tap conversations, this was determined -- how 20 they could infiltrate. That will be a fact. No 21 matter what anybody says and no matter what 22 anybody thinks, criminality will be involved and 23 while I impugn the integrity of no one in this 24 chamber or anyone anywhere, the fact of the 25 matter is it is a part of this whole mosaic of 1 issues that we have to consider: Crime and 2 criminal corruption as it relates to the 3 gambling industry. 4 Now, the economic issues that 5 have been cited, I think by Senator Spano, that 6 tell us that people are leaving New York State 7 and they're going to other places and they're 8 gambling money that they should gamble here. 9 The fact is they are leaving New York State and 10 they are going other places and they are 11 gambling money that, in part, if we had casinos 12 they would gamble here. But when you look at 13 the pluses and minuses, add the costs as opposed 14 to the gains, we're far better off. Let 'em 15 go. Let 'em go. There are more people who go 16 to Disneyworld from New York State than perhaps 17 go to Las Vegas and maybe we ought to have a 18 Disneyworld in New York State, I mean if you 19 want to carry that logic in a proper direction. 20 We should be doing things to 21 bootstrap those industries that bring positive 22 gains -- positive economic development into New 23 York State and not become preoccupied with the 24 fact that others are going -- some people are 25 going elsewhere to gamble. The fact of that 1 does not justify the ills that we will be beset 2 with. 3 Now, one of the arguments we hear 4 and I'm sure we'll hear again before this debate 5 is over, is relevant to the Indian gambling 6 issue. The Indian Gaming Act was, in my view, 7 misapplied throughout this country; but thank 8 fully that has come to an end. 9 In a case brought by the Seminole 10 Indians against the state of Florida where they 11 insisted that they be given the right to enter 12 into a compact with that state to open up a 13 casino, the Supreme Court spoke and spoke very 14 clearly. They said very directly that no non 15 casino state has to enter into a compact with 16 any Indian nation and they, in effect, took a 17 chunk out of the Indian Gaming Act. 18 This state need not enter into 19 any more compacts. As a matter of fact, we 20 could go after the one in Oneida and repeal it, 21 as in one state -- I think Senator Connor 22 mentioned it, in New Mexico -- where a group of 23 state legislators are suing their Governor who 24 entered into a compact without their involvement 25 and that case is going to be heard by the 1 Supreme Court as well. 2 So the Indian gaming issue is no 3 longer a reason, if it ever was, and when 4 individuals bring it up, they do so either 5 because they're not aware of what I just said or 6 they choose to ignore it. 7 Keep one other thing in mind, 8 however. Should this Constitutional Amendment 9 prevail, the Oneidas now will put slot machines 10 in those casinos, which they're currently 11 prohibited from doing. Now, we've gotten some 12 reports out of Oneida County, and they're all 13 bad. Problems abound, from suicides to family 14 upheaval to increases in need for social 15 services, with no economic development. Letters 16 to the county executives up there and the local 17 Assemblymen are all saying that is so; there's 18 been no gain. There's no gain to the county or 19 the surrounding area. 20 But equally important to you, I 21 believe, should be the fact that 90 percent of 22 the people going to that casino are from a 75 23 mile radius, spending money on their own flesh. 24 The money is going out of the pockets of people 25 who can least afford it into the pockets of the 1 casino operators, in this case the Oneida 2 Nation. It's not benefiting the community. 3 It's not benefiting the people in it and that's 4 exactly what will happen in the Catskills, 5 Senator Cook, and that's exactly what would 6 happen in any other community that bites into 7 this apple. 8 I don't want to belabor the day 9 because I'm sure that many others have some of 10 very significant things to say. But when you 11 add the economic studies that have been made - 12 and I've got a whole list of economists here; I 13 won't read them to you, including some financial 14 institutions like Salomon Brothers, Federal 15 Reserve Bank of Boston -- and you look carefully 16 what they're saying, casinos and slot machines 17 at race tracks are not the answer to any 18 economic problem. Far from it. 19 If you look at the study done by 20 our own Council and other studies as well, you 21 see the great harm we've already done to the 22 people of the state with the lottery advertising 23 at the rate of $41 million a year, telling 24 people, Come on and wager, it's for everybody's 25 benefit, and Quick Draw at 25 (probably should 1 read 2500) locations around the state, if you 2 read that study you'll know we've made a big 3 mistake, and some day we'll have the guts to 4 undo it, and you can look at the Indian gaming 5 issue, you'll know that's a phony argument at 6 the very outset. 7 If you study everything that's 8 been said on either side and analyze it very 9 carefully, we come to one inescapable 10 conclusion, that this is the wrong thing to do 11 and that it could be the biggest mistake we will 12 have made in the state of New York in modern 13 history, if we go forward with it. 14 Abe Lincoln put it very well when 15 he addressed a group of people and said we 16 should be listening to the "better angels of our 17 nature" as we consider this action, and I would 18 commend that point of view to all of you. 19 THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, 20 Senator Padavan. 21 Senator DeFrancisco. Is he - 22 well, that's it. 23 Senator Goodman. 24 SENATOR GOODMAN: Madam 25 President, we have read in recent days of a 1 situation involving the seductive poison 2 mushroom. It's a very appealing looking growth 3 and it has lured people into its consumption and 4 they have consumed it and they have died. 5 Gambling in the state of New York 6 and gambling wherever it appears is a gigantic 7 poison mushroom. The effects of it may not be 8 immediately apparent, but over time it takes a 9 dreadful deadly toll, and it's time that the 10 problems related to this are amply exposed. 11 Let me share with you several 12 thoughts that I had over recent days and, in 13 fact, recent years on this matter, because this 14 is a complex question and it's one which I've 15 said is seductively appealing. 16 The fact of the matter is that 17 this is predicated on one gigantic moral 18 assumption, and that is that a society can have 19 a major portion of its economy predicated on the 20 idea that you can get something for nothing - 21 something for nothing. The land of opportunity, 22 the land of Horatio Alger, where success is 23 built on diligence and hard work and self-boot 24 strapping, is now being superseded by a very 25 different kind of image. It's a land where you 1 can get something for nothing by just rolling 2 the dice, stepping up to the blackjack table and 3 using the fabulous one-armed bandit with its 4 seductive graphics which lure you in and charm 5 you into a situation where you actually see 6 little old ladies with baskets of quarters 7 spending hour after hour seated at slot 8 machines, hoping for returns which they can 9 never hope to get. The odds are stacked against 10 you, and it's the biggest sucker bet 11 imaginable. 12 I condemn this on the grounds 13 that it seeks to expand the notion of something 14 for nothing, which is precisely contradictory to 15 our basic values as a society. The discussion 16 of the economic development fallacy of gambling 17 has been amply filled out by my distinguished 18 colleague, Senator Padavan, and I commend him on 19 the extensive study that he's made of this and 20 on the expertise he's developed. 21 I want to share with you some 22 perspectives that are based on my own personal 23 experiences at casinos. As best I recall, I 24 have visited casinos in New Jersey, Monte Carlo, 25 Cannes, Las Vegas, Reno, Macao, and the Palm 1 Springs Desert. There may be others; I don't 2 recall them. 3 If you go at night, in some of 4 these areas you see tuxedo-clad "glamoratti", 5 jet setters, creating an atmosphere of 6 excitement and passion. If you go during the 7 day you see threadbare little people who are 8 obviously impoverished, who have dreams of 9 getting rich quick, who have dreamed of getting 10 something for nothing and who invariably are 11 going to be frustrated and disappointed, and you 12 have the side effects of the great poison 13 mushroom. 14 Gambling is addictive. It is 15 ruinous to our moral laws. We know that mari 16 tal discord is increased in areas where we've 17 opened casinos because husbands and wives have 18 used credit cards to seek the credit which will 19 enable them to gamble at length and ultimately 20 to destroy themselves. The sucker bets are 21 everywhere in gambling. There is no way in 22 which you can possibly win, and they say that 23 the best game is blackjack, but then you get the 24 experts in blackjack, the people with 25 photographic memories who sit down at the table 1 and are able to memorize the cards as they're 2 peeled off the deck, and as soon as the casino 3 management spots these people it disqualifies 4 them from participating because they might break 5 the bank. In other words, don't dare to come 6 into the casino with the thought that you can 7 develop a system and win because that is a 8 fool's bet, and it cannot be done. 9 Crime: I'm waiting at this 10 moment for a FAX from New York from District 11 Attorney Morgenthau's office. I don't know how 12 many of you in the Senate -- Here it is. It's 13 just been placed in my hands. Mr. Morgenthau 14 came up here and was invited into the Senate 15 conference and, to sum his views very 16 succinctly, he said that gambling brings on 17 crime wherever it is tried and has sounded the 18 clarion call of great caution and said, Don't do 19 it because if will do nothing but enhance the 20 criminals' opportunities to function in many 21 different ways. 22 In a letter that he wrote at that 23 time, he said: "With this letter I'm forwarding 24 my statement. The experience of other states 25 has demonstrated that the economic benefits of 1 casino gambling will be outweighed by the 2 inevitable infiltration of organized crime and 3 political corruption. In addition, casino 4 gambling will raise funds from compulsive 5 gamblers and others who should not be encour 6 aged to gamble under state sanction. It is 7 quite simply the wrong way to raise revenue." 8 "In sum," said District Attorney 9 Morgenthau, one of our best D.A.s, "I believe 10 that casino gambling will result in increased 11 crime, increased corruption and diminishment of 12 the quality of life in New York. Please make my 13 position known to your colleagues in the 14 Legislature," and he amplified this at length, 15 and anyone who is interested in seeing his 16 statement is welcome to have it. I won't share 17 the whole thing with you, but I do just want to 18 take one or two selected paragraphs for your 19 awareness. 20 He says that "proponents of 21 casino gambling argue that casino gambling means 22 additional growth in tax revenue. While the 23 proponents acknowledge that the casinos have 24 'many problems'" in quotes, "they maintain that 25 these problems can be overcome by licensing and 1 regulatory provisions. They are dead wrong. 2 The experience all over the country in states 3 and municipalities which have had casino 4 gambling demonstrates that the benefits at best 5 are ephemeral and are far outweighed by the cost 6 to society in increased crime and political 7 corruption. Casino gambling breeds crime. 8 Casinos attract patrons carrying cash who make 9 easy marks for street criminals. Las Vegas has 10 the highest per capita crime rate in the United 11 States. In the third year of Atlantic City 12 casinos, the Atlantic County Prosecutor's office 13 and the New Jersey State Police report a 70 14 percent increase in felonies in Atlantic City." 15 Now, let me tell you about a 16 little visit I made to Atlantic City. As 17 chairman of the Senate Committee on 18 Investigations and Taxation, I called the New 19 Jersey Attorney General and asked to have a 20 guided tour of their facilities. 21 First of all, you drive up to 22 Atlantic City and the first thing you notice is 23 something rather bizarre. It is a "Potemkin 24 village". Remember the village with the facade 25 of buildings behind which is indemic poverty? 1 That's what Atlantic City is, a classic case of 2 the facade behind which there is nothing but rot 3 and strain and obvious economic decline. So 4 that this whole notion that the Atlantic City 5 casinos have brought prosperity to that area is 6 utterly fallacious. 7 Moreover, several of the last 8 mayors in Atlantic City have been convicted on 9 gambling-related offenses and, in fact, we know 10 that there have been convictions of elected 11 officials in Missouri, Louisiana and 12 Pennsylvania. 13 So let's sum up where this is 14 taking us, my friends. Obviously when Senator 15 Cook, for whom we have the highest regard, tells 16 us, "I need this for my district," that's a 17 stopper, and we say, What can we do to help 18 Charlie Cook's district? What can we do to 19 achieve economic development? 20 The answer is that the poison 21 mushroom won't work. It's beguilingly seductive 22 but once it is eaten, it will kill you and 23 that's not an exaggeration because if you study 24 the long-term effects of gambling, you will note 25 that it does eat away at the economic core of 1 society. 2 Why does it do this? To mix a 3 metaphor, through a gigantic Electrolux which 4 sucks money out of what is now a $5 billion 5 industry in the state of New York -- excuse me. 6 That's the wrong number. Let me check it -- a 7 $1 billion business of lottery and horses in New 8 York State. Just stop to think of the absurdity 9 of sucking money out of the lottery and horse 10 business, which casino gambling would do, and it 11 would take twice as much in the way of 12 individual losses in order to achieve the same 13 revenue to the state. 14 Much as casino gambling sucks the 15 money out of other forms of gambling, it would 16 simply cause an increased diminution of the 17 revenue available in New York. This is moving 18 backwards and going down on the up escalator. 19 So I think that's enough for the 20 moment. Let me just say that I think that this 21 is rotten to the core. I think that there are 22 some good people involved in furthering it. 23 Certainly our colleagues who have spoken of it 24 have my highest regard for their motivation. 25 They want to develop their communities, but I 1 hope I've persuaded in having brought to the 2 attention of some of you who might be undecided, 3 the fact that this is deadly stuff. 4 Beware of the poison mushrooms 5 because they can kill. 6 THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, 7 Senator Goodman. 8 Senator DeFrancisco. 9 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Thank you 10 very much. 11 I rise to support the proposal. 12 This is probably the most interesting group of 13 individuals I've ever seen combine together to 14 oppose a measure, that could possibly combine 15 together, from religious leaders to Donald Trump 16 to environmentalists worried about the water 17 shed in New York City, to cities who have not 18 been part of the process and, therefore, can't 19 have a casino so they don't want it, OTB who 20 doesn't want to lose the handle, the horse 21 racing that doesn't want to lose their 22 competitive advantage. 23 It's just absolutely amazing, but 24 all with a common thread that says basically not 25 to expand gambling for either good moral reasons 1 or because you are going to, in some way, affect 2 us in what we gain from gambling in the state of 3 New York. 4 Now, those who oppose it on - 5 for the right because they simply oppose the 6 concept of gambling, I can understand that, but 7 to listen to a group of individuals who just 8 want to increase their -- and keep their 9 competitive advantage doesn't make any 10 difference to me as far as my vote is concerned, 11 especially if we suck money out of OTB or suck 12 money out of the race tracks. So what? The 13 people should have an opportunity to choose what 14 their field -- their area of recreation will be, 15 and if it happens to be casinos as opposed to 16 another form of recreation, so be it, but the 17 individual should make that decision, and 18 similarly the individual should make that 19 decision at the polls and weigh all of these 20 factors come November and that's what this - 21 this bill would do. 22 To those who are morally opposed 23 to this particular issue, I can understand that, 24 but we have to be realists as well, in 25 understanding it. Some of the religious groups 1 that are opposed to this desperately, have 2 bingos on a weekly basis and those same little 3 old ladies who bring in their quarters over at 4 the casinos also bring in their dollars to buy 5 the "early bird specials" and whatever else that 6 the -- the bingos will allow. 7 In addition, we have gambling in 8 the state of New York in many different ways 9 that have already been discussed. We have 10 advertising for gambling not only in the state 11 of New York but also right across the borders. 12 The new casino in Niagara Falls on the Canadian 13 side has just undertaken an $8 million 14 advertising campaign. You know how much we 15 spend all year long for "I love New York" by my 16 committee, the Tourism Committee in the state 17 Senate? $11 million dollars. 18 Now, if you don't feel that 19 that's going to be an effect on tourism in the 20 state of New York, a campaign like that, to draw 21 people who want to gamble over their borders, 22 then I think you've got another thing to think 23 about, because it's not true. That will draw 24 people there and that will compete with whatever 25 other attractions there may be in western New 1 York. 2 We spend this year, this year on 3 Lotto, pick three, win four, take five, I don't 4 know, there may be a take six by now, Quick 5 Draw, $29 million dollars in advertising and $11 6 million on the "I love New York" campaign. 7 There is a group of individuals 8 who would choose to gamble and they have already 9 been provided that opportunity and to suggest 10 that we are going to stop gambling by not giving 11 someone another choice which choice is already 12 available either in Connecticut or in -- in 13 Canada or right smack in the middle of the 14 state, so for those reasons, I think it's 15 extremely important that we in this Senate look 16 at reality and what the reality of the situation 17 is right now and the reality is we have 18 substantial gambling, we have substantial groups 19 that are against gambling because they don't 20 want to have their particular area hurt in any 21 way economically because they've already got a 22 monopoly on this particular activity that people 23 want and we've got to look at the reality that 24 if this vote is so close in this house, should 25 the people of the state of New York make their 1 own decision on this particular issue and, if 2 the people in one of the areas that was 3 designated to have casino gambling if this bill 4 passes and if the people statewide agree with it 5 and pass it by referendum, then their localities 6 have to again pass on it by public referendum. 7 So there are many safeguards in this particular 8 bill and, looking at reality, I think we should 9 allow the voters to decide on this important 10 referendum and vote yes on this bill and bring 11 it to the voters in November of 1997. 12 THE PRESIDENT: Senator 13 Dollinger. 14 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you, 15 Madam President. 16 Senator Padavan, I think, made 17 many of the points that I would like to make. 18 What I would like to do is talk about some of 19 the things I've heard said today and comment on 20 them, perhaps place them in a context and then 21 talk about what I think this really means for 22 the future of this state. 23 I think it's instructive in this 24 debate, however, to go back to the start. How 25 did we get where we are today on casino 1 gambling? And I suggest to you it's because we 2 did a bad thing for a good reason. What did we 3 do? Many years ago, before I came to this 4 Legislature, the charities came to us and said, 5 We would like to run casino nights. We'd like 6 to run games of chances for prizes so that we 7 can have this little play gambling with fake 8 money and we can all gamble and send people in 9 and raise money at these blackjack nights for 10 charity, for churches, for charities, and we can 11 take that and give people prizes for the best 12 gambling. 13 This Legislature said, O.K., we 14 will allow not-for-profit groups to engage in 15 these play games of chance. We decided to do a 16 bad thing to allow some gambling because it was 17 going to be rigorously controlled. It wasn't 18 for real money; it wasn't for real prizes, and 19 it was to help churches and charities that were 20 in need. 21 What happened? It came back to 22 bite us. This bad idea that we promoted was 23 used by the Indians under the Indian Gaming Act 24 to bring casinos to this state. The little tiny 25 bit of bad that we thought was going to be 1 developed for good ended up a bad idea that got 2 worse and the problems of gambling came about 3 and today we're on the precipice in this chamber 4 of taking that bad idea that we had for a good 5 reason which got worse and we are about to make 6 it worse still. 7 What has been said in this debate 8 today? Senator Bruno said that this was an idea 9 that we've been debating 30 years. Isn't it 10 fascinating how the bad penny keeps popping up 11 time after time again. What was a bad idea 30 12 years ago is still a bad idea. He also said, 13 and I guess I find this in my history, my 14 history in this chamber, to be an amazing 15 statement when he said there's been no pressure 16 on the conscience of the members. 17 Senator Bruno, I've got to do you 18 a favor. You and I are going to go to the 19 movies, because you and I got to go see Jerry 20 Maguire, because what did Jerry Maguire say? 21 What's the famous line from Jerry Maguire? 22 Everybody knows if you've seen that movie when 23 his athlete shows up with his agent and says, 24 "Show me the money, Jerry, show me the money. 25 Say it with your heart." 1 Look at what's happened in this 2 debate alone. Look at the money that's fallen 3 all over this debate on the pro-con -- on the 4 side side -- on the con side. The money is 5 everywhere, and I'm not going to stand here and 6 righteously say that we're absolved from it, but 7 there's money all over this. It's the money 8 that taints the process. It taints us. It 9 taints our public credibility, and that taint is 10 going to eat away at our credibility among the 11 people right in this chamber and they will be 12 properly looking askance at us and saying, What 13 about all that money that you all took on both 14 sides of this issue? 15 If we pass this, I predict that 16 is only going to get worse. The corruption that 17 Senator Padavan talked about is going to come 18 into this house. It's going to eat its way 19 through the doors and it will infect all of us. 20 If it doesn't affect us individually, it will 21 affect this group in its ability to lead. 22 What about the issues that were 23 raised by Senator Larkin? He properly said we 24 have to compete for those gambling dollars. 25 Since when was competing for a bad thing a good 1 idea? If other states had things that were 2 addictive, if other states had things that cost 3 their communities money, would we go out and 4 compete for those? I don't think so. Since when 5 is it a good idea to compete for a bad thing? 6 What about the notion that 7 Senator Spano talked about? Gambling addiction, 8 a big problem Senator Spano knows it, Senator 9 Padavan is well familiar with it. What's the 10 solution that's proposed to gambling addiction? 11 Give 'em more gambling. Tell me how that solves 12 the problem. All the cash in the world won't 13 solve the problem. One way to solve the problem 14 is to reduce the opportunity to gamble. It 15 seems to me it's sophistry at best to say that 16 we're going to somehow resolve the gambling 17 problem with some cash when what we're doing is 18 encouraging it by bringing it closer to home. 19 I'm also astounded by Senator 20 Spano's comment about going to Connecticut and 21 seeing all those New York license plates, all 22 those license plates that were disappearing from 23 the state of New York. I'll tell you what's 24 disappearing from the license plates in the 25 state of New York is the Statue of Liberty and 1 if we pass this resolution, I've got the perfect 2 thing to put on it. Just put on two little dice 3 that'll make New York a form of "pair o' dice", 4 maybe not the paradise that we want it to be, 5 but maybe the pair o' dice that is on it if we 6 pass it that ought to be on our license plates. 7 We can all go to Senator 8 DeFrancisco's committee, just change and scrap 9 the whole "I love New York". Just put "I gamble 10 in New York," it has the same jingle. We can do 11 the same advertising campaign. We can match 12 what they're doing at the casino in Niagara 13 Falls. Does it make it a good idea? Doesn't 14 seem so to me. 15 Senator Spano also used a term 16 that unfortunately I disagree with. He talked 17 about a total entertainment center right there 18 in the Catskills. We will make it a total 19 entertainment center. Seems to me that that's 20 just the kind of euphemism that loses the whole 21 nature of the debate of gambling. When we make 22 gambling into entertainment, it seems to me 23 we've already lost the battle as to whether or 24 not it's a good thing. 25 I commend the people in the 1 casino industry. They've done a wonderful job 2 in taking gambling, a process by which people 3 give their monies to casinos and turning it into 4 the concept of total entertainment centers. 5 The other thing and I -- Senator 6 DeFrancisco talked about this as a form of 7 recreation. It's a perfect form of recreation. 8 You can lose your money if you want. It seems 9 to me that that same kind of logic could apply 10 to legalized drugs. After all, drugs are a 11 personal choice. They're addicting as well. 12 They don't hurt anybody. Why don't we just 13 legalize drugs and give everyone a chance to use 14 drugs? We could make money off that in taxes. 15 Same idea, right? Same victimless use of your 16 own money. Why not? It seems to me it 17 logically follows if you buy the notion of 18 casino gambling. 19 I've taken a strong position 20 against this. Most of the members of this 21 chamber know, but my final reason for avoiding 22 this whole issue is I think critical to the 23 future of New York State. We face many tough 24 decisions in the future. The future road for 25 New York has got a series of door posts every 1 couple feet. Behind each door lurks a critical 2 problem -- the creation of new manufacturing 3 jobs, the creation of new high tech' jobs, 4 solving the problems of addiction to drugs, 5 solving the problems of under-performing 6 schools, resolving welfare and dependency, 7 creating a transition from welfare to work. All 8 of those problems are enormous ones that we 9 face, but yet as we walk down that road and open 10 up those doors over in the corner, over in the 11 corner is a guy with a little table and what he 12 says to the people in this chamber and the 13 people of this state is, Hey, Buddy, you want to 14 make a fast dollar? Hey, Buddy, come on over, 15 you win. He's got three little shells with a 16 little pill or a little ball underneath them, 17 three little thimbles, and he puts the ball 18 under the thimbles and he moves them quickly 19 with prestidigitation right in front of the 20 bemused and now fascinated person who suddenly 21 becomes distracted from the problems that we 22 face at all the doors in New York. 23 If we buy into the concept of 24 gambling, we've already been distracted from our 25 problems. We will be distracted from our 1 solutions, and it seems to me this will get us 2 further and further away from what we really 3 need to do in New York, to tackle our problems 4 head-on and find real solutions. 5 This is not a solution for New 6 York. This is part of a growing and continuing 7 problem. It's time for New York and people in 8 this chambers to say to the people of this state 9 gambling is a bad idea. We ought to stop it 10 here in its tracks. Vote no. 11 THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, 12 Senator Dollinger. 13 Senator Lachman. 14 SENATOR LACHMAN: Madam 15 President, first I would like to state that it 16 is a pleasure to be debating such an important 17 issue at 1:00 p.m. in the afternoon rather than 18 1:00 a.m. in the morning. I hope it's a 19 precedent that will be followed in the future as 20 it is today. 21 Secondly, as a sophomore Senator, 22 I'm proud of the fact we are debating this issue 23 without any control and without any direction 24 from leadership as to how to vote. This is 25 truly a vote of one's conscience and, for that 1 we have to thank the respective leaders, my 2 leader, Senator Connor, and the leader of the 3 Republican Majority, Senator Bruno. 4 Now, before going on to the 5 issue, let me state that a process has been 6 developed over this particular issue that is 7 somewhat unique on a social issue that has been 8 debated in various state legislatures and in 9 Congress. 10 The process has united groups to 11 an extent where other social issues such as 12 physician-assisted suicide, partial birth 13 abortion and same sex marriage have divided 14 groups. Not only have Protestant, Catholic and 15 Jewish leadership come together in opposition to 16 this issue, but for the first time in two 17 generations -- and this I predict will be one of 18 the most important outcomes of our vote, 19 regardless of what the vote will be -- for the 20 first time in two generations Protestants have 21 come together, from liberal mainline Protestants 22 to the Christian Coalition, from progressive to 23 conservatives, and this is a power to be 24 reckoned with, not only for the present but for 25 the future, and I'm told that these groups will 1 be sitting down again in the future to discuss 2 other issues, to see if there is any commonality 3 of purpose for agreement on other important 4 issues that have proved divisive in the past. 5 Now, the issue at hand, Senator 6 Bruno in his opening remarks spoke very well and 7 eloquently about his own personal feeling 8 regarding gambling in the state of New York and 9 the reality of what exists regardless of one's 10 personal feelings as it relates to the economy 11 of the state and the viability of the state when 12 it is fighting for an existence alongside of 13 states that do have casino gambling such as the 14 state of New Jersey or the state of 15 Connecticut. 16 Now, my problem is that the image 17 is blurred and the image is not clear. When I 18 ask myself, what is the impact of what we're 19 doing on anticipated revenues, taxes and 20 otherwise, I have to admit I don't know. 21 When I ask myself what is the 22 impact on economic and urban development, I have 23 to admit I don't know. 24 When I ask myself what is the 25 impact on the increase in crime, I have to admit 1 I don't know. 2 When I ask myself what is the 3 impact on gambling addiction which Senator 4 Padavan calls problem gamblers, and its economic 5 and social consequences which may or could 6 eliminate any economic advantages we have from 7 this purported amendment, I honestly don't know, 8 even though Senator Padavan very clearly brought 9 to our attention the fact that there are 10 currently a half a million problem gamblers. 11 These are people who are addicted to gambling, 12 as people are sometimes addicted to alcohol, and 13 this might grow to over a million. 14 Even the federal government, the 15 divided federal government, the Republican 16 Congress and the Democratic Congress -- and the 17 Democratic President do not know, which is why 18 they are setting up a federal gambling 19 commission to look into this, to analyze what 20 happened in Mississippi and in Illinois and in 21 New Jersey and in Nevada which, as you know, has 22 the highest suicide rate of any of the 50 23 states, and I don't think that suicide rate is 24 based upon the fact that the Nevadans are 25 fearful that Southern Californians are moving 1 into their state in record numbers. 2 There are problems here that we 3 have to address, and we have to analyze, even 4 more adequately than we have over the last 30 5 years. An issue has been raised to trust the 6 people. Each of us are elected officials. We 7 wouldn't be sitting in this chamber if we didn't 8 trust the wisdom of the people in electing us to 9 our positions; but when we say trust the people, 10 we have to ask ourselves, trust the people for 11 what? 12 Do they know who would regulate 13 what will happen? Do they know what the enabling 14 legislation or regulations will be? No, they do 15 not and, as Senator Connor and Senator Gold and 16 Senator Padavan and Senator Waldon have pointed 17 out, New York City with over 40 percent of the 18 population of this state, is not included. 19 Now, all that the mayor of the 20 city of New York wants is the opportunity for 21 New York to be included so that New Yorkers can 22 vote whether they should have this or not have 23 it. 24 So we have the situation where we 25 have all the counties in the state and all 18 1 million New Yorkers voting for an amendment that 2 would impact at the most on six or seven 3 counties, when the five counties with the 4 greatest population of the state of New York are 5 not included. 6 Ladies and gentlemen, with the 7 information on hand, with the contradictory data 8 that I have read and with my conscience as a 9 guide, I will have to vote no. 10 Thank you. 11 THE PRESIDENT: Senator Seward. 12 SENATOR SEWARD: Yes, Madam 13 President. I would ask that the Committee on 14 Energy and Telecommunications will be meeting in 15 Room 332 immediately. 16 THE PRESIDENT: There will be an 17 immediate meeting of the Energy and Telecommun 18 ications Committee in Room 332. 19 Senator Abate. 20 SENATOR ABATE: I will attempt to 21 be heard. I will speak as long as my voice 22 endures, but this is such an important issue, 23 and I have such a strong opinion on this issue 24 that I do rise to give a statement. 25 This whole plan is based on the 1 assumption that the more casinos we bring to New 2 York State, the more revenue will be produced 3 and the better our economy. If that were true 4 and I wholeheartedly believed it, I might vote 5 for this Constitutional Amendment. However, 6 there's no report, there's no analysis. There's 7 nothing that I've seen first hand to support 8 this notion. 9 To the contrary, what we hear and 10 what I see and what I understand to be the truth 11 is that there is no net gain, that when you look 12 at the potential for economic gain and compare 13 it to the losses that will be incurred, whether 14 it's through the losses occurring in the Quick 15 Draw and other competing gaming, whether it's 16 the racing industry, lottery, if you take away 17 those losses and also add to it the human and 18 social costs to gambling, it is not a win/win 19 for this state. It becomes a lose/lose. 20 And there are a lot of other 21 reasons, and I want to compliment Senator 22 Padavan. He has shown extraordinary leadership, 23 entrepreneurial leadership, in the sense he's 24 done a number of studies. He's been out front 25 on this issue for a long time and I think we 1 should look to his studies for guidance on this 2 issue. 3 There are lots and lots of other 4 reasons why this amendment is flawed. One that 5 I want to highlight because others too have 6 highlighted it, is the absence of state control, 7 the absence of any discussion of a control 8 commission so we can assure that organized crime 9 does not infiltrate more within this state, and 10 to ensure there's not a corruption attendant to 11 these casinos. 12 I understand, I think everyone in 13 this chamber are sympathetic to the hotels in 14 the Catskills and the need for additional aid to 15 the Catskills. We should instead be talking in 16 this chamber what can we do for tourism in the 17 state? How can we help the Catskills? What 18 economic incentive plan can we sit down with the 19 hotels in that community to bolster that 20 community in a meaningful long-term way? 21 As I say this about the 22 Catskills, I was part of the Catskill community 23 in the 1960s. I grew up in a community called 24 Margate which is 20 minutes from Atlantic City 25 and during the '60s, and I grew up hearing over 1 and over again until I was tired of my parents 2 talking about you should have seen Atlantic City 3 in its heyday, when Atlantic City had wonderful 4 restaurants and hotels, and the beaches were 5 filled with people, and it was an economic hub 6 for the Northeast, and also brought into the 7 argument, we need casino gambling in Atlantic 8 City to keep manufacturing, to bolster our 9 retail, our commercial interests, and to keep 10 Atlantic City alive. Everyone bought into that 11 notion looking for casino gambling to be the 12 salvation, the panacea for that community and 13 many people today have talked about it. 14 The reverse occurred. It is a 15 virtual wasteland. Many of the people I knew 16 who lived in that community moved away. The 17 crime soared. The manufacturing jobs closed. 18 The movies, the restaurants, the small 19 commercial enterprises closed. A few, yes, got 20 rich, and not only did they get rich, a few got 21 very, very rich. 22 The jobs, the money, the entre 23 preneurial spirit left the community and entered 24 some very large buildings. It entered the 25 casinos. The economic activity went within the 1 four walls of those casinos and there's nothing 2 in Atlantic City other than those casinos 3 today. 4 So I, too, sympathize, whether 5 it's Niagara Falls or whether we're talking 6 about the Catskills or New York City, we need to 7 do something real in terms of economic 8 development. I just read an article in Times 9 talking about -- Times magazine talking about 10 the economic growth around the country, all the 11 new jobs, meaningful jobs, high paying jobs. 12 We, in the Senate and the 13 leadership from both aisles, need to put 14 together regional task forces with the best 15 minds in this state sharing the experiences 16 around this country, around how other states 17 have done it to attract new industries, to 18 retain jobs, to create new jobs. 19 We should be bringing together 20 the best in business and labor to do that. What 21 we're saying is we don't have the capacity to do 22 that. Well, I think that's ridiculous. We have 23 the capacity to do something for the economy of 24 this state and not give in to the interests of 25 casino gambling to think that's the only way we 1 can bring a turn-around to this state to 2 increasing tourism and to increase jobs. 3 So from my limited experience, 4 but it's one where I grew up, I saw a city I 5 loved destroyed. I do not want to see other 6 communities who are relying on casino gambling 7 as their panacea to be totally disappointed, to 8 see their communities destroyed. 9 I want to see what happened to my 10 community not happen to them, and I urge all of 11 you to vote against this amendment. 12 THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, Senator 13 Abate. 14 Senator Volker. 15 SENATOR VOLKER: Madam President, 16 I have a feeling, and I did not hear the vast 17 majority of the debate involved in the negotia 18 tions with the Governor's office, and so forth, 19 but I was listening to the debate here, and I 20 think -- I have to say that I think -- I hope 21 people realize that what you've heard today is 22 not just politics as some of the print media 23 would have you believe, but it is a very serious 24 discussion on an issue that has been around for 25 many, many years and something on which the 1 people in this chamber feel extremely strongly. 2 As I laughingly said, that's why, of course, 3 they pay us this incredible salary that they pay 4 us which, by the way, let me point out to the 5 press, we haven't passed a pay raise since 1986 6 and we have to make decisions that affect every 7 person in this state and maybe in this country 8 because I happen to believe that this decision 9 today is much more significant than many of us 10 believe. 11 You know, after my colleague next 12 to me, Senator Padavan, probably I have been the 13 biggest opponent of casino gambling in our 14 conference, and I think those of you who have 15 been around here for a few years know that I 16 have made some rather, shall I say blunt and 17 emotional speeches in our Conference over the 18 years as this house has defeated casino gambling 19 time after time after time over the years. It 20 has happened many times. I once had to make a 21 speech in favor of casino gambling, and I 22 hesitate to tell this story because a colleague 23 of mine from Western New York was running for 24 the Senate and needed -- this was first passage, 25 by the way, keep in mind, first passage -- and 1 he wanted it very badly and it was part of his 2 campaign, and I made the pitch that his city 3 would be involved in the casino gambling bill 4 and immediately said "Now that I've spoken for 5 him, let me tell you what I think" and then, you 6 know, made a speech and that, of course, got a 7 lot of laughter from some of the people in the 8 Conference. 9 Let me make it very clear that as 10 the leader of a delegation in Western New York, 11 I realized that it was incumbent upon me when 12 this issue came up several years ago to try to 13 make sure if there was going to be a casino 14 gambling resolution that both Buffalo and 15 Niagara Falls at least were in the mix because I 16 felt and I knew that there were people who felt 17 very strongly about that. 18 We also knew -- and I'm going to 19 touch on that -- what was happening with the 20 Indians. We also knew what was happening with 21 the Canadians and since then, by the way, both 22 of those things have come to fruition with the 23 Indians and the Canadians. The Canadians now 24 have a casino in Niagara Falls, Ontario which, 25 of course, is getting all kinds of publicity 1 because in the initial stages it is getting a 2 lot of people and the real test will come this 3 summer, by the way, all that nonsense aside, as 4 far as they're concerned, but let me just say 5 this, what I believe, and I say this and I know 6 I'm going to make mad everybody on both sides 7 because I have a rather low opinion of casinos, 8 and I know some of my friends who support 9 casinos are not going to like it. 10 First of all, let me say that my 11 father voted against the lottery. I wasn't here 12 when the lottery was voted on. It was before I 13 was here. He voted against it. If I had been 14 here, I would have voted against it too, but I 15 want to tell you something. If I were here 16 today I wouldn't because this year, as I 17 understand it, $1.4 billion is going to go to 18 education and unless we can find some way to 19 replace that, we would have a huge problem 20 without the lottery. 21 The reason I'm mentioning that is 22 because one of the interesting issues in casino 23 gambling is we can generate a ton of money from 24 casinos, but if it impacts on the lottery and if 25 it impacts on the tracks and if it impacts on 1 OTB, we could end up easily as losers and trying 2 to figure out how to shift some money in the 3 budget over education, which gets such a huge 4 amount of money to start with, and that's one of 5 the factors that I want to put into place but, 6 my colleagues, I believe, and you can debate 7 this if you want, this issue would not even be 8 on the floor of this Senate today if it wasn't 9 for one event that occurred a few years ago. 10 I remember one time Senator 11 Padavan and I were sitting in the conference 12 room years ago after we had finished the session 13 and casino gambling was defeated the last time, 14 and I said, "You know, I wonder how those people 15 are going to figure a way to get around this 16 Senate because we are the biggest stumbling 17 block to casino gambling in the Northeast. 18 There's got to be some way", and I'll admit to 19 you that I mentioned some people who I used to 20 deal with somewhat when I was a police officer 21 who always lurk around casino gambling -- and 22 don't ever kid yourself that there isn't any mob 23 involvement. If anybody believes that there 24 isn't any in Atlantic City and Las Vegas and - 25 well, I won't mention some of the other casinos, 1 but you can be sure, unfortunately, that's not 2 true. 3 Without the Indian Gaming Act - 4 and when I saw that, I said, "Christ, this is 5 it" -- excuse me for -- "this is how it's going 6 to happen. This is how they're going to get 7 around us." If you think for a moment that if 8 we vote down this resolution today that that 9 votes down casino gambling, that would be 10 great. I doubt, by the way, if there were a 11 vote in this house straight out on casino 12 gambling that it wouldn't get a lot of votes. I 13 can tell you how many I think it would get 14 because I have a pretty good idea what it would 15 get. It wouldn't get much. If we could in this 16 house kill casino gambling today, I think we'd 17 vote it down. 18 The fortunate part of it is, do 19 you know since 1995 when we passed the first 20 resolution, first passage -- and I had a 21 conversation with the Majority Leader at that 22 time, and I don't think he minds my giving this 23 privileged communication because it wasn't 24 exactly privileged -- we both talked about what 25 should be done and why he was doing it in '95 1 because it didn't have to be done then, because 2 it didn't have to be passed at that time. We 3 could wait another year. His logic related to 4 the movement of Indian casinos, in particular, 5 and the fact that there were other people around 6 who are lurking in this Capitol today -- not 7 lurking but are around this Capitol today -- who 8 are opposing this resolution, by the way, big 9 casino people. That's the different kind of 10 thing here, and he felt if he did it early, 11 first of all, he would get the issue out of the 12 way and secondly he would hold in place a lot of 13 those people who wanted to move other casino 14 interests, number one, out of New York, that is, 15 money out of New York and, number two, would 16 hold the Indian gambling interests in abeyance. 17 By the way, he was absolutely 18 right. There has not been a new Indian casino 19 seriously proposed since the amendment passed in 20 '95, not seriously except in Buffalo and that 21 -- the fellow who was the lawyer for that, by 22 the way, I had a nice chat with him. He's a 23 friend of mine, and I said, "If this is going to 24 happen, I want you to know, so that you're 25 prepared, I may lead the lawsuit against it 1 because the last thing in the world we need is 2 for casinos to happen that way. If they have to 3 happen, they should be state run." 4 So that everybody understands, by 5 the way, I hope, that Indian casinos do not 6 benefit tribes. They really benefit individual 7 entrepreneurs. I mean, if you think that, 8 you're really wrong. It's not the way it 9 works. The trouble is, I happen to believe - 10 and I thought about this long and hard, and this 11 is not just politics to me. This is very, very 12 personal because there are a lot of people who 13 are very close friends of mine in law 14 enforcement, in the churches -- in fact, I had a 15 nice chat with the bishop -- Bishop Mansell, who 16 is the bishop of Buffalo -- Friday. We had a 17 nice chat. I said, "Bishop, the ironic part of 18 this is that you're in the same position with 19 the Christian Coalition, the Conservative Party, 20 Donald Trump, Indian gambling interests, the 21 Canadian gambling interests, some guy around 22 here who supposedly has a $20 million interest 23 in casinos is running around lobbying against 24 us." We're not even sure -- I've been told by a 25 number of people who he is -- who, of course, 1 doesn't want this resolution because, of course, 2 all these people feel as if they'll be adversely 3 impacted by it. So I thought about, what do we 4 do? What does New York do to deal with this 5 issue, because I know that there are still 6 people representing these Indians who are ready 7 and still willing to try to put more casinos in 8 this state, and the answer is there's probably 9 only one real way to send that message and to, 10 in effect, either deter or slow down lotteries 11 -- or casinos, and that is for the people of 12 the state of New York to go out to the polls and 13 defeat it. 14 Do you know the impact of that on 15 casinos across this country if a major state 16 like New York has a vote on casinos and votes it 17 down? It would be enormous, and my colleagues, 18 very honestly, as much -- and I've heard this 19 silver bullet theory about casinos in Buffalo 20 and there's a lot of businessmen who are 21 convinced of this, the silver bullet theory that 22 you put a casino in and everything's going to be 23 wonderful, and for the short time, by the way, I 24 think it'll help and in Niagara Falls -- and, by 25 the way, if you put one in Niagara Falls 1 opposite the casino in Niagara Falls, Ontario, 2 they'll compete with each other for a couple of 3 years and they'll kill each other, in effect. 4 In my opinion, that's what will happen, but it 5 seems to me that this is truly an issue -- and 6 I'm not one of those people that believes 7 necessarily in initiative and referendum and the 8 farce of California with its 250 propositions 9 which no one could possibly pay any attention 10 to, but I want you to know if this resolution 11 gets on the ballot, people are going to pay 12 attention to this one, and if you think for a 13 moment that all the money is going to be on the 14 side of casinos, think again because there are a 15 lot of people opposing this who are willing to 16 spend a good deal of money because they're 17 worried about their own business interests, but 18 in the long haul it seems to me that -- and the 19 only saying I say to my compadre here, Senator, 20 what do I know? 21 All I know is that I do not 22 believe in the long haul in casinos. I do not 23 believe that it's a good idea. My personal 24 opinion is if it's got to be done, then it 25 should be done by state run casinos so it's 1 strictly overseen, but I still think it's a bad 2 idea, but I also believe that if we are going to 3 really deter and to maybe stop casinos in this 4 state, the only way to do it is to go to the 5 polls and have the voters do it. If anybody in 6 this chamber really believes that this issue is 7 going to die if it's defeated today, I'm sorry. 8 I just don't see it that way. 9 I know the Majority Leader and 10 our conference has determined that this issue is 11 going to -- is going to die and we're going to 12 do the best we can. 13 By the way, on a New York City 14 issue, I think we all realize and Al certainly 15 has been a big proponent and his predecessor was 16 a big proponent, and so forth, but the reason 17 that New York City is not in this is because the 18 New York City people as a general rule didn't 19 want it. Of course, they could have been in 20 it. They didn't really want it. The mayor made 21 it very clear he wanted no part of it and the 22 Speaker didn't want it. That's why they're not 23 in the bill. It's not as if somebody just 24 decided to do this without New York City. Of 25 course, the problem is if you're going to vote 1 statewide without New York City in there, it's 2 going to be a problem. It really is, and I know 3 that. 4 It's another reason why I think 5 if you are truly going to deal with this issue, 6 the way to deal with it is to put it on the 7 ballot, let the people vote for it and let a lot 8 of us campaign against it. 9 THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, 10 Senator Volker. 11 Senator Cook. 12 SENATOR COOK: Madam President, 13 can I announce an immediate meeting of the 14 Education Committee in the Majority Conference 15 Room. 16 Thank you. 17 THE PRESIDENT: There is an 18 immediate meeting of the Education Committee in 19 the Majority Conference Room. 20 Senator Mendez. 21 SENATOR MENDEZ: Madam President, 22 I rise to speak against allowing the voters in 23 New York State to decide whether or not we 24 should have casino gambling in this great state 25 of ours. 1 I know that strong arguments both 2 for and against the issue has been stated here, 3 and I am more than anything else concerned with 4 the social issues surrounding gambling. 5 Statistics show that from the 6 year 1992 to 1994, crime increased 640 percent 7 in Foxwood and about the third year that casinos 8 had been in operation in Atlantic City, the 9 crime increased three times over. So that there 10 are some social maladies that could, in fact, 11 become a general rule in our state if we do go 12 for casino gambling. 13 I am very happy that the 14 referendum, if it gets to the voters in 15 November, will not have New York City. The 16 reason why most people from New York City do not 17 want casinos there is because we all know that 18 it would be so close to people that shouldn't be 19 gambling, they would be gambling. Secondly, the 20 services in terms of police protection would be 21 increased tremendously and the City could not 22 handle it. Prostitution would be all over the 23 place, and these are the kinds of things that do 24 occur as a by-product of casino gambling. 25 I understand that the situation 1 has been changed nowadays. I remember very well 2 the first time here in the Senate that the issue 3 came, and I have consistently voted against it. 4 That time the push was to have it in the city of 5 New York and after the situation had changed 6 because we know that we have over, let's say 1.7 7 million people -- New Yorkers -- who take their 8 buses to go to Atlantic City or to Foxwood or to 9 any other casino in Connecticut. So should a 10 public policy be one of saying, Look, since 11 these people are gamblers and they're going to 12 gamble anyhow, let's put the casinos there so 13 they will be closer to them so they would keep 14 gambling? Should we do that as a public 15 policy? It's the same thing like if a person is 16 suffering from a terminal disease and that 17 person in desperation because of pain says, "I 18 want to die. I want to die." Should we go and 19 say, "You want to die? Boom! Boom! Boom!" 20 and please her? So there is an element of 21 personal responsibility when we establish social 22 policy, governmental policy. 23 I truly believe, Madam President, 24 that if we institute gambling in New York State, 25 we will be gambling with the social fabric of 1 people residing in our state. 2 So, therefore, this kind of 3 situation, this Senate that has traditionally 4 voted down every single instance the idea of 5 establishing a casino gambling in the state of 6 New York should keep on that marvelous record 7 and vote this one down. 8 Thank you, Madam President. 9 THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, 10 Senator Mendez. 11 Senator Hoffmann. 12 SENATOR HOFFMANN: Thank you, 13 Madam President. 14 I'm pleased that I have the 15 opportunity to speak after Senator Padavan's 16 excellent arguments in opposition to this 17 resolution, and I'm also pleased to have the 18 opportunity to speak after Senator Volker's very 19 insightful analysis of the procedures and the 20 politics that govern a lot of our decisions 21 here. I'm not sure if Senator Volker had 22 realized that he was providing a virtual primer 23 in how policy is formulated in New York State 24 government, but I do hope those in the gallery 25 and those listening on the boxes and certainly 1 members of the press were taking careful note 2 because Senator Volker really did characterize 3 the worst of our policy procedures in this 4 place. 5 The only thing that he really 6 left out that I would just want to add for the 7 record, we are talking today about a resolution 8 initially passed 18 months ago tomorrow and 9 we're discussing it -- many members are 10 discussing it as though it was considered in 11 some significant fashion prior to coming for 12 that initial vote. 13 Let me just state again for the 14 record that that measure was drafted and put on 15 our desks as a finished product with virtually 16 no opportunity for most of the members of the 17 New York State Senate to review in advance. It 18 had only four or five hours in print form for us 19 to see. 20 So as Senator Volker 21 characterizes negotiations, it's important for 22 the people of this state to understand that 23 negotiations are generally private, somewhat 24 secretive and they are governed by people who 25 wield political power in this state, those 1 elected and those unelected, such as the people 2 who are lobbying on both sides of this issue 3 right now, but please remember that many of us 4 were forced to vote virtually in a vacuum, 5 including some members who had had no prior 6 experience with the issue of casino gambling, 7 and the record was quite clear and the press did 8 a scathing review of some arm twisting on the 9 other side of the aisle that occurred in that 10 initial passage. 11 It's nice today to hear the 12 Majority Leader of this august body, Senator 13 Bruno, state that people are free to vote their 14 own conscience. Oh, if we would be free to vote 15 our own conscience all the time. It hardly 16 seems like it should be major news, but if the 17 record is clear that we are voting our own 18 conscience today, then I would like to just 19 offer a little bit of anecdotal information as 20 one member who has lived with casino gambling 21 and kind of gone through a whole exploratory, 22 then discovery process over the last couple of 23 years. 24 For the first eight years of my 25 tenure, I represented the town of Oneida - 1 excuse me -- the town of Verona in Oneida County 2 and at that time and today I still represent the 3 city of Oneida in Madison County. Now, let's 4 not be too confused about that. The important 5 distinction here is that the Oneida Indian 6 Nation of New York State has its nation lands, 7 its sovereign lands, a paltry 32 acres -- all 8 they are left with after some unscrupulous land 9 deals 150 years ago -- they have their 32-acre 10 reserve or nation lands in Madison County. Just 11 over the county line in Oneida County in the 12 town of Verona is the famous Turning Stone 13 Casino, and I have watched and experienced some 14 of the discussion and seen what happened as this 15 Turning Stone Casino came into being. 16 Initially there was a great 17 flurry of excitement among the people in Oneida 18 County and particularly in the town of Verona 19 where the casino was to be located, anticipation 20 of great economic impact, a wonderful spin-off, 21 economic development, the expectation that there 22 would be full hotels and lots of people buying, 23 shopping, dining, staying overnight and 24 otherwise stimulating the county in an area 25 where the economy had been badly hurt by the 1 loss of an Air Force base, by the loss of major 2 manufacturing jobs and a difficult, extremely 3 difficult economy in which to make a living. 4 Now that the Turning Stone Casino 5 has been in operation for several years, there 6 are a few indisputable facts that are quite 7 clear. The casino has, in fact, been very good 8 for one type of business in particular, and that 9 is the law business because there are so many 10 people entering bankruptcy or encountering 11 divorce proceedings as a result of gambling 12 behavior that the legal community in Madison 13 County and Oneida County and further away even 14 in Onondaga County has seen a marked increase in 15 gambling-related activities. 16 I believe Senator Padavan also 17 made reference to some of the other sad personal 18 aspects that have sometimes fallen to people who 19 went down on their luck, looked to some of the 20 most terrible choices to end the dilemma from 21 which they believe that there is no escape. 22 If it's not terribly good for the 23 economy, why is this particular casino and the 24 entire concept of Indian gaming being used as an 25 illustration or an example of why the rest of 1 the state should get into it? We have seen no 2 clear evidence that there's anything terribly 3 positive from the Turning Stone Casino to 4 benefit the rest of the region. Why then would 5 we suddenly be looking at ways to spread this 6 type of activity across the state? 7 I think that there really has to 8 be a much more thorough analysis of what casinos 9 do to a community, how they change and shape the 10 social fabric. 11 Yes, as Senator Abate describes, 12 some of us have a personal experience with a 13 community that goes wholesale into casino 14 operation and her eloquent recounting of what 15 happened in Atlantic City has been documented by 16 the media in many other situations. 17 In fact, I recall reading a very 18 detailed analysis a couple of years ago 19 describing how the minority community living in 20 Atlantic City had been particularly hard hit 21 because of the sudden change in the economic 22 climate there, the increased cost of housing. 23 People who were poor before became poorer after 24 the casino operations entered Atlantic City. 25 When I spoke on the floor 18 1 months ago tomorrow on this issue, I voiced my 2 objections largely on the procedural matter, the 3 fact that we had not had time to review, that 4 this was a document crafted once again in 5 secrecy, and I also voiced my reservations on 6 the fact that it omitted from even taking part 7 in this opportunity that huge area of Central 8 New York. Clearly, for my constituents, there 9 would have to be something seen as a net loss. 10 If Turning Stone is the only show in town, then 11 hopefully some limited amount of economic 12 opportunity might inure from it some place, but 13 if you suddenly have competition to the west in 14 the Niagara Frontier, to the south in the 15 Catskills, to the north in the Adirondacks, then 16 some of the people who are going to Turning 17 Stone possibly buying gas some place along the 18 way, maybe stopping for dinner on their way to 19 or from the location would, in fact, no longer 20 have the incentive to go there. 21 So there is a potential job loss 22 for some of the people employed in Turning Stone 23 Casino, and I felt that I needed to enter that 24 into the record, but I must say that in these 18 25 months, I have an entirely different view on the 1 whole subject of gambling itself, and I think 2 it's only fair to put on the record how I have 3 seen gambling change the character of some of my 4 constituents. I have watched people become 5 angry with Native Americans with whom they once 6 enjoyed a warm, personal relationship or enjoyed 7 a sense of mutual respect. 8 I would hope that we would 9 analyze the entire Indian gambling compact as a 10 separate issue at another time, and I and the 11 Governor of this state, along with one or two 12 other members of this house, have publicly 13 stated that this compact negotiated between 14 Mario Cuomo and a representative of the Oneida, 15 New York Nation is quite possibly invalid and 16 should be examined by the courts much as other 17 states have examined and seen their compacts 18 thrown out. 19 Now, one of those states is New 20 Mexico, and I have journeyed to New Mexico 21 several times in the last year to see their 22 operation and specifically to monitor the 23 process of the Indian gaming expansion in that 24 state. 25 In that state, I watched casinos 1 jump up along the highway -- it's a north-south 2 corridor that runs up and down the state of New 3 Mexico with Indian Pueblos on either side. They 4 are a sovereign nation as much as our six 5 nations in the Iroquois Confederacy exist east 6 and west across New York State, but many of the 7 Pueblos opted to utilize a compact now ruled 8 illegal but they have utilized their compact and 9 put together casinos in a string across the 10 state making casinos very accessible for 11 virtually any resident of the state of New 12 Mexico, and I watched the initial flurry of 13 excitement when these casinos opened and I saw 14 people just like those of us in this room, just 15 like our constituents going to spend an 16 afternoon or an evening doing a little bit of 17 gambling. 18 A few months later I observed 19 some of those same people going to do a little 20 bit of gambling on a Sunday evening and not 21 coming home until dawn and not coming home with 22 the ability to pay the mortgage or the rent that 23 was expected of them, and then a few months 24 later there were situations which floored me, 25 but I saw them happening where people would go 1 to visit a casino and leave the baby in the car 2 just for a few minutes and come out hours later. 3 Now, many of us have debated in 4 this chamber about whether we can or should 5 enter the idea of legislating morality, and 6 there are people in the gallery who believe very 7 fervently that that isn't one of our higher 8 responsibilities. I don't know if we can 9 legislate morality. I don't know what we can do 10 to shape individual behavior, but the facts are 11 really indisputable that gambling does not 12 enhance the social fiber of a state, can cause 13 severe economic damage to certain areas, has a 14 ripple effect in terms of negative activity that 15 is difficult to measure but becomes costly all 16 across the spectrum in criminal activity, 17 declining employment opportunities, job loss. 18 If we take a good, long look at 19 this particular issue, we have to conclude that 20 there are some moral questions here and while we 21 may not be in the business of legislating 22 morality, we should at least recognize that 23 there is no good purpose served by making casino 24 gambling so accessible that everyone can do it 25 and just drop in leaving the baby in the car. 1 We have Atlantic City. We have 2 Las Vegas. There's Foxwoods. There's Turning 3 Stone. There are opportunities for people who 4 want to gamble in casinos to go and do that in 5 this country. They have to plan it a little 6 bit. It has to be premeditated. They have to 7 know and hopefully they do budget appropriately 8 to lose whatever their family can reasonably 9 afford to lose. It becomes a fun experience. 10 It's like going to Broadway. It's like going to 11 Europe. It's like going on a cruise. It's 12 something that you spend money that you can 13 afford to spend engaged in an activity that's 14 pleasurable with no serious economic 15 consequences, but if it is something that is 16 enticing, is too convenient and is suddenly next 17 door everywhere you go, then there is a real 18 risk that people who have a problem with 19 self-control will hurt themselves and will hurt 20 others and will create a societal cost which we 21 must then come back and analyze. I don't think 22 that we want to get into that situation. 23 I think that we owe it to the 24 people of this state to be much more thoughtful 25 on how we analyze this, and I believe that we 1 owe it to Native Americans everywhere to not 2 accuse all Indians of promoting gambling. This 3 issue of the gaming compact has torn apart 4 Native American communities in this state and in 5 other states as well. 6 For the record, the casino 7 operation that is run by the New York Oneidas is 8 not run by traditionalists and the other 9 proposals for Indian gaming in New York State 10 come from people who are not traditionalists. 11 They are referred to as the business interests 12 and most of them have a strong outside non 13 Indian force behind them. The traditionalists 14 whose faith keepers still keep alive their 15 traditions on the Onondaga Nation for the entire 16 six-nation confederacy have prophesied for 17 decades that there would be -- come a time at 18 approximately this point in their culture when 19 something terrible would happen to them, 20 something that would really attack their 21 culture, their sovereignty and their history. 22 They didn't have a name for it, but the people 23 who have kept the traditions alive believed that 24 it was something that looked and sounded like 25 gambling. 1 So among Native Americans this is 2 a painful time. Yes, there have been great 3 success stories by some of the nations who have 4 entered gambling operations. There have also 5 been terrible tragedies, cases in the far west 6 of Indian casinos that run amok where family 7 members have taken arms against each other 8 because of the enmity caused by casinos. 9 Now, we are not here to debate 10 the future of native gambling -- Native American 11 gambling in this state. That is a subject for 12 another day, but please recognize it is not a 13 good example on which to base the casino 14 gambling activities and the potential for 15 casinos across the rest of this state. 16 Do not cite Turning Stone, 17 please, as something that looks good for New 18 York State, looks good for America or even looks 19 good for Indians because that is truly not the 20 case. There is much more to be learned from 21 that before we are in a position to make a case 22 for wholesale casino gambling across New York 23 State. 24 So I, with great sadness, will 25 vote against expanding this to the rest of the 1 state because I always like to support economic 2 development opportunities. I like to support 3 tourism, but this is not the way for us to go. 4 If we are ever going to do something about 5 casinos, we must do it in a much more thoughtful 6 and a much safer way. 7 THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, 8 Senator Hoffmann. 9 Senator Marchi. 10 SENATOR MARCHI: Thank you, Madam 11 President. 12 I believe there's an abundance on 13 the record of statements both for and against 14 which certainly doesn't bring on any sense of 15 embarrassment or shame to those who made the 16 statements because it's not that easily clear 17 cut. 18 I'm glad that Senator Hoffmann 19 brought in the question of we're not dealing 20 with morality but depending on the circum 21 stances, it can become an immoral action if you 22 go overboard. It does not necessarily become 23 one, and she ended with the conclusion that she 24 did. 25 This is the hazard that we face 1 when we try to impute to some of these shadow 2 figures such as gambling a mal in se, an evil in 3 and of itself, when it comes to application, and 4 our history is replete with experiences that 5 sometimes have led to great grief. 6 Many years ago we ushered in the 7 Seventeenth Amendment -- or the Eighteenth 8 Amendment on alcohol, that alcohol was an 9 inherently dangerous, addictive -- and I don't 10 know what "addictive" is. If you're addicted to 11 sugar and you're a diabetic, it becomes almost a 12 process of self-abuse unless discipline, as you 13 mentioned, Senator, is exercised, but we adopted 14 the noble experiment and the result was that we 15 had organized crime. There was no organized 16 crime in this country before we got into the 17 noble experiment, and finally when it was 18 repealed, the organized crime remained with us 19 and it's with us today and it's with us on this 20 issue both on one side and the other, and that 21 was on the consumption of alcohol. 22 I remember being in Italy once as 23 a youngster, as a teenager, and I went to a 24 seminar and there were 16-year-old children and 25 they had little cruets of wine on their table, 1 which might have been viewed by many people in 2 this country as not quite moral, but there was 3 no abuse and, indeed, the latest statistics that 4 we've had on the subject, the lowest rates of 5 alcoholism in the world are in Italy and 6 Israel. When they came to this country, we 7 started to see a steady march up the grade where 8 people were not quite that different after 9 several generations. 10 So we don't -- we can't draw 11 these hard and fast conclusions. When we go to 12 Off Track Betting and some of the other forms of 13 gambling -- I remember Congressman Fino -- I 14 don't know how many of you remember Congressman 15 Fino, but he promised us that we would have a 25 16 percent drop in income tax if we only adopted, I 17 believe it was Off Track Betting at that time. 18 Well, it turned out to be patently untrue and 19 that element, that type of inducement that was 20 thrown out really didn't do anything. 21 We know that it's not always good 22 policy to make it promiscuously available, 23 gambling, and we're not totally coherent on this 24 because no one is introducing legislation to 25 repeal anything that we've ever done in the past 1 on this subject simply because we need the 2 money, I guess, but we haven't started that 3 process, but I submit that what Senator Cook 4 offered here for our consideration -- I think 5 this is the classic case, and maybe we defined a 6 few more areas where we might have chosen to do 7 otherwise on further reflection, but what 8 Senator Cook said, as he described the 9 evolution, the evolution of gambling from being 10 a local exercise by local patrons to families 11 who came in and then coming into these growing 12 palatial hotels to the point now where they are 13 experiencing in the evolution of these host 14 hotels for national conventions -- international 15 conventions that in Sullivan County he finds 16 that there is economic dislocation, a very 17 serious effect on these people and they're 18 losing them out to areas where they do offer, 19 among other recreational factors, the option of 20 some casino gambling. 21 Now, we know that he can't - 22 they said there must be better options. Well, 23 he can't dismantle billions of dollars of 24 infastructure. So suddenly we develop that they 25 can be developing a better way to make widgets. 1 It will be a long time and many people will 2 starve to death before that process is 3 completed. So he's not offering us something 4 here, I think, that enters into the classical 5 considerations that we have raised. He's 6 talking about people coming in from around the 7 country and, in fact, around the world to what 8 is now the fulsome development of these large 9 establishments who offer employment now 10 contracting and are threatened with very serious 11 economic dislocations unless they also meet that 12 competition. 13 I don't think it portends nor 14 does it suggest that we will be experiencing any 15 of the dire cataclysmic effects because of the 16 special circumstances that undergird an industry 17 in his county which offers a wide array of 18 alternatives and will continue to do so but 19 become marginalized because of this one item. 20 I think we can vote for this move 21 and not put the state into peril, and I would 22 hope that we can find our way to vote for this 23 because the circumstances are very circumscribed 24 and are addressed to circumstances that are very 25 special and unique in terms of the competition 1 and the world in which they live in and draw 2 from. 3 So I hope this prevails, Madam 4 President. It certainly -- no one has suggested 5 anything other than there must be better ways. 6 As I say, you can't destroy billions and bil 7 lions and billions of dollars of infrastructure 8 which is their outcome, which is going to be the 9 inevitable outcome if they are left unable - 10 incapable of competing with other centers around 11 the country and the world. 12 THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, 13 Senator Marchi. 14 Senator Farley. 15 SENATOR FARLEY: Thank you, Madam 16 President. 17 We're over three-quarters of an 18 hour over the two-hour time limit. Bearing that 19 in mind, I'm going to waive my time and explain 20 my vote during the roll call. 21 THE PRESIDENT: Is there anyone 22 else who wishes to speak on the resolution? 23 (There was no response.) 24 On the resolution, the Secretary 25 will call the roll. 1 (The Secretary called the roll.) 2 SENATOR PATERSON: Slow roll 3 call, Madam President. 4 THE PRESIDENT: A slow roll call, 5 please. 6 THE SECRETARY: Senator Abate. 7 SENATOR ABATE: No. 8 THE SECRETARY: Senator Alesi. 9 SENATOR ALESI: No. 10 THE SECRETARY: Senator Breslin. 11 SENATOR BRESLIN: No. 12 THE SECRETARY: Senator Bruno. 13 SENATOR BRUNO: No -- I'm sorry 14 -- yes. (Laughter) 15 THE SECRETARY: Senator Connor. 16 SENATOR CONNOR: No. 17 THE SECRETARY: Senator Cook. 18 SENATOR COOK: Yes. 19 THE SECRETARY: Senator 20 DeFrancisco. 21 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes. 22 THE SECRETARY: Senator 23 Dollinger. 24 SENATOR DOLLINGER: No. 25 THE SECRETARY: Senator Farley. 1 THE PRESIDENT: Senator Farley. 2 SENATOR FARLEY: As I was saying, 3 I would like to explain my vote. 4 Early on I have come out against 5 casinos in New York State. I don't think they 6 add anything to our society. As a matter of 7 fact, I think they -- they're a detriment to our 8 society but, you know, this keeps coming before 9 us and has for the 20 years that I have been 10 here, and I presume it will be back again some 11 day and, as far as I'm concerned, I think that 12 we could do a lot better things than have 13 casinos in New York. 14 I was quoted all over the state 15 by saying something about a dog. Basically I 16 said that with this dog comes a lot of fleas, 17 and I believe that, and I think it's something 18 that we do not need, and I'm confident that this 19 resolution is going to be defeated. 20 So, consequently, I urge my 21 colleagues to vote no. 22 THE PRESIDENT: Please continue. 23 THE SECRETARY: Senator Gentile. 24 SENATOR GENTILE: No. 25 THE SECRETARY: Senator Gold. 1 SENATOR GOLD: No. 2 THE SECRETARY: Senator Gonzalez. 3 SENATOR GONZALEZ: Yes. 4 THE SECRETARY: Senator Goodman. 5 SENATOR GOODMAN: No. 6 THE SECRETARY: Senator Hannon. 7 (There was no response.) 8 Senator Hoffmann. 9 SENATOR HOFFMANN: No. 10 THE SECRETARY: Senator Holland. 11 SENATOR HOLLAND: No. 12 THE SECRETARY: Senator Johnson. 13 SENATOR JOHNSON: Aye. 14 THE SECRETARY: Senator Kruger. 15 SENATOR KRUGER: No. 16 THE SECRETARY: Senator Kuhl. 17 SENATOR KUHL: Aye. 18 THE SECRETARY: Senator Lachman. 19 SENATOR LACHMAN: No. 20 THE SECRETARY: Senator Lack. 21 SENATOR LACK: No. 22 THE SECRETARY: Senator Larkin. 23 SENATOR LARKIN: Aye. 24 THE SECRETARY: Senator LaValle. 25 SENATOR LAVALLE: No. 1 THE SECRETARY: Senator Leibell. 2 SENATOR LEIBELL: Aye. 3 THE SECRETARY: Senator Leichter. 4 SENATOR LEICHTER: Madam 5 President, to explain my vote. 6 I didn't enter and engage in the 7 main debate or reflect the fact that I have been 8 very torn on this issue, and I really didn't 9 have any overwhelming strong feeling about it. 10 I think there are arguments for 11 and against it and, as I've considered them over 12 the past few weeks, I'm torn between my dislike 13 of gambling as a way of raising money and my 14 feeling that, was I just being King Canute 15 telling the tide not to come in because, as has 16 been pointed out, of course, gambling is all 17 around us, but the more I thought about it, the 18 very idea that if gambling as a way of raising 19 money for government is wrong -- and, yes, we 20 have it with the lottery and we have Keno and we 21 have other games, but it's still wrong -- why 22 should we make more of that available? 23 It's really a regressive tax. It 24 creates with it great social ills. There are 25 ways to help communities throughout this state 1 like the Catskills without buying into something 2 which is going to add to the social burden of 3 many families, which is going to cause domestic 4 turmoil in many families, which is going to 5 create great problems for communities that have 6 it. 7 It is not in the interest of the 8 state of New York. I feel that quite strongly 9 now and maybe in this instance King Canute will 10 be able to stop the tide. 11 Certainly this house today as 12 this vote is going is able to stop this tide of 13 growing gambling throughout the United States. 14 We will not have legalized gambling or legalized 15 casinos in New York State, and I think in doing 16 so we serve the people of New York. 17 Madam President, I vote in the 18 negative. 19 THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. 20 Continue the slow roll call, 21 please. 22 THE SECRETARY: Senator Levy. 23 SENATOR LEVY: No. 24 THE SECRETARY: Senator Libous. 25 SENATOR LIBOUS: Madam President. 1 THE PRESIDENT: Senator Libous. 2 SENATOR LIBOUS: May I explain my 3 vote? 4 THE PRESIDENT: Yes, please. 5 SENATOR LIBOUS: I heard the 6 debate go back and forth today. I heard a lot 7 of good points for and against the issue. 8 I've had a very difficult time 9 with this issue. I said to one of the media 10 this week that I can give you ten good reasons 11 why I should support it and ten good reasons why 12 I shouldn't support it. 13 After listening to the debate, 14 thinking about it, sharing concern with our 15 constituents, I think maybe the issue has to be 16 one where we need to really examine what we want 17 for economic development in the state, whether 18 casinos are the way we want to go or maybe the 19 way we want to go is to continue cutting taxes, 20 generating good jobs, manufacturing jobs, high 21 technology jobs. 22 You know, I said to a reporter 23 the other day, my son is in his second year at 24 SUNY-Albany and my goal is hopefully that he'll 25 come back, maybe even come back home to Broome 1 County and get a good job or at least stay in 2 New York State. I'm not sure I want him to come 3 back to New York State and say that he's a 4 blackjack dealer in a casino. I'd rather him 5 say that he has a good job. 6 At the same time, I recognize 7 that when this resolution was drafted that we 8 have racetracks in this state that are hurting 9 and maybe the real issue is to look at that 10 entire system. Why is it that racetrack - 11 racing is successful in other states but it's 12 dying in New York? I'm not so sure that putting 13 slot machines in every one of those tracks is 14 going to be the simple answer. Maybe the better 15 answer is for us as a body to get together and 16 make some drastic changes to that entire 17 industry so that they can do better and they can 18 compete because they are suffering. 19 As I said when I first stood up, 20 Madam President, this is a very, very difficult 21 vote for me but at this point in time, I have to 22 vote no. 23 THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. 24 Continue the slow roll call, 25 please. 1 THE SECRETARY: Senator Maltese. 2 SENATOR MALTESE: No. 3 THE SECRETARY: Senator 4 Marcellino. 5 SENATOR MARCELLINO: No. 6 THE SECRETARY: Senator Marchi. 7 (There was no response.) 8 Senator Markowitz. 9 SENATOR MARKOWITZ: To explain my 10 vote briefly. 11 I want to first off say I'm going 12 to be voting against this proposal but, Senator 13 Cook -- Senator Cook, if I can -- I really want 14 to reach out to Senator Cook. The Catskills, to 15 me and for many generations before me and God 16 willing many generations to come, will continue 17 to look at the Catskills as an area that we want 18 to visit, and I would hope that if this legisla 19 tion does not -- is not passed this afternoon, 20 that it should accelerate Governor Pataki, local 21 officials in the Catskills and our Legislature, 22 both the Assembly and the Senate, regardless of 23 where we live in the state of New York, to 24 really focus in on the redevelopment of the 25 Catskills. I think it's important not only for 1 the folks in your area, but I think it's 2 important a lot of us that reside in the city of 3 New York will always have a very warm and 4 special feeling about the Catskills, and I for 5 one would love to work with you or anyone else 6 to help with the redevelopment of that precious 7 area of the state of New York. 8 Regretfully, however, on this 9 issue, I vote no. 10 THE PRESIDENT: Continue the slow 11 roll call, please. 12 THE SECRETARY: Senator Maziarz. 13 SENATOR MAZIARZ: No. 14 THE SECRETARY: Senator Meier. 15 SENATOR MEIER: Yes. 16 THE SECRETARY: Senator Mendez. 17 SENATOR MENDEZ: Madam President. 18 THE PRESIDENT: Senator Mendez. 19 SENATOR MENDEZ: Madam President, 20 to explain my vote. 21 The overriding -- the overriding 22 reason why I vote no is because I am totally 23 convinced that casino gambling in New York State 24 will, in fact, destroy the social fabric of the 25 state. 1 I vote no. 2 THE PRESIDENT: Continue the slow 3 roll call. 4 THE SECRETARY: Senator 5 Montgomery. 6 SENATOR MONTGOMERY: No. 7 THE SECRETARY: Senator Nanula. 8 SENATOR NANULA: Madam President, 9 to explain my vote. 10 THE PRESIDENT: Senator. 11 SENATOR NANULA: Today there's 12 been much debate and much discourse for and 13 against this issue in regards to the state, in 14 regards to overall policy, but I rise in regards 15 to this issue, very frankly, with a very 16 parochial and provincial dynamic in regards to 17 this issue. 18 Of course, many of us know in 19 this proposed amendment, in this bill the cities 20 of Buffalo and Niagara Falls, New York each are 21 designed to have one casino land-based, and for 22 those of us who don't know, right now as we 23 speak, there is a -- quote-unquote -- temporary 24 casino, a $100-plus million facility that is in 25 operation as we speak in Niagara Falls, Ontario, 1 no more than a stone's throw away from Niagara 2 Falls, New York and, very frankly, even if we 3 are to agree with some of those arguments in 4 regards to the woes of casino gaming, our 5 community, Niagara Falls, Buffalo, Western New 6 York is already going to experience that, but 7 let me tell you what we're not going to 8 experience, the $800-plus million in revenue 9 that is projected which I'm already hearing is 10 designed -- or is projected to exceed that 11 amount from this temporary casino in Niagara 12 Falls, Ontario and, by the way, it has been 13 promoted by the Ontario government that this 14 casino is going to derive 80 percent -- 80, 8-0, 15 percent of its revenue from the United States, 16 from specifically a four-hour radius of that 17 area which includes Buffalo, which includes 18 Niagara Falls, which includes other upstate 19 communities. This cannot go unrecognized, and 20 again, I understand some of the arguments. I 21 understand some of the debates, but my issue is 22 a very parochial and a very provincial one. 23 We have now in our midst casino 24 gaming and understand this as well. This is 25 again a temporary casino facility. The 1 permanent facility that is being designed is 2 designed to be of a cost somewhere in the range 3 of $1 billion that is going to do several times, 4 of course, what this temporary casino is doing 5 and already exceeding in terms of the actual 6 revenues coming in, the $100 million, by the 7 way, in projected payroll that is going to be 8 drawn from this casino facility. 9 Again, for me as a Senator 10 representing Buffalo and Niagara Falls, having a 11 casino in our midst, this is an issue that can't 12 go unnoticed, and I am stating today for the 13 record that if this amendment -- if this bill is 14 voted down, I plan to introduce a new bill, a 15 bill that would only provide for a casino for 16 the city of Niagara Falls and for the city of 17 Buffalo and hopefully as that bill finds its way 18 onto this floor, it would be my hope if this 19 initiative does not pass today, given the nature 20 of what we're experiencing in Buffalo and in 21 Niagara Falls and the damage that is likely to 22 come from this casino facility already being in 23 our midst, I can have the support of this body. 24 On this bill, I vote aye. 25 THE PRESIDENT: Continue the slow 1 roll call, please. 2 THE SECRETARY: Senator Nozzolio. 3 SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Aye. 4 THE SECRETARY: Senator Onorato. 5 SENATOR ONORATO: No. 6 THE SECRETARY: Senator 7 Oppenheimer. 8 SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Explain my 9 vote, please. 10 THE PRESIDENT: Senator 11 Oppenheimer. 12 SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Well, like 13 many people in this chamber, I have been very 14 conflicted by this issue, and I said I was going 15 to quote Ron Stafford who said, "Half of my 16 friends are for this. Half of my friends are 17 against this and I'm for my friends." 18 (Laughter.) 19 If I could also quote what 20 Senator Libous said. I have very serious 21 concerns about racetracks and particularly one 22 that's in Westchester County, and we really have 23 to settle down and figure out a way how we are 24 going to help these racetracks because we are up 25 against a very hard wall now and we have to do 1 something, but I don't think this is the 2 "something". 3 I also want to comment on the 4 process that we have gone through with this 5 amendment. I think the amendment is very 6 flawed. I think something could have been done 7 in the one year that went past since we 8 originally passed this amendment. There was a 9 great deal of time for us to look into the 10 enabling legislation and to have defined 11 ourselves better, to have known if some of this 12 money might go to education. That might be a 13 very important factor for us. If we could lay 14 down some strict regulations about the 15 environment in the Catskills so that perhaps we 16 would have even stricter law than the watershed 17 agreement for that area when we put down -- when 18 we created these casinos. 19 As far as the independent 20 regulatory agency, wouldn't we have all liked to 21 have known that that was in place and that there 22 would be some qualified, competent, independent, 23 bipartisan people watching over this operation 24 because we hear from every corner of this 25 country that influences that we may not like in 1 this business find their way into the business. 2 So these are things that we could 3 have talked about and that could have been put 4 in enabling legislation and might have given us 5 some more meat, but there is really nothing 6 here. It's bare bones. Excuse the connection 7 there. 8 I find another thing very 9 distressing, and that is the unlimited 10 development that would have been permitted in 11 the Catskills. Perhaps if we had limited it to 12 one, but to have in a watershed area unlimited 13 numbers of casinos, I think can lead to severe 14 damage to our sewer system and to our waters. 15 So I think this is something 16 that, as I said, we are all very -- many of us 17 are conflicted on. The federal government has 18 created a nine-member bipartisan commission to 19 be studying gambling in America and they are 20 going to come back with a report in two years. 21 I think it's wise at the very least for us to 22 wait for that two-year period to be up to see 23 what the results are. 24 I'll be voting no. 25 THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. 1 Continue the slow roll call, 2 please. 3 THE SECRETARY: Senator Padavan. 4 SENATOR PADAVAN: Madam 5 President. 6 THE PRESIDENT: Senator Padavan. 7 SENATOR PADAVAN: I'm taking this 8 moment to explain my vote. I would like to 9 express my personal gratitude to the Leaders of 10 this house, particularly the Majority Leader, in 11 allowing this debate to come forward in the 12 manner that it was done. 13 I almost wish that every student 14 in the state of New York could be in the 15 galleries today watching what went on here. It 16 was a classic exercise in democracy. People 17 spoke carefully on either side of the issue, and 18 I hope that the media will report this event in 19 that fashion. 20 I vote no. 21 THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. 22 Continue the slow roll call, 23 please. 24 THE SECRETARY: Senator Paterson. 25 SENATOR PATERSON: No. 1 THE SECRETARY: Senator Present. 2 SENATOR PRESENT: No. 3 THE SECRETARY: Senator Rath. 4 SENATOR RATH: No. 5 THE SECRETARY: Senator Rosado. 6 SENATOR ROSADO: No. 7 THE SECRETARY: Senator Saland. 8 SENATOR SALAND: No. 9 THE SECRETARY: Senator Sampson. 10 SENATOR SAMPSON: No. 11 THE SECRETARY: Senator Santiago. 12 SENATOR SANTIAGO: No. 13 THE SECRETARY: Senator Seabrook. 14 SENATOR SEABROOK: No. 15 THE SECRETARY: Senator Seward. 16 SENATOR SEWARD: Madam President, 17 to explain my vote. 18 Madam President, we have had a 19 very lengthy debate on this issue this 20 afternoon. Many points both pro and con have 21 been brought out very eloquently. In fact, the 22 debate concerning casino gambling has been going 23 on for years in the halls of the Capitol and 24 across the state. It seems to me that we need 25 to bring this issue to closure one way or the 1 other. 2 I believe the answer is to let 3 the people of this state decide the fate of this 4 issue in an open election with both sides making 5 their case to the electorate of this state, to 6 have the kind of debate we've had today all 7 across this state involving the people of New 8 York. 9 I support letting the voters of 10 the state make the final decision on this 11 constitutional amendment, but I must tell you 12 that if this amendment ever reaches the ballot, 13 I personally will be voting no because I 14 personally do not support the legalization of 15 casino gambling in our state, but I do support 16 letting the people of the state make their own 17 decision and decide their own fate on this 18 issue. 19 So, therefore, Madam President, I 20 vote aye. 21 THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. 22 Continue the slow roll call, 23 please. 24 THE SECRETARY: Senator Skelos. 25 SENATOR SKELOS: No. 1 THE SECRETARY: Senator Smith, 2 excused. 3 Senator Spano. 4 SENATOR SPANO: Aye. 5 THE SECRETARY: Senator 6 Stachowski. 7 SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Madam 8 President, to explain my vote. 9 THE PRESIDENT: Yes, Senator. 10 SENATOR STACHOWSKI: I suppose at 11 this point I could see the votes and take the 12 easy way out and be on the winning side, but I 13 decided I was going to make up my mind during 14 the debate, and I did, how I'm going to vote on 15 this. 16 I'd first like to say that I 17 don't like casinos. I spent a week in Reno once 18 and never gambled, and I was staying in a casino 19 and I just really don't care for them and that's 20 that, but the fact is in the area that I 21 represent, we have the Niagara Falls, Ontario 22 casino that people are rushing to daily and for 23 those groups that I respect tremendously that 24 are opposed to this, including the Christian 25 Coalition and the Catholic bishops, the fact is 1 we already have those problems and we have the 2 potential for those problems to get much greater 3 and whether New York ever does a casino, we are 4 going to have to deal with those problems in the 5 Buffalo area and Western New York. 6 So to base the vote on the fact 7 that those problems are either going to be here 8 or not, I would be burying my head in the sand 9 to say these problems won't exist if I vote no 10 on this bill today. These problems do exist. 11 It would be like me saying people in poor 12 communities in inner cities don't play the 13 numbers. I think that still happens. I checked 14 with some people. They say they still play the 15 numbers. 16 Saying in working communities 17 like I grew up in that people there don't go to 18 bookmakers to bet horses and sporting events, 19 they don't go to OTB, they never go to the 20 racetrack, they don't get on buses in droves 21 grabbing senior citizens and go to Turning Stone 22 -- and now they have a shorter trip because 23 they can go to the Niagara Falls casino -- those 24 people go whether they can afford it or not and 25 they do all those aforementioned things whether 1 they can afford it or not. 2 So all of those things are there 3 and the resultant divorces that won't happen if 4 we don't vote for this bill, those gamblers are 5 going to find a place to gamble and if that's 6 the reason for the divorce, those divorces are 7 going to happen. So to say that those things 8 aren't going to happen if we don't vote for this 9 bill, that's not reality, at least not in the 10 community that I grew up in. 11 In my area, I don't know about a 12 lot of proposals, but I know that the mayor of 13 the city of Buffalo, who I happen to know quite 14 well, had at least one presentation that would 15 give him if he got his casino a tourism piece 16 that would take -- that would fit into downtown 17 Buffalo and fill in an area of somewhat empty 18 buildings now. There's no businesses in them 19 because all the retail has left to the suburbs 20 and probably some of the offices that were 21 located up above, those businesses that are 22 gone, they've located in IDAs and they attract 23 now office buildings because that's the new IDA 24 practice. Let's take the offices out of the 25 cities because they can't have them park for 1 free and we can put surface parking and take 2 those offices in new IDA office buildings - 3 which isn't exactly what I thought that law was 4 for but that's what we're using it for in some 5 communities -- and that would fill in that area 6 and now downtown Buffalo, for example, would 7 have a piece that would fit in in the 8 entertainment package and the tourism package 9 that they present, to fill in what is now empty 10 between the theatre community and the sporting 11 venues. It made a lot of sense to me. The 12 mayor made a big plea and said this is not going 13 to be the economic generator for Buffalo but it 14 would help with the tourism package. 15 Listening to that pitch again 16 today reminded me that I heard it before. The 17 fact that all those woes are still there and 18 hearing people talk about it today in the debate 19 wasn't that they don't believe that those things 20 would get greater. It's just that they believed 21 that -- it seemed to me that I was getting the 22 impression that some of the people believed 23 those things won't happen if we don't pass this 24 bill, and the fact is that in a community like 25 mine where there's a casino just over the 1 border, where the thing is that they ask you, 2 "Where were you born?" "United States." 3 Boom! You're across the border and you're there 4 to gamble, if that's what your intention is. 5 So the fact is those things are 6 going to take place in my community. I can't 7 speak for the people that don't have a casino 8 right within a stone's throw, but I do, and I 9 know that the local harness track does believe 10 and based on numbers that you see in tracks that 11 have slot machines or video display machines, 12 they do help attendance, and I don't think those 13 changes that were mentioned that we should do 14 for the harness industry which were mentioned 15 time and time again in the years I've been here, 16 we've never done those changes to help that 17 industry do better. So to think that that's 18 going to happen now, I think that's a little 19 nuts too. The fact is that this is a way that 20 we could help those harness tracks also. 21 So with all those things in mind 22 and the fact that all that money is going out of 23 Western New York now to Canada, I vote aye. 24 THE PRESIDENT: Continue the slow 25 roll call, please. 1 THE SECRETARY: Senator Stafford. 2 SENATOR STAFFORD: Aye. 3 THE SECRETARY: Senator Stavisky. 4 SENATOR STAVISKY: No. 5 THE SECRETARY: Senator Trunzo. 6 SENATOR TRUNZO: Yes. 7 THE SECRETARY: Senator Tully. 8 SENATOR TULLY: No. 9 THE SECRETARY: Senator Velella. 10 SENATOR VELELLA: (Affirmative 11 indication.) 12 THE SECRETARY: Senator Volker. 13 SENATOR VOLKER: Yes. 14 THE SECRETARY: Senator Waldon. 15 THE PRESIDENT: Senator Waldon. 16 SENATOR WALDON: Madam President, 17 to explain my vote. 18 I had a good experience here 19 today. I truly saw the leadership of this 20 house, both Majority and Minority Leader do what 21 was righteous. Those of us who work in a place 22 like this understand that the Leader can 23 exercise certain power, pressure, but on this 24 issue on both sides of the aisle, it's very 25 apparent from the vote that we were released to 1 vote our conscience. 2 Today I saw in its purest form 3 perhaps since I have been here in these seven 4 years democracy in the Senate and for that, I 5 applaud Joe Bruno. I applaud Marty Connor. I'm 6 privileged to serve in this house. 7 I vote no. 8 THE PRESIDENT: Continue the slow 9 roll call, please. 10 THE SECRETARY: Senator Wright. 11 SENATOR WRIGHT: No. 12 THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary 13 will call the absentees. 14 THE SECRETARY: Senator Hannon. 15 SENATOR HANNON: No. 16 THE SECRETARY: Senator Marchi. 17 SENATOR MARCHI: Aye. 18 THE PRESIDENT: Announce the 19 results, please. 20 THE SECRETARY: Ayes 19, nays 21 41. 22 THE PRESIDENT: The resolution is 23 defeated. 24 Senator Bruno. 25 SENATOR BRUNO: Madam President, 1 I want to thank my colleagues for the dialogue, 2 the discussion, the debate and this chamber has 3 now spoken on this issue and as I had indicated 4 as we opened debate, if this resolution were to 5 fail, it would fail for this legislative 6 session. 7 It's my understanding since this 8 is in the form of a resolution that this vote 9 stays in this chamber for three days and 10 according to the rules of the Senate, during 11 those three days, this can be recalled for 12 reconsideration one time before this issue is 13 truly out of this house. 14 So, Madam President, I move now 15 to reconsider the vote by which Senate 16 Resolution 762 was lost. 17 THE PRESIDENT: A no vote on the 18 motion to reconsider the vote confirms the 19 previous no vote. 20 The Secretary will call the roll 21 on reconsideration. 22 (The Secretary called the roll on 23 reconsideration.) 24 THE SECRETARY: Ayes 60. 25 SENATOR BRUNO: And, Madam 1 President, a no vote on the resolution for 2 reconsideration will kill this motion to 3 reconsider, and I would move that the same vote 4 be taken on reconsideration as was taken on the 5 previous resolution. 6 THE PRESIDENT: Without 7 objection, record the same vote. 8 SENATOR BRUNO: Thank you, Madam 9 President. Thank you. 10 THE PRESIDENT: Senator Bruno, 11 that completes the controversial reading of the 12 calendar. 13 Senator Bruno. 14 SENATOR BRUNO: Madam President, 15 is there another issue to come before the 16 house? 17 THE PRESIDENT: Yes, one more 18 bill. 19 SENATOR BRUNO: Can we take it up 20 at this time, Madam President? 21 THE PRESIDENT: Read the last 22 section, please. 23 SENATOR BRUNO: Thank you. 24 THE PRESIDENT: The Secretary 25 will read. 1 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 2 45, by Senator DeFrancisco, Senate Print 484, an 3 act to amend the Civil Practice Law and Rules, 4 in relation to privileged information. 5 SENATOR LEICHTER: Madam 6 President, if Senator DeFrancisco - 7 THE PRESIDENT: Senator Leichter 8 -- order, please. 9 SENATOR LEICHTER: Senator, I 10 know you and I have been waiting all afternoon 11 to get these housekeeping things out of the way 12 so we could really get to work on something of 13 great interest and significance, like your bill, 14 but in all seriousness, this does raise some - 15 for me at least some troubling issues. 16 What Senator DeFrancisco does is 17 to provide, as I understand it -- you may then 18 wish to correct me -- but as I understand it, 19 provides an exception to the confidentiality 20 that we accord to doctors and other health care 21 professionals in the instance of drug use or 22 alcoholism in civil cases where the issue of the 23 drug use or the alcohol use might be an issue in 24 the case and where a prima facie case has been 25 made that such use, such alcoholism or such drug 1 use occurred, and I'm really trying to under 2 stand why we want to breach that confidentiality 3 in - 4 THE PRESIDENT: Can we have some 5 quiet, please, so we can hear Senator Leichter. 6 SENATOR LEICHTER: -- this 7 particular instance, Senator DeFrancisco. 8 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: What's the 9 need for it? 10 SENATOR LEICHTER: Why are we 11 doing this in this particular instance because 12 -- and I just want to mention, and I think 13 you'll agree with me, the reason that we have 14 this confidentiality is we want people to be 15 free to discourse with their doctors, tell them 16 what their ailments are, their conditions are, 17 their problems are, even their addiction and 18 wouldn't under this bill, somebody goes to his 19 doctor and says, you know, "I'm an alcoholic. 20 Last night I drank two bottles of gin." If that 21 becomes an issue in a lawsuit, that 22 confidentiality now can be breached. The doctor 23 could be forced to testify on that conversation. 24 THE PRESIDENT: Senator 25 DeFrancisco. 1 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: This isn't 2 a bill that would broadly open up records of any 3 individual who was involved in a civil lawsuit. 4 First of all, it relates to a 5 specific civil action and where an issue of 6 whether the individual was intoxicated or acting 7 under the influence of drugs at the time of the 8 act which is the basis of the civil lawsuit. 9 What brought it to my attention 10 is situations where there would be automobile 11 accidents and someone charged with driving while 12 intoxicated would be in a position not to 13 disclose the fact that at the accident he was - 14 a Breathalyzer test was taken at the hospital - 15 not a Breathalyzer but a blood test was taken at 16 the hospital and it's clearly relevant if this 17 act or occurrence -- that whether the person was 18 intoxicated or not to determine negligence or 19 not. So it's not a broad event where since 20 there's an act that a civil lawsuit surrounds - 21 it's dealing with, that all of a sudden all your 22 records are opened up. It's a specific record 23 at the time of the incident which results in a 24 civil action. 25 THE PRESIDENT: Senator Leichter. 1 SENATOR SKELOS: Madam President, 2 if I could just interrupt for a moment. 3 THE PRESIDENT: Senator Skelos. 4 SENATOR SKELOS: Would you please 5 recognize Senator Levy. 6 THE PRESIDENT: Senator Levy. 7 SENATOR LEVY: I apologize to 8 Senator Leichter and Senator DeFrancisco. There 9 will be an immediate meeting of the Senate 10 Transportation Committee in the Senate 11 Republican Conference Room. Excuse me for 12 interrupting. 13 THE PRESIDENT: There will be an 14 immediate meeting of the Transportation 15 Committee in the Senate Conference Room. 16 Continue, Senator Leichter. 17 SENATOR LEICHTER: If Senator 18 DeFrancisco would continue to yield. Wouldn't 19 it be possible to write a bill that provides 20 that the results of a blood test or Breathalyzer 21 would be made available under the circumstances 22 provided in your bill? 23 Your bill, unfortunately, I think 24 is a lot broader. So somebody that goes to a 25 doctor and says, you know, Doctor, I have a real 1 problem with drinking and last night I drank a 2 lot and I was in an accident, and so on, in that 3 instance, as I read that bill, that information 4 could be disclosed, and I just think that we 5 ought to keep in mind the main reason for the 6 privilege, which is that we want people to speak 7 freely to their health provider, to their doctor 8 and since we want them to feel free if they're 9 talking to their priest or to their rabbi. If 10 you limited the bill just to the blood test and 11 the Breathalyzer, I would have no problem, but I 12 think your bill is drafted more broadly than 13 that and that's the difficulty I have. 14 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: I 15 understand, but I think the same rationale would 16 apply, if there's a civil action, someone's 17 charging someone with an assault and seeking 18 damage for injuries, I would think under those 19 circumstances if there was a hospitalization and 20 a determination whether or not the individual 21 was intoxicated at the time would be relevant in 22 that lawsuit as well or whether they were on 23 drugs at the time. So I think it is -- even 24 though it was brought to my attention because of 25 a ruling in the Dillenbeck case, I just think 1 the logic behind it calls for an expanded bill. 2 SENATOR LEICHTER: Thank you. 3 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Is there 4 any other Senator wishing to speak on the bill? 5 (There was no response.) 6 Hearing none, the Secretary will 7 read the last section. 8 THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This 9 act shall take effect immediately. 10 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the 11 roll. 12 (The Secretary called the roll.) 13 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Announce 14 the results when tabulated. 15 THE SECRETARY: Ayes 59, nays 1, 16 Senator Leichter recorded in the negative. 17 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill 18 is passed. 19 Senator Skelos. 20 SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President, 21 if we could return to reports of standing 22 committees, I believe there's a report of the 23 Education Committee at the desk. I ask that it 24 be read. 25 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: We'll 1 return to the order of standing committees. 2 The Secretary will read the 3 reports. 4 THE SECRETARY: Senator Hannon, 5 from the Committee on Health, offers up the 6 following bills: 7 Senate Print 324, by Senator 8 Johnson, an act to amend the Public Health Law 9 and the Penal Law; 10 336, by Senator Skelos, an act to 11 amend the Public Health Law, the Criminal 12 Procedure Law and the Family Court Act; 13 1436, by Senator Hannon, an act 14 to enact the Continuing Care Partnership 15 Demonstration Act of 1997; 16 1437, Hannon, an act to amend the 17 Public Health Law, in relation to disposition of 18 human remains. 19 Senator Cook, from the Committee 20 on Education, offers up the following bills: 21 Senate Print 179, by Senator 22 Skelos, an act to authorize the payment of 23 transportation aid to the Baldwin Union Free 24 School District; 25 305, by Senator Stafford, an act 1 to legalize, ratify and confirm the acts and 2 proceedings of the Board of Education for Bolton 3 Central School District; 4 506, by Senator Marchi, an act to 5 amend the Education Law, in relation to the 6 establishment of a Staten Island Borough School 7 District; 8 731, by Senator Wright, an act to 9 legalize, ratify and confirm the acts and 10 proceedings of the Board of Education of the 11 Mexico Central School District. 12 Senator Seward, from the 13 Committee on Energy, offers up the following 14 bills: Senate Print 375, by Senator Seward, an 15 act to amend the Public Service Law, in relation 16 to removal of telephonic blocks to certain area 17 codes; 18 377, by Senator Seward, an act to 19 amend the Public Service Law, in relation to 20 telephone blocking services; 21 398, by Senator Seward, an act to 22 amend the Public Service Law, in relation to 23 restricting access to telephone messages. 24 Senator Marcellino, from the 25 Committee on Environmental Conservation, offers 1 up the following bills: Senate Print 121, by 2 Senator Stafford, an act to amend the 3 Environmental Conservation Law, in relation to 4 non-hazardous landfill; 5 124, by Senator Stafford, and act 6 to amend the Environmental Conservation Law, in 7 relation to increasing the criminal penalties; 8 1391, by Senator Marcellino, an 9 act to amend the Environmental Conservation Law, 10 in relation to the join-off of water. 11 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 12 Skelos. 13 SENATOR SKELOS: I believe all 14 bills are reported to third reading. 15 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Without 16 objection, all bills will be reported to third 17 reading. 18 We do have the Transportation 19 Committee report. 20 SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President, 21 the Transportation Committee meeting is in Room 22 328. Is there any other housekeeping at the 23 desk? 24 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Nothing 25 else other than accepting the report. 1 SENATOR SKELOS: The Senate will 2 stand at ease pending the report of the 3 Transportation Committee. 4 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The 5 Senate will stand at ease awaiting the report of 6 the Transportation Committee. 7 (Whereupon, the Senate stood at 8 ease from 2:43 p.m. until 2:50 p.m.) 9 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The 10 Senate will come to order. 11 Senator Skelos. 12 SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President, 13 again if we could return to reports of standing 14 committees, I believe there's a report of the 15 Transportation Committee at the desk. I ask 16 that it be read. 17 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: There 18 is. We'll return to the standing order of - 19 reports of standing committees. 20 The Secretary will read the 21 report of the Transportation Committee. 22 THE SECRETARY: Senator Levy, 23 from the Committee on Transportation, offers up 24 the following bills: 25 Senate Print Number 400, by 1 Senator Levy, an act to amend Transportation 2 Law; 3 440, by Senator Goodman, an act 4 to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law, in 5 relation to requiring motor vehicle repair shops 6 to be registered; 7 734, by Senator LaValle, an act 8 to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law, in 9 relation to traffic control signal indicators; 10 918, by Senator Levy, an act to 11 amend the Public Authorities Law, in relation to 12 requiring the Metropolitan Transportation 13 Authority to make public, and; 14 925, by Senator Levy, an act to 15 amend the Transportation Law, in relation to 16 establishing a demonstration program. 17 All bills directly for third 18 reading. 19 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Without 20 objection, all bills are reported directly to 21 third reading. 22 Senator Skelos. 23 SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President, 24 is there any other housekeeping at the desk? 25 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: There's 1 nothing at the desk, Senator Skelos. 2 SENATOR SKELOS: There being no 3 further business, I move we adjourn until 4 Monday, February 3rd, at 3:00 p.m., intervening 5 days to be legislative days. 6 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Without 7 objection, hearing no objection, the Senate 8 stands adjourned until Monday, February 3rd, at 9 3:00 p.m., all intervening days to be 10 legislative days. 11 (Whereupon, at 2:54 p.m., the 12 Senate adjourned.) 13 14 15 16 17 18