Gaveled in 3:51 PM · Albany, New York · 2013–14 session
NEW YORK STATE SENATE
THE STENOGRAPHIC RECORD
ALBANY, NEW YORK
March 6, 2013
3:51 p.m.
REGULAR SESSION
SENATOR DAVID J. VALESKY, Acting President
FRANCIS W. PATIENCE, Secretary
P R O C E E D I N G SACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The Senate will come to order.
I ask everyone present to please rise and recite with me the Pledge of Allegiance.
(Whereupon, the assemblage recited the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.)
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:With us this afternoon to offer an invocation is Apostle Leeds Jean, from True Vine Ministries The Last Resort International, in Brooklyn.
APOSTLE JEAN:Our Father, we give You praise. Our Father, we bless and magnify Your name. Our Father, we invite Your holy presence in this place.
Father God, according to the set order by which we have set for this nation, we pray for each and every person here, each and every family represented here, each and every city and state represented here.
We pray, Father God, and I speak Your peace over each and every member here. I speak Your peace, O God, over every city represented here. And I speak that You, by the spirit of wisdom, by the spirit of knowledge, by the spirit of counsel, You will enable, Father God, each and every member, Father God, that they will do what they need and have to do in this place.
We pray and we thank You, in Jesus' name, amen.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The reading of the Journal.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY:In Senate, Tuesday, March 5th, the Senate met pursuant to adjournment. The Journal of Monday, March 4th, was read and approved. On motion, Senate adjourned.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Without objection, the Journal stands approved as read.
Presentation of petitions.
Messages from the Assembly.
Messages from the Governor.
Reports of standing committees.
Reports of select committees.
Communications and reports from state officers.
Motions and resolutions.
Senator Libous.
SENATOR LIBOUS:Thank you, Mr. President.
I have three motions. And as soon as I put my glasses on, I'd be happy to move forward here.
On behalf of my colleague Senator Marcellino, on page 9 I offer the following amendments to Calendar Number 17, Senate Print 1511, and I ask that the said bill please retain its place on the Third Reading Calendar.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The amendments are received, and the bill will retain its place on the Third Reading Calendar.
SENATOR LIBOUS:Thank you, Mr. President.
On behalf of Senator Maziarz, on page 14 I offer the following amendments to Calendar Number 102, Senate Print 3806A, and ask that said bill retain its place on the Third Reading Calendar.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Those amendments are also received, and the bill will retain its place on the Third Reading Calendar.
Senator Libous.
SENATOR LIBOUS:On behalf of Senator Ball, Mr. President, I move that the following bill be discharged from its respective committee and have it please recommitted with instructions to strike the enacting clause. And that would be Senate Print 2567.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:So ordered.
Senator Libous.
SENATOR LIBOUS:Thank you, Mr. President. Could we hold on one second.
Mr. President, at this time could we have the noncontroversial reading of the calendar, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The Secretary will proceed with the noncontroversial reading of the calendar.
THE SECRETARY:Calendar Number 119, by Senator Fuschillo, Senate Print 759, an act to amend the Penal Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY:Section 6. This act shall take effect on the first of November.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY:Ayes, 59. Nays, 1. Senator Montgomery recorded in the negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY:Calendar Number 120, by Senator Fuschillo, Senate Print 778, an act to amend the Penal Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY:Section 3. This act shall take effect on the first of November.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY:Ayes, 59. Nays, 1. Senator Montgomery recorded in the negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY:Calendar Number 121, by Senator Maziarz, Senate Print 1058, an act to amend the Penal Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY:Section 2. This act shall take effect on the first of November.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY:Ayes, 60.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY:Calendar Number 122, by Senator Marcellino, Senate Print 1498, an act to amend the Penal Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY:Section 2. This act shall take effect on the first of January.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY:Ayes, 60.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY:Calendar Number 123, by Senator Marcellino, Senate Print 1507, an act to amend the Penal Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY:Section 6. This act shall take effect on the first of November.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Announce the results.
THE SECRETARY:In relation to Calendar Number 123, those recorded in the negative are Senators Montgomery and Perkins.
Ayes, 58. Nays, 2.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY:Calendar Number 124, by Senator Grisanti, Senate Print 1590, an act to amend the Penal Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY:Section 3. This act shall take effect on the 180th day.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY:Ayes, 60. Nays, 1. Senator Montgomery recorded in the negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY:Calendar Number 125, by Senator Bonacic, Senate Print 2040, an act to amend the Penal Law.
SENATOR GIANARIS:Lay it aside.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The bill is laid aside.
THE SECRETARY:Calendar Number 126, by Senator Golden, Senate Print 2174, an act to amend the Civil Rights Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY:Section 6. This act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY:Ayes, 60. Nays, 1. Senator Perkins recorded in the negative.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY:Calendar Number 127, by Senator Young, Senate Print 2205, an act to amend the Criminal Procedure Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY:Section 2. This act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY:Ayes, 61.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY:Calendar Number 128, by Senator Klein, Senate Print 2322, an act to amend the Penal Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY:Section 2. This act shall take effect on the 90th day.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY:In relation to Calendar Number 128, those recorded in the negative are Senators Montgomery and Perkins.
Ayes, 59. Nays, 2.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY:Calendar Number 129, by Senator Gallivan, Senate Print 2511, an act to amend the Penal Law.
SENATOR GIANARIS:Lay it aside.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The bill is laid aside.
THE SECRETARY:Calendar Number 133, by Senator Fuschillo, Senate Print 736, an act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY:Section 2. This act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY:Ayes, 61.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY:Calendar Number 135, by Senator Fuschillo, Senate Print 753, an act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY:Section 2. This act shall take effect on the 120th day.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY:Ayes, 61.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY:Calendar Number 139, by Senator Lanza, Senate Print 2455, an act to enact.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY:Section 3. This act shall take effect on the 180th day.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY:Ayes, 61.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY:Calendar Number 141, by Senator Nozzolio, Senate Print 3302, an act to amend the Public Health Law.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY:Section 2. This act shall take effect immediately.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY:Ayes, 61.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY:Calendar Number 142, by Senator Little, Senate Print 3495, an act to authorize certain healthcare professionals.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY:Section 2. This act shall take effect July 24, 2013.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
THE SECRETARY:Ayes, 61.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The bill is passed.
THE SECRETARY:Calendar Number 144, by Senator Griffo, Senate Print 2755, an act to amend Chapter 912 of the Laws of 1920.
SENATOR GIANARIS:Lay it aside.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The bill is laid aside.
Senator Libous, that completes the noncontroversial reading of the calendar.
SENATOR LIBOUS:Thank you, Mr. President.
At this time could we move to the controversial reading of the calendar.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The Secretary will proceed with the reading of the controversial calendar. I ask that the bells be rung and that members come to the chamber so that we may proceed.
The Secretary will place Calendar Number 125 before the Senate.
THE SECRETARY:Calendar Number 125, by Senator Bonacic, Senate Print 2040, an act to amend the Penal Law.
SENATOR SQUADRON:Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Bonacic, an explanation was requested by Senator Squadron.
SENATOR BONACIC:Thank you, Mr. President.
Let me tell you, first of all, what the existing law is. And this legislation is an amendment to the existing law that we wish to pass. It concerns inmates and how they behave in a prison towards correction officers.
And right now it is a crime for an inmate to cause blood, seminal fluid, urine or feces to come into contact with a correction officer who that inmate believes is a correctional officer.
And the purpose of this legislation is an amendment to 240.32 of the Penal Law. And the reason for this coming forward, there was a president of the Orange County PBA by the name of David Estrada, and he said the law has to be clarified, because if there is an intent to place these substances on a correction officer, to intentionally try to spit in his direction, these things are not covered.
And they gave the specific instance where there was a toilet bowl that was emptied on a correction officer, placed on his body. There was no blood, there was no urine, there was no feces. And that was dismissed because the existing legislation did not cover it.
And what we want to do is to clarify that language, that if you spit or you place these substances on a correction officer, then you will be guilty of a crime. And that's what that legislation does.
These correction officers are always in harm's way with the job that they do, and it's another protection that we're trying to put forward to make sure that inmates are discouraged from coming with creative ways to do harmful things without coming under the existing law.
That's the purpose of the legislation.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Squadron.
SENATOR SQUADRON:If the Senator would yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Thank you.
Senator Bonacic, do you yield to a question?
SENATOR BONACIC:Of course.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Bonacic yields.
SENATOR SQUADRON:First of all, I thank the sponsor for his explanation of the bill. And certainly the goal to protect correction officers who are in harm's way day in and day out is a laudable one.
Let me just ask the sponsor, do you need to purposefully have a corrections officer come into contact with saliva in order to be guilty under this bill?
SENATOR BONACIC:Are you saying that the burden is on the correction officer to get in the way of what the inmate is doing? Or does the inmate have the intent to do this to the correction officer?
SENATOR SQUADRON:Is the inmate required to have intent?
SENATOR BONACIC:Yes, he does. The inmate has to have the intent to do this.
SENATOR SQUADRON:And if the sponsor would continue to yield.
SENATOR BONACIC:Yes, I will.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Bonacic yields.
SENATOR SQUADRON:When you say "do this," what do you mean? Can you just describe what "this" is?
SENATOR BONACIC:Senator Squadron, could you speak a little more into the mike and more slowly? I'm not hearing you that well.
SENATOR SQUADRON:Absolutely.
The sponsor in his response to the last question said the inmate would have to have intent to do this. I'm just wondering what "this" is, if the sponsor could just describe "this."
SENATOR BONACIC:If the inmate, let's say, has AIDS and the inmate -- and there's a correction officer that's in the proximity of the inmate. And the inmate spits, intentionally spits at the correction officer. Whether he hits him or not, it's a crime if he intentionally tried to place the spit on the correction officer.
SENATOR SQUADRON:If the sponsor would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Bonacic, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR BONACIC:I do.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The Senator yields.
SENATOR SQUADRON:Thank you.
Just to be clear, because as I read the legislation, there's certainly an intent component here, but the intent is to harass, annoy, threaten or alarm a person, as the chair of Codes and I discussed in a committee meeting last week. I think there are some colleagues who think that I have spoken on the floor occasionally with the intent to annoy, harass, or aggravate a colleague.
SENATOR BONACIC:I would never say that, Danny.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR SQUADRON:I appreciate that.
But the intent, as I read the bill, is not actually on the contact with the saliva, in the case of the first part of the amendment, but actually is the intent to irritate. And then the contact with the saliva could be mistaken; is that correct?
SENATOR BONACIC:When you say "mistaken," I gave the example of a toilet bowl being emptied on a correction officer. There was an intent to harm. But under the legislation, when you try to place something on a correction officer, the language is not clear under our existing legislation. And I'm trying to give more clarity to the definition of what already exists.
And because there was no blood, there was no fetus {sic}, there was no urine in the contents of that fluid, the prosecution could not -- there was no crime against the correction officer. And we're trying to cover those specific situations that go on in a correction facility.
SENATOR SQUADRON:Would the sponsor continue to yield?
SENATOR BONACIC:Yes, I would, of course.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR SQUADRON:And certainly I hear the sponsor. Inadvertent or mistaken contact, causing inadvertent or mistaken contact with the contents of a toilet bowl are one thing. Inadvertent or mistaken contact with saliva, when the only intent is to aggravate or harass, is separate.
So let me just ask -- I understand the example about the toilet bowl. And certainly that seems like a situation that does need to be remedied legislatively. Are there any examples of saliva that have not been able to be dealt with?
SENATOR BONACIC:No, not saliva, because presently it is covered. Let me give you an example. As I said before, the existing law, if I cause blood, seminal fluid, urine or feces -- what you're saying, you're raising the issue specifically of saliva.
Now, normally, if an inmate is spitting, you have to prove that he had an intent to want to spit at the correction officer. Whether he hits him or not is not the crime; the crime was to spit at him. So it's again covering a situation where you're placing a fluid -- in this case, saliva -- on that correction officer. And you know, I guess it can be a communicable disease.
So that's the purpose of this legislation, to give clarity to the existing law. If you ask me how many instances there are where they've been spitting at inmates {sic}, I could not honestly tell you. But I will tell you this, that in 2011 this bill passed this house 59 to 0 and in 2012, February of 2012, it passed 57 to 3. This is the same bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Squadron.
SENATOR SQUADRON:If the sponsor would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Bonacic?
SENATOR BONACIC:I do.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR SQUADRON:I'm not sure that I have more clarity at this point on it. Just to understand, and then I'll speak on the bill. So the final question here.
The sponsor seems to have said that -- and I just want to understand the sponsor's intent -- that this creates a felony if there's the intent to spit at a corrections officer and contact is made, where currently that may or may not be the law, and this is just a clarification. Is that the sponsor's intent?
SENATOR BONACIC:The answer is yes. The key to the criminal activity is the intent to do harm. That's the substance of the crime. And that would be a way of doing it, through saliva. It would be a question of fact whether he truly intended to spit. If he missed, you know, it's a stronger argument that there was not intent to spit on the officer.
But what we're trying to do is discourage conduct that puts our correction officers in harm's way. I gave you the flagrant example of placing the toilet bowl. But any kind of fluid that you would direct with intent towards an officer by placing it on him would be encompassed in this legislation.
There's -- the existing language under the law is not clear, and we're trying to give it more definition. The state correction officers have asked for this legislation, and the police benevolent associations have asked for this legislation.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Squadron.
SENATOR SQUADRON:Thank you. On the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Squadron on the bill.
SENATOR SQUADRON:And I thank the sponsor for answering my questions. And again, you know, the intent here is significant. Certainly the example -- call it the toilet bowl example -- that the sponsor gave seems to be one that does need a legislative fix.
The issue here is that this law vastly expands beyond that to any inadvertent contact with saliva. And I've actually got to tell you, I agree with the sponsor's intent a lot more than the reality of the bill here. If only the intent made the code.
The issue here is you've committed a crime under this statute if you have the intent to harass, annoy, threaten or alarm a person and then there is some contact with saliva. And you've created a felony for someone without any additional requirement at all.
So if someone is being harassing, annoying, threatening, alarming and there's contact with their saliva, even if it's placed -- I notice we also add the word "expectorate," which may or may not exist in the criminal code as it is. But even if it's placed on or inadvertently makes contact with a corrections officer, that is a felony.
That just doesn't make sense and doesn't actually sound consistent with the sponsor's intent. I think the sponsor's intent, the intent of those who support this bill is a laudable one, and I look forward to seeing a bill that I can support, certainly to deal with the example that the sponsor talks about, certainly to deal with any other way in which it's not possible to protect corrections officers right now.
I don't think it's in anyone's interest to create a felony out of spittle in an irritating way. It's just not -- it's not a felony. It doesn't seem to be the sponsor's intent, the sponsor and I agree on that. So I would really urge that we withdraw the bill so we can pass a bill that meets the sponsor's intent, deal with what we can, not have a one-house bill that passes here annually and is not going to become law.
So I would urge my colleagues to vote no on the bill or urge the sponsor to withdraw the bill so that we can see one that actually is going to solve the issue of protecting corrections officers who it seems currently need to be protected with a stronger law, not just a bill that would create a felon out of someone who has a spittle problem.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Thank you, Senator Squadron.
Senator Nozzolio.
SENATOR NOZZOLIO:Mr. President, on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Nozzolio on the bill.
SENATOR NOZZOLIO:Mr. President and my colleagues, I am applauding Senator Bonacic for taking this issue up.
This issue is one that is an issue of workplace safety. It's an issue that we in this house established many years ago a course of conduct that we would not accept in our correctional facilities in this state. The course of conduct was that those brave men and women, those correction officers and other correctional employees who work behind the walls of our prisons, who walk the toughest law enforcement beat in America, who do so under extreme peril, would be protected by the laws of this state.
And the laws of this state, up until a decade ago, were woefully inadequate regarding inmates who use and deploy their bodily fluids as weapons. We're not talking about a dance hall, we're not talking about a playground, we're not talking about an athletic field, we're talking about one of the most dangerous places in America. We're talking about very serious, hardened, violent criminals.
We're addressing this issue under Senator Bonacic's legislation for what purpose? We're trying to protect those brave men and women who serve at tremendous peril each and every day.
Senator Squadron's arguments were raised in committee. I thought they were dispelled in committee. The fact of the matter is this Senate has a choice. The choice is simple. You either protect correction officers and those who work in the most stressful conditions in this state, or you do not. That's the choice you have.
And I thank Senator Bonacic for trying to add to the protections that already exist for -- and the consequences of which have been prosecuted for those who have used other bodily fluids as weapons. There are cases across this state where the intentional use has led to a felony conviction. And believe it or not, that has also led to a reduction in this type of conduct in the first place. It is a deterrent to others who hope to gain advantage to use an attack against COs particularly, but other correctional personnel like nurses, like teachers, like custodial personnel.
Thank you, Senator Bonacic, for this legislation. It will enhance workplace safety in one of the toughest workplace environments that we have in our state today.
Mr. President, I support this legislation and hope it will become law.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Thank you, Senator Nozzolio.
Senator Hoylman.
SENATOR HOYLMAN:Mr. President, on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Hoylman on the bill.
SENATOR HOYLMAN:I wanted to make clear that I believe that the kernel of this bill is actually based in a profound misunderstanding as to how HIV and AIDS is transmitted.
You heard the sponsor say that one of the concerns was that if an inmate spits AIDS, could be transmitted. Well, the fact of the matter is, Mr. President, AIDS and HIV is not transmitted by casual contact, which includes an individual spitting on another individual.
In fact, I'll read for you the New York State Department of Health regulations, Section 6310: "Circumstances that involve significant risk shall not include exposure to urine, feces, sputum, nasal secretions and saliva."
Mr. President, this bill is addressing a problem that does not exist in the reality of science or health, and I oppose this bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Thank you, Senator Hoylman.
Senator Bonacic to close the debate.
SENATOR BONACIC:Just on the bill.
The existing law does not make it a crime to do an unintentional act. That's point number one. Okay?
What we are trying to do here is to say that any intentional act to injure, harass, or aggravate a correction officer has to be protected and that conduct has to be discouraged by an inmate. That's the purpose of this legislation.
So Senator Squadron and I focused a lot in our discussions, and I kept saying intent, intent, intent. It was obvious with the toilet bowl. That was an outrageous act that you could relate to.
And the spitting maybe -- some Senators say it's not as outrageous and maybe it shouldn't fall into that category. That's what I'm sensing from the discussions. But I want to make it clear. Existing law, unintentional act is not a crime, no matter what the activity is or what may or may happen between an inmate and a correction officer.
But if it's an intentional act, whether it's spitting, fetus {sic}, urine, throwing a toilet bowl at him or everything in it, we want to make that a crime.
Thank you, Mr. President. I vote yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Thank you, Senator Bonacic.
Seeing no other Senator who wishes to be heard, the debate is closed. The Secretary will ring the bells. All Senators should proceed immediately to the chamber so that we may move forward with the roll call.
The Secretary will read the last section.
THE SECRETARY:Section 2. This act shall take effect on the first of November.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Announce the results.
THE SECRETARY:In relation to Calendar Number 125, those recorded in the negative are Senators Hoylman, Krueger, Montgomery, Sanders and Squadron.
Absent from voting: Senator Adams.
Ayes, 56. Nays, 5.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The bill is passed.
SENATOR LIBOUS:Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Libous.
SENATOR LIBOUS:Before we continue the reading of the controversial calendar, I would ask all members that we have two more bills to do today. We need you to be in your seats to vote on those bills. I would ask that if you have business, keep it directly outside the chamber, because we all would like to move the process along and we want to be fair to all of the colleagues here.
And we understand that there are meetings and things going on because of negotiations. Please let your respective staff people know exactly where you're going to be, because we will move along without you if, after a reasonable amount of time, you are not present.
Thank you, Mr. President. If we could continue with the calendar.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Thank you, Senator Libous.
The Secretary will place Calendar Number 129 before the Senate.
THE SECRETARY:Calendar Number 129, by Senator Gallivan, Senate Print 2511, an act to amend the Penal Law.
SENATOR KRUEGER:Explanation.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Gallivan.
SENATOR GALLIVAN:Thank you, Mr. President.
This bill is known as the Trafficking Victims Protection and Justice Act. It came about as a result of a group of advocates, along with prosecutors who work with sex trafficking victims, who came to us, identified some problem areas specifically in helping victims in trying to work to shut down sex trafficking.
And essentially what it does, it amends a number of laws in an effort to increase the accountability and penalties for traffickers and those that are patronizing those that are victims of this, and conforms the ages of victims in certain prostitution offenses to the ages of victims in the rape offenses in order to protect more children who are victims.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Thank you, Senator Gallivan.
Senator Krueger.
SENATOR KRUEGER:Thank you, Mr. President. If through you the sponsor would yield, please.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Gallivan, do you yield?
SENATOR GALLIVAN:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR KRUEGER:Thank you.
I don't have objections to what's in this bill. My concern is why it's missing two sections that were actually in Senator Lanza's bill.
So the first section that's in Senator Lanza's bill but is not here -- and otherwise they're pretty parallel bills, Mr. President -- would be the Section 6 in Senator Lanza's bill, S2135, which is a same-as with Assemblywoman Paulin.
There was a section that the defendant's participation in the offense was a result of having been a victim of sex trafficking under Section 230.34 of the Penal Law, or a victim of trafficking under the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, that that would be an affirmative defense for not being found guilty of prostitution.
And then Section 25, which again is in Senator Lanza's bill but is not in Senator Gallivan's bill, which would amend the Criminal Procedure Law to amend the section heading and to add -- oh, I don't need to go through all the technical, but that would allow, if brought for arraignment upon information, simplified information or misdemeanor complaint charging such an offense on the trafficked woman who's picked up in this prostitution, that this case could be brought to the Family Court and removed from the Criminal Court.
So it's a very long question, but my question is for Senator Gallivan, why are we not supporting the more complete bill that we actually have in this house through Senator Lanza's bill?
SENATOR GALLIVAN:Through you, Mr. President. I am not familiar with the provisions of Senator Lanza's bill, as it's not before us.
This particular bill was passed in exactly the form that it is in now last year, unanimously, by Senator Saland. As Senator Saland is no longer with us and this is a bill that I strongly support, I took it up and now ask my colleagues for their support as well.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Krueger.
SENATOR KRUEGER:Thank you.
Through you, Mr. President, would Senator Lanza yield for a question?
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Lanza, do you yield to Senator Krueger?
SENATOR LANZA:No, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Krueger, Senator Lanza does not yield.
SENATOR KRUEGER:Oh, I'm very sorry.
On the bill, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Krueger on the legislation.
SENATOR KRUEGER:Thank you.
As I am pointing out, I have no objection to Senator Gallivan's bill and I'm encouraging my colleagues to vote for this bill. But -- and he's justified in explaining his bill is before the floor.
His bill doesn't have a same-as in the Assembly. Senator Lanza's bill does have a same-as in the Assembly. So if Senator Lanza had risen, all I was going to ask him was would he bring his bill to the floor because in fact we would then have a same-as passing in both houses and it would be a more complete version of what the advocates have been asking us to do in this house for many years.
So I am certainly happy to vote for this bill today but disappointed that we're not voting on Senator Lanza's more complete bill, because I believe that one of the important lessons from human trafficking is that we need to do everything we can to prevent it from happening but we also have to make sure that our laws do not either demonize or continue to have the penalties on young people who are being exploited by human trafficking by being forced into a life of sexual prostitution.
So I strongly urge this house to rush to bring Senator Lanza's bill to the floor as soon as possible, and then perhaps we can accomplish all our goals through a two-house same-as bill.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Thank you, Senator Krueger.
Senator Gallivan.
SENATOR GALLIVAN:There currently is not -- through you, Mr. President -- a same-as bill. I'm working with several members of the Assembly who indicated support, they would bring this forward.
I would urge, because of this issue, that we pass this, that we try to stop the scourge of human sex trafficking as soon as possible. If we need to do more, we can be working at the same time to do more. And I certainly would look forward to working with my colleague Senator Lanza in advancing further measures.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Thank you, Senator Gallivan.
Seeing no other Senators who wish to speak, the debate is closed.
The Secretary will ring the bell. Senators are urged to come to the chamber so we may move forward with the roll call.
Read the last section.
THE SECRETARY:Section 35. This act shall take effect on the 90th day.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Montgomery to explain her vote.
SENATOR MONTGOMERY:Yes, Mr. President. Thank you.
I'm going to -- obviously we all have a great interest in dealing with the whole issue of sex trafficking. And I believe, knowing that Senator Lanza does have a bill, I would prefer to be able to vote on that bill because it does do what we would like to see done.
And since it's not before us and this is a one-house bill, I'm going to vote no. And I certainly hope that I will have an opportunity to vote for Senator Lanza's bill very shortly.
Thank you. I'm voting no.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Montgomery to be recorded in the negative.
Announce the results.
THE SECRETARY:In relation to Calendar Number 129, those recorded in the negative are Senators Montgomery and Perkins.
Absent from voting: Senator Adams.
Ayes, 59. Nays, 2.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The bill is passed.
The Secretary will read.
THE SECRETARY:Calendar Number 144, by Senator Griffo, Senate Print 2755, an act to amend Chapter 912 of the Laws of 1920.
SENATOR KRUEGER:Explanation.
SENATOR LIBOUS:Mr. President, before you bring the bill up, if I could ask for some order in the chamber. We have a very important debate coming up, and I know there's a lot of folks here today and there's a lot going on, but I do want to hear the debate. I'm sure there will be questions of Senator Griffo, and I'm anxious to hear how he's going to answer them.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Thank you, Senator Libous. Point well-taken.
We ask that the noise be kept to a minimum.
Senator Griffo, Senator Krueger has asked for an explanation.
SENATOR GRIFFO:Thank you, Mr. President.
I'm going to be succinct in my explanation and be available for questions. This bill has come before this house now -- this is the fourth time which we have considered and passed the bill.
Essentially the purpose of this bill is to authorize the New York State Athletic Commission, at their discretion and at their direction, to add the mixed martial arts to a list of combat sports that may be held in New York State through matches and exhibitions in New York.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Krueger.
SENATOR KRUEGER:Thank you, Mr. President.
I appreciate the sponsor's explanation. And he's right, I do have some questions of him, if he doesn't mind.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Griffo, do you yield?
SENATOR GRIFFO:Certainly.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR KRUEGER:Thank you.
So my understanding of mixed martial arts, also called caged fighting or ultimate fighting, which is a hybrid of traditional and nontraditional fight maneuvers, explicitly allows for punches and elbows to a grounded opponent, meaning an opponent who's already fallen to the ground.
If your bill passed, would that be allowed to happen in fights that took place in New York State?
SENATOR GRIFFO:Mr. President, through you.
Senator Krueger, the mixed martial arts have very specific rules and regulations which govern the competition, much similar to what we experience in professional boxing right now relative to weight classes, relative to time limits on rounds, with medical professionals on-site doing examinations prior, during and after the competition.
So there are certain rules allowed. This is the mixed martial arts, which means there's a combination of grappling, boxing, jujitsu. And everything that is entailed in those aspects of sport would be allowed under the rules.
But again, I want to emphasize, when you talk about specifics and what may be germane to this sport, that there are very stringent regulations on what is done in the competition, in the same manner that we witness wrestling and boxing matches and bouts.
SENATOR KRUEGER:Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Griffo?
SENATOR GRIFFO:Sure.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR KRUEGER:Thank you.
Well, you're absolutely right, there are standards that are applied to other professional sports. But I actually don't think in boxing or wrestling you are allowed to punch or elbow a grounded opponent, which was why I was asking about whether your bill would allow this to take place with mixed martial arts here in this state.
So to further my questions, my understanding is that mixed martial arts has a disproportionate amount of injuries with lacerations to the -- facial lacerations the most common injury, accounting for nearly half of all injuries, followed by hand lacerations, followed by nose lacerations, followed by eye lacerations.
If your bill became the law in New York State, would caged fighting include blows to the face, hands, feet, knees and elbows without any kind of padding worn by the fighters as it is in boxing, and would it allow punches and kicks to the head?
SENATOR GRIFFO:Mr. President, through you.
Senator Krueger, first of all, I guess you can refer to it a number of different ways, but if we're going to be accurate, this is the mixed martial arts. So to call it something different is just a matter of personal opinion. And while I respect that, I think for the sake of accuracy what we're talking about is a sport known as the mixed martial arts.
There are different brands to the sport with names such as the Ultimate Fighting Championship, but we are dealing with this specific issue and with this particular bill on the sport of the mixed martial arts. Which is now allowed in 48 states across this country.
Along with that, there are rules and regulations which allow for certain activity in the match or the exhibition, which include a number of things, as I indicated earlier: Grappling moves, boxing technique.
So some of the things that you describe from a jab or an uppercut or a takedown, all these things are part of the sports that I have indicated to you priorly, part of wrestling or boxing. Some are jujitsu. It's all combined together. And so as a result of that, whatever is allowed in those specific sports are now combined under the mixed martial arts and therefore a part of the competition.
What I want to state, though, Senator Krueger, is that you are inaccurate as far as what you are indicating relative to injuries. As I've said before, this sport obviously has really evolved since its inception. And there are very stringent rules and regulations and a number of measures put in place to ensure not only the safety of the participants but also of the spectators that come to see this sport.
And it is a sport which is growing significantly in fan base across this nation. Not only can you now view this particular sport on cable or pay-per-view, but also on network television.
So relative to safety rules, some of the things there are not -- for instance, to give you what cannot be done, you are not allowed strikes to the back of the head. There are no small joint manipulations allowed. There are no groin strikes allowed. There's no hair pulling or head butting allowed. There are no kicks to the head of a downed opponent. So there are a number of things that are not allowed in order to ensure the safety of those fighters.
And what we're doing in this bill is to allow the State Athletic Commission, which supports this bill -- Commissioner Melvina Lathan has been a strong supporter of allowing the sport here in the State of New York. And they would have the opportunity, if they believe that something different also should be taken into consideration and implemented, because of a concern for safety in any way, this authorizes them, as I indicated in my explanation of the bill, to incorporate whatever provisions or additional regulations that they feel are necessary and appropriate to ensure safety.
SENATOR KRUEGER:Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Griffo?
SENATOR GRIFFO:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR KRUEGER:Could Senator Griffo tell me what other professional sports other than MMA --
SENATOR GRIFFO:Thank you.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR KRUEGER:-- allow a flurry of strikes to a grounded opponent known as a "ground and pound"?
SENATOR GRIFFO:Well, I -- Mr. President, through you. Senator Krueger, I guess there's a number of techniques in a number of sports. And "ground and pound" is a terminology used in the mixed martial arts as part of what has developed in this particular sport.
There may be similar moves -- and I was not a wrestler or involved in that, but I know there are different grappling techniques that could be utilized and takedowns and things that -- and half nelsons, full nelsons. So there are things that exercised and utilized in professional sport, whether it be wrestling or boxing, that are also in that particular sport allowed. So something may be a little more unique to this sport but similar to what is taking place in other sport.
Because again, as I indicated prior, the concept of the mixed martial arts is a combination of a variety of sport.
SENATOR KRUEGER:Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Griffo, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR GRIFFO:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR KRUEGER:Thank you.
Yes, I understand it's a combination of a number of sports, but I actually don't find other sports that allow the ground and pound as an approvable activity.
But does MMA -- if we pass your bill, will the fighters here in New York State be allowed to use the chokehold, also known as the submission hold? Which according to websites for the sport, the chokehold occurs when pressure is applied to the neck in an attempt to cut off blood flow to the brain.
Can you tell me what other sports that we have legally participating in in New York State where you are allowed to and it is even described as a chokehold, attempting to cut off blood flow to the brain? Because I distinctly remember passing a law in here that doing that outside of a ring was actually against the law. So your bill would allow that to take place in the ring?
SENATOR GRIFFO:Mr. President, through you. Again, Senator Krueger, let me reiterate that there are various aspects to the sport. For instance, in professional boxing you're not allowed to have a takedown and yet in wrestling you are allowed to have a takedown.
So in this particular sport, by combining boxing, wrestling, jujitsu, muay thai, some elements of kickboxing, you have a number of these things which now take place where individually they are in a sport; now you see this collectively.
So there are specific aspects that are allowed in each of those particular sports, but the risk of injury is actually less severe in this sport because -- for instance, in professional boxing you are dealing with a knockout or technical knockout, which you referred to here in a hold where someone may get someone in a grappling hold where they can tap out, or it's a submission. As you call it, a submission. It is submission, where they can actually tap out and not continue to fight.
You don't have that opportunity unless you throw the towel in in professional boxing, for instance, where you would have somebody have to throw the towel in in order to stop a fight.
Or a doctor at any point in time can prevent a fight if they believe that there is a risk of injury or that it is a situation that requires their attention. This is the important aspect of this right now, that any medical professional who are at ringside can stop any fight at any time for a reason that they feel poses a danger to the combatant.
SENATOR KRUEGER:Through you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Krueger.
SENATOR KRUEGER:Like in the crime of choking someone until they pass out? Fighters, if they have passed out, can't tap out because they've passed out from being choked and having the blood cut off.
And again, I don't believe Senator Griffo answered my question what other professional sports allow a chokehold where pressure is applied to the neck in an attempt to cut off the blood flow to the brain.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Krueger, are you speaking on the bill or would you like Senator --
SENATOR KRUEGER:No, I'm just pointing out that I believe his answer was no, he didn't know of other sports that allow that.
Let's talk about -- if through you, Mr. President, the sponsor will continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Griffo, do you continue to yield?
SENATOR GRIFFO:I do.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR GRIFFO:I would like to add, before I yield, Senator Krueger, that I made an effort to try to provide you information. It may not be satisfactory to what you want, but I don't have a list of each of the activities that are allowed under the particular sports that I discussed that are a part of the mixed martial arts.
Beyond that, I also said to you that if there is any danger posed to the athlete at any time in the manner in which you describe -- which I believe would require a physician's attention -- they would not allow that. So to surmise or to indicate that they would allow significant risk or injury as you have described it, I think is inaccurate and really would not be allowed by the professionals, by the rules and regulations not only that exist but by the professionals who are at ringside, medical professionals particularly.
SENATOR KRUEGER:Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Griffo.
SENATOR GRIFFO:Sure.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR KRUEGER:So as I was reading about the sport and some of the stars of the sport, there seems to be a disproportionate and I find disturbing theme of neo-Nazi messaging -- tattoos, statements referencing the Nazis and skinheads supporting the killing of Jews. How are we going to make sure that's not happening in our state?
SENATOR GRIFFO:Mr. President, through you. Senator Krueger, with all due respect, I would hope that -- and that's why, again, we are trying to ensure through this bill that the State Athletic Commission has the responsibility and the authorization for all oversight, monitoring and regulation of the sport here in the state. And I am sure that there would be no one that would allow such activity or imagery to be portrayed.
Now, to the best of my knowledge, I have not seen such as you have described, nor has anybody in any way indicated that such activity exists.
When you discuss the tattoos, I think we're looking at a culture and society of the 21st century where, whether we agree with it or not, you see a lot of people with tattoos, you see a lot of body piercing right now. I personally don't agree with a lot of that, but I know that it seems to be a generational issue.
And, Senator Rivera, do you have a tattoo?
(Laughter.)
SENATOR GRIFFO:I'm sorry.
So my point is I think some of this as far as the look of the athlete, I think it may be also a reflection of contemporary times, whether we agree or disagree with that, relative to tattoos. But I know of no way that the sport, the league, or any governmental entity would allow or tolerate any type of activity, insinuation, or discriminatory practices against anyone.
SENATOR KRUEGER:Thank you. I'm glad to hear the Senator feels that way. I do too.
Unfortunately, there are fighters with the tattoos of Nazis, swastikas, the number 88, used by neo-Nazis as shorthand for "Heil Hitler," and they are competing in the other states that have allowed mixed martial arts.
So I'm hoping that the Senator would agree with me that if I were to perhaps lose this debate today and it became the law of New York State, we wouldn't allow this type of messaging through advertising, clothing, outfits worn during mixed martial arts. And I guess it would be a little hard to tell them to remove their tattoos. Perhaps we could make them cover their tattoos when they were fighting in New York State.
If through you, Mr. President, the sponsor would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Griffo.
SENATOR GRIFFO:I will.
And I will say this to Senator Krueger, that that's a very salient point. I think that's why I believe and trust that the State Athletic Commission, given that responsibility and authority, would ensure that what we both agree to, and I think all the members would agree to, would be adhered to.
SENATOR KRUEGER:Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
SENATOR GRIFFO:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR KRUEGER:So as I read about the standards in other states for the sport of mixed martial arts -- and you say we should call it mixed martial arts, but I think we will both agree there are a number of different entities that oversee this activity, and UFC is the largest promoter, and then there are several others.
The drug standards for testing that they are using in several states are only about half of the standards that we use for professional sports here in New York. Does your bill allow them to continue to follow their own standards of drug testing and what is acceptable levels of steroids and I guess the proportion of drug found in the bloodstream? Because apparently in several states it's double the level that we would allow here in New York. So will they be following the standards we set for drug testing?
SENATOR GRIFFO:It is my understanding that, again, in accordance with the essence of the bill, which essentially authorizes and empowers the State Athletic Commission to set regulations and standards that they believe necessary, I would say that in this particular instance we would be able to do what the State Athletic Commission deems appropriate, responsible, and reasonable.
SENATOR KRUEGER:Thank you.
Through you, Mr. President, if the sponsor would continue to yield.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Griffo.
SENATOR GRIFFO:Yes.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The sponsor yields.
SENATOR KRUEGER:Thank you.
Senator, in your development of this bill that's been out there for several years, as you point out, and has even passed in this house, have you done any research into the correlation of children's exposure to violence, their behavior as young adults and as adults, and the correlation to watching both violent sports and violent video games?
SENATOR GRIFFO:Mr. President, through you. Senator Krueger, I have not had the opportunity to do any extensive research in that regard.
But I believe that same research was important before we were able to act on the New York SAFE Act, because many of the issues of concern there were not only the issue of guns but also mental health and society and video games and violence. So I do not have anything specific, but I would be very interested in having the opportunity to access any of that information if you have that and provide it to me.
I also want to add on something that you had asked earlier about any other sport. It is my understanding that Olympic judo does allow certain type of chokeholds, as you describe them, too.
SENATOR KRUEGER:Thank you.
Mr. President, on the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Krueger on the bill.
SENATOR KRUEGER:It's no surprise to this house that I continue to oppose this bill. What I think is a surprise is how we are learning more because this has in fact been spreading throughout the country. And we are seeing that it's being particularly marketed to children. And we are seeing more and more research about the long-term impact of violent sports even when they don't call themselves violent.
We've all -- well, I don't know if we all support it, but most of us supported a bill to address proper headgear to try to decrease the rate of concussions of football players. There have been proposals for various safety equipment in other sporting activities from skiing to biking. There's more and more medical research coming out about the long-term dangers of certain contact sports.
And there's more and more research coming out about the impact of exposure to extreme violence on the development of children -- not just the psychological development, but actually the way their brains development. And in fact the U.S. Department Of Justice Juvenile Justice Division has done a study on children's exposure to violence. The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatrists have done several, the American Psychological Association. The Europeans are actually farther ahead of us as to their research on the influence of exposure to violence on the development of children, how they behave towards either other and their behavior patterns as they become adults.
I know children can watch these sports on TV, it doesn't have to take place live in our state. But I also know that as this sport is being advertised and marketed in the rest of this country and the world, its clear message is a message of violence. No rules apply. Fight to the death. You get some blood on you, even better.
And it's different than other martial arts. And it's different than boxing and wrestling. In fact, almost all other martial arts have as the standard that it's not violence. You're not supposed to be hurting the other person, you're just supposed to be a more accomplished athlete in that martial art.
And boxing has very explicit standards, particularly for young people, of what kind of equipment has to be to be worn on their heads and their hands. And wrestling, apparently there's a debate whether it's a sport or not, because the Olympics is throwing it out. But apparently it was very popular at the Times Union Center last night and tonight, with a lot of children going. Which disturbed me also, frankly.
But what most disturbs me is we're not looking carefully enough at the impact of all this violence, both physical violence and the impact on psychological development and the development of young brains. And I don't think New York State wants to expand on that. I don't think we want to say, Oh, we're so fine with this that we're going to legalize it here.
I can't make it illegal other places. But I can try to stop it from becoming legal here. There are many organizations and religious leaders who have sent us memos urging us to vote no. At least so far, our colleagues in the Assembly have not seen fit to pass this. Maybe they will. If it becomes law, I think it is crucial to have much stronger regulations than they have in other states.
But frankly, for people who are parents, people who care about children, people who worry about the level of violence in our playgrounds and on our streets and the correlation between the lessons we teach young people and what happens in our adult society, I don't think we want this sport here.
I'll be voting no, Mr. President. Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Thank you, Senator Krueger.
Senator Parker.
SENATOR PARKER:Thank you, Mr. President. On the bill.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Parker on the bill.
SENATOR PARKER:I rise in support of this bill. Let me thank Senator Griffo for all his hard work and his leadership in bringing this forward. As we have debated in the past, this was actually once my bill. And so, you know, I continue to support it. I think it's a good thing for the state.
I think there's actually two kind of main arguments for why we ought to do this. And the first I think is the idea of competition. As we start talking about violence and we talk about the tale of two cities that we're dealing with in terms of violence in our communities, we have Newtown and Aurora, but we also have Brooklyn and Harlem and the Bronx and Washington Heights.
And so we know what happens in those communities. And the context for the violence that we're seeing in those communities is really about young people who are unengaged. They're not engaged in school because we refuse to have music, art, athletics and dance as regular parts of the curriculum. We don't have enough after-school programs. We've gotten rid of junior varsity programs and many of the varsity programs at our schools.
Many of our schools right now don't even have gyms in them. And then we wonder why we have obesity, and we want to blame soda. We've had Coke for 60 years and we've gotten rid of gym for 10 years and we wonder why for over 10 years we now have obesity. It's easy to kind of figure out if we look at the right things.
This gives us an opportunity to add another dimension to the kinds of activities that young people are engaged in. And the reality is that this is something that is frankly safer than most of the sports that we think of as traditional sports. This sport is far safer than hockey, than baseball, than boxing. It is even safer than soccer -- and being a soccer mom is, you know, is an icon in our community now.
In fact, there were 79 soccer-related deaths between 1990 and 2003. And we had 300 deaths in football within that same period. And you compare this to two deaths worldwide in MMA, and only one of them actually being in a sanctioned fight.
I've heard lots today about the kind of activities that happen inside of the octagon. And a lot of times, you know, we use big words like laceration. A laceration is a cut. Anybody here ever got cut here before? A cut is a cut. I mean, you know, and people get cut it. It happens. And in other sports, people get cut. In baseball and football and wrestling, people get cut in those sports too. And they get cut sometimes on their face and other parts of their body. Let's not be confused by the word "laceration" and think that it's something more serious than people getting cut.
What you want to pay attention to are long-term injuries, things like broken bones. You want to pay attention to deaths, obviously. And you want to pay attention to concussions. There are far fewer concussions in MMA than you find in sports like boxing, exponentially more concussions in things like football.
And so when we start talking about, you know, submissions -- and the reason why there are far less concussions is that in fact that most bouts are actually decided by submissions. Many of those submissions are not necessarily chokeholds, some of which are in fact submissions because of manipulating of joints -- arms, legs, those kind of things.
And in fact there is regulations around what you can do and how you can apply those techniques. And remember that the men and women who engage in this sport are actually professionals, they actually do this for a living. And there is in fact a referee involved who is paying attention and watching and focusing on the action and knows when to stop it. And so injuries have happened much less in these sports than others because this sport has grown up paying attention to those kind of injuries, and so we've seen a lot less.
So from a safety perspective of just the athletes that are engaged in MMA, these athletes are frankly in better condition than in most sports, and they're also monitored a lot better.
But if we're concerned, as Senator Krueger has indicated about, you know, drug testing, about the kind of padding, the kind of messages we're sending, this bill allows our Athletic Commission to set rules on those things. And as legislators we obviously have an ability to regulate it.
Now, 47 states already allow MMA. Right? So we're not stopping the activity by voting it down today. Right? It already exists. It's on television. There's probably a bout on somewhere right now. Actually what we like to say in my office is that "Somewhere in the world, MMA is happening." Right?
So this sport is happening all over the place except in New York State. And so that leads me to my second point, Mr. President, which is that we are denying ourselves a significant amount of revenue because of this. I mean, there's tons of revenue to be generated because of this sport.
According to an economic impact study commissioned by the Ultimate Fighting Championship in 2008, MMA's leading organization, an event in upstate New York would generate an estimated $11.5 million in economic activity and $400,000 in tax revenue in New York City. It's estimated to generate $5.3 million of economic activity just in Buffalo. That's per event.
Now, I already talked to Tim Kennedy, and I think he already has some of that money spent.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR PARKER:So there is lots of opportunities here -- right? And this is with the market just being raw. This is just to begin with.
There's lots of opportunity here to bringing a sport that already exists in 47 states, that's already been televised. And we simply would be legalizing it and regulating it in a way that's set to the standards and the protocols that we think are appropriate here in the State of New York.
And so I ask my colleagues to make a common-sense vote here to vote to make mixed martial arts legal in the State of New York. Let's in fact then start beginning quickly some conversations about what safety looks like, about codes of conduct, about padding and all the other things that we are concerned about. And, you know, do the right thing by the municipalities across the state that will benefit from having this. Let's talk about what's going to benefit our communities, particularly those urban communities that are looking for more activities for our young people to be engaged in, to legalize something like to this to give our young people something else to be engaged in.
Lastly, I hear a lot of people talking about, you know, violence in our society. And I certainly, you know, stand with you in terms of opposing that. But then, you know, let's in fact start, you know, having a campaign. And I haven't seen this campaign yet in the four or five years we've been talking about this, anyone start the campaign to start talking about the violent stuff we see on television, in movies. I haven't seen a letter, I haven't seen a resolution, I haven't seen a commission, I haven't seen a public forum, I haven't even had a conversation in the lounge with anybody who says that they're opposing, you know, a movie that came out that had a lot of violence or a television show that had a lot of violence or, I don't know, the evening news that shows wars and body parts and all kinds of things.
Violence is part of what we experience in our societies, and maybe too much. And I certainly could agree with that. But if that's the case, then let's look at it in its totality and let's address it in its totality. Let's not have situational ethics in which we pick and choose this one little narrow area and all of a sudden become ethical because, you know, we don't like -- it's not our taste.
I'm not saying that a vote on this bill means that you have to run out and go to an MMA match. Right? But I certainly have not seen anyone with the same kind of fervor talking about banning hockey or banning soccer because people have gotten hurt or banning boxing or wrestling or any other sports where athletes are involved in combat.
And so I hope that we in fact get to that conversation and start addressing video games and television shows and movies. But in the meantime, let's allow MMA to be here, let's regulate it, and let's work together to make it a safe and profitable sport for the State of New York.
Thank you, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Thank you, Senator Parker.
Senator Hoylman.
SENATOR HOYLMAN:Mr. President, I rise to let my colleagues know of my objections --
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Hoylman on the bill.
SENATOR HOYLMAN:On the bill, yes, sir.
I wanted to rise to let my colleagues know my objections to the bill legalizing the sport which we have euphemistically called mixed martial arts, a sport which I think many of us know participants punch, kick, knee, elbow, wrestle and choke their opponents to submission. And that was referred, apparently without any irony, to the Senate Cultural Affairs Committee.
Now, mixed martial arts was dubbed by Senator John McCain as "the human equivalent of cockfighting." Now, based on some of the economic benefits you hear around this chamber today, you might call it the human equivalent of hydrofracking.
(Laughter.)
SENATOR HOYLMAN:And there are a multitude of arguments that we've heard today and I'll hopefully hear from some of our other colleagues on why we as a legislative body should not sanction or glorify its violence, especially given the impact that it will have on children. And as a father of a two-year-old, I weigh these arguments very heavily.
But instead of focusing on the health and the well-being of our society, I wanted to take a few minutes to discuss the impact of mixed martial arts on the health and well-being of the participants, the fighters.
Mixed martial arts. Along with boxing, stands apart from every other sanctioned sport because its aim is to cause physical harm and injury to an opponent until they are unable to continue. His goal is to knock his opponent unconscious, which has been shown in numerous medical studies to result in acute brain damage.
Now, most of our internal organs are protected by bone or fat, skin, well-developed muscle. But the soft tissue of the brain is protected only by the thin-covered skull and three very thin membranes. In addition to these membranes, the brain is suspended in cerebrospinal fluid. Even with this protection, the brain can become bruised when the head is jarred or shaken.
Now, when a fighter sustains a direct blow to the head, the head rotates sharply, then returns to its normal position at a much slower speed. In addition, the different densities of the various parts of the brain also move at different rates, and the overall result, according to physicians, is a swirling effect inside the brain.
The resulting tissue trauma includes damage from the brain hitting the inner surface of the skull. This can be at the site of impact, where the brain moves within the skull and impacts the opposite side to the blow, ricocheting. Tears to the nerve networks between the brain hemispheres, tension between the brain tissue and blood vessels may cause lesions and bleeding. Pressure waves could be created, causing differences in blood pressure to various parts of parts of the brain and blood clots.
Now, the immediate effects of blows to the head include grogginess, weakness, paralysis, weakening of limbs, inability to focus, and possible loss of consciousness.
But I'm concerned about the long-term effects of mixed martial arts on the brains of fighters. They are cumulative and may not show immediately after a match. So any physician who is on-call to monitor an MMA match will not have the opportunity to evaluate fighters in the long term. Most signs of damage are likely to appear toward the end of a fighter's career or even after retirement. As one observer has put it, the damage accumulates like interest on a savings account.
According to medical experts, including the British Medical Association, fighters are more likely to suffer conditions such as dementia, Alzheimer's -- which I think many of us know Muhammad Ali suffers from -- and Parkinson's.
Even in contact sports where head injuries are less likely to occur than mixed martial arts, we have seen the health impact of repeated chronic brain injuries. A class action lawsuit was filed just last year by more than 4,000 NFL players and their wives accusing the NFL of hiding information that linked football-related head trauma to permanent brain injury. Among the illnesses cited were dementia and Alzheimer's disease. The suit accuses the NFL of mythologizing and glorifying violence through the media. Sound familiar? The plaintiffs hope to hold the NFL responsible for the care of players suffering from those health problems.
Is this the future that we're sanctioning today for mixed martial arts fighters? Well, it might be, except for one difference. There are no labor protections for fighters in mixed martial arts as there are currently for players in the NFL.
Now, there is currently a bill in California that would establish protections for MMA fighters like those enjoyed by professional boxers through the federal Muhammad Ali Boxing Reform Act of 2000, which protects boxers from unscrupulous promoters and sanctioning bodies from things like contracts that automatically renew or extend without good faith negotiations and the appropriation of fighters' personal images and likeness in perpetuity.
But even with those protections, Mr. President, none of which are included in the bill before us today, fighters still will not be able to bargain for things like health insurance and pensions. These won't happen until they are organized into an association much like the NFL.
And I wish to point out, Mr. President, that the insurance provisions in this bill for fighters are scant and obligate promoters to provide only $50,000 of medical care, apparently only while the fighter is still working for the UFC. Now, if a fighter dies while working, his family gets $100,000 from the UFC. Now, you tell me, Mr. President, is that fair?
These small sums, however, do not cover any long-term care that might be envisioned from a chronic brain injury like Parkinson's, Alzheimer's or dementia that might manifest decades after a fighter is no longer active.
Let me read to you what UFC bantamweight champion Nick Denis wrote on his blog in announcing his retirement at age 29 just a few months ago. Now, Nick Denis is a former Ph.D. student in biochemistry, I would suspect the only doctoral candidate participating in UFC. But he began his research into brain injuries following an especially vicious knockout loss in 2009.
He wrote: "After my first loss, a devastating knockout where another fighter dribbled my head on the canvas like a basketball, I did lots of research on concussions. As a graduate student, I had access to all peer-reviewed scientific journals." "No surprise," he writes, "to find out that concussions are bad." "However," he writes, "I found something that never occurred to me. Sub-concussive trauma. Basically, a blow to the head that doesn't lead to a concussion. When it happens, you feel fine and continue on. Even athletes who don't suffer concussions are still doing damage from sub-concussive trauma."
"I am a human being and I was born with only one brain, and I want to take care of it so that I will recognize the ones I love when I get older."
Now, Mr. President, if we are to believe the supporters, this is a bill that is an economic silver bullet. It will generate supposedly tens of millions of dollars in economic benefits for both New York State and New York City. But the economic costs of acute brain injuries are not yet known and won't be for years or even decades. If the NFL class action lawsuit is any indication, it could cost hundreds of millions of dollars.
But even if mixed martial arts fighters have the support they will certainly need for their injuries, support which is decidedly not in the bill before us today, I think you'll agree that no amount of money can compensate for permanent brain damage and possibly premature death.
Mr. President, I urge my colleagues to vote no on the bill. Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Thank you, Senator Hoylman.
Senator Rivera.
SENATOR RIVERA:Thank you, Mr. President.
It is not every day that I so strongly disagree with some of my colleagues, certainly Senator Hoylman and Senator Krueger. But first of all, I'll say, Senator Hoylman, that I do not believe that mixed martial arts is a euphemism. It is precisely what it is. You have different arts that are being practiced, whether it's judo, jujitsu, taekwondo, karate. All of these things which I have mentioned are things that require a high level of skill to do well.
So I do not believe that calling it mixed martial arts is a euphemism. I believe that calling it mixed martial arts is calling it precisely what it is.
Now, as someone who has practiced martial arts -- not as much as Sensei Griffo, that's what I'm going to call him -- I can say that the best martial artists, and this comes from experience, the best martial artists are the ones that are the most disciplined.
As opposed to what both Senator Krueger and Senator Hoylman have mentioned on the floor, this is not an activity which actually means two people just going at each other like wild dogs. We are talking about two skilled athletes measuring each other's ability to be able to outwit the other one physically.
And I can certainly understand why that would be something that you might not want to watch. If you don't like boxing, then I certainly understand why you would not like this either.
However, again, when it is two very skilled individuals, when they are trained, if they are highly disciplined -- and the best martial artists and the best mixed martial artists are very disciplined, are very well trained -- this is not something that is a spectacle of violence. Instead, it is a spectacle of skill.
I will also say that regarding many of the points that have been brought forward by some of the opponents of this bill and opponents of the practice in itself, there are many, many things that were mentioned as far as regulations that we would have to -- that we should think about putting forth as it relates to the sport, as it relates to safety, as it relates to working conditions. And I could not agree more. It is precisely why we want to have the Athletic Commission sanction this sport and then be able to regulate it, much like many other -- or every other athletic activity in the State of New York is regulated by the Athletic Commission.
So with all of that said -- and I would say that the issue of revenue is obviously one of the things that we should consider, but it would be secondary to me. As somebody who is a fan of this as an activity that I watch -- and again, not as a violent spectacle because I am looking forward to someone getting beat up. I would say that a lot of folks who watch hockey would probably have that as their ultimate goal. But in this particular instance, when I'm thinking of mixed martial arts, I think of two very highly skilled athletes competing with each other.
And what we are doing, as has been mentioned by Senator Parker, by banning it in this state is limiting the amount of revenue that we could get in this state, limiting the ability of folks to actually go to places right here in New York, whether it's in Madison Square Garden or Buffalo or any other place in this state. So it would be a revenue-generator.
But again, it is not -- I repeat one last time, I do not believe that it is just a violent activity in which two people go at each other until they're barely alive. As opposed to that, you have two very highly skilled and disciplined individuals. When you have regulated instances, regulated bouts, it is not a street fight. It is instead two very skilled, highly skilled athletes competing against each other.
And I believe that we in the State of New York have missed out for way too long. I hope that my colleagues in the Assembly will pass this bill and that the Governor will sign it, and I encourage my colleagues here in the Senate to vote for this bill.
I vote in the affirmative, Mr. President.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Thank you, Senator Rivera.
Seeing no other Senators who wish to be heard, the debate is closed. I ask the Secretary to ring the bells. All Senators are asked to proceed directly to the chamber, as we will be moving forward now with the roll call.
The Secretary will read the last section.
THE SECRETARY:Section 6. This act shall take effect on the 90th day.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Call the roll.
(The Secretary called the roll.)
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:We have a number of Senators who wish to explain their vote. I remind Senators that we have a two-minute time limit for vote explanation, with the exception of Senator Griffo. As the sponsor of the bill, his time limit is five minutes.
We'll begin with Senator Grisanti to explain his vote.
SENATOR GRISANTI:Thank you, Mr. President.
You know, during that very lively debate I didn't know that we were actually having a bill here mandating somebody to actually be involved in the sport or mandating somebody to actually watch it on TV or to pay for a pay-for-view event. The only thing that we're doing here is having the association of boxing commissions, the athletic commissioners, take over MMA and be able to regulate it.
This is a no-brainer. It's legal in 47 states. Over a decade ago there was problems with MMA and UFC. Those have changed, if anybody has done their homework and looked at it. An exhibition in Toronto just this last spring sold $11 million in ticket sales. In a short period of time, 50,000 tickets sold. Independent study done, in Buffalo it would have a $5 million effect. It was a $35 million event from Friday's weigh-in until Sunday. Friday's weigh-in till Sunday, in Toronto, a $35 million draw.
So MMA is becoming part of the mainstream of sports. And if violence and the risk of serious injury is a concern, maybe we should ban boxing, football, ice hockey, downhill skiing, rodeo and maybe even tight-roping across Niagara Falls.
Because it's about time we passed this. I urge, I urge the members of the Assembly to tell Speaker Silver, Bring it to the floor. You will have the votes. Bring it to the floor and see what happens. Do not hold up this measure. It's too important for this economy.
I vote aye, Mr. President. Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Grisanti to be recorded in the affirmative.
We ask that the noise level be kept down; it's beginning to be difficult to hear.
Senator Zeldin to explain his vote.
SENATOR ZELDIN:Mr. President, I rise to explain my vote.
First off, I want to thank Sensei Griffo for bringing this bill to the floor.
And I want to just try to clear one thing up. If there's anyone who's thinking about voting against this bill, please understand, this is about professional mixed martial arts in New York.
Right now we have mixed martial arts all throughout this state, legally. These bouts that take place right now, the amateur bouts that take place all across New York, they have no pre-fight medical, no MRI, no CAT scan, no blood tests, no insurance, no medical oversight, no professional officials. Without regulation by the New York State Athletic Commission, this sport is actually more dangerous.
And I think that a lot of people don't understand that this sport actually exists right now. We just want to regulate it with the New York State Athletic Commission. So a very important point.
And with regards to the revenue piece, I know Senator Parker and Senator Grisanti both were speaking about the economic impact. I mean, I read one study that the hotel occupancy in Buffalo for one fight would be up over 10 percent. Great economic impact, whether it's a fight in New York City or up in Buffalo.
But that's not my primary reason for supporting it. It's because the time is right. I too encourage Speaker Silver to bring this bill to the floor for a vote. It's time for professional mixed martial arts in New York State. It's time for the New York Athletic Commission to promulgate rules to allow it.
I vote aye.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Zeldin to be recorded in the affirmative.
Senator Boyle to explain his vote.
SENATOR BOYLE:Mr. President, to explain my vote.
It's kind of ironic that my first statement as a member of the State Senate is going to be in favor of a mixed martial arts bill, because as a member of the Assembly 15 years ago I had the first bill banning extreme fighting in the State of New York. It was taken by a majority member in the Assembly and then-Governor Pataki signed it, and he invited me to the signing. It was the only bill I've ever been invited to the signing of. I have a picture sitting next to him at the desk.
But that was then, and this is now. And this is a completely different sport. Much more regulation, it's much safer, it's around the country, it's a big business and it's going to be big business for New York.
I want to say that if I can feel comfortable supporting this bill, then anybody can feel comfortable supporting this bill.
And I also, in closing, would like to thank my good friend and former Assemblyman Dean Murray for his leadership in bringing this bill forward and making it ultimately legal in New York State.
I vote in the affirmative.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Boyle to be recorded in the affirmative.
Senator DeFrancisco to explain his vote.
SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes, much of what I was going to say has already been said. I'll just add a couple of things.
And that is as far as the doctoral candidate that had his head dribbled on the ground, he must have been smart enough to realize he didn't have to be there if he chose not to. And when he decided he didn't want to have his head dribbled any longer, he got out of the sport. And everybody has that option. And if you choose to do it and you're capable of doing it, it's important that you have that opportunity.
And secondly, it's being done. I mean, it's not like you're going to ban some offensive conduct that's happening, that would happen but for our bill. It's being done. It's happening. There's an audience. There's a group of young people like there were boxers that got out of the difficult situations because they have a skill and all they want to do is be able to perform that skill and make some money at it.
So for those reasons, I vote yes.
And secondly, I just ask, because done this before, would the Assembly put it on the floor? There's a bipartisan disagreement on the merits of the bill. That's fine. But put it on the floor. Let the Assembly make the same decision. And don't have some ancillary issue hold this up. It should be debated on its merits.
I vote aye.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator DeFrancisco to be recorded in the affirmative.
Senator LaValle to explain his vote.
SENATOR LaVALLE: Thank you, Mr. President.
Today I'm well aware our society is driven by how much money does some one item generate in our budget and also how much excitement does it produce.
Look at gambling. We started with the lottery, we went to Quick Draw, then racinos, casinos. Here today we're starting with MMA. And where are we going to go when this doesn't produce enough excitement? Because some of the other -- boxing doesn't produce or wrestling doesn't produce enough excitement, so now we're into mixed martial arts.
Will a bill, future legislatures say we're going to bring back the Roman Coliseum and have gladiators? Will that satisfy the thirst?
I vote no.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator LaValle to be recorded in the negative.
Senator Little to explain her vote.
SENATOR LITTLE:Thank you.
Certainly much has been said about reasons to have this in New York State. And I would just like to say, as chair of the Tourism Committee, we're always looking for new ways to attract people to New York State and new events to have here.
This is something that, as Senator Zeldin said, is already taking place at an amateur level. There are many mixed martial arts studios in my district and throughout the state. People do it for the exercise, for the fitness.
And I will tell you I was in California at one time, walking down the street. We had to go out into the road to get by a restaurant that had a great big TV and people were just gathered around there watching the mixed martial arts. On TV, not even attending.
So I do think that this is an important measure to bring to the professional level under regulation, with medical care and all of the things that we've talked about.
So I vote aye. Thank you.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Little to be recorded in the affirmative.
Senator Griffo to explain his vote.
SENATOR GRIFFO:Thank you, Mr. President.
Hailing from Rome, I sometimes think of all of us in the Senate as gladiators in suits.
First of all, let me wish a happy birthday to Kevin Parker. Happy birthday, Mr. Parker.
(Applause.)
SENATOR GRIFFO:I appreciate all the support here, and I do have a lot of respect for the differences of opinions and philosophy that we have expressed here this afternoon. I appreciate a vigorous debate.
And I think that I respect that opinion, but I also respect the opportunity to have people make their own decisions. And I think that's what we're doing here today.
So just for the facts, again, what we are trying to do is allow the State Athletic Commission to have the opportunity to really regulate and monitor this activity in this state. And we have a lot of confidence in a professional organization that has served this state well over the years.
We will generate economic revenue, not only to the state but also to local communities. And it's by their own decisions, not that we are imposing some form of a tax on them that they have no choice in. They can participate because they decide they want to participate or spectate.
And we will allow home-state athletes, some of whom are with us here in the galleries today, to participate in their home state. Right now they are denied that privilege and opportunity to compete in their home state.
There are stringent rules and regulations associated with this sport. John McCain has changed his view, for those people who are studying him. There are statistics that disprove some of what Senator Krueger has said. There's a Johns Hopkins study that disproves some of the hyperbole that was used here today in this debate.
And by the way, if I were looking to Europe as an example, I would not go to Pamplona when they're running the bulls. Because I think the last thing I want to do is look to Europe to tell us how to be a more cultured society and less violent, when you consider what takes place in Spain each and every year.
So I think today, when you look at this -- and recently we've even seen a movie come out called "Here Comes the Boom." So many families actually went to watch the movie. Parents had the opportunity to make that decision whether they wanted to go and take their children.
So let's have the opportunity to debate this and to vote on this. I appreciate the fact that we're taking that vote here in the Senate today. I hope the Assembly will do likewise. I vote aye.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Griffo to be recorded in the affirmative.
All Senators are asked to be in their seats for the announcement of the vote. All Senators should proceed to the chamber so we may record the vote. We are on the roll call.
Announce the results.
THE SECRETARY:In relation to Calendar Number 144, those recorded in the negative are Senators Bonacic, Breslin, Felder, Fuschillo, Gipson, Hoylman, Krueger, Lanza, LaValle, Marcellino, Perkins, Sanders, Stewart-Cousins, Tkaczyk and Young.
Ayes, 47. Nays, 15.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:The bill is passed.
Senator Libous, that completes the controversial reading of the calendar.
SENATOR LIBOUS:Thank you, Mr. President.
Is there any further business at the desk?
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Libous, the desk is clear.
SENATOR LIBOUS:Could we have order in the chamber? The Senate has not adjourned.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:{Gaveling.} Senate has not adjourned.
SENATOR LIBOUS:Because you never know, I may have a very important announcement. As a matter of fact, Mr. President, I do.
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:Senator Libous, please share.
SENATOR LIBOUS:There being no further business, I move that the Senate adjourn until Thursday, March 7th, at 11:00 a.m.
(Laughter.)
ACTING PRESIDENT VALESKY:On motion, the Senate stands adjourned until Thursday, March 7th, at 11:00 a.m.
(Whereupon, at 5:35 p.m., the Senate adjourned.)
Highest impact first.
Not yet analyzed. Open the bill for its official title.
Not yet analyzed. Open the bill for its official title.
Not yet analyzed. Open the bill for its official title.
Not yet analyzed. Open the bill for its official title.
Not yet analyzed. Open the bill for its official title.
Not yet analyzed. Open the bill for its official title.
Not yet analyzed. Open the bill for its official title.
Not yet analyzed. Open the bill for its official title.
Not yet analyzed. Open the bill for its official title.