Important Legislation Passed in New York City Council

assions ran high in the New York City Council meeting of February 4^th as two extremely important votes took place. The first was an override of the Mayor’s veto of "The Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Act." The second was a resolution condemning the USA PATRIOT Act.

The debate about the lead paint bill centered around the issue of whether this new law would drive the cost of insurance so high that it would imperil affordable housing. Some councilmembers, such as Minority Leader James Otto (R-Staten Island), stated that not enough investigation had been made into the bill’s "unintended consequences that would have a chilling effect on the city’s housing stock." However several other councilmembers, such as Bill de Blasio (D-Brooklyn), stated that no bill has gone through more scrutiny than this one. "There isn’t a single nook or cranny that wasn’t looked at and analyzed with every possible voice at the table."

Several councilmembers pointed out that the negative effects people say they fear this bill will bring about are all speculative, but the effects of not passing it are very real and apparent every day. The bill’s prime sponsor, Deputy Majority Leader Bill Perkins (D-Harlem), spoke about the very actual children of the lead belt who have been victimized for years - 5,000 children a year poisoned for life, with a social cost of billions of dollars. This had been testified to not only by advocates, but by competent doctors. Perkins extended his particular appreciation to the Council’s Black, Latino and Asian Caucus without whom this bill would not have passed, to the New York City Coalition to End Lead Poisoning and especially to "those mothers of lead poisoned children who turned their despair into hope and came to the City Council because they knew that in this body they would find allies who were sympathetic to their cause."

Just as when it originally reached the floor last December, the lead paint bill passed 44 in the affirmative, 5 in the negative with one abstention.

From there, the meeting plunged straight into the second ardent discussion of the day, regarding Resolution 909A, also introduced by Perkins, which "calls upon federal, state and local officials, and upon New York City agencies and institutions, to affirm and uphold civil rights and civil liberties." The resolution is aimed at the federal USA PATRIOT Act and Domestic Security Enhancement Act (DSEA) - also known as PATRIOT II - "which may further compromise constitutional rights and our government’s unique system of checks and balances."

Several councilmembers spoke fervently against the resolution, stating that they think these Acts are exactly what is required at this time for the good of the nation. Simcha Felder (D-Brooklyn) stated that we are at war and this resolution sends the wrong message. "We’re telling our government to protect us at all costs - except we don’t trust them to strike a balance between security and liberty." Council Member de Blasio responded that there have been times when the government went in the wrong direction and did not strike that balance – during the Joseph McCarthy period, for example, with the communist witch hunt.

Council Member Peter Vallone, Jr. (D-Queens) said that the Patriot Act has helped keep us safe for two years now, and that "the safety of the public must always be our number one priority, not the rights of suspected terrorists." However, Council Member Kendall Stewart (D-Brooklyn) pointed out that everybody’s Constitutional rights and freedoms are eroded by this Act, not just those suspected of terrorism. It allows law enforcement officials to detain anyone without charges, monitor a person’s Internet activity without probable cause, charge peaceful protesters with "domestic terrorism" when they engage in civil disobedience, and to spy on First Amendment protected activities. Law enforcement officials can also obtain confidential information from library, medical or banking records without any evidence that the "suspect" is involved in any criminal activity.

While some members questioned whether it would be patriotic to pass this resolution, many more made it clear they felt it would be unpatriotic not to do so. Council Member Margarita Lopez (D-Manhattan) said, "Opposing the Patriot Act is being a good patriotic American who believes in freedom and will not allow anybody - including the President of this country - to destroy our constitution and 14^th Amendment."

Council Member Letitia James (D-Brooklyn) reminded everyone that they each took an oath to defend the constitutions of New York State and the United States of America. This oath was to uphold the right to free speech, free expression, due process, a fair trial and the right to confront ones accuser – all things the Patriot Act undermines. "To erode our rights, to deny basic freedoms is inconsistent with the fundamental basis upon which this country is founded," she declared. "Dissent is democracy. Dissent is freedom. And I vote for freedom."

Most other councilmembers agreed, for when it was put to a voice vote, Resolution 909A passed overwhelmingly. Thirty-seven out of 51 voted for the resolution, and one abstained. So New York City has, at last, joined forces with the three states (Alaska, Hawaii, and Vermont) and 250 cities, towns, and counties across the nation that have passed resolutions attempting to defend the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights from Patriot Acts I and II. Many New York City residents feel it’s about time.