Regular Session - March 29, 1995
2830
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 ALBANY, NEW YORK
9 March 29, 1995
10 10:02 a.m.
11
12
13 REGULAR SESSION
14
15
16
17 SENATOR JOHN A. DeFRANCISCO, Acting President
18 STEPHEN F. SLOAN, Secretary
19
20
21
22
23
2831
1 P R O C E E D I N G S
2 ACTING PRESIDENT DeFRANCISCO:
3 The Senate will come to order.
4 Ask everyone to please rise with
5 me and pledge with me the Pledge of Allegiance
6 to the Flag.
7 (The assemblage repeated the
8 Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. )
9 In the absence of clergy, may we
10 but our heads in a moment of silence.
11 (A moment of silence was
12 observed. )
13 Reading of the Journal.
14 THE SECRETARY: In Senate,
15 Tuesday, March 28th. The Senate met pursuant to
16 adjournment, Senator Kuhl in the Chair upon
17 designation of the Temporary President. The
18 Journal of Monday, March 27th, was read and
19 approved. On motion, Senate adjourned.
20 ACTING PRESIDENT DeFRANCISCO:
21 Without objection, the Journal stands approved
22 as read.
23 Presentation of petitions.
2832
1 Messages from the Assembly.
2 Messages from the Governor.
3 Reports of standing committees.
4 Reports of select committees.
5 Communications and reports from
6 state officers.
7 Motions and resolutions. Senator
8 Bruno.
9 SENATOR BRUNO: Mr. President, I
10 believe there's a resolution at the desk and
11 would like to ask that it be read, relating to
12 Senator Trunzo.
13 ACTING PRESIDENT DeFRANCISCO:
14 Secretary will read the resolution and read the
15 title.
16 SENATOR TRUNZO: Just the title
17 and have the resolution passed please.
18 ACTING PRESIDENT DeFRANCISCO:
19 Secretary will read.
20 THE SECRETARY: Legislative
21 Resolution, by Senator Trunzo, commending
22 Josefina Cammerano upon the occasion of her
23 100th birthday, Friday, April 7, 1995.
2833
1 ACTING PRESIDENT DeFRANCISCO: On
2 the resolution, all in favor signify by saying
3 aye.
4 (Response of "Aye.")
5 Opposed nay.
6 (There was no response. )
7 The resolution is adopted.
8 Senator Bruno, are you ready for
9 the calendar?
10 SENATOR BRUNO: Mr. President,
11 can we now take up the non-controversial
12 calendar.
13 ACTING PRESIDENT DeFRANCISCO:
14 The Secretary will read.
15 THE SECRETARY: On page 20,
16 Calendar Number 214, by Senator LaValle, Senate
17 Print 1368, an act to amend the Town Law, in
18 relation to expending from fire district
19 revenues amounts appropriated for equipment.
20 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Lay it
21 aside.
22 ACTING PRESIDENT DeFRANCISCO:
23 The bill will be laid aside.
2834
1 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
2 215, by Senator Larkin, Senate Print 2090-A, an
3 act -
4 SENATOR LARKIN: Star the bill.
5 ACTING PRESIDENT DeFRANCISCO:
6 The bill is starred at the request of the
7 sponsor.
8 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
9 217, by Senator Present, Senate Print 1930, an
10 act to amend the State Administrative Procedure
11 Act and the Executive Law, in relation to
12 compliance requirements.
13 ACTING PRESIDENT DeFRANCISCO:
14 Read the last section.
15 THE SECRETARY: Section 7. This
16 act shall take effect on the 1st day of
17 October.
18 ACTING PRESIDENT DeFRANCISCO:
19 Please call the roll.
20 (The Secretary called the roll. )
21 THE SECRETARY: Ayes 35.
22 ACTING PRESIDENT DeFRANCISCO:
23 The bill is passed.
2835
1 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
2 218, by Senator Present, Senate Print 1931, an
3 act to amend the State Administrative Procedure
4 Act, in relation to regulatory relief for health
5 care providers.
6 SENATOR PATERSON: Lay aside,
7 please.
8 ACTING PRESIDENT DeFRANCISCO:
9 Please lay the bill aside.
10 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
11 220, by Senator Velella, Senate Print 933, an
12 act to amend the Insurance Law, in relation to
13 the availability of multi-tier programs for
14 homeowners' insurance.
15 ACTING PRESIDENT DeFRANCISCO:
16 Please read the last section.
17 THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
18 act shall take effect on the 90th day.
19 ACTING PRESIDENT DeFRANCISCO:
20 Call the roll.
21 (The Secretary called the roll. )
22 THE SECRETARY: Ayes 35.
23 ACTING PRESIDENT DeFRANCISCO:
2836
1 The bill is passed.
2 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
3 227, by Senator Farley, Senate Print 3106, an
4 act to amend the Highway Law, in relation to
5 designating -- designating a portion of the
6 state highway system the Mayor Harvey W. Mans
7 field Highway.
8 ACTING PRESIDENT DeFRANCISCO:
9 Please read the last section.
10 THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This
11 act shall take effect immediately.
12 ACTING PRESIDENT DeFRANCISCO:
13 Call the roll.
14 (The Secretary called the roll. )
15 THE SECRETARY: Ayes 35.
16 ACTING PRESIDENT DeFRANCISCO:
17 The bill is passed.
18 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
19 289, by Senator Bruno, Senate Print 3682, an act
20 to amend the State Administrative Procedure Act,
21 in relation to agency review of existing rules.
22 ACTING PRESIDENT DeFRANCISCO:
23 Lay the bill aside.
2837
1 THE SECRETARY: Calendar number
2 290, by Senator Bruno, Senate Print Number 3683,
3 an act to amend the Environmental Conservation
4 Law, the State Administrative Procedure Act and
5 others.
6 SENATOR PATERSON: Lay aside.
7 ACTING PRESIDENT DeFRANCISCO:
8 Lay the bill aside.
9 Senator Bruno, that completes the
10 -- the reading of the non-controversial
11 calendar.
12 SENATOR BRUNO: And now, Mr.
13 President, can we take up the controversial
14 calendar.
15 ACTING PRESIDENT DeFRANCISCO:
16 Secretary will read.
17 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
18 214, by Senator LaValle, Senate Bill 1368, an
19 act to amend the Town Law, in relation to
20 expending from fire district revenues.
21 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Explanation.
22 ACTING PRESIDENT DeFRANCISCO: An
23 explanation has been asked for.
2838
1 SENATOR BRUNO: Lay it aside.
2 ACTING PRESIDENT DeFRANCISCO:
3 Lay the bill aside.
4 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
5 218, by Senator Present, Senate Bill 1931, an
6 act to amend the State Administrative Procedure
7 Act.
8 SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
9 ACTING PRESIDENT DeFRANCISCO:
10 Explanation. Senator Present.
11 SENATOR PRESENT: Mr. President,
12 this is an amendment to the State Administrative
13 Procedure Act which will encourage state
14 agencies to propose and adopt cost-effective
15 rules to help reduce the cost of providing
16 health care to small business, and other
17 regulated parties.
18 ACTING PRESIDENT DeFRANCISCO:
19 Thank you, Senator Present.
20 Read the last section.
21 THE SECRETARY: Section 8. This
22 act shall take effect on the 1st day of
23 October.
2839
1 ACTING PRESIDENT DeFRANCISCO:
2 Excuse me. Senator Paterson.
3 SENATOR PATERSON: I'm sorry, Mr.
4 President.
5 Would Senator Present be willing
6 to yield for a question?
7 SENATOR PRESENT: Yes.
8 SENATOR PATERSON: Senator
9 Present, this is just a question relating to the
10 possibility that the enactment of this
11 legislation will impede upon the quality and the
12 work done by the agency. How do we determine
13 what is actually covered under this legislation?
14 In other words, not every procedure or decision
15 made by an agency is -- calls for a long review
16 process, and so what I'm trying to determine is
17 when you feel the agency should act and when you
18 feel that there should be this kind of OSHA
19 review.
20 SENATOR PRESENT: I think that
21 this action should take place on every rule as
22 promulgated by any agency if it provides the
23 cost of their proposed rule or regulation they
2840
1 should tell us in advance and let industry know
2 how it's going to affect them. The industry
3 then can respond.
4 SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you.
5 Thank you very much, Senator Present.
6 I'd just like to point out to the
7 members that EPL is opposed to this bill. They
8 blew their stack twice and they just seem to
9 question the relationship between the regulatory
10 agencies and the reviewing process. So thank
11 you, Mr. President.
12 ACTING PRESIDENT DeFRANCISCO:
13 Please read the last section.
14 THE SECRETARY: Section 8. This
15 act shall take effect on the 1st day of
16 October.
17 ACTING PRESIDENT DeFRANCISCO:
18 Call the roll.
19 (The Secretary called the roll. )
20 ACTING PRESIDENT DeFRANCISCO:
21 Results.
22 THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in
23 the negative on Calendar Number 218 are Senators
2841
1 Connor, Paterson and Smith. Ayes 35, nays 3.
2 ACTING PRESIDENT DeFRANCISCO:
3 The bill is passed.
4 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
5 289, by Senator Bruno, Senate Print 3682, an act
6 to amend the State Administrative Procedure Act,
7 in relation to agency review of existing rules.
8 SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation,
9 please.
10 ACTING PRESIDENT DeFRANCISCO: An
11 explanation has been asked for. Senator Bruno.
12 SENATOR BRUNO: Mr. President, we
13 in this chamber and people in this state all are
14 aware of the very sad state of affairs as
15 relates to business in New York State. Leading
16 the country in job loss for the last four years,
17 40 percent of all the jobs lost in this country
18 come from New York State, and that's sad, and in
19 the recovery that is taking place nationally,
20 New York State is lagging drastically and that
21 is unfortunate. Forty-fourth out of 50 states
22 in economic recovery, as reported by industries
23 who follow the trend.
2842
1 The main reason that is given for
2 the sad state of affairs depriving people of an
3 opportunity to earn a living, to have a job, is
4 over-regulation, the punitive negative attitude
5 of government towards business in New York
6 State. Taxes are second in people's minds.
7 This -- the business we're doing
8 this morning will change the direction of this
9 state as relates to job creation. Mr.
10 President, job creation is what this budget's
11 all about; it's what this bill is all about,
12 what the bill that follows is all about,
13 deregulating, making New York State and the
14 agencies more business-friendly.
15 Now, I know that my colleagues in
16 this chamber will support that because I keep
17 hearing that job creation is uppermost in every
18 one's mind. There are specifics that relate to
19 this legislation. I believe Senator Rath is
20 going to continue the discussion, and I would
21 now defer to Senator Rath.
22 ACTING PRESIDENT DeFRANCISCO:
23 Senator Rath.
2843
1 SENATOR RATH: Thank you, Mr.
2 Chairman. Thank you, Senator Bruno.
3 A year and three months ago when
4 I assumed my responsibilities as chairman of the
5 Administrative Regulation Review Commission, I
6 had a little learning to do, a little catching
7 up to do as a freshman learning a lot, a lot of
8 learning, but even more about what regulations
9 and what their review meant.
10 But let me tell you that it
11 didn't take me very long to discover that review
12 cried out for reform from the offset and
13 regulatory reform has been on the list of almost
14 everyone who has been on the stump politically
15 this past year all over the country. You can't
16 pick up a newspaper anywhere when you go out of
17 town but what someone locally is not talking
18 about regulatory reform.
19 Regulations are, as Senator Bruno
20 said, the hidden taxes that are impeding
21 business from moving forward. The projection as
22 to the cost of the hidden taxes is between 500
23 and $800 billion a year. I'll say it again,
2844
1 it's not my number, I've been picking it up
2 everywhere, the latest was in federal
3 legislation, between 5- and $800 billion in
4 hidden costs every year.
5 We, as a country, cannot afford
6 to do that. We as a state have shouldered a
7 great deal of those costs. I don't know what
8 our numbers are. One of the bills in this
9 omnibus is looking to address that: What are
10 the hidden costs in New York State for the
11 over-regulation, and I say over-regulation and I
12 rise to explain what I mean because you may have
13 some questions when we get into the discussion
14 of the legislation itself.
15 Are we talking about throwing
16 away some of the very, very good things that
17 have happened as this society has deregulated
18 itself and has to regulate itself? Teddy
19 Roosevelt, in 1900, said to those of us who live
20 on the shores of Lake Erie, we were foolish, we
21 were wasting our wonderful resource of Lake
22 Erie, we were throwing our garbage and our
23 sewage and everything into Lake Erie untreated.
2845
1 Well, regulations came along and you know what
2 happened now. Lake Erie has come back a
3 hundredfold. It's wonderful. The fish that
4 haven't been there for 20 years are reappearing
5 again. They must have been hiding in some
6 little corner of the lake and maintaining
7 themselves. But the regulations have been
8 good.
9 But in many cases regulations
10 have been overzealous. It's because we wanted
11 to do more, because we believed the cause was
12 good and justified, and I -- I don't think there
13 are any of us in this room that say
14 environmental regulations or health regulations,
15 consumer regulations, can be thrown out or
16 abandoned. No, but we must regulate smarter.
17 We must teach the people who regulate what they
18 need to do as they regulate. They must talk to
19 the people who they are regulating before they
20 promulgate the regulations.
21 A bill that we passed in this
22 Legislature last year caused a regulatory agenda
23 for five agencies in this state to appear
2846
1 January 1st. The Governor signed the bill. It
2 was the first bill that I had passed. I'm very
3 proud of that bill. That bill brought forward
4 350 new regulations that were about to show
5 themselves in New York State January 1, 1994.
6 Because of the bill that we
7 passed, those regulations are in a holding
8 pattern right now as our new Governor said we
9 better review these before they go on. Now,
10 some of them have been waived, yes. Some of
11 them were so important they had to be done
12 immediately and they were done immediately with
13 the waivers that were passed through the
14 Governor's office through his counsel. But 350
15 new regs in five agencies alone.
16 Let me tell you there are 80
17 agencies in New York State that can and do
18 regulate, 80 agencies. There are -- there have
19 been -- there was an example on the political
20 trail last year of the regulations being waged
21 from Albany, Schenectady and back piece by
22 piece, and they were growing as we spoke.
23 Well, political rhetoric being
2847
1 what it is, that's -- that has come and gone,
2 but the will to reform our regulatory process
3 and give business a chance in New York State,
4 that will is here and there is now a Director of
5 Regulatory Reform in the Governor's office.
6 Before we get into the bill, I
7 just would like to read something very briefly
8 to you because you might say, well, that's just
9 business. You take a look at the piece that I'm
10 holding up, A Revolution in Regulation, done by
11 the Policy Institute of the state of New York.
12 There has been report after
13 report dealt with taxing that showed us the
14 need. But listen to this one. This is from the
15 town of Tonawanda, one of my towns, about a
16 hundred thousand people, first rate town outside
17 of the city of Buffalo, a nice little suburban
18 community, a lot of blue collar people, heavy
19 industry along the shore of the Niagara River.
20 Listen to what the town
21 supervisor did. He asked the department heads
22 to find examples of mandates that are outdated
23 and duplicative and to identify those that go
2848
1 beyond setting goals and enter into the realm of
2 micromanagement of local government's
3 operation. What followed is a detailed summary
4 of the findings of the town of Tonawanda
5 complete with cost alternatives and suport
6 material, and they refer now to page 22 of the
7 report, the bottom line that supervisor Carl
8 Calabrese presented to me and several others a
9 few weeks ago:
10 $830,849 all lined out as to how
11 the town of Tonawanda can save dollars if we
12 will just free up their hands. One of the
13 pieces in the omnibus regulation, omnibus
14 resolution, in front of you today will free up
15 the hands of the town of Tonawanda so they can
16 manage their own business. This is the town.
17 The schools are coming to us, health has come to
18 us; Senator Present's bill that just passed
19 extraordinarily important, so it's not just
20 business -- business, of course -- so that they
21 can free up and create new jobs so that as the
22 children come out of the schools and the young
23 people are looking for work, the jobs will be
2849
1 here.
2 So, my colleagues, I ask you to
3 please take a real serious look at this piece of
4 legislation. I'm very proud of it. Senator
5 Wright has a number of bills that are in it. I
6 think Senator Present has some that are inside
7 the bill, Senator Bruno, and I was happy to
8 co-sponsor with them as they have with me.
9 So, if you have some questions,
10 I'd be more than happy to entertain them.
11 ACTING PRESIDENT DeFRANCISCO:
12 Senator Wright.
13 SENATOR WRIGHT: Thank you, Mr.
14 President.
15 I rise in support of this bill.
16 I'd like to first extend my congratulations to
17 Senator Bruno, Senators Rath and Senator Present
18 for the leadership that they've demonstrated in
19 pulling together this package of regulatory
20 reform over the last several years.
21 I think the issue we're talking
22 about is just that. It's regulatory reform.
23 We're not talking about deregulating New York
2850
1 State to give everybody carte blanche to do with
2 as they choose because we've accomplished some
3 very good things in terms of regulating various
4 activities in this state.
5 But what we're talking about is
6 creating a level playing field, restoring com
7 petitiveness to this state so that our business
8 es can compete with businesses in adjoining
9 states, so that our local governments aren't
10 working under undue mandates and additional
11 pressures in terms of their ability to compete,
12 to maintain low property taxes, to attract
13 businesses and industry to this state. When you
14 take the opportunity to speak with your business
15 community, right behind taxes comes regulation
16 in terms of the cost of doing business in this
17 state. That's why it's inherent that we start
18 to address the issue of regulatory reform.
19 Now, I think the Governor started
20 us off very properly this year by placing a
21 moratorium on any new mandates so that we don't
22 add to an already overburdensome compendium of
23 mandates imposing the will on the people of this
2851
1 state.
2 I would also point out that many
3 of the separate elements of this omnibus package
4 have come forward as separate bills and they, in
5 fact, have had bipartisan support in this house,
6 bipartisan support in the Assembly. They
7 represent the bipartisan support of the people
8 of this state, whether you live in New York City
9 or whether you live in the North Country, in my
10 area of the state. The concerns remain the
11 same. There is far too much government, that
12 government transcends itself into far too many
13 regulations being imposed on every daily aspect
14 of our lives. It's time to start to change that
15 direction, and that's what this bill does.
16 This bill addresses a number of
17 very specific concerns we have. Businesses are
18 leaving this state, jobs are leaving this
19 state. We require in this legislation that,
20 when you're imposing an additional rule or
21 regulation, you identify the job impact. Now,
22 some will tell you that we already have a
23 regulatory impact requirement and that includes
2852
1 an economic analysis. While that's true, we do
2 not specifically require the identification of
3 jobs and the impact on jobs and, if you look at
4 regulatory impact after regulatory impact, there
5 is no statement as to the impact on jobs. In
6 fact, when we debated this bill a year ago in
7 this house, we actually had a memo of opposition
8 from a state agency indicating that they
9 recognized their rules were going to cost jobs,
10 but they couldn't be concerned about that
11 because this revision would delay the process
12 and take too long to implement regulations.
13 Thereby lies the problem that
14 we're dealing with, a government, an
15 administration, who was far more interested in
16 making and promulgating rules than recognizing
17 how those rules were going to impact jobs and
18 business in this state. I contended then, I
19 contend now, that it's the wrong priority. We
20 need to to change the direction.
21 This bill seeks to ensuring
22 competitiveness in New York State. It provides
23 for New York complying with minimum federal
2853
1 standards and only exceeding those standards if
2 this Legislature decides it's in the best
3 interests of the people and this state.
4 It doesn't deny us the
5 opportunity to require a standard higher than
6 the federal government if we so choose, but it,
7 in fact, says the elected officials will make
8 that decision, the elected representatives of
9 the people of this state will determine whether
10 or not New York State needs a higher standard.
11 That's where I think the authority should
12 properly be vested, not with agency bureaucrats
13 promulgating additional regulation.
14 I think we can all go on and on
15 identifying problems that we've encountered that
16 our constituents have passed on to us and
17 difficulties they've encountered with rules, the
18 cost of rules that are being imposed upon their
19 daily lives.
20 If, for no other reason than
21 providing relief to our constituents, that's
22 what this bill is all about. I would encourage
23 your support of it.
2854
1 ACTING PRESIDENT DeFRANCISCO:
2 Senator Dollinger.
3 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Mr.
4 President, did Senator Gold have a question?
5 ACTING PRESIDENT DeFRANCISCO: Or
6 excuse me, Senator Gold. Senator Gold, go
7 ahead, if -
8 SENATOR GOLD: Yeah, I was going
9 to ask a few questions, but who's answering
10 them? The sponsor is not here.
11 SENATOR RATH: I will.
12 SENATOR GOLD: Senator Rath?
13 Senator, before I ask you a question let me say
14 that I said for years that if I was in the
15 Majority and I was looking for a new political
16 career, you could keep all your jobs, I would
17 want to run the Administrative Regulation Review
18 Commission because, you know, you have the
19 capacity to look at every state agency, make all
20 of the suggestions, cut it down, et cetera, et
21 cetera.
22 Now, Senator, what I would like
23 to know is, we have an Administrative
2855
1 Regulations Review Commission, and in this bill
2 I'm hearing about advisory committees and
3 whatever. How do you -- how do you figure our
4 commission to feed into this new program if this
5 bill passes?
6 SENATOR RATH: Well, Senator
7 Gold, as a member of the commission, I would
8 have to agree that -- that there are some new
9 ways of doing business that I think the
10 commission should probably start to factor in,
11 and I think some of this legislation, I know
12 parts of it specifically bring in the regulated
13 community to talk with the people who will be
14 doing the regulating, and I think we have a
15 responsibility to be sure that the regulators
16 are trained and know what is expected of them,
17 so that they do not become overzealous and they
18 need -- they need to have interaction with the
19 people who are going to be regulated.
20 Many of the examples that -- that
21 we have seen as we looked at some of them as
22 they come through, the examples of over
23 regulation have to do with the lack of communi
2856
1 cation as to what's realistic. Just last week,
2 we held a meeting with the people who run
3 bakeries in New York State, and mostly in New
4 York State they're small bakeries. There are a
5 few large bakeries. I happen to have a Lenders
6 bagel bakery in my district, and so I sat in on
7 it, and it was discovered that what they're
8 trying do by way of regulating the bakeries was
9 dealing with smoke stack emission and what comes
10 out is a very, very simple kind of an air
11 emission that EPA backed away from what they
12 felt was important in that relation, and as
13 we're trying to control the air quality around
14 the bakeries, the bakery said, Let us change our
15 vehicle fleet from gasoline engines to
16 compressed natural gas, compressed -- compressed
17 gas engines -- I'm saying natural gas because
18 our gas company in the Niagara Frontier -- to
19 compressed natural gas, that which we can be
20 under compliance with air emissions, and that
21 looks like that's going to be the way that
22 goes. No one would have dreamed that it would
23 have happened that way, but once we got the
2857
1 regulators and the regulated community, the
2 discussion with the EPA held by those who were
3 in charge, they're going to move forward,
4 they're going to get their air emission control
5 into a level but not by taking care of the smoke
6 stacks which would have cost millions and
7 millions of dollars. They're going to convert
8 their fleet.
9 Now, this is the common sense
10 kind of thing that has not been happening in New
11 York State.
12 SENATOR GOLD: Senator, will you
13 yield to a question?
14 ACTING PRESIDENT DeFRANCISCO:
15 Senator Gold.
16 SENATOR GOLD: And, by the way,
17 you mentioned smoke and bakeries. I want the
18 record to indicate that we have looked -
19 Senator Stachowski and I have looked into the
20 problem of Cafe Capriccio last night and that
21 was not Senator Skelos' fault what happened last
22 night.
23 SENATOR RATH: Thank you. We're
2858
1 glad that we cleared that one up.
2 SENATOR GOLD: But let me ask you
3 as I've read through the bill, and I don't want
4 to kid around and tell you I've got a letter
5 from the Governor who is very insulted because I
6 don't have a letter, but we mandated this bill
7 that every agency review its regulations.
8 The Governor has appointed all
9 the heads of these agencies. We need a law to
10 tell George Pataki to tell his agency heads to
11 make these reviews? I would assume from what I
12 understand was one of his executive orders, that
13 this is all happening. Is that, in fact,
14 happening?
15 ACTING PRESIDENT DeFRANCISCO:
16 Senator Rath, would you yield?
17 SENATOR RATH: Surely. As the
18 legislative body that backs up what the
19 administration is doing, sometimes when the
20 Governor takes a role by administrative order, I
21 think we have to look to the future protection
22 of the people of the state of New York no matter
23 who the Governor is, and I believe that this is
2859
1 appropriate in reinforcing that we feel that the
2 Governor and his agencies have to look to
3 themselves.
4 Remember, if you recall, I said
5 earlier, there are 80 agencies that can
6 promulgate regs, and so in their zeal -- and I'm
7 not going to get into any kind of negativism as
8 to self-fulfilling prophecies that agencies may
9 have in relation to their own futures and what
10 they need to do to continue their own -- their
11 own role in government, but I think it's
12 important that we say to the Governor, Yes,
13 direct those agencies to look, but I think even
14 further than that, Senator Gold, as we are -- we
15 as the members of the ARRC can follow up on that
16 and make sure that we're getting the kind of in
17 formation that we need.
18 SENATOR GOLD: Well, Senator,
19 will you yield to a question?
20 SENATOR RATH: Sure.
21 SENATOR GOLD: That's not my
22 question. My question is the following: The
23 Governor, who I happen to believe is an honest
2860
1 man who believes in what he says -- I don't
2 agree with some of the things he says, but I
3 wouldn't ever question the sincerity or honesty
4 of his position -- has made all these statements
5 and he issued an order and he says to the agency
6 that "I'm appointing a commissioner, and the
7 commissioners are my people, men and women who
8 go in there, and we're going to clean out all of
9 that Democratic waste," et cetera, et cetera.
10 Why do we need a bill to tell them to do it if
11 that's what he has told the people he is going
12 to go to, and if he has issued an executive
13 order saying do that?
14 SENATOR RATH: Well, again, I
15 believe that we need to look a little further in
16 that bill, and I believe that's the one that has
17 the five years in it, that talks about a sunset
18 after five years, and so there's more in the
19 bill than is at first blush but, again, if we
20 put this into statute, then it will happen no
21 matter who the governor is, if there is a
22 governor who does not care as much about
23 regulatory reform as this particular governor
2861
1 does.
2 SENATOR GOLD: Well, will you
3 yield to another question, Senator?
4 SENATOR RATH: Surely.
5 SENATOR GOLD: Isn't there
6 something in this bill, for example, that talks
7 about not making regulations that surpass the
8 fed's and not making regulations that can do
9 this and that. Isn't that something that the
10 Majority in this house can control in our new
11 legislation day by day?
12 ACTING PRESIDENT DeFRANCISCO:
13 Senator Rath.
14 SENATOR RATH: I think that a
15 cause celebre, as regulatory reform has become
16 this year, when it's very high on everyone's
17 agenda as it is right now, I think that, yes, a
18 lot can be controlled and monitored through our
19 efforts, yours and mine and Senator Cook and the
20 other members of the ARRC.
21 I believe that we can and we
22 should, but let's remember that every agency is
23 not under the purview of the Governor. There
2862
1 are agencies that stand alone, and I think that
2 they also need to have -- to have this
3 addressed.
4 SENATOR GOLD: Will the Senator
5 yield to another question?
6 SENATOR RATH: Sure.
7 SENATOR GOLD: Senator, I can't
8 speak about forever, but since 1935, which, who
9 does math, 60 years -- 60 years -- one year, and
10 that year was 1965 when Senator Marchi had to go
11 through the grueling task of being in the
12 Minority for the one year, but other than that
13 in the 59 of the 60 years your party has
14 controlled this house, and there has not been
15 one piece of legislation which gave one
16 itsy-bitsy, tiny little rule-making authority
17 that you didn't control, and your party could
18 have had sunsets in every single piece of
19 legislation that created rule-making authority,
20 but isn't it a fact, I mean, none of that was
21 done?
22 So, Senator, isn't it a fact that
23 all this rule-making that you're talking about
2863
1 for 59 out of 60 years happened while your party
2 controlled this house and indeed the governor
3 ship for a lot of that period of time?
4 ACTING PRESIDENT DeFRANCISCO:
5 Senator Rath.
6 SENATOR RATH: Senator, I think
7 you raise a point that's been in all of our
8 minds, and it has been the new wind that has
9 blown through this Legislature this year and
10 indeed through this government, and I believe
11 that as we spoke of a piece of legislation that
12 might have passed this house, some of your
13 eminent colleagues were pointing out yesterday
14 that many of the pieces that are coming along
15 this week will have to look to the Assembly for
16 a conference and, frankly, I welcome that
17 opportunity because there is where we will
18 probably start to pull the two bills together.
19 I'm very hopeful that members of
20 the Assembly will look at this and say the
21 Senate really is interested in the sun shining
22 in on state government, and this is what I
23 expect this omnibus bill will produce.
2864
1 SENATOR GOLD: Senator, if you
2 will yield to just one more question, but before
3 that, if I was as skeptical as Senator
4 Stachowski, then I would say, Well, you talk
5 about a new wind, and wind is air and I won't
6 argue whether it's hot or cold, but of the -
7 this bill talks about the creation or it says
8 the Governor is to designate his counsel to
9 oversee certain things.
10 Now, I don't know whether I have
11 this right, but my understanding is that the
12 Governor has indicated that a Robert King, a
13 nominee as director of regulatory management,
14 104,000 bucks, are we going to in this bill do
15 away with that job since we're going to be able
16 to have the Governor's counsel do this now?
17 SENATOR RATH: Well, Senator,
18 with the leave of the Chair, the separation of
19 powers has done a wonderful thing in our
20 democracy and, as we look to what the executive
21 and his appointee do, I think we need to look to
22 the responsibilities that the people of the
23 state of New York vested in us individually and
2865
1 collectively and ensure that our will is carried
2 through by virtue of statute, along with the
3 Assembly, and as we send that over, then it
4 becomes very clear to the Governor that we're
5 not expecting him to do it alone, that we want
6 to be partners with him, and I believe that this
7 legislation accomplishes that.
8 SENATOR GOLD: Well, Senator, if
9 you will.
10 ACTING PRESIDENT DeFRANCISCO:
11 Senator Gold.
12 SENATOR GOLD: If you will yield
13 to a question. That doesn't answer my
14 question. What I'm saying is forget the
15 separation of powers. I've read some of your
16 husband's decisions, they're great on that
17 issue, but my point is that this is the Governor
18 who is appointing Mr. King, 104,000, and under
19 this bill, we're saying the Governor's counsel
20 should do the job, so that's not a separation of
21 anything. It's the Governor appointing either
22 Mr. King or having his counsel do it, and what
23 I'm saying is if the counsel is going to do it,
2866
1 why do we have to pay Mr. King who I'm not here
2 to criticize or why do we have to pay 104,000?
3 ACTING PRESIDENT DeFRANCISCO:
4 Senator Rath.
5 SENATOR RATH: Yes, I think that
6 there is probably a definition of who does what
7 in the executive -- on the executive floor and
8 Mr. King, my understanding right now, is in a
9 fact finding mode, out on the highways and by
10 ways of New York State uncovering much of what
11 we have seen, only in more depth.
12 The counsel with the -- with the
13 legal responsibilities, I think, is the
14 appropriate -- appropriate person to assume that
15 responsibility. I think if there is -- that
16 there's enough work to go around, frankly, in
17 trying to get the regulatory burden off of the
18 businesses, schools, health facilities, all
19 across New York State. We're still safeguarding
20 what we all know we must safeguard.
21 SENATOR GOLD: O.K.
22 ACTING PRESIDENT DeFRANCISCO:
23 Senator Gold.
2867
1 SENATOR GOLD: Yes, Mr.
2 President, on the bill, very briefly, and there
3 will be a lot more questions. I know Senator
4 Dollinger and others have concerns, but what I
5 think is fascinating is how we put out a bill
6 with a certain philosophy and the bill itself
7 violates that philosophy.
8 We tell the people that money is
9 being wasted all over the place; we've got to
10 cut down; we've got to conserve, and so we
11 create new groups to do what we have groups
12 doing. The Administrative Regulation Review
13 Commission, which is already in existence and
14 where we have members of this house and the
15 other house participating, is already charged
16 with responsibilities. In my opinion, we could
17 do much more in that area than we've done.
18 It may be that the way the Senate
19 gets structured, Senator Rath and others have a
20 lot of responsibilities, and I know she's a very
21 hard working person, but it may be that there
22 are other duties, so we can't always do what we
23 want to do, but we have a structure, and that -
2868
1 that structure could be doing things.
2 Now, we're creating other
3 structures and Senator Rath says, Well, there's
4 enough work for everybody. I shrug my
5 shoulders. I thought that's what this was all
6 about; we don't want duplication. We don't want
7 people doing the same kind of things. We want
8 to pull in government, make it tighter, save the
9 taxpayer dollars, and then in the State of the
10 State which I took rather seriously and as I
11 said to you, I -- I believe that George Pataki
12 is an honest man and says what's on his mind.
13 He talks about a job where someone is going to
14 get a big number, 104,000 last I heard is above
15 minimum wage, and this person has a big job, and
16 they're going to be looking and questioning and
17 pulling and whatever, and in this bill, we say,
18 that's fine, you take your 104,000, you go on
19 the road, you know, I guess with your guitar and
20 visit every place, but we want the Governor's
21 counsel to hang out in Albany and do your work.
22 Well, in all fairness, we're
23 working on budgets this week and 104,000 doesn't
2869
1 quite balance the budget, but you got to wonder
2 why 104,000 to somebody whose job under the
3 Republican philosophy, under this new wind -- no
4 comment, Bill -- under this new wind, is going
5 to be cutting back and making everything work.
6 I think that unquestionably there
7 is more that we can do in the way of having a
8 check and balance on regulations. Part of it is
9 the fact that we -- we have not done our job
10 very, very well. There's that terrible old
11 expression, you know, fool me once shame on you;
12 fool me twice shame on me.
13 Years ago, and I've only been
14 around here for about 25, but years ago I heard
15 people say we've got to do something about
16 regulations. My God, the agencies, that's not
17 the law I passed. Where did it say they could
18 do that? Well, the first time it happened,
19 shame on them, but what about the next year and
20 the next year and the next year? And what about
21 the fact that the Administrative Regulations
22 Review Commission was formed years ago for this
23 very purpose, and since that was formed -- and I
2870
1 remember there were a number of years when
2 Senator Present, very distinguished colleague,
3 was running the commission and if you had a bill
4 on this floor, Senator Present had to stand up
5 and say, Yes, our commission has reviewed it and
6 the grant of regulatory authority in here is
7 O.K.
8 So forget the Civil War days.
9 Let's talk about the last ten years. We
10 supposedly have been reviewing all of the grants
11 of regulatory authority that have been given to
12 the agencies for all the time, and we've said,
13 they're good, yeah, we want this bill, right.
14 Of course, it had to be right because you
15 wouldn't accept an amendment if we gave you the
16 amendment anyway, but the bill was perfect. The
17 grant of regulatory authority is perfect. So
18 what are we complaining about?
19 Well, now, we hear that
20 apparently it wasn't so perfect. Apparently
21 we've given broad authority to the agency, and I
22 say to you, in all fairness, who gave them that
23 grant? It was not -- it wasn't George Onorato
2871
1 who drew that bill that threw away the ballgame,
2 you know. I can -- I can look around the room.
3 Don't blame it on Catherine Abate.
4 I mean you people drew the bill
5 and you people gave all these grants and now
6 you're saying, Governor Pataki, you've been a
7 member of the Assembly and you've been a member
8 of the Senate, you have watched us throw away
9 the ballgame. Come save it.
10 And I -- I just say to myself
11 that a little bit of insincerity, but I'm
12 curious to hear what Senator Skelos has to say.
13 Could I yield to that?
14 SENATOR SKELOS: In response to
15 that, Senator Gold, there will be an immediate
16 meeting of the Higher Education Committee in
17 Room 123 of the Capitol.
18 ACTING PRESIDENT DeFRANCISCO:
19 Immediate meeting of the Education Committee -
20 excuse me.
21 SENATOR SKELOS: Higher.
22 ACTING PRESIDENT DeFRANCISCO:
23 Excuse me -- the Higher Education Committee in
2872
1 Room 123 of the Capitol.
2 SENATOR GOLD: At any rate, Mr.
3 President, I'm interested in hearing the rest of
4 this debate and hearing some more that this new
5 wind has given new religion to my Republican
6 colleagues and how in this one phenomenal
7 election that happened in November, everybody
8 got religion. Everybody got education, as to
9 how to redraft legislation. I'm very proud of
10 that. I want to hear about it and at this point
11 I'll sit down so I can continue my education.
12 ACTING PRESIDENT DeFRANCISCO:
13 Senator Dollinger.
14 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
15 Mr. President.
16 I'm sorry Senator Bruno isn't
17 here because I was trying to ask the first
18 question. He said that this will create jobs
19 and maybe Senator Rath can tell us, under the
20 TQM model, you're supposed to know what your
21 objectives are before you embark.
22 So perhaps Senator Rath, if she
23 would yield to a question, could tell me how
2873
1 many jobs this bill will create and over what
2 time frame they'll create them just so I know at
3 some point in the future when we do an analysis
4 of whether this has worked or not like a good
5 TQM process would dictate, we'll know how many
6 jobs it's creating and we'll be able to make an
7 evaluation of whether this will work. Senator
8 Wright, if he will take that question?
9 ACTING PRESIDENT DeFRANCISCO:
10 Senator Wright, would you yield?
11 SENATOR WRIGHT: Be glad to, Mr.
12 President.
13 There is no specific identifica
14 tion of the number of jobs that are going to be
15 created and, of course, that's just the converse
16 of the problem that we have. We can't identify
17 what the jobs have been lost heretofore by the
18 additional regulations that have been imposed,
19 because the agencies don't identify that
20 information, so we begin the process first of
21 all by requiring that there be a job impact
22 statement incorporated, whereupon we can
23 identify the job loss.
2874
1 Then having done that, we know
2 the problem that we're addressing, we can then
3 resolve that and identify the jobs that will be
4 created.
5 But more importantly than the
6 specific number is the concept, and the concept
7 is that the business community consistently
8 tells us that the added costs of regulation adds
9 to the cost of doing business. When you add to
10 the cost of doing business, you make that
11 business less than competitive. That business
12 then leaves this state and those numbers are
13 well documented, 5-, 600,000 jobs over the last
14 half dozen years in the state.
15 If you were to generously
16 attribute half of those to regulation, that
17 would give you some sense of the impact that
18 we're seeing in this area.
19 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Again through
20 you, Mr. President, if Senator Wright would
21 yield to another question.
22 SENATOR WRIGHT: Sure.
23 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Is it fair,
2875
1 and is it the position of the Majority in
2 advancing these bills, that half of those
3 600,000 jobs left the state because of the
4 problems that this particular bill was designed
5 to remedy?
6 ACTING PRESIDENT DeFRANCISCO:
7 Senator Wright.
8 SENATOR WRIGHT: Mr. President,
9 no, that's not the position. I was using that
10 merely as an example to highlight the concerns.
11 In talking with the business
12 community, they talk taxes, they talk
13 regulations, they talk job loss of 600,000 jobs
14 and the fact is no portion of it has been
15 allocated to regulation. The fact is that it's
16 a significant contributor to job loss in the
17 state.
18 ACTING PRESIDENT DeFRANCISCO:
19 Senator Dollinger.
20 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Maybe, if
21 Senator Rath would yield to a couple questions?
22 ACTING PRESIDENT DeFRANCISCO:
23 Senator Rath, would you yield?
2876
1 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Again through
2 you, Mr. President. I heard you mention that
3 Governor Pataki put a freeze on new regulations
4 and there are about 350, is that the number?
5 SENATOR RATH: Right, yeah, m-m
6 h-m-m.
7 SENATOR DOLLINGER: O.K. It's
8 been almost three full months since he put that
9 freeze in place. How many of those regulations
10 has he determined are not appropriate in this
11 state?
12 SENATOR RATH: Interesting you
13 would ask because I have sent a letter to the
14 Governor about two weeks ago and I understand
15 that the -- the draft is -- that they're
16 developing a draft response for me as to how
17 that is going to be dealt with. Those 350,
18 there are only five agencies that -- that we
19 dealt with.
20 There was EnCon, Health,
21 Insurance, Labor and who is -- they were the
22 five agencies that -- I'm sorry, I can't
23 remember the fifth one, five agencies that do
2877
1 the most regulating had the 350 ready to go and
2 -- and the question -- and some of them have
3 gone. Some of them went by waiver through the
4 Governor's office and through the Governor's
5 counsel.
6 We had a circumstance with a tax
7 one that the Tax Department needed, it was
8 pointed out to us by the Bar Association had to
9 be done immediately, and it was. They went
10 right in; within two days they had what they
11 needed so that they could deal with their tax
12 situation. And so it hasn't been a total
13 bottleneck, but what it did was to slow -- slow
14 it down, and one of the bills that we have in
15 this package would continue this agenda
16 development. 40 agencies, Business Council
17 people spoke with me as late as just last week
18 saying, What's happening with that, that bill of
19 yours, and I said, Going into the omnibus piece
20 as it comes out.
21 They were very anxious because
22 they believed that the statement of the agenda
23 is extraordinarily important to the regulated
2878
1 community, so that all of a sudden they don't
2 read an official document that this has been
3 promulgated and they're expected to comply with
4 it. If it's there before, they might have an
5 opportunity to make some -- some comment, before
6 it's promulgated as in the regular -- the
7 negotiated rule-making piece we debated on this
8 floor.
9 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Again, Mr.
10 President.
11 ACTING PRESIDENT DeFRANCISCO:
12 Senator Dollinger.
13 SENATOR DOLLINGER: I just repeat
14 the question. Do you know how many of the 350
15 have been determined to be inappropriate under
16 the Governor's new standard?
17 SENATOR RATH: No, I don't, and I
18 think that's a really good question. That's -
19 the letter that I get, I'll be glad to share the
20 response with you so that -- and if that letter
21 doesn't answer our questions, then we'll go back
22 and we'll write another letter and get more in
23 formation because the time period is over, April
2879
1 1st it's over, and those 350 or as many of them
2 that have not gone through by special waiver,
3 yes, I think we have some responsibility for
4 that.
5 SENATOR DOLLINGER: O.K. Again
6 through you, Mr. President. So we have no
7 evidence today that any of the 350 regulations
8 wouldn't be appropriate under either the
9 Governor's new executive order or under the law
10 as it currently exists in this state?
11 ACTING PRESIDENT DeFRANCISCO:
12 Senator Rath.
13 SENATOR RATH: I'm not sure what
14 you're talking about. That was a statement.
15 SENATOR DOLLINGER: No, but my
16 question is we have nothing to suggest that any
17 of the regulations that were frozen on the 1st
18 of January would be inconsistent with the
19 Governor's agenda or inconsistent with the theme
20 of this bill, correct, because the Governor, who
21 I assume has shared your view that there's too
22 much regulation and shares the view that we've
23 over-regulated certain communities, but yet
2880
1 despite that seeming displeasure with the
2 regulatory environment, there's no evidence that
3 he's stopped or is not going to allow into
4 effect any of the 350 regulations around the
5 table, is there?
6 ACTING PRESIDENT DeFRANCISCO:
7 Senator Wright, why do you rise?
8 SENATOR WRIGHT: Would Senator
9 Dollinger yield to a question, please?
10 SENATOR DOLLINGER: I want to get
11 an answer to mine, Mr. President, and I'll be
12 glad to.
13 ACTING PRESIDENT DeFRANCISCO:
14 All right. First, Senator Rath, can you answer
15 the question, or would you like the question
16 repeated?
17 SENATOR RATH: Let me say, as I
18 recall, last year I sat there, George Pataki sat
19 there. I think the persona of the new Governor
20 is certainly known to people in this house and
21 certainly those who served in the Assembly. The
22 Governor made the comment, when he made his
23 moratorium as his second piece of business, I
2881
1 believe, when he took over the reins of
2 government, his phrase was typical George
3 Pataki, and I quote: I need to get my arms
4 around these regulatory regulations, and we see
5 these 350 here, we need to take a look at them.
6 That was, quote, George Pataki.
7 SENATOR DOLLINGER: I guess I
8 didn't get any of them; is that what you're
9 saying.
10 ACTING PRESIDENT DeFRANCISCO:
11 Senator Wright, why do you rise?
12 SENATOR WRIGHT: Senator
13 Dollinger, would you yield to a question,
14 please?
15 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Sure.
16 SENATOR WRIGHT: Senator, of
17 those 350 regulations that have been placed on
18 hold for the last 89 days, have you missed any
19 of them?
20 ACTING PRESIDENT DeFRANCISCO:
21 Senator Dollinger.
22 SENATOR DOLLINGER: With all due
23 respect, Mr. President, I don't know what the
2882
1 regulations were, but obviously some people
2 missed them, because there were waivers
3 granted. I have had several complaints from
4 people in my district about the slow pace of the
5 regulatory environment in getting relief in some
6 of those instances.
7 I haven't missed them, but I have
8 heard from parts of my communities, particularly
9 health care and other areas, that people have
10 been wondering about what's going on in the
11 development of regulations to implement the
12 bills that this Legislature passed last year and
13 were signed into law.
14 So the answer is I haven't missed
15 them, but some people that I represent have.
16 ACTING PRESIDENT DeFRANCISCO:
17 Senator Wright.
18 SENATOR WRIGHT: I believe that's
19 the point, Senator, that in fact given that
20 volume of 350 regulations, certainly there are
21 valid regulations, we have not contended that
22 there aren't, that are being implemented that
23 are consistent with statute that are carrying it
2883
1 forth, but I would also contend that given 350
2 regulations, there are a great many of them that
3 we haven't missed.
4 This state, in fact, has not come
5 to a halt. We continue to move ahead. We
6 continue to implement the programs and the
7 services that are critical to this state, the
8 point being that in this 90-day period what, in
9 fact, has occurred is a documentation that we
10 don't need as many regulations as are
11 consistently promulgated by these agencies and,
12 in fact, we can get by with less and that's what
13 this -- this statute talks about.
14 ACTING PRESIDENT DeFRANCISCO:
15 Senator Dollinger.
16 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Mr.
17 President, would Senator Wright yield to a
18 question so I can clarify his statement?
19 ACTING PRESIDENT DeFRANCISCO:
20 Senator Wright, would you yield so he can
21 clarify your statement?
22 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Senator,
23 where is your evidence that we don't need these
2884
1 regulations? I assume if we don't need them,
2 George Pataki will send them back since he now
3 runs the government and since he now has the
4 commissioners who issue these regulations, he
5 can tell them himself; pick up the phone,
6 they'll answer his call. He'll say, "Gee, Dr.
7 DeBuono; gee, John Daly, Gee, X, don't issue
8 those regulations. They're no good," and I
9 assume that the commissioner will then say,
10 "You're right. O.K. We won't."
11 So he's got the ability to stop
12 any one of those 350 regulations like that.
13 That's with the power we give in the executive.
14 Is there any evidence that he's done that yet to
15 any one of those 350 regulations?
16 ACTING PRESIDENT DeFRANCISCO:
17 Senator Wright.
18 SENATOR WRIGHT: I don't -
19 Senator, I have no personal knowledge having not
20 perceived that issue with the Governor in terms
21 of whether or not he has stopped any at this
22 particular juncture, but in fact he does have
23 that authority through his commissioners, but as
2885
1 you're well aware, and I think all of us are,
2 this is not the only issue that's on the
3 Governor's plate at the present time as he works
4 through budget and a number of other concerns
5 and I think that only adds further credence to
6 the need to place a moratorium on it for 90 days
7 to ensure that we do carry through on those
8 issues.
9 ACTING PRESIDENT DeFRANCISCO:
10 Senator Rath, why do you yield -- why do you
11 rise?
12 SENATOR RATH: I rose because I
13 believe I can add to the debate between Senator
14 Wright and Senator Dollinger.
15 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Mr.
16 President, I'd be glad to have Senator Rath
17 amplify or enlarge on the question if she so
18 chooses.
19 ACTING PRESIDENT DeFRANCISCO:
20 Senator Rath.
21 SENATOR RATH: Yes, Mr.
22 President, the 350 regulations that we're
23 talking about are those of the agencies that
2886
1 they were to promulgate some time in 1995. They
2 were not, as you might think, in a great horse
3 race with the gong going January 1st, passing
4 the horses are out of the gate. That's not
5 exactly the way it happens, and I think the
6 Governor has been prudent in suggesting that we
7 need to take a look at these, because we have
8 not had in place a mind set, an attitude, if you
9 will, in New York State that would say, Let's
10 regulate less if we can.
11 What we have had in New York
12 State has been, Let's regulate more in order to
13 safeguard whatever it is we're safeguarding with
14 the regulations, and I believe the Governor's
15 mind set on this is, let's take a look at them
16 before they come out and cause any damage, and
17 so with his new department heads and with the
18 five agencies and the fifth one that I was
19 trying to remember is Education, and as I spoke
20 in my opening remarks, it's not just business,
21 and it's not just the environmental issues, it's
22 small government, it's the small municipalities,
23 it's education, it's health care, it's every
2887
1 where.
2 The volume of effort that needs
3 to be done in order to unwind some of what we
4 have put on the -- the yoke that we've put on
5 the back of the people of New York State who try
6 to do business, whether it's the business of
7 education or the business of business, whatever
8 it might be, we have -- we have done a real dis
9 service and I don't know how it's happened, I
10 don't know. It was done by well-meaning people,
11 but -
12 SENATOR DOLLINGER: I -
13 SENATOR RATH: We're well-meaning
14 but we're also zealous, and we get onto a cause
15 and we think, yeah, it's a hundred percent, a
16 hundred percent good; it's got to be better.
17 That's not necessarily so, because the costs of
18 110 percent are sometimes just beyond anything
19 that's reasonable.
20 ACTING PRESIDENT DeFRANCISCO:
21 Senator Dollinger.
22 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Would Senator
23 Rath yield to another question?
2888
1 SENATOR RATH: Sure.
2 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Are you aware
3 that the managed care regulations for Workers'
4 Comp. which we required to be issued in order to
5 put workers -- a managed care system for
6 Workers' Comp. in 1993, almost two years ago we
7 passed a bill that created managed care in this
8 state, we required that regulations be issued
9 and that those are among the 350 regulations
10 that are sitting in limbo waiting for the
11 Governor to do something with them?
12 ACTING PRESIDENT DeFRANCISCO:
13 Senator Rath.
14 SENATOR RATH: You say they are.
15 SENATOR DOLLINGER: They are.
16 SENATOR RATH: Well, then if
17 that's the case and we need to move forward -
18 and those of us -- and I wasn't aware of that
19 because I wasn't here until the very end of 1993
20 and I'm glad you brought that up because you,
21 Senator Dollinger, like people all across New
22 York State, are pointing out to us what we need
23 to do to make this government and this system
2889
1 work. If that one needs to come out quickly, I
2 will have that fact taken and we will get a note
3 to the Governor immediately that they should
4 take a look at that one immediately because that
5 one's important. I agree.
6 ACTING PRESIDENT DeFRANCISCO:
7 Senator Dollinger.
8 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Again, will
9 Senator Rath yield for one other question? Then
10 I'll stop.
11 ACTING PRESIDENT DeFRANCISCO:
12 Senator Rath, will you yield?
13 SENATOR RATH: Yes.
14 SENATOR DOLLINGER: It deals with
15 your bakery example, much as I understand it.
16 Someone -- was it at the EPA -
17 SENATOR RATH: Pardon?
18 SENATOR DOLLINGER: The EPA or
19 the DEC?
20 SENATOR RATH: The EPA and this
21 is very typical of the regulatory community, the
22 EPA has one regulation and the DEC has come in
23 with that which is greater or lesser, but the
2890
1 EPA, yes, is the one that had the problem.
2 SENATOR DOLLINGER: But my
3 understanding is the EPA came into the bakeries
4 and said, This is the problem. The bakeries
5 said, No, this isn't the problem but we can cure
6 another problem by using uncycled fuel in our
7 vehicles.
8 SENATOR RATH: I think the
9 Senator is still framing his question.
10 ACTING PRESIDENT DeFRANCISCO:
11 Senator Rath.
12 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you,
13 Mr. President, isn't that the exact kind of
14 joint decision making and regulation that we
15 want to have?
16 SENATOR RATH: You bet.
17 SENATOR DOLLINGER: So what you
18 site as an example of the bakery problem being
19 over-regulation is actually an example of how
20 you work together to come to the right
21 conclusion.
22 SENATOR RATH: You bet.
23 SENATOR DOLLINGER: If that's the
2891
1 case, then why do we need to change it?
2 SENATOR RATH: Why do we need
3 what?
4 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Why do we
5 need to change it. If we've got -- if that's
6 the way it works now, why do we need to change
7 it?
8 SENATOR RATH: Well, in the piece
9 of legislation that we're talking about, the
10 example that we have is not going to be changing
11 anything, but there are in relation to the
12 bakeries that we're talking about with the EPA
13 and the DEC, that is the kind of thing that the
14 negotiated rule-making legislation that has
15 passed this house at various times would -
16 would accomplish, and it's a matter of people of
17 good will attempting to find the best answer and
18 the people in the bakery business had the best
19 answer as to how they could comply with the
20 responsibilities of the Clean Air Act that the
21 EPA said was their responsibility and then down
22 through the DEC people who think the only way to
23 solve it is smoke stack emission.
2892
1 There's a little book, Senator,
2 I'd like to recommend for your perusal, the name
3 of it -- I have a compendium here of it -- that
4 was done in U.S. News and World Report. The
5 name of the book is "The Loss of Common Sense"
6 and it's written by a man by the name of
7 Howard. It's a new little book, a small volume,
8 and in that example after example are cited how
9 we have lost the kinds of common sense that are
10 so -- here it is, The Death of Common Sense. If
11 you'd like -- I'll tell you what, I'll Xerox
12 this and I'll send you this and, if you like
13 this much, then you can go get the whole book.
14 SENATOR DOLLINGER: I think I
15 read the crib notes, Senator.
16 SENATOR RATH: You have read the
17 book?
18 SENATOR DOLLINGER: No, I read
19 the crib notes.
20 SENATOR RATH: Let me read for
21 you, if I may, Mr. Chairman, the last paragraph
22 and I think this sort of sums up what I feel
23 about this issue: Laws cannot save us from
2893
1 ourselves. Waking up every morning we have to
2 go out and try to accomplish our goals and
3 resolve disagreements by what we think is
4 right. Energy and resourcefulness, not millions
5 of legal cubicles are the things that made
6 America great. Let judgment and personal
7 conviction be important again. There is nothing
8 unusual or frightening about it. It's just
9 common sense.
10 And that's what this omnibus bill
11 has tried to do. It has tried to pull apart
12 some of the bad things that we are -- that we're
13 doing, habits if you will, that we've gotten
14 into, and it's put into place some of the good
15 things that we need to do so that common sense
16 can take over again in New York State and that
17 business will say, yes, this is a good place to
18 do business. They're not over-regulating us
19 every day and every night.
20 ACTING PRESIDENT DeFRANCISCO:
21 Senator Dollinger.
22 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Mr.
23 President, on the bill.
2894
1 I agree with Senator Rath that
2 the hallmark, touchstone in this discussion
3 ought to be common sense, but I find it somewhat
4 unusual when she used the example of Lake Erie
5 being polluted, having garbage dumped in it for
6 50 years, 100 years. Why? Because that was the
7 common sense thing to do that day. You had
8 trash, you got rid of it. You dumped it in the
9 water.
10 It turned out we decided that
11 there was more common sense in regulating the
12 use of toxins in water or dumping garbage.
13 Why? Because government had the common sense to
14 realize that simply using your private property
15 to dump garbage in it was not the right thing to
16 do, so we decided to regulate that in the common
17 sense for the common good. It was the right
18 thing to do; absolutely the right thing to do.
19 Now, all of a sudden, we've got
20 this sense that the regulatory environment is
21 out of control, and I said this the last time we
22 debated, but I've come up with a new analogy.
23 You know that commercial about -
2895
1 it's been in Rochester, it's just in between the
2 Pataki commercials and the other commercials.
3 It's a commercial where they turn on the
4 television set and the monster comes up on the
5 television set and the television set starts to
6 move. The family doesn't know what to do. The
7 television set chases them up the stairs and
8 locks them in a room and it's trying to knock
9 down the door. Then all of a sudden the kid
10 says, "My gosh, I've got the remote." He points
11 the remote at the TV set and goes "click" and
12 all of a sudden the TV goes dead.
13 We have the power in this chamber
14 to take the remote control and to click it to
15 any one of the regulatory environments we want
16 to. We can take the Department of Health and go
17 "click", just turn off all of its regulatory
18 power, because the only power they have is the
19 power they get from us. We can turn off the
20 power, and I find it somewhat inconsistent that
21 from the other side of the aisle comes this
22 chant that we've now created this regulatory
23 monster that we can't control.
2896
1 We do have, as Senator Gold
2 properly pointed out, a regulatory review
3 commission. We could review all these
4 regulations ourselves. We could decide that
5 they're inconsistent with the statutory
6 authority we gave them. We haven't done that.
7 We could sit down and decide that we don't want
8 to give them regulatory power at all, that we
9 will enact all the regulations into law. We
10 haven't done that, and then to top it off,
11 Senator Gold properly point out that my friend
12 Bob King, my poor friend Bob King, County
13 Executive in Monroe County, he gives up the job
14 because George Pataki has promised him that he
15 will become the regulatory policeman in the
16 state of New York. And as Senator Gold properly
17 points out, we're going to pay him $104,000 to
18 be the regulatory policeman, but what does he
19 find out upon coming to Albany?
20 He comes out that the Senate
21 Republicans are going to pass a bill which says,
22 "Guess what? You're not the top cop anymore.
23 We're going to make the Governor's counsel the
2897
1 top cop and we're going to let him be the
2 policeman who decides what the regulations are,
3 and we're not going to let you, Bob King, do
4 that."
5 So it seems to me that my poor
6 friend, Bob King, comes all the way down to
7 Albany, finds out that he's not going to get the
8 job he wants, and then he's going to find out
9 that someone like Rick Dollinger is going to
10 stand up and say, "Why should we pay $104,000
11 for Bob King to do what the law is going to
12 require Mike Finnegan is going to do?"
13 It sounds to me like we're
14 running into the old regulatory trap of simple,
15 pure duplication of function. We're going to
16 have two guys doing the same thing in this new
17 slim-down government. We're going to tighten up
18 the ship. I don't know how we can afford
19 $104,000 for duplication. Mr. King might find
20 out that he just -- his salary happens to go in
21 the way of budget cutting, because certainly we
22 don't want to put two guys in to do the same
23 job.
2898
1 It seems to me this whole bill,
2 this whole concept, regulatory reform -- you're
3 correct, Senator Rath, the wind is blowing; the
4 word is regulatory reform. We've had the power
5 to change it for decades. This Majority hasn't
6 done anything about it. We haven't been able to
7 work out a bill with the Assembly, and now all
8 of a sudden because it's politically popular,
9 everybody wants to make sure they're on the
10 bandwagon.
11 Well, I don't think this bill
12 does the job. I think it's got a lot of stuff
13 in it that doesn't make a lot of sense. Start
14 off with the first page in which they duplicate
15 the functions of Bob King. I think it all goes
16 downhill from there.
17 I think if we really want
18 regulatory reform, let's roll up our sleeves.
19 Let's do it here. Let's tell these agencies
20 where they have been overly zealous. Give the
21 Governor in this state who, as Senator Gold
22 properly points out, now has all his
23 commissioners who would guard against their
2899
1 excessive zeal. We've all got it in place now.
2 Why don't we wait and see what they do and then
3 determine whether we need, I would point out, 56
4 pages worth of regulatory reform. 56 pages? I
5 can see the regulations that spew from this will
6 be 1,000 pages long. We can't put it in three
7 or four pages. It doesn't seem that we can.
8 This is part of the problem, 56 pages of
9 regulatory reform.
10 With all due respect to our
11 President of the United States, it's like a
12 health care plan that they tried to reform
13 health care with an 1100-page document. This
14 may be politically very sellable, but I don't
15 think it makes a lot of sense.
16 ACTING PRESIDENT DeFRANCISCO:
17 Senator Abate.
18 SENATOR ABATE: Yes. Would
19 Senator Rath yield to a question?
20 ACTING PRESIDENT DeFRANCISCO:
21 Senator Rath. Senator Rath, would you yield to
22 a question?
23 SENATOR RATH: Sure.
2900
1 SENATOR ABATE: Yes. My concerns
2 and questions are around the mandated negotiated
3 rulemaking process, and what does not make sense
4 to me because -- certainly through the years
5 talking with my friends in the Republican Party,
6 one thing that they have been very good at is
7 clarity of message, and what's -- and also a
8 conviction that their party does not represent
9 special interests, that they're a party of
10 independence, a party that certainly has all the
11 initiative and gumption to rule for themselves,
12 and it seems to me that this negotiated
13 rulemaking procedure gives undue weight to a
14 special interest. Maybe you can explain the
15 change in direction of the administration in
16 this regard.
17 SENATOR RATH: Okay. My
18 understanding, and both of us being fairly new
19 to the Legislature as we attempt to sort out
20 what it -
21 SENATOR ABATE: You're a veteran
22 in comparison to me.
23 SENATOR RATH: Pardon me?
2901
1 SENATOR ABATE: You're a veteran
2 in comparison to me.
3 SENATOR RATH: One-year veteran.
4 Yeah, I guess I am a one-year veteran.
5 The -- my understanding is that
6 the need for the negotiated rulemaking has been
7 because the business community has not been a
8 part of the discussions. They found out about
9 the rules or the regulations after they were
10 promulgated, and in many cases these rules and
11 regulations have the weight of law. They're
12 taken -- they're used by agencies that feel that
13 the businesses are not complying. They take
14 them to court and they do have the weight of law
15 in many cases, and so the regulators -- and
16 hearkening back to a few earlier words, I
17 believe, from one of the other speakers, that we
18 have the -- we have the opportunity to do all of
19 this ourselves now. There's the Governor and
20 his new -- new heads of agencies, but many of
21 the people that are in the agencies that write
22 the regulations are people who have been there
23 for years, and they will continue to be there.
2902
1 They are not going to be changed or replaced.
2 They're civil servants, and for the most part
3 they do their jobs very well, but unless there's
4 a responsibility to talk with and work with the
5 community that is about to be regulated -- and
6 let's bounce back to my example of the
7 smokestacks in the bakery industry.
8 If those people had not been
9 brought in and the discussions held and the EPA
10 brought in, all of what is about now to be a
11 very successful common sense resolution to the
12 problem, not such a costly one that those
13 bakeries would have moved out of New York
14 State. That wouldn't have happened, but that
15 happened rather serendipitously. That was not
16 because there was anything anywhere that said
17 that that had to happen that way.
18 ACTING PRESIDENT DeFRANCISCO:
19 Senator Abate.
20 SENATOR ABATE: Yes. Would you
21 yield to another question?
22 SENATOR RATH: Sure.
23 SENATOR ABATE: I don't
2903
1 understand and, as you know, I have been a
2 commissioner of four agencies and if there is a
3 strong, able commissioner, they can direct their
4 staff that before any rules and regulations take
5 place, that input be taken from the critical
6 industries that are affected by those rules and
7 regulations.
8 Are you suggesting that there
9 aren't in existence now strong and able
10 commissioners that can get that input, have
11 those discussions, set up those committees prior
12 to the promulgation of a rule and regulation and
13 not -- and avoid the need to have a mandated
14 negotiated rulemaking process after the fact
15 that forces compromise upon that commissioner?
16 ACTING PRESIDENT DeFRANCISCO:
17 Senator Rath.
18 SENATOR RATH: Yes. The
19 legislation, Senator Abate, provides for, quote,
20 "To the maximum extent feasible, membership on
21 the committee shall include an equal number of
22 agency and non-agency members." And so there is
23 a recognition here that the agency that has been
2904
1 dealing with this has the experience, yes, but I
2 think we also need to make sure that those who
3 it is being done unto are part of the
4 discussion.
5 SENATOR ABATE: Senator Rath, you
6 raised a good point, and I'm not aware of the
7 answer to this or else I wouldn't be asking the
8 question to this. How many people are agency
9 people on this committee; do they constitute a
10 majority of the committee?
11 SENATOR RATH: No, the agency
12 does not -- let me take a second look in here to
13 see the exact numbers.
14 SENATOR WRIGHT: Mr. President.
15 ACTING PRESIDENT DeFRANCISCO:
16 Senator Wright, why do you yield -- why do you
17 rise?
18 SENATOR WRIGHT: Would Senator
19 Abate yield to question while you're waiting?
20 SENATOR ABATE: Yes.
21 SENATOR WRIGHT: Senator, would
22 you acknowledge that within given areas people
23 have special expertise and special knowledge
2905
1 acquired over experience?
2 SENATOR ABATE: Absolutely.
3 SENATOR WRIGHT: Okay. And would
4 you further acknowledge that, given that
5 expertise, particularly if it's going to be in a
6 regulated environment, that perhaps an agency,
7 even a well-meaning commissioner who doesn't
8 have that expertise could learn from the
9 individuals with that expertise?
10 SENATOR ABATE: No question.
11 SENATOR WRIGHT: Then you would
12 agree that, in fact, enabling that expertise to
13 be brought to the question, to focus on
14 resolving the problems, in fact, is not a
15 special interest but utilizing special
16 expertise, special experience to craft the
17 regulation in the best manner we can to protect
18 the interest of all parties.
19 SENATOR ABATE: But where I
20 disagree -- there is no question that an able
21 administrator needs to receive input from a
22 whole host of special interests, but they should
23 not leave the decision-making and the responsi
2906
1 bility they have to protect all New Yorkers to
2 any one special interest, particularly the
3 special interests that would be most affected by
4 the regulation.
5 I agree wholeheartedly that
6 business needs to be at the table, that business
7 should be consulted, but I do not believe that
8 the shifting of decision making and the
9 protection of all New Yorkers should be made by
10 special interests. They should be made by the
11 Governor, by the Legislature and appointed
12 commissioners.
13 I believe this places too much
14 power -- I mean, I'm still waiting for the
15 answer where the majority of the committee is
16 constituted by agency members or by special
17 interest members.
18 SENATOR WRIGHT: I believe that
19 you'll find that, in fact, this doesn't dispro
20 portionately shift the governmental responsibil
21 ities that agencies and commissioners have, but
22 it does ensure that the special expertise, the
23 experience, is brought to the table because,
2907
1 unfortunately, heretofore, we've not had that
2 kind of participation, and while I think this
3 Governor and these commissioners will utilize
4 negotiated rulemaking far more than their
5 predecessors, historically, we've not seen that
6 to be the case. We've seen the issue given lip
7 service. We've seen regulations impose undue
8 burdens when the industry has warned that this
9 will not work and, in fact, this will cost money
10 only to have the agency implement the rule and
11 then come back six months later and recommend
12 that it be rescinded because of that cost.
13 SENATOR ABATE: I just want to
14 state again, I agree -
15 ACTING PRESIDENT SEWARD: Excuse
16 me, Senator Abate. Could we just interrupt the
17 discussion briefly? I'd like to recognize
18 Senator Velella.
19 SENATOR VELELLA: Mr. President,
20 would you recognize -- Senator Stafford has an
21 announcement to make.
22 ACTING PRESIDENT SEWARD: Senator
23 Stafford.
2908
1 SENATOR STAFFORD: Thank you,
2 Senator Seward. Thank you, Senator Velella.
3 Thank you, Senator Skelos.
4 Could I please call an immediate
5 meeting of the Committee on Finance in Room 332
6 again. We apologize for the interruption.
7 ACTING PRESIDENT SEWARD:
8 Immediate meeting of the Finance Committee in
9 Room 332.
10 Senator Abate, I believe you have
11 the floor.
12 SENATOR RATH: Mr. Chairman, I
13 think I have -
14 ACTING PRESIDENT SEWARD: And
15 Senator Rath was about to answer your question.
16 SENATOR RATH: I have your
17 answer, Senator Abate.
18 SENATOR ABATE: Okay. Just to
19 respond again, I believe business and other
20 interests in the state should be at the table,
21 and government is negligent when they don't seek
22 the input and expertise of these particular
23 communities. However, the business community,
2909
1 environmentalists, other people were not elected
2 to govern, and when we shift decision-making
3 from government to a special interest, I fear
4 that the entire state will lose protections
5 because there has to be someone at the helm
6 balancing the interests of the state and coming
7 forward for the protections that are critical
8 and needed to safeguard all New Yorkers, and
9 that's my fear, not that we in government
10 shouldn't seek advice and expertise. I feel
11 that this rulemaking and the fact that it's
12 mandating, forcing compromise will shift the
13 balance of power inappropriately but, Senator
14 Rath, yes, I welcome the answer to my question.
15 SENATOR RATH: Okay. Let me
16 continue on quoting from the bill: "That the
17 membership on the committee shall include an
18 equal number of agency and non-agency members
19 and shall be limited to no more than 25 members
20 unless the office determines a greater number of
21 members is necessary for the proper functioning
22 of the committee or to achieve the balanced mem
23 bership; provided, however, that in no instance
2910
1 shall the number of agency representatives
2 exceed one half of the membership of the
3 committee."
4 And so, it will be an equally
5 balanced committee, no more than half the
6 members. So the agency will have the balance on
7 the committee if it should -- push should come
8 to shove.
9 But I think we've agreed here
10 today that we need to do something to reform
11 over-zealous regulators, and your point,
12 Senator, was one that I have heard as we've gone
13 through the debate and, believe me, everyone
14 knows that we need regulations and we need to
15 safeguard the health, welfare, consumer
16 protection interests, et cetera, but what we
17 have heard from all over the state of New York
18 and, indeed, people all over the United States,
19 that we have been over-zealous, and I think we
20 could afford to do that as a country and as a
21 state because we had -- we had resources. We
22 had a lot of resources, and I think we were able
23 to spend those resources and there was still
2911
1 more coming up behind them, but those days, I
2 think, are waning or have waned completely. And
3 so now we need to husband our resources and very
4 carefully ensure, for example, that the bakery
5 does not have to put on millions of dollars
6 worth of scrubbers on smokestacks when all they
7 need to do really is convert their fleet in
8 order to be under the air emissions standard
9 that they're required to do.
10 So I think we mean well, and this
11 is what this omnibus legislation is aiming at.
12 SENATOR ABATE: When you go back
13 to the constitution of this committee, you
14 stated that no more than one-half of those
15 members would be agency members. So I read that
16 to mean 12 would be agency appointments and the
17 other 13 would be from the special interests.
18 So, conceivably, the special interests could
19 force a compromise against the wishes of that
20 commissioner if they control 13 of the votes.
21 SENATOR RATH: If the office
22 determines a greater number of members is
23 necessary for the proper functioning of the
2912
1 committee, then the office will put in more
2 people. However, the office -- it can be an
3 uneven member. It can be an even number. The
4 agency has the responsibility of determining
5 whether it's even or uneven and whether the
6 votes balance or are unbalanced, but the
7 legislation provides for the balance of the
8 weight of the vote to be with the office.
9 SENATOR ABATE: I have a couple
10 other questions if the Senator would yield to
11 those questions.
12 Who decides who is a special -
13 let me use the words of the bill -- a
14 "substantially affected person"? Who defines
15 that, and what is the definition of that
16 person?
17 SENATOR RATH: I believe that the
18 substantial reference would be determined by the
19 committee who is, of course, well meaning.
20 There are -- throughout this omnibus piece of
21 legislation, there is reference to major
22 legislation and the term "substantial", and I
23 believe that in this particular bill -- although
2913
1 I am not the prime sponsor of negotiated
2 rulemaking, I need to tell you, Senator, that it
3 has passed this Legislature twice, and so there
4 is a great deal of commitment to negotiated
5 rulemaking in this house and, hopefully, we're
6 going to see a good deal of interest coming from
7 the Assembly, and I welcome, as I know you have
8 spoken of the conference effort we see, I think,
9 the first one happening today on the 65-mile
10 per-hour speed limit, the effort of conferencing
11 with the Assembly as we move forward to -- to
12 give New York State some of this forward
13 thinking and aggressive posture as we try to
14 free up our resources.
15 SENATOR ABATE: Would the Senator
16 yield to another question?
17 ACTING PRESIDENT SEWARD: Senator
18 Rath, will you yield?
19 SENATOR RATH: Surely.
20 SENATOR ABATE: Thank you,
21 Senator.
22 Clearly, the mandated process is
23 put in place to reach a goal of consensus. Is
2914
1 there a time limit on -- let's say the 20 to 25
2 people who constitute this committee do not
3 reach a consensus after several months. Is
4 there a time limit placed when that decision
5 then would revert back to the agency?
6 SENATOR RATH: I think that the
7 issue would drive the time limit, Senator. If
8 something is burning and it has to be done, it
9 will get done, and I think to put a time limit
10 on it would be counterproductive, because we
11 would be forcing a group into a hasty decision,
12 if necessary, or saying that if it's not done by
13 such and such a time, it's not going to be done
14 because it's not important enough.
15 I think that -- and you spoke of
16 the good will of the agency and the effort to
17 reach consensus. I think that we have to go
18 back to common sense and good will in some of
19 this, saying that we cannot put into statute
20 every single piece of everything. I think
21 that's been part of the problem.
22 I don't know if you were on the
23 floor as I read to Senator Dollinger what I felt
2915
1 was a really important piece in this very
2 important little volume that has come forward
3 saying that, "We can't resolve and accomplish
4 everything by putting things into millions of
5 legal cubicles." That's -- that's just not
6 possible.
7 I think we have to have some
8 trust measured there. We set up the framework
9 for this, and if we need a tighter framework
10 when we negotiate this with the Assembly, I
11 think we will all be in the room to talk about
12 how tight a framework, but also how much
13 flexibility we want to offer, because those are
14 the two sides of what we're talking about here,
15 a tight framework that mandates and locks it
16 down and the flexibility to allow some common
17 sense to come in.
18 SENATOR ABATE: Would the Senator
19 yield to another question?
20 SENATOR RATH: Surely.
21 SENATOR ABATE: My concern is
22 there are no time limits and we talk about the
23 readoption of critical rules and regulations
2916
1 that affect the health and safety of New
2 Yorkers. What that could mean is that the
3 interests of these special groups would outweigh
4 the interests of all New Yorkers in terms of
5 health and safety, and without these time
6 limits, these issues could drag on and on
7 without resolution.
8 SENATOR RATH: I don't believe -
9 I don't believe that the critical pieces would
10 fall into the scenario you've just outlined.
11 They usually have their own time limits inside
12 the legislation as to when they have to be done.
13 SENATOR ABATE: But it's not
14 written in the legislation; it's not resolved
15 there.
16 SENATOR RATH: If it's not
17 resolved in the legislation, then the people who
18 are responsible for the rules will have to work
19 inside what they see as a framework.
20 But let me tell you, Senator,
21 there's another piece in this -- in this omnibus
22 resolution that says that when rules are
23 promulgated on a specific piece of legislation
2917
1 -- say it was your piece or it was my piece -
2 that has to come back to the sponsor for
3 consideration, because part of what we've seen
4 here as we've looked through has been that
5 well-meaning legislation has passed both houses
6 and been signed and then gone to the rulemakers
7 for promulgation, and although it bounces back
8 to both the Assembly ARRC and the Senate ARRC,
9 what we do at the ARRC is look for the specifics
10 in terms of contradictions, if you will, with
11 other parts of regulations or other parts of the
12 law.
13 Very often the legislative intent
14 has been lost, and that's a problem that we've
15 highlighted very clearly here, and so you as the
16 sponsor of the legislation or me as the sponsor
17 of the legislation have a more serious responsi
18 bility there, because we put forward with the
19 legislative intent -- and very often the legis
20 lative intent does not -- most of the time it
21 does not encompass what the rules and reg's are
22 that will promulgate that -- that reg... the law
23 as they see it, and this is part of the
2918
1 problem. The regulators don't very often see it
2 as you might see it or I might see it and we
3 might vote on something. They don't see it that
4 way. They move forward and promulgate it the
5 way they think it should be promulgated. The
6 ARRCs check on it for technicalities, but not
7 legislative intent.
8 So another bill in here will
9 bring that back to you or bring it back to me so
10 we can safeguard what our intent was and, in
11 fact, one of the pieces that we didn't do last
12 year that was in part of my package last year
13 and, in fact, the Assembly was looking to do it,
14 was to put into statute how and when that had to
15 come back.
16 That just didn't happen, and we
17 saw that there's some old legislation that have
18 had rules and regulations promulgated, that it
19 must have been in Xerox machines that didn't
20 work very well. The pieces went through
21 sideways. Half a piece was there, and there was
22 no way of having any idea what the legislative
23 intent was.
2919
1 And so, although legislative
2 intent does not come through right now even as
3 we're debating this today, I think I'm going to
4 have to ask my staff to please make a note that
5 we resurrect that piece because it was a good
6 piece and, Senator, I hope you'll co-sponsor
7 that with me.
8 SENATOR ABATE: I look forward to
9 talking with you on that.
10 SENATOR RATH: Thank you.
11 SENATOR ABATE: I have one last
12 question. When the office defines and
13 determines who is substantially affected, will
14 that include consumers, union representatives,
15 environmentalists?
16 SENATOR RATH: Absolutely.
17 SENATOR ABATE: Is it written in
18 the legislation that they will be substantially
19 affected parties?
20 SENATOR RATH: I think the
21 substantially affected parties can petition the
22 agency for inclusion in the discussion and,
23 believe me, the groups that you're talking
2920
1 about, my experience with them in 15 years in
2 the county Legislature is that these groups will
3 come forward and make themselves known to us,
4 and in that we have sponsored this legislation,
5 I think it's totally appropriate for us to
6 advocate their inclusion. In fact, if they
7 weren't included, I would think that it would
8 not be a very complete negotiated rulemaking
9 because all sides need to be heard.
10 And you know what else we need to
11 do? We need to make sure that those meetings
12 are publicized and people know when the meetings
13 are going to be held, when those negotiated
14 rulemakings are going to be heard, so that the
15 public can hear it. They might not be on the
16 committee, but we need that safeguard, Senator,
17 and I agree with you.
18 SENATOR ABATE: Senator, would
19 you consider including in this legislation the
20 requisite -- the prerequisite that consumers -
21 and that may be environmentalists; that may be
22 other individuals, as well as represented labor
23 -- beyond this mandated negotiating panel?
2921
1 SENATOR RATH: The agency will
2 make that decision as they pull that group to
3 gether, and the agencies are our representa
4 tives. Work with both sides of the issues, and
5 they will see, and they will know and, indeed,
6 if the agency isn't doing it correctly, then you
7 and I assume our responsibility and we say to
8 them that we believe that there's an interest
9 here that is not being -- not being met; and if
10 you would see the letters and the information
11 that come through the ARRC, the people who want
12 to participate -- we are opening this up very
13 broadly in this legislation. I don't think we
14 need to safeguard that. I think what we need is
15 flexibility here, but the consumer -- the
16 consumer groups will be there.
17 SENATOR WRIGHT: Mr. President.
18 ACTING PRESIDENT SEWARD: Senator
19 Wright, why do you rise?
20 SENATOR WRIGHT: Mr. President,
21 would Senator Rath yield to a question, please?
22 ACTING PRESIDENT SEWARD: Senator
23 Abate has the floor, but with your permission -
2922
1 SENATOR ABATE: Absolutely, yes.
2 ACTING PRESIDENT SEWARD: Senator
3 Rath, would you yield to a question?
4 SENATOR RATH: Sure.
5 SENATOR WRIGHT: Senator Rath,
6 would you agree that in the provisions of the
7 bill that provide emergency rulemaking, that
8 that mechanism would ensure that there be a
9 timely resolution of the process if, in fact, we
10 were under a great deal of pressure to resolve
11 the dilemma?
12 SENATOR RATH: Of course.
13 SENATOR WRIGHT: And so that
14 provision is already reflected in the bill to
15 ensure that we meet those concerns?
16 SENATOR RATH: Yes.
17 SENATOR WRIGHT: Senator, would
18 you further agree that -- in terms of the
19 petitioning process that talks about petitioning
20 to identify areas of interest, areas of impact
21 that, in fact, that -- that petitioning process
22 is a much better process in identifying those
23 who have substantial interests or substantial
2923
1 need than trying to identify by broad name
2 categories or specific groups of individuals to
3 be incorporated?
4 SENATOR RATH: As the people come
5 forward to petition, I would agree with your
6 premise, Senator, yes.
7 SENATOR WRIGHT: So, in fact, the
8 very language talking about identifying those
9 who are significantly impacted really becomes
10 exceedingly inclusive to ensure that there are
11 opportunities for all to participate.
12 SENATOR RATH: Yes, exactly.
13 SENATOR WRIGHT: And one last
14 point, Senator. Would you agree that by defi
15 nition the negotiating rule committee is to
16 achieve a consensus in terms of its
17 recommendation?
18 SENATOR RATH: Exactly, yes.
19 SENATOR WRIGHT: And by this
20 language, that consensus is defined as a
21 two-thirds vote?
22 SENATOR RATH: Right.
23 SENATOR WRIGHT: So consequently,
2924
1 no one who is providing special expertise or
2 assistance gives any composition of a committee.
3 At best, 50/50 will be able to ensure a two
4 thirds vote thereby eliminating the governmental
5 responsibilities.
6 SENATOR RATH: Yes. I think that
7 we see that as we read the bill, yes.
8 SENATOR WRIGHT: Thank you,
9 Senator.
10 I believe you've addressed my
11 concerns.
12 ACTING PRESIDENT SEWARD: Senator
13 Holland.
14 SENATOR HOLLAND: Mr. President,
15 there will be an immediate meeting of the Rules
16 Committee in Room 332.
17 ACTING PRESIDENT SEWARD:
18 Immediate meeting of the Rules Committee in Room
19 332.
20 Senator Abate.
21 SENATOR ABATE: Yes. On the bill
22 very quickly.
23 Although I honor the good inten
2925
1 tions of the Senators across the aisle, some
2 times when a piece of legislation is not clear
3 about defining "significantly affected individ
4 uals" and what we have is very broad language,
5 people who have the, I believe, knowledge and
6 experience to help the negotiations be
7 successful, one can interpret that not to
8 include consumers, environmentalists, labor
9 representatives and other citizens of New York,
10 that it will be my concern that there would be a
11 weighting of this committee toward only one
12 special interest, and if we are looking for a
13 consensus and a meaningful consensus to protect
14 all New Yorkers, there could be an abuse of this
15 process.
16 I feel -- and it's ironic because
17 these rules and regulations, and particularly,
18 this mandated process is put in place to make
19 sure that business is at the table, but I don't
20 believe that there's any CEO of any large
21 corporation would say that, in order for me to
22 balance the interests of business, in order for
23 me to include business at the table, that I have
2926
1 to have this kind of process to force a
2 compromise.
3 What we're saying is New York
4 State agencies can't govern themselves, can't
5 get input from business and other interested
6 parties, and that they have to look to this body
7 to force a compromise when, in certain
8 situations -- and this is my primary concern -
9 there are some rules and regulations that are
10 not just necessary, they're critical to our
11 health and well-being, and a commissioner and
12 the experts within that agency feel that
13 compromise is not warranted and that there
14 should be readoption of a rule or a promulgation
15 of a new rule, but they're going to have to wait
16 to go through the process and potentially risk
17 the fact that this rule and regulation will be
18 so watered town, will be so compromised, that
19 they will be giving up their responsibilities to
20 govern and safeguard all New Yorkers.
21 I understand the need to have
22 people at the table and input. I think this
23 goes too far. I believe it will not just
2927
1 produce compromising results but can compromise
2 our futures and, for that reason, I'm opposed to
3 this specific provision.
4 SENATOR RATH: Mr. Chairman.
5 ACTING PRESIDENT SEWARD: Senator
6 Rath.
7 SENATOR RATH: If I might, a
8 final comment, as I don't see any of my other
9 colleagues -
10 ACTING PRESIDENT SEWARD: Senator
11 Rath, we do have a list.
12 SENATOR RATH: Oh, there is a
13 list?
14 ACTING PRESIDENT SEWARD: Yes.
15 SENATOR RATH: Of course. Well,
16 then just let me make one final comment to
17 Senator Abate's final comments.
18 First of all, this piece of
19 legislation does not -- is not operative for
20 emergency rulemaking when we're talking about
21 the need to immediately do something to
22 safeguard health and welfare, and in talking
23 about compromise, I don't think compromise is
2928
1 the intent of this legislation. I think it's
2 consensus, and not forcing compromise but
3 forging consensus is my belief.
4 Thank you, Senator, for your very
5 informed dialogue.
6 ACTING PRESIDENT SEWARD: Senator
7 Paterson.
8 SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
9 I hope Senator Rath's final comments to Senator
10 Abate are not her final coments, because I was
11 wondering if she would yield for a question.
12 SENATOR RATH: I would be glad
13 to, Senator. I didn't realize that there were
14 more that were interested.
15 SENATOR PATERSON: Senator Rath,
16 in this bill -- in Section 3 of this bill, it
17 states pretty clearly that any rules or
18 regulations that are adopted after the passing
19 of this legislation will expire five years after
20 the adoption of the legislation and then there
21 will be five-year intervals for regulation
22 adoption.
23 My question is, is there a
2929
1 section of the bill that addresses -- or is
2 there a concern in the bill for issues of public
3 health and public safety whereby rules and
4 regulations may expire and there is not an
5 agreement on what the new rules are going to
6 be? In other words, during that interval of
7 time, what does the bill provide that assures
8 that we have public safety and regard for public
9 health care?
10 SENATOR RATH: Senator, you're
11 addressing, I believe, the very large area of
12 emergency rules, and there is always an
13 opportunity to do something very quickly with
14 the emergency rule procedure. Now, there have
15 been some abuses in emergency rules, and this is
16 one of the areas that needs to be addressed more
17 completely, but this is an ongoing -- an ongoing
18 effort.
19 SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you,
20 Senator Rath.
21 What I'm actually addressing are
22 the lapses that are caused by the fact that the
23 bill itself is promulgating the fact that the
2930
1 rules that -- and regulations that exist are
2 going to expire, and what I'm saying is that
3 since this legislation seems to add a great deal
4 more to what's already there in terms of review
5 and agency policy, and we've got even a little
6 bit of a misunderstanding as to who is exactly
7 directing the agency, with all of that plethora
8 of responsibility that's doled out, assuming
9 that there is not an agreement, such as the fact
10 that the budget, for instance, is supposed to be
11 passed April 1st, it doesn't seem that that's
12 going to occur because there isn't an agreement,
13 and we have a lapse that's caused in state
14 government at that time.
15 Now, what we sometimes do in the
16 past is we have an emergency reappropriation by
17 the Governor to make sure that government runs
18 or that certain services that are deemed to be
19 necessities are provided. So I'm saying right
20 in this legislation there's a lapse, but what I
21 don't see in the legislation is an answer for
22 how to repair that lapse.
23 SENATOR RATH: Senator, the
2931
1 agencies must give reasoned justification for
2 the continuation of the rule when you get to the
3 five years, including reasons, if any, why they
4 disagree with the comments in opposition to the
5 rule. So I believe that there is a framework
6 here, to answer your concerns.
7 SENATOR PATERSON: All right.
8 Thank you, Senator Rath.
9 Would Senator Rath continue to
10 yield, Mr. President?
11 SENATOR RATH: Sure.
12 ACTING PRESIDENT SEWARD: Senator
13 Rath, will you yield? Yes.
14 SENATOR PATERSON: In Section 53
15 of the bill, we have the agency gains share
16 incentive program. This is a program that would
17 provide for the 65 percent return to the state
18 of savings and 35 percent to the agencies and
19 then, of course, there could be an individual or
20 a team that would offer up what would be
21 considered to be quality improvements and, as a
22 result of that, there could be an award of up to
23 $5,000 per individual. In addition to that,
2932
1 there is a management and employee committee
2 that would review these improvements to
3 determine what the -- the financial award would
4 be.
5 My question to you, Senator Rath,
6 is, let's say a commissioner, like the
7 Commissioner of General Services might offer up
8 an idea that would bring monies back to the
9 state in a large sum. Would that inure to the
10 benefit of the actual commission, the return of
11 35 percent of what would be the savings?
12 SENATOR RATH: Is it my opinion
13 that that's appropriate, are you saying? I
14 didn't get the very end of your question,
15 Senator.
16 SENATOR PATERSON: I don't know
17 what -- through you, Mr. President. I don't
18 know whether the Senator agrees with this
19 individually, but what I'm saying, would the
20 bill allow for -- if the bill seems to allow for
21 it, let me -
22 SENATOR RATH: Yes, it does. It
23 provides that the -- that -- the gains savings
2933
1 is the phrase that's being used, because I think
2 we've seen so many places around the state, and
3 you used OGS as an example, but I would tell you
4 in the education world, they are very, very
5 close with their spending at the beginning of
6 their budget and at the end, they spend a lot of
7 money just to finish it out because they know if
8 they don't do it, it won't be there next year.
9 So what we're trying to do is to
10 get a new mind-set so that people realize that
11 to husband resources is good and if they do
12 that, they don't get penalized by having to send
13 it all back to the state. They're able to say
14 that, if we have salvaged this much money by
15 using our resources wisely, we get to use some
16 of those dollars for what we think are important
17 criteria or important projects or whatever
18 inside their own agency, and I think that
19 Senator Dollinger spoke eloquently earlier about
20 TQM.
21 I think what we're talking about
22 here is a TQM principle, by saying we empower
23 our employees to do the best job they can once
2934
1 they know what their job is clearly, and as TQM
2 moves forward, yes, we let them share in the
3 results of good management and good husbanding
4 of resources, and they get to use some of those
5 dollars for the advancement of the cause of
6 their agency on their agenda, not necessarily
7 always our agenda but, of course, we get to
8 share some of the savings, so that helps the
9 taxpayer of the state of New York the following
10 year. Obviously, the dollars come back in and
11 we have more to work with.
12 SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you,
13 Senator Rath.
14 Mr. President, if Senator Rath
15 would continue to yield.
16 ACTING PRESIDENT SEWARD: Senator
17 Rath, will you continue to yield?
18 SENATOR RATH: Yes, surely.
19 SENATOR PATERSON:
20 Hypothetically, the Office of General Services
21 -- I use that example hypothetically because
22 the commissioner believes that, by the
23 consolidation by data processing services, that
2935
1 he can save the state approximately $50 million,
2 and if that is correct under this piece of
3 legislation, then it would seem to me that 65
4 percent of that or, I guess, $32.5 million would
5 go back to the state, but that would bring $17.5
6 million back to the Office of General Services
7 under what this bill is providing if a committee
8 voted to do that.
9 So now with $17.5 million, what
10 I'm suggesting is that there could be a number
11 of teams or individuals that might be eligible
12 for incentives under that program. Now, I don't
13 know if I would call that TQM. Maybe it is, but
14 I'm just saying that it is something that is
15 allowable under the bill, and I was just going
16 to ask if you thought that that hypothetically
17 could occur?
18 SENATOR RATH: Yes. I think
19 hypothetically it could occur and, frankly, I
20 think we would all welcome seeing those kinds of
21 savings realized inside of any of the
22 departments, and let me go back and make a
23 little clearer my comment a moment ago about how
2936
1 the gains sharing and gains savings could be
2 used.
3 The director of the budget does
4 need to approve the decisions that would be made
5 by the department as to what they needed to do
6 by way of being able to invest some money back
7 in their program or their process that would
8 give them yet a chance to operate more
9 efficiently and more effectively, and so they
10 are not completely cut free.
11 I think I maybe gave the wrong
12 impression, but we know that we've all heard the
13 war stories of departments that use their money
14 because they know if they don't use it, they're
15 not going to get the same amount plus the
16 extended amount for the following year. That's
17 the exact wrong kind of thinking, and this is
18 attempting to put a screeching halt to that,
19 saying, if you can effect those things, yes;
20 then you all can work with us with the budget
21 department at doing some of the initiative kinds
22 of things that would be important to follow the
23 goal, because I don't think everyone is out
2937
1 there being negative and working against the
2 goals that we all are here for.
3 SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you very
4 much, Senator Rath.
5 That was very straightforward,
6 very clear.
7 Thank you very much.
8 ACTING PRESIDENT SEWARD: Senator
9 Leichter.
10 SENATOR LEICHTER: Thank you, Mr.
11 President.
12 Mr. President, I have been
13 looking through this bill since yesterday, and I
14 can't say that I in any respect have mastered
15 it, but it's clear that it's such a potpourri, a
16 smorgasbord, a buffet, if you will, of ideas,
17 notions, of so-called regulatory reform. Most
18 of it comes from the Republican far right, this
19 idea that in this world, regulations have
20 suddenly become such a problem for the American
21 economy.
22 Frankly, it sort of strikes me
23 like a stop-the-world-I-want-to-get-off type of
2938
1 bill, because the point really is that we have
2 an extremely complex society. We have a lot of
3 people. We have a lot of different interests.
4 We have learned the effect on people's health,
5 on consumers, of the activities of business and
6 things that go on in our world and, as a
7 consequence, you have to have a means of
8 resolving differences. You also have to have an
9 effective way of protecting people from harm.
10 What do regulations do?
11 Regulations essentially deal with the health and
12 safety of people and they protect consumers.
13 That's the main aim and purpose of regulations,
14 and regulations seek to develop ground rules as
15 to how businesses will function, how individuals
16 will function, and as our economy has become
17 more complex, obviously the regulations have
18 also become more complex.
19 That's not to say that there
20 cannot be improvements. That's not to say that
21 certain reforms are not valuable. That's not to
22 say that there are not bureaucratic approaches
23 that are harmful, that do hurt business, that do
2939
1 hurt the consumers, that don't make sense; but
2 then to come up with this sort of broad sweeping
3 change and, if you look at it, this is going to
4 create more administrative morass than anything
5 that we do now.
6 As you look through the bill, you
7 keep on seeing requirements for this report,
8 that reform, every agency shall every year put
9 forth a statement of purposes, and so on. We're
10 going to impose such burdens on state government
11 and such costs that any conceivable saving -
12 and I submit there's really few, if any, savings
13 in this bill -- are really going to be wiped out
14 by the additional costs that we're imposing on
15 the state.
16 I think, just as yesterday we had
17 sort of welfare reform, today administrative
18 reform, we're dealing with slogans. What we
19 need to deal with is some sensible legislation.
20 I submit to you that much that is here is
21 totally unworkable. It doesn't make any sense.
22 I referred to the administrative burden that we
23 put on here.
2940
1 My colleagues have pointed out
2 other defects in this -- in this legislation.
3 The one I like, and maybe I'll ask Senator Rath
4 to yield on this -- let me find it. Senator, if
5 you would be so good as to yield.
6 ACTING PRESIDENT SEWARD: Senator
7 Rath, will you yield?
8 SENATOR LEICHTER: On page 24,
9 it's part of the rulemaking cost/benefit
10 analysis. It's on line 25 where it says, "In
11 any case in which the proposed rule is based on
12 one or more scientific evaluation or informa
13 tion, you have to establish the reliability of
14 the scientific information", am I paraphrasing
15 that provision correctly?
16 SENATOR RATH: No, you got it.
17 That's right.
18 SENATOR LEICHTER: I'm sorry.
19 Did you answer that I did paraphrase it
20 correctly?
21 SENATOR RATH: No, that was
22 fine.
23 SENATOR LEICHTER: Okay. Now, is
2941
1 that each and every scientific measurement that
2 is used in the assessment requires that its
3 reliability and validity be established?
4 SENATOR RATH: Senator, the piece
5 of legislation that you have picked up mirrors
6 some of the work that's being done on the
7 federal level, and that all -- all levels of
8 people that are talking regulatory reform which,
9 by the way, I think was really spearheaded by
10 the Vice-President when he wrote "Reinventing
11 Government." That got an awful lot of people
12 thinking in these terms and looking in these
13 areas; and the piece of legislation that you're
14 reading from is called The Risk Assessment/Cost
15 Benefit Analysis Model that's being used -
16 that's being looked at, and I think New York
17 State may be a real front runner in this,
18 because I see risk assessment and cost benefit
19 analysis as, if you will -- and I will get to
20 your specific -- but I'm really glad someone
21 raised this issue. I see them as the book ends
22 of really effectively going at regulatory
23 reform, because if you do not assess how much of
2942
1 a risk you can take, first of all -- and that's
2 the protection of the health, welfare, consumer
3 interests, et cetera, that we have been talking
4 about over here on the risk assessment -- you
5 need to establish that, and this is part of what
6 you're talking about, the scientific
7 undergirding of establishing the risk. This
8 language is taken directly from the federal
9 bill.
10 SENATOR LEICHTER: Well, Senator,
11 the federal bill you're talking about, I assume
12 is the bill of the House of Representatives,
13 which I think people who are familiar with
14 administrative procedures and who are concerned
15 about the welfare and health of Americans, threw
16 up their arms and said, "My God, these people
17 can't really mean that," but, Senator, instead
18 of trying to deal with these general statements
19 -- and I have no problem with many of your
20 general statements.
21 What does disturb me is when I
22 take a look at the specific provisions of the
23 bill -- and in this instance, my question to you
2943
1 was very direct, which is, is that every
2 scientific utilization or measurement that's
3 part of the risk assessment needs to be
4 validated.
5 SENATOR RATH: Senator, first of
6 all, let me correct -- this is from the Senate
7 bill, not the house bill that this is taken, and
8 the effort, as I understand it, is to assure
9 that we have followed down clearly as many of
10 the scientific researchers -- what the FDA has
11 to say about it -- as much as is possible in
12 order to assess the risk.
13 Now, again, I think we need to go
14 back to what some of the common sense issues
15 provide for us, that -- and we're talking about
16 people of good will. We're not talking about
17 anyone who's trying to undermine anything.
18 We're talking about people who are -- who are
19 attempting to provide for sane, sensible regu
20 lation, and when you're talking about verifying
21 the scientific evaluations or information
22 subject to risk assessment requirements, a
23 description of actions undertaken by the agency
2944
1 to verify the quality, reliability and relevance
2 of such scientific evaluations, I don't think
3 that that's too hard to do.
4 I think that there is some
5 respected think tanks. There are certainly
6 respected researchers at the universities
7 throughout this country, and if we got a real -
8 and I think this goes really to the heart of the
9 environmental area that will be talked about, by
10 the way, in the next piece of legislation that
11 we'll be addressing today, which is as an
12 omnibus that was prepared primarily by Senator
13 Johnson and his work in that area. I think we
14 are looking at what I consider to be the
15 landmark piece of legislation and regulatory
16 reform.
17 As I said, you're talking about
18 risk assessment, but you can't talk about risk
19 assessment without cost/benefit over here on one
20 side and, again, if this is a regulatory issue
21 we're talking about, we've got -- we've got to
22 have a known risk and what that risk is here,
23 and we've got to look over on the other side at
2945
1 the cost/benefit of taking on that risk, if you
2 will, or assuming how much risk you can take.
3 Take, for example, a circumstance
4 where you can go to 95 percent of taking care of
5 that risk and it's going to cost a company,
6 let's say, $500,000. To go from 95 percent to
7 100 percent of mitigating those risk factors is
8 going to cost them $1 million.
9 Now, if that risk factor is like
10 the one I was talking about in the bakery -
11 that was ethyl alcohol -- ethyl alcohol vapor
12 that was going up in the air -- that's not a
13 responsible approach to the risk. And we have
14 scientists that work in all levels of government
15 that can give us correct answers, like if they
16 said to us, "One person in a hundred is going to
17 die if you don't take that to 98 percent."
18 There isn't a person in this room who would say
19 that the cost of one person in a hundred who
20 could have some sort of carcinogen reaction as a
21 result of us not taking that risk from the 95
22 percent level up to the 98 or 99 percent where
23 it would be, let's say, one person in ten
2946
1 million, there isn't a person in this room that
2 wouldn't spend the money -- vote to spend the
3 money to do that, but that's where the book ends
4 of sincere regulatory reform are going to come
5 into play, and this is new. This is new
6 thinking, and I compliment you for coming
7 directly to the heart of the matter, and
8 watching you this past year, I know you always
9 do come directly to the heart of the matter,
10 Senator.
11 SENATOR LEICHTER: Thank you,
12 Senator.
13 You're very kind and gracious in
14 your comments. I'm not sure that it's true, but
15 I'll accept that part of your answer, but if you
16 would be so kind as to continue to yield.
17 Senator, I happen to agree with
18 you. I think risk assessment is an important
19 tool, and we obviously have to know how you do
20 the risk assessment, but I'm reminded of
21 something that Senator Gold admonishes about
22 continuously, and I think he makes a very
23 persuasive, very valid point, that we're not
2947
1 legislating concepts. The concept is great, but
2 we've got to take a look at language.
3 You talk about people being well
4 intentioned. I don't think there's anybody
5 better intentioned than you are or Senator
6 Wright, and I think that you sincerely want to
7 deal with a problem that you see and you've
8 obviously spent a lot of time and effort in
9 trying to come up with something, so if I'm
10 critical, it's certainly not of your effort. I
11 think, in part, it's a different philosophy. In
12 part, it's a different approach and, in part,
13 it's also very difficult. Concepts are great.
14 When you reduce concepts to language, that's
15 when you run into difficulties, and we all know
16 the expression, "The devil is in the detail."
17 Maybe just to make my point on
18 this particular issue, let me try to put it
19 specifically. Let's say an agency such as EPA
20 or DEC says that you cannot put a particular
21 effluent into the sewer because it's going to
22 leach down into an aquifer and pollute the
23 water.
2948
1 Now, one of the bases for them
2 saying so is the law of gravity. We all know
3 the law of gravity. We deal with it. We've
4 accepted it, but as I read this, the agency
5 would have to go back and validate the law of
6 gravity. I don't think whether they would have
7 to do what Newton did, sit under a tree and see
8 if an apple falls and hits them on the head, but
9 I read that. If you use a measurement of -- of
10 time, you would have to establish that. That's
11 the problem I have with this bill that, after a
12 while, it seems to contain so many notions, some
13 of which really aren't workable.
14 Let me gladly get to the ques
15 tion. Based on my example, as you read this,
16 wouldn't you have to -- wouldn't the agency be
17 required to validate Newton's law of gravity?
18 What was it, the first law? I don't know.
19 SENATOR RATH: I think -- I
20 think, Senator, there are some things that don't
21 need validation, and according to this law, the
22 section that you're reading from is that a -
23 goes on to say "a description of the actions
2949
1 undertaken by the agency to verify the quality,
2 reliability and relevance of such scientific
3 evaluations." What this particular risk
4 assessment-cost/benefit analysis is dealing with
5 is five agencies only, the Environmental
6 Conservation Department, Health, Department of
7 Labor -- pardon me, not five, three -- five was
8 another bill that I did. It deals with only
9 these three, because these are the three where
10 we will find most of the difficulties, if you
11 will, of being sure that the risk is something
12 that we -- that we need to be very clear, and we
13 need to validate our scientific researchers and
14 our background, and I think that these agencies
15 have inside of them and through the commission
16 er, they have been doing some of this, but they
17 have been doing it, and I think according to the
18 way they think it should be done, and I think it
19 should be something that this Legislature knows
20 and recognizes as a responsibility that we have
21 to have again.
22 As I say, the beginning and the
23 opening dialogue talked about how many jobs have
2950
1 been lost in the state and how many people have
2 moved away, how much it's costing, and I'll go
3 back again to my earlier comment. Everywhere
4 that you read about regulatory reform, the
5 phrase "between $500 billion and $800 billion
6 are spent nationally." They are unnecessarily
7 spent because of overzealous, unnecessary,
8 burdensome regulation.
9 Now we're in a world market, and
10 we have to compete as a country. We have to
11 compete as a state, and as we do that, we need
12 to assess how much risk is real risk. I would
13 say to you that if the risk were one person in
14 ten billion, I would say that, yeah, we've got a
15 little risk; we could allow a little risk. I'm
16 telling you one person in a hundred right now,
17 someone brings that to me and I'll vote for
18 almost anything we needed to do to say one
19 person in a hundred, but I think we need to be
20 sensible.
21 Let me point out to you, Senator,
22 another -- I'm going to send you a copy of this
23 too. I don't know if you heard when Senator
2951
1 Dollinger got up. I talked about this little
2 book, "The Death of Common Sense." I'll send
3 this reprint over to you, but they do a little
4 box inside and they talk about a specific
5 instance that happened in Virginia and someone
6 had their pen working and you'll appreciate this
7 alliteration, "The Wrong Pollution Sollution",
8 and what they had here was a rigid federal law
9 requiring a Virginia company to spend $31
10 million to prevent a small amount of benzene
11 from escaping the smokestack. The company was
12 foreclosed, the possibility of spending money to
13 clean up tons of harmful benzene emissions that
14 came from a nearby source -- when the EPA went
15 on site on this one, they found the benzene was
16 coming from the nozzles, from the connectors as
17 it was coming off of the fuel -- the big fuel
18 ships that were coming in.
19 Common sense? No. But what
20 you're talking about in here, you're talking
21 about language, and I think that the agencies
22 that are already doing this will welcome some
23 guidance from us saying that we want to see how
2952
1 they are getting to the risk assessment.
2 SENATOR LEICHTER: Senator, let
3 me -- let me say, you can't legislate common
4 sense and sometimes, as you know, common sense
5 doesn't exist in this body either, unfortunate
6 ly. I wish we could legislate it. I wish there
7 was a pill you could give me that gave me common
8 sense at all times. I hope I have it on
9 occasions, but certainly not as often as I
10 should have it and wish I had it, but it seems
11 to me that what you're doing here with the risk
12 assessment and maybe the example that you gave
13 out of this book -- and I would like to read it
14 -- is that there's a certain disbelief in the
15 scientific -- in the assessments that have been
16 made.
17 I mean, you talk of risk assess
18 ments. Agencies have made risk assessments; and
19 then you say people don't like the risk assess
20 ment, so you put in this provision that you've
21 got to verify every scientific technique or tool
22 or measurement that you use, which I take it as
23 I read this, it would be a horrendous job. You
2953
1 would have to establish the basis of what are
2 such commonly accepted tools as telling time, as
3 the law of gravity, and I think it reflects, if
4 I may say so with all due respect, what comes
5 from the far right, which is sort of an anti
6 intellectualism, an anti-academic. Your common
7 sense is really very often, "Please, don't give
8 me these facts. I don't want to hear it. Don't
9 tell me that I can't put this out of my
10 smokestack", and so on.
11 I'm reminded of something I was
12 involved in as an attorney some years ago. I
13 think it may have been in Senator Tully's
14 district where there was a resource recovery
15 plant to burn the garbage of the -- of the town
16 of Hempstead on the Meadowbrook. I don't know
17 whether that was your -- your district, but I'm
18 sure you're familiar with it -- with the
19 problem, and they found out that some dioxin was
20 coming out of the smokestack, and somebody made
21 a risk assessment and said, "You know, the risk
22 to the community is less than driving on the
23 Long Island Expressway", which is probably
2954
1 true. People were up in arms and saying,
2 "Listen, that's a risk that I'm willing to
3 take, but I'm not going to take the risk of
4 dioxin," and there was some justification
5 because they didn't know what the effect of the
6 dioxin coming out of the stack is and, for that
7 matter, we still don't know.
8 My point is that we're not
9 dealing with neat, simple issues. We're dealing
10 with very complex issues, and they involve the
11 health of people, and I know that the people in
12 your district, Senator, would be as much up in
13 arms as the people in my district if somebody
14 put in a resource recovery plant and it said
15 that maybe one out of a million people would die
16 as a consequence of dioxin.
17 The point is that we're dealing
18 here with the health and safety of people.
19 Senator Wright gets up and he says, you know, we
20 need the impact statement to say the jobs that
21 are lost. It's something worth looking at but,
22 Senator, in some instances, that doesn't tell
23 you anything.
2955
1 GE is going to say, "If you keep
2 me from putting PCBs in the Hudson, we're going
3 to lose 800 jobs or a thousand jobs." You're
4 going to say, "Okay. Well, in that event, please
5 keep on putting PCBs in the Hudson", although,
6 it's going to create the public health havoc
7 that we know it will. Well, obviously not, or
8 in Love Canal. Are we going to tell -- would we
9 have ever told the chemical companies to keep on
10 dumping there because otherwise we're going to
11 lose jobs?
12 There are times, Senator, that we
13 have to make the tough decisions for the
14 protection of the people of the state of New
15 York, and what I'm concerned about is that you
16 are impairing those protections. We also need
17 to protect the consumers. We know that the
18 consumers at times get gouged. We know that, if
19 there is a regulatory protection for them,
20 they're going to be overcharged. Utilities may
21 overcharge them. So we have a whole enormous
22 array of regulations to try to protect your
23 consumer, my consumer, from having to pay too
2956
1 high utility costs. I don't know how you can
2 escape that. I don't know how you can avoid
3 that.
4 One of the things that, Senator
5 Rath, you said, Senator Wright said is, "Well,
6 take a look at the 4- to 600,000 jobs we lost."
7 By the way, every day it seems to be 100,000
8 bigger. Yesterday it was only 500,000 jobs.
9 Yesterday it was the welfare people. They were
10 responsible for our losing 500,000 jobs. Today
11 it's the administrators because of their onerous
12 regulations that have lost us these jobs.
13 But, come on, you know that's
14 poppycock. You know that essentially we've lost
15 jobs because of the world economy, because
16 manufacturing cannot be conducted in New York
17 State as it was years ago. Tomorrow we'll
18 probably hear it was high taxes that caused it.
19 By that time it will be 700,000 jobs, since we
20 seem to be climbing at the rate of 1,000 a day,
21 and that's responsible for the loss of the jobs.
22 And in fairness to you, Senator
23 Wright, you did say that there were a lot of
2957
1 factors -- and I don't mean to, you know, try to
2 make fun of your argument, but I think there's
3 an overstatement. There's an overstatement, and
4 I think there's a failure to appreciate what it
5 is that is really losing us jobs, but the one
6 thing that puzzles me about the whole approach
7 here of the Republicans, and particularly the
8 Republican right, is you are trying to embrace
9 programs that have failed. You like to talk
10 about common sense, and I -- we all agree, let's
11 have common sense, but we had the greatest
12 deregulation that this nation had ever seen in
13 the 1980s. That was the doctrine of the Reagan
14 administration, deregulation and cut taxes.
15 Now, we know that cutting taxes
16 and increasing spending gave this country an
17 incredibly onerous deficit, but what did
18 deregulation do? Yeah, we deregulated the
19 thrifts. Let the thrifts go out there. We're
20 going to allow business to go and create jobs.
21 They created a $500 billion loss for the public,
22 an enormous scandal. So that was shown to be a
23 total failure. Common sense will tell you,
2958
1 "Well, gee, let's not do it again." But what
2 do we find? Here you come forth with a bill
3 that is basically premised on deregulation, and
4 deregulation has hurt us badly. Some instances,
5 maybe it can work. Many instances it cannot
6 work, and administrative changes -- you like to
7 call it reform. I don't want to use that word
8 because, obviously, you've already put your case
9 in a favorable light, but I don't see this as
10 reform, and I see these administrative changes
11 as part of deregulation that hurt the protection
12 that we need to give to the people of the state
13 of New York.
14 And finally, let me just say, you
15 keep harping about business and they don't like
16 these regulations, and so on. Yes, I can
17 understand some of these are going to cost money
18 and, by the way, not just for business; they
19 cost money to the consumer. I agree with what
20 Commissioner Zagata said the other day, that the
21 consumers certainly are going to have to pay
22 also for helping clean up the environment, but
23 that's really what we finally come down to, is
2959
1 whether we want to have clean water, whether we
2 want to have clean air, whether we want to have
3 fairness in the marketplace, and that requires
4 regulations and regulations require certain
5 processes, and you can't just eliminate them.
6 You can't reduce it all to negotiated rule
7 making. I think Senator Abate rightly pointed
8 out that your negotiated rulemaking is really
9 biased and tilted towards special interests
10 mainly, particularly the business interest.
11 So I submit to you that we could
12 find in this bill some very valuable provisions,
13 but if you take it in total, it would put an
14 enormous burden on state government and would
15 deny the public protection it needs.
16 Just like yesterday, there were
17 provisions in Senator Holland's bill that I
18 think are -- everybody could agree with, but I
19 think if you take it in total, it was a punitive
20 bill. So maybe we're following here certain
21 ideological rituals and, as I said, yesterday
22 was what was the welfare people; today it's the
23 bureaucrats. Tomorrow it'll be the people that
2960
1 impose taxes, and taxes are such -- but I submit
2 it's about time we got away from the ideology
3 and got down to the common sense, if you will,
4 Senator Rath, of governing in a reasonable
5 manner.
6 ACTING PRESIDENT SEWARD: Senator
7 Oppenheimer.
8 SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Thank you.
9 I'm sorry I was late coming in
10 because we're having a conference committee on
11 the speed limit and, therefore, I'm not certain
12 about this issue, and so if Senator Rath would
13 yield for a question.
14 Is it permitted for lower levels
15 of government to make stricter regulation than
16 the higher level of government imposes?
17 SENATOR RATH: If we're talking
18 about towns and villages, they have some
19 capabilities, but this legislation -- and I
20 think you weren't here when I opened my remarks
21 with a report from the Town of Tonawanda, which
22 is one of my towns, that did a detailed study as
23 to just exactly how much they could save.
2961
1 We asked them. We said, "Give us
2 some ideas about how we can untie your hands so
3 you can be more effective," and I think it bears
4 reading again what the supervisor said. He had
5 his departments find examples of mandates that
6 are outdated and duplicative and identifying
7 those that go beyond setting goals and enter the
8 realm of micromanagement of local government
9 operations.
10 Then they did a costing out of
11 how much they could save in the town of
12 Tonawanda, and after 22 pages, each with a
13 separate regulation on it, the bottom line as
14 they costed them out, they could save some
15 $830,000. Now, that's just in one town if we
16 freed their hands up.
17 Our interest in micromanaging has
18 been sincere. But when you get out there in the
19 practicality -- and you were a mayor, so I think
20 you are probably a person who could be real
21 clear about some of the ways you could do it
22 better if you were allowed to do it yourself,
23 one of the provisions, it does allow, it gives
2962
1 the flexibilities to the towns.
2 SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: You are
3 right that when I was the head of the Municipal
4 Officials Association in Westchester, I was
5 looking to get relief from some mandates that I
6 felt were not benefiting my village; however,
7 I'm trying to reflect on the opposite side of
8 this coin which is those instances where lower
9 levels of government feel they want to impose
10 stricter regulation. For example, there is the
11 environmental law which may not go far enough as
12 far as the communities that live alongside the
13 Long Island Sound feel that they should go;
14 therefore, stricter regulation is being sought
15 just in those communities for the way they treat
16 discharges, let's say, from the sewage treatment
17 plants and the nitrogen that is going into Long
18 Island Sound.
19 So I'm saying is it possible
20 under this bill to provide stricter regulation
21 at lower levels of government?
22 SENATOR RATH: This bill,
23 Senator, deals with agencies and agency reviews.
2963
1 But you raise a very good point, and I would be
2 more than happy to talk with you about looking
3 at something that would offer some opportunities
4 for the other levels of government.
5 SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Thank you,
6 Senator.
7 ACTING PRESIDENT SEWARD: The
8 Secretary will read the last section.
9 SENATOR PATERSON: Slow roll
10 call, Mr. President.
11 THE SECRETARY: Section 66. This
12 act shall take effect immediately.
13 ACTING PRESIDENT SEWARD: Call
14 the roll. Slow roll call has been asked for.
15 Are there five Senators standing?
16 The Secretary will call the roll
17 slowly.
18 THE SECRETARY: Senator Abate.
19 SENATOR ABATE: No.
20 THE SECRETARY: Senator Babbush
21 excused.
22 Senator Bruno.
23 SENATOR BRUNO: (Affirmative
2964
1 indication.)
2 THE SECRETARY: Aye.
3 Senator Connor.
4 SENATOR CONNOR: (Negative
5 indication.)
6 THE SECRETARY: No.
7 Senator Cook.
8 SENATOR COOK: Yes.
9 THE SECRETARY: Senator
10 DeFrancisco.
11 (There was no response.)
12 Senator DiCarlo.
13 SENATOR DiCARLO: Aye.
14 THE SECRETARY: Senator
15 Dollinger.
16 SENATOR DOLLINGER: No.
17 THE SECRETARY: Senator Espada.
18 SENATOR ESPADA: No.
19 THE SECRETARY: Senator Farley.
20 SENATOR FARLEY: I vote aye.
21 THE SECRETARY: Senator Galiber.
22 SENATOR GALIBER: No.
23 THE SECRETARY: Senator Gold.
2965
1 SENATOR GOLD: I don't think so.
2 THE SECRETARY: Senator
3 Gonzalez.
4 (There was no response.)
5 Senator Goodman.
6 (There was no response.)
7 Senator Hannon.
8 SENATOR HANNON: Yes.
9 THE SECRETARY: Senator Hoblock.
10 SENATOR HOBLOCK: Yes.
11 THE SECRETARY: Senator
12 Hoffmann.
13 SENATOR HOFFMANN: Yes.
14 THE SECRETARY: Senator Holland.
15 SENATOR HOLLAND: Yes.
16 THE SECRETARY: Senator Johnson.
17 SENATOR JOHNSON: Aye.
18 THE SECRETARY: Senator Jones.
19 SENATOR JONES: Yes.
20 THE SECRETARY: Senator Kruger.
21 SENATOR KRUGER: No.
22 THE SECRETARY: Senator Kuhl.
23 (There was no response.)
2966
1 Senator Lack.
2 (There was no response.)
3 Senator Larkin.
4 SENATOR LARKIN: Aye.
5 THE SECRETARY: Senator LaValle.
6 SENATOR LAVALLE: Aye.
7 THE SECRETARY: Senator Leibell.
8 SENATOR LEIBELL: Aye.
9 THE SECRETARY: Senator Leichter.
10 SENATOR LEICHTER: No.
11 THE SECRETARY: Senator Levy.
12 (There was no response.)
13 Senator Libous.
14 (There was no response.)
15 Senator Maltese.
16 SENATOR MALTESE: Aye.
17 THE SECRETARY: Senator
18 Marcellino.
19 SENATOR MARCELLINO: Aye.
20 THE SECRETARY: Senator Marchi.
21 SENATOR MARCHI: Aye.
22 THE SECRETARY: Senator
23 Markowitz.
2967
1 SENATOR MARKOWITZ: No.
2 THE SECRETARY: Senator Maziarz.
3 SENATOR MAZIARZ: Aye.
4 THE SECRETARY: Senator Mendez.
5 SENATOR MENDEZ: No.
6 THE SECRETARY: Senator
7 Montgomery.
8 SENATOR MONTGOMERY: No.
9 THE SECRETARY: Senator Nanula.
10 SENATOR NANULA: No.
11 THE SECRETARY: Senator
12 Nozzolio.
13 (There was no response.)
14 Senator Onorato.
15 SENATOR ONORATO: No.
16 THE SECRETARY: Senator
17 Oppenheimer.
18 SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: No.
19 THE SECRETARY: Senator Padavan.
20 (There was no response.)
21 Senator Paterson.
22 SENATOR PATERSON: No.
23 THE SECRETARY: Senator Present.
2968
1 SENATOR PRESENT: Yes.
2 THE SECRETARY: Senator Rath.
3 SENATOR RATH: Yes.
4 THE SECRETARY: Senator Saland.
5 SENATOR SALAND: Aye.
6 THE SECRETARY: Senator Santiago
7 excused. Senator Sears.
8 (There was no response.)
9 Senator Seward.
10 SENATOR SEWARD: Aye.
11 THE SECRETARY: Senator Skelos.
12 SENATOR SKELOS: Yes.
13 THE SECRETARY: Senator Smith.
14 (There was no response.)
15 Senator Solomon.
16 (There was no response.)
17 Senator Spano.
18 SENATOR SPANO: Aye.
19 THE SECRETARY: Senator
20 Stachowski.
21 SENATOR STACHOWSKI: No.
22 THE SECRETARY: Senator
23 Stafford.
2969
1 SENATOR STAFFORD: Aye.
2 THE SECRETARY: Senator Stavisky.
3 SENATOR STAVISKY: No.
4 THE SECRETARY: Senator Trunzo.
5 SENATOR TRUNZO: Yes.
6 THE SECRETARY: Senator Tully.
7 SENATOR TULLY: Aye.
8 THE SECRETARY: Senator Velella.
9 SENATOR VELELLA: Yes.
10 THE SECRETARY: Senator Volker.
11 SENATOR VOLKER: Yes.
12 THE SECRETARY: Senator Waldon.
13 (There was no response.)
14 Senator Wright.
15 SENATOR WRIGHT: Aye.
16 ACTING PRESIDENT SEWARD:
17 Absentees.
18 THE SECRETARY: Senator
19 DeFrancisco.
20 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
21 THE SECRETARY: Senator
22 Gonzalez.
23 (There was no response.)
2970
1 Senator Goodman.
2 SENATOR GOODMAN: Yes.
3 THE SECRETARY: Senator Kuhl.
4 SENATOR KUHL: Aye.
5 THE SECRETARY: Senator Lack.
6 SENATOR LACK: Aye.
7 THE SECRETARY: Senator Levy.
8 SENATOR LEVY: Aye.
9 THE SECRETARY: Senator Libous.
10 SENATOR LIBOUS: Aye.
11 THE SECRETARY: Senator
12 Montgomery.
13 SENATOR MONTGOMERY: No.
14 THE SECRETARY: Senator
15 Nozzolio.
16 SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Aye.
17 THE SECRETARY: Senator Padavan.
18 (There was no response.)
19 Senator Sears.
20 SENATOR SEARS: Yes.
21 THE SECRETARY: Senator Smith.
22 (There was no response.)
23 Senator Solomon.
2971
1 (There was no response.)
2 Senator Waldon.
3 (There was no response.)
4 ACTING PRESIDENT SEWARD:
5 Results.
6 THE SECRETARY: Ayes 37. Nays
7 17.
8 ACTING PRESIDENT SEWARD: The
9 bill is passed.
10 Senator Skelos.
11 Senator Galiber.
12 SENATOR GALIBER: Yes, Mr.
13 President. I was not in chambers, but I would
14 like unanimous consent to be recorded in the
15 negative on Number 218, Senate Bill 1931.
16 ACTING PRESIDENT SEWARD: Without
17 objection.
18 SENATOR GALIBER: And one old
19 request. Last week, when there was a slow roll
20 call, I was absent from the chambers and I would
21 like to indicate for the record that if I had
22 been here, I would have voted in the negative on
23 Calendar 213, Senate Number 1092.
2972
1 ACTING PRESIDENT SEWARD: Without
2 objection, the record will so indicate.
3 Senator Abate.
4 SENATOR ABATE: I ask for
5 unanimous consent to be recorded in the negative
6 on Calendar Number 218, 1931.
7 ACTING PRESIDENT SEWARD: Without
8 objection.
9 Senator Leichter.
10 SENATOR LEICHTER: Yes, Mr.
11 President. May I, too, be recorded in the
12 negative on Calendar 218, please.
13 ACTING PRESIDENT SEWARD: Without
14 objection.
15 Senator Oppenheimer.
16 SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Thank you,
17 Mr. President. Also I would like unanimous
18 consent for 218.
19 ACTING PRESIDENT SEWARD: Without
20 objection.
21 Senator Goodman.
22 SENATOR GOODMAN: Negative on
23 218, Mr. President.
2973
1 ACTING PRESIDENT SEWARD: The
2 record will so indicate.
3 Senator Kruger.
4 SENATOR KRUGER: Negative on 218,
5 please.
6 ACTING PRESIDENT SEWARD: Without
7 objection.
8 Senator Dollinger.
9 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Negative on
10 218, Mr. President, without objection.
11 ACTING PRESIDENT SEWARD: Without
12 objection.
13 Senator Smith.
14 SENATOR SMITH: Mr. President. I
15 would like to indicate, had I been present, that
16 I would have voted no on Calendar Number 289.
17 ACTING PRESIDENT SEWARD: Without
18 objection, the record will so indicate.
19 Senator Onorato.
20 SENATOR ONORATO: Mr. President.
21 I request unanimous consent to be recorded in
22 the negative on Calendar Number 218.
23 ACTING PRESIDENT SEWARD: Without
2974
1 objection.
2 Senator Mendez.
3 SENATOR MENDEZ: I would like to
4 be recorded in the negative on Calendar 218.
5 ACTING PRESIDENT SEWARD: Without
6 objection.
7 Senator Stachowski.
8 SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Mr.
9 President. Could I have unanimous consent to
10 please be recorded in the negative on Calendar
11 218.
12 ACTING PRESIDENT SEWARD: Without
13 objection.
14 Senator Skelos.
15 SENATOR SKELOS: Is there a Rules
16 Committee report at the desk?
17 ACTING PRESIDENT SEWARD: Yes,
18 there is.
19 SENATOR SKELOS: May we please
20 have it read.
21 ACTING PRESIDENT SEWARD: The
22 Secretary will read.
23 THE SECRETARY: Senator Bruno,
2975
1 from the Committee on Rules, hands up the
2 following bill directly for third reading:
3 Print Number 1554A, Budget Bill,
4 an act making appropriations for the support of
5 government.
6 SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President.
7 ACTING PRESIDENT SEWARD: Senator
8 Skelos.
9 SENATOR SKELOS: I move we adopt
10 the Rules Committee report.
11 ACTING PRESIDENT SEWARD: All in
12 favor of adopting the Rules report, say aye.
13 (Response of "Aye.")
14 Those opposed, nay.
15 (There was no response.)
16 The report is adopted.
17 Senator Levy.
18 SENATOR LEVY: Yes, I request
19 unanimous consent to be recorded in the negative
20 on Calendar 218.
21 ACTING PRESIDENT SEWARD: Without
22 objection, Senator Levy.
23 Senator Tully.
2976
1 SENATOR TULLY: At the risk of
2 sounding like a parrot, Mr. President, unanimous
3 consent to be recorded in the negative on 218.
4 ACTING PRESIDENT SEWARD: Without
5 objection.
6 Yes, Senator.
7 SENATOR MARKOWITZ: If I may, I
8 would like to be recorded in the negative on
9 Calendar Number 218.
10 ACTING PRESIDENT SEWARD: Senator
11 Markowitz in the negative on 218.
12 SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Mr.
13 President.
14 ACTING PRESIDENT SEWARD: Senator
15 Oppenheimer.
16 SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Would you
17 be good enough to reflect for us what the final
18 tally is on bill 218?
19 SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President.
20 ACTING PRESIDENT SEWARD: Senator
21 Skelos.
22 SENATOR SKELOS: I would like to
23 call up Calendar Number 330.
2977
1 ACTING PRESIDENT SEWARD:
2 Calendar 330.
3 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
4 330, Budget Bill, an act making appropriations
5 for the support of government.
6 SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President.
7 Is there a message of necessity at the desk?
8 ACTING PRESIDENT SEWARD: Senator
9 Skelos, yes, there is.
10 SENATOR SKELOS: I move we accept
11 the message.
12 ACTING PRESIDENT SEWARD: All
13 those in favor of accepting the message, say
14 aye.
15 (Response of "Aye.")
16 Those opposed, nay.
17 (Response of "Nay.")
18 The message is accepted.
19 SENATOR SKELOS: Lay the bill
20 aside.
21 ACTING PRESIDENT SEWARD: The
22 bill is laid aside.
23 SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President.
2978
1 At this time, there will be a recess for an hour
2 and 35 minutes -- I'm sorry.
3 ACTING PRESIDENT SEWARD: Senator
4 Kruger.
5 SENATOR KRUGER: Yes, Mr.
6 President.
7 On behalf of Senator Solomon, I
8 rise today to pay homage and respect to three
9 individuals that we have up in the balcony,
10 three young people, all 11-year-olds, all
11 residents and school-age children in Senator
12 Solomon's district, who were the first, second,
13 and third prize winners of a U.S. Savings Bond
14 contest that was sponsored by the New York State
15 United Teachers Association.
16 At this time, I would like to
17 introduce them. The first place winner is
18 Alzaber Rubayat. Mr. David Qiu and Mr. Claudiu
19 Irina.
20 (Applause.)
21 SENATOR KRUGER: Congratulations.
22 ACTING PRESIDENT SEWARD: Thank
23 you, Senator Kruger.
2979
1 Senator Skelos.
2 SENATOR SKELOS: Would you please
3 recognize Senator Montgomery.
4 ACTING PRESIDENT SEWARD: Senator
5 Montgomery.
6 SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Thank you,
7 Mr. President. I would like unanimous consent
8 to be recorded in the negative on Calendar
9 Number 218.
10 ACTING PRESIDENT SEWARD: Without
11 objection.
12 SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Thank you.
13 SENATOR SKELOS: Would you
14 recognize Senator Espada, please.
15 ACTING PRESIDENT SEWARD: Senator
16 Espada.
17 SENATOR ESPADA: Mr. President.
18 I also request unanimous consent to be recorded
19 in the negative on Calendar 218.
20 ACTING PRESIDENT SEWARD: Without
21 objection.
22 SENATOR SKELOS: Please recognize
23 Senator Mendez.
2980
1 ACTING PRESIDENT SEWARD: Senator
2 Mendez.
3 SENATOR MENDEZ: Mr. President.
4 There will be an immediate Minority conference
5 in the Minority Conference room.
6 ACTING PRESIDENT SEWARD:
7 Immediate Minority conference.
8 I believe there is some house
9 keeping.
10 Senator Libous.
11 SENATOR LIBOUS: Thank you, Mr.
12 President.
13 On page 15, I offer the following
14 amendments to Calendar Number 116, Senate Print
15 Number 1088, and ask that said bill retain its
16 place on the Third Reading Calendar.
17 ACTING PRESIDENT SEWARD:
18 Amendments accepted.
19 Senator Skelos.
20 SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President.
21 The Senate will stand in recess now until 2:00
22 p.m., at which time we will take up Calendar
23 Number 330, Capital Projects, and following that
2981
1 Calendar Number 290, Environmental Regulatory
2 Reform Act of 1995.
3 ACTING PRESIDENT SEWARD: The
4 Senate stands in recess until 2:00 p.m.
5 (Whereupon, at 12:15 p.m., the
6 Senate recessed.)
7 (The Senate reconvened at 2:05
8 p.m.)
9 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
10 Senate will come to order. The Chair recognizes
11 Senator Skelos.
12 SENATOR SKELOS: Yes, Mr.
13 President. Would you call up Calendar Number
14 330, S. 1554-A.
15 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Secretary
16 will read Calendar 330.
17 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
18 330, Print Number 1554-A, an act making
19 appropriations for the support of government.
20 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Bill is
21 before the house. Message was previously
22 accepted.
23 SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation.
2982
1 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
2 Stafford, an explanation has been asked for by
3 Senator Paterson.
4 SENATOR STAFFORD: Thank you.
5 Mr. President, we are today
6 taking up, I believe, our third bill in passing
7 our budget for 1995-1996. This is the Capital
8 Projects. I will go over it by subject.
9 In Correctional Services, we
10 include funds of 8.6 million to convert the
11 Willard Psychiatric Center into a 500-bed
12 Department of Correctional Services-operated
13 drug treatment center. I might add these drug
14 treatment centers have done very, very well. We
15 have one in my district in Chateaugay, one of
16 the first ones to open. We think this makes a
17 great deal of sense.
18 We have 30.2 million for the
19 rehabilitation and expansion of the Gowanda
20 Correctional Facility and 120 million for the
21 purchase of the Riverview and Cape Vincent
22 Correctional Facility from the city of New
23 York. Some of you might not realize that we've
2983
1 had these two City correctional facilities in
2 our area, but they've been operated by the state
3 -- state of New York; so they, in effect, have
4 been state facilities.
5 In addition, 871 million in
6 reappropriations are provided, including funding
7 for five prisons previously authorized, and
8 those are Friendship, Johnstown, Altamont,
9 Comsfeld -- Comsfield, excuse me, and Romulus.
10 The CUNY portion of the budget,
11 the City University of New York, we have new
12 appropriations -- a new appropriation, authority
13 is provided for new facilities for LaGuardia
14 Community College for 14.4 million and 42.7
15 million for health and safety and ADA
16 compliance. ADA stands for the American
17 Disabilities Act.
18 The Education Department: We have
19 a new appropriation -- we have an appropriation
20 authority and it provides for cultural center
21 improvements, emergency lighting and repair at
22 the state School for the Blind and Deaf. The
23 SUNY portion, State University of New York: A
2984
1 new appropriation authority of 100.9 million is
2 provided for health and safety repairs; 22.5
3 million for hospital rehabilitation; 5.5 million
4 for dormitory rehabilitation and 31.2 million
5 for community college rehabilitation and health
6 and safety repairs.
7 Next the Energy Research and
8 Development Authority. The budget provides for
9 16.1 -- excuse me, 16.5 million appropriation
10 for the sale of bonds to support the activities
11 on the Western New York Nuclear Service Center.
12 This allows the state to fulfill its ten percent
13 share of responsibility for West Valley; and, of
14 course, we know that is a facility for hazardous
15 waste. The federal government provides the
16 remaining 90 percent of funding.
17 In the health field, we have
18 funding for new capital projects totalling 2.8
19 million providing support for various minor
20 rehabilitation and maintenance projects. The
21 change in funding from the 1994-95 level is
22 insignificant, and I will have to say that I
23 agree with our staff on practically anything
2985
1 they say, but here they say insignificant is
2 $400,000, and I don't think it's insignificant,
3 but that's what it is, the difference. Exactly,
4 a lot more we have to find.
5 SENATOR GOLD: Mr. President.
6 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
7 Gold, why do you rise?
8 SENATOR GOLD: Yes. Could you
9 ask the distinguished gentleman from Plattsburgh
10 to just keep his voice up a little bit. This is
11 really good stuff, and I like the analysis and
12 I'd like to hear it. It's something everybody
13 should be able to enjoy.
14 SENATOR STAFFORD: I'll have to
15 keep facing the microphone. I'll have to keep
16 facing the microphone. I don't when I should.
17 All right? Do I hear that someone says I'm
18 talking too loud now?
19 Getting back to serious work
20 here, Transportation. The Executive
21 Transportation Capital Projects Budget includes
22 2.7 billion in new capital appropriation
23 authority as follows: 2.72 billion for highway
2986
1 facilities; 37.9 million for mass transportation
2 and rail freight; 26.3 million for maintenance
3 facilities and 9 million for aviation.
4 The budget also includes 7.2
5 billion in capital reappropriation authority for
6 -- capital, excuse me. I'll start over,
7 includes 7.2 billion in capital reappropriation
8 authority as follows: 6.8 billion for highway
9 facilities; 2.9 million -- no, 209 million for
10 mass transport and rail freight; 58 million for
11 maintenance facilities; 131 million for
12 aviation, 1.8 million for ports and waterways
13 and 3.4 million for design and construction
14 supervision.
15 The executive capital projects
16 bill has been amended to eliminate language
17 changes within the special rail and aviation
18 programs related to the executive proposal to
19 waive the Chapter 56 Laws of 1993 transportation
20 memorandum of understanding. This executive
21 proposal had been rejected.
22 Urban Development Corporation:
23 Various stadii were not included in the
2987
1 Executive Budget reappropriation. The Senate is
2 drafting a separate Article VII bill to restore
3 funding to unfunded projects in addition to
4 various other economic development projects.
5 Mr. President, this again is a
6 budget that the executive, the Governor, and the
7 Senate agree upon. There's no question about it
8 that it's leaner. It does not include as much
9 as many of the budgets we've seen in the past
10 but, as we said yesterday, we are this year
11 making sure that we don't spend more than we
12 have and that we continue to work towards having
13 an economy in this state which will be viable
14 and which will be competitive with other states
15 and we will not be losing the jobs that we have
16 lost, we will not have businesses leaving our
17 state, but instead remaining in our state.
18 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Secretary
19 will read the last section.
20 Senator Gold.
21 SENATOR GOLD: Mr. President,
22 would Senator Stafford yield to just a couple of
23 questions?
2988
1 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
2 Stafford, do you yield to a couple of questions?
3 SENATOR STAFFORD: I will.
4 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
5 yields.
6 SENATOR GOLD: Senator, the
7 budget is basically -- the budget we're working
8 on now, Capital Projects, is basically perhaps
9 more than other kinds of budgets that we vote
10 on, kind of a blueprint for the future. It's
11 got some philosophy in it, and it's got promises
12 in it. Wouldn't you say that's a fair comment,
13 future promises?
14 If I can explain the question a
15 little better.
16 SENATOR STAFFORD: I don't know
17 just what you're talking about.
18 SENATOR GOLD: Let me get it out
19 there. I know that you do, but let me get it
20 out there. When we talk about the deficiency
21 debt service budget, we're just paying bills,
22 there's nothing really with that, and we talk
23 about the legislative budget, the judicial
2989
1 budget, we're paying salaries. We talk about
2 state purposes budget and basically we're
3 providing money for various things for the
4 fiscal year. We talk about local assistance,
5 and we're basically providing money for the
6 fiscal year, but capital projects budget, the
7 way I look at it, is sort of for the future.
8 We're building something, capital projects.
9 We're building something, so we're basically
10 saying to the future generations that these are
11 priorities; these are things we should be doing
12 today to make sure that the state goes along
13 certain lines. Is that a fair analysis?
14 SENATOR STAFFORD: No question, I
15 think that really the entire budget really is a
16 -- is a statement of philosophy, some in
17 planning more than you have so well stated about
18 the capital projects, but I would say and I said
19 this a number of times, that the philosophy that
20 we're attempting to put forth in this budget,
21 which has been, as I say, agreed upon by the
22 Governor and the Senate, the Governor's Division
23 of the Budget, is saying to all of us that we
2990
1 are going to stop spending more than we take in
2 and we're going to realize that we are
3 competitive with other states whether they be
4 Mississippi, Louisiana, Vermont, Michigan,
5 Florida, any state, because we have found the
6 past years that thousands of jobs have left this
7 state and we do have to do something about it.
8 SENATOR GOLD: Yeah, but if the
9 Senator will yield to a question.
10 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
11 -- Senator yields.
12 SENATOR GOLD: Senator Stafford,
13 you haven't said anything I disagree with in
14 that statement, but I'm trying to make a point
15 so that we can move it along. The -- you're
16 absolutely right, every budget is a statement of
17 philosophy because we're paying people to do
18 things. We're obviously saying that those are
19 important things, but what I'm saying is that
20 the State Purposes Budget and the Local
21 Assistance Budget, those take us from fiscal
22 year April 1, 1995 through the March 31st,
23 1996.
2991
1 This particular budget, I think
2 more than other budgets, talks into the future
3 and so, for example, and I'm just turning pages,
4 Senator -- believe me, this is totally random
5 and this time I mean it -- on page 68, it talks
6 about airport, aviation, state programs. I
7 assume, if we're talking about 6.5 million,
8 we're doing something because we expect that
9 whatever airports are involved will be around.
10 On some other pages it talks
11 about the Department of Correctional Services.
12 We are, as we indicated today, buying jails or
13 not, depending upon various criteria because
14 people will know that, since we're buying 120
15 million in jails, we anticipate that in the
16 future that's going to be the way we're going,
17 those particular jails, those particular
18 places.
19 We are doing things with schools,
20 so obviously we are projecting into the future
21 and that was my question. When you say this
22 budget, Senator, perhaps more than any other
23 budget projects into the future as what our
2992
1 needs are so that we gear capital projects to
2 that. Is that a fair comment?
3 SENATOR STAFFORD: Well, I -- as
4 you said, what I've said, you don't have really
5 any difference with. I basically understand
6 what you're saying, but in clarification of my
7 -- of my answer, I would say yes, each year we
8 have to decide what we have and we have to
9 decide what is really necessary and that
10 sometimes there's changes in plans that we have
11 made and that's often because of the economy,
12 it's because of what money is available and it's
13 because of priorities.
14 SENATOR GOLD: Mr. President, if
15 the Senator would yield. Senator -
16 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
17 Stafford, will you continue to yield?
18 SENATOR STAFFORD: Yes.
19 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
20 continues to yield.
21 SENATOR GOLD: Senator Stafford,
22 I'm trying to arrive at some common ground with
23 you, and I'm not going to let it go and I
2993
1 appreciate your wonderful ability to, you know,
2 not always give the answer that somebody wants
3 and, Senator, every question that's asked you
4 isn't a trap, but I'm trying to find out and
5 what I think is fair.
6 Things change on a day by day
7 basis, Senator Stafford, but isn't it a fact
8 that if we, in the capital projects budget,
9 decide we're going to build something, we're
10 building it because we are saying this year that
11 we anticipate that that project, whatever it is,
12 is going to be needed in the future, otherwise
13 we wouldn't be putting up the money today,
14 Senator, for the bonding issue today to build
15 it. Isn't that a fair comment, Senator?
16 SENATOR STAFFORD: Well, as you
17 have mentioned, I have the ability not to give
18 you the answer that you always want. Let me
19 assure you, you also have the ability not to
20 give me the answer I like sometimes, and I think
21 it's because we have different priorities. We
22 have different concerns. We are looking at the
23 overall financial picture completely differently
2994
1 and, again, that's one of the great things about
2 this country. We can -- we can disagree, and
3 I've not seen a budget that there was not
4 disagreement upon but, as I say, each budget is
5 a chapter. That chapter is written including a
6 capital budget, which you're asking about. It's
7 written for, first, what do we have to work
8 with, funds; second, what are the priorities,
9 what are the needs and then, of course, we have
10 the provisions included that are of sufficient
11 priority.
12 SENATOR GOLD: Mr. President.
13 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
14 Gold.
15 SENATOR GOLD: If the
16 distinguished chairman would yield to another
17 question.
18 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
19 Stafford, do you continue to yield? Senator
20 Stafford continues to yield.
21 SENATOR GOLD: Senator Stafford
22 -- Senator Stafford, among the many qualities
23 which you have which I admire, and I do admire
2995
1 them, certainly your patience is one of them,
2 and while I'm not necessarily noted for my
3 patience, I'm going to use you as a model and
4 I'm going to try to have as much patience as
5 you, so I'm willing to stay with it, Senator.
6 Let's try again.
7 On page 553 of this budget, line
8 18, "state highways", says: Interstate
9 construction, reconstruction, Westway trade and
10 interstate transfer, other highway system
11 construction, and then it talks about Route 9,
12 Myers Road to Cotton Hill Road, reconstruction;
13 Long Island Expressway between Maurice Avenue
14 and the Brooklyn-Queens Expressway, et cetera,
15 and it mentions, Senator, some very, very
16 specific roads and it gives specific amounts of
17 money.
18 Now, isn't it a fair statement to
19 say, Senator, that we are putting the money into
20 those roads because we don't expect next year to
21 end those roads? We don't expect next year that
22 we're going to have a bypass around those roads
23 and we don't expect that next year there'll be a
2996
1 different road.
2 So in that regard, Senator, I
3 would imagine that we are saying to the people
4 it's important to spend money for this road
5 because this particular road, Route 9 and this
6 particular road, Maurice Avenue, has an
7 important place in our future and, therefore, in
8 the capital projects budget, we're spending the
9 money. Is that a fair comment?
10 SENATOR STAFFORD: Well, you -
11 you had an introduction to your last question,
12 so I'll have an introduction to this answer.
13 You mentioned you're going to be patient. Well,
14 I would also share with you that I know when I'm
15 up against a Cornell lawyer, I mean that as a
16 compliment, and I think I know where you're
17 going, but I don't want to go there. So we're
18 going to be discussing this.
19 SENATOR GOLD: Senator -
20 SENATOR STAFFORD: Now -
21 SENATOR GOLD: Will the Senator
22 yield to a question?
23 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
2997
1 Senator yields.
2 SENATOR GOLD: Senator, I
3 appreciate the reference to my being a Cornell
4 lawyer with offices at 40 Wall Street, New York
5 10005.
6 SENATOR STAFFORD: Don't do that;
7 don't do that.
8 SENATOR GOLD: But that's not
9 what we're doing here and, when you say you know
10 where I want to go, that's another one of your
11 abilities, because I'm not sure even. Senator,
12 it's not a question of where I want to go or not
13 go.
14 I've said this before, and I -- I
15 think this year more than ever, I think the
16 point should be made, I am very delighted with
17 Governor Pataki's budget from the following
18 point of view: I don't think there could be a
19 clearer statement of philosophy than his budget
20 and the fact that I can say to people I don't
21 agree with it puts me right in a certain place
22 and it puts the Governor a certain place, and
23 while many things that happen in government get
2998
1 all mixed up and mired and mushed, this year we
2 don't have that problem, and I'm -- I'm thrilled
3 with it.
4 I find that, for the first time
5 in a long time, people come in to see me and
6 talking about issues aren't talking in gray
7 areas. It's exactly this point or that point.
8 But, Senator, I would imagine
9 that from the point of view of your party that
10 you ought to be standing around this state and
11 this chamber this year with your chest thrown
12 out there beautifully because, by gosh, ladies
13 and gentlemen, we -- this is what we believe
14 in. Former Senator George Pataki, now the
15 Governor, respected Governor of this state, is
16 now putting us on this road, and I want
17 everybody in the state to know that I'm on the
18 road. I assume that that's the case.
19 So I don't know why you would
20 worry about where I'm trying to take you in a
21 debate. I would think that I can't take you any
22 place you'd be uncomfortable in this particular
23 budget. I'm just trying to make the point that
2999
1 -- that whereas other budgets take care of
2 exacting needs, this particular budget, the
3 capital projects budget, is a budget that
4 requires vision.
5 Now, I'm not suggesting to you,
6 Senator, that our other budgets don't.
7 Certainly when we set up programs for public
8 assistance, we are not suggesting to people that
9 it's going to be public assistance for this year
10 and next year it's out the window. Sure,
11 everything has its philosophy, but in the other
12 budgets, if we, for example, decide to give Mr.
13 King 104,000 this year and, as a result of the
14 changes suggested by Senator Bruno and Senator
15 Rath, we don't need him next year, we can, in
16 fact, terminate him and we would have spent
17 104,000 with no problem.
18 In this particular budget though,
19 it's not that simple, because if we spend a
20 million or $2 million on a certain road and next
21 year we don't want that road, we can't pick up
22 $900,000 of that road and put it some place
23 else. We have blown the million dollars.
3000
1 So from that point of view,
2 Senator, maybe I better explain my question.
3 Maybe I haven't. From that point of view, isn't
4 the capital projects budget a look into the
5 future saying that we want to build, actually
6 build -- construct edifices, roads, whatever
7 because in the future, two years, ten years from
8 now, human beings who are taxpaying citizens,
9 will use these facilities. We don't envision
10 them driving on different roads. We don't
11 envision them in different schools and tearing
12 down these schools.
13 In that regard, isn't this budget
14 a projection into the future?
15 SENATOR STAFFORD: Senator, you
16 -- you mentioned that you don't want to or you
17 don't make people uncomfortable. I believe when
18 you first came here, you sat in the -- the seat
19 right over there in front of Senator Waldon.
20 You have made people uncomfortable since the day
21 you sat in that seat. (Laughter) Now, that
22 isn't a criticism. It's a compliment.
23 As far as the issue, and you
3001
1 mention a transportation budget, you will find
2 that many of these are included. Some are
3 funded, some have money behind them, some do
4 not, and then every year there are concerns;
5 there is health and safety that have to be
6 considered and there have to be revisions and
7 that is really the way it has to be, because
8 each year we have a different situation with the
9 economy. There's priorities and, as far as the
10 projects you are referring to in transportation,
11 we have changes there also.
12 SENATOR GOLD: Senator, first of
13 all, I -- I owe you one because, based upon your
14 comment that if my wife were to read the record
15 she would now know she's not the only person in
16 the state of New York I've been making
17 uncomfortable all these years, that there are
18 others that join you. But to show you I have a
19 memory, I remember when you sat back there.
20 SENATOR STAFFORD: 23 years.
21 SENATOR GOLD: Yes, and next to
22 Senator Larkin or whatever.
23 Senator, in terms of the capital
3002
1 projects budget, if you'll yield to a question.
2 SENATOR STAFFORD: Yes.
3 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
4 Stafford continues to yield.
5 SENATOR GOLD: Senator, some of
6 the projects in here I can understand have a
7 statewide financial -- I mean statewide
8 implication in terms of, for example, the New
9 York State Thruway runs around the state and
10 while it runs through towns, villages, counties,
11 et cetera, you know, we think of that as a state
12 situation, and there are many of those in this
13 budget. I'm sure when we talk about prisons we
14 talk about mental health institutions, things
15 like that one might say are of a state nature.
16 But aren't there also, Senator, many projects in
17 this budget that are of great significance to
18 particular localities in the state?
19 SENATOR STAFFORD: I think that
20 we all have to understand that it's just logic,
21 and I should have the ability -- ability to
22 explain that, if it's there, it has to be
23 somewhere, so it's there. That isn't exactly
3003
1 right, but it goes something like that, or if
2 it's a being that has to be somewhere,
3 therefore, it's there and that isn't exactly
4 right, but in other words any project in the
5 state is going to be in a specific area, no
6 question about it.
7 SENATOR GOLD: Well, all right,
8 and, Senator, in terms of items, let me just -
9 in all fairness, when you say it's got to be
10 here, it's got to be there, it's got to be some
11 place. I mean that really isn't true to the
12 extent that, if a particular locality wants a
13 particular item for either economic development
14 or for particular -- or for particular -- I'm
15 sorry.
16 Senator, if a particular
17 locality, for example, determines that it needs
18 a stadium, a particular locality determines that
19 it needs a better railroad station or whatever,
20 I don't think it's fair to say, Well, you got to
21 -- we happen to have -- we went into a choice,
22 they gave me a little railroad station; I got to
23 build it some place. That's not the
3004
1 philosophy. You don't have to put everything
2 some place.
3 On the local part of this budget,
4 Senator, I assume we are reacting to some
5 extent, very responsibly so, but I assume that
6 we are reacting to communities who tell us that
7 they have certain needs and that's why part of
8 the budget places construction in certain
9 places. Is that a fair comment?
10 SENATOR STAFFORD: Well, I -- I'm
11 sorry, I was thinking of something else. Just
12 at the end, the end. Go ahead.
13 SENATOR GOLD: Yes. No, no, what
14 I was saying, I appreciate that, Senator. It
15 happens to me all too often, but what I was
16 saying was, isn't it a fact that rather than
17 just saying, you know, Here is a, you know,
18 here's a stadium, for example, we ought to build
19 one, don't ask me why but we ought to find a
20 place to put it, let's look for a place. Rather
21 than that being an impetus, isn't it more the
22 impetus that a locality would say to us, We need
23 either a stadium or a school or a hospital, we
3005
1 have a specific need, and then the judgment of
2 the 211 people plus the Governor then says, Yes,
3 that project we're going to do and that has
4 very, very significant local effect?
5 SENATOR STAFFORD: Well, I was
6 answering your question about, for instance, if
7 one of these stadii affects an area. Obviously
8 they do, and it's a specific area. I have no
9 quarrel.
10 SENATOR GOLD: Well, I don't know
11 -- well, maybe I -- Senator, maybe I can make
12 my point another way. Mr. President. Mr.
13 President.
14 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
15 Gold. Senator Stafford, you continue to yield?
16 SENATOR GOLD: No, that's all
17 right, no. Senator DeFrancisco. Perhaps
18 Senator DeFrancisco would yield to a question.
19 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
20 DeFrancisco, would you like to yield to a
21 question?
22 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
23 SENATOR GOLD: Senator, I don't
3006
1 know how much of the debate you've had a chance
2 to hear, but what I'm concerned about is that,
3 to give an example, the city of Syracuse as a
4 result -- as a result of a promise contained in
5 the capital projects budget for school
6 maintenance, has already spent out of pocket
7 $338,000.
8 This particular budget, Senator,
9 does not have that money in it. Now, there was
10 other money promised to Syracuse in other places
11 which will not come, I guess, under this budget
12 and which this budget doesn't contain. But what
13 I'm curious about, Senator DeFrancisco, is has
14 the city of Syracuse indicated to you how they
15 are going to find the $338,800 that they spent
16 in anticipation that the state was giving it to
17 them? I mean have they indicated to you where
18 they're going to get that money from?
19 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: If you mean
20 by "the city of Syracuse," the mayor, I have
21 spoken -- since I haven't spoken to every
22 resident of the city of Syracuse, the mayor has
23 -- I have spoken with him quite a bit on this
3007
1 budget. Obviously, every mayor is concerned
2 about the loss of support that this budget may
3 bring to the cities.
4 The difficulty is that we've made
5 promises beyond our capacity to keep, and I
6 think what this budget is basically saying is,
7 recognizing that we can't keep every promise
8 that we made during an election year and that
9 now we have to operate fiscally sound and
10 everybody has to participate in that process and
11 that Syracuse has to participate, so does
12 Buffalo and New York City and Rochester and
13 every place else, and that they will have to
14 make do with what they receive.
15 The saving grace is that along
16 with some of these budget cuts, there are going
17 to be, as we debated this morning, substantial
18 regulatory relief that each of the localities
19 are going to be able to rely on to save money
20 that they were spending on things that maybe
21 weren't necessarily things that had to be spent,
22 so I think it's a balancing act, and they don't
23 like to do it, the city of Syracuse, nor does
3008
1 anybody else, nor do we, but it's a fiscal
2 necessity.
3 SENATOR GOLD: Will the Senator
4 yield to one more question?
5 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO:
6 Absolutely.
7 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
8 yields.
9 SENATOR GOLD: I certainly
10 understand, you know, the concept of balancing
11 budgets and everything to, you know, pull in and
12 not -- and not spend money you don't have. I'm
13 not talkin' about that. It seems to me, if we
14 say to the city of Syracuse or the city of New
15 York or the city of Buffalo or a county that in
16 the next fiscal year we can't be as generous
17 with you because we've got problems, I can
18 understand that dialogue, but this is a
19 situation and there's no avoiding it, where the
20 city of Syracuse specifically expended $338,800
21 believing from us -- and, Senator, you were a
22 Senator last year, and I was too, and the budget
23 we voted on made this promise. It says, Spend
3009
1 the money because we're going to give it back.
2 Now, the mayor or whoever else is
3 involved with the process says, "Wait a minute,
4 I mean I -- I can understand you're not going to
5 give me certain of the money and I won't spend
6 it, but where do I get the 338,800 from that I
7 laid out on your promise you'd give it back?"
8 I mean is that going to affect
9 the tax structure in Syracuse, property tax?
10 Will it affect services in Syracuse that they
11 will now have to cut police or fire or do
12 something else in order to take $338,800 from
13 some place else to make it up because the state
14 of New York is backing down on what was an
15 absolute promise and commitment by Stafford?
16 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Nothing is
17 absolute in this world as we know from this
18 budget, insofar as we found after the election
19 that there was a $5 billion deficit. We make
20 promises based upon projections. No one can
21 predict the future with certainty and, in this
22 particular case, it was obvious that we not only
23 didn't predict the future with certainty, we
3010
1 were way off, and so the -- the reality of the
2 situation is that, in certain instances with
3 some of the cities and all of the cities, we
4 have to re-evaluate when the picture is clear
5 and, you know, I'd love to be able to say to
6 Syracuse, I mean we may be able to adjust soon
7 based upon the negotiations if the Assembly
8 decides to participate, that maybe some of these
9 items may be restored, but as of this point in
10 time, it's an economic necessity. The money
11 isn't there.
12 I fully expect, however, that in
13 some of these items that we're concerned about,
14 if there are additional revenues that can be
15 projected or if there are other ways to adjust
16 the budget once the Assembly decides to come to
17 the table, it would be my preference that past
18 promises be the first priority of this Senate,
19 and I will vote in that way.
20 SENATOR GOLD: So will the
21 Senator yield to one more question?
22 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
23 DeFrancisco, do you continue to yield?
3011
1 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
2 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
3 continues to yield.
4 SENATOR GOLD: Senator, your last
5 answer puzzles me most of all because you say
6 "if the Assembly comes to the table at all."
7 I'm under the impression that the Governor and
8 the Majority in this house have agreed on a
9 budget, and that's your budget and, therefore,
10 if this budget becomes the budget and if the
11 Assembly didn't negotiate, did not negotiate,
12 they say, "Governor, you want the budget, the
13 Senate wants the budget, that's the budget," the
14 fact of the matter is that there is no coming
15 back and Syracuse has to find $338,800 that it
16 was promised and it doesn't have.
17 It's not -- I can understand,
18 Senator, when you say in negotiating that yeah,
19 you might want some other monies for some other
20 locality taken out of the budget so that you can
21 get the 338-, but Senator, I hate to tell you,
22 your 338- and everybody else's money adds up to
23 -- I hope nobody is listening, $27 million, $27
3012
1 million dollars that has been spent by
2 localities all over the state, the vast majority
3 of that, by the way outside the city of New
4 York. Compared to upstate New York the City is
5 pennies, is peanuts, looks like a big amount but
6 you guys got 80 percent or something of that
7 money, and you're basically saying to the people
8 of the city of Syracuse that, if the Senate -
9 if the Assembly will adopt this budget, it's
10 O.K. by you, and I say to you where does the
11 338,000 come from?
12 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Well,
13 Senator, the two years and three months that
14 I've been a member of the Senate, we've heard
15 repeatedly from the media that we've got to stop
16 this process of deciding things behind closed
17 doors, and we should really be responsible and
18 responsive to the citizens of this state, and
19 lay out the cards on the table.
20 Let us -- let the people of the
21 state of New York know where you stand on issues
22 and I'm sure everybody in this chamber believes
23 in that process. So the Senate has said that,
3013
1 since the negotiations apparently are going
2 nowhere at this point in time and according to
3 the Governor and the Majority Leader that the
4 Assembly hasn't even put their cards out, let
5 alone put them on the table, not even taken them
6 out of the wrapper, let alone put them on the
7 table, that the Senate, I think, is acting
8 responsibly saying that, I think, Here is a
9 budget that we could live with. We don't love
10 it; we really don't love every bit of it. I
11 certainly don't, and I'm sure many other people
12 don't, but here's the budget that we would be
13 willing to agree with, with the Governor.
14 Now, you're much more politically
15 astute than I am, and there's no one in this
16 room that truly believes that this is going to
17 be the final answer in the budget because the
18 Assembly, whether they want to presently or not,
19 will have to at some point in time present their
20 viewpoint of life in a proposal and there will
21 be further budget negotiations. But the Senate
22 is saying that this is what we would be willing
23 to do, the fiscally responsible thing, and you
3014
1 can motion and gesture and be comic as much as
2 you want to, but that's my answer.
3 SENATOR GOLD: No, Senator, I
4 think that's fine and I'm not misreading your
5 words. You're saying to the people of your
6 district that this would be fine. There may be
7 amendments, there may not be amendments, and
8 this would be fine, and what I'm trying to find
9 out if you'll yield to one more question:
10 Senator, how fine is it?
11 Will the city of Syracuse have to
12 cut services for 338,000? Will it have to
13 increase taxes for 338,000? How does the city
14 of Syracuse make up the 338,000 that is
15 promised? It's money that they spent because
16 you and I, and I'm just as much in this as you
17 are, we promised them and when you say things
18 change in the world, things may change, Senator,
19 but you know, we have a bad enough reputation as
20 politicians out there now as it is.
21 Are we going to now pass a
22 statute that says to the public, politicians are
23 liars? I mean the public thinks that about some
3015
1 of us anyway, but now it's saying you don't have
2 to worry about it. I don't have to; I don't
3 have to guess about it any more. Those SOBs in
4 Albany told me, we were going to have 338,000.
5 We spent it and, after I spent it, they said,
6 Well, you really didn't mean it.
7 That's a little different,
8 Senator, than cutting anticipated revenues for
9 the coming year. Where do they get -- you're
10 right, there may be more negotiations, but
11 you're telling them today this is your idea with
12 the Governor of a budget. How do they make up
13 for 338,000? And I don't want to ask you again.
14 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
15 DeFrancisco, do you yield to the question from
16 Senator Gold?
17 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes. You
18 know, Senator, one way that they could attempt
19 to make it up is through some of the savings,
20 through the regulatory relief that we're going
21 to provide to all localities but, more
22 importantly, and I want to answer a couple of
23 your points about politicians being liars and
3016
1 emphasize again that what you try to do in a
2 budget is anticipate what those things are going
3 to be like in the following year.
4 They're not like that; we
5 promised too much. We have to come back on some
6 of these promises and, if we had to live with
7 this budget, we would live with it. But I think
8 unless we have been living in a different world,
9 each of us, everyone recognizes that the
10 Assembly wants to add more money to the budget,
11 in fact to the tune of $1.8 billion in more
12 programs. If you do this, the Governor and the
13 Senate Majority Leader are being truthful, and I
14 believe that they are being truthful, so
15 everybody in this room knows that if -- that our
16 position on this side of the aisle is that we
17 want to rein in spending; we want to try to get
18 more fiscally responsible so that in future
19 years our children might have some jobs to go to
20 in the state of New York.
21 Therefore, if we're going to
22 still continue negotiations which we must, if we
23 came out with a budget that was the final word
3017
1 on the budget, and that called for increased
2 spending of another $50 million or whatever the
3 number might be, there's no question that the
4 Assembly would say, let's take 150 million more,
5 so in order to get the two points that we want
6 to get to in this budget, one to get the -- our
7 proposal on the table, start negotiations going
8 and also end up with a fiscally responsible
9 budget, we have to start somewhere, and this is
10 the somewhere we're going to start.
11 SENATOR GOLD: Thank you, Mr.
12 President.
13 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
14 Gold, on the bill.
15 SENATOR GOLD: Yes, just to make
16 some comments. Senator DeFrancisco, you really
17 want it both ways. You said that the Assembly
18 hasn't put their cards on the table, but you say
19 in the presence of the press that they want to
20 spend a billion eight more. I don't know where
21 you get that from if their cards are not on the
22 table.
23 And the other thing which bothers
3018
1 me more than anything is that your party wants
2 to have it both ways again. You say that you
3 will vote for this budget which, by the way, may
4 hurt the city of Syracuse. You accuse the
5 Assembly of wanting to increase the budget, but
6 if that turns out to work, they're going to say
7 you're spending and you're not going to walk
8 around saying, you know, "I wanted fiscal
9 restraint, and I would have voted for a budget
10 that was much less but, believe me, don't worry,
11 in the final budget we're O.K.," and you're not
12 going to say we're O.K. because Sheldon Silver
13 and a bunch of Democrats forced us to put up the
14 money to pay the $338,800.
15 You're not going to do that. You
16 as usual, and I mean you as the Republican Party
17 in general, you as usual want to come in and
18 tell the people you have a very low budget and
19 then you sit there and you pray and you have
20 your fingers crossed that the Democrats will put
21 in the money that you need to go home and fund
22 your projects.
23 But let me ask, Senator Rath,
3019
1 would you yield to a question?
2 SENATOR RATH: Sure will,
3 Senator.
4 SENATOR GOLD: Senator, I know
5 all about this administrative hocus-pocus, but
6 the fact is you've heard all this debate and I
7 know you're sitting as the Acting Majority
8 Leader and doing a wonderful job and should be
9 there more often, but West Genesee, Senator,
10 West Genesee spent $32,907 because you and I as
11 a team, a dynamic team, promised them that, if
12 they spent the money, we're going to give it
13 back.
14 Have they told you how they're
15 going to make up that loss of money?
16 SENATOR RATH: Well, Senator, I'm
17 assuming that you would think that West Genesee
18 considered us mean spirited, and I don't think
19 they considered us mean spirited. I think that
20 they know that, if we had made a promise that
21 when revenues start to come in because business
22 stays in New York State and expands in New York
23 State, that indeed we're going to have an
3020
1 opportunity to make good on that, and I believe
2 they believe us and we believe them.
3 SENATOR GOLD: So, Senator, if
4 you'll yield to one more question.
5 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
6 Rath, do you continue to yield? Senator
7 yields.
8 SENATOR GOLD: What you're
9 telling me, Senator, is that this budget ain't
10 the real budget. What you're telling me is that
11 we're putting out a budget, but the genius of
12 this budget is so apparent and so phenomenal
13 that within days, maybe within hours or
14 certainly within weeks or months, we're going to
15 see a flow of money in this state so phenomenal
16 that we'll be able to come back and do more
17 spending because the only way you can get the
18 money, Senator, is to do those two magic words,
19 do more spending.
20 SENATOR RATH: Senator, the more
21 spending, as you look in your crystal ball, I
22 think, is something that you would subscribe to,
23 I would subscribe probably after we've taken our
3021
1 responsibilities to heart by paying up some of
2 these previous commitments, that we would cut
3 taxes again and hopefully continue an upward
4 spiral into a wonderful future that we all look
5 forward to in New York State.
6 SENATOR GOLD: Good. Thank you,
7 Senator. I didn't quite plan that.
8 Senator Tully, would you yield to
9 a question?
10 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator,
11 Tully, do you yield to Senator Gold?
12 SENATOR TULLY: Why not, Mr.
13 President?
14 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
15 yields.
16 SENATOR GOLD: Yeah. Senator -
17 Senator Tully, I had a very good friend years
18 ago and he used to live in Patchogue, and he
19 hasn't called me for a while, but I would
20 imagine that I might get a call with this budget
21 because we promised Patchogue that, if they did
22 some school maintenance work, we'd pay them a
23 sum of money and, based upon that, they have
3022
1 already spent -- already spent $72,000.
2 Now, do you know how the
3 Patchogue budget is -- is geared to make up that
4 72,000 that we are not giving them now that
5 they've already spent because of our promise?
6 SENATOR TULLY: Mr. President, I
7 have trouble spelling Patchogue. Never mind
8 indicating where it is. It's not in my county.
9 It's in Suffolk County, but I think that they -
10 it's an indication of Senator Gold's great
11 knowledge of geography that he can move from
12 places in the Adirondacks to places in the City
13 to places in Suffolk County, and he is regaling
14 and entertaining us for, I guess we have another
15 hour or so to go through this routine, but it is
16 entertaining. I'm finding myself really
17 entertained by the whole thing but, if you do
18 know the answer to the question, Senator Gold,
19 I'd be delighted to hear it from you.
20 SENATOR GOLD: O.K. Senator,
21 first of all, I didn't do some of this work. I
22 was told that it was in your district. Maybe
23 it's in Senator Trunzo's, but -- and I can't
3023
1 answer for Patchogue with specificity, but in a
2 general way, I assume they are going to have to
3 either cut back on their road maintenance or
4 have to cut back on their schools or on their
5 police because they can't make up spent money
6 from monies that they're going to need to do
7 their continuing effort, particularly if we keep
8 cutting our aid to localities, and I guess maybe
9 in Patchogue, the real estate taxes are going to
10 go up, but maybe -- let me see if I have a -
11 well, Senator Holland, I -- would you yield to a
12 question?
13 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
14 Holland, do you yield?
15 SENATOR HOLLAND: Certainly.
16 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
17 yields.
18 SENATOR GOLD: First of all,
19 Nyack, am I in the right place?
20 SENATOR HOLLAND: That's mine,
21 yes.
22 SENATOR GOLD: I mean I did write
23 these notes; you see I am educable.
3024
1 Senator, I know Nyack and as a
2 matter of fact, there's a few interesting
3 restaurants there. But $36,800. Has Nyack
4 indicated how they're going to make up the money
5 we don't pay them that they've already spent on
6 your promise and my promises?
7 And I made the promise only
8 because of you. I said, "If Joe Holland says
9 you're going to get that money, there's a man
10 after my own heart, they're going to get the
11 money."
12 How do you explain that?
13 SENATOR HOLLAND: Can you tell me
14 what the 36,000 is for?
15 SENATOR GOLD: Yes, it's for
16 school maintenance where we passed monies in our
17 budget and said if you spend this money we will
18 pay it back to you and, now, I'm not talking
19 about the school maintenance money, Senator
20 Holland, that they didn't spend yet, which we
21 did promise them, but I'm just saying if you
22 called up tomorrow and said, Hey, stop, stop,
23 don't spend another penny, we can't give it to
3025
1 you, they would say, Fine, I won't spend another
2 penny, Senator. But, Joe, our dear friend,
3 where's our check for $36,800?
4 What do you say to them?
5 SENATOR HOLLAND: I would say,
6 Senator, that they have to cut just like
7 everybody else does. I believe, and I would
8 like to get the schools as much money as I
9 possibly could, as you heard in the debate, the
10 welfare debate yesterday. However, we are
11 cutting at the federal level, we are cutting at
12 the state level, and I believe it also has to be
13 cut at the school level whether it is secondary
14 education, or senior education.
15 SENATOR GOLD: O.K. All right.
16 Well, Mr. President, on the bill. I -
17 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
18 Gold on the bill.
19 SENATOR GOLD: I have an
20 amendment that's been served and basically the
21 amendment would restore -- yeah, in a minute.
22 SENATOR STAFFORD: Mr. President,
23 Mr. President. Will Senator Gold yield?
3026
1 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
2 Gold, would you yield to Senator Stafford?
3 SENATOR GOLD: I mean I'm over
4 whelmed but, of course, I will.
5 SENATOR STAFFORD: Only time I've
6 ever asked you to yield.
7 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
8 yields.
9 Senator Stafford.
10 SENATOR STAFFORD: Do you know
11 that this was all in the budget last year, these
12 questions you've been asking about these various
13 districts, did you know that this bill will be
14 alive and the money is there if the -- if the
15 Division of the Budget pays it out? You do not
16 need an appropriation.
17 SENATOR GOLD: Well, Senator,
18 what I do know is that we're talking in terms
19 here, I think, it will reappropriate.
20 SENATOR STAFFORD: Reapprop
21 riation.
22 SENATOR GOLD: Well, Senator, I
23 believe we absolutely do need the reappropria
3027
1 tion because the fact of the matter is that if
2 you're telling me that the Division of the
3 Budget can just pay out monies, I'll tell you
4 that that would cause such havoc in this state
5 that I can't begin to tell you because at what
6 point do they decide on reappropriations to pay
7 or not, and we have always done the reappropria
8 tions by way of the budget, and the one thing
9 which I do not believe in, Senator Stafford, I
10 do not believe in, is these kind of bulk things
11 where a bureau of the budget can do what the
12 Governor wants for political reasons in certain
13 places rather than the Legislature taking the
14 initiative, but I'm offering this amendment
15 which is only the reappropriation for $27
16 million already spent.
17 Now, I'm very concerned about one
18 of your members, a new member, Senator Marcel
19 lino -- you don't have to yield, but I'm con
20 concerned about you, sir, because your prede
21 cessor promised Hicksville $57,000 and, Senator
22 Marcellino, I don't think it's fair for you to
23 have to go back there and say to those people,
3028
1 "I just got elected and the first thing they
2 did is they took the money away from us, and you
3 got to raise your property taxes," and I want to
4 save you from that because I think you deserve
5 that, but this $27 million, as I am informed,
6 most of it, over 20 million of it goes to
7 upstate New York and Long Island, and all around
8 the state, and this is not something where
9 you're going to walk around and say, "I voted
10 against it because I'm not throwing your good
11 taxpaying dollars down into New York City."
12 Believe me, if my amendment
13 passes, you will get a better deal out of this
14 dollar in upstate New York and on Long Island
15 than we'll be getting in the City.
16 But honor is honor. Honor is
17 honor, and yes, we sometimes make mistakes and
18 yes, there are situations where we can correct
19 those mistakes, but you don't correct the
20 mistake by promising localities money, having
21 them spend that money and then say, "I was only
22 kidding." That is one of the worst things we
23 can do, and you talk about -- about fiscal
3029
1 theories and fiscal responsibility. Fine. Come
2 in with a budget and trim that budget, do
3 anything you want to do, but don't take
4 localities and say that not only are we going to
5 be giving you less money for your future budget
6 but that future budget is going to have to make
7 up for money which I told you you would have to
8 spend.
9 As a matter of fact, under the
10 statute, I'm not sure, they may have even had an
11 obligation to do this work based upon our
12 putting up the money.
13 So, Mr. President, I thank
14 everybody for their patience, but the bottom
15 line is that this kind of a budget as I was
16 trying to make the point with Senator Stafford,
17 the Capital Projects Budget contains promises
18 for the future and the localities in this state
19 took that promise and said, O.K., you're
20 promising in the future to pay me back that
21 money, I'll spend the money. That's what they
22 did, and no matter what else we do, we should
23 honor our word to those localities.
3030
1 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
2 Onorato, why do you rise?
3 SENATOR ONORATO: Senator Gold,
4 do you yield to a question?
5 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
6 Gold, do you yield to Senator Onorato? Senator
7 yields.
8 SENATOR ONORATO: As you know,
9 I'm not a graduate of Cornell University or any
10 other university in this state, so I'd like to
11 ask perhaps a layman's question. What you're
12 telling us here now that last year the Legislat
13 ure made a contract to give these people X
14 amount of dollars to spend. Some of the money
15 they spent already based upon the good faith of
16 the New York State Legislature passed this law
17 guaranteeing this money.
18 Now, at the end of the year they
19 tell them, they're not going to get that money
20 because we're in trouble. What guarantee do you
21 or anybody in this room now tell me regardless
22 of what amendment you're putting through or what
23 bills that we're passing here that anyone can
3031
1 project in the future to start spending money on
2 any capital improvement that we pass in this
3 house of the Legislature? How can anybody spend
4 anything? This is all "if" money what you're
5 telling me right now.
6 SENATOR GOLD: What I'm telling
7 you, Senator, and I'm glad you pointed it out,
8 is that for years, and I think it was started
9 under the Rockefeller administration, we had
10 borrowing that was constitutionally satisfactory
11 and we had other kind of borrowing, which said,
12 you know, Look, we can't legally do it, but
13 we're winking our eye and you can do it. The
14 answer is, Senator, that in the budget process
15 there has to be trust, and you're exactly right
16 if you can pass a budget that says that in the
17 future, we're doing this; this is our plan, go
18 spend the money, and if you can withhold this 27
19 million, I don't know whether you can believe us
20 about anything.
21 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Senator Gold,
22 would you yield to a question?
23 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator,
3032
1 will you yield to Senator Dollinger?
2 SENATOR GOLD: Yes.
3 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
4 refuses to yield, Senator -- oh, I'm sorry; he
5 changed his mind. Senator Gold yields.
6 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Senator Gold,
7 you mentioned a series of school districts, none
8 of which at least that you've read were in
9 Democratic districts in the Senate, and my
10 question to you is, I mean if you were trying to
11 advance the theory that the Majority in this
12 house were one of the groups that had contrib
13 uted to all of that additional spending in the
14 last ten years by the state of New York, would
15 it be a fair conclusion that you could draw
16 that, when that money was allocated throughout
17 the state, that the Republicans in this house
18 were among the first to be at the trough so that
19 their districts would benefit from all that
20 excess spending that Dr. or that Senator
21 DeFrancisco talked about?
22 I mean that's just a theory, but
23 is there any credence to that theory?
3033
1 SENATOR GOLD: No, I'll tell you
2 what there is credence to, Senator, which you
3 might find interesting.
4 It's very easy in this particular
5 chamber where, based upon the geography of the
6 Majority, to kick around the city of New York.
7 Under the original bill with $62 million at
8 stake, the city of New York was to receive the
9 bulk of that money, so now I see the ears
10 lighting up.
11 The city of New York was to
12 receive the bulk of that money and that was in
13 exchange for obviously other items in the
14 budget. But the city of New York did not go out
15 and spend. Maybe they knew better about the
16 character of this Legislature because the city
17 of New York spent only a minor part of that
18 money.
19 What my amendment does is offer
20 to save my colleagues in your Republican
21 districts, and the reason I was reading off some
22 of these names, and I could have read Skelos and
23 Wright and Levy and Sears and Libous and Padavan
3034
1 and Senator Stafford, I spoke to, but the point
2 is that, if this amendment were to pass, it's
3 your districts that we would be taking care of.
4 That's where the biggest promises are being
5 broken, so this isn't me coming in and saying,
6 "Guys, you know, you've got your part of the
7 pie; give me my part of the pie."
8 I'm not saying that. I'm saying
9 that my conference contains people of honor and
10 if it turns out that I offer an amendment and it
11 does some good for some Republicans, I can't
12 help that, what's right is right.
13 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Again through
14 you, Mr. President, if Senator Gold will yield?
15 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
16 Gold, do you continue to yield? Senator
17 continues to yield.
18 SENATOR DOLLINGER: If I
19 understand your answer to my question, Senator
20 Gold, the answer would be yes, it would give
21 credence to that theory, is that correct? The
22 theory that those who are spending the money,
23 the public's money, were the Majority in this
3035
1 district and not the Minority.
2 Excuse me. You need to confer,
3 please?
4 SENATOR GOLD: Yes.
5 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you.
6 Just one other question to Senator Gold if he
7 won't yield for just one other question.
8 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
9 Gold, do you continue to yield?
10 SENATOR GOLD: Yes.
11 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Is it fair to
12 say, Senator Gold, that that $32 million in
13 failure to reappropriate actually represents
14 what I consider a first in the Senate that we
15 are actually defunding a mandate? We will
16 actually have unfunded mandates and we will have
17 defunded mandates. Is it fair to say this is a
18 defunded mandate?
19 SENATOR GOLD: The answer is,
20 Senator, it's $27 million and -- and your
21 characterization of it being defunding a mandate
22 may actually be true. I can't tell you it's the
23 first time we've ever done it. I can tell you I
3036
1 don't remember us ever doing it again. I can
2 not conceive of -- I don't ever remember Earl
3 Brydges, Warren Anderson or anybody else who
4 happened to have been the leader of this house
5 coming in and saying that they were apologetic
6 because for some reason we've had to cut back on
7 a promise.
8 I certainly know that there have
9 been times when we've cut programs and said, in
10 the future we will not have this program, but
11 the point I was making to Senator Stafford,
12 which he did not want to give me an answer to
13 for whatever reason, is that capital construc
14 tion and these kind of programs are different
15 because they are dealing with edifices and
16 buildings and roads and, therefore, it's
17 different projections than a program where you
18 can fire an employee or whatever.
19 So I think it's the first time I
20 remember, Senator, but I am not qualified to say
21 we never did it. I don't think we did it.
22 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Again through
23 you, Mr. President, if I could just clarify.
3037
1 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
2 Gold, do you continue to yield?
3 SENATOR DOLLINGER: As I
4 interpret your answer, Senator Gold, and I do
5 this all the time with my colleagues on the
6 other side of the aisle, so I apologize for my
7 not quite comprehending, but it is safe to say
8 that we're $32 million worth of -
9 SENATOR GOLD: Absolutely, that's
10 right. 27.
11 SENATOR DOLLINGER: 27, thank
12 you.
13 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The Chair
14 recognizes Senator DeFrancisco on the bill.
15 SENATOR GOLD: I don't know, I
16 never offered my amendment.
17 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: No, you
18 never did, Senator.
19 SENATOR GOLD: Oh, I thought, and
20 then I got distracted for a moment by Senator
21 Stafford.
22 Mr. President, I offer the
23 amendment which has been served and waive its
3038
1 reading. I've explained it. It's basically a
2 restoration of the 27 million, and at an
3 appropriate time, I'd ask for a vote.
4 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: I am in
5 formed by the Secretary at the desk that there
6 is an amendment here. We will, without
7 objection, waive the reading of it.
8 Is there anybody who wishes to
9 speak on the amendment? Hearing none -
10 SENATOR STAFFORD: Just -
11 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
12 Stafford, on the amendment.
13 SENATOR STAFFORD: Yes, when we
14 get in these debates sometimes there are some
15 vagaries or vicissitudes that confuse us.
16 I would point out, as I did
17 earlier, that it was considered to, in effect,
18 repeal the entire appropriation in the
19 deficiency budget. It was not done and it is in
20 the New York State Finance Law that, when there
21 is an appropriation, it is alive if the Division
22 of the Budget wants to fund it, for about three
23 months after the end of the fiscal year.
3039
1 Now, we have to consider all
2 priorities. It's no -- this obviously is
3 something that has to be considered. We have to
4 consider everything, but at the present time we
5 feel this is a budget that is solid, and I would
6 say that we should stay with the budget.
7 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
8 Paterson, why do you rise?
9 SENATOR PATERSON: Would Senator
10 Stafford yield to a couple questions, please?
11 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
12 Stafford, do you yield to Senator Paterson?
13 Senator yields.
14 SENATOR PATERSON: Senator
15 Stafford, I just don't understand the -- most of
16 the -- most of this capital bill is reappropria
17 tions. We were just speaking about a particular
18 part that was left out, and so either I'd like
19 you to tell me specifically why it was left out
20 or I'd like you to just tell me why it's not
21 in.
22 SENATOR STAFFORD: Well, I think
23 again, it's a priority but you'll find if you
3040
1 want to get confused, just work with a budget,
2 any budget. Any budget. But as I said, this is
3 a priority. It's something that I'm sure will
4 be considered that when we put it all together
5 and I've stated that as of this date, it is
6 still alive and will be and we think we have
7 included what we feel are the prior... real
8 priorities.
9 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
10 Oppenheimer on the amendment.
11 SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: I would
12 just like to get on record that I have one -- I
13 have something like a dozen school districts
14 that have spent some money in reliance that we
15 were going to be funding a certain share of -
16 of the construction projects.
17 We are facing very large
18 increases in student population in my county.
19 Our county is second only to New York City in
20 the rapid growth of youngsters coming into our
21 school system and in the following communities,
22 Harrison, Mamaroneck, Mount Pleasant, New
23 Rochelle, Ossining, Pleasantville, Pocantico,
3041
1 Port Chester, Rye, Rye City, Rye Neck,
2 Scarsdale, Tuckahoe and Valhalla. In each of
3 these school districts they have moved ahead
4 with projects and they now are going to find
5 themselves with some serious holes in their
6 budget if we are not going to pay the money that
7 we had said we would repay when they first
8 entered into these contracts and did this
9 building.
10 So I am certain I am not the only
11 Senator with many school districts that have
12 expanded, and I really wonder what we are going
13 to say to them when we go back on our commitment
14 and how in the world are they ever going to
15 trust us in the future?
16 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
17 Dollinger on the amendment.
18 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Mr.
19 President, I'm going to vote in favor of this
20 amendment because this amendment starts the
21 avalanche. It's now going to start all my
22 colleagues, just wait and see, because the
23 follow-up to what Senator Oppenheimer said is,
3042
1 you know, what they're going to do, Senator
2 Oppenheimer.
3 They're going to raise property
4 taxes, and this is the start. The one thing
5 that this Governor promised is that we would not
6 dump the cost of these kinds of services from
7 the personal income tax and the business taxes
8 which are broad-based taxes and which everyone
9 pays and force them on our most regressive tax,
10 a property tax.
11 Here is 27 million right off the
12 top. It starts now. We're going to do it for
13 the next week. We're going to continue to take
14 things that we've promised people to do. We've
15 told them that we've raised them through broad
16 based taxes, and we're going to dump them on
17 those regressive property taxes.
18 It starts today. This is the
19 first salvo. Senator DeFrancisco says
20 regulatory reform will allow them to save this
21 money. Don't believe it for a second because,
22 if you do, you're going to find that that's not
23 going to be the way to save money and we're
3043
1 going to start dumping costs and dumping expense
2 from the state budget and from broad-based taxes
3 into regressive property taxes even though the
4 Governor said we wouldn't do it. That's another
5 promise he won't keep.
6 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Chair
7 recognizes Senator Tully.
8 SENATOR TULLY: Yes, Mr.
9 President. Would Senator Dollinger yield to a
10 question?
11 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
12 Dollinger, would you yield to Senator Tully?
13 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Certainly.
14 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
15 yields.
16 SENATOR TULLY: Yes, Mr.
17 President.
18 Senator Dollinger, I take it
19 you've read the amendment in detail?
20 SENATOR DOLLINGER: I have not
21 read the amendment in detail. I heard Senator
22 Gold's explanation of it.
23 SENATOR TULLY: But like the
3044
1 amendment because Senator Gold said something
2 nice about it.
3 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Well, the way
4 Senator Gold explained it, it seemed good to
5 me.
6 SENATOR TULLY: Perhaps, Senator
7 Dollinger, you could tell me where the $27
8 million is going to come from.
9 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Excuse me?
10 SENATOR TULLY: Where is the $27
11 million dollars to take care of the amendment
12 going to come from? Is that specified in the
13 amendment that you're supporting?
14 SENATOR DOLLINGER: I don't
15 believe it is, Senator, and my understanding is
16 that there is $350 million in additional revenue
17 in this state which the Governor of this state,
18 the Speaker of the Assembly and Senator Bruno
19 have agreed is excess funds. That $27 million
20 is no less than a tenth of that. My opinion
21 certainly would be it could easily come out of
22 that. We could afford that. We've all agreed
23 we've got that kind of money available.
3045
1 SENATOR TULLY: Mr. President. I
2 understand, Senator Dollinger, that that's your
3 opinion. That money, as you know, has already
4 been earmarked on a three-way agreement between
5 the Governor, the Speaker and the leader of this
6 house. That money has been earmarked.
7 Now you're finding another $27
8 million, and you don't know where it's going to
9 come from, but you're supporting an amendment
10 that calls for the expenditure of $27 million
11 dollars, and you have no idea where the money
12 comes from?
13 SENATOR DOLLINGER: O.K. Again
14 through you, Mr. President, in response to the
15 question.
16 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
17 Tully, you're asking Senator Dollinger a
18 question?
19 SENATOR TULLY: That was a
20 question.
21 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
22 Dollinger.
23 SENATOR TULLY: Do you have any
3046
1 idea where the money comes from?
2 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
3 Dollinger.
4 SENATOR DOLLINGER: My
5 understanding is, Mr. President -- I'm not privy
6 to the agreement between the Governor, the
7 Speaker and Senator Bruno. I would love to be
8 privy to that. If anybody has got an
9 invitation, please extend it to me. I'd be glad
10 to be a part of the discussion.
11 But my understanding is, Mr.
12 President, if we had an agreement on where the
13 315 or $350 million would be, we'd have this
14 budget solved. It would be all over and done
15 with. My understanding through counsel is that
16 there is no such agreement and, frankly, there's
17 $350 million sitting there which is now being
18 fought for between various parts of this
19 Legislature over what we ought to do with it.
20 My opinion is, I agree with
21 Senator Gold, take $27 million of it, keep our
22 pledge to our school districts to give them the
23 money and keep the most important promise of all
3047
1 which is that we wouldn't dump costs on local
2 school districts. We promised people we
3 wouldn't dump our costs, our promises, break our
4 promises and dump our costs onto local property
5 taxes.
6 I vow, and I guarantee, if we
7 don't put this money back in, Senator
8 Oppenheimer's districts are going to raise
9 taxes, Senator Stafford's districts are going to
10 raise taxes because they already spent the money
11 and they got to find some other way to do it.
12 They don't have access to broad-based taxes like
13 we do to be able to afford it.
14 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
15 Paterson, why do you rise?
16 SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
17 which of the Senators, between Dollinger and
18 Tully, has the floor?
19 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
20 Tully does.
21 SENATOR PATERSON: Well, then,
22 would Senator Tully yield for a question?
23 SENATOR TULLY: I hadn't
3048
1 completed my questions to Senator Dollinger.
2 I'll be glad to after I complete the question to
3 Senator Dollinger.
4 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
5 Dollinger, do you continue to yield to Senator
6 Tully?
7 SENATOR DOLLINGER: I will
8 continue to yield and then allow Senator
9 Paterson to ask his question of Senator Tully.
10 SENATOR TULLY: Yes, Mr.
11 President.
12 Senator Dollinger, how much of
13 the additional $1.8 million dollars, $1.8
14 billion that Speaker Silver wants to put in the
15 budget is accounted for by this $27 million?
16 SENATOR DOLLINGER: I don't
17 know. I'm not privy to the fact that Senator or
18 that Assemblyman Silver wants to put $1.8
19 billion -- again, Senator Tully, you're asking
20 me to comment on negotiations that I'm not privy
21 to. I'd be more than happy to participate. I
22 have a feeling the participants may not want me
23 there.
3049
1 SENATOR TULLY: But I do
2 understand -- Mr. President, if the Senator will
3 continue to yield.
4 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
5 Dollinger, do you continue to yield?
6 SENATOR DOLLINGER: I will, Mr.
7 President.
8 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
9 continues to yield.
10 SENATOR TULLY: I understand that
11 your leader in this house has been privy to
12 those negotiations; is that not so?
13 SENATOR DOLLINGER: It is true,
14 yes, Senator, and I appreciate Senator Bruno's
15 invitation to Senator Connor to do that for the
16 first time this year; I think that's a good
17 omen.
18 SENATOR TULLY: Do I take it that
19 the time comes when you have not been informed
20 by your leader as to what's going on in the
21 negotiations?
22 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Excuse me,
23 Mr. President. I apologize to Senator Tully. I
3050
1 was having something whispered in my ear, and I
2 did not hear the question. Would you repeat the
3 question?
4 SENATOR TULLY: Let me see if I
5 can consolidate the question in one form or
6 another. Again, Mr. President, if the Senator
7 continues to yield.
8 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
9 Dollinger, do you continue to yield?
10 SENATOR DOLLINGER: I do, Mr.
11 President.
12 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
13 yields.
14 SENATOR TULLY: In response to my
15 initial question, you indicated that you were
16 supporting this amendment for the expenditure of
17 $27 million without knowing whether or not there
18 was any specificity for the funding of that
19 contained in the amendment because you only
20 heard Senator Gold speak of it.
21 Now, I further find from you that
22 you have not been advised by your leader, who is
23 part of the negotiations, as to how this
3051
1 expenditure of funds of the extra 300-and-some
2 odd million was to be spent. You don't know
3 about that?
4 SENATOR DOLLINGER: No, I -- Mr.
5 President, let me make sure Senator Tully
6 understands my prior answer.
7 What I said was that, as I
8 understand the current budget negotiations there
9 is an agreement there is a sum of money
10 available for covering costs. That cost could
11 be costs that have already been incurred by
12 local communities such as this one, or it could
13 be used, rolled over into next year to fund
14 costs through '95-96. My understanding is that
15 the reason why we don't have a budget today is
16 because the -- the leadership which is
17 negotiating that issue have not reached a
18 conclusion on how to spend that money.
19 What I am suggesting, I support
20 Senator Gold, wherever he is, Senator Gold's
21 amendment, which is there's 350 million
22 available. This is something, a classic example
23 of where we made a promise last year, where this
3052
1 Legislature, acting pursuant to its
2 constitutional power with the Governor who acted
3 pursuant to his constitutional power, said,
4 We're going to promise all these local
5 communities this much money in schools. Why?
6 Because they desperately need it. They needed
7 it so desperately that they went out and spent
8 it simply in reliance upon our promise, fool
9 hardy that they were.
10 What I'm suggesting now is that
11 we take 27 million of that $350 million and that
12 we put it into fulfilling this promise so that
13 we don't break our big promise to them, which
14 was to tell them to go ahead and spend it in
15 reliance on our promise and, when they spent it,
16 tell them that they got to raise it through
17 their property tax.
18 That's the complicated answer to
19 your question, Senator.
20 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
21 Tully.
22 SENATOR TULLY: Just finally
23 again, and if Senator Dollinger will continue to
3053
1 yield.
2 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Yes, I will,
3 Senator.
4 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
5 continues to yield.
6 SENATOR TULLY: You're still
7 saying that you support the expenditure of $27
8 million without knowing where that money is
9 coming from; is that correct?
10 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Mr.
11 President, I've explained it before. There is a
12 pot of funds, I am willing to take $27 million
13 out of that pot of funds.
14 I would only point out that last
15 year, although I didn't vote for the budget, so
16 I guess that's a bad example, but I was going to
17 say, the Majority of this house said we should
18 spend that money. We had the money last year.
19 Where did it go? It's now contained in that
20 $315 million dollars that we didn't spend last
21 year that we now have available. Let's fulfill
22 our promise here and spend it here. That's all
23 I'm saying, Senator.
3054
1 SENATOR TULLY: It's really
2 remarkable to me, Mr. President, that Senator
3 Dollinger, who was against it last year,
4 suddenly is in favor of it this year.
5 SENATOR CONNOR: Mr. President.
6 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Chair
7 recognizes Senator Connor.
8 SENATOR CONNOR: Yes, I heard my
9 name mentioned before and I wanted to set the
10 record straight. There was a five-way agreement
11 that there is $300 million in additional
12 revenues next year. There is no agreement about
13 closing this year, but the Comptroller tells me
14 that funds are coming in in record amounts as we
15 speak this very week.
16 The Governor agreed that there's
17 at least $35 million in additional revenue from
18 the lottery. There was hundreds of millions of
19 dollars in additional available funds put on the
20 table in the negotiations by Senator Bruno, and
21 the only leader I ever heard in those meetings
22 ask for more spending was your leader, Senator
23 Bruno. Assemblyman Silver never asked for
3055
1 additional spending. I don't care what you read
2 in the paper or what the Governor's spin masters
3 put in the paper about 1 or $2 billion. There
4 was no request for additional spending for a
5 simple reason. The Speaker kept saying before
6 we can discuss spending, we have to have a total
7 agreement on what the available funds were,
8 because we don't want to talk about spending any
9 money. We don't want to talk about spending any
10 money, that we don't know, that we don't agree
11 is there in revenues or other available funds,
12 including estimates of expenditures on some
13 fixed programs as the Governor -- the Governor
14 proposes to spend. That's where the
15 negotiations were.
16 Now, we have a one-house budget
17 coming out piecemeal in this house where,
18 according to a press conference I heard Senator
19 Bruno and the Governor say there'll be 350, I
20 think it was, million dollars in additional
21 spending. No one's provided numbers to anyone
22 including the press about where that money will
23 be spent, nor do we have the bills in front of
3056
1 us. We have this bill and I'm told there'll
2 also be another bill ready at midnight tonight
3 for tomorrow.
4 So your leader has said, the
5 Majority Leader of this house says there's
6 additional money being spent and he won't say
7 where it's being spent, and we don't know where
8 it's being spent. This amendment is an attempt
9 by Senator Gold and his colleagues to say where
10 we think 27 million of that 350 million that you
11 say is there, and that you, the Majority and the
12 Governor, say they're going to spend ought to be
13 spent. We think it ought to be spent to relieve
14 from the local property taxpayers the burden of
15 paying for these expenditures that they already
16 made because of you passed last year.
17 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
18 DeFrancisco.
19 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Would
20 Senator Connor yield to a question?
21 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
22 Connor do you yield to Senator DeFrancisco?
23 Senator yields.
3057
1 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: You
2 mentioned that Speaker Silver had not agreed to
3 any additional spending because there was no
4 closure on the -
5 SENATOR CONNOR: He hasn't asked
6 for any spending, Senator.
7 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Excuse me,
8 Speaker Silver hadn't asked for additional
9 spending because he wanted to get closure on the
10 issue of what the additional funds were before
11 he spent them.
12 SENATOR CONNOR: Absolutely.
13 That's way you balance a budget, Senator.
14 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: I
15 understand that. Now, can you tell me what
16 Speaker Silver's position was as to the
17 available revenue, in addition to what the
18 Governor's available revenue?
19 SENATOR CONNOR: Well, Speaker
20 Silver's staff put an estimate on from available
21 one shots, most of which were suggested by
22 Senator Bruno, that I understand came out to
23 about a billion dollars. His estimate of those
3058
1 items Senator Bruno suggested was a little
2 higher than Senator Bruno's estimate, which was,
3 I think, $800 million or maybe $750 million
4 because Senator Bruno came up with the one shots
5 like selling state land, and so on. That's one
6 area.
7 Another area is the re-evaluation
8 of certain costs as proposed by the Governor, in
9 other words not talking about adding to
10 Medicaid, just saying the Governor wants to do
11 -- proposes this much Medicaid, and we think
12 that number of patients, those services will
13 cost slightly less than their estimate.
14 That particular item was based on
15 the fact that last year the Assembly had felt
16 that the executive, different executive, same
17 methodology, I might point out, had under
18 estimated -- had over-estimated that Medicaid
19 expenditure by 300 million. The executive
20 accepted a hundred million, the executive and
21 the Majority in this house accepted a hundred
22 million, and the end of the year results were
23 that the formula run through the program in the
3059
1 Assembly computer estimate was accurate and, in
2 fact, 300 million less was spent on Medicaid
3 than had been estimated.
4 So those are the kinds have
5 calculations that went into determining
6 available funds, but many have those items were
7 put on the table both through fiscal staffs in
8 the Senate and the Assembly as well as the
9 Division of the Budget were examining those
10 projections, and so on, and reached no
11 conclusion about whether they were available,
12 how much they were worth.
13 As of Sunday when the Governor
14 returned to his campaign rhetoric and decided
15 that he would encourage a one-house bill in this
16 house, and I guess the softener was this
17 agreement where the Governor agreed that your
18 Majority could spend $350 million more. Of
19 course, nobody knows where you're going to spend
20 it, so perfectly fair for us on this side to say
21 spend $27 million to relieve your property
22 taxpayers from these repair costs that were made
23 in the past.
3060
1 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Will the
2 Senator yield to another question?
3 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
4 Connor, do you continue to yield?
5 SENATOR CONNOR: Certainly, Mr.
6 President.
7 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
8 yields.
9 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: An
10 aggregate number, was there an aggregate number
11 that Speaker Silver said was available?
12 SENATOR CONNOR: No, there was no
13 aggregate number. There were categories, most
14 of which were suggested by Senator Bruno a week
15 and a half ago when he wanted to spend a lot
16 more money, and then the -- it was unresolved
17 about that. The Speaker never advanced any
18 requests for spending because we never got to
19 the point of agreeing on the money available.
20 Senator Bruno did say he wanted to spend more
21 money. We never got into the specifics of that
22 either, you know, in fairness to Senator Bruno
23 because there was never any agreement on the
3061
1 available amount.
2 I read in the press, the
3 Governor's people are spinning two billion and a
4 billion eight. I never heard those numbers
5 articulated at any meeting of the leaders, nor
6 were they. Items of possible available funds
7 were put on the table. As I say, most of them
8 are by your representative.
9 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: All right.
10 Would the Senator yield to another question?
11 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
12 Connor, do you continue to yield? Senator
13 continues to yield.
14 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: So you're
15 saying that Assemblyman Speaker Silver will not
16 get into what spending should be done until
17 there's agreement on available funds?
18 SENATOR CONNOR: Yes, that's
19 right.
20 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: You're also
21 saying that the Speaker has not come up with a
22 figure yet as to what he believes through his
23 estimate, through his staff, as to what the
3062
1 available funds are?
2 SENATOR CONNOR: Well, on some
3 items that were put on the table, including ones
4 put on by Senator Bruno, of possible available
5 funds, there were estimates put on by the
6 Assembly and the Senate, as well as, I think, by
7 the Division of the Budget. Those were not
8 generally shared in the meeting. They were kept
9 pretty close to the vest. In fact, I think
10 there was a joint list prepared by the two
11 majorities and submitted to the Division of the
12 Budget. There was then no agreement on the
13 amount.
14 The Speaker took the position,
15 well, we really can't talk about whether we're
16 -- whether or what we want to restore until we
17 really have a decision on whether these funds
18 are available. I think that's very prudent
19 budgeting.
20 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: I have one
21 last question, if you'd yield.
22 SENATOR CONNOR: Certainly, Mr.
23 President.
3063
1 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
2 continues to yield.
3 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Did Speaker
4 Silver mention when he might provide what his
5 estimates are for available funding for the
6 budget or how much money he might provide us
7 with what his ideas are for spending. Or when
8 he might provide us with an idea of some bills
9 that his Conference might be willing to put on
10 the floor and debate out in the open like we're
11 doing today?
12 SENATOR CONNOR: If -- he
13 absolutely did, Senator. In fact, he said he'd
14 be happy to talk about possible spending once
15 there was agreement on the available funds. As
16 I say, he submitted -- his staff submitted
17 estimates. Your majority staff -- Senator
18 Bruno's staff submitted estimates. We had their
19 estimates and the goal was to first negotiate
20 if, in fact, there were available funds beyond
21 the $325 million, $335 million and that was the
22 topic of negotiations when suddenly, for
23 whatever reason, the Governor and Senator Bruno
3064
1 decided to hit the campaign trail and go back to
2 not negotiating but doing a one-house budget
3 which even this one-house budget I've been told
4 in the press conference I heard has additional
5 spending in terms of hundreds of millions of
6 dollars but they haven't told us where, so I
7 think it's very fair for us to advance a modest
8 proposal of $27 million to relieve local
9 property taxpayers throughout the state of this
10 cost that they incurred relying on our funded
11 mandate. Bad enough the unfunded mandates.
12 This was one that was supposed to be funded and
13 we're reneging on it and saying, You eat the
14 costs. That's what this amendment is about,
15 Senator.
16 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
17 question is on the amendment. All those in
18 favor signify by saying aye.
19 SENATOR GOLD: Party vote in the
20 affirmative.
21 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Secretary
22 will call the roll.
23 (The Secretary called the roll.)
3065
1 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Record
2 the party line vote.
3 THE SECRETARY: Ayes 32, nays 26,
4 party vote.
5 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
6 amendment fails.
7 On the bill. Senator Dollinger.
8 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Am I next in
9 the line-up of persons -
10 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: No,
11 Senator DeFrancisco is next on the line-up to
12 speak on the bill. You're second to that.
13 SENATOR DOLLINGER: My apology.
14 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: I think
15 everybody on this side of the aisle would love
16 to provide all funding for all things that would
17 be the best things for us individually, and I
18 think the political easy thing to do would be to
19 restore funding for everything and for everybody
20 so that we could go back to our districts, and
21 all the lobbyists and special interest groups
22 that come to Albany can say that that Senator
23 was just a wonderful person. He restored all
3066
1 the spending; our programs are continuing. It's
2 business as usual, and it's a great day in the
3 state of New York.
4 But unfortunately that type of
5 thinking is what's gotten us to the position
6 that we are in right now with a $5 billion
7 deficit, and just like I would love to be able
8 to restore everything to my district and every
9 one else would love to restore everything to
10 their districts, the facts of life are that you
11 just can't do it any longer. It's the long
12 range that we're pulling for at this point in
13 time, and the long term means that we want to
14 have a better future so that there are
15 businesses in this state, there are individuals,
16 small businesses in this state as well, that are
17 going to be able to be productive, create jobs
18 so that individuals can work rather than to be
19 dependent on the state on one of the programs
20 that unfortunately might have to be cut.
21 I'm certain that there are going
22 to be restorations in other areas as the
23 negotiations go on, but I think it's crucial for
3067
1 us at this point in our negotiation within a few
2 days of April 1 to put some cards on the table
3 and, according to Senator Connor, we still don't
4 have a position yet from the Assembly as to the
5 spending that they intend to ask for. The
6 Assembly has not given us any idea of what they
7 believe to be the available funds even as yet,
8 and we're hours away from the final bell in this
9 negotiation process, and I think it's incumbent
10 on us to start passing bills, to present a
11 position out in the open for public debate, for
12 scrutiny, for criticism, so that we look bad in
13 our districts because we have this concept that
14 we want to be fiscally prudent, so that maybe
15 this time next year we aren't in the same
16 position and we aren't this way five years from
17 now showing that we have still again reduced
18 funding for education because other parts of the
19 budget are eating away the available revenues in
20 this state.
21 There are going to be
22 restorations and I believe that we're going to
23 hear about some of them in additional budget
3068
1 bills that will be discussed on the floor as
2 early as tomorrow. The fact of the matter is
3 that it is crucial on each of these budget bills
4 to follow that philosophy that we talked about
5 this morning to make certain that spending is
6 reined under control so that the short-term pain
7 that all of us are going to recognize turns into
8 a long-term gain for this state and we finally
9 turn the corner to prudent fiscal responsibility
10 and to a brighter future for generations to
11 come.
12 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The Chair
13 recognizes Senator Dollinger.
14 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Mr.
15 President, I have a couple questions; I'm not
16 sure who to ask them of. They relate to other
17 projects that were in the budget last year but
18 are not apparently in this capital part of the
19 budget.
20 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
21 Stafford, would you yield to a couple questions
22 from Senator Dollinger on the bill?
23 SENATOR STAFFORD: Yes.
3069
1 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
2 Stafford yields.
3 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Like to find
4 out, through you, Mr. President, what happened
5 to the -- the Nassau County Natatorium?
6 SENATOR STAFFORD: I have stated
7 from the beginning that we've had requests,
8 we've had priorities. We had to determine who
9 would be in this particular budget. Now, I've
10 been here long enough to know that just because
11 one bill doesn't contain a project doesn't mean
12 that another will -- will not contain or will
13 contain it.
14 There's no question that there
15 will be various ongoing issues discussed. I've
16 never seen a budget passed that we didn't have a
17 clean-up bill, and the longer you stay here, the
18 more you realize that that clean-up bill is
19 important. So that's where we are at the
20 present time.
21 SENATOR DOLLINGER: O.K. Again
22 through you, Mr. President.
23 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
3070
1 Stafford, do you continue to yield? The Senator
2 continues to yield.
3 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Can I assume,
4 because the Nassau County Natatorium is not in
5 this budget that, when we finally have the
6 budget approved, there will be no money for the
7 Natatorium?
8 SENATOR STAFFORD: I -- I guess
9 if I was going to make a broad stroke with a
10 conceptual brush, so to speak, a general
11 statement, I would caution anybody on assuming
12 anything here during the legislative session,
13 the budget, or exactly what is going to pass or
14 what isn't going to pass or what is going to be
15 included or what isn't going to be included,
16 because that can change.
17 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Again through
18 you, Mr. President, if Senator Stafford will
19 continue to yield.
20 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
21 Stafford, do you continue to yield?
22 SENATOR STAFFORD: By all means.
23 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
3071
1 continues to yield.
2 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Senator, that
3 was Senator Marino's pool, was it not? I mean
4 that was put in the budget because it was in
5 Senator Marino's district, was it not?
6 SENATOR STAFFORD: I'm going to
7 be as kind as I can at the present time. You
8 have all sorts of ways of debating. We all have
9 our swords. We all poke at each other, but
10 think. Just think before you talk.
11 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Well, again
12 through you, Mr. President, I appreciate the
13 advice from Senator Stafford.
14 I -- my intention here is to
15 simply find out there's no money in this budget
16 for the Natatorium as it currently exists.
17 Where -- can we assume that, since that was an
18 item that was put in there at, I think it's safe
19 to say perhaps at the request of this house,
20 that we're passing a budget today which doesn't
21 have it, that we'll never see the pool again?
22 SENATOR STAFFORD: I'll go
23 through my answer again on assuming. It's very
3072
1 difficult to assume here in the Legislature.
2 You have 211 legislators. You have a governor
3 and various decisions are made. They're
4 sometimes changed the next day. We all realize
5 that there are various concerns, and I would say
6 to you again, I wouldn't assume anything.
7 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Well, again,
8 through you, Mr. President, if -
9 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
10 Stafford, do you continue to yield?
11 SENATOR DOLLINGER: We know that
12 Governor Pataki railed against the pool during
13 the campaign. We know that this budget does not
14 include the pool, and for the life of me I can't
15 figure out any reason why the Assembly would go
16 to bat for a pool that was put in originally at
17 the request of a member of this house, and my
18 question is, is it safe to assume that, since
19 there's no one in favor of the pool, that
20 there'll be no pool in the final budget?
21 SENATOR TULLY: Mr. President.
22 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
23 Tully, why do you rise?
3073
1 SENATOR TULLY: Mr. President,
2 will Senator Dollinger yield for a question?
3 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Mr.
4 President, I'll be glad to yield after Senator
5 Stafford answers my question, if he would.
6 SENATOR STAFFORD: Would you go
7 over that again?
8 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Well,
9 again -
10 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Do you
11 wish to go over that again, Senator Dollinger,
12 or would you yield for a question from Senator
13 Tully?
14 SENATOR DOLLINGER: No, I'd like
15 Senator Stafford to answer the question. Then I
16 will yield.
17 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: All
18 right.
19 SENATOR DOLLINGER: I'm just
20 trying to find out, Senator, is it safe to say
21 there will be no Natatorium in the final budget
22 because the Governor is against it; he talked
23 against it throughout his campaign; it was
3074
1 proposed by this house and added to the budget.
2 It's not in this year, therefore, it's not going
3 to be a part of this budget, and there's -- the
4 best I can tell, no reason for the Assembly to
5 add the pool into the budget.
6 SENATOR STAFFORD: Well, first,
7 I've given you my position on assuming, so you
8 know you have that.
9 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Right.
10 SENATOR STAFFORD: And as far as
11 the Assembly goes, I don't think any of us can
12 speak for the Assembly -- for the Assembly. In
13 fact, they're not -- they're not even speaking
14 for themselves, and you want me -- you want me
15 to -- you want me to start sharing with you what
16 is going to do -- what they're going to do over
17 there.
18 What I would suggest you do is
19 get on the phone. Do you have any -- I can't
20 ask you but, if you have anybody over there in
21 the Assembly that you communicate with, I'd ask
22 them.
23 SENATOR DOLLINGER: If they want
3075
1 a pool?
2 SENATOR STAFFORD: Well, you
3 asked me if they were going to consider it.
4 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Well, best I
5 can tell, no one from the Assembly has ever
6 talked about putting a Natatorium on Long
7 Island. That was a project which originated in
8 this house, and my question is, is it safe to
9 assume the Governor doesn't want it? This
10 house -
11 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
12 Stafford, do you continue to yield?
13 SENATOR STAFFORD: I believe in
14 the course of business here, my colleague was
15 going to ask a question and then, of course,
16 I'll be glad to continue to yield. I guess my
17 question, or your question, I would only say, if
18 you're trying to determine whether there's going
19 to be an item in the budget, I would suggest
20 again here that you talk -- be glad to have you
21 talk with me or what it is as far as the
22 priorities, and I'm sure that we can keep you up
23 to speed.
3076
1 If you're going to ask about the
2 Assembly once again, I'd say the best place to
3 go is -- is the Assembly. Now, with that, I
4 guess you had wanted to ask a question.
5 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
6 Tully, why do you rise?
7 SENATOR TULLY: I would ask if
8 Senator Dollinger would yield to a question.
9 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
10 Dollinger, do you yield to Senator Tully?
11 SENATOR DOLLINGER: I would be
12 glad to yield. I have other questions for
13 Senator Stafford, but I'd be glad to yield.
14 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The Chair
15 would just at this point remind the members that
16 this debate started at 2:05, so the two-hour
17 limit or the two-hour time limit within which to
18 challenge would be up in about 20 minutes.
19 There are several other members who have a
20 statement they'd like to make, so with that,
21 Senator Tully, Senator Dollinger yields.
22 SENATOR TULLY: Thank you, Mr.
23 President. Senator Dollinger, would you be
3077
1 surprised if I told you that the Good Will Games
2 which are the Olympics for handicapped children
3 have been attempted to be sited in many places
4 in this country and reduced to three sites, one
5 of which was New York. The final site was on
6 Long Island in the district of another Senator
7 from Long Island, not Senator Marino, and that
8 this discussion and this pinpointing of that
9 site came about as a result of a discussion by
10 the former Governor, Mario Cuomo, with the
11 editor -- the former editor of NEWSDAY, Bob
12 Johnson in Atlanta, and it was as a result of
13 that discussion that it was brought forward to
14 this house as a potential site not only for
15 handicapped children for their Olympics but as
16 an economic boon for that community, developing
17 jobs and providing incomes, and providing in a
18 sense of providing a site for these people to
19 have their Good Will Games.
20 Did you know that?
21 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Mr.
22 President, my understanding is that this was for
23 the Good Will Games, but the Good Will Games
3078
1 that we talked about and I -- if I'm incorrect,
2 please correct me -- they were the Good Will
3 Games sponsored by Ted Turner, that these
4 involved world class athletes, much as we once
5 did the World University Games up in Buffalo
6 which I won't comment on whether they were
7 successful or proved to be the economic boon.
8 We last year picked up a portion of the tab for
9 having the World University Games there, but my
10 understanding is, Mr. President, that this pool
11 was part of the inducement to try to bring those
12 games to Long Island.
13 SENATOR TULLY: Well, Mr.
14 President, I would like to clarify that for
15 Senator Dollinger, if I may.
16 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Mr.
17 President, I'd be glad to yield to Senator Tully
18 to clarify that question.
19 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
20 Dollinger yields to Senator Tully for a
21 correction.
22 SENATOR TULLY: The pool was
23 utilized by handicapped children in their
3079
1 special Olympics, and it was initiated by the
2 former governor and was then brought to the
3 attention of this house and that's how it came
4 to be located in that particular location.
5 Many other sites were considered
6 in this country. It narrowed down to three.
7 The only one in this state was that site in Long
8 Island.
9 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Again,
10 through you, Mr. President, if I can just make a
11 comment in response to Senator Tully, then I
12 have a question for Senator Stafford.
13 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The floor
14 is yours, Senator Dollinger.
15 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Senator, if
16 that's the case, why isn't it in the Republican
17 version of the Capital Budget? I gather we're
18 not going to have an economic boom in Long
19 Island. Why was it deleted from the budget?
20 Perhaps Senator Tully can tell me why we're
21 debating a capital budget that doesn't have it
22 in. Are we saying goodbye to the Good Will
23 Games?
3080
1 SENATOR TULLY: Mr. President, I
2 certainly can't speak as to what the leaders
3 have agreed upon in the budget, but I think we
4 all know that Governor Pataki has made it plain
5 that we're not going to spend as much money as
6 we have in previous budgets all under Democratic
7 administrations. For the first time in, I don't
8 know whether it's 20 or 40 years, we're spending
9 less money than we have in a previous year's
10 budget, and many things must fall. This may
11 well be one of them. Hopefully it won't be, but
12 it may well be one of them.
13 SENATOR DOLLINGER: That
14 addresses the point that I make perfectly. I
15 mean I just point out that there's going to be
16 no pool, right? I mean I can write on here "no
17 pool"?
18 SENATOR TULLY: Mr. President.
19 Senator Dollinger, if I had my way, there would
20 be a pool because I think it's very significant;
21 it's very important to the handicapped people.
22 It's very important, I think, to show that we
23 care about people with handicaps and to give
3081
1 them an opportunity to perform in an Olympic
2 setting, and it's very significant that we
3 should do that.
4 It's certainly not something that
5 we should make a joke out of or play with
6 placards in this chamber.
7 SENATOR DOLLINGER: I'm not -
8 excuse me, Mr. President, I'm not playing with
9 any placards. I'm just pointing out, can I
10 write it's safe to say the Republican position
11 is no pool?
12 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
13 Dollinger? Senator Dollinger? Are you asking
14 Senator Tully to yield?
15 SENATOR DOLLINGER: I apologize.
16 SENATOR STAFFORD: No. Now -
17 SENATOR DOLLINGER: No what?
18 There will be a pool or there won't be?
19 SENATOR STAFFORD: N-o, period.
20 But now let me just share with you, now that you
21 have completed. We had also in this Legislature
22 a few years ago, this Legislature a Senate, the
23 the Assembly and the Governor, we had the World
3082
1 University Games in Lake Placid, and they were
2 very successful. I didn't want you to feel that
3 there was any question about the games because
4 they were good, very, very good games.
5 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
6 Dollinger.
7 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Do I still
8 have the floor, Mr. President?
9 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Floor is
10 yours.
11 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Could I ask
12 another question?
13 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
14 Stafford, do you yield?
15 SENATOR DOLLINGER: No. Actually
16 it deals with other projects in other districts.
17 Is Senator Goodman here?
18 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Asking
19 Senator Goodman who doesn't appear to be in the
20 chamber to yield.
21 SENATOR DOLLINGER: O.K. Perhaps
22 Senator Stafford can answer the question.
23 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
3083
1 Stafford, do you yield?
2 SENATOR DOLLINGER: The current -
3 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
4 Dollinger. Senator Dollinger. Senator Stafford
5 do you yield?
6 SENATOR STAFFORD: By all means.
7 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
8 yields.
9 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you,
10 Mr. President.
11 Now, the proposed budget also
12 excludes $1 million for the Metropolitan Museum
13 of Art. Is it now the position of the Senate
14 Majority that there will be no addition for the
15 south wing of the Metropolitan Museum of Art?
16 SENATOR STAFFORD: How much money
17 was that?
18 SENATOR DOLLINGER: One million
19 dollars.
20 SENATOR STAFFORD: I realize, as
21 many do, that the Metropolitan Museum of Art is
22 one of the finest museums in the world. We're
23 fortunate that we have the museum in New York
3084
1 City. There has been consideration as far as
2 making these funds available. Again, as I said
3 to you, that's very possible, it's very possible
4 that there will be other bills. I mentioned to
5 you what I called the "clean-up bill" and I've
6 been here in years when we've had more than
7 one.
8 Have you ever -- excuse me. Will
9 Senator Dollinger yield?
10 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Mr.
11 President, unfortunately, because of press of
12 time, I know there are other speakers that want
13 to talk, I have just a couple more questions. I
14 don't believe I should yield at this time,
15 Senator. I apologize. I'm trying to get -
16 trying to give other people a chance. I'm going
17 to ask a couple more questions and then I'm
18 going to go.
19 SENATOR STAFFORD: Mr. President.
20 SENATOR DOLLINGER: I don't have
21 to yield, do I? I've got the floor.
22 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
23 Stafford, why do you rise?
3085
1 SENATOR STAFFORD: I just got to
2 once more ask my distinguished Senator from -
3 (Pause-laughter) from Rochester.
4 SENATOR DOLLINGER: With all due
5 respect, I obviously haven't been as uncomfort
6 able as Senator Gold has been in the last 20
7 years. I'm trying my best.
8 Mr. President, can I ask Senator
9 Bruno a question?
10 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
11 Bruno, do you yield to Senator Dollinger?
12 SENATOR BRUNO: Yes, Mr.
13 President.
14 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
15 yields.
16 SENATOR BRUNO: Wonderful.
17 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Senator,
18 there is a project which I believe is in your
19 district at SPAC, the Saratoga Performing Arts
20 Center. We have authorized $3.9 million. My
21 understanding is that SPAC has already spent
22 $600,000 of that money.
23 Is it the position of the Senate
3086
1 Majority as reflected in this bill that there
2 will be no funds for SPAC?
3 SENATOR BRUNO: When? No funds
4 for SPAC when?
5 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Well, there's
6 no -- there will be no money for SPAC in the
7 next budget; can we assume that?
8 SENATOR BRUNO: You know, I think
9 Senator Stafford is about as articulate as
10 anyone in this chamber, and he said very
11 clearly, Senator, you can assume anything you
12 want to. Be my guest. Assume anything you want
13 to.
14 SENATOR DOLLINGER: But is it
15 safe to say again that you -
16 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Are you
17 asking Senator Bruno to continue to yield?
18 Senator Bruno, do you continue to yield?
19 SENATOR BRUNO: Yes, Mr.
20 President.
21 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
22 yields.
23 SENATOR DOLLINGER: It's clearly
3087
1 the position of this Majority not to give SPAC
2 that money in this budget, if -- Mr. Majority
3 Leader, if this money happened to end up in the
4 final budget that wouldn't be because of
5 anything that the other side of the house had to
6 do. Our colleagues in the Assembly would be
7 entirely responsible for that and should claim
8 the entire credit for that; isn't that fair?
9 SENATOR BRUNO: Mr. President, if
10 we were talking about what was fair, I guess we
11 wouldn't be having this conversation, because
12 what is really appropriate is to really talk
13 about something meaningful relating to our
14 process here in moving a budget forward.
15 What we're doing here is moving a
16 budget process forward. We are, Senator, in the
17 light of day, middle of the afternoon, discuss
18 ing the Senate proposal to do a budget, in broad
19 daylight, and before the public, media present,
20 and we have invited your colleagues in the other
21 house to do the same, so that we can publicly
22 acknowledge who wants to spend what, and I
23 address that to my good friend, who wants to
3088
1 spend what, and what revenues we want to create,
2 Senator. That's what's going on here.
3 We are establishing this week
4 what we are prepared to commit to the people of
5 this state by way of spending and by way -- by
6 the end of this Friday, by way of revenue, and
7 by Friday night, if you stay tuned, all of the
8 assumptions that you are making will either be
9 acknowledged or denied by Friday.
10 So be patient and you will see
11 whether there are swimming pools and whether
12 SPAC's in and whether your funding for the
13 schools that the Speaker is interested in,
14 whether that's in, all of those questions that
15 you've been asking, sometimes rhetorically here,
16 will be answered.
17 Here is the bottom line, Senator.
18 This house will have passed a balanced, complete
19 budget on March 31st. Your colleagues are going
20 to ask -- going to have to answer to the people
21 of New York State in why they have not passed a
22 completed budget by March 31st, such as it is.
23 Now, you have some additions you
3089
1 want to make, be our guest. You're making the
2 amendments. But, Senator, if you don't have a
3 budget by March 31st with your colleagues, then
4 why don't you suggest to the Speaker that he
5 pass this budget and the people of this state
6 will have what they deserve, a balanced budgeted
7 with spending and revenues that will become law
8 on March 31st, and it will be the package that
9 you're going to pass between now and March 31st,
10 Friday.
11 That's our proposal to you,
12 Senator.
13 SENATOR DOLLINGER: I appreciate
14 the Majority Leader's sentiments. I'll be real
15 quick to finish.
16 I assume there's no pool, there's
17 no Metropolitan Museum of Art, there's no SPAC,
18 there's no coastal rehabilitation supp'. All
19 the money that we put in last year for the coast
20 of Long Island -- I don't live there, isn't a
21 big deal to me, maybe a big deal to the members
22 of this body.
23 I can assume if we pass this
3090
1 budget, if you pass this budget, that if all
2 these items show up in the budget it's not
3 because the Senate Republicans want them and,
4 frankly, I would hope that none of the news
5 letters, none of the information, none of the
6 press releases that we've been treated to for
7 the last number of years will show up in Long
8 Island or in Saratoga with Senator Bruno's name
9 on it, Metropolitan Museum of Art with Senator
10 Goodman's name on it or anybody on Long Island
11 about the pool because it will be a
12 demonstration that those are all put back by our
13 colleagues in the Assembly and when there's any
14 credit to be given for that spending, it will be
15 simply because our colleagues in the Assembly
16 wanted it.
17 Can't have it both ways,
18 gentlemen. If you want to pass this budget and
19 somehow all of a sudden these things sneak back
20 in, maybe it will be because the Majority in
21 this house wanted it to appear to the public
22 that it wasn't spending or wanted to go back to
23 the trough as it has before.
3091
1 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Chair
2 recognizes Senator Marchi.
3 Senator Skelos?
4 SENATOR SKELOS: Can you tell me
5 what time the debate began on this bill?
6 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
7 debate began at 2:05.
8 SENATOR SKELOS: Thank you very
9 much.
10 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Chair
11 recognizes Senator Montgomery, on the bill.
12 SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Thank you
13 very much, Mr. President. I have a couple of
14 questions of information, and I suppose I should
15 ask Senator Stafford. I'm not sure. I wanted
16 to ask you about the Corrections budget.
17 SENATOR STAFFORD: I'm sorry. I
18 apologize. I was listening to staff. I should
19 have given my ear.
20 SENATOR MONTGOMERY: All right,
21 Senator Stafford. If you would yield, I would
22 like to ask you a question about the Corrections
23 budget.
3092
1 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
2 Stafford, do you yield?
3 SENATOR STAFFORD: Yes.
4 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
5 Senator yields, Senator Montgomery.
6 SENATOR MONTGOMERY: The 252
7 million, does that -- does that include any new
8 construction?
9 SENATOR STAFFORD: No new
10 construction, Senator.
11 SENATOR MONTGOMERY: No new
12 construction. Does it include any new
13 facilities?
14 SENATOR STAFFORD: I'll get your
15 answer to that in just a minute, Senator.
16 SENATOR MONTGOMERY: And so my
17 assumption is that there may be a portion of it
18 for new facilities, but the largest percentage
19 is for the upgrading -
20 SENATOR STAFFORD: Yes.
21 SENATOR MONTGOMERY: -- of the
22 correctional facilities that are already in
23 existence.
3093
1 SENATOR STAFFORD: Right.
2 SENATOR MONTGOMERY: And is that
3 200 -- if you will yield again, does that 250
4 million include any reappropriation, or is that,
5 the 250 million, is that separate from
6 reappropriation?
7 SENATOR STAFFORD: No.
8 SENATOR MONTGOMERY: In other
9 words, that includes reappropriation?
10 SENATOR STAFFORD: Yes. I don't
11 believe -- I don't believe there are -- there
12 are reappropriations here.
13 SENATOR MONTGOMERY: O.K. So we
14 have a separate reappropriation based on last
15 year's budget, and we don't have that figure in
16 front of us. I know it's in here, but I'm just
17 -- I couldn't add it all up.
18 SENATOR STAFFORD: Another 64
19 million is appropriated -- is reappropriation,
20 I'm sorry.
21 SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Is
22 reappropriation. So we have about what, 1.2
23 billion, somewhere around there, in total outlay
3094
1 for the correctional facilities including
2 reappropriations from last year and in this
3 year's outlay of 250 million.
4 SENATOR STAFFORD: The -- I want
5 to be accurate, Senator. Your question is
6 obviously the -- a good question. All of the
7 money will not be spent of that 1. -
8 SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Of the 1.2?
9 Okay. But that is the outlay for the last two
10 years in terms of the prison facilities. Do we
11 have -- do we have any facilities that are in -
12 in progress that have already gone to
13 construction phase-out of 900 million, do you
14 know?
15 SENATOR STAFFORD: Just one
16 second. This is the quietest I've ever heard
17 it.
18 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
19 Stafford, just for -- excuse me, Senator
20 Montgomery.
21 Senator Stafford -- Senator
22 Stafford, if you could just kind of slide that
23 way a little bit, I would -
3095
1 SENATOR STAFFORD: So when I talk
2 it goes in.
3 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Yeah, I
4 know. It's tough when there's a member in the
5 back that you want to respond to, but if you
6 could just sort of slide to your left a little
7 bit -- I know it's difficult.
8 SENATOR STAFFORD: Senator and my
9 colleagues, I apologize. We had a meeting that
10 our staff member was attending. This is -- I
11 hope will make it clear and correct.
12 There are Friendship, Johnstown,
13 Altamont, Hounsfield and Romulus that are
14 planned and there are appropriations, but
15 there's a question about really whether they'll
16 be built or not. That's what it is.
17 SENATOR MONTGOMERY: So are those
18 from last year's budget?
19 SENATOR STAFFORD: They are from
20 last year's budget; yes, they are.
21 SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Okay. So
22 what is that, five new -- we're looking at five
23 new facilities?
3096
1 SENATOR STAFFORD: Yes.
2 SENATOR MONTGOMERY: All
3 construction -- is that all construction or any
4 of that -
5 SENATOR STAFFORD: These were all
6 appropriated at 18 -- 1989 and '90 and no work
7 has been done.
8 SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Thank you.
9 If you would yield, Senator.
10 SENATOR STAFFORD: Sure.
11 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
12 Stafford, do you continue to yield?
13 SENATOR STAFFORD: By all means.
14 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
15 Senator continues to yield, Senator Montgomery.
16 SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Thank you,
17 Senator.
18 On the mental health,
19 specifically the Community Reinvestment Act, the
20 -- when the commissioner came before the
21 Finance Committee, he indicated in his
22 presentation of his budget that he intended to
23 use part of that Community Reinvestment Act
3097
1 funding for capital purposes, and it was my
2 understanding that the -- the agreement that we
3 made last -- the agreement that the Legislature
4 made with the Governor -
5 SENATOR STAFFORD: Right.
6 SENATOR MONTGOMERY: -- did not
7 include capital funding as part of that, but I
8 don't see any indication that there's going to
9 be capital funding in this budget for that
10 purpose out of that particular pot of money.
11 Does that mean that we're not, in fact, going to
12 be spending any of that money for capital
13 purposes now?
14 SENATOR STAFFORD: Even know he's
15 -- even though -
16 SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Even though
17 he said that he was?
18 SENATOR STAFFORD: Right. This
19 includes the answer or is the same answer that
20 has been given a number of times. There will be
21 a number of bills, I'm sure, and the issue you
22 raised is raised also over here and has been
23 raised in a very clear manner and will be
3098
1 considered and certainly very well meets some of
2 the -- some of the goals that we all usually
3 have.
4 SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Will those
5 be an Article -- will that be an Article 7
6 bill?
7 SENATOR STAFFORD: It could
8 possibly be, but it could be an amendment or it
9 could be actually another bill.
10 SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Another -
11 it could be a bill that would be a statute -
12 SENATOR STAFFORD: Right.
13 SENATOR MONTGOMERY: -- changing
14 the whole program essentially?
15 SENATOR STAFFORD: Could be -
16 yes, it could be an amendment or -
17 SENATOR MONTGOMERY: A chapter
18 amendment?
19 SENATOR STAFFORD: That's a term
20 that was used. I'm showing my age. Some people
21 don't use that anymore.
22 SENATOR MONTGOMERY: M-m h-m-m.
23 SENATOR STAFFORD: And it's
3099
1 probably just as well, but on any bill that
2 passes, you can amend that bill and say that
3 chapter amends that bill so they said -- so just
4 an amendment.
5 SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Oh, I see.
6 All right. I was -- I was -- that is of
7 particular interest to those of us like in my
8 district where we -- that's been one source of
9 stabilizing the issue of housing for mental
10 health -- mentally ill, and so you can see why
11 I'm concerned about it. I would hope that we
12 don't -- don't change entirely the mission and
13 the focus of that program.
14 But let me go -- in the area of
15 school construction, Senator, if I could just
16 ask one last question.
17 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
18 Stafford, do you yield to one last question?
19 SENATOR STAFFORD: Certainly
20 will.
21 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
22 Senator yields.
23 SENATOR MONTGOMERY: What is the
3100
1 -- what is the -- what is the status vis-a-vis
2 the -- this legislation of that school
3 construction funding?
4 SENATOR STAFFORD: 27 million.
5 Is that the -- actually, this is -- has been
6 mentioned a number of times, and I again would
7 just point out, I have heard people often say
8 here that things aren't written in stone, and I
9 kind of thought it rather boring, but I'm
10 learning that we pass a bill and very often we
11 pass another bill and, as we have mentioned,
12 that 27 million is a concern to many here in the
13 Capitol, and I think it's a priority that will
14 very possibly receive consideration.
15 SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Thank you,
16 Senator.
17 I certainly hope that -- I would
18 hope that we're not willing to spend much more
19 money on brand new lovely prison facilities and
20 we can't come up with 27 million to maintain and
21 renovate and restore our school buildings across
22 the state. So I just want to go on record with
23 that.
3101
1 Thank you, Senator.
2 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The Chair
3 recognizes Senator Jones.
4 SENATOR JONES: Yes. I had a
5 couple questions. I'm listening here today and
6 actually I'm almost embarrassed to get on to
7 this discussion because I stand here concerned
8 about mental illness and the elderly and the
9 poor, but I guess we need to deal with the
10 document that's in front of us.
11 I was going to offer something a
12 little different today. Actually, I was going
13 to offer you more cuts than you already have in
14 here. I looked at the section on stadia, and I
15 heard Senator Stafford early on, and I'm going
16 to ask him to explain to me -- in the essence of
17 time, I'm not going to offer that, but what I
18 was going to say is I believe that there are -
19 were 18 stadia originally in the budget and now
20 there's only 6, so I was going to suggest the
21 other 12 also be removed in the issue of
22 fairness, the ones that -- because apparently
23 the debate has not really been clear as to
3102
1 whether or not these are an economic development
2 issue for communities, and I have not been able
3 to figure out what the criteria for the decision
4 making was.
5 So, maybe, Senator, you could
6 just tell me, did you ever consider not funding
7 any because certainly it would save us more
8 money, or what exactly was the criteria; if you
9 would be so kind to tell me.
10 SENATOR STAFFORD: The first
11 thing we have to do, Senator, is not use the
12 stadia as a political football.
13 SENATOR JONES: I agree. I
14 agree.
15 SENATOR TULLY: Mr. President.
16 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
17 Tully, why do you rise?
18 SENATOR JONES: I agree.
19 SENATOR TULLY: Point of
20 information.
21 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
22 Tully, why do you rise?
23 SENATOR TULLY: Point of
3103
1 information, Mr. President.
2 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Yes.
3 SENATOR TULLY: What time did the
4 debate start on this bill?
5 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
6 debate started at 2:05.
7 SENATOR STAFFORD: I think
8 probably it was considered. I -- I would say
9 first -- and no one has briefed me on this, but
10 it's economic development. Now, where these
11 decisions are made, where they're placed, I
12 think many of us could say, "We want to do this"
13 or "Why does this area get this?"
14 I can remember some of my
15 colleagues -- I'll never forget. You know,
16 Syracuse is a really, really conservative area,
17 and I looked up one day, and the state was
18 supporting a stadium in that area, and I looked
19 around and I said, "Well, what's this all
20 about?" I've learned that the state and the
21 city have gotten back the money many times.
22 Now, where these facilities are,
23 there obviously had to be considerations.
3104
1 There's obviously some places that want them
2 that are not getting them. I wouldn't say
3 there's probably any area getting a stadium that
4 doesn't want it, but those decisions have to be
5 made.
6 SENATOR JONES: Would the Senator
7 yield to one more question?
8 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
9 Stafford, do you yield to one more question from
10 Senator Jones?
11 SENATOR STAFFORD: Sure.
12 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
13 Senator yields.
14 SENATOR JONES: I guess -- it's
15 obviously the decisions were made. I guess
16 maybe you didn't understand my question,
17 Senator. The question is how were they made?
18 Was it on the basis of size? What were the
19 criteria that were the final -- the reasons that
20 these decisions are in here?
21 SENATOR STAFFORD: Well, I think
22 there probably were many, many reasons and,
23 again, I would say it's obvious. Is there a
3105
1 base there? Will the stadium really produce?
2 Are there people? Will there be people there?
3 Is there local support? Has there been actual
4 start of development? I think that's -- those
5 are the -- you know, I'm sure those are the
6 considerations.
7 SENATOR JONES: Will the Senator
8 yield?
9 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
10 Stafford, do you continue to yield?
11 SENATOR STAFFORD: Sure.
12 SENATOR JONES: Are you aware -
13 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
14 Senator yields.
15 SENATOR JONES: -- Senator, that
16 the cities -- I agree with, you know, the issues
17 you raised and I've also read those same things
18 in the press. However, are you aware that many
19 of the criteria you just talked about, for
20 instance, whether they had started, whether it
21 had gone through the committee, many of those
22 left out did meet those criteria?
23 SENATOR STAFFORD: Did you read
3106
1 what I said in the press, you said?
2 SENATOR JONES: No, no. I said
3 I've read some of the things, Senator, that you
4 just mentioned as being whether or not the
5 project was started. I read those things in the
6 press.
7 I guess what I'm saying to you is
8 are you aware that some that are left out did
9 meet those criteria?
10 SENATOR STAFFORD: Well, you
11 know, there probably -- there's much criteria,
12 I'm sure it wasn't one, two or one thing. I
13 would say that I'm sure any area that had the
14 initiative to put together a group or put
15 together a package and wanted to construct a
16 stadium, I'm sure that if any were not included,
17 they would be concerned, and I certainly would
18 understand -- I think that's something we should
19 consider in the future.
20 SENATOR JONES: Thank you,
21 Senator.
22 On the bill itself.
23 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
3107
1 Jones, on the bill.
2 SENATOR JONES: Some of the
3 things you said, you know, I certainly agree
4 with, although I frankly have to tell you that I
5 see most of it as kind of double talk because
6 this issue has been played out in the paper.
7 I totally agree with you that it
8 should not be a political football but,
9 unfortunately, that's what it's become, and I
10 know Senator Hoffmann was planning to join me
11 there.
12 What my solution to this is that
13 none be funded. I do happen to agree with you
14 that economic development is an issue but if it
15 is, then it has to be the same issue for
16 everybody. I would be happily willing to join
17 you in saving money if you had made this
18 decision last year and said "The government
19 doesn't belong in this arena." If that's the
20 decision -- if the decision is we can't afford
21 it, then clearly we can't afford it and I accept
22 that.
23 I feel very comfortable talking
3108
1 about not spending money because I do recall
2 last year that a tall gentleman over there and
3 three of us sitting here did have our hands up
4 saying no to all -- what I heard you people
5 refer to today as "election year promises", so I
6 feel very comfortable, since I was not part of
7 those promises, to certainly question you on how
8 you could go back on your word on many of these
9 now.
10 So I think if we want to join
11 together and say, Let's be fiscally responsible
12 and we shouldn't be doing these things, I could
13 probably go along with you, but I can't go along
14 with the issue when we make decisions that seem
15 to have not universal criteria and not even
16 criteria that anyone can clearly understand as
17 to how they were made.
18 So I certainly can't support
19 this, and I really think you should take a look
20 at maybe we should take a look at none of them
21 or certainly maybe everybody should be treated
22 fairly in this state. I assume that's what
23 we're here for.
3109
1 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The Chair
2 recognizes Senator Oppenheimer.
3 SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Thank you.
4 I will be brief. I believe
5 there's an amendment at the desk. Is there an
6 amendment there?
7 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
8 Oppenheimer, there is an amendment at the desk.
9 SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: And I'll
10 waive its reading.
11 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Without
12 objection, the reading is waived. You have a
13 couple of minutes to explain.
14 SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Thanks.
15 I offer this sort of in a sense
16 in defense of our honor and our reliability and
17 our responsibility and our trustworthiness.
18 What this is, is it says "The
19 executive shall not defer, delay, fail to
20 proceed with, impound funds for transportation
21 projects in the '94-95 state budget, the '95-96
22 state budget or the 1994 memorandum of
23 understanding without the written consent of the
3110
1 Chair and the ranking member in -- of the
2 Transportation Committees in both of the
3 houses."
4 You may recall that, with a great
5 deal of deliberation, we created a transporta
6 tion plan which got written into the memorandum
7 of understanding in '94 and we really struggled
8 with that, and we tried to put in geographic
9 distribution and prioritizing of the projects,
10 and the memorandum of understanding now the
11 Governor wants to end because he's just impound
12 ed the money.
13 This amendment says that the
14 legislative -- the Legislature should have the
15 power to maintain our role in the decision
16 making just as we have the role in creating the
17 projects and promising that we would move ahead
18 with the projects in a scheduled manner.
19 We did not participate in this
20 unilateral cut in the appropriations, and I must
21 say this has unilaterally created a crisis with
22 in the construction industry. This moratorium
23 was done only by the Governor. We had made
3111
1 promises, and the Governor has caused this
2 moratorium to make -- which indeed makes us look
3 less than reliable and less than trustworthy,
4 and I think for the future, we should -- I think
5 we should rectify it for this year, and I think
6 we should also put in protections so that, in
7 the future, our word is -- is reliable, and
8 people will trust what we say.
9 So I would like to move this -
10 this amendment.
11 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
12 question is on the amendment. All those in
13 favor signify -
14 SENATOR LEVY: Might I ask -
15 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Pardon?
16 SENATOR LEVY: I was going to
17 answer.
18 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Do you
19 want to speak, Senator Levy?
20 The Chair recognizes Senator Levy
21 on the amendment.
22 SENATOR LEVY: Very briefly. I
23 just wanted Senator Oppenheimer to know that our
3112
1 honor is intact. Our honor is intact, because
2 last night -- and you may not -- probably it was
3 late last night, you may not be cognizant of it,
4 but the highway and bridge projects that were
5 frozen for fiscal year '94-95 which ends on
6 Saturday, those projects were released last
7 night.
8 SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Oh.
9 SENATOR LEVY: So those projects
10 are going to be obligated before -- before the
11 end of the fiscal year, and all of the five
12 parties to the negotiations on the budget have
13 agreed to one thing.
14 There's an Article 7 bill that we
15 lovingly call the "big ugly", and that is the
16 bill -- that's the bill that would take the
17 splits out of the law, abolish the memorandum of
18 understanding, deal with the '87 bond issue.
19 Everyone has agreed that we are not going to do
20 that bill. We're not going to take the splits
21 out, and so on, all the other provisions of that
22 bill. We're not going to proceed with that
23 Article -- that Article 7 bill.
3113
1 And I just wanted to tell you,
2 Senator, there are $10 billion worth of trans
3 portation projects or will be in the budget, of
4 all different types of projects. There are
5 thousands and thousands of projects, whether we
6 are talking about appropriations, reappropria
7 tions, and so on, and it just really would be
8 totally impossible to -- to, whenever a project
9 couldn't advance because it wasn't ready to
10 advance to have to, on every one of those
11 thousands and thousands of projects, to get the
12 consent of the people that would be required to
13 consent under this proposed amendment. So it
14 should be defeated.
15 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
16 question is on the amendment. All those in
17 favor signify by saying aye.
18 (Response of "Aye".)
19 Opposed, nay.
20 (Response of "Nay".)
21 The amendment is lost.
22 The Secretary will read the last
23 section.
3114
1 THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This
2 act shall take effect immediately.
3 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the
4 roll.
5 (The Secretary called the roll.)
6 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Slow roll
7 call.
8 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Slow roll
9 call has been requested.
10 Seeing five Senators, the
11 Secretary will call a slow roll call.
12 THE SECRETARY: Senator Abate.
13 SENATOR ABATE: No.
14 THE SECRETARY: Senator Babbush,
15 excused.
16 Senator Bruno.
17 SENATOR BRUNO: Yes, Mr.
18 President, to explain my vote.
19 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
20 Bruno to explain his vote.
21 SENATOR BRUNO: We have been
22 talking here for over two hours, and I would
23 just want to remind my colleagues that what
3115
1 we're doing is a continuous project, and this
2 doesn't end today. More will be done tomorrow,
3 and more will be done Friday and, as I said
4 before, by Friday, a lot of the questions that
5 have been raised here will have been answered as
6 to additions and subtractions.
7 I also want to indicate that we
8 here by Friday will move around $499 million.
9 That's the move that's taking place. 164
10 million are moves within the Governor's
11 proposal. In his budget, we're moving 164
12 million. The other 335 million comes from 300
13 million increased revenue projections and 35
14 million increased lottery projections, '95-96.
15 There was three-way agreement on that number.
16 So what we're doing here has been agreed on in
17 terms of spending the revenues, and that's all
18 we're doing is spending the revenues that had
19 three-way agreement.
20 If, later, Mr. President, we have
21 three-way agreement on additional revenues based
22 on the fiscal condition of this state at the
23 time we pass a budget, well, then, we will do
3116
1 undoubtedly more tax cuts and more restorations.
2 I vote aye.
3 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
4 Bruno in the affirmative.
5 THE SECRETARY: Senator Connor.
6 (Negative indication.)
7 Senator Cook.
8 SENATOR COOK: Yes.
9 THE SECRETARY: Senator
10 DeFrancisco.
11 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
12 THE SECRETARY: Senator DiCarlo.
13 SENATOR DiCARLO: Aye.
14 THE SECRETARY: Senator
15 Dollinger.
16 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Mr.
17 President, to explain my vote.
18 I rise, Mr. President, to oppose
19 this bill.
20 I guess I'll call my attention
21 and be very parochial. This bill excludes
22 funding for both the Greater Rochester Sports
23 Facility as well as the War Memorial. There was
3117
1 a deal between this Legislature, the Governor
2 and the people of my community to fund both of
3 those projects. This deal is being reneged on
4 by the Senate by saying that we're not going to
5 fund that $27 million appropriation, along with
6 many others as my colleague, Senator Jones,
7 pointed out.
8 I would call on both of my
9 colleagues from Monroe County, the new Senator
10 Maziarz, Senator Nozzolio who stood right in
11 front there at Frontier Field when they broke
12 the ground and threw the shovels full of dirt,
13 that we were going to build this stadium, I was
14 way off to the corner. Other people were at the
15 center stage.
16 I think in fealty to the people
17 of our county, we have to stand up and vote
18 against this budget because it renegs on a deal
19 made to the taxpayers of Monroe County, a deal
20 made by County Executive Bob King, the same
21 County Executive Bob King who is now going to go
22 out and do regulatory police authority that
23 we're going to have confidence in, he made a
3118
1 deal that said "No property taxes, no local
2 property taxes will be used to build the
3 stadium."
4 If we don't pass this bill -- if
5 we vote in favor of this bill, we're reneging on
6 that deal. We're going to leave the people of
7 Monroe County $11 million in the hole because
8 that's what they've already spent in property
9 taxes which they'll have to spend because we're
10 not going to fund the stadium.
11 I would just point out as my
12 elaborate discussion earlier pointed out, if it
13 is restored, please, don't anyone in this
14 chamber take credit for them. It'll be my
15 colleagues in the Assembly who put the money
16 back in.
17 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
18 Dollinger, how do you vote?
19 SENATOR DOLLINGER: No.
20 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
21 Dollinger in the negative.
22 THE SECRETARY: Senator Espada.
23 SENATOR ESPADA: No.
3119
1 THE SECRETARY: Senator Farley.
2 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
3 Farley to explain his vote.
4 SENATOR FARLEY: Thank you, Mr.
5 President.
6 I'm going to vote aye. Again,
7 this is the second step; yesterday we took the
8 first step to having a budget on time, and we're
9 doing this out in the open as Senator Bruno has
10 said. I'm pleased to vote and support this.
11 It's not the final answer, but I'll tell you it
12 is a final answer as far as this house is
13 concerned. We've got a complete budget. It's
14 the first time in my tenure that we have done
15 such a thing as this, and I urge everybody to
16 support it. Maybe we can get a budget
17 relatively on time in this state for the first
18 time in 11 years.
19 Thank you, Mr. President.
20 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
21 Farley in the affirmative.
22 THE SECRETARY: Senator Galiber.
23 SENATOR GALIBER: No.
3120
1 THE SECRETARY: Senator Gold.
2 SENATOR GOLD: Mr. President.
3 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
4 Gold to explain his vote.
5 SENATOR GOLD: Senator Bruno, I
6 have said behind your back and I'll say it to
7 your face, I'm impressed with some of your
8 concepts in terms of opening the process and
9 doing things and having leaders' meetings that
10 have four leaders and all of that -- four
11 leaders and the Governor, I wasn't -- but,
12 Senator Bruno, you're asking us to now void all
13 of that because you say by Friday we will know
14 how you move around 499 million and, Senator,
15 most respectfully, I trust you as a human, but I
16 have a different philosophy than you. So to ask
17 me to just accept your philosophy that, by
18 Friday all these things will be done, I can't do
19 it.
20 We were asked earlier today by
21 Senator Tully in an exchange with Senator
22 Dollinger, which wasn't the most pleasant, how
23 can you talk about spending 27 million? Where
3121
1 are you going to get it from? Well, Senator
2 Bruno, you said that once the Governor had given
3 his budget, they found 35 million by just
4 saying, "Well, your estimates are wrong on the
5 lottery," and that's not really creating money.
6 That's moving a pencil, but last I heard 27
7 million was less than 35 million. You also
8 talked about 300 million other revenue measures
9 which we found that are in addition.
10 So what I'm saying, simply, we
11 had a Governor who said, "This is a budget; this
12 is what we've got to spend; this is it and we're
13 going to cut taxes," but the Governor said,
14 "This is a proper spending plan", because I
15 assume if this Governor thought that there were
16 needs, he would take care of that.
17 So I don't know why he now hasn't
18 said, "We have 335 million more, I want to give
19 335 million back to the taxpayers in cutting
20 taxes." That would fall right in line with his
21 plan. If he's planning to give that money back
22 in programs, then he's basically saying that he
23 is spreading pain to people who have real
3122
1 needs.
2 So I don't understand it. My
3 position today is very simple. I am certainly
4 not going to vote to approve major, major
5 capital construction in this state without
6 knowing the plan. In the past we've passed
7 budgets late, but we have passed budgets that
8 exist in totality. We haven't been asked to
9 play this guessing game of "Here's part of the
10 budget. I won't tell you what the rest is.
11 Pass this. Tomorrow, here's another part. I
12 won't tell you what the rest is. Pass this."
13 It might be, Senator Bruno, if I
14 saw the whole budget, I would have to say, "Boy,
15 that Joe Bruno, I always loved him, but isn't he
16 brilliant? Look what he did." But I can't say
17 that now and I can't say it later because we
18 don't have a spending plan in front of us.
19 So -
20 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
21 Gold.
22 SENATOR BRUNO: -- as head of the
23 Joe Bruno Fan Club of Forest Hills, on a
3123
1 personal basis, I have to vote no on your bill.
2 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
3 Gold in the negative.
4 THE SECRETARY: Senator Gonzalez.
5 SENATOR GONZALEZ: No.
6 THE SECRETARY: Senator Goodman.
7 SENATOR GOODMAN: Yes.
8 THE SECRETARY: Senator Hannon.
9 SENATOR HANNON: Yes.
10 THE SECRETARY: Senator Hoblock.
11 SENATOR HOBLOCK: Yes.
12 THE SECRETARY: Senator Hoffmann.
13 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
14 Hoffmann to explain her vote.
15 SENATOR HOFFMANN: Thank you, Mr.
16 President.
17 I think that Senator Jones had
18 the most appropriate idea of the day in attempt
19 ing to introduce an amendment. Fortunately,
20 time prevented her from doing the amendment, but
21 I would have gladly joined her as a co-sponsor
22 in an amendment that would have addressed one of
23 the more hard to fathom issues about this whole
3124
1 capital budget, and that is the criteria under
2 which some stadiums are seem -- are deemed
3 worthy and others are deemed unworthy or are
4 subject to some future appropriation at some
5 unknown time by some unknown means.
6 I'm sorry, but I regret to tell
7 my colleagues, that's not an acceptable budget
8 procedure by which the residents of the city of
9 Syracuse want to see the issue of stadia
10 addressed, and I join Senator Jones in decrying
11 the very singular targeting of Syracuse for
12 unfair consideration in the entire sports
13 stadium process.
14 So, for that reason, as well as
15 many others, much of which are based on
16 confusion and a lingering concern that this
17 process is much more convoluted than it should
18 be at this stage of the game, I am also
19 compelled to vote no.
20 THE SECRETARY: Senator Holland.
21 SENATOR HOLLAND: Yes.
22 THE SECRETARY: Senator Johnson.
23 SENATOR JOHNSON: Aye.
3125
1 THE SECRETARY: Senator Jones.
2 SENATOR JONES: Explain my vote.
3 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
4 Jones to explain her vote.
5 SENATOR JONES: I guess I just
6 want to correct or take issue with a couple of
7 things that have been said today.
8 If we mean we're doing these in
9 the daylight by the fact that the sun is out, I
10 guess we could accept that, but to me the
11 daylight would have meant that I had this
12 document several days ago, weeks ago, and I
13 would have had plenty of time, as usual, to go
14 over it and look for every single thing that
15 might be in here.
16 So if daylight means the sun is
17 out, I guess I'll accept we're doing it in the
18 light of day but, you know, I guess I don't
19 really see any difference in the process. In
20 fact, I see it somewhat worse because now we're
21 look at something that's a maybe.
22 So I definitely vote no.
23 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
3126
1 Jones in the negative.
2 The Secretary will continue to
3 call the roll.
4 THE SECRETARY: Senator Kruger.
5 SENATOR KRUGER: No.
6 THE SECRETARY: Senator Kuhl.
7 SENATOR KUHL: Aye.
8 THE SECRETARY: Senator Lack.
9 SENATOR LACK: Aye.
10 THE SECRETARY: Senator Larkin.
11 SENATOR LARKIN: Aye.
12 THE SECRETARY: Senator LaValle.
13 SENATOR LAVALLE: Yes.
14 THE SECRETARY: Senator Leibell.
15 SENATOR LEIBELL: Aye.
16 THE SECRETARY: Senator Leichter.
17 SENATOR LEICHTER: Mr.
18 President -
19 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
20 Leichter to explain his vote.
21 SENATOR LEICHTER: -- to explain
22 my vote.
23 Mr. President, as I listened to
3127
1 the debate and the explanation of the Majority
2 on this bill, it's clear to me that this budget
3 is being done with a wink and a smirk like,
4 "Well, don't take it seriously. Oh, $27
5 million, oh, it will come back and this will
6 come back, and this is going to change." Now,
7 if you're telling the public you're passing a
8 budget then clearly you don't intend this to be
9 enacted in the law.
10 It reminds me a few years ago
11 when Governor Cuomo put out his budget and
12 somebody said to him, "Governor, what would you
13 say if we passed a budget the next day?" And
14 his answer was, "I would say I didn't mean it,"
15 and it's clear that what you're telling us is
16 that you don't mean it because you know that
17 this budget is one that, first of all, breaks
18 the promise that this Legislature and this state
19 government made to its localities last year in
20 many areas.
21 Transportation is one. I have
22 grave concern about this -- what this will mean
23 for commitments, again, commitments that the
3128
1 state has made for rebuilding roads,
2 specifically Route 9A, the West Side Highway in
3 my district.
4 But it's clear that this is a
5 charade. We're telling the voters "Oh, look,
6 we're passing a budget", but God forbid that
7 this budget from your viewpoint should ever be
8 enacted into law.
9 Mr. President, I vote in the
10 negative.
11 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
12 Leichter in the negative.
13 THE SECRETARY: Senator Levy.
14 SENATOR LEVY: Aye.
15 THE SECRETARY: Senator Libous.
16 SENATOR LIBOUS: Mr. President,
17 to explain my vote.
18 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
19 Libous to explain his vote.
20 SENATOR LIBOUS: Mr. President, I
21 have had the opportunity to listen to some of
22 the debate this afternoon, and I find it amusing
23 because I hear people talking about commitments,
3129
1 and for 12 years under the previous administra
2 tion, nobody knew what the word "commitment"
3 meant. I mean, we would giveth, we would taketh
4 away, we would add, we would say we didn't do
5 that, we didn't really mean that, and I just
6 find it amazing that all of a sudden today,
7 1995, new administration, new leadership in the
8 Senate, we want to get a document done on time
9 because that is a commitment.
10 There's a commitment to have a
11 budget passed by April 1st, but obviously
12 because we don't have all the players who want
13 to come and play, at least we are going to abide
14 by that commitment. And you can get up -- and
15 my friends on the other side of the aisle who I
16 certainly respect and I know are always doing
17 the best -- in the best interest of their
18 constituents, let me just say something to you.
19 Don't worry about my district.
20 I'll take care of my district. Worry about
21 helping us get the Assembly Democrats to get a
22 budget done on time by April 1st. That's the
23 commitment you ought to be worrying about,
3130
1 because there's people in this state that need
2 this document. They need the programs that are
3 here, and for those of you who have sat like I
4 have and listened and met with people and shared
5 their concerns, if you really cared about them,
6 you would move forward and you would try to
7 bring this thing to finality.
8 So, Mr. President, I vote aye and
9 I say that we get this budget done on time.
10 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
11 Libous in the affirmative.
12 THE SECRETARY: Senator Maltese.
13 SENATOR MALTESE: Aye.
14 THE SECRETARY: Senator
15 Marcellino.
16 SENATOR MARCELLINO: To explain
17 my vote.
18 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
19 Marcellino to explain his vote.
20 SENATOR MARCELLINO: I rise to
21 explain this particular vote because I heard one
22 of the learned colleagues on the other side,
23 Senator Dollinger, talk about not taking credit
3131
1 for various things that may not at present be in
2 the budget.
3 What I will take care of or take
4 credit for in my particular district is an
5 improved fiscal environment that I believe this
6 budget will create, jobs that would lead into my
7 area, jobs which have been lost to other states
8 and other areas out of the New England area, tax
9 cuts that my people need, the limitation of a $5
10 billion deficit that is dragging the state down
11 and down and down and down, and there's no
12 argument about that. $5 billion has to be made
13 up somewhere, and it's painful. It's not
14 pleasant.
15 I don't like going back to my
16 people and telling them that they can't have "X"
17 and they can't have "Y" because they've always
18 gotten it in the past. I don't like to be the
19 person to tell them that the bucket is empty
20 when others who preceded me have filled it up.
21 The bucket is empty.
22 And I will take credit for
23 reduced spending. For the first time in many,
3132
1 many years, this state budget will reduce
2 spending, not by gimmicks, not through nonsense,
3 but through reality. When I ran in the special
4 election, my opponent made the Governor's budget
5 the issue. This was supposed to be the issue
6 that was going to defeat me, and I ran on the
7 Governor's budget, and I said I would stand with
8 the Governor, and I did, and I won two to one.
9 I say to you, ladies and
10 gentlemen, this budget is the right thing to do,
11 and I thank you for being patient; I thank you
12 for listening me, and I thank Senator Gold for
13 being kind and not beating me up before.
14 I vote aye, sir.
15 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
16 Marcellino in the affirmative.
17 THE SECRETARY: Senator Marchi.
18 SENATOR MARCHI: Mr. President, I
19 merely want to point out that the road to a
20 happy conclusion to this whole budget drama
21 receives a very substantial start and statement
22 here.
23 What troubles me is the funereal
3133
1 silence at the other end of the third floor, and
2 it is not an adequate substitute for a meaning
3 ful joinder of the issue.
4 I think when that takes place,
5 Mr. President, that most of us will be pleased
6 with what we could do this year in turning this
7 state around and also meeting some of the
8 concerns that have surfaced even during the
9 course of today's debate.
10 I vote aye.
11 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
12 Marchi in the affirmative.
13 THE SECRETARY: Senator
14 Markowitz.
15 SENATOR MARKOWITZ: Mr.
16 President.
17 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
18 Markowitz to explain his vote.
19 SENATOR MARKOWITZ: I've heard
20 your comments, Senator Marchi. It's not that
21 the other side of the house are quiet. They're
22 attempting to do it with much greater sensitiv
23 ity and care and respect for the people that
3134
1 they serve at our end.
2 I believe very clearly that the
3 era we've entered into of selfishness and do
4 less with less government approach will be a
5 short lived one. That's what I pray and hope
6 because, unlike our new Senator from Long
7 Island, you can go back and tell your folks that
8 they have to do with less, and if they respond
9 to that appeal, then I think they should do with
10 less, but I have to tell you that there are
11 communities in this state that need greater
12 attention, and the role of government, in my
13 opinion, is to provide to those in need. That's
14 our role, to provide to those in need, to
15 provide a helping hand, to help make our
16 residents live the best that they can live in
17 our society, and we take different approaches.
18 I said it yesterday. I'll say it
19 again today, and I know that I will definitely
20 say it again tomorrow. We have a different
21 philosophy here. You want to do less with less
22 and I want to do more for those that genuinely
23 need it, because I believe when you help those
3135
1 greatest in need, you help everyone in the state
2 of New York.
3 I vote no.
4 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
5 Markowitz in the negative.
6 THE SECRETARY: Senator Maziarz.
7 SENATOR MAZIARZ: Aye.
8 THE SECRETARY: Senator Mendez.
9 SENATOR MENDEZ: No.
10 THE SECRETARY: Senator
11 Montgomery.
12 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
13 Montgomery to explain her vote.
14 SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, Mr.
15 President, to explain my vote briefly.
16 I am just compelled to vote no on
17 this budget. I think it really does not make
18 the kind of statement that we talk about when
19 we're out campaigning because there's not one
20 new dollar that I can find. I do not find any
21 new appropriations in this budget for the Divi
22 sion for Youth, for building youth facilities in
23 my district or anywhere in the state, but I do
3136
1 see $250 million in new appropriations in
2 addition to a reappropriation of some $900
3 million for prison facilities to be renovated,
4 restored, maintained, brought up to standards,
5 removal of asbestos, all of the things that we
6 certainly want to see done but we seem to be
7 more willing to do it to prisons than we are
8 willing to do it for children in schools and in
9 youth facilities across the state. So that in
10 and of itself is enough for me to vote against
11 the budget.
12 I vote no for that reason along
13 with all of the other important issues that have
14 been raised here, but that to me sends a message
15 to young people in my district that I cannot
16 support.
17 I vote no.
18 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
19 Montgomery in the negative.
20 THE SECRETARY: Senator Nanula.
21 SENATOR NANULA: No.
22 THE SECRETARY: Senator Nozzolio.
23 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
3137
1 Nozzolio to explain his vote.
2 SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Thank you, Mr.
3 President.
4 Mr. President, my colleagues,
5 we've heard much about what is not in this
6 document today. I'm very pleased what is in
7 this document which, in my opinion, will help
8 revolutionize much of the way prisoners are
9 incarcerated in this state today.
10 This budget contains a provision
11 to convert the Willard Psychiatric Center into a
12 drug and alcohol rehabilitation and detention
13 center, taking those who need treatment, those
14 who are committing crimes because of their drug
15 or alcohol addiction and putting them in a set
16 ting of genuine rehabilitation. It is a proced
17 ure, a policy, in my view, that will revolution
18 ize the way our substance abuse criminals are
19 dealt with in this state, providing them an
20 opportunity for genuine rehabilitation.
21 It also serves, by doing this, to
22 keep the prospect of building new prisons down
23 in the sense that it will free up cell space and
3138
1 dormitory space that could otherwise be used to
2 serve and to house those who have committed vio
3 lent crimes, in conjunction with the Governor's
4 decision to ensure that violent criminals will
5 be kept in prison as opposed to being let out
6 through work release before their sentence is
7 up.
8 This provision will ensure that
9 our state will receive millions of dollars in
10 assistance from the federal government through
11 the federal crime bill, and it's absolutely
12 essential in our efforts to crystalize a new day
13 for criminal justice in this state.
14 It will enhance the economy of
15 the Central Finger Lakes and, as such, I believe
16 it is necessary, and I applaud the Governor and
17 this Legislature and Senator Bruno for putting
18 it in a capital budget.
19 Thank you, Mr. President.
20 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: How do
21 you vote, Senator Nozzolio?
22 SENATOR NOZZOLIO: I vote aye.
23 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
3139
1 Nozzolio in the affirmative.
2 The Secretary will continue to
3 call the roll.
4 THE SECRETARY: Senator Onorato.
5 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
6 Onorato to explain his vote.
7 SENATOR ONORATO: To explain my
8 vote.
9 Mr. President, I generally vote
10 along with my colleagues on most budgets since I
11 have been here, but today's budget doesn't
12 restore my faith in this legislative body.
13 We have been talking about all of
14 the cuts that are necessary and how much pain we
15 have to inflict across the state, but I don't
16 see that pain being inflicted uniformly across
17 the board.
18 We did not fulfill our
19 commitments that we made in last year's budget,
20 and this budget today does not correct that
21 inequity. We were able to identify today $27
22 million of committed funds that were unfunded.
23 I don't know if those funds will be refunded or
3140
1 not. Maybe as a result of today's debate, they
2 will be, but until such time that these funds
3 that we committed that were spent by our
4 localities is restored to this budget, to
5 restore our integrity, to restore the belief in
6 the public that what we passed in this
7 legislative body really means something, I am
8 forced under the circumstances to vote no.
9 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
10 Onorato in the negative.
11 THE SECRETARY: Senator
12 Oppenheimer.
13 SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: On -- yes,
14 I would like to explain.
15 I will be voting no, and I think
16 Senator Onorato covered why -- why I will be,
17 and that is that, in so many instances where we
18 promised in the last budget and we are not
19 delivering, that means but one thing to the
20 constituents that I represent.
21 That means that our property
22 taxes are going to have to bear that because we
23 are already -- we have already built or we are
3141
1 in the process of building and we will not get
2 the money that was assigned. We knew it was
3 coming from the state, and somehow the state
4 isn't fulfilling its promise and, therefore, the
5 increase in property tax is going to be
6 extremely burdensome, and we were promised that
7 this would not happen, and it is happening.
8 And, therefore, I'm going to
9 register a no vote.
10 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
11 Oppenheimer in the negative.
12 THE SECRETARY: Senator Padavan.
13 SENATOR PADAVAN: Yes.
14 THE SECRETARY: Senator Paterson.
15 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
16 Paterson to explain his vote.
17 SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
18 I received a letter the other day from Maria
19 Linnell who lives on Columbus Avenue in my
20 district who is a constituent of mine who
21 believes, if you read this letter, that I am a
22 Republican.
23 She said that because she has
3142
1 voted for Republicans her entire life and that
2 she voted for me as a Republican. She is angry
3 that we -- "we" Republicans are not passing this
4 budget on time and we are cutting services to
5 different areas that she doesn't think should be
6 cut.
7 So with that kind of attitude in
8 the atmosphere, I think that this letter gives
9 me a unique understanding of the Majority's
10 position today, and I can understand why there
11 would be a need to put these bills out before
12 April 1st, even though we're probably going to
13 have to come back and do it all over again, and
14 I think that there's pretty much been through
15 the contentiousness of this debate some honesty
16 about the fact that these bills are going to be
17 debated again, but the reason that the
18 amendments were put forth and the reason that we
19 have been talking about some restorations to
20 areas where we promised money in a previous
21 budget and did not deliver, that the individuals
22 who live in that district and the officials who
23 try to administer government in those areas
3143
1 relied to their detriment on our promise is
2 because since we are going through the process
3 of actually passing a budget, whatever happens,
4 we who are on this side of the aisle thought
5 that we should do it honestly, and that's why we
6 offered these amendments.
7 We are pretending that this is
8 the real budget. That's what we were asked to
9 come here to do and that's what we've done. I
10 don't understand why there was any real problem
11 with that. It's an imaginary process, and so we
12 had some imaginary ideas to solve some -
13 provide some solutions.
14 Because of the fact that there
15 was not an acceptance of the well-meaning
16 suggestions that we include those in the process
17 who were left out after they were included
18 before, I would like to vote no, Mr. President.
19 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
20 Paterson in the negative.
21 THE SECRETARY: Senator Present.
22 SENATOR PRESENT: Aye.
23 THE SECRETARY: Senator Rath.
3144
1 SENATOR RATH: Aye.
2 THE SECRETARY: Senator Saland.
3 (There was no response.)
4 Senator Santiago, excused.
5 Senator Sears.
6 SENATOR SEARS: Aye.
7 THE SECRETARY: Senator Seward.
8 SENATOR SEWARD: Aye.
9 THE SECRETARY: Senator Skelos.
10 SENATOR SKELOS: Aye.
11 THE SECRETARY: Senator Smith.
12 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
13 Smith to explain her vote.
14 SENATOR SMITH: Mr. President,
15 I'm very glad today that we have not been
16 required to put up a performance bond because,
17 if we were, it would have been revoked, because
18 each day we continue to perpetuate a fraud and a
19 sham on the people of the state of New York,
20 yesterday and again today, with a one-house
21 budget, and I'm still waiting for the people of
22 the state of New York to come down upon our
23 heads and it should be soon.
3145
1 I vote no.
2 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
3 Smith in the negative.
4 THE SECRETARY: Senator Solomon.
5 SENATOR SOLOMON: Thank you, Mr.
6 President.
7 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
8 Solomon to explain his vote with a little bit of
9 help.
10 SENATOR SOLOMON: You broke my
11 train of thought. I guess "train" is the
12 appropriate -- train is the appropriate word
13 here.
14 I guess we're going to see in the
15 passage of this budget -- of course, whether or
16 not this is the real budget, I tend to doubt. I
17 remember Robert Moses came up with a legislative
18 trick in the early 1920s, and he said, "You know
19 something, if you start a public project, even
20 if there aren't funds for it, it has to be
21 finished from some place, whether it's local
22 taxes, state taxes; you have to get the money
23 for it. Very rarely do you stop public
3146
1 projects" and, unfortunately, I think what's
2 going to be proven in this project is the Robert
3 Moses theory continues to hold for public
4 projects.
5 Because, in reality, the city of
6 New York found out during the fiscal crisis they
7 closed some projects. It cost them more to
8 reopen and complete those projects than if they
9 had completed them at the very beginning.
10 I think that's what this budget
11 is going to show. It's going to cause some
12 localities to raise taxes, property taxes. It's
13 going to cause a lot of harm on other
14 localities. I don't know if there are other
15 contracts, if there's a stadium, if there are
16 contracts to actually run the stadium, there may
17 even be an events book, which there are now
18 going to be contracts that might be breached.
19 I think this is a problem that we
20 have. Passing this budget is going to cause a
21 lot of pain and a lot of grief and, unfortunate
22 ly, it's not going to be spread evenly.
23 I vote no.
3147
1 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
2 Solomon in the negative.
3 THE SECRETARY: Senator Spano.
4 SENATOR SPANO: Aye.
5 THE SECRETARY: Senator
6 Stachowski.
7 SENATOR STACHOWSKI: No.
8 THE SECRETARY: Senator Stafford.
9 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
10 Stafford to explain his vote.
11 SENATOR STAFFORD: Mr. President,
12 this is a long day. Senator Marchi said to me,
13 -- a few minutes ago reminded me, I think it
14 was Caesar that said gallia -- omnia gallia est
15 divisa in tres partes. I think that means that
16 all gall can be divided into three parts. The
17 gall here today that we heard at times, I assure
18 you, can be divided into three parts: Politics,
19 politics, and politics.
20 We're doing a job here today.
21 We're making sure that we carry out what we've
22 heard last fall and we're passing a budget as
23 has been pointed out by our Leader many times,
3148
1 and I can only say this is within the framework
2 of what we're doing so that we no longer spend
3 more than we take in.
4 Thank you.
5 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
6 Stafford in the affirmative.
7 THE SECRETARY: Senator Stavisky.
8 (There was no response.)
9 Senator Trunzo.
10 SENATOR TRUNZO: Yes.
11 THE SECRETARY: Senator Tully.
12 SENATOR TULLY: Aye.
13 THE SECRETARY: Senator Velella.
14 SENATOR VELELLA: Yep.
15 THE SECRETARY: Senator Volker.
16 Senator Volker.
17 SENATOR VOLKER: Yes.
18 THE SECRETARY: Senator Waldon.
19 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
20 Waldon to explain his vote.
21 SENATOR WALDON: Thank you very
22 much, Mr. President, my colleagues.
23 I must vote no on this bill, and
3149
1 there are many reasons. Let me count the ways,
2 I could say, but I won't. I'll give you but
3 three for openers.
4 One, in my district, there's a
5 place called the Rockaways, and over the period
6 of the last few years, the Rockaways have been
7 visited by severe storms, and the beach that was
8 once so beautiful and once able to support life
9 in such a fine fashion now is almost
10 non-existent, and this budget moves $800,000
11 that would have been for the nourishment of that
12 beach.
13 My three reasons are very
14 parochial. The second, though parochial, is in
15 a different way parochial. Sophie Davis
16 Biomedical School at CUNY, and that would allow
17 doctors to emerge from my community, be they
18 black, be they white, be they Latino, but they
19 would be from the City and they would be
20 available to serve the under-served in the city
21 of New York, and we sorely need that. That has
22 been removed at the tune of $14 million.
23 Some years ago as a young police
3150
1 officer I wanted to go back to school and finish
2 my education, and because I was working around
3 the clock, there was no place to go which could
4 accommodate my need except at that time the
5 College of Police Science now known as John
6 Jay. We twice put in our budgets over the
7 previous two years $10 million for phase two and
8 now that has been removed.
9 The week before last I was in the
10 office of Jerry Lynch and he exacted a promise
11 from me and the promise was that, if this item
12 can be saved, I will do all that I can do to
13 save it. I don't know if there's anything I can
14 do to save it, but at least I can go on record
15 that I'm disturbed and distressed by the fact
16 that there's no funding in this budget, in this
17 capital budget, for the John Jay College of
18 Criminal Justice of which I am an alum.
19 In thinking about my vote, Mr.
20 President and my colleagues, I recall seeing the
21 Wizard of Oz. I remember Dorothy clicking her
22 heels, returning to Kansas, she and Toto. They
23 experienced the munchkins and they experienced
3151
1 -- and they had at the time experienced that Oz
2 was not Oz, but merely a charade, some might
3 characterize it as he was a canard, a big lie.
4 I don't think that we're in
5 Kansas, we're in New York, and this is not a
6 charade, this is real. We're talking about
7 people being able to live well and not live
8 well.
9 And for all of those reasons, I
10 now click my heels and vote in the no.
11 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
12 Waldon in the negative.
13 THE SECRETARY: Senator Wright.
14 SENATOR WRIGHT: Aye.
15 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
16 Secretary will call the absentees.
17 THE SECRETARY: Senator Saland.
18 SENATOR SALAND: Aye.
19 THE SECRETARY: Senator Stavisky.
20 (There was no response.)
21 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Announce
22 the results.
23 THE SECRETARY: Ayes 36, nays 22.
3152
1 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill
2 is passed.
3 SENATOR SOLOMON: Mr. President.
4 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The Chair
5 would recognize Senator Solomon.
6 SENATOR SOLOMON: Yeah, Mr.
7 President. I would like unanimous consent to be
8 recorded in the negative on Calendar Number 218.
9 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Without
10 objection, Senator Solomon will be recorded in
11 the negative on Calendar Number 218.
12 SENATOR SOLOMON: And, Mr.
13 President, I would like the record to reflect
14 that, if I had been in the chamber to vote on
15 Calendar Number 289, I would have voted in the
16 negative.
17 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
18 calendar will reflect, Senator Solomon, that had
19 you been in the chamber when the vote was taken
20 on Calendar Number 289 that you would have voted
21 in the negative.
22 The Chair recognizes Senator
23 Leichter.
3153
1 SENATOR LEICHTER: Yes, Mr.
2 President. Thank you.
3 With the consent of the Majority
4 Leader, I'm going to ask you, Mr. President, to
5 welcome to our chamber a colleague of ours from
6 Massachusetts, state Senator Lois Hines from
7 Massachusetts who's here visiting with us today
8 and who will also give a speech, an exploration
9 of the Massachusetts experience on welfare
10 reform, and I particularly invite my good friend
11 Senator Joe Holland to come and join and listen
12 to the experience of our sister state on this,
13 and we'll do that after this session is over.
14 Mr. President, if you would
15 welcome her to our house, I'd appreciate it.
16 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
17 Leichter, thank you for bringing it to our
18 attention.
19 Senator Hines, very nice of you
20 to be here with us. Thank you for sharing some
21 time.
22 (Applause.)
23 Senator Skelos.
3154
1 SENATOR WALDON: Thank you,
2 Senator Skelos.
3 If I may, Mr. President. I
4 respectfully request unanimous consent to be
5 recorded in the negative on 218, Calendar 218,
6 and I respectfully request the record to show
7 that, had I been present and in the chamber for
8 our vote on Calendar 289, I would have voted in
9 the no.
10 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
11 Waldon, without objection, you will be recorded
12 in the negative on Calendar Number 218, and the
13 record will reflect that, had you been in the
14 chamber when the vote was taken on Calendar
15 Number 289 that you would have voted in the
16 negative.
17 Senator Skelos.
18 SENATOR SKELOS: Yes, Mr.
19 President. At this time, I would like to call
20 up Calendar Number 290, S.3683, and ask that the
21 last section be read and the roll call opened
22 for two members to vote at this time.
23 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
3155
1 Secretary will read Calendar Number 290, Senate
2 Print 3683.
3 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number
4 290 by Senator Bruno, Senate Print 3683, an act
5 to amend the Environmental Conservation Law, the
6 State Administrative Procedure act, the Public
7 Health Law and the State Finance Law.
8 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Read the
9 last section.
10 THE SECRETARY: Section 33. This
11 act shall take effect immediately.
12 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the
13 roll.
14 (The Secretary called the roll.)
15 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
16 Skelos.
17 SENATOR SKELOS: Please recognize
18 Senator Goodman for the purpose -
19 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
20 Goodman, how do you vote, sir?
21 SENATOR GOODMAN: In the
22 negative, sir.
23 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
3156
1 Goodman recorded in the negative.
2 SENATOR SKELOS: Please recognize
3 Senator Gold.
4 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
5 Gold, how do you vote?
6 SENATOR GOLD: On the advice of
7 Senator Goodman, in the negative.
8 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
9 Gold in the negative.
10 Senator Solomon, how do you
11 vote?
12 SENATOR SOLOMON: In the
13 negative.
14 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
15 Solomon recorded in the negative.
16 SENATOR SKELOS: Senator Leibell.
17 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
18 Leibell, how do you vote?
19 SENATOR LEIBELL: Negative.
20 SENATOR SKELOS: Would you please
21 close the roll and an explanation has been
22 requested. That's it.
23 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
3157
1 Solomon -- excuse me. Senator Leibell is
2 recorded in the negative. Roll call is
3 withdrawn.
4 Senator Kruger.
5 SENATOR KRUGER: Mr. President, I
6 would ask as well to be recorded in the
7 negative.
8 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
9 Skelos, Senator Kruger is asking permission to
10 be recorded on this roll call.
11 SENATOR SKELOS: Without
12 objection.
13 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
14 Kruger is recorded in the negative on Calendar
15 Number 290. The roll call is withdrawn.
16 The Secretary will read the last
17 section.
18 THE SECRETARY: Section 33. This
19 act shall take effect immediately.
20 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the
21 roll.
22 SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Explanation.
23 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
3158
1 Bruno.
2 SENATOR BRUNO: That was very
3 good, Mr. President.
4 Thank you.
5 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: An
6 explanation has been asked for by Senator
7 Oppenheimer. Will you be handling the debate or
8 will Senator Johnson?
9 SENATOR BRUNO: Senator Johnson.
10 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
11 Johnson, an explanation has been asked for by
12 Senator Oppenheimer.
13 SENATOR BRUNO: Mr. President, if
14 I may, I would like to just say a few words
15 because this relates to deregulation in the
16 Environmental Conservation Committee, as you
17 well know, and of all the committees -- of all
18 of the commissions in this state that have
19 inhibited the growth of business, it probably
20 has been EnCon, and the main reason has to do
21 with over -- being overly zealous and having
22 over-regulated. So this is an attempt to turn
23 things around and let the business people in
3159
1 this state know that this Governor and we
2 understand that what's going on in the past
3 can't continue in the future.
4 So I'm asking our colleagues to
5 join with us, Mr. President, in supporting this
6 very necessary legislation.
7 Thank you.
8 Senator Johnson.
9 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
10 Johnson for an explanation.
11 SENATOR JOHNSON: Mr. President,
12 my colleagues, as we sit here today, the U.S.
13 Senate is presently debating a bill on
14 regulatory reform. It's very similar to this
15 bill and to the previous regulatory reform bill,
16 S.3682, debated earlier today by Senator Rath.
17 A similar measure was passed in
18 the House of Representatives last month by a
19 vote of 286 to 141. The federal measure requires
20 a cost/benefit analysis and an enlightened
21 "brownfields" policy and other reforms such as
22 contained in today's reform bills.
23 I would like to read a little
3160
1 something here I got off the news wire a short
2 time ago.
3 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
4 Johnson, will you pardon an interruption, sir?
5 Ladies and gentlemen, can we take
6 the conversations out of the chamber? There's a
7 lot of movement in the back. Members please
8 take their seats. It's getting rather difficult
9 to hear the debate, and this is a very serious
10 topic that we're addressing.
11 Senator Johnson.
12 SENATOR JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr.
13 President.
14 I'm sorry, I have to apologize
15 for my voice, but I'll do the best I can.
16 This is an article and the
17 caption is "Clinton Regulation", might be of
18 interest to the other side of the aisle
19 particularly. "Trying to beat Republicans to
20 the punch, President Clinton today promised to
21 make it easier for businesses to comply with
22 federal rules on drugs, medical devices and the
23 environment. 'We will stop playing "gotcha"
3161
1 with decent, honest business people,' the
2 President said after unveiling a series of steps
3 to streamline regulation by the FDA and the
4 Environmental Protection Agency.
5 "The changes include allowing
6 regulators to weigh fines for businesses that
7 violate negligible rules, giving small business
8 a six-month grace period to correct violations,
9 consolidating federal air rules and allowing
10 drug companies to change the way they make some
11 drugs without government approval.
12 "Clinton chose a print shop in
13 nearby Arlington, Virginia for the announcement,
14 underscoring his emphasis on reducing the
15 regulatory burden on small businesses. Custom
16 print owner Stu McMichael now fills out 20 toxic
17 emission forms. Clinton's reforms will reduce
18 his paperwork to one form."
19 Some of the other notes here on
20 the Clinton plan, "reduce overall EPA reporting
21 and record-keeping requirements by 25 percent,
22 gives small business a grace period to correct
23 EPA violations, simplify reporting requirements
3162
1 for air, water and waste emissions, reduce
2 penalties for companies that take responsibility
3 for finding and fixing environmental
4 violations", and on, and on, and on.
5 And what this says, Mr. President
6 and my colleagues, is that we have dropped the
7 ball in this state. While the members in this
8 house of both parties supported the reforms
9 which I had advanced in 1993 and 1994 and
10 reforming environmental regulations by
11 considerable margins, I might add, neither the
12 Assembly or the previous governor gave a
13 nickel's worth of support for our regulatory
14 reform efforts, and now we find that other
15 states and the federal government have to jump
16 on us by advancing reforms in which our state,
17 New York State, could have been the leader and
18 should have been the leader.
19 To return to the bill before us,
20 it's based loosely on 9 of the 21 recom
21 mendations which were developed as a result of a
22 series of EnCon hearings we held -- myself,
23 Senator Rath, Senator Wright, Senator Daly,
3163
1 Senator Pataki at that time and Senator Spano,
2 in the fall of '93 and resulted in this report
3 that we published just about a year ago today.
4 During the 1994 session, many of
5 the ingredients in the present bill before us,
6 as well as from this -- from this report were
7 passed by separate items in this house with the
8 support of the Majority, including, certainly,
9 the Democrats, as well as Republicans.
10 I would like to tell you a little
11 bit about this bill. Some of the things this
12 bill will do will try to reverse the adversarial
13 relationship which existed over the years
14 between the DEC and government, and it's kind of
15 interesting, this little article was in the
16 paper here a couple days ago, it said, "a Kodak
17 blast versus the DEC. State environmental
18 regulations help Eastman Kodak Company decide to
19 add jobs in Colorado, rather than Rochester and
20 force them to meet standards that had little
21 scientific basis, the company's top
22 environmental officials said at a conference
23 here."
3164
1 The official said, quote, "I
2 considered making a new color print product that
3 Kodak bought in 1991 but decided it would take
4 too long to get the necessary permits from the
5 Department of Environmental Conservation. We
6 recognize it may take months of delays so we
7 decided to do it in Colorado. "The venture now
8 employs 70 people in Colorado. It could grow to
9 200", he said, and one of the other problems
10 that they had with DEC besides the delay in
11 getting the permits was that the other problem
12 was DEC's use of informal guidelines rather than
13 formal regulations to force strict pollution
14 standards, and he said that it forced to do -
15 it forced the company to do costly remediation
16 which had no scientific basis for being done.
17 He said the state needs laws and rules to
18 protect the environment but cost/benefit
19 analysis should be used to decide whether to
20 adopt a regulation.
21 What I'm talking about here, what
22 Senator Rath talked about this morning, what we
23 talked about a year ago when we debated these
3165
1 bills is that there should be some rational
2 basis for regulation, and it shouldn't be that,
3 because we can do it, we're going to do it,
4 period. That's what's driven business out of
5 this state.
6 So what we want to do is identify
7 overly burdensome and outdated regulations and
8 provide a mechanism for getting rid of those
9 regulations which are unnecessary; sunset all
10 new environmental regulations after five years;
11 stop penalizing non-responsible parties; ensure
12 environmental regulations are consistent with
13 the laws which are adopted in this body to deal
14 with it and not to go beyond those laws; provide
15 incentives for voluntary disclosure and
16 remediation of environmental problems; provide a
17 grace period for people to allow the person
18 responsible for minor violations to correct it
19 or to be in compliance instead of just
20 penalizing them and closing them down; and
21 create specific departments to assist business,
22 regulatory compliance; provide public access to
23 all internal policy documents and memorandums,
3166
1 and that's what Kodak was talking about. They
2 come up with their own rules and regulations as
3 they go along. You never know where you stand.
4 The creative bodies in the DEC
5 consistently come up with new regulations which
6 may not have any connection with the law or they
7 just dreamed up a new one that they say it's not
8 a regulation, it's a guidance memorandum, it's a
9 technical document, but it's not a regulation,
10 but if you don't it, we'll penalize you, fine
11 you, close you down, and overall to make the
12 department more environmentally friendly.
13 This is called the Environmental
14 Regulatory Act of 1995. I think it's perhaps
15 appropriate to let other people address their
16 concerns about it or ask questions, and I would
17 do so at this time.
18 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
19 Oppenheimer.
20 SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: A couple of
21 things that I have been able to make out that
22 was said. Sometimes it's very hard to hear on
23 this side of the aisle.
3167
1 To Senator Bruno, something that
2 he said. It appears that the other side of the
3 aisle seems to be making out business to be the
4 enemy of environmental protection, and that is
5 very upsetting to me. We have, in fact, in most
6 of our states, where our economies are
7 strongest, we see our strongest environmental
8 law, and I would very much wish that we would
9 stop trying to pose these two as enemies to each
10 other, because it certainly is not the
11 experience of the very successful states in our
12 Union.
13 In listening to what was said, I
14 believe that was a report on President Clinton's
15 -- a news release on President Clinton's
16 proposals. Let me say that I would strongly
17 support reductions in paperwork which is one of
18 the chief items in that response that you just
19 gave us, and also, I would strongly support
20 speeding up our response so that people coming
21 before our DEC or our DOH can get a prompt
22 response. That's only appropriate and civil,
23 and I think that's the way we should be going.
3168
1 However, this bill, I think -- we
2 have three smokestacks from the Environmental
3 Planning Lobby, and I really think it's worthy
4 of four smokestacks or maybe it's worthy of 500
5 smokestacks. This is really an attack, the bill
6 before us, on citizens' health and environmental
7 health and protection of all of our natural
8 resources. It's, I think, a potential war on
9 every environmental and health measure that we
10 have ever passed in -- in this Legislature.
11 I was looking at -- many key
12 terms are -- are undefined, and that is an
13 enormous problem. For example -- and I'll quote
14 here from Section 17 -- "requires that each
15 agency, including DEC and DOH, identify all
16 regulatory programs that," here we quote,
17 "impose unnecessary burdens on the regulated
18 public" and another one, to, quote, "identify
19 obsolete rules", and "each agency shall",
20 another quote, "identify rules and regulations
21 that warrant amendment or repeal", and here's
22 another quote, "modify the rules accordingly."
23 These terms aren't -- are not
3169
1 defined in the least and, you know, there's no
2 -- no legal framework, and DEC and DOH can just
3 go around dismantling our existing laws based
4 on, you know, very nebulous words. I mean, what
5 really constitutes unnecessary burden or
6 obsolete rules?
7 I would like to mention something
8 else that I spoke earlier about, and that is
9 that the state can't promulgate more stringent
10 law than the federal government has enunciated
11 and passed, and this is very disturbing, because
12 we may have problems in New York State that are
13 severe to our state, but there is no federal law
14 that really deals with the severity of the issue
15 in our state, and we should be able in this
16 state to meet the needs of our water and our
17 air, and it says that we may not promulgate laws
18 in New York that are more stringent than the
19 federal government.
20 Also, another provision that
21 requires that each rule adopt a sunset five
22 years after it's promulgated. I think you're
23 going to need an army of people in DEC and DOH
3170
1 to evaluate all of these laws every five years,
2 and people would not be able to act in reliance
3 on any laws because they wouldn't know which are
4 going to be reviewed in five years and deter
5 mined to be unimportant and then be negated.
6 It's just -- I have more
7 questions on this very nondescript, very obscure
8 language, like who's going to know what's a
9 minor violation? Are we giving discretion
10 totally to DEC to determine what is a minor -
11 minor, you know, violation?
12 And then I see that DEC is
13 prohibited from enforcing the law against any
14 violator who discloses such a violation. I can
15 see a whole lot of widespread abuse in this
16 one. I mean, if he comes and tells us that he's
17 violating, then we're just going to say, "Fine.
18 Clean it up," and then who's going to pursue to
19 see if he is going to be cleaning up the mess
20 that he's created?
21 It exempts persons who
22 distribute, formulate or repackage restricted
23 use pesticides from certification requirements.
3171
1 Now, this is a very keen concern to women
2 because we have a lot of -- so far it's just
3 anecdotal, we don't know for sure, but we do
4 have anecdotal evidence that links pesticides
5 and breast cancer and certain reproductive
6 disorders. So exempting these people is -- is a
7 very fearsome, very scary concept.
8 At any rate, I feel that this -
9 this bill should have maybe 100 smokestacks
10 because I see it as gutting all of the
11 legislation that we have put in place over a
12 decade or two with much effort and really an
13 attack on citizens' health and our environmental
14 health, and I would urge all my colleagues to
15 vote against this bill.
16 ACTING PRESIDENT SEWARD: Senator
17 Mendez.
18 SENATOR MENDEZ: Mr. President, I
19 am going to support this bill.
20 For many, many years, the
21 environmental agency has been practicing in my
22 district what everybody knows is called
23 environmental -- environmental racism. The
3172
1 whole community in the Bronx, starting from the
2 borough president down, my colleague, Joe
3 Galiber, we fought and fought very hard to try
4 to make this state agency be reasonable and take
5 a real good look at the situation that -- and
6 the danger to the health and to the environment
7 of my constituents in that district when they
8 insisted and persisted and placed their chemical
9 incinerator, an incinerator that burns chemical
10 waste.
11 I think that -- and so, in our
12 neighborhoods like -- in neighborhoods that are
13 similar to some parts of my district, the same
14 complaint is heard over and over again. The
15 least that this bill will do, Mr. President, is
16 to stop the arrogance, the utter arrogance and
17 insensibility of some bureaucrats in that agency
18 when they deal with problems with minority
19 districts.
20 So that the issue that this bill
21 will undo the good health, the good legislation
22 in the area of health in New York State, that is
23 a lot of bunk.
3173
1 I think if you really look
2 closely at most of the sections in this bill,
3 they had been passed by the majority of all of
4 us here, and now they are in an omnibus bill -
5 which I think it's very good, and above all, as
6 I said before, Mr. President, it will really
7 make that state agency stop practicing
8 environmental racism in the state of New York
9 and be more sensitive to the needs of a good
10 environment in neighborhoods such as the south
11 Bronx, East Harlem, Bedford-Stuy' and Bushwick
12 and many others throughout the state.
13 I will support -- I am very glad
14 to stand up and support this bill.
15 ACTING PRESIDENT SEWARD: Senator
16 Leichter.
17 SENATOR LEICHTER: Mr. President,
18 we've had a long day and we talked about
19 regulatory matters earlier today, and I think a
20 lot of what was said at that time also applies
21 with this bill, but I think that it's fair -
22 it's fair to just focus on a few of the
23 provisions of this bill because, really, what
3174
1 Senator Johnson does -- or Senator Bruno is the
2 main sponsor, but Senator Johnson as the
3 spiritual sponsor of this bill, and what it does
4 really is to dismantle the environmental
5 protection for the people of the state of New
6 York, and I would just say to my good friend,
7 Senator Mendez, that nobody needs environmental
8 protection more than the people who live in your
9 district and my district and urban areas, and to
10 deny them the protection that this bill is going
11 to -- is going to produce is really particularly
12 harmful to people who come from these
13 communities where, as Senator Mendez did say
14 correctly, you find many environmental burdens
15 placed on them.
16 Let me just point out a few of
17 the provisions here that I think are highly
18 unwise. This bill provides that, after five
19 years, every regulation which is enacted after
20 the effective date of this bill will sunset.
21 Now, you may have incredibly important,
22 significant, protective regulations. Why would
23 you require those to sunset? It's true, you can
3175
1 go through the entire process of readopting the
2 regulations, but you ought to -- you ought to
3 approach this the other way, which is, if a
4 regulation is no longer needed, then maybe you
5 can start a process of removing that regulation,
6 but automatically, to say, "We're going to be
7 devoid of any of these protective regulations",
8 again, places people at risk.
9 There's a provision in there,
10 limiting on-site monitors. Why would you want
11 to do that? Why would you want to deny DEC the
12 proper authority to put on on-site monitors when
13 there's a serious environmental problem? We
14 know that there are people who, unfortunately,
15 have dumped illegally. We know that there's
16 people who use chemicals, pesticides, other
17 products which are dangerous, which can pollute
18 our drinking water. We know that there are
19 companies that, through carelessness or
20 unintentionally but, nevertheless, have polluted
21 the air, DEC ought to be free to put on on-site
22 monitors, and we should not decide in this
23 fashion that we will handcuff the Department of
3176
1 Environmental Conservation in carrying out its
2 function of protecting the public.
3 You know, I thought that Senator
4 Oppenheimer stated very well, it's not a matter
5 of the business community being set up against
6 the rest of the public and that DEC has seen its
7 job or that its function or role has been to
8 impede and impair business. Far from it. We
9 can harmonize in many ways, environmental
10 concerns and business concerns, but there are
11 times when we climb into public safety meaning
12 that you've got to step in and there's some
13 people doing things that are harmful to the
14 environment, and I emphasize again, what we're
15 talking about here is the health and the safety
16 of people.
17 Let me just go to another
18 provision. This is one -- and we debated this
19 last year when many of the provisions in this
20 bill were set forth in separate bills, and this
21 limits the Department of Environmental Conserva
22 tion when it's considering an application, and
23 it has asked for more information that, when
3177
1 that additional information comes, the Depart
2 ment can't send it back and say, "Based on this
3 additional information, we now have these other
4 questions." It seems perfectly logical that, if
5 additional material is submitted to the Depart
6 ment, that it may then raise questions that the
7 Department ought to be free to go into.
8 I think this is just an example
9 of this bill which has everything but the
10 kitchen sink thrown into it and it has this
11 preconception that the Department of Environ
12 mental Conservation and our regulations to
13 protect the air and the water and to protect the
14 beauty of this state somehow or other is
15 impeding business and is causing the job loss
16 that we've had in this state. It just isn't
17 so.
18 We've learned in the last 20, 30
19 years important steps need to be taken to
20 protect people from cancer-causing substances,
21 to protect people from breathing unclean air and
22 in large portions of our state, and in
23 particular, in Senator Mendez' district, the air
3178
1 quality fails to meet federal standard. People
2 are drinking, in parts of our state, water that
3 is not pure, but Senator Johnson wants to take
4 away the powers of that agency which is supposed
5 to help us get clean air, clean water and
6 protect the beauty of this state. I can't
7 understand the sort of animosity, the antagonism
8 to environmental regulation.
9 And I submit to you, Senator
10 Johnson, that the people of this state want to
11 be safe. You might just as well say, "Well,
12 we're going to get rid of police officers."
13 Yes, DEC has some police functions and those are
14 as important for our welfare as it is to have
15 police officers.
16 So I would ask you, if you look
17 at this bill, that you will see very much as
18 your so-called welfare reform bill yesterday and
19 the regulatory so-called reform bill that we had
20 earlier today, it's sort of a collection of
21 every ideological Republican right-wing approach
22 and it's thrown into one bill, into one package,
23 and what we get, I submit to you, is a real
3179
1 mishmash.
2 Some of the provisions here,
3 we've supported in the past, Senator Johnson,
4 but taken together, you are emasculating
5 environmental protection for the people of the
6 state of New York.
7 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The Chair
8 recognizes Senator Paterson.
9 SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President,
10 would Senator Johnson yield for a question?
11 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
12 Johnson, do you yield to a question from Senator
13 Paterson?
14 SENATOR JOHNSON: Oh, sure. Yes,
15 Mr. President.
16 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The
17 Senator yields, Senator Paterson.
18 SENATOR PATERSON: Once he knew
19 it was me, Mr. President, he was happy to
20 yield.
21 Section 6 of the legislation
22 where there is a restriction on DEC's rendering
23 of a judgment of incompleteness on an
3180
1 application -- I can understand why you put the
2 section in there, Senator Johnson, because what
3 the staff of DEC is doing right now often is
4 using that as a way to delay because they don't
5 have the resources and they don't have the time
6 to process some of the permits.
7 What I'm suggesting to you is,
8 why not just give DEC more time because, I think
9 what you outlined here in Section 6 is really
10 too strict. A rendering of the judgment of
11 incompleteness gives the DEC only one
12 opportunity to, in a sense, examine the permit.
13 Once that is made, if the answers to the
14 questions that are sought reveal further doubt
15 or skepticism about the actual permit, you've
16 restricted DEC. So since they may be in a sense
17 using a mechanism in an improper way to effect
18 something that really is important, why not just
19 extend the time? That's my suggestion. I
20 wanted to hear what you thought about it.
21 SENATOR JOHNSON: Senator
22 Paterson, I think you heard me read the little
23 article about Kodak. That's just from the paper
3181
1 on March 22nd. They left because it would take
2 too long to get a permit to put a small 70
3 person unit into their operation which already
4 has 20,000 employees.
5 The reason this is in here is
6 because our hearings determined that the
7 greatest impediment to business staying here,
8 expanding here, was the interminable period of
9 time it took to get a permit. So what we're
10 saying is that the Department should let the
11 applicant know, give him an outline of every
12 thing they want to know about this operation,
13 this change of procedure, this new product
14 they're manufacturing, whatever process is
15 taking place, and tell them that this is
16 incomplete and these are the things we want you
17 to address, and we shouldn't let the DEC
18 continue interminably holding up business people
19 who want to grow and expand and create jobs in
20 this state.
21 That's why we say that, Senator,
22 that they shall examine it carefully, tell them
23 the first time what they want, business will get
3182
1 it, and then they shall act upon that
2 application.
3 SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you,
4 Senator Johnson. What I'm actually saying, to
5 be clear on this, in the Kodak case situation
6 what they were objecting to was red tape, the
7 administrative bureaucracy. I addressed the
8 administrative bureaucracy.
9 Where I'm making the suggestion
10 to you is on the second point, the seasonal
11 permit, 50 days for a minor permit, 90 days for
12 major permits since DEC already has trouble
13 meeting those deadlines, and that's what
14 resorted to the process in the first place, and
15 because we have in our budget to stretch the
16 already overburdened Department, why don't we
17 lengthen the period so when Kodak applies for a
18 permit they know when they can start based on
19 the time periods? I'm not objecting to your
20 desire to cut down on red tape.
21 SENATOR JOHNSON: Thank you,
22 Senator. That section you're talking about, we
23 haven't changed. That gives the Department a
3183
1 15-day period to examine the application. We
2 haven't changed that. If you feel it's
3 important to change it, perhaps we can make a
4 separate law, amendment, to extend that period
5 but the whole idea is to expedite the process
6 and not delay the process.
7 SENATOR PATERSON: Okay. That's
8 a good idea, Senator.
9 SENATOR JOHNSON: Thank you.
10 SENATOR PATERSON: I'll put that
11 bill in. I hope it's acted upon in 15 days if
12 you think it's a minor bill or 30 days if you
13 think it's a major bill.
14 On this bill -- and thank you for
15 the answers to my questions, Senator Johnson.
16 On this particular bill, I just
17 think that there are too many vague statutes
18 that exist in this piece of legislation, too
19 many situations that limit the authority of
20 DEC. If DEC has at times in a sense obfuscated
21 the desire to generate business in the state,
22 then maybe we need to address that. But the
23 idea of having a five-year limit on all rules
3184
1 and regulations and just as in Calendar Number
2 218, the bill that we addressed earlier today,
3 does not really provide for the overlapping
4 period or the lapses where regulations may, in a
5 sense, sunset and we have not put in place the
6 regulations that can be helpful, I just think
7 that that is not going to in any way help the
8 safety of the people in the State of New York.
9 There is a section in this bill
10 that involves a 72-hour notification of
11 landowners of any kind of violation on the
12 property. Again, here again, we see a situation
13 where we are concentrating on one area and not
14 investigating what may have actually been the
15 harmful waste that may have been discovered.
16 We're overreaching and stretching the
17 Department's job to conduct the research, to go
18 and find and do a title search to find out who
19 the owner is; meanwhile, we may have an oil
20 spill or some other land disaster that we need
21 to address a lot more quickly.
22 We talk in terms of the financial
23 requirements, financial security requirements to
3185
1 balance the environmental issues with conducting
2 business, but the reference to it in the
3 legislation is so vague, it just makes it
4 unclear as to what it is that the Department is
5 able to do and what the Department is not able
6 to do. We certainly have in this legislation
7 hindered the process of an agency because in the
8 past the agency has made decisions that we
9 haven't liked.
10 Well, that is a whole new area of
11 law. Just in the last 25 years, we've started
12 to address the environment. In the 19th
13 century, the country was so industrialized, we
14 put so many pollutants into the atmosphere, we
15 have so many CFCs and carbons in our atmosphere
16 right now that we have to have some of the
17 strict requirements. It is a problem for those
18 who are seeking permits. It is a problem for
19 business, but it is a cancer that will envelop
20 us all unless we have some kind of strict
21 adherence to some standard of environmental
22 protection, and that is why I can not in good
23 conscience support this bill.
3186
1 Thank you, Senator Johnson.
2 Thank you, Mr. President.
3 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Chair
4 recognizes Senator Abate.
5 SENATOR ABATE: On the bill. I
6 know that the hour is late and everyone wants to
7 go home, but I feel so strongly against this
8 legislation. I think this legislation is so
9 dangerous that I feel compelled to speak for
10 just a couple moments.
11 I understand that everyone will
12 speak that there is a need for this legislation
13 because we have to balance the need for economic
14 development and environmental protection; and I
15 understand when we have sound economic
16 development, it broadens our tax base. It
17 produces revenue for the state. It increases
18 the stability of the state, and no one in the
19 world, no rational person, is against economic
20 development which will bring money and jobs to
21 the state, but when we use economic development
22 as a guise, as a symbol to destroy our
23 environment, our health and welfare, then we are
3187
1 misusing economic development and its good
2 intentions.
3 I believe under the guise of this
4 legislation, this legislation will enable the
5 state to overturn every health and environmental
6 measure that was passed by the Legislature over
7 the last few decades. There are two areas and I
8 know my colleagues have mentioned it and I just
9 want to reiterate my concern. It's the one that
10 requires DOH (Department of Health) and DEC to
11 identify and possibly amend and repeal
12 regulations that are obsolete and regulations
13 that are unnecessary. These are such vague
14 terms that I believe if this part of the
15 legislation is challenged in court, it will not
16 withstand constitutional challenge. These terms
17 because they are so vague can be interpreted any
18 way one wishes; and if one wishes to dismantle
19 environmental protections altogether, one could
20 argue that all rules are obsolete and
21 unnecessary.
22 The other area that I think is of
23 grave concern is restriction by DEC on its use
3188
1 on on-site monitors. As an enforcement
2 mechanism, that is one of the most critical ways
3 to see violations, to uncover violations, to
4 make sure areas are safe, and what's very
5 strange that on-site monitors will only be
6 restricted to certain areas and certain
7 violations. On-site monitoring will not be
8 available to coast and marine resources, flood
9 control, mining, wetlands, pesticides and fish
10 and wildlife.
11 I ask, and this is rhetorical
12 because I know the night is late and I might not
13 change anyone's mind, why are we excluding these
14 vital areas from on-site monitors? To make the
15 situation even worse, it limits the cases of
16 facilities with poor compliance records. Only
17 in those cases can on-site monitoring be used.
18 I suggest that there will be few areas with poor
19 compliance records when you limit the use of
20 on-site monitors.
21 This is a critical enforcement
22 for the DEC. You take that away, they will not
23 be able to establish -- particularly in
3189
1 facilities that there should be on-site
2 monitoring -- to establish a poor compliance
3 record.
4 I'm not one that's prone to
5 overstatement. I know that when we debated the
6 death penalty, we talked about it was a very sad
7 day. I think today is also a sad day for
8 environmental protections in this state, and
9 it's a sad day for the role that government must
10 play in protecting our health and safety.
11 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Chair
12 recognizes Senator Dollinger on the bill.
13 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Mr.
14 President. One question for Senator Johnson if
15 he would yield.
16 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
17 Johnson, would you yield to Senator Dollinger
18 for one question?
19 Senator yields.
20 SENATOR DOLLINGER: As I
21 understood, Senator Johnson, the United States
22 Senate is debating a bill that would affect the
23 Environmental Protection Agency and deal with
3190
1 some of the issues that are addressed by this
2 bill. Is that correct?
3 SENATOR JOHNSON: Senator
4 Dollinger, it includes regulatory reform
5 essentially across the board. That's why I said
6 it's similar to the bill which Senator Rath and
7 I separately introduced. Some of the elements
8 of these bills are contained within the federal
9 debate at this moment, yes.
10 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Again,
11 through you, Mr. President. It's also my
12 understanding that one of the things this bill
13 wants to do is we don't want to go any further
14 than the federal government in particular areas
15 of regulatory control in respect to the
16 environment. Isn't that correct?
17 SENATOR JOHNSON: That's not a
18 part of this bill, but that was part of our
19 report, yes.
20 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Under those
21 circumstances, Mr. President, if Senator Johnson
22 will yield to one more question?
23 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
3191
1 Johnson, do you yield to another question?
2 Senator yields.
3 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Why shouldn't
4 we wait until the federal government acts on its
5 bill involving regulatory reform with the EPA
6 before we jump ahead and do this with DEC and
7 either stick our necks out too far beyond what
8 the federal government will do or not stick our
9 neck out as far as the federal government is
10 going to do, if the purpose is to create some
11 kind of correlation between the federal efforts
12 in the environment and the state efforts in
13 environment?
14 SENATOR JOHNSON: Well, Senator
15 Dollinger, I prefer New York State be the leader
16 in reform and not wait for Congress, which has
17 forced us into a lot of the things we've done
18 which have been negative for the economy without
19 any particular benefit -- without any particular
20 benefit to the environment which got us in the
21 situation where we are. We should try to chart
22 our own course as much as possible not going
23 beyond and more restrictive than the federal
3192
1 government because this state has a particular
2 problem with the economy and loss of jobs which
3 you are only too familiar with, of course.
4 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Again through
5 you, Mr. President, if Senator Johnson will
6 yield?
7 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
8 Johnson, do you yield to another question?
9 SENATOR JOHNSON: Yes.
10 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
11 yields.
12 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Senator, I
13 thought that was part of the problem was that we
14 were out front doing all these things that were
15 far more advanced than what the federal
16 government did and that one of the things that I
17 have heard complaints about from the other side
18 of the aisle in the last two years has been the
19 fact that we're too far ahead of the federal
20 government. Why don't we wait until they act
21 and then figure out how we can work our
22 environmental regulations to work hand in glove
23 with theirs?
3193
1 SENATOR JOHNSON: Senator, all I
2 can say to you is that by us being ahead of the
3 federal government doesn't mean we've been ahead
4 in reforming or making this state more business
5 friendly. We have been doing environmental
6 overkill which has driven business and jobs out
7 of this state without any particular benefit to
8 the environment or to the people who reside in
9 this state.
10 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Again through
11 you, Mr. President, if Senator Johnson will
12 yield?
13 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
14 Johnson, do you continue to yield?
15 SENATOR JOHNSON: Yes.
16 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
17 yields.
18 SENATOR DOLLINGER: As I recall,
19 Senator, one of the things that you've talked
20 about on a number of bills that we've done in
21 this house before has been the fact that the
22 federal government requires companies to do one
23 thing and the DEC requires them to do another
3194
1 and the inconsistency or the duplication
2 involved with that process is one of the things
3 that drives businesses crazy. If that's the
4 case, why shouldn't we wait until the federal
5 government acts first so that we can act and try
6 to create some kind of correlation between our
7 regulatory -- regulation of the environment and
8 theirs.
9 SENATOR JOHNSON: Senator, when I
10 began my remarks I said that we were the leaders
11 in this chamber with the support of the other
12 side of the aisle in many instances in advancing
13 regulatory reform concerning the environment.
14 Now you're telling me let us not be the leaders
15 in reform. Let's wait and see what the feds do
16 and ride with the tide. I don't think we should
17 do that, Senator.
18 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Okay. Mr.
19 President, on the bill.
20 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
21 Dollinger on the bill.
22 SENATOR DOLLINGER: I appreciate
23 Senator Johnson's comments. I think that one of
3195
1 the problems with this bill and my other
2 colleagues have described the effect of this
3 bill on the environment generally, but it seems
4 to me that there is sort of a two-headed
5 approach here. One head should be out front of
6 the federal government; and yet, when we go out
7 front of federal government as we have done for
8 the last 25 years -- and I should point out,
9 properly, with the leadership of the other
10 members of this house who have been greatly
11 concerned about regulating the environment, but
12 now we find our business community saying New
13 York is too far out front. You stepped too far
14 out front; yet, here we are again today stepping
15 out front again.
16 We're about to enact a series of
17 regulatory reforms which may be more extensive
18 than what the federal government does, which may
19 be duplicative of what the federal government
20 does, which will simply create consternation on
21 the part of our businesses because they will
22 again face that age old dilemma, "Who do we
23 comply with, the EPA or the DEC? I don't quite
3196
1 know what to do."
2 It seems to me that it would make
3 better sense to table this measure, put it off
4 for a period of time, wait and see what the
5 federal government does. If they enact a broad
6 regulatory change in their environmental rules,
7 we could then look at these rules and make them
8 comport with the federal rules and come up with
9 a system that is easier for business.
10 I sense that the Senate Majority
11 would like to have it both ways. They would
12 like to be out front, but yet they would like to
13 help business. I don't quite understand the
14 logic of it. I'm going to be voting in the
15 negative for the reasons expressed by my
16 colleagues and for the reason that it seems to
17 me we may be far out front of the federal
18 government again and only create more confusion
19 for our businesses.
20 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Secretary
21 will read the last section.
22 SENATOR JOHNSON: Mr. President.
23 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
3197
1 Johnson.
2 SENATOR JOHNSON: I would like to
3 address some of the comments, Mr. President. I
4 know everyone wants to leave, but I don't think
5 we should leave without hearing perhaps this
6 side of the aisle's appraisal of what's right or
7 wrong about this bill.
8 What's wrong with this bill is
9 two lobbyists' memorandums, and it says on one,
10 "None so deaf as those who will not hear. None
11 so blind as those who would not see."
12 Now, these people haven't learned
13 anything all the time they have been doing
14 environmental lobbying. They are putting forth
15 memos which people unfortunately rely upon which
16 are inaccurate misinterpretations of the law and
17 you are relying on those and you think that they
18 are telling you the truth and you think you got
19 to do something about it.
20 The fact is just take the Sierra
21 Club, and they say here, "New York State's
22 environmental enforcement capability will be
23 compromised in several ways: Requirement of a
3198
1 72-hour notice prior to commencing an
2 enforcement action gives the targeted owner
3 action time to destroy evidence, intimidate
4 witnesses, limit the potential for enforcement."
5 It's all hogwash and poppycock.
6 It isn't true at all.
7 The reason I say that is because
8 we say in the law here, "Notwithstanding any
9 other provision of law, and except when any
10 criminal investigation is pending, the
11 Commissioner shall notify the owner of any real
12 property where such owner is not the violator of
13 any violations of this chapter, article, and so
14 forth, that occurred on such owner's real
15 property within 72 hours of determining that
16 sufficient evidence exists to commence
17 enforcement action."
18 In other words, what we're saying
19 is it's about time to let the landowner know
20 that something bad is going on, on his
21 property. It doesn't say you can't enforce this
22 until 72 hours after notice. It says when you
23 find out about this violation, you have to give
3199
1 the -- within the several days, you have to
2 notify the owner of the property. What's wrong
3 with that? That's a common sense reform which
4 was brought out on our hearings, that the
5 landowners didn't even know about these
6 violations. No one told them. If they knew it,
7 they would have stopped it immediately, stopped
8 the perpetrator, which is their tenant, from
9 doing this, and they would have seen that
10 reforms took place. As it was they found out
11 months later that their property is contaminated
12 and there's an action going on and they were not
13 even informed of it.
14 So if this is the kind of baloney
15 that you are reading from Sierra Club, and you
16 think it's true, it's totally false. Just read
17 the bill.
18 Another thing, Senator Leichter
19 -- he's my friend. He's my compatriot. He's
20 ranking member on the committee. He has been.
21 And we're talking about a voluntary cleanup
22 proposal and all this stuff, the lender
23 liability, these are reforms that have to be
3200
1 done. It doesn't say that if the DEC doesn't
2 respond in 30 days they can't do anything to the
3 violator. It says here somebody can voluntarily
4 clean up a site of land in an industrial area to
5 a standard sufficient for that type of
6 operation, not to the standard of a child's
7 playground or something else; and it doesn't say
8 if the DEC doesn't act within 30 days you are
9 automatically off the hook. It says you can go
10 ahead and develop a plan if they haven't
11 responded to you in 30 days. It doesn't say
12 that that plan has to be accepted or approved.
13 It doesn't say that plan doesn't have to be
14 subject to a hearing. All those protections are
15 still in place.
16 I just want to tell you don't
17 read memos and think you're reading the bill.
18 Don't read memos and think you know what is in
19 this bill because you don't know it if you read
20 these memos.
21 Someone has said here, several
22 members have said -- I won't identify -- that
23 page 10, this section here about re-examining
3201
1 the regulations, identifying obsolete rules and
2 so forth, this means that somebody can go in and
3 overturn every environmental regulation. Not
4 true at all.
5 The Governor's counsel is going
6 to coordinate this. They're going to ask all
7 agencies to re-examine their regulations. If
8 there's something on there for 5 years or 10
9 years or 20 years which are not necessary any
10 more or maybe never really proved to be
11 productive or protective, suggest that they be
12 eliminated; and there is a process for
13 eliminating these things, a very legal process,
14 not going to be done by any rump group in the
15 middle of the night.
16 It says here each agency shall
17 submit periodic reports identifying rules and
18 regulations that warrant amendment or repeal or
19 identifying obsolete rules to the Governor, the
20 Temporary President of the Senate, the Speaker
21 of the Assembly, the Minority Leader of the
22 Senate, the Minority Leader of the Assembly,
23 Office of Regulatory Management Affairs, and on
3202
1 and on and on. So we're not doing anything in
2 the middle of the night, scrapping necessary
3 regulation. We're saying re-examine them.
4 Everybody will be informed about this, and we
5 will be able to proceed in a legal and rational
6 manner. Now what is wrong with that?
7 All I can tell you is I could
8 read every section of this thing (indicating
9 memo). I can tell you this is false
10 information, and this is a bill which should
11 have been adopted a year ago, as I said. It
12 should be adopted now, and we have to get on
13 with the process of doing responsible
14 environmental regulation and aggressive job
15 creation in this state if we're going to catch
16 up with the rest of the nation and make this a
17 place where we will have growing jobs, growing
18 revenues, and be able to do all the wonderful
19 things you all want to do with budgetary money.
20 It won't be there if we don't take this monkey
21 off the back of business and people in this
22 state.
23 Thank you.
3203
1 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Secretary
2 will read the last section.
3 THE SECRETARY: Section 33. This
4 act shall take effect immediately.
5 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the
6 roll, Senator Paterson?
7 SENATOR PATERSON: Mr.
8 President. In this day of infamous mnemonics, I
9 think we need an SRC on this bill.
10 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: I bet
11 that stands for slow roll call.
12 Are there five Senators
13 requesting that? I see five standing.
14 Call the roll slowly.
15 THE SECRETARY: Senator Abate.
16 SENATOR ABATE: No.
17 THE SECRETARY: Senator Babbush
18 excused. Senator Bruno.
19 SENATOR BRUNO: (Indicating
20 "Aye.")
21 THE SECRETARY: In the
22 affirmative. Senator Connor.
23 SENATOR CONNOR: (Indicating
3204
1 "Nay.")
2 THE SECRETARY: In the negative.
3 Senator Cook.
4 SENATOR COOK: Yes.
5 THE SECRETARY: Senator
6 DeFrancisco.
7 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes.
8 THE SECRETARY: Senator DiCarlo.
9 SENATOR DiCARLO: Aye.
10 THE SECRETARY: Senator
11 Dollinger.
12 SENATOR DOLLINGER: No.
13 THE SECRETARY: Senator Espada.
14 SENATOR ESPADA: No.
15 THE SECRETARY: Senator Farley.
16 SENATOR FARLEY: Aye.
17 THE SECRETARY: Senator Galiber.
18 SENATOR GALIBER: No.
19 THE SECRETARY: Senator Gold
20 voting in the negative earlier today.
21 Senator Gonzalez.
22 SENATOR GONZALEZ: No.
23 THE SECRETARY: Senator Goodman
3205
1 voting in the negative earlier today.
2 Senator Hannon.
3 (There was no response.)
4 Senator Hoblock.
5 (There was no response.)
6 Senator Hoffmann.
7 SENATOR HOFFMANN: Yes.
8 THE SECRETARY: Senator Holland.
9 SENATOR HOLLAND: Yes.
10 THE SECRETARY: Senator Johnson.
11 SENATOR JOHNSON: Aye.
12 THE SECRETARY: Senator Jones.
13 SENATOR JONES: To explain my
14 vote.
15 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
16 Jones to explain her vote.
17 SENATOR JONES: Most every piece
18 or many of the pieces of this bill I have
19 already voted for and supported; however, when
20 we put them all together today, it seems as
21 though there's some new things that I think
22 deserve some questions, and I did ask those
23 questions, I might say, of a couple of corporate
3206
1 people, one of whom you mentioned today. The
2 response to me was, "We don't go chasing after
3 one-house bills." When I asked, "How do you
4 feel?" or, "Do you want this bill?" that was
5 their response. "We don't go chasing after
6 one-house bills. When it gets real, we'd like
7 to talk about it."
8 So I guess that's what I'm going
9 to say today. I'll vote no and I will be very
10 interested in looking at whatever the final
11 product is when it comes back.
12 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
13 Jones in the negative.
14 THE SECRETARY: Senator Kruger
15 voting in the negative earlier today.
16 Senator Kuhl.
17 SENATOR KUHL: Aye.
18 THE SECRETARY: Senator Lack.
19 SENATOR LACK: Aye.
20 THE SECRETARY: Senator Larkin.
21 SENATOR LARKIN: Aye.
22 THE SECRETARY: Senator LaValle.
23 SENATOR LAVALLE: No.
3207
1 THE SECRETARY: Senator Leibell
2 voting in the negative earlier today.
3 Senator Leichter.
4 SENATOR LEICHTER: No.
5 THE SECRETARY: Senator Levy.
6 (There was no response.)
7 Senator Libous.
8 SENATOR LIBOUS: Aye.
9 THE SECRETARY: Senator Maltese.
10 (There was no response.)
11 Senator Marcellino.
12 SENATOR MARCELLINO: Aye.
13 THE SECRETARY: Senator Marchi.
14 SENATOR MARCHI: Aye.
15 THE SECRETARY: Senator
16 Markowitz.
17 SENATOR MARKOWITZ: No.
18 THE SECRETARY: Senator Maziarz.
19 (There was no response.)
20 Senator Mendez.
21 SENATOR MENDEZ: Mr. President,
22 to explain my vote. For years, EnCon having all
23 the legislation to protect all the citizens of
3208
1 the State of New York pertaining to quality in
2 the environment and health of the cities, and
3 what have you, have chosen consistently, Mr.
4 President, to practice environmental racism.
5 I have seen it done in my
6 district. All the legislation in place to
7 protect us, they ignore it. They are very over
8 regulated and they are very choosy as to where
9 they protect the health and the environment of
10 different citizens New York State.
11 So, therefore, Mr. President, I
12 do vote in the affirmative.
13 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
14 Mendez in the affirmative?
15 SENATOR MENDEZ: Yes.
16 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator
17 Mendez in the affirmative.
18 THE SECRETARY: Senator
19 Montgomery.
20 SENATOR MONTGOMERY: No.
21 THE SECRETARY: Senator Nanula.
22 SENATOR NANULA: No.
23 THE SECRETARY: Senator
3209
1 Nozzolio.
2 SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Aye.
3 THE SECRETARY: Senator Onorato.
4 SENATOR ONORATO: No.
5 THE SECRETARY: Senator
6 Oppenheimer.
7 SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: No.
8 THE SECRETARY: Senator Padavan.
9 SENATOR PADAVAN: No.
10 THE SECRETARY: Senator Paterson.
11 SENATOR PATERSON: No.
12 THE SECRETARY: Senator Present.
13 SENATOR PRESENT: Aye.
14 THE SECRETARY: Senator Rath.
15 SENATOR RATH: Aye.
16 THE SECRETARY: Senator Saland.
17 SENATOR SALAND: Aye.
18 THE SECRETARY: Senator Santiago
19 excused. Senator Sears.
20 SENATOR SEARS: Aye.
21 THE SECRETARY: Senator Seward.
22 (There was no response.)
23 Senator Skelos.
3210
1 SENATOR SKELOS: Aye.
2 THE SECRETARY: Senator Smith.
3 SENATOR SMITH: Nay.
4 THE SECRETARY: Senator Solomon
5 voting in the negative earlier today.
6 Senator Spano.
7 SENATOR SPANO: Aye.
8 THE SECRETARY: Senator
9 Stachowski.
10 SENATOR STACHOWSKI: No.
11 THE SECRETARY: Senator
12 Stafford.
13 SENATOR STAFFORD: Aye.
14 THE SECRETARY: Senator
15 Stavisky.
16 (There was no response.)
17 Senator Trunzo.
18 SENATOR TRUNZO: Aye.
19 THE SECRETARY: Senator Tully.
20 (There was no response.)
21 Senator Velella.
22 (There was no response.)
23 Senator Volker.
3211
1 SENATOR VOLKER: Yes.
2 THE SECRETARY: Senator Waldon.
3 SENATOR WALDON: (Indicating
4 negative.)
5 THE SECRETARY: Senator Wright.
6 SENATOR WRIGHT: Aye.
7 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Secretary
8 will call the absentees.
9 THE SECRETARY: Senator Hannon.
10 (There was no response.)
11 Senator Hoblock.
12 SENATOR HOBLOCK: Yes.
13 THE SECRETARY: Senator Levy.
14 (There was no response.)
15 Senator Maltese.
16 SENATOR MALTESE: Aye.
17 THE SECRETARY: Senator Maziarz.
18 SENATOR MAZIARZ: Aye.
19 THE SECRETARY: Senator
20 Stavisky.
21 (There was no response.)
22 Senator Seward.
23 SENATOR SEWARD: Yes.
3212
1 THE SECRETARY: Senator Tully.
2 SENATOR TULLY: Aye.
3 THE SECRETARY: Senator Levy.
4 SENATOR LEVY: No.
5 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Announce
6 the results.
7 THE SECRETARY: Ayes 32, nays
8 25.
9 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill
10 is passed.
11 Senator Skelos.
12 SENATOR SKELOS: Is there any
13 housekeeping at the desk?
14 (There was no response.)
15 If not, Mr. President, I move -
16 there being no further business, I move we
17 adjourn until tomorrow, Thursday, March 30,
18 1995, at 11:00 a.m. sharp.
19 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Without
20 objection, the Senate stands adjourned until
21 tomorrow, Thursday, March 30, at 11:00 a.m.
22 (Whereupon, at 6:01 p.m., the
23 Senate adjourned.)