Thursday, March 25, 1993

1393 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ALBANY, NEW YORK 10 March 25, 1993 11 12:10 p.m. 12 13 14 REGULAR SESSION 15 16 17 18 SENATOR HUGH T. FARLEY, Acting President 19 STEPHEN F. SLOAN, Secretary 20 21 22 23 1394 1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Senate 3 will come to order. Senators will find their 4 seats. If you will please rise with me for the 5 Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 6 (Whereupon, the Senate joined in 7 the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ) 8 Today, we are pleased to have 9 with us the Reverend Dr. Robert Hess of the 10 Delmar Reformed Church of Delmar, New York, for 11 the opening prayer. 12 Reverend Hess. 13 THE REVEREND DOCTOR ROBERT HESS: 14 Thank you. Let's unite in prayer together. 15 Great God, lover of justice. You 16 watch over the ways of all people. Continue to 17 urge this great body not to forget people You 18 remember. 19 You are with us in the search for 20 economic justice. It is not Your will that some 21 should eat well, while others go hungry. May 22 all of us see that in the long term it is in our 23 interests to see that people prosper. 1395 1 Save us from reaping short-term 2 advantages at the expense of a future 3 generation's peace. 4 Keep us from condemning the 5 weakness of others; keep us from turning our 6 backs on the appearance of others, so that we 7 may be enablers that those others may find their 8 way again. 9 You are with us in the search for 10 truth. Help us to be honest and not mislead the 11 public. When we live too much with compromise, 12 we fail to use what we know to create what we 13 ought to be. 14 You are with us in our search for 15 community. A divided society is not Your will. 16 May our laws be just to all groups. Move us to 17 be peace makers. 18 From all of us, Jewish servants, 19 who know you so well as the God of Abraham and 20 Sarah, and Christian servants, who pray in the 21 name of Jesus Christ, we are all bound in one 22 family to serve Your purpose. 23 Amen. 1396 1 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: The 2 Secretary will begin by reading the Journal. 3 THE SECRETARY: In Senate, 4 Wednesday, March 24. The Senate met pursuant to 5 adjournment. Senator Farley in the chair upon 6 designation of the Temporary President. Prayer 7 by Rabbi Butman, Director of the Lubavitch Youth 8 Organization of Brooklyn. The Journal of 9 Tuesday, March 23, was read and approved. On 10 motion, Senate adjourned. 11 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Hearing 12 no objection, the Journal will stand approved as 13 read. 14 The order of business: 15 Presentation of petitions. 16 Messages from the Assembly. 17 Messages from the Governor. 18 Reports of standing committees. 19 Reports of select committees. 20 Communications and reports from 21 state officers. 22 Motions and resolutions. 23 Senator Maltese. 1397 1 SENATOR MALTESE: Mr. President. 2 I would like to offer up a resolution and ask 3 that its title be read. 4 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: 5 Secretary will read the title to Senator 6 Maltese's resolution. 7 THE SECRETARY: Legislative 8 Resolution, by Senator Maltese and others, 9 commemorating the 82nd anniversary of the 10 Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire on Thursday, 11 March 25, 1993, and acknowledging the 12 International Ladies Garment Workers Union 13 effort to make American working conditions the 14 safest in the world. 15 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Senator 16 Maltese. 17 SENATOR MALTESE: Mr. President. 18 The resolution is open to all Senators and would 19 be open at the desk. 20 I speak on this resolution now as 21 I have in prior years because of its 22 importance. The recent World Trade Center 23 explosion and some of the related occurrences 1398 1 and situations loading up to it make it even 2 more urgent that many of the problems that 3 existed on that Saturday, March 25, 1911, are 4 still with us. 5 Mr. President. As we go through 6 our average working day, many of us bemoan the 7 fates and crab about some of the things that 8 trouble us. We do not think back often enough 9 to the days of our immigrant parents and grand 10 parents and the trials and tribulations that 11 they suffered upon their recent arrivals. 12 That Saturday evening was a 13 regular work evening for many of the people in 14 the Lower East Side and the general Greenwich 15 Village and Washington Square area. The 16 workday, as it did in most days, started very 17 early in the morning and ended just about dusk. 18 Most of the immigrants that 19 worked in that factory were Italian and Jewish 20 from Russia and from the general Germany and 21 Poland area of Europe. The people lived in cold 22 water flats with little heat, a little 23 electricity. The advent of indoor plumbing was 1399 1 not with us at that time. 2 Most of the families were very 3 large. And as evident from the people who 4 worked in that fire -- in that factory, they 5 started, many of them, at 13, 14 and 15, and it 6 was regarded as a big advantage to be able to 7 get your daughters and your wives and your 8 nieces -- and it was predominantly women. 9 On that tragic Saturday when 147 10 people perished, the majority of the persons 11 that perished and were there -- almost 600 in 12 number -- were women. Many of them were family 13 units, two, three and even four from one 14 family. 15 And, Mr. President, nobody knows 16 how the fire started, but the working conditions 17 were abysmal. The place was crowded. And as 18 indicated by the name of the factory, the 19 Triangle Shirtwaist Factory, they made shirt 20 waists which were one of the first manufactured 21 garments worn by the new women of the day and 22 popularized by Charles Dana Gibson as the 23 so-called "Gibson girl." It's ironic that these 1400 1 sweatshop conditions existed at a time when the 2 Gibson girl was the popular girl of playing golf 3 and tennis and kind of an aristocratic, elite 4 type of new woman. 5 On that tragic day, a fire burst 6 out and it quickly spread to the shirtwaists and 7 the material and all the accoutrements of a very 8 crowded, sloppily run shirtwaist factory. 9 Sprinklers were non-existent in the factory, 10 although they were required in other areas. The 11 factory owners of the day had only three weeks 12 prior turned down the installation of 13 sprinklers. 14 In addition, because the owners 15 were troubled by pilferage, some of the fire 16 exits were locked so that employees could not 17 exit. The employees were working predominantly 18 on the eighth, ninth and tenth floor. 19 Unfortunately, the fire ladders of the day could 20 only reach to the sixth floor. When the alarm 21 sounded, mainly by word of mouth, most of the 22 employees on the other floors managed to escape, 23 including the executive employees who went over 1401 1 the roof from the tenth floor. The majority of 2 the employees trapped were trapped on the ninth 3 floor. 4 Mr. President. I pray the 5 indulgence of the body to simply refer to the 6 paragraphs of the resolution. 7 Nobody told the ninth floor. By 8 the time they knew, they were caught between the 9 fires above and below. Some ran for the 10 elevators, others for the doors to the stairs. 11 One set of doors was locked. The doors to the 12 other stairway opened inward and, at first, the 13 crush made it impossible to open them. Soon the 14 stairs were cut off by the fire. 15 The elevator operators did their 16 best, each making seven or eight trips through 17 the smoke and flames. But as the fire grew, it 18 forced one after another of the waiting crowd to 19 leap into the open shaft until finally the 20 elevators could not rise because they were 21 jammed by bodies. 22 And, whereas the rest of the 23 ninth floor workers were forced to the windows, 1402 1 they stood on the ledges as long as they could 2 waiting for the fire ladders, but the City's 3 longest ladders reached only to the sixth floor, 4 and the fire reached out to the windows after 5 them. 6 Mr. President. Like many 7 immigrants on the Lower East Side, my 8 grandfather Serphino had immigrated to the Lower 9 East Side. And his wife, 38 years of age, was 10 in that fire as were her two daughters Rosalia 11 and Lucia. 12 The Lower East Side and the 13 surrounding areas were decimated. Even in my 14 youth, many years later, the elderly men and 15 women would speak of the fire, and many of the 16 women, as was the custom of the '30s and '40s, 17 were still dressed in black from that fire. 18 As I said earlier, as we complain 19 about some of the troubles that we go through, 20 we should think back of the sacrifices of those 21 early immigrants. The diseases, the scourges, 22 that took so many of them that I remember as a 23 young man, scarlet fever, diphtheria, TB, 1403 1 whooping cough, all that took youngsters and 2 took young babies. 3 This fire was a tragic 4 occurrence. It took many of the young women 5 from the neighborhood. We can think of these 6 families like my grandfather's family with two 7 young sons that in the morning had a wife and 8 two sisters and by evening no longer had a 9 family, of the months afterwards that it took 10 the surviving relatives to identify the bodies 11 by pieces of jewelry. 12 Mr. President. Some of those 13 conditions were corrected by sweeping labor laws 14 and sweeping fire laws. The Triangle fire 15 should be remembered. Its victims should be 16 remembered. But we should remember them even 17 more importantly by revising and taking care 18 that such a tragedy could not occur again. 19 Mr. President, I recommend the 20 adoption of this resolution. 21 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Senator 22 Leichter on the resolution. 23 SENATOR LEICHTER: Mr. 1404 1 President. I did not know this resolution was 2 going to be on, and I came in and heard the very 3 moving statements by my good friend Senator 4 Maltese and to bring to our mind a very 5 important historical and very shocking event 6 that occurred in New York. 7 I just wanted to add one thing to 8 it, Senator Maltese, and that is, as you and I 9 know and I think as most people in this chamber 10 know, we have sweatshops right now. And it 11 shocked me some years ago when I went and 12 noticed in my district, which was then northern 13 Manhattan, signs up for sewing operators. And I 14 was interested. I saw so many of these. 15 So I went into one of these 16 places. One was on the second floor of a 17 taxpayer and another one was in a 18 superintendent's apartment and I realized the 19 sweatshops were back. And I did some studies - 20 this was in 1982-1983 -- issued a report that 21 showed that there are probably more persons 22 working under sweatshop conditions now, or at 23 least then, than there were when the shirtwaist 1405 1 fire occurred. 2 I do want to acknowledge that 3 some action has been taken by the Legislature. 4 I think the Department of Labor has recently 5 done a good job in inspecting these premises, 6 but let's be aware that we still have that 7 problem. Some 70 or 80 years I guess since this 8 great tragedy occurred, a similar tragedy could 9 occur. So it's not just enough to recognize 10 what occurred and to honor those who lost their 11 lives but also to understand that we have a 12 responsibility to see that these conditions 13 which exist now are eliminated. 14 So thanks you very much, Senator 15 Maltese, for that resolution. 16 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: On the 17 resolution. All those in favor, say aye. 18 ((Response of "Aye.") 19 Those opposed, nay. 20 (There was no response. ) 21 The resolution is adopted. 22 Senator Maltese has indicated 23 that resolution is open to anybody who wishes to 1406 1 sponsor it, so please let the desk know. 2 Senators Ohrenstein, Padavan, Markowitz, 3 Leichter, Marchi, DeFrancisco, Pataki, Solomon, 4 Trunzo. 5 Senator Present. 6 SENATOR PRESENT: Mr. President. 7 Would you recognize Senator Marchi, please, and 8 then following that, Senator Mega. 9 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Senator 10 Marchi and then Senator Mega. 11 Senator Marchi. 12 SENATOR MARCHI: Mr. President. 13 There is a resolution at the desk. I request 14 that it be read in its entirety, and I will 15 speak briefly to it. 16 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: 17 Secretary will read Senator Marchi's resolution 18 in its entirety. 19 THE SECRETARY: Legislative 20 Resolution Number 833, by Senators Marchi and 21 Espada, honoring the memory of police officer 22 Luis Lopez of Staten Island, who was killed 23 while on duty as an undercover narcotics 1407 1 officer. 2 Whereas, this legislative body 3 has learned with sorrow of the death on 4 Wednesday, March 10, 1993, of Luis Lopez, 35, of 5 Staten Island, a much decorated undercover 6 narcotics officer who was killed, investigators 7 said, during the course of an effort to catch 8 suspected drug dealers in the act of selling ten 9 pounds of marijuana. 10 Luis Lopez was an extraordinary 11 police professional who brought to his work a 12 fierce determination to curb the havoc wrought 13 upon his community by illegal drug sales. 14 Officer Lopez, up to and 15 including the moment of his death at the hands 16 of a gunman during a buy and bust operation in 17 East Village of Manhattan, had pursued one of 18 the most distinguished careers in police annals. 19 His tragic passing made him the 20 first New York City police officer killed in the 21 line of duty in 1993. 22 Officer Lopez earned numerous 23 commendations and awards from his superiors 1408 1 during his eight-year tenure with the police 2 department. Community Board 1 of Staten Island 3 named him "police rookie of the year" for his 4 successful struggles against drug dealers. The 5 Staten Island Advance designated him "Advance 6 police officer of the month" in 1989, and the 7 Staten Island Chamber of Commerce named him the 8 chamber's officer of the year the same year. 9 Officer Lopez' performance won 10 him assignment in 1989 to the elite Organized 11 Crime Control Bureau's Manhattan South Narcotics 12 Unit. 13 This outstanding policeman earned 14 a reputation as one who could speak effectively 15 to young people about drugs and crime and one 16 who knew virtually all of the young persons in 17 the many crime-ridden neighborhoods. 18 In a profession and police force 19 in which extreme bravery is routine, Mr. Lopez 20 enjoyed a reputation for uncommon valor, 21 repeatedly entering neighborhoods and locations 22 brimming with danger. Pursuing suspected drug 23 dealers fleeing apprehension in automobiles down 1409 1 darkened streets, closing in on armed men 2 believed to be trafficking in illegal narcotics, 3 Officer Lopez well exemplified Ernest 4 Hemingway's definition of living life all the 5 way up, practicing his perilous profession with 6 courage and grace. 7 He was a model familyman who was 8 blessed with the love and support of his wife 9 Nellie and their two children Luis, Jr., 14 and 10 Tina 13, to whom the hearts and prayers of all 11 decent New Yorkers go in overflowing measure. 12 Because it is the custom of this 13 legislative body to pay tribute to the 14 individuals who perform extraordinary services 15 in behalf of the common good of the people of 16 this state and because the life of Officer Luis 17 Lopez is more than worthy of official state 18 recognition; now therefore be it. 19 Resolved, that this legislative 20 body pause in its deliberations and reflect on 21 the immeasurable good done by this peerless 22 police professional and declare its profound 23 thanks for his contributions and those of all 1410 1 men and women who battle daily against the 2 depraved individuals who commit crimes against 3 society, especially those who prey on young 4 people and all others vulnerable to addiction or 5 already trapped in the horror of drug 6 dependency; and be it further 7 Resolved, that the life and 8 records of Police Officer Luis Lopez cut short 9 by the killer's bullets while he was in the line 10 of duty be forever recalled and appreciated by 11 the people of New York State; and be it further 12 Resolved, that copies of this 13 resolution, suitably engrossed, be transmitted 14 to Mrs. Lopez and the two Lopez children. 15 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Senator 16 Marchi on the resolution. 17 SENATOR MARCHI: Mr. President. 18 Our agenda of privileged resolutions have 19 touched on -- this is the second inflicted 20 wound, self-inflicted wound that people have 21 suffered. And I speak of the many victims of 22 the insidious effects of drugs and their 23 presence on the streets and the availability of 1411 1 them, and then we have this fine young police 2 officer who has been defined as an individual 3 with uncommon valor, receiving numerous 4 citations in recognition for the service he 5 rendered within a relatively brief period, eight 6 years. 7 Within eight years, this man had 8 done so much, and then he laid down his life. 9 Whether that is an act that was made in vain, we 10 know that it was not in vain. But it also needs 11 to be recognized as we approach the problem not 12 in response to laying down our lives necessarily 13 but where we can be effective in this war on 14 drugs. 15 We have been discussing this 16 across the chamber on prevention programs, on 17 their availability to the harsh disciplines of 18 restricted revenues, of creating a better 19 climate, exhorting a greater sense of values, 20 all of these factors give us an opportunity to 21 enrich and to respond to the giving and 22 sacrificing of a life in the defense of values 23 that no reasonable person can possibly argue 1412 1 with. 2 So this young man was only with 3 us in the service of law enforcement for a brief 4 period, eight years and, as the resolution 5 pointed out, leaving a family, a loving wife 6 Nellie, and two children, young children, at a 7 very tender age with this grief and our 8 response, which I am certain is natural, 9 inevitable and heartfelt, our expression of 10 condolences to Nellie Lopez and her family. 11 So that we can in our future 12 deliberations, hopefully, do as much as we can 13 to give added meaning to the sacrifice that this 14 exemplary hero offered, and that he not only 15 served it by laying down his life against those 16 who would raise a clenched fist against the 17 well-being pf children and people that live in 18 our city but also in providing a generating 19 force for the enrichment of lives in that city 20 by the example that he set for all of us. 21 Mr. President, I move the 22 resolution. 23 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: On the 1413 1 resolution. All those in favor, say aye. 2 (Response of "Aye.") 3 Those opposed, nay. 4 (There was no response. ) 5 The resolution is adopted. 6 Senator Mega. 7 SENATOR GALIBER: Is the 8 resolution open for others? 9 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Senator 10 Marchi. 11 SENATOR MARCHI: It most 12 certainly is. 13 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Would 14 you raise your hand. 15 SENATOR MARCHI: And I was 16 focusing on the content, but Senators Espada and 17 Mega have joined me, and certainly we would 18 welcome any names that wish to be added to the 19 resolution. 20 SENATOR MEGA: Mr. President. On 21 the resolution. 22 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: On the 23 resolution. I'm sorry, Senator Mega. 1414 1 SENATOR MEGA: Yes. I wasn't 2 going to speak to the resolution. Senator 3 Marchi did such an outstanding job. But I think 4 it might be the right thing to do as far as this 5 house is concerned if every member was placed on 6 that resolution so that the wife and the two 7 children could see that as a body we're 8 supportive of the contents. 9 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: That is 10 up to the acting Majority Leader and the 11 Minority Leader. 12 SENATOR GOLD: No problem. 13 SENATOR PRESENT: Fine. 14 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: We 15 don't normally do that but, unless there is any 16 objection, if there is somebody who does not 17 want to be on it, you are going to have to 18 approach the desk, otherwise all members of the 19 Legislature will be on that resolution. 20 Senator Mega, did you have 21 another motion or something? 22 SENATOR MEGA: Yes. To the 23 mundane business of the house. On behalf of the 1415 1 sponsor, Senator Johnson, place a sponsor star 2 on Calendar Number 249. 3 On behalf of Senator Skelos, 4 Calendar Number 125, Senate Print 1984, please 5 place a sponsor's star. 6 Thank you. 7 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Without 8 objection. 9 Senator Montgomery. 10 SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, Mr. 11 President. Unfortunately, I was not in the 12 house yesterday at session during the time that 13 there was a vote taken on Calendar Number 233. 14 I was at a hearing, and I could not get away. 15 But had I been in the house, I would have voted 16 no on that. I would like the record to show. 17 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: The 18 record will so show that that would be the case. 19 Senator Markowitz. 20 SENATOR MARKOWITZ: Yes. I, too, 21 would -- had I been here -- which I was here, 22 but as you know, it was a very busy afternoon 23 and we didn't exactly start on time, of 1416 1 course -- I would have voted in the negative on 2 Calendar Number 233, Senate 1843. Definitely 3 would have voted in the negative. 4 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Senator 5 Markowitz if he had been here, as he was here, 6 would have voted no. The record so indicates. 7 We have a Senator Paterson 8 resolution, Senator Present. Is it all right to 9 adopt that? 10 SENATOR PRESENT: Can we take 11 that up later when Senator Paterson is here? 12 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: O.K. 13 SENATOR PRESENT: I think only in 14 fairness to him. 15 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: O.K. 16 SENATOR PRESENT: So let's 17 proceed with the non-controversial calendar. 18 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: 19 Non-controversial. 20 THE SECRETARY: On page 21, 21 Calendar Number 212, by Senator Larkin, Senate 22 Bill Number 2150, an act to amend the Social 23 Services Law, requiring operators of homeless 1417 1 facilities to conduct outstanding warrant 2 checks. 3 SENATOR GOLD: Lay it aside. 4 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Lay it 5 aside. 6 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 7 235. 8 SENATOR GOLD: Lay it aside. 9 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Lay it 10 aside. 11 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 12 236, by Senator Volker, Senate Bill Number 2420, 13 an act to amend the Penal Law, in relation to 14 aggravated assault upon a police officer. 15 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Read 16 the last section. 17 THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This 18 act shall take effect immediately. 19 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Call 20 the roll. 21 (The Secretary called the roll. ) 22 THE SECRETARY: Ayes 57. 23 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: The 1418 1 bill is passed. 2 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 3 237, by Senator Volker, Senate Bill Number - 4 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Lay it 5 aside. 6 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 7 238, by Senator Tully. 8 SENATOR PRESENT: Lay it aside. 9 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Lay it 10 aside. For the day, did you say? 11 SENATOR PRESENT: Yes. 12 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: For the 13 day. 14 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 15 24, by Senator Skelos, Senate Bill Number 29B, 16 an act to amend the Penal Law, in relation to 17 carjacking. 18 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Read 19 the last section. 20 SENATOR LEICHTER: Lay it aside. 21 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: 22 Withdraw the roll call. Lay it aside. 23 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 1419 1 243, by Senator Trunzo, Senate Bill Number 1767, 2 civil service law. 3 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Read 4 the last section. 5 THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This 6 act shall take effect immediately. 7 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Call 8 the roll. 9 (The Secretary called the roll. ) 10 THE SECRETARY: Ayes 57. 11 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: The 12 bill is passed. 13 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 14 244, by Senator Trunzo, Senate Bill Number 2964, 15 Retirement and Social Security Law, in relation 16 to salary reductions. 17 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Read 18 the last section. 19 THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This 20 act shall take effect immediately. 21 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Call 22 the roll. 23 (The Secretary called the roll. ) 1420 1 THE SECRETARY: Ayes 56. Nays 2 1. Senator Kuhl recorded in the negative. 3 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: The 4 bill is passed. 5 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 6 245, by Senator Trunzo, Senate Bill Number 3512, 7 an act to amend the Civil Service Law, in 8 relation to providing civil service status to - 9 SENATOR GOLD: Lay it aside. 10 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Lay it 11 aside. 12 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 13 246, by Senator Trunzo, Senate Bill Number 3520, 14 Education Law, in relation to orders made in 15 matrimonial and support actions. 16 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Read 17 the last section. 18 THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This 19 act shall take effect immediately. 20 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Call 21 the roll. 22 (The Secretary called the roll. ) 23 THE SECRETARY: Ayes 51. 1421 1 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: The 2 bill is passed. 3 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 4 247, by Senator Stafford, Senate Bill Number 5 437, Environmental Conservation Law. 6 SENATOR ONORATO: Lay it aside. 7 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Lay 8 that bill aside. 9 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 10 248, by Senator Daly, Senate Bill Number 1095, 11 Environmental Conservation Law. 12 SENATOR GOLD: Lay it aside. 13 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Lay 14 that bill aside. 15 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 16 250, by member of the Assembly Connelly, 17 Assembly Bill Number 3778, an act to amend 18 Chapter 395 of the Laws of 1978, relating to 19 moratoriums on the issuance of certificates of 20 environmental safety. 21 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Read 22 the last section. 23 THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This 1422 1 act shall take effect immediately. 2 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Call 3 the roll. 4 (The Secretary called the roll. ) 5 THE SECRETARY: Ayes 52. 6 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: The 7 bill is passed. 8 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 9 251, by Senator Cook. 10 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Lay it 11 aside. 12 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 13 252, by Senator Trunzo, Senate Bill Number 2558, 14 Environmental Conservation Law, in relation to 15 used oil disposal kits. 16 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Read 17 the last section. 18 THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This 19 act shall take effect immediately. 20 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Call 21 the roll. 22 (The Secretary called the roll. ) 23 THE SECRETARY: Ayes 52. 1423 1 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: The 2 bill is passed. 3 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 4 253, by Senator Trunzo, Senate Bill Number 2563, 5 repeal certain provisions of the Environmental 6 Conservation Law. 7 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Read 8 the last section. 9 THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This 10 act shall take effect immediately. 11 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Call 12 the roll. 13 (The Secretary called the roll. ) 14 THE SECRETARY: Ayes 52. 15 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: The 16 bill is passed. 17 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 18 254, by Senator Cook, Senate Bill Number 3271A, 19 Environmental Conservation Law. 20 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Read 21 the last section. 22 THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This 23 act shall take effect immediately. 1424 1 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Call 2 the roll. 3 (The Secretary called the roll. ) 4 THE SECRETARY: Ayes 52. 5 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: The 6 bill is passed. 7 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 8 255, by Senator Johnson. 9 SENATOR GOLD: Lay it aside. 10 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Lay the 11 bill aside. 12 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 13 256, by Senator Present, Senate Bill Number 14 2108, Insurance Law. 15 SENATOR GOLD: Lay it aside. 16 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Lay the 17 bill aside. 18 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 19 261, by Senator Velella, Senate Bill Number 20 3156, an acted to amend the Insurance Law. 21 SENATOR GOLD: Lay it aside for 22 Senator Solomon, please. 23 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Lay it 1425 1 aside. 2 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 3 263, by Senator Hannon, Senate Bill Number 3420, 4 amend Chapter 915 of the Laws of 1982, amending 5 the Public Authorities Law. 6 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Read 7 the last section. 8 THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This 9 act shall take effect immediately. 10 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Call 11 the roll. 12 (The Secretary called the roll. ) 13 THE SECRETARY: Ayes 52. 14 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: The 15 bill is passed. 16 Senator Present, that's the first 17 time through. 18 SENATOR PRESENT: Mr. President. 19 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Senator 20 Present. 21 SENATOR PRESENT: May we take up 22 Senator Paterson's resolution at this time? 23 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Senator 1426 1 Paterson's resolution. Would the Secretary read 2 the title. 3 Senator Present, could we lay it 4 aside for a moment. The desk needs to get - 5 it's not quite ready yet. It's coming right 6 back in a moment, and I see Senator Paterson on 7 the scene. 8 SENATOR PRESENT: Let's go to the 9 controversial calendar, and we'll pick it up. 10 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Thank 11 you. We can return to that. Controversial - 12 We have the resolution. Senator 13 Paterson's resolution. Would you read the title 14 please. 15 THE SECRETARY: Legislative 16 Resolution, by Senator Paterson, commemorating 17 the 100th Anniversary of St. Paul Baptist Church 18 of Harlem, New York, to be celebrated on Sunday, 19 March 28th, 1993. 20 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: On the 21 resolution, all those in favor, aye. 22 (Response of "Aye.") 23 Those opposed, nay. 1427 1 (There was no response. ) 2 Senator Paterson's resolution is 3 adopted. 4 Controversial. 5 THE SECRETARY: On page 21, 6 Calendar Number 212, by Senator Larkin, Senate 7 Bill Number 2150, an act to amend the Social 8 Services Law. 9 SENATOR GOLD: Explanation. 10 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: 11 Explanation. Senator Larkin. 12 SENATOR LARKIN: Mr. President. 13 This bill was introduced at the request of our 14 communities that surround Camp LaGuardia. Camp 15 LaGuardia is a shelter for men from New York 16 City that's been active for a number of years. 17 It normally had a capacity of 1,051. And up 18 until about three years ago, there were never 19 more than 500 people at the camp. 20 At that time, the average age of 21 the person at the camp was in the mid-50s. The 22 last three years, the age of the individuals 23 arriving at the camp is between 28 and 32. This 1428 1 new influx of individuals we have found are 2 nothing more than troublemakers. They are a 3 nuisance to the camp and a nuisance to the 4 surrounding communities. 5 We have worked very hard with the 6 city of New York Human Resource Administration 7 to ask them to provide criminal checks before 8 the individuals are sent to Camp LaGuardia. 9 They have been saying for a year and a half that 10 they were going to start something. They have 11 not, and they have failed to do it. 12 Constantly, our courts in the 13 towns of -- Chester, the village of Chester, the 14 village of Washingtonville, village of Blooming 15 Grove, town and village of Monroe, their courts 16 are clogged with individuals from Camp 17 LaGuardia. 18 During the period July '89 to 19 April of '90, 64 residents were found to have 20 outstanding warrants against them of crimes that 21 ranged from murder/rape to armed robbery. We 22 have a litany of the crimes of these 23 individuals. We have tried our best to have a 1429 1 working agreement with the Human Resource 2 Administration. And their answers are 3 continually, "We're going to work on it." 4 Just yesterday, there was a raid 5 at the camp by State Police and New York City 6 police. I would like to read a part of it for 7 you, Senator Gold. 8 They arrested seven individuals 9 yesterday for outstanding warrants for armed 10 robbery, attempted murder, drugs. Some of these 11 individuals had an arrest record, according to 12 the State Police, as long as your arm. The city 13 of New York Police Department doesn't object to 14 making the checks. The State Police feel for 15 the safety of the area that they should be 16 done. 17 We are only asking for normal 18 protection for the individuals in our 19 community. The community is alerted. They have 20 gone to the court to give the Callahan-Carey 21 consent and ask for relief. There were 1300 22 signatures sent to Judge Schuyler, who is now 23 looking at it. We feel that our people that 1430 1 surround the community, the community that 2 surrounds the camp, should be afforded the same 3 safety and protection that any other area is 4 entitled to. 5 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Senator 6 Gold. 7 SENATOR GOLD: Yes. Will Senator 8 yield to a question? 9 SENATOR LARKIN: Yes, Senator. 10 SENATOR GOLD: Senator, you said 11 that yesterday there was a raid and they were 12 able to apprehend seven people who had warrants 13 against them. 14 SENATOR LARKIN: Yes, sir. 15 SENATOR GOLD: I take it they 16 were able to do that legally and without this 17 legislation. Is that correct? 18 SENATOR LARKIN: It was initiated 19 by the city of New York, finally, sir. It's a 20 one-time incident. 21 SENATOR GOLD: But, Senator - 22 Mr. President. Senator, I gather they did it 23 legally, and they did it without this 1431 1 legislation. Isn't that correct? 2 SENATOR LARKIN: Yes, Senator. 3 But my answer to you also has to be followed up 4 with why should we be involving the local State 5 Police to make a raid on a camp? Had these 6 individuals been checked before they were sent 7 to Camp LaGuardia, we wouldn't have this dual 8 action of bringing New York City police officers 9 all the way from New York City, 75 miles up the 10 road, to enjoin with the State Police. 11 As a matter of fact, the captain 12 of the State Police said it would be easier for 13 all around if the City had arrested the 14 individuals before they came to camp. 15 SENATOR GOLD: Mr. President. 16 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Senator 17 Gold. 18 SENATOR GOLD: I would just like 19 to point out to the members that there is a 20 memorandum in opposition from the New York State 21 Catholic Conference. And if I could just read 22 the one short paragraph, I think it's very clear 23 as to the basis of their opposition. 1432 1 "The New York State Catholic 2 Conference considers this legislation ill 3 advised since this stigmatizes homeless families 4 and individuals as potential criminals requiring 5 outstanding warrantships. Homelessness is a 6 serious problem in our state. It disrupts the 7 lives of thousands of our fellow citizens. 8 "The experience of homelessness 9 is devastating enough by the loss of 10 self-esteem, loss of privacy, and significant 11 obstacles it presents to full participation in 12 our society. To add the insinuation of 13 criminality to homelessness, undermines respect 14 for the human dignity of those who find 15 themselves homeless." 16 On that basis, they ask that it 17 be defeated. 18 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Senator 19 Waldon. 20 SENATOR WALDON: Thank you very 21 much, Mr. President. My colleagues. 22 Would Senator Larkin yield to a 23 question? 1433 1 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Senator 2 Larkin. 3 SENATOR LARKIN: Yes. 4 SENATOR WALDON: Senator, can you 5 tell us the percentage of women who are heads of 6 households who are amongst the homeless? 7 SENATOR LARKIN: Mr. President. 8 I can't hear him. 9 SENATOR WALDON: Senator, can you 10 tell us the percentage - 11 SENATOR LARKIN: Not you. All 12 these other people. 13 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Senator 14 Waldon. Apparently there's too many 15 conversations going on in the chamber, and I 16 would ask that you please hold your 17 conversations outside the chamber. 18 Senator Waldon, you have the 19 floor. 20 SENATOR WALDON: Thank you very 21 much, Mr. President. Senator Larkin, can you 22 please tell us the percentage of women who are 23 heads of households who are amongst the 1434 1 homeless? 2 SENATOR LARKIN: No, this is a 3 men's shelter. 4 SENATOR WALDON: This bill only 5 applies to men? 6 SENATOR LARKIN: This shelter 7 that we're referring this matter to. 8 I don't know how many in the New 9 York City shelters are women. No, I don't. 10 We're informed that there are 7,000 people in 11 the shelters of New York City. One-seventh of 12 them are in Orange County at Camp LaGuardia. 13 SENATOR WALDON: My question 14 again, sir -- Mr. President, if I may -- is what 15 percentage of women who are single parent heads 16 of households are amongst the homeless? 17 SENATOR LARKIN: I don't know. 18 SENATOR WALDON: Let me state, 19 then, Mr. President, if I may continue. 20 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Yes. 21 SENATOR WALDON: It is my 22 understanding that the overwhelming majority are 23 women. Would your bill apply to women equally 1435 1 as it does to men? 2 SENATOR LARKIN: Senator Waldon, 3 the bill is very clear that this pertains to a 4 check before individuals are sent to a shelter. 5 It originally was designed for only our facility 6 at Camp LaGuardia. But after listening to other 7 people, the bill was written broadly enough to 8 cover everything. 9 We are not only talking about the 10 safety of the individuals that live around the 11 camp. We are talking about the safety and 12 security of people in the shelter. We don't 13 want women in those shelters to be abused nor do 14 we want men who are in those shelters to be 15 abused. 16 The specific point that I cited 17 which was the basis of our legislation was the 18 tremendous problem we're having in Orange 19 County. 20 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Senator 21 Waldon. 22 SENATOR WALDON: Thank you, 23 Senator Larkin. 1436 1 If I may, Mr. President, is it 2 appropriate now to speak on the bill? 3 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: 4 Certainly. 5 SENATOR WALDON: Thank you. 6 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: You 7 have the floor. 8 SENATOR WALDON: Senator Larkin, 9 the point that I was trying to elicit from you 10 which would help us in our deliberations is that 11 this bill would disparately impact women, women 12 who are mother, single parent, heads of 13 household, and children, simply because it 14 stigmatizes them because they must first submit 15 to this search which would, in a financial 16 sense, burden the state, but would further 17 discriminate against them. 18 And it is my understanding from 19 visiting the shelters, Senator Larkin and my 20 colleagues, that no one really wants to be 21 there. It is not a choice situation. They have 22 no other choice. 23 And I think for those who are on 1437 1 the lowest rung of the ladder, who are looped 2 together and locked together as the dregs of 3 society, to drag them through this other 4 screening process is unnecessary and is a waste 5 of governmental time and governmental money. 6 And based upon that, I would 7 encourage all of my colleagues to vote in the 8 negative on this issue. 9 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Senator 10 Oppenheimer. 11 SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: I'm very 12 distressed about this, also. I can relate what 13 occurs in my county as far as the numbers that 14 were requested. The number of women and 15 children that are homeless in the county of 16 Westchester are about 75 percent of our homeless 17 population. We have tried very hard to work 18 with the homeless population and have made great 19 gains, I would say. We are doing our utmost to 20 help them become self-sufficient, and they are 21 very, very receptive. 22 I feel this population certainly, 23 were they able, would find the housing and pay 1438 1 the rent and be delighted. This population 2 needs to be supported through education, through 3 job training, through skills development. They 4 do not need to be maligned, and I'm very much 5 opposed to this bill. 6 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: I got 7 Senator Leichter, then Padavan, and then 8 Dollinger. I'm going to start getting a list 9 here, I think. 10 SENATOR LEICHTER: Mr. 11 President. I am really amazed to find a bill 12 like that. It is one of the most mean-spirited 13 bills that I have seen in many a year. Narrow 14 minded. It displays the hostility that people 15 who live in areas where maybe they are not 16 always brought in touch with some of the 17 problems that exist in our society, and then to 18 dump in this way upon the people who are really 19 the most unfortunate in our society that we 20 ought to have some compassion for and to have 21 this sort of a bill -- this is the sort of a 22 bill you would expect in a police state. 23 It probably would be 1439 1 unconstitutional. What basis is there, saying 2 if you're homeless, you are going to be subject 3 to this sort of a check? Also, the bill doesn't 4 work. I mean it makes no sense. Do you know 5 who comes to these homeless shelters comes at 6 10:00 o'clock at night. Are you going to run a 7 police check on them and say, "No, until we get 8 that police check back in 48 hours or 72 hours, 9 you stay out in the cold, you and your 10 children." 11 I mean really, what are we about? 12 I would like to see you put up a bill, Senator 13 Larkin, that deals with homelessness instead of 14 putting out a bill that stigmatizes them, that 15 places this sort of a burden that is so contrary 16 to the principles of our country. 17 I know you get up and you are 18 wonderful on bills for the flag. How about 19 bills that deal with the basic American 20 principles. That, I think, would be maybe a 21 better test of a commitment to the principles of 22 our country. 23 I'm sorry to be so harsh, but I 1440 1 think it's a mean-spirited bill. And if Camp 2 LaGuardia is a problem -- and let me say, some 3 of these homeless shelters are problems. There 4 is no question about it. They can burden a 5 community. We ought to deal with that. 6 I know that many of these people 7 come from the city of New York, which, by the 8 way, is still part of the state of New York, 9 Senator Larkin, and probably provides a great 10 deal of more tax revenue to the state than the 11 district you represent. 12 But, yes, we have an obligation 13 to your community to work with you to try to 14 deal with that. I acknowledge that, but don't 15 do it in this fashion and impose this impossible 16 burden in an effort to try to provide shelter 17 for homeless people. 18 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: All 19 right. We have Senator Padavan next. 20 SENATOR PADAVAN: Thank you, Mr. 21 President. 22 I think there is an aspect of 23 this bill that might cause, Senator Leichter, 1441 1 you to reflect about your statement about it 2 being mean spirited, if you give it some 3 thought. 4 First, the way I read the bill, 5 there is nothing in here that says that you 6 can't admit a family or an individual. It 7 simply says, upon admission, there must be some 8 kind of a check that relates to an outstanding 9 warrant. 10 When I read the reports, some of 11 them done by organizations, some of them done by 12 the City, some of them done by advocates and 13 some of them in our daily newspapers, about 14 workers going out in the train stations, into 15 our parks, on our streets, in the middle of the 16 night, in the middle of the winter, trying to 17 coax people to come into a shelter so they don't 18 freeze to death, or whatever may happen to them, 19 out of the subways, and so on, and one of the 20 things I hear and read most frequently as the 21 reason these poor and certainly in-need 22 individuals give for not wanting to go to the 23 shelter is because they are afraid. 1442 1 They say very directly, by going 2 to that shelter, I'm going to get knifed in the 3 middle of the night. I'm going to have my 4 personal belongings stolen. There's drugs being 5 sold and all kinds of things. 6 Now, obviously, that problem 7 varies from shelter to shelter. Some are run 8 very well. Some are overcrowded, or for other 9 reasons, they are not run well. But I'm simply 10 suggesting to you that you give some thought to 11 the fact that individuals in the shelter are 12 entitled to the same kind of oversight 13 protection as people outside the shelter. 14 And if I were one of those 15 unfortunate people, I would be comforted by the 16 fact that I'm being brought or I'm going to a 17 place where some reasonable effort has been 18 expended to insure that the guy in the bunk next 19 to me doesn't have a warrant out for him for 20 some serious crime of violence. 21 Now, I don't think that's mean 22 spirited. I think it's a very practical fact, 23 and I would urge that, you know, we consider 1443 1 that aspect of what this bill provides. 2 SENATOR GOLD: Mr. President. 3 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Senator 4 Gold, why do you rise? 5 SENATOR GOLD: Will the Senator 6 yield to a question? 7 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Senator 8 Padavan, will you yield? 9 SENATOR PADAVAN: Yes. 10 SENATOR GOLD: Senator, does the 11 New York State Catholic Conference or any of the 12 subdivisions of the Catholic Church run any of 13 these homes? 14 SENATOR PADAVAN: Senator, I'm 15 sure they do. I know they do. The fact remains 16 that they don't run all of them. 17 SENATOR GOLD: Will the Senator- 18 SENATOR PADAVAN: Let me just 19 answer your question more fully. 20 SENATOR GOLD: Surely. 21 SENATOR PADAVAN: I have a great 22 deal of respect for the Catholic Conference, and 23 I certainly have a great deal of empathy for the 1444 1 words contained in that memorandum that you 2 shared with us. 3 But at the same time, I have a 4 great deal of concern for the homeless, many of 5 whom are disabled. At least a third are 6 mentally ill. The committee I chaired put out a 7 report in 1985 called, "Shelters: Sanctuaries 8 of Neglect," and in that report we cited 9 conditions that still exist today; the fact that 10 many of the occupants of these shelters are not 11 receiving proper services, which I acknowledge 12 has already been said, are being imposed upon 13 and, in a sense, threatened by the environment 14 in which they exist. So I'm fully aware of all 15 aspects of the shelter issue. 16 But I repeat again, with all due 17 respect to the Catholic Conference, I think the 18 occupants of those shelters are entitled to some 19 kind of feeling of security, so they will come 20 in out of the cold and not feel endangered while 21 they are doing so. 22 SENATOR GOLD: Mr. President. 23 Will the Senator yield to another question? 1445 1 SENATOR PADAVAN: Sure. 2 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Senator 3 Padavan. 4 SENATOR GOLD: Senator, do you 5 believe that the Catholic Conference or the 6 subdivisions that run these homes share a 7 concern for the safety of the people that they 8 are taking into these shelters and the people 9 that they are urging to come off the streets and 10 live in these homes? 11 SENATOR PADAVAN: I would state 12 very categorically that all sponsors, 13 particularly voluntary, who provide shelters - 14 some of them in church basements, some of them 15 in armories and wherever they may be -- share 16 the concerns that that memorandum embodies. 17 But it doesn't -- it doesn't 18 belie the simple fact that criminal activities 19 have gone on in those shelters. We read about 20 them all the time, and they are not activities 21 of a criminal nature conducted by people from 22 outside the shelters. They are people inside 23 the shelters, and they vary. 1446 1 There are some shelters where 2 they have absolutely no problems at all and some 3 where there are serious problems. And again, I 4 repeat, I share the concerns expressed here. No 5 one wants to stigmatize anybody. No one wants 6 to make a misery even more miserable in any 7 fashion. At the same time, I think these 8 people, these individuals, are entitled to some 9 kind of security. And this bill helps to 10 accomplish that fact. 11 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Senator 12 Dollinger. 13 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Mr. 14 President. Will the sponsor yield to one 15 question? 16 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Senator 17 Larkin, will you yield to Senator Dollinger? 18 SENATOR LARKIN: Yes. 19 SENATOR DOLLINGER: As I 20 understand this, this will apply to any homeless 21 project receiving financial assistance pursuant 22 to this article. My question is, what 23 facilities get assistance pursuant to article, 1447 1 whatever that is, of the Social Service law? 2 What I'm simply trying to do is 3 find out what the scope of this bill is. Is it 4 meant to apply to every homeless shelter in New 5 York State, simply those in New York City, or 6 simply those funded through a particular grant? 7 SENATOR LARKIN: Senator, it's 8 going to pertain to anyone that receives 9 assistance, as spelled out right here. We 10 originally tried to get it to just one specific 11 area. And the partners on the other side - 12 homeless shelters operators said, from the City, 13 that why should they be the lone people being 14 under the watch. Everybody should be. That's 15 why you have everybody included in here. 16 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Again, will 17 my colleague yield to one other question, Mr. 18 President? 19 SENATOR LARKIN: Yes. 20 SENATOR DOLLINGER: So as I 21 understand it, it would apply to any homeless 22 shelter in New York State? That's the intent of 23 the bill? 1448 1 SENATOR LARKIN: Let me read you 2 the purpose. This change would mandate that the 3 city of New York do a warrant check on any 4 person who requests to be placed in a homeless 5 shelter owned by the city of New York and notify 6 the local law enforcement agency of the 7 whereabouts of the applicant if an outstanding 8 warrant exists. 9 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Okay. I'm 10 just trying to understand. Does it apply to the 11 city of Rochester or - 12 SENATOR LARKIN: City of New 13 York. 14 SENATOR DOLLINGER: -- just the 15 city of New York? 16 SENATOR LARKIN: City of New 17 York. 18 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Only to the 19 city of New York? 20 SENATOR LARKIN: Exactly what I 21 just read, Senator. 22 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Okay. Mr. 23 President, if I can be heard. 1449 1 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Senator 2 Dollinger. 3 SENATOR DOLLINGER: If I can be 4 heard on the bill. 5 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: On the 6 bill. 7 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Senator 8 Leichter has stolen, frankly, a portion of what 9 I wanted to talk about. I think there has been 10 an interesting debate about the psychology of 11 the homeless. I'm not sure what the psychology 12 of the homeless is, whether they would visit a 13 shelter more with this protection in place or 14 not. 15 But I'm not so sure, based on 16 Senator Padavan's comments, that anyone who is 17 in the shelter business has come up to us and 18 said that they want this bill. I interpret the 19 Catholic Conference that is in the shelter 20 business as saying that they don't want this 21 bill because of the detrimental impact it would 22 have on the homeless shelter system. 23 And with all due respect to the 1450 1 proponent, I agree with my colleague Senator 2 Leichter. What we're doing is taking homeless 3 shelters and turning them into arrest centers. 4 And I oppose the bill. 5 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Senator 6 Smith. 7 SENATOR SMITH: Thank you, Mr. 8 President. I don't know if any of my colleagues 9 have had the opportunity to visit a homeless 10 shelter. 11 Prior to coming to the Senate 12 about five years ago, I served on something 13 that's called a community planning board and 14 chair of a social services committee. And one 15 of the responsibilities was to also chair an 16 advisory committee for our local shelter, which 17 now happens to be in Senator Santiago's 18 district. 19 People come in, as Senator 20 Leichter said, 10:00, 11:00, 12:00 o'clock at 21 night. They are bussed in at all hours. This 22 bill is virtually impossible to enact. 23 What concerns me even more 1451 1 greatly is the people in the shelter are not 2 always the criminals. Sometimes the streets 3 that they have to walk through and the families 4 that surround them can be more of a criminal 5 than those people, by the racial slurs and the 6 taunting and the throwing of eggs and apples and 7 anything else that's available to them at these 8 people only because they're homeless. 9 Maybe we need to deal with human 10 behavior rather than always taking the other 11 view of burdening those who have even less. 12 It's not oftentimes that I agree with Senator 13 Leichter, and I'm not mean spirited. 14 SENATOR LARKIN: Neither am I. 15 SENATOR SMITH: However, in this 16 instance, I think his comments were very 17 accurate, and I encourage all of my colleagues 18 to please vote against this bill. 19 And I'm also greatly concerned, 20 Senator, since you are not from the city of New 21 York that you take it upon yourself to write 22 bills that dictate to the city of New York. 23 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Senator 1452 1 Connor. 2 SENATOR CONNOR: Thank you, Mr. 3 President. Will Senator Larkin yield to a 4 question? 5 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Senator 6 Larkin, are you still yielding? 7 SENATOR LARKIN: Yes, Senator. 8 SENATOR CONNOR: Thank you, 9 Senator. Senator, as I read the bill, it seems 10 to apply to any facility that gets social 11 services money anywhere in the state. The 12 sponsor's memo talks about New York City. 13 Is it possible that in that 14 revision you referred to at the insistence of 15 the other side where you made the bill apply to 16 the whole statewide social services that you 17 didn't change the sponsor's memo, and it doesn't 18 just apply to New York City? 19 SENATOR LARKIN: The bill is 20 statewide, like I said. 21 SENATOR CONNOR: The bill is 22 statewide. The sponsor's memo says the City. 23 Senator yield to another 1453 1 question? 2 SENATOR LARKIN: Yes. 3 SENATOR CONNOR: Senator, is it 4 envisioned that this warrant check would be run 5 before the person received services and shelter 6 and food? 7 SENATOR LARKIN: Senator, the 8 people in the city of New York whom we discussed 9 this with said they -- if they were required, 10 they wouldn't have any trouble getting them in 11 and then doing the check, as it was mentioned, 12 earlier, that someone comes in at 10:00 or 12:00 13 o'clock at night. According to the people from 14 the Human Resource Administration, the greatest 15 numbers come in during the day. 16 I only can tell you from my 17 observation of one in the City at Borden Avenue, 18 and one at Camp LaGuardia, they didn't feel it 19 would be a major problem to them. 20 SENATOR CONNOR: Okay. Senator, 21 one further question. In my district there's 22 the Catherine Street shelter, and it's been a 23 problem for different reasons. For the borough 1454 1 of Manhattan, it's what they call the EAU, the 2 Emergency Assessment Unit. And for the entire 3 city of New York, evenings and week ends, it is 4 the Emergency Assessment Unit for homeless 5 families. You cannot come in there and apply 6 for shelter unless your kids are with you. 7 People come in -- women come in with infants, 8 children of all ages. People come in with four 9 and five kids. 10 Now, do you envisage that they 11 have to run the warrant check on the mother or 12 do they have to run it on the kids, as well, 13 because they are seeking shelter? How would that 14 work, Senator? 15 SENATOR LARKIN: Senator, they 16 could just run the check on the family, on the 17 person that -- the person that is requesting the 18 assistance. 19 SENATOR CONNOR: And you wouldn't 20 be concerned that maybe the 14-year-old child 21 had a warrant out? 22 SENATOR LARKIN: I feel that 23 according to the discussions with the city of 1455 1 New York Police, they wouldn't have this much of 2 a problem. I think we are making it more of a 3 problem here than the agencies that are going to 4 have to do the work seem to think there is a 5 problem. 6 SENATOR CONNOR: Thank you, 7 Senator. On the bill. 8 Mr. President. Let me tell you 9 about that EAU at Catherine Street. I visited 10 there a few weeks ago. There were literally 400 11 -- and it's an office. It's not a shelter. 12 There's a shelter upstairs, a category 3 13 shelter, that's a different facility. 14 The EAU are offices, and they had 15 400 people crowded in there on a freezing Friday 16 night with no prospects of shelter. I saw three 17 infants to a crib in a hallway. A six-month 18 pregnant woman sleeping on a floor in an office, 19 and she had been there for ten days sleeping on 20 that floor. The only meals people were given 21 were packaged cheese sandwiches, sealed 22 packages, with cockroaches running around inside 23 before the seal was broken. 1456 1 To say the City will have no 2 problems running these checks is ridiculous. It 3 had a problem finding shelter for those 400 4 people. People had been there. This is 5 supposed to be -- the theory of the EAU is you 6 walk in, you fill out papers. You have your 7 kids with you. You hand it in, and within 24 8 hours they find you permanent shelter. That's 9 the theory. 10 The practice is people wait three 11 and four weeks in the office. Because if you 12 leave, they throw your papers out. If you 13 leave, they assume you are not homeless any 14 more. You must have somewhere to go. 15 That meant people had to show up 16 with their children and their infants and fight 17 over a reception area chair or couch. I saw a 18 family of six living on a reception couch for 19 two weeks. And, as I say, if you leave, they 20 assume, well, you are not homeless, you have 21 somewhere to go, and you are out. So you have 22 to stay there in this building. 23 The morning I visited there, nine 1457 1 children were rushed to the hospital by 2 emergency services that day with high fever, 3 vomiting, et cetera, other symptoms. The health 4 is abysmal there. People are literally 5 crowded. They are sleeping on floors, wall to 6 wall on floors in office hallways, in office 7 reception areas, sleeping on desks in offices. 8 I don't believe the city can 9 manage a warrant check on people who apply for 10 shelter. They can't even manage giving them 11 shelter. They can't even manage giving them a 12 decent meal. They are overwhelmed with it. 13 And the fact is while most people 14 show up in the daytime, the big influx when the 15 weather is bad is in the evening. 16 My own parish puts up homeless 17 all winter in the church basement, eighteen 18 people every night. Would they be -- who is 19 going to run this warrant check? Who has the 20 computers? Maybe it's better now, and I'll let 21 some people who have done criminal law more 22 recently than me -- but I remember waiting in 23 criminal court for an arraignment two days for a 1458 1 warrant check to come back for somebody who was 2 in a cell there. Three days. 3 Senator Galiber tells me it's 4 changed now. It's five days. If we can't get a 5 warrant check done on a prisoner in five days, 6 how do we expect to get a warrant check done on 7 a homeless person? I mean are we going to let 8 him have a cup of soup until the warrant check 9 comes back? They'll starve in the meantime; 10 they'll freeze in the meantime. And they won't 11 go for shelter because they won't get 12 assistance. They won't get a placement in 13 permanent shelter or even temporary medium range 14 shelter accommodations -- they won't get it in 15 any timely fashion. 16 And these assessment units -- as 17 I say, the one in my district is for families. 18 There are others for homeless men and others for 19 homeless women without children. The one in my 20 district is for families. To think that people 21 who come in there with three and four children, 22 you've got to have a warrant check on them 23 before you place them in shelter is absolutely 1459 1 absurd. They will be hanging around that 2 assessment office sleeping on floors, and I 3 wouldn't describe to you the condition of the 4 bathrooms. 5 By the way, those 400 people were 6 there for three and four weeks, and there is no 7 shower in that facility. No shower. No place 8 to take a shower. One woman told me she left to 9 get a shower at a friend's apartment, and they 10 declared her not homeless because she had 11 somewhere to go. So she lost her six days of 12 waiting and had to start all over with her three 13 children. No shower. Three and four weeks 14 families sleeping on floors with no shower, no 15 shelter. That's what it's really like. 16 The City can no more do a warrant 17 check in a timely fashion on them. And I don't 18 know why we would want to do that to people like 19 that in such desperate straits. I just don't 20 understand it. 21 You know, it's one thing to say 22 -- what is the answer to safety in a shelter? 23 More security. When I visited that, the 1460 1 precinct notified me. There was a near riot 2 there. Why was there a near riot there? Why 3 wouldn't there be with 400 and some people 4 sleeping on floors in an office with children, 5 three infants to a tiny little crib. Most of 6 the infants had no cribs. There were three 7 cribs in the hallway, and they had three infants 8 each in them, so that's nine infants. There 9 were far more infants there than that with 10 nowhere to sleep. 11 That's what it's really like when 12 you go into these places. Why wouldn't there be 13 a near riot? And there was one security guard on 14 duty. And I talked to the union representative 15 for the security guards. Their answer was, We 16 need more security guards. 17 The HRA people behind the -- it's 18 a bank-like enclosure, you know, bulletproof 19 glass. And, by the way, you don't get into any 20 of these facilities in the City without going 21 through a metal detector. There is security. 22 But there aren't enough security guards. There 23 aren't enough resources applied to this need. 1461 1 To say people in the shelters who 2 need it would feel safer if the warrant checks 3 were done, sure. I would feel safer when I walk 4 down the street if I knew a warrant check was 5 run on everybody who applied for a driver's 6 license or a car registration. I mean think 7 about it. 8 Maybe we ought to do that to your 9 constituents, Senator Larkin. Before they can 10 get a driver's license they have to have a 11 warrant check run on them. Before you can 12 register a car, you ought to have a warrant 13 check run on you. Before they can buy a 14 shotgun, they ought to have a warrant check run 15 on them. 16 Maybe we ought to do that. I 17 would feel a lot safer in this state if I knew 18 that outside the city of New York you couldn't 19 buy a shotgun without a warrant check run on 20 you. I would feel very, very safe, and I think 21 we owe that to all of our citizens, the homeless 22 and those with homes. 23 Why not do that? Why pick on 1462 1 poor people and say, oh, we got to do a warrant 2 check on them. They may be criminals, you know? 3 Maybe we ought to do a warrant -- I mean look. 4 I'd feel safer at a baseball game if I knew 5 everybody before they could get in the stadium 6 had a warrant check done on them. Maybe we owe 7 that to people who go out. We owe that to our 8 kids. Right? 9 And I think we ought to do a 10 warrant check before you can park your car in an 11 underground parking garage. I think that would 12 be a very good thing to do. I think that would 13 be very important. What could be better for 14 security, as Senator Goodman can testify from 15 his hearings. 16 Before you park your car, they 17 can run a warrant check. I bet the technology 18 is there to do it. And, you know, if you put 19 the burden on the parking garage operator who is 20 making a lot of money, I'll bet they will do it 21 in a timely fashion. 22 Senator, this is not practical. 23 You are answering a perceived fear in your 1463 1 community, and I'm telling you it's just not 2 practical. So many of the homeless are women 3 with children. The City can't even find them 4 food and shelter in days and days time. To 5 think that they have to go through a warrant 6 check first is just not realistic. 7 And the fact is, if you're 8 worried about a dangerous fugitive, of course, 9 it's one of the places the police check. If the 10 person fits the profile of a homeless person, 11 they do check the shelters for dangerous 12 people. But to think you have to run a warrant 13 check on everybody who applies, there are tens 14 of thousands of people who apply for shelter, 15 and a lot of them are women and children. 16 I'm against this bill. 17 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Senator 18 Galiber, and then Senator Gold. 19 SENATOR GALIBER: I know you are 20 not mean spirited. Perhaps misguided from time 21 to time, but certainly not mean spirited. 22 Let me ask you. If a situation 23 arises where there is a family who comes up to 1464 1 LaGuardia. Let me withdraw it, and ask a 2 question. I know something of LaGuardia. But 3 is it a family camp or is it a sense of 4 permanency there? Is it someone who is picked up 5 in New York at 2:00 in the morning, then shipped 6 up to Orange County? I don't think that - 7 there is a criteria to get to LaGuardia. 8 SENATOR LARKIN: Senator, Camp 9 LaGuardia is not a family facility. It's a 10 single male facility. They are brought there 11 every day during the day, like usually between 12 10:00 and 12:00, Monday through Friday. 13 SENATOR GALIBER: Okay, fine. 14 Now we have a situation where -- is it just 15 felony warrants that you are talking about or 16 any warrant? 17 SENATOR LARKIN: Felony warrants, 18 sir. 19 SENATOR GALIBER: Felony 20 warrants? Does it say so? 21 SENATOR LARKIN: All of them, 22 sir. 23 SENATOR GALIBER: Beg pardon? 1465 1 SENATOR LARKIN: All warrants. 2 SENATOR GALIBER: All warrants. 3 So it's conceivable that in the city of New York 4 where some perhaps Vietnam veterans who are just 5 not making it -- and I know of your deep concern 6 about veterans in the military and they jump 7 over a turnstile in the city of New York because 8 they are homeless and nobody respected the fact 9 that they are veterans of Vietnam, and they find 10 themselves with a warrant outstanding for 11 jumping a turnstile. And I'm not exaggerating 12 it. You know when we debate these things we 13 like to paint the worst picture in the world. 14 Not so. Minor misdemeanors. The warrants in 15 the city of New York are packed as high as this 16 building, and not the felony warrants and not 17 the ones that the press puts out, the occasional 18 drug user who doesn't show back up in court or 19 whatever the case may be. 20 The bill that you have written 21 here -- and we understand. It's a nice thing to 22 do in terms of the local constituents. I have 23 local constituents, and I find things from time 1466 1 to time that they want to hear, and I do it like 2 all of us do here. Not in my election year, not 3 in my back yard, and a number of other things 4 that go with it, good hometown consumption, but 5 it's not very practical. There's warrants, 6 literally for jumping a turnstile. Any warrant 7 at all. 8 If a family comes in for 9 clearance, and it covers all families, a concern 10 of mine would be -- not just at Camp LaGuardia 11 because it starts at Camp LaGuardia, but it 12 applies every place. Maybe you have a housing 13 authority concept, where some years ago where 14 there's a family of four, five or six, and a 15 youngster gets locked up for a minor 16 misdemeanor, they want to put the entire family 17 out. In your piece of legislation, if they find 18 one person who has an outstanding warrant for 19 jumping over a turnstile or swiping some 20 potatoes off a local stand, they can't be 21 serviced, can't be serviced at all. 22 Now, I know that you can write a 23 piece of legislation that would cover some of 1467 1 the things that you are talking about. It's 2 just difficult for me to conceive that only in a 3 Camp LaGuardia, the homeless site in Orange 4 County, that you are concerned about a problem 5 that exists throughout the state but in the 6 larger, larger cities. 7 So I'm saying, Senator, it has 8 nothing to do with you. It has to do with a 9 political reality for your local government who 10 are not concerned about some of those veterans 11 that you are concerned about who find themselves 12 homeless or those veterans who gave so much - 13 as we wave the flag from time to time here - 14 gave so much for their country and weren't even 15 recognized but are now unemployed and are now 16 homeless. 17 And you are saying if they have a 18 warrant served, never mind the impractical part 19 of doing so -- and, Senator Connor, I was being 20 facetious about five days. It's not five days. 21 It's four days, but it takes a long time for 22 that search. And I'm sure you don't intend, 23 Senator, for someone who did not show up for 1468 1 fare beating because they didn't have the money 2 to go look for a job winds up being excluded 3 from finding shelter. That was never your 4 intent. 5 So this bill that you have -- I 6 would like to find a soft word. It's not mean 7 spirited. It's inconsistent with what you have 8 stood for for so long a period of time. In your 9 heart's heart, you're a great person. And I'm 10 not massaging it. You are people oriented, and 11 you understand these things. 12 How can you have someone talk you 13 in -- and they had to talk you into it. You 14 didn't do this on your own, I'm sure. Someone 15 talked you into putting out this piece of 16 legislation because this is not a Senator Larkin 17 piece of legislation. 18 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Senator 19 Waldon. 20 SENATOR WALDON: Thanks very 21 much, Mr. President. Senator Larkin. 22 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Senator 23 Larkin, are you still yielding? 1469 1 SENATOR LARKIN: Yes, Mr. 2 President. 3 SENATOR WALDON: The LaGuardia 4 shelter, which seems to be the kernel of your 5 concern, does that receive people only from the 6 city of New York? 7 SENATOR LARKIN: Yes, Senator. 8 SENATOR WALDON: What is the 9 population ethnically of the people who come to 10 LaGuardia? 11 SENATOR LARKIN: I don't know. 12 The City makes that determination. The locals 13 have nothing to do with it. The people sent 14 from the City to LaGuardia is a responsibility 15 of the city of New York. 16 SENATOR WALDON: Okay. Do you 17 have any idea or awareness of the ethnic makeup 18 of the city of New York? 19 SENATOR LARKIN: No, I truthfully 20 don't, but my visits to LaGuardia on numerous 21 occasions, I see the whole spectrum of 22 ethnicity. 23 SENATOR WALDON: In that spectrum 1470 1 -- there's a purpose to my question. If I may, 2 Mr. President. 3 Senator, in that spectrum that 4 you have personally viewed, were there 90 5 percent of the people there who are white, 90 6 percent who are black, 50 percent who are white, 7 50 percent who are Puerto Rican? Do you have any 8 idea that you can share with us? 9 SENATOR LARKIN: I think there's 10 a good mixture of African-Americans, Hispanic, 11 some Asians in there and white. 12 SENATOR WALDON: The reason -- if 13 I may, Mr. President -- that I ask the question, 14 Senator Larkin, is that, before, you were 15 queried as to whether or not this bill applies 16 to the whole state you just said "New York City, 17 New York City, New York City," and the 18 impression left with me was that this was 19 something created to deal with the problem 20 coming into LaGuardia from New York City. 21 Clearly, from what you've just said, such is the 22 case. Because all of the people come to this 23 place from New York City. 1471 1 If I may conclude, Mr. 2 President. Thank you, Senator Larkin. 3 There is a subliminal message 4 here, intended or unintended, and that is that 5 this piece of legislation will deal with the 6 problem created by those males who are homeless 7 from the city of New York, traditionally, who 8 are primarily African-American veterans from 9 Vietnam, Latino Puerto Rican veterans from 10 Vietnam and others. And I just think that it is 11 dangerous for us to create something as a 12 legislative body which may in its final 13 analysis, though unintended at its inception and 14 in conceptualization, be a bill that is biased 15 and segregated in what it will carry out in 16 terms of dealing with African-Americans, 17 Latino-Americans. 18 And I submit that for the 19 consideration of my colleagues before they make 20 their vote. 21 Thank you, Mr. President. 22 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Thank 23 you, Senator Waldon. 1472 1 I just want to bring to your 2 attention that I don't want the Senators to 3 start carrying on a dialogue between 4 themselves. You kind of address through the 5 chair, if you would. I appreciate your patience 6 on that. 7 Let's see. I think Senator 8 Montgomery is up next. Then Senator Gold, then 9 Senator Spano. 10 SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Thank you, 11 Mr. President. I wonder if my colleague, 12 Senator Larkin, would yield for a question. 13 Senator Larkin, you have in the 14 memo of support under fiscal impact that there 15 would be none to the state. Do you have any 16 idea what the fiscal impact would be to the 17 locality, or who would pay for the checks? 18 SENATOR LARKIN: Regular police 19 check. 20 SENATOR MONTGOMERY: So this 21 would fall as an additional responsibility to 22 local police? 23 SENATOR LARKIN: Yes. 1473 1 SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Mr. 2 President, on the bill. I would like to rise 3 not in support of the legislation. I think 4 there are many problems that have been pointed 5 out. But I have two men's shelters in my 6 district, accounting for some 2,000 men. And I 7 right this minute, as we speak, have a problem 8 in one of those shelters that I'm aware of where 9 there is one individual who obviously is an 10 extremely troublesome individual. I don't know 11 if the person is a criminal, but has perpetrated 12 criminal acts on a number of people in that 13 shelter, including a security guard and other 14 staff in the shelter, wreaks havoc on the 15 community, the surrounding community as well, 16 and has attacked senior citizens and what have 17 you. 18 So I think that the intent of the 19 bill has merit. I know that I have been visited 20 by people who live in shelters from my district, 21 and they have said to me that they are desperate 22 for safe havens. Some of them have requested 23 that portions of their shelter be set aside for 1474 1 drug-free residents. And some of them have 2 requested that there be shelters set aside where 3 people can be placed who are not -- who have not 4 had a record, a history of criminal activity. 5 And so this is a very real 6 problem. So, Senator Larkin, I don't think it's 7 necessarily mean spirited. I'm sorry that it is 8 done just to deal with a particular shelter in 9 your own district, but nonetheless, I must 10 commend you that you are attempting to address 11 what people who live in shelters, at least as 12 they have expressed to me, is a very real 13 problem. 14 Now, on the other hand, I think 15 that some of the problems with the bill have 16 been very appropriately pointed out. One is I 17 think that if we're talking about warrant, in 18 general, obviously that's a problem. And we 19 don't want to get people caught up in that for 20 whom it does not warrant them being so 21 designated. But if it were specific to felony 22 warrants, I would think that might make more 23 sense. And also I'm wondering if it's not 1475 1 possible to do it on an as-warranted basis. If 2 there are individuals who clearly demonstrate 3 that there is some problem, there's some 4 questions, and that people who run shelters feel 5 that they want to do that, to require a check on 6 them, that that could be done, but without 7 having a blanket program that would include 8 ultimately women and children. And perhaps 9 there could be some designation of the kinds of 10 shelters that we're talking about. 11 In my district, there are 12 shelters where there are families like hotels. 13 And even in those shelters, very often, there is 14 a very high rate of crime related to drug 15 selling, and so forth, and so oh, where children 16 are. I would want those criminals ferreted 17 out. I think it's terribly unfair to assume 18 that because you live in a shelter you have to 19 accept this kind of environment as your lot. 20 But, certainly, I would not like to see it a 21 blanket law that catches women and children up 22 in it unnecessarily, or people who have minor 23 infractions who are not threats to a community 1476 1 or an environment, but that allows us or people 2 who run those shelters to move in that way if 3 it's warranted, if it's necessary, if they feel 4 that this is required because of a person's 5 behavior that is apparent. 6 So I would hope that, based on 7 the comments today, you could make some changes, 8 minor amendments to the legislation which would 9 make it more in keeping with the possibility of 10 it being administered without trouble, without 11 problems, but yet at the same time address that 12 you really and truly sincerely want to address; 13 and that is, creating hopefully a safe -- a 14 safer environment for those people who are in 15 shelters. And we have thousands of people who 16 live in shelters, unfortunately. So they have a 17 right to a safe environment if at all possible, 18 too. 19 So I don't think it's mean 20 spirited. I think it's in the right spirit. I 21 just hope you could make adjustments which would 22 make it a good bill. 23 Thank you, Mr. President. 1477 1 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: We have 2 Senator Gold next. 3 SENATOR GOLD: Thank you, Mr. 4 President. 5 Mr. President, there seems to be 6 an underlying theory in this state, every once 7 in a while in legislation that we have people in 8 this state who are homeless people and some 9 people seem to think that at some point in time 10 these people decided to make an enlightened 11 choice: Should they be a CEO of a large 12 corporation, or should they be homeless? And 13 they made a career choice. 14 Bills like this, although I think 15 Senator Larkin is just trying to respond to a 16 community need -- and I can never get mad at 17 anybody for doing that -- but once again we are, 18 I think, victimizing the victim and blaming the 19 victim for the result, and I just think that's 20 not the way to go. 21 I don't think anybody in this 22 chamber would seriously suggest that places for 23 homeless people should be anything but safe. 1478 1 But there are ways to do it. I mean, I think 2 that we should be helping those organizations, 3 the voluntaries or whatever, who do provide for 4 homeless people. We should be helping them to 5 give these people what they need -- basic human 6 kindness, a place to live, a way to get back on 7 their feet. That's what we should be doing. 8 I don't think that the answer to 9 those problems is the name calling, but let me 10 tell you what we do, and when I say "we," I'm 11 not pointing to the Republicans and saying what 12 you do; I'm saying what we do as a Legislature 13 and as a government. 14 For some silly reason, we don't 15 seem to take all of these concerns and put them 16 together. We seem to pidgeonhole them. So, for 17 example, what am I saying? We are now working on 18 the budget and, in that budget, there are some 19 $30 million worth of cuts to therapeutic commun 20 ities and for groups that spend their time tak 21 ing our young people and our people in general 22 who have drug problems and rehabilitating them 23 and trying to get them back on their feet and 1479 1 back into society. But we cut that under the 2 Governor's program, and I think there's still 3 some resistance around here to make the 4 restorations, by some $30 million and, if you 5 take a look at what dollars mean in past tense, 6 you can work it up to $50 million, the result of 7 that being that these people will wind up in 8 more homeless shelters and more overcrowding and 9 more people with drug problems in the homeless 10 shelters, and that increases the safety 11 problem. 12 What I'm basically getting at is 13 that these problems get intertwined, but we 14 don't handle them that way. Senator Larkin, if 15 your bill were to become law, what would happen? 16 It would mean that, if somebody had a warrant 17 out against them, maybe you'd catch that one or 18 two people, but I guarantee you, Senator Larkin, 19 that there are safety problems that have nothing 20 to do with people with warrants. 21 There are people who have drug 22 problems that aren't the subject of warrants, 23 and you've heard people today talk about the 1480 1 fact that -- that people on drugs are problems 2 in some of these shelters. So you would have 3 done something. You'll have a pen certificate. 4 You'll mean well, but it's not going to solve 5 this problem. 6 The problem is that, when we - 7 and now I do say we on this side and some others 8 -- talk about funding social programs or 9 entitlements, we're called "bleeding heart 10 liberals"; we're called this; we're called that 11 and the other thing. But what we're really 12 trying to say to you is that, if you're 13 concerned about these other situations, the 14 homeless shelters and what happens, you've got 15 to understand that what we're talking about is 16 all a part of it. 17 If people don't have jobs and we 18 have a bad economy and they can't pay rent and 19 one thing another and they become homeless, this 20 wasn't their career choice. I think that, 21 rather than pass this bill which has been 22 dissected very well by my colleagues on this 23 side, we ought to acknowledge that, yes, Senator 1481 1 Larkin, there is a problem, but let's deal with 2 it as a problem. 3 Let's give the support to the 4 organizations that are dealing with the 5 homeless. Let's give them the proper financial 6 support. Let's encourage the city of New York 7 to do what you believe it should be doing and 8 let's not pass a budget this year that has 9 massive cuts to therapeutic communities. 10 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Senator 11 Spano. 12 SENATOR SPANO: Mr. President, 13 Senator Gold speaks about the fact that Senator 14 Larkin submitted this bill as a response to a 15 community need. While I recognize that that's a 16 concern of Senator Larkin, I think this bill 17 goes a lot further than that, and it's a 18 response not only to a community need but a 19 response to society's needs across the state 20 and, as the chairman of the Mental Health 21 Committee, I have visited many shelters and 22 homeless shelters across the state, and have 23 heard from advocates, family members and 1482 1 families and people who have been forced to 2 accept the shelters as a way of life, that they 3 are afraid to even walk into these shelters, and 4 there is something wrong with the system in a 5 state where people would rather live in a 6 refrigerator box on the west -- off the West 7 Side Highway rather than go into a homeless 8 shelter in the city of New York. 9 So I think Senator Larkin should 10 be commended for coming forth with a bill like 11 this that addresses the needs of a program like 12 Camp LaGuardia in his area where HRA in the City 13 and the Office of Mental Health have turned 14 their backs literally on hundreds of people who 15 have been warehoused in his community because of 16 the fact of a failed homeless shelter system in 17 the City and the failure of a Governor that we 18 have in this state to establish a fair and 19 appropriate community-based system of care for 20 people who have been deinstitutionalized from 21 our state mental health system. 22 I think that is an issue that 23 Senator Gold has touched upon, touched upon the 1483 1 fact that there have been cuts in this budget 2 that we are in the process of deliberating, cuts 3 that have been given to us by Governor Cuomo, 4 the same Governor who claims to have the level 5 of compassion and care for the mentally ill, who 6 continues to deinstitutionalize people to a 7 non-existent community-based system; a budget 8 that was presented this year that cuts $75 9 million from institutions and accelerates the 10 closure of state institutions and builds only $6 11 million of additional community-based system of 12 care. 13 This is a type of bill that 14 Senator Larkin not only wishes to move forward 15 with, but is forced to move forward with, so 16 that we can at least recognize in the Senate 17 that there's a failed mental health system, that 18 there's a bad public policy that is being thrown 19 upon municipalities not only in New York City, 20 but in the areas surrounding the City, and that 21 we have not only the state mental health system 22 but the city of New York who are now choosing to 23 bypass the system and send people to unsafe 1484 1 facilities outside the districts like in Camp 2 LaGuardia. 3 I think we should give support to 4 Senator Larkin for this bill. We should also 5 give support, like Senator Gold said, to 6 organizations who are trying their best to help 7 people who have needs and we ought to give 8 support to those people who are asking for it, 9 meaning the people who are not happy to live in 10 a shelter but have no choice but to go into a 11 shelter in the City, but they want to be able to 12 maybe sleep for a couple hours at night so that 13 they don't have to live in constant fear of 14 being ripped off or being killed during the 15 course of their short experience in that shelter 16 system. 17 So I rise to support this bill, 18 to say that we recognize that people who live in 19 the homeless shelters are not criminals. Nobody 20 in this chamber would ever say that they are 21 criminals, that they are bad people. They just 22 don't have a place to live, and the place to 23 live that we give them should be a safe one. 1485 1 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Senator 2 Solomon. 3 SENATOR SOLOMON: Thank you, Mr. 4 President. 5 Will Senator Larkin yield, 6 please? 7 SENATOR LARKIN: Yes, Mr. 8 President. 9 SENATOR SOLOMON: Thank you. 10 Senator, I see the word "require", "the 11 Commissioner shall require" the operator of any 12 homeless project receiving funds. Isn't that a 13 mandate? 14 SENATOR LARKIN: It depends on 15 how you're talkin' about it, Senator. 16 SENATOR SOLOMON: Well - 17 SENATOR LARKIN: It's a 18 requirement because they are going to receive 19 services with taxpayers' dollars. 20 SENATOR SOLOMON: O.K. Senator, 21 can I ask you another question? Let's say we're 22 in the Schoharie County or Schenectady -- the 23 Schenectady mission. Shouldn't it be optional 1486 1 with the shelter to decide whether or not they 2 need this service? 3 SENATOR LARKIN: Well, Senator, I 4 don't think so. I think, if you recall what 5 Senator Gold said and what Senator Spano said, 6 these shelters are not the safest place 7 regardless of where you're at in this state, and 8 the conditions therein and the people that are 9 going to reside in there need as much protection 10 as they can receive. 11 SENATOR SOLOMON: O.K. So 12 Senator, if you will yield. 13 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Will 14 you yield again, Senator Larkin? 15 SENATOR SOLOMON: I don't want to 16 have a dispute. 17 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: I 18 appreciate that. 19 SENATOR LARKIN: Yes. 20 SENATOR SOLOMON: So let's go 21 through the process of a situation, let's go 22 through a homeless shelter even outside the city 23 of New York. It's a particularly cold night 1487 1 some place upstate, and the temperature is 2 dropping to 15 degrees below zero and the police 3 decide to pick up individual people that are 4 outside because of the fact it's not safe, so 5 let's go through the process; so it's at 11:00 6 o'clock at night. 7 The police department or social 8 services agency picks up John Doe on the street 9 and convinces John Doe to come into the homeless 10 shelter; so at 11:15 -- they pick him up at 11 11:00, at 11:15, John Doe walks through the door 12 of that homeless shelter. At 11:20 there's got 13 to be a worker there who's got to say, John Doe, 14 name, address, et cetera, has got to punch into 15 a computer and somebody has got to pay for it, 16 but it's not a mandate, and it's going to cost 17 money. He's got to punch into a computer to 18 find out if John Doe has a warrant. 19 Now, that computer has got to be 20 hooked to a telephone line who someone has got 21 to pay for, to the local sheriff's department or 22 the State Police which has got to be open for 24 23 hours, and I'm sure it's got to have this 1488 1 computer link. 2 So what I'm trying to figure out, 3 Senator, is how it's not going to cost any money 4 if there's going to be a computer unless, of 5 course, the local police and the State Police 6 are going to issue a printout every day to these 7 places and Federal Express it or get it to them 8 some other way to tell them what the current 9 list of outstanding warrants are. 10 I'm trying to figure out how 11 you're going to tell those localities that this 12 isn't a mandate and it's not going to cost 13 money. Explain the process. Explain the 14 process how it's not going to cost money. 15 SENATOR LARKIN: Senator, in the 16 bill, it's very clear that they will contact 17 local law enforcement. 18 SENATOR SOLOMON: Right. 19 SENATOR LARKIN: Don't say they 20 have to go into a computer. Some of these 21 shelters may be very small, may be just somebody 22 picking up the phone. I think, Senator, some 23 people here are making a bigger tent out of this 1489 1 than it really is. Many of your people on your 2 side of the aisle who have recognized maybe a 3 small amount of it, that there is a problem in 4 shelters. 5 We have identified problems in 6 shelters. The Human Resource Administration 7 from your City has identified these problems. 8 What we need to do is to address the heart of 9 the problem that, if we're going to have a 10 shelter, the shelter should be there for the 11 purpose of providing essential quarters, food 12 for these individuals, that they shouldn't live 13 in fear, as my colleague Senator Spano said, 14 that they shouldn't want to live in a 15 refrigerator on the West Side. They should be 16 willing to go into a shelter. 17 I think we're masking the 18 problem, that we want to ensure that we're not a 19 sanctuary for the criminal element. We have 20 defined this problem to the city of New York and 21 the city of New York has turned its back on us. 22 Advocates for the homeless say you can not just 23 isolate and say, "Camp LaGuardia." If you're 1490 1 going to do it for one, you must do it for all. 2 It's very clear here, we're not 3 denying anybody, we're not saying you can't get 4 into the shelter until we have the checks. It 5 says that they will contact local law 6 enforcement. I believe, and I have checked with 7 law enforcement at towns and villages, State 8 Police, and even the city of New York. They 9 don't believe that this is the biggest problem 10 as some people are trying to make it. 11 SENATOR SOLOMON: O.K. Thank 12 you. On the bill. 13 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Senator 14 Solomon, on the bill. 15 SENATOR SOLOMON: All right. I 16 just want it to be perfectly clear that this 17 bill does not apply only to the city of New 18 York. This bill is statewide. There's nothing 19 in this bill that has that wording "in a city of 20 one million or more". The bill just goes on to 21 say "the Commissioner shall require". It's 22 statewide, so every locality, no matter how 23 small it is and how much money they have, is 1491 1 going to have to spend some time and some money 2 and have some personnel dealing with the 3 situation of where they're going to have to 4 contact the local police or State Police to 5 determine whether or not there's outstanding 6 warrants on whatever individuals come into that 7 homeless shelter, and I would suspect that means 8 if the individual comes in on January 1st and 9 leaves and you see him on January 5th, you've 10 got to check again because you don't know what 11 happened between January 1st and January 5th, 12 and there may have been a warrant that was put 13 out on January 3rd on that individual. 14 So every time someone comes into 15 one of these homeless shelters, you're going to 16 have to go and recheck that individual to see 17 whether or not there are any outstanding 18 warrants on them and, as I said before, it 19 should have been voluntary at the option of the 20 shelters, not requiring it across the state 21 where, in fact, it may not be necessary in other 22 parts. 23 Thank you. 1492 1 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Senator 2 Mendez. 3 SENATOR MENDEZ: Mr. President, 4 this bill reminds me of a situation that once - 5 SENATOR GOLD: Can't hear. 6 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Let's 7 hold down the conversations. Apparently some 8 cannot hear Senator Mendez. We're all anxious 9 to hear you. 10 SENATOR MENDEZ: Thank you. 11 This bill reminds me of a problem 12 that some years back I had in my district. It 13 was a very huge, huge shelter, men's shelter, 14 and the residents around that shelter were very 15 upset because some of the men there definitely 16 had either drug problems or mental problems and 17 the neighbors, the residents around the shelter, 18 were very upset. 19 The community got together, and I 20 and other public elected officials also got 21 together, and we worked out a situation with the 22 city of New York so, because I was involved in 23 my district with a similar situation, I really 1493 1 must commend Senator Larkin for wanting to do - 2 to resolve that problem in his district. 3 In fact, this bill also brings to 4 the fore the question of public policy and the 5 -- the kind of thinking that must be kept in 6 mind to protect our residents at the same time 7 that -- that we want to help somebody who is in 8 need. 9 So all that I can say to -- to 10 Senator Larkin, however, is that this is not the 11 solution. It is not the solution, because the 12 problem of homelessness is one that the -- the 13 one that we're facing today is one that has been 14 created due to a series of factors operating at 15 the same time, and I think that if this bill, 16 with this -- were this bill to become law, it 17 would, in fact, indict every single man, woman 18 and child that doesn't have a place to -- to 19 stay because of homelessness regardless of - 20 although they are good citizens. 21 So that we must find a different 22 way, Senator Larkin. This way will not resolve 23 the issue. This way penalizes extremely people 1494 1 who are already poor and in need and the 2 majority of the poor and people in need are not 3 criminals. The majority of women that go to 4 shelters are not criminals. Their children are 5 not criminals. There are a few who have drug 6 problems. There will be a few who maybe they 7 were in prison or they are being looked at, 8 looked for because they've committed a crime, 9 but that's the minority. 10 So that we must put our heads 11 together and find another solution and -- but I 12 sympathize with the effort that Senator Larkin 13 is trying to -- to do here in this bill to 14 resolve the issue of the homeless in the 15 shelter. But not this bill, Mr. President, not 16 with this bill. It has to be worked out in a 17 different fashion. 18 Thank you, Mr. President. 19 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Thank 20 you. Unless there's somebody else that wants to 21 speak, Senator Larkin to close debate on this 22 legislation. 23 SENATOR LARKIN: Thank you, Mr. 1495 1 President. 2 I appreciate my colleagues' input 3 and the differences we've had on this piece of 4 legislation. However, we have a problem and 5 just to be talking and talking and talking about 6 it doesn't address the problem. 7 The problem of the criminal 8 activities in the shelter and the problems that 9 we've experienced in the criminal element going 10 to the shelter as a sanctuary has not been 11 productive in any way, shape or form. Shelters 12 throughout the state need some guidance, need 13 some safety, need some protection and need to 14 provide shelter. 15 Basically what it is, it's a 16 place to live until they can accommodate 17 themselves some place else. What we've done 18 with this legislation is very clear. We have 19 said that, when someone goes looking for 20 assistance, the operator of that facility will 21 contact the local law enforcement to ascertain 22 if there are any outstanding warrants. I think 23 that's a protection for the operator, a 1496 1 protection for the people inside the facility 2 and a protection for the community as a whole. 3 This bill is long overdue. The 4 genesis of the bill was New York City. We tried 5 to work with New York City but to no avail. 6 Ladies and gentlemen, this is a step in the 7 right direction. 8 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Read 9 the last section. 10 SENATOR GOLD: Slow roll call. 11 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: I 12 figured that. 13 THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This 14 act shall take effect immediately. 15 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: I guess 16 we better ring the bell, slow roll call. 17 THE SECRETARY: Senator Babbush. 18 (There was no response. ) 19 Senator Bruno. 20 SENATOR BRUNO: Yes. 21 THE SECRETARY: Senator Connor. 22 SENATOR CONNOR: No. 23 THE SECRETARY: Senator Cook. 1497 1 SENATOR COOK: Yes. 2 THE SECRETARY: Senator Daly. 3 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Senator 4 Daly, how do you vote? 5 SENATOR DALY: Yes. 6 THE SECRETARY: Senator 7 DeFrancisco. 8 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Explain my 9 vote. 10 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Senator 11 DeFrancisco to explain his vote. 12 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: I vote no 13 for the following reasons: 14 It's not because this bill is 15 sexist. It's not because it's racist. It's not 16 because it's mean-spirited, and it's not because 17 the compassionate hearts only reside on one side 18 of the room. It's because I think it would 19 place an undue burden on shelters throughout the 20 state, and also shelters that are having 21 problems can voluntarily or independently check 22 on those who are creating the problems to 23 determine if there's an arrest warrants. 1498 1 So, for that reason, and that 2 reason alone, I'm voting no. 3 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Senator 4 DeFrancisco is in the negative. Continue the 5 roll call. 6 THE SECRETARY: Senator 7 Dollinger. 8 SENATOR DOLLINGER: No. 9 THE SECRETARY: Senator Espada. 10 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Senator 11 Espada to explain his vote. 12 SENATOR ESPADA: Yes, I will join 13 Senator DeFrancisco in acknowledging that we 14 have touched upon a need that has to be 15 addressed at these facilities, but at the same 16 time it is not a well thought out solution. 17 The undue burden aspects of it, 18 the considerations that Senator Spano threw out, 19 all of this has to be part of the formulation of 20 a solution. This bill does not get us there. 21 Therefore, I vote no. 22 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: 23 Continue the roll. 1499 1 THE SECRETARY: Senator Farley. 2 SENATOR FARLEY: Aye. 3 THE SECRETARY: Senator Galiber. 4 (Negative indication. ) 5 THE SECRETARY: No. 6 Senator Gold. 7 SENATOR GOLD: No. 8 THE SECRETARY: Senator 9 Gonzalez. 10 (There was no response. ) 11 Senator Goodman. 12 (There was no response. ) 13 Senator Halperin. 14 (There was no response. ) 15 Senator Hannon. 16 SENATOR HANNON: Yes. 17 THE SECRETARY: Senator 18 Hoffmann. 19 SENATOR HOFFMANN: Explain my 20 vote, please. 21 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Senator 22 Hoffmann to explain her vote. 23 SENATOR HOFFMANN: Most of the 1500 1 shelters that operate in the central New York 2 area rely heavily upon volunteer labor to keep 3 them operating around the clock, and it's very 4 difficult to ask people to come in out of 5 compassion and then suggest to them that their 6 responsibility is different and that they are 7 now in effect deputized to become members of a 8 law enforcement operation. 9 It simply is not consistent with 10 what the concept of homeless shelters is, at 11 least in the part of the state that I represent, 12 and this is very clearly a mandate. It's one 13 that would require a considerable expenditure of 14 time as well as money in forcing people to 15 participate in police work. 16 This is a Legislature that has 17 made other people do other things in the 18 interests of government before. We're famous 19 for asking all kinds of people, including the 20 companies that own beepers, to become revenue 21 agents for the state of New York and levy taxes 22 through their monthly billing procedures. But 23 it is wholly inappropriate for us to ask every 1501 1 homeless shelter to become a clearing house for 2 criminal investigations. 3 I also find that it really flies 4 in the face of common sense. Police work, 5 certainly in the part of the state that I 6 represent, does go on in conjunction with 7 homeless shelters. Those violent criminals who 8 could conceivably wind up in a shelter, the 9 information will be made available to the 10 shelters, and there is a good line of 11 communication. 12 So I think this, once again, 13 underscores a lack of sensitivity for ongoing 14 police work and certainly a very clear 15 insensitivity for the work of the many people 16 who are in homeless shelters. 17 I vote no. 18 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Senator 19 Hoffmann in the negative. Continue the roll. 20 THE SECRETARY: Senator Holland. 21 SENATOR HOLLAND: Yes. 22 THE SECRETARY: Senator Johnson. 23 SENATOR JOHNSON: Aye. 1502 1 THE SECRETARY: Senator Jones. 2 SENATOR JONES: No. 3 THE SECRETARY: Senator Kuhl. 4 SENATOR KUHL: Aye. 5 THE SECRETARY: Senator Lack. 6 SENATOR LACK: Mr. President, I'd 7 like to explain my vote, please. 8 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Senator 9 Lack to explain his vote. 10 SENATOR LACK: Thank you, Mr. 11 President. 12 I just heard Senator Hoffmann's 13 explanation in voting no, and I wanted to 14 reiterate some of Senator Larkin's debate and, 15 of course, that consists of reading the bill, 16 which just asks those who operate these shelters 17 to contact the local law enforcement agencies 18 but not to attempt to turn the operator into a 19 local law enforcement agency, and I would think 20 particularly to the extent that there are 21 volunteers and well-meaning people even in 22 central New York operating such facilities that, 23 of course, as good law-abiding citizens they 1503 1 would want to contact local law enforcement 2 agencies in case someone who has an outstanding 3 warrant, particularly if it turns out that they 4 are a felony offender and it's an outstanding 5 felony warrant, would not want those types of 6 people in the homeless shelter in which they are 7 volunteering their time. 8 Mr. President, I vote aye. 9 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: 10 Continue the roll. 11 THE SECRETARY: Senator Larkin. 12 SENATOR LARKIN: Aye. 13 THE SECRETARY: Senator LaValle. 14 SENATOR LAVALLE: Yes. 15 THE SECRETARY: Senator 16 Leichter. 17 SENATOR LEICHTER: Mr. President, 18 to explain my vote. 19 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Senator 20 Leichter to explain his vote. 21 SENATOR LEICHTER: The mad 22 scramble by some of Senator Larkin's colleagues 23 to try to sanitize this bill, to make it appear 1504 1 that this is really a compassionate bill and 2 this is a bill that tries to deal with problems 3 that exist in the shelter, just doesn't fly. 4 You can't sanitize this bill, because, of 5 course, there are problems in shelters. There 6 are very serious problems. 7 There's a problem of shelters 8 because you have shelters, such as I have a 9 shelter in my district where you have 1200 young 10 men sleeping on an armory floor with the cots 11 six inches from each other. There's no proof 12 that the violence that existed there was in any 13 way related to the fact that they were people 14 with outstanding warrants in those shelters. 15 It's -- this in no way deals with 16 the problems that we have in the shelter, no way 17 deals with the problems of homelessness, and I 18 just want to tell you, when I saw this bill and 19 listened to the debate, I had to go and run and 20 look at the calendar to see whether we are -- it 21 was March and that it's Albany, because it seems 22 more like a measure that you'd find in August in 23 Houston, an expression by people who I think are 1505 1 out of touch with what is happening in this 2 country. 3 Mr. President, I vote no. 4 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Senator 5 Leichter is in the negative. Continue the 6 roll. 7 THE SECRETARY: Senator Levy. 8 SENATOR LEVY: Aye. 9 THE SECRETARY: Senator Libous. 10 SENATOR LIBOUS: Yes. 11 THE SECRETARY: Senator Maltese. 12 SENATOR MALTESE: Aye. 13 THE SECRETARY: Senator Marchi. 14 SENATOR MARCHI: No. 15 THE SECRETARY: Senator Marino. 16 (Affirmative indication). 17 THE SECRETARY: Aye. 18 Senator Markowitz. 19 SENATOR MARKOWITZ: No. 20 THE SECRETARY: Senator 21 Masiello. 22 SENATOR MASIELLO: No. 23 THE SECRETARY: Senator Mega. 1506 1 SENATOR MEGA: Mr. President. 2 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Senator 3 Mega to explain his vote. 4 SENATOR MEGA: I'd like to 5 explain my vote. 6 I must confess I did not hear all 7 of the debate. I had some other things I had to 8 do in my office, so I've be running back and 9 forth, so I may have missed some of the 10 arguments against this bill. But I think I have 11 a pretty good idea of what some of the arguments 12 are in listening to Senator Leichter. 13 What disturbs me about the bill 14 is that we even have to consider doing something 15 like this, because local government is not 16 responding to a problem that we have in these 17 shelters and you may say, well, you know, let 18 local government take care of it. You know, the 19 city of New York, those of us who represent City 20 districts know the problems we have with trying 21 to get things accomplished on a local level and 22 the homeless situation is one of those 23 problems. 1507 1 I have been in these shelters. I 2 represent a district that had a homeless shelter 3 at one -- it still has it, but I represented 4 this district at one time. I know what the 5 homeless shelter is all about like all of my 6 colleagues that I'm sure have been in these 7 homeless shelters. 8 They're deplorable; they're 9 terrible. Many of the homeless people do not 10 want to go to these shelters because they're so 11 deplorable, because they're afraid of being 12 attacked or raped or whatever. 13 In talking to Senator Larkin, 14 he's got a local problem with a homeless 15 shelter. We may criticize him for what he's 16 doing, but if this bill gets the attention of 17 the locality to maybe open up their eyes and do 18 something different, it will serve its purpose 19 and I'm not that happy about doing it, but I'm 20 going to support it for that reason alone, to 21 maybe get the city, get the locality, to do 22 something that's constructive about how we treat 23 human beings in this day and age. 1508 1 We supported a resolution today 2 that was put in by our colleague, Senator 3 Maltese, about sweat shops 80 years ago, and we 4 still have sweat shops today and that was 5 brought out by Senator Leichter. We've had 6 these homeless shelters for years and what they 7 breed and what they do to people is terrible. 8 So if we get the attention of the people whose 9 attention we have to get because of this bill, I 10 think maybe we will have accomplished some 11 thing. So, for those reasons, I'm going to vote 12 yes. 13 THE SECRETARY: Senator Mendez. 14 SENATOR MENDEZ: No. 15 THE SECRETARY: Senator 16 Montgomery. 17 SENATOR MONTGOMERY: No. 18 THE SECRETARY: Senator Nolan. 19 (There was no response. ) 20 Senator Nozzolio. 21 SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Yes. 22 THE SECRETARY: Senator 23 Ohrenstein. 1509 1 (Negative indication.) 2 THE SECRETARY: No. 3 Senator Onorato. 4 SENATOR ONORATO: No. 5 THE SECRETARY: Senator 6 Oppenheimer. 7 SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: No. 8 THE SECRETARY: Senator Padavan. 9 SENATOR PADAVAN: Yes. 10 THE SECRETARY: Senator Pataki. 11 SENATOR PATAKI: Yes. 12 THE SECRETARY: Senator 13 Paterson. 14 SENATOR PATERSON: No. 15 THE SECRETARY: Senator Present. 16 SENATOR PRESENT: Aye. 17 THE SECRETARY: Senator Saland. 18 SENATOR SALAND: Aye. 19 THE SECRETARY: Senator 20 Santiago. 21 SENATOR SANTIAGO: No. 22 THE SECRETARY: Senator Sears. 23 SENATOR SEARS: Yes. 1510 1 THE SECRETARY: Senator Seward. 2 SENATOR SEWARD: Aye. 3 THE SECRETARY: Senator Sheffer. 4 SENATOR SHEFFER: Yes. 5 THE SECRETARY: Senator Skelos. 6 SENATOR SKELOS: Yes. 7 THE SECRETARY: Senator Smith. 8 SENATOR SMITH: No. 9 THE SECRETARY: Senator Solomon. 10 (There was no response. ) 11 Senator Spano. 12 SENATOR SPANO: Aye. 13 THE SECRETARY: Senator 14 Stachowski. 15 SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Yes. 16 THE SECRETARY: Senator 17 Stafford. 18 SENATOR STAFFORD: Aye. 19 THE SECRETARY: Senator 20 Stavisky. 21 (There was no response. ) 22 Senator Trunzo. 23 SENATOR TRUNZO: Yes. 1511 1 THE SECRETARY: Senator Tully. 2 SENATOR TULLY: Aye. 3 THE SECRETARY: Senator Velella. 4 SENATOR VELELLA: Yes. 5 THE SECRETARY: Senator Volker. 6 SENATOR VOLKER: Yes. 7 THE SECRETARY: Senator Waldon. 8 Senator Waldon. 9 (Negative indication. ) 10 THE SECRETARY: No. 11 Senator Wright. 12 SENATOR WRIGHT: Aye. 13 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: 14 Absentees. 15 THE SECRETARY: Senator 16 Gonzalez. 17 (Negative indication. ) 18 THE SECRETARY: No. 19 Senator Goodman. 20 (There was no response. ) 21 Senator Halperin. 22 (There was no response. ) 23 Senator Nolan. 1512 1 (There was no response. ) 2 Senator Solomon. 3 (There was no response. ) 4 Senator Stavisky. 5 SENATOR STAVISKY: No. 6 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: 7 Results. 8 THE SECRETARY: Ayes 33, nays 9 23. 10 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: That 11 bill is passed. 12 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 13 235, by Senator Volker, Senate Bill Number 2339. 14 SENATOR GOLD: Explanation. 15 THE SECRETARY: An act to amend 16 the Penal Law, in relation to renewal of gun 17 dealers' licenses. 18 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Senator 19 Volker, explanation has been asked for. 20 SENATOR VOLKER: Mr. President, 21 specifically -- this is a bill, by the way, 22 we've passed here for several years. This 23 legislation would conform New York State to the 1513 1 primary licensing body, which is the federal 2 government, by stating that a gun dealer -- this 3 is a gun dealer; this has nothing to do with 4 possession of licenses, a gun dealer -- would 5 not have to have a new photograph or additional 6 prints taken, I believe it's every three years, 7 as opposed to the rules by the federal 8 government which do not mandate that. 9 Let me just say, by the way, that 10 -- and last year, I think we went into this a 11 little bit, and I'll do it very quickly. The 12 city of New York clearly does not understand 13 this bill. They put out a memo in opposition. 14 The city of New York does not have anything to 15 do with licensing except that, as a local 16 agency, they accept the license applications on 17 behalf of the state. State law decides what 18 types of -- what types of license requirements 19 are made. 20 The City, in its memo, says that 21 later this license serves as proof on the 22 license -- on the license of that individual's 23 right to possess a firearm. This has nothing to 1514 1 do with possession of a firearm. In fact, as my 2 counsel and I were discussing it, if the 3 licensee -- that is, the gun dealer -- has his 4 own guns; he still has to have a possessory 5 license. 6 I think there was some confusion 7 here by the City. The City says that currently 8 the City does not require fingerprints for 9 renewals. Well, of course, they don't because 10 they don't require anything. The state of New 11 York tells the City what the requirements are. 12 I think probably what happened 13 here is that somebody who looked at this bill 14 looked at the overall section which deals with 15 pistol permits, probably didn't completely 16 recognize the fact that this only applies to gun 17 dealers. 18 Understand, we did some 19 checking. The City and the state does virtually 20 nothing as regards gun dealers unless there's 21 some sort of violation, unless there's a crime 22 or something of that nature because the whole 23 jurisdiction of gun licenses, that is dealer 1515 1 licenses, is done by the ATF, the federal 2 government, and so forth and, you know, the ATF 3 now has become somewhat notorious in Texas with 4 the Waco, Texas situation, but the truth is that 5 gun dealer licenses are -- are, virtually all 6 the revocations and things of that nature, when 7 the state -- the state has a problem with a 8 licensee, they refer it to the federal 9 government, and the federal government then will 10 pull the license because the primary 11 responsibility for licensing is with the federal 12 government to start with. So the requirements 13 that are presently in the law really are 14 superfluous and really have no -- have no real 15 meaning in terms of enforcement of any kind, and 16 the City, I think, is a bit confused, and the 17 person that did this memo thought that this 18 really had related to regular gun possession. 19 SENATOR GOLD: Mr. President. 20 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Senator 21 Gold. 22 SENATOR GOLD: Yeah. Would the 23 Senator yield to a question? 1516 1 SENATOR VOLKER: Sure. 2 SENATOR GOLD: Senator, I 3 understand you're talking about the City's 4 memo. You were kind enough to share that with 5 me earlier, but in spite of that I want to ask 6 you just one or two questions. 7 SENATOR VOLKER: Sure. 8 SENATOR GOLD: In the city of New 9 York right now, do you say they renew their 10 licenses without photos or prints; wouldn't they 11 be bound by state law? 12 SENATOR VOLKER: No, they don't 13 require renewals of gun licensed dealers' 14 prints. In other words, they don't -- the City 15 says in its memo that it doesn't require any 16 more than the state law. 17 SENATOR GOLD: Yeah. 18 SENATOR VOLKER: Well, of course, 19 it doesn't because the City doesn't make any 20 requirements other than the state law; that's 21 what I was saying. 22 SENATOR GOLD: Of course. O.K. I 23 just want to clear that up. 1517 1 SENATOR VOLKER: O.K. 2 SENATOR GOLD: The City doesn't 3 have its own regulations. 4 SENATOR VOLKER: Exactly, 5 exactly. 6 SENATOR GOLD: Well, Senator, 7 this is my question, and let me just preface it 8 by one itsy-bitsy statement. 9 I think the NRA did overwhelming 10 damage to itself in New Jersey in recent months, 11 and they're going to rue the day that they got 12 involved with that issue, but the problem is 13 that, you know, when we get into these issues, I 14 can understand some things as issues. Others I 15 can't. 16 At a time when we have so much 17 problem with guns, where is the outrage caused 18 by having dealers submit a photo and prints 19 every three years? Can't you see where that is a 20 rather harmless requirement in the law for 21 people who have a huge responsibility under our 22 law, and that is in processing applications and 23 seeing to it that different people who, because 1518 1 of their compliance with law, can receive 2 firearms? 3 SENATOR VOLKER: Senator, I guess 4 I -- I don't think that I make this quite 5 clear. I don't think the City does anything 6 with, to my knowledge - 7 SENATOR GOLD: I agree; forget 8 the City. 9 SENATOR VOLKER: They don't do 10 licenses; they don't do anything. 11 SENATOR GOLD: Right. Forget the 12 City. 13 SENATOR VOLKER: So the issue is 14 why would you bother to do it? The City -- I 15 think the City just did a perfunctory memo 16 because - 17 SENATOR GOLD: Forget the City. 18 Senator, if I may. 19 SENATOR VOLKER: Yeah. 20 SENATOR GOLD: You made a point 21 that you thought the memo was flawed. 22 SENATOR VOLKER: Yeah. 23 SENATOR GOLD: I'm not arguing, 1519 1 I'm not here to protect their memo. I'm talking 2 about your bill. 3 SENATOR VOLKER: M-m h-m-m. 4 SENATOR GOLD: Under your bill, 5 we would negate the requirement that these 6 people who are gun dealers, would not be 7 photographed and printed every three years. 8 SENATOR VOLKER: Yeah. 9 SENATOR GOLD: And I'm saying to 10 you forgetting the City's memo, why is that so 11 abhorrent? When we have proliferation and the 12 NRA and all these groups wanting to cut back - 13 SENATOR VOLKER: Yeah. 14 SENATOR GOLD: -- what is so 15 terrible at least in having this requirement in 16 the law that the people who are legally charged 17 with distributing guns to people who may be 18 getting a license, at least go through these 19 checks? Why is that so terrible? 20 SENATOR VOLKER: Let me give you 21 this, Senator, because it's a waste of time. 22 The City does not regulate, as such, gun 23 dealers. The real regulation is by the federal 1520 1 government. It's a waste of time. If the City 2 wants to regulate firearms as it certainly is 3 doing, that's one thing, but as far as gun 4 dealers are concerned, it really is just a waste 5 of time for the City. They don't pay any 6 attention for the most part to these things any 7 way because they're not the ones that enforce 8 these. 9 So the answer to that is it, 10 frankly, is a waste of time for everybody 11 involved because the primary responsibility for 12 gun dealer licenses lies with the federal 13 government to start with. That's what I'm 14 trying to point out. 15 SENATOR GOLD: O.K. Mr. 16 President, I just - 17 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Senator 18 Gold, on the bill. 19 SENATOR GOLD: We've had this 20 before, as most people know, and Senator Connor 21 and Galiber and myself and Halperin and Leichter 22 and Markowitz and Mendez, Montgomery, Ohren 23 stein, Onorato, Oppenheimer, Paterson, Perry 1521 1 unfortunately will not be casting a vote today 2 but we may see other enlightened votes, Smith, 3 Waldon and Weinstein, and Senator Marchi voted 4 in the negative last year. 5 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Read 6 the last section. 7 THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This 8 act shall take effect on the 1st day of 9 November. 10 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Call 11 the roll. 12 (The Secretary called the roll. ) 13 THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in 14 the negative on Calendar Number 235 are Senators 15 Connor, Dollinger, Espada, Gold, Leichter, 16 Marchi, Markowitz, Mendez, Montgomery, 17 Ohrenstein, Onorato, Smith, Solomon, Stavisky 18 and Waldon; also Senator Oppenheimer. Ayes 44, 19 nays 16. 20 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: The 21 bill is passed. 22 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 23 237, by Senator Volker, Senate Bill Number 2423, 1522 1 an act to amend the Penal Law, in relation to 2 firearms transaction reports by gun dealers. 3 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Read 4 the last section. 5 THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This 6 act shall take effect immediately. 7 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Call 8 the roll. 9 (The Secretary called the roll. ) 10 THE SECRETARY: Ayes 59, nays 11 one, Senator Leichter. 12 SENATOR LEICHTER: I stand 13 corrected; I'm in the affirmative. 14 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Senator 15 Leichter is voting in the affirmative on this 16 gun bill. 17 THE SECRETARY: Ayes 60. 18 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: The 19 bill is passed. 20 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 21 242, by Senator Skelos, Senate Bill Number 29 22 B, an act to amend the Penal Law, in relation to 23 carjacking. 1523 1 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Read 2 the last section. 3 THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This 4 act shall take effect immediately. 5 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Call 6 the roll. 7 (The Secretary called the roll. ) 8 THE SECRETARY: Ayes 60. 9 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: The 10 bill is passed. 11 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 12 245, by Senator Trunzo, Senate Bill Number 3512, 13 an act to amend the Civil Service Law, in 14 relation to providing civil service status to 15 appointees. 16 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Read 17 the last section. 18 THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This 19 act shall take effect immediately. 20 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Call 21 the roll. 22 (The Secretary called the roll. ) 23 THE SECRETARY: Ayes 56 -- those 1524 1 recorded in the negative on Calendar Number 245 2 are Senators Cook, Daly, Dollinger, Hoffmann, 3 Jones, Kuhl, Present, Saland and Seward. Ayes 4 51, nays 9. Also Senator Larkin recorded in the 5 negative. 6 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: The 7 bill is passed. 8 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 9 247, by Senator Stafford, Senate Bill Number 10 437, an act to amend the Environmental 11 Conservation Law. 12 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Read 13 the last section. 14 SENATOR GOLD: Mr. President. 15 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Hold 16 on. 17 SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: I'd just 18 like to speak on the bill for a moment. 19 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Senator 20 Oppenheimer. 21 SENATOR GOLD: Just to get an 22 explanation? Yeah, Senator Oppenheimer on the 23 bill. 1525 1 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Senator 2 Oppenheimer, on the bill. 3 SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: I want to 4 urge my colleagues to vote against this bill. 5 SENATOR KUHL: Lay it aside, 6 please. 7 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Lay the 8 bill aside, withdraw the roll call. 9 THE SECRETARY: 248, by Senator 10 Daly, Senate Bill Number 1095, Environmental 11 Conservation Law. 12 SENATOR GOLD: Explanation. 13 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: 14 Explanation. Senator Daly. 15 SENATOR DALY: Mr. President. 16 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Senator 17 Libous, could I see you for a second? 18 SENATOR DALY: Mr. President. 19 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Senator 20 Daly, you have the floor. 21 SENATOR DALY: Mr. President, 22 this would establish a small quantity generators 23 legislation for hazardous waste. 1526 1 Basically what we have in New 2 York State is a situation where approximately 25 3 percent of the waste that's generated in the 4 state is generated by small generators, and the 5 small generator is defined as one who produces 6 less than one thousand kilograms of hazardous 7 waste each month. 8 Under the existing situation, it 9 is estimated that over 25 percent of those who 10 generate haz... I should say generate small 11 amounts of hazardous waste are not even 12 controlled or in the program, because most of 13 them don't even know that they should be and 14 what this bill does, it establishes a program 15 where the Department of Environmental 16 Conservation would put in place different 17 policies to inform those generators of hazardous 18 waste that they must comply with state law. 19 It would allow the Department of 20 Environmental Conservation to find out where 21 that waste is, how it's being handled. Very 22 frankly, the basic thrust of this legislation is 23 to eliminate the improper handling of hazardous 1527 1 waste, much of which is occurring by -- I should 2 say in companies that generate small amounts of 3 it, but overall it has an impact. Over 25,000 4 tons of hazardous waste are generated by those 5 small generators. 6 SENATOR GOLD: Mr. President. 7 ACTING PRESIDENT LIBOUS: Senator 8 Gold. 9 SENATOR GOLD: Yeah, Senator 10 yield to one question? 11 ACTING PRESIDENT LIBOUS: Senator 12 Daly, would you yield? 13 SENATOR GOLD: I have the memo in 14 opposition from the Department, which indicates 15 that you have a "Levy amendment" as part of your 16 amendment; that's one of these things where we 17 require annual reports and give them no money. 18 SENATOR DALY: I'm sorry. I 19 didn't hear you, Senator. 20 SENATOR GOLD: I say, is there a 21 requirement in the bill by amendment to provide 22 annual reports? 23 SENATOR DALY: Yes, sir. Yes, 1528 1 there is and, very frankly, the demands on DEC 2 for that report are minimal. They're already 3 collecting that information. 4 SENATOR GOLD: All right. Thank 5 you. I just want to point out that there are 6 memorandums in support on this legislation from 7 the New York State Professional Applicators 8 Coalition and the New York State Auto Dealers. 9 There is also a memorandum in opposition by the 10 Department, and I'm sure many of you have read 11 it already, but one of the -- one of their 12 oppositions is based upon the requirement that 13 they file annual reports, requiring expenditures 14 of significant amounts of staff time, not to 15 mention the publication and mailing costs, 16 without additional financing of that 17 requirement. 18 SENATOR DALY: Mr. President. 19 ACTING PRESIDENT LIBOUS: Senator 20 Daly. 21 SENATOR DALY: I might add to 22 what Senator Gold said that we have in other 23 legislation which we've passed, which has passed 1529 1 this house and which we'll have again before us, 2 I hope, a method by which monies can be raised 3 directly which will -- which are dedicated to 4 the use of those monies by the Department of 5 Environmental Conservation for the small 6 generators -- for the small generators program. 7 ACTING PRESIDENT LIBOUS: Read 8 the last section. 9 THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This 10 act shall take effect immediately. 11 ACTING PRESIDENT LIBOUS: Call 12 the roll. 13 (The Secretary called the roll. ) 14 THE SECRETARY: Ayes 59, nays 15 one, Senator Leichter recorded in the negative. 16 ACTING PRESIDENT LIBOUS: The 17 bill is passed. 18 SENATOR KUHL: Mr. President, may 19 we return to Calendar Number 247, please, and 20 take that up at this time? 21 ACTING PRESIDENT LIBOUS: Yes, 22 Senator Kuhl. We will return to Calendar 247. 23 Secretary will read, please. 1530 1 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 2 247, by Senator Stafford, Senate Print 437, an 3 act to amend the Environmental Conservation 4 Law. 5 SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Mr. 6 President. 7 ACTING PRESIDENT LIBOUS: Senator 8 Oppenheimer. 9 SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: I would 10 like to urge my colleagues to vote against this 11 bill concerning the Adirondacks and signage in 12 the Adirondacks. 13 It would permit four additional 14 signs for each company within the Adirondacks 15 and there are signs now that are permitted and 16 four additional signs for a hundred or more 17 companies, concerns, restaurants, all kinds of 18 recreational companies would be an incredible 19 addition of directional signs and -- and the 20 Adirondacks is struggling now to maintain its 21 wilderness character, and it's been a difficult 22 fight, and I know there's a delicate balance 23 between the commercial interests and the -- what 1531 1 we're trying to preserve as the visual integrity 2 of the park, and, unfortunately, we have lost 3 too many of our beautiful parks to over 4 commercialization and this is just an enormous 5 increase in signage, and I think it has to be 6 controlled if we are going to keep the visual 7 beauty and integrity of the park. 8 And so I would very much urge 9 those who care about the beauty and wilderness 10 areas in our state which are becoming more and 11 more limited, to vote against this bill. 12 ACTING PRESIDENT LIBOUS: Read 13 the last section. 14 SENATOR KUHL: Last section. 15 THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This 16 act shall take effect immediately. 17 ACTING PRESIDENT LIBOUS: Call 18 the roll. 19 (The Secretary called the roll. ) 20 THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in 21 the negative on Calendar Number 247 are Senators 22 Connor, Dollinger, Gold, Holland, Leichter, 23 Montgomery, Ohrenstein, Onorato, Oppenheimer, 1532 1 Padavan, Stachowski and Stavisky. Ayes 48, nays 2 12. 3 ACTING PRESIDENT LIBOUS: The 4 bill is passed. 5 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 6 251, by Senator Cook, Senate Bill Number 2287, 7 Environmental Conservation Law, in relation to 8 permitting certain directional signs in the 9 Catskill Park. 10 SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Mr. 11 President. 12 ACTING PRESIDENT LIBOUS: Senator 13 Oppenheimer. 14 SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: I'm going 15 to reiterate the same things I said for 247 but, 16 in this case, in the case of the Catskills, the 17 Catskills has already been plagued with a good 18 deal of over-commercialization and -- and it has 19 degraded somewhat the scenic character -- scenic 20 beauty of this -- of this wonderful park, and I 21 -- I feel it's equally important to try and 22 rectify some of the errors that have been made 23 in the Catskills and to vote -- I urge my 1533 1 colleagues again to vote against this because 2 four additional signs for every business is 3 simply an outrageous overburden, and I think 4 would do further harm to the beauty of the 5 Catskills. 6 SENATOR GOLD: Mr. President. 7 ACTING PRESIDENT LIBOUS: Senator 8 Gold. 9 SENATOR GOLD: Yeah. There is a 10 memo by the Department strongly opposing this, 11 and last year Senator Connor and myself and 12 Senator Halperin and Montgomery, Ohrenstein, 13 Onorato, Oppenheimer, Smith, Holland, Padavan 14 and Spano voted in the negative. 15 ACTING PRESIDENT LIBOUS: Read 16 the last section. 17 THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This 18 act shall take effect immediately. 19 ACTING PRESIDENT LIBOUS: Call 20 the roll. 21 (The Secretary called the roll. ) 22 THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in 23 the negative on Calendar Number 251 are Senators 1534 1 Connor, Dollinger, Gold, Hannon, Holland, Lack, 2 Leichter, Montgomery, Ohrenstein, Onorato, 3 Oppenheimer, Padavan, Smith, Solomon, Spano, 4 Stachowski and Stavisky. Ayes 43, nays 17. 5 ACTING PRESIDENT LIBOUS: The 6 bill is passed. 7 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 8 255, by Senator Johnson, Senate Bill Number 9 3487, an act to prohibit the Commissioner of 10 Environmental Conservation from promulgating 11 certain regulations. 12 ACTING PRESIDENT LIBOUS: Read 13 the last section. 14 SENATOR GOLD: Explanation. 15 SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Mr. 16 President. 17 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: I think 18 there's been an explanation asked for. 19 Senator Johnson. 20 SENATOR JOHNSON: Mr. President, 21 in 1991, the Commissioner of the Department of 22 Environmental Conservation adopted the 23 California Air Quality Standards for vehicle 1535 1 emissions that referred -- his initial 2 promulgation referred to the years -- auto years 3 of 1993 and 1994. We're not talking about the 4 subsequent regulations called LEV. That's not 5 part of this bill or this discussion. 6 After those regs were 7 promulgated, the federal government made new 8 standards, and those new standards for the years 9 '93 and '94 to take up emission standards 10 identical to the California standards. Those 11 were set up to be implemented to go into effect 12 March 1st. 13 As we know, March 1st of this 14 year came. Most of the cars in this state which 15 the dealers have for sale were federal cars, the 16 same emission standard, but they didn't have the 17 California Air Resources Board sticker on that 18 car and, therefore, they could not be sold. 19 Now, this is something that all 20 of us here knew was going to happen because a 21 year ago we debated a bill called the New York 22 State Clean Air Act and a discussion was had on 23 the fact that this was not going to be an 1536 1 effective thing and was going to be harmful 2 economically and otherwise, with no air quality 3 benefits. We knew it, but we only passed a bill 4 in one house. It wasn't a one-house bill, but 5 it ended up to be a one-house bill. 6 As you all know here, it had 86 7 sponsors in the other house and would have been 8 a desirable thing to do, and four or five months 9 ago in October we would have had our report in 10 saying what we should do to be in conformity 11 with the federal Clean Air Act, and we would 12 have had an estimate of what those changes would 13 cost and what the effect would be. 14 Well, that bill didn't pass; that 15 study wasn't done, and here we are today a 16 couple weeks after the standards for the '93 17 cars came into effect, and I might say three 18 weeks after the DEC and the Motor Vehicle 19 Department suddenly realized the enormity of 20 their act, realizing that dealers all over the 21 state had cars which are no longer allowed to be 22 sold. 23 Needless to say, they immediately 1537 1 rescinded their regulations for the '93 model 2 year and said, Oh, it won't make any difference 3 in the emission standards anyhow, so we'll just 4 do away with the requirement for this year. 5 Well, that was a very appropriate 6 ad hoc response to a precipitous action which 7 was taken in the first place by a bare majority 8 of the environmental board responding to the 9 entreaties of Commissioner Jorling. 10 That took care of the 1993 model 11 years. The 1994 model cars are the same, the 12 same problem is going to exist not on March 1st 13 of 1994 but maybe tomorrow or the next day 14 because dealers, as you know -- as you may know, 15 usually introduce their new '94 cars in August 16 or September of the preceding year, so that 17 these cars which are going to be sold this fall 18 as '94 models are being ordered already. 19 I just asked the dealer 20 association to tell me when these cars are 21 normally ordered and the period is here 22 anywheres from March 25th where the Chrysler/ 23 Plymouth dealer in my town is putting his order 1538 1 in, looks like today. I hope he'll wait for a 2 couple of days. And they expect them to be 3 delivered in a few months. 4 All these orders are going to be 5 in and, if this California regulation stands, in 6 effect every one of these cars will cost a 7 hundred dollars or more, more than they do now 8 without any change in air quality, and I think 9 one of the -- one of the ironies of this 10 precipitous action by the Commissioner, thought 11 less action with no benefit other than 12 complicating the lives of dealers and the people 13 who buy their cars, is that some California cars 14 have already been shipped here, but since he 15 made a regulation on the 3rd that said, You 16 don't have to sell California cars here, that 17 means you can only sell federal cars here, so 18 now dealers are stuck, some of them, with 19 California cars which they can't sell because we 20 have legitimatized the federal cars. 21 I mean I think the DEC and the 22 Motor Vehicle and their allies have made enough 23 problems for the auto purchasers and auto 1539 1 sellers and auto manufacturers in this state 2 that they really should back off from my further 3 gratuitous upset to the private enterprise 4 system in this state until they get their act 5 together. I've got a -- and everybody says, Oh, 6 they don't have to charge extra for these 7 things. They just want to do it. Somebody said 8 Honda doesn't charge extra for this California 9 sticker; why do other people? Because they just 10 add a hundred dollars to the price of their 11 car. 12 But the certificate I have here, 13 a dealer invoice from Chrysler Corporation, 14 shows one to be delivered on Staten Island, the 15 emission charge for New York State $86.70. Now, 16 this comes to, I think, something like, five the 17 number correct, we're going to sell 600,000 cars 18 in the state. So it's -- I guess it's 6 million 19 -- 60 million. Somebody -- John had that 20 number. $60 million more for the 1994 cars, 21 because they're going to have this Cali- fornia 22 sticker on. 23 It does nothing for air quality. 1540 1 It's a stupid, gratuitous insult to the 2 consumers, the purchasers of automobiles. It's 3 interfering with the buying and selling of 4 automobiles. It's interfering with trading cars 5 across state lines, and I might say that we had 6 a very interesting discussion with some people 7 who attended the Auto Dealers Convention two 8 weeks ago, and one man said, "My place is in 9 Port Jervis, dealing in Pennsylvania, New Jersey 10 and New York. Guess what? Five California 11 cars, I can't sell them to two-thirds of my 12 customers out of state who come here, bringing 13 money into the state, I can't sell them unless I 14 have a supplement for New York cars and 15 California cars." 16 So I don't want to say I told you 17 so. I don't want to say anything because this 18 house really supported our endeavors in the 19 past. All I'm saying is we're not dealing with 20 LEV. I don't want people to be confused with 21 that. The federal court in Syracuse dealt with 22 LEV; they said the imposition of LEV in the form 23 in which we have introduced it, you need the 1541 1 California cars but you don't need to use the 2 California fuel which was improper and of no 3 effect; so LEV is not a subject of this 4 discussion. 5 All this has to do with is 6 dealing -- auto dealers who have inventory 7 selling cars in this state and simplifying the 8 process as much as possible by getting this bill 9 in effect which says that the imposition of 10 these new regulations by the DEC is null and 11 void, and you can go about your business buying 12 and selling automobiles that meet all the 13 federal standards, and the California tailpipe 14 standards. 15 I might say that this is one time 16 where I feel rather, shall I say, sanguine about 17 our chances of success because the Assembly has 18 introduced a similar bill the week after we did 19 and Mr. Brodsky, the chairman of the Environ 20 mental Conservation Committee, and Mr. Bragman, 21 who chairs the Transportation Committee, are the 22 sponsors of that bill. You might know we got 22 23 sponsors in this house and their bill is similar 1542 1 to ours. 2 The only difference is that 3 theirs essentially goes into effect 60 days 4 after the effective date. That would push us 5 into May or June, and many of these people have 6 already ordered their cars. So I think our bill 7 is a better version. I hope this bill should 8 pass in both houses. It should go into effect 9 when it's signed by the Governor. 10 Thank you. 11 SENATOR LEICHTER: Mr. President. 12 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Senator 13 Leichter. 14 SENATOR LEICHTER: Yes, Mr. 15 President, on the bill. 16 My colleagues, let me point out, 17 this is not a sort of a board game that we're 18 playing that really doesn't affect the people of 19 the state of New York. This is a very crucial 20 matter that we're debating involving two very 21 important issues. One is the compliance of the 22 state of New York with the federal Clean Air Act 23 and the sanctions that will be applied to the 1543 1 state of New York if we fail to comply, and 2 secondly, the health of New Yorkers. 3 Now, I'm sorry that I have to 4 disagree with my good friend and chairman of the 5 committee on which I'm the ranking Minority 6 member, Senator Johnson, but I think he made 7 numerous misstatements. 8 Let's just go back a little bit. 9 Clean air, under the Clean Air Act New York 10 State, by 1996, has to decrease its emissions of 11 pollutants in the air by 15 percent. We are 12 presently out of compliance. There's areas of 13 the state that are not only out of compliance, 14 but, for instance, the city of New York is a 15 severe ozone non-attainment area. Long Island 16 has great problems in its air quality. So the 17 state had to take some action. 18 Now, about 51 percent of all the 19 pollutants come from automobiles, and there is 20 no question but that we had to address that. 21 You could address the emission problem from its 22 two sources. One is the mobile -- I will 23 yield. I will yield. 1544 1 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Senator 2 Daly. 3 SENATOR DALY: Would the Senator 4 yield? 5 SENATOR LEICHTER: Yes, sir. 6 SENATOR DALY: Senator, we're 7 dealing now with '93-94. Can you tell me the 8 difference between the federal standards for air 9 emission in this period in which this bill 10 covers and the California standards? Are there 11 any differences? 12 SENATOR LEICHTER: Yes, there 13 are, Senator. There are very significant 14 differences, and I'm going to come to those, but 15 I just want to give the background and you will 16 be -- you will get your answer, and I hope that 17 you will listen. You will be - 18 SENATOR DALY: There is no 19 difference. 20 SENATOR LEICHTER: You will be 21 satisfied that your question will be answered, 22 Senator. 23 So the state had to take action 1545 1 both in regard to the mobile and in regard to 2 the stationary sources. Let me just throw this 3 other fact in that, as far as the mobile is 4 concerned, to get rid of one ton of emissions 5 from mobile sources, essentially automobiles, 6 costs roughly between 1- to $4,000 a ton. To 7 get rid of it from the stationary sources costs 8 between 5- and $10,000 a ton, substantially 9 more. So whatever we fail to do by dealing with 10 the primary source of contaminants in the air, 11 the automobile, we will then have to do with the 12 stationary sources at much greater cost and, in 13 any event, we're going to have to do something 14 about the automobile. 15 Now, there are two approaches. 16 It's not really the California standard and the 17 federal standard, but there are automobiles that 18 meet a particular federal standard and that meet 19 a particular standard that was developed by 20 California, which is specifically authorized in 21 the federal legislation, and the California 22 standard -- California automobile, the LEV, 23 which is the low emission vehicle, is superior 1546 1 in two very important respects, and the -- and 2 the exact amounts that the California cars - 3 and, Senator Daly, that deals with the issue of 4 concern to you, is 29 percent cleaner for the - 5 for the - 6 SENATOR DALY: Mr. President. 7 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Senator 8 Daly, why do you rise? 9 SENATOR DALY: He's not - 10 SENATOR LEICHTER: No. 11 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Senator 12 Leichter, are you willing to yield? 13 SENATOR LEICHTER: No. 14 SENATOR DALY: He's wrong. 15 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: He's 16 not willing to yield, Senator Daly. 17 SENATOR LEICHTER: -- is 29 18 percent cleaner as far as the volatile organic 19 compounds and is 25 percent cleaner as far as 20 the nitrogen oxides. It is less effective than 21 the federal cars as regards carbon monoxide, but 22 most of the problems that we have, most of the 23 ozone problems relate to the what's called the 1547 1 VOCs and, if you look at it in terms of the 2 tonnage that is actually reduced under the 3 California cars, it is even more significant. 4 So what the DEC did two years ago 5 or so, or maybe last year, was to say that as 6 part of our implementation program, our standard 7 implementation program to comply with the Clean 8 Air Act, that we will require the California 9 cars with one change, and that was enacted by 10 DEC. 11 This house, with many members on 12 this side of the aisle, maybe some of the 13 others, I don't remember, certainly I, in 14 opposition, did pass a bill that rescinded those 15 regulations. Senator Johnson has been dead set 16 against this all along, as has been the 17 automobile association. He passed that bill. 18 It didn't pass in the -- in the Assembly. 19 However, a court action was 20 started, and a district court held that under 21 the federal law, that you could have either the 22 California car or the federal car, but that you 23 could not bury the requirements of the standards 1548 1 as regards the California car and, under the DEC 2 rules, we did not adopt the California clean 3 fuel requirement and, therefore, the court held 4 that the state regulations involving the 5 California car, which Senator Johnson's bill is 6 aimed at, could not go into effect as of 1995, 7 which was the -- which was the time when that 8 was going to be implemented. 9 Now, that case is being appealed 10 and, frankly, I will pass no judgment on it 11 because I'm just not enough knowledgeable in 12 this area to say whether the state has a strong 13 appeal or whether it has a weak appeal, so on, 14 it's pretty much a case of first impression. 15 But what this particular bill now 16 does is that we're left with the years 1993 and 17 1994 which are not affected by the court case 18 and the DEC wants to apply its requirements that 19 in this state you begin using the California 20 cars. 21 Now, Senator Johnson said that 22 DEC or the state had rescinded the regulation as 23 to 1993 or the California cars. That's not 1549 1 true. My understanding is that the only thing 2 that was done is that there was going to be a 3 certificate that the Department of Motor 4 Vehicles was going to require to be attached to 5 those cars that were required to comply with the 6 California standard for automobiles, and that 7 would not be required, but that DEC would still 8 implement its regulations, and in any event, you 9 then had the 1994 cars. 10 The point of all this is that we 11 need to take some action because, as we all 12 know, our air quality is bad. It's hurting 13 people, and it's not -- this isn't something 14 that just affects how much automobiles are going 15 to cost or the design of automobiles and what's 16 more attractive to have on the road. We're 17 talking of people's health. 18 Now, before I talk about some of 19 the health aspects of this, I just want to point 20 out that, if we fail to comply with the federal 21 clean air standard, some pretty nasty, mean 22 sanctions are going to be applied to the state 23 of New York. Those -- those sanctions are, one, 1550 1 that we're going to lose federal highway monies 2 maybe up to one billion dollars; secondly, that 3 the -- that the state will lose the power of 4 implementing the Clean Air Act. EPA will come 5 in and tell us what to do; and the third one is 6 that -- that, oh, there's going to be an 7 emission offset two for one. That means that 8 for every new source that emits pollutions into 9 the air, you're going to have to come up with a 10 saving of two for one, which would impose 11 enormous costs on the industry of this state. 12 You'd have to go to the stationary sources and 13 they would have to put in additional scrubbers 14 or God knows what other sort of equipment which, 15 as we know, is very expensive and, as I told you 16 before, these figures are not in dispute. It 17 costs much more, maybe three or four times as 18 much to get rid of emissions from stationary 19 sources, your power plants, and so on, as it 20 does from the mobile ones. 21 So the sanctions are terribly 22 important and I've not heard Senator Johnson 23 once address, not once, how we're going to 1551 1 comply with the federal Clean Air Act. And what 2 are you going to say who vote for this bill or 3 other measures which make it impossible for us 4 to comply with the Clean Air Act when we lose 5 the highway funds, when we -- when we stop 6 industrial development in this state and when 7 EPA comes in and tells us what to do? 8 Senator Johnson won't be even 9 able to put in his bills any more, because EPA 10 will be calling the shots. 11 But it's more than just an issue 12 of federal government/state government. We're 13 talking about people's health, people's lives. 14 We have a terrible problem. The American Lung 15 Association came out against this bill because 16 of the problems that we have. 17 SENATOR DALY: Mr. President. 18 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Senator 19 Daly. 20 SENATOR DALY: Mr. President, 21 would the Senator yield to one question? 22 SENATOR LEICHTER: Yes. 23 SENATOR DALY: What is the 1552 1 difference between the federal air emission 2 standards for 1993-1994 and the California 3 standards, air emission standards for '93-94? 4 SENATOR LEICHTER: Well, the 5 difference as they relate to the automobile, 6 Senator, I've told you what they do. 7 SENATOR DALY: Mr. President. 8 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Senator 9 Daly. 10 SENATOR DALY: Specifically, is 11 the Senator saying that the California air 12 emission standards for '93-94 are stricter than 13 the federal standards for '93-94? If he is, 14 Senator, Mr. President, I would suggest he go 15 back and read it all over, because there is no 16 difference in the air emission standards for 17 1993-94 between the California standards and the 18 federal standards, and that is a fact. 19 SENATOR LEICHTER: Senator, you 20 are right that there's no difference except one 21 very important one, which is California goes in 22 one year earlier and it - 23 SENATOR DALY: And that - 1553 1 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Senator 2 Daly. 3 SENATOR DALY: That is not a 4 fact. 5 SENATOR LEICHTER: Senator, there 6 is a difference. It goes in earlier and it goes 7 in at twice the rate in 1994. 8 SENATOR DALY: Mr. President. 9 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Senator 10 Daly, why do you rise? 11 SENATOR DALY: Could I answer 12 that? There is no difference any more, Mr. 13 President, because they've postponed it. 14 SENATOR LEICHTER: Senator, I'm 15 sure you're going to take the floor and will put 16 your particular spin on the facts. I'm giving 17 you my best answer that I possibly can, and I 18 appreciate your stronger views as well as your 19 knowledge and the information that you have in 20 this area, Senator, but I think you'll agree 21 with me because it was totally absent from 22 Senator Johnson's explanation that we are 23 dealing with the health of people. 1554 1 This is a terribly important 2 matter for the people of the state of New York 3 and it's particularly important for people who 4 live in Senator Johnson's district and my 5 district, as we're most affected by the terrible 6 problem we have with smog, and so on. 7 Let me just say the American Lung 8 Association said we presently, under the air 9 that we have in this state, you have 1.5 million 10 elderly who are at risk of getting serious 11 respiratory illnesses. You have 2. -- I'm sorry 12 1.5 million elderly, did I say that? 2.1 13 million children .5 million people with asthma 14 in New York State. There are districts, areas 15 of this state, particularly in New York City in 16 some of the inner city districts as they're 17 euphemistically called, and Senator Mendez' and 18 Senator Gonzalez' and areas I represent in 19 northern Manhattan, we have a terrible problem 20 with the number of people who have asthma, who 21 suffer from other respiratory illnesses. We 22 know that has to do with the quality of air. We 23 need to deal with it. Senator Johnson's bill 1555 1 makes it more difficult. 2 Let me finally say, Senator 3 Johnson, when you say that there's a similar 4 bill in the -- in the Assembly carried by -- by 5 Assemblyman Brodsky, the differences are much 6 greater than just a 60-day effective date. 7 Senator, I'm sorry, Assemblyman Brodsky requires 8 that there's got to be a certification by the 9 Department of Motor Vehicles and by DEC that 10 other steps are being taken, that air quality is 11 not being denigrated as a result. So that there 12 are very significant differences. 13 We have to face up to the fact 14 that, for the sake of the people of this state, 15 we have to deal with air quality and we have to 16 do it, in any event, because the federal 17 government has told us. DEC has come up with a 18 program; maybe you could devise a better one, 19 I'm not saying that you can't, but you can't 20 just do it by saying to DEC, Don't do it this 21 way. We're not going to let you do it this way 22 and don't come in and fail to come in with your 23 own program. Merely saying, Let's comply with 1556 1 the federal standards, is not enough because it 2 does not get rid of the pollution that we have; 3 it doesn't get rid of the VOCs, the NOCs, at the 4 same rate and that's terribly important, and 5 it's for that reason that I would urge people to 6 vote against this bill. 7 It's true, this is going to 8 increase the cost of automobiles maybe up to a 9 hundred dollars for the people of the state of 10 New York. There's no way that you can clean up 11 the environment without paying for it. That's 12 not a great cost, and it's also true that it 13 causes certain burdens for automobile dealers. 14 I wish it didn't. I wish there was a way of 15 doing it without it, but you cannot clean up the 16 environment to the same extent as rapidly and as 17 effectively and comply with the clean air 18 standard if you knock out what DEC has done and 19 merely rely on the federal standards for cars. 20 SENATOR DALY: Mr. President. 21 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Senator 22 Daly, on the bill. 23 SENATOR DALY: Mr. President, let 1557 1 me say that, politely, we're talking about 2 apples and oranges. The Senator has been 3 applying himself to the overall California 4 standards and, in particular to the LEV 5 standards which kick in in 1995. 6 Isn't it interesting that, if 7 this program is so good, why no other state in 8 this nation will walk into the California 9 standards until 1998? 10 Now, it is a fact, this deals 11 only with auto emissions, doesn't deal with LEV, 12 the low emission vehicle, and it's the LEV part 13 of the California standards to which the Senator 14 has applied himself. That does not kick in 15 until 1995. There is this first fact, there is 16 no difference between the air emission 17 standards, between the federal act and the 18 California act for '93-94, no difference. 19 Actually, there is one 20 difference, where we lose if you go with carbon 21 monoxide and you deal with the California 22 temperature and the climate in California and 23 you apply that to New York State, we're going to 1558 1 be emitting more carbon monoxide. But let's say 2 that, again, no difference between the federal 3 and the state. 4 Then why, Mr. President, should 5 we have to have an automobile certified? Why 6 should we have nothing? All we gain is 7 certification. When we brought this up to the 8 Commissioner at Senator Johnson's committee 9 meeting, he said, "Well, it would be good 10 experience." That's a $60 million experience? 11 That's a complete boondoggle. There is no 12 difference and, if the Senator checks, he'll 13 find out that's true. There is no difference in 14 air emission standards in '93-94. 15 Why then should we have the New 16 York State automobiles certified on the 17 California standards which are the same as the 18 federal standards? It just doesn't make any 19 sense. No sense whatsoever. 20 I understand where the Senator is 21 coming from, and his drive for improved air 22 quality. I concur with him, and if he could - 23 if this demand by DEC improved air quality to 1559 1 the extent the Senator seems to think it will, I 2 might not be arguing against it. But it 3 doesn't. It has no impact whatsoever. 4 Standards the same, only difference you have to 5 pay a hundred dollars to have something 6 certified that we don't need certified. 7 SENATOR JOHNSON: Senator - 8 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Senator 9 Johnson. 10 SENATOR JOHNSON: I'd like to 11 respond to some of the things that my good 12 friend, Senator Leichter, had to say. 13 One of the things is that there's 14 no deadline which you're going to fail to meet 15 by enacting this law today, that we've got a 16 carbon monoxide SIP that's due in November of 17 this year. We're in compliance with carbon 18 monoxide, no problem. The attainment SIP, clean 19 air fees that go with it, have to be done by 20 November 1994. No problem. The employee trip 21 reduction thing is overdue. It was held up last 22 fall, but is not a major problem. We have time 23 to act on it this year, and I expect that we 1560 1 will. There's no air quality problem in this 2 state, contrary to the alarmist rhetoric which 3 talks about severe non-attainment areas, which 4 is based on a 1990 -- 1989 spike that year in 5 which we experienced an extremely hot summer. 6 I know Senator Leichter and some 7 of us have a lot of respect for the New York 8 Times, and the New York Times has an index here 9 of pollution, printed every day in the paper. 10 Over 300 will be hazardous, 201 to 300 very 11 unhealthful, 101 to 200 moderate, 50 and above 12 -- we start over again. Hazardous over 300, 13 201 to 300 very unhealthful, 101 to 200 14 unhealthful, 51 to 100 moderate and under 50 15 good. 16 You know what the standard is in 17 the study? You might be interested to know this, 18 New York City 43, White Plains 25, Hempstead 42, 19 Babylon, as you said, 38, and so so. Everything 20 is good, Senator. Everything is so far from 21 hazardous that it's almost on the bottom index 22 of any scale you have might want to measure 23 pollutants on. 1561 1 So, Senator, we don't have a 2 problem. I want to reassure you of that because 3 if I felt there were a severe air quality 4 problem, and I'm breathing the same air you're 5 breathing, I certainly wouldn't bring this bill 6 before us. 7 As a matter of fact, other - 8 other things you mentioned that, for example, 9 this would put us out of compliance, and so 10 forth, create great problems. I have a press 11 release issued from the Motor Vehicle Department 12 on March 3rd, that Marc Gerstman, Deputy 13 Commissioner of the New York State Department of 14 Environmental Conservation said the rule was a 15 minor component of the state's overall clean air 16 plan; in other words, had no significant effect 17 on the '93 cars, had no significant effect on 18 our plan. 19 Lee Wasserman of the 20 Environmental Planning Lobby said the change of 21 time would have little effect on New York's 22 compliance with New York's regulation. These 23 are the people that put the regulations in 1562 1 effect, these are the environmentalists who are 2 crusading for more and bigger laws and 3 regulations every day of the week irrespective 4 of any effect on the economy of this state. 5 That's O.K. That's their bag. 6 That's their bag, but it's not our bag. It's 7 our bag to represent the people who sent us here 8 and do something that makes environmental and 9 economic sense and I think that's what we're 10 trying to do. 11 Senator, you read something about 12 the cost of the California standards, and I 13 don't want to confuse anybody here that's 14 already a little bit confused. The tailpipe 15 standards are the same for all the cars, but the 16 percent to which it's phased in each year varies 17 to some extent for California and New York, and 18 what we've been able to determine is that this 19 California regulation could result in three tons 20 per day of emissions, a thousand tons a year at 21 a cost of $60 million, which comes to $60,000 a 22 ton. 23 If there were a minor effect, it 1563 1 would be very -- it would be very minimal and 2 very effective, very expensive, but I think the 3 thing to point out is every time we make cars 4 cost more, they sell fewer cars and the best 5 thing we can do for air quality in this state or 6 in any state of this nation is not to make cars 7 more expensive but to make them more affordable 8 so people can buy new cars and, as you know, 9 Senator, from our debate last year, and we 10 talked about an old car buyback and at that time 11 it was established that old cars, some of them, 12 put out up to 70 percent of the pollutants of 13 new cars. So we should be trying to make it 14 easy and least expensive as possible to replace 15 our old fleet of cars with new cars. 16 Senator, if we say to the 17 Department, Don't mess around with the sale of 18 new cars for '94, let the business go ahead and 19 sell these clean cars which I'm saying the tail 20 pipe standards are the same and sell as many as 21 they can as least expensively as they can so we 22 can do something effective about air quality and 23 not some adding further impediments to 1564 1 resolution of the air quality problem in our 2 state. 3 And, as I say, Senator, you 4 mentioned about the other house. The other 5 house, yes, they put something in about the EPA 6 saying it wouldn't harm the air quality. 7 They'll say anything that these people want them 8 to say, but the simple fact is we have to make 9 up our minds based on the facts that are 10 available to us. The facts that are available 11 to us is that we're going to create a lot of 12 problems and have no benefit. 13 SENATOR LEICHTER: Mr. President. 14 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Senator 15 Leichter. 16 SENATOR LEICHTER: Senator 17 Johnson, I just want to say when you talk about 18 us saying anything that, you know, they want to 19 say, I wonder whether that may not apply to some 20 aspects of the arguments that have been advanced 21 for this bill. 22 Let me just point out because you 23 quoted EPL and Lee Wasserman, and obviously 1565 1 there was some mistake and Lee Wasserman wrote 2 you a letter and he said, "EPL continues to 3 support implementation of the California clean 4 air program as a critical and irreplaceable 5 component of New York's effort to comply with 6 the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990." 7 You know, it's one view, it's not 8 critical, but I think what is critical is, and I 9 think that the debate between particularly 10 Senator Daly and me came down to what the effect 11 of implementing the California standard would 12 be. Does it do anything for us? And you're 13 right, Senator Daly, if it doesn't or if it's so 14 minimal, de minimus, then if it's $60 million or 15 $6 million, why do it? I would agree with you. 16 But I did not hear you refute the 17 figure that I gave you that for 1993 and 1994, 18 if we now went to the California standard, that 19 it would reduce the volatile organic compounds 20 by 29 percent and would reduce the nitrogen 21 oxides by 25 percent. That's a significant 22 benefit that we get by the California cars over 23 the federal cars. 1566 1 SENATOR DALY: Mr. President. 2 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Senator 3 Daly, why do you rise? 4 SENATOR DALY: I assume he was 5 asking me -- are you asking -- I thought he was 6 asking me a question. 7 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Senator 8 Daly. 9 SENATOR LEICHTER: I'm just 10 reiterating a fact, Senator. 11 SENATOR DALY: Well, may I ask one 12 question on those facts? 13 SENATOR LEICHTER: Yes, I'll 14 yield. 15 SENATOR DALY: Are you saying 16 those are the improvements we'll have in '93-94 17 if we go to the California certification? 18 SENATOR LEICHTER: Right. 19 California certification over the federal car. 20 SENATOR DALY: For ninety... Mr. 21 President. 22 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Yes, 23 Senator Daly. 1567 1 SENATOR DALY: I would like to 2 have him tell me where he got those figures. 3 SENATOR LEICHTER: From the 4 Department of Environmental Conservation. 5 SENATOR DALY: Mr. President, 6 isn't it surprising we debated this with the 7 Commissioner of the Department of Environmental 8 Conservation just a short three weeks ago at the 9 committee hearing. He could not -- did not give 10 us those figures at that time. At that time, he 11 had no reason for doing it other than 12 experience, and I must say I'm quite surprised. 13 I have been told by many people, 14 I believe them, that the standards are no 15 different, the air emission standards that we're 16 dealing with in this bill, and let's stick with 17 what this bill deals with, does not deal with 18 LEV, does not deal with ZEV, does not deal with 19 cheaper -- I should say with fuel. It deals 20 strictly with air emission standards for '93-94 21 and it is my understanding and certainly, 22 Senator, I'll be happy to see that information, 23 but it's my understanding there is no difference 1568 1 whatsoever between federal standards and 2 California standards for '93-94. 3 SENATOR LEICHTER: Except to this 4 extent, Senator, and that's answering your 5 question, that the California standard -- under 6 the California standard, it kicks in one year 7 earlier so you get that one year head start and 8 as I am advised, Senator, and I don't have a 9 piece of paper that says that clearly, but I'm 10 advised by counsel, I believe counsel is 11 correct, that it is at twice the rate, and so 12 that is the benefit that we get. 13 Let me also say, by starting in 14 1993 and bringing in the cars with the 15 California standard and the reduction of these 16 emissions in the air, that I have this figure 17 that, under the California car, over the life of 18 the car we'll get rid of 6,670 pounds of 19 volatile organic compounds, mainly those are 20 hydrocarbons -- per day. It couldn't be per 21 car; that would be all of the cars, and 25,000 22 pounds of the nitrogen oxides per day. 23 In contrast, the federal car 1569 1 program benefits are far less. Estimates are 2 less than 2,000 pounds of the volatile organic 3 compounds; that's 2,000 as against 6600 and 4 6,500 pounds of the nitrogen oxides per day as 5 against 25,000; so it seems on these figures 6 irrefutable that we get a definite gain by going 7 ahead on the California standards. 8 And Senator Johnson said, Well, 9 you know, air quality isn't so bad and he cited 10 some places. Let me just tell you, New York 11 City, Senator Johnson, of all the cities in the 12 country, is the third worst. We are a severe 13 non-attainment area as far as ozones are 14 concerned. We -- we can't look the other way. 15 We can't play Pollyanna on this. We know it and 16 our representatives from the city of New York, 17 we know the number of children that we have with 18 asthma, the number of people that are sick with 19 respiratory ailments. We've got to act. 20 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Senator 21 Jones. 22 SENATOR JONES: Yes. I rise to 23 speak on the bill and to support my colleagues 1570 1 on the other side of the aisle on this issue. 2 I listened very carefully today 3 and, clearly, I don't think any one of us would 4 be getting up here and speaking to something 5 that is going to harm our environment or really 6 be a definite problem to clean air. I think we 7 all support that. 8 However, the issue that I think 9 what I'm hearing the auto workers and the car 10 dealers asking for is time. I'm also not 11 hearing anything that tells me that our clean 12 air is going to be in dire danger during this 13 time period, but what is going to be in danger, 14 what I think is one of our biggest concerns is 15 workers and jobs. 16 I happen to come from an area 17 that the automobile industry is already in dire 18 straits and that there are many people already 19 out of work, and for us to rush up a process 20 that I don't see is going to be harming the en 21 vironment by doing this and that, in the long 22 run, is going to put not only our car dealers 23 from selling cars, but that is going to be a 1571 1 harm to our auto workers as well. I am all for 2 pursuing anything we can to achieve clean air 3 but I'm not willing to do it on the backs of our 4 -- the auto workers in our state. 5 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Read 6 the last section. 7 SENATOR JOHNSON: Mr. President. 8 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Senator 9 Johnson to close debate. 10 SENATOR JOHNSON: I think we'd 11 all like to terminate the discussion, but I 12 wouldn't like it to end without making a few 13 points. 14 As I mentioned, auto dealers are 15 now and over the next few months will be 16 ordering the 1994 cars. I mentioned to you that 17 two weeks ago they couldn't sell the federal 18 cars because they didn't have the sticker. We 19 got the waiver. Now some people are stuck with 20 cars with the California sticker which they 21 can't sell because they only sell federal cars 22 in the state. 23 This is no esoteric point for 1572 1 debating. This is economic and practical 2 reality. In the next month or two, either we'll 3 pass this bill or we'll have another crisis 4 which will be dealt with by the Department of 5 Motor Vehicles in their own way, maybe by 6 granting another waiver, totally unnecessarily, 7 and it won't be done until the last minute. At 8 that point there may be 10 or 15 percent of the 9 cars delivered which are California cars which 10 again will not be able to be sold in this state 11 because of the waiver granted by the 12 Department. They'll have to be trucked across 13 the country to be sold if they can, indeed, sell 14 them there. 15 There is no doubt it's going to 16 -- we're going to lose maybe 10 or 15 percent 17 of the potential sales. These cars won't be 18 available because people won't want to pay the 19 extra hundred dollars for various reasons. A 20 heavy negative effect on the people of this 21 state, not only the auto workers, the people in 22 the dealerships, everybody with whom those 23 people trade. The people who are laid off in 1573 1 the auto dealerships won't work; they'll be on 2 unemployment. It's a foolish thing with no 3 benefit. 4 We lost in this state 40 percent 5 of all the jobs that were lost in the nation 6 were lost in this state in the last four years. 7 Are we trying to make it 50 percent or what is 8 our problem? 9 Talking about air quality. We're 10 the third worst in the country. California is 11 worst, 207 days. I don't know who's second but 12 we're third. Where are we? Seven days last 13 year, seven days out of compliance, and that 14 doesn't mean a crisis situation by any stretch 15 of the imagination. 16 If this was a desirable thing to 17 do, these California cars for '93 and '94, why 18 are we the only state in the nation? We're the 19 only state in the nation because Commissioner 20 Jorling wants it that way. He's been beating 21 people up for half a dozen years in the NESCAUM 22 and the Ozone Transport Region, trying to get 23 everybody to go along with him. 1574 1 Guess what? They haven't gone. 2 Other states have said, Well, maybe; well, O.K., 3 maybe some time in the future. No other states 4 have done it. If you read the New York Times on 5 a different page, they'll tell you the Northeast 6 is making progress. Everybody is going to do 7 this and this, but when you read it out there's 8 no other state that's adopting these '93 and '94 9 regulations. 10 Why do we have to be a pariah? 11 Why do we have to have the worst environment for 12 business? Why do we have to have the most 13 regulations, and everything the most expensive 14 in the state of New York? Mario Cuomo said last 15 week he doesn't know why people are leaving the 16 state; he's going to do a study. Give me a 17 break, Governor. You know why they're leaving 18 this state, because they can't afford to live 19 here. 20 This stupid imposition is just 21 another good reason to get the heck out of New 22 York State. I don't want them to do that. I 23 want them to stay here. I want them to do 1575 1 business here and buy their cars here, clean up 2 the air, create jobs and have the money to send 3 their kids to college. I want people to stay in 4 this state. 5 One regulation like this out of 6 the way will be one little step to making some 7 kind of sensible progress in the economy of this 8 state. 9 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Senator 10 -- Senator Dollinger. 11 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Mr. 12 President, I'll be extremely brief. I support 13 Senator Johnson's bill. 14 I guess the analogy I would use 15 is very simple. We're now starting to treat the 16 patient who has been smoking for years and years 17 and years. Our system is -- our air quality in 18 this state is, unfortunately, in some areas I 19 know in severe non-attainment at various levels 20 in other parts of the state. 21 But what we're really asking to 22 do is one part of the industry to go "cold 23 turkey" and ask them to pay the cost, the burden 1576 1 of it. I think that as we comply with the Clean 2 Air Act, the patient is going to have tremors; 3 it's going to have its shivers, but I think we 4 owe to this state that we do it in a responsible 5 fashion as we begin the process to move toward 6 cleaner air. We've been doing it for a century 7 in our industries and in our automobiles and in 8 many other ways. We're going to have a long 9 process. 10 I don't want anyone to interpret 11 my vote in favor of Senator Johnson's bill as an 12 indication that I don't want the air quality in 13 this state to improve. I believe that it will. 14 I believe, if we take reasonable steps that 15 attend to the patient and make sure that we 16 minimize the tremors and the shakes that the 17 patient who's trying to kick itself of the habit 18 of high pollution, if we pay attention to the 19 patient with reasonable steps, I think we will 20 get to the eventual goal. 21 So I rise in support of the 22 bill. I didn't mean or intend to speak after 23 the sponsor, but I think this is a good way to 1577 1 begin the process. I think that, as we begin 2 the process, we've got to be assured that we're 3 not causing great anxiety in this patient that 4 we call the state of New York. If we don't 5 adopt this bill, I'm afraid we send a tremor 6 into an industry and, frankly, into the work 7 force and one that the patient isn't ready and 8 prepared to accept. 9 So I will be voting in favor of 10 Senator Johnson's bill. 11 SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Read the 12 last section. 13 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Is 14 there anybody else on the bill? 15 Read the last section. 16 THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This 17 act shall take effect immediately. 18 SENATOR LEICHTER: Mr. President. 19 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Senator 20 Leichter. 21 SENATOR LEICHTER: Yeah. Mr. 22 President, I want to correct something I said to 23 Senator Daly. We obviously gave you wrong 1578 1 information. I want to put that out there. I 2 said that there would be a 29 percent and a 25 3 percent saving in '90, '93, 94. You asked me 4 where did I get those figures. I said DEC and, 5 in fact, I was advised afterwards that this was 6 in a calculation that counsel did and I think 7 that -- I think the calculation is incorrect. I 8 don't think the savings are in that magnitude, 9 and I wanted to correct that, and it didn't come 10 from DEC. 11 The exact DEC figures are the 12 pounds that I gave you, and that's over the life 13 of the vehicle. There will be some benefit in 14 1993-94 but not of the magnitude I first stated, 15 and I wanted to correct that, although I think 16 there are still ample reasons to vote against 17 this bill and I appreciate what my friends say 18 in their concern for the automobile industry and 19 the automobile workers. I share that. But I 20 think that can be dealt with. I don't think the 21 tremors are so great, and I think we must 22 consider the welfare of all the people of the 23 state of New York, and that requires that we 1579 1 address the need for cleaner air. 2 Thank you, Mr. President. I vote 3 in the negative. 4 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Wait a 5 minute. Has the last section been read? Yes, 6 all right. Call the roll. 7 (The Secretary called the roll. ) 8 THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in 9 the negative on Calendar Number -- those 10 recorded in the negative on Calendar Number 255 11 are Senators Connor, Gold, Leichter, Markowitz, 12 Mendez, Montgomery, Ohrenstein and Oppenheimer. 13 Ayes 52, nays 8. 14 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: The 15 bill is passed. 16 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 17 256, by Senator Present, Senate Bill Number 18 2108, an act to amend the Insurance Law. 19 SENATOR SOLOMON: Mr. President. 20 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Senator 21 Solomon. 22 SENATOR SOLOMON: Yes, Mr. 23 President, on the bill, instead of asking for an 1580 1 explanation. If Mr. -- if Senator Present would 2 yield for a question, please. 3 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Will 4 you yield, Senator Present? 5 SENATOR PRESENT: Yes. 6 SENATOR SOLOMON: Yes. Senator, 7 I don't disagree with the intent of the bill to 8 expand mammography testing. However, I did a 9 lot of work in looking to ERISA, the Employment 10 and Retirement Income and Security Act, and part 11 of this legislation, you remove language of 12 Section 7 where you say -- I'm sorry, line 7, 13 "***except that this provision shall not apply 14 to a policy which covers persons employed in 15 more than one state or the benefit structure 16 which was the subject of collective bargaining 17 affecting persons employed in more than one 18 state." 19 What this would do by removing 20 this language would subject this entire bill to 21 an attack in our court system based on ERISA 22 from employment unions, companies that are self 23 insured under ERISA and the result would be that 1581 1 this bill would be thrown out in federal court. 2 ERISA has been expanding. You 3 recently saw the surcharge that the state 4 imposed. Last year when we did the budget, the 5 11 percent was thrown out in federal court, and 6 I can tell you now, it's very simple, this 7 exemption would not survive -- this legislation 8 would not survive an ERISA attack, and the net 9 result would be instead of protecting more women 10 with mammography screening, that no one in this 11 state would be caused to have this, and I'd like 12 to know if you've had counsel look at that or 13 how you can explain that. 14 SENATOR PRESENT: We've had no 15 memos in opposition to this bill. You're 16 bringing it up now. I don't have any real 17 problem with what you've said. 18 SENATOR SOLOMON: Well, Blue 19 Cross/Blue Shield, which I usually don't agree 20 with, raises the ERISA point in a memo in 21 opposition and I really think that there wasn't 22 any research done on this legislation, because 23 there's no question in my mind that, if this is 1582 1 passed and signed, it will be attacked in court, 2 the lowest court that sees this bill will throw 3 it out based on the fact that it violates ERISA, 4 and the Blue Cross memo raises that on March 12, 5 '93. 6 If you look at -- by Hinman, 7 Straub, memorandum in opposition, Section 2, and 8 I'm not against the concept but it violates 9 ERISA, and we're going to have problems and I 10 would suggest that you amend the bill and take 11 out that section. 12 SENATOR GOLD: Mr. President. 13 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Senator 14 Gold, why do you rise? 15 SENATOR GOLD: Well, with the 16 permission of the Majority Leader, could I ask 17 Senator Solomon a question on this subject? 18 Senator, I got the memo here and 19 I am not embarrassed at all to yield to your 20 expertise, but I'm not sure I really understand 21 it. I think that everyone here from Senator 22 Present on certainly understands the problem and 23 wants to help women and wants to have this 1583 1 successful, et cetera, et cetera. But I'm not 2 sure I understand your explanation of why the 3 bill would cause a problem, and if you could 4 perhaps in less technical words just explain to 5 all of us, why you think the bill creates a 6 problem, it might be helpful. 7 SENATOR SOLOMON: Well, right 8 now, ERISA -- any employee benefit, any impact 9 on any employee benefit passed by a state can be 10 attacked based on the Employment and Retirement 11 Income and Security Act of 1974 that deals with 12 health insurance. That's what this deals with. 13 So if you go across -- you're self-insured. 14 You're a union. You can attack this saying that 15 you're violating ERISA. The state cannot 16 override the federal government. 17 Excuse me? 18 SENATOR GOLD: Senator, how is it 19 violating it? That's what we're trying to find 20 out. 21 SENATOR SOLOMON: It violates it 22 when you attack the collective bargaining 23 agreements and you cross state lines. In other 1584 1 words, this will bring people that are 2 self-insured into this act, and they're exempt 3 from state actions. 4 SENATOR PRESENT: Mr. President. 5 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Senator 6 Present. 7 SENATOR PRESENT: This bill was 8 passed last year. This issue was brought up; we 9 researched it, reviewed it and found it not very 10 valid, and it's being brought up again. 11 SENATOR SOLOMON: Well - 12 Senator, the only thing I could say is that the 13 entire set of case law based on ERISA, any 14 legislation such as this has been a problem and 15 the problem, they've been attacked across the 16 country, any state imposition such as this, and 17 if it does get passed and signed, we'll have the 18 same problems, and what worries me is that the 19 impact could be the reversion back where we 20 don't even have our mandate in the small 21 groups. There's no separability in this bill 22 either. 23 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Read 1585 1 the last section. 2 THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This 3 act shall take effect on the 1st day of January 4 next succeeding the date on which it shall have 5 become law. 6 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Call 7 the roll. 8 (The Secretary called the roll. ) 9 THE SECRETARY: Senator Kuhl, how 10 are you voting? 11 (Negative indication.) 12 THE SECRETARY: Ayes 59, nays 13 one, Senator Kuhl recorded in the negative. 14 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Senator 15 Levy. 16 SENATOR LEVY: Mr. President, I 17 was asked - 18 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Oh, 19 excuse me. Excuse me, Senator Levy. Just hold 20 it up. That bill is passed. 21 Senator Levy. 22 SENATOR LEVY: Yes, Mr. 23 President. I was out of the chamber when 1586 1 Senator Johnson's bill was voted on. I'd like 2 unanimous consent to be reported in the negative 3 on Calendar Number 255. 4 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Without 5 objection, Senator Levy is in the negative. 6 Senator Jones. 7 SENATOR JONES: I'd like 8 unanimous consent to be recorded as a no on 247, 9 251. 10 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: 247, 11 251, Senator Jones will be in the negative. 12 Senator Libous, did you want to 13 be recognized? 14 SENATOR LIBOUS: No, I didn't, Mr. 15 President. 16 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Senator 17 Nozzolio. 18 SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Yes, Mr. 19 President. I'd like to be recorded in the 20 negative on Calendar Number 245. 21 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: 245, 22 Senator Nozzolio is in the negative. 23 Senator Pataki. 1587 1 SENATOR PATAKI: Yes, Mr. 2 President. I'd like unanimous consent to be 3 recorded in the negative on Calendar 245. 4 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: 245, 5 Senator Pataki is in the negative. 6 SENATOR PRESENT: Ready for the 7 next bill? 8 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: I think 9 we are ready for the next bill. 10 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 11 261, by Senator Velella, Senate Bill Number 12 3156, an act to amend the Insurance Law, in 13 relation to reimbursement for speech/language 14 pathology or audiology services. 15 SENATOR SOLOMON: Explanation. 16 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: 17 Explanation has been asked for. Senator 18 Velella. 19 SENATOR VELELLA: Yes. This bill 20 will allow speech pathologists and audiologist 21 patients to be reimbursed when such services 22 would otherwise have been reimbursable if 23 performed by a physician. So that if -- let me 1588 1 make it very simple: If a pathologist or an 2 audiologist performed a service and it's covered 3 under an existing contract and it's within the 4 scope of their jurisdiction as defined in the 5 law for pathologists or audiologists, it would 6 be covered for them to be reimbursed just as if 7 it was done by a physician. 8 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Senator 9 Solomon, I think. Senator Montgomery, do you - 10 SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes. Would 11 Senator Velella respond to a question? 12 SENATOR VELELLA: Yes. 13 SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Senator 14 Velella, does this bill mandate that the 15 insurance companies cover? 16 SENATOR VELELLA: No, it's only 17 if it's already previously covered. It doesn't 18 go to the issue of additional coverage. It goes 19 to the issue of who's performing the service, so 20 that, if an audiologist or pathologist in the 21 scope of their definition of accepted practice, 22 if they can do that already by the licensing 23 authorities, they can be reimbursed for their 1589 1 services as a physician would have been. 2 SENATOR MONTGOMERY: And one 3 other question, Senator Velella: Does it 4 require that the physician -- does it require 5 that they have a referral from a physician in 6 order to - 7 SENATOR VELELLA: No, no. 8 SENATOR MONTGOMERY: O.K. On the 9 bill, Mr. President. I'd like to - 10 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Senator 11 Montgomery, on the bill. 12 SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes. I want 13 to compliment Senator Velella. This is a very 14 good bill. It's very important, and I know I 15 never usually agree with Senator Velella, but 16 he's done a very good thing, and I just want to 17 say why. He's a wonderful human being, yes, 18 and - 19 SENATOR VELELLA: I think you're 20 a nice person also. 21 SENATOR MONTGOMERY: This is a 22 very important bill, and I will explain to my 23 colleagues why I'm supporting it so -- so 1590 1 enthusiastically. 2 We now have a situation where 3 children who have speech problems in the public 4 school system in the city of New York must, in 5 order to receive speech services, must go 6 through the handicapped committee and thereby be 7 labeled as a handicap -- be categorized as a 8 handicapped child. And, clearly, that is, in 9 most cases of speech problems, not the case. 10 These are not handicapped children and in that 11 sense. They simply have a speech impediment, 12 which is very common, particularly among young 13 children. So that's one problem. 14 The other problem is the only way 15 that the insurance will reimburse speech therapy 16 for children or anybody else is that they must 17 go through a hospital, and that is more costly 18 and less efficient. So I am supporting this 19 bill because I think that we would save, in 20 fact, the insurance companies' money, if -- if 21 speech and language therapists could be -- could 22 bill directly to the insurance companies without 23 having to go through the hospital, and I think 1591 1 moreover that hopefully we will be able to 2 correct that serious problem where children 3 would have speech problems in the Board of Ed. 4 must go through Special Ed. That is -- that 5 causes many parents to have to seek outside 6 therapy for which they can not receive 7 reimbursement through their insurance companies 8 unless they go through a hospital. 9 So, Senator Velella, this is a 10 good bill, and I hope we can work further on the 11 whole question of how we handle children with 12 speech problems in schools so that they can 13 receive the services of a speech teacher without 14 being labeled as handicapped. 15 Thank you. 16 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: On the 17 bill, Senator Solomon. 18 SENATOR SOLOMON: Thank you, Mr. 19 President. 20 Senator Velella yield, please? 21 SENATOR VELELLA: Yes. 22 SENATOR SOLOMON: Senator, 23 there's been no cost-benefit analysis done on 1592 1 this legislation on what the cost and additional 2 costs on an insurance policy is, is there? 3 SENATOR VELELLA: Well, I don't 4 know if you would say independent, but the New 5 York State Speech Language and Hearing 6 Association has, so you might say that they 7 might look at it with a little bit of a 8 jaundiced eye. 9 SENATOR SOLOMON: Right. 10 SENATOR VELELLA: But I see no 11 study done that would conflict with it, and they 12 have basically come up with the conclusion that 13 it would be little or no additional expense. 14 Again, we're not mandating additional services, 15 Senator. We're just saying that those services 16 can be provided not necessarily by a physician 17 but by other people who have been licensed and 18 the scope of their licensure fits into the 19 criteria that's necessary for the patient, so 20 that in some sense I think there might be some 21 saving as Senator Montgomery has outlined. 22 SENATOR SOLOMON: Thank you. On 23 the bill. 1593 1 Unfortunately, this bill falls 2 into the definition of a state mandate for small 3 group and individual policies which are the only 4 policies we can impact. We can not impact large 5 groups and large union policies because, as I 6 said before, they're exempt from ERISA as a 7 result of ERISA. 8 Back two years ago when I had 9 looked at this, the Senate Democratic Task Force 10 on Health Insurance, and we found a number of 11 things including the fact that 18 states have 12 already passed legislation where before any new 13 mandate is adopted, they have a cost-benefit 14 analysis, and the reason for that is in 15 situations such as this, we had adopted, for 16 instance, psychiatric social workers because 17 they provided the same type of service as a 18 psychiatrist or a psychologist and, lo and 19 behold, what we found out as a result of that 20 mandate was that mental health services 21 increased dramatically and increased the cost of 22 health insurance. 23 Now, in the last year in this 1594 1 chamber, we have been here and we have struggled 2 with increases in health insurance policies, 3 increases that are caused by a myriad of 4 circumstances from one end to the other, but in 5 fact mandates do have an impact on increasing 6 the cost of health insurance, and I don't think 7 we should be adopting any additional mandates 8 which only affect individual and small group 9 policies in this state. 10 There's a limited number of 11 situations which this could impact that should 12 possibly increase the cost of health insurance 13 today. People are getting calls into their 14 offices as a result of community rating: How 15 come my insurance went up? How come my insurance 16 went up by a hundred dollars, two hundred 17 dollars, three hundred dollars or doubled or 18 tripled? 19 At this point in time, we should 20 not be passing legislation such as this where we 21 don't know what the fiscal impact is on the cost 22 of health insurance, and until we have a clear 23 idea of what this is going to cost, and what the 1595 1 impact is going to be, we shouldn't be passing 2 it. 3 That's what starts to get states 4 like us and other states across the country into 5 trouble. There are mandates across the states 6 on all different areas. One state has mandates 7 where they have to cover the cost of hairpieces 8 in their legislation. I'm sure there was a good 9 reason for that along the line. 10 But we have to be very careful 11 today with the situation where we had to come 12 and bail out Empire Blue Cross/Blue Shield at 13 the beginning of the legislative session, that 14 we're not going to help increase the cost of 15 health insurance in this state before we have a 16 clear idea what it's going to pay for and what 17 benefit we're going to get, and then we make 18 that decision. 19 Thank you. 20 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Senator 21 Velella. 22 Do you want to yield to Senator 23 Lack, and you can close it? 1596 1 SENATOR LACK: Thank you, Mr. 2 President. 3 I must say I'm certainly 4 interested in hearing the word "mandate". It 5 seems to get thrown around this chamber with 6 alacrity on almost every bill that's proposed. 7 But, Senator Solomon, for 8 argument's sake, we'll accept your thesis that 9 this is the imposition of a mandate, but if 10 you'd listened to Senator Montgomery's remarks, 11 it's going to replace another mandate. Now, if 12 that's, in effect, what's going to happen, let's 13 evaluate which is the cheaper of the two 14 mandates that we're getting involved in. 15 And listening to Senator 16 Montgomery, she told you that the most common 17 impediment that causes the classification in 18 children in both pre-school handicapped 19 committees and in regular committees on the 20 handicapped is a speech impairment and when that 21 goes through a school district and when that 22 goes into a pre-K situation, a cost that's now 23 shared 50 percent by the localities and 50 1597 1 percent by the state, that is probably the most 2 costly manner to finance and pay for improving 3 some child's speech problem in this state. 4 What Senator Velella's bill would 5 do would remove the focus from the school system 6 of having to pay and push this through the 7 committee on the handicapped into the insurance 8 system where it belonged in the first place. So 9 if we're going to accept the word "mandate" 10 that's involved, I'd much rather see it as part 11 of insurance, where it properly belongs, than in 12 the school system which runs huge excessive 13 costs in trying to control a speech impediment 14 problem. 15 Senator, I'm glad on this bill 16 and the last bill you talked about the ERISA 17 problem. Of course, it's a problem. It's a 18 problem not only in this. It's a problem in 19 labor-related matters on apprenticeship and all 20 sorts of related matters. 21 But, Senator, you know as well as 22 I, there is pending in the Congress bills and 23 with the new administration in support of those 1598 1 bills, which will remove the ERISA impediment 2 from this type of situation. Senator Javits, 3 the sponsor of the original ERISA statute, never 4 intended ERISA to be controlling the types of 5 situations that it is, and I would assume by the 6 time that this goes into effect, the type of 7 ERISA preemption you're talking about on 8 multi-state or large group policies will be a 9 matter of history, a footnote, and that we in 10 New York, and as well as the other states, will 11 be able to control supplements and health 12 benefit supplements the way they should be. 13 Senator Velella, I think this is 14 an excellent piece of legislation, and I 15 certainly plan to vote for it. 16 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Senator 17 -- Senator Solomon. 18 SENATOR SOLOMON: Just on the 19 bill. 20 Senator Lack, it may move it into 21 the insurance, but those school districts do pay 22 insurance benefits for its employees, so they're 23 going to pay on those benefits in the same way 1599 1 as if they're paying directly, and what I had 2 said was there hadn't been an evaluation. 3 That's what my problem is. 4 We have no cost, we have no 5 evaluation process in this state. If we had an 6 evaluation process in this state for mandates, 7 and it came forward and gave the Legislature an 8 idea of what they would cost in reality and what 9 money we would save, then I think we could all 10 make a better judgment on it, and that's the 11 problem that I view, not that we're dealing with 12 this particular group but, as I said before, 18 13 other states have an evaluation process. I've 14 had a bill in to implement an evaluation process 15 for a couple of years. It's very important and 16 more so if that ERISA extension gets through 17 because if that exemption goes through, we're 18 going to have a lot of mandates that are going 19 to come forward in the Insurance Committee and 20 other committees. 21 We've got to know as legislators 22 what it's going to cost and who it's going to 23 benefit. Is it just going to benefit the 1600 1 provider or is it going to benefit the public in 2 general by just lowering such costs because 3 unfortunately a lot of mandates just benefit the 4 groups that push the mandates who, by the way, 5 most often tend to be those in that profession 6 that make that practice that want the mandates. 7 We generally do not get the 8 general public asking for mandates to be 9 imposed, i.e., in this case speech therapists or 10 audiologists that are pushing this mandate. 11 They're the ones that came forward and proposed 12 the bill. We didn't have any great public 13 concern saying we should have the bill. The 14 provider who is going to get the direct benefit 15 from the insurance payments, get the direct 16 check into their hands, generally is the one who 17 proposes the bill, and that's what my problem 18 is, we need a fair evaluation process in this. 19 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Senator 20 Velella. 21 SENATOR VELELLA: Mr. President, 22 I think it's time that some of us in this house 23 just stop a second, take a deep breath and start 1601 1 really reading the bills, because if, in fact, 2 this was a mandate, Senator Solomon's comments 3 might be to the point. 4 But this bill is not a mandate. 5 This bill does nothing more than provide an 6 alternative to services that are already 7 covered. If the services are needed, they can 8 be provided by a physician now. We're saying 9 we're expanding who can provide those services, 10 licensed people who are qualified to deliver 11 those services. 12 So in the essence of a mandate, 13 it's broadening the scope of what's already in 14 the policy. It has nothing to do with increased 15 services that you weren't entitled to before. 16 You're entitled to them, we're expanding the 17 availability, and that is a major point, I 18 think, that goes to what Senator Montgomery was 19 saying, Senator Lack was saying: A lot of 20 people are going to be able to get services that 21 they weren't going to be able to get before 22 because we've expanded the availability by 23 broadening the amount of providers in the 1602 1 marketplace. 2 We could limit costs on insurance 3 if we denied everybody what they're entitled to 4 under the policy, Senator Solomon. If we told 5 people you can't get these services, the prices 6 would go down, but that's not what we're all 7 about. We're trying to get these essential 8 services to as many people as we possibly can by 9 qualified, licensed people, and that's what this 10 bill does. 11 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Read 12 the last section. 13 THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This 14 act shall take effect on the 1st day of 15 September next succeeding the date on which it 16 shall have become a law. 17 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Call 18 the roll. 19 (The Secretary called the roll. ) 20 THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in 21 the negative on Calendar Number 6 -- on Calendar 22 Number 261 are Senators Galiber, Holland, 23 Pataki, Solomon and Waldon. Ayes 55, nays 5. 1603 1 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: The 2 bill is passed. 3 SENATOR GALIBER: Yes. 4 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Senator 5 Galiber, why do you rise? 6 SENATOR GALIBER: Mr. President, 7 I'd like to ask for unanimous consent to be 8 recorded in the negative on 247. 9 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Senator 10 Galiber will be in the negative on 247, without 11 objection. 12 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Senator 13 Present, I think that's our last bill. What's 14 your - 15 SENATOR LEICHTER: Mr. President, 16 I believe there's a motion there at the desk to 17 discharge. 18 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Senator 19 Leichter, I think there is a motion here at the 20 desk. 21 SENATOR LEICHTER: This is to 22 discharge my bill 1432-A, and at this time, I'd 23 bring up the motion. I waive its reading. 1604 1 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Let me 2 read -- let the Secretary read the title. 3 SENATOR LEICHTER: O.K. Yes, read 4 the title. 5 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: And 6 then we'll let you go. 7 THE SECRETARY: Senate Bill 8 Number 1342, an act to amend the State Finance 9 Law, in relation to requiring that budget bills 10 making appropriations or reappropriations to the 11 Legislature contain specific categories and 12 amounts of expenditures. 13 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Senator 14 Leichter. 15 SENATOR LEICHTER: Yes, Mr. 16 President, on the motion, my friends, if this 17 debate sounds familiar to you and if each of you 18 here might very well be able to state everything 19 that's going to be said by me and maybe by some 20 other people on this side of the aisle, because 21 we visited this issue before and, frankly, we're 22 going to keep on revisiting this issue time and 23 time again throughout this session, if need be 1605 1 in the next session, until this Legislature does 2 the right thing; and I'm not only talking about 3 the Majority here. I'm also talking about the 4 Majority in the other house. 5 It's time that we ended the 6 abuse, the scandal, the embarrassment of the 7 legislative budget. It's time that we stopped 8 saying these are the rules that apply to 9 government but they don't apply to the 10 Legislature, because we're special and we can 11 act above the law or outside of the law. It's 12 really as simple as that, and we ought to -- we 13 ought to do the right thing. 14 Now, I know that some people on 15 the other side of the aisle and some of your 16 spokespersons have said, Well, this is 17 political. Well, it's become political only 18 because you refuse to do the right thing. We're 19 not picking on this issue because it's something 20 we really don't believe in, but we want to 21 embarrass you. 22 If it's political and it's 23 embarrassing to you, it's because you've taken a 1606 1 position which, frankly, is indefensible. I 2 mean this has been my issue since I've been in 3 the Legislature. I think I voted against the 4 legislative budget when I was in the Assembly. 5 I was the only one that used to also when I went 6 to the Senate, because I just think it's wrong. 7 We shouldn't be governing in this 8 fashion. We shouldn't be setting this example. 9 So what this bill does is require very clear, 10 precise itemization but in no different fashion 11 than we require for the judiciary or we require 12 for the executive branch, and the reason for 13 this bill was never made clearer than last year 14 when, frankly, we found that you people had put 15 your campaign fingers into the public pot. 16 I mean it's interesting. You 17 argue against public financing of campaigns. I 18 guess what you have mean is against the 19 financing of campaigns other than Republican 20 incumbent Senators, because very clearly you dug 21 into the pot of postage money which we showed 22 that what you did is that you would spend down 23 and on election years roll the money over and 1607 1 then spend it in election years by sending out 2 additional mailings for those of your incumbents 3 who you thought needed that help, and the way 4 you are able to do this is because you had this 5 legislative budget with these lump sum 6 appropriations. You have the roll-overs, the 7 reappropriations, which far exceed by many, many 8 percent, the reappropriation of any other level 9 of government, and you can do all of that 10 because it's not an itemized budget. 11 You don't need it. It's wrong. 12 It shouldn't be done, and we're going to keep on 13 pounding away at that issue in every different 14 way that we know how, because I and I believe 15 all the other members on this side of the aisle 16 feel very strongly about it. We feel that it 17 disgraces this Legislature, it demeans us. It's 18 -- it's -- it's really beneath us to do this 19 sort of thing, and to have, as often has 20 happened in the past, to have members of the 21 Majority get up or your spokesperson complain 22 that you're not being sufficiently advised about 23 expenditures on the part of the Executive when 1608 1 you have a budget that is totally devoid of 2 information. 3 And the public has a right to 4 know and we, as legislators, have a right to 5 know when we vote on these budgets and maybe 6 next week, if it's next week that we'll take up 7 the legislative budget, we'll go through it 8 again, and we'll explore how these expenditures 9 in lump sum categories are going to be made, and 10 I remember when Senator Marchi and I used to 11 have those debates somebody once said the 12 definition of "eternity" is Senator Leichter 13 asking a question and Senator Marchi answering. 14 It may have been true, but we 15 used to debate that at 3:00 or 4:00 o'clock in 16 the morning, and Senator Marchi is as skillful 17 as anybody I know in giving what sounds like a 18 very learned answer until you look at it and you 19 realize you haven't learned anything, and I 20 think part of the reason was that, although he 21 was a most distinguished and able chair of the 22 Finance Committee, he himself didn't know. He'd 23 stand up there and have to defend the 1609 1 legislative budget, and he didn't -- he had not 2 the foggiest idea how that money was going to be 3 spent, because it wasn't set forth in the 4 budget. It wasn't set forth in any underlying 5 document. Nobody knew. 6 There was only two people who 7 knew, and they decide as they go along, and 8 that's the Majority Leader and the Speaker. 9 So, my friends and I, my 10 colleagues, but also my friends particularly on 11 this issue, because we want to bring you to do 12 the right thing. I said the other day, and I 13 mean it, I'd love you to take this issue away 14 from us, to say, O.K. We're going to come out 15 with an itemized budget; we're going to come out 16 with some of these other things that the federal 17 government does; Congress does it, other state 18 legislatures do it and poof! there goes the 19 political issue. 20 You're doing the right thing. 21 Everybody would say you're looking great, you'd 22 get nice editorials, and that would be the end 23 of it and you'd have the satisfaction of doing 1610 1 what I know each and every one of you knows is 2 the right thing to do, that you can't take 3 public monies in this fashion and stay -- and 4 we're not talking, by the way, of a few dollars, 5 we're talking about over $160 million, $160 6 million, and some of you particularly are proud 7 of the fact that you're fiscal conservatives, 8 you're -- you're sound when it comes to budget 9 ing. So, therefore, do it on your own budgets, 10 set that example. 11 So we put forward this bill; we 12 want to have it voted on. We'd like to see it 13 passed. Unfortunately, you didn't report it on 14 the floor, so we've made this motion to 15 discharge. I don't know what more to say than 16 do the right thing. 17 I move the motion, Mr. 18 President. 19 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: All in 20 favor of the motion, say aye. 21 SENATOR GOLD: Party vote in the 22 affirmative. 23 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Those 1611 1 opposed nay. 2 SENATOR PRESENT: Party vote. 3 SENATOR GOLD: Party vote in the 4 affirmative. 5 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Party 6 vote. Call the roll on a party vote. 7 (The Secretary called the roll. ) 8 THE SECRETARY: Ayes 25, nays 9 35. 10 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: The 11 motion is defeated. 12 SENATOR GOLD: Mr. President. 13 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Senator 14 Gold. 15 SENATOR GOLD: Yeah, I believe 16 you have a motion by Senator Halperin with 17 regard to his bill, 640, and I'd now, on his 18 behalf, call up that motion. 19 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Would 20 the Secretary read Senator Halperin's motion. 21 THE SECRETARY: By Senator 22 Halperin, Senate Bill Number 640, an act to 23 amend the Legislative Law, the State Finance Law 1612 1 and the Public Officers Law, in relation to 2 requiring disclosure of the manner in which 3 public funds have been expended for personnel or 4 property by the legislative and executive 5 branches of state government. 6 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: On 7 Senator Halperin's behalf, Senator Gold. 8 SENATOR GOLD: Yes, thank you, 9 sir. 10 First of all, I'd like to point 11 out that there is a memo that I have here dated 12 March 25th from Common Cause where they have - 13 they support all of the bills we're moving 14 today, the bill by Senator Dollinger and by 15 Senator Jones and by Senator Leichter and by 16 Senator Halperin. 17 This bill is very simple but, in 18 order to understand the bill, you have to 19 understand what happens today, and I just want 20 to graphically show you. The way the state 21 legislative budget works today, we can get our 22 money from only one source. We get it from the 23 people, so we tax them; they take the money, 1613 1 this is the Legislature, you put it in and, as 2 you can see, the money disappears. It's exactly 3 what happens. 4 Where did it go? I don't know. 5 You got it? I didn't see it. We believe that 6 it's the people's money. They have a right to 7 see where the money goes. 8 This is not a new and unusual 9 concept. As a matter of fact, to the great 10 credit of Senator Halperin, he's been talking 11 about this for years and trying to get us to do 12 the right thing. 13 I don't believe that doing the 14 right thing in this area depends upon your 15 political party. There is a United States 16 Senator in this state who I didn't vote for but 17 the people had their way, and Senator D'Amato 18 sits in Washington. He apparently obeys the law 19 down there and is not afraid of the fact that 20 the Secretary of the Senate of the United States 21 prints his expenses. Senator D'Amato seems to 22 be able to survive year after year even though 23 the public knows what money he is spending and 1614 1 where. 2 This book, which you've seen 3 probably ad nauseum -- this one happens to come 4 from the Senate; there's a similar one for the 5 House -- gets down to such detail that, for 6 example, we know that on a certain day in June, 7 $4.80 was used for a delivery. I mean that's 8 how exacting it gets. $4.80. On June 16th, 9 there was an AT&T communication that cost a 10 dollar forty-two. 11 Now, do I think that a dollar 12 forty-two is going to redo -- knowing where that 13 dollar forty-two was spent is going to redo all 14 of the damage that George Bush and Ronald Reagan 15 did? Of course not, but at least -- at least 16 those people involved in the legislative process 17 are not afraid to say to the people, I don't 18 care whether it's $20,000, I don't care whether 19 it's an employee who earns $50,000, or I don't 20 care whether it's 99 cents for a box of paper 21 clips, it's your money. It ain't our money. 22 It's your money, and you have a right to know 23 where we're spending it and how we're spending 1615 1 it, and I -- I don't know of any -- any members 2 of Congress who have -- or individuals who say 3 they won't run for Congress because the people 4 might know how they're spending their money but 5 you know, the -- they say silence is assent. 6 Well, when I hear my colleagues Senator Leichter 7 or my colleague, Senator Dollinger, or others, 8 stand up and make accusations that the Majority 9 party in this house uses taxpayer money for your 10 campaigns, and nobody -- nobody is willing to 11 answer that by showing the books, I can only 12 assume that we are all in agreement with that 13 concept. 14 When Newsday, I believe it was, 15 last week wrote a singing editorial against your 16 party in this house on this very issue, and you 17 don't answer it by showing the books, I can only 18 assume that silence is assent. 19 The world, I believe, does 20 change, and I guarantee everyone sitting here, I 21 guarantee you that a day will come when we, in 22 fact, will have proper reporting and we will 23 have opening up of the books. The question is 1616 1 only when, and the question is only which party 2 will control this house when it happens. 3 It is a foolish issue to separate 4 us. It is a foolish issue. I've gone to Senate 5 Club dinners, I've gone to all kinds of 6 functions where I've heard about the integrity 7 of this house, and I would tell you that behind 8 your backs, speaking to the Republicans now, I 9 happen to believe that your side may even be as 10 honest as our side. 11 Let's prove it. Let's get it out 12 there. I don't think you've got that much to 13 hide. I think some of the expenditures you've 14 made in the past have been outrageous, but the 15 proposals that we're making are almost willing 16 to forgive that. I don't know of a proposal 17 here that says, admit that last year and two and 18 three years ago and five years ago you used 19 public money improperly. 20 I'm saying let's start anew. 21 Reapportionment is over. Ralph Marino has my 22 congratulations. People say, What's the 23 Majority Leader's job? I say, He's got one job. 1617 1 Every ten years, he's supposed to keep his 2 majority. Keeps his majority, his member is 3 state chairman; he's done his job. He's done 4 his job. He got you through reapportionment. I 5 think he's one of the great magicians of our 6 time. He called it right and he got you through 7 reapportionment. 8 But that's over, so why don't we 9 start now with a new decent program for the next 10 ten years. Let's open up these books. Let's 11 have our quarterly reports. Let's let everybody 12 know what we're doing, not with our money, 13 that's our own business, but with their money 14 because that happens to be their business. 15 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: On the 16 motion. 17 SENATOR GOLD: I think, Senator 18 Dollinger. 19 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Oh, I'm 20 sorry. Senator Dollinger. 21 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you, 22 Mr. President. 23 On the motion, I guess I look out 1618 1 and see all those red-backed chairs with no 2 bodies in them. I guess I'm somewhat 3 disappointed but I really have three things I'd 4 like to discuss ever so briefly. One is a 5 history lesson, Mr. President, and two are just 6 two things that have cropped up in the last 7 couple weeks as we've looked at the issue of 8 accounting by this body. 9 And I guess the history lesson is 10 a very simple one. The -- the proposal by 11 Senator Halperin to require an annual or a semi 12 annual, quarterly accounting of the body and 13 what it spends is patterned after a federal law 14 which contains a very instructive little lesson 15 in what party politics are all about and what 16 legislative politics are all about. 17 You probably wondered how did it 18 ever get into the Congressional laws? When did 19 Congress decide that it would disclose this 20 information? Well, the answer is in 1964. In 21 1959, a federal court had ruled that the 22 government had no obligation to disclose because 23 there was no statutory prohibition against or no 1619 1 statutory requirement. 2 In 1964, on a voice vote with 3 Republicans joining Democrats, there was a 4 requirement put into the federal law to create 5 semi-annual accounting in the Senate and 6 quarterly accounting on the House of 7 Representatives. 8 But it was very interesting, the 9 other aspect of it. In 1966, there was an 10 appropriation for the Legislature, for the 11 Congress and the House and, in that vote in 12 1966, an unusual thing happened. A Republican 13 from California -- they were in the minority at 14 the time -- stood up and said, "I would like the 15 requirement of quarterly accounting to apply to 16 all matters, including expenditures by 17 Congressional committees that are a matter of 18 public record." 19 The leadership in the House, 20 Democratic, said, "No, we don't want this bill. 21 We don't want to have to disclose." Very 22 unusual thing happened. The Republican Party 23 was able to convince enough Democrats so that 1620 1 the motion actually passed the House on a vote 2 of 188 to 131, and I'd point out that the entire 3 Republican delegation of Congressmen from New 4 York State voted 15 to nothing in favor of 5 greater disclosure by Congressional committees. 6 It carried the New York Congressional delegation 7 by a vote of 17 to 13 because everybody in this 8 state and certainly with Republican leadership, 9 with the GOP on the floor at the forefront, 10 said, We want greater disclosure by our 11 Congressional committees. We want to expand the 12 scope of disclosure in the United States 13 Congress and, in fact, that's the rule in the 14 Congress today, that not only are the 15 expenditures of the individual members quarterly 16 accounted for but, in addition, the committees 17 that conduct the business in a matter of public 18 record are also a part of the accounting. 19 So with your leadership, with the 20 leadership from your party, they expanded the 21 scope of disclosure in the United States 22 Congress. 23 It's exactly what we're looking 1621 1 for in this house. We'd simply ask you to 2 follow the leadership that your party exhibited 3 almost 30 years ago. 4 The second item, a man came to a 5 little hearing that we had in Rochester, New 6 York and said, "I can't believe that you don't 7 account for your expenditures because when you 8 ask me to pay my taxes, all you want to see are 9 all my vouchers, all my receipts, you want me to 10 prove that I've got proper deductions. I have 11 to keep my receipts. I have to be prepared for 12 an audit if the IRS or the New York State 13 Department of Taxation and Finance demands it." 14 What he highlighted to me was the 15 inconsistency that we as elected officials 16 preach. The answer is, when you pay your taxes 17 you have to provide line item accounting. You 18 have to provide receipts; you have to provide 19 evidence of your expenses, but when we spend 20 your money, we don't have to provide the same 21 kind of accountability. 22 I ask you how can we ask our 23 taxpayers to pay income taxes when we hold 1622 1 ourselves to a different standard of accounting 2 than the one that we demand at the time they 3 pay? That inconsistency erodes people's 4 confidence in this body and, frankly, in all 5 government. 6 And a final lesson, I'll take it 7 right out of my own family. I give my son, when 8 he goes off -- he's 13 years old, and he goes 9 off to the dance, I give him a $10 bill and say, 10 "O.K., I know you're going out afterwards. 11 Take my $10." He comes back at the end of the 12 night. What does he do? "Daddy, only got a 13 dime left." I ask him, "Mike, where did the 14 other $9.90 go? The dance cost a dollar, the 15 milk shake cost a buck and a half. Where did 16 the rest of the money go?" He oftentimes frets 17 and frowns and says, "We went for a pizza" or 18 "we" did something different, but at least he 19 gives me some sense of the accounting, so that 20 the next time he goes to a dance I'll say, "You 21 only need $5, because I know that's what you're 22 going to spend." 23 I suggest to you that the same 1623 1 kind of accountability you demand from your 2 children you don't seem to want to demand from 3 yourselves. The public is out there asking us 4 how much we spend, where does it go? Senator 5 Halperin's bill, if it's discharged from 6 committee, will simply put us in the same 7 posture as all of you have had as fathers so 8 that you can ask your sons, Where did the money 9 go? Tell us where it went. 10 Take the courage that the GOP 11 exercised in 1966 in the United States Congress, 12 take that leadership as your guide, force this 13 body to subscribe to the same rules that the 14 Congress subscribes to. It's the right 15 direction. It's the right thing to do, and 16 we're long overdue in doing it. 17 Your colleagues did it 30 years 18 ago. Let's do it now. 19 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: On the 20 motion. 21 SENATOR GOLD: Party vote in the 22 affirmative. 23 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Party 1624 1 vote, Senator Present? Call the roll on a party 2 vote. 3 (The Secretary called the roll. ) 4 THE SECRETARY: Ayes 25, nays 35, 5 party vote. 6 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Motion 7 fails. 8 SENATOR GOLD: Mr. President. 9 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Senator 10 Gold. 11 SENATOR GOLD: Yes, I believe 12 Senator Jones has a motion. 13 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Senator 14 Jones. 15 SENATOR JONES: Mr. President, I 16 believe - 17 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Senator 18 Jones, could we just interrupt you for a moment 19 for a change of vote. Senator Libous. 20 SENATOR LIBOUS: Thank you, Mr. 21 President. Can I be -- have unanimous consent 22 to be recorded in the negative on Calendar 23 Number 2661, please? 1625 1 SENATOR GOLD: No objection. 2 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Also 3 Senator Farley. Thank you. 4 SENATOR JONES: Yes, Mr. 5 President. I believe you have a motion, a Bill 6 Number 3704 there, and I would move to discharge 7 and ask that the title be read, please. 8 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Yes, if 9 you'd read the title, Mr. Secretary, and then 10 we'll go to Senator Jones. 11 THE SECRETARY: By Senator Jones, 12 Senate Bill Number 3704, an act to amend the 13 Public Officers Law, the General Municipal Law 14 and the Education Law, in relation to 15 restricting mass mailings by certain elected 16 state and local officials. 17 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Senator 18 Jones. 19 SENATOR JONES: Yes. The bill I 20 have before you today is very simple. It says 21 we will have three mailings, they will be 22 uniform for the Senate and the Assembly. It 23 says -- it reiterates it will be a hundred 1626 1 thousand pieces of bulk mail and the Assembly 2 would be pro-rated depending on the size of the 3 district. $8500 would be the amount spent on 4 first class mail. 5 The bill also includes a 45-day 6 time period in which a person running for public 7 office would not be allowed to use public funds 8 for mailing during that period and that includes 9 all people running for public office, school 10 districts, and all other elected public 11 officials. 12 I want to first thank my 13 colleagues that stayed here to listen today. 14 I'm the new person and I suspect you find your 15 selves, many of you, in a position of thinking 16 you're listening to a broken record, and I'll 17 kind of date myself by telling you I'm sure some 18 of us older people in the group recall how that 19 was. Your needle got stuck and you heard the 20 same tune over and over again. So I guess what 21 you would do is take some action. 22 So I guess I would say to you, 23 you know, maybe that's your solution to this 1627 1 situation is to take some action if you're 2 really tired of hearing this. 3 What started me on the mailing 4 issue is, I think it's a misunderstanding. I'm 5 going to assume that all of my colleagues are 6 honest, and I don't have any doubt about that. 7 I listened to a Reverend up here today talk 8 about honesty and misleading people. I think 9 our problem is we unintentionally, and I'm 10 saying "we", because we are all a member of this 11 same body, have somehow misled people on what 12 our mailing policy is. 13 I was told that the things I just 14 read to you is the policy, and then let me just 15 share with you a few statements that I have read 16 from the newspapers in regard to this policy. 17 In July of '92 from -- this is 18 taken from the Watertown Daily Times, and it was 19 a statement by the Majority Senate that says - 20 let me read for you: Senators are allowed to 21 mail three newsletters and up to 700,000 third 22 class pieces of mail annually to their Senate 23 districts at taxpayer expense. 1628 1 I first assumed this must be a 2 typo, but then I looked at the information I got 3 from the Tax Cut Party investigation that said 4 or showed that some Senators had sent as many as 5 16 to 20 mailings, so apparently it's not a 6 typo. 7 Then from the Times Herald Record 8 again another statement was made by the Senate 9 that says each State Senator is allowed up to 10 three newsletter mailings per year plus a 11 hundred thousand pieces of bulk mail and $8700 12 in first class postage which is what my bill is 13 saying. 14 However, now we go to the Albany 15 Times Union, and in October '92 and the 16 statement here says, Senator Ralph Marino said 17 on public television, Inside Albany, you get 18 three newsletters, you get a hundred thousand 19 unspecified targeted letters and that's it. 20 Now, Marino spokesman, on the 21 other hand, William Stevens, said, Senators 22 elected prior to 1977 actually get four news 23 letters. Now, I checked my colleagues who were 1629 1 there then, and they tell me they don't get 2 them, so that must have been a misstatement as 3 well. 4 Then we go to January 1993, and 5 this I took off of the AP wire, and a spokesman, 6 again for Senate Majority Leader Ralph Marino, 7 states the Senate uses the same internal 8 guidelines for mail, limiting each individual 9 lawmaker to three districtwide news letters, 10 same as the Assembly does. That seems O.K. 11 But now we go down to March 1993, 12 and I took this from the Syracuse Herald 13 Journal, and it says, the same spokesman says he 14 expects the Senate will be spending 3.3 million 15 this year. Now, that would keep the average 16 constant at about 4.6 million for the last three 17 years, and further he says, Senate policy allows 18 members to send three newsletters a year except 19 for Republican Senators elected before 1977 who 20 can send four. So fortunately we clarified that 21 issue, why my colleagues didn't get theirs. 22 So it goes on, you know, at great 23 lengths, and I guess my point I'm making is, 1630 1 there's confusion here, so I think the only fair 2 thing is for us to somehow put it in a law so 3 that there won't be any confusion. Everyone 4 would adhere to the same thing. 5 I really feel, in my mind, that 6 this bill would benefit all of us. I didn't 7 come here, frankly, to count pieces of mail. I 8 guess I have -- and today let me tell you that 9 today I felt better about being here than any 10 day that I've been here because we discussed 11 substantive issues. We talked about homeless 12 ness; we talked about clean air, mammography, 13 and you know what, I didn't see one side of the 14 aisle voting one way and one the other. I, 15 frankly, felt today we did a good job of being 16 lawmakers, even though there were lots of things 17 we disagreed on. 18 I certainly will agree with all 19 of you that mailing is a petty issue. And what 20 does it have to do with anything? Well, let me 21 tell you what I think it has to do with. I 22 think it has to do with public trust. If I 23 don't walk away -- people do not have trust any 1631 1 more in their elected officials and things like 2 this, I think, are the foundation of that 3 trust. If I don't walk away from here with 4 anything else at the end of our term, my term, I 5 at least want to be able to say that I didn't 6 fail that public trust. 7 We have so many substantive 8 issues for us to work on. I'm asking all of you 9 to join me and let's set this thing to rest and 10 stop listening to the same old tune. 11 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: On the 12 motion. On the motion, a party vote? 13 SENATOR PRESENT: Party vote in 14 the negative. 15 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Call 16 the roll on a party vote. 17 (The Secretary called the roll. ) 18 THE SECRETARY: Ayes 25, nays 35, 19 party vote. 20 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: The 21 motion fails. 22 Senator Present. 23 SENATOR PRESENT: Would you 1632 1 recognize Senator Goodman, please. 2 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: I 3 certainly will. 4 Senator Goodman. 5 SENATOR GOODMAN: Mr. President, 6 may I ask unanimous consent to be recorded in 7 the negative on Calendar 247, 251 and 257. 8 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Without 9 objection, Senator Goodman will be in the 10 negative on those three bills. 11 You cannot vote on a slow roll 12 call. 13 Senator Dollinger. 14 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Mr. 15 President, I believe I also have a motion to 16 discharge which is at the -- in the hands of the 17 recorder. 18 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: The 19 Secretary will read Senator Dollinger's motion 20 to discharge. 21 SENATOR DOLLINGER: I would waive 22 the reading and just be heard on the motion. 23 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: We'll 1633 1 read the title. 2 THE SECRETARY: By Senator 3 Dollinger, Senate Bill Number 3805, an act to 4 amend the Public Officers Law, in relation to 5 disclosure of records of the state Legislature. 6 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Senator 7 Dollinger. 8 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Mr. 9 President, I rise to speak in favor of the 10 discharge of this motion, which would make the 11 Freedom of Information Act applicable to the New 12 York State Senate and achieve the goal of the - 13 or the purported goal, I guess, of the motion 14 that was made to discharge about a week or ten 15 days ago when we had the spirited debate which I 16 guess will be absent today, relating to function 17 of open government and the concept of openness 18 in this body. 19 Let me go back for another his 20 tory lesson. I gave you one on the accounting 21 bill. I'd like to just go back because I'm 22 struck by the amazing parallels with the 23 discussion I started the last time we had this 1634 1 debate. Remember then I talked about the old 2 theory of the Revolution, no taxation without 3 representation, how it was the origin of this 4 country and how I believed that, because we were 5 in a new phase, a new period of a new revolu 6 tion, a new revolution built on the theory that 7 there should be no taxation without disclosure, 8 without telling the people why we're taxing 9 them, without telling the people why we're 10 spending it, and it occurred to me how approp 11 riate that I bring that up since what was the 12 reason for that phrase to give rise in American 13 history? You all remember it. It was called 14 the "stamp tax". Remember the stamp tax? The 15 hated stamp tax that had to be added as a 16 tariff? 17 Well, you've revived it, a new 18 stamp tax to the tune of $10 million of free 19 mail that goes out from this body. It's the new 20 stamp tax that you've imposed on the people. 21 But you're not telling them, because you're not 22 telling them how much you spend in stamps, and 23 it's my suggestion, gentlemen, that if we're 1635 1 going to see the same kind of revolution about 2 stamps and taxes because the spectre, imagine 3 it, of a government, of a kingdom, a long ways 4 away from the people on the other side of the 5 ocean that won't listen to those people when 6 they sit and ask for accountability. The 7 monarch, who won't talk to the people, only 8 talks to his surrogates, whether their name is 9 McArdle or Powers, whatever their name is, 10 they're the ones who speak on behalf of the 11 king. And how many times people say, Well, I 12 don't really know how much I spend. I don't 13 know how much mail -- my colleague, Senator 14 Jones, has talked and quoted a number of my 15 colleagues in this body who have been quoted 16 about not knowing how much mail is sent. 17 Well, I'd submit to you, if you 18 know no limitation, you have no reason for 19 knowing how much you spend. Just keep spending, 20 don't worry about limitations. 21 I'd like to move you up to the 22 19th, 20th Century though; we'll move back out 23 of the Revolutionary period. Let's go to 1636 1 another time. In my judgment, the same kind of 2 thing is happening. 3 In 1972 a President of the United 4 States attempted to steal an election through 5 the use of dirty tricks, through use of under 6 handed practices. It gave rise to a phrase 7 called the "Watergate" surrounding those dirty 8 practices. I'd suggest to you gentlemen that 9 what we have here today is the "Mailgate". 10 We have it because from what I 11 see happening, you have a whole history of using 12 taxpayers' supported mail as a substitute for 13 campaign financing. Look at your own campaign 14 financing reports. In 1990, the Republican 15 Senate Campaign Committee raised about 6 -- five 16 and a half million dollars. That money was 17 raised to support Republican candidates. 18 Unfortunately, the money that was 19 used resulted in a Republican victory. I'll 20 give you that, that you used the money that you 21 raised to promote your candidates and your point 22 of view. I'll accept that, but in addition in 23 1990, you also used a significant amount of the 1637 1 taxpayers' money, supplementing that $5.6 2 million with an additional approximately 4-plus 3 million dollars in taxpayer-supported mail. 4 After the reapportionment year 5 was completed in 1992, what happened then? Well, 6 you raised about $1.7 million in contributions 7 and used about $6.5 million of the public's 8 money to support a mail campaign that would 9 raise name recognition on the part of your 10 incumbents in favor of those incumbents, 11 increasing their chance of reelection. 12 It's my view that is what's 13 happened here, that you've used the public 14 financing to support your own reelection 15 campaigns. In my judgment, that's the same flaw 16 that occurred in Watergate, and I think Mailgate 17 deserves the same kind of broad public 18 disclosure. 19 I apologize to any of my 20 colleagues over there that I offend with these 21 remarks, but because there's no disclosure, you 22 leave me no other alternative other than to 23 assume the reason why you're failing to disclose 1638 1 as my other colleagues suggested is because the 2 facts would show that the suppositions and 3 hypotheses that I put forward are, in fact, 4 true. 5 Let me add two other thoughts: We 6 do good things in this Legislature, as my 7 colleague, Senator Jones, mentioned. Senator 8 Farley's bill that I voted in favor of yesterday 9 requiring disclosure of the amounts of 10 amortization of bills, I'd just point out that 11 he wants in large print exactly what the 12 amortization cost is going to be; yet we put in 13 very tiny, tiny, tiny print exactly how much we 14 spend on mail. 15 Why can't we say take the same 16 bold, big print approach to our own mailing 17 budgets? I'd point out one other thing we do 18 that I think demonstrates that this is the right 19 trend in government. There's an MTA bill about 20 to find its way to your desk, a bill suggested 21 by one of the chairmen of committees that would 22 end the autocracy of the MTA. 23 How do you end autocracy, 1639 1 according to the chairman of the committee? Very 2 simple. What you do is require in Section 2 of 3 that bill that the preliminary budget be 4 published in advance, that you hold public 5 hearings on the budget and that you end up with 6 a line item budget so that you can better trace 7 the expenses of the MTA. 8 I would submit to you that the 9 reform bills that have been put forward today 10 would do the same thing for this body. We can 11 end the autocracy that is present in this 12 institution the same way we're rightfully ending 13 autocracy on the part of the MTA. 14 I'll conclude with one final 15 thought: It seems to me that this is what 16 government accountability is all about. We 17 can't preach it to other agencies. We can't 18 preach it to our taxpayers unless we're willing 19 to be accountable as well, unless we're willing 20 to open the door and let the sunshine into this 21 institution. 22 I've often noticed how much 23 artificial light we have here and because of our 1640 1 stained glass windows, we get so little 2 sunshine. Let's open up the windows, open up 3 the doors, and let the light of public 4 disclosure shine into this institution. 5 My view is that this is a 6 resolution and a change. I don't think it's 7 going to stop. I agree with my colleagues who 8 said let's get on to bigger and better things, 9 but I would hope that you don't doubt our 10 resolve to make sure that the public knows what 11 we do, what you do as government, so that 12 they'll understand and have greater confidence 13 in all of our collective abilities by making the 14 Freedom of Information Law apply to this body. 15 We're simply telling every other 16 level of government we're willing to abide by 17 the same disclosure principle that we mandate 18 you to do. 19 Join me! Open up the doors! Let 20 the sunshine in, and let's get on to the bigger 21 business of government. 22 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: On the 23 motion. 1641 1 SENATOR GOLD: Party vote in the 2 affirmative. 3 SENATOR PRESENT: Party vote in 4 the negative. 5 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Call 6 the roll, party vote. 7 (The Secretary called the roll. ) 8 THE SECRETARY: Ayes 25, nays 35, 9 party vote. 10 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: The 11 motion is defeated. 12 Senator Gold. 13 SENATOR GOLD: Yeah, Mr. 14 President. I can be fairly brief because -- on 15 my motion, which I'd like to call now. 16 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Hold 17 on. Senator Gold, the Secretary is ready to 18 read the title of your motion. 19 THE SECRETARY: By Senator Gold, 20 Legislative Resolution Number 764, concurrent 21 resolution of the Senate and Assembly 22 establishing a policy governing public access to 23 legislative records. 1642 1 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Senator 2 Gold. 3 SENATOR GOLD: Mr. President, my 4 resolution basically does in this house what 5 Senator Dollinger would do by statute, and I'd 6 point out that the Assembly has already passed 7 this concurrent resolution which means that it 8 could be the law in both houses. 9 I want to make one comment: I do 10 say something else nice about the Republicans 11 behind their backs, and I say you basically run 12 a major league ball club because you obviously 13 have analyzed the media in this situation. I've 14 seen some editorials in the media which say that 15 we ought to do all these things, but you 16 apparently know that the reporters who work for 17 these papers don't read their own papers and 18 certainly they don't read their editorial 19 writers because they apparently leave town when 20 it comes to joining in the fight to see to it 21 that this Legislature opens up. Maybe they're 22 afraid that they'll miss out on some of their 23 little dodads that get slipped to them, and I 1643 1 don't know what makes reporters particular. 2 I thought, by the way that Norman 3 Mailer was very unkind, very unkind this week. 4 Where is that? Norman Mailer was quoted in the 5 Post this week as saying the -- trying to 6 explain the situation. Says the situation is 7 that a reporter wants to print his own lies, not 8 the lies of the publisher, so I thought it was 9 very unfair to reporters to say things like 10 that. 11 But the bottom line here is that 12 the resolution that I introduced gives people 13 the opportunity to get information from the 14 Legislature. There are, I believe, ample 15 provisions in my resolution, which would protect 16 us in protecting constituents. Obviously, 17 anything that's private or that affects the in 18 tegrity of an individual who writes to us would 19 be protected, but basically it would submit us 20 to the Freedom of Information Law, and while it 21 is is a fine suggestion by Senator Dollinger 22 that we ought to make a public statement by 23 including ourselves in the law, certainly there 1644 1 is nothing in the law that prevents us from 2 voluntarily agreeing to comply so that, even 3 without the signature of the Governor, we can 4 start to open up our books, records and do in 5 public what we should be doing. 6 So that's the essence of the 7 resolution, and I would move it. 8 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: On the 9 motion to discharge the resolution, party vote? 10 SENATOR GOLD: Party vote in the 11 affirmative. 12 SENATOR PRESENT: Party vote in 13 the negative. 14 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: Call 15 the roll on a party vote on the motion to 16 discharge this resolution. 17 (The Secretary called the roll. ) 18 THE SECRETARY: Ayes 25, nays 35, 19 party vote. 20 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: The 21 motion fails. 22 Senator Present. 23 SENATOR PRESENT: Mr. President, 1645 1 I'd like to announce there will be, on behalf of 2 Senator Levy, there will be an immediate 3 conference of the majority in room 332. 4 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: There 5 will be an immediate conference of the Majority 6 in Room 332. 7 SENATOR PRESENT: If there are no 8 other amendments or statements to be made, there 9 being no further business, I'd move that we 10 adjourn until tomorrow at 11:30 a.m. 11 ACTING PRESIDENT FARLEY: The 12 Senate will stand adjourned until tomorrow at 13 11:30. 14 (Whereupon at 4:30 p.m., the 15 Senate adjourned.) 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23