Wednesday, March 29, 1995

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