Wednesday, May 29, 1996

5827 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ALBANY, NEW YORK 10 May 29, 1996 11 3:04 p.m. 12 13 14 REGULAR SESSION 15 16 17 18 SENATOR JOHN R. KUHL, JR., Acting President 19 STEPHEN F. SLOAN, Secretary 20 21 22 23 5828 1 P R O C E E D I N G S 2 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The 3 Senate will come to order. Ask the members to 4 find their places, staff to find their places. 5 Ask everybody in the chamber to rise and join me 6 in saying the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag 7 and remain standing for the invocation. 8 (The assemblage repeated the 9 Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.) 10 We're pleased to have Pastor 11 Christian Schoenberg of the Trinity Lutheran 12 Church of Hawthorne, New York, with us today to 13 give the invocation. 14 REVEREND CHRISTIAN SCHOENBERG: 15 In the name of the Father and of the Son and of 16 the Holy Spirit. Amen. 17 Let us pray. 18 Father in heaven, we thank You 19 for this day, for the blessings from Your hand 20 that have come to us, for the opportunities You 21 present to serve You by serving people. We 22 thank You for calling us to be public servants 23 in this state. Forgive us for our past failures 5829 1 and mistakes, for our selfishness and 2 shortsightedness. Renew us today to start 3 afresh, to become better stewards and managers 4 of the public resources at our disposal. Enable 5 us to earn and keep the public trust by 6 fulfilling our calling with integrity, wisdom, 7 care and compassion. Grant Your blessing upon 8 our deliberations and decisions today that they 9 may benefit the people of this state, through 10 Jesus Christ, Your Son, our Lord, who lives and 11 rules with You, one holy God, one Spirit, now 12 and forever. Amen. 13 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Reading 14 of the Journal. 15 THE SECRETARY: In Senate, 16 Tuesday, May 28th. The Senate met pursuant to 17 adjournment. The Journal of Monday, May 27th, 18 was read and approved. On motion, Senate 19 adjourned. 20 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Hearing 21 no objection, the Journal stands approved as 22 read. 23 Presentation of petitions. 5830 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. 8 The Chair recognizes Senator 9 DiCarlo. 10 SENATOR DiCARLO: Mr. President, 11 on behalf of Senator Wright, on page 49, I offer 12 the following amendments to Calendar 1081, 13 Senate Print 6734, and ask that said bill retain 14 its place on Third Reading Calendar. 15 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: 16 Amendments to Calendar Number 1081 are received 17 and adopted. The bill will retain its place on 18 the Third Reading Calendar. 19 Senator DiCarlo. 20 SENATOR DiCARLO: Mr. President, 21 on behalf of Senator Saland, on page 65, I offer 22 the following amendments to Calendar 274, Senate 23 Print 3502-B and ask that bill retain its place 5831 1 on Third Reading Calendar. 2 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: 3 Amendments to Calendar Number 274 are received 4 and adopted. The bill will retain its place on 5 the Third Reading Calendar. 6 Senator DiCarlo. 7 SENATOR DiCARLO: Mr. President, 8 on behalf of Senator Spano, on page 39, I offer 9 the following amendments to Calendar 989, Senate 10 Print 6209, and ask that said bill retain its 11 place on Third Reading Calendar. 12 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: 13 Amendments to Calendar Number 989 are received 14 and adopted. Bill will retain its place on the 15 Third Reading Calendar. 16 Senator DiCarlo. 17 SENATOR DiCARLO: On behalf of 18 Senator Rath, please place a sponsor's star on 19 Calendar Number 1047. 20 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Calendar 21 1047 is starred at the request of the sponsor. 22 Senator DiCarlo. 23 SENATOR DiCARLO: And on behalf 5832 1 of Senator Volker, please remove the sponsor's 2 star from Calendar 507. 3 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The 4 sponsor's star is removed from Calendar 507. 5 Senator Johnson, we have a 6 substitution at the desk if you want to take 7 that at this time. 8 Secretary will read. 9 SENATOR JOHNSON: Yes, Mr. 10 President. 11 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Secretary 12 will read. 13 THE SECRETARY: On page 17, 14 Senator Seward moves to discharge from the 15 Committee on Rules Assembly Bill Number 10463-A 16 and substitute it for the identical Senate Bill 17 6173-A. 18 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: 19 Substitution is ordered. 20 Senator Johnson. 21 SENATOR JOHNSON: Recognize 22 Senator Stafford. 23 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 5833 1 Stafford. Want to return to reports of standing 2 committees. Chair recognizes Senator Stafford. 3 SENATOR STAFFORD: Thank you, Mr. 4 President. I would ask, please, the Chair to 5 read the nominations. We'd like to move Carlton 6 E. Dewolff and Leslie M. Goldstein, please. 7 I believe there will be some 8 people possibly to speak. 9 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Secretary 10 will read the report of the Finance Committee. 11 THE SECRETARY: Senator Stafford, 12 from the Committee on Finance, offers up the 13 following nominations: 14 Members of the Rochester-Genesee 15 Regional Transportation Authority, Carlton E. 16 Dewolff, of Fairport, Leslie M. Goldstein, of 17 Rochester. 18 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Mr. 19 President. 20 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Soon as I 21 get some quiet, Senator Dollinger. I'm just 22 waiting. We can wait all afternoon for the 23 members to quiet down, but I think you and other 5834 1 members ought to have some quiet to debate these 2 nominations if that's, in fact, what we're going 3 to do. 4 Senator Dollinger. 5 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Mr. 6 President, I don't intend to speak out of line 7 here. If someone was prepared to speak in favor 8 of these nominees, I would gladly yield the 9 floor. I had comments which I made in the 10 Senate Finance Committee which I intended to 11 repeat on the floor, but I'd be glad to yield 12 the floor to anyone who was going to speak. 13 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator, 14 the floor is yours. The floor is yours. 15 SENATOR DOLLINGER: O.K. 16 Mr. President, I rise today to 17 speak in opposition to the two nominations that 18 are being placed before us, and I do so, Mr. 19 Chairman, because I believe that in both cases 20 there are serious questions that I raised in the 21 Senate Finance Committee and asked as a matter 22 of Senatorial courtesy be extended to me to 23 allow them to appear before the Committee to 5835 1 answer questions. 2 Carlton Dewolff has been an 3 architect in the Rochester area community, has 4 been involved in the community for many decades 5 and, frankly, based on his resume he has a 6 resume that would lend itself to perhaps being 7 on the Greater Rochester or the Rochester 8 Genesee Regional Transit Authority. However, I 9 was particularly concerned because I went to 10 Senator Levy's committee, to the Senate 11 Transportation Committee. 12 SENATOR GOLD: Mr. President. 13 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 14 Gold, why do you rise? 15 SENATOR GOLD: Because I think 16 this is significant, as I know you appreciate, 17 and I just wanted a little more quiet in the 18 room so we could hear Senator Dollinger. 19 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you, 20 Senator Gold. 21 I went to the Senate 22 Transportation Committee of which I'm not a 23 member, Mr. President, and attended their 5836 1 discussion with Mr. Dewolff. Mr. Dewolff, as 2 best I recall it -- and I was present in the 3 room -- when asked by the chairman of the Senate 4 Transportation Committee, What do you know about 5 the Regional Transit Authority, said in essence, 6 "I don't know anything about it and I'm here, 7 I've been an architect, I've been involved in 8 regional planning, but I don't know anything 9 about the activities of the Rochester-Genesee 10 Regional Transit Authority." 11 I wasn't a member of the 12 Committee. I didn't ask a question at that 13 time. I was hoping that Mr. Dewolff would be 14 present at the deliberations of the Senate 15 Finance Committee so I could ask him why we were 16 appointing him to an authority which he has 17 publicly said he didn't know anything about. 18 My concerns about Mr. Goldstein 19 are, frankly, much deeper. 20 SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Mr. President. 21 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 22 Nozzolio, why do you rise? 23 SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Would Senator 5837 1 Dollinger yield? 2 SENATOR DOLLINGER: I'd be glad 3 to, Mr. President. 4 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 5 Dollinger yields. 6 SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Thank you, Mr. 7 President. Thank you, Senator Dollinger. 8 As you know, I am a member of the 9 Senate Transportation Committee, and I saw you 10 sit in the chamber when we discussed Carlton 11 Dewolff's nomination, and hear you today -- I 12 can't help but sit by without a great deal of 13 anguish. Did you not hear, during the meeting 14 of the Transportation Committee "Bud" Dewolff 15 indicate his knowledge about urban planning? 16 SENATOR DOLLINGER: M-m h-m-m, I 17 did. 18 SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Did you not 19 hear that, Senator? 20 SENATOR DOLLINGER: I did. 21 SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Did you not 22 hear, Senator, his comments relative to his par 23 ticipation in a number of projects in the 5838 1 Rochester area? 2 SENATOR DOLLINGER: I did. 3 SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Well, Senator 4 -- Mr. President, if Senator Dollinger would 5 continue to yield. 6 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 7 Dollinger, you continue to yield? 8 SENATOR DOLLINGER: I will. 9 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 10 continues to yield. 11 SENATOR NOZZOLIO: I just can't 12 sit by and hear you challenge "Bud" Dewolff 13 without commenting that you appear to be, by 14 taking his comment relative to his lack of par 15 ticipation or understanding of the workings of 16 the Authority out of context. I think that it 17 is not fair to Mr. Dewolff, and my question to 18 you is, Senator, if you heard these other 19 comments relative to transportation -- to urban 20 issues, other than the comments relative to 21 Rochester, are you not taking his one comment 22 about the Authority out of context? 23 SENATOR DOLLINGER: With all due 5839 1 respect, Mr. President, I think that's a fair 2 question. I had hoped that Mr. Dewolff would 3 appear in front of the Senate Finance Committee 4 so I could ask him what context he meant that 5 statement, and I could have gotten a 6 clarification in the deliberations of the 7 Finance Committee as to exactly what his 8 knowledge and understanding of the 9 Transportation Authority was. 10 I just find it very unusual when 11 there is lots of qualified candidates, I know 12 the Senator knows them, in which -- who come 13 before this body for confirmation so we can use 14 our advise and consent powers, and who stand 15 there and say, Yes, I'm familiar with the 16 Transit Authority; yes, I know what it does. 17 This is a Transit Authority that 18 I have a significant interest, as I know you do, 19 Senator, because your constituency use this 20 Transit Authority. About 50, my estimate is, 21 and I have no professional basis for this but 22 somewhere between 50 and 75 percent of the 23 people who actually ride on this Transportation 5840 1 Authority live in the 54th Senate District which 2 I represent. 3 What I'm saying with respect to 4 Mr. Dewolff is that I could have been convinced 5 that he knew enough about transit issues and 6 about the overall picture -- you said that in 7 the Senate Finance Committee -- to vote in favor 8 of him. 9 I'm voting against him today 10 because I was disappointed he wasn't at the 11 Senate Finance Committee and the opportunity 12 that I would have had as a member of the Senate 13 Finance Committee to ask him those questions in 14 front of my colleagues in the Senate Finance 15 Committee when I had the committee status to be 16 able to ask him all the questions that I felt 17 were relevant to a determination on my part as 18 to whether he was a qualified nominee or not, so 19 that's with respect to Mr. Dewolff. 20 With respect to Mr. Goldstein, I 21 put on the record before the Senate Finance 22 Committee my substantial concern about Mr. 23 Goldstein. What I indicated at that time is 5841 1 that published reports have suggested that MAPCO 2 Parking, Limited, a parking entity, of which Mr. 3 Goldstein is a vice-president, of which he 4 claims in his resume executive decision-making 5 with the president of this company, that this 6 company had given $7,000 in political campaign 7 contributions in 1995. $6,000 of that went to 8 County -- Monroe County Executive -- the 9 Republican candidate for County Executive, Jack 10 Doyle, and $1,000 of it went to the Monroe 11 County Republican Party. 12 What I intended to ask Mr. 13 Goldstein at the time was about his involvement 14 in those campaign contributions. They exceed 15 the $5,000 limit that we imposed, that this 16 Legislature imposed. In fact, not only did we 17 impose a $5,000 limit, we made it a crime to 18 give more than $5,000. It's a crime in this 19 state. It's a misdemeanor, the same kind of 20 misdemeanor that other people are prosecuted 21 for. We made it a misdemeanor to give more than 22 $5,000. 23 We never included in the 5842 1 legislation a provision that said there's a 2 "good faith" exception; if you give it in good 3 faith and you don't know you're breaking the law 4 that's O.K. That's not breaking the law. 5 That's not in the law. Boldly and plainly, it 6 says you give more than $5,000, it's a 7 misdemeanor. 8 It's been the policy of the state 9 Board of Elections to send a letter to everyone 10 who gives more than $5,000, a letter that says, 11 Oh, by the way, you're in violation of the law. 12 You may have committed a misdemeanor. You 13 should ask for refunds. 14 What I wanted to ask Mr. Gold 15 stein is about how those campaign contributions 16 were solicited, who asked him to give money that 17 was -- exceeded the state amount, the state 18 limitation, and whether his corporation -- how 19 he was involved in the decision, did he partake 20 of those decisions as his resume suggests. I 21 wanted to know that. 22 In addition, I wanted to know 23 what steps, if any, this corporation had taken 5843 1 to obtain refunds of the illegally contributed 2 amount. Seems to me before we put someone on 3 this Authority who, at least based on published 4 accounts, has said, "I seem to be on everyone's 5 dance card; I can't figure out why I'm paying 6 these extra funds," seems to me that Mr. 7 Goldstein owed the public an explanation as to 8 why his company -- if it isn't his company, a 9 company of which he is the executive 10 vice-president -- why it exceeded the state 11 limitation, why he had given more in 12 contributions than state law allows, and it 13 seems to me that that explanation was owed to me 14 as a member of the Finance Committee, to all of 15 my colleagues and, frankly, to the people of 16 this community. 17 I'm concerned about the future of 18 the Transit Authority. I know, Senator, that 19 you and other Senators have been working 20 aggressively to come up with the money to fully 21 fund the Transportation Authority, to continue 22 to make it work. I applaud that effort on your 23 part and the part of my other colleagues from 5844 1 Monroe County, but the future of this agency is 2 going to be determined by the next board of 3 directors, and it seems to me we have to have 4 people who can withstand some public scrutiny, 5 answer some questions about their conduct, 6 especially when, based on published reports, it 7 appears as though that conduct, of which they 8 may have played a part, violated the laws of 9 this state. 10 I am concerned about the transit 11 corporation. I have suggested to other people 12 there is one other nominee awaiting confirmation 13 who has been nominated by the city of Rochester. 14 It has been sitting on the Governor's desk for 15 the better part of six months. It doesn't seem 16 to be able to come because, of course, that's 17 the nominee that comes from my Democratic 18 colleagues who happen to sit on the City Council 19 in the city of Rochester, a reappointment to the 20 board; but up come two nominees that come from a 21 County Executive and a County Legislature to 22 which contributions were made, and it seems to 23 me that raises a question of public propriety 5845 1 that Mr. Goldstein should have been here to 2 testify and to discuss. 3 Mr. Goldstein lives around the 4 corner from me. He may be entitled to be on 5 this job, but it seems to me, based on the 6 evidence that I have, the information that I 7 have and the failure of the Senate Finance 8 Committee to hold this nomination to allow these 9 questions to be answered, that I would urge 10 everyone to vote in the negative on both of 11 these nominations. 12 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The 13 question is -- Senator Espada. 14 SENATOR ESPADA: Thank you, Mr. 15 President. 16 I agree that there is a need for 17 scrutiny and a need for analysis of conduct. 18 This is important business, as important as my 19 17 students from District 7 in the South Bronx, 20 Mr. President, who are here today in the gallery 21 along with Desiree Sanchez, who has shepherded 22 them here, a great educator in the South Bronx, 23 stands for children, stands for education, 5846 1 stands for our future, together with those 2 children up there. 3 Thank you very much, Mr. 4 President. 5 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The 6 question is on the resolution. 7 FROM THE GALLERY: Thank you, 8 Senator Espada. 9 SENATOR GOLD: Mr. President. 10 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 11 Gold. 12 SENATOR GOLD: Class will tell! 13 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Question 14 is on the nomination of Carlton E. Dewolff, of 15 Fairport, and Leslie M. Goldstein, of Rochester, 16 to become members of the Rochester-Genesee 17 Regional Transportation Authority. 18 All those in favor signify by 19 saying aye. 20 (Response of "Aye.") 21 Opposed nay. 22 (Response of "Nay.") 23 Call the roll. 5847 1 (The Secretary called the roll. ) 2 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 3 Nozzolio to explain his vote. 4 SENATOR NOZZOLIO: Thank you, Mr. 5 President. 6 Mr. President, my colleagues, it 7 should be noted that these nominees were 8 presented to this body by the Monroe County 9 Legislature. It should also be noted that 10 Rochester, almost 300 miles away from here, is a 11 relative inconvenience to expect a nominee of 12 this board which are -- which serves -- the 13 nominees of this board serve as volunteers, are 14 not paid a cent, are coming to this as a 15 volunteer, and in the spirit of volunteerism on 16 behalf of the community, that we can not expect 17 three, four, five meetings, and I think Senator 18 Dollinger, who happens to live around the corner 19 from one of the nominees who we were scrutiniz 20 ing would do better off by calling that nominee 21 and seeking a meeting in Rochester. 22 This isn't casting aspersions on 23 the question Senator Dollinger is raising, but 5848 1 rather to seek a better, more convenient way to 2 address the questions that he presents. 3 I do not know Mr. Goldstein, but 4 I do know Mr. Dewolff. "Bud" Dewolff will pour 5 his energies into this job, and I am proud to 6 support his candidacy and to vote in favor of 7 this nomination. 8 Thank you, Mr. President. 9 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 10 Nozzolio will be recorded in the affirmative. 11 Senator Stafford to explain his 12 vote. 13 SENATOR STAFFORD: I think I 14 should explain my vote also. 15 Please let me point out and 16 emphasize, there was a time here when many, many 17 more candidates or nominees would appear before 18 the Finance Committee, but we did not have the 19 candidates or nominees appear before the 20 standing committees that involved the subject 21 that the person was being appointed to. 22 Now, in those days, they would 23 appear, but frankly, week after week, time after 5849 1 time, it was extremely superficial. Today, 2 because the method was changed, the system was 3 changed, without embarrassing the Senator from 4 Nassau who is the chairman of the Transportation 5 Committee, I assure you, anybody who gets 6 through his committee, they're qualified. 7 Believe me, they're qualified, and if there's 8 anybody that takes care of his subject any 9 better, you'll have to point he or she out to me 10 because there isn't anyone any better. 11 Please let me emphasize that 12 there was a public hearing, a public meeting 13 where these two nominees were considered. 14 Thank you. 15 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 16 Stachowski to explain his vote. 17 SENATOR STACHOWSKI: To explain 18 my vote, Mr. President. 19 I'm joining Senator Dollinger in 20 voting "no" on the nominees not because I have 21 any problem with them. I have a problem with 22 the way the process transpires. 23 I understand there was a public 5850 1 hearing, but in the case of Senator Dollinger's 2 questions, being a newer member of Finance, he 3 didn't realize that, since they appeared in 4 Transportation, they wouldn't appear in Finance 5 and it didn't say would appear next to their 6 name on the Committee notice. 7 The other problem is, according 8 to Senator Dollinger, that when the public 9 hearing took place, the questions on the 10 probably easily cleared up question of campaign 11 contributions, that that information wasn't 12 available not even to Senator Dollinger, and I'm 13 sure -- and since the committee recorder stated 14 that it wasn't in the file that he overlooked to 15 see that there was no problems with the 16 candidate, there was just a couple of questions 17 that Senator Dollinger wanted to ask. 18 I don't think it would have been 19 a terrible imposition to hold these two until 20 next week. Quite possibly Senator Dollinger 21 could obtain the same answers going back to 22 Rochester and talking to them off the record. I 23 don't know, maybe that's possible, maybe it's 5851 1 not. We'll never know, and I feel terrible that 2 these two candidates, probably as well qualified 3 as any we'll see, are going to have negative 4 votes on their appointment because of the way 5 the process took place. 6 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 7 Stachowski will be recorded in the negative. 8 Senator Gold to explain his vote. 9 SENATOR GOLD: Thank you very 10 much, Mr. President. A lot of this has been 11 said, but since it was in the committee and 12 we're doing it out here, I just wanted to make a 13 few remarks. 14 I really don't believe that when 15 it comes to this Senate that every single thing 16 we do has to be governed by procedure. What 17 happens is that the Majority in this house uses 18 procedure where it's conveniet, so Senator Bruno 19 who has said that, you know, we've got to have 20 rules and follow our rules also has a procedure 21 where you hold a press conference on your side, 22 go into Rules, report a bill out for immediate 23 vote, you don't give the committee system a 5852 1 chance, you don't give people in the public a 2 chance to comment, and while "technically" - 3 quotes/unquotes -- under the rules you can do 4 anything, that's really a violation of the way 5 people understand our rules and the legislative 6 process. So you're not wedded to rules. 7 Senator Dollinger may or may not 8 have dotted "i"s and crossed "t"s and my 9 distinguished lawyer colleague, Senator Tully, 10 who if I can't handle a case myself I'd 11 certainly let him defend me, made some points in 12 the committee as to technical matters and 13 whether Senator Dollinger dotted "i"s or crossed 14 "t"s. I just don't think it's relevant because 15 if we as a body know that maybe there's a 16 problem, I think it's more important that we 17 clear the air than whether we worry about 18 whether the Senator who brought up the subject 19 was a Republican or a Democrat or dotted an "i" 20 or crossed a "t". 21 Prior to the vote in the 22 committee today, the Finance Committee, we had 23 taken no action. There had been no prejudice to 5853 1 this individual. The fact of the matter is, as 2 I said in the committee, that most of the time 3 years ago we really would respect each others' 4 own dignity within our own Senate District and 5 while Senator Stafford met that argument with 6 some points about his relationship with the 7 Adirondacks, and we all are very sensitive to 8 that, the fact is that years ago we did pay more 9 attention, and I respect the fact that Senator 10 Nozzolio has an interest in Rochester. I 11 respect the fact that Senator Dollinger also has 12 an interest, and I don't understand why these 13 two gentlemen have to be confirmed with negative 14 votes and with local newspapers stories being 15 written questioning why this Senate pooh-poohs 16 allegations that there may have been in one case 17 some wrongdoing and in the other one a lack of 18 interest. 19 Now, I'm not suggesting that the 20 individual who was involved with the corporate 21 donation violated any laws, and I will concede 22 to you that, if the law was violated, most 23 instances of such an occurrence are remedied by 5854 1 a refund being made. Nobody goes to jail; 2 nobody gets prosecuted, but there's no reason 3 why this record should not be clear on that and 4 the individual's involvement should not be clear 5 and, personally, I can tell you that, if the 6 individual was involved in an illegal campaign 7 contribution and made the comment that it was 8 done by inadvertence and it was all corrected, 9 that would scratch it off for me, but it would 10 be nice to hear it. It would be nice to get 11 some of the background and I don't know why we, 12 as a Senate, try to protect people in situations 13 where they may not even need the protection and 14 where we wind up protecting them out of, in some 15 cases, their own reputation. 16 I mean maybe if this individual 17 was -- was consulted about this, he might say, 18 Look, I know it's a pain in the neck but I'll 19 come up. I certainly, if I'm working in 20 government, want everybody to have complete 21 confidence in me, and I'll make the trip. I 22 know that's the way I would react. I can only 23 imagine, since I've heard that these are non 5855 1 paying jobs, but these individuals are prepared 2 to do significant social work for their 3 communities at no pay, so it's not a money 4 motive and maybe not having a money motive they 5 would come to Albany for one day to make sure 6 that they can take this job without there being 7 any question of their motivation. 8 I think Senator Dollinger is 9 directly on point in what he's doing. I know 10 these individuals appeared before Senator Levy 11 and his committee, and that's fine, and I'm not 12 suggesting that Senator Levy or his committee 13 did anything wrong. I'm suggesting that time 14 goes by and, if something comes up or somebody 15 has a question past that committee meeting, we 16 ought to be able to take care of it or change 17 the process. 18 I don't see a bill by Senator 19 Nozzolio, maybe it's in, that these particular 20 people should not be confirmed by the New York 21 State Senate because they're 300 miles away, but 22 if we have that obligation, I don't see a bill 23 by Senator Nozzolio that says we shouldn't take 5856 1 the obligation seriously. 2 So I commend Senator Dollinger 3 for trying to do what he's doing. I think that, 4 if he was allowed to do what he's doing, it 5 might very well clear the air. 6 I vote in the negative. 7 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 8 Gold will be recorded in the negative. 9 Senator Tully to explain his 10 vote. 11 SENATOR TULLY: Yes, Mr. 12 President, to explain my vote. 13 I think the question arises as to 14 whether one of our colleagues had an opportun 15 ity, a fair opportunity, to question the 16 nominees before us and I think maybe if we 17 review some of what Senator Gold said, it might 18 be helpful to the rest of my colleagues. 19 Number one, I think Senator 20 Nozzolio indicated that there was a local public 21 hearing at which these nominees were considered 22 in the area in which the colleague in question 23 had an opportunity at that time to question 5857 1 these folks. 2 Number two, Senator Levy, the 3 chairman of the Transportation Committee, 4 indicated at the Finance Committee today which 5 I'm a member of, that there was an opportunity 6 extended to the colleague in question to 7 question these individuals at that time even 8 though he was not a member of the Transportation 9 Committee. 10 Further, I indicated at the 11 hearing that, as with all members of the Finance 12 Committee, we receive a copy of the appointees 13 beforehand, in this case on last Thursday and, 14 as is normally the custom, if someone is to 15 appear it completely reflects that in 16 parentheses. It says the words "to appear". 17 In answer to that, Senator 18 Dollinger reflected that, as a new member of the 19 committee, he was unaware of that and he was 20 amply defended in that area by Senator 21 Stachowski. 22 Now, that may well be the case 23 but, beyond those three opportunities, assuming 5858 1 arguendo that -- and I take him at his word - 2 Senator Dollinger did not know of that 3 procedure, Senator Levy further added that, in 4 all cases of appointees of this type, unless 5 they're the chairpersons, they do not appear 6 before the Senate Finance Committee. 7 Again, Senator Dollinger said, as 8 a new member of the committee, he didn't know 9 that either. I would expect that some time 10 between now and the next meeting of the Finance 11 Committee that he might confer with some of his 12 more mature members to ascertain if there is 13 anything else he doesn't know about the workings 14 of the Finance Committee. 15 But beyond that, Mr. Chairman, 16 Senator Dollinger did have, as I had and every 17 member had, an opportunity to look at the fact 18 that there were appointees for confirmation and 19 whether it was going to appear or not appear he 20 did have the opportunity to call the chairman of 21 the Finance Committee and/or one of his -- one 22 of his employees and ask them whether or not he 23 could ask these appointees to appear. He did 5859 1 not, for whatever reason, choose to do that and 2 that could have been done any day even up until 3 this morning, and that was not done because I 4 asked that at the Finance Committee hearing. 5 So I just don't understand how 6 there was not ample opportunity for this 7 individual to make his questioning if he desired 8 to do so. 9 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 10 Tully will be voting in the affirmative. 11 Senator Levy, did you want to 12 explain your vote? 13 SENATOR LEVY: Yes. Thank you 14 very much, Mr. President. 15 I'd just like to clarify 16 something that Senator Tully said. The comment 17 I made at Senate Finance was not that the chairs 18 of the Regional Authority come before Finance 19 because they don't. The only regional authority 20 where a chair comes before Finance is the 21 Metropolitan Transportation Authority. The up 22 state chairs only come before the Transportation 23 Committee and then go, as did these two 5860 1 nominees, before the Finance Committee without a 2 personal appearance. 3 Now, let me just say something in 4 regard to "Bud" Dewolff. I had never met "Bud" 5 Dewolff before he came before our committee. He 6 was very impressive to me. He is a principal of 7 county government in Monroe County. His area of 8 expertise, if my recollection serves me correct, 9 is urban planning, as -- and with this nominee, 10 I asked him the question that I ask all involved 11 busy people whether they be in the public 12 sector or the private sector -- and you were 13 there, Senator Dollinger -- I asked him: Given 14 your demanding duties, are you going to have the 15 time to devote to being a member of this 16 Authority, and if my recollection likewise 17 serves me correct, he said, "I never do anything 18 other than one hundred percent of my time and my 19 attention and, if I'm not going to provide that 20 time and attention, I wouldn't be here and I 21 wouldn't take on this responsibility." 22 And if my recollection also 23 serves me correct, the ranking member of my 5861 1 committee -- and I think they were all positive 2 votes from every member of the committee on Mr. 3 Dewolff's nomination as there was for the other 4 nominee -- I think that somebody on your side of 5 the aisle thanked Mr. Dewolff for making himself 6 available and devoting the time that he was 7 going to give to be a member of this Authority 8 and said how lucky the people were who utilize 9 this system and pay taxes in that region to have 10 him as a member of the Authority. 11 I vote aye. 12 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 13 Levy will be recorded in the affirmative. 14 Announce the results. 15 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Mr. 16 President, may I explain my vote? 17 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 18 Dollinger, to explain his vote. 19 SENATOR DOLLINGER: I appreciate 20 Senator Levy's accurate summary of the 21 Transportation discussion. I concur with that. 22 Senator Tully, I -- just to 23 clarify, I was -- I'm not a member of the 5862 1 Transportation Committee as you know. I'm not 2 aware of any prior public hearing at which this 3 was discussed either here or in Rochester. 4 I was present at the discussion 5 with "Bud" Dewolff. I was not present at the 6 discussion with Mr. Goldstein, and I don't know, 7 perhaps Senator Levy can amplify by just shaking 8 his head, whether that occurred off the floor or 9 not, but I wasn't aware that Mr. Goldstein was 10 in town. 11 In addition, I wasn't aware, I 12 believe at the time that the Transportation 13 Committee met with him, of the issue that was 14 raised today; I wasn't aware of it. I found out 15 through published reports last week, and it 16 seems to me that the issue should have been 17 broached now considering there's new information 18 which was not in the original report conducted 19 by the Senate Finance Committee staff when they 20 did the evaluation of this nominee. 21 It seems to me, based on that new 22 information as I sit here today, it's my 23 obligation as someone whose constituents use 5863 1 this transit authority in large numbers, to 2 raise these issues and to have a result. 3 The other thing, frankly, that I 4 would have asked Mr. Goldstein had I had the 5 opportunity is whether or not his occupation as 6 a parking lot operator was inconsistent with his 7 obligations as a transit authority person 8 because seems to me there's a logical question 9 to be asked about whether someone who's in the 10 business of selling parking lot space and 11 administering parking lot space has an incentive 12 to get people out of their cars, out of parking 13 lots and into public transportation. Seems to 14 me a critical issue that we face in Rochester. 15 I know you face it throughout New York State, 16 certainly in the metropolitan area as well, but 17 the notion that a parking lot operator is going 18 to sit on a transit authority is another area 19 which I felt required Mr. Goldstein to at least 20 comment on that seeming conflict between his 21 role in his private life selling parking spaces 22 and in his public life selling public 23 transportation. 5864 1 I'm not going to be able to do 2 that. I'm not going to be able to ask him about 3 the other issues relating to campaign 4 contributions. I think that's a significant 5 flaw in our process. I -- I'll apologize to the 6 chairman of the Tran... chairman of the Finance 7 Committee. I don't mean to impugn anything 8 about the way the committee has handled this 9 except I believe, based on new knowledge, based 10 on new information, perhaps I should have called 11 the Senate chairman, the chairman of the Finance 12 Committee. I'm not used to doing that; maybe I 13 should start, but it seems to me when I've got 14 information that the public needs to have an 15 answer to, it's not just a question of my 16 calling Mr. Goldstein and saying, Can you 17 explain to me what this is all about? Seems to 18 me the broader issue is Mr. Goldstein owes an 19 explanation to the public and that's what I 20 sought here. 21 That's what I've been denied and 22 so under these circumstances although -- and I 23 will repeat what Senator Gold said -- had I had 5865 1 the opportunity to talk to "Bud" Dewolff in a 2 public meeting in the Senate Finance Committee, 3 had I been able to get answers from Mr. 4 Goldstein about the campaign contributions, 5 there is a possibility -- I wouldn't rule it out 6 -- that I would vote for both gentlemen, but 7 without answers, without the opportunity to get 8 them from the horses' mouth, I'm compelled to 9 vote no. 10 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 11 Dollinger will be recorded in the negative. 12 Announce the results. 13 THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in 14 the negative are Senators Dollinger, Gold, 15 Leichter and Stachowski. Ayes 52, nays 4. 16 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The 17 nominees are confirmed. 18 Senator Stachowski, why do you 19 rise? 20 SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Mr. 21 President, I know it's unusual to introduce 22 people, and I know I'm not going to get a 23 standing rousing ovation back, but today we have 5866 1 a guest in the chamber from California who is 2 observing the proceedings. Normally, this would 3 be something Senator Goodman would do because 4 it's a person from the field of the arts and 5 before him, Senator Lombardi was a close 6 personal friend of our guest who is with us, but 7 we have with us an actor from Hollywood, Peter 8 Mark Richman, who happens to be a friend and, if 9 you're wondering why it's I who's introducing 10 him, he's also a member of the Philadelphia 11 Football Hall of Fame as a football player. 12 And so I'd just like to take the 13 time to introduce Peter Mark Richman, observing 14 our proceedings today from California. 15 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Welcome, 16 appreciate your joining us in the chamber. 17 (Applause) 18 Senator Skelos. 19 SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President, 20 there will be an immediate meeting of the Rules 21 Committee in Room 332 of the Capitol. 22 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Immediate 23 meeting of the Rules Committee, immediate 5867 1 meeting of the Rules Committee in the Majority 2 Conference Room, Room 332. 3 SENATOR SKELOS: Mr. President, 4 at this time could we adopt the Resolution 5 Calendar. 6 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Return to 7 motions and resolutions. All those in favor of 8 adopting the Resolution Calendar signify by 9 saying aye. 10 (Response of "Aye.") 11 Opposed nay. 12 (There was no response.) 13 The Resolution Calendar is 14 adopted. 15 Senator DeFrancisco. 16 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: I wish to 17 call up Assembly Bill Number 5417. 18 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Secretary 19 will read Calendar Number 219. 20 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 21 219, by member of the Assembly Canestrari, 22 Assembly Bill Number 5417, an act to amend the 23 Economic Development Law. 5868 1 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 2 DeFrancisco. 3 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: I move to 4 reconsider the vote by which this Assembly bill 5 was substituted for Senate Bill Number 3173 on 6 February 19th. 7 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Secretary 8 will call the roll on reconsideration. 9 (The Secretary called the roll on 10 reconsideration.) 11 THE SECRETARY: Ayes 56. 12 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 13 DeFrancisco. 14 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: I now move 15 that Assembly Bill 5417 be recommitted to the 16 Committee on Rules and the Senate bill be 17 restored to the order of the Third Reading 18 Calendar. 19 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Assembly 20 bill is recommitted and the Senate bill is 21 restored. 22 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: I now offer 23 the following amendments. 5869 1 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: 2 Amendments are received. 3 Senator DeFrancisco. 4 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: I request a 5 sponsor's star be placed on on Senate Bill 833. 6 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senate 7 Bill 833 is starred at the request of the 8 sponsor. 9 Senator Marcellino, that brings 10 us to the calendar. 11 SENATOR MARCELLINO: Mr. 12 President, can we have the reading of the non 13 controversial calendar. 14 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Secretary 15 will read the non-controversial calendar. 16 THE SECRETARY: On page 4, 17 Calendar Number 60, by Senator Larkin, Senate 18 Print 69-A, an act to amend the Insurance Law 19 and the Tax Law, in relation to supplemental 20 health insurance. 21 SENATOR ONORATO: Lay the bill 22 aside. 23 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Lay the 5870 1 bill aside. 2 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 3 286, by Senator Cook, Senate Print 258, an act 4 to amend the Real Property Tax Law, in relation 5 to making certain state lands subject to 6 taxation. 7 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Secretary 8 will read the last section. 9 THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This 10 act shall take effect immediately. 11 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the 12 roll. 13 (The Secretary called the roll. ) 14 THE SECRETARY: Ayes 56. 15 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill 16 is passed. 17 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 18 381, by Senator DeFrancisco, Senate Print 3520 19 A, an act to amend the Social Services Law, in 20 relation to the transportation of certain 21 persons. 22 SENATOR ONORATO: Lay aside. 23 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Lay the 5871 1 bill aside. 2 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 3 430, by Senator Goodman, Senate Print 4632-C, an 4 act to amend the General Business Law, in 5 relation to additional civil penalties for 6 consumer frauds. 7 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Secretary 8 will read the last section. 9 THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This 10 act shall take effect on November 1st. 11 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the 12 roll. 13 (The Secretary called the roll. ) 14 THE SECRETARY: Ayes 56. 15 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill 16 is passed. 17 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 18 449, by Senator Marcellino, Senate Print 6213-A, 19 an act to amend the Environmental Conservation 20 Law, in relation to the drawing off of water 21 from storage reservoirs. 22 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Secretary 23 will read the last section. 5872 1 THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This 2 act shall take effect on the 1st day of January. 3 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the 4 roll. 5 (The Secretary called the roll. ) 6 THE SECRETARY: Ayes 56. 7 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill 8 is passed. 9 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 10 500, by the Assembly Committee on Rules, 11 Assembly Print 8383, an act to amend the 12 Election Law, in relation to the determination 13 of ballot positions. 14 SENATOR ONORATO: Lay aside. 15 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Lay the 16 bill aside. 17 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 18 520, by member of the Assembly DiNapoli, 19 Assembly Print 8846-A, an act to amend the 20 Environmental Conservation Law, in relation to 21 the Central Pine Barrens comprehensive land use 22 plan. 23 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Secretary 5873 1 will read the last section. 2 THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This 3 act shall take effect immediately. 4 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the 5 roll. 6 (The Secretary called the roll. ) 7 THE SECRETARY: Ayes 56. 8 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill 9 is passed. 10 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 11 535, by Senator Johnson, Senate Print 4470, an 12 act to amend the Election Law, in relation to 13 distributing the names of inactive voters. 14 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Secretary 15 will read the last section. 16 THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This 17 act shall take effect immediately. 18 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the 19 roll. 20 (The Secretary called the roll. ) 21 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 22 DiCarlo to explain his vote. 23 SENATOR DiCARLO: Yes, Mr. 5874 1 President, just to explain my vote. 2 I'm going to vote in the 3 negative. I did so last year and it's not 4 because I don't think it's a good bill; it's 5 just that I think this is something that should 6 be done in the entire state of New York to stop 7 the fraud that is rampant in terms of people who 8 haven't voted in decades who are kept on the 9 rolls and others vote for them, and it's 10 prevalent throughout my county, and I just wish 11 a good bill like this could be done statewide. 12 Vote in the negative. 13 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 14 DiCarlo will be recorded in the negative. 15 Announce the results. 16 THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in 17 the negative on Calendar Number 535 are Senators 18 DiCarlo and Smith. Ayes 54, nays 2. 19 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill 20 is passed. 21 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 22 662, by the Assembly Committee on Rules, 23 Assembly Bill 8292, an act to amend the 5875 1 Surrogate's Court Procedure Act, in relation to 2 the commissions of trustees. 3 SENATOR MARCELLINO: Lay the bill 4 aside for the day at the request of the sponsor, 5 please. 6 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Lay the 7 bill aside for the day. 8 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 9 681, by Senator DeFrancisco, Senate Print 6375, 10 an act to amend the Highway Law, in relation to 11 components of the state scenic byways system. 12 SENATOR ONORATO: Lay aside. 13 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Lay the 14 bill aside. 15 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 16 717, by Senator Libous, Senate Print 6756, an 17 act to amend the Mental Hygiene Law, in relation 18 to charging fees for mental hygiene services. 19 SENATOR ONORATO: Lay aside. 20 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Lay the 21 bill aside. 22 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 23 750, by Senator Larkin, Senate Print 6119, an 5876 1 act to amend the Vehicle and Traffic Law, in 2 relation to eliminating the additional annual 3 service charge for Pearl Harbor survivors 4 special number plates. 5 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Secretary 6 will read the last section. 7 THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This 8 act shall take effect on the 30th day. 9 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the 10 roll. 11 (The Secretary called the roll. ) 12 THE SECRETARY: Ayes 56. 13 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill 14 is passed. 15 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 16 789, by Senator Goodman, Senate Print 1921-A, an 17 act to amend the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law, 18 in relation to the information required in 19 license or permit applications. 20 SENATOR ONORATO: Lay aside. 21 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Lay the 22 bill aside. 23 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 5877 1 835, by Senator DeFrancisco, Senate Print 6788 2 A, an act to amend the Canal Law, in relation to 3 the abandonment and sale of certain canal 4 lands. 5 SENATOR ONORATO: Lay aside. 6 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Lay the 7 bill aside. 8 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 9 881, by Senator Padavan, Senate Print 2531, an 10 act to amend the State Finance Law and the 11 General Municipal Law, in relation to the 12 authority of the state agencies. 13 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Secretary 14 will read the last section. 15 THE SECRETARY: Section 5. This 16 act shall take effect on the 1st day of 17 September. 18 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the 19 roll. 20 (The Secretary called the roll. ) 21 THE SECRETARY: Ayes 56. 22 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill 23 is passed. 5878 1 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 2 953, by Senator Maltese, Senate Print 6992, an 3 act to amend the Election Law, in relation to 4 cancelling military and special federal voters. 5 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Secretary 6 will read the last section. 7 THE SECRETARY: Section 5. This 8 act shall take effect immediately. 9 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the 10 roll. 11 (The Secretary called the roll. ) 12 THE SECRETARY: Ayes 56. 13 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill 14 is passed. 15 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 16 958, by member of the Assembly Kaufman, Assembly 17 Print 3875, an act to amend the Insurance Law, 18 in relation to prohibiting insurers from 19 refusing to renew an existing motor vehicle 20 liability insurance. 21 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Secretary 22 will read the last section. 23 THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This 5879 1 act shall take effect on the 60th day. 2 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the 3 roll. 4 (The Secretary called the roll. ) 5 THE SECRETARY: Ayes 56. 6 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill 7 is passed. 8 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 9 966, by Senator Trunzo, Senate Print 3027-A, an 10 act to amend the Retirement and Social Security 11 law, in relation to optional retirement. 12 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Secretary 13 will read the last section. 14 THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This 15 act shall take effect immediately. 16 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the 17 roll. 18 (The Secretary called the roll. ) 19 THE SECRETARY: Ayes 56. 20 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill 21 is passed. 22 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 23 1006, by Senator Hannon, Senate Print 6725-A, an 5880 1 act to amend the Public Health Law, in relation 2 to establishing the Alzheimer's Community 3 Assistance Program. 4 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Secretary 5 will read the last section. 6 THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This 7 act shall take effect immediately. 8 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the 9 roll. 10 (The Secretary called the roll. ) 11 THE SECRETARY: Ayes 56. 12 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill 13 is passed. 14 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 15 1008, by Senator DiCarlo, Senate Print Number 16 7291, an act to amend Chapter 841 of the Laws of 17 1987, relating to the combined senior citizen 18 services. 19 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Secretary 20 will read the last section. 21 THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This 22 act shall take effect immediately. 23 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the 5881 1 roll. 2 (The Secretary called the roll. ) 3 THE SECRETARY: Ayes 56. 4 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill 5 is passed. 6 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 7 1009, by Senator Maziarz, Senate Print 7312. 8 SENATOR MARCELLINO: Lay the bill 9 aside for the day at the request of the sponsor. 10 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Lay the 11 bill aside for the day. 12 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 13 1011, by Senator Cook, Senate Print 6274-A, an 14 act to amend the General City Law, the Town Law 15 and the Village Law, in relation to the filing 16 of decisions. 17 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Secretary 18 will read the last section. 19 THE SECRETARY: Section 21. This 20 act shall take effect immediately. 21 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the 22 roll. 23 (The Secretary called the roll. ) 5882 1 THE SECRETARY: Ayes 56. 2 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill 3 is passed. 4 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 5 1023, by Senator Present, Senate Print 767-A, an 6 act to amend the County Law, in relation to the 7 allocation of funds for Cooperative Extension 8 Associations. 9 SENATOR ONORATO: Lay aside. 10 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: There is 11 a local fiscal impact note at the desk. Lay the 12 bill aside. 13 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 14 1025, by Senator Padavan, Senate Print 2692, an 15 act to amend the General Municipal Law, in 16 relation to powers of municipalities in urban 17 renewal areas. 18 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Secretary 19 will read the last section. 20 THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This 21 act shall take effect immediately. 22 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the 23 roll. 5883 1 (The Secretary called the roll. ) 2 THE SECRETARY: Ayes 56. 3 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill 4 is passed. 5 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 6 1026, by Senator Wright, Senate Print 3184-A, an 7 act to amend the Real Property Tax Law, in 8 relation to subjecting lands within the Tug Hill 9 region to taxation. 10 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Secretary 11 will read the last section. 12 THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This 13 act shall take effect on the 1st day of January. 14 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the 15 roll. 16 (The Secretary called the roll. ) 17 THE SECRETARY: Ayes 56. 18 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill 19 is passed. 20 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 21 1028, by Senator Seward, Senate Print 4220, an 22 act to amend the County Law, in relation to 23 establishing county communications systems 5884 1 improvement districts. 2 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Secretary 3 will read the last section. 4 THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This 5 act shall take effect on the 1st day of January. 6 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the 7 roll. 8 (The Secretary called the roll. ) 9 THE SECRETARY: Ayes 56. 10 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill 11 is passed. 12 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 13 1042, by Senator Marcellino, Senate Print 7132 14 A, an act to amend the General Municipal Law, in 15 relation to authorizing local governments to 16 deposit public monies. 17 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Secretary 18 will read the last section. 19 THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This 20 act shall take effect immediately. 21 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the 22 roll. 23 (The Secretary called the roll. ) 5885 1 THE SECRETARY: Ayes 56. 2 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill 3 is passed. 4 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 5 1058, by Senator Levy, Senate Print 5207-A, an 6 act to amend the Estates, Powers and Trusts Law, 7 in relation to honorary trusts for pets. 8 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Secretary 9 will read the last section. 10 THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This 11 act shall take effect immediately. 12 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the 13 roll. 14 THE SECRETARY: Ayes 56. 15 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill 16 is passed. 17 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 18 1061, by member of the Assembly Vitaliano, 19 Assembly Print 9118, an act to amend the Lien 20 Law, in relation to expanding the time periods 21 for service of a copy of a notice of a lien. 22 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Secretary 23 will read the last section. 5886 1 THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This 2 act shall take effect on the 30th day. 3 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the 4 roll. 5 (The Secretary called the roll. ) 6 THE SECRETARY: Ayes 56. 7 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill 8 is passed. 9 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 10 1062, by Senator Skelos, Senate Print 6561. 11 SENATOR MARCELLINO: Lay it aside 12 for the day at the request of the sponsor. 13 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Lay the 14 bill aside for the day. 15 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 16 1064, by Senator Lack, Senate Bill 7014, an act 17 to amend the Judiciary Law, in relation to 18 providing an employee who is absent from 19 employment to serve as a juror. 20 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Secretary 21 will read the last section. 22 THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This 23 act shall take effect immediately. 5887 1 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the 2 roll. 3 (The Secretary called the roll. ) 4 THE SECRETARY: Ayes 56. 5 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill 6 is passed. 7 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 8 1068, by Senator Marcellino, Senate Print 7396, 9 an act to amend the Environmental Conservation 10 Law, in relation to exempting tires. 11 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Secretary 12 will read the last section. 13 THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This 14 act shall take effect immediately. 15 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the 16 roll. 17 (The Secretary called the roll. ) 18 THE SECRETARY: Ayes 56. 19 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill 20 is passed. 21 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 22 1076, by Senator Goodman, Senate Print 6308, an 23 act to amend the Tax Law, in relation to 5888 1 providing for the disclosure of alcoholic 2 beverage tax information. 3 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Secretary 4 will read the last section. 5 THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This 6 act shall take effect immediately. 7 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the 8 roll. 9 (The Secretary called the roll. ) 10 THE SECRETARY: Ayes 56. 11 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill 12 is passed. 13 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 14 1083, by Senator LaValle, Senate Print 7095, an 15 act to amend the Tax Law, in relation to 16 exemption from the real property transfer tax. 17 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Secretary 18 will read the last section. 19 THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This 20 act shall take effect on the 1st day of July. 21 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the 22 roll. 23 (The Secretary called the roll. ) 5889 1 THE SECRETARY: Ayes 56. 2 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill 3 is passed. 4 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 5 1087, by Senator Volker, Senate Print 265-A, an 6 act to amend the Civil Practice Law and Rules, 7 in relation to requiring disclosure to courts. 8 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Secretary 9 will read the last section. 10 THE SECRETARY: Section 5. This 11 act shall take effect immediately. 12 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the 13 roll. 14 (The Secretary called the roll. ) 15 THE SECRETARY: Ayes 56. 16 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill 17 is passed. 18 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 19 1089, by Senator Sears, Senate Print 1177-B, an 20 act to amend the Criminal Procedure Law and the 21 Education Law, in relation to the appointment of 22 security officers. 23 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Secretary 5890 1 will read the last section. 2 THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This 3 act shall take effect immediately. 4 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the 5 roll. 6 (The Secretary called the roll. ) 7 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Announce 8 the results. 9 THE SECRETARY: Ayes 55, nays 1, 10 Senator Leichter recorded in the negative. 11 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill 12 is passed. 13 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 14 1091, by Senator Volker, Senate Print Number 15 1479, an act to amend the Civil Practice Law and 16 Rules, in relation to permitting the joinder of 17 consumer credit transaction claims. 18 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Secretary 19 will read the last section. 20 THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This 21 act shall take effect on the 1st day of January. 22 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the 23 roll. 5891 1 (The Secretary called the roll. ) 2 THE SECRETARY: Ayes 56. 3 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill 4 is passed. 5 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 6 1095, by Senator DeFrancisco, Senate Bill 7 4230-A, an act to amend the Civil Practice Law 8 and Rules, in relation to the confidentiality of 9 certain privileged information. 10 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Secretary 11 will read the last section. 12 THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This 13 act shall take effect immediately. 14 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the 15 roll. 16 (The Secretary called the roll.) 17 THE SECRETARY: Ayes 56. 18 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill 19 is passed. 20 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 21 1097, by Senator Volker, Senate Print Number 22 4453-A, an act to amend the Civil Practice Law 23 and Rules, in relation to fees of certain 5892 1 appellate courts. 2 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Secretary 3 will read the last section. 4 THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This 5 act shall take effect ten days after it shall 6 have become a law. 7 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the 8 roll. 9 (The Secretary called the roll.) 10 THE SECRETARY: Ayes 56. 11 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill 12 is passed. 13 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 14 1167, by Senator Holland, Senate Print 1468, an 15 act to amend the Social Services Law, in 16 relation to requiring an address as a condition 17 of receiving assistance. 18 SENATOR ONORATO: Lay aside. 19 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Lay the 20 bill aside. 21 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 22 1182, by member of the Assembly Hochberg, 23 Assembly Print 9098, an act to amend the 5893 1 Personal Property Law, in relation to 2 authorizing the White Plains Parking Authority 3 to accept credit cards. 4 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: There's a 5 home rule message at the desk. Secretary will 6 read the last section. 7 THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This 8 act shall take effect immediately. 9 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the 10 roll. 11 (The Secretary called the roll. ) 12 THE SECRETARY: Ayes 56. 13 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill 14 is passed. 15 Senator Marcellino, that 16 completes the non-controversial calendar. 17 SENATOR MARCELLINO: Mr. 18 President, can we recognize Senator Libous for a 19 moment, please. 20 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Chair 21 recognizes Senator Libous. 22 SENATOR LIBOUS: Thank you, Mr. 23 President. 5894 1 Could I have unanimous consent to 2 be recorded negative on Calendar Number 881, 3 please. 4 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Without 5 objection, hearing no objection, Senator Libous 6 will be recorded in the negative on Calendar 7 Number 881. 8 Senator Montgomery. 9 SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, Mr. 10 President. I would like unanimous consent to be 11 recorded in the negative on Calendar Number 12 1089. 13 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Without 14 objection, hearing no objection, Senator 15 Montgomery will be recorded in the negative on 16 Calendar Number 1089. 17 Senator Oppenheimer. 18 SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Mr. 19 President, I was excused yesterday from session, 20 but if I had been present at yesterday's 21 session, I would have voted in opposition to S. 22 4564, which was Calendar 895 yesterday. 23 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 5895 1 Oppenheimer, the record will reflect that had 2 you been in the chamber yesterday whenever the 3 vote was taken on Calendar Number 895, Senate 4 Print 4564, that you would have voted in the 5 negative. 6 Senator Marcellino. 7 SENATOR MARCELLINO: Mr. 8 President, may we please return to reports of 9 standing committees. I believe there is a 10 report from the Rules Committee at the desk. 11 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: There is 12 a report of the Rules Committee at the desk. 13 I'll ask the Secretary to read. 14 THE SECRETARY: Senator Bruno, 15 from the Committee on Rules, offers up the 16 following bills directly for third reading: 17 Senate Print 6669-B, by Senator 18 Marchi, an act to amend the Environmental 19 Conservation Law, in relation to solid waste 20 management; 21 7164-A, by Senator Bruno, an act 22 to amend the Workers' Compensation Law, the 23 Civil Practice Law and the Labor Law, the State 5896 1 Finance Law, the Volunteer Firemen's Law, in 2 relation to expiration of Article 4 of such 3 laws; 4 And Senate Print 7524, by Senator 5 Wright, an act to amend Chapter 640 of the Laws 6 of 1990, amending the Public Health Law. 7 All bills directly for third 8 reading. 9 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 10 Marcellino. 11 SENATOR MARCELLINO: I move to 12 accept the report of the Rules Committee, 13 please. 14 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Motion is 15 to accept the report of the Rules Committee. 16 All those in favor signify by saying aye. 17 (Response of "Aye.") 18 Opposed nay. 19 (There was no response. ) 20 The report is accepted. The 21 bills are reported directly to third reading. 22 Senator Marcellino. 23 SENATOR MARCELLINO: Thank you, 5897 1 Mr. President. 2 May we now return to the reading 3 of the controversial calendar. 4 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Secretary 5 will read the controversial calendar beginning 6 with Calendar Number 60, Senate Bill 69-A, by 7 Senator Larkin. 8 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 9 60, by Senator Larkin, Senate Print 69-A. 10 SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation. 11 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 12 Larkin, an explanation of Calendar Number 60 has 13 been asked for. 14 SENATOR LARKIN: Yes, Mr. 15 President. 16 This bill will allow employers to 17 establish supplemental insurance accounts for 18 employees and their dependents when such 19 coverage is combined with a catastrophic health 20 insurance policy provided by the employer. 21 Under this legislation, 22 individuals will be given a financial incentive 23 to use health care services more wisely than 5898 1 under a traditional indemnity plan and without 2 the outside intrusion of a HMO. 3 By reducing inflation in the 4 primary health care market, this legislation 5 will encourage the state and health insurers to 6 dedicate more resources to catastrophic 7 coverage, reducing our reliance on Medicaid and 8 Medicare to pay for chronic illness. 9 Finally, this legislation 10 provides true portability by giving employees 11 actual ownership of their own health care. 12 This has been adopted in nine 13 other states across this nation. 14 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 15 Paterson. 16 SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you, Mr. 17 President. 18 If you would yield to a 19 question? 20 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 21 Larkin, do you yield to a question from Senator 22 Paterson? 23 SENATOR LARKIN: Yes, Mr. 5899 1 President. 2 SENATOR PATERSON: Senator 3 Larkin, the legislation from the point of view 4 of the very young and the healthy, it would 5 sound as if it would be a good idea and would 6 certainly be very alluring to a person who feels 7 that they're in good health; but the actual 8 delineation of what catastrophic care is might 9 be somewhat more complicated and might incur a 10 great deal of responsibility on the victim when 11 they find out what the limitations of 12 catastrophic care might be and so, therefore, 13 Senator, what I'd like you to explain in the 14 chamber is, what is going to happen to an 15 individual who buys into this plan who then, for 16 some reason, contracts diabetes or the HIV virus 17 or is in an accident and might want to pay for 18 the hospitalization. There might be physical 19 therapy or any long-term prescription drug 20 medication that would be prescribed for an 21 individual, in my opinion, would use up this 22 plan immediately and put even the young and the 23 healthy person that buys into this plan in what 5900 1 would really be a catastrophe that would be 2 endured without health insurance. 3 SENATOR LARKIN: Senator 4 Paterson, two things we must remember. This 5 bill requires an employer to purchase a 6 catastrophic health plan for each employee. He 7 cannot establish this plan without having first 8 purchased the catastrophic -- without having - 9 SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President, 10 if the Senator would continue to yield. 11 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 12 Larkin, do you continue to yield? 13 SENATOR LARKIN: Yes, Mr. 14 President. 15 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 16 continues to yield. 17 SENATOR PATERSON: I recognize 18 what the catastrophic health plan is. What I'm 19 telling you is what the catastrophic health plan 20 isn't. There are a number of serious maladies 21 an individual could incur and would not be 22 covered by this plan and then they're left to 23 only this medical savings plan which I'm 5901 1 suggesting to you would run out in a matter of 2 days, and then the person that thought that they 3 had a good deal could find themselves without 4 any health insurance. 5 SENATOR LARKIN: Well, Senator 6 Paterson, in the other states -- and we've 7 checked them -- there is no problem. You have 8 to remember that the catastrophic plan would 9 have to provide at a minimum the same long-term 10 coverage as a conventional insurance or HMO 11 policy. 12 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 13 Paterson. 14 SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you, Mr. 15 President. 16 I think that in the nine other 17 states this is something that's just been 18 adopted and it's hard to determine what a 19 problem is. In other words, there may be people 20 who are suffering from this problem right now 21 and it won't be until there's a great number of 22 them that we start to realize how far-reaching 23 the problem may be. 5902 1 But if the Senator would continue 2 to yield, I have another question. 3 SENATOR LARKIN: Yes, Senator. 4 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 5 Larkin? Senator Larkin yields. 6 SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, my 7 problems with this legislation are really far 8 more dialectic than would have been described in 9 the first question. 10 When you think about insurance, 11 aren't we really setting up adverse selectivity 12 in this particular situation where what you're 13 going to do is victimize those individuals who 14 can't get into this kind of medical savings 15 plan, those individuals who are elderly, who are 16 poor, who are more likely to become ill, and 17 aren't we in a sense segregating out those 18 individuals who would think that their health 19 needs would be less and in a sense destroying 20 the whole idea of community rating, in other 21 words creating what would be almost an elite 22 corps of insurers by the adoption of this kind 23 of legislation and setting up what I would term 5903 1 as almost a voucher system for those who would 2 be afflicted, the end of it being that we now 3 have, in a sense, a dualistic health care 4 managed care system in our state? 5 SENATOR LARKIN: Senator, I think 6 that a realistic look at this, you're really 7 talking about the term that was used in this 8 house in 1992 and '93 called "cherry picking" 9 and "cherry picking" has not been established as 10 a factual problem in the state of New York. 11 As you recall last year, the 12 Blues were opposed to this legislation. The 13 change that we have added in there corrected the 14 problem that the Blues had with it. What we're 15 seeing now is the effect in New York's health 16 insurance market that the adverse selection 17 has. 18 What we're saying here is that 19 the healthier individuals choose, made a choice 20 back in '92 and '-3 and they dropped out. 21 Approximately 400,000 dropped out because of the 22 community rating aspect, that's since 1993. The 23 SIAs would encourage these individuals to 5904 1 participate in the voluntary market while paying 2 their premiums for catastrophic insurance. 3 This idea is to reduce 4 unnecessary and inefficient primary costs in 5 order to increase the quality that you said you 6 were concerned about for the catastrophic 7 coverage of all individuals. 8 SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President, 9 on the bill. 10 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 11 Paterson, on the bill. 12 SENATOR PATERSON: These 13 supplemental insurance accounts are going to 14 become a national issue and it's going to be 15 something that we're going to hear a lot more 16 about. At the federal level they're called 17 medical savings accounts, and it's my opinion 18 that they do destroy the concept of community 19 rating. They do destroy the whole idea of all 20 of us being in a single pool at which we will be 21 insured. I think it does set up kind of an 22 elite corps of insurers, and that was the 23 position of Blue Cross and Blue Shield last 5905 1 year. 2 They have changed their positions 3 for reasons I wouldn't know because there hasn't 4 been any change in the bill last year, and so we 5 respect that they've changed their minds, but 6 the argument that they were making last year is 7 the argument I continue to aver right here in 8 this chamber, which is that we're not giving an 9 -- an equitable form of insurance to the 10 largest mass of people and we are going to 11 actually increase rates for those who are more 12 sick and who are more affected by the adoption 13 of this kind of plan which is not, in my 14 opinion, what the whole concept or the whole 15 theory of insurance would govern us to do. 16 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 17 Dollinger. 18 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Would Senator 19 Larkin yield to just one question? 20 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 21 Larkin, do you yield to Senator Dollinger? 22 SENATOR LARKIN: Yes, Mr. 23 President. 5906 1 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The 2 Senator yields. 3 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Senator, does 4 the New York Association of Blue Cross and Blue 5 Shield still oppose the bill for the reasons 6 articulated - 7 SENATOR LARKIN: They have 8 withdrawn it. Senator Dollinger, they had a 9 question. It was a technical portion of the 10 bill and because they were concerned -- like 11 Senator Paterson had a question about it, and we 12 amended that and made the corrections so that 13 there's a clarification of it as to how this 14 operates, how it functions -- they've withdrawn 15 their objection. 16 SENATOR DOLLINGER: So again 17 through you, Mr. President, based on that 18 answer, if I could have just one more question. 19 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 20 Larkin, do you continue to yield? 21 SENATOR LARKIN: Yes, Mr. 22 President. 23 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The 5907 1 Senator continues to yield. 2 SENATOR DOLLINGER: The concern I 3 had the last time this bill came forward was 4 that it was a departure from community rating, 5 that the Blues were concerned about the 6 deterioration of the community-rated system 7 because these special pools in the SIAs would be 8 used as a way to take the good risks out of 9 health care and shift them into a different 10 account. Is it my understanding that that's 11 been cured in this bill? 12 SENATOR LARKIN: It has been 13 cured because what we're doing now - 14 SENATOR DOLLINGER: But again, so 15 I understand it, the Blues have dropped their 16 opposition? 17 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: 18 Gentlemen, excuse me. 19 Senator Goodman -- Senator 20 Goodman, you're right in the line of the 21 discussion between the two gentlemen who are 22 debating. 23 Senator Dollinger, you have the 5908 1 floor. 2 SENATOR LARKIN: Senator, there's 3 no one who has an objection to this bill. The 4 objections that the Blues had interjected last 5 year, they met with us and our counsel and we 6 corrected what they thought was a problem. I 7 would be more than happy to show you what they 8 were specifically concerned with. 9 Michael? 10 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Mr. 11 President, I don't need to see that. I'll take 12 the word from my colleague that the Blues have 13 cured whatever difficulties they had with this 14 bill. 15 That was -- my concern last time 16 was the impact on community rating. It was 17 raised by the Blues. As you know, I come from 18 the home of community rating, and I was 19 concerned about an attrition of the community 20 rating process that this bill might trigger. 21 SENATOR LARKIN: It's been taken 22 care of, Senator. 23 SENATOR DOLLINGER: So I 5909 1 appreciate it. 2 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Is there 3 any other Senator wishing to speak on the bill? 4 Senator Paterson. 5 SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President, 6 I don't know if Senator Dollinger would yield 7 for a question, but I would just like him to be 8 aware that the withdrawal of the objection by 9 the insurance companies that are affected in 10 this particular case, in my opinion, does not 11 relate to the substance of the bill. The fact 12 that they have withdrawn their objection does 13 not mean that there's been any change in the 14 status of community rating. I'm not exactly 15 sure what their objection is, and I don't know 16 that it's been made clear in this debate. 17 So just for my own clarification 18 or just my own interpretation of what we have 19 been discussing, we may disagree, but I just 20 don't see where this legislation has been 21 changed that would affect any of the memoranda 22 that we received from the -- from Blue Cross or 23 Blue Shield last year. They've changed their 5910 1 position. I respect that they've changed it, 2 but no one has given me any information relating 3 to the substance of the legislation that would 4 justify that change. 5 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 6 Leichter. 7 SENATOR LEICHTER: Yeah, Mr. 8 President, briefly on the bill. 9 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 10 Leichter, on the bill. 11 SENATOR LEICHTER: One of the 12 problems I have with this bill is its fiscal 13 impact because now there are going to be 14 deductions up to the amounts that can be -- that 15 are authorized by this bill that can be put into 16 one of these accounts and that can be taken as a 17 deduction from your -- from the income tax. 18 The fiscal impact statement 19 which, with all due respect, Senator Larkin, I 20 have a lot of problems accepting, it says no 21 significant reduction in income tax receipts is 22 expected due to the fact that most employers who 23 would offer SIAs already receive a tax exemption 5911 1 but, as I read the bill, it's not only 2 employers. If you are an account holder who's 3 an individual, whether you're employed or not, 4 you're not going to be able to take a deduction 5 for the amounts that you put in this account, 6 whereas probably you could not take a deduction 7 for medical expenses. 8 The memo then goes on to say, 9 Well, in the long run, you know, this is going 10 to make a lot of money for government because 11 people will be covered and they're not going to 12 go on Medicaid, and so on. I just think that's 13 totally misleading. 14 You know, we get so many of these 15 fiscal impact statements that -- things that 16 obviously cost money, things that obviously are 17 going to lose us revenue but we're told that in 18 the long run this is going to bring so much 19 money to government. Of course, as Cain said, 20 in the long run we're all going to be dead, and 21 I guess I won't see that day in the long run 22 when as a result of all of these bills, there's 23 going to be so much revenue and so much money 5912 1 that the government, instead of collecting 2 taxes, is going to be sending money to every 3 individual. Obviously none of us will see that 4 day nor will anybody ever see that day. 5 The fact is that this bill 6 carries a definite fiscal adverse consequence 7 for the state, and what we're really doing is 8 giving a tax benefit generally to people who are 9 more affluent. This will be used primarily by 10 people who are more healthy, and it is going to 11 result in a diminution of government funds and 12 you ought to ask yourself, Do we want to 13 subsidize, because that's what we're doing. 14 We're subsidizing these particular -- those 15 persons are going to take advantage of these 16 accounts. I don't think that's a proper 17 expenditure on the part of the state of New 18 York. We just can't afford that. 19 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The 20 Secretary will read the last section. 21 THE SECRETARY: Section 6. This 22 act shall take effect December 31st. 23 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the 5913 1 roll. 2 (The Secretary called the roll.) 3 THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in 4 the negative on Calendar Number 60 are Senators 5 Abate, Connor, Espada, Gold, Lachman, Leichter, 6 Montgomery, Paterson, Smith, Seabrook. Also 7 Senator Markowitz. Ayes 46, nays 11. 8 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill 9 is passed. 10 Senator Marcellino. 11 SENATOR MARCELLINO: Yeah, Mr. 12 President. I move we diverge from the calendar 13 for a moment and take up Calendar Number 789, 14 please. 15 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The 16 Secretary will read. 17 THE SECRETARY: On page 25, 18 Calendar Number 789, by Senator Goodman, Senate 19 Print 1921-A, an act to amend the Alcoholic 20 Beverage Control Law, in relation to the 21 information required in license or permit 22 applications. 23 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 5914 1 Goodman, an explanation of Calendar Number 789 2 has been asked for by Senator Paterson. 3 SENATOR GOODMAN: Mr. President, 4 this piece of legislation which has passed in 5 the last two successive sessions of the Senate 6 came about as a result of an investigation by 7 the Senate Committee on Investigation and 8 Taxation into the affairs of the State Liquor 9 Authority. That investigation uncovered a very 10 disturbing pattern of operations within the SLA 11 which ran something like this: 12 An individual would make an 13 investment in a new bar and grill. He would 14 refurbish a building. He would furnish the new 15 facility. He would require bank credit in order 16 to do this and everything would be set to go but 17 there were inordinate delays in the issuance of 18 his liquor license and, therefore, the 19 individual would be stretched out to a point 20 where he might actually go into bankruptcy 21 awaiting the approval of the liquor license and 22 the permission to begin operations. 23 This very disturbing pattern not 5915 1 only worked a great hardship upon many bar 2 owners but it also induced a situation which 3 involved corrupt practices and which involved 4 the necessity for hiring expediters in order to 5 permit the rapid handling of licenses by the SLA 6 which was severely backed up and unfortunately 7 in a state of incompetent inability to perform. 8 The result was that this investigation strongly 9 recommended that there be an overhaul of the 10 SLA's procedures and that there be a means of, 11 in effect, disciplining the SLA and forcing it 12 to make a timely decision after reasonable 13 periods had elapsed to determine that a liquor 14 license could or could not be issued. 15 Specifically, the modus operandi 16 of this bill when passed would provide that 17 under -- that the Authority would have to notify 18 an applicant within 45 business days that either 19 the application is approved or denied or that 20 the application is not complete, indicating the 21 respects in which the application is not com 22 plete. 23 In the event of an incomplete 5916 1 application, final action would be taken within 2 60 business days of the original receipt of the 3 application, not including the period during 4 which the Authority awaits the applicant's 5 supplying of additional information. 6 The bill further provides that, 7 in the event that the Authority fails to take 8 action within the specified time period, the 9 applicant may send a notice to the Authority and 10 if the Authority does not reach a decision, then 11 the application will be deemed approved. 12 In other words, there is an 13 automatic triggering of the application after 14 careful due process has been complied with, and 15 let me just say that I have within the past two 16 hours been in touch with the chairman of the 17 State Liquor Authority, Mr. Casale, with his 18 chief counsel, both of whom have given their 19 full approval of this procedure. They point out 20 that the State Liquor Authority has recently 21 become computerized, that its efficiency has 22 been enhanced and that, therefore, the 23 compliance with this particular piece of 5917 1 legislation has been facilitated. They strongly 2 approve of it. They would like very much to do 3 everything within their power to stem the 4 possibilities of corruption as it surrounds the 5 attenuated granting of liquor authority -- of 6 liquor license authority to open businesses, and 7 we believe this is an imperative bit of relief 8 that should be granted for the purpose of 9 helping small business and averting the 10 possibility of corrupt practices. 11 SENATOR GOLD: Mr. President. 12 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 13 Gold. 14 SENATOR GOLD: Thank you very 15 much. 16 Mr. President, I am 17 wholeheartedly endorsing Senator Goodman's 18 bill. What has gone on at the State Liquor 19 Authority over the years has literally been a 20 disgrace, and I can tell you that I believe that 21 under the new chairman, there is a change in 22 attitude. 23 First of all, lest people think 5918 1 differently, if the facts be told, probably 95 2 percent of the applications that are filed must 3 be granted. There is no legal right not to 4 grant them. So the discretion of the Liquor 5 Authority is far more limited than people think. 6 In addition to that, while I 7 supported legislation that requires that the 8 local communities be informed and notified, some 9 of what goes on with these communities is really 10 an outrage. For example, there is one situation 11 I know of where in the first analysis, a very 12 reputable individual went to a board, was turned 13 down. The same night they approved an 14 individual who we now know from the arrests a 15 few weeks ago has been involved in some of the 16 biggest drug scams in night clubs that you can 17 imagine, and he got a clean bill of health. 18 Now, I know that the community 19 boards mean well and I know that they are not 20 there to damage their communities, but I think 21 as has been indicated, they are filled with 22 local politics of a nature which sometimes has 23 nothing to do with the merits or demerits of an 5919 1 application, and if you had the opportunity to 2 examine some of the goings on, you find some 3 very, very big fish in little ponds who look at 4 this as a -- as a power mechanism. 5 The boards -- the Liquor 6 Authority, in my opinion, has gone through a 7 number of changes over the years and now I think 8 is getting to the right place where it ought to 9 be. There are people violating the liquor laws 10 and the Liquor Authority ought to be looking 11 into that and protecting us and protecting us 12 against violations of law. 13 When it comes to the 14 applications, there have been over the years 15 terrible, terrible obstructions placed in the 16 way of honest people. There are applications 17 I've seen where somebody was opening a small 18 little neighborhood bar and grill and the 19 investment was some perhaps 30- or $35,000 and 20 they would drive the individual crazy to see 21 where the last 50 bucks came from, and there 22 were applications put in by certain ethnic 23 groups who they decided didn't use banks and 5920 1 kept money under the mattress and they would 2 excuse 2-, $300,000 of unexplained money. It 3 was a farce what went on. 4 I believe there is a sincere 5 effort on the part of the present chairman to 6 straighten this all out and to get this -- this 7 Liquor Authority in a situation where we clamp 8 down on people violating the liquor laws and 9 make the application system such that legitimate 10 business people can move forward. 11 If you are trying to open up a 12 premises and you sign a lease and these leases 13 are for big money and 30 days goes by, 60 days 14 goes by, six months goes by and you are paying 15 rent and you have some key employees who you are 16 trying to keep and, therefore, you're paying 17 them money and you have nothing coming in, that 18 is not a business friendly atmosphere, believe 19 me, and it seems to me something must be done. 20 I think that Senator Goodman's 21 bill is a good compromise in this issue, and I'm 22 certainly going to support it. 23 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 5921 1 Abate. 2 SENATOR ABATE: Yes. Would 3 Senator Goodman yield to a question? 4 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 5 Goodman, do you yield to a question from Senator 6 Abate? 7 SENATOR GOODMAN: Yes, I will. 8 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The 9 Senator yields. 10 SENATOR ABATE: Senator, last 11 year we had a discussion on the floor around 12 this bill, and I have not carefully reviewed the 13 bill and I know you are more aware of the 14 details of the bill than I am. Has this bill 15 been amended in any way since last year, or does 16 this bill reflect the same bill that was on the 17 floor which we voted upon last year? 18 SENATOR GOODMAN: To the best of 19 my knowledge, it's the same bill that we had 20 last year, Senator. 21 SENATOR ABATE: Senator, would 22 you -- would the -- Senator Goodman yield to a 23 question? 5922 1 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 2 Goodman, do you yield? 3 SENATOR GOODMAN: Yes, I will. 4 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The 5 Senator continues to yield. 6 SENATOR ABATE: One of the 7 concerns that I had last year -- and I'm very 8 glad to hear that Chairman Casale thinks he can, 9 in fact, comply and make decisions within 45 10 days. What has changed between last year and 11 this year, because it's my understanding even as 12 of last week, it takes approximately six to 13 eight months on average to decide these pending 14 on-premise license applications. So why if we 15 pass the law does he think he can expedite this 16 decision-making process and shorten it to 45 17 days? 18 SENATOR GOODMAN: As I said 19 earlier -- I'm not sure you were on the floor, 20 Senator -- the Department has computerized its 21 operation and it's working more efficiently. 22 SENATOR ABATE: And when does 23 this computerization come on-line? 5923 1 SENATOR GOODMAN: It's in place 2 now. 3 SENATOR ABATE: And how long has 4 it been in place? 5 SENATOR GOODMAN: I don't know. 6 SENATOR ABATE: Again, it's my 7 understanding that the SLA has been working on 8 this computerization, yet I have not seen 9 recently any improvement in terms of timeliness 10 in making these decisions. So my concern is are 11 we, Senator, putting an arbitrarily -- time 12 period of 45 days on the SLA to review these 13 applications, and are we giving them any more 14 resources to ensure it can be done within that 15 time period? 16 SENATOR GOODMAN: Senator, I have 17 the transcript of last year's debate in which 18 you raised these same questions, so we took 19 particular and meticulous care to determine 20 whether your concerns had been satisfied, and 21 the fact of the matter is, as I indicated 22 earlier, they have. 23 SENATOR ABATE: The other issue, 5924 1 if the Senator would continue to yield - 2 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 3 Goodman, do you continue to yield? 4 SENATOR GOODMAN: Yes, I will. 5 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The 6 Senator continues to yield. 7 SENATOR ABATE: My concern is - 8 and you're very well aware -- that the community 9 boards approve of most of all of the on-premise 10 licenses. '97 percent of them go through the 11 community board, but then on occasion the 12 community board raises issues under the 500-foot 13 rule, which is the rule that says if there's 14 three or more bars or discos within 500 feet of 15 each other, they call upon the SLA to ensure 16 that it's within the public interest before a 17 fourth or fifth or thirtieth bar is placed and 18 approved. 19 In issues of 500-foot rule and 20 200-foot rule, issues of zoning and safety, how 21 can this legislation ensure the community they 22 have opportunity for notice and sufficient 23 opportunity to react and to have hearings and to 5925 1 be heard before this license is granted? 2 SENATOR GOODMAN: Well, as you 3 know, Senator, the community boards typically 4 meet at least once a month and, therefore, a 5 60-day period is more than adequate for them to 6 respond. 7 Let me just remind you, we're 8 dealing with a serious problem which we 9 unearthed as a result of our investigation. 10 There is blatant corruption in a situation where 11 there is a line from here to the Mississippi 12 River, if I can use a simile or a metaphor, to 13 indicate that there have been enormously - 14 enormously extended delays. As Senator Gold 15 just pointed out, this has resulted in serious 16 problems of corruption and inadequate response 17 by government to the need to give reasonably 18 timely action to these types of applications. 19 The consequences of our failure 20 to do this could be very, very great and we want 21 to try to do what we can to stop the use of 22 influence peddling, the use of bribery, the use 23 of the need for special consultants to come in 5926 1 as expediters. There's a whole profession which 2 developed around these extraordinary delays. 3 We've got to put a stop to this and the use of 4 community boards as an objection to this, I 5 think is utterly invalid since they have more 6 than enough time to interpose objections if they 7 have them. I hope you will not take a view that 8 prevents us from recognizing that the over 9 arching problem is corruption and it must be 10 stopped. 11 SENATOR ABATE: Senator, would 12 you continue to yield? 13 SENATOR GOODMAN: Yes, I will. 14 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The 15 Senator continues to yield. 16 SENATOR ABATE: I absolutely 17 agree that we need to reform the system. We 18 need to dissolve the system of corruption. We 19 need to streamline the process. My concern is 20 how did you choose 45 days? Why not 90 days? 21 We're now going from an average of eight months 22 and now to 45 days. Shouldn't we take more 23 realistic interim steps to ensure that we 5927 1 expedite the process so we don't unfairly 2 penalize good businesses but we also don't take 3 out of the process needed community input? 4 SENATOR GOODMAN: Senator, if you 5 will read the bill, you'll notice that the 6 actual time span is 60 days which can be further 7 extended if there's an incomplete application. 8 The SLA has the right to announce to the 9 applicant that you are, for example, not in 10 possession of a certificate of occupancy and 11 until that certificate is presented to the SLA, 12 the clock stops. It does not incessantly go 13 forward when the application does not have all 14 of its necessary elements. So I think there's 15 more than enough time, and we selected the time 16 very deliberately and carefully after we 17 examined the ways in which the law was failing 18 to serve the public interests. 19 SENATOR ABATE: But I understand 20 that if the SLA doesn't do anything within 40... 21 it does not rule within 45 days, the license is 22 granted unless -- who has to make an application 23 for an additional 15-day extension? 5928 1 SENATOR GOODMAN: The 15 days 2 come into play, as I indicated earlier, in the 3 event that there is a failure to provide an 4 adequate response to the completion requirements 5 of the SLA. 6 SENATOR ABATE: Now -- but then 7 does the community have a right to say, "We 8 don't have enough time. 44 days have elapsed. 9 We need 15 more days"? 10 SENATOR GOODMAN: If there's an 11 incomplete application, it does. If there's 12 not, then it does not. 13 SENATOR ABATE: Let's envision a 14 circumstance where it's not a question of an 15 incomplete application. The community board 16 meets once a month and maybe it's at the 29th or 17 30th day they meet and they decide there's some 18 real issues here around the 500-foot rule, 19 around zoning issues, and they say that 45 days 20 is not enough. Where in the bill does it give 21 the power to the community to object so they can 22 get more time to be heard? 23 SENATOR GOODMAN: First of all, 5929 1 as you know, the community board does not have 2 the veto power on these matters. It has only a 3 recommendatory power to the SLA, and it has 4 ample time to find out the facts of any given 5 case and to make its recommendation to the SLA. 6 They're not a court of law. They do not -- they 7 cannot bring down the curtain on an application. 8 If they object and the SLA decides that their 9 objection is without merit, they can go ahead 10 and grant the license. 11 SENATOR ABATE: Senator, I agree 12 that community boards should not have a veto 13 power over the SLA. What I'm concerned about is 14 that if they feel that they don't have enough 15 time at least to be involved in the process so 16 they in an advisory way can make recommendations 17 to the SLA and they say that they want to stop 18 the clock for a period of time so there can be a 19 public hearing, like a 500-foot rule, where in 20 the bill does it ensure that the community has 21 an opportunity to stop the clock? 22 SENATOR GOODMAN: It is clearly 23 in the bill if within the 60-day period there 5930 1 are objections brought to the attention of the 2 SLA which warrant the non-granting of the 3 license, the SLA has that absolute discretion, 4 and that's more than adequate time for the 5 community to act. I don't know where you're 6 coming up with the sense that it's not 7 adequate. As I've explained to you, community 8 boards meet monthly and, if there's a special 9 problem, they can call a special meeting which 10 they very rarely have to do. So I think 11 everybody's interest is well protected. 12 SENATOR ABATE: Thank you, 13 Senator. 14 On the bill. 15 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 16 Abate, on the bill. 17 SENATOR ABATE: Last year I think 18 we conducted the same debate. I was hoping that 19 the bill could have been amended to extend the 20 time periods. I agree with the Senator that 21 there's a need for long overdue reform. I have 22 set up a meeting with Chairman Casale, with some 23 local businesses and restaurateurs to look at 5931 1 what I call realistic reforms. 2 The point that I disagree with 3 Senator Goodman is that the community boards 4 would say that the 40-day rule where there would 5 be an automatic approval and maybe a 15-day 6 extension does not give them necessarily in 7 every case, particularly those complex cases, 8 the cases where they object to an unruly bar or 9 where a 500- and 200-foot is applicable, they do 10 not believe that the time periods as prescribed 11 in this legislation are sufficient. 12 I think there's a middle ground. 13 I think we should recognize that what we are 14 doing is granting licenses by default. The SLA 15 will be making -- will be approving these 16 decisions without full community input and 17 review or they won't have an opportunity to make 18 these decisions and by default the licenses will 19 be granted. 20 Rest assured, most of these 21 licenses should be done on time. We should look 22 at realistic reforms. I don't think this is 23 going to provide the needed -- reforms that are 5932 1 needed. I was hoping that this bill could be 2 amended. I'm still going to hope that this does 3 not become law, that we reach out to the 4 community boards to see if we could find some 5 middle ground. I believe, and I'm sure Senator 6 Padavan is concerned, I believe this will 7 eviscerate the intent of the 500-foot rule. 8 It'll be a way to circumvent those public 9 hearings. It'll be a way to ensure that the 10 communities do not have adequate opportunity for 11 input and review. 12 I think we should sit down, and I 13 would invite the Senator to bring together the 14 business people in our communities, the 15 restaurateurs and the community people around 16 realistic reforms. I think we can reach certain 17 agreements. I'm trying to do that now with the 18 SLA, bringing together businesses and 19 communities. Rest assured that we should be 20 doing as many reforms as possible to ensure that 21 good businesses have the opportunity to get on 22 line, to hire people, to open their businesses, 23 but on the other hand, we have to have enough 5933 1 community safeguards so that the businesses that 2 are not willing to be good neighbors, not 3 willing to abide by the laws, have the 4 opportunity to confront their communities and we 5 should not within a 45-day time frame give these 6 businesses on-line premises. I think it will be 7 detrimental to the good businesses who abide by 8 the laws in the long run and certainly this bill 9 will be detrimental to the communities. 10 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 11 Bruno. 12 SENATOR BRUNO: Mr. President, 13 could we lay the present bill that we're 14 discussing aside temporarily so that -- is that 15 the end of the debate? 16 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 17 Padavan had indicated a willingness to want to 18 talk, so the debate has not ended at this 19 point. 20 SENATOR BRUNO: We have some 21 people who need to vote on Calendar Number 1225, 22 and I would ask if we could lay this aside 23 temporarily. 5934 1 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: We'll lay 2 Calendar Number 789 aside temporarily and bring 3 up Calendar Number 1225. 4 I'll ask the Secretary to read 5 the title. 6 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 7 1225, by Senator Bruno, Senate Print 7164-A, an 8 act to amend the Workers' Compensation Law, in 9 relation to extending the effectiveness of 10 certain provisions, to repeal certain provisions 11 of the Workers' Compensation Law. 12 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The 13 Secretary will read the last section. 14 THE SECRETARY: Section 91. This 15 act shall take effect immediately. 16 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the 17 roll. 18 (The Secretary called the roll.) 19 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 20 Johnson, how do you vote? 21 SENATOR JOHNSON: Aye. 22 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 23 Johnson will be recorded in the affirmative. 5935 1 SENATOR BRUNO: And Senator 2 Goodman. 3 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 4 Goodman, how do you vote? 5 SENATOR GOODMAN: Aye. 6 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 7 Goodman will be recorded in the affirmative. 8 The roll call is withdrawn. 9 SENATOR BRUNO: Thank you, Mr. 10 President. 11 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: We'll 12 return to Calendar Number 789. 13 SENATOR BRUNO: Thank you, Mr. 14 President. 15 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The 16 Secretary will read the title, put the bill 17 before the house. 18 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 19 789, by Senator Goodman, Senate Print 1921-A, an 20 act to amend the Alcoholic Beverage Control Law, 21 in relation to the information required in 22 license or permit applications. 23 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The Chair 5936 1 recognizes Senator Padavan on debate on Calendar 2 Number 789. 3 SENATOR PADAVAN: Yes. Thank 4 you, Mr. President. 5 I share many if not all of the 6 observations that were made by Senator Abate, 7 particularly with regard to this 45-day 8 requirement that is specified in the bill. 9 As Senator Goodman is aware and 10 I'm sure most of you are aware, there are 11 businesses in the state, the city of New York 12 and elsewhere, that require licenses from a 13 variety of agencies, state Health Department as 14 an example, the city of New York, the Building 15 Department, the Department of Consumer Affairs, 16 and on and on the list goes. Depending upon the 17 nature of the business, the requirements of the 18 licensure or the application, varying amounts of 19 time will be required. In none of those 20 instances am I aware of -- and you can correct 21 me if I'm wrong -- is there an automatic license 22 at a point-specific in whatever process must 23 take place. This would be an exception in all 5937 1 licenses issued by the state and by local 2 governments to appropriate -- for appropriate 3 purposes to various kinds of businesses or 4 activities. 5 Now, we heard earlier from the 6 sponsor and from others that the SLA has 7 computerized its process, has done the things 8 required to improve its efficiency and we 9 applaud that. Now, if that is the case as the 10 sponsor indicates, then why do we have to pass 11 legislation imposing a time restriction? 12 Senator Abate mentioned a bill 13 that passed which is now law of the last several 14 years restricting the numbers of on-premises 15 liquor consumption bars in those communities 16 where there is a high density and where that 17 density has produced problems that are adverse 18 to the quality of life of residents and 19 adversely affect the stability of those 20 communities, and the bill indicates that if 21 there are several bars within a 500-foot 22 diameter, that a new application may not be 23 considered or a new license may not be issued. 5938 1 The key element, however, in that 2 process is the objection or the reasons 3 presented by local government. Now, we made 4 frequent reference to community planning boards, 5 but that's a statewide bill. Every town board, 6 local government, village entity, whatever, from 7 Huntington, Long Island to Buffalo, New York, 8 those local governments are called upon or given 9 the opportunity of exercising their 10 responsibility by saying, We have a problem in 11 this particular area and we really do not feel 12 it's appropriate to have any more bars or 13 taverns open up, and we ask you, the SLA, to 14 apply the 500-foot rule. 15 Now, many of those local 16 government bodies, including community planning 17 boards -- I know the ones in my area do not meet 18 in the month of August, and I assume local 19 governments throughout the state will frequently 20 take a hiatus in the summer and not have 21 meetings, and community groups, civic 22 organizations generally don't meet, and so what 23 you have is a time gap, depending on the time of 5939 1 the year we're talking about, where the desired 2 inputs from local governments, from civic 3 organizations, from others who have an interest 4 would simply not be forthcoming. 5 Now, there are many parts of your 6 bill that I find appropriate, but I do not feel 7 that the exception to licensure which has an 8 underlining component, what is desirable for the 9 people who ought to be affected by that license, 10 whatever the activity may be, that in this one 11 instance, we say to an agency, in this case, the 12 LSA -- SLA, that in a time specific, if all of 13 the inputs that might potentially be forthcoming 14 do not take place, you will issue that license, 15 the people I represent would not be happy with 16 that. 17 So, Mr. President, I will say to 18 the sponsor that either change the 45 days or I 19 and I'm sure others will feel disposed to vote 20 against this bill. 21 SENATOR GOLD: Mr. President. 22 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 23 Gold. 5940 1 SENATOR GOLD: Would Senator 2 Padavan yield to a question? 3 SENATOR PADAVAN: Yes. 4 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The 5 Senator yields. 6 SENATOR GOLD: Senator, I heard 7 your remarks, and I know of your sincerity and 8 your concern with this issue, but I want to ask 9 you a question. 10 Do you think in determining its 11 responsibility to the community that a local 12 community board should insist that an applicant 13 to take over a restaurant, let's say, submit its 14 menu and say to an applicant that we may or may 15 not approve if you change some of your menu 16 items? 17 SENATOR PADAVAN: Senator, I have 18 never heard that taking place in my area, and 19 you may have in yours. However, I would 20 consider that not germane to the basic laws that 21 we have generated and the responsibility of 22 community planning boards who do have a very 23 special responsibility in this area as they do 5941 1 in many others. Now, if that does take place, 2 it's an exception to the rule by any measure. 3 SENATOR GOLD: Will the Senator 4 yield to one more question? 5 SENATOR PADAVAN: Yes. 6 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The 7 Senator continues to yield. 8 SENATOR GOLD: Yes. The 9 advantage of my asking you questions, Senator 10 Padavan, is that you give honest answers and I 11 can rely upon them, and I appreciate your last 12 answer. 13 Senator, do you think that a 14 local board, in determining whether they should 15 approve or not approve, should have the right to 16 say to an applicant that they think that maybe 17 the tables should be a little bit to the right 18 of the room when you come in the door rather 19 than to the left, or maybe 15 feet from the bar 20 rather than 12 feet from the bar? 21 SENATOR PADAVAN: Senator, I'll 22 give you the same answer with this addendum. 23 The fact remains that is irrelevant to the 5942 1 issue. 2 If a planning board in any time 3 frame would raise that kind of concern, the SLA 4 has full authority to say, "This is nonsense. 5 It's not really germane", but if that planning 6 board said to the SLA, "We have a bar that's 7 going to open up in an area that is over 8 saturated, where we've had mayhem, we've had 9 murders, we've had all kinds of problems, people 10 pouring out of bars at 4:00 in the morning, dis 11 turbing the neighborhood or in close proximity 12 in terms of residential accommodations, private 13 homes or apartments", those are the kinds of 14 things that the planning boards in my area have 15 raised from time to time relevant to the 16 licensure of bars. 17 SENATOR GOLD: Thank you. 18 Mr. President, may I comment on 19 the bill? 20 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 21 Gold, on the bill. 22 SENATOR GOLD: Senator Padavan, 23 the problems I'm addressing I think are what 5943 1 Senator Goodman wants to address. If you have a 2 computerization -- first of all, understand 3 something. There's a lot of people out there 4 whose applications for liquor licenses take six 5 months because they don't know how to fill out a 6 plain English piece of paper, and I've seen that 7 and I know what goes on, but if people under 8 this bill put in their numbers, put in their 9 figures together with their letter that they 10 address to the community board, there's no 11 reason why that application can't be looked at 12 and some determination made. 13 Now, Senator, what's happening 14 today is that time is being used as a weapon by 15 some people in community boards who I'm telling 16 you are unscrupulous and, Senator Padavan, I 17 know that you have had situations where you 18 didn't think or your community didn't think 19 something was proper and you wouldn't do what 20 some of the boards have done, but I'm telling 21 you what they do. They tell people to bring in 22 their menus and they go in as if they were 23 business geniuses and start telling people to 5944 1 rearrange their tables. They tell them where 2 the men's room should be and the women's room 3 should be and, yes, the Liquor Authority today, 4 I hope, which is Republican controlled as you 5 know, has enough sense to say, "That's 6 nonsense. We're not going to deal with that", 7 but 45 days is enough time to do that. 8 First of all, understand that the 9 vast majority of these applications are not for 10 new places. They are people who sell a premises 11 to somebody else. So you've got an Italian 12 restaurant, a diner, a Chinese restaurant or 13 whatever that somebody is buying from somebody 14 else, and if the money is proper and valid, you 15 don't have 500-foot rules. You don't have any 16 of these rules. So a lot of these applications 17 are just swept out of there because they just 18 don't apply to the kind of things you're talking 19 about, and when you get down to the two or three 20 or five, believe me, that may be a question, 21 there's enough time for the boards to deal with 22 that, the local boards, and there's enough time 23 for the Liquor Authority to deal with that, and 5945 1 that's the philosophy behind the Goodman bill. 2 There's too much time that other administrations 3 have wasted of taxpayer money worrying about 4 things which are nonsense. 5 The Liquor Authority, in my 6 opinion -- and it's only my opinion -- should be 7 an enforcement body that makes sure that they're 8 not selling drugs in the discos. 9 I mean, it's interesting, there 10 was this big scandal a few weeks ago and I'm 11 laughing. I'm saying to myself, Everybody knows 12 that these places were drug dens. Isn't it 13 interesting if everybody knows that the local 14 community boards approved that owner or that 15 premises only maybe two months ago for a new 16 premises even though they were told what was 17 going on? Isn't it interesting when everybody 18 knows that somebody is the owner of a premises, 19 that their name isn't on the application? Isn't 20 that interesting how everyone knows it? 21 So the bottom line here is that 22 if you take the applications where they have no 23 discretion and you just put them through the 5946 1 computer and take them off the table, I'm 2 telling you, 45 days is plenty of time to take a 3 look at the others, and under the Goodman bill, 4 as I read it, there's nothing that stops the 5 Liquor Authority after 45 days or 60 days from 6 saying no, from turning down the application, 7 and then there is no automatic license. All 8 you're saying is the Liquor Authority must act, 9 and if the Liquor Authority says, "We can act 10 within that time", I think that you're doing, 11 without repeating it, what Senator Goodman said 12 and you're eliminating an awful lot of time for 13 fraud. 14 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 15 Paterson. 16 SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you, Mr. 17 President. 18 If Senator Goodman would yield 19 for a question. 20 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 21 Goodman, do you yield to Senator Paterson? The 22 Senator yields. 23 SENATOR PATERSON: Senator, last 5947 1 year during the debate I made a suggestion to 2 you and I wanted to know if you had given it any 3 more thought. In terms of this whole process, 4 the idea of having the agency, in a sense, 5 mandated to respond in a seasonable period of 6 time, is just something that just from a 7 government perspective I have a problem with. 8 This is a matter of public policy. Despite the 9 fact that a number of things that Senator Gold 10 said that I listened very attentively to were 11 right -- in fact, I'm glad I listened. I never 12 listened to Senator Gold before, but the point 13 is that what I wanted to ask you is that if we 14 established a different level of a license, in a 15 sense a temporary license which would allow the 16 business to continue but would give the Liquor 17 Authority and any other dissenting party 18 additional time to actually review it, I just 19 wondered if that wouldn't be a way to solve this 20 problem and yet address some of the issues that 21 some who aren't supporting the bill are raising. 22 SENATOR GOODMAN: Senator, I 23 appreciate your concern and that of my other 5948 1 colleagues, but I just wanted to point out to 2 you that this has been carefully thought out, 3 has been through the crucible of debate twice in 4 this house, I think twice has passed by signifi 5 cant margins. One of your most distinguished 6 leaders has spoken most eloquently and supported 7 the bill. It's our judgment -- and I may say 8 that I'm not a lawyer. I don't happen to have a 9 practice before the SLA, but I believe some 10 others who have spoken do and are quite familiar 11 with it and other supporters of the bill are. 12 It is a simple fact that there is more than 13 adequate time for the SLA to make a -- to have 14 due deliberation and to reach a reasonable 15 conclusion and more than adequate time for the 16 community to act, and that the impelling feature 17 of all of this is we've got to put a stop to the 18 corruption which has absolutely engulfed this 19 area. That's a fact. 20 The rest of these problems are 21 theoretical speculations to potential problems. 22 In our judgment, they won't exist, but we know 23 full well that there have been repeated 5949 1 instances in which people have used this 2 procedure, these inordinate ways to try to - 3 they have used bribes to try to circumvent the 4 process. They have a whole special group of 5 people who are so-called expediters. This is a 6 public outrage and it's imperative that we do 7 something once and for all to stop it. 8 I have spoken to the Assembly 9 sponsor, Assemblyman Denis Butler, on this 10 matter. He assures me that he's going to put 11 forth his best effort and once and for all, the 12 corruption which is endemic in this must be put 13 aside and we're giving assurances and great help 14 to small business by allowing them to go to 15 their banks and saying, I can now come to you 16 with reasonable bureaucratic certainty that 17 there will not be a dragged out delay. It makes 18 them more creditworthy in every respect. It 19 seems to me this is a reasonable, very carefully 20 thought out proposal which will have a 21 beneficial effect in all directions. I urge its 22 passage. 23 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 5950 1 Paterson. 2 SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you, 3 Senator Goodman. 4 Mr. President, on the bill. 5 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 6 Paterson, on the bill. 7 SENATOR PATERSON: I think that 8 Senator Goodman has put a great deal of time and 9 effort into this, and I can understand that he 10 might not want to accept this idea that we're 11 presenting, and I also think that Senator Gold 12 pointed out quite eloquently that this whole 13 process has been abused often by individuals 14 whose job it is to protect the public, 15 individuals who have thought of all kinds of 16 ways to literally harass small business 17 operators who are trying to open up their 18 businesses, and so I think that it's absolutely 19 correct. You have -- there's got to be a stop 20 to it. It has a great deal of corruption, but 21 what I'm saying is that this type of solution, 22 by mandating a seasonable period on the actual 23 agency, in my opinion, puts the agency in the 5951 1 position of having to direct us, the 2 Legislature, that it can answer in this period 3 of time, and that sounds very nice, but I don't 4 know if that's actually going to happen, and if 5 that's the case, in those few areas where there 6 may be some need for review or may be some need 7 for further inspection or investigation, we're 8 not going to have the time to actually do it, 9 and so I'm just suggesting that what may have 10 been the case that would still allow for the 11 proprietor to make these assurances to the banks 12 and that kind of thing is that there would be 13 the granting of a -- of a license that would 14 suffice for that period of time, allowing the 15 State Liquor Authority, if it has any problems, 16 to raise them in this period. 17 I realize that it may occur in 18 only five to ten percent of the cases, that in 19 most of the cases that there is pretty much a 20 requirement that the State Liquor Authority 21 allow for the license. I realize that there 22 have been undue pressures put on small 23 businesses and at times almost ridiculous 5952 1 demands made of people who are trying to open up 2 what are businesses that have integrity in this 3 state, but I just think that this form of 4 legislation opens up a public policy with 5 respect to the administration of agencies that I 6 think is going a little farther than we would 7 want to. 8 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The Chair 9 recognizes Senator Dollinger. 10 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Mr. 11 President, will Senator Goodman yield for one 12 question? 13 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 14 Goodman, do you yield? The Senator yields. 15 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Senator, as I 16 understand it, this bill would grant the license 17 in the event that the SLA doesn't act within 45 18 days, correct? 19 SENATOR GOODMAN: Not entirely, 20 Senator. I think you missed the earlier 21 explanation which is - 22 SENATOR DOLLINGER: I may have 23 and, if so, I apologize. 5953 1 SENATOR GOODMAN: Would you like 2 me to repeat it? 3 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Just in a 4 succinct fashion, if you would, just so I make 5 sure I understand it. 6 SENATOR GOODMAN: Pardon me, 7 Senator? You're just asking about the 45 days? 8 The answer is it's not 45 days. It's 60 days, 9 and it can be much longer if an application is 10 incomplete. 11 SENATOR DOLLINGER: My question 12 is, Mr. President, do you support the notion 13 that if the Governor submits a budget to the 14 Legislature and we don't act by April 1st, 15 within 90 days after the submission, that that 16 budget ought to become law without further 17 input? 18 SENATOR GOODMAN: No, I don't, 19 but I'm perfectly clear that there's now 20 incipient and proved corruption which enters 21 into this process time and again and has been 22 exposed by your Senate Investigations Committee 23 and a bipartisan look at this problem in great 5954 1 depth which resulted in the astonishing finding 2 by that committee that this is shot through with 3 corruption which has to be stopped. This is the 4 attempt we're making to stop it and we think 5 it'll work. 6 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Okay. 7 SENATOR GOODMAN: The analogy to 8 the budget process, in my respectful opinion, is 9 not quite applicable here. 10 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Okay. Mr. 11 President, on the bill. 12 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 13 Dollinger, on the bill. 14 SENATOR DOLLINGER: I addressed 15 this bill last year and what I think are the 16 deficiencies of creating a situation in which 17 there would be a default provision that would 18 remove the power of the SLA, restrict the power 19 of the SLA in highly controverted applications. 20 Although I understand Senator Goodman, I 21 appreciate the investigation that his committee 22 did, I'm concerned about corruption as well, I 23 don't think this is the solution. 5955 1 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The 2 Secretary will read the last section. 3 THE SECRETARY: Section 16. This 4 act shall take effect on the 120th day. 5 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the 6 roll. 7 (The Secretary called the roll.) 8 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 9 Abate to explain her vote. 10 SENATOR ABATE: I would like to 11 explain my vote. 12 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 13 Abate to explain her vote. 14 SENATOR ABATE: Again, we had the 15 opportunity to hear from two experts on the 16 State Liquor Authority, Senator Goodman who has 17 spent an enormous amount of time working on 18 these issues, and Senator Padavan. However, I 19 think Senator Padavan made one critical point 20 that I would like to emphasize. 21 A year ago when we had this 22 debate, there was no information from the State 23 Liquor Authority that in the near future they 5956 1 had any capacity to streamline their process 2 and, in fact, expedite their decision-making and 3 make certain rulings within 45 days or even 60 4 days. We now with Chairman Casale -- which I 5 think -- who is providing some good leadership, 6 he understands that the agency has to be 7 reformed; it has to be brought up to new 8 technology and new systems have to be put in 9 place -- we're now hearing for the first time 10 that on their own without legislation they can 11 now make decisions in a more speedy fashion. So 12 there's not a need for this legislation. 13 If we pass this legislation, what 14 we're doing is putting inordinate reins on the 15 SLA and taking away the flexibility they need so 16 that on an occasional circumstance when there is 17 an inordinately controversial issue or a complex 18 zoning issue that needs to be investigated, they 19 will be -- not have the sufficient time to do 20 the investigation. Let's give SLA the 21 opportunity. 22 Now, they say they can reform the 23 system. They can make these decisions speedier 5957 1 so they do not handicap good businesses. Let's 2 give them an opportunity to do this and not take 3 away the flexibility they need and the ability 4 to hear from their community around some of 5 these critical issues. 6 For these reasons, I oppose the 7 legislation. 8 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 9 Abate will be recorded in the negative. 10 Announce the results. 11 THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in 12 the negative on Calendar Number 789 are Senators 13 Abate, Connor, Dollinger, Espada, Kruger, 14 Lachman, Markowitz, Montgomery, Onorato, 15 Padavan, Paterson, Seabrook, Smith and 16 Stachowski. Ayes 43, nays 14. 17 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill 18 is passed. 19 The Secretary will read Calendar 20 Number 1225. 21 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 22 1225, by Senator Bruno, Senate Print 7164-A, an 23 act to amend the Workers' Compensation Law, in 5958 1 relation to extending the effectiveness of 2 certain provisions, to repeal certain provisions 3 of the Workers' Compensation Law. 4 SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Explanation. 5 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 6 Bruno. 7 SENATOR BRUNO: Thank you, Mr. 8 President. 9 Mr. President, this bill deals 10 with reforming the Workers' Compensation program 11 in New York State. 12 Most people in this state 13 recognize that the Workers' Comp' program in 14 this state is a failure. It's a failure because 15 we in New York State pay in business about 15 - 16 a 57 percent higher premium than the average in 17 the country, and the workers that Workers' Comp' 18 is supposed to serve don't get the benefit of 19 the increased premium. In fact, the average 20 worker's benefit from premium in the state is 21 about 40 -- 65 percent. In New York State, it's 22 47 percent, and that's wrong. We have the 23 second highest premium in the country, $3.9 5959 1 billion. So we have to deal with costs. We 2 have to deal with safety, and we have to deal 3 with the benefits. 4 This bill that we have before us, 5 Mr. President, does those things. It deals with 6 the costs by reducing the premiums by $800 7 million, a 25 percent reduction. It increases 8 the benefits from 400 max. first year to 520, 9 540 second year, 560 third year, a substantial 10 increase in benefits. At the same time, it 11 deals with safety in the workplace. It creates 12 incentives. First time credits against premium 13 for those businesses that invest in making the 14 workplace safer, and we punish rather severely 15 those places that don't deal with proper, safe 16 workplace. 17 We remove one of the expenses of 18 double dipping in this bill so that workers 19 can't collect unemployment benefits as well as 20 Workers' Comp' benefits, and we conform the 21 benefit payments for partial disability - 22 permanent partial disability to the AMA 23 standards, the Medical Association standards, 5960 1 and those standards are used throughout the 2 country by most states. 3 This bill also repeals Dole v. 4 Dow, a court decision that goes back to '71. 5 There is an indication from the studies that 6 have been done by the agencies that rate 7 premiums that Dole by itself accounts for about 8 6.4 percent of the premium and can account for 9 the savings with that repeal, but while we 10 repeal the Dole piece, we also protect the right 11 of the worker to sue a manufacturer if the 12 product is faulty or purported to be faulty. So 13 that protection for the worker remains intact. 14 As I have moved around the state, 15 I hear from business several things. We spend 16 too much in this state. We tax too much in this 17 state. We over-regulate too much in this state 18 and we charge too much for Workers' Compensa 19 tion, and the result is that we lose jobs. We 20 keep companies from increasing their 21 employment. We keep some companies from coming 22 to New York because they can't afford the 23 premiums in Workers' Compensation in this state. 5961 1 We saw the Giants with their 2 summer camp right here locally come into Albany, 3 into the state, the training camp. They almost 4 had to make a negative decision because of 5 Workers' Comp' costs. They buy their Workers' 6 Comp', as I understand it, and get their 7 protections still out of New Jersey. New Jersey 8 has changed. Other states are changing. We 9 have to recognize that the Workers' Comp' 10 premiums don't help. They hurt. They hurt the 11 workers. They hurt the employers, and so since 12 the system has failed, it's up to us in the 13 Legislature to fix it. Now, we can posture. We 14 can pretend, but we are passing real reform, 15 meaningful reform. 16 So who are we looking after? 17 We're looking after the employer in that they 18 can afford to pay the premium and we're looking 19 at the worker with substantial increases in 20 benefits. Now, that is a win-win for the people 21 of this state. 22 So, Mr. President, I'm hopeful 23 that we will have the support for this 5962 1 legislation in this chamber. I'm also hopeful 2 that we will be relating to the Assembly so that 3 we can reconcile whatever differences there are 4 and that we can have one Workers' Comp' bill 5 that we pass that will go to the Governor for 6 his signature. 7 The Governor's office has done a 8 lot of work to get us where we are, and the 9 Governor's position has been to support what we 10 have on this floor. So we have two-thirds of 11 the triangle with the passage of this 12 legislation this afternoon and, as I said, I am 13 hopeful that the Assembly -- they have a 14 different version -- that they will see fit to 15 negotiate in good faith the differences that we 16 have so that the workers of this state can 17 benefit by the substantial increase in their 18 benefits almost immediately with an improved 19 workplace that will be safer and that employment 20 in this state can continue to go up so that we 21 can continue the turn from the downward spiral 22 that we were in a few years ago to the growth 23 that we have seen in this state last year with 5963 1 the addition of over 100,000 jobs, with the 2 Pataki administration in office cutting 3 spending, with we as partners in this chamber 4 and in the Assembly cutting spending, cutting 5 taxes, cutting government regulations and now 6 it's time for us to cut the costs of Workers' 7 Comp' while we increase the benefits to the 8 workers. 9 Thank you, Mr. President. 10 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Is there 11 any other Senator wishing to speak on the bill? 12 SENATOR ABATE: Yes. 13 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 14 Abate. 15 SENATOR ABATE: Would Senator 16 Bruno yield to a number of questions? 17 SENATOR BRUNO: Yes, Mr. 18 President. 19 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The 20 Senator yields. 21 SENATOR ABATE: Thank you. 22 Since the passage of this bill, 23 the Dole v. Dow in 1974, there was a sense - 5964 1 and correct me if I'm wrong -- that there was a 2 need to hold the wrongdoers, the tortfeasors 3 accountable and if they contributed to their 4 negligence, they should also contribute to the 5 costs and contribute to the compensation for the 6 medical bills commensurate with their 7 negligence. 8 What has changed between 1994 and 9 today? What has changed between the worker and 10 employer relationship that would mandate the 11 repeal of Dole v. Dow? 12 SENATOR BRUNO: Well, Senator, 13 I'm certain that you know that New York State is 14 the only state that has Dole v. Dow in its 15 Workers' Comp' package, the only state in the 16 United States. So I can answer by saying 49 17 other states don't see that as an inhibitor in 18 any way to providing adequate benefits or 19 adequate protection. 20 Senator Spano had eight hearings 21 throughout the state as the chair of Labor and 22 did a great job, spent a lot of time, a lot of 23 effort, and discussed this issue at great length 5965 1 with the vested interests that have an interest 2 in that part of what we're discussing here, and 3 our findings are that we're keeping the benefit 4 because the intent is that a worker be able to 5 sue a manufacturer if the product is at fault. 6 We keep that. The difference is that that 7 manufacturer then can't go back and sue the 8 employer, creating an unnecessary expense, and 9 that's really what we're correcting here, and I 10 don't know how anyone could have a problem with 11 that. 12 SENATOR ABATE: Senator Bruno, 13 would you yield to a number of other questions? 14 SENATOR BRUNO: Yes. 15 SENATOR ABATE: Thank you. 16 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The 17 Senator yields. 18 SENATOR ABATE: Senator, it's my 19 understanding that Illinois, California and 20 North Carolina allow full contribution by the 21 employers, and there are other states like 22 Minnesota that also allow partial contribution. 23 They allow third-party lawsuits. They allow 5966 1 property owners, the contractors, the 2 manufacturers to sue the employers. So, in 3 fact, there are other states that do have Dole 4 v. Dow legislation. 5 SENATOR BRUNO: Maybe as a 6 separate issue in part of the ability of a 7 citizen to sue, but to my knowledge, New York is 8 the only state that has Dole v. Dow as we have 9 it in our workers' program. It's part of the 10 package. 11 SENATOR ABATE: It's not my 12 understanding that that's the case, but let's go 13 on to another issue. You talk about -- in a 14 press conference, you talked about the savings 15 that would be produced - 16 SENATOR BRUNO: Yes. 17 SENATOR ABATE: -- if there was a 18 repeal of Dole v. Dow, and it's my understanding 19 that the savings could be four cents, five cents 20 on the dollar if we repeal Dole v. Dow. 21 SENATOR BRUNO: We estimate the 22 costs out of the premium of about $350 million 23 that would be saved to the premium payers in 5967 1 this state with the repeal of Dole v. Dow. 2 SENATOR ABATE: But it's my 3 understanding that 70 percent of the claims 4 which are based on Dole v. Dow are under 5 $250,000, and these are in cases where there 6 have been severe injuries, and if we repeal Dole 7 v. Dow, aren't we inviting greater Workers' 8 Compensation claims against employers because 9 we're going to be removing incentives from the 10 employer to institute work safety mechanisms? 11 We're going to be making the workplace less safe 12 and, therefore, in the long run, employers will 13 be paying more in traditional Worker 14 Compensation cases. How are we saving money for 15 the employer? 16 SENATOR BRUNO: Nope. We don't 17 think that will be the case at all because 18 premiums, as you know, are calculated on 19 experience -- employers have a great incentive 20 to improve their experience and consequently the 21 premiums that they pay is the cost of doing 22 business and as part of this package, we have a 23 credit against premium for those employers that 5968 1 go above and beyond to make their workplace 2 safer, and we increase the penalties for those 3 that don't do the normal things to make the 4 workplace safer. So we think that we have dealt 5 very fairly with the issue of safety. 6 SENATOR ABATE: But there - 7 Senator, could you address two issues? This 8 bill purports to produce greater equity and 9 fairness, but there are two instances that 10 produce, I think, greater inequity and 11 unfairness. One is to the manufacturer, the 12 property owner and contractor who is sued by the 13 employee and says, "I delivered a good piece of 14 machinery to the employer. I did everything 15 that was safe. I did not conduct my business in 16 a negligent manner" and now they may have - 17 after a jury motion have to pay for the full 18 amount of the negligence even though they know 19 that the employer did not maintain the equipment 20 in good order, did not provide safety equipment, 21 did not take the necessary steps to maintain 22 that equipment, to keep it in good order. We 23 are now putting an undue burden on the 5969 1 manufacturer in many instances. How does repeal 2 of Dole v. Dow prevent that kind of inequity to 3 manufacturers? 4 SENATOR BRUNO: That's what jury 5 decisions are all about. That's what court 6 cases are all about. That's what lawyers are 7 all about in making their case as to what the 8 injured parties deserve, and that's why 9 judgments are made, and in the instance that you 10 describe, if that equipment -- a jury -- I'd 11 trust the jury system, and if they found that 12 there was negligence or there was cause, they 13 would then levy damages that would accrue to the 14 person bringing that suit, and they could also 15 apportion off and say that half of the liability 16 belonged to the employer, half to the 17 manufacturer. They could do that. 18 SENATOR ABATE: But if we repeal 19 Dole v. Dow, a jury can't say, Let's proportion 20 the damages. Let's make sure the manufacturer, 21 if they are proportionally responsible, they pay 22 some and that -- allow the manufacturer to sue 23 the employer to pay their share of the 5970 1 negligence. This would repeal Dole v. Dow and 2 not allow that kind of equitable decision to be 3 made by the jury. 4 SENATOR BRUNO: If, in this 5 instance, Senator, a jury found that it was 6 50/50 negligence and they awarded $1 million and 7 it would be 500,000 against the manufacturer, 8 500- against the employer, you are right. With 9 the repeal of Dole, the 500- against the 10 employer would not be paid. The 500- from the 11 manufacturer would be paid. 12 SENATOR ABATE: But can you 13 conceive of a circumstance, Senator Bruno, 14 that - 15 SENATOR BRUNO: But to finish, 16 the Workers' Comp' benefits that are improved 17 here substantially would be paid. So the worker 18 gets damages as the jury finds them from the 19 manufacturer and gets a check, and the intent 20 isn't that people get wealthy in collecting on 21 Workers' Comp'. 22 The intent of Workers' Comp' was 23 that, if someone's injured, they get compensated 5971 1 for that injury commensurate with the injury. 2 Unfortunately, things here in this state have 3 been out of balance, and we've got to get it 4 back together. 5 SENATOR ABATE: But let's - 6 Senator Bruno, would you continue to yield to a 7 number of other questions? 8 SENATOR BRUNO: Yes, Mr. 9 President. 10 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The 11 Senator continues to yield. 12 SENATOR ABATE: But let's 13 envision a circumstance where the manufacturer 14 is not negligent and the jury is faced with a 15 situation where they see a severely injured 16 employee, a worker. We're not talking about 17 someone who misses three or four days from work, 18 but we're talking about permanently disabled 19 people who can never return to work. Their 20 lives have been shattered, and the jury says, "I 21 don't see the manufacturer as being negligent." 22 They're now going to be faced with a situation 23 of not giving any award to the worker because 5972 1 they cannot reach the negligent employer. So 2 the worker, in fact, will lose in that 3 situation. 4 So again, my question is how does 5 Dole v. Dow produce equity and fairness to the 6 worker in that situation when the negligence is 7 not on the part of the manufacturer but the 8 negligence is on the part of the employer? 9 SENATOR BRUNO: Well, there are 10 guidelines that are established and the worker 11 would be compensated according to those 12 guidelines, and I've seen enough ingenuity in my 13 life by trial lawyers so that I believe that you 14 would find that the rare case when they couldn't 15 find some cause for action against that 16 manufacturer. 17 SENATOR ABATE: Well, let's 18 just - 19 SENATOR BRUNO: I would really be 20 amazed to find that that would happen. 21 SENATOR ABATE: I know, Senator 22 Bruno, there are many other people who will ask 23 you questions, so I'm going to leave that 5973 1 opportunity to them, and I would just like to 2 speak on the bill as it relates - 3 SENATOR BRUNO: Thank you, 4 Senator. 5 SENATOR ABATE: -- to Dole v. 6 Dow. 7 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 8 Abate, on the bill. 9 SENATOR ABATE: If you look at 10 the whole history of Dole v. Dow and why there's 11 a reason for it, just look at the injury that 12 happened to Mr. Dole. He was employed in a 13 grain manufacturing mill. Dow sold chemicals to 14 the mill. In that case, Dow did everything 15 correct. There was nothing wrong with the rat 16 poisoning. They delivered to the employer the 17 instructions. They told the employer how to 18 utilize that poison, how to safeguard the 19 worker. It was a case where the employer sent 20 the worker into the mill to clean up the grain, 21 knowing that there was rat poisoning in that 22 mill and in the cleanup with just a broom and 23 mop, the worker inhaled an enormous amount of - 5974 1 of rat poisoning and was severely injured. 2 In that case, the employer did 3 not do what he was supposed to do, which is give 4 them special equipment, tell the employer - 5 employees how to protect themselves. So that 6 negligence in that case was not on the part of 7 the manufacturer. It was clearly on the part of 8 the employer. If we repeal Dole v. Dow, what we 9 are saying is -- there are two scenarios -- the 10 manufacturer at trial, they may be negligent. 11 They can point to an empty chair and say to the 12 jury, "Not my fault. It's this empty chair's 13 fault. The wrong party is here. They are, in 14 fact, the negligent party." So there's a way 15 then to create lots of losers. It may be the 16 manufacturer in some instances but in other 17 instances, the loser in this case when we repeal 18 Dole v. Dow will be the workers themselves. 19 Let's look at the wisdom of many 20 people in this chamber. In 1974, we ensured 21 that Dole v. Dow was the law of the land, and 22 some very wise people voted for Dole v. Dow. It 23 was enacted under law under a Republican 5975 1 Governor, Malcolm Wilson. 2 Let's listen to the wisdom of 3 Senator Goodman, Senator Johnson, Senator Levy, 4 Senator Marchi, Senator Padavan, Senator 5 Present, Stafford and Trunzo who were in this 6 chamber as state Senators when they voted 58 to 7 0 in approval of Dole v. Dow. Let's look to our 8 members who sat in the Assembly in 1974. At 9 that time, Senator Cook, Sears, Velella and 10 Volker were Assembly members. They too voted 11 for it. 12 So there was a reason why Dole v. 13 Dow was put in law. There were two goals. One 14 was to ensure that employees receive awards 15 commensurate with their injuries and that meant 16 making sure that not only could employers sue 17 manufactures -- employees sue manufacturers but 18 in turn manufacturers, if there was an employer 19 partially at fault, they also could be held 20 liable, and the second very important goal of 21 Dole v. Dow was to create an incentive for 22 employers to properly maintain their equipment 23 and to ensure there was sufficient safety 5976 1 mechanisms at hand to protect their workers. 2 Dole acts as a very important 3 watchdog over employers. Look at Alice Hayes, 4 which is a recent case. If there was no Dole v. 5 Dow, what would Alice Hayes receive from 6 Workers' Compensation? She may have been 7 considered partially disabled. The insurance 8 company was willing to pay $50 a week, but Alice 9 Hayes was an employer -- a worker who spent her 10 lifetime at the Newburgh Molded Company. In the 11 course of an accident, because the employer 12 removed a safety guard, her hands were 13 decapitated. She lost her hands. Now, can we 14 say to that woman, "Forget about the employer's 15 negligence. Just seek compensation through the 16 Workers' Compensation Board and then go on your 17 merry way"? This is a woman whose life was 18 destroyed. Her life was shattered because her 19 employer did not take the requisite steps to 20 secure her safety. 21 So this is not about the fact 22 that the guard did not work or the safety device 23 was malfunctioning or the safety device was not 5977 1 maintained in an adequate fashion. This is a 2 case where an employer decided because of cost 3 savings to remove the safety device altogether 4 and a worker lost her hands. So in terms of 5 equity and fairness, we should ensure that Dole 6 v. Dow remains the law of the land. 7 I also -- we need to understand 8 that we're creating an unfair burden, in certain 9 cases, on manufacturers and property owners. 10 If, in fact, they don't -- are not responsible 11 for the total negligence, why should they be 12 held 100 percent accountable? Also, we should 13 avoid the situation where we do have a negligent 14 manufacturer to get off the hook before a jury 15 to argue that it's someone else's responsibility 16 because -- and that responsibility lies within 17 the employer's hands and they're not within the 18 reach of the jury. That is wrong. 19 What I've heard today and Senator 20 Bruno has said, we need to repeal Dole v. Dow 21 because it'll save dollars, but if we look at 22 the cost of the savings, it's actual pennies. 23 If you look at the percentage of cases which 5978 1 Dole v. Dow is asserted, it's a tiny 2 percentage. Between 1982 and 1992, there were 3 two million Worker Compensation cases. Only 4 11,000 of them were Dole v. Dow cases, and of 5 those 11,000, 70 percent of those cases settled 6 for $250,000 or under. That's an insignificant 7 figure when we're talking about enormous 8 injuries and life-shattering accidents resulting 9 in -- because of the negligence of the 10 employers. 11 If we need to save dollars -- and 12 we all think it's important to ensure worker 13 safety and ensure the safety of the workplace - 14 there are better ways of reducing premiums and 15 saving dollars. We can be pro-business and not 16 anti-worker. We can be pro-business and 17 pro-worker by looking at better solutions and 18 not repealing Dole v. Dow. We can look at anti 19 fraud packages, put more money into law 20 enforcement. We need to computerize the Worker 21 Compensation Board function, create a special 22 compensation fund that creates incentives for 23 the good workers that put in safety mechanisms 5979 1 and penalize those employers that do neglect the 2 safety of the workplace. 3 We have to look at the carrier 4 profits. What we're doing now is a very 5 shortsighted view. We don't understand the 6 importance of Dole v. Dow. If we repeal it, we 7 will be hurting workers. We will be taking away 8 the incentives of employers to improve their 9 workplace. The repeal of Dole v. Dow is bad 10 policy. It is -- it appears to be pro 11 business. In the long run, it won't be pro 12 business. It will create greater costs to the 13 system and clearly it is anti-worker. This body 14 should stand on the side of business and also on 15 the side of workers. Repealing Dole v. Dow does 16 not do that. 17 I urge my colleagues to vote 18 against the portion of this bill that would 19 repeal Dole v. Dow. 20 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 21 Lack. 22 SENATOR LACK: Thank you, Mr. 23 President. 5980 1 Senator Abate, I want to welcome 2 you to the Senate. That was a very passionate 3 speech. Unfortunately, it's been given time and 4 time again. I particularly like the part about 5 why don't we computerize the Workers' Comp' 6 Board. 7 You know, when I became chairman 8 of the Senate Labor Committee in 1985, the first 9 thing I said was "Why don't we computerize the 10 Workers' Comp' Board?" There's a five-volume 11 study, Senator Abate -- which I'll be glad to 12 send you. It's been sitting on my bookshelves 13 for many a year now -- on computerization of the 14 Workers' Comp' Board which the prior Cuomo 15 administration promised after a similar speech I 16 gave on the floor in 1985 that, "You betcha, 17 Senator. We're going to have that done, and 18 here is the five-volume study that we paid for 19 which is going to computerize that board." It 20 still hasn't been done. 21 Now, let's wonder why. I heard 22 your speech, and the reason it hasn't been done, 23 Senator, is because there are 2,000 amendments 5981 1 to the Workers' Comp' Law since it was first 2 introduced, and the nice Bavarian system - 3 because that's what it was -- that we picked up 4 -- excuse me -- oppression system that we 5 picked up from Bismarck who first put it into 6 effect in 1870, of an in-out system of no-fault, 7 in which an injured worker would get repaired - 8 if you want to look at it in a fairly technical 9 sense -- would be restored and he or she could 10 go back to the workplace, doesn't exist. Why? 11 Because there's a whole industry, a whole 12 industry that's grown up that services poor, 13 injured workers, and that's how they make their 14 living. There's the doctor's mill. There's the 15 government employees that's involved, and best 16 of all there's the Workers' Comp' bar and the 17 trial lawyers who make their living off of 18 people in the system, in the system get paid per 19 appearance, per visit to the doctor, and you 20 know something, if you get them through faster, 21 you computerize it, less appearances, less 22 visits, less trying to bring everybody together, 23 and when you do it manually -- and it gets so 5982 1 screwed up all the time -- well, you've got to 2 come back and do it again. 3 There isn't an attorney in this 4 chamber -- indeed, there isn't an attorney in 5 the state of New York who has ever had one 6 Workers' Comp' case, any attorney in this 7 chamber who has ever had one Workers' Comp' case 8 and never taken another and only does one, 9 please raise your hands, stand up now and talk 10 about the Workers' -- one Workers' Comp' case. 11 Every practicing attorney knows you only make 12 money out of Workers' Comp' by lots of fires so 13 you can go down there in the morning, adjourn 14 100 cases and get ten bucks an hour for each 15 case and then come back again and adjourn them 16 again. 17 That's not what the system was 18 supposed to be, but be that as it may, there had 19 to be a way to make more money out of the system 20 and, indeed, after Dole v. Dow, we found it. I 21 heard your wonderful defense of Dole v. Dow, 22 your 11,000 cases here and a quarter of a 23 million cases there and there isn't so much 5983 1 money. You know, I really wish that was true. 2 The problem -- and there are a 3 lot of people who eat off of Dole v. Dow. 4 Obviously the trial attorneys, they eat big off 5 of Dole v. Dow. So do the insurance companies. 6 The one thing I don't think I heard you mention 7 was Part B coverage in Workers' Comp' because 8 one of the best things in addition to defending 9 as an attorney or bringing as an attorney a Dole 10 v. Dow case is insuring against Dole v. Dow. 11 So what we have from Part B 12 Workers' Comp' case -- because those 11,000 13 cases, never can tell when one of them is going 14 to be yours -- is we get to insure against it 15 and we get to spend $350 million minimum. I 16 personally believe the number is somewhere 17 double that. $350 million minimum in this state 18 insuring against Dole v. Dow, and for what; for 19 a worker's paradise, a gold pot at the end of 20 the rainbow? 21 You know, Senator Abate, what I 22 didn't hear in your remarks is how you really 23 believe that the labor movement in this country 5984 1 is so naive and so unstudied and so neglectful 2 of its tasks that it has failed to follow your 3 advice, and I'm personally going to get a 4 transcript of your remarks and mail it to every 5 labor union I can find. Why? Because they 6 haven't done what they should do. 7 Since 1972 when Dole v. Dow was 8 decided by the Court of Appeals, my simple 9 question is -- this is 1996, 24 years later - 10 there are 50 states in this Union. There are 50 11 states in the Federation of Labor. In the 12 United States, there is one national AFL-CIO - 13 how come, if Dole v. Dow does what it's supposed 14 to do to protect the injured workers of this 15 state, the Empire State, that the other 49 16 federations of labor in the United States 17 haven't ever tried to get Dole v. Dow enacted 18 into law into those 49 other states? What 19 happened? They don't -- they don't want to do 20 it? It's not going to do things for the 21 workers? I mean, this wonderful workers 22 protection statute, why isn't it there? Why 23 hasn't the national AFL-CIO seized upon the 5985 1 initiative of the Court of Appeals for the state 2 of New York attempting to get passed -- until a 3 year ago, after all, they were all Democratic 4 Congresses -- to try to get passed in the 5 Congress of the United States national Dole v. 6 Dow? Think of the worker protections that we 7 could have in 50 states if Dole v. Dow was not 8 the law of the state of New York but the law of 9 the country? 10 Senator Abate, I really think 11 that you should take your zeal, your wonderful 12 understanding of Dole v. Dow, what it has done 13 to the injured workers of this state and spread 14 that as gospel in the 49 other states. If you 15 would like, Senator, or any other person here 16 who wants to defend Dole v. Dow, I can arrange 17 for you to appear before the AFL-CIO any place 18 you'd like in the country and spread that 19 gospel. 20 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 21 Abate, why do you rise? 22 SENATOR ABATE: Would Senator - 23 would Senator Lack yield to a question? 5986 1 SENATOR LACK: Oh, Senator, I'm 2 always available, Mr. President, to answer a 3 question. 4 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The 5 Senator yields. 6 SENATOR ABATE: Senator, could it 7 be that we have more wisdom in New York State 8 than in other states and that's why we have 9 protected Dole v. Dow? But, also, there are 10 other people who have equal wisdom. Are you 11 aware that Illinois, California, North Carolina, 12 have similar statutes, and there are other 13 states that allow third-party contributions, 14 maybe not to the extent of New York State, but 15 we're not the only state with all this 16 repository of wisdom. 17 So I look at it maybe we should 18 educate the other states, not a weakness of 19 labor but we should follow the wisdom we've had 20 in place since 1994. 21 SENATOR LACK: Senator, you'd 22 better check. Illinois repealed theirs. I've 23 been in California visiting the California 5987 1 Legislature four times since January, and you 2 better check what their law is because it's not 3 what you think it is. I forgot whatever the 4 other state is. 5 But we're the only state that has 6 -- if you read our 1972 decision, we're the 7 only state that allows for this range of 8 lawsuits and third-party lawsuits, which is 9 Valhalla for any trial practitioner. 10 And to answer your question more 11 generally, why don't we try this, you show me. 12 You show me the statistics that show under OSHA 13 standards that New York is a safer state because 14 of Dole v. Dow than any of the other 49 states 15 in this union. You show me the statistics that 16 we have less accidents of any kind because of 17 Dole v. Dow. My answer back to you would be 18 very simple. 19 Take the smallest figure that 20 everybody acknowledges to the cost of Dole v. 21 Dow, $350 million. Take 10 percent of that, 22 $35 million. Let's forget the medical practi 23 tioners. Let's forget the trial attorneys. 5988 1 Let's forget the litigation costs. Let's forget 2 everything that eats upon the system and hurts 3 the workers of this state. Let's take that $35 4 million -- $35 million in cash each year out of 5 the Workers' Comp fund and let's appropriate 6 that directly into worker safety programs in 7 this state with every last dime of it going to 8 the unions that need it for the protection of 9 workers directly, not through lawyers, not 10 through courts, not through judgments, not so 11 they don't get a dime. 12 Take 10 percent. You don't like 13 10 percent? Take 15 percent. Take $52 million 14 and give it to the workers of this state for 15 worker protection, and then I'll start showing 16 you some statistics of how safe you can get a 17 workplace, and then $300 million that the 18 businesses, the employers and the employees of 19 this state can save because we're not spending 20 money on Dole v. Dow, a paradise for everybody 21 except the injured workers of this state. 22 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 23 Dollinger, why do you rise? 5989 1 SENATOR DOLLINGER: May I ask 2 Senator Lack to yield to two questions? 3 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 4 Lack, would you yield to a question from Senator 5 Dollinger? 6 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Senator Lack, 7 you have been in the Majority in this house for, 8 I believe, 16 years. 9 SENATOR LACK: Going on 18, 10 Senator. Thank you. 11 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Has any 12 budget that's been approved by the Majority of 13 this house included the 35 million for workers 14 that you so passionately argued in favor of? 15 SENATOR LACK: Thank you, 16 Senator, for the question. As a matter of fact, 17 the answer is yes. In 1987 -- don't hold me on 18 the year -- I began -- the last bill passed of 19 the year, a security and OSHA protection fund 20 within Workers' Comp. We started at 2 million. 21 Right now, it's at approximately 6 million. 22 I have stood on this floor, 23 before, saying that if we got rid of Dole v. 5990 1 Dow, we should take a percentage of the savings 2 in the Part B coverage of the $350-plus million 3 that is saved and immediately start applying 4 that towards increasing that fund up towards the 5 standards I started talking about. Thirty-five 6 million would be a great figure. 7 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Again, 8 through you, Mr. President. How would we get 9 our hands on that, since that is not our money? 10 That's money paid by private companies to 11 private insurance companies. Would you suggest 12 we tax to get it? 13 SENATOR LACK: No. I just 14 said -- it's very simple. We just take it out. 15 It wouldn't be state money. You take it out of 16 the Workers' Comp fund. 17 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Just one 18 other question, Mr. President, for Senator Lack. 19 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 20 Lack, do you continue to yield? 21 SENATOR DOLLINGER: I appreciate 22 the vigor - 23 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The 5991 1 Senator yields. 2 SENATOR DOLLINGER: -- and it's 3 great to hear you on the floor because I've 4 always - 5 SENATOR LACK: Can you talk a 6 little louder? 7 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Excuse me. 8 SENATOR LACK: A little louder. 9 SENATOR DOLLINGER: My question 10 is this: Suppose you were working for Senator 11 Bruno and Senator Bruno's scaffold company, and 12 he said to you, "Senator Lack, see that 13 scaffold? I want you to go up four floors and 14 repair the windows up there." 15 You said to Senator Bruno, "Gee, 16 Joe, is it a safe scaffold?" 17 He said, "I don't know. I bought 18 it 30 years ago. The company that manufactured 19 it is now bankrupt. But go up and do that, 20 would you?" and you said, "Well, what do I get 21 if I get hurt?" 22 He said, "Well, we'll pay your 23 medical and we will pay something for lost 5992 1 wages, but if you fall and you are permanently 2 disabled and you have a head injury and you 3 can't think again, you can't be a lawyer again 4 because you lose that mental functioning, if you 5 lose your enjoyment of life -- you lose your 6 enjoyment of life with your family, we can't 7 compensate you for that." 8 So you are left just with medical 9 benefits and something for lost wages. What do 10 you tell Senator Bruno, as your employer? 11 SENATOR LACK: Thank you, Senator 12 Dollinger. First of all, half my side would 13 think that's a perfect time to be a lawyer. In 14 addition to that, if I worked for Senator Bruno, 15 I wouldn't call him Joe; I would call him 16 Senator Bruno. 17 But, in any event, if I were 18 climbing that scaffolding, I would refer you to 19 Sections 240, et al., of the Labor Law of this 20 state, which is not in this bill and not in this 21 bill on purpose because it predates the Workers' 22 Comp laws of this state and has nothing to do 23 with Workers' Comp, the so-called "scaffolding 5993 1 acts" which established an absolute liability 2 for falling off that four-story scaffolding, as 3 they properly should, and it is the law of this 4 state, and the company that didn't build the 5 scaffolding, the company that you were working 6 for, whomever, would be absolutely liable for 7 your falling off the scaffolding. 8 SENATOR DOLLINGER: And suppose, 9 Senator, that that company has no insurance - 10 the scaffolding company that built it has no 11 insurance and there's no way for anybody to 12 recover against them. What do you tell the 13 worker then? 14 SENATOR LACK: Well, I would want 15 to know why he was working for that company. 16 SENATOR DOLLINGER: What you 17 would tell them is, unfortunately, "Sorry. 18 You're out of luck. We don't have anything to 19 give you except Workers' Comp benefits. The 20 loss of enjoyment of life that you sustained by 21 falling, we give you nothing for." Isn't that 22 correct? 23 SENATOR LACK: Mr. President. 5994 1 Senator, I don't know where you practice law. 2 But, you know, Dole v. Dow is only good when 3 there is a pot to go after. Under the 4 circumstances that you gave, you couldn't find a 5 trial attorney in this state who would take your 6 so-called Dole v. Dow case under the 7 circumstances that you just gave, a scaffolding 8 company that doesn't exist and a contractor who 9 isn't worth a plug nickel. Who are they going 10 to sue? 11 SENATOR DOLLINGER: You can sue 12 -- as you know, under Dole v. Dow, you can sue 13 the employer under his Part B coverage - 14 SENATOR LACK: You told me the 15 contractor had no money. 16 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Excuse me. 17 SENATOR LACK: Excuse me, 18 Senator. Under your scenario, nobody had any 19 money. If you are now adding that the 20 contractor has money, under the scaffolding 21 sections, 240 -- I suggest you read them, 240 of 22 the Labor Law - 23 SENATOR DOLLINGER: I'm very 5995 1 familiar with them. 2 SENATOR LACK: -- nothing 3 whatsoever to do with this bill. It's an 4 absolute liability. Sue the contractor. 5 SENATOR DOLLINGER: The 6 contractor -- let's say Senator Bruno is your 7 employer, and the scaffold has been erected by 8 Senator Connor. Senator Connor's company is 9 bankrupt. There is no scaffolding company that 10 will pay for it. You can't get access to 11 Senator Bruno's Part B coverage. 12 SENATOR LACK: Senator, there are 13 thousands of such cases in litigation all over, 14 and that includes in Dole v. Dow cases. There 15 ain't anybody to pay. Nothing new about it. 16 SENATOR DOLLINGER: The answer is 17 they get nothing. 18 Mr. President, can I ask Senator 19 Bruno just a couple of quick questions? 20 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 21 Dollinger, you don't have the floor. 22 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Excuse me. I 23 apologize, Mr. President. 5996 1 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 2 Libous. 3 SENATOR LIBOUS: Thank you, Mr. 4 President. 5 I, too, want to rise to 6 compliment Senator Bruno and the Majority for 7 putting this bill on the floor. 8 Over the course of the last 9 couple of years, as I have often talked about, I 10 have had the pleasure of visiting a number of 11 businesses not only throughout this state but 12 particularly in my Senate district; and when I 13 walk into those businesses and I ask them, "What 14 are the three -- top three issues that affect 15 your business that we could help you with in New 16 York State?" it doesn't matter where I go, they 17 say Workers' Comp, utility rates, taxes and 18 regulations, and they say it in that order, and 19 I would challenge any of my colleagues, even if 20 you disagree with the bill that's on the floor, 21 to go back home, take a walking tour of your 22 district, walk into the businesses, look the 23 owners in the eye and ask them, "What three 5997 1 major issues in New York State government have a 2 negative impact on your business?" and, while I 3 won't guarantee each and every one of them will 4 say Workers' Comp first, I would bet you that 5 Workers' Comp will fall in the top three. 6 This legislation that is before 7 us seems to be quite balanced. You know, since 8 I was elected to the Senate in 1988, every year 9 they talked about Workers' Comp reform, whether 10 it be the Governor's office, this chamber, the 11 Assembly chamber, and each year nothing 12 happened. Yes, a couple of years ago, we played 13 with a managed care piece that really did very 14 little to help workers, did very little to help 15 businesses in the state. 16 This legislation is real. This 17 legislation will reduce rates by 25 percent. 18 The 25 percent is significant. It also 19 increases benefits for workers, which is very, 20 very important. If you go out and talk to 21 businesses, they will tell you, because Workers' 22 Comp' premiums have gone up over the years, 23 they've had to lay people off. So I see the 5998 1 positive side of this legislation. It is 2 actually a bill that is going to put people back 3 to work. 4 And, you know, it's funny when 5 you talk to union leaders. I guess it depends 6 where those leaders are in the hierarchy of the 7 union. Because when you talk to the upper 8 echelon of the union leaders, they will tell 9 you, "This is a bad bill; it hurts our 10 workers." But if you talk to the rank and file 11 in the union, they see this legislation as 12 something that's realistic, something that's 13 doable. They recognize -- because they talk - 14 every day, they interface with the management of 15 their company and with the owners of their 16 company, and they recognize that they have had 17 to lay union workers off over the past ten years 18 because of the high cost of Workers' 19 Compensation in this state. 20 The issue was brought up about 21 fraud. Certainly, there are some provisions to 22 address fraud in this legislation, but at the 23 same time we can do that now. The administra 5999 1 tion is going after fraud. They have set up 2 units in various areas of the state to address 3 Workers' Compensation fraud. 4 And I'll tell you a funny story. 5 There was an individual who worked for the 6 Workers' Compensation Board and was asked a 7 question by another employee of that board one 8 day about fraud, and they said, "Yeah, we go 9 after fraud; we go after the businesses for 10 fraud." The person was then asked, "How about 11 worker fraud?" 12 "Well, we don't address that 13 issue." 14 So you have to have a balanced 15 approach, and that balanced approach has been 16 put into effect by this administration. 17 Mr. President, this is real 18 legislation to address the Workers' Compensation 19 problem that we have in New York State. This is 20 the first time in the eight years that I have 21 been in the New York State Senate that we have a 22 real issue before us to address Workers' 23 Compensation. I can only stress that we pass 6000 1 the legislation today. As Senator Bruno said, 2 the Governor is on board. We have only one 3 other step, and that's to bring the Assembly 4 forward. 5 If we in this Legislature really 6 care about business and if you really care about 7 putting workers back to work, you will vote yes 8 for this bill. 9 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 10 Dollinger. 11 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Will Senator 12 Bruno yield for a couple of quick questions, Mr. 13 President? 14 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 15 Bruno, do you yield to a question from Senator 16 Dollinger? 17 SENATOR BRUNO: Mr. President, I 18 believe there are some other members in the 19 chamber that have some emergency conditions and 20 would like to vote on this legislation before 21 they leave. 22 SENATOR DOLLINGER: I would 23 yield. 6001 1 SENATOR BRUNO: So if you 2 wouldn't mind. 3 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Secretary 4 will read the last section. 5 THE SECRETARY: Section 91. This 6 act shall take effect immediately. 7 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the 8 roll. 9 (The Secretary called the roll.) 10 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 11 Kruger, how do you vote? 12 SENATOR KRUGER: No. 13 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 14 Kruger will be recorded in the negative. 15 SENATOR MENDEZ: No. 16 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 17 Mendez, how do you vote? 18 SENATOR MENDEZ: Mr. President, I 19 am also requesting unanimous consent to be - 20 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Let me 21 get off of this bill first. Okay, Senator 22 Mendez? 23 Senator Mendez will be recorded 6002 1 in the negative. 2 Senator Lachman. 3 SENATOR LACHMAN: No. 4 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 5 Lachman will be recorded in the negative. 6 Senator Waldon. 7 SENATOR WALDON: No. 8 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 9 Waldon will be recorded in the negative. 10 SENATOR GONZALEZ: No. 11 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 12 Gonzalez will be recorded in the negative. 13 SENATOR GOLD: Mr. President. 14 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 15 Gold. 16 SENATOR GOLD: In the negative, 17 Mr. President. 18 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 19 Gold will be recorded in the negative. 20 Is that the extent of the 21 Senators who you wish to provide the 22 opportunities to vote, Senator Bruno? 23 Would you like the roll call 6003 1 withdrawn now, Senator Bruno? 2 SENATOR BRUNO: Yes. 3 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Roll call 4 is withdrawn. We're back on debate. 5 SENATOR BRUNO: And, Mr. 6 President, I believe Senator Mendez would also 7 like to vote on Calendar Number 381, so we might 8 call that up. 9 And then 1167 for Senator Mendez, 10 and I would caution the members that remain in 11 the chamber to be careful. If you don't have 12 places you've got to be, stay with us. We have 13 lots of work to do. 14 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: We'll lay 15 Calendar 1225 aside temporarily. 16 Ask the Secretary to read the 17 title to Calendar Number 381. 18 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 19 381, by Senator DeFrancisco, Senate Print 3520A, 20 an act to amend the Social Services Law, in 21 relation to the transportation of certain 22 persons. 23 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Read the 6004 1 last section. 2 THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This 3 act shall take effect immediately. 4 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 5 Mendez, how do you vote on Calendar Number 381? 6 SENATOR MENDEZ: No. 7 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Excuse 8 me. Call the roll. 9 (The Secretary called the roll.) 10 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 11 Mendez in the negative on Calendar Number 381. 12 The roll call is withdrawn. The 13 bill is laid aside. 14 SENATOR MENDEZ: And 1167. 15 SENATOR WALDON: I was trying to 16 get my vote in on 381 and 1167. 17 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 18 Waldon, how do you want to be recorded on 19 Calendar Number 381? 20 SENATOR WALDON: Negative, no. 21 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 22 Waldon in the negative on Calendar Number 381. 23 Senator Gonzalez? 6005 1 SENATOR GONZALEZ: In the 2 negative. 3 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 4 Gonzalez in the negative on Calendar Number 381. 5 Roll call is withdrawn. The bill 6 is laid aside. 7 Secretary will read the title to 8 Calendar Number 1167. 9 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 10 1167, by Senator Holland, Senate Print 1468, an 11 act to amend the Social Services Law, in 12 relation to requiring an address as a condition 13 of receiving assistance. 14 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Secretary 15 will read the last section. 16 THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This 17 act shall take effect on the 30th day. 18 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the 19 roll. 20 (The Secretary called the roll.) 21 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 22 Mendez, how do you vote on Calendar Number 1167? 23 SENATOR MENDEZ: No. 6006 1 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 2 Mendez will be recorded in the negative. 3 Senator Waldon, how do you vote? 4 SENATOR WALDON: In the negative. 5 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 6 Waldon will be recorded in the negative on 7 Calendar Number 1167. 8 Senator Gonzalez? 9 SENATOR GONZALEZ: (Indicating he 10 does not wish to vote.) 11 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Okay. 12 The roll call is withdrawn. 13 Secretary will read the title to 14 Calendar Number 1225. 15 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 16 1225, by Senator Bruno, Senate Print 7164A, an 17 act to amend the Workers' Compensation Law, in 18 relation to extending the effectiveness of 19 certain provisions to repeal certain provisions 20 of the Workers' Compensation Law. 21 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: We're 22 back on debate on Calendar Number 1225. 23 Chair recognizes Senator 6007 1 Dollinger. 2 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you, 3 Mr. President. I asked Senator Bruno if he 4 would yield to just a couple quick questions. 5 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 6 Bruno, would you yield to a question from 7 Senator Dollinger on Calendar Number 1225? 8 SENATOR BRUNO: Yes, Mr. 9 President. 10 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The 11 Senator yields. 12 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Senator, has 13 the New York State Insurance Rating Board, the 14 independent organization that actually 15 calculates and sets Workers' Compensation rates, 16 has it evaluated the savings associated with 17 this bill? 18 SENATOR BRUNO: Not yet and not 19 to my knowledge. 20 SENATOR DOLLINGER: The Business 21 Council of the State of New York and, I think, 22 with the Rochester Chamber of Commerce has 23 suggested that there was a benchmark of 25 6008 1 percent reduction in rates before they would 2 support a bill of this type. 3 Without the scoring of this 4 savings from the Insurance Rating Board, how can 5 we tell that this bill meets that requirement? 6 SENATOR BRUNO: The analysis that 7 was done by people who have an expertise in 8 these matters have given me a conclusion that 9 there are 25 percent savings in the premiums in 10 the legislation that's on the floor before us. 11 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Again, 12 through you, Mr. President. 13 SENATOR BRUNO: It's about an 14 $800 million savings on a $3.9 billion premium. 15 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you, 16 Mr. President. 17 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 18 Bruno, do you continue to yield? 19 SENATOR BRUNO: Yes, I will, Mr. 20 President. 21 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 22 continues to yield. 23 SENATOR DOLLINGER: That would 6009 1 actually be less than 25 percent? 2 SENATOR BRUNO: Well, what is it 3 less? 4 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Well, I don't 5 know. 6 SENATOR BRUNO: Well, I don't 7 either. 8 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Okay. 9 SENATOR BRUNO: It's 24.5. We're 10 rounding it out, and we're saying that it's 25 11 percent. 12 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Okay. 13 Through you, Mr. President. Has 14 the Business Council issued a memorandum in 15 support of this legislation? 16 SENATOR BRUNO: Not that I've 17 seen. 18 SENATOR DOLLINGER: If Senator 19 Bruno will continue to yield to just two more 20 questions. 21 SENATOR BRUNO: Yes, Mr. 22 President. 23 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The 6010 1 Senator continues to yield. 2 SENATOR DOLLINGER: One of the 3 factors in this bill is to substitute the 4 American Medical Association's impairment 5 guidelines for the current schedule of 6 disability guidelines that occurs in New York 7 law. 8 Are you aware that, in 1994, 9 consistent with the concept of states' rights 10 and local control of compensation, the New York 11 State Workers' Compensation Board compiled a 12 "Medical Guidelines for Disability" booklet 13 less than two years ago which sets forth the 14 standards for disabilities in this state? Are 15 you aware of that? 16 SENATOR BRUNO: Are you asking me 17 if I'm aware that there is such a booklet? 18 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Yes. 19 SENATOR BRUNO: Yes, I am aware. 20 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Are you aware 21 that it was promulgated within the last two 22 years to set the standards for determining 23 disability? 6011 1 SENATOR BRUNO: I didn't know 2 what the time frame was, but I knew it was a 3 comparably short period of time. 4 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Again, 5 through you, Mr. President. Are you aware that 6 this was a compilation of experts in the field, 7 labor and business, that everyone got together 8 and put this together? This is a home-grown 9 product to determine disability in New York 10 State. 11 SENATOR BRUNO: Senator, what I'm 12 aware of is that we in New York State for some 13 reason or other pay 57 percent more than the 14 national average in premiums, $3.9 billion, and 15 there's some reason why we pay 57 percent more, 16 and since we pay the second highest premium in 17 the country, we feel that we have to do a total 18 reform of a failed system of compensating 19 workers in this state. The recommendations that 20 are being made through this legislation, the 21 substitution, is part of a total package to get 22 us to a reduction in premiums. 23 SENATOR DOLLINGER: But for the 6012 1 record -- Mr. President, through you -- you 2 don't know whether the disabilities that are 3 contained and described, the guidelines for 4 disabilities, are a cause or what portion of 5 that extra cost is a result of this book; is 6 that correct? 7 SENATOR BRUNO: The Governor's 8 bill was rated, and it is my information that 9 that accounts for about 24 percent of the costs 10 represented in the premium, 24 percent. 11 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Again, 12 through you, Mr. President, just one more 13 question. The analysis that I have seen of this 14 bill, which talks about the cost savings, 15 projects about $900 million in cost savings 16 which I think is within the range that you 17 discuss. It says that 64 percent, more than 18 three-fifths of the savings will be due to the 19 use of the AMA guidelines for impairment rather 20 than the state standard of disability. 21 What that means is that about 22 $600 million less will be paid to disabled 23 workers under the guidelines rather than under 6013 1 the current system. Could you tell me what 2 evidence you have that the workers who got that 3 $600 million didn't need it or didn't deserve it 4 or weren't disabled? 5 SENATOR BRUNO: The intent in 6 what is being done here is that those that are 7 more seriously injured will be compensated more 8 while those that are less seriously injured will 9 get less; and we, Senator -- and you may not be 10 aware of this, so I'm happy to enlighten you. 11 We're joining, through this legislation, 38 12 other states that use the AMA guidelines instead 13 of the booklet you have in your hand. 14 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Mr. 15 President, just for a point of clarification, if 16 I could ask Senator Bruno one other question. 17 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 18 Bruno, do you yield to another question? 19 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Isn't it a 20 fact, Senator, that only two states in the Union 21 use the AMA guidelines as the sole basis for 22 determining disability and that, in fact, there 23 are 38 states that use the AMA guidelines to 6014 1 determine the extent of impairment but also use 2 other factors such as age, occupation, skills 3 basis, retraining capability, to determine the 4 extent of disability? 5 So I agree with you, Senator. 6 There are 38 states that use them, but we will 7 become one of only three states that use them as 8 the sole and exclusive way for determining 9 disability. Isn't that correct, Senator? 10 SENATOR BRUNO: I believe you 11 need the AMA guidelines to get to the point that 12 you're describing. 13 SENATOR DOLLINGER: That's 14 correct, Senator. You need the AMA guidelines, 15 because what they show is the extent of 16 impairment. Disability under our law and under 17 the laws of the other 36 states that use the AMA 18 guidelines is not just a function of impairment; 19 it's a function of the extent of disability and 20 the effect on a person. 21 For example, you can have an 22 impairment in your finger. You lose your 23 finger. That is a minor disability for someone 6015 1 who is a practicing lawyer. It may be fatal if 2 you are a flutist or a trombone player. That's 3 the difference between impairment and 4 disability, but under this proposal, the AMA 5 guidelines would become the sole factor. There 6 would be no other consideration other than the 7 impairments listed by AMA. Isn't that correct, 8 Senator? 9 SENATOR BRUNO: No, I don't 10 believe that's entirely correct, Senator, but 11 let's give some credit to the medical profession 12 when they are making their judgments in making 13 these awards that they are taking into 14 consideration all of the things that are 15 important to that injured person so that they 16 are being treated equitably. 17 They are not dealing in 18 isolation. They look at age. They look at the 19 circumstance. They look at the ability or 20 disability that's involved. That's all part of 21 -- and what we're really trying to do is 22 prevent what goes on now, where judgments are 23 made, where workers with the same injury get 6016 1 substantially different amounts of compensation, 2 and that's unfair to the worker. 3 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 4 Tully, why do you rise? 5 SENATOR TULLY: Yes, Mr. 6 President. Point of information. 7 Is my recollection correct that 8 Senator Dollinger originally asked if he could 9 ask two questions to the Majority Leader, and 10 then he asked again a point of clarification, 11 and he asked one last question. Is that 12 correct? 13 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Well, 14 Senator Tully, I'm over 40 and I don't remember 15 what happened just two minutes ago. 16 Senator Dollinger, you have the 17 floor. 18 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Mr. 19 President, I appreciate the chiding. 20 I have looked in great detail at 21 the issue relating to the AMA guidelines and 22 their use as the sole basis for determining 23 disability in this state and, frankly, I'm 6017 1 astounded that anyone would stand here and 2 suggest that we have misspent $600 million on 3 paying disabled workers in this state disability 4 that they are entitled to because, make no bones 5 about it, the way the Governor scores and 6 evaluates the savings in this bill, the largest 7 component of savings -- the largest component 8 is to take disabled workers in this state, 9 workers who have sustained loss of fingers, loss 10 of hands, loss of cognitive ability, loss of the 11 ability, frankly, to speak, loss of the ability 12 to walk, loss of the ability to sit, loss of the 13 ability to bend over, loss of the ability to 14 bend their thumb, loss of the ability to bend 15 their arm, all of those workplace injuries, 16 those people who have given their heart and 17 their soul to their employer and given their 18 lives to their employer, and Senator Bruno 19 stands here and says they are not disabled 20 enough of being worthy of being paid. I can't 21 believe it. 22 Senator Bruno is standing here 23 today and saying we're going to take $600 6018 1 million that we now pay to those people who have 2 back injuries, who have elbow injuries, who have 3 carpel tunnel syndrome, who have wrist injuries, 4 who have neck injuries, all of those people who 5 may not meet the 15 percent requirement in this 6 bill, and we're going to tell them, Do you know 7 how much you get from the State of New York? Do 8 you know how much you get from your employer for 9 all you have done over the last thirty years in 10 bending over to pick up things, in reaching up 11 to put things on shelves and rolling over 12 patients in our nursing homes and pushing carts 13 in our hospitals, in typing at your desk for 14 lawyers? Do you know what you get for Workers' 15 Compensation benefits? You get nothing because 16 your permanent partial disability doesn't amount 17 to 15 percent and, therefore, the message from 18 this body today is we don't care. 19 We ought to be astounded that 20 we're going to take $600 million that goes to 21 disabled workers in this state and say, you 22 don't get it any more because we're going to 23 change the guidelines. We're now going to have 6019 1 a simple, single set of impairment guidelines 2 for everybody, regardless of your age, 3 regardless of what you did, regardless of your 4 ability to train. We're going to treat 5 everybody like that little single part that we 6 put into the big cog that we call our industrial 7 machine, and we'll get away from the notion that 8 people are different, that they have different 9 skills, and that the system ought to treat them 10 differently and recognize that a loss of a 11 finger for a lawyer is not a big deal. If you 12 are a horn player or a typist, it could be your 13 future. 14 I'd ask everybody in this room, 15 if you had an I.Q. of 120 and you lost 15 points 16 on your I.Q. and you couldn't think and you 17 couldn't enjoy reading and didn't have the 18 cognitive ability to read a balance sheet and 19 understand it again, would you be disabled? Of 20 course, you'd be disabled. But under these 21 guidelines, you wouldn't meet the 15 percent 22 test. So what would we give you in terms of a 23 permanent partial disability? Nothing, zero, 6020 1 because that's the way the system will work if 2 we use the AMA guidelines in conjunction with a 3 limitation that says you have to be disabled 4 more than 15 percent. I can't believe that that 5 $600 million being paid to disabled people in 6 this state is now going to be washed clean by 7 this bill. 8 The final point that I want to 9 make is that - 10 ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: 11 Senator Velella, why do you rise? 12 SENATOR VELELLA: I'm trying to 13 follow your train of thought, and I want to just 14 ask a question. 15 ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: 16 Senator Velella, are you asking the Senator to 17 yield in the chair? 18 SENATOR DOLLINGER: I will yield 19 to a question, Mr. President. 20 ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The 21 Senator yields. 22 SENATOR VELELLA: Senator, I'm 23 trying to follow your train of thought here, and 6021 1 I'm just getting a little lost now. You're 2 talking about this 15 percent rule in the AMA 3 guidelines. Can I ask you, if you walked out of 4 the chamber and fell down and banged your head 5 and you were slightly incapacitated, who would 6 you go to for assistance? 7 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Who would I 8 go to? 9 SENATOR VELELLA: Yes. Would you 10 go to a doctor to help you with the medical 11 problem? 12 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Sure, I 13 would. 14 SENATOR VELELLA: If your finger 15 couldn't bend all the way and you wanted to try 16 to get it to bend the rest of the way, who would 17 you go to? 18 SENATOR DOLLINGER: I would go to 19 a doctor, of course. 20 SENATOR VELELLA: Who writes the 21 AMA standards? 22 SENATOR DOLLINGER: The American 23 Medical Society. 6022 1 SENATOR VELELLA: What are they 2 comprised of? 3 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Physicians, I 4 assume. 5 SENATOR VELELLA: Doctors? 6 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Of course. 7 SENATOR VELELLA: Okay. Thank 8 you. I just wanted to get that straight. 9 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Well, I think 10 Senator Velella brings up a good point. The 11 most interesting part about it is, Senator 12 Velella, do you know what the AMA says about 13 using its guidelines for impairments as a tool 14 to determine the extent of disability? Do you 15 know what they say? "Don't use our guidelines 16 to determine disability; they are not a 17 practical tool to be used for that because 18 disability is a term that applies to an 19 individual." Disability is the difference 20 between the loss of a finger on the part of a 21 typist and the loss of a finger on the part of a 22 member of the state Legislature. There is a 23 difference in the extent of disability. 6023 1 Our system now recognizes that 2 difference by allowing partial disability to 3 permanent disability to be paid to the two of 4 them potentially at different rates because of 5 the extent that the disability has on their 6 ability to earn income and their ability to be 7 retrained. 8 So sure enough, Senator Velella, 9 I abide by the wisdom of physicians. I think 10 the physicians have done a good job by coming up 11 with a system of physical impairments to try to 12 quantify physical impairments, but the most 13 interesting part about it is, the physicians 14 say, if you have a chance to put our guidelines 15 to work as the sole determinant in your Workers' 16 Compensation system for determining the extent 17 of disability, do you know what those physicians 18 say? "Don't do it. It's not the right thing to 19 do." I would take the advice of those doctors. 20 I would say to the people of this 21 state, if you've got a permanent partial 22 disability and we're paying you $600 million now 23 because we're convinced that you have been 6024 1 disabled, that that disabling condition, a bad 2 back, a bad wrist, carpal tunnel syndrome -- run 3 through the whole gamut of those minor injuries, 4 and you stand up and tell everybody in this 5 state that has a bad back, that can't lift more 6 than five pounds, "You are not disabled, you 7 don't get anything from your Workers' 8 Compensation system," again it's an outrage. 9 The whole idea that we would 10 substitute this for our system of disability 11 makes no sense at all and taking $600 million 12 from the disabled workers in this state, we 13 ought to be ashamed of that. 14 ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: 15 Senator Stachowski. 16 SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Will Senator 17 Bruno yield for a couple of questions? 18 ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: 19 Senator Bruno, do you yield to Senator 20 Stachowski? 21 SENATOR BRUNO: Yes, Mr. 22 President. 23 ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The 6025 1 Senator yields. 2 SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Senator, in 3 the bill, the part that I'm going to deal with 4 is the managed care section and, in particular, 5 the bill eliminates the requirements under the 6 managed care pilot program that is currently in 7 effect that says workers -- it eliminates when 8 workers should have 60-day notice of the 9 employer's intention to use a managed care 10 program, that the employers may not use managed 11 care unless they have collectively bargained 12 with the union to allow its use, and also that 13 the bill would now increase from 15 percent to 14 50 percent of the work force would now be 15 covered by managed care. 16 Since we passed this program in 17 1993, in December, and it hasn't run its course 18 and it would run out in 1997, why are we 19 eliminating these provisions now in your bill? 20 SENATOR BRUNO: I'm told that 21 hardly anyone used the system. 22 SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Also, in the 23 bill, the bill eliminates the authority of the 6026 1 Commissioner of Health to decertify a managed 2 care provider who fails to comply with statutory 3 criteria. Why would we be doing this? 4 SENATOR BRUNO: If they had 5 failed to comply? 6 SENATOR STACHOWSKI: If the 7 Commissioner wants to decertify them, that's no 8 longer allowed -- the Commissioner of Health - 9 in your bill. 10 SENATOR BRUNO: Sorry. Repeat 11 that, Senator. 12 SENATOR STACHOWSKI: In your 13 bill, you eliminate the authority of the 14 Commissioner of Health to decertify a managed 15 care provider who fails to comply with statutory 16 criteria. Why do we do that? What does that 17 accomplish? 18 SENATOR BRUNO: Well, to my 19 knowledge, it is the employer that makes 20 available the provider with the worker, and we 21 feel that that's a negotiated agreement between 22 the parties. 23 SENATOR STACHOWSKI: The last 6027 1 question, and then I will speak on the bill, is 2 last year we passed an alternate dispute 3 resolution bill for Workers' Comp' claims in the 4 construction industry, and some of the unions 5 didn't like that idea. In your bill, we're 6 extending this to the public employees, rather 7 than waiting to see if it works even in the area 8 where we have it covered now. Why are we doing 9 that extension into public employees when we're 10 not even sure how this is going to work in the 11 private sector? 12 SENATOR BRUNO: We think there 13 are dollar savings. It expedites the process 14 and it relates to the City, which is 15 self-insured. 16 SENATOR STACHOWSKI: Thank you. 17 On the bill. 18 ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: 19 Senator Stachowski, on the bill. 20 SENATOR STACHOWSKI: When asking 21 the question about why we eliminate the 22 Commissioner of Health from having the ability 23 to decertify managed care providers, the Senator 6028 1 with the help of his counsel said it's because 2 the employer would negotiate that with the 3 employee and that's how they would come to what 4 the provider would be, except that, in another 5 section, we don't have any place for them to 6 negotiate that. That's eliminated, and the 7 60-day notice is eliminated, and we're going 8 back pretty much to the company doctor, as far 9 as the working people are concerned; and, that 10 is, that you go to this managed care provider, 11 and that's the end of it. 12 And the reason we got away from 13 having company doctors is because it wasn't 14 working for the working people, and so we're 15 going back to that old system, and it doesn't 16 seem to make sense. 17 We had a rather loud and 18 impassioned presentation by Senator Lack, the 19 former chairman of the Labor Committee, beating 20 up Dole v. Dow and saying that it's a terrible 21 idea and all the states -- 49 states don't like 22 it, and it's a shame that the working men and 23 women in New York are just not quick enough to 6029 1 comprehend that they ought to get rid of it, and 2 they would save money and be better off if we 3 got rid of it and we put the money into other 4 areas. We would love to put the money into 5 other areas, but there's nothing in this bill 6 that says where the money would go. 7 I happen to think that if it was 8 such a good idea and since the Senator spoke 9 about it for so many years as chairman, you 10 would think he would be able to sell the unions 11 on it if it's such a good idea because he had a 12 constant open door with AFL-CIO statewide and 13 never was able to convince them it's such a good 14 idea. 15 I don't think, although trial 16 lawyers benefited from it, that the union people 17 keep it for the benefit of their friends that 18 are trial lawyers. I don't think that's how 19 that works. I think that there would be a 20 bill. If there was a way to do this coverage 21 and cover the safety of these workers, I think 22 that bill would fly right through here. 23 The problem we have is, if there 6030 1 still exists in the state bad employers, those 2 employers that would take a machine and remove 3 safety covers for the sake of better production 4 at the expense of workers' safety, that we have 5 a concern and we have a problem and, if we know 6 it exists, why would we do something that makes 7 that problem and make sure that the person that 8 causes that problem is not guilty of any kind of 9 liability? That doesn't make sense to me. 10 The reason the AFL-CIO had that 11 what some people considered horrible pamphlet, 12 at least the picture part -- the explanation 13 wasn't so horrible. It was the lady that lost 14 her hands -- was because her boss came to one of 15 Senator Spano's hearings and said we should 16 eliminate Dole v. Dow. This woman that took 17 that machine and took the safety guards off, 18 this lady lost her hands. She got rid of the 19 machine before it could become part of the 20 trial. It's an amazing story. Another 21 interesting epilogue to that story was that when 22 they sewed a thumb on her arm, the insurance 23 company then said she should go back to work for 6031 1 light duty, which I thought was incredible. 2 And there you see that there is 3 an exposure there which we just can't ignore, 4 and I don't understand why we are not looking 5 for some kind of alternative rather than just 6 eliminating protection for workers. That means 7 the protection that there's a real effort on the 8 part of employers to have a safe workplace 9 because of this threat, and most employers don't 10 need that threat but, unfortunately, there are 11 still some in this state that do, and because of 12 that, we have trouble with that part. 13 I think it's incredible that in 14 the bill we all are aware that there is some 15 fraud on every side of this, and nobody here is 16 condoning a worker beating the system by faking 17 an injury, but it's kind of harsh to make 18 somebody who is legitimately hurt sign a check 19 every time they get one that says, "My condition 20 has not changed." I'm sure if their condition 21 changed, they'd be happy to go back to work. I 22 don't think they want to be home, or they don't 23 want to be crippled if they happen to be 6032 1 crippled. I don't think that's a choice. I 2 think it's something that happens to injured 3 workers. 4 I think it's also interesting to 5 stand here -- and I think people are going to 6 get up and say, "This bill is reality. 7 Two-thirds of the triumvirate necessary to make 8 this bill law are in favor of it." 9 Well, I must have missed 10 something because in the last administration 11 two-thirds of triumvirate were for a bias 12 related crime bill, and that's not real, and 13 two-thirds of the triumvirate, with the Governor 14 and the Majority in one house, was for an 15 assault weapons bill, and that didn't make that 16 real. The same is true now. Because the 17 Governor and the Majority in this house are for 18 this particular bill, it doesn't make this any 19 more real. The fact is the Assembly is not for 20 this bill. They are not supporting a lot of 21 part of this bill, and so this bill also is not 22 real. 23 The sad part is that it's late in 6033 1 the session. We had bills out there, and how I 2 answered my mail on Workmen's Comp' is I thought 3 with the big push right from the beginning of 4 the year by all the parties involved -- and 5 everybody had a bill at one point with the 6 exception of our conference because we were 7 looking, and my answer was, "I'm going to vote 8 for the bill that's the agreed-upon bill between 9 all parties." Well, we know for sure -- one 10 thing we know, that this is not the agreed-upon 11 bill. 12 Senator Bruno announced when he 13 had his press conference announcing this bill 14 that he had the compromise bill; he was going to 15 solve the impasse. It was just after the 16 Assembly passed their bill that wasn't 17 acceptable to this house and to the Governor 18 that he had the bill that would bring the 19 Governor together with the Assembly Speaker, 20 and, unfortunately, when this bill came out and 21 the press conference went, the Speaker said this 22 is not the bill that I'm agreeing to. 23 So what I'd like to see is us 6034 1 continue to go along -- not necessarily pass 2 this bill. Because it's not real, I'm not 3 voting for it. I hope that before the session 4 ends -- and if Senator Bruno, as always, keeps 5 to his schedule, it's going to end soon -- that 6 in one of his meetings with the Speaker, which 7 he seems to be having, according to what I've 8 been reading in the paper, they can talk about 9 this particular issue also, with the same 10 intensity that they seem to be moving along with 11 the other issues they've been talking about, and 12 that some time in the near future, when Senator 13 Bruno will get up proudly in this house and say, 14 "I have the bill that is the compromise bill; 15 it is the real bill on Workers' Comp'; it is the 16 bill acceptable to everybody; it may not do 17 everything everybody wants, but it's a large 18 step forward; we're finally going to have some 19 real reform in Workmen's Comp'," and then we can 20 vote yes on a bill that everybody can support 21 and doesn't act so one-sided to the detriment of 22 the working people, men and women, in New York 23 State that happen to find themselves injured. 6035 1 For that reason, I'm recommending 2 that we vote no on this bill. 3 ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: 4 Senator Onorato. 5 SENATOR ONORATO: Mr. President. 6 Will Senator Bruno yield to two questions? 7 ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: 8 Senator Bruno, will you yield to two questions 9 from Senator Onorato? 10 SENATOR BRUNO: Two questions, 11 yes. 12 ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The 13 Senator yields. 14 SENATOR ONORATO: I am a little 15 concerned. The bill targets the workers for the 16 high premium costs and it would make a worker 17 prove that he did not intentionally hurt himself 18 intentionally, and it also requires him to sign 19 the check, and then every six months again 20 ratify that he is not capable of going back to 21 work again. 22 Do we have any statistics to 23 prove that, you know, there is such an 6036 1 outlandish condition that exists that would 2 require us to make such a provision? 3 SENATOR BRUNO: Yes. 4 SENATOR ONORATO: That's a good 5 answer. Okay. 6 Now the other part of the bill 7 that I'm really concerned with, the bill that 8 you have before us right now, would deny 9 unemployment benefits to an injured worker, and 10 the truth of the matter is that the unemployment 11 benefits are currently -- depending on the 12 individual, would be higher than the disability 13 benefits. I think this would go up to $560 for 14 a person who was injured, but the same 15 individual who becomes unemployed can get $600 a 16 month -- a week in benefits. Why would we 17 reduce an injured worker's benefits by $40? 18 What rationale can we use to justify the 19 diminishing of the benefits of an injured worker 20 as against an unemployed worker? 21 SENATOR BRUNO: Senator, you're 22 right to be concerned, and we were concerned, as 23 well and, if you recognize that with the 560 - 6037 1 and, by the way, the Assembly wasn't as generous 2 with the workers' benefits as this bill. With 3 this bill, when they get the 560, they also 4 continue the benefits that the employer 5 provides, and a benefit package can be worth 30 6 percent of the check. So you can add another 7 $200 to that, for instance, and you are up to 8 $760 versus the 600 you just mentioned. 9 We think this is very fair to the 10 workers -- more than fair to the worker, and it 11 really deserves your support, and I am surprised 12 when I hear people saying they are going to vote 13 in the negative for this, that, and the other 14 reason. 15 The fact of the matter is 16 increased workers' benefits substantially give 17 them more protection, which is what this is 18 about, and you reduce the premium by a good 25 19 percent which helps create jobs. 20 It deserves your support. 21 ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: 22 Senator Paterson, why do you rise? 23 SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President, 6038 1 would the distinguished Majority Leader yield to 2 me the option of asking two questions with an 3 option to ask a third? 4 SENATOR BRUNO: Yes, Mr. 5 President. 6 ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: I'm 7 not sure of the conditions, but we'll go - 8 SENATOR BRUNO: We're flexible 9 with the good Senator. 10 SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you. 11 Mr. President, the New York State 12 Compensation Insurance Rating Board has 13 recommended a 12 percent reduction in rates for 14 this year, that is, pending the approval of the 15 Insurance Superintendent. Last year, the 16 Superintendent allowed for a reduction in rates 17 of 5 percent. So if you take the 5 percent away 18 and then you take 12 percent of 95 percent, that 19 would be 11.4 percent. What you really have is 20 a resulting, if this is approved, 16.4 percent 21 of rate reductions. So while individuals are 22 getting 83.6 percent of the benefits they were 23 getting before, yet the premiums have not gone 6039 1 down and, therefore, there would at least seem 2 to be some indication that the carriers are 3 receiving a greater profit, that there is 4 greater profit going to the insurance 5 companies. 6 Why is there not in this bill, 7 Mr. Majority Leader, any determination of what 8 the carrier profits are in determining why the 9 benefits should be decreased? 10 SENATOR BRUNO: One of the things 11 that happens presently is that, when there is a 12 lawsuit under Dole, the insurance company 13 immediately sets up a reserve, and on that 14 reserve, very few of the cases end up producing 15 a result and, consequently, on that reserve, the 16 insurance companies make a lot of money. 17 So we're trying to get at the 18 premium reduction and keeping the benefits 19 intact or increasing, and this is a package 20 proposal, and when you talk about the temporary 21 reduction that was built in, that was not 22 structural reform in the system to permanentize 23 what you describe as a reduction, and we hope 6040 1 that that goes forward, but that could change 2 next year or the year after. 3 So what we're trying to do 4 through this legislation is structural reform so 5 you won't have a fluctuation from year to year, 6 escalating up -- back up to the 57 percent that 7 we are above the national average presently. 8 SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you, 9 Senator Bruno. 10 Mr. President, if the Majority 11 Leader would continue to yield? 12 ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: 13 Senator Bruno, do you continue to yield? 14 SENATOR BRUNO: Yes, Mr. 15 President. 16 ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The 17 Senator yields. 18 SENATOR PATERSON: Speaking of 19 Dole v. Dow, one of the issues that the AFL-CIO 20 has been raising is where the other 50 cents 21 goes off the premium dollar after the first 50 22 cents goes to cover benefits and also Workers' 23 Compensation administrative board costs. The 6041 1 feeling, again, is that the other 50 cents on 2 the dollar may be going in the direction of 3 profits and what we're trying to determine is 4 why, in this legislation, we are not analyzing 5 where the other 50 cents is going before making 6 the determination somehow that Dole v. Dow is 7 the reason and, in a sense, rewarding companies 8 who have ignored safety standards, who have 9 contributed to injuries in the workplace, who 10 have ignored manufacturers' directions and, 11 therefore, are being sustained to some degree by 12 a perception that that's where the waste is 13 going, when, in fact, I don't see analyses of 14 where the other 50 cents on the dollar does go? 15 SENATOR BRUNO: Senator, a lot of 16 the work has been done and a lot of the analysis 17 has been done that you are referring to, and the 18 indication is that there is something like 29 19 percent of the premium that goes into 20 administration. A lot of the dollar in that 21 premium goes to lawyers who are working in the 22 process, and we agree there are inefficiencies 23 and there is waste, and that's really what we're 6042 1 trying to get to in this approach, which we 2 think is a pretty comprehensive approach to 3 increase the worker's benefit and reduce the 4 premium. 5 SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you, Mr. 6 President. 7 SENATOR BRUNO: And it gets them 8 paid quicker. We want the worker to get their 9 check quicker, and this bill will do that. 10 SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you, Mr. 11 President. The Majority Leader has been most 12 forthright. I'm actually going to spare him the 13 option of hearing a final question and speak on 14 the bill. 15 ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: 16 Senator Paterson, on the bill. 17 SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President, 18 one of the issues that arose in this discussion 19 that is of great concern to me is whether or not 20 the unions are supporting this piece of 21 legislation. The statement was made that the 22 union leadership may be making these allegations 23 but, when you talk to the rank and file, they 6043 1 want coverage under the regulations that would 2 be put forth in this legislation. I disagree 3 with that virulently. I can't find anybody in 4 the labor movement who is in support of this 5 piece of legislation. 6 I agree with Senator Stachowski 7 that whenever the time comes that we really 8 address Workers' Compensation issues and, if 9 there is any waste that's caused on the part of 10 the fraud of workers, we certainly need to 11 address that, but we already know that the 12 reason that Dole v. Dow was upheld by the Court 13 of Appeals in 1972 was because of the terrible 14 tragedies that existed in this state in which 15 workers suffered, in which individuals not only 16 lost their livelihoods but also lost their 17 dignity as a result of these types of accidents 18 and no coverage. 19 And so it's my recommendation 20 that when we really look for some workable, 21 sensible, achievable goals and coalesce to 22 reform Workers' Compensation in a way that will 23 inure to the benefit of all involved, 6044 1 particularly the workers, that's the bill that I 2 will work for. 3 Thank you. 4 ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: 5 Read the last section. 6 SENATOR CONNOR: Mr. President. 7 ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: 8 Senator Connor. 9 SENATOR CONNOR: Thank you, Mr. 10 President, if I may rise to close debate. 11 You know, what I've thought is 12 fascinating these past years, as we have clearly 13 heard the political debate swirling around the 14 issue of Workers' Compensation, is how little 15 appreciated the origins of this system are by 16 the public-at-large. 17 The fact is, before there was 18 Workers' Compensation, there was still 19 negligence law, the great common law of torts, 20 and the underlying principle was that people 21 should be compensated when others who have a 22 duty toward them, whether a duty of care or a 23 duty to refrain from harming them, have, in 6045 1 fact, injured that person. 2 As this law evolved, because it 3 was based in feudal England in a class-based 4 society with a class-based judicial system, 5 other doctrines were handed down by the courts, 6 and that's what common law means, "court made 7 law," and ordinary workers, the plain folk, 8 found that when they were injured in the course 9 of their employ, the courts conjured up 10 doctrines. 11 The master/servant doctrine: A 12 servant can't sue his or her master and recover, 13 the implication being that by the mere fact of 14 being a servant, one had, in effect, waived his 15 or her rights to pursue the master when the 16 master was, in fact, negligent. 17 Another doctrine that evolved in 18 the Industrial Revolution was the fellow servant 19 doctrine, and what that said is, well, when a 20 worker on the job is injured because of the 21 negligence of a fellow employee, a fellow 22 servant, you can't hold the master responsible 23 for the conduct of its employee, your fellow 6046 1 servant. 2 So while in other spheres of 3 society, people who were injured through 4 negligence could recover in the courts, even 5 common folks, thanks to that wonderful invention 6 of Anglo-American law, the contingent fee which 7 allowed people who had nothing to get the 8 services on speculation of a competent attorney 9 to right their wrong and, today, that's much 10 maligned. 11 The press talks about, "Oh, 12 contingent fees, that's terrible; the lawyer is 13 going to get a third." Well, that made possible 14 access to lawyers on the part of people who had 15 no money for retainers or hourly fees. That was 16 a great democratization of the civil courts and 17 access to the courts. It meant you didn't need 18 money when you were wronged and injured to get a 19 lawyer and pursue the party whose negligence 20 caused the injury. 21 But for workers -- and at the 22 turn of the century with rapid industrial 23 ization, naturally, in the workplace there were 6047 1 many injuries. Workers couldn't avail 2 themselves because the obstacle in their way was 3 the master/servant doctrine and the fellow 4 servant doctrine that prevented recovery because 5 of who they were, because they were working 6 people. 7 But they did have a right to 8 sue. Those were defenses. They had a right to 9 sue, and if those defenses didn't apply and they 10 were injured in the workplace, they could 11 recover, but, obviously, it was a situation that 12 was unsatisfactory to the large majority of 13 workers, and it was unfair. It was clearly seen 14 as unfair. People who lost limbs, people who 15 were rendered unemployable, couldn't recover 16 because it happened in the workplace, and their 17 families suffered and starved. 18 So the great system of Workers' 19 Compensation came in, and it was a trade. It 20 was a compromise. In return for limited 21 liability -- limited liability -- the employers 22 were put into a system that guaranteed the 23 worker some compensation notwithstanding all of 6048 1 those doctrines of tort law like the 2 master/servant rule and the fellow servant rule, 3 but it was a trade. Workers gave up something. 4 They gave up their right to sue. They gave up 5 their right to sue even where those two 6 doctrines couldn't be interposed as a defense, 7 and employers gave up the right to interpose 8 those defenses in return for a system of 9 compensation rather than liability. 10 ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: 11 Excuse me, Senator Connor. 12 Senator DeFrancisco. 13 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Will 14 Senator Connor yield to a question? 15 SENATOR CONNOR: Certainly. 16 ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: 17 Senator yields. 18 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: You just 19 mentioned that when the Workers' Compensation 20 system came into effect, it was a quid pro quo. 21 SENATOR CONNOR: Right. 22 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: The worker 23 gave up the right to sue in return for various 6049 1 benefits, and the benefit to the employer was 2 freedom from a lawsuit? 3 SENATOR CONNOR: No, it was 4 limited liability. You could give somebody $500 5 a week instead of having somebody say, "Look at 6 that injury." If you are run over by a bus and 7 your leg is injured and all, they put a value on 8 that and the bus company's insurer might have to 9 give you $150,000, but if you are the employer, 10 you can say, "Okay. Well, I'll pay, but I'm 11 only going to pay the 400-and-some dollars or 12 $500 a week compensation." 13 So the real important financial 14 part of the trade for the employer was their 15 liability was limited to the rate schedule in 16 the compensation statute as opposed to the wide 17 open -- whatever a jury says you have to pay, of 18 negligence law. 19 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: And 20 employers were also free from lawsuits by 21 employees. 22 SENATOR CONNOR: Well, they could 23 interpose in lawsuits the defense that the 6050 1 injury was covered by Workers' Compensation. 2 Pleading Workers' Compensation is a defense to a 3 negligence suit. 4 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: And if it 5 was proven that it was a Workers' Compensation 6 claim, the employer would be free from liability 7 other than what was in the Workers' Compensation 8 law. 9 SENATOR CONNOR: Right. 10 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: So isn't it 11 true, when Dole v. Dow came into effect in the 12 1970s, that that quid pro quo that the employer 13 recognized by being part of the Workers' 14 Compensation system was set aside? 15 SENATOR CONNOR: Senator, are you 16 reading my notes? Because that's what I was 17 about to come to. If you will suffer me, I will 18 get to that. 19 Now, what I was just describing 20 dealt with torts, negligence, plain old 21 negligence, a failure to exercise a duty where 22 it was imposed of care towards someone. 23 Ordinary negligence, 6051 1 carelessness: "Oops, yep, you got hurt; I 2 wasn't thinking; I was careless." Maybe I 3 didn't do anything affirmative. I could be 4 careless because I forgot to sweep up this 5 morning. That was careless of me. I forgot the 6 guys on the night shift were eating bananas, and 7 the guy dropped a banana peel, and if I had had 8 somebody sweep up as soon as the day shift 9 began, you wouldn't have slipped on the banana 10 peel; but, geez, I didn't put the banana peel 11 there to trip you up, and I didn't really 12 foresee that there would be a banana peel 13 there. The only thing I did is I failed to get 14 the cleanup crew to sweep up this morning, and 15 that's negligence. 16 What Dole v. Dow deals with is a 17 different category that the tort law has always 18 recognized, and it's variously called gross 19 negligence or intentional negligence, where an 20 affirmative action is taken with a foreseeable 21 consequence that someone could be injured as a 22 result of it. That was never just plain old 23 common law. It evolved into common law, the 6052 1 concept of gross negligence or intentional tort 2 or a negligence that was the result of an 3 intentional act, not a failure to act, not a 4 failure to act or take care but an intentional 5 action with a foreseeable consequence that could 6 jeopardize someone, and that was always 7 available to people in the tort law. 8 I was privileged once upon a time 9 in law school to have a Professor I'll never 10 forget, Vernon X. Miller. He's been dean of 11 various law schools. He wrote a book. He just 12 entitled it Torts, and he used to use concepts 13 like "smart" money. You know, when we'd say 14 "What's punitive damages? Why do you have to 15 pay so much there?" he'd say that's smart 16 money. We'd ask, "What's smart money?" He'd 17 say, "That's where the person who committed the 18 tort was so bad that you want extra money so it 19 smarts so they don't do it again." 20 And that's what Dole v. Dow is 21 about, smart money. It's about the employer 22 that buys equipment with safety guards to 23 protect the workers, and the workers don't fall 6053 1 on a banana peel because someone didn't sweep up 2 the plant, even though they ought to have swept 3 up the plant. That is negligence. What the 4 employer does is go around or order someone to 5 go around with a screwdriver and remove the 6 safety guards, an action that's foreseeable and 7 intentional. They did something affirmative, 8 intentional, and the foreseeable consequences 9 are that someone could be injured. Why else? 10 Why else safety guards on a machine? 11 So it's a different -- you know, 12 all this argument, why should we have Dole v. 13 Dow? You always had a distinction in tort law 14 of gross negligence, of the intentional tort or, 15 if you want to analogize it to the statutes, the 16 reckless disregard for someone's safety by an 17 affirmative action as opposed to just plain old 18 negligence. Hey, he slipped on the plant floor 19 on a banana peel the guy on the night shift left 20 there; we didn't have the sweeper come around 21 and sweep in the morning. We were negligent. 22 We didn't do it on purpose. We didn't litter 23 the floor with banana peels knowing full well 6054 1 someone could slip and hurt themselves. That's 2 what Workers' Comp addresses. 3 Dole v. Dow is a whole different 4 category, and you want it to smart. You want 5 the employer to hurt. Part of it is punitive 6 not just compensatory, and it always was in tort 7 law. It was always designed to punish that kind 8 of tortfeaser because they did something 9 intentional and you want to deter others. As 10 well as that person doing it, you want to deter 11 others, and that's what Dole v. Dow is. It was 12 always there. 13 The Workers' Compensation Law was 14 designed to deal with plain negligence, common 15 negligence and its consequences, both limited 16 liability for the employer and assured 17 compensation for the worker, assured -- assured 18 because this bill attacks that too -- assured 19 compensation for people injured on the job, 20 because they gave up something too, their right 21 to sue for plain ordinary negligence, not for 22 intentional negligence, not for gross 23 negligence, for plain old negligence, and that 6055 1 was the trade. 2 And do we have a problem in 3 Workers' Compensation? Sure. It costs a lot. 4 That's a problem. It does cost a lot. It's an 5 insurance problem, first and foremost, an 6 insurance problem. These are insurance premiums 7 and when the evidence is that more than half or 8 at least half of the premium goes to something 9 other than compensation for the workers, then I 10 say we have an insurance problem, and we ought 11 to approach it that way. How can we make it 12 less expensive? How can we make administrative 13 costs less expensive? 14 And when people just pointed up 15 that little -- and it's a small percentage of 16 cases under Dow v. Dole. You still have to 17 prove them. Senator Bruno explained about the 18 reserves against Dow. Very few of these cases 19 end up resulting in a judgment, and the 20 insurance company makes a profit on the reserve, 21 and then they get the money back, but it's a 22 very small percentage of cases where there is a 23 real recovery. That's not driving the cost. 6056 1 Insurance profits are driving the costs. 2 Administrative costs are driving the costs. I 3 say let's go back to the original deal. On 4 negligence, the workers gave up something; the 5 employers gave up something. But that deal 6 never had anything to do with gross negligence. 7 It never had anything to do with intentional 8 actions. 9 And, you know, what are we 10 talking about when you remove safety guards? 11 None would say it would be unfair to let the 12 family of a worker recover against the company, 13 say a sole proprietorship, where the sole 14 proprietor walked in -- I won't get into semi 15 automatics -- but with any kind of gun and blew 16 away the employee, okay, an intentional tort 17 besides being a crime. Would you really let 18 that company set up Workers' Compensation as a 19 defense when the family sued to recover 20 everything they could for their loss? They 21 would say, "No, that was an intentional criminal 22 act." It was intentional. 23 That's what Dole v. Dow deals 6057 1 with, actions that are either intentional or so 2 clearly, grossly irresponsible -- not just 3 careless, not just negligent -- and the idea to 4 somehow seek protection from those kinds of 5 actions under the framework of a Workers' 6 Compensation Law that was designed to deal 7 merely with plain, ordinary garden variety 8 negligence and overcome the obstacles and 9 injustices caused by the master/servant doctrine 10 or the fellow servant doctrine misses the mark. 11 It misses the mark on this one-house bill 12 because this bill is dead on arrival in the 13 Assembly, I believe. 14 I would urge both majorities to 15 sit down and negotiate on a Workers' 16 Compensation bill that focuses on the real 17 problem, the insurance costs. Why does it cost 18 so much as a matter of insurance? It's not the 19 benefits. If it should be, oh, there's a big 20 fraud problem, go after the fraud. Stop the 21 fraud. Nobody argues with that. If people are 22 running mills and filing fraudulent Workers' 23 Compensation claims prosecute them. Get them 6058 1 out of there. Put them where they belong, if 2 that's the problem. 3 But the problem is not the 4 injured worker who is injured by negligence, and 5 the problem is not the worker that's injured by 6 intentional gross negligence on the part of the 7 employer. 8 Mr. President, on this bill, I 9 urge a no vote. 10 ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: 11 Read the last section, please. 12 THE SECRETARY: Section 91. This 13 act shall take effect immediately. 14 ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: 15 Call the roll. 16 (The Secretary called the roll.) 17 Negative votes, please raise your 18 hands. 19 Senator Smith to explain her 20 vote. 21 SENATOR SMITH: Thank you, Mr. 22 President. I'm greatly concerned that this bill 23 is just a sham, and that it really goes after 6059 1 injured workers rather than where it should be 2 placed. 3 I am also concerned that we 4 didn't wait until we had finished, completed the 5 Workmen Comp' study, but we could have possibly 6 had a better understanding of what should have 7 been in the bill. 8 And, not only does this bill hurt 9 injured workers but it also goes ahead to reduce 10 the state work force by replacing hearing re 11 porters, those that have to hear -- be there by 12 law, and it sets up a system which will put in 13 place a tape recorder or be done electronically. 14 We don't even use the electronic methods because 15 it's not a proven method. Most times, it is 16 imprecise, and you can't go back to a recorder 17 and ask it what someone said. That's why we 18 need to have those reporters in place. 19 And, therefore, I vote no. 20 ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: 21 Senator Hoffmann. 22 SENATOR HOFFMANN: Thank you, Mr. 23 President. Just to explain my vote. 6060 1 I believe that the workers and 2 the employers of this state deserve a meaningful 3 solution to address the terrible problem that 4 has been described in great length by my 5 colleagues, but this is not a sincere effort at 6 coming up with a solution. This smacks of 7 political posturing. It will be regarded as 8 such by many people. 9 Obviously, there will be people 10 who gloat over having established a baseline 11 from which to operate for the future, but I 12 would hope that we can put aside some of the 13 rhetoric and address some of the really serious 14 issues that have not been covered in this. The 15 run-away cost of insurance has not been the 16 primary focus of this measure, and it was 17 presented out to the public and presented in 18 this chamber as a Republican solution to a 19 problem that should, in fact, be an issue for 20 people of all political persuasions, in all 21 walks of life, in all aspects of the economy. 22 This is a state that is losing 23 jobs, that is losing employers. Capital is 6061 1 moving out of this state because people don't 2 trust us. This type of cynical measure is one 3 of the reasons why they don't trust us. 4 I will vote nay. 5 ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: 6 Senator DeFrancisco to explain his vote. 7 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: I'm going 8 to vote yes to this bill. I don't agree with 9 every line and every part of the bill, and I 10 certainly don't agree with the characterization 11 that this bill is cynical in any way. Everybody 12 wants a solution, but no one seems to want to 13 get to the middle ground where a solution is 14 really possible. 15 The Governor is at one extreme of 16 this issue and the Assembly is at the other 17 extreme. I have to commend Senator Bruno and 18 the rest of this body for coming up with a 19 solution that's trying to bridge that gap. 20 We've been talking about Workers' Compensation 21 reform as long as I've been in the Senate, and 22 unless we start acting responsibly by trying to 23 bridge the gap, like this bill tries to do, then 6062 1 we're never going to get the reform. 2 Yesterday, we had the small 3 business people that we all honored. We all 4 clapped. We all voted yes. These are the 5 people that are trying to create jobs and trying 6 to have a economic climate that makes some 7 sense. Ask any one of them. I didn't have to. 8 They told me when I went to the reception later, 9 "You got to do something about Workers' Comp'." 10 So what do you do? Do you just 11 bicker about it? Do you just complain about 12 it? Do you just have one extreme, the other 13 extreme, or do you try to bridge the gap? This 14 bill bridges the gap as far as we can go without 15 any meaningful negotiation. 16 So I think it's a good move 17 passing this bill. I think it's a responsible 18 thing to do. It's an effort to try to get a 19 bill that both sides of this issue will agree 20 to, and it's a major, major step forward, and I 21 would hope that that step forward does result 22 this year in a true Workers' Comp' reform bill 23 that meets the middle ground, more benefits for 6063 1 workers as this bill does and cutting costs 2 which this bill does, as well. 3 So I vote yes. 4 ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: 5 Results, please. 6 THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in 7 the negative on Calendar Number 1225 are 8 Senators Abate, Connor, Dollinger, Espada, Gold, 9 Gonzalez, Kruger, Lachman, Leichter, Markowitz, 10 Mendez, Montgomery, Nanula, Onorato, 11 Oppenheimer, Paterson, Santiago, Seabrook, 12 Smith, Stachowski and Waldon. Ayes 37. Nays 13 21. 14 ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The 15 bill is passed. 16 Senator Spano, why do you rise? 17 SENATOR SPANO: Please recognize 18 Senator Santiago. 19 ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: 20 Senator Santiago. 21 SENATOR SANTIAGO: Mr. President, 22 I would like the record to show that if I had 23 been in the chamber when the vote was taken on 6064 1 Calendar Number 60, I would have been recorded 2 in the negative. 3 ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: You 4 can be recorded in the negative, without 5 objection. 6 Senator Spano. 7 SENATOR SPANO: Can you ask the 8 Secretary to please call Calendar 1224. 9 ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: 10 Secretary will read. 11 THE SECRETARY: Calendar number 12 1224, by Senator Marchi, Senate Print 6669B, an 13 act to amend the Environmental Conservation Law, 14 in relation to solid waste management. 15 SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation. 16 ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: 17 Explanation has been asked for. 18 Senator Marchi. 19 SENATOR MARCHI: Mr. President. 20 This bill addresses the problem - 21 ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: 22 Excuse me. May we have some order, please. 23 Thank you. 6065 1 SENATOR MARCHI: Thank you, Mr. 2 President. 3 This bill addresses the problem 4 of 2200 acres on Staten Island which is the site 5 of a landfill which is a euphemistic expression 6 for the disposal of solid waste, the largest in 7 the world. 8 Mr. President, we've been - 9 since the first prayer, we were gathered in 10 prayer at 3:00 o'clock. It is now 7:00 o'clock, 11 four hours later. During that period there were 12 2400 tons -- 2,400 tons -- of solid waste 13 deposited on Staten Island. When you go to 14 sleep at night, these figures don't change. 15 It's 600 tons an hour. If you sleep eight 16 hours, that's almost 5,000 tons of solid waste 17 deposited on Staten Island. It is more than 18 half of all the solid waste deposited in the 19 state of New York. 20 It's a very serious problem. 21 Some of the statistics that come out of this 22 circumstance: The landfill releases 2 percent 23 of the methane gas -- this is not the potential 6066 1 for it, but the actual emanation over the period 2 of -- over a period -- produced in the world. 3 Two percent of all the methane gas that is 4 generated in this world is generated by this 5 land dump. It's almost 6 percent of all the 6 methane gas produced in the United States. This 7 goes up in the air and floats over Staten Island 8 and, statistically, Dr. Oppenheimer and others 9 and the Interstate Sanitation Commission have 10 been gathering statistics indicating a higher 11 rate of respiratory illness, a very, very 12 serious problem. 13 It currently produces levels of 14 volatile organic compounds known as benzene, 15 xylene, toluene, and other carcinogens in excess 16 of EPA standards. Xylene, Freshkills emits 5600 17 pounds which is almost twice that which is 18 emitted by Bayway Exxon Refinery. 19 This bill would put a terminus on 20 dumping on Staten Island by the year 2002. You 21 might say you are utterly unreasonable, Marchi. 22 2002? Can you stand it up to then? There is a 23 serious problem. How are we going to implement 6067 1 this? Where is the solution to the generation 2 of almost 14,000 tons a day? We are fortunate 3 by some of the developments that have taken 4 place already. 5 Today, I was with the Governor on 6 Staten Island, where he announced a plan to 7 implement, with the Mayor, but he announced a 8 plan where a multiple level of officialdom will 9 constitute a task force to produce a solution, 10 and there is a very definite commitment to do 11 this by the date, one day before the date of 12 this bill, a serious commitment. 13 We are very grateful to the 14 Governor for implementing, in anticipation, 15 recognizing the problem that we have, and for 16 this I am very grateful and very appreciative. 17 Because sometimes we say we're going to put a 18 building up, we're going to build a school, 19 we're going to put teachers in it. The process 20 already begins, has already begun on his 21 initiative to constitute a task force to have a 22 solution with -- in consultation, and the work 23 that he has already done will assure us that it 6068 1 will be accomplished in the time frame. 2 I am also mindful, however, and 3 in this I have the support of all of the Staten 4 Island officialdom, be they in the City Council, 5 my valued colleague Senator DiCarlo, I think 6 Senator Montgomery -- I know Senator Montgomery, 7 and in the Assembly, Assemblyman Vitaliano, 8 Assemblywoman Connelly, and Assemblyman 9 Straniere, are in full support of this 10 legislation and they are all cosponsors. 11 I also give great credit 12 especially to Senator Bruno, who has pledged his 13 support to the enactment of this legislation, 14 and Speaker Silver. So I believe that we have 15 sensitized many, many people. So the commitment 16 is there. 17 The question I was asked, of 18 course, by some reporters, "Well, if you have 19 such confidence in the implementation, why have 20 a bill?" It's obvious, Mr. President, that you 21 may have cataclysms. You may have natural 22 disasters. There are many circumstances that 23 are attendant in the business of living and 6069 1 surviving. 2 I don't know whether I will be 3 here to see it happen, but I do know if it's 4 part of the public policy of this state that it 5 will have the attention because it then will be 6 in our statutes and, if there are natural 7 disasters or whatever the circumstances are, 8 that will be addressed as it must if it is the 9 law of this state. 10 I might add, Mr. President, I 11 have had a little experience in this. I passed 12 a bill back in 1958 -- in 1958 -- which was 13 vetoed at that time, and I cast no blame or 14 aspersion on him, because I think he acted in 15 good faith. My bill at that time would have 16 terminated garbage dumping in Staten Island not 17 in 1958 to 1959 but in 1965, and the veto 18 message said this: 19 "In view of the fact that the 20 provisions of this bill will not become 21 effective until 1965, seven years hence, 22 consideration of this proposal at this time is 23 unnecessary. Long before 1965, the city of New 6070 1 York should have progressed substantially with 2 its $75 million program of incinerator 3 construction which ultimately should solve the 4 problems which this measure seeks to meet." 5 You know, it happened. I had a 6 bill vetoed 38 years ago. This time, I have the 7 feeling that this statute will be enacted. 8 Furthermore, I have the satisfaction, something 9 which I haven't had -- none of us have really 10 had. We legislate, but then we wait for the 11 enactment. We have in place the serious effort 12 and commitment to the creation of this task 13 force, and we have confidence in this. It also 14 provides relief, Senator Montgomery, to your 15 district, which would have an incinerator in a 16 heavily populated center. 17 This bill has no other provision 18 in it except to do exactly that. So I ask you 19 -- you know, while I'm talking, I don't know 20 how many hundreds of tons just while I've been 21 speaking here tonight, but these are the 22 circumstances that we have. The magnitude of 23 the problem that we have in my county, none of 6071 1 you have had the experience in your own areas 2 even if you have had a landfill problem. It's 3 minuscule by comparison to what we have. 4 I don't deserve any medals for 5 speaking. I have been trying hard, but it's a 6 very difficult problem to produce the solution. 7 We have in place now the commitment and the 8 organics of a solution for implementation as we 9 speak of enactment, but we need this assurance, 10 and the people of Staten Island, 400,000 of 11 them, they are Republicans, Democrats, Liberals, 12 Conservatives, whatever, all of these people are 13 human beings, men, women and children, who are 14 condemned to live with this toxic disaster. 15 So I ask you your vote, your 16 unanimous vote I hope, in support of this 17 legislation because it means so much to each and 18 every individual. There is nothing partisan 19 about this bill. I speak something which is in 20 the hearts and souls of - 21 ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: 22 Excuse me, Senator. 23 Senator Paterson, why do you 6072 1 rise? 2 SENATOR PATERSON: Well, Mr. 3 President, I don't want to tell you why I rose, 4 but I just wanted to tell Senator Marchi that 5 his explanation is so convincing and so 6 satisfactory that if he could just yield for 7 this one question, I think this will sum up this 8 whole issue. 9 ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: 10 Senator Marchi, would you yield to just one 11 summary question? 12 SENATOR MARCHI: From a Senator 13 who shares a birthday with me, how can I say no? 14 SENATOR PATERSON: I just wanted 15 to know what the City's alternative was in order 16 to dispose of this waste now that the Navy Yard 17 and Fresh Kills are being - 18 SENATOR MARCHI: At that -- at 19 that meeting that we had the Mayor made, or 20 joined in the total commitment in the 21 implementation and the task force goes forward 22 and will be constructed to provide the method of 23 disposal. There are already people in informal 6073 1 discussions that have -- that have already been 2 examining resources for the disposal of this - 3 this waste, so the progress has already begun, 4 but I don't want to -- I don't want to leave it 5 there unaided by the public policy of this state 6 which will -- which will then be the law of this 7 state, and I hope I have your support on this, 8 Senator. 9 SENATOR PATERSON: You do, 10 Senator, and we are most satisfied with your 11 answer. 12 SENATOR MARCHI: I rest my case. 13 SENATOR SPANO: Last section. 14 ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: We 15 have -- I'm sorry. We have a couple of people. 16 Senator DiCarlo. 17 SENATOR DiCARLO: Thank you, Mr. 18 President, and I don't know if many people here 19 realize what Senator Marchi and I realize, this 20 is probably the most important piece of 21 legislation that the people on Staten Island 22 have ever received from Albany, and I want to 23 thank a couple of individuals who have worked to 6074 1 make this happen, one being the Governor, who 2 made a promise to our constituents on Staten 3 Island to support the closure, and he lived up 4 to that promise; the other the Mayor who told us 5 that he would close the dump. The other is our 6 leader, Joe Bruno, for making and allowing this 7 to happen here this evening. 8 Another is a legend who I - 9 every time I rise I speak about him, but he is 10 truly a legend on Staten Island and out of all 11 the legislators that I know on Staten Island the 12 most respected individual by far. 13 And this legislation is not only 14 wonderful for Staten Island but this bill is 15 also wonderful for the people of New York City 16 and even the people in my Brooklyn part of the 17 district in Brooklyn where the incinerator is 18 not going to spew its poison onto our citizens. 19 This is a real bill, ladies and 20 gentlemen; this isn't an one-house bill. This 21 bill, it is my understanding, is going to pass 22 the Assembly and is going to go to the Governor, 23 and I firmly believe the Governor is going to 6075 1 sign this. This is actually saying that the 2 dump will be closed, no matter what happens 3 between now and the year 2002, January 1. 4 This is not just a promise; this 5 is the force of law. I am so proud to be a 6 small part in this bill. I live in Brooklyn, 7 but I represent almost a hundred thousand Staten 8 Islanders, Staten Islanders who have probably 9 one of the highest rates of cancer in the 10 country. We talk about what we can do for other 11 areas of the state with high incidence of breast 12 cancer, but look at the facts of breast cancer 13 in Staten Island and Bay Ridge, Brooklyn. Look 14 at the incidence of cancer in Staten Island and 15 my end in Brooklyn, Bay Ridge and Bensonhurst, 16 the highest in the country, and I believe one of 17 the reasons is the dump on Staten Island and 18 this is such an incredible thing for us to be 19 doing. 20 This is one of the reasons you 21 get into government, to do good for your 22 constituency, and the people on Staten Island 23 have been hearing about the closing of this dump 6076 1 from before John Marchi was a Senator. I have a 2 copy of an article here where promise was made 3 by Mayor O'Dwyer who said he would close the 4 dump in 1949. 1949 we've been promised by 5 politicians that that dump would be closed. 6 There was a meeting in New York 7 City today with the Governor and the Mayor and 8 other elected officials, and we thank them for 9 that, where they promised that they would close 10 the dump, and the question was asked why are we 11 here doing this legislation if everyone has 12 promised that the dump will be closed. 13 Well, ladies and gentlemen, we 14 need to give a guarantee to the people of Staten 15 Island, to the people of Brooklyn that no matter 16 what happens between now and the closure date, 17 they will be closed, the dump will be closed, 18 and for the people of Staten Island you have 19 somebody to thank in John Marchi, because if not 20 for John Marchi, I don't believe this would have 21 happened. I don't believe the guarantee of a 22 closing of that dump would have occurred, and I 23 don't believe that probably thousands and 6077 1 thousands of lives of kids today would be saved 2 if not for this legislation. 3 This is probably the most 4 important piece of legislation that I've ever 5 been associated with, and it has the force of 6 law. That's the importance of it. It's not 7 just a promise. We're going to enact this into 8 statute. So on behalf of myself and my 9 constituents, again I thank the Governor for his 10 support, the Mayor, and John Marchi for this 11 most valued piece of legislation. 12 ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: 13 Senator Leichter. 14 SENATOR LEICHTER: Yes, Mr. 15 President. 16 Let me say, Senator Marchi, you 17 were as eloquent as I've ever heard you, and 18 that's quite a goal to achieve because I've 19 often heard you on this floor speaking in ways 20 that I could only wonder and say, Why can't I 21 get up and express myself so well, and also it's 22 a wonderful record to be able to say that I 23 passed a bill that was vetoed 38 years ago. So 6078 1 it -- it really is and, Senator, you certainly 2 describe in glowing terms the benefits that 3 would accrue to Staten Island and Senator 4 DiCarlo similarly voiced -- he said it was the 5 most important bill he's ever been -- he's ever 6 voted on. I mean it's a wonderful thing to 7 close a landfill. Who wants a landfill? 8 They're terrible to have in your back yard. 9 Maybe we could even make the bill better and say 10 there should be no more landfills in New York 11 State, not only Staten Island, but Orange County 12 and Conadago, any county. Why should those 13 people have landfills? Granted they're not as 14 big as the Staten Island landfill, but nobody 15 wants a landfill, and then you make the bill 16 even better because you also provide there 17 shouldn't be any incineration. So we're not 18 going to have an incinerator which could get rid 19 of the garbage that's now not going to go to 20 Staten Island. That's great. Maybe we ought to 21 ban incinerators throughout the whole state, 22 make sure that everybody has got clean air, and 23 so on. 6079 1 In fact, maybe what you really 2 ought to do in this bill provide there should be 3 no more garbage. That would really be -- be 4 even better. Then we wouldn't have to worry 5 about disposing of it. You know, I guess I'm 6 being sort of foolish here, because I'm 7 thinking, you know, this is so wonderful and 8 then I think, Gee, we have 20,000 tons of 9 garbage a day in New York City. Maybe it's a 10 little less now. I think we were up to 22- and 11 maybe recycling, which has somewhat worked in 12 New York City, so that the tonnage may be even 13 less, and I think how are we going to get rid of 14 it? 15 So when I saw your bill, I right 16 away wanted to embrace it, because I could go 17 back to my community also. They don't -- they 18 don't like the incinerator because actually the 19 people who might be poisoned, if anybody was 20 going to be poisoned are not Senator DiCarlo's 21 constituents. The air blows towards the West 22 Side of Manhattan so I can say, Listen, I was 23 against incinerators. All the environmentalists 6080 1 like it. NYPIRG will say, That's great, 2 Leichter, because they don't like the 3 incinerator. They don't like the landfills but 4 for a moment I had this very negative thought 5 and maybe I shouldn't be so pessimistic. What 6 are we going to do with 20,000 tons of garbage? 7 So I figured the Mayor would say, 8 you know, "Wait a second, guys, what am I going 9 to do with all this garbage? I can't -- I'm 10 probably not going to be able to ship it out of 11 the state. I can't dump it. Now, you say I 12 can't burn it, and I can't landfill it. One day 13 I'll just put up a notice saying, please don't 14 put any more garbage outside in New York City." 15 But no, lo and behold, the Mayor 16 says, "This is a wonderful thing," and he shows 17 up with the Governor, I understand, and you were 18 there and Staten Island, everybody in Staten 19 Island is very happy about it tonight. Of 20 course, in the year 2002 it's not going to be 21 Mayor Giuliani. It may be Mayor Paterson who 22 will have that problem or Mayor Abate or Mayor 23 Onorato. They'll come to this Legislature and 6081 1 say, "What do you want me to do with 20,000 tons 2 of garbage?" 3 I'm also interested, you know, 4 every time this Legislature tells New York City 5 what to do and, you know, is that really our 6 role? But when you achieve something as 7 glowingly good as to get rid of a landfill in 8 your back yard, you know, then home rule really 9 shouldn't stand in the way, or to get rid of an 10 incinerator that might bother people on the West 11 Side or other parts of New York. 12 So everybody seems to think it's 13 so wonderful and it's an easy solution, and the 14 Mayor says, "That's a piece of cake; I can get 15 rid of 20,000 tons," and everybody seems to 16 think it's going to work out so gloriously far 17 be it from me to rain on anybody's parade, least 18 of all yours, Senator Marchi, because I really 19 love you. So I'm going to vote for the bill. 20 ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: 21 Senator Oppenheimer. 22 SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: I -- I 23 assume I will be reiterating a bit, but if 6082 1 Senator DiCarlo would just yield for a 2 question. 3 ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: 4 Senator DiCarlo, do you yield? 5 SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: He's 6 supposed to stand up. 7 SENATOR DiCARLO: I'm tired. 8 ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: He's 9 tired. 10 SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: You're 11 tired, you're sitting. 12 I remember talking about this 13 perhaps 10, 12 years ago. Indeed we went out to 14 look at the site, maybe a decade ago, and at 15 that time I was told that it was slated to be 16 terminated as a landfill, and we -- we saw the 17 gas that was passed from that and used by 18 Brooklyn Union Gas. It was a very interesting 19 trip, and I learned a lot; but I have been told 20 that alternatives were going to be put in 21 place. What are the alternatives that have been 22 discussed so far? 23 SENATOR DiCARLO: Senator, one of 6083 1 the things that was announced today by the Mayor 2 and the Governor was the setting up a task force 3 whose responsibility it will be to come up with 4 the answers to your questions. They are being 5 given with this legislation seven years -- six, 6 seven years -- five years more, five years to 7 come up with those answers. 8 With all the great minds that are 9 involved that are going to be on this task 10 force, I firmly believe they'll be able to come 11 up with the answers, whether it be increased 12 recycling or taking the garbage outside of New 13 York City so that it doesn't sit in people's 14 back yards and poison children in close 15 proximity, there are answers that they can come 16 up with. 17 SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Thank you, 18 Senator. 19 It just seems a bit bizarre that 20 with all these years that were, you know, 21 potentially the problem could potentially have 22 been solved, that it got to this -- this 23 juncture. 6084 1 Also, while I am very, very 2 concerned about -- about pesticide use and the 3 occurrence -- the rapid occurrence, the rate of 4 cancer in our state, I -- I do not think that it 5 has much to do with the -- the fumes that come 6 from garbage. If -- if I am incorrect, you can 7 disabuse me of that, Senator DiCarlo. You 8 mentioned it. 9 SENATOR DiCARLO: If you could 10 just repeat the last part of your question. 11 ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: 12 Before you do, Senator, could we have a little 13 order, please. Thank you. 14 SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: No, I just 15 want clarification. I just want clarification. 16 You seem to indicate that the high occurrence of 17 breast cancer was somehow related to the -- the 18 landfill and the odors, and that is not my 19 understanding. 20 SENATOR DiCARLO: Well, that - 21 there are two studies, I'm told right now, that 22 are ongoing to make determinations on that, but 23 I think, and this is just my own thought on it, 6085 1 that when you've got a situation with a dump of 2 this size, with the gases that are emitted, 3 there has got to be a reason for the higher 4 incidences. Do I know for a fact that they are? 5 No, I don't. No, I don't. 6 And to answer a little bit of 7 your other question, why did we wait so long? 8 All right? If this was such a deadly thing. I 9 think, and I give tribute to those people who 10 are now in office that this was the first time 11 that we've had agreement by almost everybody in 12 government from the city level to the state 13 level with the Governor, to the Senate and to 14 the Assembly, so this is the first time in many, 15 many years that we've been able, and Senator 16 Marchi has been able to put everybody together 17 to come to agreement to finally close the dump 18 and the reason that this is going to work is 19 that it's not just a promise. This is the first 20 time that now all of the elected officials, it's 21 a wonderful thing for us to stand here today and 22 talk about what a great day it is. Now, we have 23 to act and the fact of the matter is there is a 6086 1 gun to the head of the city of New York and the 2 state of New York and the politicians now that a 3 time-definite closure has occurred. 4 So we had better come up with 5 ways to get rid of the garbage because it will 6 not be permitted in Staten Island any longer. 7 So there's a countdown, and we've got to move on 8 it. 9 SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Thank you, 10 Senator. 11 VOICE: Read the last section. 12 SENATOR MARCHI: If I could 13 just - 14 ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: 15 Senator Marchi. 16 SENATOR MARCHI: Just as a note 17 of reassurance, Senator, you raise a point. 18 Recycling is going to materially reduce -- on 19 Staten Island, we've had a very high level of 20 cooperation by people in the recycling process. 21 It's been slower than the rest of the City but 22 it's coming on line, and a good recycling policy 23 will enable us to recapture an awful lot of that 6087 1 and achieve material reduction. 2 There was a lot of discourse on 3 this on possible sources. Commissioner 4 Dougherty was there, and also federal interests 5 in this because of environmental standards that 6 now become a national factor for consideration. 7 So I feel confident on the basis of a growing 8 knowledge alluded to by Senator DiCarlo, that - 9 and the point you make is, what do you do with 10 it? This is the big problem. I don't think 11 people were just mean and hated Staten Island so 12 that they delivered all this garbage, but the 13 technology is developing where we can mitigate 14 and reduce it to more manageable proportions, 15 and we commit ourselves to a program of action. 16 So I'm very -- I'm very pleased 17 with the -- with the enthusiasm that I've seen 18 on a bi-partisan basis joined in by the Assembly 19 and the Speaker as well. I'm very much 20 encouraged by the fact that we enjoy such 21 unanimity. If we had it in so many other areas 22 it might be -- it might augur even other 23 developments that we'd all enjoy. 6088 1 ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: 2 Read the last section, please. 3 THE SECRETARY: Section 3. This 4 act shall take effect immediately. 5 ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: 6 Call the roll. 7 (The Secretary called the roll. ) 8 ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: 9 Senator Montgomery to explain her vote. 10 SENATOR MONTGOMERY: Yes, Mr. 11 President. I want to explain my vote. 12 Certainly I'm voting for this 13 legislation, and I vote on behalf and thank 14 Senator Marchi especially on behalf of the 15 constituents in my district and Senator Connor's 16 district and Senator Lentol. All of us share 17 the area in Brooklyn where the Brooklyn Navy 18 Yard is located, and this will -- will satisfy 19 the -- the real urgency of the people in that 20 area, not to have that incinerator built, 21 because there are schools and public housing 22 developments and private homes and it is an area 23 that is very highly concentrated in terms of its 6089 1 population. 2 So we thank you too, and I guess 3 here I just must say that I don't know of anyone 4 else who would be able to have such resolve and 5 such commitment over such a long period of time, 6 other than Nelson Mandela, than Senator Marchi. 7 So we thank you for that too, Senator. 8 I'm voting yes. 9 ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: 10 Read the results, please. 11 THE SECRETARY: Ayes 59. 12 ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The 13 bill is passed. 14 Senator Spano. 15 SENATOR SPANO: Have the 16 Secretary call Calendar 1226. 17 ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: 18 Secretary will read Calendar Number 1246 please 19 -- '26, I'm sorry. 20 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 21 1226, by Senator Wright, Senate Print 7524, an 22 act to Chapter 640 of the Laws of 1990, amending 23 the Public Health Law, relating to anabolic 6090 1 steroids. 2 ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: 3 Read the last section. 4 THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This 5 act shall take effect immediately. 6 ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The 7 results. Call the roll. I'm sorry. 8 (The Secretary called the roll. ) 9 THE SECRETARY: Ayes 59. 10 ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: The 11 bill is passed. 12 Senator Spano. 13 SENATOR SPANO: Mr. President, go 14 back to the controversial calendar regular 15 order. 16 ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: 17 Secretary will read. 18 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 19 381, by Senator DeFrancisco, Senate Print 3520 20 A, an act to amend the Social Services Law, in 21 relation to the transportation of certain 22 persons. 23 ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: 6091 1 Read the last section. 2 SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President. 3 ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: 4 Senator Paterson. 5 SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President, 6 I offer you this option. I could talk and ask 7 questions on the bill for 45 minutes or I could 8 tell you that last year Senators Abate, Connor, 9 Espada, Gonzalez, Gold, Kruger, Leichter, 10 Markowitz, Mendez, Montgomery, Nanula, Paterson, 11 Smith and Waldon voted against this bill with 12 great integrity. 13 ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: 14 Senator Paterson, I personally would love to 15 hear you for 45 minutes on this bill, but in 16 that case I think we'll call the -- read the 17 last section. 18 THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This 19 act shall take effect immediately. 20 ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: 21 Call the roll. 22 (The Secretary called the roll. ) 23 ACTING PRESIDENT MARCELLINO: 6092 1 Results, please. 2 THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in 3 the negative on Calendar Number 381 are Senators 4 Abate, Connor, Gonzalez, Markowitz, Mendez, 5 Montgomery, Nanula, Paterson, Santiago, Smith 6 and Waldon. Ayes 48, nays 11. 7 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill 8 is passed. 9 Senator Leichter, why do you 10 rise? 11 SENATOR LEICHTER: May I have 12 unanimous consent to be recorded in the negative 13 on Calendar Number 789 and Calendar 1023? We 14 didn't do 1023? 15 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Calendar 16 1023 has not been called yet, Senator Leichter. 17 SENATOR LEICHTER: But you did 18 789. 19 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: 789 has 20 passed. Without objection, hearing no 21 objection, Senator Leichter will be recorded in 22 the negative on Calendar Number 789. 23 Secretary will continue to call 6093 1 the controversial calendar. 2 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 3 500 by the Assembly Committee on Rules, Assembly 4 Print 8383, an act to amend the Election Law, in 5 relation to determination of ballot positions. 6 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Secretary 7 will read the last section. 8 THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This 9 act shall take effect on the 1st day of 10 December. 11 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the 12 roll. 13 (The Secretary called the roll. ) 14 SENATOR VOLKER: Leichter wants 15 an explanation. 16 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 17 Leichter, do you wish an explanation? 18 SENATOR VOLKER: Yes, he wishes 19 an explanation. 20 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 21 Volker, for an explanation. 22 SENATOR VOLKER: Yes, very 23 quickly, this bill resulted or came out of a 6094 1 problem that occurred at the Erie County Board 2 of Elections, became known as an incident called 3 "ballgate". 4 What happened was allegedly a - 5 somebody connected with the local board was 6 picking the balls -- the numbers out of a hat to 7 decide on ballot positions. One person in 8 particular who did some picking was incredibly 9 accurate in his picking. In other words, all 10 three of the candidates that he supported for 11 the number one position got the number one 12 position. This was a Democratic primary, by the 13 way. 14 What happened was that someone 15 did some checking of the -- they're like tennis 16 balls that were in the -- if you know how people 17 do the bingo games, you pull out balls with 18 numbers on them, and so forth. Anyway to make a 19 long story short, there seemed to be some little 20 grooves on the side of one particular numbered 21 ball, and this went -- became quite a celebrated 22 case. It went to court, the whole thing. 23 What ended up was that the judge 6095 1 finally threw out the drawing, authorized a new 2 drawing. At the new drawing basically two of 3 the three people who were drawn first in the 4 first place still ended up number one. 5 What this bill really does is 6 authorize the state Board of Elections to set up 7 several methods for drawing ballot positions 8 that would avoid the possibility of improper 9 conduct at the local level. This bill, by the 10 way, has been agreed on by the -- all, both 11 Democrats, Republicans, everyone involved with 12 the Board of Elections. Paul Tokasz, the 13 chairman of the Elections Committee, has already 14 passed it in the Assembly. This is an agreed 15 upon bill. 16 Senator. 17 SENATOR LEICHTER: Mr. 18 President. 19 SENATOR VOLKER: Sure. 20 SENATOR LEICHTER: With such a 21 pedigree to the bill, it's with some trepidation 22 that I rise, but I'll tell you why I do, 23 Senator, and I know the hour is late and 6096 1 everybody is scowling of the few people that are 2 left. 3 SENATOR VOLKER: That's true. 4 SENATOR LEICHTER: But it raises 5 a very serious problem as far as I'm concerned. 6 It seems to me that the only fair way of dealing 7 with ballot position is to have rotation of 8 names, because I know that when I first got into 9 elective office, you would draw and if you ended 10 up and you got the first spot on the ballot, 11 that was worth 20, 30 points. 12 SENATOR VOLKER: M-m h-m-m. 13 SENATOR LEICHTER: And really the 14 election itself became a lottery. I'd like you 15 to provide in this bill that the only way of 16 doing this is rotating, which we now do in the 17 city of New York and it seems to me -- and 18 correct me if I'm wrong, Senator -- that under 19 this bill, if the Board of Elections, the state 20 Board of Elections now sets forth various 21 systems -- one of them may be picking balls out 22 of a -- out of a drum or however. 23 SENATOR VOLKER: Yes. 6097 1 SENATOR LEICHTER: One of them 2 may be rotations, and then each county can 3 choose whatever system it wants. I think we 4 ought to get away from this sheer blind picking 5 of positions and do it by rotation. Is there 6 any reason that we can't do it statewide by 7 rotation and deal with the problem that way? 8 It's really the fairest way. 9 SENATOR VOLKER: Well, I don't 10 know. I guess I don't know exactly what you 11 mean by "rotation." You mean one year the 12 challenger gets on the top and the next year the 13 non-challenger. 14 SENATOR LEICHTER: Well, see, I 15 don't know the machines you use but in New York, 16 when I say "rotation," we rotate by E.D. So I 17 may be first, my name may be on top in E.D. 1; 18 in E.D. 2 my opponent is the first name. 19 SENATOR VOLKER: I -- I don't 20 know. That's an interesting idea. 21 SENATOR LEICHTER: Well, that's 22 what we do in New York City. 23 SENATOR VOLKER: Well, I -- I 6098 1 think, Senator, in all due respect, I think what 2 we're trying to do here is do it fairly. I'm 3 not sure exactly if that is the fairest way. 4 You may think it is. I might have some question 5 about whether that is. It seems to me that the 6 fairest way is to allow a drawing whereby every 7 one has the -- an equal chance, and by a 8 drawing, I mean some sort of lot or lottery or 9 whatever. That's traditionally been the way 10 it's done throughout the state and I think, 11 frankly, it would represent the fairest way. No 12 one seems to disagree with that in the rest of 13 the state, and what we're just trying to do here 14 is establish some fair procedures, and I really 15 think that's the best way. 16 SENATOR LEICHTER: Mr. President, 17 just one final question. 18 How can you say, Senator Volker, 19 and maybe I'm missing something, that it's 20 fairer to have positions drawn by random choice, 21 by lot, and I think you'll agree with me that if 22 you get the number one position it's a great 23 advantage or you get the first line. Why isn't 6099 1 it fairer to rotate? 2 SENATOR VOLKER: By the way, the 3 guy that got the number one position in this 4 case in Erie County got blown out, which happens 5 on a regular basis. The truth is it can be 6 helpful, I suppose, in a close election but the 7 truth is in many elections where people pay 8 attention -- the reason I think it's an 9 advantage in New York City is so few people 10 vote, but in all honesty, I don't think it's - 11 it's offering a huge advantage. It's some 12 advantage, but I just don't exactly see where 13 rotation is a just -- is really a just way to do 14 it in all honesty. I just think the best way to 15 do it is just have a drawing and allow the 16 person who draws the top line get it and the one 17 who has the second line get that. 18 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Secretary 19 will read the last section. 20 THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This 21 act shall take effect on the 1st day of 22 December. 23 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the 6100 1 roll. 2 (The Secretary called the roll. ) 3 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Announce 4 the results when tabulated. 5 THE SECRETARY: Ayes 58, nays 6 one, Senator Leichter recorded in the negative. 7 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill 8 is passed. 9 Continue to read the 10 controversial calendar. 11 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 12 681, by Senator DeFrancisco, Senate Print Number 13 6375, an act to amend the Highway Law, in 14 relation to components of the state scenic 15 byways system. 16 SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President, 17 on the bill. 18 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 19 Paterson, on the bill. 20 SENATOR PATERSON: We just feel 21 that the - 22 SENATOR SPANO: Will you read the 23 last section for Senator Levy? 6101 1 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Secretary 2 will read the last section. 3 THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This 4 act shall take effect immediately. 5 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the 6 roll. 7 (The Secretary called the roll. ) 8 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 9 Levy, how do you vote? In the negative? 10 Senator Levy in the negative. Roll call is 11 withdrawn. 12 Senator Paterson. 13 SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you, Mr. 14 President. We just feel that the Department of 15 Transportation, while it serves a vital function 16 in the state, is not really -- that between the 17 Department of Environmental Conservation and the 18 Department of Transportation, we would assume 19 the former to be the more expert in the areas of 20 highway beautification and preserving the 21 cultural value of New York State. 22 We feel that by passing this 23 legislation we shift the balance to the agency 6102 1 of Department of Transportation who is really 2 involved more in transportation issues and would 3 not really be the most appropriate agency to - 4 to deal with issues of highway beautification. 5 As I've said to you before, Mr. 6 President, I could elaborate on this in a far 7 more detailed, more euphemistic and detailed 8 fashion, but I won't. 9 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Secretary 10 will read the last section. 11 Senator Oppenheimer. 12 SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: If Senator 13 DeFrancisco would just yield for one question? 14 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 15 DeFrancisco, do you yield for one question? 16 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes. 17 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 18 yields for one question. 19 SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: I guess the 20 question is, why -- why do we need this bill? 21 Why are we doing this? 22 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Well, this 23 is a departmental bill that was requested by the 6103 1 Department, but that's why it came here, but why 2 we're doing it: Presently the EnCon's program 3 for scenic roadways is inoperative. They 4 haven't been doing it. They've been sending 5 requests for such designation over to the 6 Transportation Department anyway, and those 7 requests have been reviewed by the Scenic By 8 ways Advisory Board, which has different 9 departments and private industry involved in the 10 review process including EnCon, including 11 private tourism agencies and people that are 12 familiar with the scenic byways program in our 13 state. 14 So right now, EnCon hasn't been 15 designating any roads, scenic roads or -- and 16 they've been sending them to the advisory group 17 for their recommendation, to the Department of 18 Transportation anyway and this eliminate the 19 duplication of services. 20 SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: O.K. Thank 21 you, Senator. 22 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 23 Oppenheimer, on the bill? 6104 1 SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: I would 2 like to speak on the bill. 3 If there is a problem, then I 4 would like to see it solved within the appropri 5 ate, to my way of thinking, jurisdictions. In 6 1985, the DEC was given the power to preserve 7 the scenic and natural beauty of our state 8 highways and to designate the sites. 9 Perhaps due to staff cutbacks, 10 there are not enough people to do the essential 11 work here. Terminating their oversight of the 12 scenic roads program, I -- I don't think would 13 enhance the number of scenic roadways that would 14 exist in our state. It wasn't until 1992 that 15 the Department of Transportation established the 16 scenic byway program, and that was to coordinate 17 the state actions for development and promotion 18 touristwise, and also for management, but not 19 specifically for maintenance of natural 20 resources and for scenic beauty. 21 The bill just removes the DEC 22 from its historic role, which is to designate 23 and protect our scenic roadways. The DOT does 6105 1 not have experience in -- in this arena, and 2 their primary focus, after all, is transporta 3 tion, and I think the DEC has always been 4 charged with protecting our natural resources 5 and DOT charged with transportation oversight. 6 I think tipping the balance 7 towards transportation takes away the emphasis 8 on scenic beauty, and, therefore, I will be 9 opposing the bill. There are other ways to 10 improve the performance of the DEC, and I would 11 suggest going that route. 12 I'll be voting no. 13 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Secretary 14 will read the last section. 15 THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This 16 act shall take effect immediately. 17 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the 18 roll. 19 (The Secretary called the roll. ) 20 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Announce 21 the results when tabulated. 22 THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in 23 the negative on Calendar Number 681: Senators 6106 1 Abate, Hoblock, LaValle, Leibell, Leichter, 2 Levy, Maltese, Marcellino, Markowitz, 3 Montgomery, Nanula, Onorato, Oppenheimer, 4 Padavan, Paterson, Santiago, Smith, Stachowski, 5 Tully, also Senator Connor, also Senator 6 Dollinger. Ayes 38, nays 21. 7 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill 8 is passed. 9 Secretary will continue to call 10 the controversial calendar. 11 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 12 717, by Senator Libous, Senate Print Number 13 6756, an act to amend the Mental Hygiene Law, in 14 relation to charging fees for mental hygiene 15 services. 16 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Secretary 17 will read the last section. 18 THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This 19 act shall take effect immediately. 20 SENATOR LEICHTER: Explanation. 21 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the 22 roll. 23 Senator Libous, Senator Leichter 6107 1 has asked for an explanation. 2 SENATOR LIBOUS: Senator 3 Leichter, those who receive mental health 4 services and can afford to pay and receive SSI 5 will have to reimburse the state for those 6 services, but again it will only reflect on 7 those folks who can afford to pay. Those who 8 cannot afford to pay and receive SSI, those 9 services will be provided by the state as they 10 are now. 11 SENATOR LEICHTER: Senator 12 Libous - 13 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 14 Libous, do you yield to Senator Leichter? 15 SENATOR LIBOUS: Yes. 16 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 17 yields. 18 SENATOR LEICHTER: Senator, what 19 I'm concerned about is who makes the 20 determination that the patient is able to pay a 21 fee? 22 SENATOR LIBOUS: SSI. 23 SENATOR LEICHTER: Well, the 6108 1 determination isn't made by SSI. 2 SENATOR LIBOUS: OMH, I'm sorry, 3 OMH. 4 SENATOR LEICHTER: OMH. And how 5 is that determination made? 6 SENATOR LIBOUS: How is that 7 determination made? 8 SENATOR LEICHTER: Right. I'm 9 concerned. Let me give you an example. A 10 person comes, obviously seems to be a little 11 schizophrenic or - 12 SENATOR LIBOUS: Oh, no, these 13 are people -- O.K. Senator, I can answer that 14 question. 15 Anyone who receives their own 16 check are those individuals who are deemed 17 responsible for taking care of their own 18 personal -- their own personal - 19 VOICE: Care. 20 SENATOR LIBOUS: -- care, thank 21 you, and basically these are the only people we 22 are dealing with. Anyone who is not responsible 23 for taking care of their own personal needs will 6109 1 not be included in this program. 2 SENATOR LEICHTER: But -- I'm 3 sorry, Senator, if you continue to yield. 4 SENATOR LIBOUS: Yeah. 5 SENATOR LEICHTER: Somebody 6 comes, I mean they've been receiving SSI checks, 7 they're receiving their checks because up to now 8 they've acted fairly well. Now, they've had an 9 episode. 10 SENATOR LIBOUS: Sure. 11 SENATOR LEICHTER: They have a 12 problem. They show up. They may be receiving 13 SSI. How does the mental hygiene officials make 14 that determination? Do they even have the 15 ability to make the determination? 16 SENATOR LIBOUS: The determina 17 tion, Senator, is with the individual because 18 that individual is now taking care of their own 19 personal needs, whether they go to a doctor, 20 whether they go to a mental health clinic, 21 whether they buy a car, whether they get a hair 22 cut, these are individuals who are taking care 23 of their own responsibility and needs who are on 6110 1 SSI, only right now the Department of Mental 2 Health Services says that about $4 million a 3 year is lost in services to clients who can 4 afford to pay but don't, and that's the only 5 cases that they're looking at here. 6 SENATOR LEICHTER: Well, Senator 7 Libous, I've no problem in saying that people 8 who are determined by some objective standard 9 that they're able to pay should be able to pay. 10 I am concerned that this provision will lead to 11 the Department turning down people who need 12 help. 13 SENATOR LIBOUS: No. 14 SENATOR LEICHTER: Well, you 15 shake your head and you say it can never 16 happen. How is that; where does that assurance 17 come from? 18 SENATOR LIBOUS: The assurance is 19 within the Department that they cannot turn down 20 anybody who needs help. They will not turn down 21 anyone that needs help. We have -- right now we 22 treat anyone who needs help and we receive no 23 payment for it. The only thing this is saying 6111 1 is, if that individual is receiving SSI and they 2 are responsible for their own needs, then they 3 are going to ask to reimburse for the services. 4 They will not be turned down, Senator, 5 absolutely not. 6 SENATOR LEICHTER: Senator, maybe 7 it's the lateness of the hour and we've labored 8 long and hard here, and we've passed so much 9 significant legislation, most important bill 10 that Senator DiCarlo ever voted on among it, but 11 if you take a look at your bill, it says that 12 only -- only the -- only if the person is 13 dangerous, only if the person is dangerous will 14 that person be de... will that person not be 15 denied services, and the point that I'm trying 16 to make to you is the fact that somebody 17 receives SSI they may have been fine until last 18 week. 19 Now, they have an episode; they 20 need help. I don't know whether they -- the 21 fact that they receive SSI establishes that 22 they're able to pay for the services. 23 SENATOR LIBOUS: Senator, if you 6112 1 look at the provisions of the bill, it says when 2 a person is able to pay a fee, but the person or 3 his or her legal authorized representative 4 refuses to do so. 5 SENATOR LEICHTER: Well - 6 SENATOR LIBOUS: So they're not 7 going to refuse. If your concern is refusing 8 treatment, that's not going to happen. 9 SENATOR LEICHTER: No. No. 10 SENATOR LIBOUS: It doesn't 11 happen now, and it won't happen under this. 12 SENATOR LEICHTER: Mr. President, 13 we -- Senator Libous and I have failed to 14 clarify the bill, so I -- I appreciate, Senator, 15 your attempt to explain it to me and maybe it's, 16 you know, past my bedtime or something but I - 17 I -- your -- your answers have failed to give me 18 that assurance although they were given with so 19 much force when you shook your head like it can 20 never happen, and so on. 21 But, Mr. President, in all 22 seriousness and briefly, my concern is that 23 without establishing some clear standards and 6113 1 criteria that the department will deny services 2 to people who need the services. I don't know 3 how you make the determination that somebody's 4 able to pay. It then becomes a very easy way of 5 saying to somebody, We're not going to provide 6 services unless you pay, and that person may be 7 unwilling to pay because he doesn't have the 8 money, they don't know how to handle their 9 affairs because they've had an episode. They've 10 had a problem. 11 I don't want us to do something 12 here which is going to be harmful to people who 13 are really in need, people who are mentally 14 ill. As it is, we're doing far too little for 15 that community and, Senator Libous, I know 16 you're concerned with those people, but I really 17 think that written as this bill is, that it 18 opens the door to denial of services to people 19 who need it. 20 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 21 Padavan. 22 SENATOR PADAVAN: Mr. President. 23 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 6114 1 Libous, do you yield to Senator Padavan? 2 SENATOR LIBOUS: Yes. 3 SENATOR PADAVAN: I agree with 4 you that if someone is receiving SSI, they 5 should pay a fee. However, where in the bill in 6 the phrase "able to pay" do we find that ability 7 to pay relevant to receiving a check from SSI? 8 Is it in some section that we're amending or, in 9 other words, it says "able to pay". It doesn't 10 say as a resulty of receiving SSI. 11 SENATOR LIBOUS: I believe that's 12 the section we're amending because that's what 13 it refers directly to SSI. 14 SENATOR PADAVAN: In Section 15 4301, my recollection, and, of course, I don't 16 have the book here, the law to refer to to be 17 able to say that. Again I repeat, if they are 18 receiving SSI, then obviously they should pay a 19 fee, but I'm not sure the wording of the bill, 20 the "able to pay" phrase relates to that 21 ability. Perhaps your counsel can clarify that. 22 You see why also, Senator, in that same vein, 23 you say "or their legally authorized 6115 1 representative." 2 Now, that person obviously 3 generally would not be -- let's say it's a 4 parent. That person wouldn't be receiving the 5 SSI, so this kind of confuses me in terms of 6 what we're really trying to do. 7 SENATOR LIBOUS: Mr. President, 8 since both Senator Leichter and Senator Padavan 9 bring up some good points and seeing that this 10 is a department bill, I think we'll take it 11 back, lay it aside and we'll take it back to the 12 department and see if we can't get these 13 questions answered. 14 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Lay 15 Calendar Number 717 aside at the request of the 16 sponsor. 17 Secretary continue to call the 18 controversial calendar. 19 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 20 835, by Senator DeFrancisco, Senate Print 21 6788-A, an act to amend the Canal Law, in 22 relation to the abandonment and sale of certain 23 canal lands. 6116 1 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Secretary 2 will read the last section. 3 SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation. 4 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: This bill 5 would permit the Thruway Authority to abandon 6 canal lands directly without going through OGS. 7 When the canal system was operated by DOT, OGS 8 handled the abandonments since they didn't - 9 since DOT did not have the staff nor the desire 10 to do that. 11 For a two-year period after the 12 transfer, special legislation was required for 13 an abandonment, but that provision sunsetted, so 14 now we have a situation where the Thruway 15 Authority has the responsibility over canal 16 lands, plus they have been doing their own 17 abandonments for highway purposes for years and 18 years and years, so they have the expertise to 19 do it in their own department, and this would 20 allow them to do it without involvement of OGS. 21 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 22 Oppenheimer. 23 SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: If Senator 6117 1 DeFrancisco would yield for a question? 2 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes. 3 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 4 yields. 5 SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Could you 6 tell me approximately how much land is involved 7 in this? 8 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: I can't 9 tell you the exact amount of land, but it's land 10 along the canal. The theory that is being 11 proposed now is to use much of that land for 12 tourism purposes and to try to sell various 13 parcels to groups that are willing to develop it 14 along the canal for tourism purposes, but I 15 can't tell you precisely. I can't even tell you 16 approximately how much land we're talking 17 about. 18 SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: And are we 19 talking about a variety of smaller parcels along 20 the water? 21 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes, yes. 22 SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Thank you, 23 Senator. 6118 1 On the bill, please. On the 2 bill. 3 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 4 Oppenheimer, on the bill. 5 SENATOR OPPENHEIMER: Well, I 6 want to thank Senator DeFrancisco. I had 7 suggested an amendment which, while it won't be 8 an amendment, will be probably in the rules that 9 are being -- will be made up by the Department 10 of Transportation, and that is to offer prior to 11 the announcement in the newspapers of this 12 property being offered, the abandoned property 13 being offered for sale, that it be offered ten 14 days prior, to the municipality because 15 municipalities very often have municipal needs 16 and if they have the advance knowledge of this 17 abandoned property being offered for sale, they 18 could utilize it for their own economic 19 development for their own number of purposes. 20 Could be recreation, could be -- let's hope not 21 -- a site for dumping, but it is, I think, an 22 important addition to be able to inform the 23 municipality in which the land lies that this is 6119 1 going to be offered for sale ten days prior to 2 its offering. 3 So I thank Senator DeFrancisco 4 for putting that in, and I will be supporting 5 this bill. 6 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 7 Dollinger, on the bill. 8 SENATOR DOLLINGER: One quick 9 question for Senator DeFrancisco. 10 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 11 DeFrancisco, you yield to Senator Dollinger? 12 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes. 13 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 14 yields. 15 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Through you, 16 Mr. President, does this in any way alter the 17 process for abandonment, that is, it would be 18 declared to be abandoned and then there would be 19 bids made available, the same process as though 20 it was the right-of-way for a road? 21 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: That's 22 right. It's the same process that we're 23 abandoning canal lands when DOT had the 6120 1 authority over the canal property. The process 2 is no different. The lands we're talking about 3 is exactly what Senator Oppenheimer said, small 4 parcels that would not be usable for big 5 projects, but small parcels we're dealing with. 6 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Mr. 7 President, I think this is also a good bill. I 8 think what this would do is give the incentive 9 for these lands to be declared abandoned and 10 then we'll find out how much private capital 11 will find its way to the canal. I think it's 12 probably a critical ingredient in trying to 13 figure out whether private industry will really 14 invest in lands near the canal, of which there 15 is quite a bunch in my district, so I will be 16 voting in favor. It's the right thing to do. 17 SENATOR LEICHTER: Mr. President. 18 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 19 Leichter. 20 SENATOR LEICHTER: If Senator 21 DeFrancisco would yield. 22 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 23 DeFrancisco, do you yield? 6121 1 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Yes. 2 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 3 yields. 4 SENATOR LEICHTER: Senator, there 5 was a second part to Senator Dollinger's 6 question which I'm not sure you answered. 7 Will all the rules as to 8 competitive bidding and accepting the highest 9 bid still apply? 10 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: Let me be 11 sure about that. The first part is correct. 12 It's the same system that DOT used when they had 13 authority over the canal. Whether it's the same 14 -- no change to the Public Authorities Law. I 15 thought so. It's the same process. I didn't 16 want to say it without being sure. 17 SENATOR DOLLINGER: My 18 understanding is that's done by auction. They 19 put it on the block. They auction the property 20 and it's sold to the highest bidder. That's 21 what's happened in the right-of-ways in the 22 Department of Transportation in my region. 23 SENATOR DeFRANCISCO: It could be 6122 1 by sealed bid or auction. Same process though; 2 it's the high bidder. 3 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Secretary 4 will read the last section. 5 THE SECRETARY: Section 4. This 6 act shall take effect immediately. 7 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the 8 roll. 9 (The Secretary called the roll. ) 10 THE SECRETARY: Ayes 59. 11 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill 12 is passed. 13 Secretary will continue to call 14 the controversial calendar. 15 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 16 1023, by Senator Present, Senate Print 767-A, an 17 act to amend the County Law, in relation to the 18 allocation of funds to cooperative extension. 19 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: There's a 20 local fiscal impact note at the desk. 21 SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation. 22 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: And an 23 explanation has been asked for, Senator 6123 1 Present. 2 SENATOR PRESENT: Mr. President, 3 the purpose of this legislation is to revise the 4 formula for the allocation of state money to 5 cooperative extensions. 6 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 7 Paterson. 8 SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you, Mr. 9 President. 10 If the Senator would yield for 11 one very brief question. 12 SENATOR PRESENT: Sure. 13 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 14 yields. 15 SENATOR PATERSON: And that 16 question is that I notice that there's almost an 17 increase of 40 percent which is actually great, 18 the monies that would go back to the counties. 19 I just wanted to know where the money is coming 20 from. 21 SENATOR PRESENT: Out of the 22 state funds, Senator, and they won't go back to 23 the counties. It will go to the cooperative 6124 1 extension. 2 SENATOR PATERSON: Thank you, 3 Senator. 4 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Secretary 5 will read the last section. 6 THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This 7 act shall take effect immediately. 8 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the 9 roll. 10 (The Secretary called the roll. ) 11 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Announce 12 the results when tabulated. 13 THE SECRETARY: Ayes 57, nays 2, 14 Senators Dollinger and Leichter recorded in the 15 negative. 16 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 17 Dollinger, why do you rise? 18 SENATOR DOLLINGER: If you 19 wouldn't mind, Calendar Number 1009, did I miss 20 that or - 21 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: 1009 22 you're asking about? That was laid aside for 23 the day. 6125 1 SENATOR DOLLINGER: Thank you, 2 Mr. President. 3 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Secretary 4 will continue to call the controversial 5 calendar. 6 THE SECRETARY: Calendar Number 7 1167, by Senator Holland, Senate Print 1468, an 8 acted to amend the Social Services Law, in 9 relation to requiring an address as a condition 10 of receiving assistance. 11 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Secretary 12 will read the last section. 13 SENATOR PATERSON: Explanation, 14 please. 15 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: 16 Explanation has been asked for, Senator Holland, 17 of Calendar Number 1167, by Senator Paterson. 18 SENATOR HOLLAND: Mr. President, 19 this bill would require an address as a 20 condition of receiving assistance under the 21 Social Services Law, whether the address be a 22 residence, a public shelter or such site as the 23 District Commissioner shall deem appropriate, 6126 1 and the purpose of the legislation is to stop 2 applicants from using post office boxes because 3 we've found that many of the people were double 4 dipping from other states that they were using 5 post office boxes. 6 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Secretary 7 will read the last section. 8 SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. 9 President. 10 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 11 Paterson. 12 SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President, 13 I'd just like the record to reflect that 14 Senators Abate, Connor, Espada, Gold, Mendez, 15 Markowitz, Montgomery, Paterson, Smith, Stavisky 16 and Waldon voted against this bill, and Senators 17 Mendez and Waldon have already voted against it 18 today. 19 Thank you. 20 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Secretary 21 will read the last section. 22 THE SECRETARY: Section 2. This 23 act shall take effect on the 30th day. 6127 1 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Call the 2 roll. 3 (The Secretary called the roll. ) 4 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Announce 5 the results when tabulated. 6 THE SECRETARY: Those recorded in 7 the negative on Calendar Number 1167: Senators 8 Abate, Connor, Leichter, Mendez, Montgomery, 9 Nanula, Paterson, Santiago, Smith, Waldon. Ayes 10 49, nays 10. 11 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: The bill 12 is passed. 13 Senator Nanula. 14 SENATOR NANULA: Thank you, Mr. 15 President. 16 I'd like to ask unanimous consent 17 to be recorded in the negative on Calendar 18 Number 835. 19 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Without 20 objection, hearing no objection, Senator Nanula 21 will be recorded in the negative on Calendar 22 Number 835. 23 SENATOR NANULA: Thank you. 6128 1 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Senator 2 Spano. Defer to Senator Paterson. Senator 3 Paterson. 4 SENATOR PATERSON: Mr. President, 5 tomorrow at 10:00 a.m., there will be a meeting 6 of the Minority in the Minority Leader's 7 Conference Room, Room 314 in the Capitol. 8 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: There 9 will be a Minority Conference tomorrow morning 10 at 10:00 a.m.. 11 SENATOR PATERSON: 10:00 a.m. 12 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: 10:00 13 a.m. tomorrow morning, Minority Conference in 14 the Minority Conference Room. 15 Senator Paterson -- excuse me. 16 Senator Spano. 17 SENATOR SPANO: Can you return to 18 the order of motions and resolutions? I believe 19 there is a resolution from Senator Hoffmann. 20 Can you read the title? 21 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: We'll 22 return to the order of motions and resolutions. 23 There is a privileged resolution at the desk. 6129 1 Ask the Secretary to read the title. 2 THE SECRETARY: By Senator 3 Hoffmann, Legislative Resolution commending 4 Laverne Williams upon the occasion of his 5 designation for special honor on Saturday, June 6 1st, 1996. 7 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Question 8 of is on the resolution. All those in favor 9 signify by saying aye. 10 (Response of "Aye.") 11 Opposed nay. 12 (There was no response.) 13 The resolution is adopted. 14 Senator Spano. 15 SENATOR SPANO: Under 16 housekeeping, on behalf of Senator Volker, page 17 66, Calendar 618, Senate Print 3863-A, please 18 remove the star. 19 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Star is 20 removed. 21 Senator Spano. 22 SENATOR SPANO: On behalf of 23 Senator Velella, on page 22, I offer the 6130 1 following amendments to Calendar 734, Senate 2 Print 6729-A, ask the bill retain its place on 3 the Third Reading Calendar. 4 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: 5 Amendments to Calendar Number 732 are received 6 and adopted. The bill will retain its place on 7 the Third Reading Calendar. 8 Senator Spano. 9 SENATOR SPANO: Any other house 10 keeping? 11 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: That's 12 it. 13 SENATOR SPANO: There being no 14 further business, I move that we adjourn until 15 Thursday, May 30th, at 11:00 a.m. 16 ACTING PRESIDENT KUHL: Without 17 objection, the Senate stands adjourned until 18 tomorrow, May 30th, at 11:00 a.m. 19 (Whereupon, at 8:05 p.m., the 20 Senate adjourned. ) 21 22 23