Legislative Wrap-up: Republican Leaders

July 10, 2007

Transcript:

>>Richard Ruelas:
Tonight on Horizon, with the end of the Arizona Legislative Session, Republican leaders join us to wrap up this session's accomplishments and disappointments. Plus Taliesin West continues to reflect the genius and vision of its creator, legendary architect Frank Lloyd Wright. Those stories next on Horizon.

>>Announcer:
Horizon is made possible by contributions from the Friends of Eight, members of your Arizona PBS station. Thank you.

>>Richard Ruelas:
Hello and welcome to Horizon. I'm Richard Ruelas. State lawmakers recently wrapped up the 48th regular legislative session. They passed a state budget and measures dealing with taxes, education, immigration, and other issues. There were some achievements as well as some letdowns. Here now to talk about some of those, Arizona State Majority leader Thayer Verschoor and Speaker of the State House of Representatives Jim Weiers. Thanks for joining us tonight. Let's start with the possibility that you might be back at work soon. The Employer Sanctions Bill, the governor signed it July 2, but raised concerns about some flaws in the bill. When she was here last week she said she hadn't spoken with either yourself, Speaker Weiers, or with State Senate President Bee, about the possibility of a special session. But Speaker Weiers, do you have thoughts on whether a special session is necessary to fix flaws in the bill?

>>Jim Weiers:
I talked to the governor Monday, in fact it was a week ago yesterday. And this is prior to the announcement of what she would be vetoing and signing. She told me she would sign the Employer Sanctions Bill before it became widely known to the public and media and she mentioned the fact that she was thinking seriously about a special session when it came to the bill. And I asked her on what accounts. Couple of the issues she brought up was that there was a mis-citing within the federal legislation, which I've gone back and I've inquired about. It is my understanding, and I could be wrong at this point, but from everybody I've talked to in the know within the staff, you know, it's not a major issue, especially with the legislative session not taking place until the 1st of January. It can be corrected very easily and a special session at that point would not be necessary. The second point, the governor did have some concerns as to the second citing as far as being caught knowingly hire, that maybe this was something we might want to look at again. And of course the third was the infrastructure, critical infrastructure as she put it. Those were the three items. Also bringing up the ELL. Right now we have a federal judge that has made a decision and we also had a filing last Friday with Mr. Hogan asking for sanctions against the state. She said she'd like to see what happens in San Francisco on the appeals process and maybe bring both in together later this fall.

>> Richard Ruelas:
Have you discussed if there's a special session on Employer Sanctions Bill? You want the changes to be I guess scripted, you don't want to see a lot of monkeying around with this thing.

>> Jim Weiers:
What I did ask her, and what I did make, a very good point. I've been down here for a few years and have found in special sessions, unless you have consensus and votes coming in, normally nothing is accomplished and what is accomplished isn't something you look for in the beginning as the end as it finally falls out. So I said if this is something that's going to actually take place, let's get together and make sure we know what we're doing and see if we have the support to do so, otherwise there's no sense in wasting taxpayer money and efforts and energy, simply by spinning wheels and in the end doing nothing.

>>Richard Ruelas:
Senator Verschoor, the chamber of commerce has said if there's a special session they would like to see some measure like the requirement to use the federal basic pilot program to verify employees possibly being delayed. Do you see a special session as necessary? Do you see major changes needed for this bill?

>>Thayer Verschoor:
Right now, you know, I try not to mention it down there for fear of getting beat up about coming in anytime soon. I think most of my members are very reluctant to want to come back into a special session, period, at all. But that's, I mean, we have to remember that obviously one of the reasons we wanted to do this as a piece of legislation is so that when there are issues that need to be corrected, that we're able to do that, whether through a special session or whether we come back in a regular session. But I think the feeling among most of our members is that let's let this legislation be enacted before we come in and start tinkering around with it. But absolutely, even the governor said this. She was, you know, if we're going to come back into special session we're going to have an agreement first. So I think that it's really premature to be talking about a special session on that right now. I think that the things that were mentioned are things that could easily be fixed next year, because it doesn't go into enactment until the 1st of January, and we'll shortly be back in session, and those things can be taken care of and corrected at that time.

>>Richard Ruelas:
On the back of the English Language Learner issue, as you mentioned, Tim Hogan asked the judge for sanctions. He didn't ask for jail time this time.

>>Jim Weiers:
No, he didn't.

>>Richard Ruelas:
Your thoughts on your chances? You say you want to wait to see how the appeal goes before the ninth circuit and you're confident?

>>Jim Weiers:
This is the governor's comment. I think they were wise words on her behalf. Mr. Hogan has made a profession of suing the taxpayers of this state over and over again. And if you look at his track record, especially lately when the state has come back and challenged him, he's not got a great track record, he's been losing right and left and I think this will be the same case. He brought this before the judge last year, the judge came in with sanctions, monetary fines. We took it to the ninth circuit, they came back and threw everything out and said go back, review this. One of the very basic things the federal judge in Tucson, he didn't even have an evidentiary hearing, which meant producing the facts of what the merits of the lawsuit were based on were never based. He'd just come up with a decision. What we're doing at this point is enacting a program that is state law and people forget it's a state law already. The governor allowed it to go into enactment without signature, nevertheless doing so. Now the state is defending the position that the federal government as the federal judge is coming back in, there's a couple of issues I take exception with. One is a federal judge enacting his will upon the state's rights, which I believe is unconstitutional. Any judge coming back in and telling the legislature what they can and can't do. Then third, saying we want you to put more money back in. The lawsuit originally was brought because there was an amount that was said by the floor of Senator Nogales, it's not enough to educate the kids that don't speak English well enough. As the state poured money back in, that's when Nogales eventually came to the point when he said that's the money they needed. The judge said we don't know if that's the money that's necessary because it's an arbitrary figure. You're just throwing money at the problem. We need something substantial that says here's the facts, that hold up to the premise that's the amount. That's what we're doing, coming up with what it costs. We're just going to be finishing up next week. They'll have the models ready where we'll know exactly what those costs are going to be. But it is so incredibly interesting to me that you continually sue in a situation where the judge said put more money back in based on nothing more than I just want more money, when the entire essence of the lawsuit is based on arbitrary and capricious, which means there's no foundation. We're trying to build that foundation so that we can come at this thing from a logical perspective rather than just give me more money because I want it. I don't think it's good for the taxpayers, I don't think it's good for the kids and more importantly, it's a situation you have to stand by, otherwise the courts go nuts and make demands on you where there's no connection between logic and common sense.

>>Richard Ruelas:
There was an evidentiary hearing heard earlier this year --

>>Jim Weiers:
He came out with almost exactly the same. It's like if you look at what happened and what was said, he literally came out and read exactly what the plaintiff's papers were, what Mr. Hogan had filed and his decision as the ruling and the judge almost took it verbatim. So I don't know where he was listening, but we'll go back in to the ninth circuit. We believe we're going to have a very good chance because the facts are on our side. We're doing the things we're supposed to be doing. The judge is completely out of touch I think in this case with reality of what he can and can't do, but more importantly, he was beaten down by the ninth circuit before and I believe there's a very good chance it's going to happen again.

>>Thayer Verschoor:
You know, Rich, we take education very seriously in our state. It's one of the top funding priorities that we have every year in our budget and, you know, I think this judge has taken judicial activism to a new high, by starting down the appropriation process and I think that's a clear violation of separation of powers and I'm glad we're fighting this because I think we'll be able to bring those points out and I think we'll prevail.

>>Richard Ruelas:
Staying with you, Senator Verschoor, the budget agreement, which is always interesting, pretty much the sausage-making process they talk about in the state legislature. The Senate and House came up with wildly different budgets out of their chambers as far as tax cuts especially. What was the process in the Senate? It appears you worked more closely with the governor than in previous years?

>>Thayer Verschoor:
I would take exception that they were wildly different. If you look at the two budgets as they came out of the Senate and the House, there was probably, you know, probably 80 percent of the stuff in the budget, the items in the budget were probably in agreeance with. We did keep communications with the House and we did work with the Democrats and worked with them in putting together a budget, the makeup of our body dictated that we'd probably do that. And we were able to get a budget out that was a balanced budget with only 2 percent growth, you know. Probably the tax cuts were the biggest difference that we had in that, but yet at the same time we were able to get a budget out where we didn't use any gimmicks, we didn't use any debt financing, we were able to get some tax cuts, we were able to get stuff to all the priorities, you know, we have every year we put together a majority program. Most, in fact all of those items and points of the program were hit from education to dealing with economic development, transportation, we were able to get money in there for transportation, additional dollars, which are sorely needed. We've got a blue ribbon panel put together, it's going to look at our long-term transportation needs. We've got a committee put together that's going to help develop a plan on how we finance our schools in the future and those things are important in a growing state. So I think we did very, very well and had a very productive session as far as being able to meet the needs of our state. We were able to get teachers more money, which was something that was very important. And yet at the same time we were able to give the folks in the middle class, which was something that came out of the House, the opportunity to help put money away for their kids' college education. So in the end, you know, between not just the budget but the other bills, we had a very good and productive session.

>>Richard Ruelas:
Mr. Speaker, were you happy with the way the budget turned out?

>>Jim Weiers:
I don't think anybody's ever going to be completely happy. There's a lot of things within the budget the House was not real excited about. And as Thayer said, if you start with a premise, the beginning will be the amount you're spending and both House and Senate were so very close, we had picked that number of the 10.6 (billion dollars). So once you start with that and also an agreement that we would not get into the borrowing, which the governor had started with at about $400 million, there were some other issues we took very seriously and we worked that out with the Senate and the beginning has given us a starting point. What you do get into issues when you say happy or not happy, education I just mentioned that. The House wanted to come back in and use a portion of the money back into the performance, making sure the better teachers get the money. This is something that was not in the Senate, and so that's something that we did not get, something that obviously we wanted to go to, and then we had the issues back on the tax package which is very small, $60 million of a $10.6 billion budget, which we couldn't squeeze out. That caused a lot of concerns. People in the House are a little bit more emotional, you know, than they are in the Senate, for the most part, because it's where they start. And I love it over there because there is this raw enthusiasm, and as a speaker you know, and, you know, of course the President Mr. Bee, you represent everybody within the chambers, not just Republicans, but you can never forget there is a caucus you'll be sitting in, that's going to be the Republican caucus, and people are going to take exception to everything you do. If I had to do the budget myself, it would look a whole lot different than what I was. And I think I could say that for 89 of the people down there, nobody is going to put together a budget that everybody's going to accept, and in the end there was a compromise, you know. Do I think it was the best way of doing it this time? No. And I think there will be changes next year. I hope there are changes next year. The biggest difference is the people within the makeup and the personalities in the Senate. With Mr. Bee and who he's got to be able to work with when it comes to minority leadership, I think they're a little bit easier to get along with, more logical, a lot more comfortable because of the time that they've put in, the experience they've had, and again, what I just mentioned within the House, you've got this enthusiasm, this energy level, and what I'm dealing with that are in the minority, first of all, they're not speaking for the governor. This is something that they had in the Senate. And so we're dealing with another fourth faction, if you would have it, because you had Senate, House, and Senate Republicans, which are two, which at that point started working with the Governor, and then we had the House Republicans. In the beginning, the Democrats and the House were working with the Democrats and the Senate anyway, working through the program, so to say that they were left out in the cold is not true. And when I did sit down and start working with some of the Democrats within the House, the very first thing is that the rest of the Democrats came back in and demonized them, started doing everything from putting auto dialers into their districts to putting mailers out. It was one of the most hateful campaigns I've ever seen in my life, and these three people, good people, good Democrats, simply wanted to see budgets that they liked, things that they wanted to see in there and people that wanted to sit down and as soon as they worked with leadership they were branded as traders and as deserters to the cause. Now, that's what I have to work with on a day-to-day basis. So it's not exactly fair to say I didn't outreach, and I try, and when you do and you work with people, if it's not through certain people, they just don't fit into the program and it's very unfair.

>>Richard Ruelas:
There were some stories last week by Howard Fischer of Capitol Media Services regarding the slowdown and how maybe some of the underpinnings of the budget, some of the estimates on how much money the state would have to work with are not coming to fruition. Are either of you worried about those estimates not coming true?

>> Jim Weiers:
Absolutely. You know, we're showing anywhere from $120 million to $145 million we're in the hole and we're in the 10th day of July. That's the reality. When we left the budget on the table as things slowed down, I think our carry forward was something like $500,000. It's the least amount it's been in the history that I've been at the legislature that I know of. So when you see a trend at this point going backwards and people say it's because of the tax cuts, that is not true. The economy is slowing down, if it wasn't for the tax cuts I think we'd be in a worse situation than we are now. But you have a lot of things that are not taking place, you know, one is with the housing market, the thing got to the point where it's now busted and a lot of the money that was coming in two years ago and the capital gains, people were making money hands over fist. There's only so long before you can ride that horse before it falls out from underneath you and that's one of the biggest factors happening right now.

>>Richard Ruelas:
Speaking of tax cuts, will the Senate take up more of the lead in pushing for tax cuts next year do you think?

>>Thayer Verschoor:
Well, you know, taking up more of a lead, I think that there's going to be obviously an effort to push for tax cuts. That's part of our agenda, that's part of the things that we believe in as a core value of our party, so yeah, I think you're going to see some efforts to have some tax cuts. You know, I agree with the Speaker, that, you know, there is a slowdown, I think if the slowdown would have been much worse if we hadn't done the things that we had done back in the '90's with the tax cuts that we have. I think tax cuts are very helpful to invigorating our economy. But at the same time I think, you know, these are estimates, we'll see what happens at the end of the year. I'm confident that we put together a budget that's sound enough that even if there are some, you know, which I think we probably will see, maybe $100 million shortfall in estimates, we'll be able to handle that, because I think we put together a sound enough budget to be able to handle that.

>>Richard Ruelas:
Thank you both for joining us gentlemen.

>>Thayer Verschoor:
Thank you, Richard.

>>Jim Weiers:
Always a pleasure.

>>Richard Ruelas:
In the mid '30's visionary architect Frank Lloyd Wright decided to become a snowbird. He brought his family and apprentices from his summer home in Wisconsin and began constructing what would be known as Taliesin West close to McDowell Mountains in Scottsdale. The institution would grow and prosper. Producer Larry Lemmons and videographers Richard Torruellas and Scot Olson bring us Taliesin West, tonight's Arizona Story.

>>Bruce Pfeiffer:
This is what's called the drafting room of the studio. Actually it was the first room built. And this block here was the first masonry walls. You see, in Arizona, you can't dress or till the stone. So let's put the flat part of the stone against a form, pour concrete behind it and call it desert rubble wall, and then the beams overhead carried the canvas flats and this was actually a drafting room, living room, dining room, until the rest of the building was built. The first room built was the kitchen and that's the center of the whole thing, and he called it a galley, because he referred to Taliesin West as a ship afloat on the desert, with the prow and the white canvas like you saw like a ship on the desert.

>>Announcer:
The view from the prow of Frank Lloyd Wright's ship on the desert, the Scottsdale landscape, is virtually pristine, although signs of civilization invade the horizon. Looking back toward the prow, the McDowell Mountains rise behind the vessel. Taliesin West has grown incrementally and organically over the years from the desert floor.

>>Vernon Swaback
Taliesin West is a statement of a very heroic person, a very heroic nature of someone who first programmed the life to be experienced in these structures and then designed the structures to support that.

>>Announcer:
Considered a visionary today, the iconoclastic architect Frank Lloyd Wright sometimes faced ridicule in his day when he advanced the theory of organic architecture. He believed form and function are one, that a structure and a site are one.

>>Vernon Swaback:
What he wanted was for architecture in his words to be a natural consort to the ground, for people and the lives of people to be kind of a flowering of the spirit of the land, one and the same, both being nature, both being natural. He would say that what is natural is not necessarily architectural, but what is architectural must always be natural.

>>Announcer:
Wright bridged the gap between environmentalism and development. Taliesin West is an exemplar of this idea, reflecting a great respect for the land.

>>Bruce Pfeiffer:
He came out first time around 1927-28, working at the Biltmore as a consultant and fell in love with the desert. He loved it, as a contrast to the pastoral Wisconsin.

>>Announcer:
On a Wisconsin hilltop, Wright had built the original Taliesin in 1911. Taliesin, the name of a Welsh poet, means a shining brow. The house served as a home, office, and summer location for his apprentices. Wright found the site for Taliesin West in 1937.

>>Bruce Pfeiffer:
So when Wright came out here with his wife, children, and about 25 young men and women who then were his apprentices and with just that workforce they began to build Taliesin West, picked the stones off the side of the mountain and sand from the washes and concrete and Redwood beams and white canvas.

>>Announcer:
Bruce Pfeiffer came to Taliesin as an apprentice more than 50 years ago.

>>Bruce Pfeiffer:
I lived there for about six years, enjoyed it. Read by candlelight. At that time we were really in the wilderness.

>>Announcer:
Vernon Swaback began his apprenticeship in 1957.

>>Vernon Swaback:
I have a very nice house. Architecture's been very good to me. But as a teenager, I lived in a tent which had a depressed slab about eight feet square, it was a red canvas what we call sheep herder's tent, open on both sides. The floor was all kind of cushioned and carpeted and colorful pillows around it with some kerosene lanterns, I felt was more like the Arabian Nights than a boy scout. And at night instead of getting in a car and driving home through crowded freeways and finding a house with lots of garage doors and divorced from nature, I walked out into the blackness of night, quiet, mystical, and when I went to sleep in my little tent, I was part of all of that. I've said it often and I can say it without any fear of reservation, that in many ways I will never live that well again.

>>Announcer:
From the beginning at Taliesin West, the apprentices learned from their mentor and collectively built what is now the home of both the Frank Lloyd Wright Foundation and the Frank Lloyd Wright School of Architecture. There's a theater on site as well as a cabaret. Life was a mixture of manual labor and social functions.

>>Vernon Swaback:
Our little inside joke about that would be that to be a Taliesin West apprentice you needed a hammer, sleeping bag, and tuxedo, you know.

>>Announcer:
The living quarters in the Wrights' house were unpretentious, tending to be relatively small, but filled with beautiful art and cultural clues.

>> Vernon Swaback:
I think the most exciting thing about this room as well as all of Taliesin West, is coming out to the middle of an undeveloped desert and rather than thinking in terms of survival or shelter, there's this immediate sense of grand pianos and wide open spaces and Indian blankets and just the celebration of cultural life.

>>Announcer:
Wright worked tirelessly and imbued his apprentices with vision and purpose.

>>Bruce Pfeiffer:
I think that's one thing that kept him young. He surrounded himself with youth and for him, youth was the quality, not a matter of age. He always reminded us that. Youth is not age, youth is a quality.

>>Announcer:
There were 70 to 90 apprentices at Taliesin West at the time of Wright's death in 1959, all who experienced his life and work in the desert, carrying with them a reflection of his vision.

>>Vernon Swaback:
In Wright's words, civilization is only a way of life, architecture and culture a way of making that life beautiful. And beauty to him was not prettiness or taste or fashion. Beauty was fundamentally something that worked, like life itself.

>>Bruce Pfeiffer:
Buildings which are in harmony with nature, buildings which are dedicated to the human being.

>>Richard Ruelas:
We will have Arizona Stories segments each Tuesday night here on Horizon. Following Horizon tonight and every Tuesday at 7:30 p.m., you can see the new series of half hour shows, Arizona Stories. That's all for this edition of Horizon. Thanks for joining us on this Tuesday evening. I'm Richard Ruelas. Good night.