Search legislation

Most Recent Comments

1) Re: 2009 Senate Resolution 19  by Admin003 on March 12, 2009 

Senator Bishop’s statement is as follows:

First, I would like to thank the previous speaker. I understand and appreciate his concerns. This is not an effort on the part of our team to try to slow the process down. We understand that this is a process that needs to move in an efficient manner. We intend to do that.

The amendment allows the creation of a new subcommittee to address what is novel to this process. None of us have ever seen in the history of this state stimulus money like this coming to the state. The ordinary process in this chamber is that when money comes to this state, it goes to the Appropriations Committee and then goes to the subcommittee. We have created this subcommittee, and our goal is to create a subcommittee that addresses the stimulus. It is intended for the sole purpose of doing something that we have never done before.

So this subcommittee has been created for the specific purpose, and this allows us to take members from the Appropriations Committee and other standing committees to be a part of this to address this concern. Obviously, there is a time frame involved with all this, so I will make sure I will do my part to encourage our members to be efficient and to stick to the time line. We will not create unnecessary government.

This is all too important to our state, right now, to address these dollars—these taxpayer dollars that are coming to our state. It is important that we do it in a way that gives a clear review for our members so that we know what we are voting on. It didn’t happen at the federal level; none of their members even read the bill. I expect the people who take up the appropriations on this side in this state will not only read the bill, but will understand what they are voting on.

Reply

2) Re: 2009 Senate Resolution 19  by Admin003 on March 12, 2009 

Senator Jacobs’ statement is as follows:

I am very concerned that we are continuing to grow government at a time when we should be shrinking government. We will soon be voting on a bill that will add a new prescription drug site when we already have a prescription drug site through the Department of Community Health. We will soon be voting on creating a legislative child fatality investigator when we already have the Children’s Ombudsman who is housed in the DMB. And, today, we are talking about starting a new committee when we have standing committee which parenthetically is a majority committee—if you take a look at the make-up of it.

So I am concerned that at a time when we need to be more careful about how we spend our dollars and our staff dollars as well, this is not the right time to do this.

Reply

3) Re: 2009 Senate Resolution 19  by Admin003 on March 12, 2009 

Senator Prusi’s statement is as follows:

My “no” vote on the previous resolution wasn’t predicated so much on the intent of the majority; merely, on the process by which they seek to achieve their ends and the perception that goes along with the rule change. Now the bulk of the money that is coming in the stimulus package is going to be funding through formulas that are already determined by the federal government, and it will merely flow through the appropriate departmental budgets through grants or program dollars. But the perception is that the rules needed to be changed to add additional majority party members, as well as members who are inexperienced in the matters of budget work.

The appropriations process causes some concerns to our side of the aisle because it does give the perception that there will be a political bent to the work that this committee is about to embark on; when we already have a standing committee on Appropriations with people who have been doing that work for a number of years here in the Legislature. We felt that that was the appropriate vehicle for the federal dollars to be moved through the state appropriations process. We have some concerns over the size of the committee and the fact that the minority party will be underrepresented during this process.

So taking those considerations into account, my “no” vote was cast based on my feelings in that matter.

Reply

View Full Conversation