Support The Wire

In Their Own Words – Eloquence, Incoherence and Impotent Rage Mark Historic Senate Debate as Majority Democrats are Upended

Dems Lose Control as Three Members Break Ranks and Vote With GOP on Budget - Washington State Wire Presents Full Debate on Final Passage

OLYMPIA, March 4.—The historic debate that played out in the Senate chamber late Friday night and into the wee hours of Saturday morning was a spectacle that likely will be remembered as long as any current member of the Legislature remains in office. Or as long as any current lobbyist, staffer or reporter remains employed in Olympia. Or frankly, as long as anyone who saw it remains living and breathing.

The Senate Democratic Caucus lost control, in more ways than one. For the first time in 25 years, a majority party was upended on a vote on the biggest bill of the year, the budget. Three moderate Democrats, disturbed that their fellow members had disregarded their call for fiscal discipline, bolted and voted with the Republicans for a budget that doesn’t spend the state into the red.

Three Democrats were enough to turn the place upside down. Republicans had 22 votes. Democratic Party leaders had just 24 votes remaining. And on procedural motion after procedural motion, the bipartisan coalition beat back the other team, 25-24.

It was all so unheard of, so absolutely unthinkable, that crowds filled the galleries and the wings of the Senate, and outsiders who learned of it watched transfixed as the debate was broadcast live on TVW, state government’s public-affairs TV network. The ten-hour drama was marked by moments of eloquence, incoherence, and impotent rage. You could hear lawmakers talk themselves hoarse and you could listen to them sputter. And maybe, just maybe, you could detect a tad bit of wicked delight from minority Republicans, who got to do to the Democrats what they have been doing to the Rs for the last decade. But all in the name of fiscal responsibility.

Washington State Wire presents, in text form, the entire 80-minute portion of the debate that culminated in the final passage of the budget, which took place just before and after midnight Friday.

In written form, it becomes a little easier to see who was making sense by that point, and who wasn’t.

And while the full debate can viewed on the TVW website, it’s also faster to read the thing than it is to watch it.

Setting the Stage

There are a few things you need to know about the debate for it to make any sense. The central problem was that the majority Democrats in the Senate had embarked on a risky strategy. Their margin of control was narrow, 27-22, and a number of their members were insisting on a sustainable budget. Nevertheless, Democratic leaders favored the more liberal position favored by a majority of the members of their caucus. Rather than making the big cuts that would be needed to balance the budget in the face of a billion-dollar shortfall, Democrats decided to minimize cuts and shunt hundreds of millions of dollars of this year’s expenses into next year’s budget.

The shift took the form of delayed payments to school districts – $330 million worth, in the Senate version, and slightly more in a version favored by the House. The payments in most cases would be delayed a single day, sufficient to kick them into the 2013-15 budget. Which meant next year’s Legislature would start at least $330 million in the hole, at a time when it already is expected to face a $1 billion to $2 billion shortfall.

The Democrats gambled, and they lost. Three of their number decided they weren’t going to stand for it. Jim Kastama of Puyallup, Rodney Tom of Medina and Tim Sheldon of Hoodsport threw their support to the other side. The show began with a rarely used procedural motion at 3:36 p.m. Friday and lasted until 2 a.m. Saturday.

One highlight came when Senate Democratic Floor Leader Tracey Eide demanded that the budget bill be read in full by the Senate clerks – “I want to know what’s in it!” she snapped. The only trouble was that it was clearly the wrong bill – the clerks were reading an early version of the budget that had been introduced by the governor months ago. Some suspected that it might be a delaying tactic. Eide admitted defeat an hour later, after the clerks had gotten to page 34.

By the time all was said and done, the bipartisan coalition had passed a new version of the budget, written by Senate Republican budget point-man Joe Zarelli, R-Ridgefield. The Senate was in a complete state of meltdown, and Democrats were shouting about betrayals and disrespectful treatment and seemingly a half-dozen other procedural complaints that are the normal province of the minority party. As well as arguing that the state can’t afford to cut spending.

But here, you can read it all for yourself

The Grand Finale

Washington State Wire picks up at approximately 11:20 p.m., after the bipartisan coalition had beaten back Democratic amendments. Finally it had come time for the grand finale. The coalition forces moved for consideration of their “striking amendment.” State Sen. Jim Hargrove, D-Hoquiam, was first to speak.

‘I Hope You Like the Sound of Sirens’

Sen. Jim Hargrove, D-Hoquiam

“First of all, when we started this session I was partnered with Sen. [Nick] Harper in looking at reforms that we could do to help make our state better and save us money and as I came into possession of what a difficult budget [this was], there were several priorities for me.

“The first one was not to cut programs that are working, because we have a lot of information now done by our Institute for Public Policy that shows that our Washington state crime rate is below the national average, and we are doing it with half the prison population per thousand of the national average, saving the state over $1.1 billion every biennium. Well, what programs, as the Institute for Public Policy found, are helping us make that savings by keeping the crime rate down are our drug treatment programs, they are our mental-health programs – they are the things that are not in the striking amendment.

“So that was my first priority. Let’s not cut this stuff that does work.

“And we have had a lot of debate about pushing spending forward, about counting money in future bienniums. Well, if we don’t fund for things that work, we are going to have more crime in the next biennium. You are going to have more expenditures in the Department of Corrections in our criminal justice system, and it has the same exact effect as pushing that money forward into the next biennium. Except there are a couple of consequences here.

“You also have more sirens in your neighborhoods. You will have more police running around arresting criminals, and you will have more victims along the way. So that is the result of this striking amendment.

“We have made a dent in public safety in this state. And we could go the way California went. They decided to just put people in prison, not fund these prevention programs. They’ve got incredibly high corrections costs, and the U.S. Supreme Court in May 2011 ordered them to release 46,000 felons because they were being overcrowded in their prisons. I don’t think I want to live in California. We have been doing things right.

“Our supervision has been focused to reduce our recidivism, our prevention programs have been working. Our crime is coming down. And we are going to turn all that around with this striking amendment. So I want to emphasize that we can either make a choice to have a sustainable budget by spending one day over the line with the apportionment, or you can make cuts in prevention programs that raise your crime rate and spend the money anyway. And the consequence is going to be victims.

“So I hope you like the sound of sirens, because that is what you’re going to get if this striking amendment becomes law.”

A Democratic Endorsement for the Washington Policy Center

Sen. Derek Kilmer, D-Gig Harbor

“Well, I am concerned about voting for the striking amendment because – you know, we saw this seven hours ago, I mean we saw this at four o’clock today. No one has had an opportunity to testify and no one has had an opportunity to read it.

“You know, again it seems like a while ago, but I think it is worth pointing out about what we heard from the Washington Policy Center, who proposed that there should be no votes on final passage until the final version of a bill has been available for 24 hours. They write that ‘showing the bipartisan appeal of our recommendations, open government defenders Attorney General Rob McKenna and state Auditor Brian Sonntag have endorsed them and are encouraging lawmakers to enact these common sense transparency protections.’

“I agree. Where is the transparency? You know, where is the open public process? where is the opportunity for anyone to have any say in this budget? This is the kind of budget that you get when you don’t involve the public when you do it behind closed doors. It’s wrong. Vote no.”

‘Boy, That’s A Real Nice Press Release’

Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown, D-Spokane

“I want to make a couple of comments about the striking amendment as well. I was amused to read a press release about the striking amendment before the striking amendment was on the bar of the Senate, and the press release claims that it is the best budget for education. It is not. It is not.

“And anyone who listened to the Ways and Means hearing, and several of us were there from 5:30 to 9 o’clock, will know that students, teachers and administrators and school board members all came forward and said that the chair’s budget was the best budget for education. And they said that all the hoopla about a $330 million payment that they would receive one day later did not concern them – that what concerns them was [the] certainty in their budgeting that a no-cuts budget would finally provide.

“And I don’t care how you want to cut it, a cut is a cut, and a delayed payment is just a delayed payment. And we have been told that we needed to reject the budget that we were planning to bring out of committee tomorrow, which by the way could have been subject to this as a striking amendment. I really don’t get it. I don’t get the process at all, unless you want to write the press release before you actually issue the budget, and claim a bunch of stuff that, you know, people might believe until they get to see the budget.

“And we have been told that this is a fiscally responsible budget! $87 million in funds transfers right on the first page, $67 million in transfers from the Model Toxics Account hidden in the back. Okay, that’s $150 million of gimmicks. And a reference to a bill, which I suppose we will be taking up a little later tonight, which skips a pension payment – $130 million savings today, $400 million in dollars in costs down the road. It’s a pretty big can to kick. It’s a budget gimmick.

“We didn’t have a chance to even see it.

“And so anybody that tells you this is the fiscally responsible budget is – I don’t know what to say about someone who would call it that. Because that adds up to about $300 million in gimmicks. But oh, I guess it’s way better than delaying a payment for one day, which the schools said we could perfectly handle, especially if you change that date to be the regular date. I don’t get it, ladies and gentlemen, but boy, that’s a real nice press release.”

Pot, Meet Kettle


Sen. Jenea Holmquist Newbry, R-Moses Lake

“Thank you, Mr. President. I rise to talk a little bit about transparency. Now in the past, we in the minority have complained about a lack of transparency, and I’m just going to look back at last biennium, at the year 2010, and I, actually – Mr. President, if I may read?”

Lt. Gov. Brad Owen: “Sen. Holmquist Newbry.”

“Thank you, Mr. President. The Washington Policy Center’s policy note [is] titled ‘2010 Session Marked by Secrecy and Closed-Door Agreements’ and they go in to describe the lack of transparency from the majority party and the inadequate public notice, such as their Senate Bill 6520, to create a state income tax. Or another example is less than five hours’ notice provided for a meeting on an $800 million tax increase plan, that’s Senate Bill 6143.

“Or let’s look at their examples of same-day votes on bills, 2010 again. On the same day we voted on a 112-page tax bill, 6143, or a 344-page budget bill, Senate Bill 6444, on the same day that the details were first released to the public.

“I’m going to ask you, what is the difference? You guys were in the majority; you had the power to have adequate public notice. You had the power to hold public hearings. And you chose not to.

“So, ladies and gentlemen, let’s talk about transparency. We in the minority are not in the majority. We don’t have committee chairs. We haven’t had the opportunity to have hearings, and believe me, we would have loved to have had hearings.

“It would have been much easier to have a hearing than to go to the 9th order. We would have preferred to offer an amendment to a budget bill, but here we are at Day 54, and it is clear there is no other budget that is forthcoming.

“And we keep hearing about this wonderful chair’s budget [the proposal of Democratic Ways and Means Chairman Ed Murray]. And if it was so wonderful, why don’t you offer a striker on our budget before you right now? Why don’t you offer that wonderful budget as a striker? And I think the answer is you don’t have 25 votes.

“So, ladies and gentlemen, what we have here today is this year’s bipartisan budget. And it doesn’t raise taxes. It is sustainable and it protects the most vulnerable. I would encourage your vote yes.”

‘A Narrow, Extremist Agenda is Being Shoved Down Our Throats’

Senate Ways and Means Chairman Ed Murray, D-Seattle

“You know, we decided last year to change some of the ways the Senate operated. And I as chair led the efforts to change the rule so that it would only take 25 votes, not 30, to amend the budget – 2011, not 2010, that’s when I became chair. We decided to make available everything that I saw to the ranking member. We decided that instead of having one day – all parties did this over the years, where we had everybody come in and talk about the budget – we would have day after day of hearings based on subject area. We actually opened up a transparent process.

“I heard bills that I do not support and do not believe in. I allowed bills to move out of my committee that I do not support and I do not believe in. so I think that the argument is political and not factual.

“We were going to have a hearing, we had a hearing actually, on my budget, they call it the chair’s budget but I’m not going to talk about myself in the third person – we had a hearing, it went on for hours and strangely enough, the Republican members weren’t there. We had agreed earlier today with the House on reconciling our budgets; it could’ve been done this weekend. [It] obviously won’t happen.

“I’ve been in contact with the speaker to this evening, and we are getting ready to prepare yet another budget, so we have another opportunity to pull out a surprise budget and a ninth order, versus actually bringing a proposal to us and talking about it with us instead of waiting until Day 44.

“But what’s really disappointing about this process for me is we had an opportunity to actually do something positive, to say we are done cutting higher education and we are done cutting K-12, give a way for people out of poverty and give a way for people to get their jobs back. The way to move this economy forward is through education.

“And we could have compromised if we were willing to cut something other than working families whose lives have been destroyed by Wall Street and K Street. If we had been willing to roll back some of their [corporations’] preferential [tax] rates, we could have cut deeper because we could have found a sustainable way to pay for it. The sustainability that just cuts services that families in Washington state need is not sustainability. It is a narrow extremist agenda that is being shoved down our throats tonight. it is throwing away the democratic process that this body should represent. I urge you to vote no.”

Republicans Abandon Bipartisanship


Sen. Kevin Ranker, D-Orcas Island

“Thank you Mr. President. I ask the body one question – what are we doing? I have only been here four years, which is nothing compared to many of you, and I will admit that I am a very progressive Democrat. I am as blue as they come. And last year I was surprised when my chair of Ways and Means told me I would be working on a natural resource budget jointly with the good senator from the 9th [Mark Schoesler, R-Ritzville].

“I didn’t think that was possible. And I realized something last year, that not only was it possible, but I was proud of the budget we created, that little tiny piece of the budget that I created I was proud of, and you know what shocked me? It wasn’t a budget that I would’ve written on my own, but it was a compromise that worked, and the shocker was when I went back to my district, one of the most progressive districts in the state, they not only supported me, they were proud of us. they were proud of us as a Washington state Senate for coming together and working together in a truly bipartisan way. I was proud of last year of the chair and the senator from the 18th, the way that they were able to work together, and it blew me away. At the end of that session I looked around and said we did it. Many of you know I do a lot of work in Washington D.C. I have been disgusted with our United States Congress’ behavior over the last few years, and I have been able to say that I am proud to be in the Washington state Legislature because we got it right. So I ask again, what are we doing tonight? Is it when two members decide to cross over, the second one side or another realizes that we can be fully partisan again, we are going to blow this up?

“So last year I was proud. This year I am disgusted.”

The Best Reform is to Take Charge


Sen. Jim Kastama, D-Puyallup

“I think I need to make something very clear. You have heard that there is going to be a meeting tomorrow in the Ways and Means committee in the Senate. The public needs to know that there were not enough votes to bring a budget out of that meeting. It would not have happened. And our current trajectory is we would in fact probably not have gotten out on time, because we would not be able to present a budget here in the Senate. That’s true, that’s true.

“What we are doing here is that we are utilizing the ninth order because there are 25 votes for this bill to bring it forward. And we will move a budget out that will go to the House, and it will be negotiated, and we have time to do that if we all engage in those negotiations and move a budget forward.

“I have voted for budgets in this chamber time and time again and they have had sustainability issues, I will admit that. However, I have voted for them because there were provisions for performance audits. There were also provisions in there to create a commission that would restructure government. But I’ve seen those provisions vetoed by the governor, I have seen them held up in the House, I have seen them poorly or not implemented at all.

“Now, this year I could pass the ARROW commission that actually tries to restructure government, we could pass the four-year balanced budget, but frankly what these bills intend to do is to make us do what we should already be doing in the Legislature, and I have come to the conclusion that the best reform is to govern.

“The trajectory we were on is that we were going to pack up our bags and go home, and come back with a $1 to $2 billion shortfall that would eventually go to $3 billion per year. What assurance is that?

“This budget is not perfect. It is the beginning, we are going to start negotiating now, hopefully tomorrow, but it is an honest budget in that it doesn’t, for the most part that I’ve seen, it does not kick the can forward. It is a bipartisan budget. It, combined with additional reforms which we have time to implement here before sine die, we can set the stage for a sustainable budget in the future.

“The status quo is that we come back every single year and we cut, cut, cut. People need to know that. There is a time to campaign for what you want and there is a time to govern with what you have.

“We need faith in the citizens in Washington state. If we do what is responsible and we put together a responsible budget, they will have faith in us. It starts tonight with this budget.

“This is something the Senate will produce and we look forward to negotiating a final budget that will not look like this, but will address many of the concerns that have been brought up here this evening. Thank you, Mr. President.”

Dems Wanted to Spend Outside the Box

Senator Joe Zarelli, R-Ridgefield, ranking Republican member on the Senate Ways and Means Committee

“Thank you, Mr. President. I was actually going to wait until final passage, but now seems like a good time. I wanted to raise a few points. I was unsure tonight, as we worked through these different amendments what really the priority was from this side [gesturing toward Democrats] and this, Mr. President, is why we have come to this point tonight, to be honest with you.

“Last year, what made things work up ’til this point was the fact that we understood going in that there were a couple of principles. Number one, and the most important, was that we would only spend what was the size of the box, what the revenue was that was forecasted. That was the limit. We needed to have enough reserve to make it through, a reasonable reserve, and we couldn’t keep doing these things that simply put us into the future so we are always dealing with a deficit.

“We could not get agreement on those things, and this list, Mr. President of all the amendments tonight spells out the problem this year. $525 million worth of priorities. There is no way to fit it all in. And unless we worked together on that – it has to start, Mr. President, on defining the size of that box.

“You can’t just buy stuff because it is all important. We realize that. There is a constituency for everything we do, and we could do 10 times what we do already, and there would be a constituency for that as well. But unless we agree on the size of the box and that we are not going to come back in January with another $1 billion or $2 billion problem – I am tired of this, year after year. I would think that you are as well, that we need to stop this.

“We need to make the hard choices to get rid of the things that keep piling up as liabilities yes that means some change in how we do pensions, multibillion-dollar problem still there. It means getting rid of things like 728 and 732, things that we never pay for but we keep them hanging around as if we are going to do something with them, to make somebody feel good about it.

“And then these things [the spending shift], yes it is a delay, but it is $300 million of things that will never come forward, because it will always be paid after the fact. It is a real cut. Whether it is a day or not, it is a real cut. It is money that that district will never see because it will always be next year. It is real.

“These are the things that unless we focus on them – this budget, Mr. President, makes two huge priorities. First of all, it is the only thing that balances, as far as we can see. Come January, we will not be coming into this place with a deficit. So it does make reductions. You have to make reductions if we are going to balance it out next January.

“The other thing that I’m really proud of is this – we don’t make reductions in where we believe, and I think you should too, the most vulnerable, the elderly community, the DD population and the mentally ill. We do not make reductions in those areas of the budget. We make minor adjustments in other areas.

“Please support this amendment. Thank you.”

What Will Frank Say?

 

Sen. Jeanne Kohl Welles, D-Seattle

“Thank you, Mr. President. I speak in opposition to this amendment, and there are a couple of points that I would like to make.

“First of all, I think it is really interesting that the motion to go to 9th order came one and a half hours before the cutoff for the Senate and the House to pass bills from the opposite chamber. We had many, many bills that would have come up for a vote that many, many people around the state cared a great deal about, here in the Senate and here in the House, and those bills are not going forward now because of this situation. And I would like to bring up three that had to do with higher education.

“House Bill 2503, allowing for veterans and National Guard members to have early registration for college – this could have been very important to people, especially those who are returning or would be going overseas. That bill did not get a vote.

“Secondly, House Bill 2735, providing intermediate capital projects for our public colleges and universities. This was one of our highest priorities for our colleges and universities. It would have provided them with other funding sources to help and provide flexibility. Thirdly, Senate Bill 6401, creating efficiencies for institutions of our higher education – that also could not get a vote today.

“The second thing that I want to bring out, and this is reported in the Seattle Times tonight, about the GOP abuse of power – Mr. President, may I read a short passage?

“And this I will say in quotes, it is reported, ‘net cuts include $44 million to K-12 schools, and $30 million to higher education, according to non-partisan staff.’

“The Democratic budget contained no education cuts.

“And lastly, we wonder really what is going to happen with this budget when it gets to the House. There seems to be a lot of optimism on the other side here, but the speaker of the House is quoted in the Seattle Times article, ‘the Senate Republicans have exercised the worst abuse of power I have ever seen in the Legislature. It says something about them that the minute they gained power, they abused it.’ And is that the—”

Owen: “Sen. Kohl-Welles, your time is up.”

‘There Will Be More Pregnant Girls’


Sen. Sharon Nelson, D-Maury Island

“Thank you Mr. Speaker – err – Mr. President. It is late at night and I am tired.

“Mr. President, I am looking at what lies within this budget that I saw just a few hours ago, and when I look at our paramount duty and our children, I see it as a giant circle. For them to succeed, it isn’t just the funding for K-12. It is the funding so that they have food on the table at home. If they are poor, it’s funding so that their parents, if they need help with mental illness or alcohol abuse, can overcome their problems when that child goes to the kindergarten door.

“And programs that are cut in this budget will make a difference. It will make a difference in that they cannot succeed. It will make a difference in that we will have more young women who are pregnant, young moms who won’t have childcare for their kids because we are cutting those programs.

“If we are talking about sustainable funding, then let’s talk sustainable funding and cut corporate loopholes. There is a whole book on them that we look at every year. Let’s put an income tax of 1 percent on the top 1 percent, and have them pay their fair share. And let the state move forward with those revenue sources.

“But that doesn’t seem to be on the table tonight. Instead, working moms will be more stressed and poorer. There will be more pregnant girls. And our state will suffer.”

‘Gives the Conservative Voice a Chance to Negotiate’

Sen. Tim Sheldon, D-Hoodsport

“I haven’t spoken on this bill yet tonight, and I’m going to be very brief.

“I support this amendment.

“I think it is a difficult process to go to the ninth order – believe me, I have been there. And we have all now – many of us have been through that door. It is very difficult. People’s feelings feel hurt, they feel slighted, and there is a lot of partisanship on this.

“For tonight, I want to tell you that I think this is a good bipartisan budget. It is a beginning, a beginning. All these numbers will change, but it gives the conservative voice a chance to negotiate. What I see has happened over the last few weeks is one side has gotten together.

“We have to reduce our spending. That’s what families are telling me in the 35th District. They have got to live with what they have and they want to see government do that as well.

“So for me it is a fiscal issue. We will work through the details. People feel badly about this. We all have priorities, I know. But I think this can work out in the end.

“At least it gives a conservative budget a chance to begin. It is a negotiating process, and we will be better for it in the end, Mr. President. And I think the taxpayers and the citizens and those who are out there, all the ones who sent us here from different districts – this is such an amazing place, we sit in one room with people from 49 different places around our state – there is no one prevailing view, there is the majority view, and even though that majority is slim, the process is working. Thank you, Mr. President.”

Should Have Been Presented as an Amendment in Committee


Senate Democratic Floor Leader Tracey Eide, D-Kent

“Well, I am appalled. And I am embarrassed. It is, what time right now? Midnight. Midnight, ladies and gentlemen, we have this budget that you so call a budget before us by going to the ninth order.

“We have a process, and there is a reason why we have a process. I have always allowed anyone, regardless of what party, what side you are from, to have the opportunity to put amendments on those on the bar, in plenty of time so you can go to caucus and discuss them. We, ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, we represent our constituents and the citizens of Washington state, and we did not provide any hearing on this budget. I am embarrassed, and I am appalled.

“They elected us, they trust us. How can we do this to them? Pass a budget in the dark of the night, and I’ve heard it many times on the other side, ‘the dark of the night,’ and it is past midnight, and not one single constituent of ours was able to testify on what we are voting on tonight. How do we expect them to trust us?

“We are doing a grave disservice, and for those of you that said we have a Ways and Means meeting tomorrow – it was scheduled. They would have had an opportunity to testify, and I want to know who has got their globe who can tell me that it wouldn’t have passed? Could you tell me it would not pass?

“You’re telling me we have got time, well then, what’s wrong with tomorrow, and having a hearing, and figuring it out? We had a budget, I came to the Legislature for education and to help our most needy, and what are we doing tonight?

“It is after midnight. You go to the ninth order. You through all of the rules right out the door and I have respected you along the way. And I am appalled.”

‘The Senate Was Hijacked Tonight’


Sen. Karen Keiser, D-Kent

“I urge you to reject this budget. This budget broke trust. You know, one of the only things we have around here is our trust and our credibility. We can’t negotiate in good faith if we don’t have credibility and trust. it doesn’t work. It breaks down and that’s what we have here.

“I used to say I was proud to be from the other Washington, where we negotiated in good faith, we have trust. We had a policy of no surprises. Well, we have been surprised tonight. And we have lost trust. So just to reprise, this has been a deal done in secret, in a back room without public input, without a public hearing. It is raw politics.

“The Senate was hijacked tonight. this budget is not acceptable. It cuts healthcare by $85 million. Please, reject this.

[At this point, the Senate voted to approve the striking amendment to Senate Bill 5967, the bipartisan coalition budget proposal. The amendment passed 25-24. Debate began on final passage of Senate Bill 5967. Because it was a new motion, all members were allowed to speak for another three minutes.

Hopes Legislature Can Work Together


Senator Joe Zarelli, R-Ridgefield

“I have already said my piece, but I want to say a couple things real quick. And that is I realize there is a lot of animosity on this subject tonight, but it is my hope that we will work together on many things that were raised tonight, in moving towards a budget that can be adopted by the Legislature this year. If not, that is fine, too, but that has been our hope. All along things have gotten in the way. Differences have arisen. But hopefully we can still get there. Of course, we will continue to try to do that.”

We Didn’t Have the Votes, But Cuts Not the Solution

Senate Ways and Means Chairman Ed Murray, D-Seattle

“Thank you, Mr. President – just a few remarks in closing here.

“First of all, I think that my good friend from Moses Lake [Sen. Janea Holmquist Newbry] may have had a point. We weren’t sure if we had the votes for the budget out of committee tomorrow. But we believe that that was the appropriate place to move this process forward.

“And if we didn’t have the votes, it is because this caucus, the speaker and the governor, are not willing to be leveraged by a couple of members for an agenda that we do not support. And we want compromise. We will not be leveraged.

“If we want to move forward and compromise, then simply cuts can’t be the sandbox we play in. we also have to talk about the tax exemptions and the preferential rates.

“If it is simply compromise around a set of cuts, then we will be here for a long time. Because compromise means that we have to give some things up, and of course I know we need to do that. I have compromised on most of the budgets I’ve worked on. I was in a 49-49 tie when I chaired [the] capital budget [committee]. The transportation budgets Sen. Ericsson and I worked on were bipartisan budgets, and I know the give and take process, but it can’t be just a one-sided process, otherwise it doesn’t work. This place works when we compromise, but that means that tax exemptions, preferential rates, have to be one of the ways we deal with the sustainability issue.

“If we can do that, we can move forward. If we can’t we’re just going to try to leverage at each other, and we are going to try to shove extremist budgets down each other’s throats, and we will be here for a very long time. I hope that is not the case.”

You Republicans Fooled Me


Senate Majority Leader Lisa Brown, D-Spokane

“Thank you, Mr. President. Well, congratulations, Mr. minority leader. You fooled me.

“Week after week, we invited you and your budget lead into my office with Sen. Murray to talk about the possibility of moving this process forward as we did last year, and we kept being told we were going to get your proposal. And you fooled me.

“I thought I was going to get one. We were told that we might be able to work together on some things that might require 33 votes, closing a couple of tax exemptions, and so I was fooled.

“We said from the beginning of this session that we would work on a jobs agenda, and I know there has been good work on that. I hope it can continue despite what happened tonight, although you don’t provide for that jobs agenda in your budget, and in fact precluded it in some of the moves that you have made.

“We said that we would work on a reform agenda. I worked with four members of my caucus. They brought me a list of 17 or 18 reform bills. I made a commitment to 12 of them. We have passed them off the Senate floor except for the debt bill. We were moving with the jobs agenda and a teacher health care bill that we were going to consider tomorrow, good faith on the reform agenda. And I have been fooled and led down a path that we were going to work together.

“And let me just say a word about priorities until my time runs out, Mr. President, priorities are revealed in the amendments that we did tonight. And if you can detect a theme, feel free.

“Let’s see, women who get child care assistance, 4,000 cut off. Homeless veterans and men with mental illness, housing and essential needs program, culminated in a program which was created in November, and this is a promise is broken in the budget. National board for teachers, a program we created, going back on that. Food assistance, drug and alcohol [treatment], disability lifeline medical – these are people at the very end of the social safety net; family planning for women, public health, working students, reading assistance, medical assistance for fragile kids in our schools, school for the blind school for the deaf – read our amendments, do you detect a theme there?

“Is this one Washington? Or is this the Washington for the folks who have already got it made? Yeah, if you are elderly, thank you, you have protected them like we did in our budget. If you have a developmental disability, you have protected them like we did in our budget. But if you are a poor woman tonight, let me just say it is not your night. You’ve got kids, you have a job to get some childcare assistance, while 4,000 of you are losing it—”

[Gaveled by Owen. Time had expired.]

‘Wouldn’t Have Had Two Nickels to Rub Together’


Senate Republican Floor Leader Mark Schoesler, R-Ritzville 

“This bipartisan budget responds to what started as a $2 billion deficit and deals with it in a responsible manner. It doesn’t use code words for taxes like investments or loopholes. It just doesn’t raise taxes.

“This budget had amendments proposed tonight that would have spent another $470 million. Now, what would we have had left? Well, we probably wouldn’t have had two nickels to rub together if all those amendments had been there, or we would have been back here in June for yet another special session.

“This is a cooperative effort this moves the ball down the field, and I urge the body’s support.”

Snatching Money Away From Children


Sen. Debbie Regala, D-Tacoma

Well, we have had a long debate tonight, but I have to say that I think this budget proposal is just wrongheaded in so many ways. And I could go on and on, but maybe I will just highlight two that go back to what my priorities are.

“This budget has significant negative impact for our cities and our towns. The budget permanently redirects the liquor revenue which has traditionally gone to our cities and towns to support their general fund. And I will remind you all that in most of our cities, their general fund, 60 percent of it goes to public safety, so we are undermining public safety in our cities and towns.

“It also cuts funding for something called the municipal research service, which isn’t research. What it is is legal support for the smallest communities, our smaller towns and cities, who can’t afford to have their own legal budget office. And you have eliminated that.

“I have already told you how previous policy choices increased the number of homeless children in my community, so that they had trouble going to school, and it reduced the monthly grant to a level for their family that was 38 percent less than the 1996 grant that they had been given. Due to that timeline policy there was actually some savings which would have allowed us to raise that grant back up to a reasonable level, still very low, of $550 a month which would keep people at least maybe able to pay some of their bills and feed their children and have some housing.

“But instead, this budget proposal goes back and makes further reductions so that the grant level is only 30 percent of the federal poverty level. And the eligibility has been reduced by one year, again increasing the number of children and families that are going to be homeless in our communities.

“Now we all know homeless children, hungry children, and children who are ill don’t come to school ready to learn. This budget proposal needlessly took $202 million away from the neediest children in this state.

“You know, my priorities and I thought everyone’s priorities, were to have safety in our communities, and a future of hope for our children. This budget doesn’t meet either of these standards. I ask you to vote no.”

‘It’s About Time’


Sen. Jerome Delvin, R-Richland

“Thank you, Mr. President. This took me back to the days when I was first elected to the House, and I was in the majority and they were the minority, and they talked and talked and talked all they could on the budget, and drug it all out, offered amendment after amendment that cost more and more money if we were having a balanced budget.

“And I just go back to those days, because a lot of those talking points are coming up again 18 years later.

“When you talk about trust, let’s be honest about that. One year of bipartisan work doesn’t build trust. You can’t disregard the past at all. One year doesn’t do that for me.

“Embarrassing? My good friend from the 30th [Sen. Tracey Eide], embarrassing is trying to explain to my constituents why we haven’t had a budget, and we have been here for 54 days, and explaining what are you doing in Olympia.

“[I am asked] what are you really doing in Olympia? You are passing everything that I can see but [not] talking about a budget.

“The votes weren’t there and I think we had to get charge of this place to get a budget out, so at least we can start talking to the other side of the aisle in earnest.

“The budget that sits in the House and the chairman’s budget didn’t have my priorities in it. They didn’t have what I thought was a sustainable budget. One member mentioned, I hear from my constituents all the time, we have to have a balanced budget – why don’t you guys live within your means? And that is a common theme, a reoccurring theme from my constituents.

“I think this budget is a good, sustainable budget where finally, I think, finally we are not kicking the can down the road for future legislatures to deal with. We are finally having a budget that I think we can say is responsible and sustainable, and tell that to the public. It’s about time.

“Thank you, Mr. President.”

‘We Have Been Rabbit Too Long’

Sen. Paull Shin, D-Edmonds

“Thank you, Mr. President. About a half-hour ago I may have said something I [inaudible] to you folks. Please forgive me if I did. The reason I say is I told you I was from [a] poor country, but I want you to know that this is my country. I will be buried here, my family [will] continue to be here in generations to come. I love this country so much. I don’t want to stay in behind. Ladies and gentlemen we are [in] a race, race between a rabbit and a turtle. We have been [the] rabbit too long, still sleeping, and turtle is going to catch up with us and in fact pass us, and then what are we going to do?

“I always thought the Americans had a certain degree of tremendous pride of this country, love of this country. You have got to learn to have a self-respect. You know, I don’t mean to be too personal, last night at the governor’s prayer breakfast [inaudible], in front of about 250 students, I give a little story talk, and many of them came, and so they said, this is not my say, we are so inspired by what you say, encourage me, more debate me, I will try my best better, and we need to give our best opportunity, [inaudible], to high school students and college students because they are our future of this country. For this reason, even though the present may be past, I am very concerned about the future of our state.

“Thank you, Mr. President.”

Repudiating the Rebels

Sen. Steve Hobbs, D-Lake Stevens

Mr. President, I will not be voting on this budget. Of course if it was the Democratic budget, I would not be voting on the budget tonight.

“You know, this year I felt it was so important, an important policy goal to push for reforms – regulatory reforms, education reforms, government reforms, reforms that bent the cost curve.

“I feel so strong in this that I teamed up with other senators and House members, moderate Democrats who pledged that if we had a vote for revenue, because we thought we were going to have to vote for revenue, until the reforms became a little list. We worked with all parties to come up with a list.

“We had some great ideas — amending I-937, teacher evaluations, the ARROW [commission], four-year balanced budget [constitutional amendment, Q. alliance, consolidating K-12 health insurance, state debt, and a few others, and we agreed to this, we were committed to working with this, the majority leader was committed to working with a good portion of this list. And you, the other side of the aisle, committed to this, and the House, and the pledge was that we would not pass a budget until these reforms go through, because regardless of the fact that it was your budget or our budget, we still [will be short] hundreds of millions of dollars the next biennium.

“It is unfortunate that this had to happen, because I believe we should have had a public process. I think that if we didn’t vote for a budget, if we let the reforms go through, that both sides would continue to negotiate it, and we would have something better, something fair.

“And I’m very disappointed that the agreements were made not to vote for a budget, in fact last night my fellow – the group that I hung with – said we would not pass a budget until we have the reforms through.

“That was the agreement. Our budget or their budget. I still want reform, reform is very important to me. I think it is important to all the caucuses here, you all have a reform list, and this isn’t the final budget vote, we know we are going to see this budget come back; it is going to bounce around.

“So I’m hoping that those Senators that made a commitment, that made a commitment that we would wait for reforms, will do so at least on the final budget vote.”

Budget Attacks the Poor

Sen. Kevin Ranker, D-Orcas Island

“Thank you, Mr. President. I want to talk a little bit about what I think Washingtonians want to see, and I’m going to start by saying we have seen what our side of the aisle will put out as a proposed budget. We’ve seen what our side of the aisle will do for a public process, and now, tonight, we have seen what the other side of the aisle will do.

“We’ve got a budget proposal before us that sweeps MTCA [Model Toxics Control Act funding], eliminating the jobs along with that, eliminates 1,137 jobs for cleaning up toxic sites in our communities. We’ve got a budget proposal before us that eliminates critical funding to protect our shorelines and the Puget Sound. We have got a budget proposal before us that eliminates the renewable energy programs. We have got a budget before us that attacks the poor. We have a budget before us that devastates women’s health programs, and yes, as my majority leader said, if you are a single mom this budget should scare you, and I won’t say the rest of that sentence.

“This budget cripples education, taking $44 million from K-12 and $30 million from higher education. So we have seen what our side of the aisle can do in a budget, and now we see what your side of the aisle is putting forward. I believe this budget is a backroom deal that impacts kids, impacts working moms, impacts the poor, impacts the environment, and does not represent our Northwest quality of life. this is not what Washingtonians want to see. This doesn’t represent who we are.”

‘We’re Going to be Here a Long Time’


Sen. Mary Margaret Haugen, D-Camano Island

“Well, thank you, Mr. President. Only you have been here longer than I, and we’ve seen a lot of things happen over the years. And I will tell you, ladies and gentlemen, this is not a bipartisan budget. This is an old-time politics budget where you get to pick out a few votes and you get it and then you ram it down everybody’s throat.

“Nobody has worked harder than I have on bipartisan budgets. It takes a lot of work. It takes a willingness to sit down and look at each other in the face, and say well, okay, how do we get there? And I have done that, and I have done it with many of you on the other side of the aisle, and I hope to continue to do it, but I will tell you this is not a bipartisan budget, this is an old-fashioned political budget type of thing that people hate.

“Your constituents will not be proud of you, because you guys are always saying, have a public meeting. You’re saying you’re not the chairmen, well, I know that any one of us can get one of the rooms down here and have meetings whenever we want. So you could have had a hearing.

“I will tell you, though, one thing that saddens me – you know what? We are going to be here a long time. Mr. President, What do you think? a month? I say a month. I say a month.

Guess what, guys? That costs money. Then we could have been filling up some of these little holes that we have had that you don’t want to do.

“I tell you I’m kind of ashamed. I’m ashamed because I thought we had grown up, this group is different than the old-time politicians, but I guess I was wrong. We are back to the way it used to be and believe me it was not very pretty.”

One Vote and it Could Have Gone the Other Way


Sen. Joe Zarelli, R-Ridgefield

“You know it is unfortunate, despite all the gnashing of teeth that is going on — here we have been sitting on basically a 24-24 standoff for several days now, probably the better part of a week. If there was another vote on that side, this budget debate would be very different tonight; it would be very different tomorrow.

“That’s why we are here tonight, as a matter of fact, because that side of the aisle decided there was one way to get it done this year. But I just want to remind you that for all that rhetoric that is coming out now, tonight this thing was poised to go the other way, if the 25th vote showed up on that side of the aisle. So just be careful what you ask for.”

Searching For a Word


Sen. Craig Pridemore, D-Vancouver 

“Thank you, Mr. President. I search for a word for what I’ve seen here this evening. I search for a word. Sen. Kastama came here this session making a very big case about how all the budgets need to be balanced six years out, and he was on television, he was in all the newspapers, about how absolutely critical that is.

“But I will tell you is that Sen. Kastama doesn’t know if this budget is balanced six years out, he doesn’t know if it is balanced four years out, he doesn’t know if it is balanced—”

[Pridemore is interrupted by multiple shouts of ‘point of order!’ from Republicans.]

Owen: “The president was preparing to address that issue on his own. Sen. Pridemore, you must not make your remarks about another member, but only about the issues before you.”

“I apologize, Mr. President, I do apologize. No one on the floor knows whether this budget is balanced, even in the next biennium. the reality is that nobody has had time to crunch the numbers, to know whether or not it is a sustainable budget as Sen. Delvin claimed that it was.

“I search for a word. Sen. Zarelli, excuse me, the good gentleman from the 18th, has been quoted in the newspapers frequently over the past several years, stating that if the Republicans were in charge they would protect programs for the poor and vulnerable, and yet the budget before us cuts services for deaf children, for blind children, childcare for single women, cuts chemical dependency treatment that frankly that might have saved the life of my nephew a couple of years ago.

“I search for a word when we talk about transparency. The Columbian had an editorial just this morning that castigated Democrats for releasing a budget at 10 o’clock in the morning and holding a public hearing at 1:30 that afternoon. We still haven’t had that budget come to this floor. This afternoon we got a budget dropped on it and a demand – a demand! – that we pass that budget immediately, immediately.

“I search for a word. We talk about working together, and yet we sit and we heard one amendment after another, after another, and the response frankly was one finger raised in response.

“I search for a word, Mr. President, I search for a word, and I find hypocrisy.”

‘You Got Beat by the Rules’


Sen. Michael Baumgartner, D-Spokane

“Well, thank you, Mr. President, just a few comments. I want to tip my hat, actually, to the majority party.

“You know, you got beat tonight. You got beat by the rules, but you put up a good fight, and that’s just the way this process works.

“Earlier in the session, I dropped a bill that was very, very important to me. The majority party decided that bill couldn’t have a hearing. I’m not mad about it. That’s just the way the system works, and I am actually much prouder about America for what I am seeing here tonight.

“You know I came from an environment where politicians deal with things by physical violence and threats and intimidation, and I think this is a fantastic floor debate.

“The only floor debate that I’ve enjoyed as much as this one was when we passed the last bipartisan budget I voted on last May. You know, I think the people of America, or the people of Washington state — excuse me, they don’t want a conservative budget or a liberal budget. They just want a budget that works.

“And I think this budget is going to move the state further forward. I think there’s a lot of work to do, but I have absolutely no doubt that the good people on the other side of the aisle who helped us write it can help us write a budget this year.

“And I know that we are going to be mad for a few days because of how this went down tonight, by the rules, but I think we’ll take a break and think about it, and figure out that we need to work together for the people of the state of Washington, and we will do that.

“So I just want to say thanks to everybody for the good hard fight tonight. I have really enjoyed the discussion, and I think a yes vote really will move our state further down the road to fiscal sanity. Thank you, Mr. President.”

Nothing Friendly About It


Sen. Rosemary McAuliffe, D-Tacoma

“Thank you, Mr. President. Well, I rise to speak against this budget and I do not find this a friendly debate. I find this a devastating debate.

“Now, we have worked together, many of us over the last few days, and we have negotiated and negotiated fairly. We have met in the rooms about teacher evaluations — some were way over here to the left, and some were way over here to the right, but you know, we came to the middle.

“We did it because it was the right thing to do for the kids in our schools. We negotiated over WA Kids, the inventory for developmentally disabled skills for our children in kindergarten, and some people didn’t want to go this far and others wanted to go further. We came to the middle.

“Why did we do this? We did it for the kids.

“Our children and families don’t care if you’re blue or you are red or if you are conservative or you are a liberal. They don’t care who the majority party is. What they care about is a home where they are safe, and a home where they have an opportunity to have health care if they need it. What they care about is to go school and someone there cares about them and help some of them struggle. That there is some one who wraps the services around them, like food, and maybe keeping them away from drugs, and maybe helping them learn to read. That’s what they care about.

“I am saddened with the disregard for those children’s needs tonight. I urge you to not vote for this budget.”

Let’s Come Back With a Good Attitude

Sen. Linda Evans Parlette, R-Wenatchee

“Thank you, Mr. President. Well, it’s late at night – I am losing my voice, as you can tell.

“I am supporting this budget because hopefully it will break the cycle of unsustainability. I have been in the Senate for 12 years. Ten of those have been in the minority. I know what it feels like.

“I remember the speeches. I remember the amendments. I am tired of special sessions and I’m tired of unsustainability. But I can assure you I will continue to work on another part of the budget with the good gentleman of the 26th district [Derek Kilmer], whenever he is ready to. We have a very important package and it will be more effective if we get out on time, because there will be no package until we get together and resolve an operating budget, so I hope we take a break and come back with a good attitude the day after tomorrow. I guess it’s tomorrow, because today is Saturday – because we have work to do. Thank you.”

Republicans Think County Fairs More Important Than Children

Sen. Sharon Nelson, D-Maury Island

“Thank you, Mr. President, and again I rise in opposition to this budget. I am taking a look at it, and I’m hearing about sustainability. I’m hearing about priorities. I’m hearing about what really counts. Well, just about an hour ago I had a little bitty amendment, just a small one, just asking to remove $3 million from prizes for pies, jams and jellies to support our kids and their education. And the party that put forward this budget found that the prizes for pies was more important.”

A Budgeting Lesson From Microsoft

Sen. Andy Hill, R-Redmond

“Thank you, Mr. President. I’m having a déjà vu moment right now. I worked at Microsoft years ago, and I worked on Windows 95, so I am dating myself.

“But Windows was like this big train. It was the flagship product, and everybody wanted to hook their wagon to that train. And people would come and say, this is a great program, this is a great feature, we’ve got to do it. And every feature and every program on face value was great. It was just a great idea.

“But if you hitched too many wagons to that train, the train never left the station, and so our job was to figure out how to set priorities, and figure out which ones make it and which ones don’t, which is what we are doing right now.

“Now, I would argue that the last three years we’ve been hitching a lot of wagons to the train, to the point where the train could barely get out of the station, and the way we have been piling the burden onto our kids and their future, its kind of like leaving the engine with no gasoline.

“Well, one of the things we always did was we had a list. I had it on a little credit card, I kept it in my back pocket, of the five things that we were doing for that product. Whenever we had an argument, we went back and looked at that list.

“And I think what this bipartisan budget does, it goes to a couple of priorities. Don’t spend more than you’ve got coming in. Make it sustainable. Prioritize K-12, prioritize higher ed, prioritize the most vulnerable, and I think when we look at what we’ve done with this budget for the most part, it is not perfect, certainly – no product for Microsoft is perfect, usually by version 3 we’ve got it right.

“But that’s what we’ve done here, and I would also like to say that at Microsoft, we would have discussions where people would be screaming at the top of their lungs at each other, kind of like this, but what was important was that it was understood that we were talking about the issues and not the person. And we might go face-to-face with somebody but we would go out of the meeting room and say, oh well, let’s get lunch.

“And I think there are a lot of disagreements here, but what I think and what I hope is that these are about the issues and not the personalities, not the people, and I think that if we take that approach going forward, we can work this and we can work with the House, and we can come up with a great budget that everybody can agree on. Or a good majority can agree on.

“But I believe it will also be bipartisan, so I would urge you to vote yes on this and move on. Thank you.”

Pridemore Found the Right Word

Sen. Steve Conway, D-Tacoma

“Very briefly, I just have a hard time standing here and hearing discussions of sustainability with a budget that is actually not paying for the unfunded liability in our pension system. Skipping a payment. Skipping a payment is sustainable, right?

“So when our pension system becomes bankrupt, we call that sustainability. We skip a payment on a pension system and I know, I’ve been around here long enough to know many of you, and I have heard you wail about skipping payments on the unfunded liability of our state’s pension system. Yet here is a budget that skips a payment and we call it sustainability. Yes, maybe the word is hypocrisy. Thank you.”

I Stand With the Victims


Sen. Derek Kilmer, D-Gig Harbor

“Thanks, Mr. President. I am rising to oppose this budget, and I want to be clear, it is certainly not personal, but it is about my personal values. You know, I came to this place really to work on just a small handful of things – one, economic development issues, that’s what I do for a living.

“And I can’t support a budget that cuts export assistance, as we have a state export initiative, I can’t support a budget that permanently cuts funding for local economic development. I can’t support a budget that precludes working with the good gentle lady [Sen. Linda Evans Parlette] on a jobs bill by not assuming it in the budget.

“You know, I care very much about vulnerable people and I spent a couple years ago standing on about 17,000 porches in my district. the main difference I saw from the previous time I had done that was that people were home because they were really hurting. They were out of work.

“So I worry about a budget. It is offensive to my sensibilities to have a budget that cut services to a mother with kids and their childcare. It is offensive to my sensibilities to see a veteran lose his healthcare or lose his access to housing.

“I think this evening to a large degree is about who you stand with. I stand with 5,500 students who will lose their financial aid. Tonight, I stand with our low-income students who are seeing their financial aid slipping away. I stand with our research assistance to see their financial aid slipping away. I stand with our running start students who are seeing their – who are just trying to get a jumpstart on their education. I stand with teachers, teachers like my mom and dad, teachers to whom the state has made a promise, who with his budget will be betrayed.

“Every night I whisper three things in the ear of my kids when I am home. First I say please sleep through the night. Then I whisper daddy loves you. And third I whisper, let us do right by you.

“A budget that cuts K-12 and childcare does not do right by our kids. This is not personal, but it is about our personal values. And that is why the people on this side of the aisle are voting no.”

[Senate Bill 5967 then passed 25-24.]


Your support matters.

Public service journalism is important today as ever. If you get something from our coverage, please consider making a donation to support our work. Thanks for reading our stuff.