Representative Spiros: Representative from the 98th.
Representative Neylon (98): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. One of the reasons our government has been able to function so well throughout our nation in our state's history is because we have something known as the separation of powers. We have a system of checks and balances built within our system to make sure that there's things like transparency and accountability and the opportunity for the public to weigh in. There is a check on our power in the legislature. When we come together and decide what we think should be a law and we send it to the governor's desk, he has the ability to veto that. When we work on our budget, he has the ability to check our power and to bring balance to the system. If we don't pass this legislation today, where is the check on his power and where is the balance in this system? We are conceding our ability. One of the main things that is within our purview – we are conceding that and we are losing that in not providing the transparency and the accountability and that opportunity for the public to weigh in. I'm of the mind that when it comes to taxpayer money – more eyes the better. When I'm working on legislation, the more people I have involved in the process typically the better product we have at the end of the day. The governor doesn't have the ability to be everything to everyone and know what every single challenge every single person in the state of Wisconsin is facing. That's why we have representative government so we're able to carry those people's voices – the businesses in our district, the nonprofits, people in the community that are struggling. We're able to bring those voices to the table and make sure they have a seat at the table, that their taxpayer dollars are being looked out for and if we concede our ability to have some role in this, there will be no check on the executive power and no balance in our system and that's a dangerous precedent to set. We disagree on a lot of things, but I think we can all at the end of the day agree that there's a reason there are checks and balances and separation of power built into our system. Nobody ran for office because they wanted to skew our system to one side or the other in terms of who has the most power. We didn't run for the legislature to be all powerful. The governor didn't run to be an all-powerful governor. We all ran and we all talk about working together to make sure there's a system of checks and balance. Unfortunately, we're giving that away today if we're not able to come together and pass this legislation so there is some representation within how this federal stimulus money gets spent. Again, when it comes to taxpayer money, the more eyes the better and when it comes to taxpayer money the governor owes those taxpayers the ability to have some check on his power and some balance within our system. Thank you.
Representative Spiros: Representative from the 97th.
Representative Allen (97): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It was the best of times, it was the worst of times. It's a tale of two cities. Today it's the tale of two parties. We don't speak the same language. We talk past one another. We have our own heroes and we worship them. We fight not for principle or policy, but we fight for personalities. I have a fear, Mr. Speaker, that America is a country in crisis not because of the coronavirus pandemic and the challenges that we face, but by the kind of people that we are devolving into and not because of the pandemic because of other circumstances even outside of the pandemic. We can look at the glass as being half full or the glass as being half empty. Either way, you're right. We see things in different ways. We had a special session. We met here at the end of 2018 and we took some actions and many people harbor resentment for those actions, Mr. Speaker. Many people cling to that as being a representation of an attack on a personality. And I don't know, I mean maybe some people had that perspective. My perspective, Mr. Speaker, was a little bit different about the situation. Quite frankly, after eight years of a governor's reign I think that, you know, maybe we as a Republican legislature got a little too enamored with our leader. Again, personality and I believe perhaps that we as a legislature had acquiesced all too often for the success of the governor. And then we got to post 2018 November election and we got a little fearful about, well, what would those powers mean in a new administration? Now some of that action might have been personality driven, it might have been partisanship, but I think that those decisions that we made will serve this state well long term – not during the term of this current governor – but long term. I think the more that we can rein in the power of government and control the power of government and government is represented by the executive branch, the more we can control that the healthier and stronger our country will be long term, Mr. Speaker. You go in the center of the rotunda and you look up at the mosaics, the beautiful mosaics. There's four words in those mosaics: justice, liberty, legislation and government. Legislation is meant to restrain government for the protection of liberty and the ensuring of justice. This problem is not a Wisconsin problem – this problem is a nationwide problem. Most of us on the Republican side would suggest that we do not like the execution of executive orders. And that's true whether it's, you know, a President Trump or a President Biden. We don't like somebody just simply with the stroke of a pen altering government. It's unrestrained power but that's what we're devolving into as a nation – where we attach our obsession with the ideology that we have to a personality – to an individual. Like, you know, some people might rationalize and say ‘well heck as long as it's Donald Trump doing the executive orders it's ok’. Or, they might rationalize on the other side ‘well as long as it's President Biden – I’m glad President Biden's in there’ somebody might say. And then what do we have in the legislature? We have a legislature that whether it's on the national or, or state level that is so fanatically focused on polling data, so fanatically focused on popular opinion, which is embodied in the personality of the leader of the party, that those legislatures are really not legislating they're simply packaging stuff together in an effort to make their executive look good. And so we saw, we see, with this most recent act of Congress a very hastily put together package of pork barrel spending designed to give Biden the opportunity to shine. If the state legislatures don't own up to their responsibilities, if they don't represent the people, it's not going to happen in Congress. We know that Congress is broke. We know that. I mean it's just broken. They need – it needs fixing. We know that. So, so it's – we’re the last, last stand here – the state legislature. We are closest to the people. We are most responsive to the people. If we're going to protect and preserve this country as we know it, we have to recognize the importance of protecting liberty and ensuring justice through the process of legislation to restrain the government. Our founding fathers spent, I don't know, countless hours not just writing the constitution but then advocating for it and explaining it and detailing the purposes of a legislature. This is, this is what we're here to do. And I get it, look if I – if I were a Democrat I would be like a little worried that gee you know the Republicans control the legislature right now. I'd rather, I'd rather see these decisions being made by the guy on my side. I get that. But, and I don't know, I mean somehow we have to – we have to figure out a way to communicate with the same language – that recognizing what we're here for that we're an important part of the process and we need to engage even if we lose vote after vote after vote. I know it's easy for me to say, right? It's easy for me to say. But even if we lose vote after vote after vote you still have a voice at the table – we still have these debates. If you're on the Joint Finance Committee, you still can have your say and that can be reported in the press. We can still have the conversation, which is what we're tasked to do, that's our job. But if we just let a broken Congress just throw a whole bunch of money at an executive who can then just throw it to the, the state executives and let them do as they wish – where does this end? This is, this is not the direction that our, our founding fathers had intended – this is not the direction that will preserve this great country of ours. We will devolve into personality politics. Heck we might as well just have kings who have armies who fight one another. This principal – I encourage you before you leave here today, Mr. Speaker, walk into that rotunda, look up at those mosaics, recognize what our responsibility is as a legislature to legislate, to represent the people of the districts that we represent, to have this conversation and not to just give all of our power over to an executive. This is, this is a critical point in our history and I, look, we need to figure out a way as a legislature, as two different parties, how to find that common ground, right? And, you know, when, when you're struggling to find common ground, I think you have to go back to core principles and, I don't, if you've got another source document other than our Constitution and the Federalist Papers – if you've got another source document where we can look to for what the core principles are then, then show me. But I think that's the only way that we're going to be able to find a common language in which we can find common ground. This is a critical, critical time. It's not going to happen. Our answers are not going to come from Washington D.C. They're not going to come from there. Mr. Speaker, thank you for your time.
Representative Spiros: Gentleman from the 18th.
Representative Goyke (18): Thank you. I hope that we don't devolve into feudal states. I don't think that's going to happen in this country. We've managed to avoid that for over 200 years and I think all of us are committed to making sure that we're not ruled by the sovereign anymore. So earlier I was listening to the gentleman from the 63rd and I was reflecting on something that he used to say. A few years ago on the floor of the assembly, the gentleman from the 63rd would come out and speak and he would direct his commentary to Democrats and he would say that we, Democrats, have Walker derangement syndrome. Anybody remember the Speaker’s line -Walker derangement syndrome? Now at the time, I would kind of grumble in my chair and I would say ‘Man! The Speaker's got like 12 people on his staff, including multiple comms directors, couldn't he come up with something better than Walker derangement syndrome’? His argument was that Democrats on the floor of the Assembly would, issue after issue, we would always be focused on Scott Walker. It was all about Scott Walker. It was all about Scott Walker. I have a smaller staff and no such comms person so just scribbling an idea here – I think Republicans now suffer from the Tony Evers fever. That’s not that good – alright, I'll work on it. I'll get better but at least that kind of rhymes. I think it's better than Walker derangement syndrome and I try to be original and not just copy what the Republicans used to say. In 2010, Republicans in Wisconsin won a wave election and, and you guys came in – I wasn't in office yet – but in the first hundred days in 2011 you passed dozens and dozens of bills that objectively reshaped government in the state of Wisconsin. Since that first session, we have seen a slow reduction of new ideas. What is a Republican in Wisconsin and what is the Republican Party's agenda today? What is the ideology? I think the gentleman from the 97th just pointed out in a little bit of reflection in the mirror that Republicans prayed too often at the altar of the personality of Donald Trump and lost sight of the party's platform and the ideology. Since November of 2018, Republicans in this building have been obsessed with Tony Evers – either catching up with him, trying to match his budget and increase spending in health care, education and transportation or trying to block him through legislation like this bill or litigation. You sued him before and apparently, now we're going to sue him again. The Tony Evers fever. What do Republicans in Wisconsin stand for today? What is the agenda? What are the meaningful acts of the legislature passed so far this year? What has consumed the majority of time in debate on the floor of this assembly? I will tell you – it is all about Tony Evers. Wisconsin Republicans are obsessed with either chasing him or trying to block him and I know because I once suffered from Walker derangement syndrome. It gets a little cloudy in the haze. You gotta break free of it. You've got to break free of it. Your elected leader, the gentleman from the 63rd, said that this vote, this bill, was the most important thing we do today. He even made a call of the house to get everybody back in here to listen to his speech about how this bill was so important. Well, the bill's going to be vetoed so it's clearly not the most important bill of the day and he went on about wanting Democratic amendments and maybe that was because he knows the bill is going to get vetoed because it's a partisan bill, because it didn't have democratic input in its drafting. Maybe that's why he wanted us to break for partisan caucus to come up with amendments to his own bill. And then the Speaker, the gentleman from the 63rd, went on about how this bill has a robust process, increases transparency, openness and good government. Let me tell you, the fourteen day passive review process of the Joint Committee on Finance is not an open and transparent process and it is not a model of good government. And let me descend into the particulars a little bit here, it's not open, transparent and good government because any one of the sixteen members of the committee may file an objection and that objection is anonymous. You want to open the doors of government – sunshine on how these funds are being spent and yet an objection could be made in secret by one legislator. Governor Evers is accountable to over five and a half million Wisconsinites. You're going to give the power of an objection to uphold or to hold up federal funds to somebody elected by 57,000 and we know that the Joint Committee on Finance can mire in delays because we’ve got to work with the Senate, Mr. Speaker. They are half the committee. The Senate Republican Caucus – it’s half the committee. The gentleman from the 63rd a few years ago called them terrorists because they were holding up the budget process. Anyone on this floor had a Knowles-Nelson stewardship project in their district objected to by a Senate Republican? Did you ever get a firm answer on which one of those six held up the project? Is your project one of the eight or nine Knowles-Nelson stewardship projects sitting in the Joint Committee on Finance right now? We have a – we have a project from 2018 objected to in secret – never written, spoken about or voted on. I don't know why the person objected to the project. I have a sneaking suspicion, having served on the committee for three years, that that member of Finance has an ideological objection to Knowles-Nelson stewardship and he or she is allowed to hold up the project and object and object and object and object. So I ask myself that if this bill were to become law, what are some of the key things that the governor may do with federal funds to the people that elected me? Over the course of this pandemic I've heard from a number of constituents on the brink of homelessness and the housing assistance program that spread out all across the state was critical in preventing homelessness and helping landlords collect some form of rent. The other is food security – investments to connect farmers and food banks and food pantries so people that were unemployed didn't go hungry. I imagine the governor may send more money to these critical programs but if one of the members of the twelve Republican members on the Joint Committee on Finance has an ideological objection to helping rental assistance and preventing homelessness or preventing food insecurity, he or she may object. Now let's get into the other details. There is nothing in state statute that requires the Joint Finance Committee to hold a hearing. There's no time limit. Once an objection is filed, it's up to the discretion of the co-chairs. We have never acted on that Knowles-Nelson stewardship project from 2018. It just sits there in a drawer. Are you going to let that happen to housing assistance, to food assistance? The answer is you don't know because you can't predict what the six Republican senators will do and the blanket of secrecy, the antithesis of open and transparent and good government, it could be one of your colleagues sitting next to you.
Representative Spiros: Gentleman from the 18th, the gentleman from the 63rd would like to ask you a question. (unintelligible)
Representative Spiros: Gentleman from the 18th has the floor.
Representative Goyke (18): So we've heard questions about what is our responsibility in the role of legislators on this floor abdicating responsibility. My responsibility to the 57,000 people that elected me is to help them the best I can in getting through one of the most difficult, unprecedented and uncertain times. They need the relief now. It is my responsibility to help them get that relief and not have that relief delayed which is why I am by the voting no on this legislation. Thank you.
Representative Spiros: Gentleman from the 63rd.
Speaker Vos (63): Had the gentleman from Milwaukee had the courtesy to yield to a question I would have simply said let's add an amendment that requires at least a member of the minority to object which would mean that a Democrat would have to disagree with their own governor. Would that be acceptable to actually say we don't want this process? But of course you didn't have the courage to say yes so I understand you don't want to actually debate the bill you just want to make talking points that are actually not in the spirit of trying to find an answer. You're just looking to defend the governor no matter what. Let's just remember two points as we conclude this debate because it now seems that Democrats are unwilling to compromise, unwilling to offer any idea besides critiques and complaints and condemnations. So I heard the gentleman from the 54th talk about the budget and that that's going to be our opportunity. Do you realize that the amount of federal dollars that Governor Evers is going to get to spend unilaterally is larger than the entire increase in the state budget? So for those of you who think the budget process is going to be super informative and boy that's going to be our opportunity to make a difference? There's even more money on the table that you are now saying one person gets to spend unilaterally with no oversight, no control, no accountability, but you want to have this robust process where we can go through the budget which you offered amendments. Some years you've done none; some years you've offered lots. The hypocrisy in here is just unbelievable. You have an opportunity to make the process in the way that you actually could have input. Right now many of you have told me in private you don't even get to talk to the governor. They have zero outreach. They never really work with you. Well, welcome to the club because we don't get that either. So the ability for the governor to come forward with a plan that says here's where I would like to spend the money we have to have at least a Democrat object even if all twelve of the sixteen Republicans would say no. I would be open to the idea of at least having one Democrat join us so at least the taxpayers would know where the money goes because right now we have zero idea where the money goes. It's not even a Rube Goldberg contraption because at least there is a result at the end. This is a dark black box that no one understands. The gentleman from the 5th made probably one of the best points. Do we have any idea why the Governor made a decision to put money into some of the programs that he did as opposed to putting it into helping nursing homes or helping other groups? We have zero idea because there's no accountability whatsoever. So for the rest of the session when I hear all of you say you want to work with us and you want to come up with amendments and let's just figure a way to include the minority and the majority, I am offering the opportunity today and if you choose not to take it that is your right. But then do not be surprised when people on this side of the aisle who have our ideas say the same thing in return and that's not the way this process is supposed to work. If people sincerely offer an opportunity to say give us a better idea, help us find a better way to put this contraption together, let's do it. But at the end of the day, I have no doubt that you will fall into partisan line with whatever Governor Evers tells you to do which is to vote no because he wants to be dictator, he wants to be king. But mark my words and I would ask one unanimous consent request: I would ask unanimous consent that the Clerk's office transcribe from Wisconsin Eye this entire debate to be put into the Assembly Journal because I want all of us to be able to go back, in very easy searchable fashion, when we come back with a new governor in 2023 and you hold us on this side to account for saying that we want to have oversight but we won't have that same offer to have the minority involved because the hypocrisy on that side of the aisle to say what's good for us but not for you. I'm offering it for every governor. This would be permanent. You are turning down what I think is a very generous offer to be able to involve the minority in a way that you never have before. But that's your right if you stick with the governor as opposed to the Institution.
Representative Spiros: Representative from the 31st.
Representative Loudenbeck (31): Well thank you very much for recognizing me and I just want to say I think we've had a really robust debate. The Speaker said a lot of, a lot of things that I had written down and so have many others, some excellent, the gentleman from the 98th, and actually I think the gentleman from the 18th is always – always fun to kind of go back and forth with when we're in Finance and some of the things that the Speaker pointed out were really – really appropriate but I think he might have left out even a couple more reasons why this plan should go to Joint Finance. So I think Representative Goyke mentioned, or representative from the 18th mentioned…
Representative Spiros: Please direct your comments to the chair.
Representative Loudenbeck (31): Yes sir. Representative from the 18th mentioned that you don't get a hearing when something is objected to. So let's just talk about the budget process for a minute. So two years ago, Governor Evers introduced a budget, sent it to the Joint Finance Committee and there was a lot of chatter, a lot of inside baseball, about what's the legislature going to do? Are they going to be able to pass a budget that the governor is going to sign, that their colleagues are going to agree with? Is the whole project going to blow up? Are they going to go to Conference Committee? Everybody was just watching and waiting for our entire legislative process to fail because we couldn't get along with the Governor. And you know what happened? We passed a budget. We passed a budget on time that you all said no to and your governor signed with all you standing behind him and we were left at home. Do you remember that? Because I was kind of reminded of that a few weeks ago. Governor Evers invited me to a virtual bill signing. We were actually the test. I don't know if any of you have had a virtual bill signing yet but I did. He invited me. I signed in and logged on. Actually a bunch of you were there – a bunch of that side of the aisle was there because you know what? Governor Evers didn't invite any Republicans to my bill signing. He invited all the Democrats and me and the Public Defender. So when everyone pops on the Zoom I'm thinking, ‘Oh my gosh! I just got punked!’ But you know what? I don't care because my bill got signed and I'm going to handle it with grace and I'm going to be happy for the Public Defender but wow! Petty politics. You guys, we're looking at a $90 billion budget document. I know – no props. Ya'll have one in your offices but it's a lot of work and I'll be darned if I'm going to sit and try to figure out as the Speaker said what part of the $3.4 billion dollars of new gpr that is contained in this budget we're going to approve when I know that the governor has $3.2 billion dollars at his discretion that he's not going to share any information with us about. What an epic colossal waste of four months. We're going to go all around the state and listen to people and you know what Governor Evers is going to do? He's going to go walk into a vaccination clinic and send out a press release and go home. Where are people going to find him? Are they going to go to the job center and say, ‘hey can you send the governor a message about unemployment?’ You know what? The job centers are closed. So maybe they'll go to the DNR service center and give their input on the DNR. Ope! They're closed too. So you know what? They’ll probably call our offices, right? And you know what? We’ll be there and so will our staff and that is why our plan makes sense because we're the ones that are going to be doing the heavy lifting with this budget and we are more than qualified and more than happy to be at the table on behalf of all of Wisconsin and that's why this is so important. So thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Spiros: Previously, the Speaker had asked, the gentleman from the 63rd, asked for unanimous consent to have the Clerk's office transcribe the entire debate into the journal. Without objection, so ordered. Next up, gentleman from the 43rd.
Representative Vruwink (43): Thank you for acknowledging me. I wasn’t going to speak but after listening to the gentleman from the 97th he made some points that I thought were very valid and I just wanted to make a couple things. I believe our federal government is broke. I believe this state government is broke. The federal government became broke when cable news came about. Fox News, MSNBC, spewing different things over and over that we know were lies and you listened to them if they favored your side. The state government here in Wisconsin, I believe, broke down with Act 10 and gerrymandering and it created distrust and hypocrisy. I'm not blaming either side for it. It’s our politics and to me it makes our democracy look tired. There's something wrong with it. And when I look at the rankings around the world they say American democracy who we used to be the city upon a hill for everybody to look down upon us and look at America as the beacon of democracy. I think we rank twenty fifth in the world today. Many smaller countries are ahead of us and it is concerning to me because as the representative from the 97th said, ‘I fear for our future’. I think back to the American Revolution and many you mentioned the Constitution today. You know there were only a third of Americans who fully supported the Revolution. A third were neutral and a third wanted to remain loyal and the reason that those third wanted the Revolution is they felt the British government had grown tired. They had, they had not carried out democracy the way they had wanted to. We had in the British government what was called rotten boroughs, gerrymandered districts of 500 people and some 100,000 people so that democracy was rigged and so what seems black and white to many of you today well you should vote for this or you should vote to take care of your legislative powers. It's because of the distrust at its helm with government today. It's like American capitalism was when the Great Depression hit. That also looked tired and Roosevelt tried to fix it with his New Deal and a lot of things he did saved capitalism but didn't work or were unconstitutional, but the war revived capitalism again. We need something to revive our democracy. We need to stop the hypocrisy. We need, we need to build trust back up with each other. When we can do that, our government will work for us again. So I'm hoping that's in our future. Thank you.
Representative Spiros: Representative from the 56th.
Representative Murphy (56): Thank you, Mr. Speaker and I'd like to give a big thank you to the gentleman from the 5th and the gentleman from the 98th for their very, very strong and passionate defense of our institution. The gentleman from the 45th said that there's a lot to learn from the early days of the pandemic and I would definitely agree with that. And I think a lot of what we learned was the CARES Act came out of Washington. We felt the need for that to get out there quickly and the governor was given control, total control, of that money and so out it went. What happened with a lot of that money? Was it all wisely spent? One of my big bugaboos was the fact that we spent $40 million to buy 1500 ventilators. Now the state had 1250 ventilators throughout the state and I think at the peak of the pandemic we used about 400 of them but now we have 1500 additional ventilators that I don't know what we're going to do with. I guess we'll probably put them in storage and I'm quite sure that they were never used. Now that's $40 million that I think you know a lot of districts in the state could have used. The gentleman from the 81st talked earlier. I'm sure his district could use $40 million. The gentleman from the 45th went through a long list of all the things that were, you know, that were given to his district but I think $40 million more would have been something they could have used. The lady from the 20th said, “How much time do we have?” I would ask, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the gentlelady from the 20th to yield to a question?
Representative Spiros: She’s not at her seat.
Representative Murphy (56): Ah! So she’s not at her seat. If she were in her seat to debate this issue, I would have asked her how much money is still left from the original CARES Act that we haven't spent? I don't know the exact number but I understand it's millions and millions and millions and millions of dollars and we have no time? We haven't spent the money we've been already given. Why is the time factor here so urgent? The gentleman from the 18th said that we have Evers fever. But just two years ago, in five months we were able to put together a budget that Governor Evers signed. When in the biennium before that with Scott Walker as governor, we had some problems and it took us a while and took us until late September to be able to get a budget put together. Did we have Evers fever when we were putting that budget together? I don't think so. I think we were doing the work that this body was entrusted to do. So, you know, I think there's been a lot of rhetoric today and it really doesn't meet with the facts that I see. I look at this process and I say how did this all come about? Why are we at this place at this point in time? Well we were told that a COVID pandemic was going to decimate our country and so it was important that we borrow money from China and get it out there as quickly as we could. Don't use any legislative oversight. Just get it out there as quickly as you can. So now we have $40 million worth of ventilators that we're never going to use. That's just one example. I'm sure that most of you could come up with other good examples of how money was wasted. But there are people out there that are hurting – some – but not most. And the question is how do we get money to the people that need it and not waste it on things that we don't need? This is exactly what this legislature is supposed to be about and it's appalling to me that members of this body will not defend it and will not stand up for the body's right to make these decisions. The Constitution says that the legislative body is here to decide what money is spent and that's exactly what we should be doing. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Spiros: Representative from the 74th.
Representative Meyers (74): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I've been in this chamber for about six years and during my first term I was always surprised when the Democrats introduced an amendment and it never was accepted by the majority party. And then in my second term I was less surprised when that happened. And now I am shocked when an amendment by the Democrats is accepted. Mr. Speaker, do you know how many amendments have been introduced in the last six years by Democrats that have been accepted? I don't either, Mr. Speaker. But I did ask the Legislative Reference Bureau and, unfortunately, they couldn't get me the information this quickly; but staff said approximately twelve amendments have been introduced so far this session and one of them has been accepted. So when Speaker Vos came out to talk to us and plead with us to please caucus and bring back in an amendment and I promise you, and that may not be a quote, but I give you my word. I will honestly look at it.
Representative Spiros: Direct your comments to the chair, please.
Representative Meyers (74): I am.
Representative Spiros: You mentioned – you mentioned a name and we don’t mention names in this (unintelligible)
Representative Meyers (74): The gentleman from the 63rd, excuse me. So, I cannot speak for all my colleagues on this side of the aisle, but I do not believe you. I do not have trust and faith that you will take anything we bring to you with the full faith that our amendments deserve. So maybe, to prove that to me, please prove to me I'm wrong. Let's see what happens for the rest of this session when Democrats introduce amendments that are good. Let's see if they get passed.
Representative Spiros: Representative from the 62nd.
Representative Wittke (62): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I've been patiently sitting here today and I wasn't going to speak on this issue because I think it's a no brainer that we pick up and have some oversight over these massive funds coming into our state. But, but I must say to the lady from the 31st I'm jealous – we had a half billion dollar tax relief bill that we got two minutes notice that the governor was just online signing but I did get two pens for it just to, just to let you know. But what I don't understand, and I appreciate those that are left on the other side of the aisle, taking me back into a childhood show, The Twilight Zone, because I must not have been here last session when we went through a few things. I've heard comments like: where were you last session when the first round of the CARES money came in for oversight? I believe the governor himself, and I could go back and dig up the press release, said that anything in Act 185 that would provide oversight wouldn't be passed and I couldn't see voting against any or having a bill vetoed at that point in time that would have put many of our residents in peril. So I'm just going to go with the track record for this vote. I would remind people on the other side why – why is this state of Wisconsin in a better position to handle the issues around this health emergency because of the 8-10 years that the Republicans put in managing the budget and putting us into the best financial health we've been in in quite some time. I think you should not forget that we've also worked to clean up our books so that we don't encumber future generations with – with just debt upon debt and spending upon spending. So I look at the track record that this governor has had handling unemployment dispersal – not so good. And many of the other items that I have waited for him to govern. The fact that we've asked him for a plan just to bring people back to work to serve the people of Wisconsin. I go into my private industry experience. Most of my colleagues in the private industry have had plans to come back into work since last March/April and have revised them based on things that have come through in the last eight months. You mention how this governor really got to the first CARES Act and brought the funds out to really save people. Maybe you should go back and check the details and take a look at the time the Treasury provided Wisconsin with the funds and then based upon the time that they were dispersed which led the congressman from my district to ask our governor was he going to spend the money we gave him or was he going to just continue to ask for more spending. We've got to remember that if you take a look at the facts that are out here a lot of these programs were not funded until September – quite, quite, uh, quite a short period before the December timeframe to get this money spent. So based on those track records, I will vote with my colleagues on this side of the aisle believing that we should have some oversight so that we can steward this money in a responsible manner and I guess I'm just tired of waiting for the governor to do his job, which is govern. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Spiros: Representative from the 81st.
Representative Considine (81): Thank you. I just want to come back and answer the second question the representative from the 5th asked me. And that was, you know, how do you know where the money's been spent? And my answer that I tried to give him was I watch almost daily, now it’s probably bi-weekly, as the governor continually sends out press releases about this money is going here from the COVID relief package – and it was almost daily so that's how I track it. It seems pretty obvious that the governor's being open and transparent and telling us.
Representative Spiros: Representative from the 27th.
Representative Vorpagel (27): Thank you, Mr. Speaker and Mr. Speaker, so I'm a little confused today and maybe some of the folks over here can help me answer a question because I feel like I'm having deja vu all over again. So, we were in this chamber, I can’t remember if it was a week, two weeks ago, taking up a bill off of a special session call from the governor asking the legislature to approve money for an upgrade of the unemployment system – money that was – had already gone through the legislative process. We had numerous documents from different legislative agencies saying he had the authority to do that. So my question is: what's changed in that time? Maybe – maybe I'm wrong. Maybe the governor now decided he had a change of heart and decided that he is on board with this and would like to seek the approval of the legislature before spending some of this money. So I guess we'll see. So the reason I ran – there is – there was a lot of talk today about why we ran. Why don't folks run for governor if they want this power? But the reason I ran to serve in the legislature as a co-equal branch of government is to be closest to the people and to serve the people in Sheboygan and Manitowoc County and part of that responsibility and obligation as many have alluded to before is having the power of the purse and be able to appropriate funds through different legislation. I know we've heard a lot of talk today about – about the process and how this is a passive review process. We've talked about ways that this bill could be improved as the gentleman from the 63rd had mentioned earlier. One thing I'll point out is in the April bill that the legislature passed reserved 75 – somewhere in the neighborhood of $75 million of funds for the governor to spend that went unspent. So that brings me to the oversight – the oversight of where the money's being spent. Of course, we have a passive review process through this so for those who think that – are sort of taking what was said earlier out of context in this situation about how this is – this is a slog and that's not entirely true. If the money is spent where we – we – both sides of the aisle feel that it should be spent – then it's a – it's a fairly quick process. So what's – what’s the next thing that the legislature can do to provide oversight? I don't know? Maybe open – send some open records requests over to the governor and try – and try and find out what's been going on. Well Sunshine Week, I understand, was a few weeks ago and I see a number of my friends from – who stand over behind the stanchions over there have – have left. But we've been having trouble with that haven't we? Gentleman from the 4th I think I saw a press release from you yesterday that you've been waiting – was it over a month – for an open records request from the governor to figure out what their plan was for vaccinating inmates and some other questions? A month! That – well, that's probably the first time, right? You know, he's a liberal for, you know, open government, transparency. How about the gentleman from the 37th? I seem to remember we heard in a committee that I'm on a great idea that you had about removing different adverse language from the state statute. Got bill jacked by the governor who actually made it a much longer process or tried to make it a much longer process to accomplish a similar goal. Gentleman from the 37th, I believe, sent an open records request to the governor’s office and basically got back things that were undecipherable. It was so redacted that it was basically meaningless. One final example, our former colleague, the co-chairman of Joint Finance from last session, I can't remember what the issue is – was on – I mean there's so many of them I just can't keep them all straight – but I remember him saying he had an issue that he submitted an open records request to the governor for. And it took weeks and weeks and weeks and calls and teeth pulling and teeth pulling and, actually, I lost track of it. I can't remember if he even got the information or not. So what we have before us as my colleague from the 63rd and many others have pointed out was done in the late 2000’s when the ARA – American Reinvestment Act – money came from the legislature and my friends on the other side of the aisle – some of them who are here – most of them who weren't – had not only were they in power in this chamber their colleagues in the south wing had a majority and they had a governor. And you know one thing that I just thought of as I was sitting here is there's a comedian podcaster I listen to quite often and he has this theory of stupid or liars so when politicians or celebrities or things like that say something that's preposterous. The point is neither one of them is a good – is a good answer. So when statements are made that, you know, that things used to work differently back then. You know people would work across the aisle. I prefer to turn that around and look at it a little different way. That, that I expect all of you to join us because you are as equally skeptical of a Democrat governor at that – at that time so I would think you would be as equally skeptical of a Democrat governor at this time. So to my colleagues I urge you for so many more reasons, so many that my colleagues have addressed and so many more to come, the vote is green.
Representative Spiros: Representative from the 24th.
Representative Knodl (24): Thank you, Mr. Speaker and I rise to make an admission and my admission is that I've got the fever! I've got the fever, representative from the 18th. I've got the fiscal fever – the fiscal Evers fever! Whatever you want to put it but I've got the fever and I admit it. And I have thought when I came here, a long time ago it seems now, that that was priority one was fiscal matters and our oversight on spending the taxpayers' dollars and prudently spending it as a bonus. So I've got that fever and it amazes me the willingness to run away and forfeit responsibility. So it appears we have another – another fever going throughout this room – the forfeit fever and here we have the other side of the aisle just willingly running away from responsibility and forfeiting our authority – constitutionally granted authority. So if, in fact, you have that fever and don't want to handle fiscal issues, I would suggest you also forfeit your paycheck. We don't want to do our jobs, oversee fiscal matters, then it's time to forfeit paychecks. Let's see this through. Let's have the oversight that we are charged with having and let's get on with solving the COVID crisis and get the economy back open and our state of Wisconsin will be just fine if we get back up and running. So join me in the fiscal fever.
Representative Spiros: We will go to the final speaker – the representative from the 32nd.
Representative August (32): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well, we've certainly established something here in the last couple of hours and that is that Democrats don't care about legislative oversight. That's really – that’s really what it boils down to. We haven't heard any real policy reason of why we shouldn't get a look at this money. The closest description came from – from my friend from the 18th. I thought we were about to agree on something when he basically said that, and I'm paraphrasing, that he doesn't think that one member of Joint Finance should be able to object to something anonymously. So one person shouldn't be able to do something in the Finance Committee but if they're in the East Wing, well, spend, spend, spend baby! Who cares about the oversight at that point? If you're in the East Wing it doesn't matter. So we were close. I thought maybe we were going to be able to say, you know what? One person maybe shouldn't have all that power. We almost got there – almost. And that's really what it boils down to. You know I – I asked the Speaker this session to appoint me to the Joint Committee for Review of Administrative Rules and if you think I did that because it sounds super interesting – I get that it doesn't sound super interesting. But that's where a lot of these decisions are made, frankly. The non-fiscal ones the Finance Committee handles that. JCRAR handles the other. But you know what my colleagues from the other side of the aisle from both houses continually say when they vote against our motions in JCRAR? Well here we have a committee of just six Republicans making all these policy decisions. We need to have a bigger amount of people involved in this. This is a job for the legislature and the Governor not just six people. Well that's a – that’s a fair conversation if you're going to also apply that same standard to the East – to the East Wing where it's one person regardless of who they are that gets to spend all this money. One person just makin’ it rain – just spend, spend, spend and I just don't know where those arguments – how they can logically both be made. So maybe it really is that they don't like legislative oversight. Even the members that were here in 2009 and voted for something extremely similar to this as the gentleman from the 63rd pointed out earlier. So, OK, then why did they – why did they vote for it then if they don't – if they don't support it? I don't know. Maybe it was the massive tax hike that was in that bill that they just loved. It had to be. They’re not going to vote for this today. So, that – this oversight couldn’t be the reason that they voted for that bill. It must have been the tax increase. So at least we've sorted that out today. So, this is – this should be one of the easiest votes anyone in this chamber makes and if the – if the JFC process – if people don't want to go through that process for this I'm fine with – let's open it up – let’s vote here – let’s do it in this chamber. Let’s have everybody get a chance to weigh in on how this money is spent. That's fine. I think that – that we crafted this bill to go the way we did because there could be some incidents where we need a little bit of speed in the responses we end this pandemic. That's fair. But if we want to do it through having more people see it instead of fewer we can do that’s – fine. So this – this really is simple and we've spent a couple hours on this and Mr. Speaker I won't belabor this any longer except to say this: this is a super, super simple bill. This vote is about as easy as it can get. When I testified in both – on this bill in both houses unfortunately I didn't have a lot of my Democrat colleagues there in either house to actually, you know, talk about the bill probably because there isn't really a good argument to be made against it. But I said that this is as easy as it gets. Either you believe that one person in a state of almost six million people should be able to make these decisions by him or herself or you don't and if you don't believe that they should, then the vote’s going to be green today and I know that that's what we're going to do and, unfortunately, I just don't think that we're going to be joined in – in that and that's really too bad because I know – I know that a lot of my friends on the other side of the aisle think that that we should have this oversight but they're not going to take this vote because you know you can't tell the governor that you need to see what he's up to and that's really unfortunate. So let's vote yes and send this – send this on and we'll move on. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Representative Spiros: All right, Senate Bill 183 having been read three times shall the bill be concurred in? The Clerk has a pair.
Chief Clerk: Representative Macco for the passage of Senate Bill 183 – Representative Shankland against the passage of Senate Bill 183.
Representative Spiros: All in favor all vote Aye all oppose will vote No. The clerk open the roll and call the roll.
(Chief Clerk read the names)
Representative Spiros: Has everyone recorded their vote? If so, the Clerk will close the roll. There are 59 Ayes and 36 Noes. Senate Bill 183 is concurred in.
_____________
