Sen Wirch on WI Budget

Wisconsin State Senator Robert Wirch speaks during debate on the 2012-2013 Wisconsin State Budget. He argues that the cuts to education are counterproductive to economic development and job creation in Wisconsin.

Thank you Mr. President.

About 2 years ago, under the Doyle administration we had a great corporation come into Pleasant Prairie: Uline. Uline came in from Illinois with about 1200 good jobs, $40-60,000 jobs. They spent $200 million in our area on construction, on a corporate headquarters, a million-square-foot warehouse—and by the way, they're planning another one right now. They gave $8 million for an olympic-sized pool for the community. Just a wonderful success story. So I had a chance to get a tour of this beautiful facility. And of course, when I had a chance I asked a corporate spokesman, I said "Did you have any concerns about coming into Wisconsin. Hearing the rhetoric around the state capitol, did you have any concerns about coming into Wisconsin?" The guy though for a minute and he said "Yes, we were worried if we could get enough qualified workers so we could operate in this area, but we were assured by other businesses we could get enough qualified workers." That, I would suggest, is the key to economic development: getting good qualified workers. Yet this administration says the state is "open for business" and shuts the door on education. How does that help economic development? Taking a billion dollars out of K-12, cutting our tech schools when we have a 9% unemployment rate and people need to be retrained, and cutting 30% out of our tech schools. No, I learned the lesson from Uline. The corporations told us: "we need good, quality workers." We are in worldwide competition out there. The worst thing you can do for economic development is slam the door on education, and that's this what this budget does.

Sen Jauch on Wisconsin Budget

Wisconsin State Senator Robert Jauch discusses the 2012-2013 Wisconsin State Budget passed on Thursday, June 16, 2011.

Mr. President and members,

The senator from the 20th is the perfect spokesperson for the extreme policies of the Republican majority that is, could be defined as "madness on steroids."¹ For 163 years, Mr. President and members, Wisconsin has been a beacon, it has been a model of good government. It has set the standard for the rest of the nation on how we educate our children, how we care for our neighbors, how we show respect for our elderly. The moral compass always pointed to Wisconsin. As a result of this budget, the senator from the 20th, their moral compass points to Mississippi. The fact of the matter is I'm glad the senator from the 20th spoke because his words speak the truth of this budget: the Republican majority has a disdain for the working class. The Republican majority has no respect for the people of Wisconsin who don't make much. Their whole commitment is to starve the programs that serve the public and reward the economic elite of the state, and this budget demonstrates that in spades. Franklin Delano Roosevelt said that the test is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much it is whether we provide enough for those who have so little. The Republicans fail that test and the senator from the 20th is proud of that fact. This is a budget that does increase the financial burden on the people of this state who have the least. The citizens that the senator from the 20th was speaking about who qualify for the Earned Income Tax Credit love Wisconsin, they're Wisconsin workers, they care about their families and they will have $500—if you're a family of three children—you will have $500 less in your pocket to meet the needs of your families. That is neither fair, Mr. President, nor is it moral. It is indefensible. It is a tax increase. It is $534 less to be able to meet the needs of their families, and the fact is that the Republicans don't care. They can't look at the citizens of Wisconsin with a straight face because they are abandoning everything that is good about this great state. For 163 years, Mr. President, we have led the nation in education. This is a budget that doesn't move us forward, it goes backward. This budget does not enhance the quality of life for our citizens, it weakens it. For 163 years, Wisconsinites have practiced shared responsibility, in helping their neighbors, in helping each other try to lead better lives. In ensuring there is a strong state-local partnership to help communities—poor communities meet the essential needs of their citizenry. The Governor and the Republicans mouth the words but they don't understand the meaning. They spear those poor communities, poor schools, poor families, while they provide advantages for the economic elite.

There's a woman who testified, Mr. President, in Janesville. She said: "I've never done this before. I'm the mother of two children. We're very proud of the education our two boys received in the Janesville school district. I've never spoken at a public hearing; I don't consider myself political." In other words, she was the face of Wisconsin. She would, if listening today to the words of the senator from the 20th: she said "When I heard the words, when I read the proposals from Governor Walker"—and certainly she would add, and heard the words of the senator from the 20th—"In one word, I was heartbroken." I didn't know how much I loved Wisconsin until these proposals were introduced. Mr. President and members, I attended 19—4 finance hearings, should have been more. I attended 15 listening sessions, public hearings on the budget, throughout the state of Wisconsin. At least 900 testified at public hearings in finance, I presume there were 1500 or 1600 other people who spoke strongly about their disdain for this budget. Their frustration that the Republican majority is so out of touch with the real needs, and that they do not understand the adverse consequences, the pain that they're going to impose upon the people of Wisconsin.

I could not believe that the senator from the 8th had the gall to suggest that this budget does not cut public education. Not only does the governor's budget not provide the tools—unless it is a meat axe, to public education—not only doesn't he provide the tools, but then this budget gleefully directs local school districts to cut another $800 million even though these school districts have been cutting their budgets for the last 15 years. It's a budget that cuts $250 million from the University of Wisconsin, $500 million from Medicaid and BadgerCare, at the same time that it provides almost $200 million more in corporate tax breaks. Mr. President and members, the state is not broke, this government is broken. It is morally bankrupt, and it is shown in the policies in page after page after page. Because the only people being asked to share in the sacrifice, Mr. President and members, are those that have the least ability to afford it.

And so Mr. President and members, I'm not sure what happened to Wisconsin. I'm often asked that question as I travel around the state: "What in the world happened to the state we loved?" A state that recognized that low-income working families pay taxes, they coach little league teams, they support church fundraisers, they dig into their pockets, they donate food to food shelves, they're there when a neighbor needs their help, they serve on the volunteer fire department, and then they hear the senator from the 20th—defining the Republican voice of extremism—suggest that somehow they're getting too much. Mr. President, the second to the last amendment passed by this committee was a $146 million tax cut to corporations; 64% of the corporations in this state currently do not pay any income taxes to the state of Wisconsin. The burden is being felt by the working-class families, and they're going to have a greater burden to pay as a result.

Mr. President and members, Governor Walker campaigned on making government smaller. This is big government at its worst. There are more unfunded mandates and dictates to local units of government to tell them how they should spend their money, restrictions on decisions they can make. Mr. President, it isn't... it is bad government. It is bigger government. Because they are making the decisions from Madison about communities that they've never visited, they've never been in. Mr. President and members, this is a budget that makes Grover Norquist feel proud. Grover Norquist is the pied piper of extremism, extremist philosophy. Grover Norquist said that he wanted to squeeze government spending so much that you could drown it down a bathtub. That's exactly what this budget does, is it squeezes spending. Its intention is to squeeze spending so that there aren't the resources to support public education, to support higher education, to support vocational colleges, to support programs for our elderly and our disabled. And Mr. President and members, the Republicans are gleeful about the fact that they are starving government of the ability to meet the needs of their families. Because the Republicans' friends are doing well, and they are rewarded for doing so well in this budget. Mr. President, $500 million is going to be cut from Medicaid. There's a woman in Superior who has Stage 4 cancer, who takes care of her disabled husband, who asked the question: "whose going to take care of my disabled husband when I die because I can no longer get BadgerCare. Because if I don't get BadgerCare I will die." Where's the answer in this budget, Mr. President? It is that these Republicans are turning their back on her and the tens of thousands of other citizens in Wisconsin who have needs. Mr. President, the pain to our local communities and damage from these cuts are going to last a very long time. Schools are going to be closed. Wisconsin is "open for business" but our schools are closing. To the parent whose child is now in a class of 31 what do you tell her? We can't afford to provide support for any more of your public school, but if you'd like to move to Milwaukee or Racine, we'll make sure that there's a chance for you to be able to go to private school and we'll take care of that support. Mr. President and members, this budget abandons our moral and constitutional obligation to equal education. The tradition of stewardship to our natural resources wouldn't be recognized as a result of the items in this budget. It hands the keys to our resources over to developers and contractors, but proposes cuts to local transit systems.

Mr. President and members, people are frightened in Wisconsin by the economic situation that is adding so much stress to their lives. They're extremely frightened that their own government is abandoning them. This budget is an attack on these very same families. It is an assault on the middle class. It is an abandonment of our responsibilities as officials to make sure that every citizen has the same opportunity, for equal opportunity. These citizens understand sacrifice, they know what it means to give. They help their neighbors, they strengthen their community. They're victims of the recession and now they're a victim of their own government. The Wisconsin way is the manner in which citizens collectively work to improve the common wealth. Mr. President and members, this is a budget that forsakes the traditions and forgets the people of the state of Wisconsin who will be so adversely impacted by the decisions in this budget. It's a shameful moment in Wisconsin history.

Video posted to youtube by @nicknicemadison

---

¹Senator Jauch here refers to the preceding speaker, Senator Glenn Grothman, who spoke in favor of the elimination of the Earned Income Tax Credit calling it a government handout akin to welfare. That speech can be seen on youtube.

Sen Jauch on Educational Equality

Wisconsin State Senator Robert Jauch speaks for a motion before the Joint Committee on Finance during its May 27, 2011 meeting. The motion seeks to address the increased inequality within Wisconsin's education funding which would result from Governor Walker's proposed budget.

Thank you.

This motion gives us an opportunity to talk about our moral and constitutional obligation to provide equal education for every child in the state of Wisconsin. And I think that one thing that should not be argued at all is that both the reduction in aids—the $850 million reduction in aids, the $890 million reduction in levy limits—is going to result in an educational system that provides less opportunity and is less equal than the one before it, and that it is moving away from that constitutional responsibility we have to every child. It says:

In order to provide reasonable equality of educational opportunity for all children the state must guarantee that basic educational opportunity be available to each pupil, with the state contributing to a district's educational program if... [it] meets state standards.

The standards will remain in place the dollars will not. And we will have those school districts unfortunately that are the least-spending school districts that are the most adversely impacted. One would think, under the rhetoric and the way the governor is treating public education in this budget, is that public education is public enemy number 1 instead of public envy number 1. Our public schools are the reason that Wisconsin is recognized as a state that is committed to its future. Education is the way in which we commit to the promise of our future: our children. And as a result of this budget, it is going to be less equal, less opportunity, and the poor are going to fall further behind.

Much is said again about, by Governor Walker, that he was going to provide the tools to school districts that would make up the difference for the cuts that he was making in general aids. He wasn't telling the truth. He was using bad math. He was deceiving people. He was hiding the fact that there is going to be a gap that school districts are going to have that they can't make up, forcing them to make additional cuts. The ones that are making the cuts are those that have been making the cuts all along.

But there's a huge inequity that I want to point out. Just from the Governor's proposal that's not being addressed in the Republican motion. One would think that there was shared sacrifice by all communities in this budget. You look at the Governor's budget: I have an example of three communities, three school districts that will see increases in their state aids, not decreases. I don't have any districts in northern Wisconsin that see increases, they all take deep cuts. So here are three that have increases: Mequon-Thiensville, Nicolet, and Pewaukee. Good school districts no doubt. Mequon: 3.2% increase, Ashland: 6.4% decrease. The equalized property value per pupil in Mequon is $1,300,000, it's $1,316,092. The equalized value in Ashland, Wisconsin is $299,582. In other words, there will be more money in this formula going to a community that has property value worth five, four times what is available for the citizens in Ashland. I want to hear the argument as to why that meets our state constitution's expectation, requirement that there be equal education opportunity between every child. Nicolet: 2.9% increase. Nicolet's equalized value is $3,729,000. Rice Lake: Rice Lake's decrease is 10.2%. Their equalized value is 596,000. Nicolet has almost six times the property value. They're getting an increase in their state aid, Rice Lake is seeing a decrease. Pewaukee: 7.4% increase. They have $1,114,000. Superior, which you visited is seeing a 10.2% cut, $404,000 equalized value.

In other words, these statistics reveal how there is prosperity for the wealthiest and sacrifice for the poorest, and that we become less equal as a state. Matter of fact, I'm beginning to wonder the state we live in today. Wisconsin has always been a progressive state. Not a red-blue state but a state that has supported the values of the citizens of Wisconsin, and that means that they favor equal opportunity. They don't want to build walls around rich communities and disparity for opportunity for those communities and then disparity for poor communities. We have an equalization formula that is established to try to balance state funding for those poor schools, so they don't fall further behind. So the fact of the matter is that this formula widens the gap between the rich and the poor. It makes it more difficult for those who have been struggling all along to be able to have a chance to provide their children an equal opportunity with those that live within the wealthiest communities that have been spending more money.

Now, as part of a history lesson, go back to 1995 when revenue was... I think it was '95 when revenue controls were put into place. When revenue controls were put into place, you did have a gap between the rich and the poor. Matter of fact, I think it was Nicolet that was spending about 10,000 per student and Rice Lake was spending around 5,000 or 4,000-5,000. They were spending substantially less. When the revenue controls were implemented Nicolet was a allowed the choice between a cost-of-living or $140. Nicolet was able to increase their child by $310, Rice Lake could only increase their spending per kid by 140. In other words, revenue control said a child in Nicolet was worth more than a child in Rice Lake. That gap was created, that disparity was established in 1995 or four when revenue controls went into place, and that gap is now widening even further. That means that a community that has wealth has a chance to invest. Sort of the policy of the state where the child in the poor district is treated like Raggedy Ann and the child in a poor [sic] district is a fashion model. It's not fair, and this budget is going to make it worse. The paper points out that when there is less money put into public K-12 education, two things happen. This budget reduces state aid down to about 61%—is that the—Fiscal bureau?—we were once at 66%? We were once at 66% and this budget's what, now going down to about, reducing down to 61? And last year was about 62? So anyway, it's going the wrong direction. It's going in the direction where the state is committing less dollars to public education, local property taxpayers are picking up more, which burdens the poorer communities because they are less able. What this budget is doing is forcing poor people to have to dig deeper into their pockets to raise their own property taxes.

We could go—I talked about South Shore, I think it was a week ago. I mentioned to you that South Shore was facing a referendum because they were looking at dissolution as a result of this budget. They voted 7-1 to increase their property taxes. They were forced into voting to raise their property taxes because they value education and they know the state of Wisconsin, this legislature and governor, does not. So they were forced to go through a fight to save their schools because this legislature doesn't have the commitment to save the schools. There are going to more school districts around this state that are facing dissolution, where they're carved up by someone in Madison because they can't get to consolidation. And a lot of those are going to happen up in rural Wisconsin, where you'll lose your identity, you'll lose your sense of who you are. You lose your community. When a community loses its school it loses its centerpiece. And this budget treats schools as though they are the cause of our problems in this state. At the same time it celebrates private education as though Wisconsin will triumph if a few parents have a few more choices for themselves while we deny the rest of the parents the chance to have equal opportunity for education. So what this... The point that I'm trying to make is to remind us of the history lesson that the less money the state puts into K-12 education the more likely you are going to face a constitutional challenge when you have a real Supreme Court. A constitutional challenge: when the Supreme Court made its decision in Vincent vs Voight the Supreme Court said:

the present school finance system more effectively equalizes the tax base among districts... [than the previous school finance decision of the court] Kukor [vs Grover].

The court noted this was due to the significant increase in state function in the time between the two decisions. In other words, they hung their hat on that decision. On the basis that the state of Wisconsin was putting more money into education. Try to have that decision today where the state of Wisconsin is cutting money to education, and the gap between rich and poor is widening even more. So the fact of the matter is that this budget is abandoning our commitment to public education. It is going to be harder for kids to have the chance to get an equal education. It is wrong for us to treat the parents and the taxpayers of the state who live in those districts who've been spending less to accept that.

Rep Shilling on JFC Education Motion 359

Wisconsin State Representative Jennifer Shilling discusses motion 359¹ before the May 27, 2011 meeting of the Joint Committee on Finance. The motion adjusted funding to ameliorate the cuts to K-12 public education under Governor Walker's proposed budget.

Thank you.

You know, if you had to tell a business that they needed to cut $800 million from the assembly line of the product that they make, that product would probably suffer. And now we're looking at our schools and we're saying "you need to cut $800 million." That educational experience will undoubtedly suffer. And I think the proposal that we have before us, it does demonstrate that we are committed to public education. That when we do have revenue available that we want to put it into the general school aid funding formula to help our schools out.

And talking with schools in my area, the superintendent has said "well, that first year is going to be difficult, but we will make it. We'll be able to do it. It'll be difficult, not without challenges, but it's the second year that we haven't really heard a lot of discussion about. And that's the one that will really, really be difficult for us. We can get through one year, but then the second year will be even more difficult." So I think talking about that foundation of education here in the state and I recognize it is the number one area that we put in our state dollars in our budget. But as we talk about our values here in the state of Wisconsin, the pathway to being competitive in the workforce and being prepared and having those skills necessary as they come out of high school and go on to higher education or go into the workforce that does that valuable educational experience. And we in Wisconsin are nationally recognized for the innovative things going on in our schools, the high test scores that we have from our students, and really that dedication that we have from those professionals in our classrooms.

And I think as we talked about where we could spend that some of that new revenue² and I heard leaders on your side of the aisle talk about recycling, I heard them talking about roads aids, but your side was silent until today about education. And from day one we were talking about trying to mitigate the cuts to public education. We were talking about investing in our technical schools. And today when you came out from your meetings from yesterday and trying to find some sort of area... we know what you're going to do in schools and we don't think it's enough. We don't think that it is enough with the opportunities that we have here to really say that our schools have been under the revenue caps and controls since 1992-93. I mean, the governor wanted to go back to those '93 spending levels. And they have continued to tighten their belt, it's cutting into the fat, it's talking about personnel in our schools and our programming that are available in the curriculum. And I think that today what we have before us will demonstrate our commitment to public education in this system, in our state. So I know we're going to hear rhetoric on the other side about this, but really as we look at that pathway to success: the foundation that is necessary to be competetive in a global economy, it is about education. It is all about education, and we need to continue to invest in Wisconsin's best resource, which is its people, which is the children, which is our future workforce.

The motion failed by a 12-4 party-line vote. Representative Shilling is running for the state senate in the 32nd district in a recall election set for July 12.

---

¹ Legislative Fiscal Bureau summary:

Motion 359 would make a number of funding adjustments in the general aid area. It would provide around $333 million in general aid, school aids in '12-'13, eliminate the high-poverty aid appropriate and fold that into the general school aid, put in low-income pupil weighting, a minimum aid payment of $3000 per member. Within the aid formula secondary costing would be at 100% rather than 90%. Special adjustment aid, similar to the bill, would be at 90% rather than 85% under current law. It'd create a hold-harmless aid appropriation so that as a result of all these aid changes no district would lose money compared to the prior year, the current law concept. Essentially a number of these provisions would be similar or identical to the State Superintendent's aid proposal. There's some elements that would not be part of this that are in this proposal, but this would accommodate or incorporate a number of the provisions in the State Superintendent's proposal.

² Rep. Shilling here refers to allocations of money from significantly increased revenue projections recently released for the Wisconsin State Budget.

Rep Grigsby on JFC Unemployment Motion

Wisconsin State Representative Tamara Grigsby speaks during a May 26, 2011 meeting of the Joint Committee on Finance. She is responding to a motion unexpectedly added to the agenda which will cut the first week of unemployment benefits and bar recipients from collecting benefits for a year after any positive drug test.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would also say that this is a very, very callous motion. You know, I don't understand why we are so... I mean, we just keep beating people when they're down. I mean, we just keep beating them and stomping them until they're no more. Where is the compassion for humanity in this room? I mean, we just won't stop. We seek out everyone we can find and then we beat them down until they can't be beaten anymore. And we're doing this now like every day. I mean, every day we find somebody to do this to.

I mean, these are real people. I mean, I was just sitting here as people were talking thinking, listing names of people who I know who are unemployed and who receive unemployment. And there aren't people who--you know--just didn't feel like pulling themselves up by their bootstraps. Or people who wanted to sit around all day and watch TV and collect a check. These are people who were former engineers. One of my friends is a former engineer and is having a very difficult time finding work. I have another friend who was a program manager at a very large youth agency and had a hard time finding work. I have a neighbor with a PhD who was laid off because of the recession and having a hard time finding work. These aren't people who are sitting around, are in the normal group of people that you like to say you kick all the time. These are working people, who caught a hard time, caught a bad break.

And while it might not be your world that this little meager amount of money from unemployment helps much, but this is all they depend on. And one week's worth of lost income, of not receiving an income, is devastating. Is devastating. I mean, your administration has already ended unemployment insurance extensions earlier this spring. And then at that time the [Department of Workforce Development] Secretary Perez said that he was ending the extensions because there were 20,000 jobs out there and unemployment insurance just simply kept people from going out to go get those jobs. If that isn't the most disgusting, cold thing that I've ever heard... People want to work, people want to go and be productive. People want to have family-sustaining jobs. These people are not staying home because they have nothing else to do.

One week is an eternity when you don't have food to put on the table, or clothes to put on your kid's back, or be able to pay for even your child to get a winter coat when that first snow comes. A week is an eternity when you have to pay for childcare, when you have to... a week is an eternity. And just to say: "Oh you got to wait, just because we said so" is callous and it's cold. It's consistent, though, with what we've been doing this entire sesssion to people. People who need...

I mean, does anybody get the concept of a safety net? A safety net, that's what we as a society are supposed to offer our citizens. We're supposed to offer a place where the most downtrodden can land. Can land until they can get themselves back to where they need to be. Any humane society provides some type of safety net for the most vulnerable, for the most downtrodden. And we are just every day taking away, snipping away at that safety net. There hardly is anything called a safety net here anymore. If you look at our W2 program, you look at how difficult it is to be eligible for benefits under that program. And you look at the fact that we cut that by eighty percent upon its inception, and the numbers now nowhere near compare to the need. If you look at our food stamp utilization, you look at the numbers: nowhere near the need. So the safety net in this state is becoming nonexistent.

And then, just to mention, as far as the drug test part goes. You know, it's all about punish, punish, punish all the time. And we have no compassion for people. Now, I certainly could understand an employer being concerned about someone having tested positive for an illegal substance. However, to punish that individual for an entire year because they needed... what they really need was some kind of help, some kind of treatment. But to say they will no longer be eligible for an entire year? I mean, I bet there's some people in this room who can think back to their college days, and certainly wouldn't have wanted this law to be in place at that time if they were receiving unemployment. An entire year? Really? I mean, how about requiring them to go get some help, or get treatment, or get something? Or just maybe, you know... I don't know what the answer is, but an entire year, that's outrageous.

Like I said, you've already ended the unemployment insurance extensions. You've already whittled away at W2 benefits, at all types of different programs that help the most vulnerable. Yesterday we went back to family care and slashed that. I guess it's... I guess your response is going to be, somebody's going to respond and say: "well all this does is make sure we aren't letting drug abusers... we aren't using taxpayer dollars to support people who are taking drugs." I guess I would tell you to expect a motion maybe for CEOs applying for grants or benefits for economic development, maybe they should take a drug test too. Maybe those who folks who we're giving tax credits out to. That's, you know, state money. They're just as likely be taking illegal drugs too. So maybe we should just drug test everybody. But no, we just go and find the most downtrodden. We just go find those who are in the most need, and we just kick them more and more and more. Just kicking them when they're down, every day, that's all we do in that building.

And then, do you really go home and feel good about that? I go home every day and feel sick to my stomach after leaving this room, when you look what we do to people. I literally feel sick. And so it's hard for me to understand how you go home and feel well, feel good about doing this to people at a time, at a time when people need help the most. It's just wrong, and I'm just dissapointed that this is even before us.

Video thanks to @nicknicemadison

Rep Kelly on MN Marriage Amendment

Minnesota Representative Tim Kelly discusses a proposed amendment to the Minnesota State Constitution that would ban gay marriage.  Constitutional amendments in Minnesota must be approved by the legislature before appearing on a statewide ballot.  Before the House is a motion to return the amendment to committee.

Thank you Mr. Speaker and members.

Mr. Speaker, I do rise to oppose this re-referral. That might seem a little contradictory because I think you all know I voted no in rules in the other day. But Mr. Speaker, I also made a promise to you that I wasn't going to play any games with this issue. Because it's a very serious issue. And I'd just like to tell the body that a few weeks ago I told our leadership, I told the speaker that I was going to be voting no on this amendment. And being on the executive board, and on leadership, I suggested that maybe I should be removed from that. And the speaker said "Why? Why would we do that?" And Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that. I understand that you had an obligation to fulfill of bringing this issue to the House floor, and it's here.

You know, I've never been a real in-your-face patriotic person. But in thinking of this issue I can't help but feel that this is an assault on personal freedom and choice. And it brought me back to a movie I saw back in the 90's by the name of, the movie was "American President." In that movie Michael Douglas played the president and he gave this speech, and I thought it was pretty riveting at the time. And he said: "You know, America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. And you've got to want it bad, because it's going to put up a fight. It's going to say 'You want free speech? If you want free speech, let me see you acknowledge a man that makes your blood boil standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs that which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. Show me that, and celebrate that, make that be a symbol of your country.'" Members, I think those were great words. Because we do enjoy a lot of freedoms here. We enjoy the freedom of religion. We enjoy the freedom of speech. And yes, we enjoy the freedom of choice, which arguably is one of the most important freedoms we have.

When we get up in the morning, we get to choose where to go to work. Where to send our kids to school. All the choices we have, we probably don't even think about, we take them for granted. And yet we stand here on the house floor deciding whether to put an amendment on the constitution of the state of Minnesota to remove some personal choices and freedoms from just a select few. Not for all, just a select few. In my mind, we're starting to talk about discrimination and prejudice. And I know we hide behind the fact that says we're just bringing this to the people. We're just going to give a voice to the people. Well, I think we can look back in history and see that we're littered with choices by the people that were very hurtful. All we have to do is look back to the 50's and 60's and see where prejudice and discrimination were at its height.

You know, a couple years ago Barack Obama was elected, our first black person as the president of the United States. There was a saying going around there that I picked up, it said, you know: "Rosa sat, so Martin could stand, so Barack could run, so that we could fly." And I don't think that was any big affirmation of any one individual as President of the United States. It was a statement of how far we had come as a country. We had taken a giant leap forward. We could celebrate for a moment that we were past prejudice and discrimination. We had overcome, and a majority of the people had elected the first black person. And now, rightfully so, he will be judged on his victories and his defeats, not for the color of his skin. And I believe right now, if we put this amendment on the constitution, we're taking a giant step backwards.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, could I ask Representative Kriesel to yield?

You can, Representative Kelly, Representative Kriesel will yield.

Rep Kelly: Representative Kriesel, I understand that this is a very personal issue for you, but could you please tell me how you lost your legs?

The member from Washington, Representative Kriesel.

Rep Kriesel: Thank you Mr. Speaker, Representative Kelly. I lost my legs serving in Iraq. I was on a combat patrol, we encountered an improvised explosive device, and that's how I was wounded.

Member from Goodhue, Representative Kelly.

Rep Kelly: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, would Representative Kriesel yield for one more question?

He will, Representative Kelly.

Rep Kelly: Representative Kriesel, could you please tell the body what you were doing in Iraq?

The member from Washington, Representative Kriesel.

Rep Kriesel: Thank you Mr. Speaker, Representative Kelly. I chose to go to Iraq so I could defend our way of life, our freedom and promote freedom to an oppressed group of people on the other side of the world that deserve it.

Member from Goodhue, Representative Kelly.

Rep Kelly: Thank you, Representative Kriesel, thank you for your service and for your sacrifice. We appreciate it.

Members, America isn't easy. And being a leader in America, or in the state of Minnesota, sitting in your chairs, is not easy. Sometimes you're faced with very difficult decisions. And you have to stand up, and take a stand.

You know, I talked to a lot of you and you're thinking about "Well, I made this promise back to my people back in my district or to my BPOU. Because they asked me about marriage, and I told them 'I believe marriage should be between a man and a woman.'" And we all respect that. But I'm just wondering: did they ask you another question after that? Did they say "if that's your belief, will you promise to make sure that everyone else in the state of Minnesota abides by your belief?" Is that what you promised? Or did you just make your opinion known that you believe marriage should be between a man and a woman? You didn't make promises to impose your will on other people.

So now let's just put this in perspective a little bit because yesterday was an amazing day. We had an individual standing at that podium, with more hatred than I have ever heard.¹ And because of that, when we went to recess, I think the majority of you were outraged. And if we would have voted yesterday, this amendment was going down on an up-and-down vote. I would ask you to think about what happened yesterday. And think about why your emotions were that high, that you were instantly going to vote this down. Because you know what? You know what happened to that individual? A few hours later, he was standing here in the capitol having a press conference denouncing our speaker. Because that's his right. And he's got that right because he lives in this country. Because of people like John Kriesel. And yet this amendment suggests that we can take away the rights of a small group of people to live their life the way they would like to live it. If we vote this amendment on, we legitimize that individual, and we diminish the sacrifices that Representative Kriesel and all the men and women who died fighting for the freedoms of individuals.

Representative Murphy, at this time I would like to ask you to consider withdrawing your amendment to refer this back to committee. I believe that the people on this side of the aisle will join with you and your members to vote this amendment down. Because it is the right time, it is the right statement, for the state of Minnesota.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Representatives Kelly and Kriesel joined two other Minnesota Republicans in voting against the amendment in the House.  The measure nonetheless passed.  (Full results)

¹ Rep Kelly here refers to an opening prayer given by Pastor Bradlee Dean in which the pastor suggested that President Barack Obama is not a Christian.  His statements were condemned by the Speaker and both parties in the House and his prayer was stricken from the record and replaced by one from the regular House chaplain.

ASO statement after passage of AB7

A statement read by the Autonomous Solidarity Organization after the passage of Assembly Bill 7 in the senate on May 19, 2011.  They are holding a funeral for voting rights in the senate gallery after adjournment.  Transcript is incomplete and likely contains errors due to low sound quality.


We gather here today, not to mourn, but to celebrate the beatiful but unnecessarily brief life of comprehensive voting rights and progressive voting legislation.  For some, the right to vote unimpeded can be remembered back to 1790, for most it is a far more recent memory.  From 1790 until May 19, 2011, voters' rights had many shining moments.  The people were there in 1810 when the last religious prerequisite to vote was eliminated.  We were also there in 1850 when property ownership and tax requirements were no longer necessary to befriend our beloved right.  In 1870 we the people continue to form a more perfect union and rose to the defense of our dear friend.  We passed the 15th amendment allowing our African-American brothers and sisters to experience the allure of the voting process.  When 1915 brought us ? we ruled to outlaw literacy tests aimed at preventing blacks and irish catholics from voting.  Then, in 1920, something truly wonderful happened, those who sought to put an end to the current oppression reached out and grabbed an olive branch extended by an alliance of the formerly oppressed.  It was only when this newly built coalition of people—dedicated and true freedom fighters, a fellowship that pledged their allegiance to liberty and justice for all—and our female counterparts, those who grant the privledge of life to us all, achieved the right to vote.

With this newly found impetus the now obvious concept of comprehensive voting rights began to roll.  From the 1924 Indian Citizenship Act, granting voting rights to Native Americans, to the 24th amendment banning poll taxes in 1964, true equality including representation in our governing body was on the rise.  This momentum led to wonderful patriots such as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. mounting a voter registration drive in Selma, Alabama that drew national attention to African-American voting rights.  The attention advanced the Voting Rights Act which was expanded in 1970, 1975, and 1982.  With the 26th amendment in 1971, and the Dunn vs Blumstein supreme court ruling of 1972 we ensured that those old enough to make the ultimate sacrifice for their country—for our country—could legally vote, and that no voter should be subject to unreasonably lengthy residence requirements.  Even as recently as 1995, our government has continue to make progress in voting legislation.  The motor voter law took effect allowing prospective voters to register while obtaining an ID.

Now, it is with heavy hearts that we bear witness to the birth of a truly rotten and heinous bill.  Where the motor voter act made it easier to register to vote while obtaining an ID, this voter ID bill makes it more difficult to register and vote while necessitating ID that many will not have reasonable access to.

But rejoice, because our friend is not truly dead.  If this ? has taught us anything, it is that with our help, voters' rights can be resurrected.  They can rise from the ashes to overcome those with malicious intent.  We can form our own coalition, a consolidation of the oppressed and in conjunction with those who genuinely are for voting to egalitarianism and the betterment of all people can share our memories of a fallen comrade.  With these memories we can guarantee that those who stood up and fought, those who lost their lives, and those who spilled blood paints the seven red stripes of our star-spangled banner, did not do so in vain.  Remember friends, that we can never truly prosper unless true of heart and soul can overcome any man-made obstacle.

Ashes to ashes, dust to dust.