Senator Hatch (R-UT) spoke for a few moments and then openned the remainder of his time up for questions.  After Rep. Eric Hutching’s probing inquiry…any more questions??…anyone…anyone…thank you…good to be here…and, goodbye.

Senator Bob Bennett (R-UT) stopped by the Utah State House of Representatives for an brief annual visit…gave a brief speech…answered a few brief questions…and was gone in a wirlwind.

[A number of constituents have expressed their concern to me related to immigration statement(s) by the LDS Church]  

The “Church’s” stance on Illegal Immigration needs to be reviewed in context.  An article written and published in the Deseret News (Owned by the LDS Church), regarding statements made during the Interfaith Dialogue on Immigration at Westminster College by Elder Marlin K. Jensen, of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints’ Quorum of Seventy, were qualified in the paper by saying the “LDS Church has taken no position on any particular measure on the federal or state level.”

There you have it.  NO POSITION.

Even though Elder Jensen urged the use of “compassion” in the consideration and creation of policy relating to immigration, the Church has taken no official position(s).

Also, worthy of consideration, in the context of the immigration debate, is this NY Times news article about Marlin Jensen…a Mormon Democrat.

HB163 School Fee Amendments (Rep. Craig Frank, R-Pleasant Grove), will require current acadmic coursework related fees to be absorbed into the traditional funding mechanism–the WPU [Weighted Pupil Unit, $2,513.91 plus or minus FY08-09].

Other non-academic fees (clubs, sports, etc.) will continue to be charged directly to students and their parents.  Afterall, I shouldn’t be required to pay for your son or daughter to play varsity lacrosse…right?  And, I certainly wouldn’t expect you to pay for my son’s varsity golf green fees!

However, because we all, as a society, benefit from having an educated population (lower crime rates, wider tax base with a lower rate, etc.) we have, in Utah, traditionally absorbed the costs of educating our state’s school children through Personal Income and Corporate Income Taxes and Local Property Taxes (for capital outlay and debt service, etc).

100% of Personal and Corporate Income Tax funds Public Education (K-12) in Utah.  That means the base of those who pay for nearly 525,000 Public School children’s education is represented by the employed population and labor force of those who contribute to state income taxes through payroll withholding.

Fees related to coursework required for graduation should be part of the traditional WPU distribution formulas.  We constitutionally guarantee a “free” public education to our state’s resident children.  Yet, at the beginning of every school year the vast majority of parents who’s children attend grades 7-12 get slapped with a bill from their children’s schools.  Those bills include a variety of “fees” related to almost every academic course of the state’s academic core…courses required for graduation.

And, what happens if students/parents don’t pay their fee assessment in time?  Often, if these fees aren’t paid by the time grades are posted on Powerschool (on-line grade reporting system) the student will receive an “NC” in the place of a grade until the fee is paid in full.

So, if these academic “fees” are required for academic coursework and graduation from high school, HB163 treats them as the tax they really are and rolls them into the WPU.

Let’s call a spade a spade…really.

Rep. Chris Herrod’s testimony on HB241 Repeal of Exemptions from Non-Resident Tuition on 02/12/08…

I am often amazed at the disconnect we have with what we do with this body.  And how one side of this issue has been able to take compassion.

Over the past year, I’ve been called a foaming at the mouth zealot by KSL, and yet they endorsed Mitt Romney, who vetoed in-state tuition.  Over the past year, I’ve been called a racist, unchristian by the Deseret News, who also endorsed Mitt Romney, who vetoed in-state tuition. I’ve even been called a super-freak by a member of this body who, with all due- respect, has no idea what I’ve done for immigrants, or for people across the sea.

And so since one side is taking compassion, let me argue from an emotional perspective.

Three weeks ago my wife was on this very floor and a member of this body came up to my wife and said “we love having your husband here.  We agree with him on most everything but immigration.  My wife was so upset, because you have no idea how a legal immigrant feels when you talk about compassion.  She calls it discriminatory compassion, because she asked “why don’t you love the people from my native country equally?  Don’t you know that they are suffering?”

Think about it, we are creating innocent victims all over the world because we refuse to enforce our laws. We’re basically saying if you don’t break our laws we’re going to punish your children. My business partner I have here in Utah has three of his siblings that have been killed. The earliest was when he was fifteen, he was shot in front of him.  Most recently his brother and sister-in-law were assassinated on their doorstep.  He had to adopt his niece and nephew to get his kids here.  What do I tell him? He has additional family members who would love to come to this country he is one of those immigrants that has come and has been successful he has the ability to bring someone here illegally and overstay a visa or fly them to Mexico.  What do we tell them? I have a friend that two months ago lost a brother in Kenya they have been refuges there for 5 years trying to come to this country.  What do I tell him?  Do I tell him that he’s foolish for obeying the law?
  As many of you know, I taught overseas.  One of the things that I taught, (was) business and free-market and one of the things that I stressed is that for a free market to grow to it’s greatest potential there has to (exist) the rule of law, because if you have government corruption where people don’t obey the law you don’t get the full value of the market system.

Well, I’m sad to report that while some of those students had the opportunity to come over to UVSC, and one of the most pathetic things I’ve ever heard comes from one of those students that say Chris everything you taught me was wrong.  Students cheat, and they don’t believe in the rule of law here.  After their scholarships were over they had to pay out of state tuition.  And they had to return… So, I ask you, what do I tell those students? What do I tell my wife? Do we love the people of her country equally?
 

I believe this is the greatest country in the world.  And I believe that everybody in the world should have an equal opportunity.  We should not discriminate against Africans or Asians or Indians, and so I would strongly urge you to vote for this bill. 
 

(Some minor editing by Craig Frank)

Rep. Dave Clark, House Majority Leader, speaking to HB239 Driver License Qualification Amendments(February 11, 2008)…

Very very challenging. 

I find myself reflecting on my own personal experiences.  As a young boy, my father was a college professor and we found ourselves in Hawaii, which began as an adventure for me.  I have three Chinese sisters who migrated to this country for whom my father was the sponsor, putting up the bond at that point and time to make sure that they had their opportunity to come here.  They have all married and gone on and found very successful lives as well as obtained their education here.  I have a younger brother who was sitting next to me here near the opening days who has adopted four children from around this great planet.  Their skin and their looks are different than mine and my children. 

So, I find myself wrestling with how on one hand is hope versus, on the other hand, the rule of law.  To me that is the fundamental discussion that our country is wrestling with right now.  What do you do to those folks who have hope and aspirations of finding better—better for themselves, better for their children?  I think that all of us understand that premise. 

My good colleague here a couple aisles and a couple of chairs down:  How do you get around that fundamental promise of the rule of law?   Every one of us on this floor, not only are we citizens of this country but we have upheld, by our own oath to sit on this floor, that we will abide by the constitution of this country and the constitution of this state;  we will uphold the rule of law.  Where do we balance these two out? 

My colleague here from a few blocks away:  Absolutely.  What we passed when we created the driver privilege card I think has accomplished its purpose.  I think we’d be argumentative if we didn’t say that it did.  So, I find myself betwixt and between.  To me this issue is really, fundamentally, is it better to know where those individuals live, or at least where they registered, to try and track, to know whether there is insurance and the benefit associated with that?  As a society, are we improved by that?  Versus the other argument over here. 

As other states have changed their rules and our state now moves, I think, to the head of the pack of places they’d [immigrants would] like to be, the ground continues to shift, and what is it that we do?  Do we want to continue the vacancy sign at our state borders? 

It’s an interesting balance.  I maybe would have voted differently a year ago on this bill.  But I am absolutely going to vote based on this condition a year ago.  [(That congress should act on this issue.)]  Naïve as I may have been, I had faith that congress would address this issue.  A lot of discussion and talk took place. 

If congress is unwilling to resolve this particular issue and it has been punted back to the states, by-golly, I guess we’ll have to do it.  I could talk a lot about congress here today.  I am extremely frustrated at their inability.  It’s interesting how what last year became the major issue, when they didn’t have the ability to enact anything—when they fumbled the ball—all of a sudden it goes quietly into the background as if it is not still a real issue.  Shame on them.

Hope versus the rule of law?  What a difficult decision.  I’m sure that Lady Justice, with those scales, being blind, would probably prefer to have them weighed equally, and I’m not very much one side or the other on this one.  But, I do believe that the rule of law is what should be upheld and should be foremost in this country.  Without that I don’t know where hope goes or where it ends up.  So I would encourage and ask for your support in this particular vote.

Thank you. 

STOP THE LYING, DUDE…READ THE BILL…

HB75 (2nd SUB) DOES NOT PROHIBIT MUNICIPALITIES FROM BUILDING COMMUNITY POOLS

House Bill 75 does NOT take away rec centers, parks, or other goods or services provided by local government.