THE FINAL EDITION

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS

Arizona’s oldest continuously published newspaper will hit Tucson newsstands and doorsteps for the last time on May 16.

As a longtime reader of the Tucson Citizen, I think I speak for many when I say the paper’s closure will be like saying goodbye to an old, trusted friend.

What a friend it has been. The Citizen already was 11 years old when it told us about Wyatt Earp’s shootout at the OK Corral in 1881. It had been around 42 years when Arizona became a state in 1912. And when the city of Tucson celebrated its bicentennial in 1975, the Citizen had a 105-year record of reporting behind it.

Tucson will be very different without the Citizen. Our community will have one fewer voice, one fewer watchdog, one fewer place to go for the news we need to understand our increasingly complex world.

Many believe that, as an afternoon newspaper, the Citizen’s days have long been numbered. Perhaps, but the loss of the Citizen is emblematic of a far more troubling trend. The entire newspaper industry is struggling as never before, thanks in part to a seismic shift in how we get our news.

Today the Internet, not the daily newspaper, serves as our window to the world.

For news junkies and avid newspaper readers, this is a truly sad turn of events. I count myself among this shrinking community.

Sure, going online is fast and handy. But old school types love newspapers – we love holding them, with a cup of coffee at hand, and learning about what has happened in our neighborhood, city, state and country.

Some of us – the real die-hards – even like comparing competing articles and editorials on the same subject among rival newspapers. Tucson was one of the few cities where this was possible; ours was one of the last two-newspaper towns left in America.

With the demise of the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and the Rocky Mountain News in Denver over the past month, Tucson is by no means alone in having to rely on one newspaper. That, however, is little comfort. Competition is a good thing for newspapers, as it is for any business.

Having two newspapers fostered a competitive spirit that allowed the Tucson Citizen and Arizona Daily Star to bring out the best in each another. Reporters, editors and photographers at each of our papers wanted to scoop the other guy. In that race, readers were the winners.

Since 1870, the Citizen has kept southern Arizonans informed. We didn’t always agree with an editorial position or like the angle of a news story, yet we kept reading.

We needed the Citizen. Sometimes we needed it to figure out a City Council decision. Sometimes we needed it to tell us how the Wildcats did. And sometimes we just needed it to tell us when movies began at The Loft.

The point is, the Citizen was there for us.

From the era of the Butterfield Overland Stage to the Phoenix Mars Mission, the Citizen helped chronicle Arizona’s amazing journey from a rough and tumble territory to the second-fastest growing state in the country.

It was an indispensable part of our community. It educated us, entertained us and inspired us. It will be missed.

Goodbye, dear friend.

Gabrielle Giffords is a member of the U.S. House representing Tucson and southern Arizona.

Guest Writers
Guest Opinion

There is no lack of opinion among members of Congress on how to address illegal immigration. The debate is as heated and divisive as any in recent years.

Public reaction to the president’s latest executive order – requiring federal contractors to use the voluntary E-Verify system – only highlights the intensity of this debate.

We represent districts in Arizona and Texas – two states on the front line of illegal immigration.

Increased work-site enforcement has led to plant raids in Texas, where hundreds of illegal workers were arrested and businesses temporarily shuttered. In addition, Arizona has established the toughest sanctions in the nation – revoking business licenses – against companies hiring unauthorized workers.

We strongly believe employers should be held responsible if they knowingly hire illegal immigrants, and recognize that the federal government has failed to provide a reliable system for identifying undocumented workers.

The current federal employment verification system – E-Verify – is plagued by inaccuracies and is easily manipulated by false documents and stolen identities.

In requiring employers to help reduce the flow of illegal immigrants into America, the federal government must provide them the proper tools to effectively and efficiently do just that.

Most would agree that stopping U.S. employers from hiring undocumented workers must be part of the solution.

The bipartisan New Employee Verification Act will give employers the tools they need – helping to ensure a legal work force while safeguarding worker identities.

NEVA replaces the current failed, paper-based I-9 process with a mandatory electronic system to verify the work authorization of new hires.

The system would rely on the use of fewer, more secure identity documents and employee information would be transmitted through each state’s new hire reporting system. That system is currently used to help track down deadbeat dads. It is used by 90 percent of all employers in the nation.

The NEVA proposal would only confirm U.S. citizens’ work authorization through the Social Security Administration, so there is no “Big Brother” law enforcement agency building new databases and violating the privacy of law-abiding U.S. citizens.

Work authorization for noncitizens would continue to be confirmed through the Department of Homeland Security.

NEVA also would allow employers to voluntarily access a network of private sector experts, certified by the federal government, to not only verify work authorization, but also authenticate workers’ identities and secure those identities with biometrics.

Most importantly, the bill would protect the Social Security Administration’s primary mission and trust funds by authorizing employment verification only after the SSA has been given the funding it needs to implement verification and improve the accuracy of its databases in advance.

The longer Congress fails to act, the more the patchwork of conflicting state and local verification laws and federal mandates will grow.

Congress must finally do its job to provide a practical and effective system for U.S. employers to verify workers’ employment status.

Gabrielle Giffords, a southern Arizona Democrat, and Sam Johnson, a Texas Republican, are members of the U.S. House of Representatives.

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS and SAM JOHNSON

letters@tucsoncitizen.com

Guest Opinion

Guest Writer
Guest Opinion

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS and MICHAEL BURGESS

Spring is when motorcyclists from the northern half of the country dust the snow off their boots and get on their motorcycles for the first ride of the year. Riders from the South take road trips to escape the heat.

That is why state and federal agencies recognize each May as Motorcycle Safety Awareness Month and this year Congress will weigh in as well.

As co-chairs of the Congressional Motorcycle Caucus and avid motorcyclists, we have introduced a resolution that supports the goals of Motorcycle Safety Awareness Month.

Currently the bipartisan resolution (HR 339) is working its way through committee and the full House and 18 additional co-sponsors. If you are concerned about motorcycle safety, please encourage your member of Congress to sign on to this measure.

Motorcycle Safety Awareness Month encourages riders to always wear helmets and other protective gear; never drink and ride; be properly licensed; and get training-important messages for motorcyclists whether they ride year-round or are just getting their motorcycles out of winter storage for the spring and summer seasons.

Another critical safety component of Motorcycle Safety Awareness Month, also highlighted by HR 339, is the need for other road users to be aware of motorcycles.

In 2006, 55 percent of all fatalities in motorcycle crashes involved another vehicle in addition to the motorcycle.

In many of these crashes, the driver of the other vehicle reported that they “never saw the motorcycle.”

Congress, state and federal agencies and the motorcycling public must take steps to ensure that drivers of cars, SUVs and trucks are aware of motorcyclists on the road.

Riders can do their part by having their headlight on (even during daylight hours); wearing bright and conspicuous helmets and safety gear; and riding responsibly.

In addition, all road users can increase safety by being cautious and always “taking a second look” before pulling out or turning.

Motorcycles are fun, reduce congestion, have minimal impact on infrastructure and are fuel efficient, making them more attractive than ever to many motorists.

More than 23 million people will operate a motorcycle this year and simply knowing that should spur all riders and drivers to be more aware.

There was a May 1 event on Capitol Hill at which Department of Transportation Secretary Mary Peters, members of Congress and safety advocates highlighted Motorcycle Safety Awareness Month.

We want to make this the safest year ever for motorcyclists. More importantly, please be a licensed, trained and responsible rider or remember to watch out for riders as you drive. You just might save a life.

U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, a Democrat, represents Arizona’s 8th Congressional District. U.S. Rep. Michael Burgess, a Republican, represents Texas’ 26th Congressional District. Both are avid motorcycle riders.

Guest Writer
Guest Opinion

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS

If confirmed as the new commander of our military’s Central Command, Gen. David Petraeus finally will have the opportunity to apply his counterinsurgency strategy to the war against global terrorism.

One of his greatest challenges will be finding a way to better prepare our troops for the non-conventional demands of this strategy while also maintaining the overall readiness of U.S. Armed Forces.

Our military, especially our Army, is being stretched to the breaking point by repeated and extended deployments.

Equipment and soldiers are worn down. Only one full brigade is currently ready to respond immediately to unexpected threats.

Adding to these readiness concerns is the fact that in this post-9/11 world, our military faces new and unconventional enemies. This different kind of warfare requires skills not normally taught in basic training: cultural awareness and language proficiency.

In the 21st century, our troops will continue to be engaged in areas of the world quite different from our own. Most of our operations in the future are likely to involve enemies that do not have national borders or standing armies.

Gen. Petraeus is well aware of this reality. In the Army’s counterinsurgency manual, which he co-authored, it stresses that all successful military operations depend on a thorough understanding of the societal and cultural context of the insurgency.

On March 5, the most recent CENTCOM Commander, Adm. William Fallon, affirmed the need for more soldiers to acquire these skills.

At a hearing before the House Armed Services Committee on which I serve, he stated that, “Language expertise is crucial in counterinsurgency, counterterrorist and counterintelligence operations and will continue to be in high demand. . . . We need service members and career civilians with the requisite language and cultural skills.”

Better preparing our troops for the challenges of global terrorism – giving them the unique capabilities they need – starts right here in southern Arizona.

The U.S. Army Intelligence Center at Fort Huachuca is the Army’s only chartered cultural training center for non-Special Operations personnel.

The center is geared towards training regular Army soldiers to develop cultural expertise and “cross-cultural competence,” not just awareness. It conducts intensive language training for soldiers to learn critical languages such as Arabic and Farsi.

Unfortunately, only about 3,500 regular Army soldiers, among over a half-million active duty personnel, are able to participate in Fort Huachuca’s cultural training program each year.

As of December, less than 1 percent of all active-duty soldiers, including Guard and Reserve personnel, were graduates of this course. Only 400 are able to participate in Fort Huachuca’s intensive language program.

This is why I am drafting legislation to increase the number of service men and women with these critical skills.

My bill would provide financial incentives for cadets in officer training programs and reservists taking advantage of GI Bill benefits, to study foreign languages and culture as a part of their academic programs.

Additionally, it would require the president to appoint a new undersecretary at the Department of Defense to coordinate cultural training efforts across the services.

This senior official would be charged with ensuring the military provide this critical social science research and the training for their personnel.

Success in the conflicts of the 21st century requires well-educated, well-trained and adaptable warriors – men and women who are as comfortable speaking foreign languages and understanding diverse societies as they are in tracking down terrorists.

Such warriors may even help end a war.

U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords is a Democrat representing southern Arizona’s 8th Congressional District.

Guest Writer
Guest Opinion

Arizonans have been hearing a lot about federal surveillance laws.

Unfortunately, this information is coming from misleading and partisan television ads paid for by a foundation that will not disclose its funding sources.

As your representative in Congress, I want you to have the facts.

First and foremost, our nation’s ability to conduct intelligence surveillance of potential enemies has not been diminished.

Under current law, our government may continue to monitor communications of any foreign target, including every known terrorist group.

If a new terrorist group is identified, our intelligence agencies can move quickly to take steps to protect us.

Second, let me give you some background. The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act became law in 1978 to provide a legal framework for the electronic surveillance of Americans who could be involved in acts of espionage, terrorism or treason against the United States.

At the time, Congress rightly sought to strike a balance between protecting our civil liberties and providing the intelligence community with the ability to collect vital information.

Since the enactment of FISA, much has changed. Technology has advanced at an astounding rate, and the Internet has revolutionized the way we communicate. U.S. surveillance laws have been updated many times over the past three decades.

I believe reforms are needed. We need the best tools possible in our fight against terrorism.

FISA legislation proposed by the Bush administration last summer, the Protect America Act of 2007, went too far. It failed to strike the right balance between personal freedom and national security.

PAA became law in August without my support. It authorized the warrantless interception of all foreign electronic communications routed through the U.S. even if the constitutional rights of Americans were violated in the process.

It also eliminated any meaningful oversight by the FISA court, expecting intelligence agencies to police themselves and opening the door to possible abuse by the executive branch.

The PAA reforms were controversial, so they were only put into effect for six months, until Feb. 16, 2008.

More permanent FISA reform legislation was still needed, so the House of Representatives on Nov. 15 passed the RESTORE Act, to allow our government to collect intelligence and combat terrorism while protecting our individual freedoms.

I supported this bill. It specifies that no warrant is required to intercept communications between non-U.S. persons outside the United States and provides the administration with the emergency authority to conduct surveillance for 45 days before obtaining a warrant.

It also states that conducting surveillance of Americans for the purposes of intelligence collection in the U.S. requires a warrant from the FISA court.

The RESTORE Act was sent to the Senate at the end of 2007, where it was extensively revised. The Senate sent its version back to the House on Feb. 12, just four days before the PAA was set to expire.

Unfortunately, negotiations between the two chambers failed, and no permanent FISA reform legislation was brought to the House floor.

I opposed adjourning the House for the Presidents Day District Work Period. It was irresponsible for Congress to go home when this issue had not been resolved.

I sent a letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi urging that she keep members in Washington until compromise FISA legislation could be voted on and sent to the president.

I called for cancellation of the district work period so this important work could be completed.

The only vote before the expiration of PAA, however, was for a 21-day extension of current law so the House and Senate would have more time to negotiate permanent FISA reform.

I voted for this measure and was extremely disappointed it did not pass. Although the expiration of the Protect America Act does not prevent our intelligence community from gathering the information it needs, I remain committed to meaningful and permanent FISA reform.

I sent Speaker Pelosi another letter Feb. 26, encouraging her to resume negotiations with the Senate as soon as possible.

Securing our nation and protecting it from terrorist attacks are our greatest responsibilities in Congress. We can and must do this while maintaining the individual freedoms of all Americans.

Democrat Gabrielle Giffords represents Arizona’s 8th District.

Guest Writer
ONLINE EXCLUSIVE

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS

The effectiveness and impacts of border checkpoints have not been studied comprehensively since 2005, so a new study is in order.

Border security is my top priority as U.S. representative of Arizona’s 8th Congressional District.

The Tucson Sector is the most porous stretch of the U.S.-Mexico border, with more than 48 percent of our nation’s drug traffic and 44 percent of illegal immigrants entering through southern Arizona.

Every day, an average of 1,049 illegal immigrants and 2,749 pounds of drugs cross our ranches, highways, precious lands and communities.

I cannot and will not stand by and allow our region to remain a dangerous thoroughfare. All smart options to address this problem must be considered.

It is my responsibility to ensure that effective border security efforts, tailored to meet southern Arizona’s unique characteristics, are made by the Department of Homeland Security and the Customs and Border Protection Agency,

The Tucson sector is the only border stretch that does not have a permanent, interior checkpoint.

A cross-section of southern Arizona residents studied this issue last spring and summer, as part of my work group on checkpoints.

Residents along the Interstate 19 corridor, from Nogales to Tucson, participated in many public forums and spent countless hours investigating whether a permanent checkpoint should be placed on that roadway.

Strong and divergent sentiments emerged. One group of residents supported more security directly on the border instead of stationary checkpoints; the other group advocated for a permanent I-19 checkpoint in addition to efforts directly on the border.

Throughout the summer, the need for credible data on the effectiveness of checkpoints became increasingly more obvious.

Do such checkpoints reduce the flow of human smuggling and drugs? Do they create flanking, driving criminal smugglers into local neighborhoods?

The work group submitted an exceptionally thorough analysis in August.

As a result, the Border Patrol agreed to scale back the size of a proposed permanent checkpoint on I-19 and to place an interim checkpoint at kilometer 41.5 or 42, away from the most densely populated areas near Green Valley.

I believe an interior checkpoint on I-19 is critical, and I support it.

But I also believe we need an examination of existing checkpoints, including the interim checkpoint now near Tubac.

The most recent study of checkpoints did not address all concerns cited by the work group.

It also was conducted before the I-19 checkpoint became stationary in November 2006 and before the addition of new border security technologies.

I have been working with Sen. Jon Kyl to design a new GAO study to provide thorough, up-to-date information about the operational effectiveness of existing checkpoints and any impacts on nearby communities.

My colleague’s expertise as ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Terrorism, Technology & Homeland Security Subcommittee has been extremely helpful.

I am pleased that Sen. John McCain joined us in making this request, with six other members of Congress, including the chairman of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security and the House Intelligence Committee Chairman.

The GAO request has been made by a bipartisan, bicameral group representing Americans living near the border.

We share the goals of securing our border while protecting residents and making the best use of taxpayer dollars.

I made a commitment to my constituents, after careful study of the work group recommendations, to do all I could to enhance border security and to demand accountability on the effectiveness and impact of interior checkpoints.

This request to the GAO is an important part of my pledge to better secure our border and provide vigilant oversight of the federal government initiatives.

U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, a Democrat, represents Arizona’s 8th Congressional District.

Guest Writer
GUEST OPINION

Without prompt action by the Senate and President Bush, thousands of military families will be hit with significantly higher tax bills next year.

Because of the so-called “Soldier Tax,” more than 10,000 soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines in combat zones stand to lose eligibility for the earned income tax credit in 2008.

Fort Huachuca Army Spc. Adam Hebert and his wife, Mijin, who have two children, will lose hundreds of dollars if the Soldier Tax is not repealed.

The well-being of our troops and their families is one of my top priorities as a member of the House Armed Services Committee and representative of a Congressional district that encompasses two major U.S. military installations.

Our military men and women are putting their lives on the line to keep us safe. Going into combat, the last thing they should have to worry about is their tax returns.

That is why I introduced the Combat Troops Tax Relief Act, HR 3808, to repeal the Soldier Tax.

On Nov. 6, by a vote of 410 to 0, the House passed this provision as part of a comprehensive tax package, honoring our soldiers’ patriotism and commitment with more than rhetoric.

The unanimous vote was an overwhelming statement of support for our men and women in uniform, who never should be penalized for their service overseas.

Now the Senate and White House must act to make Soldier Tax relief the law of the land.

In 1975, Congress enacted the Earned Income Tax Credit to provide tax relief for low- and moderate-income families. The tax credits or refunds range from $100 to more than $4,500, depending on family size and income.

Millions of Americans and more than 150,000 military personnel depend on the tax credit to make ends meet.

Unfortunately, many soldiers and Marines who face deployments next year are at grave risk of losing this benefit.

Soldiers such as Hebert are paid $20,000 to $24,000 a year. Tens of thousands of them are in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Current law grants tax-free status for some military compensation, including housing allowances, certain financial incentives and pay for imminent danger and hostile fire.

However, a glitch in the tax code has effectively penalized soldiers for combat pay, reducing their eligibility for the tax credit.

This is inequitable and inconsistent with our nation’s commitment to those who fight to preserve our freedom.

The men and women who choose to serve our country in the armed forces do so with great courage and conviction, without expecting financial reward.

They accept the hardships of military service, spending long periods away from their homes and loved ones.

When going into combat, they should have confidence that they can afford to take care of their families. They deserve nothing less than our full support. They have earned it.

Gabrielle Giffords is U.S. representative for Congressional District 8 in southern Arizona.

Guest Writer

The Border Patrol discarded its inital plan for a permanent checkpoint and has agreed to operate an interim checkpoint at the site of the current one – and to abandon the idea of a massive structure such as the one in Laredo, Texas (at right).

GABRIELLE GIFFORDS

The Tucson Sector is the most porous stretch of the entire U.S.-Mexico border.

Here, 48 percent of the drug traffic and 44 percent of the illegal immigrant traffic cross the border.

An estimated 1,049 illegal immigrants and 2,749 pounds of narcotics are smuggled through this region every day.

We are the weakest link on the U.S. border. Every other sector has far more infrastructure, and most have checkpoints.

There are 34 interior checkpoints between Texas and California.

It is not a coincidence that southern Arizona is experiencing an unprecedented flow of illegal immigrants and drugs.

I cannot and will not stand by and allow this sector to remain the major route for smuggling into our country.

We need a comprehensive strategy to address this serious problem. Such a strategy must include checkpoints.

Earlier this year, the Border Patrol drafted plans to build a large, permanent checkpoint on Interstate 19 between kilometers 51 and 52, near Amado.

My constituents strongly objected. They argued that such a facility would not work at that location because of the dense population. The size of the proposed structure also drew strong criticism.

In response, the Border Patrol discarded its initial checkpoint plan and has agreed to operate an interim checkpoint at kilometer 41.5 or 42 – the site of the current one – and to abandon the idea of a massive structure like the one in Laredo, Texas.

These are significant concessions. They will not please everyone, but they go a long way in meeting the concerns of residents along I-19 while also giving the Border Patrol the tools it needs to do its job.

I believe an interior checkpoint on I-19 is critical as part of an essential, secondary defense strategy designed to capture those who elude security measures directly on the border.

I support a checkpoint that is stationary, away from major population centers and equipped with the technology and manpower to effectively apprehend illegal human and drug traffic.

The checkpoint must be part of a plan to enhance the public safety of nearby communities and accommodate the flow of commercial traffic.

Checkpoints are not new to us in southern Arizona. We have had them on I-19 for many years.

Despite its deficiencies, the existing makeshift checkpoint has played an important role in apprehending illegal immigrants and seizing drugs.

From October 2006, when it stopped moving up and down the highway, to July 2007, the Border Patrol arrested 6,925 illegal immigrants. During a comparable timeframe when the checkpoint was still moving (October 2005 to July 2006), the Border Patrol had only 3,690 apprehensions.

Marijuana seizures while the checkpoint has been fixed totaled 59,346 pounds, compared with only 17,562 pounds seized during the same number of months when it was traveling back and forth.

But we can do even better. The existing checkpoint does not have adequate cameras, radar and Border Patrol agents to deter flanking and unintended impacts on nearby residents.

The interim checkpoint will include these improvements.

Over the coming months, I will be closely monitoring the progress of interim and permanent checkpoint planning and focusing on several key factors:

• Effectiveness: I have asked the Border Patrol to report to Congress every six months on apprehensions, seizures, levels of community violence, costs, traffic patterns and environmental impacts.

The Border Patrol must be held accountable. I and other members of Congress want to see the numbers. The examination of a fully equipped interim checkpoint will provide us the opportunity to evaluate whether a permanent structure makes sense and is cost effective.

I also will ask the Government Accountability Office to provide an independent, third-party evaluation of the effectiveness of checkpoints in the Tucson Sector and elsewhere. Joining in this request will be Arizona’s U.S. Sen. Jon Kyl and Rep. Raúl Grijalva. This study will also look at how a permanent checkpoint fits into a comprehensive border security plan for the Tucson Sector.

• Community safety: Checkpoints will only work in southern Arizona if they make our border more secure while providing more safety, not less, to our communities. To that end, I wrote to U.S. Border Patrol Chief David Aguilar in May, asking him to take steps to improve community safety near the existing checkpoint.

He responded favorably by adding more patrol agents, sensors, sky watch towers and ground surveillance radar.

More public safety enhancements are needed at the interim checkpoint. A checkpoint must be properly staffed and equipped – with high-tech capabilities including radar, cameras and ground sensors – to ensure the safety of nearby residents.

These features must be part of the Border Patrol’s interim checkpoint.

• Overall strategy: As many of my constituents have argued, checkpoints must be part of comprehensive border security, and we must focus on securing the border at the border. This must be the Border Patrol’s primary emphasis. Cameras, ground sensors, radar and satellite communications, fencing and vehicle barriers in strategic areas must be increased at the border, along with more patrols of roads adjacent to the border.

Other critical elements of a comprehensive strategy include additional resources for the federal judicial system to enforce immigration laws.

• Local law enforcement: I have deep concerns about the impact of illegal immigration on local law enforcement agencies. They simply cannot be asked to do the work of the federal government in enforcing immigration laws.

This is why I fought to increase funding for the state Criminal Alien Assistance Program. I am pleased to report that we were able to add $70 million to the program. Checkpoints must not place an extra burden on our sheriffs.

Our environment, public safety, national security and financial stability are threatened by our border security crisis.

Also, hundreds of people are dying in our desert every year. Since Oct. 1, 2006, at least 186 people have lost their lives crossing the desert in southern Arizona. The situation is unacceptable.

Insufficient border security is only one aspect of our broken immigration system.

I am a strong advocate for comprehensive immigration reform, and I supported efforts in the House and Senate to pass such legislation.

I will continue to work with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to make the federal government more accountable and effective in managing immigration policies and to take common sense steps to bolster border security.

U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords is the Tucson Democrat representing Arizona Congressional District 8.

Guest Writer

By Gabrielle Giffords

HOUSTON – U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay recently visited Reliant Park to glimpse what the evacuees from Hurricane Katrina were experiencing.

I was in Houston volunteering to help the thousands who had survived the storm.

DeLay stopped to chat with a few young kids resting on cots. “Now tell me the truth, boys,” he said, “is this kind of fun?”

It was reported that the boys looked confused by his question. Maybe DeLay didn’t realize that these kids weren’t tourists or there for a camping trip.

Coincidentally, I had a recent experience in south Texas as a tourist in Galveston. The day couldn’t have been more different.

It was one of those summer weekends where you just get in the car and drive off without knowing where you’ll wind up. And where I found myself was a place that was the richest city in Texas until it became the site of the worst natural disaster in U.S. history.

In September 1900, Galveston was hit by a storm with winds exceeding 120 mph and a tidal surge that nearly wiped out the sea strand.

An estimated 6,000 to 10,000 people were killed in the deadliest flood on U.S. soil, where little warning or notice prepared residents and tourists to seek higher ground.

Many of the rotting dead were burned on the seashore in mass funeral pyres.

Two weeks ago, I found myself again on Interstate 45, this time driving north and thinking about hurricanes and memories.

I was heading to the George R. Brown Convention Center in Houston, a shelter that was opened as an overflow for the evacuees who couldn’t fit into the Astrodome or the Reliant Center.

They needed volunteers, and lots of them, and I wanted to play a role in helping clean the wreckage of our modern Galveston.

I couldn’t do anything about the bodies stacking up in hospitals and homes, but I could try to help those who were still alive.

The Houston trade show hall had become an overnight city of the poor, a Hooverville for the Bush era.

Each cot and mattress was neatly covered with sheets, blankets, pillows and a Bible. Hot food and drinks became available with handsanitizing solution to prevent the spread of disease.

Clothes and toys were organized on tables. Medical stations appeared in tents as in a “M*A*S*H” rerun, with doctors and nurses tending to the long lines of the elderly and sick.

A mental-health station was erected, where social workers talked quietly with the severely stressed.

A play area with movies, toys and books hugged a corner wall. A post office was set up to establish an address for people to start receiving mail. Transportation was organized for people who had none with schedules for public buses and shuttles.

Many people already were looking for jobs in Houston, perhaps a sign to themselves that they never would be returning home. A missing-persons station was mobbed. A small table located conveniently nearby offered “Prayer Assistance.”

A volunteer from the Red Cross sat me at a computer terminal. I was at the terminus of a long line of people straggling in by bus and by car from the horrors of the Superdome and the anarchy of the New Orleans streets.

I had no way to predict what I would experience over the next few days. With little or no training, we greeted the same evacuees we had seen on the news just days before and told them what they could expect in their new surroundings.

What did I see in those faces? Most of them were just plain tired, their eyes opaque. Others were more emotive. I saw sadness, anger and regret flushed with gratitude and joy.

Families of all sizes, ages and background one by one made their way through what was to become over the course of the following days a mess of our own, a bureaucratic one this time.

We took their vital information and entered it into an enormous data base. Their names became a river of words. Each represented a personal disaster – a wrecked home, a missing brother, a dead child, a job or career that would never come back.

After I took the names, they were led away to the cots. There were 18,000 of them by the time we were finished.

Each day when I returned, I looked for familiar faces in the sea of evacuees; I only once saw one – a homeless man named Buford. He had been living on the streets before; now he was more homeless than ever. The others I had met I never saw again.

I have no idea what will happen to these people. I have no idea if our federal government has learned anything from its failure to protect those citizens who were most in danger from a catastrophic event.

Galveston, New Orleans, Biloxi and their tragedies all seem remote and distant from those of us who live far from the Southern waters and the terrifying storms they produce.

But we can and should learn from their experiences when sifting through the evidence of what went wrong.

Arizona state Sen. Gabrielle Giffords is a Tucson Democrat.

Guest Writer

Tim Bee

This is a dynamic time in the history of our state. Arizona’s tremendous growth and development on so many fronts adds an extra measure of importance to everything we do. But decisions that carry with them great future implications also create tremendous opportunities to shape the future in highly positive ways.

Arizona’s long-term economic health tops the list of issues. If we don’t take care of this, everything else we want to do is just wishful thinking. We must take a lesson from California, which has mortgaged its future. A strong commitment to fiscal responsibility is critical to making the investments that will permit Arizona to convert its growth into lasting prosperity.

In fiscal year 2005, we funded Arizona’s priorities while increasing the operating budget by a half billion above FY ’04, to $7.16 billion. Due to a robust economy and the fiscally responsible measures insisted upon by Senate leadership, we were able to significantly reduce the deficit. We did not increase taxes and refused to borrow for day-to-day operations, both of which are now big parts of California’s fiscal nightmare.

We must continue to support Arizona’s economic upturn by now eliminating the budget deficit. Spending will increase again this year as we fully fund priorities in education, health care, public safety and critical infrastructure. But our approach must be responsible, with a focus on accountability.

While revenues have been exceeding projections, even this strong growth cannot overcome voter- and court-mandated increases for education and health care. Add to that other increases, and the result would be a growing deficit that puts Arizona’s economic health in jeopardy.

In addition to the budget’s effect on the economy, we must continue to be proactive in addressing economic development. Building off the Legislature’s recent investments in Arizona’s universities and other economic drivers, we need to maintain our focus on attracting businesses and high-paying jobs.

To promote both business development and general economic prosperity, it is time to begin addressing meaningful tax reform. Keeping more money in the hands of taxpayers and businesses has consistently proven to have a positive effect on economic health and growth. During the session, I anticipate vigorous debate on potential tax cuts and their impact on our economic health.

Other important areas include the following:

• Long-term water planning and sound water management are essential. A prosperous future depends upon ensuring an adequate, safe water supply. I expect to see a number of measures to address water shortages and quality.

• We should anticipate consideration of a meaningful state trust land reform package. With more than 9 million acres, state trust land is one of Arizona’s most valuable assets and must be maintained for future generations of schoolchildren. Reform goals should focus on increasing revenues for public schools and other beneficiaries through better management and planning of trust lands.

• With ongoing concerns regarding the use of funds in various agencies, including Child Protective Services and the mental-health system, there need to be more specific efforts to ensure accountability in proper application of taxpayer dollars. Toward that end, the Senate and House have established regular committees with accountability as their main focus.

• Medical liability reform likely will get attention in the coming session. Truly beneficial medical liability reforms must be balanced with preserving the ability of aggrieved individuals to seek redress for legitimate claims.

• A strong commitment to education by legislative leadership and the majority will once again be a focal point of the work to be accomplished. K-12 must continue to be fully funded. With Arizona’s universities in mind, the Legislature should promote a student-centered higher education system that will result in better opportunities and access for students, increased student retention and higher graduation rates.

• Public safety is a core function of government and must always be a focal issue. Ensuring that law enforcement has the proper tools to protect the public is fundamental. We also must promote measures that add further protections against identity theft and strengthen classifications regarding sex offenders to make sure they are properly registered.

• Illegal immigration continues to be a major public safety problem. This session, legislation will be introduced aimed at the criminal activities of the “coyotes.” These human traffickers encourage and assist desperate people to illegally cross the border. In addition to the resulting influx of illegal immigrants needing medical and other services, these smugglers cause the deaths of so many of those whose hopes they exploit. This bill will sharpen the focus and the tools under Arizona’s criminal code regarding these traffickers.

With so much to accomplish for our citizens at this important time in Arizona’s history, I look forward to working with my legislative colleagues to take advantage of the opportunities we have to make real progress in many key areas.

State Senate Majority Leader Tim Bee (tbee@azleg.state.az.us) is a District 30 Republican.

• • •

Right-wing agenda will obscure our most-pressing issues

Gabrielle Giffords

Today the people of Arizona will feel the effects of a Legislature taking a hard turn to the right.

As tradition dictates, Gov. Janet Napolitano will deliver a State of the State address for today’s opening of the 2005 session.

We can expect her to discuss Arizona’s many pressing needs, including full implementation of all-day kindergarten, a statewide plan to reduce water use by 5 percent to cope with the drought, and a teacher excellence program to recruit and retain highly qualified teachers in underserved communities.

People need to pay close attention to how the Legislature responds to these initiatives, because it will be significantly different from last year.

The previous two Legislatures enjoyed the benefits of a working coalition consisting of Democrats and middle-of-the-road Republicans.

This coalition was able to pass a budget that met many of the state’s needs without raising taxes.

It is interesting to note that a statewide poll taken last July found that support for the Legislature was at its highest point in five years.

About 34 percent of people rated our performance “excellent” or “good” in that survey, a 25 percent increase from just a few months earlier.

But the 2004 election took its toll on our bipartisan coalition.

Due to a lack of competitive legislative districts and low voter turnout during GOP primaries, a fairly large crop of mostly conservative Republicans will dominate the House and Senate in 2005.

Based on the many bills already drafted, there are clear signs that our constitutionally required 100-day session could be consumed by attempts to impose a radical social ideology on all of Arizona.

Bills to ban abortion and same-sex marriages are likely to make headlines.

Any measures the governor fails to sign into law likely will be referred to voters in 2006 or be used against her when she runs for re-election.

While these measures consume our energies, a number of significant problems will receive far less attention than they deserve.

Arizona continues to be the second fastest-growing state in the nation, but this growth is occurring without the benefit of high-paying jobs or the necessary infrastructure to attract them.

Most of our economic growth is coming from retail or low-income service jobs.

People are coming here to enjoy our open spaces, but this rapid growth continues to threaten our environment and strain our systems for education, health care and transportation.

We are tasked to find solutions to many unresolved problems, such as Students First, the Arnold v. Sarn court decision mandating improvements to our mental health systems, and the need to repay more than $350 million mandated by Ladewig v. Arizona.

We should be devoting time and energy to the federal No Child Left Behind mandate and to the alarming number of Arizona students who may not earn a high school diploma because they are unable to pass the AIMS test.

Arizona is not alone in facing major obstacles. Legislatures in all 50 states will struggle during 2005 to meet the needs of 52 million poor and disabled Americans who must rely on Medicaid for health care.

The caseload served here by the Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System has been growing four times faster than any other state expenditure, according to a recent national report.

As of mid-December, more than 1 million people were enrolled in AHCCCS, costing us $4.3 billion.

This burden won’t get any lighter during fiscal year 2005.

More employers are deciding that they cannot afford to offer health care benefits to their workers.

Some of them are small businesses, but even large corporations are forcing workers to turn to public health systems.

A study by the University of California-Berkley found that taxpayers were paying $86 million a year in that state to cover the health needs of Wal-Mart employees.

In the past, Arizona voters have been quick to rein in elected officials who get out of hand.

It will be interesting, indeed, to see whether people decide in the next election to clip the far right wing of this new legislative majority.

State Sen. Gabrielle Giffords, a Democrat from Tucson’s District 28, is beginning her third term in the Legislature. She was named to a list of “100 to Watch” in 2003 by the Democratic Leadership Council.

Readers

By Gabrielle Giffords

Legislature shuns vital bills, deals with trivia

I am writing from the state Capitol, where some important issues await the Legislature’s attention. We recently we passed our 100-day mark; however, progress on the budget, the only objective that constitutionally must be met before we adjourn, has been exceedingly slow.

Instead of focusing on the need to adopt a state budget Gov. janet Napolitano will sign, we’re bogged down on debates about whether businesses should allow armed patrons to bring their guns into bars – but only if they don’t order a drink! – or whether people can bring bottled water into baseball games. These are the kinds of debates that give our Legislature a bad reputation.

Some tough decisions must be made quickly.

I have always fought to provide people with opportunities. For example, if we focus on helping young mothers and families keep jobs and stay productive by subsidizing day-care costs for small children, they can provide for their families and avoid the welfare rolls.

It costs the state $3,200 more to have a family on welfare than it does to provide child-care assistance. Meanwhile, we have 8,000 children on a newly created day-care waiting list because their family of three makes more than $15,000 per year.

After four years of sitting on the House and Senate commerce committees, I am more convinced than ever that the most important fuel for job creation, product creation and wealth is a quality education. We have done a good job avoiding cuts to K-12 education this year, but Arizona is committing slow economic suicide by underfunding our universities.

Universities provide the most straightforward form of economic development. Most political and business leaders agree that tomorrow’s high-tech economy will abandon individuals and communities with low educational levels and reward those that develop an educated force of knowledge workers.

That is why I sponsored SB 1370, which provides an incentive for businesses to invest in the research and development at our universities.

Is anyone surprised that with recent tuition increases, there has been a large shift of university students to our community colleges? We are monitoring enrollment numbers closely since we don’t want to damage one of the most successful community college systems in the country. This year it will require $15 million to continue job-training programs to help local employers train and educate our work force.

The biggest sticking point in this year’s budget is our effort to establish a five-year phase-in for voluntary all-day kindergarten. The first step would be for the state to assume the cost of full-day kindergarten for schools with 90 percent students of low-income families. This has an estimated cost of $25 million.

Research shows 90 percent of brain development occurs within the first few years of life. If our children do not receive high-quality early-learning experiences, the learning readiness gap has been set.

It is long past time to complete work on the state budget. I urge you to weigh in on some of the measures currently under consideration. Your voice needs to be heard on measures that affect the economy in general and Pima County in particular.

It would be helpful if you contacted members of the House and Senate leadership to speak out on behalf of measures that improve our state’s competitiveness in the world marketplace, and help Pima County by allowing us to address not only improvements to education, but provide Tucson and southern Arizona with a fair share of state transportation dollars and help us to protect Davis-Monthan Air Force Base and other military facilities from encroachment.

I hope to see progress on these fronts.

Gabrielle Giffords is a Democratic state senator from District 28.

HOW TO CONTACT LEGISLATORS

• Call: (800) 352-8404

• Write: State Capitol, Senate Wing or House Wing, Phoenix, Ariz. 85007

• Fax: (520) 398-6028

• E-mail: For e-mail addresses, go to: www.tucsoncitizen.com. Click on “opinion” at the top of the page and look for the box “How to contact your elected representatives.”

Readers

By Gabrielle Giffords

Arizona must tighten seat belt law to save lives

Arizona law requires that every front-seat occupant of a motor vehicle wear a properly fastened seat belt. However, the enforcement of that law is something being debated in Arizona and 28 other states in which law enforcement officers are not allowed to stop and ticket drivers not wearing seat belts.

Last year I sponsored a bill to strengthen Arizona’s current seat belt law by upgrading seat belt penalties from a secondary to a primary violation. I believe a tougher seat belt law in Arizona is more likely to save people’s lives than possibly any other piece of legislation we consider.

The case for a Primary Seat Belt Law is clear. First and foremost, it is a health and safety issue. In 2001, we lost 1,064 people, including 172 under age 19. In 2002, Arizona suffered 1,119 deaths on our roads. Sadly, among these deaths, 446 people were not using a safety restraint.

Second, the economic costs are growing. As we continue to address the health care crisis in Arizona we must find ways to relieve the unnecessary burden shouldered by emergency rooms across the state. In many of these crashes the motorists and passengers not using a seat belts sustained more serious injuries. As a result they stretch the already limited resources of our emergency rooms.

Additionally, the economic costs of death and injury impose a significant economic burden on law-abiding, responsible drivers.

Nationally, Medicare and Medicaid pay more than a quarter, or $3.7 billion, of the nearly $14 billion in health care costs associated with motor vehicle crashes. Billions more are paid by all of us each year through higher auto insurance rates.

Third, there is potential for Arizona to receive additional federal dollars to address more issues of highway safety. In the current proposed legislation submitted to Congress by the Bush administration, there is an incentive for each state to reach a 90 percent seat belt usage rate.

If a state achieves a seat belt usage rate of 90 percent or better, that state would be eligible for a one-time increase in its state highway funding. In Arizona, that could translate into $12.5 million. This additional money could be used to sustain the paid media campaigns, increase overtime enforcement for speeding and aggressive drivers, DUI enforcement, and to help address the serious issue of lagging emergency medical response times.

Due to the undisputed fact that seat belts save passengers’ lives and reduce injury on our roadways, last session there were numerous individuals and organizations in favor of the Primary Seat Belt legislation. However, even with the support of the law enforcement community and the emergency medical services community, emergency room doctors, emergency room nurses and highway safety advocates, the bill did not make it out of the Senate.

In the early summer months, the Governor’s Office of Highway Safety embarked on a new paid media campaign – “Click It or Ticket” – in concert with its traditional high visibility enforcement efforts. It was difficult to predict how successful this campaign would be; however, they knew that a different approach in Arizona needed to be taken.

Arizona’s seat belt usage rate from 2000 to 2002 was stagnant at 74 percent. Would this new and ambitious approach from the Governor’s Office of Highway Safety be effective in increasing seat belt usage? After a few short months, the results have been extremely positive.

Just this week the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reported that Arizona had an increase in its seat belt usage rate of 12 percent, the second-largest in the nation. We should applaud the Office of Highway Safety’s efforts to think creatively. Its success has immediately improved the safety of Arizona’s highways, roadways and streets.

The Office of Highway Safety’s goal is a 90 percent or better seat belt usage rate for Arizona. We could be assured of reaching that goal, and likely exceed it, if the Legislature would follow the 20 other states and pass a Primary Seat Belt Law.

I believe most Arizonans would agree that saving lives with seat belts is at least as important as making the enforcement of them commensurate with properly operating headlights and taillights, current vehicle registration and properly secured cargo.

Next year the Legislature will once again debate the merits of a Primary Seat Belt Law. It has been said there is no greater act for a legislator than to save the life of an anonymous individual.

If we choose not to pass this legislation next year, we will miss yet another opportunity to protect and save the lives of the people we were elected to represent.

Gabrielle Giffords is a Democratic state senator from Tucson.

Readers

By Gabrielle Giffords

We will all lose if TMC trauma center closes

The eminent threat of losing Tucson Medical Center’s Level One trauma center on July 1 should have all Arizona policy makers gravely concerned.

The consequences of a decrease in trauma care if TMC closes its program could mean the difference between life and death for any one of us south of the Gila River.

During the 10-month period between January and October 2002, TMC treated 1,047 patients in need of specialized trauma care due to accidents ranging from car crashes to gunshot wounds. Of this total, 122 were categorized as “golden-hour” patients.

Tucson’s mayor recently launched a taskforce to investigate how a one-hospital trauma system would perform for Southern Arizona.

During two pilot projects, University Medical Center was unable to handle 10 percent of patients with serious, traumatic injuries.

With the closing of TMC’s trauma center it is reasonable to anticipate that approximately 10 percent of Southern Arizona’s average 3,000 trauma patients would be transported to one of the five Maricopa County trauma centers.

What all state policy makers must realize is that the departure of TMC from the Southern Arizona Trauma Program will not only effect the people or hospitals of southern Arizona, but will have major consequences on trauma centers and emergency rooms throughout the state and potentially in neighboring states.

How have we come to this?

Arizona has historically provided no direct support to our trauma centers, placing the financial burden of this critical care on the shoulders of private hospitals.

Arizona’s Level I trauma centers lose approximately $10 million annually due to the high cost of treatment, insurance, and pharmaceuticals, as well as state reimbursement payments that are below cost.

As a border state, Arizona is uniquely impacted by the number of uninsured border crossers who, by federal law, we must treat regardless of their ability to pay for services.

While the increase in volume and costs at trauma centers is not unique to Arizona, several other states have been proactive in securing stable and dedicated public funding:

- Illinois quadrupled fines for DUI’s and illegal use of firearms adding $36 million to trauma care.

- Washington trauma centers are supported by $5 for every traffic violation and $4 for every vehicle registration.

- Oklahoma charges $1 for every driver’s license to reimburse centers for uncompensated care.

- Mississippi appropriates $2 million in Tobacco Settlement Funds and charges $5 from every traffic violation.

Arizonans recently demonstrated to lawmakers their recognition of the importance of keeping trauma centers open when they voted for Proposition 202 and Proposition 303. The 2002 17-Tribe Gaming Initiative and the legislative referendum to raise tobacco taxes by 60 cents were passed largely due to their promises of funding trauma care throughout our entire state.

While we currently debate the 2004 budget, policy makers must understand that a stable southern Arizona top-level trauma program will disappear if funds of $4.95 million are not dedicated to TMC.

With newly available federal dollars, the Legislature has a unique opportunity to stabilize the state’s trauma system, save lives, and provide the Arizona Department of Health Services the time needed to finalize and implement a plan for how trauma, as a public resource, should be provided equitably throughout our entire state.

Gabrielle Giffords is a democratic state senator from Tucson’s District 28.

Readers

Editor’s note: The Tucson Citizen invited state Reps. Gabrielle Giffords, D-Tucson, and Carol Somers, R-Tucson, to write about the recently adjourned legislative session.

DEMOCRAT

Toughest thing for lawmakers was closing $930M budget gap

By GABRIELLE GIFFORDS

After 130 days, 1,273 bills and numerous failures to come to agreement, optimism for broad-reaching reforms dimmed as the Arizona Legislature adjourned May 23.

The best that can be said for this session is that we managed the worst fiscal crisis in state history by closing a $930 million budget gap.

Because our purse was nearly empty, Arizona will have to do without some of the things we truly need: quality K-12 education, affordable health care, reasonable protections for our environment and adequate funding for public protection.

All we could bring home in our shopping carts were the staples that will keep us going for another year.

Our schools and universities won’t have everything they need, but they won’t starve to death. Local governments will share our hunger, but they, too, won’t have to go to bed completely hungry.

Our carefully crafted agreement spared Arizonans from painful cuts proposed two months ago by Gov. Jane Hull.

We avoided her proposal to leave $118 million in books, computer software and school buses on the shelf, for example, but only because Arizona will embark on a controversial and untested lease-purchase program that allows developers to pay the upfront construction costs and get their money back through many years of lease payments.

Is the lease-purchase program a good idea? Consumer advocacy groups believe lease-to-own furniture and appliance stores take unfair advantage of working-class citizens who end up paying 10 times more than retail prices. This lease-to-own concept is expected to save taxpayers $260 million.

The Legislature did manage to spread the pain around. As we did in the 2002 budget, the Legislature continued to cut funding for state agencies, this time by 2.5 to 3.2 percent. These cuts will lead to countless inconveniences, missed opportunities and higher costs in future years.

Numerous state parks, including several in southern Arizona, will close for part of the year, or even the entire year.

State universities will continue to lose their best and brightest minds to schools with more generous budgets for salaries and research.

Arizona will continue to be ranked 49th among the 50 states and the District of Columbia in education spending at $5,033 per student, according to a U.S. Census Survey of Local Governments. Only Mississippi and Utah spend less.

Some kids got hurt this session. For example, the Arizona Department of Juvenile Corrections has one of the nation’s lowest recidivism rates. Nearly 80 percent of its delinquent youth stay out of trouble for at least one year. But they will have to absorb $2.7 million in reductions at a time when counties are sending them more youth, leaving them almost 150 beds short of their needs.

In the final days of the session, tempers ran high, bills died and coalitions crumbled. We failed to adopt a carefully negotiated plan that would have extended gambling compacts on 17 Indian reservations.

That means Arizonans will have to sort through millions of dollars in clashing television ads touting competing ballot initiatives.

A bill that would have created a “do not call” list for telemarketers also ran out of steam, coming up a couple votes shy.

We did manage to pass a number of bills that should have positive, broad-reaching outcomes. If voters approve a new 60-cent-a-pack tax on cigarettes, the state will gain $151 million to help keep our trauma centers open, pay for children’s health services, provide health care for the working poor, and increase funding for medical research.

By 2004, all felons in Arizona will be tested for DNA, using the genetic fingerprint to help catch criminals involved in murders, rapes and robberies.

Children will now be required to wear a seatbelt while riding in the back seats of cars.

Even with some good decisions by our Legislature, Arizonans are very concerned about the uncertainty of where our state is headed. We are dissatisfied to be chronically ranked at the bottom among the 50 states.

According to a recent Morrison Institute poll, and a recent Arizona Town Hall, Arizona is lacking in resolve among its leadership to meet the expectation of voters to prepare us for the 21st century.

The new 2003 Legislature will be a relatively clean slate. Nearly 40 percent of legislative members were brand new two years ago.

Now, due to term-limits and redistricting, possibly 50 percent of current members will not be returning next January.

We will also be electing a new governor in November as well as a team of statewide officeholders.

When the new Legislature reports for business in January, we will be facing great challenges to fix the many problems that we left behind during this session.

I am confident that our new governor and a newly constituted Legislature will report for work full of resolve and brimming with new ideas to take on the challenges of leading a growing state into a new century.

REPUBLICAN

Citizen Legislature – still the best idea – and other thoughts about this session

By CAROL SOMERS

Since 1912 citizen legislators have gathered in our state capitol to debate Arizona’s pressing issues. Ninety diverse citizens, who by and large reflect their constituents’ views, must somehow reach the proper mix of principled action and compromise to move Arizona forward. The job isn’t easy. It is mostly interesting. It is always worthwhile.

Consensus building is the key to our system of checks and balances. A slim majority requires 31 representatives, 16 senators, and one governor to agree. Sometimes liberal ideas prevail. Sometimes conservative thinking wins the day.

Of the 330 bills enacted this year, most were widely supported by both parties.

Major policy changes have the most difficulty achieving approval. Interesting combinations of legislators will coalesce around specific issues.

A bill to limit future state spending for the growth of inflation and population fell flat. A bill to eliminate the rainy day fund and return unspent tax dollars to the taxpayers went to the dustbin. Bills to recognize domestic partnerships and to require informed consent for abortions also failed. Regulation of homeowner associations and telemarketers will be brought back again next year for another try.

Costs for health care for the working poor have exceeded tobacco settlement dollars and now require a large infusion of general fund money. The Legislature rejected an idea to ask the voters to approve a simple spending cap on general fund dollars for this expanded coverage.

Instead we’re proposing a referendum to increase taxes on tobacco. If it passes, this revenue will pay for health-care coverage for the expanded Medicaid population, trauma centers, uncompensated care, health research, and other health-care safety net needs.

We approved a statute requiring all convicted felons to be DNA tested and results placed in a data bank that helps solve serious crimes like rape and murder. The debate also included misdemeanor crimes that have been made into more harsh felony offenses. Bootlegging software, DUI, and drag racing are class six felonies.

Legislative “creep” is responsible for more and more misdemeanors becoming class six felonies. Some legislators want to study the class six felonies and restore some of them to misdemeanors.

K-12 classroom funds appropriately were protected from budget cuts. Even though K-12 spending represents nearly half of the state budget, only unneeded money for building renewal was used to help balance the budget.

Classroom dollars known as “soft capital” were left intact, as was “career ladder” teacher pay. Tuition tax credits will continue. To bolster reading, we approved a plan to require schools to upgrade their K-3 programs. Curriculums must include teaching phonics. Any child who can’t read by the third grade must be given special tutoring.

Constituents tell us over and over that they want school accountability. A bill was overwhelmingly approved by the House and Senate that allows the state to assign contractors to manage poor-performing schools that fail to improve.

In the aftermath of 9-11, several bills were passed to shore up Arizona’s homeland security. We gave the governor broader powers in the event of a bioterrorism attack. Another bill tightens security involving wire transfers. Concern for safety won more votes than what some consider as erosion of personal rights.

Some have called our rejection of the governor’s gaming bill “shameful.” Others say we ran from a tough issue. It was neither. For most legislators it was one of the toughest votes we cast.

The bill was introduced late in the session as a “take it or leave it” proposition with proponents arguing it is the best we can do. No legislators were involved in the 2 1/2 years of negotiations with the tribes. The bill offered no full disclosure of expenditures and profits. The proposed revenue sharing was viewed by many as unacceptable in return for a 23-year monopoly.

The most serious flaw in the governor’s plan was the “poison pill” language that would eliminate revenue sharing and remove slot machine and table limits if gaming were expanded off the reservations during the life of the compacts. No one knows if the initiative to allow slot machines at the tracks will pass in November.

What seemed nearly impossible in January, we offset a deficit of nearly $1 billion without increasing taxes. In adopting the budget plan, we acknowledge that we likely face a $550 million deficit in 2004.

Last session, I was among those demanding we take a look at the core responsibilities of government and how we fund them. Others agreed. House Bill 2178 establishes two committees that will improve tax structure for state and local jurisdictions and recommend ways to integrate services and eliminate duplicate programs.

Citizen legislators come from different backgrounds and areas of expertise and therefore must learn about more issues than most people read about in a lifetime. We listen closely to constituents, advocacy groups, and yes, lobbyists on both sides of issues. At the end of the day, we know we have done our best on behalf of the people.

PHOTO CREDIT: Citizen file photo

CUTLINE: Because term limits will force many members to leave, almost 50 percent of the 2003 Arizona Legislature will be new.

Guest Writer

Legislature convenes today: Budget dominates session

The Tucson Citizen invited the two state reps from District 13 – Democrat Gabrielle Giffords and Republican Carol Somers – to write about the regular session of the Arizona Legislature that starts today.

Democrat: A better economy should help us boost programs

Gabrielle Giffords

Guest Opinion

There’s an old saying in legislative politics: The only thing you’ll find in the middle of the road are yellow stripes and dead animals.

Well, there is one other thing that can be found in the middle of the road, and that is effective legislation that best serves the needs of Tucson and Arizona.

That lesson was made amply clear last December, when the Legislature labored long and hard to close a gaping $675 million hole in the state budget that was created by a recent economic downturn.

It is always hard to cut spending in the middle of a fiscal year, but the problems were exacerbated by the simultaneous need to face some badly needed funding emergencies.

First, the Legislature had to address an important federal lawsuit, known as the Flores case, that required the state to double state funding for Arizona students who need help in learning English.

At stake were hundreds of millions of dollars in federal highway funding. Arizona made a commitment when state officials signed a federal consent decree agreeing to meet the needs of non-English-speaking students. U.S. District Judge Alfredo Marquez was prepared to retaliate by blocking these funds if that promise was not kept.

Then there was the literal life-and-death crisis we were facing in Tucson, where the emergency trauma centers at Tucson Medical Center and University Medical Center were going to close unless they received an emergency infusion of $4.3 million. Losing them would have meant leaving all of southern Arizona without adequate emergency-room coverage.

Oh yes, then there was the unexpected emergency that was created when the federal government informed Arizona that it would no longer provide $2.8 million for lifesaving dialysis treatments for certain individuals. Many of these people were going to die within days from kidney failure unless someone – that meant the state – immediately agreed to pay.

The only way to address these many emergency needs was to forge a consensus. Unfortunately, not everyone in the Legislature was willing to meet in the middle.

The Flores bill was a prime example. A bill providing a modest increase in English education failed initially in the House. Members of the far left opposed the measure because it didn’t do as much as they wanted. Members of the far right opposed the bill because they preferred to oppose a federal judge on ideological grounds.

It took a last-minute effort by the Democratic and Republican leadership to coerce a few members from the left and right to walk toward the middle. Finally, the measure passed by a single vote.

We in the House should have learned by watching the Senate, a body that is split 15-15 between Republicans and Democrats. That even split has forced both parties to work together in ways rarely seen in a less balanced legislative body. Neither side was able to steamroller the other. The only way to pass legislation was by abandoning the left and the right to meet in the middle of the road.

It will be interesting to see if the Legislature has learned its lesson when we reconvene today. The problems of the special session are not entirely behind us. We face a potential budget shortfall in 2003 that some estimate to be as large as $1 billion.

One wise decision was to abandon an experimental two-year budget. Those of us who fought to take one year at a time did so because of economic trends that point toward an improving sales figures and continued strength in the housing and construction industries.

If those trends are accurate predictors, the economy will rebound in the second and third quarter. In other words, the 2003 budget deficit will not be as bad as earlier predicted and Arizona will have an opportunity to continue investing in its future.

Only by making prudent investments in these areas can government show businesses that it can foster a healthy climate. Tucson wants to emulate Silicon Valley by becoming an incubator for the optics industry.

Northern California would still be a sea of citrus groves if Stanford and the University of California-Berkeley weren’t able to provide the intellectual capital that was needed to build a better computer chip.

If Arizona wants to provide our children with a bright future, we must provide critical funding for universities, K-12 schools, medical facilities and environmental programs. These investments, in turn, will convince business to turn Tucson into Optics Valley.

The solutions can be found. We only have to look for them in the middle of the road.

As always, we in the Legislature need to hear from you during this session. Southern Arizona is fortunate to be represented by a number of legislators who work hard and prefer effective compromises to ideological grandstanding.

We can all be reached at (800) 352-8404, or through the Internet at azleg.state.az.us. Please don’t hesitate to contact us.

Gabrielle Giffords is completing her first term as a Democratic state representative. She is on the Ways and Means, Commerce and Economic Development, and Banking and Insurance committees.

Republican: Control spending, develop work force to thrive

Carol Somers

Guest Opinion

The Arizona State Legislature today will pick up where it left off at the end of the 2001 special session and will focus primarily on developing a budget for 2003.

Weakness in our economy has created a budget deficit that elected officials must eliminate. While the 2002 budget was achieved through agency budget cuts, fund transfers and use of rainy day funds, the 2003 budget will be more difficult to balance. The deficit is predicted to be about $750 million. Many of the simpler budget balancing tools used for 2002 are exhausted.

The coming session demands that legislators weigh trade-offs to prioritize spending decisions. For those of us who are willing to accept the challenge, an opportunity for leadership in long-term thinking and planning has emerged.

No one could have predicted Sept. 11, the drastic downturn of sales tax – a major source of our state’s revenues – and the temporary derailment of the economy. Yet there is a silver lining. In the process of becoming one of the most educated legislatures on budget process in the past couple of decades, these lawmakers will rightfully turn to the questions of:

- What are the core responsibilities of our state government?

- What are the best ways to fund them?

- Which is best: priority-based budgeting or zero-based budgeting?

Whatever the decision, we must avoid the past error of spending at a higher rate than our state’s incoming revenue. That is what helped to get us into our present predicament. Our future depends on the gritty determination of the Legislature to look at the long-term betterment of Arizona instead of short-term quick fixes.

I would argue for an additional point: that we establish and provide the investment to effectively stimulate our economy. Prior legislatures have not established a comprehensive economic development plan for our state that provides for the proper investments needed to broaden our tax base, create better-paying jobs and raise our standard of living.

It has only been in the past two years that the state has invested significantly in work force development. The state continues to invest minimally in our industry cluster funding and technology infrastructures that are sorely needed to benefit the economic development of both our rural and urban communities.

Moreover, there must be a strong push not to further erode our universities and colleges, or to detract from our K-12 spending. They are the keys to creating an effective future work force. To do less would be inconsistent with a long-term successful economic plan for Arizona.

Getting agreement on next year’s budget may come very late in the session, as there will be those who will want to hold out until the last minute to see if revenues magically return. Some Democratic legislators are already asking for tax increases on individuals and businesses. Others from both parties argue for eliminating some tax exemptions. Getting the necessary votes in the House and Senate to raise taxes isn’t likely to happen. Our best hope is to stimulate the economy and see what nonrevenue producing tax exemptions we can agree to eliminate.

In terms of new legislation, with the exception of the trauma centers, there will most likely be few if any spending bills. Most advocacy groups will be looking for legislative help that can fix bad regulations, minimize unintended consequences of existing laws, further a protection, or promote fairness and equity.

Other key developments to watch for are:

- Legislation that would let the state Board of Education turn over consistently failing schools to outside contractors. The arguments for and against will center on local control versus giving the board new powers. The debate will also engage legislators in determining the legal definition of failing schools.

- The Governor’s Commission on Transportation, Vision 21, has completed its work and will promote its recommendations to the Legislature for how to address the state’s highway infrastructure and urban road congestion in our cities.

- The legislative ad hoc committee on health care will have recommendations for how to make health care available to more Arizona citizens.

- The Governor’s Commission on Water Issues has also completed its work and it will promote recommendations as to how to meet Arizona’s present and future water needs.

- There will be several bills aimed at reining in school desegregation tax on property owners, which has resulted in the state general fund picking up much of the tab.

- The Legislature must address Indian gaming compacts and renewal. The debate will center on expansion of gaming versus nonexpansion, and whether revenue sharing with the state should be required for the privilege of doing gaming business in Arizona.

Many are predicting that because this is an election year, and redistricting has resulted in unexpected races between incumbent lawmakers, there will be more rancor and less cooperation than last session. I completely reject this opinion. I hope that others follow me by putting that aside and work together for the good of the state. I strongly believe that the people of our great state cry out for leadership that strives to “Pass good legislation and kill bad legislation!” Our state requires it. History and our future posterity demand no less.

Carol Somers is in her first term as a Republican state representative. She is on the Appropriations Committee and is vice chair of the Commerce and Economic Development Committee.

PHOTO: The Associated Press

Before delivering last year’s State of the State speech, Gov. Jane Hull greets state Supreme Court justices and other Arizona officials in the House of Representatives’ chamber at the Capitol.