February 26, 2015

"Well, I think they'll be a generous investment into education. It's my number one budget priority." -Governor Herbert on KUED

 Link to video of the Governor's News Conference

Male Announcer: KUED presents "The Governor's Monthly News Conference," an exchange between Utah reporters and Governor Gary Herbert. This program was recorded earlier.

GOVERNOR HERBERT: Good morning.

MALE: Good morning.

ERIC NIELSEN, KUED: Good morning, Governor. I hear you have an opening statement.

GOVERNOR HERBERT: I do. Let me just begin by saying we're in the last 2 weeks of the Legislative session. We have 11 days to go. And there's a lot of, you know, weighty issues yet to be discussed and talked about. And I think the session by and large has been going fairly well.

I know there's been a little bit of a concern about what happened to Healthy Utah yesterday. And so I'd just like to begin by talking about I recognize people of goodwill on all sides of this issue have been engaged. The process has worked well in the Senate. They started out with a bill proposal we call Healthy Utah. Senator Shiozawa has had public comment, public hearings. He's heard the concerns and questions that people have, has made adjustments to the bill so that what was passed out yesterday from the Senate to the House was what we call Healthy Utah 2.0. Again, that's how the process works. You start with a baseline, you get comments, input, and you make changes and modifications to improve the bill so that people can, in fact, support it.

Unfortunately, in the House side, they had a closed caucus last Thursday where they had discussion and debate on the original Healthy Utah bill without the modifications and improvements. Evidently, have taken a position in opposition of that, which is like creating a straw man argument. What they need to debate is Healthy Utah 2.0, which now has been sent over to the House.

The process is important. The process will include public comment, the opportunity for the public to weigh in, stakeholders to weigh in, pro and con. You go to a committee hearing to do that. Once that's done, you put it out on the floor for people to vote, to have an open and transparent debate and vote it up, vote it down, but at least have an opportunity for the public to be involved.

I know the speaker has talked about we don't want to have political pageantry. Well, political pageantry is, I guess, a euphemism for the public's opportunity to come in and speak, and talk to their elected officials and give input. Clearly, we know there's a lot of public support based on the polling, based on the fact that we have 75 different entities, business groups, most of the chambers of commerce, healthcare providers that are lined up in support of what we believe is a commonsense approach to an alternative to Medicaid Expansion. We would hope that commonsense would prevail in the House and that it would be an opportunity for them to have honest and robust and open and transparent discussion and debate, getting public input and then take a vote. That's how the process is supposed to work and I think the public is served when the process works. The public is not served when a process, in fact, is short-circuited.

Let me just conclude by saying I know there's some misunderstandings out there. I know that because of what I hear from individual legislators as they ask questions to me. And also as we see in yesterday's Utah Policy Daily, the editorial from Speaker Hughes. It's clear as you read that editorial that he is talking about something else other than Healthy Utah 2.0 based on all the errors that are involved in his editorial.

So let me just say a couple of things. One, there are no tax increases involved with Healthy Utah 2.0. That is a rumor that's out there, but it's not factual, based on the legislation passed out of the Senate. It costs about $25 million. We'd use existing funds to do that. And it terminates in 2 years as a pilot program. We also have got an agreement with the Department of Health on the federal level to--if we have needs to modify and improve, opportunities to copy other waivers that maybe come from other states down the road, that we can incorporate that.

So it is true that this is a work in progress, but the work in progress is eventually getting us to a better and better piece of legislation that reflects the needs of the people of Utah. It does--it's the most cost effective program to use taxpayers' dollars. $800 million we're sending and growing every year back to Washington, D.C., to bring our Utah taxpayers' dollars back to help people, 60,000 people that don't have access to healthcare. There is not a better proposal out there.

Certainly, doing nothing, which is what the House is now proposing, we're just going to stop and do nothing, is not the most effective use of the taxpayers' dollars and it doesn't help people that really are in need. It does not lock the state into any kind of an open-ended welfare program. In fact, we have the ability to do with this program what was done with our pension reform program. You recall that a few years ago, the pension program was not sustainable. At least, that was the concern we had in the state and so we ended up grandfathering those who were on the original pension plan and said the new people, the new employees, will go into a different plan. We have the ability to do the same thing with Healthy Utah.

So the 2-year pilot program, people that have it and get it will stay on it. We won't have to jerk anybody's insurance away from them at a critical time 2 years from now. They will finish out. But new people will come in as a fallback position to maybe a less robust, more cost-certain, if that's the concern that we seem to hear from the house members, more cost-certain as we go forward. So the grandfathering clause which has been approved by us--to us by the Department of Health means we don't have any kind of open-ended welfare program, we don't have any unforeseen financial risk. We can cap this as it were, as we go forward. And not only does it not raise taxes, it does not create a new revenue dedicated stream. 

We have provided for the Legislature on a scenario of, "Well, what if we go through this in the long term, where does the revenue come from?" We've provided them with options and opportunities of where that revenue stream could come from. But this bill does not create that revenue stream. Again, no tax increases and no dedicated new revenue stream. And last but not least, it also does not leave tens of thousands of Utahns without health insurance because of the flaws in the ObamaCare law and the ruling of the Supreme Court.

So again, that's why we have a process, so that all these questions and answers can be, in fact, dealt with, to have public comment and stakeholder input, so that the legislators can ask the tough questions and get the answers, and then in an open and transparent way, vote it up, vote it down, make amendments, change it, alleviate concerns you have and move forward. But when we truncate the process, the public is not served well.

LISA RILEY ROCHE, DESERET NEWS: Governor, you're using the bully pulpit here, obviously, to let people know what's happening with the House. But what kind of political leverage do you have to make the House consider this at this point and do what, as I understand, was the commitment the Speaker made to you before the session started and that's let Healthy Utah have a hearing on the House side?

GOVERNOR HERBERT: Well, again, let me just say. I have great admiration and respect for the leadership in the House. And I don't know what has derailed them, frankly, in this process. I know it's--they have a lot of legislators and some extreme voices and some moderate voices and to herd those cats all together is a difficult issue. But what we ought to be talking about is the truth and the facts. If we have had a failure to communicate, if we have not communicated well with the Senate on this bill, then they need to open up those lines of communication. That's why we have a process.

There is clearly, based on the editorial of the Speaker that came out yesterday, there is misunderstanding at best and distortion at worst as far as what the facts are regarding Healthy Utah 2.0. So again, I'm just calling upon the House to do what they should be doing. They certainly have had time to discuss other issues like, you know, the state dog and, you know, other issues out there that probably are of lesser importance. Let's talk about what Senator Shiozawa yesterday said is maybe the most important issue in his legislative career and may be the most important issue of the tenure of most of the body. This is really a significantly big thing.

We're spending a lot of money, whether you like it or not, the law of the land requires our taxpayer to send a lot of money back to Washington, D.C., and doing nothing means that we just leave it in Washington, getting very little benefit. That's not fair to our taxpayers and it's even less fair to those who really need a helping hand to access healthcare. This is a common sense solution. I wish we didn't have the Affordable Care Act. I wish we could get that $800 million back and devise our own program without any strings attached to it at all. Unfortunately, that's not the law.

MAX ROTH, FOX-13: Governor, would you consider using some sort of executive action, simply saying that "this money is available from the federal government so as a policy matter, I, as Governor, am going to accept it through channels already existing in the Department of Health"? 

MICHAEL ORTON, UTAHPOLITICALCAPITOL.COM: Senator Hillyard said that he had the money on him, the $25 million was available, and so we're just wondering if maybe executive appropriations could circumvent an entire House proceeding.

GOVERNOR HERBERT: Well, let me say in answer to both of your questions, your comments, you know, obviously, we'll look at any and every opportunity we have to get to the right point. Clearly, you know, we want to negotiate with our colleagues in the House and see if we can't have commonsense and reason prevail. If there is questions that they have, let's see if we can answer the questions. I think most of the questions and the concerns they've raised, we don't want to raise tax. Okay, we're not going to raise tax. We don't want to have any kind of long-term commitment that locks us in to something we cannot afford long-term. We've got a couple of different mechanisms in place to deal with that. We want to be able to modify and improve it down the road. We don't want to be locked in to something today that maybe can improve tomorrow, right? And it maybe can be improved tomorrow but that doesn't mean we don't start today. And we have agreements with the Department of Health to allow us to have the flexibility to incorporate new changes and better changes if we copy from other states, if they develop a better system. So we've answered all the tough questions and, I think, satisfactorily. But if there's issues, let's talk about it. Let's not just circumvent discussion and debate. We still have 11 days to go. We've accomplished a lot in 11 days in the times past. There's probably nothing more important on the table to discuss than this issue. That doesn't mean we don't have other issues like, you know, transportation funding and what we're going to be doing with prison relocation and other kinds of issues. So I understand there's other big deals out there to talk about, but we got 11 days to do this. Let's not short-change the public by limiting discussion and debate. We'll look at every opportunity we have to get to the right place.

BOB BERNICK, UTAHPOLICY.COM:  Are you just going to--if they don't do anything, are you just going to call another special session and then they don't do anything, and you call another special session and so you just keep putting the heat to the fire?

GOVERNOR HERBERT: Well, that's certainly one of the options, I guess, out there, Bob. And again, I'm not going to commit what I'm going to do or what I have planned to do. Again, I'm just hopeful that the House will say, "You know, it does make sense to have a discussion. What have we got to be afraid of?" You know, are the puppies* going to come up and they know they're going to have a lot of people speak for it. There are going to be some people speak against it. But they ought to understand what the facts are. And then base their vote on the facts and stand tall and say, "I oppose it because of this," or, "I support it because now that I've got new information, my questions have been answered and the concerns I have have been alleviated so I'm going to vote for Healthy Utah." I would hope that the House would allow every member to vote its conscience in an open and transparent way, and I think the public will support them in that effort. 

LISA RILEY ROCHE, DESERET NEWS: But can you use political leverage to get that done this session? You mentioned prison relocation. There's talk now of letting the Prison Relocation Commission make that final decision. So you wouldn't be required to call a special session. They could do it whenever they wanted. You probably wouldn't have the input into that decision. 

GOVERNOR HERBERT: Well, those are two separate issues.

LISA RILEY ROCHE, DESERET NEWS: Are they?

GOVERNOR HERBERT: Yes, they are. And I'll explain to you why I think they are, at least, in my view. One, I don't think gamesmanship is good politics, you know. I know that we've seen that in times past and certainly we see it in Washington, D.C., and if you don't do this, I'm going to do this, I'm going to punish you. We ought to all look for what is the best outcome and be statesmen. We ought to stand tall in our positions, you know, whatever we decide them to be, on the right or on the left. And we ought to say, you know, there's my reasons for it, my justification, and let the chips fall where they may on reelection efforts and the public opinion. But we ought to be open and transparent about it. So I don't like the idea of, you know, well, you didn't support me here so I'm not going to support you over there. I think that leads to bad policy. 

When it comes to the prison relocation and the seven-member proposal we have out there, I just think that's bad policy. I think the Legislature needs to embrace their responsibility here. They've taken on the responsibility of finding a location for the prison and they should be held accountable for that and all should participate. This is really a statewide issue and so all representatives and senators should, in fact, stand up and be counted when it comes to what their decision is.

The other thing I'm concerned about is if we give this to a seven-member commission and authorize them to go out and do this, it cuts out the executive branch. I need to have legislation that's passed by the body that I can sign off on and sign and agree to or veto. And so, cutting the executive branch out is not good policy. It's not how the system's designed to work. So I've got concerns about this attempt to move it to a seven-member commission.

Last but not least on the prison relocation, I have said if there is a better place to locate the prison than Draper, let's move it. If we cannot find a better place than Draper, then we need to reconsider keeping it in Draper. And that's part of the process we're going through with public input and comment. Again, that's why process counts. Openness, transparency. That's what we're talking about with Healthy Utah. Same thing is true with prison relocation

LISA RILEY ROCHE, DESERET NEWS: Do you think, though, that this move to turn this decision over to the Prison Relocation Commission is a way to keep any retribution from your office from occurring as a result of Healthy Utah? It seemed--the timing seemed very suspicious.

GOVERNOR HERBERT: Well, I don't know about what's in the heart of man or what they--I don't anticipate, I don't think, that's the case. I think they're just trying to find a way to expedite the issue and take the heat off the Legislature. I don't think, again, that's--we've been elected to make tough decisions. Let the sun shine in. You know, we need to be open and transparent in our conduct. We don't want to just say, "Let's have seven people make this decision," and the rest of us kind of skate on having to stand tall on our decisions, you know, however way we decide to vote. So again, I guess, the watchword today is "openness and transparency," and that process counts.

You know, John Dingell, one time, said, the Dean of Congress back in Washington, D.C., says, "I'll let you consider the substance of a bill if you'll let me consider the process. And in doing so, I will row* you every time." So process counts. That's a paraphrase, by the way, of John Dingell, 'cause we have a general-rated audience. 

[laughing]

MAX ROTH, FOX-13: So one of the concerns that you've brought up that I want you to elaborate on, if you would, is that this decision seems to have been made behind closed doors. It happened with the 63 Republican members of the House meeting in a closed caucus and then deciding that the full House was not going to hear this. Healthy Utah.

GOVERNOR HERBERT: And again, that's really been out of character for the House. They've been very open in times past with their caucuses and under the former Speaker was, you know, let's let it vote, let's--they didn't put pressure on people, they let the committees work as they're designed to work and people vote their conscience. So this is a little bit out of character and I don't know exactly why. Again, I have high regard for Speaker Hughes and I think he's going to be a great speaker. But somehow they've got derailed here, and the unfortunate thing is in this closed-door session of caucus, they're debating the wrong bill. I mean, that's the thing that's really frustrating is you've--I don't want to--we don't want to support this bill but the bill that came out of the Senate, Healthy Utah 2.0, is a different bill. It's answered many of the questions that they asked and were concerned about in their closed caucus. Again, that's why we have a process 'cause bills get changed, they get amended, they do reflect the will of the people, and they get improved. And now it comes over to the House and they should go through the same process that the Senate did. And maybe there'll be some questions answered and minds changed and opportunities presented. Who knows? We don't know. But we ought to at least go through the process and find out.

ROBERT GEHRKE, SALT LAKE TRIBUNE: So if I could go back to the Prison Relocation, the seven-member Commission. Is that something then that you would veto if it came to your desk?

GOVERNOR HERBERT: Well, we don't use the veto word all the time but it certainly is something that I would be--have very troubling if we're going to try to put all that pressure of making a decision on seven members, eliminate the rest of the body in the House and the Senate from that discussion and then, at the same time, cut out the executive branch. That isn't the way the process is supposed to work. And certainly, if I don't have the ability to, in fact, sign on to a bill or veto a bill, that would cause me some consternation and it would probably lead to a veto.

LISA RILEY ROCHE, DESERET NEWS: And if we could go back to what you said about maybe not moving the prison from Draper. Lawmakers did pass a resolution last year saying that they supported a move but they've spent a year trying to find a location and are having trouble finding one where there's any community support. What do you think the likelihood of not moving the prison is at this point, with this year of experience of looking at sites?

GOVERNOR HERBERT: Well, that's hard to assess, you know. I am not good at predictions. I follow the Yogi Bear adage of, "I'm reluctant to make predictions, particularly about the future." You know, who knows what they'll find out there? I think there are some opportunities out there in Utah and not only Salt Lake Valley, but maybe neighboring communities and that's the process. Let's see if we can find someplace. It is hard to find somebody to say, "Hey, bring the prison. Put it in my backyard." Although Carbon County has been one that's said, "Hey, we'd like to have it." They wanted to have the Gunnison Prison in their county and they still would like to have something in their community. May be a little bit too far removed but maybe there's an opportunity there. Certainly ought to be considered. So I don't know what the percentage is, 50-50, probably at least that. Again, I think everybody can see the advantage of relocation if there's a better place to put it. The thing that ought to drive us is not just the real estate there in Draper that can be developed and I think has a significant economic upside, it is we need a new prison to have better programming and rehabilitation of our inmates. It's not just a matter of warehousing prisoners. It's a matter of also rehabilitating those and putting them back into society as a productive member.

MALE REPORTER: Governor?

GOVERNOR HERBERT: So that, again, that's what should drive it. And I'm hopeful that that's, in fact, the case. But if we can't find a better place than Draper, then Draper's the place.

LISA RILEY ROCHE, DESERET NEWS: A lot of people would say there's plenty of land on the Draper prison site to build that new prison that you mention to provide better programming and maybe that option--

GOVERNOR HERBERT: And some of the legislators have actually proposed that. I've heard that and, again, I think that's a legitimate intellectual position to take. So again, I think you have people on many different sides of this and we'll have to see how this plays out and, again, I come back to my first statement. If there's a better place than Draper to have the prison, let's locate it there. If there's not, let's keep it there.

MALE REPORTER: Governor, what are your thoughts on the medical marijuana bill that was introduced this week?

GOVERNOR HERBERT: You know, we've had this discussion a little bit last year when we passed the cannabis oil bill and I think this is in many ways somewhat similar. I believe that, as a controlled substance, you know, there's abilities for us to, in fact, have medications out there that's given to the public. Generally, those medications will come with FDA approval, and there's some kind of standardization what the amounts are, the doses, and the impact it's going to have generally on the public. So I'm a little concerned about just self-medication, and how we self-medicate on a substance that is not controlled. And so if we want to have medical marijuana in whatever form that ends up being, it certainly has to have the science behind it, it has to have dispensing where real doctors, not just Dr. Feelgood, you know, out there is dispensing the medication in a controlled way. For medicine there's probably some uses of at least the cannabis oil and some of the derivatives of marijuana. I am concerned about it leading to, as we've seen in particularly California, where it's so loosely administered as a medical drug, that it became a recreational drug. Anybody could get it and people in California have told me, "Hey, you know, if you had the hiccups, you could get some marijuana. You could claim I've got a sinus congestion, you got medical marijuana." That's a concern that I would have. So I think it's a good debate. We passed cannabis oil last year. There may be some form or fashion that it could pass this year as a medicine, as a controlled substance administered by real doctors.

MICHAEL ORTON, UTAHPOLITICALCAPITOL.COM: On that point, though, Governor, Senator Madsen's bill works through mechanisms that are attended by the Tax Commission rather than last year's bill that was essentially authorized 50 users this year since July to be coming from the Department of Health's authority. So does that play into your concern about what this could morph into, in your words?

GOVERNOR HERBERT: Yeah, I'm concerned about the unintended consequences and I have met with Governor Hickenlooper and talked about this issue on a number of occasions and what he's counseled me and other governors is, "Be cautious. Be careful. Be methodical. Don't rush into this." He said, "I," meaning Governor Hickenlooper, "and most every elected official in Colorado was opposed to recreational use of marijuana. And now we've got it and we're going to watch it play out and see what's going to happen." We--they already have some concerns in certain areas. But he's told us, as governors, "Be careful what you do when it comes to marijuana. Let us be the experiment and then you can learn from us over the next few years." So I don't want to rush into anything that would lead us to recreational marijuana. And that would be my concern. From a--for medicinal purposes, again, with cannabis oil, the Department of Health was kind of the control. Who was eligible for that? You have to go through a process, we say, "You're eligible." We don't produce it. You have to go someplace else to buy it, either online or go to Colorado or California. But I think we're going to be careful about this and I don't think there's any rush. We want to make sure we have good science and good control.

MAX ROTH, FOX-13: What's going to happen with education funding, with the different numbers that the Legislature came out with? Are they going to come towards your numbers? Do you have any idea?

GOVERNOR HERBERT: Well, I think we'll--they'll be a generous investment into education. It's my number one budget priority. That's because my number one focus is on economic growth. And you cannot have continued, long-term, sustained economic growth, at least as we're capable of doing, unless you have an educated workforce. So the skills necessary to compete in a global marketplace are really essential to a healthy economy. I've asked for $503 million. That's a large increase, the largest increase in 25 years. I think it's warranted. We've underfunded in some ways education over years as we've come out of the recession. We have an opportunity because of good diligent work on our part and the legislators' part to have ability to reborn* education. The good news is we had $636 million when we did consensus numbers when I proposed my budget. The even better news is we've had an additional $100 million added to that money, with the consensus numbers here just a couple of weeks ago. So we have money. I know we have demands and needs outside of education but there's no reason why we cannot be generous to education and I expect the Legislature will be so.

ERIC NIELSEN, KUED: Governor, we only have about a minute left. I was hoping you could tell me how you reacted to the news of Senator Bennett's recent diagnosis.

GOVERNOR HERBERT: Well, that was a sad announcement for me. I've known Senator Bob Bennett for--the beginning of his political career. I was a county commissioner. I always enjoyed hearing Senator Bennett speak. He was kind of a professorial in his approach. He always tried to teach us a little something about history or about our constitutional republic and what was taking place in Washington. I enjoyed listening to him speak. And I think he did a lot of great things in the Senate. A successful businessman. So my heart goes out. We all have been touched, you know, in some way or another with cancer, either ourselves or family members or friends and so we understand the challenge he's going through. Bob's a fighter and I expect that with good treatment he'll beat this issue and we wish him well and his family.

ERIC NIELSEN, KUED: Governor, thank you very much for joining us today. I appreciate the time.

GOVERNOR HERBERT: Thank you, Eric.

Announcer: This has been "The Governor's Monthly News Conference." An archive of transcripts, video, and audio is available online. Please visit kued.org. Thanks for joining us.

Return to home page