to in fact have a couple of discussions today dealing with a couple of things that are being very actively sought now throughout the state one is your sanctuary bill yes that we have in fact been discussing the other things that are  e bill seventy six which is a hot topic right now in the state which is a tax reduction program that they're trying to to get enough votes to pass finally after twelve years we'll discuss sounds great it's not really a thing that i think we want to do too much with another issue will be the local police getting the opportunity to use radar guns for speeders and things that's another topic that of course local police love to get most of the topic a budget the budget the state budget dealing with pensions and unfunded mandates this is another one on one of the other areas we only have an hour long and most of th topics can in fact take a day so we're going to in fact try to do a to limit our discussion to about fifteen minutes each discussion julie paul i'm going to let you open up the program because this is going to be really easy for me to do the hard work so it's estimated by the senate appropriations committee that there are about that these communities could lose in total about one point three billion dollars in state grants so we were wondering what are the states grant the state grants going to like what kind of things are these communities not going to be getting if they are falling and well it is true that if they miss about these continue to be sanctuary cities there's a special definition that i can talk about because it's a lot more narrow than what is reported in the media but they would in essence be losing all state funding but again it's highly highly unlikely that any city would remain a sanctuary city largely because they would lose state funding but more importantly they would lose sovereign immunity under my bill meaning that if you are a victim of a municipal municipality that releases a violent criminal and you've been victimized by that violent criminal then you can then sue the city if they lose and unity in the court system and no no municipality would ever allow themselves to lose sovereign immunity under that scenario ok so some of the concerns that our people had where grants been cut would be from like some of the things that are supposed to make a thousand a safer in the first place like some of the police forces and things like that and what different things like that so if the goal is to keep the community safer and you're centrally cutting money from things that are keeping them safe in the first place we'll just take a look at what the sanctuary cities are doing there was a case in philadelphia an individual's name was a child had a very violent criminal record he had numerous felonies on his record and he was in the custody of the philadelphia police department ice which is the immigration control  department ice contacted philadelphia and said do not let a chill out he's very dangerous but philadelphia because they have designated themselves themselves a sanctuary city released a cho despite the fact that ice is on their way to pick up a chosen  on the on the run he was wanted by ice and during that time he committed a violent sexual assault on a very young boy twelve year old boy that was any excusable and that was all because of the egregious actions of philadelphia releasing a man who had numerous felony convictions and was wanted by the federal government so what my bill does it says that local municipalities and local law enforcement have to alert ice when there's an illegal immigrant in their custody pursuant to a law arrest and that they have to hold that individual for up to forty eight hours and allow ice to come and take the individual into custody and if you look at it i was a i was a district judge i was a prosecutor in the navy i was a defense attorney we have the so for example if i was a judge in allegheny county district judge and if somebody had a detainer from washington county even though that individual might be released from my court i had to alert washington county and a constable or a sheriff from washington county had to come and get the defendant detainers or not thing new it's something that for the respect of law and order and for the safety of pennsylvania we have to honor so i don't think anyone would disagree that the safety is obviously a huge are very important to everyone there's also a concern that this would allow people or law enforcement to go after non dangerous illegal immigrants and so is that also the goal to kind of get rid of those people or is it simply only going after dangerous criminals so there's a good point and i drafted my bill so it's very narrow it was only apply it was only a political to those who already have a detainer so let me give you an example my bill only comes into effect when there is an illegal immigrant in custody pursu so the illegal immigrant has to be arrested anyhow so you're asking some kind of underlying offense so we won't turn police into ice agents we won't have police going on on raids for example no one wants that all this does it says that if the police get somebody in woful custody again pursuant to a lawful arrest and when they're screened just like all defendants are screened when you go into a county jail and there's an ice detain or that ice is alerted it's a very very simple bill and the mechanism for enforcement a loss of state funds and it's a loss of sovereign immunity so with regards to the loss of state funds do you think it's fair sometimes to get rid of all state funding for these areas because for example julian i applied for a grant from the state last year our freshman year to two years ago to start a program to benefit special education students in our school and we kind of partnered with them and a bunch of stuff for them but it was a state grant and so under this we would not be eligible and where people that don't vote for our representatives were not old enough yet and so but we would be negatively affected by this even though we really had no say so so i guess my question is like is it fair or is it like how do you address that motion of you know my why why would you think that money is for that program would not be available while it was a state grant are i only looked into it really quickly because i didn't have the time i couldn't find all the information on the grant we got but from what i saw it was a state grant that went to the school which then went to us so somewhere between the state the money going from the state to the school would no longer happen that's the impression i got that's not under this bill though that would that wouldn't hundred twenty one murders that took place across the united states of individuals who had ice detainers who were in police custody in who were released in a six month period i'm sorry an eight month period between twenty fourteen and twenty fifteen there was there were eight thousand illegal immigrants taken into custody and released because of sanctuary cities eight hundred of the of them went on to commit crimes a lot of them were heinous crimes of murder or sexual assaults violent robberies the we have to do something to make sure that the rule of law is being followed and you gotta remember we're a nation of laws and the united states and we have to have local law enforcement and local municipalities following federal  really do not think that any if this bill is passed which i'm optimistic that will pass the house and hopefully the governor will sign it hopefully this will force sanctuary cities to honor ice detainers and protect all pennsylvanians and really all americans because if  or if york releases whatever minutes well you might be there's no telling if that individual with a violent record is going to commit a crime in pennsylvania west virginia or ohio so this is really about the safety of american citizens and we have to do something to make sure that the role of laws being followed and we're protecting people so your questions about funding it's really a nonstarter because no city would ever remain a sanctuary city once this bill is passed so what is the timeline from going from now until take effect like how long would it take like when when when i take a fact and said he didn't become how what they what they read all of the funding and things like that well you have to look at the legislative pipeline so this bill passed the senate bipartisan with bipartisan support it was an do nothing and then by operation of law it becomes and becomes law at that point i believe there's a three or four month period in which there's sanctuary cities can comply and then after that they will lose state grant money but most importantly the victims and the families of the victims will be able to bring suit against the status that engage in the just foolish foolish reckless and egregious violations so if it's a city like how are you going to go that's a really good question so in the bill it's actually not describing the sanctuary city it's called a municipality of refuge refuge and whenever that city would apply for grant money they would have to sign that they are not a municipality of refuge refuge under penalty of ok but the real mechanism here is a loss of sovereign immunity so a victim can bring suit or victim's family can bring suit in the court of law can determine whether or not it is a municipality of refuge and that there will be a question for the case standing was walking on a pier with their father it was a sunny day and the individual who shot cates timely had been deported seven different times he had an extensive felony record he was a dangerous criminal and he was released by philadelphia and then he went on to shot shoot kate finally in cold blood the damages stanley family could collect from san francisco because that egregious practice is immense so no no no city will go on with these practices because of that liability issue is there any provision for states who are communities that would say the least someone like how long after they will be someone are they like no longer consented to share a choice any like if they want to release someone and then  years later months later however long try to receive federal state running right so those are not retroactive under our constitution you can't have retroactive bills so to only the prospective changes so whenever a city or any municipality would want to grant again they have to fill out a form under pain of penalty of perjury that they're not a sanctuary city and they would only apply that sovereign immunity would only apply to anything  the senator said was very true if you lose the ability to receive funds to support all those programs if you're representing your community and you know i'll say i don't have funds to do all the things transportation and everything else that the community used to support then somebody or taxpayers are going to get you out of office and get somebody in there who can get the money flowing again and get it get the community back on track you know i think the problem with our with our country anymore is we don't think that illegal aliens being in the country is wrong well they violated the law to be here so they are already committed a crime you know if you had to mexico and you try to get across the border of mexico without going through authorities you'll be in prison you won't be just odd getting welfare and all the other benefits that are available here so you know i think america has to after these years of being lenient has to start looking at what it's costing you and it will be costing you a lot in the future of paying for the benefits you know that and let's face it the people coming to this country illegally in some of these cities they get free transportation they get free housing they get food stamps they get all these other benefits which you will be paying for because you will be dead and you'll have to be forking out the money for this so you know how how long do you want that to take place that's that's the issue about especially in this bill from way i read it too as is so narrowly written that only goes after criminals criminal criminals not just and we just put this in perspective there's a lot of hyperbole around this and a lot of confusion at the heart of this this is a bill about public safety and the rule of law and any other detainer is on it right so there's a there's a violent criminal in allegheny county and they're wanted in washington county there that violent criminal is not going to be released to washington he can pick them up at a later date that's foolish that's very dangerous we're just asking the same kind of the same kind of provisions apply to those who have federal ice detainers again in a lot of this is time about violent criminals with a record you know sort of put in perspective secretary johnson who is president obama's homeland security secretary of homeland security the obama's ration not exactly a bastion of conservative principles but even secretary johnson came to a lot of the sanctuary cities and said you have to have certain exceptions one is for terrorists if someone's on the terrorist watch list please do not release them into if they're violent criminals they have a rap sheet where they've committed other crimes and forget he came secretary johnson came to philadelphia and asked philadelphia for those two exceptions and still we have to look what's really happening we have a lot of crimes that are occurring and it's inexcusable it's all because of a cheap political stunt by these municipalities who just want to release criminals onto the streets have a quick clarification someone have here illegally a lot of times ice is focusing on those with criminal a violent record because they're their taxes like any other agencies they prioritize but you could have a detainer just by being here illegally and let me ask you a question which laws would you like to  pay attention to i mean that's what it comes down to you know with which laws that have been on the books should we actually watch should we pay attention to those or should we ignore those and just well you know rob peter sonship the speeding laws aren't really pa attention no one pays attention to those so you want fifty five and twenty five miles of is that ok in a way that what when do you stop breaking the law and that's i think that's the crux of the whole problem as a senator point is we are supposed to be a nation of laws when i went to school here that was that was it though you didn't question that now every law's being questioned because it offends somebody or it's well it's daylight and maybe tonight will listen to it but they were not so where do you where do you draw the line i think on top of being a nation of laws also nation of immigrants though and so that's like how we started and that's how growing and remember this isn't and oh yes i am and gratian bill i have friends who emigrated my interpreter from iraq who's a very very dear friend of mine emigrated from somalia and it cost him literally thousands of dollars he had to take an exam he had to wait a period of time even though he served alongside of me in the armed forces i have another friend whose family sought asylum here after the first gulf he too was with me in iraq so this is i would never do anything that legal immigration but when you have legal immigrants that have gone through the proper channels who have gotten who have taken exams who've paid literally thousands of dollars to immigrate and you have other people that are just coming here breaking our laws you have to do something to you have to do something to protect our immigration make sure we can control our borders immigration this is not anti immigration this is this is immigration law but how can you turn around to somebody who immigrated from let's say eastern europe and say you came here you got a green card you took an exegesis and naturalization exam which by the way those are not those are not easy you took a nationalization exam you paid all this money you waited you made sure you had a job in employment how do you then turn around tell that person that someone else from other countries can just come walk across our border and get citizenship and it's a really fine line to walk and i would always err on the side of following the law and i think it definitely is a difficult issue because you do have the people that obviously want to go through those channels and want to come here legally because they don't want to have any problems once they're here but i also think that you have a lot of people that can't go through those channels and like they're there in such a dangerous situation where they are that they need somewhere to be they can't survive with their family their kids are out of risk of being killed or having no support for anything and i  status right so there's there are proper pipelines in the law for those individuals but right now our immigration policy is being taken advantage of frankly we want to make sure that we are a nation of immigrants we want to have top talent coming to the united states especially in pittsburgh we have industries like like google here and you p m c agree thrive on immigration no one is anti immigrant we just want to make sure that we are vetting the immigrants that are immigrating that they're taking a naturalization exam they have employment and they're going to they're going to assimilate to american culture that's all we're asking but we nation is not a nation of it doesn't have borders and we're a nation state we have borders out to be respected would like to talk about the senate bill seventy six as i thought there is a lot of interesting stuff in there so i'm i guess i was reading that part of the reasoning behind this bill is to stabilize funding f schooling and i was wondering how like i just don't really understand how eliminating property tax kind of does that ok so julie i agree with you but i think i should have told you that because he's on the in your local township they'd still allow they'd be allowed to tax property so you'd still have that property tax the school districts would also be allowed to continue to tax for debt retirement so a lot of the schools around the south it was a pittsburgh have great new property for the dad and then to eliminate the property tax the state would have to increase the personal income tax they'd have to increase the sales tax and they'd have to expand the base of the sales tax so i either you guys are probably going to government class next as you were saying but if you go to government and you're learn about the different kind of taxes you'll learn that the sales tax is what's called a regressive tax it hurts the poor more than the wealthy and if  pennsylvania we compensate for that by having exclusion so food is excluded clothing is excluded legal services daycare there's a whole lot of exclusions and that so that sales tax is not her working working families with this bill seventy six if you get rid of property taxes you would then you would not have any exclusion on the sales tax so working families would get hit very hard to take such want to the working families in the south hills would have again pay that debt retirement property tax we also had to pay a higher personal income tax a higher sales tax and we'd have to pay that expanded sales tax on things like accounting services legal services funerals caskets daycare it really hurt people so i'm against it for that reason i'm also gainst it for this reason the sales tax i'm sorry that property taxes most stable form of taxation there is because they're w come on attack it's a tax on commodities and we can talk about another point but so it's a really good for school board to have a tax on on property as opposed to seller personal income tax can fluctuate so they can just deal with their budgets year in and year out now another reason why seventy six is not the best idea is it would take local control away from the south hills people move to peter's township and then lebanon swiftly and all over my district because our schools are so good we have award winning schools if we do away with local control then the general assembly in harrisburg is going to turn in inevitably to just a glorified school board which would be problematic because i can tell you that parents peters township care much more about the school  know i promise you so yes just agree with me here i was kind of thinking that if like clothes and like if sales tax was broadened right then i feel like that kind of lesson the appeal almost  they feel like people might come here just for that rate not just for that reason but it might be a factor so i don't know if it would affect how people view the state and anyway i say you got to remember that pennsylvania is already one of the highest taxed states in the union we have the highest corporate income tax at about ten percent we have the highest gas tax in the united states and we have you said we have a sales tax in a personal income tax in some states you have a sales tax and personal income tax you're absolutely right by expanding that base and hitting working families hard we would be less attractive to those who might want to relocate to pennsylvania business is mine all want to come to pennsylvania because our workers are going to have to pay more taxes so you're absolutely right there are financial there are disincentives to increasing taxes you're absolutely correct one of the things if i can add one of the things after i came in discussion with a couple of state representatives about this issue most people don't understand is the fact right now the homeowners get a tax deduction for the taxes and the interest in that you pay but if you take away the taxes on your federal income tax you're going to pay more money on the total amount so therefore you won't get a reduction in your taxes for the purpose of supporting you from ownership so therefore the disincentive for supporting this bill just on that could be thousands of dollars of extra taxes you're paying to the federal government because the state takes that right away so whenever you're buying your clothes when you don't get that tax deduction when you buy the food or the the medical or things  know get a tax deduction for that if your home you do so if you're if you're spending thirty thousand dollars a year on your interest and taxes on your home loan in many of the homes around here that's a reasonable amount maybe sixty percent or eighteen thousand of that could be deducted off of your off of your income tax well now if you're depending upon the taxpayer you know thirty two percent tax bracket now you're going to be spending about another four thousand dollars in the federal government so you'll be spending more money in taxes just because of the fact that these people are trying to these not you these people who are trying to in fact it sounds great it sounds like a wonderful opportunity i as a homeowner i'm going to get all th taxes back but when we in the school district on the school board at least anderson one of those board members put a wonderful program together and whenever she did that i started looking at the different income levels tax brackets and there of pennsylvania alright sanctuary cities radar for local police and senate bill seventy so the bill seventy six but we ended up with julie in the process of asking a question so we're going to go back to you all right so i was going to start off again with the radar police radar ok so let's just then in the senate so many times and it doesn't seem like it's been passed as their reason for that but we passed it so the issue is whether or not local municipalities can have radar right now pennsylvania is the only state in the union where local police don't have radar and there's a historic reason for that when radar first was developed it was very difficult to use of our topography it just didn't work well hills and all the windy roads but since that time radar has been developed in the seventy's it's come a long way so we can use it here it's a viable tool for police officers officers to use a local level it's been voted on in the senate i voted for it it passed with only i think there are three no votes on it was overwhelming the house did not run it and i don't know if they're in a time or what happened but we in the senate pass it i would assume that it runs again in the senate it will pass again so i think from what i saw last year it did pass the senate that ran out of time in the house because i think there were three weeks that the house had to get through all the committees and do all the writing up and all that stuff and i thought that i saw that this year it already been passed in the senate again but i could be wrong it is not pass in the senate it hasn't run yet ok it has to go to the police that's a local the local government committee if i'm correct and i don't think it's even run in i could be incorrect on that but i do not think it's running that but we've got a lot of time we've only been in session a few weeks and we go back next week so maybe it'll run some somewhere next week or during the budget hearings i'm just not sure you know why the house hasn't taken generating tool for local police there is i kept in the bill i was it was actually my mehmet to put a cap in that only a certain amount of the money coming from the traffic citations can be used for the local municipality once you go past that revenue cap the money then either goes into the general fund or the retirement fund for the state police so it's one of those two there's two separate bills out there that's where there's a difference but if we have that cap we can guarantee that it won't be used to generate revenue what we really need to do is we really need it because it's hard to get in for speed limits in residential areas it's just tough so we just can't get the timing down with how we do it now so if you would give police radar they be able to stay in the residential areas theoretically and make sure that we're enforcing speed in suburban areas as opposed to just on on highways to only be very happy to know that our local police chief chief grimes isn't very much support this bill and i get the question so much as i was walking into peter's township high school your school resource officer talk to me about it i get asked a question all the time and i'm a former manager on this or judge so i know that funding for the radar equipment and training do you think that's a concern or is it just like something that will have to be dealt with to gain the benefits of the well so so how the bill is written it's just what's called enabling legislation so we would enable the local municipalities to approve radar so alternately it would be up for the council or the commissioners of the local municipality to determine whether they want to use radar and whether to purchase it i'm not aware of any grants that are out there to purchase radar but we're a little bit of ahead of ourselves because we have to pass the neighborly legislation first so in the at least in the one that was proposed last year there's a lot of requirements and like it has to be each officer that's go use asked me trained and certified and all the equipment to be calibrated once a year and you also have to like put up signs into all the major arteries into the township and things like that so do you think it would be very like is it going to be very cumbersome for people to  to look for local police to like take us to task on and have to go through all of these different things just to start doing this we have to remember the real idea behind radars and make sure that we're forcing the speeding laws and if there are signs of saying this area is monitored by radar then hopefully it will slow people down so we'll be able to have the a fact without necessarily having an officer because if you go through an area that's enforced by radar there might be an officer every i don't tend to time you drive past it but you never know when ten times going to happen so theoretically you're driving slower to bang the traffic devices in the speed limits so that would have the intended consequence of controlling speed limits were one of the most dangerous states in the union for failed car crashes and when i was a district judge i had some i heard some cases that were just horrible forty rough forty three route fifty one nineteen is very congested so it's a real problem and obeying traffic control devices and the speed limit is important and we  sometimes just over look at like it's not a big issue but there's a lot of deaths that occur because people are running red lights going much faster than they should be on windy roads in western pennsylvania so we have to do whatever we can to look to see what we can do to bring one of the big if not the biggest issue that local governments like the school district have our pension costs have gone from and i don't want to misquote the speaker because like you said there are there are devastating for our budget does for sure services and the corrections system so prisons are the three but those are the three biggest cost drivers in the budget and the pension is growing exponentially it's at right now it's a sixty billion dollars unfunded liability and it's a problem and if you look at the problems that we're having making ends meet in the commonwealth it's because of pensions out of control so we have to do is we have to reform to to a four hundred one k style system and the difference between the defined benefit like we have now and a four  k system is who shares the risk so as a defined benefit you the retirees know that you're going to get x amount of dollars every month for as long as you live so that benefit is defined the defined contribution works this way  employee get a matching contribution so we the taxpayer can control that and then you invest that money in a four zero one k or in government's call for three b but you bear the risk we need to do that because right now the pension is projected it sit like six or seven percent growth that's unreal frankly that's unrealistic even projection or growth and it's causing our budgets to just go under such a crunch and money that should be going to brick and mortar projects whether they be new schools books for classrooms to use education example or on the other side with infrastructure instead of building new highways and bridges and light rail and other forms of transportation all our money is going into the pension system it's a real problem we need to fix it but i need to be clear about this the changes we make in the pension should only be for new hires they should only be perspective changes someone who is paid in the pension that's a deal the government made without work and that should be honored anybody that has a vested pension that should remain vested i believe it's a vested right and constitutionally you cannot take that away but we have to make real changes moving forward just to save the solvency of our state retirement system one of the problems that we have in the state of course the judges who hear these cases run to the same retirement program so it's very hard for them is that there and throw it out well for them it wouldn't be you know if the wording leahy said is is the one for new hires but for a current judge who's sitting there i mean some of these judges get a retirement then they come back to be judges and get paid what they were basically paying plus their gets them getting their retirement which is a really good system of you can look at you know whether the bottom line is you know the for the school district our costs have gone up five hundred percent so what we are spending you know basically a million dollars for the two thousand we're now spending almost seven million dollars for when we look at that it's really really a tough nut to crack well bill if i could just jump in real fast we were talking about property tax on the nation in the last segment really what's driving property taxes to increase every single year is the fact  pensions the amount the scholastic contribute to this pension systems the pension is really the root cause of the problem roughly seventy cents on every new dollar of property taxes rates for school district is going to the pension so if we can if we can reform the pension bring that cost under control and then moving forward when when our gentleman my generation your generation retires will self correct or the problem that way everyone's in one hopefully one hundred percent defined contribution for retirement and the taxpayers aren't bearing that risk that way when we do have to raise school taxes you know that dollar for dollar that money is going to textbooks technology infusion programs for the student brick and mortar projects like new schools and so forth that's really what we need that's the direction we need to head into so what is the proposed budget problems well so we have the budget on one hand the budget suffering because the pension problem the solution to the pension is not through that through the budget it's through what's called senate bill one and it's a plan to transition new hires into i misspoke there would be a transition new hires would go immediately into a new plant those who've already paid and would stand up in the plan and the new book the new plan that's being proposed the senate bill one is a hybrid so fifty cents on every retirement dollar would go into a defined benefit just like we have now the other fifty would go into a defined contribution that would be a four zero three b star retirement and that way all new hires would least some element fifty percent element of defined contribution and fifty percent defined benefit my goal is that over time we can move to a one hundred percent defined contribution and totally get away from a from a defined benefit program  negotiate and that's that's the art of politics not knowing is everything he or she wants i'm sure how work our way so you have to negotiate and the negotiations have been that if we have a fifty fifty hybrid the governor will sign that and then when the political climate change and we get a governor who wants  one hundred percent defined contribution hopefully we can get that done but i'm a big fan of incremental change i think that if we change slowly over time we'll complicate the the end that we need to we don't have to get everything it wants there's nothing wrong with slow baby you said that along with the budget the problem that the school districts have and i bring this one up because we've been dealing with this now is over the past five years peter's timeship has had to spend twenty two million dollars more on our special education programs than the state refunds us for but there are unfunded mandates we have to do these things so take five million dollars on average or four and a half million on an average over five years and just imagine what we could do if the state refunded that money to us and was able to in fact buy books by other things that we need in the classroom i mean it's a problem and the key to us at least is that our special education program is growing it is not shrinking we have people moving in we have a director of special ed is doing a phenomenal job i was up in the north hills a couple years ago and my niece was playing softball and her dad introduced me to a family who's moving to peter's because of the special ed program they heard so much about it this is wonderful but the key is our cost for students around thirteen thousand per year which is one of the lowest in the state the cost of a special ed student could be over one hundred thousand per student so whenever you're looking at that with more people coming in the possibility of our costs going up continually is going to be a bigger burden on our local taxpayers who pay about seventy eight percent of our taxes for this cold right now and as a senator pointed out if we lose that opportunity to control our cost which is only about five percent of our budget is able to be controlled everything else is union contracts or or gas and oil and things like that which we have no control over well these pension costs and these special ed costs are something that we in fact have no control we have to do it they're required by law and in fact if we don't do it then we cause ourselves a lot of other problems because of the fact that litigation our cost for attorneys and things like that gets into it which takes up that five percent we can use so then all of are taxpayers and and school students is the fact that we offer the best education we can possibly do and if the money's being drained because of these two major issues if we didn't have these we could live probably off of our taxes just locally we would need to three hundred thousand the federal government gives us which is a pittance and the money that we get from the state is very small as comparison did you have any more questions because i have two other bills i'd love to talk about but if you have i'm a prime co sponsor with the democrats by part since and what the bill does is it incentivizes commercial owners of commercial real estate and industrial and commercial real estate industry shops etc to have upgrades for energy efficiency so if the landlord wants out solar panels or new windows or he'd heat an air fish and insulation whatever it may be instead of financing over five years like it is now we're take a long time to make up that money with my program they can finance over a thirty year period in the local municipality is actually the ones that are in control of the program and the reason why that's so important is because they have a lien priority meaning that it's much easier for the creditor at the present letting the money know that that institution going to get paid back first because only priority so i'm really excited about this bill i think it's going to really make a difference and the commercial property just a place to start i'd like to ultimately see this expanded residential property as well but these are just some of the things we have to do to make sure that we're energy sufficient in the united states so what's the timeline for that if it like how when we start seeing commercial and if it was passed out right in commercial businesses with that well i'm bullish on it being passed if it runs i do believe the way that it would pass because this is revenue neutral meaning there's no state money that's going into this it's really the private sector loaning the money in landlords taking the taking the chance at the improvements but i think we would have i can't say i mediately  would assume in a few months as soon as we get the program on the books a lot of landlords have told me they want to do these upgrades but they just can't make it work investing all that money and having to pay it back in a five year window and you start talking about a thirty year window in there's a lean priority so the lenders will lend the money that's a whole nother ballgame so i'd really like to see that done my big my big push with energy is the fact that we need a domestic source of energy i was in iraq i was in the military and i believe that not having energy efficiency and independence hurts us on the international stage i think that if we i have energy production here that is domestic and we can rely on ourselves that will change the dynamic on the world stage will it will strengthen our allies and weaken those who wish us harm internationally into the extent that we can go to clean energy we have to do it but we have to be realistic you know we're not going to get there when i can get one hundred percent clean energy next year this is going to be slow incremental change that we can work to but i think that my pace bill is a step in the penalties for those who abuse and neglect animals we bred was a dog he was in a puppy mill he was left for dead and a vat came and helped lead bred and mended him and now we bred this happy little dog he's adopted by actually the vet who brought him back to life and so there's a movement to have greater greater stiffer penalties because the person that left in the brig in this horrible state was only fined three hundred dollars and i can tell you the district judge you heard animal cruelty cases our hands were tied the max penalty with the summary offense was a three hundred dollar fine completely inadequate so we break the law we take animal cruelty in extreme cases to a felony and then we have misdemeanors it's not as extreme but still bad and those who abuse animals oftentimes will move on to harm humans so it's very important we take animal cruelty seriously have another bill and it's called the mandatory cross reporting bill and what this bill does is it says that if there's a child in the service officer that's in a home and that officer sees indication of animal cruelty or abuse or animal neglect then there's a mandate to report that to animal control in the main society converse you made society is in the home or animal control of the home and sees any kind of suspicion of child abuse or child neglect then there's a mandate to report that the child news services the reason why this is so important is there's an eighty percent pl correlation between those who abuse kids in those who abuse animals so by giving law enforcement other bite of the apple and having them come in the home again it will lead to hopefully more prosecution more convictions of people who abuse or neglect animals in children so i'm really excited about that bill and i think it's something that our criminal justice system is frankly lacking and we need to start taking animal cruelty seriously and look at how correlates with crimes on people just like her mom works with animals my mom actually she just i just took a leave of absence because my grandma got second she was working with her but she worked with the local yes it was a it was a government job but she basically worked with low income pregnant teenagers and like we're going to their homes and after and she saw a ton of stuff like that and and just really terrible situation so that's really personal to her obviously and my dog we adopted him out of a puppy mill as well actually so there's a fear that this law will be will be taken to go after farmers and go after the agricultural industry and i have a there's an exception in the braze law to exempt agricultural animals so any animal that's being used in the production of food be examined and to my mandatory cross reporting bill we're not seeing that resistance because it's only pertain it's going after domestic animals because that we're really going after child abuse rate so we want to go where the where the children might be being abused the reason why the agricultural so concerned because of a cultural is still the largest industry out and so you know if there's a there's a question i'm sure that somebody would say well that's going to drive agriculture on the state and we you know lay said that that being the largest industry that brings a concern so i mean they said but the exception seems to be in place in a common sense isn't always common when it comes to legislation i think i think we've realized that in practically everything we've talked about here today it seems like it should be a no brainer you know stop the craziness with the pensions you know fund the schools to what they need to be funded  you know go after these other things give them radar you know stop the speeding you know because you stop the speeding stop the crashes stop the crashes you stop the deaths it all makes sense why is it take so long you know and the process of as my father used to say there's two things you don't want to see made one of sausage and the other was laws and both of them both of them are questionable you know so you folks have any other questions i'm going to i'm i think we talked oursel elimination and reform bill so when i was a dish or judge i was really upset by how truancy was handled and we viewed it more as a crime rather than other than looking at the underlying issues so most the time when a child is not going to school there is usually something at home that's a mess so there's sometimes abuse going on and sometimes the child might have or the student might have a drug addiction or mental mental health issue that's going on diagnosed there's usually some underlying cause and what i was really upset about was a factor we were using the criminal justice system to go after these students like they were criminals that stigmatizes the student and it hurts that student when he or she is applying for colleges so what i want to do is i want to start to go after the underlying problem when i got to the senate i found out there was already a bill that had been written that was being championed on truancy elimination and i was able to get on the bus amendments on the bus and i was very large mamet's in compas saying and i was able to get some of the some of the changes i want in the system that was to make sure that before the school files a criminal complaint that there are steps taken by the school to have counseling to make sure that they're looking at the underlying issue and of a student needs help in a particular subject the student gets that help the student does have a mental health issue or drug drug addiction problem that students being treated before we go into the criminal justice system stigmatize that the student injuring the criminal justice system so i'm very proud that bill was passed it was passed unanimously which rarely happens and it passed and there's going to be the best part about it is in my memory i put in provisions for a study after five years so we can go and study the way truancy is changed and what other what other areas of the law that we need to address that we can even come back and strengthen truancy moving forward because there's such a strong correlation between students who missed schools and then miss school and then engage in future drug use future criminal activity and even the earning potential of those who missed school repeatedly or much lower than students who come on a regular basis so that's really important and it also ties into the fact that we need to look at a look at address what's going on our criminal justice system we talked a lot about human health and human services being a big cost driver of the budget the pension system but corrections is also a big driver and i think that what we need to do is we need to have a paradigm shift in our criminal justice system and look at the root cause of what's causing the crime tim murphy would be quick to tell you it's because there's an undiagnosed run treated mental health issue and i as a as a district judge and a former prosecutor in the navy and even a defense attorney i can tell you a lot of the cases stem from drug addiction and substance abuse issues a lot of times related to self medication with a mental health issue but if we can look at the root cause and get get help and treatment for those suffering from mental health and those suffering from substance abuse issues we'll see  cost of corrections drop because hopefully we won't have nonviolent offenders in in jail over being a treatment facility instead of in prison and we can see recidivism rate pot prison population drop in real cost savings to know in the criminal justice system but also the economy as a whole as we get rid of a lot of crime well we're talking about over the break how so many hospitals are shut down and that's why it's so hard to get them to help sometimes as as big just aren't places to do it there's no there's no local places they've all shut down because of the fact that the monies that were meant to be spent there were being spent on immigrants ok well that's a no that's a wonderful thing to do but you can't let your entire infrastructure go to pot and in fact  over over here and do this because once again they're not for health mental health issues they're basically providing food shelter things like that so that that's that's an issue that that has to be looked at in the big picture you can't just snap shot the movie you have to look at it there in the really big scope how do you do that you know how do you come up with more money whenever you know i'm sure your parents think that they're spending too much in taxes you know on turn around and ask them for more because well we have this issue well if you issue everything to death you don't have anything left so that's a balancing issue with the budget right is how do we make sure that we have enough money money to cover all of government legitimate operations but how do we make sure we don't increase taxes because with a broad based tax increase we disincentive eyes individuals to move to pennsylvania we just incentivize businesses to oban to relocate to pennsylvania and we really suppress the job market so by making sure we have a healthy balance keeping taxes low but providing services that's why there's so much that goes into the budget negotiations this is a we could probably go on for a few more hours but we only have about