Senate President Tim Bee faces two challenges this year: Balance the state budget and figure out a way to unseat U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, the incumbent Democrat in the 8th Congressional District. Bee said he can effectively juggle between his Senate work and campaign work. He also said he likes to take on challenges. In this challenge, though, history will not be on his side. Historical record shows that candidates usually lose when they divide their time between state Capitol and the campaign trail to capture a U.S. House or Senate seat. But it should help Bee that Republicans have rolled the red carpet for him, as no other GOP candidate has so far emerged to challenge him in the primary. In this interview, Bee answers critics and discusses the budget deficit.
By filing an exploratory committee and remaining in office, you exposed yourself to criticism. You must have kind of expected that.
All the people who were criticizing didn’t understand how we were able to establish an exploratory committee. It is apparent that they never bothered to do their research adequately to understand that what we did was fully legal.
How would you characterize the criticisms leveled at your direction?
Well, what they did is they generated a lot of e-mails of support to me. I had zero e-mail criticizing me or suggesting I should get out of office. I had hundreds of people begging me to remain in office and to also run.
And, of course, part of that is because this is the first time in many years that someone from southern Arizona is Senate president.
Many people gave different reasons in all those e-mails. But a general theme of that was that yes, they felt that my leadership was needed on behalf of our part of the state.
And that also weighed heavily in your decision to stay (in office) while doing the exploratory work?
I take responsibility very seriously. I always have. And certainly, part of my process was to evaluate whether or not I should remain. I am the first leader from southern Arizona in this position in over 30 years and anyone that would replace me would be starting as a freshman in the Senate and would place our area at a disadvantage. And I am the only one from southern Arizona in the majority party at the table making decisions. So it is critical for our area that they have someone to do that.
For seven years, and this year would be your eighth —
Yes, my eighth session. It’s gone by very fast.
You’re getting $24,000 a year, excluding pier diem. I can imagine that must have been a huge cut from the pay you were getting as a businessman. Why be a politician and endure that kind of a paycheck, and endure the kind of scrutiny that rightly a politician should get and that now you are getting?
Different people run for different reasons. But I would say the majority of our members including myself run because we believe we can make a difference and I believe I have made a difference for my constituents. I think I have done things to make our state better. So I feel very good about my service here and I have enjoyed it very much.
Did you make that decision thinking that you would follow up on what your brother (Keith Bee, a former state senator) has done for the state?
Obviously my interest in state issues developed during the time that he was serving in office. I learned a tremendous amount from him, and that carried over.
Assuming you decide to run in CD-8 and you won, you’d be getting $165,000 a year. That’s going to be better than the $24,000 that you now receive.
I congratulate you on knowing that. (Laughs).
Is that a motivation as well, a better pay?
Oh, that’s not part of my motivation at all. I have opportunities before me right now where I could be making significantly more — significantly more — than what a congressman makes without having to travel, without having the expenses of multiple residences. From my understanding from many of the people who serve in Congress, and I’ve had the privilege of visiting with them lately, their resource stretch barely cover their expenses, much the way our $24,000 stretch barely cover our expenses. So there’s tremendous amount of obligation that you incur when you take on a task like that. I have other options that would be much more financially beneficial for my family for the future than this one.
This is not the first time you’ve had to deal with a budget deficit during your term in the Senate. I understand that you’ve had at least one other during your term. What lessons can you draw from that experience?
I think one thing we didn’t do last time was we did not tackle the issue upfront with as much acknowledgment of what the problem was. We had to come back and do the budget that time numerous times. So we’d come in and fix part of the problem and then the revenues would continue to drop and we’d have to come back and do another budget, and then another budget. I think this time those members who had been through this recognize that you have to bite the bullet and make the difficult decisions. I also learned that when you are responsible and you make those hard decisions, it leads to a better outcome. So, instead of putting ourselves into tremendous debt and doing things like — I know one proposal at one time was to mortgage our state buildings to use that money for operations, which we soundly rejected — we were able to have some very, very strong years of growth in this state. And our fiscal situation right now, even with the slump in growth and revenue, we still have more revenue coming in than we did four or five years ago when we had to do a $6 billion budget. It is still going to be almost a $10 billion budget. We are going to be maintaining numbers within that range for a while. Everyone, though, is going to have to look at how they can give a little bit and I have been very encouraged in talking to state agencies and presidents of the universities. All of these people remember what it was like to have done this better. And they have been very gracious in trying to find ways to trim their budgets and to help us through this problem.
Were you disheartened by the presentation that you received from economists yesterday (Jan. 15)?
We’ve seen those presentations before and it is my desire that the members have every bit of information that leadership has and so we felt it was important to share that presentation with membership. As far as I know this is the first time — at least in my time here — that we’ve had both Republicans and Democrats from both chambers have a joint caucus for a presentation. I think that is just further evidence that we all recognize the severity of this problem and we are wiling to work together to find a solution.
Last year, you came in and you were actually allocating money for programs. This year, you are coming in thinking of actually doing cuts, and I think there’s unanimous agreement that cuts would be more or less painful. Can you maintain the kind of cooperation that marked last year’s session?
I’m confident of it. I’m absolutely confident of it.
How do you envision the process this time compared to last year’s?
What I’m pleased about is the fact that we have the House actively participating with us from the beginning and I think that will be ultimately an improvement to our process.
Let’s talk about illegal imm
igration. Based on your understanding of last session’s employer sanctions bill, did you think when it was going through in the Senate that it was retroactive, meaning it applied to those who are hired not just after Jan. 1—
No, my understanding all along was that the intent was for new hires. As it was explained to us, that’s what we would be able allowed to do under federal employer regulations. Employers would be allowed to check new employees.
The governor in her letter last year approving the bill cited specific points she wanted to see changed. Are you going to respond to that? Are you going to come in and do those changes or other changes you have in mind to make the law better, if you could?
That was one of the reasons I think it was important for us to pass the law at the legislative level last year, rather than having a voter-protected ballot measure that could not be amended – because this is precedent-setting legislation. We are the first state in the nation to have a law of this kind that I’m aware of, and we need to make sure that this bill is enforceable and that it works the way we intended for it to work. Different people interpret provisions differently. So we do have a number of members that are working on bills. We have groups that are meeting to prepare proposals for legislators to consider on this issue. My goal would be to make sure that it strengthens the bill.
This is your last year of the session and I asked Senator Arzberger the same question: Are you sorry to go and would you have liked to stay if term limits were not there?
Yes. I have enjoyed my service very much. You know when you work together so closely for so many years, both in your district and at the capital, the eight years have gone by very fast. A good part of the early part of your career is getting an understanding of the issues and meeting the people in your district to understand their issues. You are effective all the way through, but you become very effective after you have been around for a little while. It’s unfortunate that every six to eight years you have a massive turnover within the chamber. I think it’s not in the best interest of the state. But it is the law and we knew that when we get elected, and so I’m moving on.
And I presume you are not going to see changes to that law during your term or in the next few years.
I don’t anticipate it. After I’m gone, I certainly would be more than happy to share with people. Every time a lawmaker tries and talks about the term limits law, they think it’s for your own benefit. So, it is difficult for us to be able to talk about it in a way that people can look at without saying he or she is just saying that because they want to stay longer. Once I’m gone from here it would be easier to tell people why I believe term limits have limited the experience of those who represent them, and why that has shifted power over to people who are not elected, such as state bureaucrats and lobbyists and staff, and I think that’s not a healthy situation.
At this point, what do you think is your best achievement as a senator if you were to gauge yourself in your seven years in the Legislature?
There are probably a couple of different types of achievements that we can look at. One, I think, in my position as Senate president I believe I have been able to change the process, making sure that my members are the ones who have the support that the they need from staff, that they have the authority to make the decisions, that we have been able to restore civility to the debate in the chamber. I think that’s been very important. We have shown people that we can work together. I think that’s a significant accomplishment. Then I could probably list dozens of accomplishments on behalf on my district that I’m very proud of. But probably the area where I’ve made the most difference for individuals would be in the area of domestic violence — domestic violence bills where we have been able to really provide opportunities to victims to move to safety. That was probably the most important thing.
And before you leave, what would like to see happen this session?
One of my goals for this year is to take what we were able to do last year and have the House work with us. That’s already occurring, so I’m very pleased about that. I’m looking to a very good year, even though it is going to be very hard. I hope that people will be able to work together to come to the final conclusion, and I think that’ll happen.