Capitol Update 15 2015

As we head into the final weeks of Session, the pace is quickening and tensions are running high. As I

have expressed in previous updates, we are now in omnibus mode, where both bodies are bringing

forward their larger budget bills. This week, the Senate spent each day on the floor debating the

division budget bills I will take you through the highlights of each one.

Higher Education

I went over the details of the bill

in the last Update, so I will not

repeat the conversation. The bill

was up on the floor for a full

Senate vote on Monday and

passed with strong bi-partisan

support.

State and Local Government Division

This bill funds all of our State Agencies. It was also up on Monday

ahead of the Higher Education bill and resulted in a three and a half

hour debate over some of the more controversial provisions.

Among these, was funding for the Senate Office Building, parking

changes for legislative staff, a 5% increase for the Veterans Affairs

budget, as well as funding increases to the Department of

Management and Budget and the Department of Revenue. I was

surprised to see such a long debate on a relatively non-

controversial budget area.

Overall, the bill proposes $38 million in new spending. This

contrasts with a nearly $50 million cut to the division in the House.

It should make for an interesting conference committee.

Environment, Economic Development and Agriculture Division

This division is often referred to as the Senate Jobs Finance committee. It is a loaded budget that covers a

wide array of agencies and services. This bill was up on Wednesday and lasted a little longer than the State

Departments Omnibus about four hours. The proposal includes funding increases to our workforce and

broadband grants, jobs initiatives and agricultural research, as well as the budget for the Department of

Natural Resources.

The big debate that occurred on the floor involved certain policy provisions that were amended into the bill.

Many members believe that Finance bills should not include any policy language. This Session, the Senate is

taking the approach that we should have two separate omnibus bills in each committee; one for policy and

one for finance (the House is choosing to combine policy and finance). The sticking point on Wednesday was

around a provision that changes the Wild Rice standards for our lakes. It ended up passing onto the bill, but

the split was not partisan in nature and made for a long debate.

Judiciary (Finance and Policy)

On Thursday, we took up both Judiciary bills Policy and Finance. The Finance bill was not very controversial

and was settled within an hour. However, the Policy bill had several divisive amendments that led to a nearly

six hour long debate. The first of these amendments was to remove the language in the bill that allows

people who served their sentence as a felon and are released from prison the ability to vote. As it stands,

felons lose their voting privileges until they are no longer under any supervision, i.e. probation. This

proposed change says that once the felon is no longer incarcerated they would be allowed to participate in

elections. Proponents argue that this reduces recidivism and ultimately leads to a safer society. Opponents

argue that these individuals have given up their privilege permanently. The multiple amendments to remove

this language were not adopted. I supported this provision although ended up voting against the bill due to

other amendments that were adopted.

The other amendment that was the topic of much controversy involved legalizing suppressers in Minnesota.

Supporters say that this is a much needed addition to our gun use in Minnesota to help hunters. Opponents

argue that given the incredible amount of horrific incidents involving gun violence in the United States, we

are moving the needle in the wrong direction with this approach. The amendment ultimately passed. One

thing to note is that the Governor has announced that he will veto this provision, which means the entire

Judiciary Policy bill would be vetoed as well. The Police Chiefs strongly oppose this. They say that these

suppressors interfere with a type of sound detection they use to identify gunshot locations. I did oppose this

amendment and it was this that had me vote no on the bill.

I had a few initiatives that ended up being funded in this bill. The Equity Crowdfunding initiative, also known

as MNvest was funded at $130,000, which is less than the anticipated cost but still enough for the

Department to begin the program. It was funded at $195,000 in the House, so I am hopeful that it will be in

the final bill that comes back from conference committee. In addition to this, the Career Counseling initiative

that I have been working on through Session was included. This is the legislation that directs our Workforce

Center staff to work in partnership with our High School counselors in order to offer well-rounded counseling

and career services for our High School students. The final language was taken from Senator Saxhaug's bill,

but it is nearly identical to the bill that I have discussed in past Updates. One other piece that was included in

this Omnibus bill is the funding for the Minnesota Film & TV Board to engage in the Snowbate program.

This has been rewarding for me to work on as it provides funding to attract production companies to film in

Minnesota. As you know, Minnesota was a hot-bed for movies and TV show productions in the mid-90s

including Fargo, the Mighty Ducks and Grumpy Old Men, among others. What you may not know is the

reason we were so successful is because we were one of the first States to offer incentives to companies to

film here. Other States saw how successful we were and quickly implemented their own programs. We have

now fallen from one of the top States to the middle of the pack. With new funding, we hope to reclaim our

position and bring jobs (and national notoriety) back home.

Health and Human Services Division

As I write to you now, we are debating this bill on the Senate floor. This bill has a lot of great investments

including support for mental health services. I am pleased with the direction the Senate is taking by focusing

on community resources and preventative measures rather than the institutionalization of these individuals.

Yet I am disappointed we couldnt find the resources to invest in the additional beds that would help keep

those with mental health issues out of prison. Colleagues spoke of heart wrenching personal stories where

their loved ones were victims of the current system. I am grateful for their courage to share their stories to

illuminate this need and regretted that the HHS bill didnt provide for this.

We need to be proactive in this fight and address the issue before people are pushed to their breaking point.

The bill does provide 180 new beds for adolescents and provides for a pilot program in Beltrami County to

serve the mental health patients who are intersecting with our prison system.

Another thing that I do not agree with is that this bill carries the funding for making MnSURE a State Agency.

While I do support making sure that each and every American has access to adequate insurance and high

quality healthcare, I do not believe that we need another State Agency, especially when we have seen so

many issues with our MnSURE administration. This article addresses my concerns better than I ever could.

I plan to speak out on this subject on the Senate floor- not to criticize the bill but to put forward an

alternative vision for providing access to the insurance market- I envision an entrepreneurial approach to a

marketplace exchange where individuals can shop for the product that fits the needs of themselves and their

families, can get coaching from expert navigators and have the independence and peace of mind to not take

or keep a job just to have insurance. I do not believe we must use this exchange as the enrollment vehicle for

those who qualify for MA or Minnesota Care. We collapsed these two purposes to leverage Federal funds as

we confronted the need to update our software systems. Leveraging these funds is not in the best interest of

our citizens, their families and the health and well-being of our State. It is time to cut the cord and let

MnSure run free.

I will vote for the overall bill because while I disagree with the MnSURE issue, this bill provides funding for

the most in need and vulnerable among us. I will not let my opinions keep me from making sure we do that.

1.8%

Each Division proposes a 1.8% increase to Agency budgets. This was included in the Governors budget and

was requested by the agencies themselves. This has been brought up at each stop and is an easy target for

opponents to attack. Personally, I believe we must provide adequate funding if we are to expect quality

service. However, I do not agree with a blanket approach to personnel funding. Having spent my career in

the private sector I believe pay raises should also include performance and review as a critical piece. I am

sure many key staff deserve far more than a 1.8% and would welcome the opportunity to reform our

approach to the training and development of our State Agency personnel.

Topic Rewind

Last week we asked for your thoughts on the various budget proposals. Most who just voted without

comment favored the Governors budget, with the House and Senate budgets coming in second and third,

respectively. I appreciate the thoughtful comments many wrote, two of which you will find below. We

provide these to share the high caliber thinking that so many of you provided. Those who preferred the

legislative budgets stated that within the body of their comments. Many highlighted their desires for higher

education and transportation funding, and most felt that the surplus should be used as a one-time bonus

instead of making adjustments to our normal budget. I share this sentiment, and will keep all of your

comments in mind moving forward this session. I have also included a graph of your responses at the bottom

of the page. Thank you for taking the time to answer.

Receiving Civil Air Patrol Membership Certificate from Col. Brent Halweg Celebrating the Baby Shower of Senator Melisa Franzen (front right)

I would put about $175,000 into rainy day

reserve. I would bond big time for

transportation. We will never get better

interest rates and in fact when the Federal

Reserve starts raising rates soon, we will kick

ourselves for not borrowing at these once in a

lifetime rates. I would also pass a gas tax. That

would provide a dedicated revenue source and

it would be an incentive to drive less which is

wise for our environment. I would put 3% onto

the formula because our districts are going

broke. Inflation doesn't leave them alone just

because the state doesn't allocate enough. I

like the early childhood education aspect but

do not think we can afford universal and I think

the rich families can and will provide everything

under the sun for their kids. The state doesn't

need to subsidize them.

Ideally a blend between the House and Senate

(specifically regarding tax cuts/rebates). I like

property tax refunds by Senate, but only if it comes

with teeth for the LGs. If our road infrastructure

needs more funding then we should use $$ surplus

money. I'm afraid if too little surplus $$ is allocated

to roads/bridges, the next move from legislature

will be more gas tax. Another gas tax/fee even at

the wholesale level is unnecessary given that the

last gas tax at the retail level has just been fully

phased in less than 2 years ago. Transportation

funds should be DEDICATED to roads/bridges.

Funding for public transportation should come from

other sources/bonding and be paid back with user

fees. If projections cannot support the payback,

then the project should be tabled. I like the

Senate's reserve amount. Nice to have a cushion

when needed.