Week of May 6, 2007

On Monday, I attended a caucus meeting and a lengthy floor session. Our major bill for the day was the health and human services conference committee report. We previously passed a House version of this bill, and then a conference committee of House and Senate members agreeing on a compromise between the House and Senate versions. The bill passed, and I voted for it. The Governor is threatening a veto.

At the end of session, I attended a meeting of the Environment & Natural Resources Committee, where we voted on the bill to dedicate funding for outdoor habitat, clean water, and the arts. I voted to move this bill to the next committee stop so that there can be a more thorough debate about this on the floor. There are a few members who really hate the arts provision on this committee. I think all of us who support habitat, clean water, and the arts have mixed feeling about this proposal because we would rather not budget using a constitutional amendment.

Here are some details about the House version of this bill (HF2285), which would add 3/8 of a percent to the state sales tax and would generate $281 million annually.
25% would go to a Natural Heritage Fund ($70,392,000)
25% would go to a Clean Water Fund ($70,392,000)
15% would go to drinking water source protection ($42,235,000)
5% would go to a Parks & Trails Fund ($14,078,500)
10% would go to an Arts & Cultural Heritage Fund ($28,157,000)
10% would be divided by law every two years among the above funds ($28,157,000)

Got home at 10:00 p.m.

On Tuesday, I attended a lengthy floor session and a caucus meeting. We voted on a variety of minor bills. Some of these bills include even just a word or sentence change to update statutes, so they were not particularly noteworthy for the blog. We then recessed about 3:30 p.m. and came back at 8:30 p.m. to vote on the higher education conference committee report. A conference committee report must be on members' desks for 12 hours before we can take action on it, and the report got on our desk at 8:30 a.m. We could have suspended the rules that required us to wait 12 hours but less than the required 90 members voted to do so, so we had to come back. Since my wife was out of town, I had to scramble to arrange for my in-laws to have my kids overnight since I was going to be in St. Paul late. Argh! But I did manage to rush home and cut my grass before getting the kids.

On the way back down to the Capitol, I heard on the radio that the Senate passed the higher education conference committee report and that the Governor said he would veto it because he said it was "underwhelming." Voters out there may be wondering why we then came back and passed the bill that Governor will veto. (You may also be wondering why we are passing other bills despite veto threats.) While I find it irksome that we are going through this process, it seems that the Governor's office often does not give clear indications why the Governor will veto a bill, so that conference committee members cannot make some of the necessary changes to get the bill signed. For example, the word "underwhelming" is not something that helps the members of the House know what the source of conflict is. But we do seem to get a prompt and detailed response about objectionable provisions in writing from the Governor once he gets the bill on his desk. Ironically, this process seems to be faster than re-referring a conference committee report back to its conference committee to start over. So we passed the higher education bill and sent it to the Governor. Got home at 10:30 p.m.

On Wednesday, I attended a caucus meeting and a floor session. We tackled a large number of small bills again, had a recess, and then finished our session by 5:30 p.m., allowing me to see my daughter's baseball game.

During the recess in the afternoon, the Heritage Finance Committee met to hear HF2285, the dedicated funding bill for habitat, clean water, and the arts. I'm the vice-chair for this committee and I asked a lot of questions of the arts and culture groups that testified about what they would use additional funding for if the amendment passed. You can watch the meeting's video and see for yourself.

On Thursday, I attended two caucus meetings and a lengthy floor session. Our big bill for the day was the omnibus transportation policy bill. This is different from the transportation finance bill that deals with the gas tax, license tab fees, etc. and only deals with policy. We had a heck of a lot of amendments but eventually we passed the bill (HF1351) with more than 100 votes.

On Friday, the House met in session after a caucus meeting and we considered the latest version of the tax bill, the energy policy bill, and the smoking ban.

But imagine my surprise when none other than the President of the Taxpayers League of Minnesota popped his head into our DFL House Caucus meeting before the floor session! I'm told that he thought that the House Republicans were meeting in our room, which would have been the case last year when he was still in the legislature. So I guess it's OK for a lobbyist to meet with a party caucus before a big vote.

The tax bill was the conference committee report after the House and Senate met to work out their differences. The Senate pretty much agreed to the House version that passed about a month ago, which would include an income tax increase as a swap for a property tax decrease. As well-crafted as this bill is, the Governor plans to veto this bill and there are not any votes from the Republican side to achieve a 90-vote override of the veto. My understanding is that this bill--unlikely some of the other vetoed bills where we were not exactly sure what the Governor was objecting to or where we had a chance to override-- is now designed to cast a negative light on the Governor. While I don't agree with the Governor on a lot of issues, I hear from constituents from all points of the political spectrum that they are tired of political games at the capitol, and this bill is part of that problem. I voted no, and it was a difficult vote. Some constituents are already not happy with my position on this and I accept that as fair criticism.

The energy bill actually took up more time on the floor than taxes! The energy bill includes a conservation and efficiency portion that requires that utilities incentivize measurable energy savings; a community-based energy development (C-BED) program that promotes more local ownership of wind projects in rural areas; and the global warming mitigation act. The global warming bill was the most controversial because it would put a cap-and-trade system in place whereby a new coal plant would have to "offset" its carbon dioxide emissions elsewhere. There are two coal plants that are planned that might be affected, including one on the Iron Range and one just across the border in South Dakota called Big Stone II. There were several amendments, and I voted for a strong bill as I have pledged to constituents. The bill passed 92-37.

The final bill, started just before midnight on Friday, was the smoking ban. This bill was a conference committee report so it could not be amended. The bill passed 81 to 48, and I voted for it. We adjourned at about 1:15 a.m.
A special thanks: My wife was out of town this whole week, and I am indebted to my in-laws for watching my two young children when I was stuck on the House floor. My father-in-law was sitting up reading at 1:45 when I got home early Saturday morning!

Recent letter to the editor: There was a letter from a constituent in the Shoreview Press this week taking issue with my support of the "dream act," or the proposal in the first House higher education bill to grant in-state tuition to immigrants who are here illegally. There will be a response in next week's edition, but I thought I would link to my blog entry on the issue.

Visitors: People have been visiting me outside the House chambers lately since we have been on the floor a lot lately. Visitors have included: lobbyists for Education Minnesota on statewide health insurance pool for educators; four Shoreview residents from ISAIAH about that group's progressive legislative agenda; parent activist for Centennial schools; Shoreview resident supporting transportation funding; former recycling colleague about a recycling issue

Invitations: Gun Owners Civil Rights Alliance for "A Sub Machine Gun Shoot" for legislators (really)

Constituent contacts: several constituents advocating for a strong bill on global warming and funding for clean water, including two from North Oaks, one from Lexington, one from Circle Pines, three from Lino Lakes; and six from Shoreview; Forest Lake School District against mandatory statewide health insurance pool for educators; Shoreview resident supporting HF336 placing higher education requirements for audiologists; Circle Pines resident supporting global warming mitigation bill; Shoreview resident opposed to statewide educator health insurance pool; Shoreview resident against using constitutional amendment for outdoor funding; North Oaks resident supporting the amendment; Shoreview resident supporting the amendment; Shoreview resident against the statewide educator health insurance pool; Circle Pines resident supporting the statewide educator health insurance pool; North Oaks resident supporting nuclear power; Lino Lakes resident supporting statewide educator health insurance pool; Shoreview resident supporting outdoor funding amendment; Shoreview resident preferring funding in proposed amendment for outdoors and clean water but not the arts; Lexington resident updating me on progress in creating raingardens in that city to increase water quality and to sequester carbon; two local Education Minnesota member asking about statewide educator health insurance pool; Circle Pines resident against proposed income tax increase; North Oaks resident supporting global warming mitigation bill; Circle Pines resident supporting global warming mitigation bill; Lino Lakes resident supporting salary supplement for state employees; Circle Pines resident against statewide educator health insurance pool; two Shoreview residents, one North Oaks resident, and Circle Pines resident supporting creation of the MN Biomedical Science Research Facilities Authority; Shoreview resident supporting inclusion of the arts and cultural resources in a proposed sales tax constitutional amendment; Shoreview resident concerned about data practices provisions of health care bill; Shoreview resident against any tax increases; North Oaks resident asking about good faith provision; North Oaks resident about Highway 96 landfill; Shoreview resident supporting seat belts in school buses; Shoreview resident supporting in-state tuition for undocumented immigrants; Lino Lakes resident supporting strong smoking ban; North Oaks resident supporting strong smoking ban; Circle Pines resident supporting statewide educator health insurance pool; Lino Lakes resident supporting statewide educator health insurance pool; two Lino Lakes residents and a North Oaks resident supporting omnibus transportation bill; Lino Lakes resident supporting a statewide health insurance plan for educators; Shoreview resident frustrated about the veto process; Blaine resident against taxpayer funded stadiums; Shoreview resident supporting a constitutional amendment for dedicated outdoor funding; Circle Pines resident supporting a constitutional amendment for dedicated outdoor funding; Lino Lakes residents supporting statewide health insurance pool for educators; Shoreview resident supporting medical use of marijuana; Shoreview resident supporting statewide health insurance pool for educators; Lino Lakes resident satisfied with his representation; Shoreview couple supporting smoking ban and increase in gas tax; Shoreview resident supporting transportation funding; Shoreview resident supporting constitutional amendment for dedicated outdoor funding; Circle Pines resident against gas tax increase