Senate Passes Jobs, Energy and Commerce Bill
Articles,  Blog

Senate Passes Jobs, Energy and Commerce Bill


>>senator limmer.>>thank you Mr. President I move further proceedings under the roll call be dispensed with and sergeant be instructed to bring in the absent members.>>on that motion all those in favor say aye those opposed the motion prevails the sergeant will bring in the absent members. Members remaining under motions and resolutions we revert to the fifth order of business reports of committees. The secretary will.>>senator gazelka from the committee on rules ended ministration which was referred house file 2414 for comparison with companion senate file reports the following house file was found not identical to the companion senate file pursuant to rule 45 the committee on rules of the minister to recommend house file 2414 be amended as follows and when so amended house file 2414 will be identical to senate file 2452 and for the recommends house file 2414 be given its second reading and substituted for senate file 2452 and the senate file be indefinitely postponed pursuant to rule 45 submitted by the secretary of senate on behalf of the committee on rules and administration.>>senator gazelka out. Mr.>>President I move the committee report written read by the secretary be adopted a.>>that motion all those in favor say aye those opposed the motion prevails. Moving to the sixth order of business second reading moving to the seventh order of business second reading of house bills the secretary will read house file.>>house file 2414.>>second reading remaining under motions and resolutions senator gazelka up.>>Mr. President pursuant to rule 26 I designate the following bills be made special orders for immediate consideration members capital long list. On your list>>members the first bill for consideration is no. 127 on general orders house file 2208 senator pratt.>>thank you Mr. President. Members, house file 2208 or senate file 2611 is really the work of three committees of the jobs commerce and energy committee’ s. The bill appropriates money for a variety of state agencies including the department of employment and economic development, the department of labor and industry, bureau of mediation services, workers’ compensation court of appeals, destination medical center the department of commerce and the public utilities commission. We’ re going to ask the other chairs to talk about the sections of their bills but Mr. President I would like to start with the jobs and economic growth omnibus bill. This was shaped by the idea that every minnesota should have a chance to participate in our economy. Our proposal focuses on initiatives that will prepare the work force the jobs of today and the jobs of tomorrow. It will encourage and leverage investment in the state of minnesota promote fair balance between employers and employees and will be removing barriers for people looking to gain employment. Every budget year we have to make tough decisions on where to allocate state dollars. This year we’ re going to be allocating $7 million needed for the vocational rehabilitation program this program provides services to assist people with disabilities and overcoming barriers to access in maintaining in returning to implement. Spinet dollars in both bodies of the legislature more resources must be devoted to wage theft in minnesota and in order to achieve this we decided to allocate an additional $2 million to the department of labor for purposes of investigating and processing wage theft claims. In our discussions about wage theft it was noted those who engage in wage theft often perpetrate other crimes. For this reason we felt it was necessary to provide $500,000 to develop a statewide protocol that includes investigative best practices for law-enforcement officers to help identify victims of labor trafficking and traffickers. Throughout this session there were many organizations that presented funding requests to the committee every organization that presented does great work is become apparent some of these nonprofits have become defect to state agencies relying on state appropriations for their continued operations. In some cases we continue these appropriations in some cases we graduated organizations to the competitive grant process and replace them with new programs looking to be seceded. Just to talk about some of the programs we did in fact make direct appropriations to, it is particularly around focusing on the jobs of today and tomorrow this was something the youth skills training program that was important to senator anderson as well as the department of labor the experience produced health care at the senator franzen grant program to first in the upper midwest will invest local committees will invest robotics hubs carts to careers helmets to hard hats boys and girls clubs and a big brothers and big sisters. As I mentioned it also want to remove barriers to employment especially for those who have struggled and are looking for to rebound from bad situations. Accessibility inc. Out of minneapolis which is helping formally incarcerated citizens to get back into the employment market of the white earth nation the white w see a st. Paul minneapolis foundation twin cities rise ujamaa placed american indian oic, 180 degrees displaced homemakers, the father project some academy, and minnesota diversified industries which is working with those with mental disabilities. These organizations work extremely hard to provide the services to the underserved and hard to train individuals because of this we decided to reduce the percentage that deed May retain with each grant appropriation from 5 percent down and to 2.5% members this will free $500,000 more for grant organizations to use and help provide these important services to minnesotans. Unfortunately we’ re not able to fund every organization that presented to the committee and for this reason we decided that any program receiving a direct appropriation will be ineligible to receive a competitive grant for that same program to ensure that programs not receiving a direct appropriation have a fair shot through competitive grant process. Finally we decided to focus on initiatives that will encourage a leveraged investment in minnesota and. For this reason we’ ve included the duluth paper mill and the airport infrastructure renewal grant program we continue base funding for these programs and we included in base funding for essential programs like the minnesota investment fund and the job creation fund to help encourage economic investment in greater minnesota. Mr. President throughout the session it became apparent that current reporting requirements are not adequate for the information we in a legislature need to make decisions I spoke with commissioner grover earlier this session we agreed tighter reporting requirements are necessary to ensure the agency and the legislature have information necessary to make responsible decisions in order to encourage accountability transparency this bill establishes programs that programs requesting state funds should be required to provide the requested information in order to be considered for an appropriation following biennium. I did talk about wage theft briefly and I like to spend a little more time on that. Mr. President and members we believe every employee who puts in a hard day’ s work deserves to be paid a wage they’ re entitled to. By clearly defining what wait staff as we are insuring that wage theft will be a crime and explicitly prohibited in state statute which it is not today current law prohibits it employed to bring selection against an employer who brings practices regarding to which payments by designate which that as a criminal offense we’ re showing intentional wage theft and the intent to defraud it will not be tolerated. It’ s also become clear many times those committee waitstaff are creating even more heinous crimes including labor trafficking which was an example the attorney-general brought to me earlier this session and as I mentioned earlier we will be giving half a million dollars to the department of labor and department of public safety to work with law-enforcement to identify and stop those participating in labor trafficking. Mr. President I would like to talk briefly on the uniform labor standards. Uniform labor standards limits the ability of local governments from passing their own mandates on minimum-wage benefits paid and unpaid leave and scheduling and would keep minnesota’ s labor laws uniform. Such ordnances have been set in place in st. Paul and minneapolis and without uniform labor standards we would see other cities followed the lead of the city’ s minnesota as 853 cities so patchwork of regulation poses a real threat to commerce and the state. In order to protect intrastate commerce uniform labor standards will eliminate the risk of complex conflicting or confusing labor regulations at the municipal level and maintain a clear straightforward structure that guides statewide business regulations. With that Mr. Chair I would turn over to senator dahms to talk about the commerce provisions.>>senator dahms.>>thank you Mr. President thank you senator pratt the commerce portion is up pretty small part compared to the other elements. The commerce committee and our part of the bill we decided to continue to move forward in changing the funding for the financial institutions currently the financial institution he’ s going to the general fund then the money comes out of the general fund to take care of the costs for the department of commerce to manage the financial institutions. We are changing that so the money goes into a special reserve account versus going into the general fund and also there is a provision in the bill that puts a cap on the department ability to raise their own fees and instead that it will raise their fees in different than they were in a previous biennium there will need to come to the legislature to request the fee increase. Also we have an increase in the health-care enforcement and fraud division by doubling the amount money we’ re putting into that the additional money going in and the upcoming biennium will be $566,000 the following biennium $596,000 and that is to allow the department to have the funds they need in order to make sure that all what and work with the health care fraud that’ s going on. Also there’ s a change in the mint invest $33 goes to the industry to do rulemaking the program has been in force for sometimes we don’ t feel we need to continue having $33,000 for rulemaking also in the bill there’ s an update from the real- estate appraisers regulations when the bill came to committee was still some things needed to be worked out between the appraisers and the commerce department that has been worked out so we included get in this bill and there is a cost of $5,000 per year for the appraiser board stipends’ but everything has been agreed to between the appraisers and between the commerce department. We also have a fee for the membership of an f I zero in this bill that pretty much wrapped up what’ s in the bill Mr. President I do have an amendment. It’ s the a one amendment.>>senator dahms offers the a one amendment the secretary will report the amendment.>>senator dahms move to amend house file 2208 as amended pursuant to rule 45 as follows page 63 line for this is that a one amendment.>>senator dahms.>>thank you Mr. President I’ m bringing this amendment up at this point instead of waiting until later this is a technical amendment to change the language so we make sure deal is right to deal with the appraisers language added to the bill I would appreciate support on this amendment.>>any discussion on the amendment? Seeing none bugs in favor say aye those opposed the motion prevails the amendment is adopted.>>thank you Mr. President that puts this porch of a bill in the order I would like to have it so at this point I will turn over to senator osmek for the energy portion.>>thank you Mr. President. The energy portions of this bill are articles 8 through 10 and the appropriations are in sections 27 through 29 I will briefly go over some of the major policy items setter in this bill. The bill itself has reforms to the committee solar garden program and now members committees so regard energy we are paying for as ratepayers is approximately one the hundred 20-$150 per ride megawatt hour to put that in context utility grade solar is approximately 40-$50 per megawatt all compared of fossil fuels or wind that’ s down at about $7 and were doing the bill is putting in a competitive process where solar developments will present anarchy the public utilities commission can review them we also put in consumer affairs protections so this is to change and improve the program itself that we initiated in the legislature in 2013. The bill also includes a call the three legged stool this is three provisions setter someone linked together one day as the biomass compensation account which helps businesses that were impacted by the legislative change that we May hear a legislature in 2017 that provides funding for compensation account for the impact that we put upon these businesses. There’ s also an net zero program at the prairie island tribe is going to be initiating this is a funding so they will become the first tribal nation in united states to be a net zero users of energy or fossil fuel energy. Also there’ s a cap a change that will be capping how much wheat tax ourselves on the casks that we store at prairie island and monticello. There’ s also some language on line 3 from the enbridge line 3 it prohibits appropriations from the department of commerce to continue the appeals process members the appeals that are going on the need to end at the department of commerce this was something the dayton administration was appealing and continued in the walz administration and speaking with the public utilities commission when they made their 5-0 adjudication they did take into account the comments and concerns a matter being raised in the appeal and honestly is a waste of taxpayers’ dollars to continue that process. It also includes siepi reform and solar and schools which is a program that senator dibble brought to us last year we had it in the bill that was vetoed by the governor this provides a $2 million a preparation for the renewable development account for solar on schools. We also have an energy study that we passed from this body to the house unfortunately I am sorry the other body that has not come back yet and we haven’ t been able to run that it’ s in this bill we repeal the nuclear moratorium the we also removed the large hydro cap on the r e s and also is an electric vehicle revolving fund want to talk about that for a moment. What we’ re going to do is take money from its agreeable develop an account senate to the department of commerce commerce is going to develop a program where we would be able to loan money to businesses or other organizations that want to put in charging stations they don’ t have capital that one of the capital or finances to this but there want to help the customers with their renewable rechargeable cards what this does there will be a grant program that sends the money out puts the charging stations then charges a fee every time someone plugs in to repay the money and eventually all the money we actually appropriate from cartier will be paid back and creates its own self sustaining program again and offer some members @ osmek being self sustaining May seem ridiculous but this is where it creates that exact type of program. With that members I do have a couple of amendments. Will be open for questions Mr. President I would offer the a nine amendment.>>senator osmek offers the a-9 amendment the secretary will report the amendment.>>senator osmek moves to amend house file 2208 as amended pursuant to rule 45 as follows page 86 line to strike this is the a nine amendment.>>thank you Mr. President this strikes a hundred $50,000 a preparation and that is an appropriation that’ s assessed back to utilities strikes it down to $450,000 this is for a program the department of commerce no longer implements or processes so we don’ t need to appropriate money I would appreciate your support.>>members any discussion on the a-9 amendment? Seeing none all those in favor say aye those opposed the motion prevails the amendment is adopted. Senator osmek.>>thank you Mr. President I would move the 820 amendment.>>and osmek offers the 820 amendment the secretary will report the amendment.>>senator osmek moves to amend house file 22 08 pursuant to rule 45 as follows page-one 10 after line 7 insert this is the 820 amendment.>>thank you Mr. President. This makes some small adjustments to the program just described the electric vehicle grant program and makes a few wording changes this is to get the wording right and it’ s a technical amendment in nature I would appreciate your support.>>members any discussion on the osmek 820 amendment? Seeing none all those in favor say aye those opposed the motion prevails the amendment is adopted. Senator osmek.>>thank you Mr. President I would impose a call the senate for the remainder of the bell.>>the senate is under call for the remainder of the bill.>>senator osmek.>>thank you Mr. President I move further proceedings on the call be dispensed with and the sergeant be instructed to bring in the absent members.>>hon that motion all those in favor say aye those opposed motioned rebels the sergeant will bring in the absent members.>>thank you Mr. President I would stanford economist questions and amendments to the bill I would appreciate your support on the bill.>>discussion on house file. 2208 senator file>>thank you Mr. President I would like to move the 822 amendment. Senator>>rarick offers the a 22 amendment the secretary will report the amendment.>>senator rarick moves to amend house file 20 to 08 pursuant to rule 45 as follows page 44 delete section one this is the a 22 amendment.>>senator rarick.>>thank you Mr. President members the amendment deals with article 3 in the bill. This is in regards to retainage this is an issue I’ ve been working on for a number of years and have been working with a lot of the groups from the subcontractors the general contractors public agencies, cities counties there’ s been a lot of work ultimately what we’ re trying to do is get contractors paid when they completed their work. For those who don’ t know retainage it’ s a percentage of a contract that withheld from a contractor in order there would complete the work on a project. One of the things when we talk to people most people believe when you’ re finished with your work you should be able to be paid. I do understand the subcontractors understand because retainage has been used for so long being paid right when you completed is not something we will be able to get to get done but they would like to see a trigger date for the note when it will be paid when it completed their work and I understand and working with the groups we have to have a tool available for owners or public agencies in order to ensure contractors are finished sloot when you look of a language I presented here its language that’ s been worked on with many of the group’ s it’ s as a trigger date 60 days after a substantial completion when retainage must be paid out. Substantial completion is defined in the bill I can answer some of the details if members have questions but there is a tool in their for money to be withheld for people with not completed their work but this gives a trigger date for subcontractors and contractors that they know when they will be able to be paid one-fifth completed their work and I would stand for questions.>>senator kent.>>thank you Mr. President. With senator rarick yield?>>senator rarick will yield.>>thank you Mr. President senator rarick when you presented this bill in committee had very much appreciate you been working to find compromises and strike a middle ground between all parties. Since we’ re seeing this new language for the first time today I’ m have seen handout from the association’ s to support this I’ m wondering to know if any organizations that are opposed to this new virgin of a language?>>thank you Mr. President. A belief we’ ve come a long way I’ m not 100 percent sure if the legal minnesota cities and agencies are to appoint to be neutral but there lot better what the bill and there were in the past and I believe the counties are neutral on and at this point.>>senator kent.>>thank you Mr. President and senator rarick I appreciate a lot of effort into striking the middle ground I appreciate the update thank you.>>further discussion on the amendment senator pratt.>>thank you Mr. President senator rarick thank you for your work, all you’ ve been trying to work with the parties up until the last minute and members I would encourage that you vote in favor of the amendment.>>any further discussion on the a 22 amendments? Seeing none all those in favor say aye those opposed the motion prevails the amendment is adopted. Further discussion on house file 2208 senator utke.>>thank you Mr. President. I would like to offer the a 21 amendment.>>senator utke offers the 821 amendment the secretary will report the amendment.>>senator utke moves to amend house file 22 08 pursuant to rule 45 as follows page 71 after line 26 insert this is a 821 amendment.>>senator utke.>>thank you Mr. President members the a 21 amendment is the language of senate file 2011 which is known as the workers’ safety and energy security act that’ s for good reason. As activism groups continue to proliferate and train people to trespass with the intent to turn valves or otherwise damaged critical infrastructure the up and downstream impacts could be disastrous. These criminal acts really jeopardize the safety of our construction workers that are working to maintain replace or install a new critical infrastructure components. They can cause great harm to those who work at these locations at the utility goes into service plus the extreme risk to law- enforcement and others who must respond to such incidents. I wish these incidents were isolated but they’ re not in fact the frequency intensity and level of violence is becoming alarming critical infrastructure refers to things like utility power lines and equipment pipelines railroad yards and stations bus stations airports and other mass transit facilities. Oil refineries and storage facilities and stored for hazardous materials the term also includes nonpublic portions of bridges these are all items that will affect a large number people if that service is interrupted. This bill changes this amendment changes a couple of things better and current statute effort to specifies a person causes damage to the physical property of critical infrastructure is guilty of a felony with penalties up to 10 years in prison and a $20,000 fine. Then with the newly added language the personal alters the equipment or physical operation of a pipeline with intent to disrupt operations is guilty of a felony and with penalties up to seven years in prison and a $20,000 fine. This paragraph is specific to pipelines and means to someone trespasses on to private pipeline property and starts to turn a valve they’ ve shown their intended to disrupt the operation and a guilty as previously listed. These items types of actions have to stop and adding this specific penalty will hopefully get that message across. Everyone of these incidents puts any hard-working minnesotans and rest. It’ s also added the court May order a person who’ s convicted of a crime to pay restitution for the cost and expenses resulting from the crime the cost to shut down a pipeline because someone is missing with a bald as costly plants could be extremely dangerous if restitution for these costs is enforced will hopefully see a reduction in these acts. Prosecutors already have some tools to one after the bell turners and those who damage critical infrastructure but the fact that vandals and trespassers keep turning valves interstate means current laws are not deterring them. Members we May hear it this type of legislation and infringes on some first amendment rights that could not be further from the truth. These individuals to trespass into harm or damage to critical infrastructure are breaking the law plain and simple I have received many messages and letters of support and a copy of a letter from the minnesota fire association coalition was passed out along with other letters the coalition includes the fire chiefs association the minnesota chapter of international association of arson investigators, fire marshals association of minnesota on and minnesota state fire department. Other message of support came from the minnesota sheriffs association all these groups would be first call to respond to potential disasters or to investigate one they’ re all concerned. Another group associated contract truckers loggers and these hard-working minnesotans announcing vandalism to their businesses and equipment because these criminals are associating them with the critical infrastructure public utility. We have heard of damages exceeding $100,000 to logging equipment and with the value of the equipment these businesses to own and these numbers will only increase. He’ s a small business is just trying to make a living and offer good jobs in our timber lands. The matter if it is to logging skitter or pipeline pumping facility must do all we can to shut down these bad actors who trespass and do damage to critical infrastructure and more. Again we title this amendment to the bell our workers’ safety and energy act for good reason our number one issue is public safety we want everyone involved in these operations to have a safe working environment free from criminal acts and outside dangers. Members the timing of this couldn’ t be more perfect or worse I guess the timing is critical to us this past wednesday we heard about a wednesday evening someone again doing damage in southwestern minnesota to critical infrastructure pipeline. Finally I would like to thank my fellow members to join me on the bill which as you see are scheduled for 28 the bill will come up again now in about three more hearings. Senator johnson bakk tomassoni and ingebrigtsen. With that Mr. President I would. Stand for would>>discussion on the utke amendment senator ingebrigtsen.>>thank you Mr. President I won’ t be long I stand in support of this amendment. Allowing this amendment will leave the minnesota the only midwestern state that does not have these increased penalties leaving minnesota target state if you will forfeit the masked anarchist we’ ve been we witnessing doing destruction to these utilities. Folks this is a good bill let’ s join the other states in the midwest and show those folks that we care about our utilities and that’ s not the way to utilize the first amendment by putting a mask on and doing damage to property thank you.>>further discussion on the amendment senator bigham.>>thank you Mr. President. Senator utke I appreciate the work you’ ve done on this bill the one you previously brought before this body last year at some concerns with but you’ ve really done some work in working with a stake holders on this bill have a refinery marathon petroleum in my district and pipelines ago from the cottage grove tank farm into the refinery there and also my father worked 42 years at this refinery 22 which has the teamster in that refinery I also read the opportunity and honor to work their. My question as I want to confirm this bill and is nothing and will not impact any labor disputes any picketing or labor disputes that will come between the employer and the workers?>>Mr. President I forgot to ask if senator utke would yield.>>senator utke will yield. Did you hear the question?>>Mr. President I did. The organized labor and it’ s in the bill into different sections are actually in the amendment, if you’ re looking at it the minute you go to lines page for line 13 and in the trespassing section of the bill. It will be earlier in the bill with the same language and it does address organized labor and their ability for whether it consists of picketing handling mentoring work stoppages are strikes, they are able to do that they can’ t do damage or attempt to do damage to critical infrastructure like anyone else but it doesn’ t there’ s nothing in there that would prohibit them from what typically takes place between labor and management. During the work stoppage. Or stoppage>>senator bigham.>>thank you Mr. President thank you senator utke this is very important because we don’ t ever want to interfere in the government shouldn’ t interfere in that process and this is really an important bill what happened the last week with the damage to the pipeline in cotton would that diesel fuel and about in the ditches and in the yellow river and it puts not only the environment at risk witches super important but also our first responders and the people who have to go out and fix the damage so I appreciate all the efforts that a been made on this bill to truly continually make it a better bill.>>further discussion on the amendment senator osmek.>>thank you Mr. President thank you senator utke for bringing this forward. The amendment itself is about first amendment rights the first amendment rights to protest and were you begin to do damage. If you wanna come to the capital we had some here today you want to come to the capital and protest you want stand on a street corner and protest fine by me that your first amendment right but when you cross the line and you walk onto private property or better yet you cut the locks on a facility to trespass and go inside and turn off valves which could have a devastating effect to the pipeline itself as well as the internment as senator bigham mentioned, you have crossed the line and you don’ t have a right to my opinion to do that. Because I think this is all important Mr. President I requested roll-call vote.>>roll call has been requested in roll-call granted further discussion on the amendment senator marty.>>thank you Mr. President. I agree with senator bigham there’ s been some improvements in this bill and not interfering with organized labor picketing and other such things. I’ m not saying we shouldn’ t have severe penalties for people who do harmful things but in here the prohibited conduct and penalty the person who’ s found enters found upon property containing which is being constructed petroleum refinery pipeline its center of with the intent to disrupt the operation. You could be trespassing and disrupt the operation and one other provision disrupt the operation or the provision of services by an organization and you could have someone coming up who works there can be arguments on I’ ve seen people protest by chance in themselves to trees and other things like that now May be disrupting the operation and maybe they should have a misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor penalty for that kind of protest is there’ s civil disobedience by a five-year felony? That strikes me as excessive and saying yes someone who’ s doing something that could cause an explosion, something dangerous I am understand and maybe in the harsh penalties for that but for some simply protesting and doing something that May have the intent of disrupting in a minor way you’ re saying a five-year felony and I think the way we do our theft loss of our criminal laws the more severe the penalty for the morris your actions and I think that’ s way out of line the same way we decide for organized labor that the getting insulin you can’ t do anything to interfere with that that’ s not going to be a penalty at all. Even if it’ s disruptive of a business that’ s where we’ re headed in our society that’ s the way it should remain but saying that even if you have the intent to disrupt the operation of something in your simply trespassing a five-year felony strikes me as excessive.>>further discussion on the utke amendment senator newman.>>thank you Mr. President. I just want to add a little real- world experience the number of years ago outside of my own town of hutchinson there is a pipeline this services the city and in the dark of night that a couple of not had decided to go out and cut padlock and chain of a valve and they close the valve that service the city of hutchinson and as a result city employes had to go into every single home in this city of hutchinson who serviced by a pipeline because of the gas outage and had to rely on all the pilot lights and reignite all the gas appliances in the entire city. These guys did that intentionally with the intention of disrupting the cities service and it cost the city of hutchinson thousands and thousands of dollars to pay employees to go off to the city and reignite and rely all those appliances. A felony of this nature I believe is important I think it’ s appropriate not only be for the danger they put the people in by turning the valve off but also because of the cost to this city of hutchinson of far exceeding many other felony level crimes that we have so I would urge folks to vote for the utke amendment.>>further discussion on the amendment senator isaacson.>>would senator utke yield?>>senator utke will yield up.>>thank you Mr. President senator utke if you ever refinery in which a group of people decide to protest and they are filling in the front area so it’ s impossible for the new employes to show for the old employes to leave would that be a violation under your language?>>senator utke.>>thank you Mr. President I was looking here because senator isaacson do have a copy of the amendment in front of you? I’ m looking on page 4 starting with line 13 were lays out that language.>>senator isaacson.>>Mr. President would senator utke yield?>>senator utke will yield.>>to soar unclear senator utke if you’ re a physician their protest in intake of space the front parking lot and locking people from coming or going is not involved in the new natural rna violating a felony law here? Are they doing a felony committing a felony?>>thank you Mr. President. No as I read this organized labor, a labor dispute including picketing in billing entering with work stoppages are strikes as long as the member does not cause damage to the physical property or alter the equipment or physical operation of a critical public service facility etc. With the intent to disrupt. They would not.>>Mr. Chair would senator utke yield again?>>senator utke will yield.>>I’ m sorry senator utke apparently was unclear and not talk about labor unions and asking if an organization that doesn’ t believe in what ever is happening at the refinery shows up that’ s not a union stance in the way of folks at the gate which is on the property not disrupting anything other than their presence is blocking people from giving in roderick committing a felony according to your amendment?>>senator utke.>>thank you Mr. President and senator isaacson I think we got in the right section now. This talks about a person this is not an employee it’ s not part of an organized labor this is people come from the outside and on page 4 starting with line 8 talks about that person who’ s not basically are trespassing and at first they would be asked to leave and if they don’ t to make sure I’ m on the right section, it would not be a felony that’ s underground structure I was reading it would be a misdemeanor. But it would not be a felony.>>senator isaacson.>>would senator utke yield for another question?>>senator utke will yield.>>senator utke just to make sure I’ m clear about this, if I heard you correctly folks sure they’ re protesting peacefully better not destroying property better on the premises and not on the ground and reforming civil disobedience passive resistance as recall it in a way we would hope most protests would be done better not anywhere destroying things in what I’ m concerned about the way we’ re defining disrupting services I feel the spirit of what you’ re saying means are they physically disrupting the mechanisms that deliver the oil I wanna make sure you’ re not saying by having civil disobedience that blocks employes from coming in so this a problem with people coming from work and you’ re saying that’ s not the destruction is that a fair assessment?>>Mr. President and senator isaacson, the example you’ re using is not part of this bill but it’ s already covered under current law and would be illegal.>>further discussion senator isaacson? Further discussion on the amendment senator marty.>>Mr. President I want to follow on what senator isaacson was saying on page 4 lines 1 through 7 it does make it a five-year felony for being found on the property with the intent disrupt the operation for provision of services by he pointed out senator utke pointed out in the response for labor union to be doing the senator isaacson type of situation going into the front office where employees are changing shifts and blocking the way standing there in the way disrupting and for labor union it’ s not a penalty at all but for some it was going in there for some other purpose some other free- speech purpose it’ s a five-year felony and I think as stand by its says a five-year felony $10,000 fine. Based on the content of your speech your groin have a five-year felony or penalty and I think that’ s not appropriate.>>further discussion on the amendment senator pratt.>>thank you Mr. President would senator utke yield?>>senator utke will yield.>>thank you Mr. President and senator utke as I read the sections that you’ re talking about I’ m seeing the words May be sentenced for not more than five years or a payment or find not more than. Than10,000 my question senator utke has does this bill mandate a five-year sentence for someone or to the courts have the ability to match the penalty to the severity of the crime and therefore this is putting a cap on what that penalty May be but not mandating that be the minimum penalty?>>thank you Mr. President and senator pratt you are correct. What we have in the amendment in the bill we’ ve established a camp the courts are able to match the fine or the penalty to whatever level of destruction they did if it’ s trespassing but the courts are in control we established a ceiling.>>further discussion on the amendment senator marty.>>Mr. President and senator pratt that’ s true waller criminal penalties committing murder manslaughter, fact anything it’ s a five-year felony is a five-year sentence usually five years and $10,000 and it’ s up to that you don’ t have to sentence them to five years and very seldom does someone actually get the same five-year felony but this is by definition a five-year felony by this language and I’ m saying one person going in there to organize and protest or for one purpose has no penalty doing no more damage no more harm no more blockage of employees going inner out that another one and level one gets a five-year felony in the fact they May not I hope prosecutors are going have a little more discretion than that but we’ ve been pretty careful statutes to try to not put inappropriate penalties and say if the maximum for someone doing a certain behavior should be more than a year and day in jail and more than a year in chair will put it as a gross misdemeanor. It’ s always up to that so senator pratt this is a five-year felony were giving people for good behavior that for other people to do similar things on a different free- speech issue is no penalty whatsoever.>>any further discussion on the utke amendment? Senator laine.>>thank you Mr. President I’ ve been looking at this to nancy in current law anyone who causes damage or physical to the physical property of a critical public service facility with the intent is representative the operation or provision of services of that is guilty of a felony and many sense to not more than 10 years so this person to we have spoken about who shot a whole in the diesel fuel pipeline is guilty of a felony can be in prison for not more than 10 years that’ s current law. We don’ t need this amendment to have that to be the fact today we got one here and as senator marty said we get of labor union members who are employes the right to do things that the ordinary person cannot right now in order person in and simply protest it on the property they would be guilty of gross misdemeanor we’ re trying to make that to a felony of 10 years or five years this is overreach thank you.>>members any further discussion on the amendment senator kiffmeyer.>>thank you Mr. President. Interesting discussion says were reading from the actual language in front of us even in regards to the action by a member of a labor organization exercising their right to free speech and the union work a do even in that as long as the member does not cause damage to the physical property or alter the equipment or physical operations of a critical public facility utility or pipeline with the intent to disrupt its operations or provision of services. Indeed they’ re not exempted from that they’ re using their free speech but it cannot go so far as to damage a physical property and other things setter in this language so they are treated the same.>>members we’ re on a 21 amendment senator laine.>>just to clarify that, and it is in law at this time anyone who causes damage to the physical property is guilty of a felony with imprisonment of up to 10 years.>>further discussion on the amendment senator utke.>>thank you Mr. President I will add a little clarity to what was said there, what senator laine is saying is correct its in current law but this amendment includes that talks about doing damage we’ ve added the intent factor if they get their hands on the ballot and start to turn in the haven’ t done damage but the intent is there that’ s broad and part of this amendment then the restitution factor. It’ s been proven over and over the last several years, we have a lot is not deterring them still let people were coming into our state better being trained and paid to do these crazy dangerous acts the cost hundreds of thousands of dollars it could be millions it was a bigger problem plus the fact our workers and people want to respond to these we have to tightness and give our prosecutors and judges some more tools to give to drive the message home that this is not welcome in our stay.>>members we’ re on May 8th 21 amendment is there any further discussion? Seeing none the secretary will take roll.>>all senators having voted who desire to vote the secretary will close roll their being 52 yeas and 15 nays the amendment the motion prevails the amendment is adopted. Members we’ re back on house file 2208 as amended next is senator isaacson.>>frank you Mr. President would senator hall yield?>>senator hall will. Will>>thank you would you check to see senator hall has a copy of the bill in front of them? One is being delivered now if he doesn’ t.>>senator isaacson>>I want to make sure if senator hall has a copy of the bill.>>senator hall does have a copy of the bill.>>senator paul if you could turn to page 55 on line 55.10 section 7, I would like to know if in the language in section 7 has been heard before his committee this session? In the local government committee.>>senator hall did you get that?>>thank you Mr. President. But no I did what was the question?>>I just want to know senator hall on page 557 section 7 on express pre-emption in the language in section 7 have been heard before his committee and local government this session?>>thank you Mr. President senator isaacson no. I don’ t believe I’ ve seen this in local government.>>senator isaacson.>>thank you we both know most of us don’ t senator pratt in the jobs committee did not have this legislation this language no. I’ m wondering if senator cohen would yield?>>senator cohen.>>senator will cohen yield.>>thank you and senator cohen a rumor you’ ve been here a couple years more than me if you could elucidate for me how important is it how serious to someone if there want to get language passed what’ s the committee process plan that will?>>senator cohen.>>Mr. President and senator isaacson obviously it’ s always been my sense in the senate particularly in the senate will try to hear legislation of signet in importance we have amendments of a more minor nature writer language that’ s presented to the particular committee of jurisdiction without hearing where you have some issue of some significance it’ s been my experience of years the legislation certainly the proposal has been heard in a substantive way in the particular committee where there’ s an opportunity have testimony on both sides have awful committee discussion obviously senator isaacson you and I serve on the jobs and economic growth committee together I know we reduce appointed as were other members of the minority we didn’ t have an opportunity of a full discussion of this issue during the committee process we certainly had some discussion as the bill was presented the omnibus bill was presented we have some discussion some limited testimony but given the import of the issue I would’ ve hoped we would have more discussion.>>senator isaacson?>>thank you Mr. President.>>I did know if you add anything further.>>thank you what I find it interesting about this section and I been doing this a few years but the fact that it hasn’ t been heard leads me to a couple of conclusions. I do think this issue is somewhat known by all of us to some degree however the specific language should probably be discussed and finer detail for the committee to a guy just on what to think is important.>>senator hall for what reason do rise?>>if senator isaacson will allow me to clarify I did not recognize.>>senator hall senator isaacson has the floor now.>>Mr. President I would love to give setter in all the opportune to answer my question more fully.>>thank you Mr. President senator isaacson, we did hear it was my mistake we did hear the senator koran bill which is this section senate file 2321 I believe the was March 11th.>>. Senator>>>Mr. President thank you and to be clear the senator koran belt to senator hall would yield again reflects the exact language we see here and the bill from page 55 through 56 on line 13 or 56.11.>>senator paul will yield.>>thank you Mr. President senator isaacson I believe there was one change to date. The effective date.>>Mr. President I’ m sure senator hall was trying to get it right my understanding of from one my colleagues that the committee to meet that date, mantinea did meet at some point out take his word for that if that’ s the case what I want to point out this bill apparently didn’ t get past of a committee are passed out of the jobs weary you would combine normally or scrutinized that’ s a big part of a widow the jobs committee on a thing my earlier point is diminished in the fact clear this language wasn’ t taken seriously and why think that’ s important is the thing year after wonder when we include language like this in the bill what its purpose? When we include language of a bill that’ s probably not going to pass or hasn’ t me that hasn’ t invented that in the current political climate probably isn’ t going to pass on begin to wonder what its purpose is I can only see it serving as the as bait for trade in the conference committee I can’ t begin to understand the motives or the wisdom of the opposing party I wish them the best in the process of the conference committee and have to sit on a little concerned about why we will offer such a sweeping piece of legislation if I were to take this legislation seriously as one that I’ d be concerned about I would make some arguments about local control and how important is to make sure we allow people who are locally elected and closest to their constituents make the best decisions on what’ s best for the cities and it’ s astonishing to me that we think one-size-fits- all that’ s the way to go on not comfortable with that course this was a dinner for that reason Mr. President I will offer the a 15 amendment.>>senator isaacson offers the a 15 amendment the secretary will report the amendment.>>enter isaacson moves to amend house file 2208 as amended pursuant to rule 45 page 55 delete section 7 this is the a 15 amendment.>>senator isaacson.>>thank you Mr. Traficant fix this problem for them and make their bill a little more transparent and save them some efforts some hard in conference committee as I’ m confident this will survive a conference committee and wouldn’ t survive the governor’ s plan. Think this is a punitive action and really reflects a much larger game being played between two parties outside of the legislature very interested in leveraging their interest and I would encourage them to accept this as a friendly amendment but in the case is not I request roll-call.>>roll-call was been requested roll call will be granted senator pratt.>>thank you Mr. President. Thank you senator isaacson for trying to fix the bill I appreciate the effort however I do not accept this as a friendly amendment and Mr. President I’ m a little dismayed at some of the comments that were made as far as what the intentions were miami and our caucus in putting this forward is to be punitive or as to be used for trade bait. I don’ t believe we tried to infer a member’ s intentions member doing that what I can say Mr. President I think when we start talking about a jobs bill when we start talking about wage laws and other labor laws is important that we have a consistent standard across the state we have 853 different cities in this state and if everyone of them were to enact their own wage laws interstate commerce would cease to exist. Not only is this address the ways that laws we cavanor bill by a dozen fact look ahead to what is in the underlying bill that came over to the senate to pass the other body last week. We have to ensure that businesses with to ensure our employers are not caught up and we don’ t let municipalities set wage standards for the state the minneapolis ordinance allows puts in effect their labor standards and some and works as little as two hours and their city. As little as two hours a week in their city they’ re trying and we shouldn’ t allow one municipality to affect the state labor standards so Mr. Chair I request members to oppose the isaacson amendment.>>further discussion senator osmek.>>Mr. President point of order.>>state your point of order.>>thank you Mr. President senator isaacson question the motives of an amendment or legislation and under mason’ s section 124-3 motives of members is not to be questioned under the rules of this body.>>thank you senator osmek you read my mind members just a friendly reminder it’ s not question the motives of other members on the floor. Next to senator torres ray.>>thank you Mr. Chair. I wanted to clarify it to you members that in essence this particular language was really not moved and local government because the change that was made outside of committee that makes this language retroactive in order to target st. Paul and minneapolis is the fundamental piece that changes the direction of this policy. I want to talk about really the particular language and I also want to let you know members in committee and local government we never can’ t a local government representative speak in favor of this language. We never dead. We have ample opportunity to talk in fact I asked rep some people who come and speak on behalf of local governments to tell me and if they support this language and a emphatically said they did not want the state dictating what needs to happen apple local level especially because our cities is so incredibly different members and you need to think real carefully about what you’ re supporting here by supporting the language that exists and not supporting the senator isaacson amendment. We need to remove this language in order to give local authorities the authority and capacity to decisions that affect their communities we have ample discussion about this and it was clear most of the people who came to support this where business who really were driven by a different interests. Members I want you to reflect about the importance of supporting local government and supporting their authority to implement that fits the times in their economies and their workers so please think carefully about this amendment this is important for your local communities.>>members we’ re on the a 15 amendment senator koran.>>thank you Mr. President I would like to recommend a red vote on this amendment I think the fair uniform labor standards and does a great job at protecting the businesses in minnesota we cannot have our municipalities enacting legislation or policies which reach well beyond their boundaries and that’ s exactly what this does when senator pratt mentioned only two hours of work within any given week could bring a business under the realm under the local ordnances I think we take into consideration the cost of business and regulatory requirement we at acomb 50 + cities enact policies of that’ s why we did this bill I think it’ s a great bill I think it’ s a great not a great amendment please vote no on the amendment thank you.>>further discussion senator dibble.>>thank you Mr. President and members of what encourage a yes vote for the isaacson amendment. Members what sets take care really is the ability for citizens to organize and petition their local units of government to participate in local democracy to respond to the issues that are confronting them in their lives. What this amendment would simply take away the ability for citizens to work with their elected officials to respond to the challenges that they confronted and their lives and the solutions they developed in consultation with the duly elected representatives at the municipal level. Members this sounds very high-minded and a matter of no principles to talk about uniformity of laws across the state but think about some of the other subject issues when trust local government and we have seen a tax on those measures in other states basic things like protections of human rights we’ ve seen in indiana and north carolina and other places where houston tx where it is been a tax on the ability to confer nondiscrimination laws to improve local conditions and quality of life for those individuals in those municipalities. Run environmental measures that relate land use and pollution and all sorts of things where we’ ve seen attacks of the name of uniformity across the state for commerce and other sorts of activities. We’ ve seen transportation and transit improvements attacked because of the argument some of the creates an unfair set of conditions that violates uniformity across the state we trust local officials to work with local communities to address the challenges of the problems in the opportunities to improve the quality of life members this is about democracy about local democracy and elected officials allowing them to respond with policy enhancements and innovations helped remind everyone when we did debate some workplace and were condition improvements in the legislature over the course of several years those were opposed strenuously by the same interests letter urging the adoption of a language that’ s in this bill. I don’ t mind arguments on how we need to have this high-minded good government principle of uniformity this is about defeating better working conditions and better labor practices pay and working conditions and leave standards and not actually coming in to conformity with what every other modern industrial democracy as unable to deliver for its workers in the workplace these sorts of improvements enhancements are coming about because of gridlock occurring at the state level and at the federal level so let’ s let local units of government respond to reality of people’ s lives.>>further discussion on the amendment senator osmek.>>and you Mr. President senator dibble were going to have to disagree is when I think of it completely backwards for. What we’ re seeing with a labor laws you’ re talking about senator dibble is the citation I used last year and I’ m going to use again this year because it still applies to come from george orwell everyone has hopefully read animal farm the quotation is all animals are equal. But some animals are more equal than others are tell you how that applies here some. City all cities are equal but some are more equal than others why? Because minneapolis has decided in st. Paul in duluth had decided to impose their minimum wage standards and put an interesting little cause in a it says if you spend more than x amount of hours working in our city we get to put our little rules on new. The city of mound we have many different businesses web landscapers and larsen landscaping and would use that as an example midlands cable and go over to wake of the house committee for two hours a week into mowing or trimming for me to give a couple clients in minneapolis two hours each week that’ s politics folks to hours a week and they will be a small business will now be responsible for all the restrictions that minneapolis is placed upon them. They exist in the city of mound that their business in mound and in minnetrista as well but they didn’ t get to vote for this the city council amount the city council of minnetrista didn’ t vote for this sum of all city senator dibble are equal they’ re equal except when they’ re not accept some are more equal than others and will create labor laws that will extend beyond the boundaries of their city and impact every city in minnesota large and small if you want to defend local government control if you want to defend your cities from the forced into these labor laws and labor practices that their city councils did not vote for then go right ahead and take this out. If you want to defend local control and the city’ s to have their rights and not have these opposed upon their businesses than you keep this in the bill thank you.>>further discussion on the amendment senator little.>>think Mr. President as we all know every city minnesota is not equal lakeville minnesota is the greatest city in our state think we all understand that. I was wondering if senator pratt would yield?>>senator pratt will yield.>>thank you Mr. President senator pratt I have a couple of questions that we went over and jobs committee so none of these questions will be that shocking. Your argument about uniformity helping create jobs and helping our economy could also apply to the federal level . Do you believe that we should have a nationwide minimum wage?>>senator pratt.>>thank you Mr. President and senator little for the question. Senator little I’ m not suggesting that we have a nationwide minimum wage we do in fact have won by its the long standing practice that states May exceed that I would say that if the minimum wage were to impede looking at the constitution and the interstate commerce clause if that wage were to impede the ability of another state that I would say yes there should be some uniformity in the fact one state cannot dictate the labor laws and labor treatment of another.>>senator little.>>Mr. President and it’ s ok with you I would like to ask the same question which is do you believe we should have a nationwide at minimum-wage?>>senator little were you asking?>>senator pratt thank you.>>thank you Mr. President and senator little. Again I thought it had been answered the reason for the uniform labor standards is because we of city’ s imposing their labor laws on the other cities and impeding interstate commerce. I would say if this were truly going to be local control they should in fact contain it within their cities and their not. With that I think if we look of the history of this minimum-wage and labor laws have been the purview of the legislature until recently. I can’ t say that’ s been the standard or the history at the national level so senator little I would say no but for much different reason not what we’ re arguing with the uniform. Labor uniform>>senator little.>>thank you Mr. President and really want any after is the same arguments you’ ve made the city should be able to control wages and benefits because it would disrupt our economy in the state can be applied at the federal level. The same arguments are exactly what senator pratt has made which is when you cross over and wisconsin or wisconsin to minnesota the wage laws are different the benefits are different so the same argument applies at the national level and if you take that argument to its extension and you believe that the federal government is the only one that would have the right to a minimum wage and that states should have no right to set a minimum wage. But as senator pratt correctly points out that’ s not how operates the nation’ s our country has set the minimum wage than the state’ s have had a constitutional authority to go higher than that and from our history we know that cities can go one step further if they would like. We need an overarching theory or philosophy as to when the federal government taxed when the state tax and when the city x and now has worked in the history of our country is the federal government sets the minimum level of protection and benefits the state can set a higher floor of wages and benefits and protections and the cities can go beyond that. The question that’ s before us today is not whether or not we like what minneapolis and st. Paul are doing that’ s not the question of the question is a do they have the constitutional authority do have the power derived to do this? The answer to that question is yes or not actually hear arguing about whether we like what minneapolis are st. Paul is doing that’ s not the question of life here we’ re using convenient constitutional interpretation to try and stop things we don’ t like instead of operating under the power of the constitution.>>further discussion on the amendment senator relph.>>thank you Mr. President. Will senator little yield?>>senator little will yield.>>senator little as minor standing you say the state has the right to set a minimum wage by the city has the right to exceed that minimum wage is that what I understood did you say?>>Mr. President that is correct.>>senator little can you point to a constitutional provision allows that in the state of minnesota?>>thank you Mr. President. As senator ralph likely now it’ s not specifically prohibited any way in our constitution they have the authority to do so there’ s nothing prohibiting them from doing so. Under current law to have a constitutional 40.>>senator ralph.>>senator little than what you’ re saying is the state has the right to limit what facilities might charge as a minimum wage because there is no caution to shall protection of the city’ s right to raise that?>>senator little.>>thank you Mr. President senator relph perhaps you missed my entire argument which was we could do this we could do this but we’ re not doing it under any sort of overarching theory about how government works. My theory is that the nation sets the floor of the state goes beyond that and the cities can also go beyond that. We are using our interpretation to a separation of powers and constitutional authority in order to stop things we don’ t like and that’ s not a philosophy that’ s just politics.>>senator relph.>>thank you senator little. It’ s interesting we choose to argue policy when it benefits us and argue the constitution when it benefits us. That’ s what I seem to hear here we’ re arguing we shouldn’ t follow our constitution because we want something else but we have a constitution. I like to switch gears for a moment. One of the things people have failed to consider it in this question of uniformity of wages throughout the state as opposed to allowing individual cities to set their own wage if I happen to own a business that was pointed out in mounds view landscapers would going to minneapolis and therefore those employees would have to be paid at a higher wage as I understand it applies to the employees were working in this city so we end up with the anomalous situation where two different employees doing the exact same thing it repaid a different wage for the employer is being forced to pay a wage that they would not normally pay based on the economics of the community that they live in. Another example of some cities have more rights than others all cities are not equal but to force an employer to pay a different wage for the same job seems to me to be totally incongruous I believe we have the constitutional right as a state to set a minimum wage and to say that will be the wage that’ s in the fact then to go beyond that is to try to change the constitution by a policy amendment or policy change or statute so I would urge our red vote on this or a green crohn’ s.>>senator rest.>>thank you Mr. President I’ m a bit confused by which engrossment we’ re using of this bill. As I try and find the correct number would you clarify that for me if it’ s the second engrossment its section 7 on page 55. Is there a third engrossment here and now is that reconcile want to make sure I’ m following the correct engrossment I thought usually it’ s the most recent one. I’ m trying to figure out the difference between the senate file 10 the house file with regard to that. I’ ve seen a copy senator isaacson has which is the second engrossment don’ t we use the use most recent engrossment? There is a third engrossment. Could you help me out there?>>senator rest were working off the second engrossment. We’ re using the senate language from senate file 2611.>>Mr. President is there not a third engrossment? Where is the third engrossment I keep pulling up on my computer?>>senator rest we believe is the house file had a third engrossment that’ s what I’ m being told by the front desk we’ re in fact working off the second engrossment of senate file 2611.>>senator rest would like a copy of the bill? Members and next is senator marty on the a 15 isaacson amendment.>>thank you Mr. President. I hear a lot of people several pieces of people make arguments that to justify their point of view whether it’ s on the constitution or whatever. Wanted to say those who say they worry about the impact on businesses of 800 different minimum-wage laws which don’ t think is reality I think there are three or four that May be possible. Those are concerned about that ought to support changing it to the state level I’ ve senate file 626 which is a gradual phase-in of the $16 and operating get a hearing on a bill which I would welcome and a feeling if I did get a hearing at probably hear some objections we shouldn’ t do this statewide. Fifra needs in different parts of the state but the concern is this going to have to confusing impact on businesses doing it statewide would make a lot of sense and I would urge support for that bill. I think a lot of the objection is an to the fact that local governments and setting up different standards I think a lot of objections May well be to the fact a trying raise the minimum wage. To that I would like to suggest I don’ t know what people expect advocates people in the community ordinary citizens to do when they have some problem with government went workers are working full time and can’ t make ends meet living deep in poverty this by a full-time job at minimum wage to a problem like the federal government to raise the minimum wage and they have no way of competing in the federal argument and then no way to get action from congress. They come to the state capitols to doesn’ t take them as far to travel to get to the state capitol here and to reach out to us enter just to raise the minimum wage so people can make ends meet. And they don’ t get the success they need here so they try their local governments and say we live in minneapolis are st. Paul we can’ t make ends meet on the kind of income we get some of us working two jobs, what more do you want us to do can we get some help? Local governments decide they’ re going to try to help them and they think this is a matter of fairness for their citizens I think it’ s a matter of fairness for people who were trying to rent or buy property in their cities. So there raise the wage now the status and we don’ t want you to do that because we don’ t want to wait to be higher than what is the s I think those who are arguing this is really confusing to businesses it seems the bigness core of the argument is what should the minimum wage be I think it’ s to be much tighter than the $10 it is right now by let’ s acknowledge this is the way we block people from getting the minimum wage increase even though every time it goes on the ballot we don’ t have initiative here in minnesota that every state celt dakota alaska how arkansas on the to carolina state tried minimum wage increases every single time they passed by three-quarters of the votes. Well more than a landslide political victories for ballot initiatives on raising the minimum wage and many state minnesota would be higher than most. So the public strongly supports this they can get it at the federal level the can’ t get it at the state level to try the local level and say were not going to let you do that so I think it’ s yes someone was arguing before we do have the constitutional ability to block cities from doing this but it doesn’ t make it a good idea for that I think the people of minneapolis and st. Paul have spoken to the local elected officials and for us to step in and say they’ re more equal than others because they want your folks have a decent living is not a good argument for us to take that away because we don’ t like it because of the cities choose not to do that. I urge members to support the isaacson amendment and if you don’ t like the disparate impact on businesses with race statewide.>>senator isaacson.>>thank you Mr. Chair I would like to acknowledge that I filled seven of your gerlach are developing a special friendship with the nice about that is I want to be clear key is the one who brought up animal farm and won a thank him for that because a think animal farm is a wonderful analogy. What’ s interesting to simple google search let me take a step back I have, Mr. Second row from questioning intentions are clear by saying I May understand the purpose of bill and try and understand the purpose of language I never said any one specific had the impression and it or got that from have to be perusing a website frequented by my friends across the aisle the american legislative exchange commission and, language on a website that goes out and to a lot of folks and you know what I looked up to things and alex website both times that language appeared in this bill. So let’ s use them for metaphor for a second shall we allow to thank senator osmek for bringing that out. Remember the book animal farm it was about a pig who wanted to bring the family together at a farm together and will look to be a common cause to make their lives better and drive the people farmer ought to you might call the local cities out of control of their farm soviets might guess, we might do that any of limited these ideas saying let’ s work together and I’ ll be in charge of run this and you guys get the work on remember there some pretty important characters one of them was the workforce in the workforce were the people of minnesota who worked every single day to get the job done and make our state replaced there was a special role the special role as a sheet the sheep were the people that every time an abortion some in the shape within try to make a point how important what the to get a safe and would drown everyone out. If I were to draw the same analogy using the same mechanism senator osmek that I would have to argue that alec in this situation is the board and I would never begin to guess, but then when think sheep are but I do believe their stuff is being pointed out in the way that is unhealthy for minnesota I trust by mayors do their job I trust my city councils to do their job I trust my citizens to let them and have them reflect their values and right now this bill this amendment helps us do that the bill in its current form doesn’ t I would urge a green vote thank you. Point>>of order?>>benson what reason the rise at a?>>under nation’ s section 124 lecenter isaacson was engaging personalities by implying the amendment was based on relationship with an outside body. Alec in particular/.>>Mr. Chair I was implying I said that the case was because the language is on a website and the languages in the bill and sank there is a part correlation between nine sites visited confusion.>>Mr. President, on a point of order. I’ m asking for ruling is senator isaacson, out of order? Under mason’ s section 124 paragraph one in a debate the member must confine our remarks to the question before the house in avoiding personalities.>>senator isaacson please confine your comments to the resolution.>>thank you sir I hope you vote for my amendment appreciate your time today.>>under kiffmeyer.>>thank you Mr. President I pritchett the comments of been a discussion that has to do with state’ s rights and our constitution. You have the U.S. Constitution and the minnesota constitution so we are our republic because we have a constitution and have the rule law that calls as well. States are really important as a matter of fact states came before the federal government the states or wrote the constitution to gather those 13 states those states within the constitution created the federal government and the state’ s. A lot of power was left to the states that’ s really important states are under the U.S. Constitution have a tremendous amount of power to govern within their own state Mr. President. Within the states the state’ s credit local government saw in minnesota wrote their constitution as a state we have charter cities we have statutory cities those are governed under minnesota state law created when minnesota was a state. Certainly on this particular issue that I hear the discussion it’ s who has the authority and clearly the state does. The state does have the authority to govern those things within the state of minnesota. Here we have a proper issue that’ s before us as a legislature and that is in regards to do we allow the variation among cities or other entities or can the state say we’ re going to have state labor laws were going have state things government and by the way we have statewide electrical cold weather lot of other things we in previous times have said it’ s good for the state of minnesota to have a common base of those kinds of loss so that you encourage commerce so you encourage economic activity because when you make sure that is the case will allow businesses to big and small to flourish under that simple standard. That is what’ s at issue here and so members we have the authority in the state to set the laws for all of minnesota we’ re exercising that we’ re having that discussion and a one encourage members to vote no on the amendment that allows for us to go forward and establish the state basis that’ s a good thing and I do support that and ask you to know no on the a 15 amendment thank you.>>thank you senator pratt.>>thank you Mr. President. Thank you for this good discussion. Senator kiffmeyer touched on some of things I wanted to say that we allow the federal government to the constitution regulates interstate commerce meaning one state can impose their laws on the other which recently lost a court case against north dakota and have to pay legal fees because we tried to do that in the energy sector. We are saying that this is not a debate on whether or not we agree or disagree with a higher minimum wage that’ s not the point here. The point is we want one uniform standard to apply to the state particularly when we’ re going to start making violations of those not a civil offense but a criminal offense this bill makes wage theft of gross misdemeanor. If we’ re going to have criminal offenses we can’ t have multiple standards up to 853 different standards unlikely but possible we have to have one standard for that crime to be associated against. One standard for it to be prosecuted against that’ s what we’ re talking about in just because it’ s hard to get something through this body doesn’ t mean we should try to circumvent any way shape or form. Members ire rigid to vote against the isaacson amendment.>>senator dibble.>>thank you Mr. President and members. Mr. President and members this discussion seems to be revolving around whether or not minneapolis ordinance in st. Paul ordinance and other places have some sort of the extraterritorial reach our are imposing their ordnances and lots of other cities are reaching into businesses are having effect on people outside of their territory and the simple answer the question is it does not. I will simply refer you to the case that upheld the second save leave ordinance in minneapolis in which they relied on precedent and long to form their conclusions the reliant on a case known as nelson and I will share some words from the decision it’ s undisputed the city has a valid interest in promoting health and well-being of its people a point made earlier this is why we have local units of government so that citizens can petition their local officials elected officials utilize their own democracy to address the health and well-being of the folks inside the territory. This interest is implicated would employ shows up support for work in the city requiring employers to provide second save leave to workers a place in the city furthers this interest has in nelson were persuaded that restricting ordnances application to employes who work for minneapolis-based employers would undermine the goal of protecting public health because leave a cruise on the or Miss All the while employee works in the city an employer must permit use of accrued benefits only instead of work days in the city the ordinance has no impermissible extraterritorial operation. Members that’ s the affirmation in the decision of the courts on our laws and I think representations’ in the country we can change the law absolutely I respect individuals philosophical differences on the matter let’ s not misrepresent the purpose and intent and focus of a loss that we operate under.>>senator klein.1>>thank you Mr. President thank you centers and particular senator isaacson for bringing this amendment forward and the most edifying debate about the proper role in boundaries between the state federal and local units of government. What more central debate could we be having in this chamber today? It’ s been quite terrifying to listen to the comments of the secretary of state kiffmeyer and senator little and senator relph their ideas about where the boundaries of authority lie. I defer to their experience in that but I want to speak to the boundaries of not authority but wisdom and pursuing a preemption policy. Senator cwodzinski and his years of teaching civics I’ m sure could tell us about the federalist genius an experiment in federalism that allows us to experiment with policy ideas and a small unit of government to develop best policies that mechanism to be passed upward so we make mistakes in a small way before we roll the amount in a larger way and this has led to a brilliant innovations in the minnesota economy like the clean indoor air act which started at local levels was discovered to be tenable and good for business and good for minnesotans and then was passed upward local wage and labor laws are identical to that we can experiment with them in small units of government discovered their merits and then move them want if they so merits. I do not discount the inconvenience this policy at of municipal control of wage and labor laws May have on businesses but I would be very reluctant to alter that and dismantle or subverted anyway the federalist genius.>>senator cwodzinski.>>thank you Mr. President. Thank you senator isaacson for this amendment this is been won a most enjoyable afternoons in my three years here in the senate any conversation centered around the constitution does my heart good. In fact 13 states did not write the constitution there are only 12 the smallest state in united states never showed up because they were fearful of what the delegates were awarded to a constitutional convention so the smallest of states sublease sent this message you have to watch out for the little guy make sure the little guy is taking care of and we’ re not going to participate to remind you guys of that message and we could debate whether not there was a good strategy but none the last I would argue time is prevent rhode island was in fact correct. We talked about the interstate commerce clause and the other clauses the one thing we’ ve not mention yet is the 10th amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the 10th amendment to united states constitution says the powers not delegated the united states by this constitution nor prohibited to that might to the states are reserved to the states respectively. It is a huge, or to the people there of. Thank you Mr. President.>>thank you senator cwodzinski say no other discussion on the amended the secretary will take roll on a 15 amendment.>>all centers designed to go having voted the secretary will close roll their being at 31 yeas and 36 nays the amendment is not adopted. Senator kent.>>thank you Mr. President. That was certainly an interesting and important debate and it reminded me I keep hearing these conflicting arguments from the same organizations and people. They want things done on a statewide basis for consistency because they believe that’ s the better way to do it on the one hand on the other hand to fight tooth and nail when proposals are made that what by many people’ s arguments and by many popularity polls and other measures to improve the lives of minnesotans on a statewide basis. You can’ t have it both ways and one of the ways that these measures get blocked his bills don’ t get hurt and that is something that happens on an important measure this year in the senate and the jobs committee. I want to talk about a few things that matter particularly to the jobs committee but to all of us and certainly all of minnesotans issues we’ ve been concerned about and working on. The workforce shortage of making sure were addressing challenges that face small and medium-sized businesses access to quality child care access to safe and called the elder care. Making sure we have healthy babies and mothers and were giving children a good start to life economic insecurity across all communities across all parts of the state and racial disparities both in terms of health and economic security when I speak of health and securities and the health disparities one of the things I think it’ s important note is maternal mortality among african-american mothers is disgraceful in this country and we need to do better. Minnesotans believe in caring for one another in yet the vast majority of working minnesotans doan have access to benefits that will allow them to take paid leave for family and medical reasons only 70 percent of the american workforce has access to paid family through their employer of less than 40 percent have access to personal medical leave and has result minnesota’ s faced impossible choices between closing at paycheck and caring for a new child and making love one or themselves when faced with a major illness or injury. Our current system is costly to workers’ families and businesses and ultimately our economy paid family medical leave is overwhelmingly popular across party lines and assorted past in seven states has been advocated in states around the country and the fact by President Trump. By adopting a family medical leave we could begin to solve our care giving crisis while leveling the playing field for all minnesotans. Why is this needed? How could make a difference in the lives of minnesotans let’ s look if you fax. Among working mothers only about half are able to take any kind of paid leave including sick and vacation time when their babies are born there tremendous health benefits to these mothers take longer leads regular checkups and immunizations or, water time breast-feeding and much more. We have some handouts of being passed out now one of which says high news editorial from a doctor who addresses intel’ s powerful stories on that front. More than 40% more than 40 percent of all bankruptcies in united states are result of lost income when the employee or family member becomes ill. In rural communities which is consistently and rightly an important area of concern for his body minnesota workers and cover a greater need for family and medical leave and again among the pieces that are being distributed there’ s an import research document that was conducted by the humphrey school at the university setting this issue in rural communities and showing the need is greater and there’ s less access to care resources. According to a 20 to study cited more than half of rural workers said they would face hardship if the fed to take a few months of unpaid time off work compared to just 40% in the metro area. How the state family medical leave work? Would be a state administered insurance program for everyone contributes and everyone benefits. There’ s a handout that summarizes briefly how that works I will recap a few of the main points it would provide up to 12 weeks of partial wage replacement for family use of minnesota can take care of themselves and families and would provide up to 12 weeks a partial wage replacement for medical leave including pregnancy so minnesotans can take care of themselves. It would replace wages on a progressive scale starting at 90 percent for low income workers up to 55 percent of an employee’ s salary and an average of 66 percent of protecting jobs and health care benefits so minnesota can experience economic security during their leave. You keep costs low for all by creating a large statewide risk pool and equally sharing cost between employers and employees with both contributing 0.31% on employee earnings for autonomy in worker there was cost less than $2 a week the proverbial cup of coffee. It would build on minnesotans leading in unemployment insurance did ministration under deed to ensure program stability for employes and employers on the state. There are so many benefits of paid family medical leave to our range of minnesotans for employes they would get economic security for their families during corn life events improved parent and child health and well-being and allow elders to age in their homes and communities for. Employers they would see benefit their businesses by reducing turnover and boost employee productivity and morale and benefit small businesses by helping level the playing field one of the things that’ s interesting large companies and large government units including the state of minnesota and big cities and counties are already providing these benefits to their employees then not doing it to be nice they’ re doing it because it’ s good business because they note the turnovers expensive animal they need to be offering these benefits to attract and retain high-quality workers. When big businesses are able to do that that gives them an advantage over small and medium businesses for. It’ s worth noting nearly half of minnesotans workforce currently works in small business 47.8% 1.2 million people but almost all small businesses lack the capital in the scale to provide these kinds of earned benefits even if the employer’ s business owners want to provide them and in states where have these policies and benefits implemented the vast majority of employers report paid family leave had a positive or no noticeable impact on productivity profitability turnover and morale. Finally for all minnesotans it will reduce reliance on public assistance programs increase women’ s participation in the paid workforce which would be very helpful as we face a significant workforce shortage and would be simple and cost-effective. Mr. President I would like offer the a 25 amendment.>>senator kent offers a 25 amendment. The secretary will report the amendment.>>letter can’ t moves to amend house file 2208 amended as pursuant to rule 45 as follows page 0120 after line 24 insert this is the a 25 amendment.>>senator can’ t.>>thank you Mr. President. This amendment is the language of house file 5 after it’ s been through a robust debate with many committees stops hearing from stakeholders business owners doctors, care givers family members, parents and it’ s been refined over time there was a particular concern about contract workers and real-estate companies and changes were made to that committee process to be reflective of that the bill has been involved is what my bill might have been if it could of got a hearing here mind was senate file 1060 and I made a hearing request on February 18th but here we are looking at the first of May. Mr. President and members this is important others have described this as a lot when when when when because it helps minnesotans young and old and their care givers and helps employers and ultimately will help our state. Members I hope you give some serious consideration to the a 25 amendment think you.>>thank you senator kent senator rosen.>>thank you Mr. President point of order.>>state your point.>>q. Mr. President I rule this amendment out of order under rule 7.4 paragraph one increased net appropriation rabin appropriation from the general fund in 2020 of 11.7 and in fiscal year 2021 of $25.5 million.>>thank you senator rosen. Senator kent.>>thank you Mr. President. It’ s important to understand there’ s a cost to getting this set up ultimately as it does ramp the fees setter paid by employers and employees will cover the costs as it goes over time but yes there is a startup cost and I think it is unfortunate we’ re not able to get this through so we could deal with this responsibly in the senate.>>senator rosen.>>thank you Mr. President thank you senator kent ruled 7.4 paragraph one increased net a corporation from a fund without a corresponding increase in net revenue and as I have said you’ re spending and 2021 that’ s $25.1 million.>>>>point of ruling as well taken the amendment is not in order.>>Mr. President?>>senator kent.>>Mr. President I would like to challenge the ruling of the President.>>senator kent chooses to>>Mr. President I request roll- call.>>roll-call requested in roll- call granted an appeal decided by majority vote of those present and voting upon appeal the decision of the President The question is shall the decision of the President Of the judgment of the senate? The President Shall be judgment of the senate a green vote is in favor of the judgment of the President And a red vote is against the judgment of the President. The secretary will take roll.>>the secretary will call the absentee’ s.>>pappas.>>all senators having voted the secretary will close roll. There being 36 yeas and 31 nays the decision of the President Is sustained.>>senator champion.>>thank you Mr. President. Mr. President I am standing and to offer the. A 75 the>>senator champion offers a a 75 amendment the secretary will report the amendment.>>senator champion moves to amend house file 2208 amended as pursuant to rule 45 deletes section one this is the a 75 amendment.>>thank you Mr. President what this amendment simply does is remove the root language on page 52 line 52.31 and 52.32 where it says any individual employed on a seasonal basis entering into a contract to play baseball at the minor league level it would exempt them from any minimum wage standards and we believe I believe Mr. President that language should be removed they should not receive such an exemption this please be clear they’ re asking to be exempted in the same way in the same at a section of law for nuns and monks priests, lay, brothers and so I’ m. I’ m asking this body to support a a 75 amendment that will delete section 1 on page 51 thank you Mr. President.>>discussion on the amendment senator goggin.>>thank you Mr. President I. Stand against this amendment. The st. Paul saints are of very historical part of our history here in this it bay baseball is america’ s pastime I had my oldest son play baseball through college and to see what these players can do as part of their development and trying to get to the major leagues and to see these folks being told they can’ t play baseball it’ s going to be a terrible thing and that’ s what this amendment would do. As a member would put the st. Paul saints organization and a bad spot with a week and would put them not in compliance with the rules of the league that have of and to top it off these players have chosen to play this game they’ ve chosen to sign a contract with the team May understand what the contract says and at the end of the day we’ re not going to sit there and expect if they’ re working in the weight room or they’ re out there taking batting practice or if they’ re sitting on the bus going to games that they need to be paid for all that seat time that’ s the condition of employment for these players to be in their top physical condition or top talents to keep honing their skills will that be any different was said to an entertainer that goes to one of the casinos to perform? That we should be paying an entertainer for their practice time for the setup time for their travel time and to the venue their planning and I think not I think these players and know they’ re doing they know what they have got into they’ re trying to get to the big leagues if they can and this is a stepping stone for that and at the end of the day want to play baseball and to top it off the federal government passed the save america pastime act and also the city of st. Paul has authorized this legislation to go into place the one to keep the st. Paul saints here I would ask members what would st. Paul look like in the summertime if we didn’ t have baseball at the st. Paul saints the field? I’ d just would hate to see us tell baseball bat told his players will once you play the game we don’ t want to see you hone your skills and new rather than have you around and I wanna see that I have kids my son play baseball with and those individuals who played through this simple since organization. That’ s what the sport is all about getting the skills and get yourself ready for the next level and part of the agreement is you take care of yourself and get yourself physically fit and you also work in your skills and talents thank you Mr. President.>>further discussion on the amendment senator champion.>>thank you Mr. President. President I would hope one would not seek a 75 amendment as a way to suggest any the shape profession does nothing in my amendment that suggests that the saints are not historic I appreciate it if this were able to play baseball it’ s not something I’ m capable of doing in fact that’ s why most people not ask me to send out at the opening pitch. I’ ll leave that for those who are qualified but what I do know is this particular amendment seeks to say any individual who is prepared for the minor leagues any individual who spending the time and had a commitment to do so are paid for the time that they’ re putting in that’ s all it does. I’ m suggesting they should not be exempt from the wages they’ re entitled to and where the hours they put an end someone make sure it’ s very clear they can continue to play baseball there’ s nothing that will stop them from winning baseball there’ s nothing there will stop them from playing baseball in downtown st. Paul in that wonderful stadium a fact I want more people to come out and support them I want them to be paid what they’ re do. For that reason I’ m asking you support a 75 amendment.>>members any further discussion on the amendment senator pappas.>>and thank you Mr. President I. Appreciate your comments senator goggin on this very difficult issue and a strong supporter of the minimum wage and I think it’ s very much, I feel like a hypocrite to ask for this exemption for the st. Paul saints but it’ s not really a minimum wage issue it’ s more of a legal issue and for whatever reason I understand all the ins and outs of minor league baseball but they put a cap on how much teams can pay their players. It is a situation where it is like an internship they are in a sense auditioning for more professional teams and I don’ t think it’ s fair for them not to get paid a minimum wage but went to look at it I think more as it did this amount for your internship for the summer do we pay our internes and the senate minimum wage to repay them and all of it repair them at all. I think that’ s an issue May look at our own house in terms of our intern’ s but in this case senator champion I agree with you in principle but the problem as we cannot lose the saints in downtown st. Paul and our protest needs to go to a whole system.>>further discussion on the amendment senator relph.>>I care Mr. President. I just want to point of something here this is not only about the st. Paul saints we have only and our city of st. Cloud the st. Cloud rocks since they have been organized over 200 players have gone to the major leagues that played for the rocks. We can talk about minimum-wage but I agree with senator pappas this is more like an intern shep it’ s the only way some of these young players will never make it to the major leagues they have an opportunity to grow and more portly to be seen by a major league scouts and the major- league teams. I have great concern because I know the st. Cloud rocks operate on a pretty thin budget and to force them to be paying a minimum wage and how you define time spent how you define time spent in the legislature we as legislators spent numerous hours that would not be compensated on hourly basis so I think it’ s something we should keep in mind and I feel while I understand the senator champion and desire to make sure people get paid think this is one situation where we should seriously consider the benefit not only of the players but to the communities that these minor league teams bring thank you.>>further discussion senator goggin.>>thank you Mr. President. It’ s not about not paying the baseball players minimum-wage it’ s about are we going to have a team here in the city of st. Paul because as senator pappas said it’ s about keeping the baseball team here there is a league maximum they can pay all of their players the salary cap is like having the major leagues and I’ m fortunate as it is that’ s what they’ re lee has and it this doesn’ t going to play them we can take action against the st. Paul saints and older franchise from them and they no longer heavily to play and at that point I couldn’ t tell you what’ s going to happen but I would have to bat not very good things are going to come of it and I for one would still love to give to go to the st. Paul saints games and watch these young players trying hard putting on their best effort and to sit there with a beer and hot dog and enjoy the wonderful day and watch these folks really apply their skills and I’ m with senator champion ask me to throw a baseball I’ m probably going back 50 yds in the opposite direction on the terrible thrower but I love to watch baseball and watched a lot of baseball games in my days and I’ ve been to a lot of saints games and I would sincerely like to stay there and watch what the st. Paul saints do. As far as being paid minimum wage these players are paid minimum wage they get paid for 40 hours a week at minimum wage and its 90 different than a salaried employees to work in retail and another lifetime and I get paid a salary but they’ re a lot of weeks I was working 50 or 60 or sometime in non the hour weeks and I see this as 90 different than a salaried employee and from there let’ s keep the saints here in town let’ s keep baseball in town thank you.>>further discussion on the amendment senator senjem.>>thank you Mr. President. Want to put a little brief twist on this one. In May of 2012 the legislature than in this room frankly decided in a bonding bill to put 50 or $20 million I believe in to this dhs field to know what a stadium a wonderful beautiful stadium standing empty all summer that would be a tragic loss from the standpoint of what the investment of our state of minnesota has been. Again putting money into the stadium let’ s keep the team let’ s vote down the amendment and let’ s enjoy the st. Paul saints.>>further discussion on a 75 amendment senator pratt.>>thank you Mr. President I want to reiterate something senator goggin mentioned these players already have an exemption under the federal statute as creative entertainers and therefore I believe this is right for the state casino we have a number of exemptions already in state law this is a pretty minor one and members I asked you to oppose the champion amendment.>>members any further discussion on the amendment? Seeing none all those in favor say aye those opposed the President Is on surer. If you’ re in favor of the amendment please stand.>>you May be seated at those opposed please stand.>>in the amendment the motion prevails the amendment is adopted. I am sorry, [Laughter]. The motion does not prevail the amendment is not adopted. My mistake. Since everyone is laughing senator champion are senator goggin if you need someone to throw pitches I’ m happy to do so. Senator hayden.>>thank of Mr. President everyone is feeling good now we’ re moving along at a good clip here Mr. President and members I rise to talk a little about it if you mandel’ s be about a portion of the senator pratt bill the equity articles. Mr. Chair, Mr. President and senator pratt I would like to say no. One I think you for including equity articles within your budget area we know that in this state we suffer from disparity is better frankly embarrassing. We’ re last and people color particularly the african-american trinity in home ownership we of work done that and talked a lot about that when senator westrom came with his bill and it’ s a moving and shuffling around with programs that would target those communities to work on home ownership we also know our poverty rate is still very high in communities of color and that our unemployment rates below at historic lows for the state are still relatively high for communities of color. We have the data that helps us to understand that in the state has criticized in a billion dollars surplus and huge budget that’ s going to go north of $40 billion depending on how this thin and so we know we can do better by committees of color Mr. President each and every day or once a twice a month on talking to someone that’ s a business in their receive will or senior manager that tells us they’ re looking for skilled workers that have more jobs than have workers and the problem is they don’ t have the people at the right set of skills. Mr. President and try to address that senator champion and nine in 2016 for the co-authors when we’ re in the majority of you could say if the architects of a lot of help from members of this body of the equity bill that was in the supplemental budget that senator cohen had when he was the finance chair. With that we negotiated skillfully I will remind you in 2016 we ring charged democrats in this body but the gop was in charge of the house and we had a democratic governor saw there was a bipartisan support with this in both bodies and there was $35 million committed to this issue of trying to target specifically the african american and somali communities notices by data that we received from the senses the survey usa in particular american indians latinos and then disaggregated in asian community to the hmong community and those were the communities that we targeted geographically across the state to try to infuse some resources which to help those communities get into the workforce and we did that by doing a couple of things we funded the adult basic education and boosted that and I was for people at we know better adults that somehow didn’ t get a high-school diploma and we wanted to help them receive a high-school diploma we know that’ s the very base that you need in order to get into a training program or college or some post secondary option we also focused on all across the state and main streets and at minneapolis and st. Paul main streets throughout the state to look at boosting economic development and a entrepeneurs ship in these committees then we worked closely with organizations that come forward well over 55 bills senator champion could correct me along with the governor’ s provisions that we looked at through the process had hearings on each and every one of them vetted them and came up with a series of groups we made some direct appropriations in the form of investments to help them for their mission in order to get people to training and meet that was focused on jobs and with people can start to pull themselves out of poverty. We spent a lot of time around here members talking about poverty tomorrow when is been a lot of time an awful lot of time talking about the health and human services budget and a good portion of that are helping people who need help from the government because the work they do can support them they can’ t pay for their own health care they can’ t they need help with early childhood education they need help with supplemental food support and even some of them need help and just straight financial assistance to make their way to make ends meet. This bill that senator trent and I this provision was to address that issue not only want people to live the minnesota and american dream but we also want to relieve the tension and pressure from the hhs committee there’ s another budget provision we have in community corrections and in the community corrections budget that’ s for people are having to make poor decisions and break a law and order the sometime make ends meet because they did have the skills and which to work in this economy we wanted to relieve the pressure there and not make that decision or when you’ re returning from places like st. Cloud and still water and moose lake and other correctional facilities and an opportunity in order to move forward get the skills you need so you don’ t return to the correctional facility and eken rejoin your family and participate in this economy. Mr. President in this particular bill chronologically once again in 2016 we representative $34 million Mr. President when you were the chair of the jobs committee that got knocked down to $25 million and now we’ re down to $15 million members were going the wrong way here we need to make an investment in these committees we know this works and were going the wrong way I would also add Mr. President when senator champion and I negotiated it was general fund money that money is now been pushed into workforce investment and other programs which again putting the pressure on the folks that were getting money from their store not only going backwards in terms of what we do the were also consolidating that into a fund and has a lot of pressure. Mr. President and senator pratt I will say there are some key organizations that I know that you had considered that we think are doing a phenomenal work the metropolitan economic development association otherwise known as in an e d a is a world renowned international and national organization that’ s taking small businesses and turning them into midsize businesses and a greeting jobs throughout the state of. The neighborhood development center many of you eat none payne avenue and university of lake st. In my district the global market more than likely even in a place to shop the place in the neighborhood development center has helped to get off the ground for nothing. Someone had an idea of an inkling of wright went to a neighbor and development center develop the process helped to get the financing and now they’ re in business and moving forward they’ re paying taxes. The ywca of minneapolis worked awfully hard awfully hard at work force development one of the things that will come tomorrow is early childhood or the c-cap program and the issues there around how we deal with integrity within that program one of the things at the ywca is a train people to the early childhood the soviets so they actually get in the business with a training that they need amongst other things that they do. We also don’ t see anything and are somali and latino community these are the emerging trinity’ s that everyone talks about a as we get browner and greater they are the work force of tomorrow and we’ re not investing in them to be able to have the resources in which they can fill the jobs that once again the ceos said they need so mr. President And senator pratt once again and start saying thank-you at least as there is woefully underfunded. Mechanisms and which were moving is making a communities compete against each other. We’ re not doing the work that we need to do this is an opportunity to grow our economy this is an opportunity to fulfil what business private industry the marketplace is telling us that they need. This is an opportunity for us to do what and for killing Mr. President and senator pratt we’ re going the wrong way and what I would hope is we rethink this I think the house has a better I know I’ m totally think have a right and the governor has a better but I think we need to rethink this hopefully as this bill leaves here it can be amended to be better and go to conference and comeback with a higher investment hopefully we can start to try and do the necessary work senator pratt I appreciate hearing in and one evening I stopped by but I think we could do even more to get out and visit these organizations get out on the road to wilmer to st. Cloud and not get up to sing cloud it on the white earth reservation and all of pine county we did this work all across the state in rochester we can do better by investing in our communities thank you Mr. President.>>members for the discussion and house file 2208 senator cohen.>>thank you Mr. President. We offer a supplement to the senator hayden comments and at the outset I will say I agree with him I think this bill is too light on the inequity in disparity section of the bill. Having said that I want to supplement the senator hayden comments relative to where we started and where we are today and where we’ ve been in between. I take a lot of pride in the state senate in 2016 senator bakk and nine in promulgation of targets for the tax bill and supplemental finance bill talked about the significant racial inequities in disparities in the state and agreed we would make the supplemental finance bill in 2016 a significant step forward and in fact make the racial inequity in racial disparity section of the built the centerpiece of the bell. Inappropriate $35 million I set up a special subcommittee on the finance committee senator champion was the vice chair of the finest and obviously he was one of the cochairs along with senator hayden along with a number of other members including I believe senator pratt has banned a minority member of that particular subcommittee and in the house I would ask members to keep a man house and the mind was but a republican with representative knoblach as my counterpart of the chair and ways and means committee the house agree to the $35 million figure by the house also agreed to continue bill or continue to monitor the tails budget for the next biennium the subsequent biennium. They’ ve run not mistaken minnesota was the first in the country to have anything of that sort any type of section dealing with racial inequities and I will tell you senator hayden has indicated senator champion and senator hayden did a spectacular job as cochairs of the committee along with other members of the subcommittee talking to folks from throughout the state can try to put together a package that represented not a particular segment of the inequities and disparities but the entirety of minnesota and whether it be particular committees of color or geography with a mistake. The figure we had was a very good figure and needed figure my thought at the time I wish the figure could of been a little better I do recognize the difference between this year and where we were three years ago that simply our budget numbers are lower than in terms of this bill but generally we have less money to deal with we all know that having said that I wish we would have someone higher figure and agree with senator hayden brought to the utilization of the general fund as well as some of the communities not served that we have here. For a certain openness this bill progresses of a conference committee process that will become much closer to where we were in 2016 I also want to offer another fought and that is something I applaud and especially appreciative of it is the fact putting aside the amounts of money and I would emphasize like senator hayden stress we do not do enough that this something it is not institutionalized is something that is been supported by both caucuses and members will keep in mind where we were in terms of organizations in the state legislature in 2016 when we have a first effort there was a democratic senate republican house and 2017 the following year we of course had a republican senate the republican house and there was inequity section of the economic development bill back here senator champion was our lead on the committee as he is this year. This year we have a republican senate the dfl house a dfl governor as we had with the other equity packages but this is something that has had bipartisan support and I think strong bipartisan support and I hope keeping that in mind members of this body the senate majority has to go to the conference committee process will keep in mind what prior lettuces is up on the last couple of go round where we have this effort that’ s been supported by both caucuses to spend supported throughout the state is been a utilization of a nonprofit committee which is been particularly valuable because often you put a nonprofit appropriation into an education bill to the department of education it’ s a committee education program you put it into the corrections department to court to be a corrections program here you can utilize nonprofits and have a multiplicity of things they do they might have an education component a senator hayden has pointed out in the have a component relative to photo from themselves incarcerated and now back in the community it has an economic development, and you have a variety programs with a multiplicity of what they can accomplish for citizens in the state and that’ s something very important to remind on what we’ ve done with this equity package. I pritchett we have like senator hayden and needs to be more it should be more and hope in a conference committee process the majority members and senator pratt in the conferees will keep in mind this is been a bipartisan effort this is an effort that’ s been better funded and hope you listen to the other body to determine what the proper amount is for citizens throughout the state.>>further discussion on house file 2208 senator housley.>>thank you Mr. President I have the a-2 amendment.>>senator housley offers a 82 amendment the secretary will report the amendment.>>senator housley moves to amend house file 2208 as amended pursuant to rule 45 as follows page 69 after line 8 insert this is they 82 amendment.>>senator housley.>>thank you Mr. President I want to thank the chair for his support of the following amendment met. Give us have solar farms to their districts but we don’ t know is what is actually growing underneath the solar panels some solar panels and so reforms have low growing metals some half turf grass some claim to help to save the bees. To be a pollinator friendly solar farm out this bill will do as required solar farms require them to have a one page filing every three years to disclose whether the vegetation meets the criteria described to be pollinator friendly. Truth in advertising on to ensure there is real substance behind claims about solar farms providing acres of flowering and cause and it doesn’ t cost anything and I did talk to the chair and he supports this so I hope it is also birthweight I think it’ s appropriate we vote for pollinator friendly solar farm thank you.>>session on the amendment senator osmek.>>a q. Mr. President I do support the submit there’ s no fiscal cost to the seven men it is promoting pollinators and I think this is a good vote for the entire senate banking.>>any further discussion on the a-2 amendment? Senator eaton.>>thank you Mr. President. I just want to speak in support of the amendment is a lot of people who are reporting their having pollinator friendly plants under there’ s solar panels and some of them aren’ t quite doing them according to what would be the best practice and I think this will help get an idea of how that’ s been done.>>further discussion on me amendment senator franzen.>>thank you Mr. President and senator housley. I have a few questions about the amendment it was a bill introduced and had a hearing I hear you mentioned senator housley there was no cost at the end of the someone’ s paying for this reports whether it’ s the businesses it sounds like the business and not a government. I can’ t a we have a legislature regulating the business or farm or it’ s not a regular from when you talk about four firms sometimes people get confused about windmills and wind farms and actually forms with grass and other products its interest in this amendments coming forward and say there’ s no cost but we and more regulation to the practice of whatever business we have interstate and as someone who does not sit in the jobs committee or the agriculture committee for environmental committee which seems this is something that should be vetted in those committees I want to be comfortable with the language that is been supported by the industry and there’ s no opposition to carry it sounds like a good thing to do can you elaborate on the reception of this language thank you.>>senator housley if senator housley will yield.>>thank you Mr. President and senator franzen. They’ re actually developed the one page sheet with check boxes for the solar businesses to check them off what kind of turf the head underneath their solar panels that was developed last year by what they forgot to do is and what their realize this year is to have some place that piece of paper could be filed with or someone to report to so that’ s why they came back and said we missed one little thing so the board of water and soil resources is ok with collecting these forms that the businesses have won grants so it submitting it once every three years.>>members any further discussion on the a-2 amendment? Seeing none all those in favor say aye those opposed the motion propels the amendment is adopted. Further discussion on house file 2208 senator latz.>>Mr. President, minnesota statute 325 m was passed into law in 2002. It provided for certain regulations relating to the use of data it deriving from internet use for perspective the first by phone was released in 2007. The internet as fundamentally change the way we entertain shop and communicate. The original internet privacy amendment was supported on the senate floor 66-1 you will see from what’ s been handed out now your vote on that provision and a broader privacy provision was supported unanimously in the other body in late March of 2017. I appreciate senator osmek introduced a bill with the same information the same content as the amendment so we already have on record unanimous senate support for this concept as well. unfortunately no language was kept in the jobs conference committee report in 2017 we were told the issue needed further work. Privacy is an issue that transcends partisanship and ideology it’ s clear the internet is changing our lives in many ways and over a brief time we land no more than ever. The amendment I’ m going to propose will bring additional clarification to the statutes to meet the evolution of the internet. Seven obligation to protect their citizens when the federal government fails to do so and minnesota would be standing up to say our online privacy rights are critically important. We need to make sure protections are put in place for minnesotans to keep up with technology and this amendment acknowledges privacy rights are part of that ongoing discussion . The amendment that I will propose would apply to telecommunications and internet service providers who enter into a franchise agreement right-of- way agreement with other contract with the state of minnesota or political subdivision or 50 use facilities that is subject to such an agreement whether not their party driving them from collecting personal information from a customer regarding the customer’ s use of the telecommunications your internet service provider without express written approval from the customer. It would also prohibit them from refusing to provide services to customer of the grounds the customer refused to provide refuse to authorize the collection and a personal affirmation. Mr. President I would like to offer the a 13 amendment.>>senator latz offers the a 13 amendment the secretary will report the amendment.>>order latz moves to amend house file 2208 pursuant to rule 45 page 120 after line 24 insert this the a 13 amendment.>>senator latz.>>Mr. President I ask for members support and ask for roll call vote.>>roll-call is requested and roll-call granted any discussion on the a 13 amendment? Senator osmek.>>thank you Mr. President. The author of women have a moment to answer question?>>enter latz will yield.>>thank you Mr. President. It seems you’ re going after in section 237 of state statute rather than 325 m. Could the author explain why he’ s not amending the statutory language of 325 m which is clear the internet privacy statutes federal exist in language?>>senator latz.>>Mr. President the first easy answer this was one recommended by counsel. I think more particularly it’ s a little bit broader than just the internet regulations more of privacy matter dealing with a collection of information so it made more sense to counsel to create a separate section as chapter 23 7.122 in total personal information collection prohibition.>>further discussion senator osmek.>>thank you Mr. President I would rise under point of order.>>state your point of order.>>thank you Mr. President the senator latz amendment substantially increases in crates a different subject matter. That’ s not present in the bill I rise on a point of order under section 35 of senate rules this amendment be seen as not germane.>>senator osmek has raised a point of order on the germaneness of the amendment the a 13 amendment is their advice? Senator latz.>>Mr. President my understanding is the omnibus bill and have in front of the mayan standing to contains in the title telecommunications as part of the omnibus bill. It is on the board omnibus jobs and economic develop energy and climate and telecommunications policy and finance bill. This is a telecommunications related provision seems to me it’ s germane.>>further advice?>>I will let this is an omnibus bill sol necessarily contains a wide range of topics within the bill this is certainly within the scope of the topic of this bill.>>further advice senator osmek.>>thank you Mr. President senator latz well is it premature cancer is significantly changes and expands what’ s in the title of the bill it to be seen as non germane.>>members any further and vice? Senator latz.>>Mr. President I respectfully suggest it’ s not a very significant expansion it’ s merely a provision that says the existing telecommunications providers internet service providers can’ t collect specific customer data on use the customer’ s use of the internet. I’ m not sure what they’ re doing a lot of this should make sure they cannot it’ s quite simple it’ s not a very broad expansion and make and certainly there was to collect the data packets of written approval from the customer if it shouldn’ t be a problem.>>further advice senator osmek.>>thank you Mr. President another point could be made here is the only part of the bill that addresses anything remotely to do with telecommunications has to do with the appropriation that’ s the setback to utilities for the deaf and hard of hearing there is no other reference that means we’ re significantly expanding the bill just based on that alone.>>>>I rule the point of order is well taken the amendment is not germane. Senator latz.>>Mr. President I appeal the ruling of the chair and ask for roll call.>>order latz is appealing the ruling of the chair and a half for roll call member’ s question for the body is shall the decision of the President Be the judgment of the senate a green vote isn’ t in favor of the judgment of President The red vote is against the judgment of the President The secretary will take roll.>>all senators having voted to desire to vote the secretary will close roll their being 35 yeas and 32 nays the decision of the President Is sustained member. We’ re back and senate file 2208 senator dibble.>>think of Mr. President Mr., President Senator osmek would yield?>>senator osmek will yield.>>thank you Mr. President. Enter osmek I was hoping you could help us understand what’ s section 4 of article 8 on page 70 having to do with nuclear power certificates of need etc. Is designed to accomplish.>>thank you Mr. President senator dibble, this is the removal of the man on new nuclear power plants. Right now is known we cannot build a reactors on the property of the state of minnesota this is a continued attempts have done this many years to lift that ban so it could be part of the resource planning that xcel energy is going to be doing one of their plants is due this year in June but this is to allow nuclear power plant’ s reactors to be part of the future of minnesota if it is deemed to the public utilities commission that it should be part of our future. I think it should be part of that conversation that does not mean that there is a nuclear reactor being built it doesn’ t mean they won’ t be built what it says it needs to be part of that conversation for minnesota’ s energy future.>>senator dibble.>>thank you Mr. President thank you senator osmek I appreciate your explanation. Members I’ m concerned about this provision because we look to the examples experience of what’ s occurred in a couple of other states presently that a been attempting to construct new nuclear reactors and in short with a courteous the costs are in some cases outstripping what ever retail value that might occur from the newly generated power in georgia for example there’ s an expansion project to a nuclear facility that’ s about five years behind schedule and $14 billion over budget. I’ m fortunate to rate payers are on a hawk for all of those cost overruns in south carolina the utility ratepayers there are paying another $2.3 billion for two unfinished nuclear reactors and there’ s a $9 billion project that was entirely canceled again ratepayers on the hook for those costs. I know there’ s a lot of discussion in the energy committee about cost effectiveness and that making sure we’ re delivering as effective possible source of energy for our ratepayers and I appreciate that because I support those efforts as well and in that spirit I would like to offer the a 8 amendment Mr. President.>>entered dibble offers a a eight amendment the secretary will report the amendment.>>entered dibble moves to amend house file 22 08 pursuant to rule 45 as follows page 64 after line 30 insert this is the a eight amendment.>>senator dibble.>>and you Mr. President and members what the amendment would do is simply to say it would keep the elimination of the moratorium senator osmek seeks to accomplish in place but simply says for a new nuclear power generating plant those costs would begin to be recovered those construction costs would begin to be recovered from customers either in rate base or other means once the facility is on line and generating power.>>discussion on the amendment senator osmek.>>q. Mr. President I’ m sorry to tell you senator dibble I do not support this amendment I request roll-call vote.>>roll-call was been requested and roll call will be granted. Senator osmek.>>thank you just to make some additional comments remember members by the language in the bill does not tell the puc thou shalt build a reactor for two or three even though I might like that idea. It says by having this language lifting the ban that they can be part of the degraded resource process and as senator dibble knows that process happens every five years and the puc it was appointed to serve the ratepayers gets to make the decisions so by not allowing any indiscretion or consideration of the nuclear power in the future of minnesota they’ re taking them off the board you’ re saying this carbon free and source cannot be part of a any integrated resource plans I think that’ s not the direction minnesota goes and your amendment senator dibble well interesting basically says if we do build a the nuclear reactor that there is no cost recovery. Honestly that sang which is saying well xcel because they have the three actors at the duplex ok xcel go ahead and the shareholders go ahead and build the new nuclear reactor but you can’ t charge it back to the ratepayers for building the plant and providing them the energy I think sort of like saying you can build all the windmills’ you want but when you build the windmills’ in the wind turbines you can use that you can charge that back to the ratepayers can simply simply doesn’ t work. Members I recommend a no vote on the amendment.>>the discussion on the amendment senator dibble.>>thank you Mr. President. Senator osmek think you said two things that were completely incorrect. Finance this absolute leaves in place the ability for a utility in conjunction with the puc to propose the new nuclear facility and its ire pc test certificate of need and go through all those processes that it needs to go through to prove the case that adding new nuclear sources of electrical energy generation is prudent. Plan and simple bats left in place your repeal of a moratorium is left intact. That was one I’ m probably be stated that was incorrect secondly absolutely at utility can go and obtain cost recovery for the construction of the facility does nothing in my amendment but says they cannot it simply says the recovery for said costs occurs once the facility has been built and is generating energy. I will read the language for a new nuclear power generating plant construction commencing after June 1st a 20 no cost owning our premier financing the plan May be approved or recovered from customers through the rate base are other means before it is fully operational and used for service and the reason for my proposal Mr. President and members is because of its parents we’ re seeing in other states where immediately upon commencement of the construction of these nuclear facilities one of which was canceled after a $9 billion was expended $9 billion for nothing that rate payers are paying in south carolina at the other $14 billion cost overrun and five years behind schedule again the rate payers are on a hawk the concerned scientists have examined a number of these failures and have determined in a number of instances the amount of energy being generated will never even match the capital costs of those nuclear generating facilities so this simply argues were going to protect the interests of ratepayers to make sure a utility that does decide to bring a nuclear facility on line is going to be absolutely mindful of minding the costs money the impact of the ratepayers and in so doing there will have to what cannot easily finance the endeavor and the capital markets will assist in that analysis and repairs won’ t be on the hook as an easy mark to pay for something that May well turn out to be way too expensive.>>further discussion on amendment>>I will double, and the request for roll call Mr. President.>>roll-call to senator marty.>>thank to Mr. President I want to point out to senator osmek all our other power plants are fondant the way it senator dibble would have this nuclear plant possible nuclear plant be funded mainly to utility investors the investors put the risk of the build the new power plant in nokleby used because the utility is the one doing it and they’ re planning to use it and we pay for the power once its created once it’ s generating we pay for it and it’ s only with nuclear plants we canasta people pay for them upfront and as senator dibble mentioned there’ s been several plants canceled mostly in the south the last few years were literally billions of dollars have been shifted forced to pay by ratepayers would never got anything out of it because the company changed their plans and decided not to go ahead with that. This isn’ t something that’ s never happened in minnesota as a matter fact minnesota ratepayers or stock with the cost for building part of the tyrone nuclear power plant and tyrone wisconsin it never heard of a plan it’ s because they canceled plans a few years after they started some time in the 1970′ s and minnesota puc had not approved of the plan but the xcel and as the at the time decided to go ahead with it and they built part of plant and they forecast of the change they decided not to and the courts decided minnesota ratepayers had to pay for even though we didn’ t want it even though our puc had not approved at so this does happen and the whole point of the senator dibble amendment let’ s treat nuclear power the way other types of power generation are treated and senate osmek since you’ re the one who says we want to put this on the table and make it be available like other sources of power I agree let’ s do it that way but let’ s make sure you have the senator dibble amendment on to protect ratepayers against the charge for plant they never be operated.>>the discussion on the a eight amendment senator osmek thank.>>Mr. President and senator dibble the fun part about amendments on the floor is the way I read them in a way you read them May not be always in the same direction. Think I agree with you that this does provide the rate recovery I’ ve very serious concerns so what would happen will senator dibble yield?>>entered dibble will yield.>>thank you Mr. President senator dibble, would happen if the puc decided not to that say this year to build a new reactor to replace the two reactors at prairie island and made puc authorized it the xcel energy started building and five years in the puc changed its mind. If we have this language in place what would happen and to the investment that the ratepayers for the shareholders of xcel energy would put forward and then the puc changes are minor battery of the state of minnesota changes its mind puts the nuclear man back in place could explain what would happen?>>a thank you Mr. President I imagine under that hypothetical any time a utility decides to pursue and build any form of energy generation they take that risk and I can’ t a mention in my wildest dreams that the puc would cause that to happen because in of course then the puc would be violating the clear leader of a law which is of course forcing utilities to expense that would be imprudent and cause the operation of utilities to be inefficient and go to fund needed an unnecessary expense and I suppose if the utility through its irt and certificate of need process etc. Got the green light to build a new natural gas plant or new industrial scale solar or new coal plant or you name it and suddenly the puc in the middle misconstruction said no you can’ t do that anymore the puc would be in clear violation of the law and I’ m guessing the utility would have a case to make in that case.>>further discussion senator osmek.>>thank you Mr. President I will tell you what senator dibble I of less concerns that had arisen in this pop up at me . I think there’ s some additional language perhaps that could help as we move into conference committee so I’ m going to change my mind I’ m going to suggest the a 8 amendment is a friendly amendment and remove my request for roll call about.>>I will remove my request for roll call.>>the roll call has been removed any further discussion on nba amendment seeing none all those in favor say aye those opposed the motion prevails the amendment is adopted. The discussion and senate file 2208 senator little.>>thank you Mr. President I have the a-5 amendment.>>senator little offers the a-5 amendment. The secretary will report the amendment.>>senator little moves to amend house file 2208 as amended pursuant to rule 45 as follows page 56 after line 13 insert this is the a-5 amendment.>>enter little.>>q. Mr. President I would like to request roll call.>>roll-call is requested in roll-call granted senator little.>>thank you Mr. President thises and amendment offer up to 40 hours of paid leave for victims of domestic violence or sexual assault it would also apply to parents of minor children who are victims of domestic assaults or sexual assault. The way it is defined as any employer with 10 or more employees would provide this up to 40 hours coverage for any employee who averages more than 20 hours a week. When these things happen it is difficult sometimes essentially to leave the situation and the intent of this bill is to help people have the time to get out of the house or deal with what’ s going on without taking a financial hit many folks are paycheck to paycheck and cannot handle a week’ s worth of saturday gone by. That’ s the intent of the amendment thank you Mr. President.>>discussion on the a-5 amendment? Senator pratt.>>thank you Mr. President I don’ t have a copy of the amendment yet.>>while senator pratt is reviewing a member any further discussion?>>thank you Mr. President. I would ask the amendment be ruled out of order for rule 7.4 in talking with fiscal staff this would put a financial obligation on the state and would therefore increase the net appropriation.>>senator pratt moves the amendment is out of order advice senator little.>>thank you Mr. President. That is incorrect the cost is taken up by the employer has zero cost to the government or any government unit the employer will be required to foot the bill for this up to 40 hours coverage it has no fiscal impact whatsoever on the state.>>senator pratt.>>thank you Mr. President it would apply when the state is the employer.>>members any further advice senator limmer.>>thank you Mr. President. I would speak in favor of the it senator pratt point of order. There May be a cost to the employer in the event there was a leak that was justified by at there is reference to a criminal trial or hearing not to mention and there would be a sense that there was a guilty found and there would be bad costs to the state of minnesota I believe the point of order senator pratt has raised is well taken there is a cost to the state.>>further advice senator cohen.>>President If you look at rule 7.4 I think subdivision one which stocks what the increase of and not appropriation as being out of order this absolutely does not fit. The senator little amendment if you look at it is drafted in a narrow way it’ s dealing with the victims of domestic abuse and sexual assault and so on its drafted in a very narrow way there’ s absolutely not a fiscal cost I think senator pratt mentioned maybe there would be a state employee but there’ s no specification of any type of state cost that’ s what this rule is intended to cover it does not cover and never has covered that I’ m aware of unless this will be a unique ruling by the President It’ s never covered this type of very minimal change to state statute when a. Is a minimal if not the amendment is minimal but the cost is nonexistent so it is not in any way put this bill out of order out of fiscal order and I would ask the President To do with the President Has done in the senate for many years and allow the senator little amendment to go forward.>>members any further advice? Senator marty.>>Mr. President just to make sure on that point is clear if a state employee was sexually assaulted and ask for paid leave the department would be required to give unpaid leave but it doesn’ t change any appropriation for the department whatsoever that a permit would have to absorb it out of its own internal costs this does not change any the appropriations in any way shape or form we hope this happens very rarely but it would be something to be available and the permits kind of like we do something we have some bill that moves forward that a permanent to answer more phone calls because of it it’ s something that’ s a minimal and maybe 10 phone calls regard to that’ s a higher cost but it doesn’ t change their corporation to cover that out of their base budget and this is a small amount that does not change rule.>>further advice senator rosen.>>thank you Mr. President senator cohen out to see this amendment is worthy of a fiscal note because as an employer the state of minnesota there would be a cost to the state and it would have to be measured. I would assume we’ re missing a fiscal note and this would be deemed out of order because of rule 7.4.>>senator little.>>thank you Mr. President. The way the bill is written the department of commerce would have to eat the cost in the current budget by that’ s not the real argument. The real are given as to why there is no fiscal note whatsoever is this replaces time that a person was going to be working so you have if they were not to use this they would of work the hours that they were working. Just from a simple math standpoint there’ s no additional cost because you’ re going to pay those wages anyway thank you Mr. President.>>and little was there a fiscal note prepared on this?>>there was not.>>further advice sent. Enter limmer.>>thank you Mr. President. If rule 35.2 paragraph 2 I’ m sorry the other ruling on the cost has not been recognized certainly I would raise the issue of germaneness especially focused on the lines 1.26 through 29 which establishes a different standard of admissibility of evidence which would relate to a substantially different subject.>>pinky senator limmer will take one ruling at a time right now run the senator pratt point of order. Any further and vice?>>I have dated decision I rule that the point of order is well taken and the amendment is out of order. Further discussion on house file 2208 senator torres ray.>>thank you Mr. President I have the 828 amendment.>>senator torres ray offers the 828 amendment. The secretary will report the amendment. Sen>>enter torres ray moves to amend house file 2208 as amended pursuant to rule 45 as follows page 54 after line 8 insert this is the 828 amendment.>>to the amendment senator torres ray.>>thank you Mr. Chair at the amendment is designed to protect the rights of over 12,000 workers who are immigrants whose primary language is not english. Members this is an issue many of us have been working on for many years. Probably know that in minnesota and we have a thriving meatpacking company industry that employs almost 15,000 workers and most of these workers are immigrants whose primary language is not english. The legislation in place actually asks all of the information about the workers’ rights their salaries the policies of the company be provided in a clear language but for people do not speak english clear language means their own language so this amendment but members alums these workers to receive this information in the language they could understand. I want to remind you in 2015 the office of the legislative auditor conducted an audit of these companies and they provided some very important facts that we have not acted upon. The auditor provided information about the importance it of these industries in minnesota one of the first industries in the country May have high employee turnover which means that have to be constantly training these workers and the importance of translating is obviously of high importance. The recommendation the legislative auditor provided is the legislature should more clearly define the terms of meat packing and native language in the packinghouse workers bill of rights that was implemented in 2007. The department of labor and industry according to the legislative auditor has to do more to ensure that employers know about their obligations and really are able to provide a significant changes in terms of protecting their workers’ rights. The legislative auditor actually advises us to put in policy and more clear language protecting the rights of these workers and making sure that we provide language to assure the translation is provided so this is a simple amendment members to ensure we protect the rights of all of our workers in the state of minnesota thank you.>>discussion on the 828 amendment? Senator pratt.>>pinky you Mr. President thank you senator torres ray for bringing this amendment I’ m trying to stem this as you have been talking the concern I have with this members is not the idea that we shouldn’ t have employes understanding the disclosures but rather to concerns one of which I think senator torres ray tries to address the amateur if it fully does. That is employers cannot ask what someone’ s language fluency is the second comes down to the idea we have an employe always has the right to have an interpreter be part of those discussions. When we start talking and I often go back to my time in the school board when prior lake was about say 5000 students we had over 70 different languages being talked in the english language learners classes’ for employer to understand and be able to provide this pilt to read it in a way that meets the fluency I’ m not sure this fully give safe harbor to the employer and a second employee already has the right for an interpreter so I would say it’ s unnecessary and I would I guess right now I would be opposed to the amendment.>>further discussion on the amendment senator torres ray.>>thank you Mr. President. I would like ask senator pratt if he could yield for a question?>>enter pratt will yield.>>thank you Mr. Chair senator pratt the record shows and the report of the legislative auditor is clear with respect to the difference between translation and interpretation. The amendment I’ m presenting is related to the availability of information translated in the workers language. The interpretation policy that exists now is basically used to hire workers and typically the company’ s actually do use interpreters to do the interviews and to hire the workers that do not provide for translation of the policies of the company and that is eyen stand the reason for why this particular language is needed but I would like rest senator pratt if he knows the difference.>>senator pratt.>>Mr. Present at the desk senator torres ray to repeat the question?>>senator torres ray.>>thank you Mr. Chair senator pratt, when we and understand to be the difference between what you stated about availability of interpretation in companies is companies typically offer interpretation for hiring workers but they do not offer information that’ s available in writing out the policies of the company and there’ s a significant difference. The policies of the company need to be translated and available to all workers and interpretation it would be actually saving money if they put these documents in writing so workers can actually read and learn about policies of a company interpretation is usually provided for individual cases and would be actually impossible for companies to afford so there is a difference between interpretation and translation and this particular amendment only speaks to the need to have the policies of the company available in the native language of the workers which speaks to translation and not interpretation.>>senator pratt.>>thank you Mr. President and senator torres ray. I guess I’ m still a bit confused on your question but I will try to answer if I’ m not right bring me back around. Question is there’ s an interpreter used when some it is going to the interview process to obtain the job and I would absolutely agree with you on that point senator torres ray but I think that’ s different than having and I would agree to five if company has large non native english speaking all in one I think it would be best practice for them to have that in that to accommodate that the question becomes a requirement that it be available fall all languages one that might not be as prevalent and I’ m not really sure if I’ m getting to the transition verses and tradition question because ease in that were talking about having the disclosure of the policies and a native language to me that still this transition vs interpretation the interpretation would come whether it’ s in english or spanish and karen kenny native language that we could possibly address. Certainly it would be if a company is using someone to interpret for hiring them they should be able to provide the interpreter for these policies as well.>>further discussion on the amendment senator franzen.>>thank you Mr. President and senator torres ray for bringing this amendment I wanted to clarify I believe senator pratt mentioned the employers are not supposed to ask about their language was not entirely true there’ s ways to ask about language at the job allows for you to do so. So english proficiency test part of your job if you need a second language to do job we do them all the time when were going to different countries ayes to work at target we move to canada they spoke french sought to flee we have to translate materials into french same thing we expected america and U.S. Or other companies come to work here we want the materials to be translated into english. This is a way of asking the question and not going ask if you speak english fluently but what your native languages or you would rather asked to you speak or write fluently if the job requires bilingual language skills so its common practice had wanted to think you can’ t talk about language buchanan and the right correct way and for those companies that have any sharp person of to help finance those questions they’ re trained professionals so senator torres ray what I’ m getting from her amendment senator pratt is if there is that third group of people in a workplace in industry that requires some of the materials translated its common practice here to have it in spanish sometimes temali depending on what your workforce looks like businesses are ready doing so so it’ s asking them to make sure that indeed in our state law up so I don’ t think it’ s an unreasonable amendment because it’ s a regular course of business is regular practice is just entering before an employee is signing some documents that would combine them and a contractual obligation to an employer they understand what they’ re signing on. It might apply to every business but in certain areas of our industries in minnesota there are some languages that are predominant in those industries so I would support the senator torres ray amendment and hope senator pratt can supported as well thank you.>>further discussion on the amendment senator kiffmeyer.>>thank you Mr. President. The things I’ ve experienced tour this year is we tend to have an american way of looking and english in our country neighbor to neighbor even wisconsin understands it minnesota in a clash. However when you go to other countries’ tariff to figure relies quickly when you’ re in spain have spain and spanish when you’ re in mexico U.S. Spanish when you’ re in guatemala when you’ re in south america and have dialects within the country and we all tend to think of this print this in spanish and that will do for everyone. That’ s not the case absolutely not the case. Thing is these are often communicating implement things and the language that’ s used is very specific one of the best ways for us to realize that that you can also realize the people who May be able to speak the language May be understand the language but cannot read at or cannot read the particular interpretation that we have and we have found that to be very frequent so we think is quite simple what is printed in this language or this ask what they are fluent in like some of that translates it’ s just not that simple and it betrays the fact of how we think and from an english point of view that generally speaking even going from state to state that english is fairly commonly understood that’ s not the case when you get to other languages to have dayaks things are just not the same I think it’ s important for us to consider that and this May sound like something that might be good in practice this is extremely difficult thing to just take this and say that pointed to it is just not that simple thank you.>>further discussion senator torres ray.>>thank you Mr. Chair. Members it actually is very simple there are many immigrant workers were taking jobs that nobody wants and they are facing significant injuries. This is an issue of humanity what is appalling to me is to hear that actually we’ re able to offer these jobs in the employ a these individuals bring them into the company’ s and actually not provide information in their native language about the very basic standards of safety that’ s all this is canada’ s for an industry where we have a report that actually indicates many workers were facing submitted in injuries at work it’ s that simple. As I’ m not asking for translation for every job out there I’ m not asking for translation on every language I’ m asking for these specific companies to act more responsibly and simply offer this intermission in the native language of the workers so they can understand some basic safety rules and it’ s that simple that’ s all I’ m asking for members I’ m hoping you can support this amendment and am asking for roll call Mr. Chair.>>ocala’ s been requested and has been granted any further discussion on the amendment? Senator pratt.>>thank you Mr. President. Senator torres ray were still trying to fully understand the ramifications of your amendment would you be open to withdraw an amendment for a short time so you and I can can connect with senate counsel?>>senator torres ray will withdraw her amendment? Further discussion on house file 2208 senator eaton.>>thank you Mr. President. I have a 19 amendment.>>>>we are trying to find the amendment.>>senator eaton the amendment is not ready if you don’ t mind of go to someone else and then come back to you when the amendment is ready. Next is senator simonson.>>thank you Mr. President and members I would offer the a 23 amendment.>>senator simonson offers the 823 amendment. The secretary will report the amendment.>>under simonson moves to amend house file 22 08 pursuant to rule 45 adopted by the senate April 25th as follows page 73 after line 22 insert this is amendment 823.>>senator simonson.>>thank you Mr. President and members the 823 is an attempt to find to try find a practical solution to the questions that are before us as the minnesota legislature this year and going into the coming years. This allowed discussion and always those who sit on energy committee know this I’ m sure many of the rest to your hearing in as well about climate change where it’ s going where it’ s taking us how we respond to it as a state how we respond to it as a nation and there are many challenges in trying to determine what the solution actually is. The other body as had significant conversations about it as well we know we have some provisions coming over from the other body that don’ t necessarily match with what in the senate provisions so this amendment would try to put the conversation were think it needs to happen essentially the amendment what it does members it requests the legislative energy commission to examine both the opportunities and challenges of two things number- one increasing the renewable energy standard that’ s established in law or increasing the state’ s greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals also established in law. It essentially requests the l e c to do this as you know we can’ t demand the lac do this because the lac is essentially us and request the commission report back and complete its examination so any recommendations for legislation are completed by January 15th of 2020. Why do I offer this minnesota? Is a very diverse state in many aspects not the least of which has how our energy structure is put together we have three very independent owned utilities with energy xcel minnesota power and otter tail power we have several co-ops and municipal owned utilities in our state and we have residential and commercial and industrial ratepayers and now we have just this going forward is one of the major impact on all of the above. I think it’ s important we get it right when I would like to see is a broader debate about what our necks steps are if you think back to 2007 when the renewable energy standard came to be taking a first step was a challenge at the time and I think that legislation was put together well it was passed on a bipartisan basis but really that was the first big step that’ s like the low hanging fruit of how we increased our renewable energy standard. Next up we take is going to be significantly more challenging in the steps that come after that will be even more challenging so I think it’ s important we get this right. I think this is the exact purpose of the legislative energy commission things we need to think about to have discussions about over the interim will be more renewables should we or shouldn’ t we what we doing with their base load power what our our our needs across the state of? Where we going with nuclear where we going with large hydro and storage; opponents will pass in today’ s bill will affect that conversation as well. Our power transmission capabilities and were ago in terms of spending our needs in that area? Reliability affordability the key as we go forward and I think what we do as a state here in minnesota is going have an impact on how my sole response to that as well the point being there a lot of unanswered questions and I think this is an absolute topic the ldc should take up and I’ m hopeful senator osmek will accept this as a friendly amendment.>>discussion on the amendment senator osmek.>>pinky Mr. President yes I consider this a friendly amendment senator simon and I’ ve have spoken of this and this is exactly the organization that would be the best to deal with this because it will be the house and senate coming together in need to spend the summer talking about this so I do except as a friendly amendment.>>senator goggin.>>thank you Mr. President and senator simonson thank you for the amendment one thing I would add to your list you had their I would hope cyber security would be a portion of the discussion as you’ re looking into this thank you.>>seeing no further discussion on the amendment all those in favor say aye those opposed the motion prevails the amendment is adopted. For the discussion on house file 2208 senator little.>>thank you Mr. President I have the a 77 amendment.>>senator little offers the a 77 amendment the secretary will report the amendment.>>little moves to amend house file 2208 as amended pursuant to rule 45 adopted by the senate April 25th as follows page 56 after line 13 insert this is amendment a 77.>>after a little.>>to Mr. Present once again before we get like to request roll-call.>>call as requested in roll call is granted.>>thank you Mr. President the a 77 amendment is another effort another attempt to provide up to 40 hours of paid leave for victims of domestic abuse or sexual assault I want to reiterate on this amendment that we need to get people out of these situations we don’ t want someone to be stuck in a house because they can’ t afford to take a week off to handle the logistics of moving out. There are some significant changes to the a 77 from the a-5 amendment earlier or remove the requirement for the state during of a government entity to comply with this and I want to be clear that those folks deserve this requirement and does benefit as much as anybody. But I removed it as a result of the germane this debate we have a few moments ago and also I’ ve removed the section that was a restatement of the evidentiary rules that senator limmer had at germane this concerns with. At this point everything else is intact and would have employers cover the cost to provide up to 40 hours a paid leave to someone who’ s been affected and their family affected and themselves affected by domestic abuse or sexual assault I would ask members to support this amendment and help people get out of these terrible situations.>>discussion on that a 77 amendment? Senator relph.>>thank you Mr. President. Wilt senator little yield?>>senator little will yield.>>Mr. President and senator little there is a provision in here employer sanctions and employers should not retaliate against an employe for requesting or obtaining a leave of absence as provided in this section would be the provisions for enforcing desk would be the mechanism is this point would vote any sort of state activity in terms of department of human rights or any other department involved in investigating that?>>senator little.>>Mr. President thank you senator relph for the question this individual held all the civil remedies available under current law.>>senator relph.>>again Mr. President and senator little, would one expect there might be additional activities required of that department in order to enforce this?>>senator relph I don’ t think senator little heard your question. Senator little will yield could you restate the question.>>if the department is to be expected to absorb the cost of these additional investigations within the department?>>senator little.>>President I’ m unclear as to what the question is getting at what department senator relph is referring to item of enough information from a question to answer again all the civil remedies would be available just like any other lobby me here that would not have an effect on a fiscal know so if senator relph can clarify this question of the happy answer.>>senator ralph.>>thank you Mr. President I would question the statement of this not having a fiscally fact that’ s what I was driving at here is a bill like this is brought before the judiciary committee that question would be raised at that time so I’ m concerned there’ s a fiscal note and there will be a fiscal note I think we have an issue with this being an amendment that still out of order.>>senator rosen.>>thank you Mr. President I have a point of order.>>please state your point of order.>>would like to move this amendment out of order under rule 35.1 is the germaneness issue and Mr. President believe whether is domestic abuse or sexual assault is not addressed in this bill. File 2208 only wait staff there for the germaneness issue stands in question.>>further advice senator rosen has raised a question of germane this on the amendment advice for the President Senator little.>>thank you Mr. President. My first argument is it’ s under chapter addressed your chapter 181 I believe that’ s in the headline second argument would be there is a program that we fund in this legislation for the displaced homemakers and in certain circumstances that funding is used to help people leave dosage questions and so it relates to the objective what we’ re providing the money as white people get out of that I know we had testimony and jobs committee related to the senator housley bill on displaced homemakers and they talked and expressed their stories that they needed to get out of the situations and that program helped them so this would also tie in with that and I think it’ s absolutely germane. The text of the rules we have here are too narrow debate not to eliminate some things we don’ t want to vote on the bank Mr. President.>>further advice senator pratt.>>thank you Mr. President I would agree with senator rosen while we do touch chapter 181 we are addressing if you look it chapter 181 there are a number of different sections to hit this is not the section that’ s being addressed in chapter 181 dealing with wage staff. Far as the displaced homemakers that was a director preparation of the workforce development fund and did not have any policy changes. I would say this dramatically expands the scope of the bill.>>members any further it buys?>>is I’ ve been a decision and ruled the point of order is well taken the amendment is not germane. Senator little. Mr.>>President I would challenge the ruling of the President And request roll-call.>>enter little as challenged ruling of the President And requests of roll call.>>members the question before the senate is shelled the decision of the President Of the judgment of the senate a green vote in favor of the judgment of the President And a red vote is against the judgment of the President The secretary will take roll.>>all senators having voted who desire to vote the secretary will close roll their being 35 yeas and 32 nays the decision of the President Is sustained. Members we’ re back on house file 2208 senator eaton is your amendment ready? Senator eaton.>>thank you Mr. President I would like to offer the a 19 amendment.>>senator eaton offers the a 82 amendment the secretary will report the amendment.>>senator eaton move to amend house file 2208 as amended pursuant to rule 45 adopted by the senate April 25th as follows a 64 delete sections 2 through 4 page 73 this is amendment 882.>>senator eaton.>>thank-you my amendment offers first deletes section 2 which is the community solar garden changes. I passed the committee solar bill in 2013 by 2015 we had 1995 jobs solar jobs by 2018 we had 4600 and continues to grow. This is an important industry to our state and it’ s important to our planet we need to continue to encourage and develop solar. The cut to 25 mw a year would essentially eliminate our program currently we’ re average to 1 50 mw a year this language is the death knell to our solar program. Section 3 is now hydroelectric power and it weakens minnesota’ s renewable energy standard and will slow our transition to wind and solar by allowing large-scale hydropower with a capacity of 100 mw for more. That will be counted as reliable and this would also harm our planet and would encourage more fossil fuels actually. Section 4 is the nuclear moratorium it ends minnesota is a nuclear facility moratorium in this our 25 year old moratorium on building new nuclear power electric generating plants nuclear continues to cause a great risks is expensive and then also generates a large amount of incredible burden of toxic pollution for future generations that we still haven’ t figured out what to do with. As much as I supported the senator dibble amendment I think it’ s better off if we eliminate this section. The last session I want to eliminate is section 11 and this one the funds in the commerce department the bill that would prohibit the commissioner of commerce from using money appropriated to the upper arm of congress to fund any activities related to an appeal concerning the certificate of need issued to enbridge energy for line 3 pipeline replacement project even though I don’ t believe they spend money I think it comes from the attorney-general sophists I still think this is ill-advised that one branch of the government is dictating to another branch of the government the administration should not have their funding dictated to by the legislature. I would like to also bring up the fact the amendment we just passed by senator simonson would indicate that all of these things should be put on hold any way until after the legislative energy commission has evaluated them so I would urge a green vote on this to eliminate these four sections of article 80.>>scutcheon on the amendment senator osmek.>>q. Mr. President I will go into detail on why I oppose the amendment. The provisions regarding community solar gardens standards had been discussed with communities solar darn developers the cap is a reasonable cap we’ re the only state in the union that just allows the wild wild west free and willy-nilly amount of community solar on to the grid as I said in my presentation communities solar and those roughly 120-$150 per megawatt hour not only would we be able to get a better price for the rate payers who apparently must and less tanks of money because that’ s what the author I believe it might be intending here but I will not question her motives the leading hydro is an incredible incredibly bad in that hydro is one of the least carbon filled the types of energy we have the manitoba hydro continue to bring in energy into minnesota of that is the cleanest and greenest in the world as far as I’ m concerned. I’ m not going to debate to the rest of the provisions she deleting because I think that is the essence of the bill and I recommend a no vote.>>further discussion on the amendment senator eaton.>>thank you Mr. President I would like to point out if we go to this 25 mw a year will lose approximately 2000 jobs in the state of minnesota. Solar has been an economic driver in the state and it’ s important we continue it I did not put a cap on solar intentionally because of the issues of other states or the handicapped and it totally inhibited the development. We only have one plant and I think the sections of the senator osmek bill seriously endanger it.>>other discussion on the 882 amendment senator marty.>>thank you Mr. President I wanted to respond to one comment of senator ozment said hydropower is a good renewable source of energy and she should not repeal that language calling. Which does not do anything to encourage hydropower or increase hydropower all language does this say when or county renewable energy standards were going to count large hydro that doesn’ t encourage it it doesn’ t discourage at the law there’ s not really going to be a change in its simply says utilities he’ s here to meet their standards because they can count something haven’ t been counting in the past if it. Senate you want to include natural gas plants as part of renewable energy standard well they could count them in effect were counting something I was never counted in the past this is not anti hydropower this is neutral in terms of getting more keeping a the same the amendment or the bill as it is doesn’ t change any that accounts how to do the math and I think it’ s disingenuous to suggest this is hurting hydro to take that language out. For a>>the discussion on the amendment senator mathews.>>thank you Mr. President I would also ask for a no vote on a 82 amendment it seeks to strip out several proposals that had some good bipartisan support as it went through the committee process. The section the part that was almost deleted by some of the members in energy committee as we talked about this was looking to strike down the entire community solar garden project because of how big and expensive it was getting how much cost that was putting on to the ratepayers and wasn’ t replacing other forms of base load generation it was displacing other solar other cheaper forms of solar production. The legislation that you have in front of you that’ s in the bill is the agreement a compromise position to come to a place where really have some controls on it so there certain costs confirmed to customers and not the wild one way we have to pay for all the expensive solar that’ s built whether it’ s needed or not. I also was the author of a hydroelectric peace and I believe this is an important piece that we also need to have in our conversation I sit here and I’ m curious about why we are staunchly on the one hand we want hydro tapped on the other hand it we don’ t want to have minicab said anything solar that’ s just curious to meet but the provisions in here, have bipartisan support on them I believe there important pieces to have in this bill and I would encourage a no vote on the amendment.>>further discussion on the amendment senator dibble.>>thank you Mr. President thank you senator eaton for bringing this amendment said and. Osmek will be shot to not on in favor of vote does mess up a little bill we cut on nuclear sell that’ s a shame never. Let’ s encourage support in particular I’ m pleased to see the removal of the effort to weaken the renewable energy standard by counting massive hydro that’ s imported from places outside of our state towards renewable energy standard. Mr. President and members when the renewable energy standard was adopted hydro was clearly a clean source and renewable source and highly desirable tantamount to base load with the hydroelectric dams continue to run 24/7 the interim in c issue is addressed and it’ s great however one of the collateral goals of adopting the renewable energy standard was developed a variety of sources distributors sources of energy allow for generation that occurs inside the state to benefit a regional and local and our piper local economies assistor rural economy farmers can create different kinds of economic models and opportunities for buying what we need it for ourselves here in the state and not exporting millions of dollars every year and that’ s part of the power of moving towards renewable energy and as expressed in the renewable energy standard. Reversing that is a shame to weaken the renewable energy standard on the points about the defunding the effort of the department of commerce in seeking its appeal of the puc decision everyone has argued some of that state government suing state government and that’ s simply not the case the puc is quasi judicial independent entity sure its creature of state law but it doesn’ t act with the same sort of direct direction of the executive branch the way commerce stoflet this has standing and represents interests and from the puc and to eliminate commerce right to pursue avenues of appeal the way every other interest including corporate large corporate interests have limits the state ability and our ability on behalf of the public to pursue these questions on these issues and disagreements through their logical processes and logical and so I appreciate senator eaton has brought that as well as the elimination of that as an amendment. With that members I encourage green vote.>>further discussion on the amendment senator eaton.>>thank you Mr. President. I have to point out again neither senator osmek language nor mine says anything about how much hydroelectric power you can have. It just says you can’ t count toward the energy standard the renewable energy standard it slows the growth of wind and solar development because if siyad then the requirements will require less wind and solar. You can develop as much hydroelectric as you want under either language you just can’ t counted toward the renewables standard and that out of last four but I would like roll call Mr. President.>>call has been requested in roll-call granted any further discussion on the amendment? Seeing none the secretary will take roll.>>senator osmek.>>President I move those not voting be excused from voting.>>senator osmek moves those not voting be excused from voting. All those in favor say aye those opposed the motion does not prevail.>>senators having voted to desire to vote the secretary will close roll their being 27 yeas and 40 nays the motion does not prevail the amendment is not adopted. Further discussion on the bill senator dibble.>>thank you Mr. President I would like to offer the a-7 team amendment.>>senator dibble offers the 817 amendment the secretary will report the amendment. Senate>>your dibble moves to amend house file 2208 as amended pursuant to rule 45 as follows page 64 line 28 delete this is the a 17 amendment.>>senator dibble.>>q. Mr. President this is the amendment you all been waiting for. There was my neighbors joked the a 17 amendment Mr. President wouldn’ t lift the overall capital annual cap on community solar gardens from 25 as proposed by senator osmek up to 250 mw of new community solar gardens per year. Senator osmek bill has a number of changes to committee solar gardens some of which I like and some of which I’ m not crazy about I do think there’ s some merit to some of the new consumer protections disclosures to be required and promotional materials a check list for developers some certification that solar gardens have sufficient resources to reimburse subscribers for financial losses. I do believe there’ s some merit in discussing the true value of solar rather than eliminating it think there’ s actual true value of solar that is gained by utilities similar in concept to energy conservation energy efficiency where utilities actually forgoes some submitted an expense that saves the overall system save ratepayers, so it warrants an justifies some of the increased rates paid for solar power that’ s developed through committee so regards to be not quite as much as is currently the case and I think there’ s room for discussion this bill unfortunate eliminates that. Amendment doesn’ t do without however this requirement to limit the overall new power generation that comes from committee solar gardens statewide up to 25 mw would basically eliminate this industry and members please bear in mind solar energy industry traffic conservative lay we can attribute about 2000 probably more jobs to be so regards are significant part of that and will simply happen is if it gets the golan no I’ m not subscribing motive but it would cause I believe the developers of to his solar gardens to simply leave the state and we would see this form of solar development anymore in the future. Xcel agee took a dim and harshens skeptical view of what it calls cst to build a solar gardens very much in favor arming the generation resources themselves rather than going this route I think there’ s a great opportunity as a talked about before and a hydro amendment of the collateral benefits of treating different economic models to create more opportunity for minnesotans to invest and participate and enjoy the economic benefit of generating what we need for our basic service of energy generation the basic things we need rather than shipping those dollars out of the state I would. Request a roll call vote on a 17.>>roll-call being requested in roll call is granted further discussion on. The a-7 team amendment on.>>thank you Madam President much to the senator dibble surprise I will be against this amendment. Right now approximately on an annual basis we put 175 mw on the grid for committee solar darden changing it from 50 up to 250 is only a change at adding a zero will mean no camp meaning its continues to be no cap no limit many other states have this cat actually you’ ll find a lot of states have a limitation on how much it’ s on to the grid so members I do not support the amendment and recommend a red bow.>>the discussion on the a-7 team amendment senator goggin.>>thank you Madam President would senator dibble yield for question?>>entered dibble will yield. Madam>>President And senator dibble what utilities and co-ops and municipal utilities are included in the committee solar darden?>>senator dibble.>>I am sorry senator dodd and I didn’ t catch for understand the question can you repeat please?>>Madam President and senator dibble, what utilities are required to participate in the community solar garden?>>thank you Madam President the one I’ m most familiar with I don’ t know the full answer the question I know that xcel energy is required to purchase the energy from cuba solar gardens like I said I’ m in favor of a number of the reforms that senator osmek has in his proposal and I think discussing the true rate of solar and the amount that’ s paid is very worthwhile discussion item think completely eliminating that factor in determining the rate is warranted by having that discussion like I said some of the consumer protections and other reforms have a bill contains a number those provisions myself.>>enter goggin.>>President And senator dibble the answer the question is one and a xcel gmo other energy investor-owned utility or a municipal utility or co-op is required to protest a bit in the committee solar garden for every customer in xcel energy territory they’ re subsidizing the cost of that solar which committee solar gardens under statute are required xcel agee is required by law to purchase that energy first and foremost before any other generation source or purchase of electricity. With that the customers of xcel energy ratepayers have no recourse there required by law and have no say in what happens so I can tell you you can buy this widget for $40 a megawatt or weaken required to buy the widget is same widget for 125 mw so when you look at a per cost per kilowatt hour looking at 12.5 cents per kilowatt cost that’ s a passed through directly to the ratepayer energy xcel makes no money no markup on that cost of generation and when you look at it would rather pay 12.5 cents per kilowatt or would rather pay for this sense a kilowatt for the solar energy generation myself I would rather pay the 4 per kilowatt I think we need to be able to make this open to all generation sources solar generation sources that are less expensive wire we forcing the xcel haji repair a lot of this room are ratepayers of energy xcel wire rarick requiring them to pay such a hired for the cost cuts over three times the cost of traditional utility scale solar? That doesn’ t make any sense so the other issue with this whole thing when you look at committee solar gardens about 90 percent of the people better some of those committed solar gardens are your commercial businesses they’ re not your neighbors or friends or family there a. Almost all commercial businesses taking advantage of the rebates and the subsidies through those committees will regards to offset the cost for their electricity and their businesses is that what the intent of the committee solar garden is? Dumping so I think you would encourage all of us to live in homes and streets and utilities to have the option to get into renewable energy. I’ m and all of the above energy source I think we need to look all options of clean energy I think were very narrow minded when we look at what we’ re doing with just wind and solar I think we’ re putting blinders on and I don’ t think that does anything to increase technology. With that I just can’ t see how you can sit there until the ratepayers of xcel g. To bed sit down pay the higher cost and was reappointed to a man of higher utility bills but oh well to bed or doing that to the ratepayers have no say in it and they need to be able to have a reliable cost-effective solar power if they so choose thank you Madam President. For the>>discussion on a 17 amendment senator dibble.>>thank you Madam President senate. Goggin I don’ t actually disagree with a lot of what you said if you truly believe everything you just said it then you should have support an effort to simply eliminate committee solar gardens. I believe the number of the reforms that are called for in the senator osmek language are meritorious and work for the discussion that’ s why don’ t seek to strip them out or delete them it May well be we’ re asking xcel payers to pay to much for the electrical energy that comes from canada solar gardens however I will point ought xcel get to build a commercial grade solar kasota that comes in at the 4.5 cents whenever numbers used cited. Senator goggin I will also mention there is a value that’ s derived from solar and failure to provide some of these electrical energy generation sources means great pacers are going to pay more for things like lack of distributive sources of energy and some of the infrastructure that goes to support major infrastructure that supports the major types of facilities you’ re talking about that’ s the premise underlying argument for the true value of solar and the public utilities to put major examination and analysis part of a criticism percent dollars that are added above that reputed cost it’ s similar like I said to conservation and efficiency where no one disputes the forgone cost deliver value to the ratepayers and but for the energy efficiency system but for a long solar under this system we would be paying those added costs of infrastructure lack of reliability some those intermittent the issues synagogue and I wish it would’ ve voted for the amendment offered that was an errant thought think you senator goggin I think we’ re more in agreement or disagreement I would encourage you to vote green. Further>>discussion to the amendment senator osmek.>>thank you Madam President just one comment to the senator dibble comments I believe I’ ve been informed that actually xcel it does own some sort the garden or race to say they’ re not involved there are involved.>>senator goggin.>>thank you Madam President I sit here and I look at this past winter and all the snow we had and how well did the solar work and how well did the wind work I can? Value during the poor vortex the wind turbines were net dropped against a generation sources because they needed the power the electric energy from other sources to provide electricity for the heaters inside those turbans and ordered to keep the gearboxes warm and ordered to keep the components inside those turban towers warm and we look at it’ s unbelievable to see when we need win the the most light during the heat of the summer that’ s when they spin the least and we need more in the wintertime they don’ t spend very much and to sit there every lan this as an energy source that so intermittent we’ re putting our eggs in one basket where it’ s not going to be the and all and be all answer to everything we need when the. Comes to these communities solar gardens senator dibble yes I did have a bill to repeal the solar gardens but what I stated earlier the not cost-efficient the not good for the ratepayers of xcel and get the xcel energy territory is a fine that geographic mass of land currently under rubble and that to do so regardless could be built in and the xl energy system we going to do next going to what side the xcel g territory and build more to minnesota’ s and say by the way xcel the repairs your going to be stuck with the bill you’ re going to pay for that and of? Think that’ s right and when you talk about the little extra cost isn’ t that bad think about those who can least afford those who need help with their energy bills every single month all year long. This is adding to the problem and exacerbating the problem of their situation and making their lives even more difficult. Continue to hear it’ s just a few cents a share a few dollars here eventually all that adds up to maybe a case of beer a month it’ s only $25 a month that $600 a year most of these people can afford it when you get into a debate with this I can see how anyone can sit there and say pay over three times the amount of traditional utility scale solar is a good value for the customer. I’ d much rather pay a $40 a megawatt hour versus $125 per megawatt hour as we continue senator osmek said we’ re putting in about 107 5 mw a year at two uttered 50 mw isn’ t going to do a darn bit of good I encourage everyone here to vote read on this amendment because this is a bad amendment it’ s not good for the state is not good for the ratepayers of xcel agee and it’ s not good for those ratepayers better having a hard time thank you.>>further discussion on a 17 amendment? No further discussion the secretary will take roll.>>all members having voted to desire to vote the secretary will close roll their being 29 yeas and 37 nays the amendment is not adopted. Further discussion? Senator marty.>>thank you Madam President I have the a 11 amendment.>>the clerk will report the amendment.>>senator marty move to amend house file 2208 as amended pursuant to rule 45 starting with page 71 after line 26 insert this is the a-11 amendment. Sen>>enter marty to your amendment.>>thank you Madam President this is a very simple want this is declaring the legislature finally declares greenhouse gas emissions result in human activities are a key cause of climate change. This would be a statement of things that matter as we’ re dealing with remember senator simonson amendment a little while ago directing the legislative energy commission to take a look at some of our energy policies I think it’ s long overdue that we recognize these efforts we’ re addressing here are to deal with an urgent climate issue I think this is very important I urge your support I would love to have unanimous vote on this and ask for roll call. This in many ways the most critical issue we’ re going to face in the next few years to address climate because the whole plant is at great risk for already suffering from more severe storms and every kind our forests are changing in minnesota, May fill will not to worry about rising water on coastlines because were in the center of the country but we have many other as the weather warms as the climate warms we have more moisture in the air and that’ s going to lead to more severe storms I think this is an issue the world’ s nations have recognized as a severe problem it’ s time we do as well as the state and I urge your support for this amendment.>>call as requested in roll- call granted seven. Enter osmek. Think a>>Madam President I would like to make an oral amendment to this amendment. On line 1.4 strike key clause and insert a contributing factor.>>the secretary will report the oral amendment.>>>>I will rephrase this for the secretary I move to strike on line at one point for the words key clause and insert a contributing factor.>>secretary will report the oral amendment.>>under osmek moves to amend the marty amendment as follows line 1.7 strike the words key clause and insert the words contributing factor.>>thank you Madam President I could. Did you like a house and that in bovine bind human activities and add that one in there but I’ m not going to play the games the other body does I would appreciate support on this oral amendment. For the>>your discussion on the oral amendment senator marty.>>Madam President and senator osmek it’ s a contributing factor to be sure but it’ s the key one of the key factor that’ s changing. When the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is growing to highest level and many many thousands of years and last 300 years we’ ve been burning at a rapid rate fossil fuels that were stored and from then Mr. Were stored in the earth over the last 600 million years the last three years we’ ve been using an increasingly fast rate and the scientific community says yes lots of things are contributing factors but there’ s one factor that is causing a climate change I ask for roll call and urge you to reject oral amendment.>>further discussion to the osmek oral amendment? None roll call was requested. Senator marty I had roll call on the original bill amendment? Madam>>President When I ended my remarks to the senator osmek amendment I said I would like a roll call on the oral amendment.>>call is requested and granted to the oral amendment the secretary will take roll.>>all members voted who desire to vote the secretary will close roll their being 36 yeas, we have one absence senator rest. The clerk will close roll there been. 36 yeas and 30 nays the amendment is adopted. Senator marty.>>Madam President other remaining amendment I’ m extremely disappointed to Miss Last year’ s national science foundation had a team of scientists writing a report of the risks of climate change and how severe it might be. They were trying to estimate the calculate the risk from various levels and how likely those various levels are and this attempts to predict it’ s not it’ s a matter of trying to with the scientific evidence and predict how bad it maybe. You recall the paris accord said the world had to find a way to keep climate and below two degrees celsius increase and the ideal thing would be to hold it at below at 1.5 degrees celsius they said we could not let it go beyond two degrees any of the national academy of science study set at 3 degrees was what it called catastrophic eliminating many many species and so when they said five degrees celsius would be beyond catastrophic and could be existential threat to the human race. They predicted based on the evidence when the various scientific studies from around the world predicted there was a one in 20 chance of 5 percent chance that climate change would reach five degrees celsius by the end of the current century. A time none of us will be around but many of us have children and grandchildren great-grandchildren who May well be around 81 years from now. Five degrees celsius increase one in 20 chance one of the scientists said to put this into perspective to put this into perspective how many of us would buckle our grandchildren into an airplane seat if there was a one in 20 chance of the plane crashing? Said that’ s the nature of what we’ re doing as if for buckling our grandchildren into a plane that is a one in 20 chances of crashing. Foehl reason for that is a human cost emissions changes zehnder ozment you mentioned house was joking about bovine contributing with the other body was contributing to suggesting things like animals were causing a good portion of this our beef and dairy industry is largely human driven or elimination of forests and the planet is largely human driven or burning of fossil fuels is human driven. I think this is far more severe it then we want to pretend I think our grandchildren are going to be looking back some day and asking how come you folks did so little when you heard how serious the risk was? I know this seems to be some controversy in this country still about climate change it doesn’ t seem to be in the rest of the world were the only nation where it’ s a political battle to see a climate change is real or not. Again I think if we’ re saying humans are contributing factor everything second reading factor and with that I think this becomes a joke so I withdraw the amendment.>>under marty withdraws the a- 11 amendment. Other discussion on house file 2208? Senator marty.>>adam President I have to amendments I guess I’ m the last two amendments. I move the a 76 amendment.>>the secretary will report the a 76 amendment.>>senator marty move to amend house file 2208 as amended pursuant to rule 45 as follows page 70 after line 8 insert this is the a 76 amendment.>>senator marty. Madam>>President This is simply reinstating language that was in law until two years ago. In 2013 the legislature passed a provision trying to decide if climate is a serious issue that maybe we should plan had and it directed at that time to legislative energy commission to bring together all stakeholders utilities and business and labor and scientists and everyone together to figure out how we develop a strategy to transition to renewable energy economy that ends our contribution to greenhouse gases when burning fossil fuels. The legislature passed that in 2013 the legislative energy commission started working on that two years ago the legislature repealed this provision with no discussion and my argument is it’ s basically sang with a crisis in many of the young folks in this country and around the world are increasingly alarmed at a generations on willingness to address and it repealing that is effectively saying were going to bury our heads in the sand on this critical issue. This is the same language as was in law until two years ago when we shifted from the london energy commission to did division of energy resources of the permit of commerce their task would be bring together stakeholders from all sorts and help them come together and figure out how we can do this right now can do this in it an aggressive manner and one that benefits people of minnesota in terms of environment and in terms of job and in terms of economics how we do this the most smart efficient way possible those who argue renewable communities solar gardens are too expensive should davis because then we can all talk how to do this the right way hire a. Your support and ask for roll call.>>call being requested in roll- call granted for the. Discussion senator osmek.>>thank you Madam President saddam. Marty would you yield for question? Sen>>enter marty will yield.>>you Madam President senator. Marty I’ m looking at the finances on this on page 2 line for, then page two lines 9 through 12, my read on this you’ re taking that from their renewable development account is there any general fund revenues any other revenue that’ s being addressed in this amendment?>>Madam President and senator osmek no.>>osmek.>>thank you Madam President. Members at this point because of the spending we currently have in the renewable the bottom of account I have to oppose this motion. Right now we’ re spending we have a very significant spending on that and you to the additional change this is not wise I see you’ re taking money from one line and moving it around I would recommend a no vote on this. For the>>it discussion on a 76 amendment?>>just a moment senator marty i believe senator goggin was next.>>thank-you Madam President. Senator marty by if you would yield four question? This>>senator marty will yield.>>thank you Madam President senator. Marty on line 1.9 would you be amenable to change the word grenoble to clean as well as on another reference here, 2.9 the last word is renewable change that to clean.>>senator goggin that’ s your question? Order marty.>>Madam President and senator goggin the first one design 1.9 add.>>senator goggin please repeat the lines for senator marty.>>and President Senator marty it’ s on line 1.9 of your amendment.>>Madam President that would be acceptable.>>please read he was going to give the second reference as well.>>looking at the second one is actually we have to be that one in there that discusses a renewable development account so presently it would just beyond 1.9.>>editor goggin as clarify this question senator marty.>>Madam President and senator goggin yes I would be amenable to that I think what you’ re trying to do here is saying as we try to address climate three noble would not include nuclear but your suggestion would I would be happy to do that the climate issue is so severe I think we a little choice but to look at every option and I’ d be amenable to accepting that as a friendly amendment.>>senator goggin de wish to make a motion in regards to that language change on line 1.9?>>spent President.>>the secretary will report the oral amendment.>>goggin moves to amend marty amendment as on line 1.9 strike the word renewables and insert the word clean.>>senator goggin does that reflect your oral amendment?>>Madam President yes it does.>>further discussion on the goggin oral amendment senator marty?>>President I urge support for that.>>further discussion? Senator simonson.>>you Madam President will senator goggin yield to a question?>>Madam President will senator goggin yield to a question?>>senator goggin will yield.>>thank you Madam President senator. Goggin I think I and stand in agree with the underlying purpose for your oral amendment but I want to make sure we get this right. Your opinion on the definition of clean energy in current law and here’ s where I’ m going with this question you can expand on that. My impression would be the best definition for clean energy would include carbon free as well as carbon captured fuel sources.>>enter goggin.>>thank you Madam President and senator simonson yes you are correct.>>senator simonson. Thank>>you Madam President.>>seeing no further senator housley.>>thank you Madam President I still in opposition to this amendment what it does it takes $50,000 out of my host city built their communities in my district better depending on this in jobs that are relying on this $50,000 so I stand in opposition to taking the money for the planning strategy for sustainable energy. Thank you>>senator housley or on the goggin amendment which strikes the word renewable and inserts the word clean. Housley I will call when you again and were back to the original amendment. Seeing no further discussion to the oral amendment senator dahms.>>thank you Madam President would senator goggin yield please? Sen>>enter goggin will yield.>>Madam President and senator dodd and should not also include cleanup line at 1.12 and 1.25?>>senator goggin.>>Madam President and senator dahms you are correct. Appreciate that correction.>>senator goggin de you mean to we can’ t amendment senator dodd and what we have before us now is your oral amendment to strike renewable and insert clean if you will withdraw that oral amendment and then you wish to offer a new oral amendment with the expanded information you could do that.>>Madam President I would remove my original oral amendment and bring and new oral amendment.>>the it goggin oral amendment is withdrawn senator goggin to your new oral amendment. Just a moment please..>>and President Could we get that in writing please?>>now senator pappas so we’ re doing is a one word oral amendment has been withdrawn I’ m calling on the secretary to report the withdrawn or amendment and then I will call when you for your question.>>senator goggin moves to amend the markey amendment as follows line up 1.9 strike the word renewables and insert the word cleaned. Lined up 1.12 strike the word renewable and insert clean line 1.25 strike the word renewables and insert the word cleaned.>>under pappas do you wish to speak now?>>chair I think it’ s better procedure to have these in writing. The ricker>>to put this in writing we will do so senator goggin you would convey your language changes now that it’ s more that would like to get this in writing.>>Madam President I will do that thank you.>>members we’ re now on we need to that’ s an oral amendment I think we need to withdraw the oral amendment. As we’ re waiting for the rich and oral amendment we can discuss the oral amendment to the amendment senator goggin if your amendment you wish to speak or deferred to another member?>>Madam President I will defer at this point.>>letter marty.>>and President I will temporarily withdraw a 76 until we have the a 76.>>a 76 amendment is withdrawn. We are next on the list of amendments senator marty I heard you say to amendments.>>and President That is my second one and is will have discussion on the bill perhaps if there’ s no other amendments.>>senator torres ray. Thank>>you Madam Chair I have the the 84 amendment.>>senator torres ray moves they a 84 amendment the secretary will report the amendment.>>senator torres ray moves to amend house file 2208 pursuant to rule 45 as follows page 54 after line 18 insert this is the 84 amendment.>>senator torres ray to your amendment.>>thank you Madam Chair I will explain the amendment and then I have to do an amendment to the amendment we wrote as quickly I’ m going to go or language and then go back to delete section 14.>>enter torres ray moves an oral amendment to delete what line?>>section 4 on line at 1.5 subdivision one. The language will stay in the current policy language that’ s in place those changes are deleted.>>the secretary will report the senator torres ray oral amendment to her amendment.>>senator torres ray please wait a moment. We needed to make sure we have your oral amendment correct before proceeding.>>letter torres ray move to amend the torres ray amendment as follows delete lines 1.5 through 1.10.>>enter torres ray to your oral amendment.>>is there any discussion on the motion to delete 1.5 to 1.10 senator rosen.>>q Madam Chair would senator torres ray yield?>>senator torres ray will yield.>>and President I was working off the old amendment that is correct.>>further discussion to the oral amendment of senator torres ray to delete lines 1.5 through 1.10? Further discussion? No further discussion all those in favor of the oral amendment please say aye those opposed the motion propels the amendment is adopted.>>to your amendment as amended senator torres ray. Thank>>you Madam Chair and members the difference in this particular amendment to the amendment I offered originally as it is significant but it’ s a way of compromising what we included in here is the translation will be available if the translation is requested by the employee. Having worked with so many immigrants that come to this country knew I note this is going to be a difficult thing to implement in terms of what workers really know and don’ t know about their rights so my hope is workers will act responsibly and will offer this information to the workers and the workers will learn that there in the country for their rights are respected and their rights are defined in legislation and they can ask for this translation so it’ s a compromise to the position in the senate and I appreciate the input from the senators who agreed to help with this thank you Mr. Chair.>>is we’ re on the a 84 amendment as amended further discussion? Senator rosen.>>thank you Mr. President thank you senator torres ray for working with senator pratt and myself and senator jasinski on this. I’ m still troubled and questionable about the appropriateness of the a 84 amendment even though it has been orally amended to delete the specific type of meat packing industry and that was very problematic for myself and for many in this chamber. I also want to question you’ re going after an ola report from 2015 and nothing has been done I’ ve heard you say nothing has been done about this issue since 2015 and remind the chamber that the majority in 15 and 16 could have had the opportunity to have done something about this and this was introduced on March 11th which was very late. I do not particularly enjoy doing legislation on the fly like this where there May be consequences on going to particular industry whether we strike that language for not we know there will be consequences to the industry and I’ m hoping you will continue to work with senator pratt dynasts/I’ m not. Quite sure hon going to vote yet I’ d like to hear the rest of the discussion on the floor this and does have merit I question why it has been done before and whites brought in so late and one of the consequences?>>the discussion on the amendment senator jasinski.>>thank you Mr. President and senator torres ray I would like to echo the senator rosen, been trying to get in the discussion with plants in my district to clarify some of this language they’ re very uneasy with it at this late moment ago and much rather discuss that with the meeker and have a meeting on that to make sure there are no unintended consequences that May affect the industries in my district.>>any further discussion on a 84 amendment as amended? Enter pratt.>>thank you Mr. President senator rosen and senator jasinski I certainly understand your concerns and I share your concerns just to be clear we’ re not making any definitional changes what the. Amendment now says disclosures that the industries must give today be provided in the language of the employee if they requested it gives the employer is safe harbor now to escort that what they’ re language of fluency is up until now they’ ve been unable to ask that question so this gives them some ability to do that and also states that May use telephone internet services to help with that translation so that we’ re not creating a huge bureaucratic and creased with this. The fact these disclosures party must be provided or not adding any new written requirements and were saying if the employer as for to be translated into be translated. Members, support amendment I think I wish we had had more time to talk about this I agree with senator rosen the fact the scheme in a couple of days before deadline date was it troubling we didn’ t get a chance to hear it in our committee but this is what’ s in front of us.>>any further discussion on the a 84 amendment as amended? Seeing no further discussion all those in favor say aye those opposed the motion does not prevail the amendment is not adopted. Division has been called for members in favor please stand.>>there being 34 members standing the motion does prevail the amendment is adopted. Members we’ re back on house file 2208 are there any further amendments before we go to third reading? We have senator marty.>>Mr. President, want to read offer the a 76 amendment. Senate>>her marty as a that a 76 amendment the secretary will report the amendment set.>>marty moves to amend house file 2208 as amended pursuant to rule 45 page 70 after line 8 insert this is the a 76 amendment.>>senator marty.>>Mr. President this was the one we were talking about a few minutes ago we were waiting for written amendment to the amendment but I’ m not sure I think senator goggin I was incorrectly told he decided not to pursue that so I’ m real offering this asking for roll call and urging members to recognize as remove forward on addressing the energy transitioned which so many other countries have or started moving forward on other states have started moving forward and we have been making some progress but what we sit down and bring everyone to the table all interested parties and have worked hard together the strategy of plan this was in law until two years ago when it was repealed and I think it’ s something rather than bury our heads in the san we ought to be planning ahead in a thoughtful manner on a huge change in our energy system which were in the middle of not and have a long way to go I urge a. Support and I’ m happy to stand for questions.>>discussion on the a 76 amendment senator housley.>>q. Mr. President I stand in opposition to the amendment. line 2.4 of the amendment it takes away $50,000 from the committee grants and I have one of the host cities of those grants so those communities are depending on that $50,000 so I will stand in opposition to this amendment.>>senator marty. Thank>>q. Mr. President senator housley the need to plan for utility host cities to have for when their plants shut down which is inevitable and will happen in the next couple of decades I think it’ s very import we plan for that but this funding that was proposed in this bill for that is coming out of the removal development fund which is never intended for that purpose. I support try to find ways to plan ahead for those utilities cities but the renewable develop account was created for the purpose of promoting and helping to do research and other planning for renewable development. The utility cities idea is a good one but it’ s nothing to do with renewable development that fund should not be coming out of their this is inappropriate amount and even at that were only touching about one-tenth less than a 10th of the amount that’ s in that fund so I urge your support for this despite the fact those cities which japanese which shouldn’ t be getting it from this source of money I think this far outweighs the importance of that.>>there discussion on the amendment senator osmek.>>you Mr. President senator marty and for chile I do up to oppose this if you want to remove the amendment I would commit to working with you to find a $50,000 in the renewable development account and also make sure there’ s no unintended consequences on this I understand senator housley concern and I don’ t want to have to take away from one to give to another in this case I think we have a little bit of leeway I want to make sure there no unintended consequences with what you’ re doing I think there aren’ t any but if you withdrew the amendment we could work on this and bring it into conference committee.>>senator marty. Mr.>>President And senator osmek I May not succeed on the amendment I think rather keep it here because it’ s not in the house bill I think it’ s something that’ s important for us to be moving forward and this was existing state law until two years ago we were beginning to move forward on and and I’ m disappointed it was repealed I think it’ s time to put it back and I would welcome the chance to work with you on it but I will pursue the amendment at this time even though it May not be successful.>>any further discussion on the amendment? Seeing none the secretary will take roll on a 76 amendment.>>senators having voted to desire to vote the secretary will close roll their being 20 yeas and 38 nays the motion does not prevail the amendment is not adopted. Senator laine.>>thank you Mr. President having voted on the prevailing side I now move the vote whereby the isaacson a 15 amendment to house file 2208 was not adopted on April 29, 2019 be now reconsidered.>>on that motion senator gazelka. Mr. President>>and members senator laine wanted to voted the way and ask if we would giver that liberty I support this.>>seeing no further discussion all those in favor of the motion say aye those opposed the motion prevails. Members we’ re back on the a 15 senator isaacson amendment. There was a roll call on senator laine with your request a roll call on the man meant? Roll call has been requested roll-call is granted seeing no further discussion on May 8th 15 amendment the secretary will take roll.>>all senators having voted who desire to vote the secretary will close roll their being 31 yeas and 35 nays the motion does not prevail the amendment is not adopted. Members any other amendments before we go to third reading? None the secretary will give house file 2208 its third reading.>>file 2208 a bill relating to jobs appropriating money.>>third reading. Enter champion.>>thank you Mr. President thank you for all those who engaged in this worthy discussion today. We’ ve heard from a cross-section of members about the things they find challenging in the bill itself and I will give brief comments I want to thank senator pratt for his hard work and I’ ve been the lead on this committee I’ ve had a chance to see everyone working really hard in order to make sure we have a bill we can be proud of. One of the things I did when we had the equity hearing we had the demographer comment and the reason why that was important is because I thought was important to recognize the extreme inequities in minnesota and the legislature as senator hayden eloquently talked about earlier in 2016 make historic investments in committees of color to help insure all minnesotans unsuccess in our growing economy this is the. On think we also supported regardless of party our legislative body that’ s why it is disappointing to see a lack of investment in these programs but I’ m going to encourage senator pratt to continue to work on that in the conference committee. On this problem one of the sure we’ re clear about this this proposal strikes down minimum wage increases in communities I represent and the committees of others should this bill become law today in its current state many minnesotans especially in those in my community who could see a pay cut tomorrow despite the efforts to try to make a better life for themselves by engaging people in their communities. Only workers who were trained for position funded in the last biennium by equity money could see the programs that train them, and their wages cut in the same bill. As I mentioned earlier know senator pratt would like to have more money to spend in this budget area and I trust it will I believe he recognizes the importance of some of the programs that when unfunded like the neighborhood development corp. For m e d s a clues emerge and others just to name a few. I’ m hopeful will get what he and I want which is a bill to make additional investments in these budget areas with that I will look for senator pratt and others to continue to do better work and remove some of the things we found it so disappointing today thank you.>>final discussion on the bill senator dibble.>>thank you Mr. President if senator jasinski would yield for a moment?>>enter jasinski will yield set. Under double.>>you Mr. President and senator jasinski ideal for morning and wanted to ask about the provision of section 2 of article 2 starting on the bottom of page 27 having to do with airport infrastructure renewal care grant program looks like a newly created program that would be duplicative of the state airports fund this is our reestablished in chapter 360 of minnesota law and I looked at the purposes to work with the municipalities etc. Which is very similar seems fairly duplicative of the state airports fund and its purpose I’ m a. Wondering why the distinction why the new program and why is it in a different agency and it would be coordinating with activities and functions of the state airports fund?>>senator jasinski.>>q. Mr. President and senator dibble thank you for giving me time to talk about this program I wasn’ t going to take the time to do but I will in my time as mayor of faribault what I saw as the local airport was a great economic engine and I work hard to continue the growth of our report we have a couple of companies in trouble one called rare aircraft they build specific airplanes and airport in our town some other customers include harrison ford and tom cruise so it’ s good to get these industries to our airports we also have a brand new company called stine near the bills avionics for airplanes and what I see over time is our airports can be utilized for economic engines for our cities in greater minnesota of anoka’ s baby boomers age out and the retiring from the recreational air industry I think this gives more potential for airports to create jobs very similar to the program is administered by deed that I’ ve been carrying that bill for several years since I’ ve been here have always been about creating jobs. The funds are available that will allow this to expand the industry in our airports crating jobs that would otherwise not be done that way so I put it as another tool in our toolbox to create jobs in greater minnesota.>>final discussion and house file 2208 senator marty.>>thank you Mr. President. There many provisions in the bill on sure that good there many problems with that I’ m very disappointed in the pre-emption language that remains in the bill I think we get plenty of discussion over that political what pat but in the energy field we’ re moving backwards in this bill on energy planning were moving back words in this bill on preparation for dressing climate moving back words in this bill in preparing for the future. One of the biggest issues which is hardly been mentioned I think it was May have been at an know there were any amendments or anything else but in the bill we’ re capping contribution xcel to the renewable development fund which was an agreement the state agreement with dennis p. Energy at the time and prairie island tribe and the state if they were allowed to put dry casks on the banks of the mississippi river they’ re going to have to contribute to this renewable development account. They’ ve been doing that for many years and continue to put more casks there which they will continue to do there’ s no logical or no route that anyone has a now we’ re going to deal with those casks it’ s a growing problem and in exchange for that big read the company agreed they would put money in this account every year and this bill takes away over $200 million from renewable development that’ s a huge amount of money that’ s a very much needed at this point now we have we talked earlier about 2000 jobs in the solar industry in minnesota of fastest-growing sector of the economy with better than average paying jobs for minnesota workers in this area. And an area we need to address for not only climate issues but certainly for climate issues but we’ re taking away $200 million from that and spending another $40 million for compensating the haulers and truckers the loggers and truckers in the senator lang bill which is a good bill but it should be coming out of a different source of revenue that out of the renewable development account because it’ s not for revenue not for renewable development. That fund is being used for other things including the amendment the provision senator housley spoke to earlier a good thing to be doing but that’ s not renewable development we are. Not investing in the future we’ re not helping prepare to do the research we need for renewable development and I think this is very shortsighted time to make that cut there’ s been zero discussion of the $200 million cut so far I wanted to focus on that for a moment and then suggest the weakening of a conservation improvement program the week to, the of the renewable energy standards this bill weakens those standards by sank large hydro can come in and xcel turgeon our renewable energy standards that have to meet have to come from certain sources now now the money they are ready power they are ready to take from large hydro in manitoba they can now count that towards the renewable energy standards which in effect means we’ re reducing we’ re weakening the renewable energy standards. I’ m very disappointed by refuse to recognize that human activity I would say not just a keep but the primary cause of climate change the scientific and explains how burning fossil fuels that a been buried in U.S. For hundreds of millions of years burning that in increasingly rapid pace is collins the problem as I mentioned earlier this is not something that’ s insignificant one scientist at the national academy of sciences put in perspective by saying the one in 20 chance or going to have beyond catastrophic impact on climate on the human race and I think we ought to recognize how serious that is in this bill is not status quo this bill is moving as backwards on renewable energy on climate issues I strongly urge you to vote against the bill.>>final discussion on the bill senator hawj.>>Mr. President thank you. For the opportunity I appreciate senator pratt for having some equity dollars in this omnibus bill but it’ s not enough we the people of color and indigenous are one when it comes to disparities senator champion already mentioned and senator hayden earlier spoke at great length about it. To the he was very thorough and I’ m not be able to say anything more other than repeating what he said earlier the economic disparity we face in our state are real and impact other issues like housing homelessness gentrification human trafficking education and health and so forth. I call on our state and senators and legislators to please take a look at this issue seriously and help us the people of color and indigenous as one might with strong consideration of the needs of our multiplicity and with greater resources and not shrinking acts. As disparities ” we cannot risk to shrink the resources of little-known pit one community against another hope we can incorporate some funding as this legislation moves to conference in continue to look at this matter year after year. We have not given our equity plan and resources a fair chance to help people to learn how to fish which in turn has a possible the to boost our economy each of us are equal in humanity but we’ re not in unison and our predicament and life again help we can add more funding as this legislation travels forward thank you.>>final discussion on the bill senator nelson.>>thank you Mr. President. I rise about a provision in the bill called bridges to health care I’ m glad to see it in this bill it’ s been highly successful it works with high school students careers pathways and the students working with the industry partners actually when they graduate from high school and have all the necessary learning for being a c n eight or pharmacy technician with also prepares them for nursing or medical school and some of these students have been able to graduate and also at the same time to take their see any tests or pharmacy technician test and this is a great way to help fill the many job openings that we have in health care and I’ m glad to see it’ s been recognized in this bill and I think senator pratt for caring mess.>>final discussion on house file 2208 senator latz.>>thank you Mr. President and members. There are good things in this bill and there’ s some very troubling elements to this bill I encourage people to vote no. I’ m particular troubled by the pre-emption language I did not participate in a conversation over the amendment I did want to highlight that this is a tension that exists in many laws in our state from building codes to they age of purchasing cigarettes to the statewide clean indoor air act I recall when I was active with senator dibble and others working on extending the clean indoor air act to restaurants and bars the population of minnesota supported that but the legislature could be brought along until many local communities reflected their own more local populations desires to do so. That grass-roots groundswell the legislature finally responded as a statewide leadership consensus developed lagging behind the will of the people but nevertheless finally making a change. Suspect that will be the case with minimum wage as well to the extent we stifle local government innovation and abilities to tailor ordnances and loss and preset to their own committee needs we as a state will be poorer for that because we will lose those laboratories of innovation that are referred to on a national level or the states are laboratories of innovation but within minnesota our local communities are those laboratories we give them an opportunity to do so. Then in this case businesses will have the opportunity to decide whether they wish to or not wish to engage in business within the city of cities said it raised the minimum wage to $15 and if it wished to do so there will find a believe the benefits of participating in business in those cities will far outweigh the additional costs but that will be their choice those standards are set by the people who live in those committees I applaud them for that the of. The thing that’ s most troubling to me was the vote on the floor to move completely water down the senator marty amendment with regards to the cause of climate change. A few if any of both predict on the floor will be remembered in 50 years but the issue of climate change is existential for us as human race we have a very short window left to take significant steps to protect our earth. In a bus in this body don’ t pay close attention to where our food comes from we go to the grocery store we don’ t pay close attention to the dates of ice out on our lakes we don’ t pay as close attention as we should to the changes in climate around this can’ t see extra still and we say we still like this was a kid is been missing for a little while it’ s good to get some back. Those are bigger signs for us they say in about 50 years. Around us where we would not not have for some or all going to be planes without any significant tree stands and will be that with all the will to the north shore of lake superior is a very significant climate changes and with that will bring changes and disease infestations and ability to grow certain kinds of crops as well as other impacts on our lifestyle tours. It will be impacted by that is what our northern lights will not be as plentiful with certain kinds of fish because the like temperatures will change and most importantly in the and it would be us as human beings of a point to make the adjustment if we are to survive as human race this is indeed truly existential and while our cities May not be flooded by the rising sea levels the coastal cities will be most of. Relations will be moving inland and there will affect us as well so I’ m really disappointed we couldn’ t come together as a body and recognize the primary the key significant role the central role that human activities play in causing this climate change. And perhaps most of portly is the fact regardless of because we need to come together on how to mitigate the climate change how to minimize it how to perhaps reverse the impact and this bill does not take those necessary steps and frankly we’ re flat out running out of time we’ re running out of time we can’ t keep saying our constituents don’ t believe in it we have to pay more attention to the profits of this business or that business and we don’ t have the time to keep sang backup we’ ve been. Sang after tanner 20 years and ignoring the warnings of a broad consensus of the scientific community so as a say in 50 years when people look back at what we’ ve done the votes we’ ve taken on the floor of the senate this had in the san vote is going to be one most significant ones I hope will be an opportunity in this bill comes back from conference committee for all of us to be about to take a vote that looks forward to the preservation of the human race run in denigration of the human race.>>final discussion and house file 2208 senator housley.>>thank you Mr. President I still. And in support of this bill I want to thank senator pratt and osmek and games for the work they put into it being able to sit on two of those three committees, to thank them for the work they’ ve done and also for a couple of provisions that I’ ve worked really hard and am happy here included one of the. Is the displaced homemaker program this program helps address readiness by teaching displaced homemakers the essential likes skills needed to stabilize their families after a transition most of these displaced homemakers have been victims of domestic violence I want to thank senator pratt for including this provision in this bill they’ re very good stewards of the money that they do get for the minnesota displaced homemakers program and the other thing that’ s really big for all of us here we’ ve been talking of such a need for child care in the state and more child care providers it was the reason we expanded it May aging to family care committee I want to thank senator pratt for keeping the grants the deed grants to increase child care providers especially in greater minnesota and then also senator nelson minnesota initiative foundation grants in the bill thank you I stand in support. File a>>discussion on the bill senator eichorn.>>thank you Mr. President with an economic unemployment rate of 3.2% in the historic number of job openings is important we remove barriers to and limits of minnesotans can be successful and businesses can be confident in investing in our communities one of those such provisions there was heard in the senator pratt committee included in the senator rosen bill senate file 1 was $2 million to oppose dealing with mental illnesses be able to stay in the workforce as one barrier we see animals like to thank senator pratt for including another provision that senator tomassoni and I care about that’ s minnesota diversified industries they work with folks with physical and mental disabilities and giving them opportunity for gainful employment and also additional services for those of you who don’ t know minnesota diversified industries actually makes the miltona buse it’ s a cool thing that’ s made in minnesota all the mail comes to run a country made there in front of the minnesota boys and girls clubs of. Models of my district and a lot great work helping our youth be prepared to get into the workforce while serving as vice chair of the jobs committee I want to thank all the members of the jobs committee for the great discussions we had from our committee time and thank the staff of hard work to put into this as well and especially senator pratt for is leadership in putting a fair and balanced jobs bill provision to get a thank-you for that senator pratt.>>no discussion on the bill senator jasinski.>>Mr. President one quick comment thank you to senator pratt as well on the big brothers big sisters funding $500,000 to this great program across the state of minnesota does very good for mentoring programs across the state I want to thank him for including it in the bill.>>final discussion on the bill senator osmek.>>thank you Mr. President I would like to have a few think is in a closing statement in committee thank you to non partisan staff Miss Muhm and Miss Fontaine the committee administrator and legislative assistant and other researchers as well as the paid staff who of learned it senator osmek pet peeve. Which is and make senator marty in the dark I like to make sure senator marty gets light in his corner of the day as we have they’ re smiling and shaking their heads and saying yes they know my pet peeve. ” talk about the energy provisions of talk about something more important. One of the bills those included by senator pratt for funding was for accessibility and senator champion and dziedzic are co- authors on that bill I will. To talk about the importance of that bill can minute you May wonder why is a guy from western hennepin county caring about a program for felons in minneapolis? Is a very good reason I happen to know the people who run that program and members this is a program where it had some federal funding it ran out we are helping people who are leaving prison find productive lives this is one. Where people leaving prison who can get a job would go back into the life of criminal activity and wind up going back to prison for breaking that cycle the recidivism rate for accessibility is half of what happens out of the standard population. We’ re helping people we’ re helping people change their lives just recently I worked to get a friend of mine daughter into the program and she is had problems and she has a felony and a record and she’ s been in prison and she is now finding a way to break this cycle. She had been dependent on drugs there were a number of different illegal activities she’ s learning a new way some members the money we’ re spending on accessibility and I’ m sure in many these other programs is money well spent because we’ re not having people continue the cycle of coming up and going back to prison and saving us money so I appreciate senator pratt and funding that into a level he said and I hope it makes it through the conference committee program members please vote green on this bill.>>final discussion on the bill senator dahms.>>q. Mr. President and members first. I want to thank the staff that worked really hard this year it in the commerce committee administrator and committee legislative assistant and our senate counsel Mr. Muller fiscal medalist and our researcher in the pages work on the committee we really appreciate what they’ ve done and with that want to think these folks for that I think we. Guevin excellent bill and I don’ t want to make my speech your very long because I wanna be accused of having the largest part of the bill. It’ s a good bill and I urge everyone to vote green on it and will go from there thank you folks.>>discussion and house file 2208 senator pratt.>>thank you Mr. President thank you members today for the great conversation by to want to thank our committee staff the committee assistant and committee legislative assistant for their workers Mr. Mom the fiscal analyst serves all through the committees we been talking to today he’ s been running around at a pretty good clip and that the senate counsel Miss Fontaine oil thank you we couldn’ t have run the committee without you. I also want to thank the members of my committee this my first year in the jobs committee and let me tell you it was a very enjoyable experience so thank you senator champion, you’ ve been a good partner and will continue to learn how to work together I’ ve made some missteps along the way I will continue to improve that said. But her simonson little and an ice cohen extent thank you corporate dissipation and input it’ s been a pleasure to work with you. A special thank- you to senator eichorn as the vice chair but also I really enjoyed working with senator utke housley, our new senator rarick senator draheim and goggin as well. As we said at the beginning of this bill we wanted to ensure every minnesota had a chance to participate in the economy. That we want to make sure there was a short plainfield between employers and employees and we were pretty hard on wage theft in order to make sure we did that for one. To make sure we remove barriers to employment as senator osmek talked about with a number programs and equity bill and some of other funding we’ ve gone to be able to do that we want to make minnesota a great place to invest in the see that and not only the airport grants but also the duluth paper mill. Finally we want to invest in the jobs of today but also the jobs of tomorrow where we put in funding bill school districts build robotics to help students not only those going to college when you look at the robotics programs you have kids who aren’ t college-bound kids part of the engineers are business people these are well-rounded programs members and I’ m really proud to be supporting that I will. To thank senator housley for touching on the child care pieces that were included in senate file 2 and the work senator weber did over the interim listing sessions in our rural communities to find out how we could replace the loss of kanuri 300 child care providers throughout the state over the last 10 years. And the senator nelson bill putting in a grant from the minnesota initiative foundation to help create those high-quality child care programs but members one thing we did discuss and wanted to bring up not only when we talk about people who are incarcerated or people with recovering from addiction having to overcome those problems but so, often we find they’ re tied to a mental health problems. Ms. Programs provide mental health services but I also want to thank senator rosen and finance committee we move from senate file 1 to this bill $7.1 million for grants to provide employment service support to people with mental illness members this is $2 million over the base was not included in the governor’ s budget and that amount will be used first to expand existing programs we have and second court to expand areas of the state without existing programs than second to expand existing programs. If we want to have every minnesota and participating in the economy we have to address the issue of mental illness and making sure those with mental illness get the help they need and can be productive members of our society. I get that not everyone is exactly happy with every provision in the bill but members it’ s a good bill this is a bill we can be proud of I occurred. Yes vote and I will tell you I’ m proud to vote yes on this bill thank you. Member>>is or run final passage of house file 2208 as amended seen no further discussion the secretary will take roll.>>senators having voted who desire to vote the secretary will close roll their being 40 yeas and 26 nays the bill is passed and its title agreed to. Members the next bill for consideration is no. 70 on general orders house file 2181 senator mathews.>>thank you Mr. President I hope this bill doesn’ t quite take as long as the last one I am. House file 2181 the telecommuter forward bill communities across minnesota at supporting telecommuting as part of their economic development strategies are increasing in minnesota and and this bill will create a path for communities to secure telecommuter forward status from the minnesota department of employment and economic development. To secure that status the committee must promote telecommuting and has made a point of contact to chordate telecommuting opportunities such as broadband providers real tors economic development professionals and employers and employees for committees who already have good broadband access telecommuter for status will help the committee market itself and for committees were still developing the broadband service the process of seeking the designation will help to analyze these efforts the bill contains no appropriation and no mandate it’ s an optional designation for any community who chooses to seek it in Mr. President I will add to the department has indicated they would like to have a friendly competition with our neighboring state of wisconsin which shartiag has a similar provision in law and they would like to have a friendly competition to see how many communities and cities they can get with these designations and statuses and have a telecommuting rivalry. That members I’ m open any questions i would encourage a green vote on the bill.>>discussion on house file 2181 senator simonson.>>thank you Mr. President thank you senator mathews for bringing the bill forward I do think the underlying concept behind it is good. I want to talk about one concern that I do have, we have spent the last 67 years now talking about the expansion abroad and here in minnesota and working hard to get our rural communities up to speed or they can participate in today’ s economy and as many of you know senator mathews I’ m sure you agree it’ s been a real challenge and the state has invested a lot of money for the last number of years trying to bolster our border to border broadband grant program to try to leverage additional federal money and additional private investments in order to build out our network. What our rural communities to be successful want everyone in minnesota to get ability to succeed I think. One of the things that perhaps an unintended consequence of the underlying bill is it highlights to me winners and losers when asset. Winners and talk about those committees to have access to adequate broadband capabilities for their businesses are able to compete in today’ s market for their school children are able to do their homework on line and where they’ re able to be successful in today’ s modern economy. Some of the losers are those committees where we haven’ t really had the ability to get enough of an investment into the border to border broadband fund. Me and can a poinsettia out and I think back towards the beginning of session perhaps towards the end of last session we had governor dayton who was in support of significant investments in the border to border fund we now have governor on board walz that’ s been supportive of $70 million in the border to border broadband fund we of the governor’ s task force has been a recommendation the legislature invest $70 million into the border to border fund we have our rural broadband coalition has been advocating so hard here all session trying to get this investment. Week we had the opportunity to hear the senator westrom bill where we were very grateful there were able to find $30 million to invest in the border to border fund but it’ s not enough and I think we all know that our raw. Committees are continuing to struggle and we have the ability and the opportunity now with the one time appropriation perhaps to find a way to fund that. I think it’ s time that we of the serious discussion about finishing the investment in our rural road been billed out we know we have a ways to go but I think we can do it and I think this underlying bill of senator mathews is a really good opportunity to take that step with that Mr. President I would like to offer the a-2 amendment.>>senator simonson offers the 82 amendment. The secretary will report the amendment.>>senator simonson moves to amend house file 2181 as follows page to after line 10 insert this is amendment 8 to.>>to the amendment senator simonson.>>you Mr. President and members this is a fairly simple amendment all those a lot of money it’ s far. A billion dollars in fiscal 20 and another $35 billion in fiscal year 21 appropriated to the border to border broadband fund account as I’ ve laid the basis as you’ ve heard many the know this already about the need for investment all across minnesota and our rural communities this would give us the opportunity to pass an appropriation of a general fund of one time appropriation of another $40 million coupled with the senator westrom $30 million that’ s a total of $70 million where I come from that’ s exactly what the advocates are asking for a think it’ s a good opportunity for us as the minnesota senate to invest in rural minnesota I would encourage a green vote.>>discussion on the a-2 amendment?>>President I asked for roll call. Senate>>her assignments and roll call is requested in roll-call granted. To the amendment senator mathews.>>Mr. President and senator simonson, I was hoping this bill would be shorter than last one I guess we’ ll see if will meet that I was the. Aware of any type of amendments or anything coming up to this bill I reading this over for the first time now and this would defeat what my earlier statement to be about the bill not having any mandate or the funding attached to add. Not approach the issue of the broadband funding I see it a little differently from senator simonson because I saw this as a tool to try to help in working in some of these rural areas that lack this kind of broadband funding senator simonson my district has a significant number of areas better still on dial-up and they remind me of that every election my own house I grew up in was on dial-up until just a few years ago. Understand that frustration and the limitation that brings. I brought this bill forward to try to use that as a tool to help the encouragement be a character versus a stick for communities to build this infrastructure out and be able to grow in this area especially in our rural communities. I definitely agree with your decision on funding but for the purposes of this bill this goes way beyond the scope of what this bill is trying to do for trying to accomplish and it I would have asked for a no vote on this amendment at this time.>>any further discussion on the amendment? Senator westrom.>>Mr. President I’ m wondering if the author of the amendment would yield?>>senator simonson will yield.>>Mr. President and senator simonson could you explain a little further where you’ re getting the money from and what will we have to shift around to cover this if you could explain that more so we have that understanding with this amendment that just came?>>enter simonson.>>thank you Mr. President and it senator westrom I pritchett the question it’ s a good one to the senator mathews. There’ s just not a lot of vehicles that come along you get the opportunity to do this with. Unlike our omnibus bills for we have to stay within the designated budget this particular amendment simply makes a onetime appropriation out of the general fund.>>further discussion senator westrom.>>Mr. President and members let’ s review what we passed last week as senator simonson like you I’ m a strong supporter of rural broadband as we’ ve looked at all the different funding needs here the capital. The targets came out and we all had to kind of work together to get the right amount that each area and committee could achieve is what we targeted in our committee towards broadbent we put every last penny into broadband our target in the agriculture and rolled about a minute housing and because it’ s that important soul senator simonson and we can find a way to balance things out but we have a lot of other needs whether it’ s education health- care transportation tax relief or tax conformity, have a variety of things we need to do so I want to get a better understanding of this amendment how it would impact the whole picture Mr. President as we continue to debate and I would encourage others to join in and look of this amendment as the debate goes on because we ultimately have to of the money and no one to back ourselves into a massive tax increase that last week the incidence study that came out sure if we did the largest tax increase on the citizens of the state of minnesota has been proposed by some members in the legislature wicked fun a lot of things but we also know we of the hard- working taxpayers and families out there that are anxious for a 20 a gallon to 40% increase in their gas tax new taxes on the other income or other areas of their lives and a tax that’ s going to hit 8-12% partner in the middle and lower income brackets and then the upper income brackets isn’ t a pathway think many of us want to go down. The governor has gone down that path and senator simonson I talk what this as a big picture that we all have to look at each one of these individual projects is always good on his face but it’ s some point the grocery cart its full and a half to realize how much pull cart is going to cost as to get to the checkout line and we can’ t just adopt this in the picture of one item but certainly I’ m a strong supporter of rural broadband Mr. President would welcome others to join in the conversation as to try to figure out can we afford this amendment at this point?>>further discussion on the amendment senator pratt.>>thank you Mr. Chair I know it’ s been a good discussion none know many support rural broad band of Mr. Chair I would question whether or not this amendment is germane per rule 35.2 item to it seems to me this is the underlying bill as though finance provision in that it simply a certification of voluntary certification program and resolution the inclusion of broadband funding from the general fund greatly expands the bill and is not part accomplishes a different purpose from what the original bill intended.>>senator pratt has raised a point of order on the germaneness of the a-2 amendment advice for the President? Senator simonson.>>thank you Mr. President I would argue against the senator pratt motion. For this reason the underlying bill that senator mathews bill which is a good bill I want to point that out deals with 116 j of minnesota statutes which references deed 116 j also contains the language creating and managing the border to border broadband grant program. Is a number of references to broadband and the underlying bill talking about working with broadband providers the office of broadband minnesota office of broadband I think it’ s a fair conclusion to say while it does said money to the bill we certainly provide an opportunity to pay for the bill out of what has been talked about as upwards of a billion dollars surplus it’ s a onetime appropriation of $40 million I think all of us in here whether we’ re democrats or republicans agree expanding the broadband access tours row communities is incredibly important to their economies to their existence and I think this is an opportunity use some of those one time money is as an appropriation on something we all agree on. I would suggest it certainly is in order.>>further advice senator latz Mr..>>President In addition to what senator simonson as noted I would add making broad band more widely available throw the state will actually substantially advanced the purpose of the underlying bill with the idea is to have more committees available better able to provide telecommuting and then to be able to take advantage of that ability by marketing themselves as telecommuting friendly. Senator simonson amendment will give more treaties broadband so they can provide those opportunities to their members so really perfectly complements the underlying bill and accelerates it perhaps a bit but I think we can all agree is important to do I think Mr. President this is germane.>>further advice senator pratt.>>thank you Mr. President and senator simonson and latz I don’ t disagree with you additional funding would jump- start the expansion of rural broadband and item think anyone here is arguing against any investment in rural broadband the part of the matter is the underlying purpose of the bill is to create a certification program not to spend money and there’ s nothing in that the bill I’ m trying to take a look at it here now it promotes a friendly work places but everything in the bill is policy has nothing to do with spending cuts of, voluntary program that senator mathews is proposing and is not germane to dobrynin and expansion of rural broadband financing. I don’ t disagree with the intent Mr. President it seems it’ s not germane to the question at hand.>>further advice?>>I have made my decision and the rule the point of order is well taken the amendment is not germane.>>Mr. President I would appeal the ruling of the President And ask for roll call.>>senator simonson is appealing the ruling of a president members the question before the body is shall the judgment of the President Be sustained a green vote is in favor of the judgment of the President Are read vote is against the judgment of the President The secretary will take roll.>>all senators having voted who desire to vote the secretary will close roll their being 35 yeas and 31 nays the decision of the President Is sustained. Members we’ re back on the bill house file 2181. Any further discussion seen? None the secretary will give house file 2181 its third reading.>>house file 2181 a bill relating to economic development.>>third reading file. Discussion on the bill senator mathews.>>thank you Mr. President thank you for the discussion I think it highlights an important point perhaps our budget and our spending is so great and so numerous and too many areas we can’ t get money to key areas we need to I would love to work with senator simonson or others in the future to look for areas we can reduce government spending in other areas to free money for this but I appreciate the discussion on this bill today and would ask members to support the bill.>>members we’ re on final passage of house file 2181 seeing no further discussion the secretary will take roll. All>>senators having voted to desire to vote the secretary will close roll their being 66 yeas and zero nays the bill is passed and its title agreed to the next. Bill for consideration is no. 35 on general orders senate file 1703 senator koran. Thank>>q. Mr. President senate file 1703 relates to credit using conversions of mergers and consolidations and a supermajority requirements to wreak choir commission the bill matches a lot for state- chartered credit unions to a change in the federal law impacting federally chartered credit unions to keep changing the is around the requirement for mergers and consolidations and reorganizations two-thirds of credit unions’ total membership must vote yes for mergers and consolidations or reorganizations today the credit unions have a difficult time getting members to vote and to achieve a two-thirds vote to vote for the bill simply change the two-thirds requirement to majority does not change the notifications requirements not additions to members these changes allow credit unions to make necessary changes will continue to ensure membership has the opportunity vote on all issues I’ d heard. The green votes.>>members discussion on senate file 1703? Seeing no further discussion the secretary will give the bill its third reading.>>it file 1703 of bill relating to commerce. Third>>reading final. Discussion on the bill member? As we’ re on final passage of senate file 1703 seen no further discussion the secretary will take roll.>>all senators having voted to desire to vote the secretary will close roll hitting 66 yeas and zero nays the bill is passed and its title agreed to members to. Next bill for consideration is no. 112 on general orders house file 15 and members we’ re on the unofficial engrossment of house file 15 senate. Benson.>>thank you Mr. President and members first want to acknowledge that jenny and her dad jury are in the gallery with us as we have this members there the impetus for this bill and have shepherded this through sometimes challenging legislative process. House file 15 is a repeal of the voluntary relationship exception to rate. When I first heard about this I was sent coffee with senator hoffman and johnny’ s dad jury polled last that his daughter had been raped by her husband and the prosecutor in anoka county actually planned to charge him and then discovered that in minnesota on there’ s an exception that says if you’ re married even if there’ s enough evidence to bring charges you can’ t be charged with rape. That began this journey with it sick feeling in my stomach because I couldn’ t believe minnesota would be a place where that would happen. But I checked with our council and it turns out we need to repeal this so never again can someone raped her spouse someone there cohabitating with a prosecutor had sufficient evidence to bring charges and then be stopped because of minnesota’ s statutes 60 9.349 01. To think michael author’ s senator bigham said housley senator kent and senator hoffman and thank senator limmer for caring the funding of this bill and making sure this language move forward most. Of all I want to thank jenny both of you who are in judiciary committee have heard some of this I’ m not going to tell you her whole story. She discovered a video card or home computer of her husband raping her while she was unconscious and their four year-old was in bed with her when he did this he did this twice on tape. The level of disgust that she must have felt in the the trail that she must’ ve felt so she called the anoka county sheriff’ s detective and a victim specialist reached out to hurt and formally charged her ex- husband with one count of felony criminal sexual conduct in the third degree. Then the victim specialist at to call her back and say we actually can’ t charge him because minnesota up pass a law on the books that states a person can be charged with that crime if they’ re married at the time of the crime. I cannot imagine how she felt how helpless she must’ ve felt the prosecutor was willing to do this and there was nothing to be done. Found some other ways to charge him but certainly not the most just way to charge him and so we bring this language to you members and I am certain because of jenny’ s strength and the right ness of repealing this language that you’ ll join me in supporting this repealed and members I’ ve one small change I need to make the effective date is July 1st we delayed the effective date soap there could be no constitutional challenge someone sang in know that this is actually a crime in minnesota so I have the a 51 amendment.>>senator benson offers a 51 amendment the secretary will report the amendment. Order>>move to benson amend house file 15 the unofficial engrossment of on line 7 this is the a 51 amendment.>>the amendment senator benson>>q. Mr. President this changes the effective date from July 1st to June 15th we believe that sufficient time to avoid a constitutional challenge the effective date would be as soon as possible member. As I hope I’ ve sufficiently explained the need for this I want to thank jenny for her courage they’ re not many people who can come to the legislature and tell a story that must be this difficult to relive. So journey I thank you and jerry hough thank you for making sure we got through this and your courage is to be applauded and your children should be very proud of you members a. With that I would ask for green vote.>>discussion on the amendment senator latz.>>Mr. President I suppose, the underlying bill I think it’ s very important bill and was quite surprised to learn that it wasn’ t already the law until it came to force in the legislature like senator benson was surprised I do have a concern. About the proposed amendment it’ s as simple concern it’ s a matter of due process and most laws that have an impact on criminal prosecutions by the fall to run your take effect August 1st and that’ s quite simply because there needs to be enough time for the public to become aware that a lot is taking effect that can impact criminal consequences that’ s been the standard in this legislative body for as long as I’ ve been here and I’ m sure it was long before that it was the default senate counsel draft sedan to all the bills as of August 1st. I know the original bill and effective date the date following enactment which walt we would all like to see it take effect as soon as possible causes all sorts of constitutional questions and senate counsel was concerned about that in felt perhaps the july 1st date would be more appropriate that’ s the way it was amended. I’ m not quite sure why the argument here is over two weeks if I been in drafting a bill and felt comfortable from the due process standpoint I think it ought to be August 1st I would hate to see the next prosecution that happens that happens in the window for an act that occurs in a window when there some doubt about the constitutionality of it that prosecution gets thrown out because within quite get it right here through the proper due process notice I’ m prepared to live with the July 1st date because I think it would probably be ok although there is even some risk their I think we ramp up the risk of this being found unconstitutional when it applies to any particular prosecution if we move the date I had to June 15th or any other date so I actually would encourage members courage the senator to throw benson the amended so we don’ t create this constitutional risk with regard to future prosecution and perhaps we can handle it that way if he’ s not one to that I encourage members to vote no on the amendment. Further>>discussion on the amendment senator benson thank you Mr.>>President I don’ t wish to create controversy around this bill will try to find a midpoint between enactment and the traditional deadline that was still prevent a constitutional challenge I will withdraw a 51 amendment and can revert to the original language.>>senator benson with draws the a 51 amendment to the bill.>>thank you Mr. President I appreciate the work it takes to change the criminal statutes so senator latz I appreciate your advice and had notified the house we’ re making this change but it going to slow things down I would leave it at July 1st and hope the house will accept the July 1st language and with that Mr. President I renew my praise for jenny’ s courage and ask for a green vote.>>further discussion on the bill senator hoffman. Thank>>q. Mr. President thank you senator benson we had coffee with jerry it was one of those, how moments Mr. President that you have to be kidding me this doesn’ t exist already in law? That was a couple of years ago and as jenny and jerry this is for you for your hard work for getting us to see what’ s right to do on behalf of people and this is been a bipartisan effort and let’ s just do the right thing for people because that’ s over here to do is to do the right thing for people thank you senator thank you benson senator bigham and for those who of worked throughout on this and my partner in the house and the other body corporate the senate of stevenson thank you Mr. President this is for you gerry and jenny.>>further discussion on house file 15 senator bigham.>>q. Mr. President victims of rape deserve justice there is no bearing outcomes of rate depending on who commits a sack of violence the victim suffers the same trauma and holding by leaders accountable in a matter their legal relationship to the victim is exactly what this bill does. Members this bill is justice for victims of rape long overdue in the state of minnesota I want to thank senator for an benson when this bill through the legislative process and want to thank jenny for her advocacy for strength shed to relive the trauma every time she shared her story her voice speaks loudly and for those women who deserve justice let’ s do the right thing let’ s right this wrong thank you members.>>members any further discussion on house file 15? Seeing no further discussion the secretary will give house file 15 its third reading.>>house file 15 of bill for an act relating to public safety eliminating the voluntary relationship defense for criminal sexual conduct crimes.>>third reading. Members any final discussion and house file 15? Seeing no further discussion on final passage of house file 15 the secretary will take roll.>>all senators having voted who desire to vote the secretary will close roll their being 66 yeas and zero nays the bill is passed and its title agreed to. members the next bill for consideration is no. 55 on general orders senate file 1732 senator jensen.>>thank you Mr. President. Actors I would like to say thank-you to co-authors senator and senate benson anderson and senator limmer this bill is essentially an outpatient surgical center facility sharing authorization what it does is create an innovative and space sharing opportune between surgical practices it is. Dress is a unique situation that’ s arisen in outpatient surgical centers under state law to different groups of doctors cannot sure a physical facility without merging federal law however does allow multi groups of doctors to share physical facility so in this specific instance the same day surgery you might have the same day surgery that perhaps owned by group of endocrinologist and they do a lot of the needle biopsies which May have three doctors who want to come in one day we can do tubes and kids’ ears are something like this and what this bill basically does is allows that to happen I would. Stanford questions.>>members any discussion on senate file 1732? Seeing none the secretary will give the bill its third reading. San>>that beil 1732 a bill relating to health. Third>>reading final discussion on the bill senator dissension.>>members draw>>and final passage of senate file 1732 seen no further discussion the secretary will take roll.>>all senators having voted who desire to vote the secretary will close roll their being 66 yeas and zero nays the bill is passed and its title agreed to. The next bill for consideration is no. 15 on general orders senate file 326 senator koran. Thinking>>Mr. President senate file 326 addresses the modifies the requirements concerning supervisors of every body piercing technicians two years ago of. As part of health proposed was enacted changes that supervises the both temporary tattoos and body piercing technicians requirements on body piercers put an additional undue burden on the ability to train and retain new body piercers this bill addresses the concerns that change in the requirements put forth on this industry and the number of years licensed of experience needed to be a supervisor for two years to one year and 1 year requirement be met by performing 500 persons and this bill additionally it was changing or moves the supervisor language from the establishment licensure in section 146 be 0.02 section of law to technician licensure section 146 be 0.03 the changes were worked out with the department of health and there’ s no opposition I encourage a green vote.>>discussion on senate file 326? No discussion the secretary will give the bill its third reading.>>and that file 326 a bill relating to health. Third>>reading member. Is any final discussion on the bill seemed? And we’ re on final passage of senate file 326 the secretary will take roll.>>all members having voted who desire to vote the secretary will close roll their being 65 yeas and one nay the bill is passed and its title agreed to. The next bill for consideration is no. 16 on general orders senate file 328 senator jensen.>>thank you Mr. President this bill is a carver county hospital construction moratorium exception not nearly as exciting as the senator bill benson lester we close out the session I would like to say think michael author’ s senator pratt and senator claimed this bill basically remedies a situation that occurred in 2003 the legislature approved an exemption to the hospital moratorium for review medical center in waconia exemption at the time stated the 20 beds could be billed for rehabilitation and or not eligible for medical assistance or minnesota care reimbursement this bill now allows those beds to be used for general medical and surgical needs and they can be used for both medical assistance and minnesota care reimbursement I would stand for any questions.>>any discussion on senate file 328 seen? No discussion the secretary will give the bill its third reading.>>that pile 328 a bill relating to health.>>greetings members any final discussion on senate file 3287? Enter jensen.>>no further discussion.>>no further discussion run final passage of senate file 328 this secretary will take roll.>>all senators having voted who desire to vote the secretary will close roll their being 66 yeas and zero nays the bill is passed and its title agreed to the next. Bill for consideration is no. 103 on general orders house file 1188 senator goggin.>>thank you Mr. President house file 1188 is revisiting the bill we passed last year the move over bill last year if a recall we added the name of its utility worker vehicles to the law and this year I’ m happy that the waste haulers and recyclers came forward and told me their story about what they’ re experiencing there on the roads and I was happy to carry the bill for them this year before I get going I want to thank the co-authors senator rarick jasinski and lange howe for supporting me on this end quickly according to the U.S. Bureau of labor statistics they’ ve named to refuse to recycle and collectors as the fifth most dangerous occupation. A ball to tell this from those hard-working men and women two-thirds 67 percent were the results of transportation instance many of these incidents are caused by inattentive or distracted driving by motorists who farrell to use in you to refuse and recycling collection vehicles and is just have it on my way here this morning there was a waste vehicle on the side of your collecting trash and I’ m fortunate people were not pulling over to the left lane to give them a wide berth and let them do their job and I really appreciate hearing this bill I want you to know all the unions are on board with this and what I’ m after with this let’ s make sure every job out there we make a mistake as possible and especially for those waste haulers and recyclers thank you .>>discussion on house file 1188? Senator jasinski. Thanks>>q. Mr. President I was going to offer an amendment on the left lane bill but I know we’ ve had a long day I won’ t offer that at this time the state tuned.>>any further discussion on the bill seen? None the secretary will give house file 1188 its third reading.>>house file 1188 a bill relating to transportation. Third>>reading and final discussion on the bill senator goggin.>>thank you very much for listening and please vote green einess.>>as we have final passage of house file 1188 seeing no further discussion the secretary will take roll.>>all senators having voted to desire to vote the secretary will close roll their been 66 yeas and zero nays the bill is passed its title agreed to a net. Bill for consideration is no. 52 on general orders senate file 646 senator goggin.>>thank you Mr. President this what I’ m really happy to be here presenting this bill I have to. Thank the President For bringing this to my attention and what this bill does is changes the name of the current eisenhower memorial bridge currently spending the gap between city of red wing and wisconsin in hager city a new bridge is being built in its place and she and a group of individuals in town really came up with a great idea to add a couple of words to get the words. R of valor the new name we’ re proposing is the eisenhower memorial bridge of valor and what that does is it incorporates not only our soldiers who were fallen into the and past soldiers and current soldiers and also takes into account all of our first responders and police officers and the fire and e empties and we want to make sure this bridge has an opportunity this name to promote the best in people. With that I will stand for any questions.>>discussion on senate file 646 seeing? No further discussion the secretary will give the bill its third reading senate.>>file 646 of bill relating to transportation.>>third reading members in. Any final discussion on senate file 646? We’ re on final passage say no further discussion the secretary will take roll.>>all senators having voted who bizerte to vote the secretary will close roll their being 66 yeas and zero nays the bill is passed and its title agreed to and the. Ex bill for consideration is no. 118 on general orders house file 554 senator champion.>>thank you Mr. President the bill before you authorizes a parent whose parental rights have been permitted to petition the court to reestablish a legal parent and child relationship the bill requires a child who was the subject of a petition to have been in foster care after termination of parental rights by at least 48 months. Filing a petition are required to provide specific information in addition and the steps taken toward personal rehabilitation and now the corrected their conditions that lead to termination of parental rights to so you know this is only for children where there’ s not an egregious harm that means it can’ t be like physical abuse or anything of that nature. The burden is on the parent let’ s make sure it the petitioner has to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence its in the best interest of the child for the parental rights to be reestablished also the court has the ability to model their order to fit the needs of the child for example if the courts because that the discretion to say what needs to happen going forward how much more involvement needs to take place in the court can decide if someone is not ready to say they’ re not ready and say when a parent could potentially come back to the court to ask again. this bill is also important for parents to have some substance abuse and mental health challenges where the road to recovery May take a little more time. This is especially true when you think in terms of the old your addiction we had Miss Evans comment with minnesota adult and teen challenge she did a wonderful job to talk about the significance of this bill and now she wished she would of had this option when she was going through her unnecessary challenges this bill. Also passed in the other body the house 130-0 the county attorneys association supports this bill in fact you’ ll see a letter on your desk indicating and their support for this bill. Hope you will join me in passing this bill and it gives parents another option in order to make sure children who are languishing in foster care they can be reunited with their parent if they qualify thank you so very much I stand for any questions. Discussion>>on house file 554 senator kiffmeyer.>>thank you Mr. President I rise in support of this bill senator champion thank you for championing this bill and bring it forward the parent child bond even though there have been times in the past where the parent has not properly cared for for going through struggles but to give them an opportunity to reunite with their parents is a very strong strong import value that I think we can all agree to from my notes of the 1500 to 63 children under state guardianship 800 of those are able to go through placement and have the opportunity for restoration for the parents who have reestablished themselves to have the opportunity to restore themselves with their children what a tremendous opportunity for them and I think of fills the spirit of minnesota and giving them the opportunity and I want to thank you for caring this bill and bringing it forward and I’ m glad to vote yes thank you.>>there discussion on the bill senator abeler. Thank you>>I want to reaffirm my support and thank senator champion for working on this and overcoming some very unreasonable discouraging tampering by the county attorneys association and the beginning or the had a failed system that wasn’ t working and wanted to commiserate with him he did the best you could do in negotiating over four years isn’ t unduly long amount of time I will vote yes I’ m afraid will be better get some time making it two or three years that you wanted the first place is a good idea thanks for I hope you’ re successful for these children thank you. Further>>discussion on the bill senator eaton.>>thank you I also want to commend it senator champion for bringing this bill forward I’ ve worked with a number of people who are suffering from the disease of addiction and as he said it often takes longer than the system takes to take their child and parental rights away so this is something that’ s often presented to me as a plea from parents who’ ve lost parental rights who got their act together and are really hurting because they don’ t have any right to get them back and my understanding the only one of this time who can petition for that is the county attorney and the haven’ t made any petitions.>>further discussion on the bill senator hayden.>>thank you Mr. President I also want to commend the senator champion for this bill to its zero long time coming this is an important step as we think about redemption and as people continue to recovery and mental- health and substance-abuse and opioid use and the recovery aspect of this their ability to reconnect with your family and regain the printer rights under the supervision of the court is a game changer when the most aborting stricken do in this legislative body this year thank you Mr. President thank you senator champion.>>further discussion senator limmer.>>thank you Mr. President senator. Check if you taught me a few things on this bill first it up a bit of tenacity and I appreciate that the more. I’ ve got to know you this tenacity is a little mixup passion as well and we all know none of us are successful unless you bring a little passion into this chamber on a variety of issues. Senator champion you’ ve taught me we do have gaps in our system and despite low will try to do to protect those systems sometimes there’ s always room for collude to education and your very good in teaching at least been the problem that we have with this program. Is a good step and a want to call it a step because there’ s other areas in our criminal justice system that there’ s really no hope for those who get involved with a lot and when they get involved with a lot and then mix that with addiction have a very serious problem on ever being restored all for. Lee this will be a good for step and we can work together again on a variety of other things thank you again .>>further discussion on the bell seeing? No further discussion the secretary will give the bill its third reading.>>file 554 of bill relating to public safety. Third>>reading. Final discussion on the bill. Thank>>q. Mr. President what to think senator limmer senator hayden senator latz for being co-author Miss Haas natural page g evans as I mentioned earlier from the minnesota adult and teen challenge the county attorneys association senator and the other abeler is to have been encouraging thank you.>>members we’ re on final passage of house file 554 seeing no further discussion the secretary will take roll.>>senators having voted who desire to vote the secretary will close roll their being 66 yeas and zero nays the bill is passed and its title agreed to. Remaining under motions and resolutions we move to the 13th order of business announcements of senate interest. Without objection the following senators will be excused from today’ s session senate. Isaacson from 4:55 P.M. Until the end of session members. Before we go to senator gazelka I have a friendly reminder for the members of the chamber on page 15 of our temporary rules 17.2 states a member May not introduce a visitor or visitors in the gallery from the floor or rostrum of the senate please keep that in mind as we proceed with our sessions. Any announcements of senate interest senate? Her champion. You Mr.>>President Members I put a flier on your desk it’ s from their record to be a minority entrepreneur real legislative reception immediate and the catalyst apartment hosting a meeting greek session for small business owners are inviting you to this gathering its coin to take place tomorrow tuesday April 30th from 430 until 7:00 P.M. That will be a great opportunity to connect with m e d a other minority business owners as well and learn about businesses and opportunities and we would sincerely appreciate you showing up and again the flyer is on your desk I hope you give chance to join us.>>members any further announcements senator dibble.>>thank you Mr. President and members I regret to announce once again our tour with scheduled for homeless youth serving agencies and traffic youth I’ m guessing our conversation will probably extend beyond the time the tour is scheduled for tomorrow will try again third time committee to do that for the state to in its canceled for now will try again try a third day thank-you.>>third time maybe the term senator dibble members any further announcements sent? Gazelka think of. Mr. President>>gop will caucus in the ms be immediately after, Mr. President members we’ re going to recess we’ re waiting for messages from the house that have passed the transportation bill but there will be no votes when we convene. That Mr. President I move recess to the call the President. Center did>>gazelka to moves we recessed to call the President All those in favor say aye those opposed the motion presells the senate

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *