Minnesota House passes the omnibus state government finance and elections bill, SF3045 5/1/25
MNHouseInfo
[{'start': '1.034', 'end': '2.435', 'text': ">> The next bill on the calendar for today is Senate file 30 45? The clerk will report the bill. >> And sent a phone number 30. 45 number one on the calendar for the Day and act relating to state government operations. Establishing a biennial budget pro putting money for the legislature. Certain constitutional officers and state agencies. The unofficial a girl summit. >> There are amendments at the desk. If there's no objection. We'll let the author explain the bill before we act on those amendments. I recognize the member from Hennepin Representative Klevorn. >> Thank you. Senate files 30 45 is the state government finance bill. This 2025 state government finance budget, though it does really important things really important things. What it does is it funds this building where we work. It funds the legislature that we have all taken an oath to uphold. When I say that it funds the legislature, it funds the non-partisan staff that we all rely on it funds the revised sir, who has some who make our work possible. It funds the front desk that keeps this floor working. It funds every one of your staff members, whether Republican or Democrat, it pays their salaries. It pays their benefits. It's an important bill that should not be taken lightly. I want you to think about it. I see the heads down so that you don't have to think about what you may if not want to vote on today, but it's an important part of the people's voice. It's an important part of our democracy. That's what this bill does. It funds this capital, which is the beacon of democracy in our state fruit there. It supports 30 boards and commissions. It supports major parts of the government that most people don't see but touch their lives every day. Management and budget, Minnesota. It the Department of Administration it funds are constitutional officers. This is a bill. Well, many people have no idea. What our committee does is very important for the work that we do. This is not the bill that co-chair Nash or I would have written by ourselves. But it does 2 important things. It holds the growth of government which is important to your side of the aisle and it holds core services which is important to our side of the aisle. It is truly a compromise bill. I'd like to talk about some of the provisions that are in the bill. They are important anti-fraud measures that are both the F out and GOP lead. We get to my notes here starts a healthy aging sub cabinet which is the work of a 2 year long legislative Task Force on aging. It provides Minnesota businesses filing fraud protection. It allows the attorney general's office to continue to support our counties when they need help with prosecution of violent crimes. This bill also helps fund that office of the Attorney general with Medicaid fraud prevention. And we'll hear a little bit more about that on 3rd reading. But most importantly, it maintains the capacity of our state to serve the very people who sent us here. And with that, I'm going to ask if we can allow the conversation to go to Mike co-chair. But before I do that, I'd like to thank the staff. Very staff were relying on this bill's passage. I'd like to thank our non-partisan staff, Helen Roberts for her fiscal advice and expertise that like to think Kobe Sullivan for his House research and all of the great things that he does for us. I'd like to thank the revise or staff who has put so many copies of this bill together. I'd like to thank my side of the aisles partisan staff. I'd like to thank Amanda Rudolph. He has been my constant companion on this journey and state governments since Iowa. And I would like to thank John Baylor who is our researcher and Sam Neill, who is our committee legislative assistant. I'd also like to thank the pages who show up at 8.15 it before 8.15, every day to help us be ready and to deal with the concerns and the issues that we have with technology and making sure that our guests always feel welcome and that the people of Minnesota, when they come to testify, have a friendly voice and event friendly face to help them with the needs that they have in the committee process. So I would like to turn the floor over now to my co-chair, co-chair Nash, I recognize the member from Carver, Representative Nash. >> Thank you, Madam Speaker and thank you. Chair Klevorn. I will start off by also thanking Helen Roberts called the Sullivan and our staff, our partners and staff that are stashed here in the back. Jacob run Hauser, who was also my constant companion, just unreal. Our research or alley went I see but also want to thank the other side's partisan as well as we were working through the bill. It was a very collaborative effort and chair Klevorn is exactly right. If I was given a box full of pans and a blank page piece of paper, I would not have written this bill. My bill would have been much different, but we are in a 67 67 tie and that's where we find ourselves. Is that sure? Clyburn's pens, road half the ink and I wrote the other half. But we did so amicably. And I think that that was a good outcome for my side of the aisle. You know, we have been very focused in the last number of months on things around waste, fraud and abuse. You will see and hear that there is the totality of house file. 23. There is an allocation for 4 new employees at the office of the Legislative auditor who will begin looking at those things. And that if I remember from Chark WAM has not been done in a very, very long time. I think he's had 3 varias when he told me. But I will echo what chair Klevorn said. That unit in a 67 67 tie. As I think all of you know, we have the same amount of staff support us on a daily basis and that's in this bill. So we have the same number of LA as we have the same number of calms people. We have the same number of cea's. We have the same number of staff between the 2 caucuses and a speaker damage. And Speaker Marilyn Hartman made an agreement that that was going to be what we were going to do and that's carrying this bill carried his bill to is the chief clerks of our of our chamber. And there are none better if you if you want to see the fact that there are none better go over and watch the Senate and then you come back here and realize we've got really good over here in the House. Also is the funding for the start an arms and it is a bill that covers a lot of things. You know, for my side of the aisle, we did make significant cuts and share Klevorn was good to work with when we realize the target that we had despite my pleadings with the ways and means chair is to put a negative sign in front of the target that I was asking for. This is what we got. And if you don't like it, you can talk to her talk Wilson, I'll give you his phone number. But it's a bill that is written by 2 people with from 2 sides, the aisles in as good a fashion as we possibly could do. There are things in here for Republicans. There are things in here for Democrats. And again, if I had been left to my own devices, it would have been a much different bill. But it's what we have and I will yield back to the author. >> I recognize the member from Hennepin Representative Freiberg. >> Thank you, Madam Speaker. I rise to discuss the elections portions of this bill. So in Minnesota, we're proud of our long track record of leadership in voting and civic engagement. This bill ensures that here in Minnesota are elections are safe, secure and free elections provisions fund the campaign finance board and provide necessary matched funds for the Help America Vote Act. These dollars are primarily used for election security measures like cybersecurity software improvements to the statewide voter registration system in the Security Navigator. Team Minnesotans deserve to know whose dollars are attempting to sway our elections. So we ensure that the Minnesota campaign finance board has the resources necessary to inform the public and to keep our elections fair. The budget in this bill couldn't be much simpler. It fits onto one page. It includes $200,000 for the Help America Vote Act, which I just mentioned $79,000 for an operating adjustment for the campaign Finance Board and the base budget for the campaign Finance Board. It also includes several policy provisions and list several of the bills that are included includes Representative Gordon's bill dealing with publication of temporary polling locations. It includes Representative and Vice Chair Altendorf U.S. Bill dealing with the standard for determining the residents of an individual subject to a civil commitment order. It contains Vice chair Liz Lee's bill dealing with polling place closures and requiring notice to be posted until the occurrence of a presidential election or redistricting includes Representative Tab Keys Bill dealing with the situation he experienced in Shakopee and the absentee votes there. It includes co-chair, qualms Bill dealing with for the filing period for special elections. It includes one of my bills dealing with reporting requirements related to the economic interest statements. It includes representative and guns, bill related to political expenditures by organizations that receive state funding, which we've already passed off the floor and includes Representative Jones is Bill dealing with apartment access and then vice chair and the co-chair quantum and I both had larger bills of containing a multitude of election related provisions. Mine was the secretary of state's administrative bill co-chair, qualms contained several of the priorities of the Republican Party. And we included several percent of the provisions from both of those bills. Just meant mention a few. There are some changes to the process where the secretary of state its list of election judges from the parties. There's a change of of the in-person absentee ballot drop-off time from 08:00PM to 05:00PM. And there's the creation of a phone line that could be used in some circumstances by election administrators enabling them to contact the secretary of state like Jair Klevorn. I have several thank you as I'd like to do so. I wanted to thank the committee administrators pet Palooza and Wilson Lee, our committee legislative assistance, Chris Ohlendorf and Rebecca Reiner's their partisan researchers. John Buehler and Will Golding nonpartisan staff for the committee, including Matt Gehring, Chelsea Griffin and Helen Roberts committee page Riley Jones, House Public Information Services for making us look a lot better than we do in real life and coach or Kwame. You've been a very fair chair of the committee and it's been great working with you. You've always shown respect to the to our party when you're in the chair. And I really appreciate that. When you have the gavel vice chairs altendorf in Lee and committee members of both sides. And I look forward to the rest of the discussion and I don't know if I'm supposed to yield to co-chair com or how this is supposed to work. Exactly. But I'll leave it in your hand. >> There is an amendment at the desk. The clerk will report the amendment. >> Sexton moves to a man sent a file number 30. 45 the unofficial in Grossmann. The amendment is called it a 7. >> I recognize the member from Waseca, Representative Sexton. >> Thank you, Madam Speaker members. This is the same amendment introduced on Tuesday. Then withdrew for Jermaine this. It's very simple addition to the bill. It basically allows one of us if we deploy on active duty to basically either of them vote remotely, which we still can do or have somebody else stand enforces a proxy. I recommend a yes vote on this. >> Discussion to the Amendment. Representative Klevorn, thank you very much. I'm wondering if the author would yield to a question place. Representative Sexton will yell. Representative Klevorn, thank you and my my question for you. >> First, I want to thank you for your service. You've done many, many years of service in the military and we all owe you a debt of gratitude for that. You and I have had discussions about that service. I understand how complicated it was. And so thank you for that work. My question is, could you please tell me how tell the body the length of time your longest tour of duty might have been Representative Sexton. >> Mine were very short in frequent, usually. >> Sometimes, especially after 9.11, once I'm about 5 months, typically. >> They can go over a year. But most cases nowadays are about 6 months. So hopefully that answers the question. Representative Klevorn. >> Thank you. And I'm wondering if the representative would continue to be old. Representative Sexton will continue to Yield. Representative Klevorn, thank you again. My question now is will win. A military member is on active duty are deployed. Is it that that member would have access always to a telephone or methods of communication in real time? Representative Sexton? >> Many times. Yes. So for example, if I'm preparing to look at legislation, we've still got email. We've got some of the best communications in the world. I could even video into this room if I needed to. Absolutely. But there are times like if I was flying the aircraft that used to fly and a vote was occurring. I would need somebody to stand in for me as a proxy to make that vote. >> Representative Klevorn, thank you in with them. I would represent a sexting continue to be please. Representative Sexton will continue to yield to Representative Klevorn. Thank you. And I appreciate your sharing your knowledge with with me because I have never been on active duty. So I appreciate the fact that communications might be possible. But my question to you now is when when a member signs up for active duty, more for the military as a whole, my thought would be that that member of the military would take their position incredibly seriously and that they would want to be able to focus 100% on the mission at hand that would be might sought. And it is honestly my belief that they do. So my question to you would be how do you see a this 100%? I mean, you can serve 2 masters at one time, right? So how do you stay? How does a member of the military state focused 100% on the mission at hand, as well as 100% focused on the work of the body and following a legislative hearing? Representative Sexton. >> I believe the purpose of this bill is when you're having to dedicate 100% of your time, then you actually request a proxy if there's times and there are many times you're not actually out on the front line are flying the aircraft when you may not fly or do something super intense for days at a time. So at that option, we could certainly remote enough. We need to instill actually honor the wishes of our constituents, which is the underlying purpose of this Bill. >> Representative Klevorn, thank you. And that now I would like if it's if it's appropriate to just speak to the amendment, is that the representative Klevorn you still have the floor? Thank you. What I would like to say about this amendment is that there are many issues that vary between deployment and dips, wherever you why, right, whether you're deployed domestically or deployed someplace else. And these are the things that I believe we should be working out in committee. And I believe these are things that we should know exactly. What does this vote mean to us as a body when you win? This amendment was originally offered on a different bill. I immediately went to the office there and said I think this may have merit. I would really appreciate an opportunity for you to draft a bill. There is no bill and I would appreciate having an opportunity to fully vet this bill in committee. That's I went straight over and made that offer and now we have and amendment of great weight. It is not a simple amendment. And there are questions about when is a member on active duty and when is the position vacant? I think you it. I think the author and I would share the opinion that people should have a chance to serve in the legislature and serve their country in other ways. But there are pieces that need to be worked out in details that need to be worked out before. We just say yes, proxy voting is okay. I've heard arguments that proxy voting is happening in our body. It does happen in the Senate. They have proxy voting. The difference is we know that they can always reach the legislator to ask that legislator for their opinion. The people of the district elect one representative. They don't elect a one representative and a proxy. The people of the district have the right to know who is casting the vote for them. And these are things that we need to work out in committee. And these are the pieces that we need to hear from active duty members. How many active duty members would want to do this? Cher, both service of country in the military and service of country in the Legislature. I did a little research into this when I after I had made the offer to hear the bell. And what I have learned is that in 100 years we have had 4 instances where this might have come up and in the last 50 years one and I would say that we have the ability through rules, too, have this discussion as well, which is also a committee that this can go to and we can have a discussion on a case by case basis. Is proxy voting really effective for this member if this time for the short stays that you're talking about, if it's, you know, a a month or 3 weeks, but if it extends beyond a year or eat or even 6 months, is that too long? Is that what the public expects of their representative to actually run for office and then not be present to hear their voices to take their concerns and to take that responsibility and handed off to another legislator? I don't know if it's right or wrong, but I think the public should have a say in the democracy and who represents them. So I would ask our our side of the aisle to vote no on this amendment. Not because I think it's a bad idea it as a whole but because who needs to be a fuller and more robust conversation. So I would ask again, and I would make my offer very clear that I would like to have a committee hearing on this to discuss it. But at this time until we have more details worked out. I think the change to statute is premature and I would ask for a no vote. Thank you. I recognize the member from Hennepin Representative Kotyza-witthuhn. Thank you, Madam Speaker and members. I rise. >> Just to address this on a on a very local level, one of my school board members is currently deployed. And I mean, we knew that it was going to be an extended deployment. He's overseas. He's he's gone for a minimum of 12 months. And there is much discussion in the community about about how we should handle this. And so he's opted to take a leave of absence and a temporary member. The school board was appointed to vote and serve on on his behalf while he is deployed. And I think, you know this, this this example just goes to show that there are so many different circumstances that this could impact and how it impacts folks in a local level at the school board level how that impacts constituents at the legislative level. So I I would agree with chair Klevorn that that we should vote no on this amendment and take it up in committee process next session. Any further discussion to the amendment? >> Seeing none. All those in favor of the amendment. Please signify by saying aye any opposed. Please say nay. The motion prevails. The amendment is adopted vision. Mister Speaker division has been called for members. You must be at your own seat to be counted. All those in favor of the amendment. Please rise. You may take your seat up later is still counting over. There I go. Okay. I'm sorry. State standing. I was counting too. I don't count, OK, I don't count. You may be seated. All those opposed to the amendment. Please rise. They're being 58 eyes and 52 nays. The motion prevails and the amendment is adopted. >> One of our Mr. Speaker stage a point of order, Mr. Speaker, we did not call the members who are voting remotely in the case of a division in which members are asked to stand. It is impossible to ask an individual to remote vote when they cannot stand to be recognized, Mr. Speaker, our practice has been that when there is a point of when we are doing a division and there are people participating remotely that we have always called those individuals to ask them to what their vote is. It is very easy to hear what the people is that those individuals and to add them to the vote totals of those who are standing under a voice vote. These members did not vote. >> They were not called upon to insert their vote and to be tallied. And as a result when a division is called, that division is to determine the total number of individuals who had voted on the voice vote there being no voice vote in which a member was able to vote remotely. Thus they are not counted because they cannot stand and they didn't vote on the previous vote. So the speaker has decided that this amendment based off of the numbers prevails. >> There's an amendment at the dentist. The clerk will report the amendment kalter moves to outside a phone number 30, 45. The unofficial and girls spent as a member of the amendment is called it a 5. I recognize the member from Hennepin Representative Coulter, Mr. Speaker. So. >> This amendment would require the campaign finance and public disclosure board to create a plain language lobbying handbook that would be accessible to the public. This language was originally introduced in House file 1949, and then incorporated into house file. 22 84, which is a larger bill of mine that strengthens and clarifies our laws on lobbying, particularly at the local level based on recommendations from the campaign Finance Board House file. 22 84 for for reasons that frankly aren't entirely clear to me because no one I've asked was actually given me a reason has been stalled in the process. And I brought this amendment because it felt like the least objectionable peace. This was not intended to be a gotcha amendment like where we're not gonna run mail, saying so until voted against a plain language lobbying handbook that that's just not something we're going to do. I really did want to try and get added to the bill. You know, I I didn't run for office to work on lobbying laws. But as I've found myself doing this work in my 3rd session now I discovered how incredibly important how valuable these laws are. The rules of the road for lobbying they matter because at the core 4 of the issue is something that is fundamental to our system of government. You know, I believe with with every fiber of my being and everyone has the right and maybe even the obligation to advocate to their government officials to say this is what I believe. And this is what I want you to do about it. But when someone is getting paid and in Minnesota, you have to make more than $3,000 a year doing it when someone is profiting directly off of their ability to influence the decisions that get made by their government. Minnesotans have a right to know. They have a right to know who is lobby. Who are they lobbying and who is paying them? And it is just as important for folks to know when someone is lobbying the governor or the legislature as it is. If someone is lobbying, say the Carter County Board or the Concord Township Board or the Bloomington City Council, you could even argue that it's more important to know who is lobbying folks at the local level since those decisions often have a more everyday effect on our neighbors lives. But there continue to be efforts to weaken those laws to further cloud Minnesotans ability to know and even carve out some people who, by virtue of money or position may have the most power to influence decision-makers doing so would not only erode the trust that our neighbors put in our officials, but it could well, our Minnesotans lives. My hope. And this is a sincere hope. My hope is that if any of the these ideas come before us at any time that we take a step back and put personalities and parties aside and put the interests and needs of Minnesotans first. I'm not a big fan of offering amendments and withdrawing them. I I also didn't run for office to make speeches. But in the interest of keeping this bill in its present form and out of deep respect for chair klevorn and if I'm honest a little bit of fear, I will at this time withdraw the 5 Amendment representative culture withdraws his amendment. >> There is an amendment at the des. The chief clerk will report the amendment Schultz opposed to a mess out a phone number 30 45? The unofficial and Grossman has amended. The amendment is called it a 17 recognize Representative Schultz. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And before I begin, I just like to request a roll call on the 17 amendment. >> A roll call has been requested to SE 15 hands. There are 15 and there will be a roll call. Representative Schultz. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We are the elected voice of the people of Minnesota. We are the body and the legislature that sets the policies that Minnesotans ultimately live by by the law. And unfortunately, over these last few years, we have seen as we've had an unchecked and uncontrolled executive in this state, whether it was the shutdowns that happened or whether it was the sorts of rules that the agency's brought about to determine and tell Minnesotans what kind of vehicle they should drive and to tell Minnesotans what kind of vehicles they can drive. That's the sort of attitude that we've seen under the clean car rules that have been adopted straight out of California. And it's time it's time now more than ever for the legislature to take back its rightful role in crafting the policies that Minnesotans must live by and out of control state agency and certainly not an out of touch governor who fails to meet with the people of Minnesota. The 17 amendment simply seeks to get after this point and to prohibit this sort of rule that could be brought about by a state agency to limit the rights of Minnesotans to purchase a gas-powered vehicle. A leaf blower, a chainsaw pressure washers and more that Minnesotans rely upon today because if we continue to let this executive branch run out of control, Minnesotans will be hot. So encouraged support of the 17 amendment. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. >> I recognize the member from Hennepin Representative Klevorn. >> Thank you. I'm going to not go into all of the details that we just heard from my colleagues across the aisle. I don't accept the premise of the things that he just said. And I'm just going to ask our side of the aisle that please vote now. >> Any further discussion to the amendment seeing none the clerk will call will take the role. The chief clerk will call the names of the members voting remotely job. China holds no Green Green Vols. Know all saying Hussein votes of no McDonald McDonald. The clerk will close the role. They're being 65 yays and 67 nays. The amendment does not prevail. It is not adopted. There is an amendment at the best of the chief clerk will report the Amendment. >> Howard moves to a man inside a phone number 30 45? The unofficial end girl spent as amended. The amendment is called it a 16. The member from Hennepin Representative Howard. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker members, as you all know, our president has unleashed a lot of chaos into our economy and significant harm with his federal terrace. And you may groan, but, you know, well says groaning. The people of Minnesota who are paying higher prices are small businesses who are having their doors shuttered and entire economic sectors that are really very worried about what the harm it's going to be done, not just now, but in the future. It never really ends. Just today. There was a story in the Star Tribune about the impact of our small business, particularly companies that make board games, who are going to have to shutter their doors. What a buzz kill. And really it just speaks to how significant were seeing those harms all across our economy. And we as the legislature, we can't control what the president's going to do with our tariffs. But we can control getting prepared, listening to Minnesota and listening to our farmers, our small businesses, those who are being harmed by these tariffs. And so what this amendment would do would be to ask the commissioner of Management and budget to that, create an action plan, assess the economic harms, the ways that costs are going up for our consumers, on things, from housing, their groceries, their gas consult with our farmers with those in manufacturing and small businesses, those that are already seeing significant harms and come up with it. A study in an action plan that to address the concerns that we're seeing from these tariffs. If you know what, we don't know exactly what will come next from this president related to tariffs. You know, they were up. They were down there up. They're still here, but it the harms are real. I talked to a small business owner not long ago who sell an independent small business owner who owns a toy shop and he said the 145% tariff on China goods in the reciprocal tariffs means that a toy in his store that will cost $10 are used to cost $10 well cost. 25 $1 this year. That's real. Those are real impacts and we shouldn't tried. We shouldn't put our heads in the sand. We should care about that and get ready to make a plan. But members this provision, I know you like to talk about this for hours at length, but it's not a provision critical to funding state government in this bill that Chair Cleveland, sure Nash are caring soul withdraw the men at this time. >> Representative Howard withdraws the 16 amendment. There are amendments at the desk. The clerk will report the Amendment. >> Green moves to a Madison a fall number 30, 45, the unofficial and girls but as amended in members called it a 18. >> I recognize the author of the Amendment. Representative Greene, thank you, Mr. Speaker and I will make sure that there's an opportunity to debate the spot. I would like a role clock, Mr. Speaker. >> Representative agreement has requested a roll call seeing 15 hands. There will be a roll call. >> Thank you, Mister Speaker this the 18 is a simple provision that says that nobody can buy induce bribe voters in order to register to vote, to vote in a certain way to get them to vote. Now in Minnesota law already illegal. What this does is it says we're going to close that loophole. It is going to be crystal clear. But you also can't do that by offering that inducement as a lottery or as the promise with a big novelty check at the end, you can't promise to win something that you are ready. It is already illegal to offer directly. Now, if you look at this amendment, you will see a few things. One that what it all it is doing is saying a person is guilty of a misdemeanor. If they willfully directly indirectly provide a chance to win food, money, liquor, clothing, entertainment to induce a month to register to vote or to sign a petition that nears the language right above it. That's already in law about inducing them to vote or vote a certain way. I will think we had a long conversation and elections committee about this bill and I actually took some of the good feedback and advice for my members. My colleagues across the aisle, Representative Davis mentioned what about entering into a lottery and what you get is a campaign hat or T-shirt. And so we added both into the bribery statute as well as into this provision, an amendment that it excludes anything up to $20. So if that's what the petition is for, if that's what the lotteries for, if that's what you're giving now, if with this vote, you can legally do it. So why do we need this and why do we need this now? So there's been an innovation, as we think about the way that billionaires and millionaires have used their weight and their power, their money in our elections. We have seen it on campaign ads. We have seen it and in our doors and in our mailers. Well, now there's this other way and it's it circumvents the law in Wisconsin, it was likely illegal in Pennsylvania. It was likely illegal here in Minnesota are going to say it is illegal to offer a million dollars to offer $500,000 to sign the petition. That is election-related within the time where people are voting in order to get them to register or vote. This matters because this is moving. This practice is moving from Pennsylvania to Wisconsin and it's coming west. And I'm sure at some point it will hit Minnesota. So what's the problem? Well, as we've seen billionaires, the richest man in the world has used this innovation. But we know that millionaires or billionaires, whether they support Democrats or Republicans, whether those poor conservative issues or Republican issues, it is a problem for all of us. And it's not just about who your billionaires are, my billionaires or millionaires. No billionaires should be able to bribe to buy or induce voters to register or to vote. What can we do? This is a very, very simple provision is a provision that here today we can put into this bill is a provision that is already in the Senate's bill and it what it says is I want to even name them because that's one of the things we talked about. But you all know their names. You all have some you like to say on the floor. I have some I like to say on the floor. But what we know is that for them a million dollars is pocket change. It's a rounding error. But if you are a voter and someone says sign this, do something and I'll give you a million dollars. That is huge inducement. That means a huge a lot. And we can't do that on a million dollars to offer someone to do something. So here all we're saying is that's illegal. You can offer someone you can induce them. You can't have a lottery. We all in this place should be about our voters. We should be about folks to register and vote and participate. This is just another way the billionaires are using their wealth to consolidate power in our democracy. And that is something that I know having lots of conversations across the aisle all of us are concerned about. So here we go of, yes, folks here puts this into statute. It'll prevent this from Common West and we can all today say note to billionaires bribing and inducing folks directly or through chances to win big novelty checks. Members that ask you to vote. Yes. >> Iran discussion in the 18 Representative Niska. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker I was wondering if the through a deal for a question she will yield Representative Niska. I think you Mr. Speaker and Representative Green men if on under current law without your amendment in place. If someone says I will give you $15 for every Democrat candidate you vote for is that illegal under current Minnesota Law Representative Agreement. >> Thank you, Mister Speaker. I think I can just read it to you because it's right in our amendment. It says the person who will flee directly or indirectly pays some arrive or something of value promises to obtain in order to induce a voter to refrain from voting in the party are vote in a particular way is guilty of a felony. So that I think the answer to your question. Yes, Representative Niska. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker and thank you, Representative game. And that's exactly the language that I was really concerned about because your amendment adds language that says that that paragraph does not apply to an item service or other consideration, which would include money with a fair market value of less than $20. So my question, if representative been mentally ill for another question. >> Representative agreement will yield to Representative Niska. >> So Representative Green men, if George Soros, after passage of your amendment says I will give every voter of Minnesota $15 for every Democrat candidate that they vote for. I doesn't line 1.10 1.11. Make that right now legal under your Amendment. >> Representative agreement, thank you, Madam Chair, Mister Speaker. I believe that this is just extending the amendment right now. I think that there's a $5 bribery statute that with that that has included another piece of this section. We went from 5 to 20 in order in response to was raised in committee about a concern that you couldn't give away a T-shirt and I am 100% willing if you're concerned about that or the language because I believe we added it in response to a GOP feedback in conference to take that out if that's what you're concerned about. Representative Niska. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker and I think if everyone was listening very carefully, the answer to the question is yes, that in fact, what the agreement amendment does is legalize literal bribery up to $19.99 for each vote. So, you know, if you take out your ballot and general election, there's a whole bunch of things on the ballot. You're now if there's 20 offices up for election, this now legalizes bribery of every voter up to $19.99 per per election on your ballot. I think that's a bad idea. I'm gonna vote no against bribery. Legalizing bribery in Minnesota. Members vote no. >> The member further discussion. Representative Franson. >> Thank you. Speaker representative agreement would yield to a question. >> She will yield Representative Franson. >> Representative Green men under your amendment. Would Alex Soros still be able to donate to the Democrat Caucus or 2 members of your party? >> Representative agreement. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, unfortunately you all many of your party have not voted with us on many amendments that would actually limit the big money that is being do that donated to both parties. So you bring up Saros. We will bring up mosque. You can bring up Weise. We can bring up Bezos or whoever is whoever. What I will say is since my time here in office, I have noticed that when we bring amendments, I'm trying to overturn Citizens United when we have an amendment trying to eliminate the influence of foreign influence corporations to give 2 parties or in the independent space that we have not had your support. So no, I don't think this is a bribery statute, not a campaign finance statute so it doesn't intend to neither. Does it change where people can donate 2 parties if they're doing it through the campaign finance system has set up. >> Under 2.11, be and tenant. >> Representative Franson. All right. Thank you, Mr. Speaker all members. That is a yes. George Soros and Alix Earle's can still donate to the Democrat Party. I have checked campaign finance reports. 0 $1 have come to our party from Elon Musk. But that party is supported by the Soros family and we've got pictures to prove it. Thank you. >> Further discussion to the 18 Amendment Representative Bliss. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker and I have a question for the author as well and that this is not a gotcha question. It's a representative. Green men will yield to Representative blessed. Thank you. It's not a gotcha question. Is the actual ballot question that I believe you're an election attorney does this. So so the the amendment says that it can't give something of a $20 less than $20 it to get a chance to win something larger. Does this apply to tribal nations to get free play to play the slot machines to win a larger thing? Thank you, the member from Hennepin Representative Agreement. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker and thank you, representative, was it actually allows this is a very limited provision. This is just about in the election context. So if you look at the language, what it says is a registered are eligible voter to sign a petition that is material are related to an election during the period beginning on the first day of the absentee voting period for that election and ending on Election Day. So it don't unless if the what the type O ur contracting or you are coming up with was about, that was not. That was just the first want to feel that the hypothetical that you are on that you're talking about is related to the election in the period where people are voting. Yes, it would apply clean everyone, but I don't think that that's talk about some. >> Representative Bliss, thank you, Mr. Speaker defied the author would yield again. She will Yield. Representative Bliss. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, this is not a hypothetical and this is for registration to vote and in the voting period to go to an early election site, register to vote and vote and receive a voucher for free gaming to win to for something to it. And the reason I ask is generally tribal nations are not subject to state law. So I'm curious, does this apply to them? >> Representative Greenman, thank you, Mister Chair, Mr. Speaker. I believe that as it relates for voting laws and I can get back to you on this. But I believe as it relates to are voting and bribery laws that affects everybody in the state and I would look into the example year bring up because I haven't heard of that. But I'm happy to talk about off the floor. >> Any further discussion to the 18th amendment, the member from Ramsey Representative Think E. >> Thank you. Speaker Schultz. You must of gotten me. Thank you to Representative Green men for your amendment. I just want to take the conversation back to the intention of the amendment, which is to prevent billionaires and from using their endless amounts of resources to influence the outcome of an election in a way that is clearly bribery. That is what we're talking about. That is what we have seen happen several times across the country. There is one particular billionaire that we all know of who wants to move to Mars, who is guilty of this and we should be proactive about how we want to protect the election integrity in Minnesota. And the reason that I'm rising specifically to talk about this, you know, I think it's important, right. But rep friends in and rat Miska said about this is very important. I think all billionaires are bad. I think anyone they donate who should not take that money. It is actually wrong that there are so many billionaires. So not only should we probably do something about the the hoarding of wealth and the way that is so disgraceful to the economic reality of our country. But we should also make sure they're not going to give money to anyone and we have had opportunities. Excuse me, Mister Speaker, you have the floor. Representative, thank you. That's a real problem. And we have ways to solve it. And one first way is to say you can't give away a million dollars to a voter clearly wrong. Everyone can feel that that is wrong. But I also want to say that the particular space bond billionaire who is doing this is not doing this just to elect Republicans. His goal is not to elect Republicans. In fact, if you look at the words that this person says his goals are far, >> far darker. Then the electing Republicans says Mister Speaker. I mean, I would have I would appreciate they don't have to listen, but I would appreciate the opportunity to speak to the room members. Please take your conversations to the Al closer to the retiring room. Representative think it's not just I don't know what's funny about it, but but we do know that Elon Musk has plans for the future of the country. He has stated plans and he is spending his money in a way that is looking to execute those plans and the part of what he is trying to do is to actually eliminate transgender people, eliminate them. And I think that you should know that is the person that you are defending the right to give countless dollars to the American political system. Maybe some of you share that goal. But it's important for me to have on the record that this person who we are letting influence the national election at a level that is so far beyond anything any of us have ever seen. A single individual do has a stated plan to eliminate transgender people from the world and that's on the people who support him. The member from Homestead Representative Quam. >> As thank you, Mr. Speaker and I I understood what you said. I can read lips. >> The >> author of the Amendment would with a yield for a question or >> representative agreement will yield Representative Quam. One of the things that I've noticed, especially in the president's campaigns as you'll have a very famous performers at rallies and it's come out that some of them and been paid up 10's or hundreds of thousands of dollars, you know, large sums to participate in these events in these rallies. There is quite common to have people sign up and register and also circulate petitions. I can imagine the ticket price for some of these people being above $20. So if they're at an event performing and you get free admission to the event and they've got petitions and things assign and register people, how does this if this becomes law, how does your language affect that type of activity? >> Representative agreement, thank you, Mr. Speaker and thank you, representative com. I've actually spent a lot of time thinking about that and especially since our conversation, there's nothing in this that prevents voter registration from being everywhere. The question is whether you're offering something in order to induce voter registration and this has been the rule for a while. So Ben and Jerry's, if you on Election Day, you can go get a free ice cream. They're not inducing you to vote after you voted. You can walk in and get a free ice cream in this case. If you have a concert, you know what whoever your concert is and you're offering the opportunity to register to vote and folks can still go to the concert, then you shouldn't have a problem under current law and you won't have a problem and are the bill as it expands that to lotteries either. >> Representative Quam, thank you, Mister Speaker. What the author yield to another question. She will yield Representative Quam Kate. And with that, I should have had it specifically about the signing of petitions, which is a common practice at events. So if there's an event that is 3 and part of that activity, there are petitions going around being signed. That is over $20. Is you consider that as being illegal if your language passes. >> Representative agreement, thank you, Mr. Speaker like the bribery bill that is currently on law. What it says is to in order to induce. So if you are circulating a petition. >> Now, if the petitions being circulated outside of that, that that voting first day of absentee balloting voting, this law doesn't apply. So the law doesn't even start until you're actually in that voting period. If the petition that is being circulated is not materially related to the election also doesn't apply. But if the petitioner circulating at this free event that is related to the election that is in that period is circulating and you're not and you can go and you can sign it or not going to sign it. You're not inducing them. And so this lot like the bribery statute that's currently on the books would not apply. Representative Quam. >> Thank you. So all there are occasions documented and in fact, one of the presidential candidates used up like a billion dollars and there were huge, you know, 6 figure amounts of money or more going to very prominent people who participated in activities. And as part of that activity, there were planned petitions been, you know, drives at some of those events. Not all I don't see is to wear should be legal now and even said that it would be no legal. Now there's no difference. You know, frankly, I wish you know, if your intent is to prevent expensive in Tice months to do things related to elections, your bill is lacking in some clarity which would let things lie. Plus, representative Niska brought up that it could easily be interpreted as allowing for the legalization of an activity that is currently illegal. And, you know, with that broad discretion we've seen in the courts for interpreting legislative intent. I don't think I would be surprised one bit, but I'll say thank you for answering the questions. I'll sit back and maybe grab some popcorn. >> Further discussion. The member from Morrison, Representative Kresha, thank you members. >> And appreciate the amendment. I just think it's it's interesting that that would bring a little clarification as we like to throughout the billionaire terms. And I mean, what have the billionaire's actually done for us? I mean, I know Carnegie Forward Rockefeller pretty much built us through the Midwest and the rural areas and brought real unification of electricity. And I think that was a pretty good deal. Mackenzie, Scott, I know she just threw a 19 billion dollars to 2000 nonprofits. That's probably not so bad. So, you know, I I just think it it's funny how we're going to get down on the people who have decided to pull things up and try to build things. And I mean, I don't gates and jobs when he got everyone got a phone your night that that was kind of a terrible thing. I mean, you know, the Internet, gosh, I know if I use that very often. So I'll let just but just have that day about billionaires for a while. That's kind of fun. >> Further discussion, the member from Hennepin Reprot Representative Kotyza-witthuhn. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. >> Just because people do good things doesn't mean they can't do bad things. So I think we should stop them from doing bad things. And since we can make laws, let's make laws preventing people from doing bad things. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. >> Further discussion on the 18 Amendment. Representative Hansen J. >> Thank you. Chair will represent cream in the of for a question. Representative agreement Will Yield Representative Hansen. >> Thank you. I represent cream and I was just curious why we're on this topic of, you know, who can or can't or what your amendment will or won't do. We just confirmed for me about something I care a lot about. Is this going to prohibit convicted child sex traffickers from donating their profits from selling children from donating to Minnesota Republicans, the Republican Party of Minnesota or any other political campaign pack or party. Just curious. Thank you. >> Representative Agreement. Thank you, Madam. Mr. Speaker and Representative Hinson. >> Like everybody else, what this bill will do >> is prevents you from using the resources that you have gotten leak legally or ill begotten resources from bribing inducing or buying voters either directly or through an election, a lottery. And I think that that makes a good point of the kind of people we don't want driving voters, but frankly, even the best billionaires, I don't want driving voters through a lottery. So this seems like a simple a vote, a vote. Yes. Representative Hansen. >> Thank you. And thank you for that answer. I don't know what I heard over there. Say be careful but feel free to talk to me afterwards. I'd love to know what I'm being careful of when I talk about such things. Thank you. Speak. >> Further discussion. The member from Douglas Representative Franson. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker for indulging me. We were talking about billionaires, people and the rise, the billionaires and how many billionaires we have in this country and that it is disgusting. Let's hearken back a few years when Governor Walz shut down this state and closed all. >> All the small businesses and allowed cool to prosper. >> And that's just speaker, I say business that created law and order. >> Thank you, Mister Speaker. I fail to see where this has to do with the amendment and I refer to a point of order under 101. >> I'm just going to remind members combined the debate to the issue at hand, which is the 18 Amendment Representative Franson. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker and as a leader, Longwood know I eventually circle back. You just gotta you just got to go on a little journey with me, OK, you're shaking your head. But you know, I'm right, you I will get there. You just got to be a little patient queso. >> I gave many, many, many speeches. >> On this floor during the shutdown, we were trying to undo the emergency orders so that small businesses could once again thrive in our state. And I raised concerns about the rise of big business and big billionaires. They are the ones getting rich off the backs of us while their businesses were shuttered and they were unable to have a living and their businesses closed, right. Target soared. Amazon Sword. Meanwhile, Jim, in Joe's little small towns, shop on Main Street was shuttered. That's on you. That's on you. Let's go to Mark Zuckerberg. He is worth about 202 billion dollars in. You know, Mark Zuckerberg does. He has given money to Minnesota for our own elections. Your party has taken a mark Zuckerberg's billions of dollars and helped with the election infrastructure here in Minnesota. So perhaps you should just do a little digging into yourself about your love or hate of billionaires. And let's focus on the issues at hand any further discussion. >> Representative Green and the author of the Amendment. >> Thank you, Mister Speaker. And this has been a lively conversation. It was a lively conversation in in in committee. Just a few things. Representative Quam and we've been talking about this. But it sounds like if you don't think that my the bill goes far enough, you should vote for it and then we can strengthen. And I think you'll probably be on the conference committee and I appreciate the conversation about identifying where and where not. We would like the proper to stop the process of billionaire's of millionaires of companies from buying influence in our elections. I think that is a bigger conversation that I welcome the conversation and welcome you to drop some bills on this. Think I it's nice to see. But what I will say is up. I don't come from the party of defending billionaires and I hope you don't either. I know that there's lots of wealthy people who've done lots of good things, maybe. But what we're not talking about is their influence. We're talking about who decides our elections. We're talking about who influences voters and there's been a lot of language. A lot of >> conversation. Some very creative in reversing up is down. Don't look up skies following. Yeah, yeah, yeah. But what we're talking about here is a simple for vision. >> That says voters are not for sale. It is a simple provision that says no one can buy bribe or induced boaters in order to get them to registered, to vote or to vote in a certain way. And you can't do with a lottery and a novelty check what you already can't do under law directly. So this is not complicated. A vote against this is a vote to let what is happening in Pennsylvania. What happened in Wisconsin come here which is billionaires of whatever political class you want, spend their money to try to buy voters with confidence said they are not for sale. This amendment says Minnesota. It's also not for sale and we're going to stand up and protect our voters. Members vote yes. >> Roll call. Having been requested. The clerk will take the role on the amendment. Expecting it to be the clerk will call the names of those voting remotely job. Yeah, John Vause, I green so I had really green vault, I say who say involves I McDonald. I got to know McDonald votes. No, the clerk will close the role. They're being 66 eyes and 67 nays. The motion does not prevail. There are amendments at the desk. The clerk will report the Amendment. >> Davis moves to immense out a phone number 30. 45 the unofficial and girls one as amended. The amendment is called it a 10. >> I recognize Representative Davis to explain the a 10 Amendment. >> Thank you, Mister Speaker. I'm offering the a 10 Amendment as a responsible adjustment to the attorney general's budget and all I'll get more into that in a moment. But first I'm going to ask for a roll call. Vote Mr. Speaker Roll Call having been requested. Seeing 15 hands. There will be a roll call. Representative Davis, thank you, Mr. Speaker the a 10 drains in operational spending and one time spending. It also maintains though, the core functions by including the full expansion of the Medicaid fraud control unit. So we're not removing that. The attorney general's budget has grown dramatically over the last 4 years in 2020 fiscal year, 20 to 21. His budget was 46.3 million dollars in 20 to 23. 54.9 million dollars. 24, 25 96.9 million dollars. That is 109% increase in just over 4 years. Want to know what else is grown in extreme numbers over that time and the last few years fraught the attorneys and the Attorney General Staffing has increased in lockstep with that as well. In 2019, the attorney General's office had 323 full-time employees in 2024. 392 full-time employees and their projection for 2025 is that they will have 434 full-time employees. So just a few years ago, 3.23 bounce ahead. Just a few years, 434 full-time employees. That's an increase of 111 positions over 6 years. And I believe the attorney general still has roughly almost 20 per is issue an INS that he has yet to fulfill with money that's already been allocated for those positions. He hasn't filled them yet. And in this bill, we're going to give them more. Why would we do that? That's not responsible spending again, as these numbers have increased. So has the waste, fraud and abuse with Minnesotans hard earned taxpayer dollars. I highly recommend that we be fiscally responsible and vote yes on this amendment. I don't want us to continue the unprecedented growth of government. I would also want to encourage the attorney general to stop wasting our money on frivolous lawsuits, protecting men and girls locker rooms. That seems to be his policy these days. And we need to focus on filling the positions that out. He already has money allocated for. This is an easy yes, folks. This is an easy responsible vote. Thank you, members. >> Discussion to the 10 Amendment. The member from Hennepin Representative Klevorn. >> Thank you. And I I appreciate the passion for fraud prevention from my dear colleague and one of the best ways to prevent fraud is to prosecute and lock up criminals. I have stated over and over that fraud is a criminal enterprise. And we always want to make sure that we are prosecuting those who commit fraud and those who take public resources and use them in for their own personal gain. And I will support that all day long, which is why in 2023 when we were asked to fill the positions that were lacking in the attorney general's office, I was happy to do so. And many of those positions were, in fact, to help us fight the fraud that the attorney general had called to our attention. So I'm happy and I will stand by those investments that we made in 2024 all day long. The other thing that those investments did in 2024, allowed the attorney general's office to have the adequate staffing that they needed to be able to ensure that criminals all across our state. When the attorney general was asked for assistance that we had the staff necessary to prosecute the cases that our county attorneys all across our state, we're not capable of doing or did not have the expertise to do so that that cuts that you propose would be very damaging to our state in doing the very things that we would all like to see occur, criminals of being prosecuted. So members, I would ask for a no vote on this amendment. >> The representative from Rights, Representative Hudson. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker, thank you. Representative Davis for offering this amendment and addressing this important concern. Representative Klevorn, the problem with your premise is that the assumption is that the attorney general's office is actually doing that, that they're actually prosecuting crime. And of course, we know based upon recent release audio recordings that were the subject of the fraud Prevention and State Agency Oversight Committee hearing earlier this week with that in point of fact, the current attorney general has explicitly stated that he's doing the opposite of his job. And we know that because the presentation that was given in the fraud committee outlined what the attorney general's job is, and it is in large part to represent the state agencies as they do their job, managing grants and ensuring that the funds that we appropriate in order to provide services for Minnesotans are actually being utilized appropriately. And instead of focusing on that in this recording that was released in, we all listen to it. We've all heard the words that were said. The current attorney general stated that he was in a battle with state agencies. He said We're gonna go fight these people in reference to state agencies. These are his clients. If this was a private attorney in a meeting with antagonists against his client, he would be disbarred for this conduct. And yet this is how he was dealing with his clients, the state agencies in a conversation with people who would go on to be indicted. And some of the men convicted of some of the 250 million dollars worth of fraud through feeding our future. That is an unacceptable situation. I don't see why are taxpayers should be providing additional resources to an office that by its own leader by its own constitution like an officer, the statements on the record on tape are not doing the job that they were constituted to do. It really is quite egregious. And it's it's interesting in the follow-up, the response that we've gotten from the attorney general's office and the comments made in the press, the focus has been attempted to shift to. Well, you know, I meet with constituents all the time. This was a routine meeting. The issue is not the that taking a meeting with people. The issue is what was explicit explicitly said within the context of that need it. And again, he said I'm fighting. We're in a battle with the state agencies. We're fighting these people, these people being the folks who are directly responsible for providing oversight of grant recipients who were supposed to be feeding kids, but instead were buying luxury cars, luxury homes and going on vacations. If that's the culture of that office, I don't know why we should be funding and more than we currently are. Thank you, Mr. Speaker the representative from Hennepin Representative Green Men. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker and I actually intended to ask and we'll ask Representative Davis to yield for a question. But before I do as another member of the the front prevention committee that spend a lot of time airing the reports of Alpha News and the center of the American experiment and not as much time actually listening to the people who are fighting the fraud in our Medicaid control from prevention unit or the prosecutors or the investigators. What I will say is the way you categorize what we heard we heard was miles apart from what actually we heard. We didn't hear anybody in the AGs office say that in any way. >> They were told to do anything differently than what we have heard for 3 years, which is they were cooperating with the investigation. That was a month before a search warrant or a and and I think almost half a year before indictments were made. But more importantly, what we heard on the tape that I think you actually played was the diagram of the way that fraudsters work in every area. We see it and we just spent time talking with the veterans claims check, bill. But it is the same thing because what we see is people build a business model and then they go after the folks who are investigating the go after the folks who are enforcing the law, sometimes of carrots, right? They come, they say will giving campaign contributions. What we heard in that video that I think that you played was that he said this isn't the attorney general said this isn't about campaign contributions and rejected that on tape. And that's reflected in the news reports. But more importantly, what we saw was fraudsters who said we'll give you things if you just come with us and then we see fraudsters who threaten and stay will call you out. We'll call you up for not supporting our community will call you out for being racist or xenophobic or anti you fill in the blanks of the community we're talking about. That was actually a really important piece of conversation we had on Monday, but not because it said that our agencies weren't doing anything wrong. I think what it said was they're doing everything right. But we did start to talk about the fraud that we're trying to prevent just on that transitioning to what the attorney general's office does to and what this a provision would would take resources from. I'm asking of Representative Davis would yield for a question. He will Yield Representative agreement. Thank you, Mr. Speaker Representative Davis. So what the attorney general we heard that of talk about, they're criminal prosecution in their original their section as it relates to Medicaid. But they also do things like protect consumers from fraud. They do it on a consumer protection. The lawyers were can come to my protection. They have war lawyers working on wage theft. They have looked white and lawyers who are working on anti-trust to protect free and fair trade for small businesses. They have lawyers working on its exploitive medical debt. I'm wondering with the money that you are taking out of their budget, which of those provisions, which of those duties of the attorney general's office, do you want them to caught and do less of? >> The member from Crowing Representative Davis, thank you, Mr. Speaker, I'm not cutting anything from the budget. He already has a budget. We're not cutting here. And I would like to correct that thinking right now the attorney general came in asking for 15 million dollars into our committee, which I am the one who brought up the Medicaid fraud unit in that committee. Not him. I was I've been advocating for that for a long time. He came in asking for 15 million dollars above his budget. And like I just said, when he doesn't even have close to filling positions for money that he already has allocated, that doesn't make any sense. Thank God. Sharon Ash negotiated that down to 3 million dollars areas. Kudos to you for doing that. But this is not a cut to the attorney general's budget. Again, I'm going to give you the numbers. 20 fiscal year, 2020 to 2021. 46.3 million dollar budget. 22 23. 54.9 million dollar budget. 24 25 96 and I misspoke earlier. I said 96.9 correction. 96.6. So a little bit lower, but not much. 96.6 million dollar budget. Again, 109% increase all the while. He's got the fraudsters making donations to him in his office. This is no cut to his budget. Thank you, Mr. Speaker Representative Agreement. >> Thank you. Thank you for clarifying that. We're talking about as a reallocation away from the lawyers who fight to protect our consumers who are getting ripped off by fraudsters. You are shifting money away from the workers who have been deprived of overtime of minimum wage. You are shifting money away from small businesses were getting killed by these big businesses and you are shifting money away from those the rest of the support that they provide in criminal prosecution. Now, the last thing I will say because I think on this floor when we hear untruths, we should say it everything that Alpha News and Center, the American experiment published is not always true. And if you listen to the video and you listen to the report that we have spent. >> Now we're in 45 minutes of our time. Dissecting I'd say when we could have been talking about the work, the Medicaid fraud control unit and haven't, hopefully we're going to get there soon. But when we do that, what you hear is that there the all of the insinuations you making our faults. And so what I would like to do is focus on the facts, which is what you want to do is take lawyers who prosecuted and and pursue settlements for consumers, for workers, for small businesses. You want to shift that away. Caught a car called a shift. Take resources away from that. I think that's wrong. I'm gonna stand up for consumers. Going to stand up for for our workers are going to get an a for small businesses and I am glad I have a chair who will do the same members vote against this amendment. >> The member from Ramsey Representative Mueller. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I decided to speak on this because I actually worked at the attorney general's office for 13 years. I was a prosecutor in that office and had the opportunity to handle felony appeals in greater Minnesota, mostly from those in this body. On the other side of the aisle I handled appeals on behalf of your counties like the Attorney general's office does now county attorneys request assistance on the number of cases including felony level appeals because many of those offices are very small and can't handle that work. They continue to do great work at the attorney general's office in that appellate division. They also do have prosecutors that going at the request of many of your county attorneys to help prosecute really complex complicated crimes again in these offices that are very small. And I just did a quick little skim through and noticed a number of press releases about those convictions for mostly for murder cases. Those are the kinds of cases they take from Benton County, Freeborn County, a Santee County. I will also say that they do civil commitments of sexually dangerous persons. For many of your county's. I have the opportunity to do some of that work. They also do driver's life license revocations for those who have that issue as well all across the state. We voted earlier today on a bill related to DWI and and licenses that the attorney general's office is the one who is making sure that those folks are that the state is being adequately represented. So when you want to cut the budget to the attorney general's office, this is the kind of thing that you are going to cut. And I would like to request a roll call. Thank you. Roll Call has already been requested. The member from Anoka Representative Scott. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker and I think before I get started this my point, I questioning I just want to point out represent a Mueller again. This is not a cut to the attorney general's office. This is their base funding. How many agencies this year have only got base funding. Let's let's let's be accurate here. I'm wondering if representative next guy to lead in a school. A deal to a question. >> He will Yield. Representative Scott. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker represent this guy. You have house file 20. I know it's sitting on the table and, you know, part of the reluctance and part of the questioning of the efficacy of the attorney general's office in recent and months and years has been centered around a a court case called energy policy advocates and represented Niska has a bill that would would fix. What is that really a wild interpretation by the courts here and what the effect of the decision is. Representative Niska, can you kind of give us enlighten us a little bit on and the effect of that court ruling and why House fell 20 is so important when it comes to what the attorney general does and the sunlight they're in. Representative Niska. >> When you enter inquiry, Mr. Speaker Representative Long State your point a parliamentary inquiry. Are we debating house about 20 or a tent? >> As we speak or advice? >> We are on the Amendment for Amendment 10 offered by Representative Davis and Representative just you have the floor. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker and thank you, Representative Scott for that question, which is really does bear quite a bit on the conversation that had been previously had in particular. You know, I heard I think Representative Green men refer to an audio tape, which I think everyone acknowledges the efficacy of as if it was created by often use or something like that simply because Alpha News was the only one that reported on it. And that the on troubling things that we learned on that audio tape and the attorney General's office's response that I think really highlights the concerns that we should all have, as we think about whether to massively increase the budget of the attorney general's office, be on the base budget and or or whether we need to be concerned about the way that that offices operate in the leadership in that office. And in particular, we've heard a lot of representations, a lot of claims about what happened after that audio tape. What happened before that audio tape? But what has happened as a result and what we saw on the fraud committee was, in fact, obstruction of any transparency into what is actually happening in the attorney general's office. So we've heard in news reports that they're the attorney general's office is pulling all-nighters to work on Trump executive orders in order to, I guess further, the National Network of Democratic attorneys general, that the leader of the attorney general's office is part of what we haven't seen. What we haven't been able to learn is what actually happened, what actually happens in the feeding our future investigation. What actually happens in these investigations. Every single other prosecutors office in the entire state has to release closed investigative data. So and investigations criminal or civil happen. And then they close. Every other prosecutors office in the state has released that that information, the attorney general's office, which is here asking for not just their base budget, not just the Medicare fraud, Medicaid fraud unit, which we all agree is a priority, not just the money that has been given to them in re in recent on budget cycles to rebuild the criminal division, which like Representative Mueller said does very important work, but now is looking for even more money, presumably to continue to sue the federal government to further the attorney general's and political ambitions. >> We need. >> To be able to hold that office. The same standard that every other law office, every other prosecutors office as h*** too, so that the people of Minnesota can see what's going on can see what, how, how and why this should hold that office democratically accountable. And so they can inform us about what level we should be funding the office. I thank you, Mr. Speaker Representative Scott. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker and thank you leader Nescafe for that explanation members because of this lawsuit, the attorney general can hide not it close investigative data. We will never know in many cases whether he's been investigating anything or not, because because according to statute, according to this lawsuit, he can hide and you laugh. But that read the legal opinions, read the legal opinion from the courts. He he will be able to hide this close investigative data and we will never know the public can ever now. So maybe that may be that is why the Republicans have a little bit of angst about putting future funding more funding to this attorney general because there's a lack of transparency. >> The member from Hennepin Representative Klevorn. >> Thank you. I see that another member on our side of the aisle has asked to be recognized. I would prefer to go last on our side. Thank you. >> Very well. The representative from St. Louis Representatives lets the car. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. I rise to remind the members that the co chairs for Health and Human Services looking at significant cuts to nursing homes in the state of Minnesota, multi-million dollar cuts. And so when we're looking at growing government to this degree at that state attorney general's office to the level of increased f tease that we've seen in just 2 years, I think it's a reasonable amendment to be offered. We understand we have to fund core services for protection and all the things that have been outlined. But we also have a responsibility to our Minnesota seniors a time in their life when they're vulnerable. And if the nursing homes are not funded and they have 3 digit in the millions of cuts, which is what's going to happen because decisions are being made to grow government at a record pace. We already grew government right down here where we are or 40% in 2023. taking from our communities back home. I don't see anybody paying attention, but you're going to see closures in your communities. Seniors will be traveling 3 to 4 hours from greater Minnesota to find a location and in the cities that have big hospitals, that's where the people are choosing to work that choosing to work in the nursing home. So there's not going to be staffing and there's not going to be beds available because you can't take a patient or a resident if you don't have staff to provide the care. So I urge you to think about where we're allocating and prioritizing to the degrees. We are because the reality is we are taking a significant hit at the people that built the state of Minnesota at a time when they're at the most vulnerable times of their life. Some members I urge you to vote Green on this amendment. >> The number from Hennepin Representative Craft. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker couple things. One is it was mentioned a moment ago that how would we know what the attorney general would be doing? Let's see lawsuit filings, various filings that are all public. It's very easy to know what is going on with the attorney general. And also this. This lawsuit was mentioned over and over again, energy policy advocates. So I want to peel that onion back a little bit right. Energy policy advocates is a front group for the fossil fuel industry and what the their long arm is reaching out into Minnesota. That lawsuit was initiated to disadvantage our attorney general in another lawsuit that started in 2020 where he's trying to hold these people. Exxonmobil Koch industries and the American Petroleum Institute accountable for systematically over several several decades deceiving Minnesotans about the true cost of climate change when they knew. So we have transparency in this. When I hear this lawsuit over and over again, just remember this energy policy advocates lawsuit. It is initiated to disadvantage the attorney general against the fossil fuel industry that has been really imposing huge costs on this state. >> The member, the member from Ramsey Representative Cure. >> Thank you, Speaker. >> I rise first to encourage a no vote on this amendment. I find it really interesting that we're talking about where taxpayer dollars are going, who those dollars are defending what purpose that is serving. And I wonder if Representative Niska might yield to a question. >> He will yield to Representative Karen. >> Thank you. Speaker Representative Niska at the beginning of the session when the Republican Party broke the Constitution and led a coup on this institution. How much money, how much money did you try to get taxpayers to pay to your law firm that you work for Representative Niska? >> I think you Mr. Speaker and thank you, Representative Curran, $0. Representative Kieran. >> I find that interesting at the time Representative Nestico when you were the sole chair of the rules committee, there was a unanimous approval on a resolution to hire attorneys and at the very place where you work on the taxpayers dime. So again, I ask, do you have an approximate number of how much you and your party were willing to spend on the legislative coup when you unconstitutionally took over this institution? >> Point of order, Mister Speaker. What order of business are we on? >> I will. I will yield Mister Speaker. I will yield. >> We are on discussion of the 10 Amendment. The member from right, Representative Hudson. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker wasn't expecting that, OK? So I just want to point out a little bit. So have the 4 speaker. >> I think I think she actually that's representative here. And you did not ask any member to yield to Representative Hudson has the floor. >> And I but I do have before and I'm seeing at this year's tournament among the parties are set for that. I thank you, Mr. Speaker, I will yield to representative current continues big. >> All right, Representative Karen, thank you. Representative Hudson for choosing to abide by rules today that we all agreed on all in their speaker. The member from right, Representative Hudson, thank you, Mr. Speaker, I was expecting more. So there's a little bit of sleight of hand going on here. So representative Craft, when you talk about that lawsuit and if you defer to try to draw attention to the subject matter of the lawsuit, what you're distracting us all from is the actual route concern represented an H f 20. >> Which is why has it that the Attorney General's Office, an official state office is accepting help from an outside organization, a nonprofit bringing their lawyers into an official office in order to prosecute that nonprofits. Pet Project doesn't matter what the pet project is. You can love the pet project. It could be the favorite. Your favorite thing in the world. Your top issue, the question is whether it's appropriate for there to be outside influence on the state of Minnesota's Attorney General Office regarding their priorities and how they spend their time. That's something that is certainly a value to the voters of this state and what we're trying to accomplish, which age of 20 is holding the attorney general's office up to the standard that has upheld by literally every other state agency. You know, it's hilarious when we had this debate on the judicial committee that there was this pretense that all we couldn't pot, that attorney general's office couldn't possibly distinguish between data on individuals and data, not on individuals, how the h*** they do it for 40 years before this lawsuit came around. How does every other state agency do it today? Right now this moment, these are the sorts of things that really deplete public trust in state government. The people are not as stupid as you think they are. They see this stuff and they know there's something smelly about another slight of hand in the ad hominem argument of all this story came from Alpha News. It came from the American experiment. Therefore you can't trust it. Any high schooler who is taking basic logic can identify that fallacy is an ad hominem. What they reported was the content of an audio recording. That was an exhibit in a court trial that was introduced, by the way, by the defendant, Amy Bach. Okay. So if you're going to undermine the credibility of the source of the information, you know, put out the news, you don't go to some of the American experiment. You go to Amy Bach because she's the one who put it in there. I do. That's inconvenient. Truth often is you notice how when when my colleague Representative Davis in his exuberance got up to do what you guys always do, raised a point of order to stop you from saying something that the other side doesn't like. We called them down. We went along with it. You know why? Because we're not afraid about the truth. That question the representative Kern asked was given an honest answer and there's no other question you could ask that would embarrass our leader because it's the truth. We're not afraid of what's real. I think that's a pretty good metric of who's hiding what how many times we get interrupted and told we can't say nothing. The source, the content of this audio recording is clear. We have all heard it. Attorney General Keith Ellison sense that our Governor Tim Walz agrees with him that our state agencies should not be refusing to offer grant payments to recipients based upon Italy in significant issues. The people that he's talking to went on to be indicted in the feeding our future scandal. He said on take very clearly I'm in a battle with the state agencies, a battle with the people who are tasked withholding grant recipients responsible. These facts are irrefutable. They are in controversial and there's not a slight of hand that's going to keep the people from the state from seeing that. And let me leave you with this caution because I know your political instincts are and I get the best favor I could do for you right now is to let you keep talking. But let me caution you. You are not going to want to look back on this moment to yourself defending this attorney general. There are things coming down the pike that are going to be extraordinarily embarrassing for anybody who's standing next to this guy. Keep that in mind. >> The member from Anoka Representative Nest got. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker and I feel it's important to add one additional piece of information to Representative Kerns earlier point, which I think was supposed to be a question but information that representative current or any Democrat would have known if they had showed up for work for the first 23 days. If they had shown up for the rules Committee hearing that was referenced, what any Democrat would know? >> Is that no, I the Republicans did not hire my law firm or and or any I arrangement that would benefit me personally. The House tried to hire 3 individuals outside of the law firm individually at incredible discounts that amounted to less than $5,000. Total to defend us against the lawsuit brought by Democrats, including the attorney general less than $5,000. And just in case anyone is keeping track, that is less than half the amount that a prior rules committee appropriated to the attorneys for a Democrat representative for her personal attorneys to defend or to to represent her in her personal lawsuit. That is the truth. And that is the truth that each one of you would know and should know if you just shown up for work. >> As a reminder to the body, we are on discussion of the 10 Amendment. The member from Hennepin Representative Klevorn. >> Thank you very much. And to the amendment itself. I would just like to one say that the 3 million dollars that are in the budget, I really to continue the services and to make sure that the representation of the state's law firm prosecuted and prosecutors are available to serve. Everybody in our state are critical dollars. I just want to level set just a minute in 1998, which is a considerable amount of time ago. The AGS office, it was funded at 510 employees, which is 118 less than we have today. So I just want to say that we are still down. 31 1% of total employees and we are down 42% of attorneys. And so when we're talking about defeating criminals, which is what the AGs office does, the is really important that they have the tools necessary some members on our side. I would ask you to please vote no on that Davis Amendment. Thank you. >> Further discussion, the member from Crowing Representative Davis, thank you members for that wonderful debate. It has definitely been robust. Again, I'll just bring up that the attorney general's budget is almost 100 million dollars and my amendment actually gives him another $391,000 per year. So don't buy this. I want I want to be respectful. Don't buy this narrative that I'm trying to cut money from the attorney general's budget here. I'm actually trying to get him giving him in this amendment $391,000 so that his office can continue to go after Medicaid fraud because we have a lot of Medicaid fraud going on and we have a lot of fraud going on in our state and I'm not doing this amendment to go after the bad are the good things that the attorney attorney's general office is doing again. He's got 100 million dollars to do that. And maybe you could encourage him to fill those open positions, that he has a lot of them to continue doing that. But there's a lot of bad things going on and that office as well. And I'm going to be a voice. I'm going to stand up for the hardworking taxpayer that is sick and tired of seeing what's going on in our state. This amendment addresses just a little bit of that. Vogue remembers seeing no further discussion. The clerk will take the role on the a 10 Amendment. The clerk will call the roll of the members voting remotely shot shop. Kohl's know all green green vaults know who say in time they know the same faults. Noel McDonald McDonald vaults. I the clerk will close the role. They're being 67 eyes and 67 nays. The motion does not prevail. The amendment is not adopted. There are no further amendments at the desk. The clerk will give the bill as of that as amended the clerk. Will that give the bill its 3rd reading on 3rd reading Sandoval number 30, 45 as amended. I recognize the member from let's seek a representative Sexton. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. >> Members and I also want to thank chair and asked her klevorn for the opportunity to be the only fresh from the Republican side, but also for ensuring that some critical programs were funded through our historical societies and their fist career status. R Minnesota Air National Guard Museum are Hockey Hall of Fame in our Minnesota Military Museum as well as Farm America for Americans to be in my district. It's a wonderful place. 2000 plus elementary school children are in the process of visiting that facility this month and next month before school ends in approximately 16,000. Visitors come there every year to enjoy a farm experience. Many of us recall growing up with a farm experience, but that isn't as common anymore. So I appreciate the opportunity to see this continue to be funded, get a little bit more funding so we can keep this open and keep it going. It's primarily supported by volunteers, local community volunteers, but they give how small staff the keeps of doors open year-round and this will continue funding for that. Thank you very much chairs. I recognize the member from Anoka Representative Norris. >> Thank you, Mister Speaker. I rise to talk about some of the Medicaid fraud provisions contained in this Bill. Minnesotans are a generous people in when our neighbors and our communities are struggling. We believe in offering them a helping hand. That's why it's disappointing. It's frustrating and downright unacceptable when that generosity is taken advantage of. That's why this bill rightfully cracks down on Medicaid fraud. Now we talk a lot about grant in this body, which is important, but grants are only a fraction of our state funding. For example, the Department of Human Services, which is our largest state agency, only about 3% of the funds that go out the door in the form of grants. Medicaid accounts for 89% to the bipartisan provisions in this bill that I authored boost our ability to investigate and prosecute Medicaid fraud by first adding additional staff to the a G's Medicaid fraud control unit to match the growth that we've seen in Medicaid. Second, it updates the subpoena power that the attorney general's office has to match the subpoena power in these cases that county attorneys offices have. And 3rd, it brings the penalties for Medicaid fraud in line with other theft penalties. These provisions also make economic sense for our state. There's a 3 to one federal mask on the dollars that will be spending to increase staffing in the Medicaid fraud control unit. And this unit with a budget of roughly about 5 million dollars per year has won over 53 million dollars in civil penalties in criminal restitution over the last 5 years alone. I appreciate the bipartisan support for these provisions and I urge a green vote on the bill. Thank you. >> I recognize the member from St. Louis representatives less in the car. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker members, thank you to the co-chairs of this committee and for making sure that the aging the healthy aging sub Cabinet is part of this bill for funding. I spent significant time with Representative Klevorn and the aging task force and we are at the situation of now caring for the baby boomers in a large section of the Minnesota population. And I think it's very important to see the sub cabinet part of this. And I'm also thankful to see the Fried Committee and the action here into the attorney general's Office for medical assistance fraud. We need to make sure that the money's going in the best interest of our community and the best interest of taxpayer responsibility and accountability. So thank you for your work. Both chairs and members of the committee. >> Recognize the member from Goodhue Representative Altendorf. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker members, I'm going to speak on the election side of things and want to think a chair freiberg ensure kromm for the elections committee of being a vice chair. It was very encouraging to see that we came up with a technical bill that really is fixing. Something's. It's our job as state legislators to make things crystal clear so that we the law is interpreted correctly. I heard chair Freiberg say earlier that the goals are to have safe, secure and free elections and I could not agree more. We have more work to do at the beginning of the session. We had many people, the Republicans, we had many meetings with people who really are boots on the ground who are their their election judges, election workers. And we talked to the counties and they are asking for technical fixes to our Alexa minds. And so this was a great start. I do think we have a lot of work to do going into the future into the conference committee, but also in 2020 secs, we not only need to have safe secure and free elections as chair Freiberg said, but we also need to make sure that these are completely transparent. We need to make sure that people are not questing our elections this last year. We had a lot of lawsuits here in Minnesota for that reason. And I am committed to working on that and I know chair Freiberg and chair choir MS as well. But unfortunately on this bill, I will be an all and the reason why I am a no vote on this bill is because of not accepting the amendment that Representative Davis offered today in my district. I hear from entities like our schools. They are cutting. They are looking at cutting. I hear from EMT's. I hear from our nursing home disability homes, all of these places which you could say our beer essential needs within our districts hurting and the priority to give money to the Attorney General Office when these other very critical entities are hurting is not acceptable. And that's why I will be a no vote today. >> Recognize the member from Dakota Representative Dreier. >> Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to thank Chair Klevorn and chair Nash of 4 including the Minnesota Business filing Fraud Prevention Act in the state government bill and for your collaboration and getting it to its final form. And thanks to the secretary of State Simon and his team for bringing for this important issue. This bill addresses a known problem, business identity fraud. This happens when bad actors hijacked a legitimate business or create fake once in someone else's name. Victims don't often realize what happened until they are facing bills. Legal trouble. Your tax liabilities for business never owned or actions. Their actual business did not take when this happens. Many call the Secretary of state's Office for help. The problem is the office lacks the statutory ability to help the on dating law enforcement to investigate. This bill creates a process that makes it easier to correct the record and unwind the damage, ensuring that the victims can reclaim their businesses and identities without long delays or costly legal it representation. In addition, the bill shuts down deceptive solicitations that entice business owners to pay for a service they could easily do for free or the lower cost on the office's web, say protecting business owners and individuals from fried strengthens trust in the system and keeps Minnesota's business community strong. Please vote green for this bill. Recognize the member from Crowing Representative Davis. >> Thank you, Mr. Chair. I too would like to speak to both the elections and the state Gov. Bill, I want to think the chairs and co-chairs of the elections committee all start with. >> Chair Fright Hog. Thank you so much. That's an inside joke. A chair Freiberg. I just want to say chair Freiberg. You're very easy to get along with. Thank you for that. And there I would just recall a time in committee where we were actually both out of order going back and forth at each other. And we immediately after the committee talked about it and everything was very cool. So thank you for that. Thank you, chair com for your leadership. Again, thank you. To the vice chairs to the members to the staff who work so very hard partisan staff and non-partisan staff. We could not do this job without you. Kudos to you. You really do make us look like we know what we're talking about. And I'm I'm very appreciative of that in this bill. We are rolling back the absentee ballot drop-off deadline from 08:00PM to 05:00PM. And, you know, I I advocated for 03:00PM and I got 05:00PM. I'm very grateful for that because we did and probably unintended. We put a huge burden on our counties in the last biennium and this will help our counties. There's some other things that we're fixing to to help other counties that I know they're going to be very grateful for. And so I would like us to continue to protect it from their perspective. Let's see. We're funding the office of Legislative Auditor on the state. Gov side of the bill giving them for new auditors. I'm very excited for that, too. And you might ask way that you just talked about how you don't like to grow government. Well, there is one area that I like to grow government and that's when it comes to efficiency and accountability. And the office of Legislative Auditor does an amazing job with that. And so I am very grateful of for that. I don't like growing government, though, folks. I came here to do the opposite. I promised my constituents at the door that that's what I'd be advocating for. And that's what's in my heart. And I heard from a good legislator on the other side of the aisle the other day. Vote your conscience, state Gov. Il Elections bill together last Biennium was 410 million dollar increase. Later, someone on the committee actually came up and show me some paperwork that showed no was actually a 1.2 billion dollar increase. I don't I'm not I I'm sorry. I didn't get to digging in and finding out which one was accurate. But we keep growing government. And I got to ask the question, when will it stop? And here we're growing government again. So I can't support it. Thank you. Chair Klevorn. You've been tough and mean committee and it's made me a better legislator. Thank you, chair Nash. I've never seen someone run such a tight ship in committee as yourself and I am learning and and just I won't take up too much more time here. But there was one point in committee where Chair Nash game of the gavel and the sitting at the desk and I was confused about when we were to get to the amendment. And so I just stopped and I looked at chair national said, chair Nash, what do I do? And he was gracious enough to work with me. And you've been very patient with me. So I thank you for that. And you've been a great mentor to me. So with that members, that's where I stand on this Bill. Thank you. >> Recognize the member from Hennepin Representative Freiberg. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, it's a good Bill vote. Yes, price tag out. I recognize the member from Olmstead Representative Quam. >> Well, I must commend my co-chair for the briefest comments. I think I've had give. I am very pleased that we have a bipartisan election Bill. I am pleased that we had a active debate. We had a very civil and we did a lot of hard work. We did not include many things that both sides people were very passionate for. But we did include items that addressed some of the concerns that have popped up in the last several elections and some of the legal issues that have been in the courts for several elections. This bill, the election portion, we'll help election integrity, help improve the confidence we have in elections decrease the amount of court time the local governments have because they confuse and don't quite follow all election law. Its the people that need to see that we on this election bill came together work together for a bipartisan bill that can give you more confidence in our elections. I also serve on the state Gov Finance Policy Committee. And there isn't a lot of energetic debate there as well. This bill has components for both sides. Some of it very hard fought for, but they did come together to support things that needed to be done. No one is absolutely happy, but it is far superior to the other chamber. So I will be voting for this bill because of the choices that we have. The house, bipartisan activity by the chairs and the committees is what we need to strongly support into conference committee to show don't we can work for the people and do it bipartisan Lee. >> Thank you. Recognize the member from Carver, Representative Nash. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. >> Well, I'll take us back to the beginning of this. If you remember, I said that this would not be the bill that I wrote on my own and chair Cleaver and wouldn't have written us the way it is written. If it was left to her. I'll share a couple of things. Chair Klevorn was not excited to take house file 3 and the provisions that were in it and I wasn't excited. Take a lot of the things that she brought my way and we had we never really had an animated discussion. We had frank discussions. We never stormed out. We never had to have the bill taking away and go to leadership. We we work through the bill. And again, I I'm not thrilled by and much of you would say I would love to cut government below base idea to and chair torkelson's gone so I can mock him in his absence when you run and you know that you're likely to be a chair and you want to do what what most of us want to do, which is cut government, think all going to great going to cut government. Well, we're tied for the first time again and since 1978, the chief clerk in a quick look of affirmation, 9.79, thank you. That's unusual, unprecedented. And I will say that we've done this better than they did. I'm gonna get a nod from him again. We did it way better than they did. I get it with. >> We want to we want to reduce. We want to cut to the bone. Want to come through the bone. >> That would be the preference from me if I had the ability to draft a bill from a blank pad of paper. But we did get a lot of very good things in here and it is a bipartisan bill. And as much as you want to to tell the things that you did, you also have to own the things that you didn't get as well and recognize that we are in a tide legislature. You've seen a lot of amendments get turned on the board and they die in a tie. >> That's how this works. You know, chair David's so often will like to give a song title to his bills. He's not even listening, which is sad. All start again, Chair David's oftentimes there is likes to give song titles to his bill and I was talking with Chair Klevorn and I think that maybe the Rolling Stones, you can't always get what you want is not a bad tile to this bill because if you try sometimes you just might find that you get what you need. Both sides are getting a little something in this bill. And I know that you probably got people on your side. You're klevorn that came and said you did what national go. She did what? And I've had the saint. But this is the bill we have. Once again, you give me a pad of paper and a crayon or a pen. All right. Something very different. But here's where we are. And I think that there is nothing here that people should realize that a tremendous amount of effort went into it. A tremendous amount of bipartisan effort went into it once again. I want to thank our staff, all state Gov staff. Both sides of the aisle are nonpartisan there in the back because they helped out take what we were putting forward in committee and they put it on paper and that's what you have before you members. I recognize that this is not what both sides want, but I'm voting Grant. Thank you. >> Any further discussion to the bill. I recognize the author of the bill, the member from Hennepin Representative Klevorn. >> Thank you. And I would like to just take this moment to thank Chair Nash. We did have some the best conversations. And, you know, it state a few days a little later than either one of us had intended. And again, I want to thank a non-partisan staff and our and our partisan staff and their pages. They make our committee work happen. And I just want to take this moment. But I too want to bring us back to where I started today. And that's the importance of this bill to the very work that you do in this chamber and the fact that it funds the things that are critical to keeping this chamber running. Our friend staff are non-partisan staff. We visor. These are people who come to work every day and work hard for the democracy and for our state. And so I think we owe it to them to make sure that we do the work that we're supposed to do and make sure that we ensure that state government works for the people. And that we also remember that we have a duty and an obligation to make sure that I represent that our constituents are represented in this chamber and they sent you here to do this. So I'm going to ask you for your green vote for this bill. I'm going to ask you to remember the importance of all of us being in this chamber and working in a bipartisan way to do the work of the people of Minnesota. Please vote Green. Thank you. >> Seeing no further discussion. The clerk will take the role members please vote. The chief clerk will call the names of the members voting remotely and jaw CHA votes. Aye green. >> Crain. Yes. >> Bree involves I the same sanfl I Hussein votes. Aye McDonald. Mcdowell votes. Aye. >> The clerk will close the role. >> They're being 113 yeas and 21 nays. The bill is passed as amended and its title agreed to"}]