>>> "YOUR LEGISLATORS" IS MADE POSSIBLE BY THE MINNESOTA CORN GROWERS ASSOCIATION FROM DEVELOPING BEST PRACTICES THAT HELP FARMERS BETTER PROTECT OUR NATURAL RESOURCES TO THE LATEST INNOVATIONS IN CORN BASED PLASTICS.

MINNESOTA CORN FARMERS ARE PROUD TO INVEST IN THIRD PARTY RESEARCH LEADING TO A MORE SUSTAINABLE FUTURE FOR OUR COMMUNITIES.

MINNESOTA FARMERS UNION, STANDING FOR AGRICULTURE, WORKING FOR FARMERS ON THE WEB AT MFU.ORG.

>> Barry: GOOD EVENING.

WELCOME TO THIS WEEK'S VERSION OF "YOUR LEGISLATORS".

WE ARE DELIGHTED YOU HAVE JOINED US FOR AN HOUR LONG CONVERSATION ABOUT THE ISSUES THAT ARE CONCERNING FOR THE ISSUES OF THE PEOPLE OF MINNESOTA.

THIS PROGRAM BELONGS TO YOU, AND WE INVITE YOU TO CALL IN WITH YOUR QUESTIONS TO WE CAN PASS THEM ALONG TO SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES.

SEND THOSE QUESTIONS VIA ELECTRONIC MEANS THAT WILL APPEAR ON THE BOTTOM OF YOUR SCREEN.

WE ARE GOING TO BEGIN THIS EVENING AS WE DO EACH WEAK BY INTRODUCING OUR DISTINGUISHED PANEL OF GUESTS, GIVING THEM AN OPPORTUNITY TO TELL YOU THE VIEWER A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THEMSELVES, THEIR BACKGROUND, COMMITTEES THEY SERVE ON AND MAYBE A LITTLE PREVIEW INTO THE ISSUES THAT WE WILL BE DISCUSSING THIS EVENING.

WE ARE GOING TO BEGIN WITH SENATOR NICK FRENTZ.

SENATOR FRENTZ REPRESENTS DISTRICT 18, NORTH MANKATO.

THOSE OF YOU WHO ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE PHOTO KNOW THAT SENATOR FRENTZ AND I HAVE A MANKATO CONNECTION.

I PRACTICED LAW IN HUTCHISON, GREW UP IN MANKATO ACTUALLY.

SENATOR FRENTZ COMES FROM A FAMILY OF LAWYERS THAT I'M ALSO FAMILIAR WITH.

SENATOR FRENTZ TELL YOUR VAWRS A LITTLE BIT ABOUT YOUR BACKGROUND, COMMITTEES YOU HAVE CERTAINED ON AND GIVE A LITTLE INTRODUCTION TO YOUR PARTICIPATION THIS EVENING.

>> THANKS VERY MUCH FOR HAVING ME, JUSTICE ANDERSON.

GREETINGS FROM ST. PAUL.

I'M NICK FRENTZ, REPRESENT DISTRICT 18 IN THE SENATE, ROUGHLY DESCRIBED AS THE MANKATO AREA, MANKATO NORTH, MANKATO ST. PETER, 18 RURAL TOWNSHIPS WITH ABOUT 2,000 FAMILY FARMS GIVE OR TAKE.

I'M IN THE SEVENTH YEAR IN THE SENATE AND I ENJOY THE WORK VERY MUCH EVEN THOUGH IT'S HARD TO BE AWAY FROM HOME.

ON THE OTHER SIDE OF MY LIFE, I'M A LAWYER, AS THE MODERATOR MENTIONED AND HAVE WORKED IN A FIRM OF ABOUT 15 LAWYERS FOR ABOUT THE LAST FIVE YEARS.

BEFORE THAT WE HAD OUR OWN FIRM.

HAPPILY MARRIED FOR 34 YEARS AND HAVE FOUR NOW GROWN KIDS.

GREETINGS TO SENATOR MATTHEWS AND REPRESENTATIVE SWEDZINSKI AND LOOKING FORWARD TO THE SHOW.

>> VERY GOOD.

WE ARE DELIGHTED YOU COULD JOIN US.

MOVING ON TO SENATOR MATTHEWS NOW.

WE HAVE TO DEPART FROM OUR NORMAL ROUTINE HERE BECAUSE I HAVE TO GIVE THE VIEWERS A LITTLE BACKGROUND.

ONE OF THE PROCEDURES THAT SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES HAVE TO DO AFTER AN ELECTION IS TO TAKE AN OATH OF OFFICE.

MEMBERS OF THE COURT, WHICH I'M A MEMBER OF THE MINNESOTA SUPREME COURT, BUT THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND I HAPPEN TO BE ASKED TO VOLUNTEER TO SWEAR IN MEMBERS OF THE SENATE AND MEMBERS OF THE HOUSE.

WE HAD THAT OPPORTUNITY.

WE ARE ABOUT TO SHOW YOU A PICTURE OF SENATOR MATTHEWS SWEARING IN CEREMONY, AND IT'S SIGNIFICANT BECAUSE WE HAD OTHER PARTICIPANTS IN THE PICTURE WHO ARE WELCOMING THE SENATOR TO THE SENATE.

CAN WE SEE THAT PICTURE, PLEASE?

THERE YOU GO.

THERE'S SENATOR MATTHEWS, YOUNGMAN, CHEWING ON MY ROLL.

WANT TO GO OVER THE PEOPLE WHO ARE IN THE PICTURE.

>> YES, THANK YOU, JUSTICE ANDERSON.

THAT IS MY FAMILY THAT JOINED ME ON INAUGURATION DAY.

MY WIFE ELSA, MY THREE-YEAR-OLD SON DANIEL AND THEN THE BABY WHO IS NOW 7-MONTH-OLD DAVID.

WE WERE DOING THE OATH OF OFFICE.

WE BOTH HAD OUR RIGHT HANDS RAISED DURING THAT TIME, AND WHEN THAT CONCLUDED WE LOOKED DOWN AND MY LITTLE GUY HAD SNAGGED THE ROLL AND HELPED HIM TO A MIDDAY SNACK.

WE HAD A WONDERFUL LAUGH ABOUT THAT.

>> Barry: THIS PICTURE, I BELIEVE, COMES COURTESY OF STAFF, MIGHT HAVE COME FROM BYRON BAKKS, AND WE HAVE INTRODUCED YOUR FAMILY, BUT HOW ABOUT YOU INTRODUCE YOURSELF AND THE COMMITTEES YOU SERVE ON, HOW LONG YOU HAVE BEEN IN THE LEGISLATURE, THINGS LIKE THAT.

>> YES.

THANK YOU.

I REPRESENT SENATE DISTRICT 27.

I LIVE IN PRINCETON, MINNESOTA, ABOUT AN HOUR NORTH OF THE MINNEAPOLIS ST. PAUL AREA.

DISTRICT 27 IS LARGELY SORBET COUNTY.

IT GOES FROM THE EDGE OF ST.

CLOUD AND GOES TO THE EAST ALL THE WAY TO ST. FRANCIS.

I COVER CLEAR LAKE BECKER, BIG LAKE, ZIMMERMAN, ST. FRANCIS AREAS IN THE LEGISLATURE.

ALSO IN MY SEVENTH YEAR I CAME IN AT THE SAME TIME WITH SENATOR FRENTZ, AND THIS YEAR I SERVE AS THE GOP LEAD ON THE ENERGY COMMITTEE, ALSO SERVE ON THE ELECTIONS COMMITTEE AND THE HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE.

SENATOR FRENTZ AND I HAVE HAD A GOOD WORKING RELATIONSHIP EVEN THOUGH WE ARE ON OTHER OPPOSITE SIDES OF ISSUES AT TIMES, AND BILLS WORKING THEIR WAY THROUGH THE PROCESS.

WE DO COMMUNICATE WELL TOGETHER.

AND WE CHALLENGE EACH OTHER WITH OUR THINKING AND WE BOTH COME WITH FACTS, AND WE SAY HERE IS OUR GOALS, AND HERE IS HOW WE LAY THEM OUT.

HERE IS OUR EVIDENCE SUPPORTING FACTS.

WE HAVE GOOD ROBUST RIGOROUS DEBATES, WHICH I HOPE THAT THE RELATIONSHIP WE HAVE WITH THAT CONTINUES TO GROW AND SPREAD.

I THINK THAT'S A HEALTHY FORM OF GOVERNMENT IN OUR CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC AND DEMOCRACY.

I THINK WE DO A GOOD JOB EVIDENCING THAT IN OUR OWN LITTLE COMMITTEE IN THE SENATE AND I'M GLAD TO BE WITH ALL OF YOU HERE TONIGHT.

>> Barry: WE ARE DELIGHTED TO HAVE YOU WITH US.

LAST BUT CERTAINLY NOT LEAST, FREQUENT GUEST ON OUR PROGRAM OVER THE YEARS, REPRESENTATIVE SWEDZINSKI FROM GHENT, DISTRICT 15A.

IF YOU WOULD DO LIKEWISE, INTRODUCE YOURSELVES, AND DID I GET THE PRONUNCIATION OF THE NAME CORRECT THIS TIME?

>> I THINK YOU DID ALL RIGHT.

I HEARD IT THE WRONG WAY SO OFTEN, I HAVE TO GO WITH THE FLOW.

REPRESENTATIVE CHRIS SWEDZINSKI.

THANKS AGAIN, JUSTICE ANDERSON FOR KIND OF LEADING THE CHARGE TONIGHT AND THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE SEASON OF "YOUR LEGISLATORS".

I REPRESENT HOUSE DISTRICT 15A DOWN IN SOUTHWEST MINNESOTA.

TWO COUNTIES THAT JOIN SOUTH DAKOTA.

I ALSO REPRESENT LYON COUNTY, A LITTLE BIT OF CHIPPEWA COUNTY.

SERVE ON THE TAXES AND ENERGY COMMITTEE IN THE MINNESOTA HOUSE IN THE MINORITY, ENERGY LEAD IN THE MINORITY IN THE HOUSE, AND SOUTHWEST MINNESOTA IS KNOWN FOR A LOT OF GOOD THINGS, AGRICULTURE, WE HAVE SWANS FOODS MANUFACTURING WHICH SERVES OUR LOCAL SCHOOLS AND FAMILIES ALL ACROSS THIS GREAT COUNTRY.

IT'S AN HONOR TO BE ON THE SHOW TONIGHT.

LOOK FORWARD TO A NICE CONVERSATION.

>> Barry: VERY GOOD.

LET'S GO RIGHT TO THE ENERGY QUESTION.

I WARNED MY GUESTS THAT WE DID HAVE A VIEWER WHO CALLED IN IN ADVANCE AND WANT TO REMINDER YOU CAN DO THAT.

SEND YOUR QUESTIONS IN ANY TIME DURING THE WEEK.

IT'S HELPFUL TO US IF YOU DO THAT AND GIVES US AN OPPORTUNITY TO START OUT WITH THE ISSUES OF THE DAY, AND THIS PARTICULAR VIEWER HAD A QUESTION ABOUT ENERGY SUPPLY AND IS CONCERNED ABOUT THE INTERMITTENT NATURE OF WIND, INTERMITTENT NATURE OF SOLAR ENERGY, ENERGY COMMITTEE, AND I BELIEVE THE GOVERNOR SIGNED A BILL TENDING TO GET TO NET ZERO BY 2040, I BELIEVE.

THIS VIEWER IS SOMEWHAT SCEPTICAL HOW THAT CAN HAPPEN.

I THOUGHT THAT WOULD BE, SINCE WE HAVE THREE GUESTS TONIGHT, ALL OF WHOM SERVE ON THAT COMMITTEE HAVE BACKGROUND IN THAT ISSUE, THIS WOULD BE A GREAT WAY TO START OUT THE PROGRAM.

SENATOR FRENTZ, IF YOU WOULD BE SO CONTAINED TO GIVE US A ROADMAP TO WHAT THE LEGISLATURE HAS DONE AND YOUR DEFENSE OF THAT ROUTE, AND THEN WE WILL THROW IT OPEN FOR CONVERSATION.

SENATOR FRENTZ, THE FLOOR IS YOURS.

>> I'M INNOCENT, YOUR HONOR, I'M INNOCENT, I'M INNOCENT.

>> Barry: I DID TELL YOU BEFORE THE PROGRAM STARTED THAT THIS WAS NOT GOING TO BE A CROSS-EXAMINATION.

>> FIRST OF ALL, THANKS FOR THE QUESTION.

IT'S ONE OF THE QUESTIONS I HEAR THE MOST.

CAN YOU GET TO CARBON NEUTRAL BY 2040?

I THINK WE CAN.

I'M ACTUALLY A SCEPTICAL PERSON MYSELF.

WHAT I WOULD SAY IS THERE'S A THREE TIER UTILITY SYSTEM IN MINNESOTA AND ACROSS THE COUNTRY.

WE HAVE INVESTMENT COMMITTEES, TWO OF WHOM THEY SAID GET TO CARBON NEUTRAL.

BUT WE HAVE THE RURAL ELECTRIC COOPS AND SMALLER MUNICIPAL, AND THE GREATER CHALLENGE IS FOR THE SMALLER OPERATORS.

I'M OKAY WITH IT BEING A CHALLENGE.

AMERICANS RISE UP TO MEET CHALLENGES.

JUSTICE ANDERSON, IF I DIDN'T COMPLETELY COME CLEAN, I'M NOT JUST THE CHAIR OF THE COMMITTEE BUT THE CHIEF AUTHOR OF THAT BILL.

WHATEVER FUN WE HAVE DISCUSSING IT, YOU GET TO AIM IT AT ME.

I THINK THE DIFFERENCE WILL COME IN THE INNOVATION AND THE DRIVE TO SOME OF THE RENEWABLE ENERGY.

I WOULD JUST SAY WIND AND SOLAR ARE INTERMITTENT BUT COLLECTIVELY THAT HAS STABILIZED SOMEWHAT.

THE BILL WELCOMES OTHER FORMS OF WHAT WE CALL ELIGIBLE ENERGIES, BIOMASS, AND NUCLEAR IS COUNSELED ALTHOUGH EXCEL IS THE ONLY UTILITY THAT BENEFITS FROM THAT.

THERE'S AN OFF RAMP.

IF UTILITY MAKES A GOOD FAITH EFFORT TO GET TO CARBON NEUTRAL BY 2040, AND I WOULD EXPRESS IT THIS WAY.

I THINK IT'S VERY POSSIBLE SOME OF THE SMALLEST UTILITIES WILL COME BACK TO THE PUC AROUND 2035 AND SAY WE JUST CAN'T MAKE IT.

WE CAN GET TO 95 BUT THAT'S ALL IT IS.

THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO BUY CREDITS, AND THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO BUILD YOUR OWN RENEWABLE.

YOU CAN SAY YOU ARE GOOD AT 95 UNTIL FIVE YEARS.

OF COURSE IT ALL COMES FROM ONE PLACE, WHICH IS THE DESIRE TO DECARBONIZE AND PROBABLY A LONGER DISCUSSION AND DIFFERENT COMMITTEE IS CLIMATE CHANGE.

I'M PERSUADED IT'S SERIOUS.

JUST THIS MORNING READING ABOUT MORE COMPELLING EVIDENCE ABOUT THE WARMING TEMPERATURES AND THE MELTING OF THE POLAR ICE CAP, BUT IF THAT IS A CONCERN OF YOURS, YOU SEE THE VALUE OF THIS BILL.

WITH THAT, I ASSUME MINE IS THE ONLY OPINION YOU WANT TO HEAR.

I'M JUST GOING TO LOG OFF NOW.

>> WE ARE GOING TO GO TO SENATOR MATTHEWS.

YOUR COLLEAGUE ON THE COMMITTEE AND SEE HOW HE WOULD RESPOND TO THE VIEWER'S QUESTION.

>> THANK YOU.

I THINK THE CALLER HAS DEFINITELY SOME MERIT TO HIS CONCERNS OVER HOW WE WILL GET TO 100%, AND IF WE DO GET THERE, WHAT IT WILL LOOK LIKE.

WE TALKED ABOUT LAYING OUT THE EVIDENCE OF WHAT MINNESOTA HAS DONE ALL THE WAY ALONG.

WE PASSED THE FIRST ITERATION OF A RENEWABLE ENERGY STANDARD, AND THE MAJORITY OFTEN LIKE TO BRING UP IN THE DEBATE, BUT MANY PEOPLE BACK AT THAT TIME SAID WE WILL NEVER MAKE THE 25% STANDARD HERE BY THE MID-2020'S, AND THERE WERE NAYSAYERS THAT WERE SAYING ALL THESE REASONS WHY WE COULDN'T DO IT AND WE DID DO IT.

BUT THE COUNTERPOINT THAT I OFTEN BRING UP THAT HAS NOT BEEN READILY REFUTED IS THAT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT RESULTED FROM THE FIRST ITERATION OF RENEWABLE ENERGY STANDARD IS IT MADE COSTS GO UP TO THE CONSUMER.

THAT HAS COME TRUE.

MINNESOTA PAYS A HIGHER COST FOR THE ENERGY WE USE IN OUR HOMES.

WE ARE ABOVE THE NATIONAL AVERAGE AND GOING UP FASTER THAN THE NATIONAL AVERAGE, AND THE ADDITIONAL MANDATES PASSED IN THIS 100% BILL, I BELIEVE, ARE GOING TO CONTINUE TO STEEP THAT CURVE UPWARD.

THERE'S FRANKLY A NUMBER OF PROBLEMS THAT ARE IN THE 100% BILL.

WE ARE GOING TO RUN INTO A MATH PROBLEM.

WE ARE SUBTRACTING FROM MINNESOTA'S SYSTEM A LARGE AMOUNT OF STRONG RELIABLE BASE LOAD ENERGY.

WE ARE WINDING DOWN ALL OF OUR COAL PLANTS OF WHICH I HAVE ONE OF THE LAST REMAINING FEW IN MY DISTRICT AT THE PLANT IN BECKER, MINNESOTA, AND IT'S PROVIDED 3400 MEGAWATTS OF BASE LOAD ENERGY FOR A LARGE CHUNK OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.

GAS, NATURAL GAS FACILITIES, ARE ALSO BEING WOUND DOWN OR THEY ARE GOING TO BE IN AN INTERESTING CATEGORY WHERE COMPANIES THAT STILL USE THEM WILL HAVE TO BUY ADDITIONAL CREDITS OR DO OTHER THINGS THAT WILL ADD TO THE COST, AND SO WE ARE SUBTRACTING A LOT OF MEGAWATTS OFF OUR SYSTEM, AND WE ARE ADDING ON, IN MY VIEW, A SMALLER NUMBER OF INTERMITTENT ENERGY SOURCES WITH A LOT MORE WIND AND SOLAR, AND I HAVE NOTHING AGAINST WIND AND SOLAR.

I AM AN ALL OF THE ABOVE ENERGY GUY, AND THERE ARE TOO MANY THINGS ON THE OUTSIDE LOOKING IN OF WHAT'S ALLOWED.

WE DO TALK ABOUT NUCLEAR, AND SENATOR FRENTZ AS WELL I BRING IT UP OFTEN IN THE ENERGY COMMITTEE.

WE HAVE A NUCLEAR MORATORIUM IN LAW, SO WE CANNOT BUILD ANYMORE THAN THE TWO EXISTING NUCLEAR PLANTS THAN WE HAVE RIGHT NOW.

MY CONTENTION HAS BEEN IF THE MAJORITY WANTS TO BE SERIOUS ABOUT HELPING US GET TO 100% IN A RELIABLE AND AFFORDABLE WAY, WE SHOULD REMOVE THE NUCLEAR MORATORIUM SO THAT UTILITIES CAN CONSIDER PLANS, WHETHER IT MAKES SENSE TO ADD NUCLEAR TO MINNESOTA, AND THE TECHNOLOGY COMING IN WHAT I CALL THE ADVANCED NUCLEAR TECHNOLOGY FAMILY, I HAD THE CHANCE TO STUDY THIS, TO GO OUT TO IDAHO WHERE THEY ARE TESTING MANY OF THESE DESIGNS.

THEY ARE JUST INCREDIBLY FASCINATING AND MIND BLOWING WITH EVEN THE HIGHER SAFETY FEATURES THAT THEY HAVE IN THESE SYSTEMS, AND SOME OF THESE UNITS ARE MUCH SMALLER, CAN BE USED IN A MUCH SMALLER LAND FOOTPRINT IF WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE GIGANTIC BUILDINGS WITH THE HUGE DOME IN THE CENTER LIKE THE EXISTING PLANTS.

I THINK IT REALLY NEEDS TO BE A PART OF THE SOLUTION.

I AM LOBBYING THE CHAIR.

I'M HOPING WE MAYBE WILL TAKE STEPS FORWARD IN THAT REGARD THIS YEAR.

IN ORDER TO BE TRULY AND ALL THE ABOVE ENERGY, WE NEED TO HAVE ALL THE TOOLS IN THE TOOLBOX AND MINNESOTA IS NOT THERE RIGHT NOW.

>> REPRESENTATIVE SWEDZINSKI, YOUR THOUGHTS ON THIS QUESTION, AND THEN WE ARE GOING TO GO BACK TO SENATOR FRENTZ AND HAVE A BIT MORE OF A ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION ON THIS.

BECAUSE THERE ARE LOTS OF ANGLES TO THIS ISSUE THAT ARE NOT ALWAYS AVAILABLE.

REPRESENTATIVE SWEDZINSKI, THE FLOOR IS YOURS.

>> SURE.

THANK.

I DON'T WANT TO REPEAT ANYTHING EITHER OF THEM HAVE SAID.

YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE OTHER AREAS THAT THE CALLER AND THE GENERAL FOLKS SHOULD BE CONCERNED ABOUT FROM A RESOURCE STANDPOINT, YOU KNOW, IF YOU KIND OF LOOK INTO HISTORY AND ESTIMATE THAT THE SAME AMOUNT OF COPPER WILL NEED TO BE MINED IN THE NEXT 25 YEARS, THAT WE MINED THE LAST 500 YEARS AS A WORLD IN ORDER FOR THIS TO EVEN HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE SHAPE, NOT JUST IN THE STATE OF MINNESOTA, BUT IF THE POLICIES MOVE BEYOND OUR STATE BORDERS.

FROM A LEGALISTIC STANDPOINT, THIS OPENS THE STATE UP TO LAWSUITS, AND NORTH DAKOTA ALREADY ANNOUNCED PRETTY MUCH ON THE SAME DAY THAT GOVERNOR WALZ SIGNED IT INTO LAW, NORTH DAKOTA BEGAN THE PROCESS OF SUING OUR STATE AND SUING THE TAXPAYERS OF MINNESOTA FOR PUSHING THIS POLICY FORWARD.

THOSE ARE TWO MAJOR CONCERNS.

WE HAVE SOME OPPORTUNITY.

PRESIDENT BIDEN RELEASED IN SOME OF HIS PLANS TO FOCUS HIS ATTENTION ON REALLY OPENING UP RESOURCES, DOMESTICALLY SO SOMETHING LIKE THIS COULD MOVE FORWARD AND CLOSES OFF THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS OF POTENTIAL ACRES OF MINING IN NORTHERN MINNESOTA.

YOU KNOW, RELYING ON INTERNATIONAL SUPPLY CHAINS, OBVIOUSLY WE LEARNED A LOT IN THE FAILURES OF THOSE THINGS IN THE LAST TWO YEARS THROUGH THE COVID PANDEMIC.

THE MORE AND MORE THAT WE CAN FOCUS THOSE JOBS HERE IN MINNESOTA HERE IN THE UNITED STATES, BUT HAVING AN ADMINISTRATION THAT NOT ONLY CUTTING OFF OUR ACCESS TO GOOD QUALITY DOMESTIC OIL PRODUCTION BUT ALSO FROM A MINING PERSPECTIVE, REALLY PUTTING US AT A DISADVANTAGE.

WE SAW YESTERDAY THAT THE PRESIDENT RELEASED ANOTHER 27 MILLION BARRELS FROM OUR STRATEGIC OIL RESERVE.

YOU KNOW, YOU KEEP PRICES LOW, AND HOPEFULLY WITH INFLATION HITTING AMERICAN FAMILIES AND MINNESOTA FAMILIES PARTICULARLY HARD, YOU KNOW, TRYING TO LIGHTEN THAT LOAD.

AT WHAT COST?

AND YOU KNOW, IF ANYONE WOULD ASK DO THEY FEEL MORE SAFE INTERNATIONALLY TODAY THAN THEY DID FIVE YEARS AGO, THEY WOULD ANSWER NO.

TO ME, THAT'S A BIG, BIG ISSUE THAT WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH IS AN INTERNATIONAL BUT HOW HARD DOMESTIC PRODUCTION IS.

IF THE WIND ISN'T BLOWING OR SUN ISN'T SHINING WHAT IS THE BASELINE ROADS WE ARE GETTING RID OF AND PUTTING RATE PAIRS AND TAXPAYERS AT RISK.

THESE SHOULD REALLY BE CONSIDERED.

SADLY WE LAID A LOT OF THOSE CONCERNS, AND YOU KNOW, WE HAD A LOT FROM OUR RURAL COOPERATIVES.

THEY HAVE LOCALLY ELECTED BOARDS THAT REALLY HELPED SHAPE THEIR LOCAL POLICIES AND WHAT THEY FEEL BEST FOR THE LOCALS, AND IT REALLY KIND OF TIED THEIR HANDS AND TOOK THE POWER AWAY FROM THEM, LOCAL ELECTED OFFICIALS AND MOVED IT IN THE BUREAUCRATS OF ST. PAUL, WHICH IS PROBABLY ONE OF THE BIGGEST FRUSTRATIONS I HAD WITH THE PROCESS IS THAT WE TAKE THE TIME TO SERVE IN OUR LOCAL COMMUNITY BEFORE WE RUN INTO THE LEGISLATURE, AND WE JUST TAKE THAT POWER UP WITH US AS WE GO, AND I DON'T THINK THAT WAS PROBABLY THE BEST MOVE WITH THE BILL AND POTENTIALLY PUT US AT MAJOR RISK.

SENATOR MATTHEWS TALKED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE NATIONAL AVERAGE, AND MINNESOTA HAS A STATUTE, AND ONE OF OUR MAIN GOALS IS TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR RATES ARE 95% OF THE NATIONAL AVERAGE.

TO HAVE A REAL GOAL TO REACH THOSE GOALS.

NOW WE ARE ABOVE THE NATIONAL AVERAGE AND INCREASING FASTER THAN THE NATIONAL RATE.

IF YOU ARE A MANUFACTURER, IF YOU ARE A HIGH ENERGY USER, THAT'S GOING TO POTENTIALLY PUT YOU AT A DISADVANTAGE WHEN IT COMES TO COMPETITION AND KEEPING THE BOTTOM LINE IN BLACK AND NOT IN RED.

>> THERE'S A LOT TO RESPOND TO THERE, SENATOR FRENTZ, ON VARIOUS ISSUES.

LOTS OF COMPLICATIONS TO THIS QUESTION, BUT THE FLOOR IS YOURS, AND LET'S TALK ABOUT SOME OF THOSE ISSUES.

>> WELL, AS MUCH AS YOU WANT JUSTICE ANDERSON AND I, I AGREE IN PART WITH BOTH SENATOR MATTHEWS AND SENATOR SWEDZINSKI.

SENATOR MATTHEWS HAS REPEATEDLY MADE THE POINT.

IF NUCLEAR IS A CARBON FREE SOURCE, AND IF CARBON EMISSION REDUCTION IS A GOAL WE HAD BETTER BE LOOKING AT IT.

GLAD TO REPORT, IF WE ARE LOOKING FOR ANY BIPARTISAN SHIP, THAT THEY HAVE AN ADVANCE STUDY BILL, WHICH IS HEARD IN OUR COMMITTEE LAID OVER FOR POSSIBLE INCLUSION, BUT SINCE I AM THE CHAIR IT'S GOING TO BE INCLUDED IN THE SENATE OMNIBUS BILL.

IT'S NEW TECHNOLOGY AND RECOGNIZED FOR NUCLEAR THAT I LOOK AT FRANCE AND GERMANY.

GERMANY HAS A NUCLEAR MORATORIUM.

THEY ARE NOT GOING THAT WAY.

FRANCE HAS, I THINK, 18 REACTORS.

THEY ARE BOTH COUNTRIES THAT HAVE THEIR SUCCESSES.

THEY ARE BOTH INTELLIGENT COUNTRIES LED BY GOOD MEN AND WOMEN.

THEY REACHED A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT CONCLUSION ON THE ISSUE WITH NUCLEAR, AND I THINK THE SAFETY ISSUE, SENATOR MATTHEWS TOUCHED ON THIS WITH NUCLEAR, BUT I'M CONFIDENT HOWEVER DANGEROUS IT HAS BEEN TO HAVE LEGACY REACTORS AND A DANGER OF A MELTDOWN OR MAJOR MISHAP LIKE CHERNOBYL OR FUKUSHIMA, THAT IT'S IN THE UNITED STATES.

WE WILL TALK ABOUT THAT, BUT I THINK NUCLEAR IS A GOOD POINT BY NOR MATTHEWS.

SENATOR SWEDZINSKI, I DIDN'T MEAN TO TWIST YOUR WORDS BUT I HEARD JOBS, AND COULDN'T AGREE WITH YOU MORE.

PART OF THE 100% BILL IS TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF CLEAN ENERGY JOBS IN MINNESOTA.

I THINK WE CAN AGREE ON THIS.

THERE'S ABOUT $12 BILLION A YEAR OF MINNESOTA MONEY FROM RESIDENTIAL AND BUSINESS PAYORS GOING TO OTHER STATES AND OTHER COUNTRIES FOR OUR ENERGY.

WE DON'T HAVE NICOLE IN THE GROUND IN MINNESOTA.

WE DON'T HAVE ANY OIL TO DRILL FOR, BUT WE DO HAVE WAYS TO PRODUCE OUR OWN ENERGY, AND WIND, SOLAR, CARBON CAPTURE, NUCLEAR, IF YOU LIKE ARE WAYS TO PRODUCE OUR ENERGY HERE.

IF I COULD AGREE WITH REPRESENTATIVE SWEDZINSKI ONE MORE TIME, AND I PROMISE I WILL NOT AGREE WITH HIM ONE MORE TIME ON THIS BROADCAST, WE DO HAVE AN ISSUE WITH NATIONAL SECURITY.

WE DO WANT TO SAY DO WE WANT TO BE TIED TO ANOTHER COUNTRY'S WHIMS ABOUT WHETHER THEY LIKE US OR NOT.

WHILE I'M A FAN, FRAME EARL BECAUSE I SEE NATO HAS HAVING HELPED TOGETHER, AND AGAIN, YOU DON'T HAVE TO AGREE WITH ME, BUT I THINK THE WAR IN UKRAINE IS A SIGN THE NATO NATIONS ARE ACTUALLY TOGETHER, AND I LIKE THAT, THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR OUR SECURITY.

BUT THE MORE WE CAN BE ENERGY INDEPENDENT, THE BETTER OFF WE ARE AS A NATION, AND I SEE REMOVAL AS NECESSARY, AND ONCE AGAIN, ALTHOUGH MY COLLEAGUES DIDN'T STUFF ON IT TOO DEEPLY, I THINK CLIMATE CHANGE IS THE COST ISSUE AS WELL, STORMS THAT COST A LOT OF MONEY THAT WE WOULDN'T BE GOING THROUGH, WARMING THAT WE WOULDN'T HAVE TO DEAL WITH, DROUGHT THAT CAN AFFECT OUR FARMERS AND POINTED OUT A COUPLE TIMES WE HAD ONE HURRICANE THAT HIT FLORIDA THAT COST $50 BILLION.

THAT IS A COST, ALSO, SO THOSE ARE WAYS IN WHICH OUR INSURANCE RATES ARE AFFECTED AND THE WAY IN WHICH SOME OF US SHARE IN THE COST.

THANKS FOR THE FORUM ON THIS AND FOR JOINING THE YOUR "YOUR LEGISLATORS" ENERGY HOUR.

>> Barry: WE WANT TO MOVE FROM ANOTHER QUESTION THAT CAME FROM A VIEWER AND I WANT TO GO TO REPRESENTATIVE SWEDZINSKI ON THIS.

THE VIEWER IS RAISING AN ISSUE ABOUT A BILL IN THE HOUSE.

THIS VIEWER IS CONCERNED ABOUT WASTING DISEASE.

THIS VIEWER BELIEVES TO PROTECT OUR WILD HERDS WE NEED TO GET RID OF THE DEER FARMS AND ANOTHER VIEWER POINTS TO THE CWD BILL CHRONIC WASTING DISEASE BILL SPONSORED BY AMY BECKER AND WANTS TO KNOW WHETHER OR NOT THAT'S GOING TO PASS AND WHETHER OR NOT THE PANEL SUPPORTS IT.

GENERAL TOPIC, CHRONIC WASTING DISEASE, REPRESENTATIVE SWEDZINSKI, YOUR THOUGHTS ON THAT.

>> EVERYONE WANTS A SAFE HERD WITHIN THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.

THIS IS A PARTICULAR ISSUE.

THE SCIENCE IS A BIT QUESTIONABLE.

WE HAVE BEEN TOLD BY FOLKS AT U OF M THEY ARE CONCERNED IT WILL MAKE THE JUMP TO MINNESOTANS.

I DON'T BELIEVE THAT TO BE TRUE.

WE HAVE GRANDSTANDING GOING ON WITHIN THE ACADEMIC FIELD GETTING MONEY FROM THE STATE.

THESE ARE SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS.

WE HAVE SEEN A GENERAL CHANGE WHERE OUR DEER FARMERS HAVE BEEN REGULATED IN GENERAL.

THEY HAVE FOLKS FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF AG THAT GO OUT AND HELP REGULATE THESE PRODUCERS.

I THINK IT'S PROBABLY A LITTLE BIT OF AN EASY GROUP TO PICK ON.

BUT AS FAR AS -- I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE MAJORITY WANTS TO DO.

THERE IS SOME APPETITE BY FOLKS TO DRIVE THIS OUT OF THE STATE OF MINNESOTA.

IF YOU LOOK AT WHAT OTHER STATES HAVE DONE IN THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, THEY HAVE BEEN ABLE TO DO A LOT OF RESEARCH IN THE PARTICULAR AREA OF RESISTANCE.

LIKE SCABIES WITHIN SHEEP THAT WE DEALT WITH IN YEARS PAST AND MAJOR, MAJOR DISEASES AND RUN THE GENETICS OUT TO HAVE RESISTANCE TO CWD.

YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT WOULD BE A BETTER OPTION, POTENTIAL TO HELP BRING SOME OF THOSE GENETICS INTO THE STATE TO HELP WITH SOME OF THAT RESISTANCE.

IF YOU LOOK AT WISCONSIN, WE DO HAVE OUTBREAKS, BUT WE HAVE DEER THAT SWIM BACK AND FORTH ACROSS THE MISSISSIPPI OR ST. CROIX RIVER AS WELL.

I THINK THE STATE SHOULD BE TAKING A LEADING ROLE AND LOOKING AT HOW WE CAN WORK ON THOSE GENETICS SO WE CAN ASSURE NOT ONLY OUR NATURAL POPULATION OF DEER HAVE THE PROTECTION THAT THEY NEED BUT ALSO DOMESTICATED VERSIONS OF THE DEER FARM AREAS AS WELL.

AS FAR AS PARTICULAR BILLS, I DON'T SERVE ON THE ENVIRONMENT, SO I HAVEN'T BEEN TRACKING THEM THAT CLOSE.

>> Barry: SENATOR MATTHEWS, CHRONIC WASTING DISEASE, YOUR THOUGHTS?

>> BEEN AN ISSUE THAT WE HAD TO LOOK AT MORE AND MORE IN THE LAST FEW YEARS.

I AGREE WITH CHRIS.

DEER FARMERS ARE OFTEN AN EASY TARGET FOR FOLKS TO FOCUS ON, BUT I WOULD ENCOURAGE FOLKS TO REACH OUT AND TRY TO TALK TO THEM.

I HAVE SEVERAL THAT I KNOW OF THAT ARE IN MY DISTRICT OR CLOSE TO IT.

AND THERE HAVE BEEN EXAMPLES OF ONE OR TWO BAD ACTORS AMONG THAT, BUT IT'S NOT REPRESENTATIVE OF THESE SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS AS A WHOLE, AND IT'S NOT FAIR IN ANY AREA TO JUDGE AN ENTIRE AREA OR GROUP OF PEOPLE BY THE WORST PERFORMING MEMBERS OR BY THE WORST ONES THAT DO IT WRONG.

THERE ARE MANY FARMS THAT DO IT RIGHT THAT HAVE THE PROTECTIONS IN PLACE THAT MANAGE HERDS WELL, AND FRANKLY EVEN IF IT WERE TRUE, RIGHTLY OR WRONGLY, GETTING RID OF DEER FARMS IS NOT GOING TO GET RID OF CWD.

THERE'S GOING TO BE OVERSIGHT, MAYBE LOOK AT PROTECTIONS YOU HAVE IN PLACE WITH WHAT FARMERS NEED TO DO AFTER HUNTING AND WHETHER THE DISPOSAL NEEDS TO BE HANDLED A CERTAIN WAY.

THAT'S THE THINGS THAT WE CAN FOCUS ON THAT CAN HAVE TANGIBLE EFFORTS AND SO I ALWAYS TRY TO APPROACH THESE BY WHAT'S THE EVIDENCE?

WHAT CAN WE ACTUALLY DO, AND WHAT WILL END UP HAVING A GOOD RESULT IN THE END?

GOING AFTER DEER FARMS I DON'T BELIEVE WILL ACCOMPLISH WHAT YOU WANT.

MORE RESEARCH, MORE STUDY, KEEP MANAGEMENT ZONES OR CONTROL ZONES WHERE YOU NEED THEM.

HAVE THE EXPERTS LOOKING IN ON THEM.

THOSE ARE SOME OF THE CONCRETE TANGIBLE THINGS THAT WE CAN KEEP DOING.

>> Barry: SENATOR FRENTZ.

>> I HAVE NOT MUCH TO ADD.

MANY OF THE HIGH POINTS OF THIS DEBATE HAVE BEEN COVERED.

I SERVED ON THE SENATE AGRICULTURE COMMITTEE IN WHICH WE HAD JURISDICTION OVER THE BOARD OF ANIMAL HEALTH.

AS SENATOR SWEDZINSKI POINTED OUT, THERE WAS AN AGREEMENT TO TRY CONCURRENT AUTHORITY.

THE BOARD OF ANIMAL HEALTH IS AN IMPRESSIVE ORGANIZATION THAT DEALS SPECIFICALLY WITH DISEASE OUTBREAKS.

WE PROVIDED FUNDING TO THE VETERINARY DIAGNOSTIC LAB TO HELP US DIAGNOSE AND PREVENT THE SPREAD.

WE HAVE OVER $4 BILLION IN GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT IN THE STATE JUST FROM PORK PRODUCTION AND THE BOARD OF ANIMAL HEALTH FEELS WE HAVE WEAPONS WE CAN USE, A COUPLE OF WHICH HAVE BEEN ALLUDED TO.

IT IS TOUGH TO HAVE ANY BUSINESS OWNER FEEL THREATENED BY GOVERNMENT ACTION.

IT'S INHERENT THAT WE DON'T LIKE IT.

I CAN SEE THE DYNAMICS, AND I'M NOT ON THE AGRICULTURE COMMITTEE.

BUT I WOULD POINT IT OUT TO FOLKS.

WE HAVE ABOUT 450,000 DEER HUNTERS THAT ARE EITHER IN THE STATE.

THEY HAVE A CERTAIN TOURISM AND THERE'S REVENUE FOR THE STATE IN TOURISM.

THAT'S A GOOD THING.

DEER HUNTERS ARE 200 FAMILY BUSINESSES AND I THINK THE BEST POINT ON HERE, AND HE WITH SEE THIS SOMETIMES, BUT TO SENATOR MATTHEWS POINT, A COUPLE OF THOSE DEER FARMERS REALLY DID NOT APPRECIATE THE WAY THEY CONDUCTED THEMSELVES.

THEY MADE IT MUCH HARDER FOR LEGISLATORS TO BE SYMPATHETIC TO DEER FARMERS ON THE WHOLE.

WE HAVE A DUTY TO EACH OTHER AS MINNESOTANS TO TRY TO TAKE THE HIGH ROAD ON SOME OF THIS STUFF.

NOBODY WANTS THE DISEASE TO SPREAD.

WHAT I WOULD SEE IS HOPEFULLY CONTINUED PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN THE DNR WHO HAS OFFICERS THAT CAN HELP US.

THEY DON'T HAVE CONSERVATION OFFICERS THEY CAN SEND OUT.

TRY TO MAKE IT A COMMON GOAL TO LIMIT THE SPREAD AND CLOSING BUSINESSES, DE.

THERE'S DPRL MONEY FOR DEPOP LATING, AND THE CALLER THAT'S FROM THE HOME COUNTY WILL SAY WHAT ABOUT CLOSING THEM DOWN?

I'M NOT READY TO TAKE THAT STEP BUT I EXPECT THERE'S A REAL ISSUE HERE AND HOPEFULLY WE WILL GET ON TOP OF IT.

>> Barry: VERY SPECIFIC QUESTION FROM A VIEWER THAT PAYS ATTENTION TO TAX ISSUES.

THE LAWYER ON THE PANEL IS GOING TO ASK THE LAWYER ON THE PANEL THIS QUESTION.

THE MINNESOTA STATE BAR ASSOCIATION HAS PROPOSED LEGISLATION THAT WOULD ELIMINATE THE STATE E TAX ON AGRICULTURE LANE.

IF VIEWERS ARE WONDERING WHAT ON EARTH IS THIS ALL ABOUT, I'M NOT GOING TO GO INTO DISCUSSION ABOUT IT.

I'M DECADES REMOVED FROM DOING THIS KIND OF WORK.

BUT IF YOU ARE DOING ESTATE PLANNING, FARM EXPANSION PLANNING, EXCHANGES OF AGRICULTURAL HAPPENED BUT NO CASH NECESSARILY CHANGING HANDS, THE ARGUMENT IS PERHAPS WE SHOULD ELIMINATE THE STATE D TAX.

I'M JUST GOING TO ASK SENATOR FRENTZ, DO YOU KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THIS ISSUE?

HAS THAT POPPED UP ON THE RADAR SCREEN AT ALL?

>> I HAVE HEARD ABOUT IT.

I WOULD BE FINE WITH IT.

WITH ALL TAX CUTS, IT CARRIES A FISCAL NOTE.

TAX CUTS ARE SPENDING.

THERE'S A LOT OF PROPOSALS TO CUT TAXES.

I THINK THAT WOULD BE A GOOD THING TO THAT EXTENT.

I THINK THE FEES ARE THERE THAT I LIKE, AND WE WOULD LIKE TO KEEP AS MANY FARMERS ON THE LAND AS WE CAN, AND WE HAVE WAYS TO MAKE THAT EASIER, NOT HARDER.

ALSO IN FAVOR OF THE BEGINNING FARMER TAX CREDIT STUFF.

WE WORKED ON THAT THIS WEEK, AS A MATTER OF FACT.

WE ARE NOT MAKING ANYMORE PRIME FARMLAND.

I KIND OF LIKE THOSE THINGS.

HAVING SAID THAT, THERE ARE PLENTY OF MINNESOTANS THAT ARE NOT FARMERS.

IF YOU SAID IT HAD A $5 MILLION FISCAL NOTE, THERE ARE OTHER MINNESOTANS THAT WOULD SAY NO, LET'S USE THE 5 MILLION FOR OTHER TAX RELIEF.

WHO IS TO SAY?

I WOULD BE SUPPORTIVE OF THAT.

I HAVEN'T HEARD THAT MUCH IN MY DISTRICT.

MORE TAX COMMITTEE GOSSIP.

>> Barry: REPRESENTATIVE SWEDZINSKI, ANY THOUGHTS ON THAT?

>> I AGREE WITH SENATOR FRENTZ ON THAT.

WHATEVER YOU ARE TRANSFERRING, THE CALLER MAY BE TALKING POTENTIALLY IN THE AREAS OF A 231 EXCHANGE WHERE THEY ARE POTENTIALLY MOVING GROUND AND RETRACTING IT.

SOME OF THOSE TAXES ARE DIRECT COSTS, RECAPTURE AND ACTUAL TIME IT TAKES FOR SOMEONE TO GO IN AN OFFICE AND TYPE.

I THINK THEY ARE THINKING ON SOMETHING ELSE.

GENERALLY IN FAVOR OF TAX RELIEF AND WE WILL HAVE TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE POLICY, NOT SUPER FAMILIAR WITH IT, THOUGH.

>> Barry: SENATOR MATTHEWS.

>> THANK YOU.

ALSO, IT IS PRETTY FAR IN THE WEEDS.

I HAVE NOT EVER SERVED ON THE TAX COMMITTEE.

BUT JUST IN GENERAL, I LOVE TAX RELIEF, PUTTING MORE MONEY IN MINNESOTA'S POCKETS.

WE COULD DO MORE OF THAT.

THAT'S WHY WE ARE SITTING ON $18 BILLION RIGHT NOW THAT SHOULD BE IN YOUR POCKETS.

BUT THE GOVERNMENT IS SITTING ON TOP IT.

WE ARE TRYING TO URGE THE DFL TO HELP US PUT MORE MONEY IN YOUR POCKETS.

THERE ARE SO MANY TAXABLE EXCHANGES THAT WE COME ACROSS IN STATE LAW WHERE I JUST SIT THERE AND GO REALLY?

WE TAX THAT, TOO?

IF IT'S TRADING ONE LANT FOR ANOTHER, COUNT UP SOME VALUE EACH THOUGH THERE'S NO ACTUAL MONEY GOING BACK AND FORTH, AND WE TAX SOME ARBITRARY NUMBER WE PULLED UP?

THAT MAKES NO SENSE.

THAT ONE, FROM THE SOWNT OF IT SEEMS PRETTY CLEAR CUT, AND I THINK IT WOULD BE A GOOD THING.

>> LATE GARRY WAS A PARTNER OF MINE ON TAX AND PROBATE ISSUES AND TRIED TO EXPLAIN SOME OF THE TAX PROVISIONS, BOTH FEDERAL AND STATE, AND THE FLOW CHART THAT HE HANDED ME TO EXPLAIN IT TO ME RAN TO ABOUT FOUR PAGES.

I TOLD HIM I WAS A TRIAL LAWYER, NOT TAX LAWYER.

THAT WAS THE END OF THE CONVERSATION.

IT COMPLICATED THE TOPIC AND I APPRECIATE THE CANDOR WITH WHICH OUR PANEL HAS APPROACHED IT.

WE HAVE A QUESTION FROM A VIEWER IN MORRISON COUNTY WHO WANTS TO KNOW ABOUT THE BUDGET SURPLUS AND IS SPECIFICALLY CONCERNED ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT WE ARE GOING TO BE HOLDING BACK ANY PART OF THE BUDGET SURPLUS OR RESERVE FOR FUTURE BUDGET ISSUES.

I DON'T THINK WE HAVE HAD A CHANCE TO START WITH YOU, SENATOR MATTHEWS.

LET'S GIVE YOU THE OPPORTUNITY TO STEP INTO THE BATTERS BOX ON THAT TO START SPRING TRAINING ANYWAY, TO START ON THAT ISSUE RIGHT NOW.

BUDGET SURPLUS, HOW MUCH?

WHERE IS THE MONEY COMING FROM?

THE FLOOR IS YOURS.

>> GREAT LEAD-IN AND TYING BACK TO WHAT I WAS JUST TALKING ABOUT.

WE ARE SITTING ON THE LARGEST SURPLUS THAT I HAVE EVER RECALLED AT $18 BILLION.

I THINK IT'S WISE TO KEEP A CHUNK, AND IF WE NEED TO INCREASE THE CHUNK THAT WE SAVE ON THE BOTTOM LINE FOR SOME FORM OF RAINY DAY FUND, EVEN IF WE MAKE THAT A LITTLE BIT BIGGER, THAT CAN BE A WISE PLANNING DOWN THE ROAD.

WE ARE LIKELY HAVING A TOUGHER ECONOMIC TIMES COMING AHEAD.

WE ARE STILL DEALING WITH RISING INFLATION, AND NUMBERS CAME OUT AGAIN TODAY THAT SHOWS IT'S GOING UP AND GAS PRICES ARE COMING DOWN A BIT, AND NOW GOING BACK UP AGAIN.

I WANT TO TRY TO HELP MINNESOTANS WITH MORE MONEY IN THEIR POCKETS, WITH PERMANENT ONGOING TAX RELIEF THAT'S MORE MONEY TO YOU AND I, WEEK AFTER WEEK, MONTH AFTER MONTH, YEAR AFTER YEAR, NOT A ONE-TIME PAYMENT THAT GOVERNOR WALZ IS STILL STUCK ON OF SPENDING DOWN SOME OF THE SURPLUS IN ONE-TIME SPENDING LIKE THAT, BUT REAL ACTUAL SAVINGS TO MINNESOTANS THAT CAN BE PERMANENT.

18 BILLION THAT WE ARE SITTING ON IS JUST PROOF WE ARE TAKING TOO MUCH FROM MINNESOTANS IN THE FIRST PLACE, AND IT'S TIME FOR GOVERNMENT TO MAKE SOME OF THE SAME DECISIONS THAT FAMILIES HAVE TO MAKE, LIKE I HAVE BEEN DOING IN MY FAMILY HERE RECENTLY, AND TIMES ARE GETTING TOUGHER AND YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT INCOME AND EXPENSES AND THINK WE MAY HAVE TO SHAVE THIS OFF OR NOT DO THIS ACTIVITY OR FIND WAYS TO CUT COSTS HERE, AND GOVERNMENT TRIES TO KEEP ITSELF IMMUNE FROM DOING THAT.

I THINK WE HAVE KEPT THE RESERVES AROUND, BILL AND A HALF, 2 BILLION, MAKING SURE THAT'S FULL, HAVING IT A LITTLE LARGER.

IF IT WERE UP TO ME, I WOULD HAVE A LARGE CHUNK OF THE SURPLUS GOING BACK TO YOU, THE TAXPAYERS OF MINNESOTA.

>> Barry: SENATOR FRENTZ.

>> I THINK SOME OF IT HAS GOT TO GO BACK TO THE TAXPAYERS, TOO, AND BY THE WAY, I'M NOT MARRIED TO THE IDEA OF THE REBATE CHECKS.

THE BOJT I CAN INCLUDES THE IDEA FOR SOME FAMILIES A CHECK OF $1,000 CAN BE QUITE HELPFUL AND THERE'S SOME LOGIC THAT SAYS IT WILL BE MOST HELPFUL TO THE FAMILIES THAT HAVE THE LEAST.

I GET THE LOGIC OF IT.

I JUST DON'T THINK YOU HAVE TO DO IT THAT WAY.

FOR CONTEXT FOR THE CALLER, WE HAVE 17.6 BILLION SURPLUS WITH ROUGHLY 6 BILLION IS SO-CALLED STRUCTURAL OR ONGOING.

THE OTHER 12 OR SO IS ONE TIME.

FOR PERMANENT TAX RELIEF, I WOULD SAY THAT HAS TO COME OUT OF THAT 6 BILLION.

BY THE WAY, I WOULD POINT OUT WE DON'T HAVE A PERMANENT SURPLUS.

SO PERMANENT TAX RELIEF RAISES THE QUESTION WHETHER DOWN THE LINE WE WOULD MOVE INTO THE DEFICIT.

PROBABLY THE ONE THAT GETS THE MOST DISCUSSION IN OUR CAUCUS IS THE SOCIAL SECURITY TAX RELIEF THAT SOME OF OUR DFL SENATE MEMBERS CAMPAIGNED ON, INCLUDING ME, FOR A FULL REPEAL.

I CAN SEE WE DON'T HAVE THE VOTES FOR A FULL REPEAL BUT HOPEFULLY REDUCTION IN SOCIAL SECURITY TAXES.

THANKFULLY I WOULD TRADE THAT FOR THE REBATE CHECKS, AND I THINK IT WOULD MAKE MORE SENSE AND SENDS A BETTER MESSAGE ABOUT PEOPLE STAYING HERE IN RETIREMENT.

THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS WE CAN TALK ABOUT, THE BUDGET, BUT SENATOR MATTHEWS MENTIONED THAT WE HAVE AN AUTOMATIC RESERVE AS TO THAT THE RESERVE WILL GO UP A LITTLE BIT HERE, AND I THINK THAT IS APPROPRIATE, LIKE A FAMILY THAT MAKES 50,000 A YEAR THAT HAS TO SAVE 2 OR 3,000 OF THAT A YEAR.

I THINK A LOT OF FAMILIES WOULD DO THAT IF THEY COULD.

>> Barry: REPRESENTATIVE SWEDZINSKI, THE QUESTION ABOUT RESERVES, TAXES AND WE WILL THROW IN THE SOCIAL SECURITY QUESTION.

I WILL GO BACK TO SENATOR MATTHEWS ON THAT TOO.

YOU FIRST.

TAXES, RESERVE, WHAT DO YOU HAVE 20 SAY ABOUT THAT.

>> THAT'S A BIG THING.

WE HAVE STRUCTURAL ACCOUNTS THAT WE PUT SOME DOLLARS IN.

WE HAVE A RAINY DAY ACCOUNT, CASH FLOW ACCOUNT SO THAT IF WE DO RUN INTO ISSUES WITH THE BUDGET THAT'S SET UP, WE DO ALREADY HAVE SOME OF THOSE ACCOUNTS THAT ARE SET UP.

MY GUESS IS THE QUESTION BY THE CALLER WOULD BE FOCUSING THOSE DOLLARS ABOVE AND BEYOND BUT ACTUALLY CASH IN THE CHECKBOOK, SO TO SPEAK, DOLLARS THAT ARE NOT NECESSARILY SPOKEN FOR.

I ABSOLUTELY AGREE.

THE GOVERNOR IN THE HOUSE AND SENATE WILL BE BASING THEIR BUDGET OFF THE FEBRUARY FORECAST, WHICH IS GOING TO BE COMING OUT IN A FEW DAYS, A WEEK, NOT EVEN SURE, BUT, YOU KNOW, THAT'S LIKELY FROM ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES, SENATOR FRENTZ SAID THAT IT'S GOING TO BE -- CURRENTLY 17.6, AND I THINK MOST FOLKS AGREE IT'S LIKELY TO GO UP PAST THAT.

WE COULD SEE A SURPLUS IN THE 18 OR $19 BILLION.

WHEN GOVERNMENT IS FULL, THE LAST THING IS WE SHOULD BE FILLING IT UP MORE.

ONE OF MY BIG CONCERNS IS WHEN THE GOVERNOR RELEASED HIS BUDGET WITH THE PROGRAMMING AND THEY ARE LOOKING AT MULTIPLE BILLION DOLLARS TAX INCREASES, SO NOT ONLY DO WE HAVE A SURPLUS OF POTENTIALLY UP TO $20 BILLION THAT WE WILL BE DEALING WITH, BUT WE ARE ALSO SEEING THE MAJORITY OF GOVERNOR WALZ LOOKING AT INCREASING TAXES BY MULTIPLES OF BILLIONS OF DOLLARS, INCREASING GOVERNMENT, INCREASING PRESSURE, ESPECIALLY ON INDEPENDENT BUSINESSES, RAISING THE COSTS OF DOING BUSINESS AND THEIR COMPETITIVENESS AND REALLY PUTTING US AT POTENTIAL DISADVANTAGE AND AT A TIME WHEN JOBS ARE GOING TO BE SCARCE.

WE ARE SEEING LAY OFFS INCREASE ACROSS THE COUNTRY.

THOSE ARE ALL -- WHAT HAPPENS IN CALIFORNIA IN THE SUMMERTIME IS WHAT MAYBE HAPPENS HERE IN THE WINTER.

WHAT HAPPENS IN CALIFORNIA WINTERTIME MAY COME IN THE FALL OR THE SPRING.

SO I'M REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT THE OUTLOOK IS.

YOU ARE LOOKING AT A LOT OF THE GRAPH READERS IN WALL STREET.

THEY ARE REALLY CONCERNED ON IT.

WE ARE GOING TO SEE INFLATION COME DOWN.

THE REASON IT COULD START CREEPING DOWN, IT'S SO HIGH, AND IT'S BECAUSE OF MAJOR LAY OFFS AND PEOPLE ARE TAKING THEIR PERSONAL DEVELOPMENT.

IT'S TIME FOR STATE GOVERNMENT TO DO THE SAME.

>> SENATOR MATTHEWS, I WANT TO GIVE YOU A CHANCE TO TALK ABOUT THE SOCIAL SECURITY ISSUE THAT SENATOR FRENTZ RAISED.

AS A MATTER OF FACT, THAT'S A QUESTION ANOTHER VIEWER HAD.

SOCIAL SECURITY.

>> SOUNDS GOOD, APPRECIATE THAT.

IT WAS ONE OF THE TOP ISSUES THAT I HEARD OVER AND OVER AGAIN FOR OVER A YEAR AND ALL THROUGH LAST YEAR'S CAMPAIGN.

STILL GETTING ASKED ABOUT IT THIS YEAR.

GOING $18 BILLION SURPLUS, CAN YOU GET US A SOCIAL SECURITY FULL EXEMPTION FOR THAT.

IT'S IMPORTANT TO A LOT OF MINNESOTANS.

SENATOR FRENTZ, YOU KNOW, DEMOCRATS HAVE A 44-33 MAJORITY IN THE SENATE.

YOU PUT IT ON THE FLOOR NEXT MONDAY, IT WOULD PASS WITH LARGE BIPARTISAN SUPPORT.

YOU HAVE ALL 33 OF OUR MEMBERS, PLUS YOU AND BY MY COUNT THERE'S 5 OR 6 IN YOUR CAUCUS THAT HAVE BEEN VOCAL ABOUT THIS.

IT WOULD DEFINITELY PASS WITH BIPARTISAN SUPPORT.

I SUSPECT REPRESENTATIVE SWEDZINSKI COULD MAKE A SAME CLAIM IN HIS BODY, AND WE COULD HAVE IT ON THE GOVERNOR'S DESK NEXT WEEK, IF NOT FOR POLITICAL CHOICES MADE BY LEADERSHIP THAT ARE TRYING TO WEIGH OUT COMPETING FACTIONS IN THE MAJORITY CAUCUS.

WE ARE GIVING THEM OPPORTUNITIES, AND WE WILL GIVE FUTURE OPPORTUNITIES TO DO THE RIGHT THING.

THIS IS SUPPORTED BY A LARGE BROAD SPECTRUM OF MINNESOTANS AND BY A BROAD SPECTRUM IN THE LEGISLATURE, AND THERE SHOULD BE NO REASON WE DON'T GET IT DONE THIS YEAR.

>> Barry: ALL RIGHT.

WE WILL MOVE ON TO ANOTHER QUESTION FROM A VIEWER FROM ST. PETER.

THIS IS A QUESTION WE HAD NOT HAD PREVIOUSLY, AT LEAST I HAD NOT HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO ASK.

THIS IS AN ELECTION QUESTION.

THIS VIEWER IS A PROPONENT OF RANK CHOICE VOTING AND WANTS TO KNOW WHETHER OR NOT THE PANEL SUPPORTS RANK CHOICE VOTING AND WHETHER OR NOT IT'S SOMETHING THAT MIGHT SEE THE LIGHT OF DAY IN THIS LEGISLATIVE SESSION.

REPRESENTATIVE SWEDZINSKI, LET'S START WITH YOU.

I THINK IT'S YOUR TURN.

TELL US ALL ABOUT RANK CHOICE VOTING AND WHETHER YOU AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH IT AND WHAT YOU THINK THE PROSPECTS ARE.

>> I'M NOT POSITIVE.

HAVEN'T HEARD A LOT OF IT.

THE MOST I HAVE HEARD ABOUT RANK CHOICE VOTING IS WAITING ON THE ALASKA RESULTS.

I THINK THEY HAVE A SIMILAR PROGRAM UP IN ALASKA AND I'M NOT SURE IF THERE'S A COUPLE OTHER STATES AS WELL.

I THINK CITIES HAVE IT.

I'M GENERALLY -- I THINK WE SHOULD JUST, YOU KNOW -- I LIKE THE CURRENT PROGRAM AS FAR AS VOTING FOR SOMEONE, WHETHER HAVING A THIRD OR FOURTH OR FIFTH CHOICE DOWN THE LINE.

I THINK, YOU KNOW, I HATE TO SAY I'M AN EXPERT ON IT.

>> Barry: SENATOR FRENTZ, RANK CHOICE VOTING.

>> FIRST OF ALL, I THINK I KNOW THE CALLER ON CWD, AND I THINK I KNOW WHO THE RANK CHOICE VOTER IS IN ST. PETER AND THOSE ARE BOTH OF COURSE IN MY DISTRICT.

I'M NOT QUITE THERE YET ON RANK CHOICE VOTING.

I APPRECIATE ONE FEATURE.

I WATCHED ALASKA WHERE THEY HAD TO WAIT A COUPLE WEEKS.

THEY DID CREATE AN ENVIRONMENT WHERE THERE'S AN INCENTIVE TO BUILD A MORE POSITIVE CAMPAIGN.

THERE'S VIRTUE IN THAT.

I'M WELL AWARE SOME PLACES ARE VERY HAPPY WITH IT.

I TAKE NOTHING AWAY FROM THOSE ELECTED OFFICIALS THAT SUCCEEDED UNDER RANK CHOICE VOTING.

I'M NOT SAYING THEY ARE NOT WORTHY, BUT THE CURRENT SYSTEM STRIKES ME AS MORE STRAIGHTFORWARD AND I APPRECIATE THE PROMPTNESS OF THE CURRENT SYSTEM.

I THINK VOTERS GET A PLUS WHEN THEY FIND OUT THE RESULTS OF THE ELECTION RELATIVELY SOON AFTER THEY VOTE.

IN MINNESOTA WHERE WE SOMETIMES HAVE THE HIGHEST VOTER TURNOUT IN THE NATION, WE GET THE RESULTS TO THE PEOPLE PRETTY QUICKLY, USUALLY BY AT LEAST EARLY MORNING YOU KNOW MOST OF THE RESULTS AND SO I WOULD PROBABLY GET IN TROUBLE FOR SAYING THIS.

I KNOW THE RANK CHOICE VOTING FOLKS ARE WATCHING.

AS AN ENTITY THEY ARE EXTREMELY MOTIVATED ON THE CAMPAIGN SIDE.

THEY WORK SUPER HARD FOR CANDIDATES THAT SUPPORT RANK CHOICE VOTING.

I RESPECT THAT.

IT'S NOT JUST DO YOU SUPPORT AN ISSUE, BUT HOW PASSIONATELY.

SO I GIVE THE RANK CHOICE VOTING PEOPLE A THUMBS UP ON THE ENTHUSIASM.

I'M JUST NOT QUITE THERE YET, AND HAPPY TO STAY OPEN-MINDED.

MAYBE THERE WILL BE DEVELOPMENTS IN RANK CHOICE VOTING THAT WILL SEEM MORE FAVORABLE OR SOME OF THE NEGATIVES WILL SEE LESS OF AN ISSUE.

STAY TUNED.

>> Barry: SENATOR MATTHEWS I'M GOING TO ASK YOU ABOUT RANK CHOICE VOTING AND STAY OUT OF AFFIRMATIVE OR NEGATIVE ON THESE ISSUES, BUT ONE FEATURE OF RANK CHOICE VOTING REQUIRES VOTERS TO KNOW HOW THEY FEEL ABOUT CANDIDATES, IF YOU HAVE 1, 2 OR 3 CANDIDATES, MAYBE IT'S NOT AS BIG A DEAL.

BUT IF YOU HAVE 3, 4 OR 5 CANDIDATES RUNNING AND YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO RANK THEM, ONE THEORETICAL PROBLEM, MAYBE IT'S A PROBLEM, MAYBE IT'S NOT IS THAT THE PARTICIPANTS IN A RANK CHOICE VOTING SCHEME, SCHEME IS THE WRONG WORD, FORMAT OR PLAN, PARTICIPANTS MAY KNOW HOW THEY FEEL ABOUT CANDIDATE NO.

1, CANDIDATE NO.

2, BUT THEY MAY NOT KNOW MUCH ABOUT CANDIDATES 3, 4, 5 IN TERMS OF HOW THEY RANK, AND THERE'S AN ERR OF ARTIFICIALITY OF THAT THAT CAUSES ME TO WONDER DO WE KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT HOW THE SYSTEM WORKS IN ELECTIONS IN GENERAL.

HAVING SAID THAT, THERE ARE COUNTERARGUMENTS, AND THE FLOOR IS YOURS ON RANK CHOICE VOTING.

WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS?

>> SITTING ON THE ELECTIONS COMMITTEE, I HAVE SEEN THIS BILL COME THROUGH.

I'M NOT A SUPPORTER OF IF.

I THINK IT'S PROBLEMATIC IN A COUPLE OF RESPECTS.

YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE WHOLE LIST OF CANDIDATES, AND THAT'S SOMETHING WE SHOULD BE DOING TODAY IN THE CURRENT SYSTEM, AND THERE ARE RACES, MAYBE YOUR CITY COUNCIL RACES, COUNTY RACES, COUNTY COMMISSIONER, ET CETERA, SCHOOL BOARD.

WE ALREADY HAVE BALLOTS WHERE WE HAVE A LIST OF NAMES THAT COULD BE LARGER AND WE ARE VOTING FOR MULTIPLES AT ONE TIME.

IT ALWAYS IS GOOD PRACTICE TO TRY TO STUDY UP AND KNOW WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT EACH CANDIDATES.

BUT I AGREE WITH SENATOR FRENTZ, THE TIMING ASPECT IS VERY TROUBLING, AND THE FACT YOU HAVE TO EXPECT THESE TO TAKE DAYS, IF NOT WEEKS, AND IN THIS CURRENT POLITICAL ENVIRONMENT, WE SHOULD BE PUSHING TO TRY TO GO THE OTHER WAY WHEN ALL THE TECHNOLOGY ADVANCEMENT WE HAVE IN OUR NATION WITH ALL THE WILLING VOLUNTEERS AND ELECTION JUDGES WE COULD TRAIN, THERE'S NO REASON THAT WE CAN'T HAVE A GOOD STRONG SECURE ELECTION AND EVERY VALUED VOTE CAST AND COUNTED IN A SHORT PERIOD OF TIMED AND RANK CHOICE VOTING TAKES IT AWAY FROM THAT.

ALSO I FEEL IT'S TROUBLING ON THE ONE PERSON ONE VOTE EQUATION.

YOU WILL HAVE SOME PEOPLE WHERE THEY WILL VOTE FOR ONE PERSON AND THAT IS WHO THEIR VOTE IS COUNTED FOR.

OTHER PEOPLE WILL CAST A BALLOT AND YOU CAN VOTE FOR PERSON A UNLESS THAT ONE DOESN'T WORK OUT AND THEN YOU CAN HAVE THE VOTE CAST FOR PERSON B.

THEN WE GO DOWN TO C. INEQUALITY WITH HOW THAT GETS APPLIED IS TROUBLING TO ME.

IT MAKES ME VERY WARY BASED ON OUR CONSTITUTIONAL ONE PERSON ONE VOTE SYSTEM.

I'M NOT A FAN OF IT EITHER.

IT HAS BEEN MOVING THROUGH COMMITTEE.

I DON'T KNOW HOW FAR THE MAJORITY IS PLANNING TO TAKE IT, WHETHER THEY HAVE THE VOTES FOR IT.

A LOT OF GOOD IN OUR CURRENT SYSTEM.

WE COULD MAKE IT BETTER.

I JUST DON'T SEE RANK CHOICE VOTING BEING A PART OF THAT.

>> Barry: SENATOR MATTHEWS, I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU A CRACK AT THIS QUESTION FROM A VIEWER IN PRINCETON WHO WANTS TO KNOW THE STATUS OF THE FEEDING OUR SCHOOL CHILDREN BILL AND WANTS TO KNOW WHERE THAT'S AT, HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT THAT.

VERY QUICKLY LET'S TAKE THAT QUESTION.

SENATOR MATTHEWS.

>> APPEARS THE BILL IS MOVING THROUGH THE PROCESS.

WE HAVE HAD A SYSTEM IN PLACE THAT HELPS THE KIDS THAT NEED IT WITH MEALS AT SCHOOL AND SO I AM ASKING THE QUESTION WHERE DO WE HAVE -- WHERE ARE OTHER PEOPLE THAT ARE NEEDING HELP THAT ARE NOT GETTING IT?

IT'S JUST PLANNING TO BUY MEALS FOR ALL KIDS FOR ALL MEALS, THE BEST USE OF OUR DOLLARS?

RESPONSE ALWAYS COMES BACK YOU MUST BELIEVE IN LETTING KIDS GO HUNGRY.

OF COURSE THAT'S RIDICULOUS.

BUT MANY FAMILIES ARE ABLE TO PROVIDE.

SOME CANNOT.

WE HAVE THOSE SYSTEMS IN PLACE TO HELP THOSE.

WE WANT TO BE THE BEST STEWARDS OF OUR TAX DOLLARS WITH WHAT WE DO.

SO I BELIEVE THAT DISCUSSION IS COMING IN THE MINNESOTA SENATE, BUT I STILL HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS ABOUT IT.

>> WE ONLY HAVE A COUPLE MINUTES LEFT.

REPRESENTATIVE SWEDZINSKI, THE BILL IN THE HOUSE, YOUR VIEW ON IT?

>> IT'S ALREADY BEEN PASSED.

THE BIG CONCERN REALLY -- THIS STEMS FROM AN ISSUE THAT REPRESENT TIFF PUSHED YEARS AGO.

IT WAS FOOD SHAMING FOR STUDENTS.

IT WAS KIDS THAT MAYBE DIDN'T HAVE THEIR LUNCH PAID OR WHATEVER THAT MIGHT BE.

BIG CONCERN WITH THE BILL THAT WAS MOVED OFF THE FLOOR WAS THE FACT THAT IT REALLY DOESN'T STOP THAT.

SO IF YOU DO HAVE A CHARGE, YOU STILL WILL OWE, SO EVEN THOUGH YOU GET THE FIRST MEAL FREE, IF YOU ARE STILL HUNGRY BECAUSE OF FORMER PRESIDENT OBAMA'S WIFE FOOD PLAN AT THE SCHOOLS, IF THE KID IS STILL HUNGRY AND GO BACK OFF AND PUT IT ON THE TAB, AT SOME POINT THEY ARE GOING TO RUN UP DEBT.

HOW IS THAT DEALT WITH?

KIDS AREN'T ALLOWED TO EAT?

DO THEY GET THEIR FOOD THROWN IN THE GARBAGE?

IT DOESN'T ALLOW THE FLEXIBILITY IN THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS.

>> Barry: SENATOR FRENTZ, 30 SECONDS, THE FLOOR IS YOURS.

>> GOOD POINTS MADE BY SENATOR MATTHEWS AND REPRESENTATIVE SWEDZINSKI.

I'M PROBABLY A YES ON THE BILL.

I'M SOMEWHAT MORE CONCERNED ABOUT THE NUMBER OF KIDS THAT ARE GOING HUNGRY THAT I THINK WOULD BE FED BY THIS.

I RESPECT THE COST ARGUMENT.

AT THE END OF THE DAY THE UPSIDE FOR A KID AND HEARD NUMBERS AS HIGH AS 8, 9, 10% THAT SHOWS UP HUNGRY AND WOULD EAT, MAKES IT WORTH IT.

I GUESS YOU WILL SEE.

>> Barry: I WANT TO THANK OUR PANEL, THANK YOU THE VIEWERS FOR JOINING US, AND THE ALSO AVAILABLE ON YOUTUBE.

WE INVITE YOU TO JOIN US NEXT WEEK AND ALL THE WEEKS THAT FOLLOW UNTIL THE LEGISLATURE GOES HOME.

THANK YOU AND GOOD NIGHT.

>>> "YOUR LEGISLATORS" IS MADE POSSIBLE BY THE MINNESOTA CORN GROWERS ASSOCIATION FROM DEVELOPING BEST PRACTICES THAT HELP FARMERS BETTER PROTECT OUR NATURAL RESOURCES TO THE LATEST INNOVATIONS IN CORN BASED PLASTICS.

MINNESOTA CORN FARMERS ARE PROUD TO INVEST IN THIRD PARTY RESEARCH LEADING TO A MORE SUSTAINABLE FUTURE TO OUR LOCAL COMMUNITIES.

MINNESOTA FARMERS UNION, STANDING FOR AGRICULTURE, WORKING FOR FARMERS, ON THE WEB AT MFU.ORG.

CAPTIONING PROVIDED BY CAPTION ASSOCIATES, LLC WWW.CAPTIONASSOCIATES.COM