♪♪♪ >> CATHY: AS WE JUST MENTIONED, ALL 134 MINNESOTA HOUSE SEATS ARE ON THE BALLOT THIS FALL.

ALTHOUGH THE LEGISLATIVE SESSION IS OVER, LAWMAKERS ARE STILL REPRESENTING THEIR DISTRICTS, SO WE'VE GATHERED AN ESTEEMED GROUP OF RETIRING LAWMAKERS TO LOOK AHEAD AND LOOK BACK AT THE LEGISLATURE.

DFL UP FIRST.

REPRESENTATIVE GENE PELOWSKI, FROM WINONA, IS SERVING IN HIS 19TH TERM.

WE HAD, OF COURSE, REPRESENTATIVE HODAN HASSAN WAS GOING TO JOIN US, SHE'S RUNNING LATE, IF SHE GETS HERE, WE'LL TALKING TO HER, TOO.

REPUBLICANS JOINING US, ELECTED BACK IN 2002, REPRESENTATIVE DEAN URDAHL MADE THE TRIP OUT FROM GROVE CITY, AND LAST, AND CERTAINLY NOT LEAST, REPRESENTATIVE JOHN PETERSBURG IN HIS SIXTH TERM REPRESENTING THE FINE CITY OF WASECA.

GOOD TO EE YOU ALL, BY THE WAY.

CONGRATULATIONS ON FINISHING OUT ESTEEMED LEGISLATIVE CAREERS.

Mr.

CHAIR, REPRESENTATIVE PELOWSKI, I NOTED, YOU DIDN'T HAVE A FAREWELL SPEECH, EVERYBODY ELSE, ALMOST EVERYBODY ELSE HAD A FAREWELL SPEECH.

YOU DID NOT.

WHAT YOU HAVE SAID IF YOU HAD GOTTEN UP?

>> WELL, ACTUALLY, I HAVE TWO OF THEM.

THE MOST RECENT ONE WAS THE FRONT PAGE OF THE WINONA DAILY NEWS, A WEEK AGO SATURDAY, AND ANOTHER FULL PAGE INSIDE.

SO, MY ADDITIONAL FAREWELL SPEECH WAS TO MY CONSTITUENTS, AND I THINK IT WAS VERY DETAILED AND VERY WELL DONE.

AND, OF COURSE, IT WAS THE WINONA DAILY NEWS.

MY SECOND FAREWELL SPEECH, I KEPT A AILY JOURNAL SINCE JANUARY 5th, 1987, AND I HAVE 7,000 PAGES OF A FAREWELL SPEECH THAT I'M SURE HISTORIANS WILL FIND MOST FASCINATING.

SO THAT'S 11 SPEAKERS OF THE HOUSE AND SIX GOVERNORS.

>> Eric: REPRESENTATIVE PETERSBURG, YOU TALKED ABOUT RESPECTING THE OPINIONS OF OTHERS IN YOUR FAREWELL SPEECH AND YOU SAID, ONCE YOU REALIZE THAT, IT LOWERED THE WALL, CAN YOU TALK A LITTLE MORE ABOUT THAT?

>> YEAH.

YOU KNOW, ONE OF MY -- I SPENT 21 YEARS AS A CHURCH ADMINISTRATOR, LEARNING HOW TO DEAL WITH THE POLITICS IN A CHURCH, WHICH IS ACTUALLY A LITTLE BIT MORE DIFFICULT THAN IT IS UP HERE IN THE LEGISLATURE BECAUSE YOU TRIED TO DEVELOP 100% CONSENSUS ON EVERYTHING.

SO ONCE YOU DETERMINED YOU'RE GOING TO GO TO A CONSENSUS, AND YOU GET READY FOR A VOTE, AND SOMEBODY STANDS UP AND SAYS, WAIT A MINUTE, I THINK WE OUGHT TO DO THIS, YOU DON'T SAY, WELL, THANK YOU FOR YOUR OPINION AND MOVE ON, YOU GO BACK TO THE BEGINNING AND START ALL OVER AGAIN.

WHERE THE LEGISLATURE, YOU ACTUALLY GET TO MAKE A DECISION, MOVE ON, AND THEN UNDERSTAND THAT YOU HAVE LIMITED AMOUNT OF TIME.

BUT WHAT HAPPENS IS, WHEN YOU ELIMINATE THE OPINION THAT THE OTHER SIDE IS TRYING TO BE MEAN AND IS TRYING TO BE BAD, BUT, RATHER, THAT THEY ARE ACTUALLY SUPPORTING HEIR OWN VIEW AND THEIR OWN BASIS OF BELIEF, THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN YOU CAN DEAL WITH THEM ON A PERSON-TO-PERSON BASIS, RATHER THAN JUST EALING WITH THEM AS KIND OF A CONFLICT OF ONE SIZE FITS ALL, WINNER TAKE ALL.

>> Cathy: SURE.

>> Eric: IT'S NOT FUN ANYMORE IS WHAT YOU SAID.

>> YEAH.

I WAS ELECTED 2002, FIRST SESSION WAS IN 2003.

AND IT WAS MORE FUN THEN.

>> Eric: WHAT'S MADE IT LESS FUN?

>> WELL, I THINK WE HAD MORE FREEDOM TO DO WHAT WE WANTED TO DO IN LEGISLATION.

AND I SAID IN MY RETIREMENT SPEECH THAT I WAS GUIDED AND SOME OF MY CLOSE FRIENDS, THE THREE Cs, WE MAKE OUR DECISIONS BASED ON OUR CONSCIENCE, OUR CONSTITUENTS AND THEN THE CAUCUS.

WELL, I THINK THE CAUCUS POWER AND INFLUENCE HAS GROWN OVER THE YEARS, OVER THE 22 YEARS THAT I'VE BEEN IN THE LEGISLATURE, AND, FRANKLY, A LOT OF IT NOW, YOU DON'T HAVE TO THINK TOO MUCH BECAUSE THEY'LL TELL YOU HOW TO VOTE.

>> Cathy: HOW HAS THAT CHANGED FROM 1986, '87?

>> I HAVE ALWAYS HAD THIS PHILOSOPHY.

PEOPLE ASK ME, WHAT DO YOU DO?

I SUPPORT THE DISTRICT FIRST.

THE STATE SECOND.

NATIONAL, WHATEVER WE DO NATIONAL, THIRD.

AND PARTY HAS ALWAYS BEEN LAST.

AND IT SERVED ME FOR 38 YEARS.

SO, FOLKS DIDN'T GET IT, DISTRICT FIRST, STATE SECOND, NATIONAL THIRD, PARTY LAST.

>> Cathy: AND OBVIOUSLY THAT HAS CHANGED, YOU KNOW, WHAT'S YOUR OPINION ON THAT, REPRESENTATIVE?

>> YES, IT'S CHANGED TO THE POINT WHERE I BELIEVE THAT WE ARE IN A KIND OF A WINNER TAKE ALL MENTALITY, IN WHICH WE'RE NOT INTERESTED IN UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE ARE GREAT DEAL, NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT ARE VOTING FOR REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE OTHER PARTY THAT HAVE TO HAVE THEIR VOICE HEARD AND NEEDS TO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ACTUALLY BE THE VOICE FOR THEM THERE.

AND, SO, WHEN WE DISREGARD THAT BECAUSE THE OPINION OF THE PARTICULAR MAJORITY IS GOING TO TAKE PARAMOUNT, DOESN'T MATTER IF IT'S REPUBLICAN OR DEMOCRAT, WE HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS A GREAT NUMBER OF PEOPLE IN THE STATE THAT DISAGREE WITH WHATEVER BILL WE HAVE ON THE FLOOR.

AND, SO, HOW DO WE GET TRANSPARENCY IN WHICH PEOPLE CAN ACTUALLY GET AN OPPORTUNITY TO FEEL LIKE THEIR VOICE IS HEARD.

THAT, TO ME, IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE OUTCOME.

>> Eric: FULL-TIME LEGISLATURE?

YOUR THOUGHTS?

>> WELL, DON'T KNOW THAT I'M READY TO GO THAT WAY.

I THINK OUR PART-TIME LEGISLATURE GENERALLY HAS SERVED US VERY WELL, EVEN THOUGH PART TIME IS KIND OF A MORPHOUS TERM.

LEGISLATORS, IF THEY'RE DOING THEIR JOB, IT REALLY ALMOST IS FULL TIME NOW.

>> Eric: YEAH.

>> BUT I'LL JUST SAY ONE OTHER THING, AND THAT IS, THERE ARE MORE STATESMAN-INCLINED PEOPLE WHEN I WAS FIRST ELECTED.

I THINK WE HAVE MORE AND MORE WHO ARE MORE INTERESTED IN THE POLITICS, MORE SO THAN DOING THE JOB.

THEY'RE MORE INTERESTED IN SAYING NO THAN IN SAYING HOW CAN WE GET THINGS DONE.

>> Cathy: DO YOU TWO AGREE WITH THAT STATEMENT?

>> FULL-TIME LEGISLATURE?

>> FULL-TIME LEGISLATURE, NO, IT WOULD BE A MISTAKE.

WE SET ANOTHER RECORD FOR INTRODUCTIONS OF BILLS THIS SESSION.

>> Eric: 5,000 OR SO, RIGHT?

>> I THINK 5,486, BUT WHO COUNTS?

AND THAT'S 500 MORE THAN WE DID THE LAST LEGISLATIVE SESSION.

WE HAVE STRESSED UR STAFF, BOTH IN THE REVISOR'S OFFICE AND THE CHIEF CLERK'S STAFF TO THE POINT WHERE WE ARE LITERALLY DROWNING IN OUR OWN LEGISLATION.

WE'RE 134 MEMBERS, WE HAVE 120 DAYS ON THE FLOOR.

5,500 BILLS, GIVE OR TAKE, THE SENATE ACTUALLY INTRODUCED MORE.

I DID LEAD THE GOV OPS COMMITTEE IN '07 AND '08, WE HAD EIGHT HEARINGS IN THE INTERIM, TO PUT IN RULES THAT WOULD PREVENT THAT FROM HAPPENING.

AND I JUST HAD A DISCUSSION WITH YOUR PREVIOUS GUEST ON GOING BACK TO WHAT WE DID IN '07 AND '08 AND TAKE A LOOK AT HOW WE CAN CHANGE IT AND CORRECT IT.

>> Cathy: I'M CURIOUS, ACTUALLY, I WANT TO GO BACK TO WHAT REPRESENTATIVE URDAHL SAID.

THERE'S A LACK OF STATESPEOPLE IN THE LEGISLATURE.

BECAUSE YOU'RE THE RANKING MEMBER HERE ON THE COUCH, WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THAT?

>> I'M THE RANKING MEMBER IN THE HOUSE.

SO, THERE WAS A TIME WHEN WE COULD, BOTH THE REPUBLICAN AND DEMOCRATIC CAUCUS, PRODUCE ABOUT FIVE OR SIX PEOPLE EACH, 12, WE COULD STOP ANYTHING BY SIMPLY SAYING, WE'RE NOT GOING TO VOTE FOR IT, WE NEED TO CHANGE.

THAT'S CHANGED COMPLETELY.

THAT NO LONGER EXISTS.

IT WOULD PROBABLY BE REPRESENTATIVE URDAHL AND I THAT WOULD BE THE TWO THAT MIGHT AGREE MORE THAN ANYTHING ELSE.

YOU JUST DON'T HAVE THE MIDDLE ANYMORE.

>> Eric: HOW ABOUT TIME LIMIT ON FLOOR DEBATE?

>> WELL, GETTING BACK TO ACTUALLY THE FULL-TIME LEGISLATURE -- >> Eric: SURE, GO AHEAD.

>> -- WITHOUT DEADLINES, WE DRAG THINGS OUT ALL THE TIME, AND IT'S NOT UNTIL WE HAVE THE DEADLINE APPROACHING THAT PEOPLE GET SERIOUS ABOUT NEGOTIATING AND MOVING FORWARD.

SO, FULL-TIME LEGISLATURE WOULD JUST DRAG THINGS OUT.

PROBABLY NOT GOING TO SOLVE ANY MORE PROBLEMS, NOT GETTING ANYTHING MORE PASSED.

SO I THINK THAT'S IMPORTANT.

YOUR QUESTION ABOUT LIMITING DEBATE, NO, I DON'T THINK YOU SHOULD BE LIMITING DEBATE TO THE POINT WHERE YOU HAVE TO HAVE TIME LIMITS BECAUSE SOME BILLS AND SOME PARTICULAR AMENDMENTS REQUIRE MORE TIME.

>> WE MIGHT BE ONE F THE ONLY STATES IN THE COUNTRY THAT DOESN'T AT THIS POINT.

>> ACTUALLY, WHEN WE DID OUR RESEARCH IN '07 AND '08 AND WITH THOSE EIGHT HEARINGS, AND I INVITED THE ENTIRE HOUSE TO PARTICIPATE, WE MADE THE RECOMMENDATION, UNDER SPEAKER MARGARET ANDERSON KELLIHER, WE IMPLEMENTED LIMITING DEBATE, THEN WHEN THE REPUBLICANS TOOK OVER, THEY GOT RID OF IT.

WE ARE ONE OF THE FEW LEGISLATURES THAT DOES NOT HAVE IT.

IT'S COME NOW, WE HAVE TO LIMIT DEBATE.

YOU SIMPLY -- FILLIBUSTERS IS DONE IN ONE, AND ONLY ONE BODY IN THE SENATE.

IN YOU HAVE >> THOROUGHLY DISCUSSING.

>> IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN WHAT A FILIBUSTER IS, LOOK AT THE LITTLE VIDEO THAT'S ON YouTube, FILLI BURGER FOR THE MINNESOTA HOUSE.

>> I WANT TO SAY, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT'S LED TO THE PROBLEMS THAT WE HAVE, FRANKLY, IS THE CAUCUS SYSTEM THAT WE HAVE IN THIS STATE.

>> Eric: THE ENDORSEMENT PROCESS.

>> RIGHT.

BASICALLY THIS ALLOWS EXTREME GROUPS TO TAKE CONTROL OF EACH OF THE PARTIES.

AND, YOU KNOW, I'M FOR A PRIMARY SYSTEM.

>> Eric: A MARCH PRIMARY, THOUGH, YOU GUYS WOULD BE IN SESSION AND YOU COULDN'T RAISE MONEY.

JUNE WOULD BE MORE APPETIZING?

>> THERE'S A DIFFERENT ANSWER TO THE CAUCUS SYSTEM.

WHEN I FIRST CAME, WE CAUCUSED MAYBE ONCE A WEEK, MAYBE ONCE A WEEK.

WE NOW CAUCUS ONCE OR TWICE A DAY.

WHERE YOU'RE DRAGGED INTO CAUCUS, YOU'RE TOLD HOW TO VOTE.

WE'VE GOT TO GO BACK TO A SYSTEM WHERE THE EMBER DECIDES HOW THEY'RE GOING TO VOTE AND I WOULD RECOMMEND YOU LOOK AT YOUR DISTRICT FIRST WHEN YOU'RE VOTING.

>> Eric: YOU WERE AT YOUR DESK OFTEN DURING A CAUCUS MEETING.

>> I WAS AT MY DESK QUITE OFTEN BECAUSE Y JOURNAL DEMANDED THAT I DO SOME THINGS.

>> Cathy: I WANT TO SEE THAT JOURNAL.

>> Eric: ALL RIGHT, GUYS.

>> MY BOOK'S COMING OUT.

END OF SESSION.

THAT'S THE NAME OF THE BOOK.

>> Cathy: "END OF SESSION," WE'LL HAVE YOU BACK THEN.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE.

>> Eric: THANK YOU OR YOUR SERVIC