welcome to Minnesota legislative report our Region's longest running public affairs program lawmakers from Northeastern Minnesota are joining us today for a recap of the week's activities at the state capitol this is your opportunity to call or email your legislative questions and have them answered live on the air Minnesota legislative report Starts Now hello and welcome to Minnesota legislative report I'm your host Tony cerdich the 2023 legislative session is down to its final days and lawmakers have been working long hours including a house floor session yesterday conference committees are working out the details of major spending bills and sending them back to the final votes on the House and Senate floor today is your final opportunity to call or email your questions for lawmakers who represent you the phone number is on your screen or you can always email us a question to ask at pbsnorth.org joining us in studio is representative Natalie celeznikar a republican from friedenberg Township representing house district 3B welcome Representatives lesnikar thank you and Senator Jason rarick a republican is joining us for the first time this year from Pine City he represents Senate District 11.

Welcome Senator rarick and thanks for having me great to have you both here so we are one week away and one day from the end of the legislative session uh Senator Eric this is your first time on the show representative card it's her third time this year on the show already so we'll let you start here what do you think about the pace of the legislative session and just overall how it's going for you yeah this year has been different than any of the nine that I've been there it's working or they're moving at a pretty quick Pace usually you know back in January February you're hearing from State agencies hearing especially for you know the new members what the agencies do you know we had a number of bills that came forward right away some pretty big bills didn't do a lot of that agency stuff and and so the pace has been pretty unreal and even people who have been around the capitol for 30 plus years are saying they've never seen anything like it so you know I thought I'd have time to get up to speed on a new issue area the education finance committee this year and it just didn't happen I was having to do that while we were doing all those other bills so it's been been way different than anything I've experienced yeah representative is in the car you've been on the show a few times it's your first time so you have nothing to compare it to except maybe your expectations and so what has been the biggest surprise for you in serving your first year in the legislature I think the biggest surprise has been coming to the end you know now we're in in May ready ready to close up you know the first year for me the first year and to see that the minority party is not being included in um the conference committees and that that was surprising to me because the whole theme was one Minnesota and so even though the minority party might be 48 of the people uh I think it's important that they are present and they haven't been in some really key areas for Public Safety and the energy bill and there's just a long list of them so I think that's the biggest disappointment to be in surprise that that would happen and for our viewers the conference committee is when a bill passes both the house and the Senate they need to agree on it and so they select five members from each body and then they're the ones who hammer out the agreement and then send it back for a final vote and that's where we're at right now for a whole host of the budget bills and some of the other bills that we'll be talking about today with your questions and so uh first question out the gate that we're going to start with you represents lesnikar and you'll know why in one second why hasn't there been more attention and funding for nursing homes and long-term care in this in the budget proposals I'm aware that many nursing homes are deep financial trouble and several have closed are on the verge of closing Mrs Jenny emailing in represents lesnikar you serve on the committee this is your background of your career can you talk about this issue I think it's been a very disappointing thing for every Minnesotan I mean we get the largest group of Aging people and why are we not funding nursing homes is a very good question I've been asking that in every chance I have to speak on the house floor why do we have money for zoos why do we have 146 million dollar train coming to Duluth why are we doing all these things adding new government programs when we aren't taking care of the fundamentals which should be the people that built the state in the country which are the seniors who are at the frailst most vulnerable in nursing homes and I think it's because it's just this lack of understanding of what it really takes to run 24-hour operations this understanding that everybody's just thriving and they're all wealthy and they're all doing great and that's just simply not the facts and we're seeing closures every week and the system that nursing homes are reimbursed on is an 18 to 24 month delay and they're they've only audited like 30 percent I believe of the nursing home so the state of Minnesota is very be behind I introduced an amendment to have us have private audits done so that we could get caught up so we're we're paying nursing homes on a fair market value of actual costs timely but the majority party voted no so we have to use the state of Minnesota they're behind and by the time they get the cost cost reports done they're getting reimbursed on rates that were two years ago so we all know the price of eggs are not what it was two years ago and so that's part of the problem so the credit lines have went out they can't increase their credit lines anymore and so many of them are just having to stop taking when you stop taking admissions you have no way to pay your payroll and right now that's what a lot of them are doing and they're closing they're just saying we can't be in this business anymore so more funding for nursing homes and you've advocated for that and now we're at the end where it's really come down to choices and we have a budget surplus correct and the budget surplus is both one-time money and ongoing money and as we've explained on the show before it's really the ongoing budget surplus is a smaller portion of the Surplus but that's more like your paycheck and this one-time money is more like if you got a Bonus you can only spend it once but you can't count on it in the future so represent that's less than a car then where would you want to take the money from to find the money to go to nursing home funding and I know you mentioned a couple of projects just now but those are one-time dollars you know spending on the rail up here some of the zoo funding is one-time money but you're I think looking for ongoing money for nursing homes so where would you make that choice because those big pots of money are education taxes Human Services and so where would you find that money well right now the one-time money would be uh very critical and we have 1.7 I think billion dollars we're putting into the Paid Family Medical Leave Act which is going to increase what we do above the federal uh 12 weeks which all the businesses are calling me daily saying this is an issue so that's a pot of money we're making a choice to start a new program that supersedes federal law but you but you wouldn't want to spend that on nursing homes that need an ongoing need because then they would be in deficit two years from now so but the money that they need right now is the money the one-time money would help tremendously because they have a reimbursement of value based reimbursement which the state did a few years ago which they are reimbursed with costs the issues are we need to get the cost reports done faster so that we're reimbursing them on actual real costs they did not put inflationary adjustments like they're doing an education and all the other government programs they chose to not do that with nursing homes and so the the tails are really were behind so the one-time money would have helped tremendously and then we need to look at the the reimbursement structure on the model which is very complicated that's not going to get done by end of session so I think people understand we might need one-time money right now and then we need to look at the audits getting the cast reports done so we get reimbursed and look at inflationary adjustments and that's going to take a couple uh many meetings quite frankly next year to look at how we what we can do for nursing homes to stabilize them on a long-term basis Senator rarick we have somebody who's worked in the field and and is fluent with the details but I love your comments on long-term care and nursing home funding yeah I think you know when we saw the targets come out we knew right away this this was not going to be able to meet the needs that we've been hearing about for a number of years now and you know Senator Hoffman he chairs the HSR Committee in the Senate and and we have been working with him you know the Senate Republicans have trying the Human Services committee or acronym free here as much as possible for the viewers so so um you know we've been working with him trying to you know kind of figure that out and I think it is a combination there's some one-time funds that are needed right now to help our nursing homes but you're right there are some long-term you know the in the tales uh money that's needed and so you know and I think a number of people believe you know we'd have liked to have seen some tax cuts but they also understand that that is a need that we have to have um you know I think one of the things we see in the education realm right now you know we did record funding towards education out of this um but yet we're putting new mandates on that are actually going to exceed the new monies and I think if we could have avoided that and actually done away with some of the things we require of our schools you know we could have taken some of that money and shifted it to our nursing homes and our schools would have still been in a good spot so you know I think it's it's a lot of things that we're looking at here that uh you know I I would have loved I talked at the beginning of the year I was talking to folks you know coming out of covid you know we've heard from teachers we've heard from the nurses we've heard from long-term care folks it's all this paperwork and some of the requirements that they have to do out of love to have seen us do like a two or three year moratorium on that to say let's get everybody caught up let's for forget about that for a while and then we can reevaluate how much of that is actually necessary and we could get rid of some of that administrative cost that's not actually helping our students in the classroom our seniors in nursing homes let's get back and focus on those things and so I hope that's some of what we talk about as well in these next session you know off session next session things like that what can we do to actually put that Focus back into the care and into the education system and we're going to talk much more about education as the hour goes along but I want to stay on this line around long-term care some of these cuts and in the Senate and and really tie this back to the capital investment or bonding Bill and as a reminder for viewers this is the bill where the state traditionally borrows money to invest in capital projects and so this would be roads and sewers and buildings that the state or Regional entities own and so this year there's been a conversation because when you borrow money the legislature has to vote in a super majority to buy our money not just spend money but borrow money and so the Senate Republicans have withheld their votes on a bonding Bill and tied it really to tax cuts for Social Security rebate checks maybe some of this long-term care funding there's been negotiations back and forth and some people I think uh see this and they say well that makes sense you you have leverage right they need your vote for this bill so we're going to ask for other things while other viewers might be saying this is what I don't like about politics why can't every issue stand on its own if you want a bonding bill you vote on a bonding Bill if you want nursing home funding you want nursing home funding and so why tie the two issues together do you think that's a good idea and where do we stand right now yeah you know I'm somebody who believes too we put too many things into one bill and vote it through but they're even though they're not in one bill there are ties to everything just like your own budget right you might say hey I've got to think of everything on its own but yet it all comes together in the end because if you do too many things right away and you come to something important you may not be able to afford it so you have to look at the whole scope and that's the Senate Republicans what we've been doing and you know we heard over and over that with the 17 to 19 billion dollar Surplus tax cuts were something that people absolutely wanted and believed were coming and you know rather than a rebate check you know some type of tax cut so we're not sending checks out because then we have administrative costs to go with that and so that's what we've been saying it's like hey we need to make sure they're you know we can't just spend the entire Surplus and then borrow more money we should have tax cuts that will go along with borrowing this money so that minnesotans can continue to afford this and that's not what has happened so right now where we see the targets the tax cuts are probably not um likely to happen but it is some of the nursing home funding or some of these other things that we are looking at saying if we instead of using the cash in the bond Bill what are the things that we think are most necessary for that money because all along the process so far this year you know as being in the minority we haven't had the say as to where things go in this so this is our one piece of Leverage to try to help direct where some of this funding will go and I think minnesotans kind of expect that because it's a instead of having one party making every single determination um let's have a little bit of everybody working together I think that's what they expected was you know we've heard that over and over as well we need to work together we need to have agreement on things and so far that hasn't happened and I think in the last few days we can get there on a bonding bill um but it's going to take that let's talk about this come to some agreements because I want to see these projects get done as well it is very important I've heard from those in construction we're slowing down now they the jobs would be great all this water infrastructure you know repairing of State assets that's all important stuff but again it all goes together if we increase our spending by you know spend all this 19 billion have nothing left in the bank plus we borrow more I'm really nervous about what we're coming back to next year where it's going to be deficits we have all this money that's been borrowed now we might start having to make cuts from education or from HHS the health and human services that that's what I'm really nervous about so let's take a good long look as to why we're spending all the money and then borrowing more let's take a more balanced approach is what Senate Republicans are doing so couldn't you say the same thing though about the tax cuts that you're supporting is that would also impact the Surplus as well and put you in that same position that you're saying about if you commit more spending that impacts the Surplus right but if you take if you cut more taxes that also shrinks the Surplus as well and puts you in that same position that you were talking about saying well we don't want to have to go backwards and and spend all the money and so you know spending it is one way to shrink the Surplus tax cuts shrink the Surplus as well and so why is it a better strategy to do tax cuts which could put you in that same situation of being in deficit soon which you have just said you didn't want to do well early early in session when we were looking to do the targets that's when we were really focused on more of the tax cuts I think right now we're realizing with what's already been spent the tax cuts other than the Social Security that's when we're still focused on not likely to happen to be able to afford things but one of the reasons we believed early on a bigger Target should go to taxes is we saw it with all the coveted relief money that came out when people have money in their hands they spend and then we see an increase in sales tax revenue so that really is what has driven some of this Surplus especially the one-time Surplus was just that you know that people were spending money and when we go into a recession and people don't spend as much we start to see less coming into the state so it's a you know and I know that's one of the disagreements sometimes on economics how what's the better Method Keep more money in people's hands and the state sees more or you know keep the tax revenue coming in through you know income taxes and things like that that's one of those arguments I believe that more money in people's hands keeps the economy going more and then the state sees benefit for from that through sales taxes well we're going to stick on taxes a caller from Duluth is wondering the current state of the state tax on social security income we have a sense of where it is represents less than how you've been here three times this question gets asked every time we're on uh we I think we have a sense of where it's going to shake out because there seems to be the majority parties seem to be someone in agreement on where they stand representative Lesnar can you give us an update on where where we stand on Social Security tax cut I mean my position has always be been that Social Security tax should be eliminated for everybody they've already been taxed once and I think you know the those that are in the higher income as defined right now by the majority party that there's value in them staying in Minnesota and so if they are taxed when other states are not taxed they don't have to stay in Minnesota and so when we lose them we lose all their spending we lose all their investing their volunteerism all that they give in various organizations back to the community some my feeling is it's important to all I think the general my general belief right now is the majority party is going to have some somewhat of a social security tax elimination and it's going to stop at a certain income level and Senator rare could probably you know talk about that but I think that's probably what we're going to see do you have Sense on what the numbers are um I don't remember the exact numbers but you know they're they're saying it's about 76 percent of the people and it's about 36 percent or no 26 percent of the actual Revenue income tax revenue that's going to be dealt with so uh you know that's it's good but as Representatives Carr said you know it's uh we're looking at a number of people right they may be winter in Arizona or they winter in Texas are they winter in Florida and they're really starting to make that decision of making that their permanent resonance and staying down there longer so that they avoid that tax so that's again that balance what uh what are we looking at is by not Tech by not eliminating their tax are we in the long run actually willing to be worse off and bring in less here and and I believe that's the case that they are they're not spending as much here we're not bringing in that Revenue through sales taxes and if they move completely um you know we're losing their property tax hopefully somebody else you know moves into the place and that continues but you know especially if they make their residence in another state then they'll pay a little bit higher property tax here all of that makes their decision as to whether they stay here at all um something they're really starting to ask final numbers that I've seen thus far and I think it's still tentative it's not a done deal yet but individuals making seventy thousand dollars or below and families making a hundred thousand dollars and below I think is where where it sits right now roughly but yeah they'll have a final final answer in the next week and a half next question and we'll start with you Senator rarika can you give us an update on where the Cannabis legislation is and so this would be recreational cannabis use for adults yeah so right now it is in conference committee so the house passed one version and the Senate passed a different version and they're working on those differences to come up with uh the exact same bill to go back to both bodies so you know um that's not been something I've been willing to support I know we've had we had a number of Republicans who during the campaign said they would support it but the bill that came forward to the Senate um actually the there wasn't one Republican who voted for it I've been hearing from my small cities you know they're really worried that they're not going to have as much local say as they want to be able to regulate it like they can with alcohol within a city limits so they can regulate right now how many establishments can sell liquor and in this proposed legislation anybody can sell cannabis yeah and I think that's still in the house for version in the Senate version they did concede to some of that and so there are some Provisions to help give a little bit more local control I know they're still concerned you know our County Sheriffs have continually been opposed to this because we don't have a way to test for somebody who's out on the road if they're under the influence or not and just you know I think one of the things too with so many people talk about well we can use the revenue to for schools and all these other things it would be so great to get that Revenue in but when we look at the state of Colorado they're numbers that they're talking about now is for every dollar that comes in on their cannabis they're seeing seven to eight dollars in increased costs in their health and human services department so it's it's not a revenue generator for the state I wish we'd have waited a couple more years and maybe not been in the 20s for doing this been more in the 30s or 40s so that more of the bugs have been worked out and we've seen more of the ramifications of it anything else to add representative lesnikar we've talked about this in weeks past but uh as the days go on Fox you know one of the things I think an amendment on the house floor for you know 25 years old and that was based on the fact that the child psychologists that have been at many of the children family committees and other committees stated that you know the brain development is not complete until 25 years approximately and that marijuana and cannabis strengths are very high and it has a different effect than alcohol and we know how alcohol is process so you know the perspective was what about 25 and that was shot down so you know we're just going to wait and see I haven't seen the language either on the final to Senator rarick's point it's in conference committee but the concerns are real I mean there's valid concerns and the interest or the the tax rate is very low on this so there's not a profit for Minnesota it's a it's expected to be a break even and actually I see it being a cost to Minnesota because we are going to have further issues with children probably yeah and that you know another thing that came to mind then is you know the potency this is not the marijuana from the 60s and the 70s that we're talking about and I know that some of the discussion putting some type of a cap because you can you can bring that potency level in the labs way up and that is something too that law enforcement and just a lot of people are concerned about um you know you hear this statistic that no one's ever overdosed on marijuana it's actually starting to happen because of these high potencies and so you know hopefully we'll get some type of a limit put in there on that if this is going to come through but you know that's another thing we're not talking about the same marijuana from the 60s and the 70s so I'll just have to take your word for that so sounds like both of you you know voted against it and probably not supporting in the future however for the caller and the viewers at home what do you think the likelihood of it passing this session is then it'll pass they will come up within this next week with some type of agreement and conference committee and so it it will pass but the exact details are yet to be determined next question caller on Duluth wants to know where you stand on nurses at the bedside acts uh representative Lesnar you want to start with that and explain maybe what the legislation is first for some viewers who might not be familiar with it sure nurses at the bedside Act is all about specifics on how many patients a nurse is taken care of and Staffing ratios and you know I've ran nursing homes for the last you know 30 years and so I understand 24-hour operations and I understand what the ask is I've also been a patient with breast cancer with eight surgeries so I understand the role nurses have a tremendous role to play in patient outcomes they're the fundamental one you know the importance of the physician is without a doubt but the nurse is there I think the challenge becomes and the the intentions I think are very sound very logical and we want to have safety I think it's very difficult to put regulations and I've seen that in the nursing home side too is when you write rules very tight it doesn't give you the discretion to look at somebody's experience and how long they've been a nurse and are they a new grad are they what's their specialty what's their experience thing and and what can you handle for scope on patient thing because on patient load because it is different and there's variables that happen day to day and 24 hour operations and so my concern is you you have to be very careful on what you try to accomplish as a goal because the the domino effect is creating 10 other issues that are the unintended consequences of what something sounds uh so good and it's a it sounds perfect and what the ask is but the consequences I think will have unintended consequences that haven't been fully thought out right now and so we have to really have people at the table to look at how do we accomplish the goals you know how do we do this and how do we make sure that we have reasonable regulations appropriate mandates that you know the funding sources are coming through and find a way to support nurses you know supporting nurses is very important to me and I've always believed in that and and it's a critical piece in patient care as are the nursing assistants and the bedside and the housekeepers and all of this but the when you put ratios in there's another implication that happens that if you haven't been on both sides of it have been a nurse and been an Administration and understand some of these Dynamics sometimes you don't understand the whole picture and I think we have to just get people to the table to be looking at how are we going to accomplish things to meet the needs of great patient care we're coming out of a pandemic and so you know and making sure that we use the talents of our nurses to the best of our ability and you know the needs in Pediatrics and the needs of oncology and the needs across the board are all varying so it's it's a very complicated issue and I think there's just going to be a lot of discussion I would like to see more discussion I don't think of running to mandates is always the answer I've seen that happen we're really good at mandating and we don't solve a problem so the act itself though would set up committees correct and and would have nurses and the hospital administrators at the table to have this discussion about how many nurses this ratio issue that you're talking about so that's at the Crux of really what the bill is when you boil that down is that correct to my understanding yes okay yes Senator Rick your thoughts on this and and as we talk here the nurses are strongly supportive of this uh the passing this legislation yeah you know as a trades union guy myself I you know I understand that but there are some things that I believe belong in that collective bargaining position and not the dictated by State Statute and and this is one of those because I believe you can collectively bargain and work towards things but yet then still have that flexibility for situations that arise where if it's in state statute that flexibility no longer exists if there's suddenly a wave of something that happens in a community and you have to turn people away because you can't meet those ratios that are stated in State Statute um you know so that's one of my concerns that I have with putting that in into state law you know the other thing we've we've heard now from you know Mayo Clinic is talking about you know billions of dollars that they are going to stop um with investment here in Minnesota if this passes to feel out well what what is going to happen and I think ultimately what we're looking at it and it's not just nurses but this shortage all throughout the you know the indus Industries of workers and you know I serve on higher ed as well and we've looked at a number of these areas that are very very short in people working and nursing and Care is one of those areas where we are targeting grants to get people into the education system to be able to get into those fields and that's more of an approach that I feel is appropriate because if we can get more people in we alleviate that burden and now you know we're we're meeting what those ratios are that the nurses are asking for but right now especially if we put this in State Statute the workers the nurses just aren't there to meet it we will probably see closures of small rural hospitals we will see empty beds because and people will be turned away because they just can't meet those ratios and people won't get the care that they need so in the long run this is about getting more people into that field so that they we can relieve the pressure that's been put on the nurses over these last four or five years these are great questions that the viewers and callers are sending in please keep them coming we're going to transition to education we finally have somebody sitting at the table who serves on the education committee and you already self-disclose it's your first year on the job serving in that committee can you expand a little more I know you talked a bit about the mandates it seems like the most significant portion of the budget surplus the ongoing budget surplus is in the education funding uh part of the bill it seems like that bill is all wrapped up basically and ready to go with with a few details needed to be ironed out but where do we stand on the education Bill and what's in it what's to like about it and any concerns you have yeah well um as we're you know the bill is in conference committee uh unfortunately I'm not on the conference committee so I'm not sure of exactly what the details are I kind of know what came through the the Senate version um but yeah a little over two billion dollars of the ongoing um was dedicated to education finance committee um you know record number a record amount of spending for schools and you know we've been hearing from our schools they're been getting falling behind falling behind so I think this was an opportunity to really help our schools out in their areas around special education you know that's a federal mandate that they have to provide those Services yet the federal government has never followed up with the amount of funding that they've promised so the school districts have always fallen behind they call it a you know across subsidy we were looking at you know and the plan in front of us is looking to help with some of that I believe about 40 percent what came out of the Senate was 40 percent in the first year 47 percent in the next year and then 60 percent ongoing we're also looking at a formula increase and one of the things that I don't agree with and actually was not in the Senate plan I know the Senate chair doesn't agree with either is that tying to inflation um just I believe that sets up an expectation to the schools that they're going to get that and like I said if we come back with a deficit they actually could be doing their plans saying well this is what we're going to get now when in reality that's not what they're they're going to get so if we just leave it and not tie it to inflation their base would still be there which is always at risk as well but they won't be looking at that increase and they'll be waiting to set their budgets until they know what their increase is and I think that's a better way for our schools to be able to operate so they don't get into a hole but when we look at you know there are a number of requirements within the education Bill some new requirements for graduate Mission different things like that but their their big concerns are really the Paid Family Leave that's coming through in the labor Bill there was another piece that would put into collective bargaining the Staffing ratios and classroom ratios those are the things that I'm hearing from superintendents and school boards that really have them nervous and that when they've calculated what the increase in spending will be on the formula and the special education cross subsidy um but then what it's going to cost them to do the new mandates they're actually it's going to cost more than what the new funding is going to cover so we'll actually be putting our schools into a deficit with so many of these new requirements so we're just missing the boat on this education spending I think we should have again the the record increase in spending would have been great had we done nothing to ask them to have new requirements so they could get caught up or kids are behind in reading math and science and this is not going to allow our schools to focus back into the classroom and get our kids caught up they're going to be focusing on all these new requirements and how to implement them and make them work so we've heard a lot about the mandates potentially that are in this bill in in weeks past so you're you I think I'm hearing you state two paid family medical leave and then putting ratios into the collective bargaining agreement are those two of the larger ones are there other ones am I right on that I just want to make sure correct those are two of the big ones and then I also know one of the other unfunded one when unemployment insurance for like the bus drivers and the lunch workers the hourly workers at the school when the bill first came forward it had the state creating a fund that the schools would then draw off of to cover the costs that they had for providing that benefit but when it the bills came to the floor that was out so now the school districts are all responsible for that cost as well so those are the big three that they're looking at saying you know these are new expenses that you're putting into the school district that this new funding will not cover again with some of the changes of you know addition of curriculum that they're going to have to do these are all things that they're looking at that is just going to generate time the administrative costs things that aren't going to go into the classroom that they're going to fall further behind so before I get uh to representative Lesnar on this uh one follow-up question then the second mandate you spoke of is these ratios and collective bargaining isn't that what you were arguing would be a good thing for nurses to keep it there so why is it a bad thing to have the collective bargaining the ratios in collective bargaining for the education this would they're looking to put it into state law that it would that it has a requirement to go into the collective bargaining which they already do but they're saying you have to come to an agreement of what the exact numbers are is the way the legislation was written the way it's done right now which I believe is the right way is that the teachers union and the school district can talk about and here's what the goal is but again I can use pine city as the example where I went to school all the way back to when my parents went to Pine City we at the elementary level you have four classrooms per grade level now if we set into state law that we have to come to an agreement on a specific number for what the class ratio is and one class comes in that's bigger than all the others have been and you miss it and now that class has to have five classrooms what is Pine City Elementary do they don't have the fifth classroom now they have to go find the teacher and that's going to follow that class all the way through and is it the best scenario to have a larger class it's not but the cost that would be involved to make that happen just is beyond what the school could manage so even though it's bigger classes you're still going to maintain four classrooms per grade even for that larger class and that's the flexibility that we've heard from our school boards and superintendents that they have to have and if we put it in the state statute that they must come to that agreement that becomes the problem representative lesnikara thoughts on the education funding you know thank you for the question it's a great question I think education is a Cornerstone for all of us and to Senator rarick's point I mean I just went to Proctors School two weeks ago and looked at the trades and saw the the house that they're building on the campus with the electricians and you and I talked about how important this is with trades and I think it's short-sighted that we're looking at these tiers eliminating a tier in education when that was a bipartisan thing that we did um as a state to allow teachers to have another pathway in education and there's I think 27 teachers that are in the northeastern part of Minnesota that are teaching in culinary arts and shops and media and whether it's rails TV and broadcasting like what we're doing right here and and all those programs are going to be at risk when we have a teacher shortage of teachers that may choose not to go back to get their four-year degree who have tremendous experience I met them 20 years of experience as chefs and cooks and we've built great programs to get kids involved and engaged and to give them Pathways and I think that the districts are very concerned and to Senator rarick's point the unfunded costs with the mandates that the state has put together on unemployment with the bus drivers and my own mom was a bus driver and so you know but the colleges now are we're going to be paying unemployment for all these people at the college level at the higher ed same thing in K-12 and then we're having mandates that aren't funded and that that is exactly what what I thought we would get away from this session let's fully fund education to what we need not put them further in the hole and what I can see from every superintendent that's sending to me is the math does not add up we're going to end up doing Cuts we're going to end up doing layoffs we're going to end up having fewer classes for kids to be able to pick because if they mandate these licensures which is the path that we're going right now that we won't have somebody to fill the slot we're already in a teacher's shortage so my perspective is it's disappointing so I've heard from both of you about the challenge that you see in mandates coming from the state onto local districts and local control being an important issue though I've also seen amendments and legislation introduced Banning a certain type of teaching in the classroom which in it of itself would be a mandate as well and so why would it be okay and one example I can give is something that's been deemed critical race Theory but is about teaching different histories of different cultures and ethnicities so on the one hand why is it okay to ban that which is a mandate or to support Banning that and then come out against other mandates in in education local control Prevail all across the board or not representative lesna Carr I'll start with you thanks that's a great question and I think that wouldn't have local control it'd be a Minnesota Ed mandate from the state so on your question on ethnic studies it's adding another class of which class are we taking away and that's the question so that's that becomes the Crux for education is what are we taking away when we have kids not reading at 50 percent you know I was hoping we would focus on Fond it's let's get the basics here let's teach what we already have and get to close the gap because we had kids out of school for two years and doing distance learning and so why would we be adding another class when we have to take away something when we have gaps in math and reading and you know the classes that we have right now so that's my position is it's another mandate which means you have to there's only so many hours in the day so what are we taking away from the kids is it the piece the the college classes it is it can take away reading we need more reading and so that's I think the concern yeah you know I the local control to me is where it belongs and um I know we had a couple of amendments in the Senate um that we're trying to get at that and I there's always somebody who offers the amendment again just saying at the state level this should be banned and and that's not what I support that's allow the parents working with the local school board to make their determination but that's that's a critical piece as well that the parents have to be allowed to be involved in that process um so that their input is being considered but yes I the local level is where it should be and that's I wish the state would back off on some of these requirements that we've put around education and that's something I'm hoping to work on over the next couple of years while I'm on the education committee is is there a pathway to kind of separate that because so many of these requirements are you know it's great for that kid who's going off for a four-year degree but someone who is going for a two-year program or into the trades doesn't necessarily need that they need to be able to take that shop class or they need to be able to take that extra language class and how can we maybe separate that and create those Pathways so that they can get the things that are most desirable for them that's actually going to lead them towards where they're going instead of putting in all of these requirements saying you know man if you've got these three levels of math class you're going to be prepared for college when you're not going to college so I mean these are all things that I think the state can back away a little bit on those requirements each school board and the parents together can work on that and say here's what we want our school focused on and here are the things we want to work with and that's that's what all support tonight again I know those amendments come forward and and I I don't like them and I don't support them so one could argue though that the state and the country is getting more and more diverse racially and ethnically and there could be value in teaching the histories of cultures and traditions and not allowing Community by Community to decide what is history and cultures and tradition but having a uniform standard so that everybody can be taught that in the state what's wrong with that um you know there's nothing wrong with that but what does matter is the words on the page and um when I looked at what was in this bill and I spoke with the gentleman who came forward with the proposal um and we just we had a disagreement as to what it said but uh you know like under the ethnic studies the one piece you know he was claiming that the language said you know we should be able to teach just that you know um if with what Martin Luther King Jr did his accomplishments what he contributed to society should be allowed to be taught in the classroom without fear of you know repercussion or being told you can't do it the way I interpreted what was on the page though was that anybody in that protect in a protected class could develop curriculum for the classroom and the school board couldn't ban it and that's a big difference than talking about what your contributions to society were so that to me becomes one of those things how do it's not just about coming up with an idea and saying this is great it's about making sure that the language that you put in the proposal and in the bill actually state that and so I would absolutely support saying that if the you know this sometimes you go against what you said but this is you know there are times where in a local area you're not doing something right so you put kind of that overarching uh requirement saying well if if you want to go down that road you can't say no to this because it's something that is beneficial we're not but you don't require that it has to be in there which is another thing that this bill does it's saying without throughout all of your curriculum you have to take this into account and apply it and work it into your existing curriculum it should be does the teacher want to are they capable of and if if they do want to you can't tell them they can't so and I'll pitch it to you a little differently in the car uh you know say we leave it up to parents and families and school districts and they just don't decide to teach about this who won the civil war is it that local community's decision or once again kind of back to what Senator Rick and I were talking about there should be some standards that the state sets and that's an appropriate role or not you know I I hear what you're saying I understand the question I think we want to teach history I think my position is doing so that unify us as the human race you know how are we going to unify us As Americans in a public education system and making sure that that when we're teaching that we come through a lens of unifying and not dividing we can teach history and there's all kinds of facets of history and then history of yesterday isn't today and won't be our future and I think there's a trajectory that it has a place with all history but it's teaching is is layers of of complications and and also great opportunities and so I think that I think some of those details are going to get worked out but I think that's what parents want is to make sure that that piece is there that their child where wherever they live whatever the ZIP code is has the opportunity to be unified in their classroom to have their needs be met and and you know somebody else's child be met and you know we have uh all different ancestors is in in Minnesota and in the United States right now and so I think everybody agrees history is important I think it comes down to making sure though that we unify children that we don't make any group of children feel like they're not valued and they're not important and we don't want to inspire them to be the best they can be all of them and so you know I I try to look at opportunities to speak as how are we the human race right now and you know I can't rewrite history to the good or the bad but I can do my best to try to unify children and adults and I think it's it's important and history is going to be a very important part of all of our conversations going forward and we have some bumps in the roads in history as well and teaching that we do might not necessarily unify people at times because there's some difficult issues there so we all agree and that's okay but we can have conversations peacefully and go through the differences and the different lenses and I think that those opportunities take place in various levels of education at different Paces whether it's college classes or Community ad or Elementary in high school it's it's in different chapters of life but they all happen in different formats and and depending on what your teacher experience has been some have been are phenomenal and we have a lot of opportunities so I think it's it's we'll see where it all goes on the another topic on education uh higher education let's talk about now Senator Rick sits on the higher education committee as well so he might be a little more versed on this so I'll start with you first Senator Barrick uh that bill is uh all wrapped up and there's agreement on it and I think uh some of the major highlights that at least I'm aware of is uh any uh family who makes 80 000 a year or less individual will have college paid for so they won't have to pay to go to college they'll have to cover ruin board but the actual College will be paid for and there's enough funding in this bill to freeze tuition levels at our Minnesota state schools and significant funding to the University of Minnesota the state cannot freeze University of Minnesota and we won't get into the details on why that is but it's a good significant funding in there those seem to be kind of the bigger highlights of the bill what are your thoughts on the higher education bill um I was uh you know pretty outspoken uh being opposed to this plan and I've used the school that's in my hometown as an example of the pine Technical and Community College uh you know Dennis Franzen created a foundation and then there are others that have done some other foundations they have figured out how to in the private side offer free school and so there's about six or seven school districts in our area if you graduate high school from that school the Franzen foundation will cover your tuition at Pine Tech you still go through you fill out your FAFSA so that you get your Pell Grants you get any state grants but then anything that's left at the end they will cover and that to me is the way it should be done that we should those final pieces should be done by folks in the private sector trying to figure it out and help out so I I'm not in agreement of the the free tuition coming from the state you know paying for that I am a big advocate in higher education for the state grants and expanding those and and helping students out according to their need because when we do the state grants the lower incomes get a higher amount and then as you your income goes up you're getting less and less and less and then you're also able to use that wherever you wish this program is only available at the Min State system and at the University of Minnesota so if you have somebody here in Duluth who wants to go to Saint Scholastica they can't use it there but that might be where the program is offered that they really want and need to get to where they want to go so that's why I like the state Grant system it works in conjunction with the federal plans the Pell Grants things like that and then that's I've been trying for a couple of years now to push this idea to you know help people understand what the Franzen Foundation has been doing at Pine Tech and replicate that around the state at different schools to to get that last dollar in for students and getting you know people like you and me to contribute and and help people out thoughts on the higher education bill I could not say it better I mean I totally agree with Senator Eric I think I've heard from a lot of families say that this sounds great but they feel that it it also limits people that are uh dual income you know most people both people are working are making 80 000. many couples make eighty thousand so their kids aren't going to be eligible for this so then they said what what do we do just resign that takes people out out of the workforce so your kids get to college level then do you think about one person not working while they're in college so you're eligible so your child is eligible and it assumes that every parent is able to that your parents income is indicative of who's helping you pay for college and I think that's a falsehood too not all kids are going to be in the situation where they're you know their parents income is is the pathway for if they should be able to get any help and I that's why I like the grant structure for four people going to college college and for whether they pick the trades or they pick you know the four-year degree to get them on a pathway and to support them on that and then to look at them having having choice you know this is this is a lock step uh no choice unless they do X they're not going to get any money and so um those are my concerns is that true you cannot get grants if you're under eighty thousand dollars a year then I mean the greatest program is still right this that particular one so you're still going to get again this is kind of following that thing you have to fill out the FAFSA so you're getting the federal Pell grant that you'd be eligible for you're getting the state grant that you would be eligible for and then this picks up that last piece so that's the other thing that I struggle with this because I don't remember the dollar figure but basically it's somewhere around that somewhere between 45 and 50 000 of family income you're basically already getting the free tuition through the Pell Grants and the state grants so we we've looked at it we've run the numbers there's about 15 000 students Statewide that this is going to apply to and help where if you did it in the grants it's well over a hundred thousand students that you're actually giving more assistance to so that to me you know is a much better use of that 117 million dollars because you're spreading it out you're helping more people and then you're allowing for like the friends and Foundations and other things like that all these small towns that have scholarships now they're coming in and helping make up that last piece instead but there are still grants available to students I just want to be clear about that correct and they do have a little bit more that went into the state Grant system in in this bill as well just not as much as I would have liked to have seen with the Target that the committee had that's right I think we're going to only have time for maybe one or two more questions and folks have been sending them in uh viewer from Grand Rapids is writing in asking about back to the capital investment Bill and or Transportation Bill any legislation uh looking to fix roads and the upkeep specifically any of the existing budget surplus going to be dedicated to help funds available for local city governments to allocate towards Road repair and those sorts of things where are we at on that represents that's the car we'll start with you and then over to Senator Rock we're I mean there's a lot of money in transportation I mean there's a lot of money I think the the money to the for the townships and the money for the the roads uh the bridges are something that you know I've always supported those pieces I think it's Common Sense uh we get potholes uh quite often up here and so people know we need help on that and so that's not an issue I in the transportation Bill I've been pretty straightforward I do not like the train from Minneapolis-St Paul I think 146 million is not what we should be doing right now when we have safety issues in Minneapolis-St Paul on the current train system so there's pieces in there and we'll see what happens as we move forward with this bill um but I I think we're going to see money for sure to the townships and some of those other pieces to get that done I think we're going to see Highway 61 we've got to get the construction project through there there's many towns that we're going to have issues and and roads and bridges and all that is in there without a doubt it's just what other things are in there too Minnesota has five season construction season being one of them Senator Eric yeah you know um there is a good chunk of money in transportation some of the one-time money um I don't know what the final will be I know there was talk early on and on the senate floor Talk of a billion dollars that was going to go right into you know roads now what I would also like to see is that as the legislature we would earmark some of that to certain projects when we leave that up to MnDOT I've not always agreed with where they go with that I know in my district folks have been looking at Highway 73 to get repaired and rebuilt and this one stretched you know around Cromwell and they've had the money allocated and taken away a number of times over the years so I'd love to see that get an earmark for some of that and I know other folks around the state would like to and it doesn't always meet mndot's requirements or you know what the projects that they choose and then you know I do believe there is some money in there that's going to be dedicated to our small cities and townships again it's not as much as I think we've talked in the past about the dedication of Auto Part sales taxes which would allow for more to be dedicated that's not in this bill but there's there will be a fair amount of spending for transportation infrastructure okay well I only have time for one more question and it's going to be a quick answer hopefully from each of you about uh 10 15 seconds each the legislature is going into its last week in a day you're going to be done next Monday one way or another not this coming Monday but the following one there's been talk about getting done early even this legislature your thoughts and predictions Senator are they going to get done early or going rate till Monday we'll go till Monday midnight we always do all right represents less than the car your thoughts ditto I I don't think we're gonna we haven't seen conference committee reports back they we have not seen it yet and we have a lot of conversation to do so I think we'll be going until Monday we'll go right to the end alrighty I appreciate you both being here today and we are out of time I would like to thank representative Natalie zlesnikar and Senator Jason rarick for joining us today this is our final edition of Minnesota legislative report for this season I'd like to thank the crew here at PBS North Nick Kieran Layla Erica Peter Greg and Claire for their work putting this program on the air each and every week and thanks to you the viewers at home for calling in with your for calling in and your emails all your questions and for playing a vital part in our representative government system for the team here at PBS North I'm Tony sirdich have a great evening thank you