Dear Friends,
Last week the House and Senate finally passed—and the Governor signed--an extension of unemployment benefits for laid-off workers on the Iron Range. Also enacted was a change to the unemployment fund that gave employers an immediate rebate of the “excess” in the fund and then set a cap on the fund so that when it hits a high point the unemployment taxes will automatically be reduced. Some folks may not understand that this is not the state’s general fund, but a special fund that holds the unemployment premiums paid by employers.
One part of the disagreement was whether the two bills should be together or separate, which seems like a trivial spat. That was resolved when the Senate passed both bills—separately—and sent them to the House. I voted no on the first House bill (both parts) and yes on each of the separate bills. Here’s why.
The final bills had some important differences from the way their appeared in the first go-round. One difference was the amount of the reduction for businesses and the way the fund would be managed in the future. The other difference was a provision in the original bill called “legislative findings,” which was removed from the final versions. Minnesota legislators usually balk at legislative findings—preferring to let the legislation speak for itself. This time, however, the legislative findings said this:
That the legislature finds that the state greatly benefits from the diversification of the state's mineral economy through long-term support of mineral exploration, evaluation, environmental research, development, production, and commercialization.
…
The legislature finds that the best way to maintain a trained and skillful mining
workforce in the state is to make all reasonable efforts to facilitate the continued operation
of existing mines and the addition of new mines whenever feasible.
The mining issue is deeply divisive in our state. While I respect that mining has been an important economic and even historic/cultural presence on the Iron Range for many years, the world is changing and the mining industry is changing. I hope the Iron Range can continue to diversify so it can move away from a dependence on mining.
This week’s agenda
The legislature had a few days off for the Easter holiday, so this week will be short but intense. Friday is the “first deadline,” which means bills have to get through their policy committees in at least one body to stay alive for the session. The week before deadlines feels a lot like finals week in college, with committees often working late into the night to get bills passed.
One of my bills will have a hearing this week in the Aging and Long Term Care Committee. HF 2694 clarifies a provision in the Home Health Care law on behalf of consumers. The idea for this bill came from an independent living facility in my district where staff used to help elderly residents with minor health care needs free of charge. The Home Health Care Law was updated a few years ago and—even though that part of the law did not change--the facility stopped providing that service out of concern that it could be fined for providing a service without making the person go through the formalities and expense of enrolling in home health care services. My bill clarifies that staff can still provide minor services without charge to people who live in the facility but are not enrolled in home health care.
Another bill in committee this week is the “Best Life Alliance” bill. Thousands of Minnesotans receive care in their homes or community settings because they are elderly or disabled, and those who provide the care often do it for very low wages. Everyone wants to raise these rates, but it costs many millions of dollars to do it because there are so many people doing this work. Last year, nursing homes received a new funding formula that will reimburse them at “cost” for years to come. Nursing homes did need a boost, but the system may now be seriously out of whack. We need to make the funding more equitable or we will have more people forced into nursing homes (very expensive) because they can’t find a caregiver at home (much less expensive).
This week will also see the arrival of Washington-style abortion politics in Minnesota as the Health and Human Service Committees hears a GOP bill to “defund” Planned Parenthood and to stop researchers at the U of M from using fetal tissue from elective abortions for research.
The Planned Parenthood bill would cut off contraception funding to non-governmental clinics that perform or have connections with clinics that perform abortions. Regardless of how someone feels about abortion, cutting off funding for contraception seems like an odd way to stop abortion.
Both of these bills will take up valuable committee time during this short session so other bills can’t be heard. The Senate probably will not pass them, and if it did they would certainly be vetoed by the governor, yet we will spend hours debating them. “Defund Planned Parenthood” is the political battle-cry of DC politicians, and now it has come to Minnesota.
As always, please feel free to contact me with any issues or concerns you may have.
Sincerely,
Tina Liebling