(gentle upbeat music) - [Narrator] "Your Legislators" is made possible by.

From the grain bin to the planter, Minnesota Corn builds market opportunities for corn farmers, mncorn.org.

Minnesota Farmers Union, standing for agriculture, working for farmers.

On the web at mfu.org.

(upbeat music) - Good evening, and welcome to this week's version of "Your Legislators".

We're coming to you during the Easter break of the Minnesota legislative session.

We have, as always, a distinguished panel of guests to discuss the public issues of the day.

After approximately 1,300 bill introductions and a couple of dozen press conferences and multiple committee meetings, the Minnesota legislature has passed three bills.

None of them particularly significant, but important to the participants.

But there continues to be activity in several other areas.

And one of the things we're going to be discussing today is what's going to happen in the remaining couple of months.

As we do each week during our program, we give our guests an opportunity to introduce themselves to you, tell you a little bit about their backgrounds, and perhaps to highlight an issue or two that they're concerned about.

And then we will move forward with a discussion about the issues of the day.

Those three bills by the way, if you're wondering, the bills that have been passed and sent to the Governor are a bill changing the date for testing hemp edibles.

I don't really know what that is, but somebody here does, I'm sure, from January 1st, 2026 to May 31st, 2027.

The second bill changed the word shall to must regarding vehicle stopping for school buses.

And the third bill, of course, canceled the Caesar Chavez holiday after issues relating to his abusive behavior surfaced in the New York Times column.

There are other many important issues that the legislature's discussing and we'll be visiting about those today.

So, let's begin as we do each evening on our program by giving our guests an opportunity to discuss their background, talk a little bit about what they see happening in the rest of the session, and then we'll move to some specific issues.

Senator Jim Abeler, let's start with you.

I think, you're our veteran member here.

Tell our viewers a little bit about yourself.

I know you've been with us many times, but pretend you haven't and give them a little bio.

- Well, it's always good to be back and you do an amazing show, and I know you're recognized frequently in public, so I'm excited to be a part of this group with my good colleagues.

I've been privileged to serve in both the House and the Senate, and actually, I'm in my third decade, if you can believe that, right?

Berate me to find a real job.

But it's really been an honor to serve.

And it's nice that people think I should come back and keep working.

I spent a lot of my deal in my area in the human services part with people with disabilities and seniors.

There's this and frail elderly and all that.

And, you know, education and there's so many things to worry about.

And I have to think, Barry, that your viewers are just so relieved that we changed shall to must on the edible gummy thing.

That's probably been pressing on their minds.

So, I'm interested to see what else is on their mind today.

So, thank you.

- Very good.

Representative Greenman, we were discussing before we began today, whether or not you'd been with us previously and we came to an inconclusive conclusion on that point.

but you're with us tonight and we're delighted to have you tell our viewers a little bit about your background and some of the committees you serve on, things of that sort.

- Well, thank you for having me and I am in third term in the Minnesota House.

I represent the great district of South Minneapolis.

We have lakes and creeks and all of the things that Minnesotans enjoy.

My background, I'm a voting rights lawyer and I ran for the legislature.

And I'm here, because I believe in the power of people and communities to make decisions together.

And that's what I have been focusing on both this year and since I have been here.

I think, Minnesotans really want their power in our democracy and our economy.

They want us to unrig a democracy and an economy that feels like it's working really well for wealthy folks and big corporations.

And I think, that that's our job today and every day ensuring that folks have what they need and have power in our democracy.

- Thank you for that introduction.

And we turn to last, but certainly not least, an old friend of the program.

Been with us many times, Representative Chris Swedzinski from Ghent.

Tell our viewers a little bit about yourself.

And you probably wanna tell 'em that you're gonna have to find something else to do with your free time next January.

As I understand you're not seeking reelection.

The floor is yours.

- Yeah, that's fresh off the press.

I think, it was not this Saturday, but last Saturday we announced at our endorsing convention that we were gonna hang it up.

And you know, I think, I'm not gonna choose on what we do next, but I think, my kids and my wife might have something to say about that.

This is Chris Swedzinski, I represent Southwest Minnesota, Lac Qui Parle, Yellow Medicine, Lyon County, just a sliver of Chippewa, House District 15A.

I serve on the energy committee taxes and ways and means.

And you know, the question is kind of where are we going?

What are we doing?

You know, any bill that does pass, it gets signed by the Governor is exceptionally important.

And you know, that is, you know, when we have a divided legislature, you know, the things that happen are a little bit thinner than what would happen when it's not.

And you know, finding consensus, finding that fine line when it comes to what can get bipartisan support really is the fundamental job that we have as legislators.

The next last few weeks here of session, you know, finding that consensus, you know, even deciding whether or not we're gonna have omnibus bills or not.

You know, first deadline was last week and we're on the Easter break and next week we'll have another deadline, then another deadline week right after that.

So, you know, I believe under the rules, each committee can now pass a single bill, what's left.

And so, what we come up with over the break and then what we come up with next week really will be kind of that defining line whether or not we have much else to do until May.

And so, whether that's taxes, tax relief, whether that's energy relief when it comes to government intervention, whether it comes to healthcare, whether it comes to reforming paid family leave or some of the other new programs that are just starting to open up and affect businesses across our state.

You know, that's the question and that's what we'll be defining the rest of session as we finish off this summer.

- Representative Swedzinski, is that the old Marty Seifert seat or are you a little bit west of there?

- Yep, yep.

Well, it's the old Seifert, when he ran for governor, he retired and then before that a couple other members.

Cal Ludeman held this seat back in the day.

Jim Girard held his seat.

Jim Boerboom held his seat.

And so, yeah, it's been around and now, it's technically going to be a new, depending how the election goes, a new Seifert seat.

His son, Braxton, just won at the convention where I ended my political career.

Braxton is his eldest son is beginning his political career.

And so, that's always a bookend and a way to go.

And so, we'll see how that goes.

- You're marching into history as they say.

- Or out of it.

- Yeah, I wanna go to you, Senator Abeler, because you'll be leaving us a little bit ways through the program, 'cause of some other commitments.

And we talked briefly before we began about the school discipline bill, and I think, you wanted to talk about that and we wanna get to the fraud question, that's a longer discussion, but let's start with that bill in particular.

- And, sure, then that's what's taking me away.

It's really interesting in 2023 over concerns of racist suspensions from school, which it didn't seem to be a situation in an OCA district by my understanding, but it was a great concern for many.

And as a result, they disallowed any suspensions of any K to three child passed the same day.

And I believe it was well intended, but there's been some consequences.

And so, part of the challenge is that, if some students need interventions and some time to have a plan to come back and we're having only half a day, that's a problem.

There's actually, been a number of concerns in an OCA district just this year.

There have been 142 classroom evacuations in the K three area, 33 in kindergarten alone.

And people think, how could this little kid cause trouble?

But they do.

And in many cases the trouble is a physical assault on the teacher punching a pregnant teacher in one case, slamming her head in a cupboard, threatening their second grade peer to bring a knife and poke them.

And so, it's just really a challenge, and still controversial, but I spent two years working on this and the compromise where I met with the advocates who were concerned and they actually signed off on this, that we could go with an extra day.

But it had to be for something substantial physical harm or potentially substantial physical harm, not just somebody yelling or somebody throwing a chapstick, you know, with somebody, but where something really happened.

And they'll assemble kind of the team and sort out how to help this, you know, Tommy or Susie, you know, get things back on track.

And so, the concern is for the child, but also, the concern seems to be, I mean, I had the concern about how about the 4,000 kids who've been missing time in school, who are, you know, now terrorized by this person who is being physically threatening.

So, I hope that the House can pick up on that.

It is very much a grand bargain and it actually, skews weight of the concerns of the people who passed the law in the first place, which I'm have been really happy to get to know them quite a bit.

And so, this is an example of something when you work in a bipartisan fashion, something that could hopefully get done.

So, that's what I hope happens.

- Representative Greenman, your thoughts on that particular issue as it relates to activity in the House?

- Well, I am not on the education, finance, or policy committee, and so, have not been deeply part of those conversations.

What I will say is when we talk about particularly, kindergartners through third graders, following the evidence and understanding how we keep all kids safe, how we keep all kids in an environment of learning.

What is hard, and I really appreciate the work that's being done on this.

What's hard is, you know, I come from the district where Annunciation school shooting happened, and another way we're talking about a lot of the words that you were using, Senator Abeler, about how do we keep kids from being terrorized, how do we make sure that folks in the building are safe, is about these weapons that were made for war that terrorized my community, and frankly, have terrorized communities across the country.

And that is a conversation we are really hoping to have a bipartisan conversation around.

We know that 69% of Minnesotans want us to do something on assault weapons.

We know that 79% of folks in the suburbs want us to do something and have been really working hard to try to respond to both victims, survivors, healthcare professionals, teachers, and our public.

And that has hit a brick wall.

So, I think, that the idea that we are gonna keep kids safe is really important and should be at the center of our decision making.

And that's what we've been focused on.

- School discipline issues, Representative Swedzinski, your thoughts?

- Oh, absolutely, you know, I think, you know, I appreciate Jim's perspective on this.

You know, it seems like whenever the state does get involved and a particular issue like this of trying to control kind of the ins and outs of how a classroom operates, it causes problems, and you know, each student is a separate individual.

The house that we're raised in, the parents that they have, you know, whatever that issue might be or the circumstances that kid's dealing with on that particular week.

The idea that the state legislature is gonna come in and pass a bill and tell administrators and teachers and quite frankly, other parents and students what that classroom's supposed to look like is ridiculous.

And, you know, over and over again we've seen where the failure of the state coming into classrooms, telling teachers, telling parents, telling kids on how to operate their classroom doesn't work.

You know, we've seen that with paid family leave, we've seen it with this particular bill, we've seen it with many other areas where, you know, mandates go up.

The cost of educating our kids, because of mandates from St.

Paul continue to go up.

And at the end of the day, kids are left in the dust and really to pick up the pieces.

And, you know, I think, that's one of the biggest issues and Representative Greenman brought up, you know, some of the gun issues and that.

And, you know, at the end of the day, this is about people, right?

People misbehaving, people doing bad things, you know, denying constitutional rights to law-abiding citizens is not going to make a difference.

It's not worked to any other city that it's been tried.

And, you know, quite frankly, you know, when we're trying to deal with it, you know, blaming innate objects for the deeds of evil people isn't gonna work it.

You know, we blame the policies that are keeping third graders that are misbehaving and threatening and hurting other kids and forcing them to be placed back in the classroom is part of the problem as well.

And, you know, I think, that's the issue.

You know, we've talked to administrators across the state and school boards across the state.

You know, when we come in with a St.

Paul knows best, you know, legislative fix for everything, and we take the local control, locally-elected officials, whether that's energy policy, whether it's education policy, whether it's business policy between the relationship between a boss and their employees, people are gonna hurt.

Our economies are gonna hurt.

We're gonna be less transparent when it comes to the issues that matter.

Less ability to be flexible when it comes to finding solutions that are gonna make a difference, when it comes to business, when it comes to schools, when it comes to our local communities.

When St.

Paul lays the line and says, "We know best."

And I think, this is just a prime example of saying, "You know what?

We don't know how that classroom, we don't know that kid, but at the end of the day, let's put it in charge of those that do, and let's give them the freedom to make a difference in the way that they see fit."

- Representative Greenman raises the issue of gun control in the context of this school discipline bill, and I guess I would ask you directly, Representative Swedzinski, what you see coming out of the House on either the bill that Senator Abeler talked about or the issues that Representative Greenman identified having to do with, as you suggest, gun control kinds of issues.

What's your view on what might happen in the House?

- You know, from a student safety standpoint, we should really be focusing on areas regardless of you're a private school student or a public school student, we would all say, you know, that the things that are going on at the Capitol with increased security, some of those funding mechanisms allow private schools to also access those same dollars is important.

But also, you know, education standpoint, you know?

You know, back home we have hunter safety.

We understand what a gun is, it's not a brand new thing.

You know, as kids go out into the woods each fall for hunting, or fishing, or whatnot.

And then from a constitutional standpoint, quite frankly, magazine bans are going before the Supreme Court right now.

Judge Anderson, you understand the importance of those court cases and how they work.

And you know, we have a Second Amendment.

Those are God-given rights, and you know, what they mean and how they are interpreted, really, it is legitimate, because it is our constitutional right.

We just had no king protests at the Capitol on Saturday.

And in no time in history, if you truly believe we live in a tyrannical government, if you truly believe that we have a king in the White House, the last thing you should be doing is disarm the populace.

If you don't believe that, then it's all for talk.

And I think, that's the issue is that, you know, throughout history, whether it's the Pol Pot, whether in Cambodia, whether it's Vietnam, what happened with the disarmament of those folks.

With the Germans in the 1930s and '40s when they were disarmed or the Russians as well prior to tyrannical governments, you see folks wanting to disarm the populace.

And we seen the results of that.

And I think, that's been the general fear across our country is that, yes, you know, when you're given a simple solution to a very complex problem.

And that's disarming the people, you will cause problems that will reverberate throughout history and not in a positive way.

- So, Representative Greenman, I wanna go back to you, give you a chance to respond on this issue and then I wanna go back to Senator Abeler on a different issue.

But wanna give you a chance to respond.

So, go ahead.

- Thank you.

And I wanna make sure to correct the record since we are on TV.

One, we know that these bans on a very particular type of military-style assault weapons that were made for battle, that we banned in the United States for 10 years, that 12 states currently ban, and that have been upheld by five appellate courts and have never been overturned, do not have a Second Amendment problem.

You can't just wave Second Amendment around.

These are things that have been constructed to both reach a balance of the right to bear arms and the right of communities to keep their people safe.

The second thing I will say, because we have been hearing this.

This is an issue where the public, where communities have been coming and saying, "Choose us not these weapons made for war."

And that is the conversation we're having.

And when we talk about what it means to be safe, we cannot fortify every, not just school, grocery store, concert, and street.

And the last thing I'll say is, this is a uniquely American problem.

There are other countries that have issues with mental health, there are other countries that are dealing with this, but we, the issue of mass violence, of gun violence is an American problem and it is American made.

And what we believe, what I believe, is that we can do something about it.

I don't believe that we can become numb to the carnage.

I also don't believe that we can active shooter drill our way out of this, which is also traumatizing kids.

We owe it to our kids and we owe it to our communities to look straight in the eye of these particular weapons that are mass casualty machines, and do something about that.

I don't think we're powerless and I think, the people of Minnesota want us to act and I really hope that my colleagues across the aisle are listening to those 70% who are demanding that we actually, talk about the guns in addition to all of the other things we need to do to keep people safe.

- Senator Abeler, any thoughts you have on that, but also, your views on your discipline bill and what you're hearing about what its chances are and then we're gonna move on to a different topic?

- Right, and well, I just for your viewers at home, I don't think you could have gotten two better views of the debate.

I think, they were both quite comprehensive, and the jury's out.

I hope that the discipline bill can pass.

I think, for the sake of the students that are in schools that they can feel secure and hope we can help these kids that need the help so.

That's the best I got.

- All right, we'll probably have the opportunity to talk about this some more, I suspect.

Let's move on to an issue that our viewers are very concerned about.

And rather than having me try to, you know, get deeply involved in this and try to figure out exactly what kind of question to ask you, I'm just gonna throw it out there.

We know we have a fraud problem.

We know there have been some discussions about what to do about it.

They've gotten kind of tied up in the House, there's been progress in the Senate, so viewers wanna know where that's at.

And I wanna start with you Senator Abeler, 'cause I know we're gonna lose you here in about 10 minutes.

So, tell us very quickly your thoughts on that.

- And there'd be no one weeping as I leave more than I so.

Anyway, so, you know, the topic of fraud, actually, I worked on this before it was fashionable and, you know, and being a chair in 2011 and '12 during the big deficit times, like how can we spend the money better?

And I think, that it's grown as an issue just maybe as some of the integrity issues for some of the people who've been taking advantage of some loopholes.

But I think, it's safe to say that the administration has kind of under reported some of the concerns.

They're under underplayed.

As recently as 14 months ago, Commissioner Harstead appeared to our committee and said, "Fraud is de minimis," like maybe 0.15% or something.

And so, we were concerned and there was issues back in 2018 with childcare and PCA.

We passed a bunch of laws to try to help.

But the real issue is program design and then lack of oversight.

And I don't think I'm saying that in any unkind way to anybody.

It's not a partisan thing, it's just a thing.

And different administrations have different priorities.

And so, in the cranking up more programs to help more people, Mr.

O'Malley, who Governor Walls brought in to review it, said that there was kind of an approach to kind of make sure people get what they need.

And even there was a prominent member of the House when we were passing out some of the COVID money, that we wanted to get it out.

We knew there would be some fraud and I'm not gonna mention her name, but that was a real quote anyway.

And so, now everybody cares about it and it's a political thing, but it's a real thing.

And how much is there?

A lot.

Is it all from one nationality?

Absolutely not.

There are dishonest people in every particular race and nationality, and you know, there's even dishonest Norwegians and I'm a Norwegian German person, but it's unacceptable.

There should be none, and that's a high aspiration, but there's a lot of work on both sides.

- I think, Jim's done.

He was going to leave us.

Representative Swedzinski.

- I didn't like his answer wither.

I cut him off too, Barry.

Did you just silence him?

- The Senate shows up late and they leave early, like.

- Right, right, exactly, exactly.

- Something we could agree on.

- Yeah, there you go.

So, let's move to you, Representative Swedzinski.

- That's bipartisan there.

- Yeah, right, exactly.

Your thoughts on the fraud question, the inspector general, all that stuff.

Tell us what you think's going on and where we're gonna go with this.

And I see some signs that maybe we're making some progress.

Tell us a little bit about that.

Representative Swedzinski, are you there?

- I am there, yeah.

Well, you were talking to me.

Sounds good.

- Yes.

- You know, I think, that is true.

You know, we've got the OIG bill that's in the process, you know?

And that's the creation of an independent organization, essentially, to do the investigation.

Potentially, brings some prosecutorial power to the situation.

Here's the deal.

Like we all hope that we were wrong, right?

We all wish that this was not the case.

That none of this has happened.

But it appears, you know, whistleblower after whistleblower, it does appear that there has been some systemic problems.

Things were known, you know?

I think, just last week they had a whistleblower that they had essentially turned on a switch that was able to track where these funds are being transferred.

And it was on for two weeks and they realized a big chunk of those dollars are being headed overseas.

Rather than address it, rather than talk to the legislature or the administration, it sounded like they said, "Well, let's just stop tracking it."

And you know, I think, we've all had, you know, in college when we're broke and we've got our car starts to squeak, and the brakes doesn't work and it doesn't shift just right, and the engine doesn't wanna start, we can ignore those problems, but pretty sooner we'll be stuck along the side of the road.

And sadly, I think, Minnesotans and Minnesota taxpayers and potentially, even across the country, taxpayers feel like we've been left alongside of the road, but because we have not addressed the issues underneath the hood.

And I think, right now we're at a time of reflection and really checking the oil, understanding what cylinders need to be rebuilt, the engine rebuilt, and sometimes replaced.

And I think, that's the decision, depending on what part is broken.

'cause I think, we can all, whether you're a Democrat or Republican, realize there are parts that are broken.

Some of 'em can be fixed, some of 'em simply need to be replaced.

And sometimes, maybe we just need to get rid of them altogether.

And to Jim's point, you know, when it comes to race and nationality and stuff, those are important conversations.

Like, you know, this is fraudulent across racial lines.

This is not just one group of people, but it is a problem and it needs to be addressed.

And I think, we all need to step forward, step back from that part of it, the conversation to really focus in on stopping it.

We wish it wasn't true, but I think, it is.

And start making real changes that quite frankly, can get the politics out of it.

You know, get the House, get the Senate, get the governorship away from that ability to, you know, it's okay to have a independent outside view and ability to move things forward.

And, you know, we'll see what that comes out.

And I think, that's leads to a great debate yet this spring.

- Senator.

- Hey, Barry.

Yeah, I couldn't get the link to working on my computer, so I'm on the phone, and I got this little micro image and I don't know, I need a 14 year old.

- You wanna just take your last 15 seconds?

- Yeah, well, I got a little more than that.

I got a minute 15.

But I wanna say in the Senate, this is a bipartisan effort.

I'm working with Senator Hoffman and Senator Fateh, and Senator Mohamed, Senator Gustafson, and Senator Kreun working on this statewide thing.

At the end, there's gonna be a lot of politics over it anyway, but I think, there's a real commitment in the Senate and I presume in the House.

I don't know what's going on there really so much, but I'm working with rep Senator Hicks a little bit to see, if we can't find a way to fix what's going on.

Just another issue which complicates things is some of the efforts by the current inspector general, the standards are a little unclear as to what fraud is.

And so, there are some people that are thinking that they're fraud doing and really aren't.

And so, how do you right size the response?

And that's what we're gonna spend a lot of time on.

You know, Barry, leaving you is like leaving a happy last year that you really liked.

So, keep up the good work.

And to my colleagues, they more than do a good job of finishing up with you.

So, when I see you, I hope people see you in the grocery store again just to amazed that they're looking at a movie star.

So, thanks, Barry.

- Yeah, yeah, absolutely.

All right, thanks, Senator Abeler.

Off you go to your next assignment.

We'll go to you, Representative Greenman, to clean up on aisle three here.

Senator Abeler's leaving us.

And maybe you could talk a little bit about the fraud issues and how you see those things developing from your perspective.

The floor is yours now.

- Well, I appreciate that and I think, that I share, and I know how much work Senator Abeler has done on ensuring that we are taking care of our most vulnerable.

I think, we can all agree that our kids are most vulnerable folks who really rely on these services deserve to get these services with respect and dignity.

And as a state we should be really angry about any time we see fraudsters who try to intervene to take resources and services away from people.

It makes me incredibly angry as a voting rights lawyer that people don't stop trusting when their government can deliver services.

And so, I think, that at the end of the day, this is about holding people accountable.

It is about rebuilding trust.

And I think, that where Senator Abeler was starting to talk was a lot of the work we've been doing in a bipartisan way in our committees.

I am on the Fraud Prevention and Government Oversight Committee.

I think, we've been doing less of this policy work.

I think, more of that's been happening in human services, in education, and others.

But that work is about ensuring that we are looking at these systems, and one, ensuring that we have oversight and accountability.

Ensuring that the Attorney General and the inspector generals and all of the folks who exist are doing the work now to investigate, to detect, investigate and prosecute the fraud that is currently happening.

And then, I think, that the piece of this debate, not debate, this issue that's really important that I think, Senator Abeler was getting at, is we actually, need to look at how we design and deliver these services in a different way, because we can't just create more and more and more bureaucracy.

We actually have to look at the private provider problem that we have, which we have in many cases outsourced a lot of these services We have state, and federal, and county oversight.

Some folks are overseeing the payment, some people are overseeing the providers.

And what we know is that there's a business model of fraud that is targeting government, that is targeting, like it is targeting small businesses and seniors across our economy.

And if we don't figure out a way to better provide these services to make sure that we are more directly getting people what they need.

We, I think, are going to be left in a place and are not doing service to the next five or 10 years.

So, I think, we need to focus now, and I think, this is where our bipartisan focus has been about how do we create accountability and oversight and then, I think, we need to do the work to say, what does it look like to really reform and transform the system so that we don't have this leaky and this system that, I think, is being targeted by fraudsters and is vulnerable to that kind of fraud and abuse.

- You know, we had some discussion at an earlier program about the inspector general program that got hung up on the House side with the tied legislature last year.

There's been some hearings on that.

Is that moving forward?

We'll start with you, Representative Greenman.

You can tell us a little bit about that and we'll finish up with Representative Swedzinski on this then.

- Yeah, and on the House side, I know that Representative Norris and Representative Anderson have been working on that bill.

And I think, that what matters.

We agree, I think, with what both Representative Swedzinski and Senator Abeler talked about, which is I do think when we talk about oversight and we talk about an independent focus on really ensuring that we understand what is happening.

We have the mechanisms and the tools, including the technology to really detect what is increasingly sophisticated targeting of fraud.

All of those things matter.

And so, I think, as the inspector general conversation goes forward, the independent oversight goes forward.

I think, all of the other pieces that we are doing too matter too.

I don't think that there's a silver bullet here.

I think, it really is about ensuring that we create effective governance and effective program design and that this is a piece of it that I know that there is both bipartisan work and bipartisan support for, and it just fits within the broader comprehensive approach that, I think, I hope, from hearing what the Senate is talking about, and I know the conversations on the House, that there is bipartisan support to really prioritize.

- So, what I hear you saying, and you should correct me, if I'm wrong about this, is there are some other issues surrounding this, but you think when we get to the end of the parade here, the end of the legislative session, there will be some form of Inspector General that will pass the legislature.

Am I hearing that correctly?

- Yeah, I think, that's right.

I just think it has been, I think, that the inspector general conversation, I think, has clouded the broader set of approaches that we need to do to ensure that we have accountability, transparency, and the resources to detect, prevent, and in the long term, ensure that we are protecting our systems from fraud.

So, I think, we need to do all of that work together.

- Very good.

Representative Swedzinski, I'm gonna give you the last word on the fraud question then we'll move on to the next topic.

Go ahead.

- Well, certainly, - If you have anything to say.

- You know, one of the keys, you know, when we look at government and delivery of any program, you know, essentially, you assume that there are good solid, like if you think of a government program, like a housing electrical system, you have breakers.

So, when there's a short in the system, you know, your daughter drops the hairdryer in the tub, you know, the breaker's gonna blow.

And I think, that's what did not happen many, many, many times.

I had just a constituent this week, her name was Laura, came in, and she works with human services and delivering of those products to constituents.

And she had one customer that came in, it was a shutdown on the eastern side of the state.

And a lot of people, they had to find new homes, group homes, essentially, for all these people.

And she was able to relocate them, find a location.

And they have a process where they essentially, do an analysis of the person, the services that they need for the delivery so that they can be best taken care of.

They're all folks with some developmental issues.

And this person qualified for $21,000 a year in assistance.

And because it was an emergency situation and they had to quickly move them out of the system that they were in, into the one that they are in.

So she was like, "Oh, 21,000.

That seems fair.

It seems about right ," 'cause after visiting with a person, you could tell there were some problems, but then she received the sheet on what that person had been getting and had been receiving for services.

And so, while the new system was $21,000, just months prior, the services were costing the state $400,000.

It was right on the paper right there.

And so, there was a breakdown, obviously, it was one, fraudulent, because the person didn't obviously, need that.

And it just insane, if that's one person getting over $380,000 more, quote unquote in services, you think they weren't getting more delivered to them.

It was just going into someone's pocket.

And that's over and over a year after year, how many years did that go on?

And you can see when we're talking about $9 billion in fraud when one person in one year is 380,000, boy, that paints a pretty stark picture.

And so, we've got a lot of work to do.

I think, the OIG bill with Norris and Anderson and Kristen Robbins, her work as chair of the fraud committee has been so diligent and so important.

And then holding, you know, elected officials accountable, I think, is gonna be a big key in that too this November.

- All right, let's move on to some of the more typical duties in the off year election.

As are pretty sophisticated viewers know, so the legislative process is composed of the budget year and usually, the bonding year, although sometimes bonding doesn't get done in the bonding year, and sometimes it gets done in the regular year, and so forth and so on, but this is in fact a bonding year.

And I just wanted to just take a little moment of reflection here to tell our two legislators that I had the privilege of attending the dedication ceremony along with Senator Pappas and a lot of others, your colleagues for the new chemistry building on the University of Minnesota campus.

This was a bonding project that went over many, many years.

It was a major building project and you know, with all of the problems that we often discuss, we sometimes don't discuss when things go well.

And I just wanna report to our viewers and to our members of our legislative panel here, that in the case of that project, there are a lot of grateful chemistry students and chemistry professors that have really developed or the legislature has really delivered, provided the opportunity for delivery, a program that is going to serve students well into this century.

And this is an example of the importance of bonding projects.

So now having said that, let's talk a little bit about what might be happening on the bonding bill and how you see this unfolding.

We'll start with you, Representative Swedzinski, and we'll let Representative Greenman bat clean up.

Go ahead.

- Well, I think, you know, as we're finding out having a split legislature 67 to 67 in the Minnesota House, we're getting pretty used to trying to, if we're something's gonna pass, it's gonna have to pass in a bipartisan manner.

And so, if you're a bonding chair, if you've ever been a bonding chair, known a bonding chair, that they're very used to always having to have that conversation when it comes to passing their bill as well, because you need the super majority to pass a bonding bill, because it is borrowing heap loads of money.

And I think, whether we're talking about new construction or fixing pipes, you know, I think, there is a lot of appetite from Republicans and Democrats to address some of those critical infrastructure issues.

When it comes to higher education, Heaper dollars, I'm probably one of the rare Republican representatives that have three college campuses in my district, Cambri, Granite Falls, and also Marshall with SMSU.

And you know, the needs to redo some of those buildings just simply not doing really fancy things necessarily, but also just fixing roofs and water systems and showers and bathrooms and kind of the things that just wear out after time.

I think, there is some room for that.

I think, it's our hope that, that could be part of the mix as we finish off session this year.

You know, I think, that's gonna be a big part of what we play and just part of the general conversation on policy and bonding as well.

- Representative Greenman, your thoughts, bonding bills.

- Thank you, I appreciate that.

And I agree, and I really appreciate Representative Swedzinski bringing up all the bonding obligations we have, right?

It's not just about new shiny buildings, it's about making sure that we are investing in the long-term investments that we as a legislature, we as a state have made.

And whether that's colleges, universities, the Minneapolis Veterans Home, it's in my district, and those buildings are over 100 years old and our veterans rely on it, whether it is roads and bridges, all of these projects are really essential to our local communities and both the good paying construction jobs that come with them and the infrastructure investment.

And I really hope that, you know, in the House we are modeling and nothing will get to the floor without bipartisan support.

I really hope that the House and the Senate can come together and get there on a bonding bill that works for and invests in the long-term infrastructure of our state.

- So, if viewers are wondering, the super majority that was referred to by Representative Swedzinski is a constitutional requirement for 60%, I think, if I'm recalling correctly of the House and Senate.

Am I recalling that correctly?

I think, that's right.

- Two thirds, right?

- I don't think two thirds.

- Something Like that, I think, yeah.

- Yeah, I think, it's 60%.

If I got it wrong, our loyal viewers will point out all my deficiencies to me, so it's my fault not yours.

So, all right, let's move on to the rest of the legislative session.

The session is on break now.

You'll be resuming here soon.

I wanna start with you, Representative Greenman, about issues that you think, we've already talked about some of them we don't need to repeat, we don't need to go back over those.

But issues that we haven't covered that you think are going to see some action and what you'd like to see to come out of the remaining month and a half or so of the session.

So, I'll give you the floor first and then we'll go to Representative Swedzinski.

- Well, I think, that the number one issue on people's minds is affordability and an economy that feels rigged against them.

I think, whether it is workers who feel like they're getting nickel and dimed, consumers at the grocery store who see prices go up and up, somebody's making money, but it certainly isn't the farmers and it isn't our local businesses.

I think, that, that issue has been front and center.

We have seen, I had a bill on surveillance pricing.

This idea that these giant companies would gobble up data about you and charge you the amount of money they think you're willing to pay.

We know from both data and also what these companies are saying on their earnings calls is that they see it as a way to increase their margins at the expense of Minnesota and Minnesotans and American consumers, frankly.

And I think, if we are not doing something on that, we are really letting people down.

What I will say is in every hearing we have, we see Minnesotans, we see consumers, we see workers, we see small businesses come and testify and ask us to do something to take on these structures that feel rigged against them.

A status quo that really feels like it's only working for the biggest and most powerful.

And then on the other side, we see those companies that are making money off of the status quo show up and we over and over again hear them tell us, oppose it, tell us it's well-intended consequences, tell us the system is working just fine, and then we deadlock.

And so, what I really hope happens, you know, we have more time left than we have been in session.

I think, we've been in session six weeks, but we have another eight weeks to go.

I really hope we can find some bipartisan ability to overcome those big powerful interests who keep blocking things.

And my Republican colleagues have been voting with them, but we have plenty of time to stand up for consumers and those small businesses.

And that, I think, is something that we have been hearing for a while and I think, it's come to a tipping point and I'm hoping we can get something done on that.

- I wanna follow up on that, Representative Greenman.

Could you give us or give our viewers a couple of specific legislative examples that you would like to see passed that address the issues that you've identified here?

- Yeah, and let me start with the surveillance pricing idea that big tech is collecting information about you.

And especially, in online purchasing, we've saw it with Target, we've seen it with Instacart.

People are getting different prices based on the information that these companies have on them that they will pay more.

That's a bill that I've been working on.

And it is something that we are hearing more and more, especially, as these tech companies experiment with this pricing revolution.

They think that they can get two to 7% margins increasing prices.

We've heard about it working algorithmic price fixing, working against farmers.

So, that's a specific example.

Another example I have is these big, our investor-owned utilities, Excel and CenterPoint, they are trying to charge utility customers millions of dollars for executive compensation.

We had a bill that said, we're gonna limit that what you can charge rate payers what the governor gets $175,000 now.

And if, you know, these giant companies want to pay their CEOs millions of dollars, it's gotta come from their investors and not rate payers.

That was another area where we saw rate payers show up and tell us to do this and Excel showed up and literally, said the system's working, because the system is working for them.

They're trying to offload executive compensation.

But for people who are struggling to pay their utility bills, adding to their utility prices is even, is, I think, more offensive.

So, those are two examples.

I probably could come up with any number of more, but I know we don't have all day.

- That's very helpful and thank you for that.

Representative Swedzinski, your thought about priorities in the remaining legislative session?

- Well, yeah, absolutely.

You know, affordability in government has been Republicans' top tier, but also how we react with the private sector.

And Representative Greenman brought up a couple of bills that they've brought forward.

Limiting obviously, rate payers when it comes to executive compensation.

And you know, generally, if you look at the facts, you know, the PUC does not allow for rate recovery when it comes to executive compensation already.

And so, those are kind of moot bills.

We also saw another bill kind of biting around the edges when it came to energy costs during rate cases.

And so, there's a percentage of interest that could get paid by the utility.

So, when they're going through a rate case, they say, "Hey, we're gonna be building out some infrastructure, whether it's transmission or generation."

And during that case, between the period of time when the file is essentially filed, goes before the committee and then finally made decisions on and during that period of time, they can increase the rates of recovery when it comes to energy.

And we saw a bill that maybe would've saved, according to the commissioner or deputy commissioner in commerce said, you know, maybe five or six to $7 over an 18-month period on individual electrical bills.

And that very next day Republicans brought a bill before a committee that would've saved rate payers by the elimination of the RDA, which is a tax that all rate payers in Excel territory pay for cash storage, which equals about $50 million a year.

We eliminate that tax.

And then we also worked at getting, you know, let's address the actual costs, you know?

The tax incident studies that are produced by the state nonpartisan group estimate that the taxes we put on businesses and corporations on average, 90 to 95% of those costs, which are tax increases, get passed on to the consumer.

So, just when electricity goes up or the goods and services that you deliver, the price of those things go up, most of those costs and also the taxes.

So when the state of Minnesota, the federal government tax the business, whether large or small, those costs, because it is a cost, get passed down to the end consumer almost 95%.

And so, what we did is say, "Let's get outta the way.

Let the state of Minnesota get outta the way when it comes to energy costs."

And we would save rate payers.

But the bill failed on a partisan line.

Democrats voting no, Republicans voting yes, that would've saved rate payers over $5.6 billion on electrical rates over the next 10 years.

And so, when we're talking about real reform, real savings, what we need to do is get the state out of the way and we will over and over and over by the Senate majority and also the other half of the House, is that every single problem can be solved with a tax increase on somebody else.

And what we need to be finding as we're seeing, as we both agree when it comes to a fraudulent activity, both at the federal and across the state, you know, we first need to root out that fraud.

And then, two, let's rightsize government.

And we are vastly oversized when it comes to the amount of taxability that we have.

And we're already seeing a flight.

Representative Greenman brought up some of the changes when it comes to how Target, and particularly said Target.

And I would I just add, you know, Minneapolis is just seeing a flight of jobs from Target themselves.

1,100 jobs have just been essentially outsourced outside of the Twin Cities metro and to wherever they're going, I don't know, but they're no longer gonna be in Minneapolis.

And I think, that's what we're seeing is that businesses are starting to vote with their feet when it comes to where they're gonna make investments, where the employees are willing to go work, and it's not in our metro areas.

And we're seeing that from a property tax standpoint is that on average in the city of Minneapolis 60% of property taxes are paid by the commercial and industrial property taxpayers and the other 40% are residential.

And according to the department, tax department, that, that number is going to switch.

Because if you remember just, I think, it was last year, the Ameriprise building, which was valued at over $200 million, it sold at 2016.

It sold for $6 million last year.

There was this lumber building in Minneapolis, it was valued at $32 million and taxed at 32 million, sold for $1.

And so, commercial real estate, places to do business, offices, factories and the rest are choosing not, the values are disappearing.

And so, that doesn't live in a vacuum.

When those properties go down in value and you can't find a business willing to fill them, they move or they take their employees and get them out of Dodge.

They cancel their leases to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars just to get out of the lease so they can get their employees out of downtown areas.

And what that's going to do is drive property tax values up on residences.

And so, when you consistently attack business in the state of Minnesota, when they consistently go after housing providers, when you consistently go at and regulatory tell school districts how to do their job, when you tell counties how to do their job and do unfunded mandates over and over and over again, people vote with their feet.

And we're seeing that with Minneapolis and St.

Paul as businesses leave the downtown areas for better, greener pastures.

And we're gonna continue to see that until we decide that we can actually, get along with business, grow jobs, and grow our economy, 'cause we're not gonna tax our way out of the problems that we have.

We're gonna have to grow our way.

And that's being friendly to business.

Understanding that families are under real pressure when it comes to cost and that taxing businesses more, increasing the cost, you increase size of government, is not gonna solve the problem.

- Representative Greenman, I bet you have a response.

- Thank you.

These are talking points we hear quite a bit.

They don't line up with when you look at our revenue and why we continue to overperform our revenue, it is the biggest businesses continue to make hand over fist money.

It is Minnesotans who are paying the price, because what, if every answer to the question is, just let business, and particularly these billionaires and these biggest businesses do what they want, what we have seen them do is they charge us more, they pay us less, they extract more and more and more, and give less and less and less.

We actually, need to be focused on small businesses, on local businesses, on the businesses that we know are invested in our communities.

I will say, when we talk about the economic impact in Minneapolis, my city, you can't talk about that in the last three months without talking about the unaccountable out of control, lawless federal ICE action, which cost the city of Minneapolis over $180 million.

And the victims in addition to local communities where local small businesses, we've seen all of that.

That's all out there.

And so, when we talk about the work that we should be doing, again, rooting it in the power of communities and people, but what I believe is that we actually, can do something about the out of control billionaires and the out of control big corporations.

We know that they're more consolidated in that power than they ever have been in the history of this country, frankly, in the history of the world.

And so, what that means is we should be listening to our constituents.

We should be listening to the 80 plus percent of Minnesotans across the state who, one, believe that there's money and the consolidating interest have too much power in our politics, too much power under the dome.

And that when we are making decisions about how we approach issues and whether it is, you know, making rate payers pay for the executive compensation of multi-millionaires who run Excel or allowing people to be spied on and then have that data be used against them to charge them the maximum amount they will pay.

That our jobs should be to say, "Let's create a fair playing field, let's unrig these rules, and let's ensure that Minnesotans have some power in their economy, that they have power in their workplace, and that they're the ones driving our decisions in the halls in our committees and on the floor."

And that's not happening.

- Representative Swedzinski, we've got about 30 seconds left.

You're finishing in the legislature.

Tell our viewers a little bit about what you've enjoyed about your time in the legislature and get the opportunity to say goodbye.

- Sure.

Well, thank you.

Thank you, Barry, thank you, Representative Greenman.

You know, it's just been an honor to serve in the House.

You know, oftentimes you get thrown into unique situations.

Love the debate, right?

And I think, that's what drives most folks that are enjoy good conversation about the issues.

It's an honor to serve southwest Minnesota, representing agriculture, representing business, representing families.

When I first ran, I ran outta the things to reduce the size of government, empower individuals and families, and just create a great new world.

And I think, you know, as we bow out and we go to that great caucus room in the sky, I just wanna thank my constituents.

Most importantly, thank my wife and kids who sacrificed a ton for me to disappear during the week and reappear on the weekend, while serving the legislature.

It's not an easy job.

I wish the best of luck to the new elected officials as they come in and have a great race this summer.

And just godspeed, Minnesota.

Have a great week.

- All right, I want to thank Representative Greenman, Representative Swedzinski for their thoughtful contribution to this evening's program.

I want to thank you, the viewers, for joining us.

We hope that you'll be with us again at the end of the session when we'll review everything that happened.

Thank you all for being with us, and goodnight.

- Awesome.

- [Narrator] The Minnesota Channel connecting Minnesota stories, bringing you live legislative coverage, trusted civic engagement, and programming that reflects the rich diversity of our state.

From small towns to the state Capitol, we connect communities across Minnesota.

Reaching even the most rural areas.

Powered by the six PBS stations of the Minnesota Public Television Association.

Join us for the 2026 legislative session weekdays 8:00 am to 6:00 pm on the Minnesota channel.

- [Narrator] "Your Legislators" is made possible by.

From the grain bin to the planter, Minnesota Corn builds market opportunities for corn farmers, mncorn.org.

Minnesota Farmers Union, standing for agriculture, working for farmers.

On the web at mfu.org.

(upbeat music)