House Floor Session – part 1  5/15/17

House Floor Session – part 1 5/15/17


.>>THE HOUSE WILL COME TO ORDER.>>[BEEP].>>PRAYER BY THE CHAPLAIN.>>LET US PRAY FOR THIS HOUSE; THE WORLD; AND ALL THOSE WHO ARE IN NEED. CREATOR OF ALL; WE THANK YOU FOR THE BLESSINGS YOU HAVE BESTOWED ON US. THOSE WE LOVE; THOSE WHO LOVE US; ALL THAT WE CALL OUR OWN. HELP US TO BE GOOD STEWARDS OF WHAT YOU HAVE ENTRUSTED TO US IN THIS WORLD. BLESS THE LEADERS OF THIS STATE TO GOVERN WITH A VISION OF PEACE AND EQUALITY AND THE DESIRE TO DEFEND THE DEFENSELESS AND SPEAK OUT FOR THOSE WITHOUT A VOICE. WE PRAY THIS DAY FOR THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE GREAT STATE OF MINNESOTA. EXTEND YOUR HAND OF GUIDANCE TO OUR GOVERNOR; OUR SENATORS; OUR REPRESENTATIVES; AND OUR JUDGES. HELP THEM TO SERVE WITH HEARTS FILLED WITH JUSTICE; HUMILITY; PATIENCE; AND COMPASSION SO THAT LIFE IN OUR STATE MAY BE WELL AND FAITHFULLY ORDERED. GOD OF HEALING; WE LIFT BEFORE YOU TODAY THOSE WHO ARE SUFFERING FROM ILLNESS OF ANY KIND AND ARE IN NEED OF YOUR PRESENCE. WE PRAY FOR THE LONELY; THE HUNGRY; THE ABUSED; THE NEGLECTED; THE HOME WHRSES; THE ADDICTED* AND ALL THOSE WHO ARE SUFFERING FROM MENTAL AND PHYSICAL AILMENTS; ESPECIALLY THOSE WHO WE NAME BEFORE YOU NOW IN THIS TIME OF SILENCE. [PAUSE]. NURTURING GOD; WE PRAY FOR EACH OF THESE REPRESENTATIVES; THEIR STAFF; AND ALL THOSE WHO SERVE HERE IN THIS HOUSE. GIVE THEM AND THEIR FAMILIES PATIENCE; COURAGE; AND UNDERSTANDING THROUGH LONG HOURS OF WORK AND EXHAUSTING CAMPAIGNS. GRANT THEM WISDOM IN THEIR LABOR AND REST IN THEIR LIVES AWAY FROM THIS PLACE. INTO YOUR HANDS; OH LORD; WE COMMEND ALL FOR WHOM WE PRAY; TRUSTING IN YOUR LOVE AND MERCY; AMEN.>>THE CHAPLAIN FOR TODAY IS REVEREND DR. RYAN DRRKS BRO DEAN* ABIDING FAVOR LUTHERAN CHURCH FROM MOUNTEN VIEW MINNESOTA*. PLEASE REMAIN STANDING FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.>>I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS;… JUSTICE FOR ALL*.>>THE CLERK WILL TAKE THE ROLL.>>[BEEP] .>>.>>THE CLERK WILL CLOSE THE ROLL. QUORUM IS PRESENT. THE CLERK WILL READ THE JOURNAL OF THE PROCEEDING DAY.>>JOURNAL OF THE HOUSE 90TH SESSION; ST. PAUL MINNESOTA FRIDAY MAY 1 2; 2017.>>IF THERE IS NO OBJECTION; FURTHER READING OF THE JOURNAL WILL BE DISPENSED WITH AND THE JOURNAL WILL BE CORRECTED CHIEF CLERK. HEARING NO OBJECTION; JOURNAL IS CORRECTED CHIEF CLERK. RECOGNIZE REPRESENTATIVE IMMEDIATE DAL* FOR WHICH PURPOSE DO YOU RISE?>>[INDECIPHERABLE].>>STATE YOUR POINT OF PRIVILEGE.>>EACH DAY FIVE MILLION POUNDS OF MILK COMES TO FIRST DISTRICT IN LICH FIELD.* OF THIS THEY MAKE 300;000 POUNDS OF CHEESE. AND IN THE RETIRING ROOM; THANKS TO THE EFFORTS OF MY WIFE KAREN; WHO IS NOT HERE TODAY; AND TO MY STAFF AND OTHERS FROM THE HOUSE CAUCUS; WE HAVE CHEESE. CHEESE AND CRACKERS IN THE RETIREMENT ROOM; HELP YOURSELF.>>[APPLAUSE]>>MEMBER FROM MIE SAN TEE* REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON. FOR WHAT PURPOSE DO YOU RISE?>>I WANT TO DO — THANK REPRESENTATIVE URDAHL FOR THE CHEESE; BUT ALSO FROM MY DISPRICT; WE HAVE COMMUNITY OF DAY*. AND IN DAY IS INTERSECTION OF COUNTY ROAD 4 AND COUNTY ROAD 22. AND WHAT MAKES DAY SPECIAL IS THE PICKLED HERRING THEY PROVIDE. AND TODAY TO GO ALONG WITH REPRESENTATIVE URDAHL’S CHEESE; I HAVE PICKLED HERRING FROM MY DISTRICT. [APPLAUSE] *.>>COMPARISON REPORTS. THERE’S A COPY OF THIS ORDER OF BUSINESS ON EACH MEMBER’S DESK.IF THERE IS NO OBJECTION; THE MOTIONS WILL PREVAIL. HEARING NO OBJECTION; THE MOTIONS PREVAIL AND THE SUBSTITUTIONS WILL BE MADE. REPORTS OF STANDING COMMITTEES AND DIVISIONS. THERE’S A COPY OF THIS ORDER OF BUSINESS ON EACH MEMBER’S DESK. IF THERE IS NO OBJECTION; REPORTS WILL BE ADOPTED. HEARING NO OBJECTION; THE REPORTS ARE ADOPTED.>>SECOND READING OF SENATE FILE.>>SECOND READING SENATE FILE 550.>>SECOND READING.>>INTRODUCTION OF BILLS. THE FOLLOWING HOUSE FILES HAVE BEEN OFFERED FOR INTRODUCTION TODAY. THE CHIEF CLERK WILL REPORT THE HOUSE FILES AND GIVE THEM THEIR FIRST READING.>>INTRODUCTION OF FIRST READING HOUSE FILE 2665 TO 2668.>>FIRST READING HOUSE FILE 2665 THROUGH 2668.>>CALENDAR FOR THE DAY. FIRST BILL IN THE CALENDAR FOR THE DAY IS HOUSE FILE 179. CLERK WILL REPORT THE BILL.>>NO. 1 ON THE CALENDAR FOR THE DAY AN ACT RELATING TO PUBLIC SAFETY; THE FOURTH ENGROSSMENT.>>THE MEMBER FROM ANOKA REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT TO INTRODUCE YOUR BILL.>>THANK YOU; MR. SPEAKER. THIS BILL HAS TO DO WITH THE IGNITION INTERLOCK PROGRAM. AND THE IGNITION INTERLOCK PROGRAM; JUST FOR A LITTLE HISTORY; WAS INSTITUTED IN 2010 BY THE LEGISLATURE. AND WHEN WE ADOPTED THAT; WE GAVE THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY A WAIVER FROM THE RULE MAKING PROCESS SO THAT THE PROGRAM COULD BE INSTITUTED MORE QUICKLY. WHAT HAPPENED LAST FALL WAS THAT IT BECAME DISCOVERABLE — IT BECAME APPARENT THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY; BECAUSE OF THEIR DESIRE TO HAVE REALTIME REPORTING OF PEOPLE THAT BLEW BAD BLOWS; THEY HAD ALLOWED THEIR PROVIDERS OF THESE DEVICES TO INSTALL ONTO PEOPLE’S CARS IGNITION INTERLOCK DEVICES THAT ALSO HAD GPS TRACKING CAPABILITIES. AND IT BECAME QUITE A STIR IN THE MEDIA. AND OF COURSE; MANY CONCERNS ABOUT PEOPLE NOT KNOWING THAT THOSE DEVICES COULD TRACK THEIR WHEREABOUTS. SO THIS BILL BASICALLY SAYS THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY CANNOT ALLOW TRACKING OF INDIVIDUALS THROUGH THESE DEVICES UNLESS THERE IS A COURT ORDER. THERE ARE SOME JUDICIAL DISTRICTS RIGHT NOW THAT HAVE ORDERED THAT CERTAIN IGNITION INTERLOCK PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS DO HAVE THE TRACKING CAPABILITIES TURNED ON. ALSO A LITTLE NUANCE IS THAT WE FOUND OUT IN THE COURSE OF THE HEARINGS AND SO FORTH THAT THESE DEVICES — MOST OF THE VENDORS THAT PROVIDE THESE DEVICES HAVE THE ABILITY TO EITHER TURN THE TRACKING DEVICE ON OR OFF. THAT’S WHAT THIS BILL DOES IN ADDITION TO INSTITUTING RULE MAKING IN THE IGNITION INTERLOCK PROGRAM. THAT’S ONE OF THE WAYS WE GOT WHERE WE ARE RIGHT NOW WAS BECAUSE THERE WAS NOT ENOUGH SUNSHINE ON THE PROCESS. SO I ASK FOR MEMBERS SUPPORT. THANK YOU.>>THERE ARE NO AMENDMENTS AT THE DESK. THE THE CLERK WHETHER GIVE THE THIRD READING.>>THIRD READING.>>DISCUSSION ON HOUSE FILE 179. THE MEMBER FROM BLUE WORTH REPRESENTATIVE CONSIDINE*.>>THANK YOU; MR. SPEAKER. WILL CHAIR SCOTT YIELD FOR A QUESTION?>>SHE WILL YIELD. REPRESENTATIVE CONSIDINE.>>CHAIR SCOT TS; AT THE TIME THAT THE PERSON IS SENTENCED IN COURT*; WOULD THE JUDGE BE ABLE TO SAY; “YES; I WANT TO BE ABLE TO KNOW WHERE THIS INDIVIDUAL I IS.” AND PUT THAT AS PART OF THE SENTENCE — CONDITIONS OF SENTENCE?>>THE MEMBER FROM ANOKA; REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT.>>THANK YOU; MR. SPEAKER. REPRESENTATIVE CONSIDINE — YES.>>THANK YOU.>>ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON HOUSE FILE 179? NEBRASKA FROM HENNEPIN REPRESENTATIVE HILSTROM.>>THANK YOU; MR. SPEAKER*. MEMBERS; REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT HAS WORKED VERY HARD TO GET THIS BILL IN A POSITION WHERE THE DEPARTMENT CAN LIVE WITH IT. ORIGINALLY THIS PROPOSAL WOULD HAVE REQUIRED THESE RULES TO COME BACK TO THE LEGISLATURE. AND NOW IT JUST MAKES IT REGULAR RULE MAKING. AND SO; AT THIS POINT I THINK THAT GIVING THE ABILITY FOR THE COURT TO ORDER GPS TRACKING TAKES CARE OF THOSE WHO NEED TO BE SUPERVISED BY THE COURT THAT THE COURT DEEMS PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT TO TRACK THE ABILITY TO DO THAT. SO MEMBERS; I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO VOTE IN SUPPORT OF REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT’S PROPOSAL.>>ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? SEEING NO FURTHER DISCUSSION; THE CLERK WILL TAKE THE ROLL ON THE BILL.>>[BEEP].>>THE CLERK WILL CLOSE THE ROLL. THERE BEING 125 AYE’S AND ZERO NAY’S; THE BILL IS PASSED AND ITS TITLE AGREED TO.>>THE NEXT BILL IN THE CALENDAR FOR THE DAY IS SENATE FILE 444. THE CLERK WILL REPORT THE BILL.>>SENATE FILE 444; NO. 4 ON THE CALENDAR FOR THE DAY; AN ACT RELATING TO LIQUOR. THE BILL’S BEEN UNOFFICIALLY ENGROSSED AND REPRINTED FOR THE HOUSE TO INCLUDE COMMITTEE AMENDMENTS.>>RECOGNIZE THE BILL AUTHOR; THE MEMBER FROM CARVER; REPRESENTATIVE HOPPE TO INTRODUCE THE BILL.>>THANK YOU; MR. SPEAKER. MR. SPEAKER AND MEMBERS; THIS IS THE ANNUAL OMNIBUS LIQUOR BILL. I WON’T READ THU ALL THE NON-CONTROVERSIAL PROVISIONS IN THERE. I THINK* MEMBERS HAVE SEEN THOSE AS IS CUSTOMARY. WE JUST INCORPORATE INTO THE NONCONTROVERSIAL PARTS OF THE BILL. WE ARE MAKING SOME CHANGES TO THE WAY THAT IN THIS BILL WE ARE MAKING SOME CHANGES TO THE WAY THAT MINNESOTA MADE BEER AND WINE IS SOLD AND WHERE IT CAN BE SOLD AND WHERE IT CAN BE CONSUMED AT THE CAPITAL. WORKING WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION; WE ARE TRYING TO I GUESS LET THE PUBLIC USE A LITTLE BIT MORE OF THIS NEW BUILDING NOW THAT IT’S BEEN SO NICELY RENOVATED AND EXPAND. AREAS OF THE CAPITAL OUT OF RAS KELLER*. WE HAVE CHANGES TO THE DISTILLERIES LANGUAGE THAT REPRESENTATIVE NASH* AND REPRESENTATIVE LOONAN WILL SPEAK MORE ABOUT. WE HAVE SOME CHANGES TO THE BREWING LANGUAGE. AND OUR GOAL HERE — WE’RE TRYING TO EXPAND THE NUMBER OF BARRELS OF BEER THAT A SMALL BREWER IN MINNESOTA CAN PRODUCE AND STILL BE CONSIDERED A SMALL BREWER. REALLY WHAT IT MEANS SO THEY CAN STILL SELL DRAWLERS*. OUR GOAL IS TO HELP MAKE SURE WE HAVE A SUSTAINING INDUSTRY IN MINNESOTA THAT’S STILL GROWING AND STILL THRIVING TEN YEARS FROM NOW. AND I THINK WE CAN SHOW THAT EVERYTHING WE’VE DONE OVER THE LAST TEN OR 12 YEARS IN COMING UP WITH COCKTAIL ROOMS OR RATHER WITH TAP ROOMS AND WITH THE BREWERIES — THIS HAS BEEN GOOD NOT JUST FOR THE PEOPLE IN THIS ROOM; FOR PEOPLE IN THE INDUSTRY — IT’S GOOD FOR AND DRIVEN BY THE PEOPLE IN MINNESOTA. THE PEOPLE THAT WANT TO HAVE SOMETHING DIFFERENT; SPECIALTY BEER; OR THEY LIKE THE IDEA OF GOING TO THEIR LOCAL BREWERY. AND WE’RE TRYING TO EXPAND THAT — THE NUMBER. AND THEN WHAT WE’RE TRYING TO DO; MEMBERS; GET THAT NUMBER IN THE SIZE OF DRAWLERS* THEY SELL LOCKED IN SO WE DON’T HAVE TO DEAL WITH THIS AGAIN SO FUTURE LEGISLATURES DON’T HAVE TO DEAL WITH IT AGAIN AND WE CAN JUST GET IT LOCKED IN AND SAY; “ONCE YOU HIT THIS THRESHOLD YOU ARE FOREVER MORE A LARGE BREWERY IN THE STATE OFMY MINNESOTA. AND* WITH THAT MR. SPEAKER; WE HAVE AMENDMENTS. I’D WILL HAPPY TO MOVE ON TO AMENDMENTS WHATEVER YOUR PLEASURE WILL BE.>>THE CLERK WILL REPORT THE AMENDMENT.>>HILSTROM MOVES TO AMEND SENATE FILE NO. 444; THE UNOFFICIAL ENGROSSMENT AS FOLLOWS. AND THE AMENDMENT IS CODED A-13.>>RECOGNIZE THE MEMBER FROM HENNEPIN REPRESENTATIVE HILSTROM TO INTRODUCE YOUR AMENDMENT.>>THANK YOU; MR. SPEAKER. I WAS NOT CERTAIN I WOULD BE THE FIRST ONE TO SPEAK; SO I DO HAVE LETTERS AND ARTICLES THAT WILL BE COMING IF THEY HAVEN’T ALREADY MADE IT TO THE DESK TO BE PASSED OUT. MEMBERS; WHEN BREWERS INITIALLY THOUGHT TO SELL THEIR PRODUCT DIRECTLY TO THE PRODUCT FOR OFF-SALE CONSUMPTION; THEY INDICATED THAT IT WAS NOT THEIR INTENTION TO DIRECTLY COMPETE WITH LIQUOR STORES. BECAUSE THEY KNEW THAT THEY WOULD HAVE COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE IF THE BREWERIES SELL CASES OF BEER DIRECT HI TO THE CUSTOMERS.*. CONSEQUENTLY; THEY SOUGHT TO SELL GROWLERS*. 64-OUNCE BOTTLES AND ML BOTTLES TO THE PUBLIC* AS A MARKETING DEVICE TO HELP THEM MARKET THEIR PRODUCTS. THE SIZE OF THE BOTTLE WAS NOT THE ACTUAL OR USUAL SIZE THAT YOU SAW IN LIQUOR STORES. AND THAT’S ALTHOUGH THE COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE STILL EXISTED; THE PRODUCT WAS A NICHE PRODUCT. THUS; A BREWERY THAT PRODUCED UNDER 3;500 BARRELS COULD SELL DIRECTLY TO* THE PUBLIC FOR OFF SALE CONSUMPTION IN A GROWLER*. IN 2013 BREWERIES SOUGHT TO CHANGE THE THRESHOLD WHICH A BREWERY — WHEN A BREWERY HAD TO STOP SELLING THOUSANDS GROWLERS*. SO I HAD SERLLY IN MY STRICT PRK. MANY OF YOU KNOW* THAT WAS A VERY SUCCESSFUL COMPANY THAT JUST STARTED OFF AS VERY SMALL. AND THERE WERE MANY CHANGES WE HAD TO MAKE OVER TIME. AND THEY NOW ARE QUITE SUCCESSFUL IN THE MARKET. BUT IN 2013; THERE WAS AN AGREEMENT THAT WAS REACHED BETWEEN BREWERIES AND WHOLESALERS AND RETAILERS TO INCREASE THE THRESHOLD TO 20;000 BARRELS. BREWERIES DID NOT SEEK TO CHANGE THE NUMBER OF BARRELS THAT COULD BE SOLD IN GROWLERS* FROM THE 500-BARREL LIMIT. REPRESENTATIVE WAY DEAN* WAS THE AUTHOR OF THE LEGISLATION THAT CHANGED THE LIMITS. IT WAS BIPARTISAN. CURRENTLY; THERE ARE ONLY FIVE BREWERIES THAT EXCEED THE 20;000 BARRELS. SUMMIT SHELFS — TRS THAT’S 150;000* BARRELS APPROXIMATELY. THIRD STREET BARREL ABOUT… SURLILY 80;000 BARRELS*. AND FULTON 20;000 BARRELS.* OF THESE BREWERIES; ONLY FULTON HAS INDICATED THAT THEY WOULD LIKE THIS CHANGE. ONLY ONE BREWERY HAD INDICATED THAT THEY NEED TO SELL MORE THAN 500 BARRELS AND GROWLERS FOR OFF-SALE CONSUMPTION AND THAT’S DANGEROUS MAN. DISTILLERS CURRENTLY MAY SELL 375 ML BOTTLES AS MARKETING DEVICE DIRECTLY TO THE PUBLIC. FOR OFF-SALE CONSUMPTION*. THE THE BOTTLE SIZE WAS SOUGHT BY PANTHER DISTILLERIES IN DWOIRN 2014*. LIKE THE GROWLERS 375 ML BOTTLE IS THE SIZE THAT’S LARGE ENOUGH TO PROVIDE A SAMPLE TO THE MARKET YET A LITTLE DIFFERENT FROM THE NORMAL 750 ML BOTTLE AND THUS NOT DIRECTLY IN COMPETITION WITH OUR LIQUOR STORES. SECTION 3 OF THIS BILL ALLOWS MICRO DISTILLERIES TO SELL ANY SIZE BOTTLE IN ANY AMOUNT UP TO 8 ;000 GALLONS OF PRODUCT. AND THIS PUTS THEM IN DIRECT COMPETITION WITH OUR LOCAL LIQUOR STORES AND RETAIL ESTABLISHMENTS. WE JUST PASSED A LAW IN 2014 ALLOWING THEM TO SELL ONE 375 ML BOTTLE PER CUSTOMER PER DAY. AND NOW; THE CHANGE. SECTION 4 EXPANDS THE AMOUNT OF BEER THAT CAN BE SOLD IN GROWLERS FROM BREWERIES FROM OFF SALE FROM 500 TO 750 BARRELS. THESE SMALL BREWERS ARE IN DIRECT COMPETITION WITH RETAILERS AND THIS GIVES THE BREWERS AN UNFAIR ADVANTAGE. 500 IS ENOUGH. THIS IS BEING DONE TO HELP ONE SMALL BREWERY IN MINNEAPOLIS AND THAT’S DANGEROUS MAN. SECTION 5 DOUBLES THE SIZE OF SMALL BREWERS FOR THE PURPOSES OF BEING ALLOWED TO SELL GROWLERS ON SITE FROM 20;000 BARRELS TO 40;000 BARRELS. ADDITIONALLY; IT ALSO EXPANDS THE AMOUNT OF BEER THAT CAN BE SOLD FROM 500 BARRELS TO 750 BARRELS. IN 2013; NEGOTIATIONS TO RAISE THE CAP FROM 3;500 TO 20;000 OCCURRED. AND NOW; THEY WANT TO DOUBLE IT. SO 20;000 BARRELS EQUALS 275;200 CASES OF BEER. [INDECIPHERABLE] 20;000 BARRELS EQUALS 275;200 CASES OF BEER. 40;000 BARRELS EQUALS 550;400 CASES OF BEER. THAT 550;400 CASE EQUIVALENT THAT THIS BILL GOES TO; THAT IS MORE BEER THAN IS SOLD IN THE ENTIRE BEMIDGE GEE MARKET*. ALL BEER DISTRIBUTORS COMBINED*. 550;000;400 CASES EQUIVALENT* IS THE EQUIVALENT OF 90% OF ALL BEER SOLD IN THE BRAINERD’S MARKET — ALL DISTRIBUTORS COMBINED. THAT 550;400 CASE EQUIVALENT EQUALS* 70% OF ALL BEER SOLD IN THE DULUTH MARKET — ALL DISTRIBUTORS COMBINED. BREWERS ARE PAYING A MINIMAL FEE FOR THEIR LICENSE AND DRAM SHOP INSURANCE IN COMPARISON TO LOCAL RETAILERS. BUT THEY WANT THE ABILITY TO SELL MORE VOLUME THAN 253 — THE ENTIRE CUSTOMER BASE OF RETAILERS IN THE ENTIRE BEMIDGE JI MARKET.* 359; WHICH IS 90% OF THE CUSTOMER BASE IN THE BRAINERD MARKET. AND 439; WHICH IS 70% OF THE TOTAL CUSTOMER BASE IN THE DULUTH MARKET. THAT’S WHAT THIS BILL IS PROPOSING TO DO. THAT IS A LOT OF ALCOHOL TO TAKE OUTSIDE THE 3-TIER SYSTEM HERE IN MINNESOTA. SECTION 6 CHANGES THE SIZE OF THE CONTAINER FOR GROWLERS THAT YOU CAN SERVE BEER AND FOR OFF SALE TO AS LITTLE AS 650 ML OR 22 OUNCES. THIS THEN DIRECTLY COMPETES WITH THE PRODUCTS THAT LIQUOR STORES CURRENTLY SELL. A CASE OF 22-OUNCE CANS IS NOT UNKNOWN IN OTHER PARTS OF THE COUNTRY. SO THERE WAS A DEAL; AND THEY KEEP TRYING TO CHANGE THE GOAL LINE. THIS DEAL WAS IN 2013; NOT THAT LONG AGO. NOW; THE BREWERIES WANT TO CHANGE IT. THEY CONTINUE TO COME BACK TO CHANGE THE DEAL — JUST ASK REPRESENTATIVE RAY DEAN*. THEY WILL BE BACK AGAIN TO MOVE THE BAR ONE MORE TIME. LAWS DO NOT IMPEDE ENTREPRENEURSHIP AND GROWTH. THIS IS JUST AN ATTEMPT TO TAKE MARKET SHARE — FROM WHO? FROM YOUR LOCAL LIQUOR STORES. THIS IS AN LEGISLATIVE ATTEMPT TO TAKE MARKET SHARE FROM THE LIQUOR STORES AND GIVE IT TO THE LOCAL BREWERIES AND DISTILLERIES. [INDECIPHERABLE] GROWLERS AND 350 ML BOTTLES OF SPIRITS ARE A MARKETING TOOL THAT ALSO PROVIDE SOME INCOME TO THE BREWERIES AND DISTILLERIES. THE COLLECTION OF ALL OF THESE LAW CHANGES SUGGEST THAT IT WOULD ESSENTIALLY ALLOW SIGNIFICANT AMOUNTS OF BEER AND SPIRITS TO BE SOLD BY A BREWERY OR A DISTILLERY IN THE SAME FORM IT WOULD BE SOLD AT YOUR LIQUOR STORES. THESE CHANGES ARE CONTROVERSIAL; BUT IN THE PAST; MOST LIQUOR BILLS ARE PRETTY BIPARTISAN. THIS IS THE FIRST LIQUOR BILL THAT I’VE SEEN — IN MY RECENT MEMORY — THAT REALLY WAS NOT BIPARTISAN AT ALL COMING OUT OF THE COMMERCE COMMITTEE. THE EXCEPTION TO EXISTING LAWS GIVEN A FEW YEARS AGO TO SMALL BREWERIES TO SELL DIRECTLY TO CUSTOMERS WERE INITIALLY GIVEN TO HELP VERY SMALL BREWERIES. NOW BIG BREWERIES WANT THEM; AND IT’S DIRECTLY HARMING EVERYONE ELSE AND IS UNFAIR AND IS CONTROVERSIAL. SECTION 4-7 [INDECIPHERABLE] IN MY AMENDMENT; IT GIVES UNPRECEDENTED AND UNFAIR REGULATORY ADVANTAGES TO A SELECT FEW. PRODUCTION BREWERIES AND DISTILLERIES AT THE DIRECT EXPENSE OF SMALL FAMILY OWNED LIQUOR STORES; DISTRIBUTORS; BREWERIES AND DISTRIBUTORS* GET THIS UNBALANCE. I IT INCREASES DIRECT RETAIL* SALES AT EVERY LEVEL WHICH IS CURRENTLY PROHIBITED. SO MEMBERS; I ASK YOU TO SUPPORT THE AMENDMENT.>>REPRESENTATIVE LOEFFLER OFFERS THE FOLLOWING AMENDMENT TO THE HILSTROM AMENDMENT. THE CLERK WILL REPORT THE AMENDMENT.>>LOEFFLER MOVES TO AMEND THE HILSTROM AMENDMENT TO SENATE FILE 444 THE UNOFFICIAL ENGROSSMENT. AND THE AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT IS CODED A-17-0464*.>>RECOGNIZE THE MEMBER FROM HENNEPIN REPRESENTATIVE LOEFFLER TO YOUR AMENDMENT.>>THANK YOU; MR. SPEAKER AND MEMBERS; THIS AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT DEALS WITH SECTION 7 WHICH OFFERS [INDECIPHERABLE] A SMALL CHANGE IN THE SIZE OF THE GROWLERS THAT THEY CAN USE FOR HOME USE OF OR BUYING OF PRODUCT ON-SITE IN A TAP HOUSE. NOW; IF YOU DON’T KNOW; A GROWLER IS A LARGE USUALLY GLASS CONTAINER THAT TAP BREWERS SELL ON SITE; SEALS IT; SO THE CUSTOMER CAN TAKE FRESH BEER HOME OR TO AN EVENT. IF YOU CAN REMEMBER AS I DO THE GALLONS OF ROOT BEER THAT YOU USED TO BE ABLE TO BUY AT THE ROOT BEER STAND — THAT’S WHAT A GROWLER LOOKS LIKE. EXCEPT IT’S USUALLY BROWN GLASS FROM WHAT I USED TO IN MY DAYS. TAP ROOM — THIS ALLOWS ACCESS TO SMALL BATHS AND UNIQUE BREW AND IS SEASONALS THAT OFTENTIMES ARE MADE* IN TOO SMALL QUANTITIES OR THE DEMAND IS SUCH THAT IT WOULD NEVER MAKE SENSE FOR THEM TO BE PUT IN CANS OR BOTTLES FOR BROADER DISTRIBUTION. MINNESOTA LAW RIGHT NOW LIMITS TO FULL-SIZE GROWLERS TO 64 OUNCES. 64 AMERICAN OUNCES. BUT MANY CUSTOMERS HAVE ALREADY ACQUIRED OTHER SIZES — MOST TYPICALLY THE 2-LITER SIZE; WHICH IS CALLED BY SOME A EUROPEAN GROWLER. IT’S POPULAR. IT’S DISTRIBUTED NATIONALLY ON THE INTERNET. I’VE SEEN IT IN THREE DIFFERENT DEPARTMENT STORES HERE. PEOPLE OFTEN GET THEM AS GIFTS. I SUSPECT FOR FATHER’S DAY WE’RE GOING TO HAVE BEER CONNOISSEURS BEER GROWLERS THEIR KIDS HAVE PICKED UP THAT FITS THE LARGER 2-LITER SIZE. NOW; WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 2-LITERS AND 64 OUNCES? IT’S 67.6 OUNCES VERSUS 64. THAT’S A DIFFERENCE OF 3.6 OUNCES — NOT EVEN A HALF A CUP. BUT BECAUSE OUR LAW IS SO SPECIFIC; A SERVER IN A TAM TAP ROOM — THANK YOU; MR. SPEAKER* — BECAUSE OUR LAW IS SO SPECIFIC; A SERVER IN A TAP ROOM CANNOT LEGALLY FILL THAT GROWLER THAT IS VERY POPULAR IN ALL THE SURROUNDING STATES ON THE INTERNET AND IN DEPARTMENT STORES — THEY CANNOT LEGALLY FILL IT; BECAUSE IT IS 3.6 OUNCES — LESS THAN A HALF A CUP IN TOTAL SIZE. AND I HAVE HEARD FROM SERVERS IN MY STATE — AND I HAVE HUNDREDS OF THEM; AS YOU CAN IMAGINE — AT HOW IRATE THEIR CUSTOMERS GET WHEN THEY HAVE BOUGHT — GOTTEN AS A CHRISTMAS PRESENT — SOMEHOW ACQUIRED ONE OF THESE STANDARD GROWLERS IN OTHER STATES OR OFF THE INTERNET; SOMETIMES THEY’RE INSULATED; SO IT KEEPS THE BEER COLD TILL THEY GET HOME OR TO AN EVENT. SOMETIMES THEY’RE ENGRAVED “TO DAD” — WHATEVER. THE SERVERS TAKE THE BRUNT WHEN THEY HAVE TO SAY; “I’M SORRY; EVEN THOUGH THERE’S THAT SMALL 3.6 OUNCES IN DIFFERENCES; I CAN’T LEGALLY FILL IT.” THE SECTION 7 IN THIS BILL WHICH MY AMENDMENT RESTORE JUST ALLOWS THE TAP ROOMS TO GO UP TO THAT 2-LITER SIZE; WHICH IS VERY POPULAR. IF YOU GOOGLE IT ON THE INTERNET; YOU’LL SEE IT OUT THERE. AND ALL THE SURROUNDING STATES — MOST STATES IN THE COUNTRY — I CHECKED IOWA; WISCONSIN; NORTH DAKOTA; SOUTH DAKOTA; AND WISCONSIN ALL ALLOW FOR THIS 2-LITER SIZE. SO THIS IS JUST A PRO-CONSUMER AMENDMENT THAT ALLOWS THEM TO FILL A 67-OUNCE CONTAINER AS WELL AS A 64-OUNCE CONTAINER. AND SO; I’D HOPE YOU’D JOIN ME IN SUPPORTING THIS AMENDMENT. IT DOESN’T ADDRESS THE OTHER ISSUES THAT REPRESENTATIVE HILSTROM BROUGHT UP.>>THE MEMBER FROM HENNEPIN REPRESENTATIVE HILSTROM TO YOUR AMENDMENT.>>THANK YOU; MR. SPEAKER SPP IN LETTER I PASSED OUT FOLKS CAN SEE THE LAST PARAGRAPH STATES; “IF YOU RECALL THE CONVERSATION THESE PAST FEW YEARS REGARDING GROWLERS; THESE SAME PROPONENTS CLAIMED THAT CONSUMERS WANTED THE ABILITY TO TAKE SOME OF THEIR PRODUCT AS A SOUVENIR. THIS IS NO LONGER A CONVERSATION ABOUT SOUVENIRS. IT IS CLEARLY A CONVERSATION ABOUT ALLOWING THEM ANOTHER LEG UP ON THE COMPETITION. AND THAT COMPETITION IS YOUR LOCAL LIQUOR STORE. I WOULD ENCOURAGE A “NO” VOTE.>>FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE LOEFFLER AMENDMENT. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF ADOPTION OF THE LOEFFLER AMENDMENT SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE — AYE. THOSE OPPOSED; NO — NO. THE MOTION DOES NOT PREVAIL; AND THE AMENDMENT TO THE AMENDMENT IS NOT ADOPTED. MEMBERS; WE’RE NOW ON THE UNDERLYING HILSTROM AMENDMENT CODED A13. DISCUSSION ON THE HILSTROM AMENDMENT — THE MEMBER FROM LYON REPRESENTATIVE SWEDZINSKI.>>THANK YOU* MR. SPEAKER AND MEMBERS; I STAND IN SUPPORT OF THE HILSTROM AMENDMENT. JUST VISITING DISTRIBUTORS AND SMALL LIQUOR STORES; THEY’RE EXCEPTIONALLY CONCERNED ABOUT WHETHER THIS MARKET IS GOING AND WHAT LIES IN THE FUTURE. YOU KNOW; WE JUST PASSED SUNDAY SALES A FEW WEEKS BACK. AND THAT ALSO HAD SOME CONCERNS FROM SMALLER LIQUOR STORES IN OUR NECK OF THE WOODS — MORE SPECIFICALLY THE MUNICIPALS AND ALSO SOME PRIVATELY OWNED. YOU KNOW; I THINK ONE PLACE THAT WE MAYBE CHANGE DIRECTION HERE A LITTLE BIT WITH THIS BILL IS IN THE PAST WHEN REPRESENTATIVE DEAN CARRIED THIS LANGUAGE TO MOVE IT FROM 3500 TO 20;000 BARRELS; THEY HAD SUPPORT ACROSS THE INJURY — WHETHER THEY WERE RETAILERS*.; WHETHER WHOLESALERS OR THE REST [INDUSTRY]*. THOSE FOLKS GOT ON BOARD AND UNDERSTOOD THERE WERE SPECIFIC CHANGES THAT COULD BE MADE TO HELP DEVELOP THIS FLEDGLING INDUSTRY. WE’RE TOLD THAT NOW IF WE CAN MOVE IT TO 40 AND WE MAKE THESE OTHER CHANGES; THEY’RE NOT GOING TO COME BACK. WE’RE NOT GOING TO HAVE TO CHANGE THIS AS THESE INDUSTRIES GROW. AND I THINK IT’S IMPORTANT TO REALIZE THAT; YOU KNOW; PEACE IN THE VALLEY IS GOOD. AND I DON’T BELIEVE THAT THIS BILL IS PARTICULARLY — THESE COMPONENTS OF THIS BILL HAVE PEACE TODAY VALLEY IN THE INDUSTRY. I THINK IT’S IMPORTANT TO MAINTAIN THOSE THINGS BECAUSE OF THE QUESTIONABLE ENVIRONMENT THAT WE’RE GOING TO BE IN. THERE’S GOING TO BE OTHER CHANGES. WITH SUNDAY SALES; WITH THIS POTENTIAL — I BELIEVE IT’S GOING TO HAVE A POTENTIAL REAL EFFECT ON OUR SMALL MOM AND POP SHOPS ACROSS OUR STATE. AND I’D ASK FOR A GREEN VOTE.>>THE MEMBER FROM CARVER; REPRESENTATIVE HOPPE.>>THANK YOU; MR. SPEAKER. MR. SPEAKER AND MEMBERS; I WOULD ENCOURAGE A “NO” VOTE ON THE HILSTROM AMENDMENT. REPRESENTATIVE HILSTROM IS A FRIEND OF MINE; AND I ENJOY WORKING WITH HER ON THE ISSUES. I DISAGREE WITH HER ON THIS. AND I THINK WORDS WERE USED THAT SAID THIS IS AN LEGISLATIVE ATTEMPT — REALLY WHAT THIS IS; MEMBERS; IS A LEGISLATIVE ATTEMPT TO DO WHAT OUR CONSUMERS; OUR CITIZENS; OUR CONSTITUENTS WANT. WE’RE NOT DOING THIS — WE’RE NOT TALKING ABOUT LIQUOR CHANGES THIS YEAR; LAST YEAR; OR 2012 BECAUSE ANY OF US WANT IT — EVEN THOUGH SOME OF US MIGHT — WE’RE DOING IT BECAUSE THAT’S WHAT THE PEOPLE IN MINNESOTA WANT. WHEN WE TALK ABOUT HOW THERE’S NOT LEGISLATIVE; THERE’S NOT SUPPORT ACROSS THE INDUSTRY; I’VE BEEN ON THE COMMERCE COMMITTEE FOR A LONG TIME. I’VE BEEN WORKING ON THE LIQUOR BILL FOR YEARS. THERE’S NEVER BEEN SUPPORT. THERE’S NEVER BEEN BROAD SUPPORT FROM THE LICENSED BEVERAGE ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS. EVERYBODY’S WORRIED ABOUT THE CHANGES. EVERYBODY’S WORRIED ABOUT HOW THIS IS GOING TO IMPACT THEIR BUSINESS. WHAT — IF YOU VOTE AGAINST THIS AMENDMENT AND THIS BILL PASSES; WHAT WE’RE GOING TO SEE; MEMBERS; IS; WE’RE GOING TO SEE MORE DISTRIBUTORS — OR AT LEAST BUSIER DISTRIBUTORS. WE’RE GOING TO SEE MORE LICENSES FOR SELLING ALCOHOL. WE’RE GOING TO SEE MORE AND BUSIER PLACES THAT ARE SELLING ALCOHOL. AND WE ARE GOING TO SEE MORE TEAMSTERS. SO; IF YOU’RE MORE IN FAVOR OF DLFER RI JOBS; MORE* FREEDOM FOR PEOPLE IN MINNESOTA TO DRINK THE BEER THEY SELL AND MORE FAVOR OF LIQUOR SALES; VOTE “NO” ON THE HILSTROM AMENDMENT. WHEN WE LOOK AT CHANGES WE MADE OVER THE LAST TEN OR 12 YEARS OR SO; WE HAVE THIS ARGUMENT ALL THE TIME. I WAS ON THE COMMITTEE IN 2013. I THINK REPRESENTATIVE DEAN; I THINK I WAS A COAUTHOR ON YOUR BILL. I DON’T REMEMBER A DEAL. THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN. THE PEOPLE THAT ARE WORKING WITH THE DEAL ARE NOT THE SAME. I DON’T KNOW STRICTLY SPEAKING THERE WAS A GUILD* THEN. LAST YEAR WE HAD NOTHING CONTROVERSIAL IN THE LIQUOR BILL. WE TOLD EVERYBODY WE WEREN’T GOING TO DO IT. SENATOR DEAN BARRING A SPECIAL ELECTION OR SOMETHING ELSE — SENATOR DAIMS* IS GOING TO BE CHAIRMAN OF THAT COMMITTEE FOR YEARS. I CAN’T TELL YOU I’M GOING TO BE CHAIR OF THE HOUSE COMMERCE COMMITTEE THREE YEARS FROM NOW. WE’RE NOT GOING TO BE TALKING TO THE BREWERS. SENATOR DAMS; I DON’T WANT TO* SPEAK FOR HIM. IF [TALKING TOO FAST]. WE NEED FOR THE HEALTH OF THIS INDUSTRY;WE NEED TO FIND A ROCK SOLID PLACE WHERE WE CAN STOP WHERE MINNESOTA YOU’RE CONSIDERED A SMALL BREWER OR… THE FEDERAL TAX LIMIT IS 60;000 BARRELS. WE DON’T WANT TO DO 60;000. WE WANT TO MAKE SOME HARD AND FAST LINE SO FUTURE LEGISLATURES ARE NOT GOING TO BE BOUND BY THIS. WE’RE NOT TALKING ABOUT ANY CAP. WE’RE NOT TALKING ABOUT HOW MUCH MORE THEY CAN SELL IN TERMS OF; YOU KNOW; THE DANGEROUS MAN. WE’RE TALKING ABOUT THE NUMBER OF GROWLERS PEOPLE CAN SELL. WE’RE LETTING THEM SELL A FEW MORE GROWLERS. PART OF THE REASON THEY WANT TO SELL MORE GROWLERS IS BY THE RESULT OF OUR ACTIONS AND WHAT THE INDUSTRY HAS DONE — NOT JUST DISTRIBUTING AROUND THE COUNTRY — CONSUMERS ARE USED TO GOING AND BRINGING GROWLERS IN; AND THEY LIKE IT. WE DON’T WANT PEOPLE TO BE SELLING GROWLERS FOREVER. WE WANT TO DRIVE THAT HARD LINE. WITH WITH RESPECT TO MY FRIEND* HILSTROM; THIS IS N’T IT. AND MEMBERS; I WOULD ENCOURAGE A “NO” VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT.>>THE MEMBER FROM HENNEPIN; REPRESENTATIVE HILSTROM.>>THANK YOU; MR. SPEAKER AND MEMBERS. YOU’LL BE RECEIVING A LETTER IF YOU DON’T HAVE IT ALREADY FROM THE TEAMSTERS SAYING THEY STRONGLY SUPPORT THIS AMENDMENT. I ENCOURAGE YOU TO VOTE “YES.”>>ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE HILSTROM AMENDMENT? THE MEMBER FROM DAKOTA REPRESENTATIVE CHRISTENSON.>>THANK YOU; MR. SPEAKER. MR. SPEAKER; MEMBERS; I WOULD ALSO ENCOURAGE A RED VOTE ON THE HILSTROM AMENDMENT. YOU KNOW; THIS IS — THESE SMALL BUSINESSES ARE JUST LOOKING FOR GOVERNMENT TO GET OUT OF THE WAY AND TO LET THEM SUCCEED AND GROW AND CREATE CREATE JOBS.* THEIR ECONOMIC IMPACT IN MINNESOTA IN 2014 — AS EVERYONE I THINK HAS SEEN; THEY’VE GROWN QUITE A BIT SINCE THEN — IS… DOLLARS AND THEY EMPLOY MORE THAN 8;000 PEOPLE. I THINK REPRESENTATIVE LOEFFLER MADE A VERY GOOD POINT ABOUT THE BOTTLE SIZES IN THE BILL. REALLY; I THINK THAT UNDERSCORES HOW THE 2013 CHANGES WERE KIND OF ALWAYS MEANT TO BE INCREMENTAL; A CHANGE TO BE MADE. AND THEN NOW; AS REPRESENTATIVE HOPPE CEDE; WE’RE TRYING TO FIND THE SWEET SPOT; FIND THE RIGHT SPOT FOR THIS INDUSTRY. IN 2013; THE ACCEPTABLE BOTTLE SIZES FOR GROWLERS WERE SET AT 64 OUNCES AND 750 ML. 64 OUNCES AND 750 ML IN THE SAME LINE OF STATUTE WE’RE USING THE METRIC SYSTEM AND THE IMPERIAL SYSTEM IN KIND OF A HAPHAZARD WAY IN BOTTLE SIZES THAT ARE NOT THE NORMAL BOTTLE SIZES THAT ARE WIDELY AVAILABLE; AS REPRESENTATIVE LOEFFLER TALKED ABOUT; YOU KNOW; MEMBERS; I THINK THAT JUST UNDERSCORES HOW THIS IS STATUTE THAT’S IN NEED OF KIND OF FINDING THE SWEET SPOT. YOU KNOW; I ‘D ALSO LIKE TO TALK ABOUT JUST A LITTLE BIT HOW THIS INDUSTRY IS GROWING RAPIDLY IN MINNESOTA. YOU KNOW; I THINK WE NEED TO DO THAT. I THINK IT’S SOMETHING THAT CONSUMERS WANT — YOU KNOW; OPTIONS — IT’S THINGS THAT PEOPLE LIKE. THESE ARE BUSINESSES THAT ARE STARTING IN THEIR GARAGES AND GROWING UP INTO THESE THINGS. AND I THINK MEMBERS; WE NEED TO GET OUT OF THE WAY AND LET THEM CREATE JOBS.>>ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THE HILSTROM AMENDMENT? SEEING NO FURTHER DISCUSSION; ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF ADOPTION OF THE HILSTROM AMENDMENT; SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE — AYE. THOSE OPPOSED — NO. THE MOTION DOES NOT PREVAIL. THE AMENDMENT IS NOT ADOPTED. DIVISION HAS BEEN REQUESTED. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION PLEASE STAND. [PEOPLE STANDING].>>[PAUSE].>>THERE BEING 68 AYE’S; THE MOTION DOES PREVAIL. THE AMENDMENT IS ADOPTED.>>RECOGNIZE THE MEMBER FROM CARVER REPRESENTATIVE HOPPE*.>>THANK YOU; MR. SPEAKER. I MOVE TO TABLE THE BILL.>>REPRESENTATIVE HOPPE MOVES TO TABLE — REPRESENTATIVE HOPPE MOVES TO TABLE SENATE FILE 444. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION TO TABLE THE BILL SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE — AYE. THOSE OPPOSED; NO — NO!. THE MOTION PREVAILS AND THE BILL IS TABLED. DIVISION HAS BEEN CALLED. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF THE MOTION TO TABLE SENATE FILE 444; PLEASE STAND.>>[PAUSE].>>THERE BEING 82 IN FAVOR OF LAYING THE BILL ON THE TABLE; SENATE FILE 444 IS LAID ON THE TABLE.>>THE NEXT BILL ON THE CALENDAR FOR THE DAY IS SPHIEL 1437*. THE CLERK WILL REPORT THE BILL.>>SENATE FILE 1457*. NO. 5 OTD CALENDAR FOR THE DAY AN ACT RELATING TO LABOR AND INDUSTRY.>>RECOGNIZE THE MEMBER FROM PINE; REPRESENTATIVE RAR RIC TO INTRODUCE YOUR BILL.>>THANK YOU; MR. SPEAKER; MEMBERS*.>>REPRESENTATIVE RARE RIC*. WOULD YOU LIKE TO PROCEED WITH THE MOTION TO INSERT THE HOUSE LANGUAGE AT THIS TIME?>>MR. SPEAKER; NO; I WOULD NOT.>>THE MEMBER FROM PINE; REPRESENTATIVE RARIC* PLEASE PROCEED WITH INTRODUCING YOUR BILL.>>THANK YOU; MR. SPEAKER. THIS IS DEPARTMENT OF LABOR’S ANNUAL HOUSEKEEPING BILL. IT DOES A FEW THINGS TO ACTUAL LOWER FEES FOR RENEWAL AND APPLICATION OF LICENSES. WE PROVIDE SOME NEW LANGUAGE FOR COMBATIVE SPORTS. AND THEN A FEW OTHER TECHNICAL CHANGES. THE SENATE FILE ADDED AN AMENDMENT. IT IS REPRESENTATIVE MARY MURPHY’S BILL THAT PROVIDES SOME PROTECTIONS FOR 18-YEAR-OLDS THAT ARE STILL IN HIGH SCHOOL SO THEY’LL BE TREATED THE SAME AS 16; 17-YEAR-OLDS NOT BE ALLOWED TO BE SCHEDULED TO WORK PAST 11:00 AT NIGHT OR 7:00 IN THE MORNING UNLESS THEY FILL OUT THE SAME WAIVER FORM 16 AND 17-YEAR-OLDS FILL OUT. WITH THAT THAT’S THE BILL.*.>>THERE ARE NO AMENDMENTS AT THE DESK. THE CLERK WILL GIVE THE BILL ITS THIRD READING.>>THIRD READING SENATE FILE 1457*.>>THIRD READING.>>DISCUSSION ON SENATE FILE 1457*. THE MEMBER FROM ST. LOUIS REPRESENTATIVE MURPHY M.>>THANK YOU; MR. SPEAKER; THANK YOU REPRESENTATIVE RARRIC*. I STRONGLY SUPPORT THIS BILL. IT’S GOOD. ESPECIALLY SECTION 1.>>ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON SENATE FILE 1457? THE MEMBER FROM WABASHA REPRESENTATIVE DRAZKOWSKI.>>THANK YOU; MR. SPEAKER. I WONDER IF… WILL YIELD.>>HE WILL YIELD.>>JUST LOOKING AT THE BILL; IT LOOKS LIKE THERE ARE A NUMBER OF AREAS IN THE BILL WHERE WE ACTUALLY INCREASE REQUIREMENTS FOR PEOPLE TO OBTAIN LICENSES. CAN YOU TELL US WHY WE ARE ACTUALLY INCREASING THE REQUIREMENTS FOR PEOPLE AND MAKING GOVERNMENT BIGGER IN THIS BILL?>>THE MEMBER FROM PINE; REPRESENTATIVE RARRIC.>>THANK YOU; MR. SPEAKER*. REPRESENTATIVE DRAZKOWSKI; ACTUALLY; WE’RE NOT INCREASING ANY REQUIREMENTS. THEY ARE JUST CHANGING SOME LANGUAGE. THEY’RE GOING FROM WHAT THEY TERM 16 UNITS TO 38 HOURS. AND WHEN THEY DID THAT CONVERSION; THEY LOOKED AT HOW MUCH TIME IT TOOK TO GET 16 UNITS OF EDUCATION; AND IT WAS THE 38 HOURS. SO THEY’RE NOT ACTUALLY INCREASING ANY REQUIREMENTS. THEY’RE JUST CHANGING THE LANGUAGE OF HOW THEY’RE REFERRING TO IT.>>ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON SENATE FILE 1457? SEEING NO FURTHER DISCUSSION; THE CLERK WILL TAKE THE ROLL ON THE BILL.>>[BEEP].>>THE CLERK WILL CLOSE THE ROLL. THERE BEING 105 AYE’S AND 21 NAY’S; THE BILL IS PASSED AND ITS TITLE AGREED TO. THE NEXT BILL ON THE CALENDAR FOR THE DAY IS HOUSE FILE 2621. THE CLERK WILL REPORT THE BILL.>>HOUSE FILE NO. 2621; NO. 3 ON THE CALENDAR FOR THE DAY; AN ACT RELATING TO PUBLIC SAFETY. THE THIRD ENGROSSMENT.>>RECOGNIZE THE MEMBER FROM DOUGLAS; REPRESENTATIVE FRANSON TO INTRODUCE YOUR BILL.>>THANK YOU MEMBERS AND MR. SPEAKER. GENESIS 50:20. YOU INTENDED TO HARM ME; BUT GOD INTENDED IT FOR GOOD TO ACCOMPLISH WHAT IS BEING DONE — THE SAVING OF MANY LIVES. HOUSE FILE 2621 IS GOING TO SAVE LIVES. THIS IS A HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUE; A WOMEN’S HEALTH ISSUE; AND A GENDER VIOLENCE ISSUE. THE ISSUE BEFORE US IS CALLED “FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION.” THIS TOPIC MAY MAKE YOU UNCOMFORTABLE; BUT IN NO WAY IS IT AS UNCOMFORTABLE AS WHAT LITTLE GIRLS ARE EXPERIENCING IN THE STATE OF MINNESOTA AND ACROSS THE WORLD. UNICEF BELIEVES THERE’S ABOUT 200 MILLION LITTLE GIRLS AT RISK OF FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION. AND THE CDC ESTIMATES THERE’S ABOUT 513;000 AT RISK. IN 2012; THE UNITED NATIONS ADOPTED A RESOLUTION CALLING ON THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY TO RAMP UP EFFORTS TO END THE PRACTICE. THERE ARE FOUR TYPES OF FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION . TYPE 1; OFTEN REFERRED TO AS CLITTERRECTOMY* PARTIAL OR WHOLE… EXCISION — PARTIAL OR TOTAL REMOVAL. TYPE 3 IS OFTEN REFERRED TO AS INFIBLATION*. THIS IS THE NARROWING OF THE VAGINAL OPENING THROUGH THE CREATION OF A COVERING SEAL. LATER TO ALLOW FOR INTERCOURSE OR CHILDBIRTH; THE WOMAN NEEDS TO HAVE THIS UNDONE; WHICH IS CALLED “DEINFIBLATION.”* AND SOMETIMES THAT PRACTICE REPEATS ITSELF. TYPE 4 INCLUDES ALL OTHER HARMFUL PROCEDURES TO THE FEMALE GENITALIA FOR NONMEDICAL PURPOSES. WHAT ARE THE CONSEQUENCES OF FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION? DEATH. DEATH IS THE MOST SERIOUS; THE MOST COMMON WITH TYPE 3. SEVERE PAIN. OFTEN ANESTHESIA IS NOT USED. AND EXTREMELY SENSITIVE NERVES ARE CUT. INFECTION. BLADDER INFECTION AND URINARY TRACT INFECTIONS; INFERTILITY; AND INCREASED RISK DURING CHILDBIRTH. DIFFICULTY WITH MINOR GIEN COLOGICAL PROCEDURES*; CHRONIC INFECTIONS; SEXUAL DYSFUNCTION; AND PSYCHOLOGICAL DISORDERS. FOR MANY MONTHS I WAS ASKED — OR FOR MANY MONTHS LAST YEAR I WAS ASKED TO BRING A BILL FORWARD ON THIS ISSUE; AND I DID NOT THINK THAT WE NEEDED IT. AND THAT ALL CHANGED WHEN TWO LITTLE GIRLS WERE TAKEN FROM MINNESOTA — TWO LITTLE 7-YEAR-OLD GIRLS WERE TAKEN FROM MINNESOTA; BROUGHT OVER TO MICHIGAN FOR THIS ACT TO OCCUR. WHAT I FOUND OUT IS THAT STATUTE 609.2245 COVERED THOSE WHO ACTUALLY PERFORM THE PROCEDURE. MINNESOTA LAW IS SILENT ON PARENTS BRINGING THEIR CHILDREN TO SOME PLACE; SOMEONE WHERE THIS BARBARIC ACT OCCURS. NEVER IN MY WILDEST DREAMS DID I EVER THINK PARENTS WOULD FIND A PERSON WILLING TO BREAK THE LAW; HAND THEIR CHILD OVER FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF ROBBING THAT CHILD OF THEIR FUTURE SEXUAL DESIRE; THUS LEAVING THAT CHILD TO A LIFE OF HEALTH COMPLICATIONS AND PSYCHOLOGICAL DISORDERS. THE GIRLS WERE TOLD NOT TO SAY ANYTHING; TO KEEP IT A SECRET. THE DOCTOR MADE THEM CRY. THERE WERE THREE PEOPLE IN THE OFFICE — ONE TO CLEAN UP AND TWO TO HOLD THEIR HAND. REGARDING THE ACTUAL PROCEDURE; THE GIRL TOLD INVESTIGATORS SHE FELT A LITTLE PINCH. THE AREA WAS CLEANED. THE NEXT DAY THE GIRLS SAID IT HURTED A LOT. THE GIRLS SAID THREE DAYS PASSED BEFORE SHE FELT BETTER AND NO MEDICINE WAS NEEDED. SHE SAID THE DOCTOR HAD TOLD THEM NO BIKE AND IS NO SPLITS FOR THREE* DAYS. AND AS THIS WASN’T HORRIFIC ENOUGH;* TWO LITTLE GIRLS IN OUR STATE BEING PUT THROUGH THIS VIOLENT ACT THAT WAS BROUGHT ON BY THEIR PARENTS; ONE OF THE GIRLS FOR A WHOPPING 72 HOURS WAS REMOVED FROM THAT HOME. MEDICAL EXAMS PROVED THAT INDEED THIS POOR CHILD HAD BEEN HARMED. AND THEN THAT POOR CHILD WAS ALLOWED TO RETURN BACK TO HER PARENT’S HOME. THE PARENTS; THEY’RE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE THIS INNOCENT LITTLE GIRL — THIS LITTLE 7-YEAR-OLD GIRL — WITH MEDICAL AND PSYCHIATRIC CARE AND TO ALLOW A SOCIAL WORKER TO VISIT THEIR HOME. AS FAR AS THE SECOND LITTLE GIRL? SHE ENTERED FOSTER CARE; AND IT IS UNKNOWN WHETHER OR NOT SHE RETURNED HOME. AND THAT IS THE BASIS FOR HOUSE FILE 2621. WE HOLD THE PARENTS ACCOUNTABLE; AND WE CHARGE THEM ANYWHERE FROM 20 YEARS TO FIVE YEARS FOR A FELONY DEPENDING ON THE SEVERITY OF THE LEVEL; WHICH IS THE WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION’S NO. 1-4 OF FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION. WE ALSO “UP” THE PENALTIES FROM FIVE YEARS TO 20 YEARS DEPENDING ON THE LEVEL THAT THE DOCTOR PERFORMED. WE ALSO TELL OUR LITTLE GIRLS IN THE STATE OF MINNESOTA THAT THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO BE PROTECTED; AND IF THEY FEEL LIKE THEY ARE GOING TO BE HARMED OR THEY HAVE BEEN HARMED; THAT THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO PROTECTIVE CHILD SERVICES. I WANT TO THANK REPRESENTATIVE DEB HILSTROM* FOR HER INSIGHTS AND GUIDANCE ON THIS BILL. AND ALSO FOR REPRESENTATIVE RON KRESHA* FOR HELPING ME NAVIGATE THE CHILD PROTECTION ASPECT OF IT ON THIS CRIMINAL LAW…. NEW TO ME; BUT I WANT YOU BOTH TO KNOW I AM VERY GRATEFUL FOR THE WORK YOU HAVE PUT INTO THIS BILL AS WELL. LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE BODY AND MR. SPEAKER; THIS IS A BILL; LIKE I SAID; THAT IS GOING TO SAVE THE LIVES OF MANY CHILDREN. THANK YOU.>>THERE IS AN AMENDMENT AT THE DESK. THE CLERK WILL REPORT THE AMENDMENT.>>HILSTROM MOVES TO AMEND HOUSE FILE 2621 THE THIRD ENGROSSMENT. AND THE AMENDMENT IS CODED A11.>>MEMBER FROM HENNEPIN HCHT HILSTROM TO INTRODUCE HER AMENDMENT.>>THANK YOU; MR. SPEAKER AND MEMBERS. MEMBERS; I MET WITH WITH REPRESENTATIVE FRANSON TO DISCUSS* SOME OF THE CHALLENGES WITH THIS PROPOSAL. UNDER CURRENT LAW THIS PRACTICE IS ALREADY ILLEGAL. AND UNDER CURRENT LAW; CHILD PROTECTION ALREADY RESPONDS. THE LANGUAGE OF THIS BILL HAD A LOOPHOLE THAT REPRESENTATIVE KRESHA AND I AND REPRESENTATIVE FRANSON WORKED ON WHICH ENCOMPASSED A LARGE NUMBER OF CHILDREN THAT I DON’T BELIEVE WAS EVER INTENDED TO CAPTURE. AGAIN; IT IS ALREADY ILLEGAL TO DO THIS PRACTICE; BUT 37 COUNTRIES HAVE THIS PRACTICE DONE. THERE ARE CHILDREN THAT HAVE THIS DONE PRIOR TO COMING TO AMERICA. AND; IF WE’RE NOT CAREFUL; WHAT HAPPENS IS; THE CHILDREN THAT IMMIGRATE HERE THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN CUT WOULD BE CAUGHT UP IN THE CHILD PROTECTION SYSTEM. AND THAT IS NOT WHAT THIS BODY ATTEMPTED TO DO. WE DRAFTED THIS AMENDMENT TO MAKE IT VERY CLEAR THAT IT’S ONCE PEOPLE ARE HERE IN AMERICA THAT WE’RE VERY CLEAR THAT THIS PRACTICE IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. IT’S ILLEGAL EVERYWHERE IN THE WORLD ALREADY; BUT WE’RE SAYING IT’S NOT ACCEPTABLE HERE. AND; IF YOU DO THAT PRACTICE ONCE YOU’RE HERE; THAT’S WHEN THE CHILD PROTECTION CONSEQUENCES AND THE CRIMINAL PENALTIES WOULD APPLY. THAT’S WHAT THIS AMENDMENT DOES. BECAUSE OTHERWISE WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IS; ANYONE WHO HAD THIS DONE WHEN THEY WERE IN A REFUGEE CAMP PRIOR TO IMMIGRATE TOES AMERICA; WOULD IMMEDIATELY* BE SWEPT UP IN THE CHILD PROTECTION SYSTEM; WOULD IMMEDIATELY BE EVALUATED. AND THE WAY THIS BILL IS DRAFTED; IT WOULD REQUIRE THE ENTIRE FAMILY TO BE LOOKED AT; INVESTIGATED; AND DETERMINE IF TERMINATION OF PARENTAL RIGHTS WOULD HAPPEN FOR THE ENTIRE FAMILY. THAT’S NOT THE INTENTION OF THE AUTHOR. AND REPRESENTATIVE KRESHA HAS WORKED WITH ME TO CARVE THIS OUT.>>DISCUSSION TO THE AMENDMENT. REPRESENTATIVE DOUGLAS.>>THANK YOU; MR. SPEAKER. MEMBERS; THIS IS A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT AND ONE THAT I ASK YOU VOTE GREEN FOR. THANK YOU.>>FURTHER DISCUSSION TO THE AMENDMENT. SEEING NONE; ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF ADOPTION OF THE A11 AMENDMENT; PLEASE SIGNIFY BY SAYING AYE — AYE. OPPOSED NO. AMENDMENT IS IS ADOPTED. THERE ARE NO MORE AMENDMENTS AT THE DESK. THE CLERK WILL GIVE THE BILL ITS THIRD READING.>>HOUSE FILE 2621 AS AMENDED.>>THIRD READING. DISCUSSION TO THE BILL. REPRESENTATIVE FROM RAMSEY REPRESENTATIVE PINTO.>>THANK YOU; MR. SPEAKER. IN MY WORK OUTSIDE OF… [TALKING TOO FAST]. AND I THINK IT IS CRITICAL FOR THE PEOPLE IN MINNESOTA; PEOPLE AROUND THE COUNTRY; AROUND THE WORLD TO UNDERSTAND THAT THIS PRACTICE IS OF COURSE REPREHENSIBLE; THIS CONDUCT — THIS CRIMINAL CONDUCT — IS REPREHENSIBLE. AND IT’S SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN AS REFERENCED BEFORE BEEN AGAINST THE LAW IN MINNESOTA FOR A LONG TIME NOW. THERE’S OF COURSE IN ADDITION TO LAWS AGAINST AWE SALT; WHICH IS WHAT THIS IS* THERE’S A SPECIFIC LAW AGAINST THIS PARTICULAR CONDUCT UNDER THE AIDING AND ABETTING LAW; A PARENT WHO PROCURES THIS HAPPENING TO THEIR CHILD CAN BE GUILTY JUST AS THE PERSON WHO DOES THIS. AND ALSO UNDER THE CRIMINAL NEGLECT STATUTE; A PARENT WHO KNOWS THAT THIS IS HAPPENING TO THEIR CHILD DOESN’T STEP IN; THAT PARENT AS WELL IS CRIMINALLY LIABLE. THAT HAS BEEN TRUE FOR SOME TIME AND WILL CONTINUE TO BE TRUE REGARDLESS OF THE PASSAGE OF THIS LAW. AND IT’S CRITICAL THAT PEOPLE RECOGNIZE THAT AND UNDERSTAND THAT WE STAND UNITED AGAINST THIS. FORTUNATELY; WHAT THIS LAW DOES IS; IT INCREASES PENALTIES; IT PROVIDES CLARIFICATION; AND IT REPRESENTS A STATEMENT BY THE BODY AND BY THE STATE AND A REMINDER OF THE FACT THIS IS SOMETHING WHICH IS NOT ACCEPTABLE IN OUR COMMUNITY. SO I THANK REPRESENTATIVE FRANSON FOR HER DRIVE AND FOCUS ON THIS AND TO THE COURAGEOUS WOMEN WHO SPOKE IN THE COMMITTEE THAT I WAS IN. I KNOW THE OTHERS AS WELL — TO THEM AS WELL FOR THIER TESTIMONY. AND THANK YOU REPRESENTATIVE FRANSON FOR BRINGING THIS FORWARD*. THANK YOU; MR. SPEAKER.>>REPRESENTATIVE FROM OLMSTED REPRESENTATIVE LIEBLING.>>WELL; THANK YOU; MR. SPEAKER. AND AS WAS JUST SAID BY REPRESENTATIVE PINTO; OF COURSE THIS IS A PRACTICE THAT ALREADY IS ILLEGAL IN MINNESOTA. AND I THINK A LOT OF PLACES AROUND THE WORLD AND FOR GOOD REASON. AND INDEED; THIS IS SOMETHING THAT NO GIRL SHOULD EVER UNDERGO. AND CERTAIN WHETHER I NOT HERE IN MINNESOTA. BUT* BUT THE REASON I RISE IS JUST TO MENTION THAT I’M REALLY PROUD OF** MINNESOTA THAT WE ARE A PLACE THAT WELCOMES THE REFUGEE. AND THIS IS A BILL THAT I THINK RECOGNIZES THAT MINNESOTA CAN REALLY BE A PLACE OF SHELTER FOR PEOPLE WHO REALLY NEED THAT SHELTER AND COME TO US FLEEING SOMETIMES PRACTICES LIKE THIS THAT CAN BE VERY DAMAGING TO A PERSON’S LIFE. SOMETIMES PEOPLE COME TO MINNESOTA FLEEING OTHER KINDS OF VIOLENCE TOO. SOMETIMES IT’S SEXUAL VIOLENCE. SOMETIMES THEY ARE BEING TARGETED; AND THEY’RE IN FEAR OF THEIR LIFE. SO I THINK THIS IS A GREAT BILL THAT; YOU KNOW; WHILE I DO HAVE SOME CONCERNS WITH IT — I HAVE TO SAY — ABOUT WHETHER IT’S REALLY THE BEST WAY TO PROTECT THE GIRLS; AND THAT IS A CONCERN I HAVE ABOUT THE CHILD PROTECTION PIECE OF THIS. BUT I THINK IT’S WELL-MOTIVATED. BUT I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT WE SHOULD BE PROUD OF MINNESOTANS THAT WE WELCOME THE REFUGEE IN THIS STATE; AND THAT WE’RE WILLING TO PROVIDE THE PROTECTION AND THE OPPORTUNITY FOR SOME PEOPLE WHO OTHERWISE MIGHT HAVE A VERY DIFFICULT TIME IN THEIR HOME COUNTRIES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.>>FURTHER DISCUSSION. THE MEMBER FROM RAMSEY WSH REPRESENTATIVE MORAN.>>THANK YOU; MR. SPEAKER. COULD REPRESENTATIVE FRANSON YIELD FOR A QUESTION; PLEASE?>>SHE WILL YIELD.>>THANK YOU. REPRESENTATIVE FRANSON; CAN YOU SHARE WITH THE BODY HOW MANY PARENTS HAVE DONE THIS ACT HERE IN MINNESOTA?>>REPRESENTATIVE FRANSON.>>THANK YOU; MR. SPEAKER. REPRESENTATIVE MORAN; WE KNOW RIGHT NOW THAT TWO PARENTS HAVE HARMED THEIR LITTLE GIRLS. TWO PARENTS — I WOULD SAY TWO LITTLE GIRLS IS WAY TOO MANY LITTLE GIRLS. AND IF YOU WERE IN — IF YOU HAD HEARD THE TESTIMONY WHEN WE WERE IN CIVIL LAW; ONE OF THE TESTIFIERS FOR MY BILL AND WITH THE LOVELY LADIES THAT TESTIFIED SOMEWHERE LOST IN THE CAPITAL TRYING TO FIND THEIR WAY HERE; SO I DO HOPE THEY GET TO SEE THE BILL VOTE. BUT MR. HILL SAID THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IS NOT TALKED ABOUT. IT IS HUSH HUSH. THIS IS LIVING ROOM TALK. WE DON’T* KNOW. BUT WHAT I WANT TO DO IS HAVE LITTLE GIRLS HAVE THE ABILITY — HAVE A TOOL IN THE TOOL BOX TO KNOW THAT THEY ARE FREE FROM REPRESSION HERE IN THE UNITED STATES. THE UNITED STATES IS THE HOME OF THE BRAVE AND THE LAND OF THE FREE. AND IN AMERICA; WE CAN BE FREE FROM OPPRESSION THAT OTHER COUNTRIES MAY HAVE IN THEIR CULTURE. LITTLE GIRLS SHOULD KNOW IN AMERICA THEY CAN BE FREE FROM SEXUAL OPPRESSION; AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION IS — IT IS SEXUAL OPPRESSION. AND THEY CAN BE FREE FROM THAT HERE IN THE UNITED STATES AND HERE IN MINNESOTA.>>REPRESENTATIVE MORAN.>>THANK YOU; MR. SPEAKER. THANK YOU REPRESENTATIVE FRANSON FOR THAT. AND I THINK EVERYONE IN THIS BODY AGREES WITH YOU. I THINK IN THIS BODY; WE HAVE ON BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE; WE HAVE FOLKS WHO ARE CHAMPIONS FOR GIRLS AND WOMEN AND WANT THE BEST OUTCOME — WE WANT THEM TO BE SAFE. WE WANT THEM TO BE SECURE. WE WANT THEM TO HAVE GREAT EDUCATIONAL OPPORTUNITY. I CAN AGREE WITH YOU THAT THAT IS WHAT IS WANTED AND NEEDED ON BOTH SIDES OF THIS AISLE. AND I DON’T THINK ANYONE WANTS ANYTHING LESS. AND SO; I AM CLEAR — I KNOW IN MY CAUCUS; WE TALKED ABOUT THIS. AND IT IS A PRACTICE THAT WE KNOW SHOULD NOT HAPPEN TO ANY YOUNG GIRLS IN THE STATE OR AROUND THE COUNTRY. AND I CAN ALSO AGREE WITH THAT. AND SO; WHAT I DO HAVE SOME DIFFICULTIES WITH THIS BILL IS THAT WE KNOW CURRENTLY IT IS AGAINST THE LAW FOR THIS TO HAPPEN. IT HAS BEEN AGAINST THE LAW FOR A VERY LONG TIME NOW. REPRESENTATIVE PINTO TALKED ABOUT HOW HIS OFFICE WORKS ON CASES LIKE THIS. AND SO; WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH YOUR CONCEPT AROUND THIS. BUT WHEN I LOOK AT SECTION 2 OF YOUR BILL THAT ALLOWS THE COUNTY TO PURSUE CHILD PROTECTION CASE WITHOUT REASONABLE EFFORT FOR REIDENTIFICATION WHEN* PARENTS HAVE BEEN CONVICTED OF SCM; I AM TORN* WITH THIS SOLUTION. WHEN I LOOK AT SECTION 4 OF THE BILL THAT SAYS A PARENT WHO COMMITS AN EGREGIOUS HARM IS ONE OF MANY GROUNDS UPON WHICH THE COUNTY CAN BASE A PETITION TO TERMINATE THE PARENTAL RIGHT. A COUNTY CAN REQUEST IN A [INDECIPHERABLE] ORDER THAT REASONABLE REUNIFICATION EFFORTS ARE NOT REQUIRED BEFORE TERMINATING PARENTAL RIGHTS. AND I HAVE A HARD TIME WITH THAT; YOU GUYS; BECAUSE WHEN THIS BILL CAME TO HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICE COMMITTEE; WHAT I HEARD FROM THE TESTIFIERS — WHAT I HEARD FROM THE WOMEN WHO WERE LITTLE GIRLS WHEN THIS HAPPENED TO THEM IS WHAT THEY SAID OVER AND OVER AGAIN CONSISTENTLY WAS THAT WE NEED TO DO MORE EDUCATION AROUND THIS ISSUE. WE NEED TO DO MORE AWARENESS AROUND THIS ISSUE. AND ONE AND ALL OF THEM SAID; “MY MOTHER LOVED ME. SHE LOVED ME.” AND WHEN I ASKED THEM; “WAS THERE ANYTHING ELSE THAT HAPPENED TO ANY OF THEM THAT WAS NEGLECT OR ABUSE IN ANY FORM?” THEY ALL SAID “NO.” THEY SAID NO. THEY SAID THIS HAPPENED TO ME AND US BECAUSE IT’S A CULTURAL PIECE. IT IS WHAT HAPPENS CULTURALLY FOR LITTLE GIRLS. NOW; I’M NOT MINIMIZING THAT IT’S WRONG; IT WAS HURTFUL; THEY WAS HARMED BY IT. BUT NONE OF THESE YOUNG WOMEN WHO ARE GIRLS SAID THAT THEIR PARENTS WAS DOING SOMETHING TO HARM THEM; TO HURT THEM. THEY DID IT; BECAUSE IT WAS DONE TO THEM AND IT WAS A CULTURAL PIECE. AND YES; IN AMERICA RIGHT NOW — AND WE’RE GOING TO DENOUNCE IT. I GET THAT; UNDERSTAND IT. BUT I ALSO GET AND UNDERSTAND THAT WE HAVE A SYSTEM HERE IN THIS STATE THAT IS OVER-BURDENED WITH KIDS COMING INTO OUT OF HOME PLACE OF EMPLOYMENT WITHOUT THE SUPPORT; WITHOUT THE RESOURCES; WITHOUT THE EDUCATION THAT NEEDS AND SHOULD BE DONE. AND I KNOW THAT WE ARE A SMARTER STATE; AND WE ARE A SMART BODY THAT KNOWS ABOUT THE IMPACT OF CHILDHOOD — ADVERSE CHILDHOOD EXPERIENCES. AND; IF WE DON’T; WE SPEND SOME TIME IN THAT AREA KNOWING THAT THE IMPACT THAT TRAUMA; DISPLACEMENT; HURTS HAVE ON THAT CHILD THAT AS THEY GROW UP; THE IMPACT IT HAS ON THEM AS ADULTS. I KNOW WE’RE SMARTER ABOUT TRAUMA. I KNOW WE ARE SMARTER ABOUT TOXIC STRESS AND WHAT PARENTS GO THROUGH AND WHAT KIDS GO THROUGH. AND THROUGH HAVING A STATUTE THAT THERE’S NO GOOD POSSIBILITY OF UNIFICATION THAT WE’RE GOING TO PUT THESE KIDS IN FOSTER CARE AND TAKE THEM AWAY FROM EVERYTHING THEY KNOW AND ARE CONNECTED TO IS EGREGIOUS ALSO. WE HEAR THE STORIES. WE HAVE HEARD THE STORIES. AND SO; I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THIS BILL THAT CLARIFIES THAT A PERSON WHO PERFORMS A SGM* AND A PARENT OR CHILD UNDERGOING THIS PROCEDURE IS SUBJECT TO A TIER OF FELONIES. WE’RE NOT SAYING A PARENT THAT HAS DONE SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN DONE TO THEM THAT IS A CULTURAL NORM WOULD SPEND 20 YEARS IN JAIL. 20 YEARS AND FINED $30;000. I JUST HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT. I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT. AND NOT BECAUSE WE DON’T WANT TO KEEP YOUNG GIRLS SAFE. WE WANT TO KEEP YOUNG GIRLS SAFE WHO WILL GROW UP TO ONE DAY BE A WOMAN. BUT; IF WE MISS THE WHOLE THING ABOUT THESE WOMEN SAYING THAT THEY WERE LOVED BY THEIR PARENTS; THEY WERE CARED FOR BY THEIR PARENTS; AND I SEE FROM THIS PLACE; BECAUSE I KNOW WITHIN THE AFRICAN-AMERICAN COMMUNITY HOW MANY YOUNG GIRLS AND BOYS WERE DISPLACED BECAUSE THEY WERE SPANKED. BECAUSE SOMEONE MADE A JUDGMENT CALL AND SAID; “THAT’S NOT WHAT WE DO HERE.” IT’S A CULTURAL NORM TO SAY; “WE’VE GOT TO PROTECT OUR YOUNG PEOPLE.” BUT MAYBE IT WAS THE FACT THAT WE WERE SPANKED OR WE WAS TORTURED OR WE WAS BEAT AS A CULTURAL PIECE. AND SO; YOU KNOW; I KNOW HERE ON THIS SIDE OF THE AISLE THE DFL IS GOING TO VOTE TO SUPPORT THIS BILL; AND I WILL PROBABLY BE THE ONLY ONE TO SAY “NO;” BUT I WANTED TO BE CLEAR WHY I SAY “NO.” PART OF ME IS JUST A PROACTIVE PIECE OF ME THAT SAYS; “WE CAN DO THIS DIFFERENTLY.” TO SAY IF WE CAN GO OCCUPY ON THE FRONT PART OF THIS AND NOT BRING MORE PEOPLE INTO THE CRIMINAL SYSTEM WHO ARE GOING TO SERVE 20; 10; AND 5 YEARS FOR A CULTURAL PIECE OF DOING WHAT THEY KNOW TO DO. YOU KNOW; LET’S SPEND SOME MONEY; AND LET’S GO OUT THERE AND EDUCATE THESE COMMUNITIES FROM 37 DIFFERENT COUNTRIES. THIS IS NOT ABOUT A SOMALI COMMUNITY. THIS IS NOT ABOUT A SOMALI COMMUNITY. THERE ARE SO MANY OTHER ETHNIC GROUPS THAT DO THIS — OR HAVE DONE THIS PRACTICE. AND WHAT I HEAR IN A BIG NUMBER THAT THOSE PARENTS WHO WENT OUT OF STATE AND DIDN’T DO IT IN MINNESOTA; BECAUSE IT’S AGAINST THE LAW HERE; IS THAT THEY’VE BEEN EDUCATING EACH OTHER. BUT WE DON’T WANT PEOPLE TO FALL THROUGH THE CRACKS. WE DON’T WANT THIS TO HAPPEN TO ANY YOUNG GIRL. WE DON’T WANT THIS TO HAPPEN TO ANY YOUNG GIRL. BUT NEITHER DO WE WANT TO TEAR FAMILIES APART BECAUSE THEY DIDN’T KNOW. SO; YOU KNOW? HERE WE ARE WITH THIS BILL THAT MAY NOT ONLY JUST IMPACT THAT ONE LITTLE GIRL BECAUSE OF A CULTURAL NORM; BUT WE GO INTO THE FAMILY; TEAR THE WHOLE FAMILY APART [INDECIPHERABLE]. NOW YOU HAVE A MOTHER WHO WE KNOW BESIDES THE FACT SHE DID SOMETHING THAT WAS DONE TO HER SPENDING 20 YEARS IN PRISON WITH NO CHANCE OF REUNIFICATION. AND WE DO A LOT OF THINGS WE HEAR THAT WE BELIEVE WITH GOOD INTENT. AND I’M NOT SAYING IT’S NOT WITH GOOD INTENT. IT IS. THE INTENT IS TO KEEP OUR YOUNG GIRLS SAFE. SO WE DON’T NEED TO CHANGE MY MIND; YOU GUYS; AND DEBATE; AND SAY ANYTHING DIFFERENT THAT YOU THINK I’M POINTING OUT. I’M VERY CLEAR THAT I WANT TO KEEP GIRLS SAFE. THIS IS A HARMFUL PROCEDURE THAT YOUNG GIRLS GO THROUGH. BUT I DON’T ABSOLUTELY BELIEVE PENALIZING; CRIMINALIZING PARENTS IN THIS WAY IS A SOLUTION TO THE ISSUE THAT IS BEFORE US IN THIS STATE. I JUST DON’T. YOU KNOW; AND HAD IT NOT BEEN SO HARD ON THESE PENALTIES; YOU KNOW; I WOULD HAVE TO SAY A YES; BUT I JUST REALLY HAVE A REALLY REALLY HARD TIME SEEING KIDS PULLED OUT OF FAMILIES IN THIS WAY AND HAVING A MOTHER; A FATHER; A NEIGHBOR — I DON’T KNOW — SERVE 20 YEARS IN PRISON. MY HOPE IN THIS BODY THAT WE CONTINUE TO PROTECT GIRLS; THAT WE CONTINUE TO PROTECT WOMEN — NOT ONLY IN THIS WAY; BUT IN OUR SCHOOL SYSTEM; IN DIFFERENT COMMUNITIES; IN DIVERSE COMMUNITIES. BUT WE MAKE THIS A PRIORITY — SAFETY OF GIRLS AND YOUNG BOYS AND CHILDREN IS IMPORTANT. BUT IT JUST DOESN’T COME IN THIS FORM ONLY ONLY. SO I WILL SIT DOWN AND I WILL BE A “NO” VOTE ON THIS BILL. THANK YOU.>>THE MEMBER FROM HENNEPIN. MAJORITY LEADER PEPPIN.>>THANK YOU; MR. SPEAKER AND MEMBERS; THIS IS A IMPORTANT ISSUE AND I WOULD REQUEST THE CALL OF THE HOUSE.>>CALL OF THE HOUSE REQUESTED. SEEING TEN HANDS; CLERK WILL TAKE THE ROLL.>>[BEEP].>>*.>>MEMBER FROM HENNEPIN REPRESENTATIVE ALLEN.>>THANK YOU; MR. SPEAKER. AND I WAS ON — I’M ON HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AND I HEARD THE TESTIMONY. IT’S UNDECIDED ABOUT THIS 3WEU8. ONE OF THE* TESTIFIERS [BILL]* WAS LEANING TOWARDS SUPPORTING THE BILL — AFTER THAT TESTIMONY. FOR ME THIS BILL IS VERY DRASTIC — A VERY DRASTIC STEP. BUT IT IS THE VIOLENCE AGAINST YOUNG GIRLS — IT REQUIRES US TO DO EVERYTHING WE CAN. BUT I THINK WE’VE GONE TO THIS POINT; BECAUSE WE HAVEN’T DONE ENOUGH. THAT WAS EXPRESSED BY THE TESTIFIERS WHO SAID; “WELL; YOU KNOW; WE COME HERE AND WE TALK ABOUT FUNDING — GETTING FUNDING FOR OUR COMMUNITY SO WE CAN HAVE COMMUNITY MEETINGS SO THAT WE CAN GO INTO THE COMMUNITY AND INFORM PEOPLE.” BUT IT FALLS ON DEAF EARS HERE. SO THIS IS WHAT — WE NEED THIS — AND THIS IS WHAT; BECAUSE THEY ARE DESPERATE TO STOP THIS AND TO DO ANYTHING THEY CAN. AND SO; THAT WAS VERY COMPELLING TESTIMONY. BUT I’M ALSO VERY — REPRESENTATIVE MORAN’S TESTIMONY IS ALSO VERY COMPELLING; BECAUSE WE KNOW WHAT HAPPENS WHEN — WITH CHILD PROTECTION SYSTEM WHEN CHILDREN ARE REMOVED; AND ESPECIALLY CHILDREN OF COLOR; THAT THAT CAN CAUSE LIFELONG ISSUES WHEN THEY ARE SEPARATED FROM THEIR COMMUNITY. BUT THE OPTIONS ARE LIMITED HERE. AND ANOTHER CONCERN I HAVE IS THE EFFECT THAT IT MAY ACTUALLY MAKE THE PROBLEM WORSE; AND THAT IS BECAUSE WHEN YOU START REMOVING CHILDREN FROM THEIR FAMILIES; INCREASING PENALTIES AGAINST FAMILIES; IT’S LIKELY THAT THEY MAY — IT MAY DETER THEM FROM REPORTING THE VIOLENCE. SO THEY MAY NOT COOPERATE WITH POLICE TO BRING — TO INVESTIGATE OR BRING ENFORCEMENT PROSECUTIONS AGAINST THOSE WHO ARE PERFORMING THESE PROCEDURES. AND SO; THAT’S WHY; YOU KNOW; THINGS DON’T — THEY DON’T — EVERYTHING IS SO RUSHED HERE. WE DON’T — THIS IS SOMETHING THAT THE COMMUNITIES THAT ARE MOST IMPACTED HAVE BEEN COMING TO THE LEGISLATOR AND TALKING THAT THEY NEED RESOURCES TO ADDRESS THESE ISSUES. THEY HAVE NOT GOTTEN THOSE RESOURCES. AND SO; THEN WHAT IS THE MOST DRASTIC ANSWER? JUST REMOVE THE CHILDREN. NO REUNIFICATION. ENHANCE PENALTIES AGAINST FAMILIES WHO THEMSELVES HAVE BEEN TRAUMATIZED AND MAY POSSIBLY EVEN MOTHERS WHO THEMSELVES ARE VICTIMS. AND SO; TO ME THE ANSWER WAS ALWAYS PUTTING RESOURCES INTO PREVENT THIS ISSUE.>>THE MEMBER FROM BLEW WORTH* REPRESENTATIVE CORNISH.>>MR. SPEAKER AND MEMBERS; THERE ARE SOME THAT SAY THE MALE GENDER SHOULDN’T GET UP AND MAKE A COMMENT ABOUT FEMALE GENDER MUTILATION; BUT I’M GOING TO SPEAK TODAY; BECAUSE I FEEL PASSIONATE ABOUT THIS. I WANT TO ADDRESS REPRESENTATIVE MORAN AND ALLEN’S COMMENTS HERE. SOMETIMES AN 8-YEAR-OLD OR YOUNGER IS THE LAST PERSON THAT YOU SHOULD JUDGE WHETHER THEY SHOULD STAY IN THE HOME OR NOT. I HAVE SHED MANY MORE TEARS FOR THE CHILDREN THAT I DIDN’T TAKE OUT OF THE HOME THE ONES THAT I DID. HOW MANY TIMES IN THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS HAVE ALL OF YOU MEMBERS HEARD THE HORROR STORIES OF SOMEBODY THAT WASN’T TAKEN OUT OF THE HOME AND ENDED UP BEING KILLED LATER BY THE PARENTS? HOW MANY TIMES HAVE YOU HEARD OF A WIFE BEING BEAT THE HELL AND NOT BEING ABLE TO GET A RESTRAINING ORDER; OR ONCE SHE DID; THE GUY KILLED HER ANYWAY. AND I CAN’T TELL YOU HOW MANY TIMES THE COPS — THEY’RE SITTING HERE AND THE CITY ATTORNEYS HEAR STORIES ABOUT HOW WHEN WE GO INTO PLACES; THE KID WITH A BROKEN ARM WILL REACH OUT WITH THE OTHER ARM FOR THE PARENT. THEY DON’T KNOW THAT THEY SHOULD GET THE HECK OUT OF DODGE AND GET OUT OF THE HOME. THE WOMEN HERE SHOULD AGREE WITH ME THE BATTERED WOMAN SYNDROME — THE COPS THAT HAVE BEEN TO THE HOUSES OF THE WOMEN BEAT TERRIBLY AND STILL JUMPING ON THE COP’S BACK AND HELPING FIGHT FOR HER HUSBAND. AND SOMETIMES THEY ARE NOT THE BEST JUDGE. HOW MANY WOMEN HAVE YOU SEEN THAT HAVE STAYED WITH THEIR HUSBANDS OUT OF PITY OR SORROW BECAUSE THEY LOVED THEM THAT ENDED UP GETTING KILLED LATER BY THAT HUSBAND? SO DON’T USE THE MEASURE HERE — THE BAR OF HOW MUCH THE KID LOVES THE PARENT OR HOW MUCH THE WIFE LOVES THE HUSBAND. THAT’S THE WORST THING AT TIMES TO USE. WE’VE GOT A SYSTEM — THE SAFETY NET SYSTEM FOR THIS — AND SOMETIMES THEY GUESS WRONG. BUT LIKE I SAY; HOW MANY TIMES HAVE WE HEARD THE WHOLE REASON FOR CHANGING CHILD PROTECTION ISSUES IN THE LAST FEW YEARS HAVE BEEN THE HORROR STORIES WE’VE HEARD ABOUT THIS. AND BEFORE YOU PUSH THAT BUTTON TODAY; JUST IMAGINE THE FACE OF YOUR DAUGHTER OR YOUR GRANDDAUGHTER BEING DRAGGED NAKED TO A TABLE; STRAPPED DOWN; AND HAVING HER GENITALS REMOVED AGAINST HER WILL. JUST THINK ABOUT THAT BEFORE YOU PUSH THIS BUTTON. THAT’S WHAT YOU SHOULD BE THINKING ABOUT. DON’T TRUST THE JUDGMENT OF A YOUNG GIRL AND WEIGH THE LOVE OF HER MOTHER AND FATHER. OF COURSE THEY LOVE THEM. BUT SOMETIMES REMOVAL FROM THE HOME IS THE BEST THING YOU CAN DO. THERE’S MANY MORE TIMES I WISH WE REMOVED THEM THAN I FEEL BAD ABOUT HAVING REMOVED THEM. SOMETIMES THEY JUST SHOULDN’T BE UNIFIED BACK. THEY SHOULDN’T BE GIVEN BACK. SO ANYWAY; THAT’S MY FEELINGS ON THE SUBJECT. AND THANK YOU.>>THE MEMBER FROM HENNEPIN; REPRESENTATIVE HILSTROM.>>THANK YOU; MR. SPEAKER AND MEMBERS. MEMBERS; I THINK THAT I SHOULD MAKE SOME CLARIFICATIONS ON THE RECORD HERE. IT HAS BEEN ILLEGAL SINCE 1994 TO DO THIS ACT IN MINNESOTA. IT WAS ACTUALLY LIN DA WAITSMAN* WHO WAS A DEMOCRAT AND ARNIE CARLSON WAS THE GOVERNOR AT THE TIME. AND MINNESOTA WAS THE FIRST STATE IN THE COUNTRY TO PASS THAT LAW. MEMBERS; THIS HAS CONSISTENTLY ALWAYS BEEN BIPARTISAN TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE. AND IT IS ILLEGAL EVERYWHERE IN THE WORLD. IT IS ILLEGAL EVERYWHERE IN THE WORLD. CURRENTLY UNDER MINNESOTA STATUTE; UNDER THE ASSAULT STATUTE; WE PUNISH HARM — THE LEVEL OF HARM THAT A CHILD OR AN ADULT SUFFERS DETERMINES THE LEVEL OF THE PENALTY. THERE’S BEEN MUCH DISCUSSION SURROUNDING THIS BILL ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THIS PARTICULAR KIND OF HARM SHOULD BE CONSIDERED EGREGIOUS LARM. AND WHY IS THAT DEFINITION* IMPORTANT? IN A CHILD PROTECTION STATUTE; THERE ARE TWO PATHS THAT HAPPEN. AND A JUDGE ULTIMATELY MAKES THE DECISION. IF IT IS NOT CONSIDERED EGREGIOUS HARM IN THE STATUTE; THE COUNTY ATTORNEY PETITIONS THE JUDGE AND SAYS; “WE THINK THE CHILD SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM THE HOME.” AND THE STATUTE REQUIRES REUNIFICATION AT BIRTH UNLESS A JUDGE WEIGHING THE FACTORS DETERMINES REUNIFICATION IS NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD. WHEN YOU DEFINE SOMETHING AS EGREGIOUS HARM; IT DOES THE OPPOSITE. IT SAYS THAT NO REUNIFICATION EFFORTS ARE REQUIRED. HOWEVER; AGAIN; THE COUNTY ATTORNEY PETITIONS THE COURT; AND THE COURT DETERMINES WHETHER OR NOT REUNIFICATION EFFORTS SHOULD TAKE PLACE. BUT THE ONE THING THAT’S DIFFERENT IN CLASSIFYING SOMETHING AS EGREGIOUS HARM IS; WHEN SOMETHING IS IDENTIFIED AS EGREGIOUS HARM; THAT MEANS CHILD PROTECTION GOES IN AND REVIEWS THE ENTIRE FAMILY. SO NOT JUST THE CHILD THAT IS HARMED; NOT JUST THE GIRLS — EVERY CHILD IN THE FAMILY WOULD BE REVIEWED TO DETERMINE WHETHER THERE SHOULD BE PETITION FOR REMOVAL FROM THE HOME. SO THAT IS WHY THERE HAS BEEN MUCH DISCUSSION SURROUNDING EGREGIOUS HARM. REPRESENTATIVE FRANSON AND I HAVE SPOKEN ABOUT THAT FREQUENTLY. AND WE DID NOT COME TO AGREEMENT ON WHETHER THE BILL SHOULD HAVE IT IN THERE; WHETHER IT SHOULD BE SILENT; WHETHER THAT SHOULD BE DETERMINED BY DHS OR SOMEONE ELSE. AND SO; IT’S CURRENTLY IN THE BILL. I ANTICIPATE THAT THAT WILL BE THE SUBJECT OF MUCH MORE DISCUSSION BETWEEN NOW AND END OF SESSION WITHIN A WEEK. BUT MEMBERS; THIS SHOULDN’T BE A PARTISAN ISSUE. THIS SHOULD BE A BIPARTISAN ISSUE IN DETERMINING WHAT IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILDREN. THAT IS WHAT WE HAVE TO DO HERE. WHAT IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILDREN? 37 COUNTRIES — 37 COUNTRIES HAVE PRACTICED THIS. BUT ONCE THEY COME HERE — ONCE THEY COME HERE TO MINNESOTA; WE ARE TRYING TO SAY WHAT IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD? AND THAT’S WHAT I THINK WE SHOULD DO TODAY.>>THE MEMBER FROM ANOKA — REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT.>>THANK YOU; MR. SPEAKER. I APPRECIATE THE DIALOGUE THAT’S GONE ON HERE THIS MORNING — OR THIS AFTERNOON. AND I KNOW SOME OF YOUR MINDS ARE ALREADY MADE UP. I KNOW REPRESENTATIVE MORAN AND OTHERS ARE QUESTIONING. MAYBE REPRESENTATIVE MORAN’S MIND IS ALREADY MADE UP. SHE MENTIONED IT’S BEEN THE LAW IN THE STATE OF MRN MN FOR QUITE SOME TIME. AND REPRESENTATIVE HILSTROM* GAVE US DETAILS ON THAT. IT HAS BEEN THE LAW IN THE STATE OF MINNESOTA THE DOCTORS ARE PUNISHED. BUT EVIDENTLY THIS LAW IS NOT STRONG ENOUGH. OTHERWISE; WE WOULDN’T HAVE PARENTS INTENTIONALLY GO ING TO ANOTHER STATE TO HAVE THIS DONE TO THEIR CHILDREN. AS REPRESENTATIVE HILSTROM SAID; WE HAVE TO LOOK PAST THAT AND LOOK FOR THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD IN THIS SITUATION. AND TO COMPARE IT TO SPANKING; I DON’T THINK THERE’S ANY COMPARISON THERE. BUT WE DO NEED TO HOLD THE PARENTS ACCOUNTABLE. THEY’RE ACCOMPLICE SIT IN THIS IN MOST CASES.*. THEY’VE BEEN MANY TIMES IN THIS COUNTRY AND IN THIS STATE FOR A RELATIVE — A LENGTHY PERIOD OF TIME TO KNOW WHAT THE LAWS ARE. AND IN THE SITUATION THAT REALLY BROUGHT THIS BILL TO THE FLOOR TODAY; I BELIEVE THE PARENTS CLEARLY KNEW THAT THEY WEREN’T DOING SOMETHING RIGHT AND THUS TOOK THEM TO A DIFFERENT STATE TO HAVE THIS DONE. AND THE OTHER OPTION IS; IF WE HAVE IT BE A LESSER PENALTY — I KNOW REPRESENTATIVE OMAR’S BILL MADE IT A GROSS MISDEMEANOR — THE SAME AS I THINK REPRESENTATIVE FRANSON GAVE THE EXAMPLE THROWING ROCKS AT A TRAIN; THROWING ROCKS AT A CAR — SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT. I JUST DON’T THINK IT RAISES TO A SIGNIFICANT LEVEL TO ACT AS A DETERRENT. SO MEMBERS; I JUST WOULD ASK THAT YOU CONSIDER THE LONG-TERM EFFECTS — THE SHORT-TERM AND LONG-TERM EFFECTS OF A LITTLE GIRL THAT IS SUBJECTED TO THIS WHEN YOU PLACE YOUR VOTE TODAY. THANK YOU; MEMBERS.>>THE MEMBER FROM MORRISON; REPRESENTATIVE KRESHA.>>THANK YOU; MR. SPEAKER. THANKS FOR THE OPEN DIALOGUE. REPRESENTATIVE HILSTROM; REPRESENTATIVE FRANSON; WE’VE BEEN THROUGH ALL THE ITERATIONS OF THIS. REPRESENTATIVE MORAN; THIS IS NOT EASY. WE HAVE A BUTTON THAT SAYS “YES.” AND A BUTTON THAT SAYS “NO.” NOT A “YES; NO; AND/OR BUT.” AND WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH THIS FROM THE STATUTORY LEVEL. AND I’VE GONE BACK AND FORTH ON THIS. I’VE GONE BACK AND FORTH ON THE EGREGIOUS HARM. AND I TRY TO PUT ALL THIS TOGETHER; BUT I GO BACK TO THE CHANGES WE MADE IN STATUTE TWO YEARS AGO THAT SAID THE CHILD SAFETY IS OF PARAMOUNT CONCERN. WE HAVE TO START THERE. AND REPRESENTATIVE HILSTROM ACCURATELY DEPICTED THIS. AND I DON’T EVEN WANT TO USE THE SPECIFIC TERM WHAT WE’RE DEALING WITH. I WANT TO TALK ABOUT CHILD MALTREATMENT IN GENERAL. WHEN A CHILD IS MALL TREATED; THE SYSTEM* HAS TO COME IN AND LOOK AT THAT. AND WE HAVE TO DECIDE; “IS THE CHILD SAFETY NO. 1 FIRST AND FOREMOST — IS THAT CHILD SAFE?” AND I WENT BACK AND FORTH ON THE EGREGIOUS HARM ON THIS. WHERE I FALL ON THIS IS; WE HAVE TO INVESTIGATE. WE HAVE TO FIND OUT. WE CERTAINLY STILL WANT THE COURT TO LOOK AT THIS AND SEE IF THERE ARE POSSIBLY REUNIFICATION. WE STILL WANT THE PETITION. BUT WE HAVE TO PUT THIS AND ERROR ON THE SIDE OF* INVESTIGATION TO FIND OUT WHERE SAFETY LIES. I SUSPECT WE WILL HAVE THIS CONVERSATION MORE AND MORE. THIS IS NOT DONE; NOR SHOWD SHOULD IT BE. AND REALLY WHAT WE’RE DOING* MEMBERS; WE’RE DEFINING THIS IN CHILD PROTECTION STATUTE 626566 — IT’S NOT DEFINED THERE. AND WE’RE CALLING IT OUT IN CHILD MALTREATMENT. WHEN I LOOK AT THIS; I HEAR ALL THE TIME WHEN WE DEAL WITH CHILD PROTECTION — AND IT’S THE HARDEST THING ABOUT THIS ISSUE IN CHILD SAFETY — EVERY KID LOVES THEIR PARENTS NO MATTER HOW THEY’RE TREATED. UNEQUIVOCALLY I HEAR THAT OVER AND OVER AND OVER. BECAUSE OF THAT BOND THAT EXISTS; THE KIDS LOVE THEIR PARENTS. BUT UNFORTUNATELY; SOMETIMES THE STATE HAS TO STEP IN AND DECIDE THAT CHILD SAFETY IS OF PARAMOUNT CONCERN. SO I’LL BE VOTING FOR THIS BILL; AND I’M SURE WE’LL BE DISCUSSING IT MORE ANDS MORE. REPRESENTATIVE MORAN*. I HAVE YOUR RESPECT. AND WE TALKED ABOUT THESE ISSUES. I KNOW EXACTLY WHAT YOU’RE GOING THROUGH. BUT AT SOME POINT WE HAVE TO LOOK AT WHAT THE LAW DICTATES AND WHERE THE LAW TAKES US.>>THE MEMBER FROM OLMSTED; REPRESENTATIVE LIEBLING.>>SO MEMBERS; MR. SPEAKER; THANK YOU. SO I HEARD FROM REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT THAT THE LAW ISN’T STRONG ENOUGH; BECAUSE IT’S STILL HAPPENING. WELL; REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT; PEOPLE STILL COMMIT MURDERS. THEY STILL COMMIT ALL KINDS OF OTHER CRIMES. AND UNFORTUNATELY; THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS THAT PASSING LAWS; PASSING CRIMINAL PENALTIES AND INCREASING THOSE PENALTIES DOESN’T ALWAYS STOP PEOPLE FROM COMMITTING CRIMES. IT’S IMPORTANT ON THE FLOOR THAT PEOPLE ACKNOWLEDGE WE ALL AGREE THIS IS A HORRIFIC PRACTICE. WE ALL AGREE THIS IS SOMETHING THAT SHOULD NEVER HAPPEN TO ANY GIRL — ANYWHERE — NOT IN MINNESOTA; CERTAINLY; AND NOT IN THE REST OF THE WORLD EITHER. BUT THE REAL QUESTION THAT WE’RE WRESTLING WITH HERE TODAY IS HOW TO STOP IT FROM HAPPENING AND WHETHER THIS BILL BRINGS US CLOSER TO THE GOAL OF STOPPING IT OR WHETHER PERHAPS IT ACTUALLY MIGHT HARM THE VERY CHILDREN THAT IT IS TRYING TO HELP? THAT’S WHAT WE’RE STRUGGLING WITH. I REALLY WANT TO RESPOND TO A FEW THINGS THAT WERE SAID HERE BY MEMBERS. ONE IS; WE NEED TO RECOGNIZE THAT AS REPRESENTATIVE FRANSON WHEN SHE INTRODUCED THE BILL; SHE SAID THAT TWO CHILDREN WE KNOW ABOUT THAT WERE HARMED HERE; MINNESOTA CHILDREN; IT SOUNDED LIKE BOTH OF THEM ARE IN THE CHILD PROTECTION SYSTEM — ONE OF THEM IN FOSTER CARE; I UNDERSTOOD; AND ONE OF THEM AT LEAST RECEIVING SERVICES IN THE FAMILY. SO THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WENT WITHOUT A RESPONSE FROM OUR CURRENT CHILD PROTECTION SYSTEM. I REALLY — ONE OF THE THINGS THAT CONCERNS ME ABOUT THIS — WE’RE TALKING IN LARGE PART ABOUT IMMIGRANT PARENT. AND I DON’T KNOW A LOT ABOUT IMMIGRATION LAWS. I DO KNOW THAT HAVING A FELONY MAKES THE PERSON DEPORTABLE. AND THAT HASN’T BEEN MENTIONED TODAY ON THE HOUSE FLOOR. I DON’T KNOW. I’M NOT GOING TO ASK REPRESENTATIVE FRANSON TO YIELD TO SPEAK TO THAT POINT. WHAT WE MIGHT BE DOING HERE IS TAKING A FAMILY OF A GIRL THAT HAS THIS PROCEDURE — MAYBE IN SOME CASES THAT MIGHT BE THE RIGHT THING TO DO DISSH BUT THAT PERSON WOULD BECOME DEPORTABLE WOULD PROBABLY BE DEPORTED. NOW; I DON’T KNOW WHAT THAT DOES TO THE CHILD; BUT I THINK THAT WHEN WE’RE TALKING ABOUT PENALTIES DPRA CONE YAN ONES IN THIS BILL* INCLUDING WHAT COULD HAPPEN; WHICH IS THIS BEING DEPORTED — HAVING THE PARENTS BE DEPORTED — THAT MIGHT IN FACT AS REPRESENTATIVE ALLEN WAS TALKING ABOUT — MIGHT ACTUALLY KEEP PEOPLE FROM WANTING TO REPORT. SO WE DO HAVE THAT PROBLEM. THE OTHER THING I REALLY WANT TO ADDRESS IS WHAT REPRESENTATIVE CORNISH WAS TALKING ABOUT. AND REPRESENTATIVE KRESHA; YOU TALK ABOUT THIS IS NOT ABOUT; YOU KNOW; ALL KIDS LOVE THEIR PARENTS. AND KIDS; OF COURSE; THEY LOVE THEIR PARENTS EVEN IF THEY’RE BEING ABUSED. WE ALL KNOW THAT. THIS IS SOMETHING — IT MUST BE HARDWIRED INTO US. AND IT IS A PROBLEM. THIS IS A VERY DIFFERENT KIND OF ABUSE. AND THIS IS WHERE I WANTED TO ADDRESS REPRESENTATIVE CORNISH. OF COURSE; WHEN A CHILD IS BEING — SOMETHING IS BEING DONE TO A CHILD THAT SAYS TO EVERYBODY; “THIS CHILD IS IN DANGER.” OF COURSE WE WANT TO REMOVE THAT CHILD. OF COURSE WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT CHILD CAN YOU NOT GET FURTHER HARM. AND THE FACT THAT THEY LOVE THEIR PARENTS SHOULD NOT BE THE DECIDING FACTOR. ABSOLUTELY YOU ARE RIGHT. THE PROBLEM IS THAT PARENTS WHO DO THIS AS I UNDERSTOOD FROM TESTIMONY IN THE COMMITTEE; THE PARENTS WHO DO THIS ARE NOT DOING IT OUT OF ANGER. SO AS TERRIBLE WABZ HORRIBLE AS IT IS; ONCE IT’S DONE; THAT CHILD* IS NO LONGER IN DANGER — AT LEAST THAT’S WHAT I UNDERSTAND FROM WHAT WE’RE TALKING ABOUT HERE. NOW; OTHER GIRLS IN THE FAMILY — ABSOLUTELY; YES — COULD BE IN DANGER. AND WE NEED TO HAVE A RESPONSE. AND THE PROBLEM WITH THIS BILL IS THAT IT DOESN’T TREAT THIS PARTICULAR KIND OF ABUSE THE RIGHT WAY. THERE SHOULD BE A SEPARATE SECTION FOR THIS. THIS SHOULD BE SOMETHING WHERE; “YES; THERE’S AN INVESTIGATION.” AND WHERE IT’S TREATED AS WHAT IT IS. IT’S SOMETHING THAT SHOULD NEVER HAPPEN TO ANY GIRL. AND THE PARENTS SHOULD — YOU KNOW; THERE SHOULD BE A RESPONSE — ABSOLUTELY. AND ANY OTHER GIRLS IN THE FAMILY SHOULD BE PROTECTED. BUT THIS IS NOT A CASE WHERE THE FACT THAT A GIRL HAS BEEN ABUSED IN THIS WAY MEANS THAT SHE IS IN FURTHER DANGER AND NEEDS TO BE REMOVED. AND THAT IS WHAT MAKES THIS VERY DIFFERENT. SO OF COURSE REPRESENTATIVE CORNISH’S CONCERNS ABOUT; YOU KNOW; ABUSE AND HOW WE HAVE TROUBLE STOPPING IT AND EVEN OF COURSE MANY WOMEN WHO ARE BATTERED HAVE TROUBLE LEAVING THE ABUSER AND ALL OF THOSE THIDGES. THAT IS ALL VERY TRUE AND VERY POIGNANT. BUT IT’S NOT EXACTLY THE SITUATION WE’RE FACING WITH THIS REALLY TERRIBLE CRIME. SO THAT’S WHAT I THINK SOME OF US ARE STRUGGLING WITH. AND THAT’S WHY I THINK REPRESENTATIVE MORAN KEPT REFERRING TO IT AS A CULTURAL PIECE. AND I THINK WHAT SHE MEANS THERE IS; ONCE THIS HARM OCCURS; THIS IS NOT A PARENT WHO IS TRYING TO HARM THEIR CHILD AND IS GOING TO THEN DO SOMETHING ELSE. AS YOU MIGHT SEE IF THAT PARENT HAD; YOU KNOW; STABBED THE CHILD OR BEATEN THE CHILD OR SOMETHING WHERE YOU SAY; “THAT’S A PARENT WHO’S OUT OF CONTROL; AND WE NEED TO STEP IN.” SO THAT’S THE CONCERN. IT’S NOT ABOUT KIDS LOVING THEIR PARENTS. WE KNOW THEY DO; AND WE KNOW THAT SHOULD NOT BE THE DECIDING FACTOR. REPRESENTATIVE KRESHA; YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT ABOUT THAT. BUT — AND I’M STRUGGLING WITH THIS; BECAUSE I WANT TO STOP THIS PRACTICE JUST LIKE EVERY ONE OF US DOES — EVERY SINGLE ONE OF US. AND I THINK THAT — I THINK THAT I WANT TO TAKE REPRESENTATIVE FRANSON AT HER WORD THAT THAT WAS WHAT’S MOTIVATING HER. AND I THINK SHE SPOKE VERY PASSIONATELY ABOUT IT. NOBODY WANTS THIS TO HAPPEN TO ANY GIRL AGAIN. BUT I’M NOT SURE THIS BILL DOES THAT. FRANKLY; I WORRY THAT THIS BILL WILL CREATE ADDITIONAL HARM TO GIRLS WHO HAVE BEEN EGREGIOUSLY HARMED WHEN THEY GET SEPARATED FROM THEIR FAMILIES; WHEN POSSIBLY THEIR FAMILIES GET DEPORTED; AND WHETHER KNOWING THAT SOMEBODY WILL POSSIBLY GET DEPORTED WILL THROW THIS UNDERGROUND AND RESULT IN MORE HARM AND HAVING THIS PRACTICE BECOME MORE PREVALENT INSTEAD OF LESS. AND THAT IS WHAT REALLY CONCERNS ME AND I THINK SHOULD CONCERN ALL OF US.>>THE MEMBER FROM DOUGLAS; THE AUTHOR OF THE BILL; REPRESENTATIVE FRANSON.>>THANK YOU; MR. SPEAKER. MEMBERS; THIS BILL IS NOT ABOUT WHETHER CHILD PROTECTION SYSTEM WORKED OR DID NOT WORK. IN THE TWO INSTANCES WE KNOW ABOUT; IT’S ABOUT GIVING A CLEAR DIRECTION TO DHS AND COUNTIES THAT FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION IS ON PAR WITH SEXUAL ABUSE AND OTHER CRIMES THAT CONSTITUTE SUBSTANTIAL CHILD ENDANGERMENT. WHAT ABOUT WHEN THERE ARE OTHER YOUNGER SISTERS IN THE HOME? THERE SHOULD BE NO AMBIGUITY THAT INVESTIGATION MUST OCCUR. NOW; I HEAR THE ASSUMPTION THAT THIS JUST HAPPENS ONCE. IT JUST HAPPENS ONCE. THAT CHILD IS NO LONGER IN DANGER; BECAUSE IT’S A CULTURAL THING. TO THE MEN IN THE BODY; I’D ASK; “WHAT IF IT WAS THE CULTURE TO COMPLETELY TAKE OFF YOUR PENIS?” THAT WOULD BE A TOTALLY DIFFERENT CONVERSATION. OR WHAT IF THE CULTURE WAS TO CHOP OFF THE NOSE? WE ONLY HAVE ONE NOSE. WOULD THE CONVERSATION BE DIFFERENT? THIS BILL IS ABOUT LITTLE GIRLS. AND THE OPPRESSION THAT FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION HAS. AND IT DOESN’T JUST HAPPEN ONE TIME. THERE IS A LIFELONG HEALTH ISSUE AND PSYCHOLOGICAL ISSUES THAT HAPPEN WITH THIS. THIS ISN’T JUST ONE AND DONE. THIS IS LIFELONG. LIFELONG HARM THAT THAT PARENT IS ALLOWING THEIR CHILD TO GO THROUGH. IS IT A CRIME? YES; IT IS A CRIME FOR PEOPLE TO PERFORM IT. WHAT I WANT IS FOR LITTLE GIRLS TO KNOW THAT THEY CAN TELL A MANDATED REPORTER THAT THEY ARE ABOUT TO GO THROUGH THIS OR HAVE BEEN SO THAT THEY CAN BE PROTECTED BY THE SYSTEM AND NOT HAVE TO HAVE THEIR LITTLE SISTERS GO THROUGH WHAT THEY JUST WENT THROUGH. THE ACCUSATIONS THAT MAYBE THIS IS ABOUT BEING DEPORTED; THAT HAS NOTHING — THAT NEVER EVEN CROSSED MY MIND. MY SOLE PURPOSE IS TO HELP THE LITTLE GIRLS AND SAVE THEIR LIVES. [INDECIPHERABLE] CIVIL LAW — I DIDN’T EVEN SLEEP WELL LAST NIGHT. I CRIED MYSELF TO SLEEP THINKING ABOUT THE TESTIMONY FROM MY NEW FRIEND FOR [INDECIPHERABLE]. LAYING ON THE TABLE WITH HER ARMS TIED; BEING HELD DOWN; AND SHE THOUGHT SHE HAD DIED IT WAS SO PAINFUL; SO HORRIBLE. I DIDN’T EVEN KNOW I WAS GOING TO HAVE TESTIFIERS ON THIS BILL; MEMBERS. I BROUGHT IT BECAUSE OF THOSE TWO LITTLE GIRLS THAT WENT THROUGH SUCH HARM — HARM THAT I WILL NEVER EVER EVER UNDERSTAND. SHE WILLINGLY CALLED MY OFFICE AND WANTED TO TESTIFY. I DID NOT APPROACH HER. SHE APPROACHED ME; AND SHE’S IN THE CHAMBER NOW. SHE CAME TO THE OTHER COMMITTEE HEARINGS AND BROUGHT MORE PEOPLE WITH. THIS BILL HASN’T EVEN PASSED THE CHAMBER YET. AND DO YOU KNOW WHAT THESE LOVELY LADIES AND GENTLEMEN ARE DOING? [INDECIPHERABLE] AND I’M GOING TO PROBABLY MISPRONOUNCE THE NAME. DUMO IS WITH FURHI. MOHAMMED [INDECIPHERABLE] OS MAN OMAR AND WILLIAM HEIDI. THEY ARE ALREADY OUT IN THE COMMUNITY* EDUCATING THEIR FRIENDS AND THEIR FAMILIES THAT; IF YOU DO THIS TO YOUR LITTLE GIRLS; YOU’RE GOING TO HAVE YOUR CHILDREN TAKEN AWAY. THEY ARE LOOKING FOR A TOOL IN THE TOOL BOX AS WELL. THAT’S WHAT THIS BILL IS ALL ABOUT — A TOOL IN THE TOOL BOX. LIKE I STATED EARLIER; THE UNITED STATES IS THE HOME OF THE BRAVE AND THE LAND OF THE FREE. AND LITTLE GIRLS HAVE THE RIGHT AND THE OPPORTUNITY HERE IN AMERICA — IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA — TO BE FREE FROM OPPRESSION. AND THAT IS ALSO INCLUDES SEXUAL OPPRESSION; WHICH IS WHAT FEMALE GENITAL MUTILATION IS. THIS REPRESENTATIVE LIEBLING IS A WOMEN’S HEALTH ISSUE. THIS IS GENDER VIOLENCE. WE — WHEN A MAN BEATS A WOMAN; IT’S A FELONY. WE’RE SAYING THAT; “IF YOU HARM YOUR CHILD IN THIS WAY; YOU’RE GOING TO BE HELD RESPONSIBLE; PARENTS.” I DON’T CARE WHAT RELIGION; WHAT CULTURE; ANYTHING — I WOULD SAY THIS TO ANYONE. THIS WE ARE NOT GOING TO STAND FOR. SO I’LL CLOSE AGAIN. YOU INTENDED TO HARM ME; BUT GOD INTENDED IT FOR GOOD TO ACCOMPLISH WHAT IS BEING DONE SAVING MANY LIVES. THE WOMEN WHO HAVE TESTIFIED FUR HEEL*; WORRY; FUR HEEL; FUR TIEW MA; AND MR.* I BELIEVE IT WAS AHMED; THEY ARE ON A MISSION TO SAVE THE LIVES OF MANY GIRLS. AND THANK YOU; MR. SPEAKER.>>THERE BEING NO FURTHER DISCUSSION; THE CLERK WILL TAKE THE ROLL ON THE BILL.>>[BEEP].>>THE HOUSE IS UNDER CA LL. MEMBERS; PLEASE VOTE.>>CLERK WILL CLOSE THE ROLL.>>THERE BEING 124 AYE’S AND 4 NAY’S; THE BILL AS AMENDED IS PASSED AND ITS TITLE AGREED TO.>>REPRESENTATIVE BAKER; FOR WHAT PURPOSE DO YOU RISE?>>MR. SPEAKER; POINT OF PERSONAL PRIVILEGE; PLEASE.>>TAKE YOUR POINT OF PERSONAL PRIVILEGE.>>MR. SPEAKER; MEMBERS; I WANTED TO RECOGNIZE AN EVENT IN MINNESOTA THAT HAPPENS EVERY MAY 15; THAT IS LAW ENFORCEMENT DAY THAT WILL RECOGNIZE OUR FALLEN SOLDIERS. WITH US TODAY WE’VE GOT TWO ON HONOR GUARD MEMBERS IN THE BALCONY; AND THEY ARE HERE TO RECOGNIZE OUR BODY AND THE WORK WE HAVE DONE AND ALONG WITH CHIEF AUTHOR REPRESENTATIVE QUAM TO CARRY THE MEMORIAL LICENSE PLATE THIS YEAR THAT WE HAVE PASSED IN THEIR HONOR. THE PROFITS FROM LA GO TO THE* FAMILIES OF OFFICERS THAT HAVE DIED IN THE LINE OF DUTY. SO EVERY YEAR MAY 15TH. THEY STARTED LAST NIGHT AT 7 P.M. AND MEMBERS; IF YOU HAVE NOT BEEN TO THIS CEREMONY WHERE THEY REEK NIEZ MEMBERS WHO HAVE* DIED IN THE LINE OF DUTY; IT IS A VERY AMAZING SOMBER EVENT THAT IS GOING ON RIGHT NOW IN FRONT OVER BY THE VETERAN’S BUILDING. SO MEMBERS; I’D LIKE TO RECOGNIZE OFFICER WALLACE; DEPUTY EEBERSON THAT ARE HERE* TODAY WITH US. AND I WANT TO TELL THEM HOW GRATEFUL WE ARE FOR THE WORK THEY DO TO RECOGNIZE THE FAMILIES OF THOSE BEAUTIFUL PEOPLE THAT DIED IN THE LINE OF DUTY TO PROTECT AND SUPPORT US. OFFICERS; THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR BEING HERE TODAY. [APPLAUSE]>>MEMBER FROM HENNEPIN; MAJORITY LEADER PEPPIN.>>THANK YOU; MR. SPEAKER. I MOVE THE CALL OF THE HOUSE BE LIFTED.>>PEPPIN MOVES — A REMOVAL OF THE CALL OF THE HOUSE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE — AYE. OPPOSED NAY. MOTION PREVAILS.>>MAJORITY LEADER PEPPIN.>>MR. SPEAKER; I MOVE A RECESS TO THE CALL OF THE CHAIR FOR APPROXIMATELY 15 MINUTES. DURING THE RECESS; THE RULES COMMITTEE WILL RECONVENE IN ROOM 20 OF THE CAPITAL.>>PEPPIN MOVES RECESS TO THE CALL OF THE CHAIR FOR APPROXIMATELY 15 MINUTES. ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE — AYE. OPPOSED NAY. THE HOUSE IS IN RECESS.>>[11:52 A.M. PST — RECESS STARTED]