Capitol Update 15 4/25/2013

I ended last weeks Capitol Update by letting you know that I would provide details on the Transportation, Tax, and Health and Human Services Omnibus bills. Unfortunately, we will not be taking up the former bills until next week. Instead, this weeks focus was on the HHS bill, as well as the E-12 Policy and Finance bills. My colleagues and I worked long into the night on Thursday debating the HHS and E-12 Finance Omnibus bills. There were many worthwhile amendments that I voted for and would have liked to have seen adopted. Once again, I did not agree with each and every provision that went into these Omnibus bills. However, I support the underlying value statement that was set in our E-12 bills and anytime we can help out our most vulnerable citizens, such as those covered in our HHS Omnibus, I believe we have an obligation to do so.

E-12: Policy and Finance I must preface my comments in this section with a brief note about the proposed tax increases that have been put forth to pay for the new services and initiatives that come from these bills. As I have said all session, I am hesitant to support many of the bills that have come before me because I believe we need to be prudent in what we are asking from the Minnesota tax payers. We are at a fragile point in our economic recovery and many of the proposed investments, while important, may be poorly timed. Having said that, it is my belief that investments in early childhood education cannot wait any longer. Throughout my Legislative career, I have been a champion for early childhood education. After years of sitting on the Education Policy committee and fighting for increased resources, this session, the Senate has committed to investing in our youngest learners. Across the state, many have been asking for statefunded All Day Kindergarten. This has not been a priority in my view because with limited resources, research is clear that targeting funds to low-income pre-schoolers is a stronger investment. After hearing from local professionals and stakeholders, I worked with my colleagues to amend the language

so that school districts could be flexible in the use of these new funds. This flexibility allows school districts to apply the money to Pre-K programs that they feel may be more beneficial to the development of kids in their community.

Another significant part of the Senate Education proposal is the change away from using the GRAD test to determine whether or not a High School kid is ready to graduate. Instead, it has been replaced with a series of tests that relate to the ACT. There is an EXPLORE test in 8th grade, a PLAN test in 10th grade, with the final ACT being taken as a Junior or Senior in High School. This suite of tests links more closely to what is required of students as they enter postsecondary. This is an effort at comprehensive reform with the focus being on catching those who may be lagging behind and intervening earlier with remediation services. I have heard from education professionals who are in favor of this change, but given that this was such a sweeping reform, I had my reservations. As a member of the Education Finance committee, I listened intently to this debate and am supportive of moving in this direction. However, I did not support the elimination of a cut-score, which would be a minimum score that a student must receive in order to graduate. I see this as necessary in order to not only challenge our students, but also to have a defined level at which we say a student is ready to move on The Senate spent about 12 hours on the Senate floor on Thursday. Senator Bonoff stood up on the Senate floor to let from High School. I supported an amendment to change that, other Senators know what shes hearing from our unfortunately, it was not adopted. The amendment that was offered community. directed the Chancellor of MnSCU, in consultation with the Commissioner of Education, to recommend minimum requirements. These recommendations were to include provisions for special ed students, and differentiated standards based on a students desired post-secondary path, i.e. certificate program, 2 year, or 4 year.

Before I end this section, I feel it is important that I address the Location Equity Index provision that I put forward early in the session as a way of correcting the flawed school funding formula. Many of you are familiar with this idea; it is an attempt to factor in the cost of living in different districts to the formula. Currently, the fact that it costs more to operate in certain communities does not have any effect on the funds delivered by the state. It is only fair that cost of living should be recognized in determining the amount of money school districts receive from the state. In my closing remarks, I stood and addressed this issue in front of the entire Senate body. While not popular, I believe it was necessary.

Senator Bonoff serving as Chair of the Higher Education and Workforce Development Committee. Follow the committee on Twitter @HiEdWorkforce

Health and Human Services: After spending eight hours on the E-12 bill we then jumped into talking about healthcare. The HHS bill has gotten a different kind of attention - the target for this bill has a $150m reduction from forecast. There has been grave concern around this number. It is important to understand the real factsHHS was "forecasted" to grow over one billion dollars between this biennium and the next. This cost trajectory has to be contained. The $150m target for reductions was not a "cut" but rather an attempt to contain these costs. We do so by making sure our changes associated with the Affordable Care Act are offset by budget reductions. We have taken advantage of the expanded MA and because of this our MN Care costs are lessened. We kept our wonderful treasure, MN Care, but have a 50% Federal Match. This allowed us to have additional resources in our Health Care Access fund. In past years there has been concern when the Health Care Access Fund has been used for budget balancing. Yet in this case, the use of these funds is for Health related purposes. I would be remiss if I did not take this time to recognize the generosity of our Medical Professionals. They have been contributing a 2% provider tax for many years. This tax has provided access to quality of care for many who would have gone without. So while I do hear from the providers that this tax is a burden I want to say loudly, "Thank you!" It is and has been a gift. The Senate kept the provider tax repeal in our bill. It is currently set to expire in 2020 and we leave that in place. I wish we had done more for the amazing men and women who serve as caregivers. These incredible individuals who take care of our most vulnerable do not make a fraction of what they are worth. They care for our loved ones and we are grateful. We are doing all we can to make sure everyone who needs services gets them and the COLA increase of 1% does not come near what we'd want them to have. Again, I say, "Thank you! There was a provision in our bill to put a surcharge on our insurance carriers. I opposed that because I believe this cost gets passed on to consumers in the form of increased premiums. In addition,

given the increased State investment in our exchange, it seems as though our resources should be sufficient. We should implement what has been passed before we impose more cost. Although I opposed, the surcharge did pass. There will be a conference committee and things will change, but overall I am proud of the strong Senate bill and the work of the committee to ensure access, quality, cost controls and lay the foundation for the future of a prevention-oriented approach to health care.

Next week, we will take up Higher Ed in conference committee; I look forward to that. Monday will be the tax discussion and I will use that opportunity to voice strong support for tax reform, while opposing the proposed income tax increase.

Best Regards,

Terri Bonoff