Today (Tuesday) the Minnesota House and Senate conferees will met to discuss the HF3420/SF3479 - Drought recovery and assistance bill.
Here's the agenda:
HF3420 / SF3479 - Drought recovery and assistance
- Walk through of comparison (House Research and Senate Counsel)
Ken Savary, House Fiscal Analyst
Hannah Grunewald, Senate Counsel, Research and Fiscal Analysis
Colbey Sullivan, House Research
Laura Paynter, Senate Counsel, Research and Fiscal Analysis
- Comment from Department of Agriculture
Andrea Vaubel, Deputy Commissioner
- Comment from Department of Natural Resources
Sarah Strommen, Commissioner
One can watch the Conference Committee on HF3420 at HTV 1 Tuesday, Apr. 19, 2022 4:00 PM.
The reconciliation of the two chambers' versions should be an easy task. We remain puzzled that the Minnesota House and Senate shouldn't find a way to pass drought relief to be administered by the Agriculture and Natural Resources. We don't see how dealing with both areas harms farmers or trees.
Neither bill dips into some phantom pot of money, where funding one department's drought related needs robs from another one--especially not those drought-stricken cows.
Back on April 6, we posted in Can Minnesota walk and deal with drought relief, CWD, and avian influence at the same time?
Meanwhile, back in Minnesota, some members of the Minnesota House Agriculture Committee expressed concern that the differences in the Minnesota House version of the drought relief bill--passed on the House floor on March 10--and the Minnesota Senate drought bill--passed on March 31--might unduly burden Minnesota's poultry industry as the avian flu sweeps through the barns.
It's that doggone money in the House bill--requested last year by the Walz administration--for enabling the DNR to replaced young trees that perished in the drought--that gives Republicans the fantods. Oh the delays.
We see a different picture. If only the Senate Ag Committee, chaired by Torrey Westrom, had spent February dealing with drought relief, rather than as a star chamber reviewing the perceived oppression of deer farmers by state efforts to contain Chronic Wasting Disease. Perhaps drought relief could have been passed by both chambers in early March. Knowing that HPAI was on its way, aid for the Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory at the University of Minnesota could have been secured.
Even now, we're puzzled by the notion that the Minnesota Legislature is unable to provide drought relief to two agencies. It's like paying two clients, employees or bills. Neither need robs from the other, so both can be serviced.
Lyndon Johnson famously said that Gerald Ford was unable to walk (or something) and chew gum at the same time. In this case, the legislative pity party for farmers appears to live with the same limitations. Why not call a genial conference committee and get the job done for drought-stricken farmers and foresters, as Minnesota's fowl industry as well?
When the Senate report came back to the House without the DNR drought funding, and Agriculture Chair Sundin asked that the House not concur and send the two versions of drought relief to a conference committee, House Minority Leader Kurt Daudt wailed on the House floor about his surprise that drought relief for water system, shade trees and such were in the House bill.
That led us to review the March 10 floor debate. Daudt didn't speak on March 10 but he did vote--one of 33 representatives who voted no to the bipartisan 101 yes vote--so the content of HF3420 shouldn't have startled him so during the April 7 floor debate on Sundin's motion that the House refuse to concur in the Senate amendments and have a conference committee thrash it out.
Do we think the Republicans protest too much about an imaginary problem?
Where do we get our notion of the Republican objections? At MinnPost, Peter Callaghan and Walker Orenstein write in Six things that could get done at the Minnesota Legislature before the end of the 2022 session:
Drought relief
Since last year, lawmakers have broadly agreed the state should quickly help livestock and specialty crop farmers recover from the 2021 drought. But they can’t manage to actually pass a bill to do it.
The DFL-controlled House approved a bill that includes $10.1 million in loans and grants, but it also includes $13.35 million for several other drought programs, mainly for local governments to increase water efficiency, plant shade trees in drought-impacted areas and restore seedlings on land managed by the Department of Natural Resources and other owners.
That money for water and trees has been controversial. Democrats see it as necessary to help public resources hurt by drought. But Republicans who have a majority in the state Senate have balked, saying the money for DNR and others is unrelated to agriculture, needs more scrutiny and can be negotiated as part of a broader budget deal rather than fast-tracked like the money for farmers.
We're curious why the Senate was unable to scrutinize the DNR money. As we have noted, perhaps less time collecting the tears of the deer farmers would have given them time. The House committees seemed have time for hearings, as opposed to hand-wringing at town halls and press interviews.
The MinnPost reporters continue:
The Senate GOP bill includes $7 million in grants, and $1.5 million in loans for farmers, as well as $1 million for equipment for the University of Minnesota to test for animal diseases and $500,000 to buy state testing supplies for the avian influenza.
House and Senate leaders plan to meet Tuesday afternoon in what’s known as a conference committee, where they will try to find a version of the legislation they can both agree to.
Let the conferees fund both tree and farmer relief. And if the poultry industry needs more help as avian flu rips through the barns? By all means fund it. This isn't rocket science. There's no point in endless virtue signaling about whose natural disaster is more dire, when all need assistance and the funding is available.
Here are Tuesday's conference committee documents for readers' consideration:
Committee Documents:
HF3420.2 (House version).pdf
UEH3420-2 (Senate version).pdf
Comparison HF 3420 Drought.pdf
CC3420 Agenda - April 19, 2022.pdf
HF3420 - MDA Written Comment.pdf
HF3420 - House and Senate Joint Spreadsheet.pdf
HF3420 - MACLC Written Comment.pdf
HF3420 - MFU Written Comment.pdf
HF3420 - LSP Drought Written Comment.pdf
HF3420 - DNR Written Comment.pdf
HF3420 - MSCA Written Comment.pdf
HF3420 - MFB Written Comment.pdf
Let's hope there's less stenography and more journalism in reporting on this conference committee.
Photo: From much of the Republican rhetoric against DNR related funding, you'd wonder if they think they're battling Ents in trying to delay drought-relate shade tree and forestry aid. Ents are fictional beings and don't really threaten real Midwest farmers. Source: LOTR Fan Wiki, Ents.
If you appreciate Bluestem Prairie, you can mail contributions (payable to Sally Jo Sorensen, 600 Maple Street, Summit SD 57266) or use the paypal button in the upper right hand corner of this post.
Or you can contribute via this link to paypal; use email [email protected] as recipient.
I'm on Venmo for those who prefer to use this service: @Sally-Sorensen-6
Comments