House and Senate introduce $1 billion packages
True to their pledge, DFL state legislators are pressing to pass a bonding bill quickly as they head into their first full week of the 2010 legislative session.
The chairs of the House and Senate Capital Investment Committees introduced their bonding bills on the first day of session last Thursday. DFLers on the Senate Capital Investment Committee leadership introduced their proposal as a committee bill and passed it onto the Finance Committee. Sen. Keith Langseth, DFL-Glyndon, the committee’s chairman, said he expects a vote on the $999 million bill by the full Senate on Tuesday.
The DFL bonding proposals rise significantly above the $685 million bonding package Gov. Tim Pawlenty proposed last month.
In one possible sign of political horse-trading to come, both the House and Senate DFL plans omit any funding for the biggest line item in Pawlenty’s proposal. The governor had recommended an $89 million expansion of the Moose Lake sex offender correctional facility.
Senate Majority Leader Larry Pogemiller, DFL-Minneapolis, said he expects that after legislators pass their bonding bill, Pawlenty will apply line-item cuts. He didn’t foresee any obstacles to passing a bill early.
“I don’t anticipate a big problem here unless someone creates one,” Pogemiller said.
He said he would be “surprised” if Pawlenty vetoes the entire bill, a move the governor has publicly warned he may make if he deems the Legislature’s bill too lavish.
Both House and Senate bills are just shy of $1 billion in general obligation bonding.
Pogemiller said Pawlenty has only mentioned line-item vetoes in private talks with legislators. House Capital Investment Chairwoman Alice Hausman, DFL-St. Paul, said the prospect of a full veto is “just on the verge of terrifying to me.”
Hausman, who said the process for passing a bonding bill in her chamber will be a little slower than in the Senate, told reporters on Thursday that she plans to have a bonding bill passed off the House floor by Feb. 15.
One of the key differences between Pawlenty and DFL legislators involves funding for higher education. DFLers, including Hausman, charged that Pawlenty’s proposal doesn’t borrow enough for projects on Minnesota’s public college campuses.
On the first day of session, the issue of higher education emerged as a problem for Republicans who are hoping to get funding for campuses in their district.
Hausman singled out Rep. Morrie Lanning, R-Moorhead, who stands to lose some important higher education projects in his district if he supports Pawlenty’s bonding proposal rather than the House DFL bill.
“A Republican like that has a huge amount at stake,” Hausman said.
The pressure on Lanning is a case study in classic bonding bill politics.
Lanning is disappointed that his fellow Republican Pawlenty didn’t provide funding for two higher education projects in his western Minnesota district along the Red River. Pawlenty passed over funding requests for Minnesota State University-Moorhead and the Minnesota State Community Technical College in Moorhead. The House bill has $14.9 million for the university and $5.4 million for the community college.
Lanning, however, said he doesn’t support the size of the House bill.
“There are a lot of good things in this bill. But personally I feel this bill is too big,” Lanning said.
While Lanning thinks the overall House bill is too expensive, that doesn’t mean he’s decided to vote against it in its current form.
“I’m not going to say what my vote is at this point,” he said.
Lanning added: “Voting on the bill is one thing. Voting on overriding the governor’s veto is another thing.”
Lanning said other projects in the House bill should be nixed to make space for the two Moorhead campuses.
“I would not have a hard time trimming this bill down,” Lanning said.
This year’s bonding bill is igniting the usual fight for projects among lawmakers and lobbyists.
Rochester legislators and boosters are pushing for funding to start planning for a bypass of freight rail tracks around the city. Pawlenty’s recommendations provided $2 million for the project, which is ultimately expected to cost hundreds of millions of dollars. Senate Transportation Chairman Steve Murphy, DFL-Red Wing, said at a hearing in January that he opposes devoting any bonding money to the project.
Sen. Ann Lynch, DFL-Rochester, said that a long-term strategy needs to be crafted for the bypass.
“I’m not sure putting all the pressure on the bonding bill and this committee is the most logical approach,” Lynch said.
Some areas of the House and Senate bills underline stark differences between Pawlenty and DFL legislators. In the employment and economic development section of the bills, for example, Pawlenty passed over several projects that DFLers included in their proposals. Pawlenty didn’t include multimillion-dollar expansion projects for convention centers in Mankato, Rochester and St. Cloud. But while Pawlenty doesn’t fund those projects, he provides $25 million for the greater Minnesota business development/public infrastructure grant program, which neither the House nor the Senate included in their bills.
All told, the House and the Senate provide more than $120 million for economic development. Pawlenty is asking for $40 million in that category.
And the House and Senate have their own differences. Although the two chambers are controlled by DFLers, they will likely have to settle their discrepant priorities in conference committee before they have a bill to send to Pawlenty.
The Senate plan looks more favorably upon amateur sports projects. The Senate also includes funding for a St. Paul Saints stadium, while the House does not.
The bonding bills aggravate the classic rift between Republicans and Democrats on fiscal policy matters. DFLers presented their bonding proposals as important job-creation measures. Republicans questioned that and said the state should be wary of adding more debt than necessary now.
For DFLers, the bonding bills introduced Thursday represent a fulfillment of promises their leaders made last year when they pledged to use the 2010 bonding package to counteract growing unemployment. Langseth noted that interest rates are low and project bids are coming in low.
“This is the time to bond and build,” Langseth said.
Republicans pushed back against DFL claims that the bonding bill will help turn the state out of recession. Sen. Geoff Michel, R-Edina, said the $1 billion bonding bill is shortsighted as an economic development tool.
“We’re not going to come out of the recession because we remodel a dormitory,” Michel said.
Bonding proposals: Click for more information about the bonding proposals by the House and the Senate.
This article initially appeared in Politics in Minnesota.