Below, Gov. Tim Pawlenty answers questions about Legacy Amendment legislation now being heard in a House-Senate conference committee. Significant differences separate the two chambers, with Pawlenty, below, siding with the Senate bill, which was passed unaimously.
On a radio program Friday morning, Rep. Mary Murphy, DFL-Hermantown, suggested the House might not agree to a Legacy Amendment bill this session, which would tie up about $210 million in spending for at least another year, a third of it intended for fish, game and wildlife habitat.
Murphy's comments angered retired Sen. Bob Lessard, whose name is carried on the citizens-legislative council (the House bill would remove Lessard's name) that recommended habitat projects for the fish, game and wildlife portion.
Here's my interview with Pawlenty:
Question: Regarding the House and Senate versions of the Legacy Amendment bill, and specifically regarding that portion of the bill recommended by the Lessard Outdoor Heritage Council — the game and fish portion — which do you favor, the House or Senate version?
Answer: "I prefer the work of the Senate, because it considers the thoughtful results of the citizen-led Lessard Council and uses science as its base. It steers clear of politics. I also prefer the Senate bill because it largely reflects the priorities of the scientists and managers in departments, agencies and councils charged with responsibility for water, arts, history, and parks and trails.
"This process should keep faith with the voters and the constitutional amendment. I believe the Council's recommendations and the Senate's position do so."
Q: What about the House bill do you disagree with?
A: "Mostly, it comes down to the restrictive policy language. There are some minor differences between the House and Senate regarding which projects are funded, but I think those can be worked out in the conference committee. I support strong oversight and accountability when it comes to spending public dollars. However, the sweeping policy language in the House version appears premature and constrains the future use of funds. It takes discretion away from program managers and fails the test of guiding the investments to the most critical habitat projects."
Q: Is it more that you believe specifically that the Lessard Council's recommendations are the correct ones to implement, or do you believe also — or not — that the direct-citizen-input process the council represents is important to honor?
A: "Both. The direct citizen input delivered through the Lessard Council is from well-qualified citizens with strong backgrounds in conservation, resource management, and environmental science. They have a solid understanding of how the funds should be used. They grounded their work in scientifically based statewide resource and habitat plans using ecology and other natural sciences to direct the effort. Minnesotans couldn't ask for better."
Q: The DNR, the Minnesota Board of Water and Soil Resources and a host of environment and conservation groups oppose the House bill, and have been very vocal in their opposition, citing it as unworkable, if not unconstitutional. The Senate, on the other hand, unanimously passed a bill backing the Lessard Council's recommendations. In the face of such widespread opposition, and a diametrically different Senate bill, the House passed its bill anyway. Do you know why the House has taken the position it has — political leverage, perhaps? — or, can you speculate?
A: "Their actions are unfortunate and disappointing. I've heard lots of concerns, but I haven't heard from any conservation, environmental, or interested organization in support of the House version."
Q: A conference committee will meet to determine if a compromise bill can be worked out. If the Lessard portion of the bill doesn't emerge in a final bill relatively consistent with the Senate position, will you veto the entire bill — and delay until next year at the earliest funding not only for game and fish habitat, but for clean water, the arts and cultural heritage?
A: "I have sent a letter to the conferees that calls for straightforward bill implementing the Lessard Council's recommendations. When it comes to the other funds, I would be much more agreeable to what's in the Senate position. It's critical that any policy affecting future use of the Legacy Amendment funds be grounded in a strong consensus held by all interests. The controversial policy and planning language in the House version should be left behind in the conference committee room."