Minnesota State Senator Tom Neuville

A large number of the scientists who are part of the IPCC (Intergovernmental panel on climate change) are ready to recommend that global warming can be addressed by the development of more nuclear energy, development of genetically altered crops to create biofuels, and underground capture and storage of carbon dioxide. A link to the article is Here. 

 I wonder if environmentalists in Minnesota would be willing to accept more nuclear power reactors to deal with the global warming problem, which they claim is near the point of being irreversible?  The same scientists that proponents rely upon to prove that global warming is a problem,  believe that nuclear energy is an acceptable solution.  

The last four weeks of the legislative budget year are usually the busiest of times for legislators.

I have been appointed to the Public Safety and Judiciary Budget Conference committee. We met every day last week to discuss financial and policy issues involving our state prisons, the courts, Bureau of Criminal Apprehension Lab, the Sentencing Guideline Commission, Human Rights department, and others.

The Senate DFL Majority gave our committee a budget cap (or target) which is $6 million less than proposed by Governor Pawlenty. The last Senate offer to the House (delivered on Saturday night) underfunded the Department of Corrections by about $5.5 million and the BCA Lab by nearly $10 million. The BCA lab cannot keep up with criminal forensic analysis demands and has requested 20 new scientists. As of now, we are funding less than 10.
There is enough money to pay for public safety needs in the Governor’s budget. But, the Senate Majority has moved more money to education and public health care programs, and less for other state budget needs.

This is the time that the Governor and legislature have to be talking and compromising. I’m not sure that the Governor will sign a bill which under funds our state prisons, and crime lab by this much. Let’s hope that legislative leaders will be able to reach agreement on new targets with the Governor. There is still plenty of time to reach a compromise.

The legislature will be passing many of the budget bills this week. I will start sending out my email newsletter with more details and insider information this week. If you would like to be added to my email newsletter list, please contact my senate office.

Walter Williams, a nationally syndicated columnist, has written a piece, entitled “Phony Science and Public Policy”, which supports the arguments I have been making this legislative session on both the global warming and smoking ban issue. Here is a link to the article.

I just viewed a fascinating series of videos called, “Global Warming: Doomsday Called Off“.

I found it to be very well documented, and encourage people to view all 5 parts of the video. Each part is about 8 minutes long. The videos address the assumptions and conclusions of the IPCC and other global warming theories.

Today I voted against the “Global Warming” bill which creates a climate study task force and directs them to return next year with a plan to reduce “greenhouse gases” by 80% of the 2005 base year, by 2050.

I find the goal to be arbitrary and unsupported by the science. But, that doesn’t mean that I oppose conservation, clean air, energy efficiency, and incentives to generate energy using less carbon based fuel.

Today Newt Gingrich wrote a great piece called “We Can Have Green Conservatism - And We Should“. The Article is Linked Here.

Gingrich argues that entrepreneurship, technological invention, free markets, and tax credits can achieve energy independence better than government regulation and bureaucracy. I agree. If the government were to set a goal today of making 150 mpg cars available by 2017, and gave a “reward” to whoever developed the new technology and made the technology available to the public, I believe that our scientists and inventors would rise to the challenge.

We can’t imagine the technological advances which will provide us with clean energy by the year 2050. But, if our country unleashes its genius and capacity for technological innovation, we will discover energy sources which will eliminate our dependence on foreign oil in 15 years. But, how can a State task force come up with such a plan within the next year, when they haven’t got a clue what the new technology will be. (I am pretty sure that the task force won’t recommend an increase in nuclear power plants, to replace coal power plants).

I have been “turned off” by the scare tactics used by many who advocate for a global warming “solution” such as carbon caps and credits. Two years ago, global warming was predicted to cause an increase in hurricanes. This year, global warming is being credited with reducing the number of hurricanes (Link Here) . Cheryl Crow thinks we can help stop global warming by using just one sheet of toilet paper (Link Here). Of course she is joking, but many people don’t think she is! I don’t call this science or common sense.

So, I remain a global warming skeptic. But I remain a conservative conservationist. It is also in the best interest for national security that we end our dependence on foreign oil. This may be the most compelling argument of all for encouraging energy conservation and new technology.

A new movie, called “An Inconvenient Truth, or Convenient Fiction” is now available on the Web. The movie seeks to refute many of the arguments made in Al Gore’s movie, “An Inconvenient Truth“.

I think this movie is worth viewing, so I’ve posted it Here (Part 1) and Here (Part 2).

On Monday, the State Senate will be voting on a bill which will refer the matter of Global Warming to a Task Force for further study. But the task force is already predisposed in favor of the Global Warming theory. The bill (SF 145), Linked here, includes this goal:

Greenhouse gas emissions reduction goal. (a) It is the goal of the
state to reduce statewide greenhouse gas emissions across all sectors producing those
emissions to a level at least 80 percent below 2005 levels by 2050.

The task force will mostly lay the groundwork for passing the bill next year calling for carbon caps and credits.

For the past 2 months, the Minnesota Senate has been accumulating bills on its General Orders Calander. The G.O. Calander is where the entire Senate gets to debate and offer amendments to bills. This is an important opportunity for members to amend bills, when they don’t sit on the Policy committee which finally approved the bill.

Yesterday and today, the Senate considered and approved about 60 bills. Tomorrow we will have the final Senate vote on these 60 or so bills. Most of the bills are not controversial or partisan. We are reducing the number of bills on our calander. By the end of the week, I expect that most of the bills remaining for consideration will be more controversial, and “defining”. These are the bills where philosophical differences between Democrats and Republicans start to become more pronounced.

Today I had three bills approved by the entire Senate. The first was a Child support bill (SF 1271)  which clarified some of the changes I have authored during the past 2 years, and a few additional policy changes.One would allow a court to “deviate” from the child support guidelines if the child lived outside of the United States in a country which had a substantially different cost of living.  

Second, was a bill (SF 1605) which would establish a “graduated drivers license” for new drivers under age 18. The bill would limit how many passengers could be in the car with a new driver for the first 12 months after obtaining a license, and would restrict driving between the hours of midnight and 5 am. during the first 6 months of driving.

 Thirdly, I authored a bill (SF 794) which increases the homestead exemption from $200,000 to $300,000, and made changes in how creditors can foreclose their judgments against homestead property to satisfy debts.

Most of these bills enjoyed bi-partisan support. Our days are getting longer now. I also expect that conference committees will be appointed for the major budget bills and begin meeting next week.  

We still have 72 bills remaining on the General Order Calander for April 18, 2007.

Yesterday, as a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I heard arguments for and against a bill which would legalize marijuana for medicinal purposes in Minnesota.

A copy of the bill, as it began the hearing is Linked Here as SF 345. ( I’ll post an updated version of the bill, including amendments, when it’s available).

I have a conflicted opinion of this bill. I do believe that some people could benefit from using marijuana to alleviate intractable pain, nausea from cancer, glaucoma, HIV symptoms, etc.

But, the bill is written so loosely, that it would allow thousands of people to become “registered non-profit organizations”, which are allowed to grow up to 12 marijuana plants per “patient” they have signed up. (Each plant can yield up to 4-6 pounds of marijuana per year)
Law Enforcement would not be able to effectively enforce the law. In fact, under the bill, Police could not search, seize, arrest or charge people who have a registration card. Organizations could locate on main streets throughout Minnesota, sending a bad message to children who are tempted by drugs enough already. The bill also conflicts with Federal law, which still lists Marijuana as a Schedule 1 controlled substance. The FDA does not recognize marijuana as having any medicinal value.
I’ll post more information on this issue as the bill continues to move through the process. I voted against the bill in Judiciary committee, but it still passed by a 5-4 vote. This is an issue that needs to be decided at the Federal level. Only then can doctors legally prescribe, and pharmacists legally dispense. We just cannot have marijuana growing in thousands of homes and business around the State.

I think that I could improve the bill. The first change would be to limit the number of “registered organizations” to one. (perhaps the U of M agri-college) the second change would be to allow random searches of organizations or “patients” at any time. But, proponents seem very strident and unwilling to change the bill.

There is a movement in the Legislature this session to stop the growth of Charter Schools in Minnesota.

Charter Schools are a different form of Public School. Under current law, a majority of the School Board for Charter schools must be teachers. Charter schools are “outcome based” schools. The schools are “sponsored”, and sign 3 year contracts to meet educational goals. Many of the normal school mandates are waived for Charter schools.

I have a number of Charter Schools in my Senate District including, the New Country School in Henderson, the Nerstrand Community School and Green Isle Community School, and ArTech, and Prairie Creek School in Northfield.

This year, the Senate Education bill (SF 2095, at Art.2, Sec. 14) includes a “cap” on the number of Charter Schools. The maximum number would be set at 150 schools. The bill also reduces Charter school startup aid and lease aid.

I recall voting in favor of the first Charter school law back in 1992, when I was a member of the Senate Education committee. Both teacher unions strongly opposed the creation of Charter schools, but the bill passed by one vote. I have supported Charter Schools (and the broader school choice movement) ever since. This year I sponsored a bill which would have given charter school students the right to participate in extra-curicular activities in their home district. My bill failed on a mostly party-line vote.

Public Education needs to be redefined. I have always believed that parents should be able to choose the school which is best for their child. Unfortunately, many families don’t have the money to pay tuition at a private school. So, these students are must attend public schools which don’t serve their needs.

I believe that it is in the Public interest to provide the best education possible for each child, whether that education is in a regular public school, Charter school, home school, private religious school, or another public school chosen through open enrollment or post-secondary enrollment option.

Every student learns differently. Some students need special education or sign language. Alternative learning centers allow some students to get their high school degree during irregular hours. Some of our gifted and talented students are also being shortchanged because regular public schools are not challenging enough for them. I believe that our public system should allow choices for all of these students.
Minnesota’s public school policy is controlled by what is affectionately called the “school cartel”. Politically, the most influential group is Minnesota Education, the State’s teachers union. The cartel also includes the Mn. School Boards Assn., the Mn. School Superintendants Assn., the Rural Education Assn. and 8-10 other organizations involved in public education. The “cartel” generally resists any change in education policy which threatens its monopoly on taxpayer funding for education.That’s part of the reason there is such opposition to Charter schools and school choice in general.

In addition, there is strong cultural support for the home town public school. In many towns I represent, the school is the “heart of the town”. Charter schools sometimes divide community loyalties.
Here in Northfield we have wonderful examples school choice at the higher education level. Carleton and St. Olaf colleges receive state money indirectly, through the state grant program, whenever a student chooses to attend. Most would agree that having choices for college is a good thing. Then why not for K-12 schools, and why not allow public dollars to be spent on private schools indirectly, through the choices that parents make for their children?

I hope that the Charter school “cap” does not become law. We need more Charter schools in Minnesota, not less. Some day I hope that tuition tax credits, or school vouchers, allow parents to send their children to private schools as well. Choice does not take money away from regular public schools. Rather, school choice makes schools compete for students. All schools will become better in the process.

Here is an interesting group of writings on School Choice, from the Milton Friedman Foundation, if you are interested in studying the issue further.

I ran across an interesting Article published by Joseph Bast and James Taylor, of the Heartland Institute, entitled “Global Warming Consensus on Global Warming“.

The article is a survey of international scientists on various aspects of the Global Warming issue. It’s clear that there is little consensus on most issues. Most agree that the Earth has warmed over the past 100 years. Most agree that the media has shaped the public’s view of the Global Warming debate. Surprisingly, the survey shows roughly three of four climate scientists (72.7 percent) believe “the IPCC reports accurately reflect the consensus of thought within the scientific community.” One in five (19.8 percent) disagree.
Climate scientists were asked to score this statement: “Natural scientists have established enough physical evidence to turn the issue of global climate change over to social scientists for matters of policy discussion.” Once again, the scientific community split, this time almost exactly down the middle. Nearly half (45.8 percent) disagreed with the statement, nearly half
(44.1 percent) agreed, and the remainder (10.2 percent) were undecided. Those who say the time for debate is over are at odds with half of the scientists they claim to be speaking for.

Take a look at the survey. After you do, it’s will be hard to argue that the “debate over Global Warming is over”.