Good morning, [music] everybody. I'm Erin Murphy. I'm the proud majority leader in the Minnesota Senate. And today is the last day of the 2026 legislative session. And when we're done here, I'm going to go upstairs to the chamber and join my college my colleagues for one of my favorite days in the legislature, the day when our colleagues give their retirement speeches. And one of the reasons why I love it so much is because it brings us back together in a way as we listen to people talk about why they chose to run in the first place. It can be healing. It can be a powerful reminder of the good that we're able to do in this capital. So, I will do that for the rest of the afternoon, but I'm glad to be with you this morning. >> [clears throat] >> I um read the New York Times this morning. President Trump's approval rating now stands at 37%. That's pretty low approval rating. Everything is more expensive for the people in this country. And I am incredibly proud of what we have accomplished this legislative session. We have pushed all session long for a fair deal for Minnesotans. And in many ways we accomplished that. The Minnesota Senate being the grown-up in the room so often moving and pushing an agenda that in large part became the centerpiece of what we accomplished this session. $1.2 billion in job-creating bonding projects across the state and investment in work, an investment in communities, and an investment in our future. Important rental and housing investments and property tax reductions coming later this fall for people. We stabilized HCMC and invested in distressed hospitals with $30 million in uncompensated care and a rate increase for our critical access hospitals knowing they are all struggling under the weight of the federal budget that was passed last July. We're attacking high fuel costs. Uh we all know we're paying much more at the pump. We're doing so with the tab fee holiday. Uh we are frustrated because we know that could have started in October. Our Republican colleagues in the bonding deal insisted that it start in January. Um that relief could come sooner than that, but that was uh a provision that they insisted on and without it they would take down the bonding bill. That's a frustration for me um and I think it's important for Minnesotans to know. Uh we did strong investments in public safety, in capital security, in crime victim services. We took a very important approach um and invested in IT and modernization. It is a way for us to deliver government more efficiently, um protect uh what we deliver from fraud, and to make sure that we're no longer operating on green screens and the Oregon Trail for important critical services that we deliver. We took a very muscular policy approach to fraud this session. Uh we stepped away from the politics of fraud and got busy resolving the issues that we're facing in human services. Uh for the second year in a row, Senator Hoffman, Senator Muhammad, Senator McQuade, and others worked very hard to put in place [clears throat] uh policy protections uh to prevent fraud and accountability and and accountability measures uh to hold accountable bad actors. Um I am uh would be wrong if I didn't note the things that we didn't achieve, and Minnesotans in this year particularly have taken quite a beating. Uh the federal tax cuts for the for the ultra wealthy uh at our expense, uh we're paying for higher property taxes uh because of unfunded federal mandates, more in fuel, more in food. Minnesotans are feeling that in their pocketbooks. Uh we've experienced gun violence. It's echoed across our lives and across the state. Uh, we moved a comprehensive package, but we were unable to get that through the house, as you know, they have protested loudly over the last few days with a sit-in trying to get that across the line and the Republicans a few refused. And in the hardest economic winter Minnesota's [snorts] experienced in probably the hardest economic winter across the country because of a federal invasion and metro surge. Uh, we worked very hard to provide small business relief. Senator Champion put together a very profound statewide package, uh, to help small businesses recover from what we experienced back in February, excuse me, January and February. And every [clears throat] time we offered that up, it was met with a rejection or the need for significant concessions in paid family medical leave from the Republicans. And in either case, we're hurting working people. Um, paid family medical leave is one of the signatures, one of the most important policies that we passed in this term and it is one of the most, uh, sought-after uh, concessions from the Republicans and they made small businesses pay for that this year. That's really frustrating to me. Um, and last, we did put forth a comprehensive approach, uh, to ICE to make sure that Minnesotans are safe, uh, from lawless, reckless agents that have come into our state that [snorts] caused harm and killed people. Um, we could not get that across the line in, uh, Republican tied house, refused by the Republicans. Uh, we have sought all session to act on a fair deal for Minnesotans. We know they're hurting. Uh, we are we are putting more money in their pocket. We're making more investments in their communities. We're creating more jobs and preparing for a better future for the people of Minnesota. Again, I am really proud of what we have accomplished. It's been a really difficult session. Uh, but I think about all that we have done for the people and in 3 months time, uh, [clears throat] we did important work for the people and I'm happy to answer your questions. What about gun control? Is that your biggest regret not getting that through the house? Oh, I I'm deeply disappointed. Um I feel such a profound I think kinship with the families of Annunciation. And they have of course have been incredibly present all session long. >> [snorts] >> Uh after uh Harper Mosk was killed, we were invited to the home of um Harper's parents, Jackie and Mike. They asked each of us to do our level best to provide a comprehensive approach. Um they talked about prevention, intervention, and harm reduction. Uh we included all of those things in our package. It was comprehensive. Um and it was rejected uh in the house by the Republicans. It was put in a drawer. We know that part. Um and never to be seen again. Uh yeah, I'm deeply disappointed about that. I I have always believed Mary Jo Hammer in a politics can solve that can solve hard problems. I mean, this is one of the most intractable hard problems that we face, and I come from District 64 in St. Paul. There are people that have come before me, Michael Paymar, Howard Orenstein, Dave Pinto, my colleague, um who have fought very hard for gun violence prevention for all of their careers. Um and we've made real progress. Uh but when we have seen um the reckless shootings and assassination, a church killing of children, um a killing by uh federal agents, when we see gun violence occurring like that uh in our in our state, and that those are not the only examples. They're just recent examples, powerful examples. Uh we need to do more on this front, and we've proposed something that is smart, and I pray to God that after this election we have uh a legislature that is able to take that up and pass it. >> [snorts] >> are saying that [clears throat] they would have been willing to go with those safety measures, school safety measures, and so on, but you had to have the gun control measures and therefore the whole thing didn't happen. How do you respond to that? I'm trying not to roll my eyes. Uh our package included mental health for children. And that some of that is included in our final package. Uh that we passed into law. Uh it uh involved uh investments in schools and much of that is involved invested must much of that is now included in the final package. The only thing that was not included in this final package was the harm reduction. Um reducing the violence that is caused by high capacity magazines and assault weapons. Um so I would say the Republicans are not paying attention to what we actually passed or maybe they're not telling the whole truth. Um but I know that we passed a comprehensive package. It is what the families asked for. It is what we know will work. Um and we were going to we're going to I will until uh we get it done. I'm going to stay here and keep fighting for it. Just >> [snorts] >> keep going. On Friday I know some senators had some reservations about the payment withholding language. Can you speak to that and do you feel like the final package struck a good balance between fighting fraud and making sure that Medicaid funded services are available for people who genuinely need them. This is maybe some of the hardest work of this legislature. We we finally got across the line the independent office of inspector general. Thank you to Senator Custis and and others. In the human services space um really profound work uh to protect those 14 at risk programs and others. Um measures on fraud prevention, on training, on uh electronic visiting. Um Senator Muhammad uh made that her business and did incredible work there. Um and we we invested in the Attorney General's fraud uh unit. Um the Medicaid fraud unit. He needed more investigators there and especially because the US attorney has lost so much of the capacity that was important. And then we did do the withholding language, but you will see the work of Senator Muhammad and Senator Fateh and Senator Latz in terms of due process in that human services bill as well. So we did strike a balance. Um, the governor really wanting that withhold language, we wanted to make sure it was fair. Um, and and John Hoffman's work on continuity of care would make sure if there are payment withholds that the people getting the service of will services will be protected. So I I I think that particularly my colleagues took the issue of fraud very seriously, moved away from talking points and into policy, which is what we need to do if we hold seriously this is an issue that we need to solve. I am I am wildly proud of my colleagues. It's some of the hardest work that we have done. Um, and I think it's going to benefit uh, Minnesota and Minnesota taxpayers and people who deserve the services that we provide for years to come. But I will also say that it is our obligation going forward to do what we've been told through that O'Malley report and we have to be vigilant in our oversight as legislators. It's one of the places where past legislatures have fallen down. We have to pay attention to the reports from the Legislative Audit Commission. That's where past legislatures have fallen down. And we need to do the investment in IT, which we have done and we'll have to continue to do. So I I think if Minnesotans take it on the whole, they will see that we've taken this issue very seriously because we're committed to them and to a government that serves people with confidence. When you take this to the campaign trail, are you going to be emphasizing things like, "Hey, we addressed fraud and you know, we saved HCMC" or is it going to be more about what didn't pass in your mind? Like how how are you going to take that to some districts? I I think it is important to talk about what we've accomplished and HCMC and stabilizing uh, hospitals um, is important, but we also have to talk about the future for the people of Minnesota and what we want to do. And as I said in the beginning, um, in Trump's America everything is more expensive. Everything is more expensive. The tax cuts that they have enacted for the Uber wealthy, we're paying for with our state budget and family budgets here. And Minnesotans are hurting, they are taking a beating under this administration with a complicit Congress. We're going to talk about that. We need to talk about that. And we have incredibly hard work to do going forward to stabilize and build a health care system that will continue to serve the people of Minnesota. The federal government has taken away some of those tools. We're going to have to be creative and pursue that. What we are seeing at HCMC at Hennepin County Medical Center is the canary in the coal mine. And if we don't pay attention, we're going to see more of that. And we can't let that happen. A hospital in a community in a region is not just a place where you get care. It's where people work, they earn their livings, and it is an anchor for a community in a region. I mean, if we want people to choose to live all over the state, we need hospitals and health care to make that possible. It's a really critical issue. One One headline, Madam Leader, if I may. Some of the Republicans [clears throat] are saying that the HCMC got the relief, but some critical access rural hospitals did not. Does the program need to be expanded significantly? Again, maybe they didn't read the bills. Funding for HCMC, a budget back up in the budget reserve. A $30 million in uncompensated care for distressed hospitals. Critical access payment rate increase for our critical access hospitals, another $15 million. And let me say this, all during our negotiations we fought over, including the three what we call the 340B, but that's not the right way to describe it. It is a drug pricing protection enforcement powers. That is in law right now, but without enforcement. We fought all session long to include enforcement, and enforcement would bring relief to hospitals, significant financial relief to hospitals. And they refused the entire session, the entire negotiation. So, they should read the bills. They should pay attention to what was offered. Um we know we have hard work to do for our health care system. We put important provisions in. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you to Senator Wiklund for her brilliance. This is another place where the Senate drove this negotiation and landed in a place that stabilizes health care, but there's a lot of work to do. Do you have a response to some House Republicans saying that um uh Hauschild only voted for the uh gun violence package because he thought it would stall on a House tie? I listened to Senator Hauschild in his speech on the day that we took that vote. After the Annunciation shooting, he let me know that he had uh family members at that school. Um we should take him at his word. We should take him at his word. That he understood that there were children who were in harm's way and children that were killed. Um and he believed it was time to do something. You mentioned >> Can we Can I follow up on that? How do you feel about defending his seat, the rural seats, and now two retiree seats on the Republican side? You've got Maple Grove and Rochester. Is that going to be your focus, defending those rural seats, and then maybe two possible pick-ups? >> I think you're going to see us um campaigning uh and holding the seats, including Senator Hauschild, Senator Kupec, Senator Putnam, Senator Siebenaler. Um Senator you know, the frontline members. I think those are the hardest seats that we have to hold. We have strong candidates running down in Rochester where Karla Nelson is uh retiring. Simon Glazer has been up and running for more than a year. Uh Kristi Janigo is running in Maple Grove. Uh she is a a veteran um and has also been running for more than a year. Um strong candidates in both those places, but you'll also see us competing in Stillwater, in Blaine, and out in Chaska. Um again, strong candidates. I think this is going to be a really good year for us, but we have to convince Minnesotans that we're the choice for them, that we're going to put their interests and their pocketbooks first and foremost, and that's going to be the content of the campaign. How do those retirements help you though, having those two seats open? Um well, I I think two ways. Um retirements give an opportunity for new voices. Um and I I think Simon Glazer and Kristi Janigo are awesome. Um but we also lose the opportunity to campaign against somebody's record. Um and someone fresh coming in could, you know, could be the kind of candidate that would be hard to beat. We'll see. We have to campaign hard. Um we have to talk to the people and we have to draw people's attention to a vision that we hold for the people of this in the future. The hospital [snorts] fund, I know some of the money down the road comes from, potentially comes from rail passenger funds, and the blue line funding if the federal grants don't come through. Is that an acknowledgement that you all think that the feds are going to pull the money from that, or you think you'll be able to backfill that money later if if the projects do continue? >> The budget reserve, um and the argument to use the budget reserve, uh was both very strategic and complicated. Uh MMB very very guarded about the reserve, but we needed to make sure that Hennepin County uh Medical Center, the providers, uh the doctors, the specialists, the nurses, and the accreditors uh could see that we were serious about supporting them. We didn't have you know, the um let's see, what did they tell us? They needed $205 million a year for every year for 5 years. We didn't have that. Uh but we could demonstrate with the reserve that we're going to back that up, and if we can't find a better solution in this next session, that there is a backup. Uh using those two funds um was an insistence by the administration. And if you read the language carefully, it says if the federal government doesn't approve the Blue Line, then those funds that would have been used for that Blue Line would fall into the healthcare stabilization reserve. And if in 2028, the federal government doesn't approve NLX, the Northern Lights Express, and those those funds that are stranded, they can fall into this healthcare stabilization fund. On that same subject, Democrats made a lot of investments in transit during the uh effect of between, you know, those two projects, the cut in [snorts] TAB V's and reduced funding for Metro Transit. Are you moving away from or abandoning transit? Let me tell you that if I said anything but no, Scott Dibble would be down here in a heartbeat. Um the TAB V holiday um uh has a general fund uh backup or not even a backup. We deposit funding um into the high highway user fund from the general fund to make sure that we're investing in roads and bridges. Um we didn't touch the transit funding, though. Um I think the governor was interested in using that money. We know to build a modern transportation system and maintain our roads and bridges that we need dedicated funding. We don't use general funds uh generally speaking for uh transportation. It's a user fee. It's a user fee source. Uh we did important work in 2023 to make sure that our roads and bridges had funding. Um we know that we lost a bridge here in the state of Minnesota uh 15 years or so ago. Um and so the holiday, you know, is a nod toward people and their pocketbooks and affordability, but we are committed to continue to fund roads, bridges, and transit here in the state of Minnesota. There are a couple of groups that might be helpful to your campaign. I'm thinking of the anti-gun folks that were here over the weekend, and then the anti-ICE organization. Do those play I can see them doing well in Minneapolis and St. Paul Senate districts. As you go outside of the exurbs and the sub and the rural part of the state, are they helpful, hurtful, in between? Yeah, I I when I think about the people who have come to the capital on those fronts, they are Minnesotans. They are faith-based organizations and in many cases, they are in places across the state of Minnesota. Um you know, I spent an afternoon out in Willmar um near the end of Metro surge. Um they had an awful experience with federal ICE agents um in Willmar, Minnesota. Um and they're still worried about that and they're still agitated about that. So, I know we think about the metro versus rural as two demo demonstrably different places, but Minnesotans are Minnesotans wherever they live. Um and not everybody has the same view that I have about what ICE did. Um I think they were reckless and lawless and they came here and they killed people. They took people's constitutional rights away. Um nobody should stand for that. Um and I think people across the state saw that. People across the nation saw that. People across the world saw that and said, "Uh-uh, we're not going to do that." Um but I also will say there's a lot in this budget for people wherever they live. You need a hospital, we're focusing on that. Are your property taxes too high, we're focusing on that. Are your housing costs too high, we're focusing on that. Is food hard to reach, we're focusing on that. Pocketbook issues, Eric Eskola, things that make life less affordable because of the Trump administration, we are working to address, trying to make sure that we're we're advancing a fair deal for the people of Minnesota. She is not here, so I'll ask her. Do you have a theme song for this session? Um Here Comes the Sun. How about that? Speaking of sun, good transition. Lack of sun. You made some comments the other night about the process and frustrating with the fact you know, we have a lot of questions because things were behind closed doors. What are you going to do different? I mean, you're part of those negotiations. Are you going to pledge to do something differently next session, should you remain a leader? Yes. Um, when I remain a leader, as I remain a leader, uh, I have been talking with my colleagues and the colleagues in the house. Uh, this is not the first year that I've raised this question and raised this alarm. Uh, but we need to be back uh, in conference committees. One of the things that made that really hard this year is the house just didn't pass bills. We couldn't conference with a body that didn't have a tax bill. We couldn't conference with a body that didn't have an education bill. Um, that didn't work. Um, but I also think we have grown more accustomed to end of session into the cabinet room, negotiate the deal. Um, which I just think is wrong. And we do have to do work to set global targets, but that then should be given back to the committees, to the members with the talent, with the expertise, and where the public can see it. There was a um, a conference committee at like midnight. I remember cuz they had to gavel in and say they're going to work past midnight for the safety and security conference committee. Um, it was in room 123, I think. The room where Jean Merriam used to hold court. And it was alive in that room. There were legislators, they were passing out donuts at midnight, there were people, lobbyists, advocates in that room um, to go through what was being proposed in that conference report. That's the way this place should operate. It's too quiet in the hallways now. People aren't here because there's nothing for them to see. Um, that is not the way we should operate in a democracy. I want that back and I'm going to fight for it. How has it been um, working with the tied house these past these past two sessions? And did you take any positives from it? Well, uh, I think the tie is really, really difficult. It gives everybody an out. Um, instead of doing the work that we need to to work through our differences and and compromise. So, when two chairs couldn't agree on something, they just didn't. And the work fell away. Um, I think that is inadequate for the people of Minnesota. Uh so, I look forward to an untied house. Um one where people are wrestling with their differences uh and where we can make some progress together. And to return to what feels like a more normal order of work. Do you not think that both incumbents of both parties can run on this work product and and stand by it? It seems like it it more bipartisan than many people thought. This is something that a Republican who could run well on or or a Democrat? Yeah. Well, I think again as I would say, uh if we reach good conclusion bipartisan, not bipartisan, if we reach a good conclusion conclusion for the people of Minnesota, we get an A. We should get an A for that. And I'm happy to do that with my Republican colleagues. And I will say Mark Johnson and I have a really good, honest, and straightforward working relationship together. I think there is something You're giving work product an A. I would give the work that we did this year. There's many things that I'm frustrated about and many things got left behind, but I think we've done a good job a fair deal for the people of Minnesota. We'll talk about that. But campaigns are about our future. We're going to talk about what we believe in, what we value, and what we see for our future. Um and I think that Donald Trump and what he has to offer with his party um is going to be a struggle for the Republicans. Uh but we can't count on that. We've got to go work our asses off. Excuse me. We have to go work really hard um to make sure we're connecting with the people of Minnesota. That's how we win. Is this a tough sell like this I mean you're saying you're giving yourself an A, but is this kind of a tough sell for like your core base voters? Like, you know, surely they care about HCMC. I'm not denying that, but like, you know, there is a pretty big outcry over guns, over natural resource, stuff like that. And what are you really bringing home to them? Is this Is this a tough sell for them? I don't think it is a tough sell at all. Um I think uh stabilizing our health care system matters to people, base or not base. I think investments in housing matters to people. It's one of the most expensive parts of a family's budget. I think investing in jobs in communities across the state matters to people. And I think when you see now I think when you see the work that we did in the Senate on Metro Surge and on gun violence, it showed Minnesotans that we are willing to work hard to solve problems if they stick with us. So I hope that they stick with us because rather than what we do every time there is an incidence a mass shooting, we raise the flag, we say it's terrible, we should do something about it, or promise to take a vote, and then we let it die away, and it goes away. This year we said we're not doing that again. And though it took us until the latter part of the session to get that across the line, we kept our word to the people of Minnesota, and we took a vote. One one question. Well, I have one about the of St. Paul. So it looked like they city got some but not all of what it requested from bonding, but I didn't see the tax extension that St. Paul asked for. No, so that didn't make it. So you represent St. Paul, have you talked to the mayor about it? What the hurdles were for that and and moving forward? Yeah, I think there was a big difference of opinion between the House and the Senate on local sales taxes. Um Senator Rest in as the author of the only tax bill that was actually produced, included local sales taxes in including the extension for St. Paul. Um I was grateful for that. Um but the other body would not take um that proposal or any of the local sales taxes proposals, so that all fell away. Um I I I'm two things on this from from my perspective. Uh I I think that we have every cycle or so, we take up funding for stadium. Whether it's the Viking stadium and our commitment to that, or the Twin stadium and our commitment to that, or to the Grand Casino and our commitment to that. They are all publicly owned facilities where we have private sports teams operating. And I think we should think more comprehensively about our obligation to those public facilities just like we are obligated to our public schools, um our colleges, um we have some ownership there and some responsibility there. And it gets wrapped up in end of session politics um and sometimes it's measured by who gets what and where. Um and instead I think we should think more comprehensively and more forward-thinking and more stably about our obligation as a state to those facilities, not to the teams necessarily though I love them. Um but uh to the facility facilities themselves. Do you have any members who expect to kind of take the lead on workshopping those ideas in the off off-season? No, you know, I haven't talked with them about it yet, but I am you know, feeling uh the sort of the disorganization of the way we approach it and would like something better than that. Did it help to have a new mayor who was a former lawmaker and a leader from St. Paul? Um in so many ways it has been like absolutely delightful to see my colleague um the mayor, Colleen Ving her, um rise and shine. Um she is an incredibly hard worker. She's very behind the scenes. Although if you look at her Instagram, she is everywhere all of the time promoting the city. And yeah, it makes a difference that she was a legislator. She's got great relationships around here. Um that's going to serve St. Paul well. That's going to serve us well. I'm sorry, one more this not to be so nerdy but like looking at some of these bills it seems like even even more generous perhaps than usual interpretation of single subject. >> [laughter] >> Are you worried about I mean there's a all a lawsuit going through right now about single subject? I mean that also a problem with the process? I I I think we adhered very closely to single subject this session. the the car tabs go on the bonding bill? Mhm. Yeah. That's not uncommon to see something like that go into a bonding bill. Yeah. But I think both I think both bodies paid a lot of attention. I know we did. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. See you later. >> [music]