Midday offers live two-hour coverage of the legislative Special Session with a debate on the Twins ballpark/stadium in the Minnesota Senate. Debate includes gambling as a funding source. MPR reporter Martin Kaste joins Gary Eichten to provide analysis as debate plays out.
GARY EICHTEN: Gary Eichten here. Glad you could join us this morning. As promised, the Minnesota legislature is expected today to vote on the stadium issue. And Martin Kaste, Minnesota Public Radio correspondent joins us now from the State Capitol. Martin, debate underway.
MARTIN KASTE: Yes. As you can probably hear right behind me, the Senate has started. That's Senator Dick Day, the Republican leader in the background. He's just started describing the merits of his plan to fund the stadium with slot machines at Canterbury Park, slot machines and blackjack now it looks like. I can probably pick it up here pretty soon. He's defending the plan against some of the critics who've said it's an expansion of gambling.
DICK DAY: The other thing-- and as we all know, we went from a little bingo parlor, to a mega casino, and it's got hotels and you name it, and it has-- we went from little shows up to where now we have probably the biggest entertainers. I think Wayne Newton's there in the next two or three days. We've had all the biggest entertainers in the United States, which is great, and fights, and major sporting events that have happened.
So the gambling thing, I think, is there. It's in the State of Minnesota. The stadium itself, Minnesotans, and where we put the stadium, I didn't ever want to get involved in that at all. I do believe that sometimes if it was out a little bit, it would be better.
But in my bill, it has a-- a retractable roof is optional, require a 30-year lease from the team. We provide the 250 in revenue bonds. The local 111 million from the Pohlad family and 50 million from the local community.
I, also, in my bill, I do have a place where it exempts the lottery slot machine revenue from a sales tax, state sales tax. I also have a backup. We needed to find a way that we could sell bonds.
And the only way that I could find that would work the best is if we could use the transfers of the lottery proceeds that are now directed to the Cambridge State Bank settlement to a baseball stadium account to guarantee the repayment of the revenue bonds. That was the way that we could tie them together. And when I talked to the bond person, he felt that would be a good tie, that this is something that could be doable.
As you know, I mentioned that the state lottery director would head that. Something that happened just recently, and I want to bring it up because it wasn't the most entertaining day, but in some ways, it was, I want to know the people that talked and they said about community ownership, community ownership.
Now, I personally believe that the taxpayers in my senate district, number one, they're pretty much opposed on building a stadium, in all honesty, except when I mentioned my Canterbury. And then my radio stations and my papers have had editorials in favor of Canterbury because they understand what I've been trying to do. I wished I could have probably got the word out a little bit longer and across the state more.
But in my bill, on page 8, on line 25, you will notice that I do have this community ownership bet. And basically, it says, the agreements must anticipate the possible sale and purchase of shares or other interests in the baseball team to the community, and provide that the owner use its good faith efforts to cause Major League Baseball to approve community ownership provisions in franchises.
And the Commission shall report to the legislature no later than January 1, 1999, on the ways and means appropriate and available to effectuate some form of community ownership of shares or other interests in the baseball team.
So in my bill, if we do the Canterbury, we start on our way, we're starting to take the money in, and the poll ads and the dialogue can begin with people that if we wanted to put a group of people. I personally don't believe that people are going to invest in something that they have to pick $85 million of debt and lose $10 million while the stadium is being built and then have to build a stadium.
I haven't ran into anybody yet that's willing to give money, but some people think that that's a possibility. If it is, and if that's a concern, it's in my bill.
One of the other things that has happened as I've been talking about my bill with numerous people is, along the line, most people that look at the entire stadium facility, and where it's located, and how it could be taken care of with the bonds that we're selling, getting our money through Canterbury Casino, most people, when you talk to them, say, this sounds like it's a very workable plan.
It's something that's doable, that somebody can tune in and listen to the Minnesota Twins while they're harvesting, or there are shut-ins, or they're working in their basement, and yet, if they don't go to a casino, it will not cost them a dollar. That's the beauty of the proposal.
To make the day short, because I think we'll probably have a lot of more discussion on this, I'll sure stand for questions, and we'll go through any of the areas of the bill and the concerns that people might have. Thank you, Mr. President.
SPEAKER 1: So further discussion on Senate file 11.
DICK DAY: And, Mr. President.
SPEAKER 1: Senator Day.
DICK DAY: And I would like a roll call vote and we'll--
SPEAKER 1: Well, there will, of course, be a roll call vote on-- what's before us now is the bill on third reading and final passage, so that would be an automatic roll call vote. Senator Hottinger.
JOHN HOTTINGER: I know I wasn't here last week, Mr. President, but, Mr. President, would Senator Day yield?
SPEAKER 1: He'll yield.
JOHN HOTTINGER: Mr. President, Senator Day, I haven't had a chance to pay as close of attention to the various changes that have taken place during the committee process last week, but do you have a summary? There are a number of provisions in your bill that I think are positive. Is there a summary available of the bill as presented?
SPEAKER 1: Senator Hottinger, do you have the summary that you requested?
JOHN HOTTINGER: Mr. President, yes, I do. Thank you.
SPEAKER 1: Is there further discussion, Senator Morris?
MORRIS: Mr. President, Senator Day, do you have another summary?
GARY EICHTEN: You're listening to live coverage of the Minnesota legislature. The Senate today debating whether to spend public money on a new baseball stadium for the Minnesota Twins.
SPEAKER 1: Senator Hottinger.
JOHN HOTTINGER: Mr. President, maybe Senator Day can explain to us, there was a provision, as I looked through the bill, relating to the private sector involvement in the construction of the stadium or the maintenance of the revenues of the stadium. Is that still in there, and could we maybe have a little bit of a discussion of what you propose in that regard?
SPEAKER 1: Senator Day.
DICK DAY: Mr. President, Senator Hottinger, the question was, again?
JOHN HOTTINGER: Mr. President, whether there are provisions in your bill relating to private sector participation or involvement in the stadium.
DICK DAY: We don't have any private sector. Do we have anything in here in the private sector? No.
MARTIN KASTE: That's Senator Dick Day looking for some information that John Hottinger from Mankato has asked for.
SPEAKER 1: Senator Day.
DICK DAY: Mr. President, Senator Hottinger, the private sector capital plan, page 9, line 25.
GARY EICHTEN: Martin, are the legislators actually going to vote on all these plans today, do you think, or will we just hear protracted debate?
MARTIN KASTE: Well, that's just a matter of speculation right now. But Senator Roger Moe, the Majority Leader in the Senate, says he'd like to wrap things up today, but he would go into tomorrow if that's what it takes.
JOHN HOTTINGER: I'd appreciate it if you could explain that for us and explain whether or not representatives of the private sector have indicated their support of that aspect of the proposal.
SPEAKER 1: Senator Day.
DICK DAY: Yeah. Where's Ward at? Which sections? On which page?
MARTIN KASTE: As you can probably imagine, Gary, the senators are still trying to catch up with what their colleagues in the committees did yesterday. They put together some pretty fast last-minute changes to a very complex bill. And a lot of them don't even know what they're voting on.
SPEAKER 1: Senator Hottinger.
JOHN HOTTINGER: Mr. President, Senator Day, I'd like you to explain to the body what the private sector support component of your proposal is, and explain, if you can, whether or not the private sector has agreed to participate in that level.
I've read in the last two days in the newspaper that the business community, essentially, is opposing many things. They've come out because there might be some property tax implications of some of the proposals. They've come out because they don't like the car rental fees. They've come out because they don't like the user tax on portions of the sports paraphernalia.
These things seem to be directly related to the stadium and they are opposed to it. And I was just wondering what the private sector component of your proposal is and whether or not the private-- the business community supports your proposal in that regard.
SPEAKER 1: Senator Day.
DICK DAY: Mr. President, Senator Hottinger, first off, the private sector, as far as the 80% of private suites-- first off, you have to realize they would have to do this or we wouldn't have a deal.
But second off, they have told us that they are willing to do suites, private suites and club suites, and also the seat license for the 25 million. So the private sector, if we build the stadium, we'll get involved in these items. If they don't, then there surely wouldn't be a stadium.
SPEAKER 1: Senator Hottinger.
JOHN HOTTINGER: Mr. President, by saying they have committed to that, I'd appreciate having some detail on that. And the reason I raised the issue are two things. Number one, because I've read so much about the objections of the business community to their participation in the last two day.
But also, I had the opportunity of flying through the LA airport the other day and picked up Saturday's LA paper, where a $300 million baseball and hockey facility was approved for Los Angeles for their professional baseball and hockey teams.
And $12 million of that $300 million comes from city participation in infrastructure, and all of the rest of it is private dollars, including $50 million from LA businesses contributing to the stadium because they believed that it was important to their downtown community. And I'm searching to find that kind of support from the business community here.
DICK DAY: Mr. President, Senator Hottinger, first off, I don't believe, and I'm willing to admit this, that the private businesses in the state of Minnesota have gotten involved like they should. It's a very readily available fact that in Milwaukee, the business group came up with about $90 million, or they wouldn't have been able to put the Milwaukee Stadium together.
So they have been hesitant in coming forward, but I feel confident that if we're going to build a stadium and we put in the private suites and the club seats and some of the things that we have in here, the Minneapolis business community has said that they would get involved.
SPEAKER 1: Senator Belanger.
WILLIAM BELANGER: Mr. Chairman, Senator Hottinger, I got a letter yesterday in my mail late yesterday afternoon that's got 72 signators who represents who's who in the business, labor, and arts community asking us to find a solution to retaining the Twins.
SPEAKER 1: Yeah. Senator Hottinger.
JOHN HOTTINGER: Mr. President, Senator Belanger and members, I got the same letter. I didn't see one check attached to help us find that solution. I didn't see one commitment attached that one suite would be purchased. I didn't see any indication in that letter that they were committing to buy the personal licenses that Senator Day, I think very properly, has included in his proposal.
It's a little late and it doesn't have much support. I know they back a stadium. I'd back a stadium, too, if I thought it was in my economic interest. But I have been waiting and waiting and waiting.
My colleague here, Senator [? Ratnam, ?] has Dick Youngblood's column from the other day in the Minneapolis Tribune talking about the leadership that was shown by the business community when the Metrodome was built, the leadership that was shown by the business community when we attracted Major League Sports, and the deafening silence that we've had from the business community in the last couple of days when we got a letter signed by the who's who of the business community saying we want to have a stadium, and press releases from the property tax coalition and from various other business organizations say, but we don't want to have to pay for it.
So the same conflict that runs through much of this discussion, we've had for the past two years. Yeah, we want a stadium, but please don't ask us to pay for it was all too evident in the last couple of days. Thank you.
SPEAKER 1: Senator Day.
DICK DAY: Mr. President and Senator Hottinger, I will inform you, although I don't know if I gave you as good an answer as you would have liked, but it is also in Senator Moe's bill, so, or Senator Janezich's bill, so.
SPEAKER 1: Further discussion on Senate file 11, Senator Novak.
STEVE NOVAK: Mr. President, I have an amendment A-5.
SPEAKER 1: The secretary will report the A-5 amendment.
SPEAKER 2: Senator Steve Novak.
STEVE NOVAK: Mr. President--
SPEAKER 1: Senator Novak, if you could just wait until the amendment is reported.
SPEAKER 2: Mr. Novak moves to amend Senate file number 11 as follows, page 18, line 6. This is the A-5 amendment.
SPEAKER 1: Senator Novak on the amendment.
STEVE NOVAK: Yes. Mr. President, members of the Senate, I, like a lot of you, have been involved in this debate all the way through and have had a proposal that would get this done in the context of what the public has said they wanted. No general tax increases, but get the job done.
Senator Day's bill does that, but in the discussions around this bill, and as it relates to the proposal that came out of the stadium task force, I wanted to offer an amendment that I thought would help based on that discussion. He's made a lot of changes to this bill. Senator Mull and others have been objecting to the inclusion of blackjack games as part of what would be the Canterbury proposal.
And in lines 1 through 24, this deletes all references to blackjack. In addition to that, in my bill, as in this one, we have Mr. Anderson and the lottery professional people involved in that phase of this. And we add in on lines 25 to 31, a specific baseball lottery game which is estimated to raise $2 million. So I would offer this amendment, Mr. President.
SPEAKER 1: Is there a discussion on the A-5 amendment, Senator Pogemiller?
LARRY POGEMILLER: Will Senator Novak yield?
SPEAKER 1: Yes. He'll yield.
LARRY POGEMILLER: Senator Novak, with this amendment, would that then make the--
MARTIN KASTE: Senators are discussing the Dick Day proposal to fund the stadium rather with funds from Canterbury Park Casino. Dick Day is the Republican leader in the Senate.
STEVE NOVAK: Mr. President, Senator Pogemiller, I've been trying to track that myself because this is in no way been a coordinated effort. But the answer to your question, I think, is they would then be quite similar. There may still be some differences, but I'm not sure what they would be. But the fundamental funding sources would be very close.
SPEAKER 1: Senator Day.
DICK DAY: Mr. President, well, Senator Novak has been helpful. This is not one of the times.
[LAUGHTER]
Why would anybody want to build a casino for the State of Minnesota to pay a debt service on a stadium and want to take out blackjack? The only reason that somebody would want to do that is so that it wouldn't produce enough revenue, so therefore, the bill wouldn't be any good.
It would take $6.5 million. Not only that, a lot of people go to casinos to play blackjack, the wives or the husbands do, and the husband or the wife or whatever, plays the slot machines, maybe they'll watch the horses race. But if we're going to have a casino-- now, I haven't bought into Senator Johnson's idea that wants this big mega casino.
Even if I could stand on the floor of the Minnesota Senate and promise you people that this would be the only casino in the state and there was a way to do that, and I told Senator Moe that, if I could do that, I would have had some type of moratorium in here and said, hey, this would be it for the State of Minnesota forever.
But I couldn't figure out a way to do that because I know somebody would stand up and say, hey, next year we'll be back and we'll take-- and you'll be gone, and we'll do away with that. If I could have figured that out, I would have had that in. But anybody that's proposing that you take blackjack out of a casino, I mean, that's like saying, well, I think I'll save on the tires. Just give me the car with three tires.
We'll just let it ride on three and leave that fourth one, because that way, when I go to buy some, I won't have to buy three more. That might not be a good analogy, but that's how I look at it. You need to have blackjack if you're going to have a casino for Minnesotans.
So all I'm saying, let's not monkey with the bill. Let's just take a vote and move on to the next bill. I see no reason that we want to make this bill and scale it way down. Now, if somebody told me it will get me more votes, it won't. Why would it get more votes?
If you're going to lose $6.5 million to build the stadium that the people in Minnesota want, you got to have some blackjack in there. We want to make it a nice casino. People want to come up, go there. And if the people at Canterbury are going to spend $10, $12, $14 million in redoing the place, we need to have some revenue out of this.
So, I mean, it just doesn't seem right to me that we would want to have a-- the Minnesotan casino would be subpar to the other 17 casinos that are run on sovereign land. Thanks.
BERG: Mr. President.
SPEAKER 1: Senator Berg.
BERG: Mr. President, I wonder if Senator Novak would yield.
SPEAKER 1: Yes. He'll yield.
BERG: Senator Novak, as I just look at this amendment, this would eliminate blackjack and substitute card games, correct?
STEVE NOVAK: Mr. President.
SPEAKER 1: Senator Novak.
STEVE NOVAK: I don't believe so it would eliminate blackjack. What it does include is the addition of a specific lottery game, which has been discussed by Mr. Anderson and others, where the people who choose to purchase a particular scratch off game would go towards this particular effort, and it's estimated it would raise $2 million.
BERG: Mr. President.
SPEAKER 1: Senator Berg.
BERG: Senator Novak, did you consider if blackjack is something you object to? Did you consider substituting card games as was in Senator Janezich bill last year?
SPEAKER 1: Senator Novak.
STEVE NOVAK: Well, Mr. President, Senator Berg, no, I didn't, because, actually, I don't personally object to blackjack. What I'm doing here today, and maybe by the end of the day we'll find out whether it's at all successful, is I'm trying to point out, over a period of discussions, through amendments to what will be a couple of bills here today, that the tenor of this debate for the last 18 months has been fundamentally misplaced.
There seems to be this notion that there's just absolutely no way we can build this stadium and do it in the context of how the debate was formed in the '96 election, which is to not use general funds or taxpayer money. I don't believe that's true at all.
And I think what we're going to see here today with Senator Day's bill without my amendment, or Senator Day's bill with my amendment, or large parts of Senator Janezich's bill with or without a variety of amendments, is that there's a variety of ways to get this job done, and, in fact, this legislature has an obligation to do it. But seems to be unable to do it because we seem to be stuck in cement over a misplaced notion that this is just impossible to do and keep our commitment to the public.
And I think that is fundamentally not the case, and I'm just trying to point that out. So I'm offering this really because Senator Moe and others have objected to the inclusion of blackjack. I have been promoting the bill that reflects the best judgment of the bipartisan commission that was assigned by Senator Moe and others to study this.
And has in it Canterbury Downs, and also a lottery backup, and had at one time a variety of special use taxes. Those things have been amended and changed to try to reflect the body politic of this place, to try to find a way to get 34 votes to do a job, but to do it in the context of what we have said to the public is now our mission, to do it without general taxes or those kinds of commitments.
I think this improves Senator Day's bill and gives it an opportunity to pass. I think that Senator Moe's bill should also pass or could pass in the context of the public debate, and I'm just trying to help that process along.
SPEAKER 1: Senator Berg.
BERG: Mr. President, Senator Novak, you said that Senator Moe was opposed to blackjack. Isn't he also opposed to slot machines at Canterbury Park or anything that would compete with the casinos?
SPEAKER 1: Senator Novak.
STEVE NOVAK: Well, Mr. President, Senator Berg, Senator Moe is fully capable of speaking for himself. It's my understanding that he is opposed to slots at Canterbury. I am not. But I offer this amendment because it seems to take away some of the objection without taking away the dollars necessary to do the proposal.
I agree with Senator Day that if this amendment passed, it would reduce his margin. But as we showed, I think, in the hearing yesterday, it basically cuts it right even at $19 million a year in terms of what it brings in net versus what it takes to make a bond payment. It gets the job done.
And that seems to be the other trend line here of the discussion of our colleagues in the legislature. They want to do this thing, I think, but they want to do it bare minimum. They want to do it in the context of their commitments and pledges to the public and their constituents, as do I. But the bottom line is, I hope in the end we want to get the job done because I think it's important for the State of Minnesota that we do that and we're running out of time.
BERG: Mr. President.
SPEAKER 1: Senator Berg.
BERG: I don't want to prolong this debate. I am in favor of Senator Day's bill because I think it's the only feasible way of building a stadium and keeping the Twins here. Now, I'd like to see the Twins stay. I think Senator Day's bill unamended will do that. And I'm really undecided about this amendment by Senator Novak because it bothers me that we probably will be about $4 million short.
SPEAKER 1: Senator Berglin.
LINDA BERGLIN: Mr. President and Senator Novak, I guess I appreciate the fact that your amendment improves Senator Day's bill a little bit.
The problem that I still have with the amendment is that if the proposition of having slot machines at Canterbury Downs is found to be unconstitutional and would require a constitutional amendment in order to do that, your amendment relies, then, on the lottery proceeds as the way we would go ahead and build a baseball stadium.
I believe, and I think most of the people of the State of Minnesota believe that the lottery proceeds that are in the general fund today are general fund revenues. We have used them for things that we otherwise would have used the general fund for. And so I think it is because of your backup of the lottery proceeds in your amendment that I would oppose the amendment.
SPEAKER 1: Senator Lesewski.
ARLENE LESEWSKI: Yes, Mr. President. And if Senator Novak would yield.
SPEAKER 1: Yes. He'll yield.
ARLENE LESEWSKI: I'm just not real clear on lines 26, 27, or 28 regarding--
GARY EICHTEN: You're listening to live coverage of the Minnesota Senate, debating whether public money should be used to build a stadium, a new baseball park for the Minnesota Twins. Currently, the legislature, the Senate, is discussing a proposal to put slot machines and blackjack tables at Canterbury Park to help pay for the stadium.
ARLENE LESEWSKI: The other question I would ask is, does this divert, then, the money from that one baseball-themed game to the stadium or to build the stadium? If so, we're talking about $2 million, as you said, being raised by this game which would short the lottery proceeds that we now collect by $2 million, and how would we fill the hole that's created in the general fund by the loss of that $2 million?
SPEAKER 1: Senator Novak.
STEVE NOVAK: Mr. President, Senator Lesewski, first of all, the $2 million is a net figure that was given to us based on the best judgment of Mr. Anderson and others who study this.
So I don't think the concern you're expressing inherently in your question would come to fruition. It's been factored in. It is a net over and above. There are people, it is speculated, who will purchase this ticket that otherwise wouldn't. Or would purchase additional tickets for this purpose who otherwise wouldn't because they want to build a ballpark.
And the other thing, Mr. President, and this would be specific to this question but also to Senator Berglin's point, on the question of the lottery revenues overall, you were here and I was here when the lottery passed. So you know that the legislative intent never was to have lottery revenues used in the general fund.
Now, it's true that over time, for a variety of circumstances, the loss of political support of the Greater Minnesota Corporation, a couple of budget deficits along the way, and now losing a lawsuit with a bunch of banks that some of that has happened. But we can differ on this. I don't see that as a concern or a reason not to do this.
SPEAKER 1: Senator Pariseau.
PAT PARISEAU: Thank you, Mr. President. Members, I rise to oppose the amendment from the standpoint that we don't know exactly what the displacement of one game with another would actually bring in or change, what we would take out of the bill that Senator Day has provided us, and what the new lottery game might add.
Because certainly, the lottery games are played all over the state. Blackjack is not sole. And I rise to oppose the amendment and hope other members will do the same.
SPEAKER 1: Senator Day.
DICK DAY: Well, Mr. President, and I guess what I would tell my fellow colleagues, if you think about it, the least objectionable game would be blackjack. Now, I can't imagine why somebody, that's the thing they would like to pull out.
Now, if somebody said, well, pull out the slots, which we know would take care of the revenue, but to pull out-- this is a game that you're playing with other people in a confined area. Slot machines, the house runs what you can make. If you're a good blackjack player-- and I don't know if I've ever played a game, so I don't really know how it all works or if I'd be good or bad.
But from what I'm told is that you're playing against somebody else, and therefore, I mean, this should be the least objectionable thing that would be in any casino would be the blackjack. So I don't understand why somebody would want to pull blackjack out of-- having a casino without blackjack.
SPEAKER 1: Is there further discussion on the amendment offered by Senator Novak?
PAT PARISEAU: Mr. President.
SPEAKER 1: Senator Novak. I'm sorry, Senator Betzold.
DON BETZOLD: Mr. President, I request a roll call vote on this amendment.
SPEAKER 1: A roll call has been requested. Is there further discussion on the amendment? Senator Pariseau?
PAT PARISEAU: Mr. President, though I am not a gambler, I have some relatives who work at one of the casinos. And as I understand it, Senator Day's mentioned here just about being the least objectionable game. Certainly, the games where you don't have any other human interaction have a cut and dried payback, and we understand that sometimes they're not very high.
But where other humans bet against you or with you, you have a less sure element of outcome. And the lottery, of course, has an absolute payout. So there's no question of slot machines, lottery, and some other kinds of absolutes that-- pull tabs are that kind of game.
However, the human action games where poker and some of the other things where you play against other people, your skill is the thing that makes or breaks the payout. So I think that we're talking about two different kinds of operations here, and I don't think we can assume one would bring in the same as the other.
SPEAKER 1: Further discussion? A roll call has been requested. Hearing no further discussion, the Secretary will take the roll.
[MACHINE BEEPS]
GARY EICHTEN: Minnesota Senate voting right now on whether blackjack should be allowed at a proposed casino at Canterbury Park. A subset of the one planned to pay for the proposed new baseball stadium for the Minnesota Twins. Most of the attention, of course, is focused on whether slot machines should be added to Canterbury Park.
But part and parcel of that plan really from the beginning, just didn't get a lot of publicity, was the idea that blackjack should also be offered? Minnesota Senators currently voting on that issue, whether blackjack would be allowed at Canterbury Park. This is the first of several votes that are expected today on a wide variety of plans to pay for a baseball stadium.
MARTIN KASTE: And, Gary-- this is Martin at the Capitol-- I should point out that you're right, blackjack hasn't received a lot of attention, and it probably wouldn't make a huge financial difference if it was taken out on what looks like a [INAUDIBLE]. So blackjack stays.
JOHN HOTTINGER: Mr. President, I have the A4 Amendment.
SPEAKER 1: The Secretary will report the A4 Amendment.
SPEAKER 2: Mr. Hottinger moves to amend Senate file 11 as follows. Pages 17 to 19, delete sections 1 to 6. Pages 20 to 25, delete sections 8 to 16.
SPEAKER 1: Senator Hottinger.
JOHN HOTTINGER: Mr. President and members, this is a simple amendment, but it goes to the core of the discussion of Senator Day's bill. I contemplated, because I had expressed my opposition to the expansion or extension of gambling in the task force, and I offered an amendment at the task force to take out of its recommendations a Canterbury Downs slot procedure.
And I could have said that I just want to oppose Senator Day's bill, but as we discussed earlier, I think there are a number of very positive things in Senator Day's bill. I appreciate the fact that Senator Day is trying to find a way to keep the Twins here. My middle-aged male heart is going to break if we don't do that, although I haven't found a very good way of funding it.
I appreciate Senator Day's involvement of making sure that we have some private sector contribution. I was pleased by Senator Day's provisions relating to how we control and how we impact the decisions relating to building a new stadium. But I must say, Mr. Chairman, I am-- Mr. President and members, I am adamantly, adamantly opposed to the expansion of gaming in Minnesota, which is the core of the proposal for Canterbury Downs Casino.
Senator Day asked the question, what other business in Minnesota has a monopoly like the tribes do in casinos? How about Canterbury Downs, the racetrack? There's the ultimate monopoly. We have authorized one racetrack, and it is a monopoly.
What we would do by expanding gambling, as Senator Day has suggested, is give them a monopoly, not only on horse racing and simulcasting, but also a monopoly on a full service gambling venue. A monopoly on a venue where we, as a state government, as state policy, have decided that it's a good public policy to fund what we deem to be public goods through gaming.
I've had passed out a summary of some facts, not speculation, not arguments, that have been put together by the Joint Religious Legislative Coalition that talks about the true costs of gaming in Minnesota. And by the way, we have jurisdiction as we stand in this floor on one issue in gaming, and that's whether we're going to vote as a state senate to say it's good. It's good for this state to give more venues for gaming. We don't have any jurisdiction as we stand here over the tribal gaming.
Now, the tribes worked out their agreement with the state government a few years ago, and someday in the future, we'll have a chance to input and impact that decision, but that's not our jurisdiction. What we do have jurisdiction today on is whether or not we expand or extend gaming as a state-sanctioned way of playing for a ballpark, which, frankly, most people don't want.
And I want to dwell a moment on the information that's in here. We all get this stuff passed out to us, and we look at the headlines, and we look at it after we get done with the debate. That's one of the problems we have. But I'd like you all, before you vote on this amendment, to take a real look at the facts.
Because we are relying on, as this points out, a delusion as old as gambling itself to think that government hits the jackpot and nobody pays if we fund public services with gaming. Point, economists oppose it because it reduces total state income and creates social costs that must be paid out of taxes from people who do not gamble. It doesn't create jobs. It shifts jobs.
A particularly important point, 52% of casino revenues come from a little over 4% of the population. The problem, gamblers. And what are the costs? Look down at the bottom, colleagues. The financial costs of the problem in compulsive gambling are substantial.
Adding dollars obtained legally or illegally from gambling to the loss of productivity and employment, the bottom line is we're talking about a $1.5 to $2 billion cost to Minnesota's economy from compulsive gaming. And we want to encourage more of that? We want to have a state policy, this is the way we pay for a public good.
There's been discussion that this is choice. That people choose, and they can choose to fund a stadium. Well, Senator Pariseau has indicated she's not a gambler, and I don't know whether she supports a stadium or not, but if she does, does that mean we'll turn her into a gambler? I don't think so.
But if you want to choose to support the stadium, that's your ability to choose by going out to Canterbury Downs full-scale monopoly casino to choose. If we believed in choice, we'd have, as Senator Day has provided, some opportunities for contribution to the state to fund this. We'd have those nice little containers at McDonald's and 7-Eleven so you can throw your change in to build a stadium.
We'd have a checkoff on the tax form. Senator Johnson wouldn't like any more checkoffs, I know, and neither would I, but we'd have a checkoff on the tax form, send in an extra $5 and we'll build a stadium. That's choice. If this is choice, well, then a restaurant tax would work.
Because that's a choice. You don't have to go to a restaurant. You choose to go to a restaurant, then you're choosing to fund the stadium. Choice isn't available here. Compulsive gaming is not a choice to build the stadium. It's not taxpayer money. We can build a stadium and it's not taxpayer money.
Well, first of all, the facts-- and I want you to look, again, at this reliance on gambling. These are based on studies. They're based on a review of what actually happens in the real world and the cost is immense. The cost in lost productivity of compulsive gaming is immense.
But Senator Day's bill highlights the fact that, yes, this is a diversion of money that could be otherwise used for education or property tax relief or anything else because that's, in fact, what he does. When he gets done building a new stadium with a state subsidy, he diverts that money, and I approve of that, that's one of the good parts of Senator Day's proposal, to property tax reduction and programs for children.
Well, if it's good 5, or 10, or 15 years from now, why shouldn't we do it now? It is using money that state government raises to build a stadium. Don't be fooled. It's not some sort of magic pill. It's money that we are authorizing the state to take from people who live here to build a stadium. And then later, after the more important task of building a stadium is done, we can fund children's programs or give tax relief.
I think we know that because the business community has pointed out that property tax relief is at risk if one of the provisions of Senator Janezich's bill is introduced. Whatever we do, however we fund it, that is a fundamental question, and it is not resolved by claiming it's not taxpayer money.
I mentioned when I offered the same amendment at the task force, and I don't want to belabor it because I believe in the motives of Senator Day and the other supporters of Canterbury gambling in this body, and I don't think this is their motivation, but there has been an uncomfortable racial overtones in the phone calls I've been getting in support of this proposal.
Too often those phone calls are, the Indians are getting all the money and we should be sharing in that. That's not a very good argument. And Senator Day makes a better argument, and that's not his argument. But unfortunately, it's the argument I hear from too many of the public supporters.
And what's ironic in that argument is I have listened for years to the public debate about tribal communities and their reliance on government revenues to help them, and that they shouldn't do that. They should lift themselves up by the bootstraps.
Well, they negotiated a deal with the State of Minnesota, they've lifted themselves up by the bootstraps, so what's our response? Well, let's cut the bootstraps. Let's cut the area. Let's cut their opportunity to succeed that we have asked them so long to seek out.
And finally, my objection to this provision, and the real insidious nature of it, is it follows years and years of debate by us politicians telling the public that they can get something for nothing. We have for years said, we can cut waste out of government and fund our schools. We can do this and fund something else.
You don't have to give up anything, folks. We can provide a public service and you don't have to pay for it. Somebody else will. Well, this doesn't have any connection, slots at Canterbury, to the people who are going to enjoy the fruits if we build a stadium. There's no proxy relationship between folks who would gamble with slots at Canterbury and those people who would enjoy the stadium.
And as I said, the middle-aged male who's going to have a heavy heart if we don't find a way to do this, and I find younger males like soccer better, I think the debate over Canterbury Downs has overall reduced the potential of passing this legislation. I'd like to find a way, frankly, and haven't seen it, to get a new stadium.
But I've been advocating that what we needed and we've never had in the public because we've talked about Canterbury and everything else is the debate that, frankly, Senator Moe and Senator Novak and Senator Janezich have been trying to get us to have, which is, is there a public value?
And I think there is frankly, in building a stadium to keep Major League Baseball here. And if so, what is the value of that to us in dollars? Is it $250 million? Is it a $100 million? What is that value, that community building value? And if there is a value, how do we fairly spread it among the community?
As we have focused on Canterbury Downs, which is clearly not a fair way to spread it in the community, as we have focused on Canterbury Downs, which is clearly got insidious costs, both social and economic, if we had focused on Canterbury Downs, which is, without question, an expansion of gambling, we have not been able to have the debate that, frankly, Senator Day has made good points on when I've heard him speak about the community value of professional baseball.
And I think that's sad. Because I think the fact that we haven't had that debate diminishes the chances that we'll be able to find a way to do it. So Mr. President and members, I think that this amendment highlights the true issue related to Senator Day's bill, and I would ask for a roll call vote.
SPEAKER 1: Senator Betzold.
DON BETZOLD: Mr. President, I just want to point out to Senator Hanger, there may be a bit of a problem with the way this is drafted because it says page 17 to 19, delete sections 1 to 6, while page 17 has--
GARY EICHTEN: You're listening to live coverage of the Minnesota Senate debate on whether to spend public money for a new baseball stadium, specifically, whether a slot machine should be installed at Canterbury Park, with the revenues being used in part to pay for a new stadium.
DON BETZOLD: --clarify that or maybe offer an amendment that this only applies to Article III.
DICK DAY: Yes. I think you probably mean section-- you want to begin your deletion with article--
GARY EICHTEN: Martin Kaste is, of course, at the State Capitol listening in on the debate. And, Martin, there are two bills that the Senate will ultimately be voting on, right?
MARTIN KASTE: So far, two are in the hopper. There will be two titles, so to speak, to vote on, two vehicles as they call them. This one that we're listening to right now, Senator Dick Day's Canterbury Park solution.
And then there will be one backed by Senate Majority Leader Roger Moe, which relies on a hodgepodge of different fees and taxes. The thing is, though, we're really going to listen to a debate on a variety of proposals as people attempt to graft their ideas onto these others.
GARY EICHTEN: So it's not just the bills, but all the amendments that will be added to those bills.
MARTIN KASTE: Right. And those amendments will be stand-ins for bills that a lot of senators would have liked to have introduced. But for procedural reasons, for simplicity's sake, Roger Moe said, look, two is enough in terms of just the bills before us and then we can amend them as we see fit on the floor.
GARY EICHTEN: Senate getting ready now to actually vote on the slot machine proposal?
MARTIN KASTE: Not on the whole proposal yet. Right now they're considering an amendment from Senator Hottinger to strip out the slot machine portion because he calls that an expansion of gambling and an attack on the Indians reservation-based casinos.
JOHN HOTTINGER: That is correct.
SPEAKER 1: OK. This is just a technical change to the amendment. I don't think there probably will be any discussion required. All in favor signify by saying aye.
MARTIN KASTE: That's the President of the Senate, Allan Spear, who makes a lot of the procedural decisions along the way.
DICK DAY: --I guess, basically, is going to take what out of the general fund to pay for the stadium then so he's just going to tax the people to get his money for the general fund. But let's go over a couple of things that he mentioned. And I realize that for a long time now that, for some reason, Senator Hottinger has opposed my Canterbury. And that's fine. I don't have a problem with that.
But it's interesting to know that I got a call from Mankato, and it was an attorney. This is Senator Hottinger's home town. The attorney called me and he said, you know, Dick, he said there was a letter to the editor in the paper by two pastors. And he said, I want you to know that I wrote them a letter back.
He said, they were opposed to your thing because they said that if they went to a Minnesota Twins game, if they took their kids to a Minnesota Twins game, they would get sick if it was built with gambling dollars. The lawyer called me and he said he sent them a letter, and basically what he told me-- and I don't know all the organizations that the city of Mankato has, but he listed them. It was decathlon, lancers, marching band, gymnastics, little league hockey, on and on and on.
And he said, I wrote the letter back and I said, I hope none of your kids partake in any of these sports or any of these organizations that your school has in the city of Mankato because charitable gambling, charitable gambling from the people that do charitable gambling in the city of Mankato have put money into all of those pots year after year after year to sustain them. So that's one of the things that is happening.
The other thing is a report, 1997 report to the legislature on compulsive gambling by the Mental Health Division of the Minnesota Department of Human Services. The four most preferred gambling activities among the 1,547 people who had been assessed for compulsive gambling by the state programs from 1992, from February of 1992 to April of 1997, they had slot machines, 48%, lottery, 34%, and they had some statistics on that.
Then, staff and volunteers at the hotline responded to 23,000 calls from January of 1992 through June 1997. That's five and a half years. They had 20,000 calls. That's far from 38,000. From their inception in February of 1992 through April of 1997, which is five and a half years, they have assessed 1,797 persons and treated 1,254 compulsive gamblers, with 87 completing a full-course treatment program.
And it was interesting to me to read these statistics because I also read around the state, people tell me we got 38,000, and we got all of this. It's about 1/10 of 1% of the population in the State of Minnesota that's ever even contacted somebody through the hotline program where people first call. So there are treatments, but it's not billions and hundreds of millions of dollars that you keep hearing all the time. Now, if somebody can straighten me out, fine, I'll get involved in that.
As far as the racial thing, and, man, I don't want to get involved in any of that. I respect-- and I can tell you that northern tribes are having one heck of a time. Senator Ten Eyck said that they're taking out slot machines at his reservations that he has in his area, and they're going out, I understand that.
But I also will tell you something. That there's 15,000 Native Americans in Minneapolis alone that hardly receive any money from casinos, and yet there's 200 millionaires at the Mdewakanton tribe that get $60,000 a month. A family of four is a quarter of a million a month, 200. When somebody comes back and they say, boy, you're against Native Americans, no. In my bill, I have something for them.
So, granted, I have had calls-- and I understand what Senator Hottinger is saying about people that call and they get all upset about things. Some people call me the same way and even the-- I think I had a clergy that we'd gotten a little tussle here a little while back. But also, it's also interesting when we talk about this.
And we need to talk about this because the Christian Coalition has been on my case. And I know Republicans, well, that's-- they're in my district, lots of them, and I've talked to them about this. And I can tell you something, we know-- if I have five counties, I know the money is leaving my five counties and problems are returning.
That is happening. That is reality, and I can't do anything about it. But I will tell you something, if we have our own casino, we will have some money to treat those people and come back to my counties to help them. Otherwise, they're already there. We're adding a 6% or 7% increase in slot machines in the State of Minnesota.
And I feel that when I talk to people and I tell them, I tell them about myself. I'm a 60-year-old guy that 50 years ago, my mother took me to the bottom of Saint Francis Catholic Church in Southeast Rochester, and I used to run around while about 500 people played bingo. This is 50 years ago.
And so if somebody comes, and especially from the church I represent, and says that I'm expanding things, they don't have to look very far. They probably can look close by. And if somebody said, OK, I'm against all of this and they want to offer bills to shut down the lottery, if they want to offer bills so we don't keep expanding all across the state, that's fine too.
But what Senator Hottinger is doing-- and it was interesting, yesterday, Channel 12 in Mankato said the way to fund the stadium in their survey in his hometown was with Canterbury Park. But basically, in Owatonna that would mean something. But all I can say is-- so that's in Mankato, where that's just happening on Channel 12 yesterday. So I'll leave it at that.
But if this goes on where we take the slots out, I mean, I always thought that it would be nice if everybody could get a vote. I'm not opposed if people that are anti-gambling. My own members, I didn't even ask them today. I mean, we did it in an informal way, but I don't care. I just know what's good for Minnesota. That's all I'm interested in.
What is good for Minnesotans? They don't want no taxes. And they know that a casino will build a stadium, and then it will roll over for education and property tax. Darn it, I can't see why that's so hard to see. And we won't be annihilating Native Americans. I was against Senator Johnson's bill. I've been opposed to riverboats. I've been opposed to Mega Mall.
All I want is one small place, and one small place is where they already have gambling every day. Somebody drives in the driveway and they can lose more money than anybody probably loses in slot machines if you know this simulcast business. So if it does go on, it surely-- well, we're annihilated for this year, we'll live to fight another day. But I hope that you'll all oppose it.
JOHN HOTTINGER: Mr. President.
SPEAKER 1: Senator Hottinger.
JOHN HOTTINGER: Mr. President, I appreciate Senator Day advising me what happened on Channel 12 last night. I didn't have a chance to hear from it. But I suspect that poll was like every other poll. And certainly, like all the phone calls I get from Mankato, overwhelming opposition to us building a stadium.
Then, if the question is asked, well, the legislature is going to do it anyway, how do you want to fund it? Certainly, the argument, as long as I don't have to pay for it, works. Let's concentrate it on the compulsive gamblers. And the calls for help, the calls for help are not an indication of the depth of compulsive gambling.
What you've got-- and look at it-- Senator Day, I appreciated your invitation to accept information if it questioned some of your assumptions. Well, look at the Joint Religious Legislative Coalition's information because it's backed up by studies, by empirical information, by data. Not for calls for help, but, how much money is spent, the proportion of money spent by compulsive gamblers to build up our gaming bill?
I think Senator Neuville had a proposal a year or two ago to outlaw the lottery or to go back in the lottery. And I don't remember whether he had a vote or not on it, but if we did, I would have been there with him supporting that rollback. The logic being used here, it just tests my understanding of why this is such a good idea.
We have problems with compulsive gambling. They're caused by the casinos. The answer is to build another casino. Only then it will be state money. Well, we've got problems with crack. Should we open a state crack house so we can get some of that revenue in our hands to deal with the crime that grows out of the crack problem?
Just read in the paper yesterday that that's driving the murder rates in the cities around the country, the availability of crack. So maybe we can have an amendment drawn up to have a state crack house. And that will give us an opportunity to get that money instead of all those hoodlums getting the dough, and we can start using that dough to provide more law enforcement, to provide more opportunities to convict folks.
The idea of stopping the spread of gambling by adding snow to the avalanche doesn't make any sense. If you believe that it's not a public good to expand or extend gambling, there's no argument. There's no argument that makes any sense for the Canterbury proposal.
We've talked about it. There's some constitutional issues that I am not the best one to talk about. There are some other issues relating to this core decision on Senator Day's bill, but that is the core of his proposal. There's much that I like beyond this, but the core of his proposal is in front of us with this amendment. And this is a clear-cut opportunity for you to say yes or no to expanded gambling in Minnesota.
DICK DAY: Mr. President.
GARY EICHTEN: If you're just tuning in, you're listening to live coverage of the Minnesota Senators debating whether to put lottery slot machines at Canterbury Park and use the revenue, in part, to pay for a new baseball stadium for the Minnesota Twins.
KNUTSON: Gambling is going on all over this state. There are 17 venues in which we can gamble around this state. And the conversation I had this weekend with constituents of mine is, why can't we control it? We can't control it. It is a virtual monopoly. We have no say in it. I cannot introduce a bill that makes it illegal for people under age 21 to gamble in the State of Minnesota. We have no control over that.
We have to deal with what we have now, and a little competition and a little ability for the State of Minnesota to try to control gambling is the only way to get the gambling under control. There's daily expansion of gambling right now, Senator Hottinger. Across this state, it happens in those 17 venues.
So while we may have some addiction to gambling, this legislature is powerless to do anything about it. And, Senator Hottinger, when we did have the opportunity to do something in May of 1993 to eliminate the state lottery, you voted against that. You voted to allow these gambling addictions statistics to continue. When we had an opportunity to change that, the only opportunity, the only control mechanism we have is on the state lottery.
So, Senator Hottinger, I find it troublesome that you come in now with a current situation where we have 17 venues around the state, where gambling is expanded continually in this state and say that now this is terrible. But when we had the opportunity to eliminate the state lottery, when the one mechanism that the legislature controls, one thing that we can do to change the gambling addiction statistics, and you failed to vote against that. I'm troubled by that.
SPEAKER 1: Senator Hottinger.
JOHN HOTTINGER: Mr. President, Senator Knutson, I don't remember that vote. I suspect it was one of those votes where you put in to create a hole in the budget with nobody to make up the hole. But I'll look into that because that's an interesting point.
I'm getting old. And when I was a kid, I read Nineteen Eighty-Four, George Orwell's book. Now 1984 is 13 years past, but the argument you make is that more is less. That the way to control gambling is by expanding it. The way George Orwell said, that much the same sorts of contradictions would be the way government would end up, and that's where we're ending up with this argument.
More gambling is giving us control. What a bizarre argument? We're ending up here saying, you can have public goods without paying for it because we'll make somebody else pay for it. The debate is simple. We do have a chance to decide whether more gambling is good for the state.
And, yes, we can't control those other things. That was the point I made early on. We don't have jurisdiction about those things. We don't have jurisdiction over casinos. We will in the future have an opportunity to look at the compact that was agreed to by the State of Minnesota. But there are limits to what we can do. The federal government's tied us in, that compact ties us in. We do have an opportunity to vote on whether more is less. And believe me, more is not less. More is more.
SPEAKER 1: Senator Lourey.
BECKY LOUREY: Thank you. Get this untangled here. I'd like to speak in support of Senator Hottinger's amendment. It's been a really interesting debate. I noticed that-- I want to thank you for talking about raising revenues that aren't based on ability to pay. I think that's something we always need to look at is, any way we raise revenues, they should be based on ability to pay, and I'm glad that's in here.
What I don't see in here is a question that I don't know if we have any statistics on it or not, but I'm always curious what's going to happen with our medical assistants costs in the state. Everyone's always complaining on our health and family security budget and how it's always growing out of control. But over 50% of the dollars that we spend on medical assistance goes to seniors in nursing homes.
And if we have more gambling and an expansion of gambling and we know what age population is gambling, what is that going to mean, and how many more people aren't going to have any of their own revenue to help pay for their nursing home costs in the future? I don't know if we have clear statistics on that, but I think that's something to think about it.
And, Senator Day, I know that you mean well when you say that we'll use that money after we're done with its original purpose to pay for education and to pay for property tax relief. But I've had this experience where I introduced the legislation to change the gambling age from 18 to 21. Now, I didn't care if we changed it from 18 to 19 or 20, but I wanted to start that discussion.
Interestingly, I'll point out that two casinos already have changed the gambling age. They have raised it from 18 because they saw those problems. But what did I hear in committee when I ran around with that bill? I heard this. I heard, no, no, no. We can't change that gambling age because do you know how much money we get from these 18 and 19 and 20 and 21-year-olds, and it will hurt the budget.
We can't use an expansion of gambling because it's the wrong way to raise revenue. What? We need more revenue so we go and say more people gamble. It's not the right way. It's not the right way to raise revenue.
There is a question about expansion. Senator Day says that there won't be an expansion because the same people will be gambling. No more people will be gambling. If that's the case, then that means that there won't be-- that there will be not as many people going up to Mille Lacs and the Fond Du Lac Band.
I happen to represent an area where the Mille Lacs Band of Ojibwe, under the leadership of Marge Anderson, and the Fond Du Lac Band of Ojibwe under the leadership of Sonny Peacock, are building a base. They're not paying their individual band members. They are building a base, health care, education, trying to help people develop business skills.
Because they say, for however long gambling is around and they don't expect it to be around forever, but forever how long it's around, they want people to become independent. They say, get a job at the casino.
There's a lot of talk about monopoly. And I want to remind everybody that Native American gambling is, because of federal permission, with the state's agreement, to help a population bring itself out of poverty. And they are, in fact, bringing not only themselves out of poverty in the area of the state I represent, but they are bringing an enormous number of non-Native Americans out of poverty.
Mostly, in the Hinckley area, it's non-Native Americans who have jobs there, they now have health care for the first time. For the first time, these people have access to health care. I can't tell you how many times I tried to get Blue Cross Blue Shield to accept a clinic in Sandstone.
There weren't enough doctors there. They didn't want them in their network because there just weren't enough doctors there. We couldn't get any doctors to come practice in those areas.
Now, because these people have health care, they have Medicare, the Mora Clinic has built a new clinic in Hinckley. The Sandstone Clinic has built a new clinic in-- I mean, the Moose Lake Clinic has built a new clinic in Sandstone. These people now have health care, which says something about-- I guess they do go where the dollar is. But anyway, they do have health care in these areas now.
Huge cut in the AFDC rolls, lower unemployment rates. And clearly with the development, a help to the property tax base in Pine County. And so I just want people to realize that this is, in fact, helping in this area of the state.
The other question that I'd like to ask is, what's going to happen to the $16 million that the bands currently give to the general fund if this goes forward? So I really do speak in support of Senator Hottinger's amendment for all of the reasons that I've mentioned.
SPEAKER 1: Senator Pariseau.
PAT PARISEAU: Thank you, Mr. President. It's obvious to me that every member in the place, as well as those in the other body, are struggling with all the people they hear from and the stories they hear from them. And I know that each of you probably have the same situation I have. I have friends on every side of this issue. I have supporters on every side of this issue, and I have constituents on every side of this issue.
Senator Hottinger, the debate is not simple, but the choices are obvious. And the public says no taxes, no tax money should go for this, and especially, no new taxes. There's a dearth of opinion, however, on whether we should build a stadium or not. There are the people who say, build at all costs. There are people who say don't build under any circumstances.
There are people who have specific ideas, sometimes very esoteric, on how you can fund a stadium. They are the two proposals we have before us today. And there are even the people who say, give the current stadium to the team and let them figure out how to cash flow the whole operation.
And then there are the people who call and they like to lambaste one side or the other. Senator Hottinger has talked about what he considered a racial call. We've heard some of those. We've heard some of the people who like to lambaste somebody with money because he owns the team, and therefore, he should foot the bill.
We like to lambaste the players because they get a lot of money for playing. Well, I don't think they could pay me enough to play one of those games to get hit by a ball or get hit by another big body in football, any of those.
At the same time, I try to ignore and try to detach every one of those personality items from the calls and say, what is rational? What is reasonable? What is also creative that could do this? I don't want to push the Twins out of town. I've only been to two games in my life. I'm not sure when I'll go next. But, boy, when they won the two championships, I was the first person out there buying some of that memorabilia for my kids who were real fans.
If I detach those things and start thinking about the options that are present to me, I can spend taxpayer dollars, I can increase new taxes, or I can take something that most of the public who say, don't build a stadium, and then when you let them talk long enough and ask them the question, well, what about slots at Canterbury, they'll say, that's all right. But don't spend the lottery money, don't spend taxpayer dollars, don't take general fund money, and don't do a lot of other things.
And, in fact, I had an interesting discussion at a chamber meeting about two weeks ago in a city in my district, where I was discussing with a small bunch of people-- that's the only topic that ever comes up, you all know that, everywhere you go. You go to a fairgrounds and you shiver out in the cold and they talk to you about it. If you go to dinner with your husband or wife, you still talk about it.
But this discussion took place, and the small group of people said, don't build that stadium under any circumstances. I listed all their opinions and they each had different reasons and they were businessmen. And then I said to them, well, what about slots at Canterbury? Well, that's OK. Every one of them came to that position as, yes, slots at Canterbury.
At that moment, a banker walked up and said, you've got to build that stadium because we need the Twins here. I said, well, now wait a minute. Don't let these other people leave. I wanted them to hear the discussion. So he discussed his reasons why we had to build at any cost. And I said, well, what do you think about slots at Canterbury? He says, that's the best idea of all. Now, both sides came to the middle position, I'd say, of slots at Canterbury as a funding mechanism.
And so I don't want them to leave. And I think about a couple of years down the road, such as other people have mentioned, if we do nothing, if we can't find a way to fund them and we do nothing and they do leave, both sides will say we were wrong. If we build it today, both sides may say we're wrong.
However, can I defend my vote in a short time or in two years or in 10 years down the road? I want to be able to do that. Slots at Canterbury will allow me to do that, and I will vote yes. So I would like to see you vote this amendment down.
CHARLIE BYRD: Mr. President.
SPEAKER 1: Senator Byrd.
CHARLIE BYRD: Mr. President, I'm going to try to--
GARY EICHTEN: You're listening to live coverage of the Senate debate on whether to spend public money on a new baseball park for the Minnesota Twins, specifically, whether slot machines should be installed at Canterbury Park and the revenues used, in part, to pay for the ballpark. This is independent Senator, Charlie Byrd.
CHARLIE BYRD: --strictly to protect the monopoly that the Native Americans have on gambling in this state. I've watched the people in the gallery today, several of whom lobbied for the Native Americans and have told me a number of times that they give only their money to the DFLers because they're our friends and they're going to protect us.
Now, I've been to five of the casinos in the last year. Mystic Lake, the one at Red Wing, the two Mille Lacs, and up at Fortune Bay. And if you think they're not expanding gambling, then you're living in a dream world because they're expanding their facilities regularly. Now, Senator Hottinger's amendment says we'll substitute lottery money for the slots at Canterbury Downs.
JOHN HOTTINGER: No. It doesn't.
CHARLIE BYRD: Kind of reminds me back just before World War II, and I'd never heard President Roosevelt say this, but this statement is attributed to him, I hate war, but I likes the smell of powder. And it seems to me that this amendment is a bad amendment.
That lottery money is public money and goes into the general fund. What he's doing is substituting revenue from Canterbury Park to general fund money. And it seems to me we ought to defeat this amendment because I think it's just a subterfuge to protect the Native American's monopoly.
SPEAKER 1: Senator Schaible.
SCHAIBLE: Thank you, Mr. President. Will Senator Hottinger yield?
SPEAKER 1: Yes. He'll yield.
SCHAIBLE: Senator Hottinger, you handed out a pamphlet on reliance and gambling and stop the public addiction. My assumption is that you agree with the handout and the points made on that?
JOHN HOTTINGER: Mr. President, Senator Schaible, I think the value of handouts is to make you think. Certainly, I agree with the general overall perspective that is evidenced by those things.
SPEAKER 1: Senator Schaible.
SCHAIBLE: Mr. President, Senator Hottinger, then, my understanding is that you do oppose all statewide gambling. Is that correct? You're talking about the negative impacts of gambling, so my assumption is you oppose all gambling in Minnesota.
SPEAKER 1: Senator Hottinger.
JOHN HOTTINGER: Mr. President, Senator Schaible, I oppose the expansion of gambling by state action. One of the things I've learned-- and I don't recall the debate in 1993 or the context of it, but one of the things I think we have learned a lot about in recent years is the terrible social costs that gambling provides.
One of the things we've learned, if you talk to your Human Service directors down in Fillmore County and the other counties in Southwest Minnesota, they're going to tell you that the biggest problem that are facing families in Minnesota right now in terms of increased difficulty is the expansion of gambling addiction.
I learned that. And that's one of the things that's valuable about service in this legislature is you start getting more information so you can make better decisions. As a result of what I've learned, I am not interested in sanctioning having the State of Minnesota sanction additional gambling.
SPEAKER 1: Senator Schaible.
SCHAIBLE: Mr. President and Senator Hottinger, all the gambling that occurs in this state is sanctioned by the state. And so what I'm wondering, I mean, if it occurs within our boundaries, it is our jurisdiction. So what I'm wondering is-- my understanding is that while it might be subject to challenge, we could end all gambling in Minnesota as long as we applied it across the board.
Are you only concerned about the ills of expansion of gambling, or about the ills of gambling? To me, there's a big distinction. I don't want to segment out one part of our society and say it's OK for them and not for someone else. I guess I'm wondering is, are you willing to go forward with the plan to end all gambling in Minnesota because of the social problems it's creating?
SPEAKER 1: Senator Hottinger.
JOHN HOTTINGER: Mr. President, Senator Schaible, I think it's more valuable to talk about the issue that's in front of the body and the issue where we have jurisdiction. If you intend to support Senator Day's proposal, be very clear. You are supporting an expansion of gambling.
The issue here in front of this body has nothing to do with what we can do in terms of future compacts. An agreement was worked out with the Indian community, and much of the opposition's to that is an effort, frankly, to cut off their bootstraps that we asked them to lift themselves up by.
The issue in front of us is clear. Senator Pariseau put it very aptly, it's not easy, but it's clear. And that's whether or not, in order to build a baseball stadium, we want to expand gambling. That's our jurisdiction here. That's the issue here. That's what's important.
SPEAKER 1: Senator Schaible.
SCHAIBLE: Mr. President and Senator Hottinger, the debate is becoming a bit confusing on your amendment because I just heard Senator Lourey support your amendment talk about the negative impact of gambling, but then talk about the positive benefits it's brought to a certain segment of our society.
And so I find a lack of continuity here. Is gambling good for one group and not for another? If we're going to stop the expansion of gambling, as you're talking about-- and make no doubt, as Senator Berg just said, gambling is expanding daily.
If that is the debate you want to have, then we need to have the debate about gambling that's occurring throughout Minnesota in every location and not pick out one location and say, it's bad there, but it's good everywhere else. And so what I want to know is, is your position that Minnesota will and should end all gambling, or are you saying that a certain amount of social ill is acceptable?
SPEAKER 1: Senator Hottinger.
JOHN HOTTINGER: Mr. President, Senator Schaible, that's all irrelevant. The issue in front of us, and you need to understand what the issue is instead of going off on side tracks. Because I know you'd like to find a way to support expanding gambling, and you'd like to find a way to support Senator Day. And that's nice, but let's not blur what the issue is.
The issue is whether or not we should expand gambling by the state. The State of Minnesota should say, it's good public policy. It's good public policy to have more gambling in the state. It's not whether charitable gambling is paying for the lancers. That's another issue for another day. And I think you're right, it's worthy of a good debate.
But what we have jurisdiction on now and what we have jurisdiction on today, and the decision you're going to have to make is whether or not you believe it's good public policy for the State of Minnesota to add additional gambling, not by some private group, not by the tribes, but by the State of Minnesota.
SPEAKER 1: Senator Schaible.
SCHAIBLE: Mr. President, my last comment. Senator Hottinger, you are ascribing what you assume is my position. And so in kind, I would have to ascribe that my perception of your position is you do not want gambling at Canterbury Park, but you do like it everywhere else. So unless you're willing to go forward and ban gambling entirely in the state, I have to assume that your goal is to protect one interest at the expense of someone else.
JOHN HOTTINGER: Mr. President.
SPEAKER 1: Senator Hottinger.
JOHN HOTTINGER: One final comment. Senator Schaible, I take back my description of what your goal is, and we'll wait and see how you vote. The rest of it is nonsense. Senator Schaible, I think you have to learn to understand that when we debate an issue as to whether or not we should expand gambling, being opposed to expanding gambling isn't sanctioning what's already going on.
We have jurisdiction to act in one area. We have authority to act in one area. And blurring that issue, for whatever reason, doesn't contribute to a good decision.
SPEAKER 1: Senator Stevens.
DAN STEVENS: Thank you, Mr. President. Would Senator Hottinger yield?
SPEAKER 1: Yes. He'll yield.
DAN STEVENS: Yeah. With the handout here in the Joint Religious Legislative Coalition, you already heard from Senator Day on the love affair that the Catholic Church, and I'm Catholic, has with bingo, so I think we can already establish that.
But I can also tell you that, in my public position, I bought a lot of raffle tickets from the Lutheran Church, from the Presbyterian Church, from the Methodist Church, and so I'm somewhat amused that they talk about the reliance on gambling because those forms also are forms of gambling.
But my question to you is in regards to the statement here that in Minnesota, 2% of the gamblers in the state's 17 Indian casinos account for 63% of the money wagered, which would mean that 98% of the people go there only wager about 37% of the dollars. Probably fairly responsible. Won't gamble any probably set limits and such.
So I think the vast majority of the people that do engage in this, and 50% of the people in the State of Minnesota do not go to casinos, we heard that from the lottery director, Mr. Anderson. But help refresh my memory, because Senator Day brought other things up from the Department of Health and Human Services that said, the slot machines, of which we are all in agreement here today, the state does not participate in is the largest source of addiction.
What do we get to the State of Minnesota in contribution from the casinos existing today for the compulsive gambling programs that we at the State of Minnesota fund?
SPEAKER 1: Senator Hottinger.
JOHN HOTTINGER: Mr. President, Senator Stevens, I don't know. I think we get about $17 million from the tribes as a contribution through sales taxes. Whether it's dedicated to compulsive gambling, I have my doubts. By the way, my diocese has stopped gambling. There's no bingo anymore in the Catholic Churches in my area. They learned and grew in understanding as to the social costs of gaming. So, at least, my diocese is going in the right direction.
SPEAKER 1: Senator Stevens.
DAN STEVENS: Well, Mr. President, Senator Hottinger, you referenced, again, the sales tax sharing and such, but I don't-- that's not what I'm asking about because I don't know of any other business allowed to operate in the State of Minnesota that collects sales tax for the State of Minnesota and gets to keep half the proceeds.
Everybody else that collects sales tax, whatever business they're in, sends 100% of it into the State of Minnesota. This seems to be the only industry that gets to keep 50% of it. I don't know why we do that. But I think directly what it's getting at here is, and this is verified, but what you handed out is we have a problem, but we're paying for it in the State of Minnesota with our general fund dollars but we're not participating in causing the problem.
So I think in referencing Senator Day's bill on page 24, lines 2 through 4, the director and the location provider shall establish a proactive plan to identify problem gamblers and take appropriate action. I think that's very responsible.
I think if the state's going to participate, which if we pass this legislation, they will, we will be taking a very, very proactive approach on identifying and taking action with those 2% that are causing a problem. We can't say that about the industry today, and we are receiving, to my knowledge, very little in our compulsive gambling programs to solve those problems of those 2%.
JOHN HOTTINGER: Mr. President.
SPEAKER 1: Senator Hottinger.
JOHN HOTTINGER: I agree with you, Senator Stevens, that is a responsible way to do that. And I appreciate Senator Day including that in his bill. The problem is, once again, as you ironically noted, we don't participate in causing the problem.
Well, the answer is not to start participating in causing the problem. It's a problem. I would hope the tribal communities would contribute more to the resolution of it. I think that would be a very beneficial thing for the state and beneficial for the people who patronize their facilities.
But, again, the decision we have, do we participate more in causing the problem and justify it by the fact that some small part of the revenue would take care of the compulsive gambling? I don't think that's the way to go.
SPEAKER 1: Senator Stevens.
GARY EICHTEN: You're listening to live coverage of a debate in the Minnesota Senate over whether slot machines and blackjack tables should be added to Canterbury Park, with the revenues, in part, used to pay for a new baseball stadium for the Minnesota Twins, part of a much larger debate at the Capitol over whether public money should be used for a baseball stadium.
SPEAKER 1: Senator Neuville.
THOMAS NEUVILLE: Mr. President, has anyone asked for a roll call yet?
SPEAKER 1: Yes. The roll call has been requested.
THOMAS NEUVILLE: OK. I would have three points to make. And I stand in opposition to the Senator Hottinger amendment. First of all--
MARTIN KASTE: That's Senator Tom Neuville of Northfield.
THOMAS NEUVILLE: Regardless of what you think about gambling, I think what the general public has said even more clear is that we don't want to use general fund money to fund a stadium. And Senator Hottinger's amendment will take that money from the general fund, money that is now going to the general fund from the state lottery.
Secondly, I served on the gambling committee before it was disbanded for several years. And the thing that always struck me as somewhat ironic is that when proposals would come in, whether it was slot machines in the bars or off-track betting at Canterbury, and some of the other issues that were argued to expand gambling, everybody would be opposed, it seems, to the state sanctioning some expansion of gambling.
But then, inevitably, Senator Berg would ask the same people testifying, well, do you also opposed the expansion of gambling at the Indian casinos? And the answer almost always would be, oh, we take no position on that. And I always thought that that was kind of a strange answer for people to be so morally opposed to gambling.
And frankly, I'm not an advocate for gambling either. I've probably been as strong an advocate to restrict gambling in my career here as most people. But I always thought it was a little bit inconsistent, I won't use a stronger word, for people to say, we oppose the expansion in one area, but we won't do anything to limit the expansion in the area where we do 3/4 of our gambling in Minnesota and have almost no regulation at all.
And it's interesting that Senator Berg did have a bill a couple of years ago that would have just requested that we renegotiate our compacts with the Indians, and it would have given us some ability to regulate that, to maybe prevent expansion, addition of lots of new slot machines, and some of the people that are arguing for the Hottinger Amendment, including Senator Hottinger, voted against that. And that does cause me, at least, to question some of the motives of your amendment, Senator Hottinger.
My third and final point is that, it really isn't clear that the issue is as you state. The issue isn't necessarily whether we're going to fund a new stadium by state-sponsored gambling. Because you can expand gambling by commission, which is what you're opposing, where we actually do it ourselves, sponsored through the state lottery, but we can also do it by omission.
If we do nothing, the unregulated gaming that occurs on the Indian reservations will continue to expand. The way that I view personally this issue, even as an opponent for a long time of expanding gambling in Minnesota, is that this is more of a market shift.
If the Canterbury racetrack was located anywhere else but 4 miles down the road from the biggest casino in Minnesota, you might have a better argument. If it was located at the Mega Mall or in downtown Minneapolis, you would have a good argument. But we're taking a 10%, maybe, market shift, or maybe we're just preventing them from expanding a little bit faster by authorizing the slot machines and blackjack at Canterbury Downs.
And so we're going to have expansion no matter what. The question is whether it's going to be because of our affirmative action or because of our nonaction which will allow expansion in another venue over which we have absolutely no regulation, no ability to collect any taxes, no ability to set the purse, the prizes that get paid, and that's what's happening, that's the reality of what's happening right now.
And so it seems to me that-- this is maybe not the best analogy, but it's kind of like, you can't be half pregnant. Minnesota has gambling. And, I mean, I've been saying this for a few years. I think D-day is coming. We have to decide whether we're going to be a gaming state or not.
I may come back with a bill that I proposed about three years ago which would ban all gambling in the State of Minnesota prospectively so that we can do a lawsuit and see whether we can shut the casinos down, too. Because it doesn't serve any purpose to do it just piecemeal.
But if all of you folks here who are so against gambling are really against gambling and all the social ills that it causes, let's shut it all down. We can do it. We have escape clauses in our compacts if we have the courage to take that issue on. But I suspect that the Indian politics that's underlying most of what we're talking about here today will make that very difficult.
JOHN HOTTINGER: Mr. President.
SPEAKER 1: Senator Hottinger.
JOHN HOTTINGER: Just briefly, Senator Neuville, I'm somewhat saddened to hear that you're not going to support my amendment. You have been a strong opponent of gambling, and I've admired that. I'm surprised you buy into the more is less argument.
But I want to talk about the bill, Senator Berg's bill, one of the reasons I didn't support it is I had a better bill. Your folks doing the research were good at finding amendments that you think are in conflict. However, they didn't do a very detailed job. Because I sponsored a bill to do the same thing, only in a less punitive fashion, I thought, than Senator Berg's.
So I had an alternative proposal that was co-sponsored in the House side by the chair of the gambling subcommittee. So that is the explanation of that one, which I, at least, remember. Thank you.
SPEAKER 1: Senator Johnson.
JOHNSON: Thank you, Mr. President. There's been a lot of talk by a lot of members in this body about what constitutes an expansion of gambling. Some people say, oh, there's no expansion of gambling going on, and others are saying, hey, there's an expansion going on all the time.
I think ultimately, what's going to matter is what the Supreme Court and the constitution says deals with or constitutes an expansion of gambling. Now, I know there's two or three related proposals that have to do with casinos and slots at Canterbury.
So I want to throw this out. I doubt if I'll change any votes on this, but it's something for everybody to think about in terms of what the constitution says and what this Minnesota Supreme Court has said about what constitutes permissible gambling and what this legislature, what this body's authority is with respect to gambling.
If you got your constitutions with you, article 13, section 5 says that the legislature shall not authorize any lottery or the sale of lottery tickets other than authorizing a lottery and sale of lottery tickets for lottery operated by the State of Minnesota.
Under that provision, all lotteries are prohibited under the State of Minnesota unless they meet three tests. One is it's a lottery, two, it's involving the sale of lottery tickets, and three, it's operated by the state. And if all three of those aren't met, it's not permissive and we don't have the authority to legislate in that area.
And with respect to all other forms of gambling, under the constitution, we do not have the power or authority to legislate in this area. There's a case a few years back in the Minnesota precedent, and this case is the case of Rice versus Connolly.
It involved the late Representative Jim Rice and an act that was passed by the Minnesota legislature that tried to expand the provision dealing with parimutuel on-track betting to include off-track betting. Representative Rice took the time to read the constitution, and he brought a lawsuit against the State of Minnesota, and he won.
And when the decision was rendered, there was a couple of things to keep in mind that, I think, are instructive and I think what the court is going to look at when this case comes before it, if this proposal passes.
The first is that the words of the constitution, the terms of the constitution serve as terms of limitation on the power of this body. And what that means is, if it's not expressly set out in the constitution, it is prohibited. We don't have the authority to do that.
The second important and instructive thing set out in the Rice case or precedent is the idea that in interpreting terms of the constitution, you have to give it its clear, ordinary, everyday definition of the term.
So go back to the amendment that I just referenced at the beginning, the constitutional amendment. Slot machines are not mentioned anywhere. If you define the everyday clear definition of the term lottery, it doesn't mean slot machine. However, some have argued that--
I've got a official memoranda here from the Minnesota State lottery that deals with the constitutionality of slots at Canterbury Park. And they say it is a lottery based on cases in other states that have absolutely zero precedential value in Minnesota.
And as a matter of fact, similar arguments were made in the Rice case and the briefs of the people that wanted to expand gambling, and they were rejected by the Minnesota Supreme Court in that case.
But let's just assume for a minute, let's just assume for a minute that the lottery does include that term. Again, read the test. It says-- let's just insert the term slot machine for lottery-- the legislature shall not authorize any slot machine or the sale of lottery tickets other than authorizing a slot machine and sale of lottery tickets for a lottery operated by the state.
Well, as far as I know, and as far as anything I can guess, there are no slot machines that involve the sale of tickets. So I think the second prong is not met, and therefore, the slot machine proposal at Canterbury or any of the casino proposals to be placed in the Metropolitan area are constitutionally suspect.
And I think another thing that you need to look at here is that you have to look at the legislative history. In the Rice case, the court looked at the legislative history to determine what the intent of the legislature was in drafting or putting that measure on the ballot.
I think here, if you look at the provision that deals with the lottery and what the legislature said when they passed it, it was not meant to be a broad expansion. It wasn't meant to mean that every form of gambling with any game of chance was now authorized in the State of Minnesota, as long as it was operated by the State of Minnesota.
It was meant to get at the very specific scratch-off games at your local convenience store now. Nothing broader than that. And, again, if it were to be broader than that, it's up to the people of the State of Minnesota to decide, not to the legislature. So I think that it is constitutionally suspect. I know everybody has different views on it.
And I'd like to talk a little bit about the Minnesota Lottery, the constitutionality slots, the opinion that was distributed here. And this opinion concerns me a little bit because for most people who aren't lawyers, first, you made a pretty good career choice.
But secondly, when you do these opinions, there are a number of things you have to look at. And some of the things you have to look at when you interpret the constitution is, one, you put in the entire relevant constitutional provision. Two, you have to, at least, mention and explain away relevant Minnesota precedent, OK?
And three, if you want to look at other states, you can do that. If you look at this case, if you look at this opinion, it is very defective, and let me tell you why. First of all, it talks about one third of the 2/3 of-- it leaves out 2/3 of the legislature or the test in the constitution. It doesn't talk about the first part, which says-- or it doesn't analyze here in the second paragraph what the first part of the test is, which is the general prohibition on all forms of lottery.
Secondly, it doesn't mention the key prong in this test, which is, how do you get around the idea that this proposal doesn't involve the sale of lottery tickets? Third, and I think this shows-- is probably the biggest defect, it does not point out the relevant Minnesota precedent that the Minnesota Supreme Court has ruled upon.
They went and they looked at Missouri and they looked at Kansas, but we're not in Kansas anymore, people. This is Minnesota. They didn't look at the Minnesota case. They looked at the Kansas case. They looked at the Missouri case.
Not only did those cases have no precedential value, unlike the Rice case, but in prior cases before the Minnesota Supreme Court, those arguments were made by people who wanted to expand gambling, and the Minnesota Supreme Court rejected it. And I guess a part of the reason this concerns me is, being a new member, I'm naive, and I think that Minnesota State agencies ought to be giving us unbiased opinions.
Because of the defective nature, the extreme defective nature of this opinion, I can't help but wondering whether the real intent here is to expand gambling for the Minnesota State lottery. And I think that's something we all ought to be concerned about regardless of our views on this issue.
So why do I take the time to glaze everybody's eyes over and try to explain this when, I got to tell you, it's not even fun to try and explain this. It's simple. The reason, I think, we're here today is to answer two questions. One, whether we want to fund a publicly-owned stadium to keep the Twins in Minnesota. And two, if so, what are the viable options?
This proposal goes to-- and some of the other proposals will go to the number two, which is, what are viable options? I think what you can know from this option and why I don't think it's viable is this. One, you can certainly expect a court challenge to this. There have been groups that have already said they are going to challenge this.
Two, based on the Minnesota constitution and the cases that the Minnesota Supreme Court has already decided in this area, there's between a 75% and a 90% probability that if we pass this and it is challenged, in my view, at least, it will be held unconstitutional.
Therefore, I think we might want to consider spending our time on more viable and constructive ways of dealing with the issue-- with the second part of the test and look to what can be more viable or what is viable, what is constitutionally acceptable for us to do. And what power we do have is to oppose to what power this legislature does not have, which is to authorize slot machines at Canterbury or casinos anywhere in the Metropolitan area. Thank you.
SPEAKER 1: Senator Spear.
GARY EICHTEN: You're listening to live debate of the Minnesota Senate, discussing whether or not slot machines and blackjack tables should be installed at Canterbury Park to help pay for a new baseball stadium for the Minnesota Twins. Coming up on Talk of the Nation, a discussion of what's been going on in the stock market.
ALLAN SPEAR: --that I really don't think I have very much to add other than to say that I think his warnings ought to be taken very seriously. I remember the Rice case, and I remember the very bad advice that we got in Senator Berg's committee from some very distinguished constitutional lawyers, including a former chief justice of the Supreme Court, telling us with a great deal of assuredness that off-track betting would be legal without an additional constitutional amendment.
And, of course, they proved to be wrong. So I think that what Senator-- the analysis that Senator Johnson has provided has a great deal of merit.
But I'd like to also say a few things about Senator Neuville's remarks just a few minutes ago about consistency and moral judgments in regard to gambling.
GARY EICHTEN: This is Minneapolis State Senator Allan Spear.
ALLAN SPEAR: It would be a much simpler world if every judgment we made was a simple moral judgment. I think I have a fairly consistent anti-gambling record over the years. I think I probably voted with you on the resolution that we should get rid of the lottery.
I opposed the lottery initially. I opposed horse racing initially. I have generally been opposed over the years to the expansion of gambling, and to the establishment, to the legalization of gambling in the first place. But I haven't been totally consistent, and it's impossible to be totally consistent. We always have to make judgments around here that sometimes involve lesser evils.
After we established horse racing, I came to the conclusion that among the various forms of gambling, horse racing was not as bad as some of the others. That horse racing was-- the parimutuel betting on horse racing was less addictive, that the horse racing industry was a valuable asset to the State of Minnesota, that it had a lot of ancillary benefits to the state in terms of the horse breeding industry and the agricultural industries that it encouraged.
And so I supported, at various times, bills to help Canterbury Downs survive. And I have decided that that is not a form of gambling that I oppose quite as much as some other forms of gambling. The same thing with Indian gambling.
Now, Senator Neuville said he finds it difficult to understand how someone can get up and talk about how much they are opposed to the expansion of gambling, but when they are asked about Indian gambling, they say they have no position. Well, I don't find that so difficult to understand.
When we get into the question of Indian gambling, we have some very difficult trade-offs. Many of us who oppose gambling, but also support the opportunities that it gives to the tribes, have a great deal of difficulty in balancing the various moral positions that that equation entails.
I wish that the Indian tribes in this country had found some device other than gambling to help create greater opportunities on their reservations. That isn't the way it worked out. It turned out that gambling was the one way in which the tribes have been able to successfully improve their economic status. And I'm glad they were able to do that.
I particularly admire those tribes that Senator Lourey was talking about a few minutes ago up in her area, the Mille Lacs Band who have used the proceeds from gaming to develop the infrastructure on their reservations, to improve education and health facilities on their reservations. I think that's a good thing.
Now, does that mean that I'm for gambling? Well, no. But if there's going to be gambling, I'd rather have it used for that purpose than for some other purpose. And frankly, would rather have it used for that purpose to improve health and educational opportunities for disadvantaged people than I would to use it to build a baseball stadium. That would be the priorities that I would establish.
So, Senator Neuville, these issues are complex. There are a lot of grays. It isn't all black and white. And I don't think that those of us who have opposed various forms of gambling over the years ought to be required to take an absolutistic position, and that somehow we lose our moral standing if we have not opposed, at every instance, every form of gambling in the state.
There are always trade-offs. The issues are not always cut and dried. And I think we sometimes have to make moral judgments that are difficult.
SPEAKER 1: So further discussion on the Hottinger Amendment. Senator Morse.
STEVEN MORSE: Thank you, Mr. President. I listened to the last two speakers, and I think they did a good job of summarizing the legal arguments, and they were, some of them, primary issues that I had raised in my mind. And I guess I would like to hear from Senator Day what type of response or how he would refute those legal arguments and then I'd have a follow-up question.
SPEAKER 1: Senator Day.
DICK DAY: Mr. President, and I would--
GARY EICHTEN: Martin Kaste is monitoring the debate, of course, at the Minnesota State Capitol and standing by. Martin, it sounds like the debate could go on yet for quite some while just on this particular proposal.
MARTIN KASTE: Well, yes. But this is more than just one little amendment. I think, as listeners who've been paying attention for an hour or so here probably have gathered, this is about the heart and soul of the Dick Day bill to fund the stadium with money from the Canterbury Park Casino because if you take out the casino, you pretty much take out the money.
So, obviously, this is going to attract a lot more debate than some other, perhaps, more procedural amendments. We're probably going to look at a couple-- maybe another half an hour of this. We'll be sure to let you know when we do have a vote on that.
GARY EICHTEN: OK. So a vote on this one way or the other. And other proposals will be voted on, too, today?
MARTIN KASTE: Yes. Well, this will probably have some time to go yet even after this vote on this amendment to finish up the Dick Day proposal, culminating with a vote up or down. And then they'll move on to the other bill in the Senate which relies on user fees and taxes and some lottery money as well.
GARY EICHTEN: If none of these bills pass today, is the stadium then dead?
MARTIN KASTE: If they fail to pass but there's not a distinctive vote, no, it's not necessarily dead. They could reconvene tomorrow. It depends what the leadership decides. And if they decide not to vote, either way, the governor may call them back to session 2. But if they do vote clearly, no, probably so, at least, for the time being.
GARY EICHTEN: Well, keep us posted, Martin. Appreciate it.
MARTIN KASTE: All right.
GARY EICHTEN: Minnesota Public Radio reporter Martin Kaste at the Minnesota State Capitol as debate continues in both Houses. You've been listening to debate in the Minnesota Senate on whether money, public money should be used to build a stadium for the Minnesota Twins, in this case, whether a slot machine should be installed at Canterbury Park and the revenues used for that purpose. We will keep you posted here on Minnesota Public Radio.
Reminder that programming of Minnesota Public Radio is supported by the Guthrie Theater, presenting the final week of Racing Demon and Noel Coward's, Blithe Spirit. Performances end this week. Tickets are available at 377-2224.
That does it for our Midday coverage today. Talk of the Nation coming up next, a look at the stock market. Tomorrow we will hear from the candidates for mayor in Minneapolis and the candidates for mayor in Saint Paul.
Digitization made possible by the State of Minnesota Legacy Amendment’s Arts and Cultural Heritage Fund, approved by voters in 2008.
Views and opinions expressed in the content do not represent the opinions of APMG. APMG is not responsible for objectionable content and language represented on the site. Please use the "Contact Us" button if you'd like to report a piece of content. Thank you.
Transcriptions provided are machine generated, and while APMG makes the best effort for accuracy, mistakes will happen. Please excuse these errors and use the "Contact Us" button if you'd like to report an error. Thank you.