The study averaged the net worth of each member. When members file their financial disclosure statements, they list assets and liabilities as part of minimum and maximum bet worth and CRP averaged those. For example, Sen. Amy Klobuchar reported a minimum net worth of $345,029 and a maximum of $1,104,000 for an average net worth of $724,512.

In Minnesota politics, the Republican members are much wealthier than the DFLers.

The wealthiest member of Minnesota’s delegation was Sen. Al Franken with an average net worth of $8,747,525 followed by Rep. Michele Bachmann at $1,783,508 and Rep. Chip Cravaack in 217th place with an average net worth of $1,391,551.

Those three were in the top half of Congress’ 535 members.

After Klobuchar’s $724,512 comes Rep. Erik Paulsen with an average net worth of $487,017, Rep. John Kline had $471,006, Rep. Collin Peterson had $263,005, Rep. Tim Walz with $247,502, and Rep. Betty McCollum with an average net worth of $88,005.

Rep. Keith Ellison had the lowest net worth, with negative $14,497.

The generally accepted cutoff for the top 1 percent of Americans in terms of net worth is about $9 million on 2010, a threshold that none of the Minnesota delegation report.

Eleven percent of Congress is in the top 1 percent in terms of net worth.

Members of Minnesota’s congressional delegation signed onto a letter urging the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to speed up the approval process for medical devices.

It was signed by 41 members of Congress, including Sen. Amy Klobuchar, Rep. Betty McCollum, Sen. Al Franken, Rep. John Kline, Rep. Michele Bachmann and Rep. Erik Paulsen, who the Minnesota Independent previously reported is a major recipient of the industry’s campaign donations.

The letter notes that medical devices are appearing in Europe months or years before they’re approved in the United States.

“Unless we make significant improvements to the predictability and transparency of the regulatory process, we will lose the industry, the jobs that go with it, and the innovation to transform our healthcare system,” the letter states.

The members of Congress offer some changes to the FDA’s approval process in the letter, including instituting a new tracking system and changing conflict of interest requirements of those serving on advisory panels.

“We recognize the need to balance risk and benefit; we all share patient safety as our primary concern, but there must be a “least burdensome approach” to achieve this without crippling an industry,” the letter states.

The medical device industry is a major backer of Paulsen, with donations from industry Political Action Committees (PACs) and executives helping to make him the lead fundraiser in Minnesota’s House delegation.

The New York Times later noted that efforts to reform the agency’s procedures are part of a push from venture capitalists investing in the industry. Congressional hearings on the subject have been overloaded with industry supporters, paying little attention to the potential dangers of medical devices.

The letter from Klobuchar and other signatories:

Dear Dr. Hamburg,

The bipartisan, bicameral Congressional Medical Technology Caucus, and other members of Congress join together to express our concerns about regulatory issues facing the medical device industry. This is an industry that has become increasingly important as dramatic improvements over the last decade have revolutionized healthcare and improved the quality of life for millions of Americans.

We share your commitment to ensuring safe and effective medical devices are available to patients. However, we are very concerned about recent declines in FDA performance. Increased review times, inconsistent expectations, and poor communication from the FDA are causing a lack of confidence and instability in the industry.

From the President’s own Jobs Council report released this month

“Today, however, our medical innovation ecosystem is in jeopardy. Investment in the life sciences area is declining at an alarming rate because of the escalating cost, time and risk of developing new drugs and devices. While many factors have contributed to this decline – including challenges around reimbursement and the general state of the economy – an important factor is the uncertain FDA regulatory environment. These concerns come at a time when Europe, China, and India continue to entice companies to take their medical research and development enterprises abroad, putting at risk our ability to keep private investment and jobs here at home.” [1]

Dissatisfaction with the approval process is no longer just anecdotal: data shows the average time to approve a 510(k) application has increased by 43% from the 2003-2007 period to 2010.[2] The average time to approve a PMA application has increased 75%.[3] The total review times for both 510(k)s and PMAs are now actually longer than they were before the user fee program was instituted.[4]

It has also become significantly more costly to get new products approved. Companies spend an additional $520,000 a month as they wait for FDA approval of a 510(k) product and $740,000 each month for a PMA product.[5] This is simply unsustainable.

Today, the United States accounts for 40 percent of the global medical technology market[6] and the industry indirectly creates two million American jobs.[7] Maintaining American leadership in this field is essential for jobs and for patients. Unless we make significant improvements to the predictability and transparency of the regulatory process, we will lose the industry, the jobs that go with it, and the innovation to transform our healthcare system.

We recognize the need to balance risk and benefit; we all share patient safety as our primary concern, but there must be a “least burdensome approach” to achieve this without crippling an industry. We urge you to make every possible improvement to cut down device approval time by:

• Recognizing and correcting the disparity between “FDA time” versus real time when tracking device approvals
• Considering potential benefits of harmonization with international testing standards
• Addressing the unintended consequences of the conflict of interest rules for advisory panels
• Creating a transparent tracking and review system for applications and clearance decisions

These are just some of the ways the FDA can improve the process.

We appreciate the FDA’s efforts in developing an Innovation Agenda and we recognize these changes will not take place overnight. However, stakeholders from innovators and patients, to investors and physicians all note that if the FDA does not restore regulatory certainty, predictability, and transparency, investment in the industry will continue to decline and this uniquely American success story could disappear.

Sincerely,

Anna G. Eshoo                                                           Erik Paulsen
Amy Klobuchar                                                          Scott P. Brown
Richard Lugar                                                             Al Franken
Debbie Stabenow                                                        Brian Bilbray
Jay Inslee                                                                    David Drier
Michael Honda                                                           Dan Burton
Betty McCollum                                                         Marlin Stutzman
Bob Filner                                                                   Ken Calvert
Jason Altmire                                                              Charles Bass
Andre Carson                                                              Mary Bono Mack
Susan Davis                                                                Michael Burgess
Joe Donnelly                                                               Todd Young
Pat Tiberi                                                                     Michael Rogers
Marsha Blackburn                                                       Jim Gerlach
John Kline                                                                   Michael R. Turner
Charles Dent                                                               Cathy McMorris Rodgers
Michele Bachmann                                                     Brett Guthrie
Aaron Schock                                                             Glenn Thompson
Anne Marie Buerkle                                                    Chris Gibson
Bill Huizenga                                                              Patrick Meehan
Todd Rokita

cc: Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of Health and Human Services

With the 2012 elections looming, states have passed a slew of laws making voting more difficult, including voter ID laws. Opponents of the new laws say the rules will make it harder for minorities and young people to vote in the upcoming elections.

The office of Democratic Whip Rep. Steny Hoyer, D-Md., announced that the letter urges secretaries of state across the country “to oppose new state measures adopted over the last year that would make it harder for eligible voters to register or vote.”

“A year from now, millions of Americans will head to the polls to exercise their most fundamental right—the right to vote,” Hoyer said in a press release. “Unfortunately, in states across the country, partisan measures have been adopted that would make it more difficult for nearly five million voters, particularly the poor, young people, the elderly, and minorities, to register and vote.”

House Democrats signing onto the letter said voter restriction laws were a “disturbing trend.”

“Election legislation and administration appear to be increasingly the product of partisan plays,” the letter read. “It is critical for our democracy that this does not continue. Voting hours, voting sites, identification requirements, voter registration regulation and access to mail ballots should not be used as weapons to achieve a preferred electoral outcome.”

The letter asked secretaries of state to “be vigilant in protecting against fraud but equally vigilant in protecting the franchise for all our citizens.”

“History has taught us that our democracy has suffered far more from elected officials who chose to deny some of our citizens the opportunity to vote than from any other cause,” the letter reads. “There is no greater threat to our democracy than a diminished belief that the rules are fair and fairly administered.”

The letter is signed by Rep. Collin Peterson, Rep. Keith Ellison, Rep. Betty McCollum and Rep. Tim Walz.

A voter ID law was vetoed by Gov. Mark Dayton in 2011, although Rep. Mary Kiffmeyer (R-Big Lake) has said she plans to pursue a voter ID law in 2012 as a constitutional amendment.

“As part of the deficit reduction process, the agriculture committees are responsible for reviewing existing programs and identifying where the Congress can find savings,” the House members wrote on Nov. 3. “However, we are greatly troubled by any attempt to use the Joint Select Committee to authorize costly new mandatory programs without adequate congressional review.”

The Super Committee is tasked with cutting $1.2 trillion over the next decade. In a bid to avoid deeper cuts, four members of congressional agriculture committees, including Rep. Collin Peterson (DFL-Minn.) have been working on a proposal to cut $23 billion from the Farm Bill. Although the plan hasn’t yet been released, it’s expected to eliminate direct payments to farmers in favor of programs focused on lost revenues. Peterson did not reply to a request for comment on the status of the legislation.

“We urge the Joint Select Committee to resist proposals that would go beyond its mandate of deficit reduction and authorize new, complicated agriculture programs that have not been the subject of congressional review,” the letter reads. “If the agricultural committees believe that these cuts will require a fundamental redesign of agricultural programs, those committees can and should move legislation through regular order.”

As the Minnesota Independent reported last week, agricultural lobbyists are gearing up to influence the Farm Bill, which will only be subject to an up or down vote if the Super Committee accepts it. Advocates from environmental and other groups have mobilized against the process.

“Anyone who thinks a bill driven by industry lobbyists, written behind closed doors and negotiated in secret, will be a good deal for taxpayers or the hungry should have their head examined,” said Jim French of Oxfam America in a statement lauding the letter. “Members of the Super Committee should reject the ‘Secret Farm Bill’.”

The full text of the letter is below:

November 3, 2011

The Honorable Patty Murray
Co-Chair, Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction
448 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510

The Honorable Jeb Hensarling
Co-Chair, Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction
129 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Chairwoman Murray and Chairman Hensarling:

We are writing to express our concern with reports that the House and Senate Agriculture Committees intend to use the expedited legislative process of the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction to authorize new Farm Bill programs and entitlements outside of regular order. As part of the Deficit Reduction process, the Agriculture Committees are responsible for reviewing existing programs and identifying where the Congress can find savings. However, we are greatly troubled by any attempt to use the Joint Select Committee to authorize costly new mandatory programs without adequate Congressional review.

As you know, Congress charged the Joint Select Committee with the task of reducing the deficit by $1.5 trillion between 2012 and 2021 and provided for its legislative recommendations to be brought to the floor of both the House and the Senate for expedited consideration. Furthermore, its recommendations are not subject to amendment or filibuster. Congress implemented these rules to dull the pain of politically contentious but fiscally responsible measures. Yet, it has become apparent that some believe they can create new programs and entitlements with limited Congressional scrutiny and input.

We urge the Joint Select Committee to resist proposals that would go beyond its mandate of deficit reduction and authorize new, complicated agriculture programs that have not been the subject of Congressional review. The Joint Select Committee should instead act to find efficiencies within existing programs. If the Agricultural Committees believe that these cuts will require a fundamental redesign of agricultural programs, those Committees can and should move legislation through regular order.

Sincerely,

Ron Kind
Earl Blumenauer
John Campbell
Donna Christensen (Virgin Islands)
Steve Cohen
Peter DeFazio
Keith Ellison
Jeff Flake
Raul Grijalva
Rush Holt
Hank Johnson
Barbara Lee
John Lewis
Tom McClintock
Gwen Moore
Jim Moran
Mick Mulvaney
John Olver
Ron Paul
Tom Petri
Joe Pitts
Adam Smith
Jackie Speier
Pete Stark
Bennie Thompson
Ed Towns
Henry Waxman

Source: Gfpeck, Flickr

One day after 90 percent of union workers rejected the most recent contract offer by American Crystal Sugar, members of the region’s congressional delegations are calling for both parties to return to the bargaining table.

About 1,300 union workers have been locked out of their jobs by American Crystal Sugar since Aug. 1. Since the lockout started, the union and company have only met twice, both times at the urging of a federal mediator. Following the rejection of Monday’s offer, there are no plans to meet again.

Sen. Al Franken said “it’s imperative that both sides continue to work to come to an agreement that will end this lockout and get workers back on the job,” pointing out that all sides play a role in the sugar industry’s success.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar and Rep. Collin Peterson released a joint statement highlighting the impact of the lockout on communities across the Red River Valley: “We continue to urge both Crystal Sugar management and workers to come together at the negotiating table to work out an agreement that allows workers to return to their jobs as soon as possible. American Crystal and these jobs are very important to the region.”

Locked out workers in Minnesota are receiving unemployment benefits, but those who live in North Dakota are denied them under state law. Democratic Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota said in a statement that the “lock-out is taking a serious toll on families in North Dakota and Minnesota and the economic and social impact can be felt up and down the Red River Valley.”

In an interview with the Grand Forks Herald, Conrad admitted that the dispute could harm the chances of a farm bill. Franken has warned in the past that American Crystal Sugar’s tactics of locking out workers could alienate pro-worker members of Congress who have previously supported protections for the sugar industry.

Conrad told the Grand Forks Herald that the “company needs to think long and hard about the consequences, about the implications of their strategy.”

Source: Gfpeck, Flickr

Union members who have been locked out from American Crystal Sugar plants since the start of August rejected the company’s most recent offer in a vote Tuesday.

Ninety percent of voting union workers rejected the deal, according to the union, with 92 percent of all union members voting.

“If company executives are serious about getting us back to work, they should return to the negotiating table immediately with real compromises, not just repackaged versions of a contract that has now been rejected twice,” said Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers Union local 167G President John Riskey. “It’s time for a contract that benefits workers, the company, growers, and the community.”’

The workers in three states have been locked out since they rejected a contract at the end of July, partly due to concerns about the cost of a new health care plan and provisions that would have allowed the company to use more subcontractors.

“Today our members sent a loud and clear message to American Crystal Executives,” said Riskey. “We want to work, but we will not accept a contract that puts our jobs and the entire community at risk.”

The only two previous negotiations were requested by a federal mediator. There are no negotiations scheduled.

The lockout affects 1,300 union workers at facilities in Moorhead, East Grand Forks, Crookston, and Chaska, Minn.; Hillsboro and Drayton, N.D.; and Mason City, Iowa.

Source: Gfpeck, Flickr

After two days of negotiations with a federal mediator, the union representing 1,300 locked out workers at American Crystal Sugar will bring the company’s latest offer to a vote.

Bakery, Confectionery, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers Union local 167G President John Riskey said in a statement that union negotiators weren’t happy with the company’s offer, but that union members deserved an opportunity to accept or reject it.

The workers in three states have been locked out since they overwhelmingly rejected a contract at the end of July, partly due to concerns about the cost of a new health care plan and provisions that would have allowed the company to use more subcontractors.

The company made some movement on the subcontracting front, according to the offer posted (PDF) on an American Crystal Sugar website. The company’s new offer promises that subcontractors won’t be able to replace union workers.

This is only the second time the union and company have met since the Aug. 1 lockout of union workers. The sticking point this time around appeared to be related to health care, according to the company (PDF). Union members say transitioning to the health plan used by the company’s non-union workers would cost workers too much. The company offered to push back implementation of the  non-union health plan by one year.

Riskey described these changes as “minimal” in his statement.

The company didn’t accept provisions offered by the union and condemned them for ”demands for free health care insurance,” saying the union had “no sense of urgency in getting our employees back to work.”

The union didn’t announce when the vote will take place.

The lockout has become increasingly divisive as it moves into its fourth month, with North Dakota state Sen. Tim Mathern recently urging both sides to come to a resolution, the Associated Press reports.

“People are applying for welfare, applying for Medicaid, applying for food stamps,” Mathern said Monday. “They can’t feed their families.”

In an opinion posted on the Forum of Fargo-Moorhead Monday, Minnesota AFL-CIO President Shar Knutson said the lockout could imperil the passage of protections for the sugar industry in Congress.

With American Crystal’s recent treatment of union workers, it’s going to be extremely difficult for organized labor to get behind the sugar program once again. Labor-friendly members of Congress from non-sugar producing areas will also have a hard time supporting an industry that is treating workers as poorly as American Crystal is right now.

American Crystal Sugar has stocked plants with temporary workers provided by Strom Engineering in Minnetonka, who the union says aren’t adequately trained. The regional body of the National Labor Relations Board dismissed complaints against the company at the end of September.

The lockout affects 1,300 union workers at facilities in Moorhead, East Grand Forks, Crookston, and Chaska, Minn.; Hillsboro and Drayton, N.D.; and Mason City, Iowa.

The intention is to come up with a concrete plan to make real the recent proposal from agricultural leaders, including Democratic Rep. Collin Peterson, to voluntarily cut $23 billion from agriculture. That willingness to cut was spurred by a fear that the congressional “super committee,” which is tasked with chopping $1.2 trillion from the federal budget in the next decade, would otherwise cut even deeper into agriculture.

The bill will likely include cuts to direct commodity payments, conservation and nutrition plans. Lobbyists for agribusiness like the National Corn Growers Association and the American Soybean Association are pushing for Congress to cease direct payments in favor of improved crop insurance, which the Associated Press reports is pitting farmers in the south, who grow crops like cotton that benefit from direct payments, against those in other parts of the country.

One lobbyist described the relationship between lobbyists and congressional aides as “free-flowing and open,” Gannett reports.

The bill, if taken up by the “super committee,” will be forced into an up-down vote, with no amendments to the legislation being possible. That’s drawing alarm from groups critical of farm subsidies, Gannett reports.

“Given the amount of money involved, and given the implications of the farm bill for our food and the quality of our environment, there’s a lot of folks in Congress that ought to have a voice in where this ends up other than the agriculture committees,” said Craig Cox, senior vice president of the Environmental Working Group.

U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack told the Associated Press Monday that the administration wanted the farm bill to increase disaster aid, following a difficult season for farmers.

The congressional leaders plan to release details of the bill by Nov. 1.

Four leaders of congressional agriculture committees sent a letter to congressional “super committee” members proposing $23 billion in agricultural cuts Monday.

The cuts would come in the Farm Bill, which expires next year. The committee members hope the voluntary reductions, which they propose to put together in detail by Nov. 1, will inoculate agriculture from further cuts from the congressional super committee.

The letter is signed by Agricultural Committee Senate Chair Rep. Frank Lucas (R-Okla.), House Chair Sen. Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.), ranking member Rep. Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) and ranking member Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan).

“We are currently finalizing the policies that would achieve $23 billion in deficit reduction and will provide a complete legislative package by November 1, 2011. Deficit savings at this level is more than any sequestration process would achieve and should absolve the programs in our jurisdiction from any further reductions.”

Mary Kay Thatcher, director of Public Policy for the American Farm Bureau Federation told American Agriculturalist that nutrition and crop insurance programs will probably be mostly safe.

“There aren’t really specifics as far as how much cuts are coming to commodities versus conservation versus nutrition,” Thatcher said. “Certainly the word on the street has been fairly significant that the committees are recommending elimination of direct payments and moving toward more of a revenue loss program but nothing in writing that spells out those kinds of details.”

Some House Republicans have proposed higher cuts of up to $50 billion, according to Agriculture.com. Earlier in the month, two congressional Republicans proposed to cut $40 billion from agriculture, including steep cuts to farm subsidies, conservation and nutrition.

The bill was approved 251-170, with Rep. Collin Peterson (D-Minn.) joining a group of Democrats to support the bill. All other members of the Minnesota delegation split according to party, with the exception of Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) who missed the vote.

The bill, named the “Protect Life Act,” would require insurers to set up programs that don’t provide abortion services in order to participate in the health insurance exchanges that are the backbone of the new health care law.

Perhaps its most controversial feature would also strengthen conscience exemptions for medical facilities that disagree with abortion, such as religious institutions. Opponents say this clause could lead to pregnant women being denied life-saving medical care.

On the House floor, Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.) told her story of having a medically-necessary abortion.

“I was pregnant. I was miscarrying. I was bleeding. If I had to go from one hospital to the next, trying to find one emergency room that would take me in, who knows if I would even be here today?” Speier said. “And what my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are attempting to do is misogynist. It is absolutely misogynist. The time has come for us to stop taking up this issue over and over again this year and do something that the American people really care about.”

The legislation is unlikely to be introduced in the U.S. Senate.

And Pres. Barack Obama released a statement earlier this week vowing to veto the bill if it passes both houses of Congress. “The legislation intrudes on women’s reproductive freedom and access to health care and unnecessarily restricts the private insurance choices that women and their families have today. Longstanding Federal policy prohibits Federal funds from being used for abortions, except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered.”