THE CONFERENCE:

Throughout this website, the NCC provides links to other websites solely for the user's convenience. By providing these links, the NCC assumes no responsibility for, nor does it necessarily endorse the websites or organizations linked.

Capital Correspondent Column Archives

Capitol Correspondent - 2000

Diocesan Newspaper columns by James R. Cunningham

Second of 96th Legislature Session Begins (1/7/00)

1999 Session in Review (1/11/00)

Fiscal Impact of Bill Hints at Government Savings (2/18/00)

The Coach and Congress (2/4/00)

Rural Opportunities Needed (3/3/00)

Rationalizations Won’t Fit as Pro Life-UNMC Fetal Tissue (3/13/00)

Progression from Concern to Public Policy-Nebraska's Meatpacking Industry (3/31/00)

Legislature Adjourns (4/14/00)

FCC Rumor Is Just That (5/12/00)

Chinese Trade Status and Human Rights (5/26/00)

Faithful Citizenship in the Millennium Year (6/9/00)

Same Sex Marriage Petition Drive and Bishops' Statement (6/30/00)

U.S. Supreme Court Rulings Affect Education and Partial Birth Abortion (7/7/00)

USCC Sets Example for Political Responsibility/ also: In Support of Marriage (7/21/00)

Death Penalty Study and Same-Sex Marriage Petition (8/4/00)

Education Expense Tax Relief (8/18/00)

Voter Registration and a Catholic Call to Faithful Citizenship (9/1/00)

Classic Comment, Lawsuits and Pronouns (9/15/00)

Defense of Marriage Act (9/29/00)

Election Day Proposals and Initiatives (10/27/00)

Church Responds to Rural Life Crisis (11/10/00)

Election Benefactors and Other Results (11/24/00)

Nebraska Amendments, Etc. (12/15/00)

Election Ramifications and Other Reflections (12/22/00)

Capitol Correspondent 1/7/00

Second of 96th Legislature Session Begins

The second session of the Ninety-Sixth Nebraska Legislature began its journey toward history this week, January 5 to be exact; the first Wednesday after the first Monday of the new year, as prescribed by the Nebraska Constitution.

The Constitution also limits sessions in even-numbered years to no more than 60 legislative days, unless at least 40 of the 49 legislators vote to extend it. Since the Constitution prescribes a maximum, but no minimum, it’s possible, but not likely, that the 2000 session could last fewer than 60 legislative days. Lest we forget, this Legislature wrapped up its first session (1999) in 89 days, one under the maximum.

Just 49 citizen legislators represent all the rest of us in our single-house, one-of-a-kind lawmaking assembly. Theirs is not an easy task. It demands long hours and manifests the stress of making public-policy decisions which affect many lives. There is excitement and prestige, but also a great deal of responsibility and hard work.

Modified Membership

For its second session, the 96th Legislature is one member different from the way it ended its first session. In District 35, Senator Chris Peterson of Grand Island resigned to take a lofty position in the administrative branch of government. As her successor, Governor Johanns appointed Ray Aguilar, also of Grand Island.

Just ahead of Senator Aguilar in seniority is Senator Bob Dickey of Laurel, who represents District 18. He served about a fourth of the session in 1999, after Senator Stan Schellpeper died unexpectedly during Easter weekend.

The two changes in membership also caused some shuffling in the make-up of the Unicameral’s standing committees.

Senator Dickey joined the Agriculture Committee, replacing Senator Schellpeper. Also affecting that committee was the switch by Senators Ray Janssen of Nickerson and Jennie Robak of Columbus. Senator Janssen moved to Agriculture from the Transportation Committee and Senator Robak did the opposite.

Senator Dickey also was given an assignment on the General Affairs Committee, replacing Senator Robak, whose new post on the Transportation Committee, which meets two days per week, replaced the single-day meetings of the General Affairs and Agriculture Committees.

Perhaps more significant than any other change, Senator Schellpeper’s death and Senator Chris Peterson’s departure caused two changes on the Revenue Committee. One opening was filled by Senator Ardyce Bohlke of Hastings. She moved from the Natural Resources Committee, allowing Senator Bob Kremer of Aurora to join that committee. His spot on the Government Committee was filled by Senator Aguilar.

Four legislators now serve on both the Education and Revenue Committees, which decide the fates of a lot of highly significant bills. In addition to Senator Bohlke, who chairs the Education Committee, the others are Senators George Coordsen, Ron Raikes and Bob Wickersham.

The other opening on the Revenue Committee was filled by Senator Cap Dierks of Ewing. He moved from the Health and Human Services Committee, creating a vacancy that was filled by Senator Dickey.

While his predecessor had been a member of the Transportation Committee, Senator Aguilar’s other assignment was to the Banking, Commerce and Insurance Committee, allowing Senator Dennis Byars of Beatrice to move to Transportation.

Now, if you have all that straight you are ahead of probably 80 per cent or so of the lobbyists, who once again are occupying the Rotunda and wandering through the hallways of the State Capitol.

Time for Prayer

As we have done so many times over the past 24 years, we turn to prayer for the opening of another Unicameral session. The prayer is adapted from an invocation given originally by Most Rev. John Quinn when he was Archbishop of San Francisco, at a meeting of the National Conference of State Legislatures.

On behalf of the members and staff of the 96th Nebraska Legislature, Second Session, Let Us Pray:

"Heavenly Father, we are pausing in the midst of turbulent times to be aware of you.

"Let those who represent us be truly aware of your presence. Help them to conduct an opinion poll of your wishes in regard to themselves and all those they represent.

"Grant them the ability to know that You genuinely love them. In their quiet moments, allow them to be proud of the profession they are in. Help them to be calmly in control of their lives and not be paralyzed by insecurities or driven by ambition, the value of which they may or may not have reflected on for some time. Grant them the flexibility to grow, the resiliency to accept the setbacks, and the fortitude to adhere to convictions in which they believe.

"If they have the label of conservative, give them the tolerance at least to study the changes that are sweeping society. If they are thought of as liberal, make them perceptive of what is available in existing structures. If they are moderate, keep them from confusing moderation with lethargy.

"May they always be mindful of the awesome nature of their vocation--a position in which they profoundly affect so many lives. May they have the common sense to recognize that good, truth, and beauty, not re-election, are wise priorities.

"Never allow them to be carried away with their own importance. Grant them the serenity of realizing that the crisis of confidence in government is not current, but as old as government itself.

"Let them never forget that this world’s power pales into significance when measured against the treasures of eternal life which you have promised us. May they use whatever influence and skills they have for your greater honor and glory for the welfare of the people. Amen."

Capitol Correspondent 1/11/00

1999 Session In Review

As predicted, planned and played out, the Nebraska Legislature was able to finish its 1999 session with one legislative day to spare. The body of 49 legislators adjourned sine die on May 27, completing 89 days of lawmaking. The last time the Unicameral finished its business in fewer working days than the State Constitution allows--90 in odd-numbered years--was 1979.

From our perspective the session did not end on as high a note as we would have liked, but the note was not as sour as it could have been, either.

Governor Mike Johanns vetoed LB 76, and that was disappointing. Still, one component of the proposal was saved when the Legislature voted 43-0 to override his companion veto of LB 76A, which carried an appropriation to pay expenses related to the underlying bill.

LB 76 would have imposed a two-year moratorium on carrying out the death penalty in Nebraska. Also included in the bill was a directive that the Nebraska Commission on Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice study all cases involving criminal homicides committed on or after April 20, 1973, the date when the current law on capital punishment took effect. The idea is to scrutinize the criminal justice system to ascertain whether penalties, including the death penalty, are being imposed fairly and uniformly. The concept is proportionality, whether similar crimes are being punished similarly.

LB 76A proposed to appropriate $160,000 in State general funds to pay expenses of the study. Governor Johanns also vetoed this measure. However, in a strong showing of the Legislature’s prerogative, this veto was squelched. That action leaves a valid, "generic" appropriation of funds for the Commission.

Some Benefit for Everyone

While the demise of LB 76 wiped out the specifically legislated directive regarding use of the appropriated funds, a clear and strong record was made, through testimony by legislators on both sides of the moratorium issue, and also through the 43-0 vote, to establish how the Legislature intends and expects the funds to be used.

Presumably, the Governor could have really put the kibosh on the LB-76 proposals by directing the Commission to use the appropriation for some other purpose. To his credit, he quickly made it clear that he would not do that. In fact, both he and the Attorney General have acknowledged that the study will proceed.

While we still lament the Governor’s rejection of the moratorium, as things have turned out everyone has at least some reason to be relieved, if not pleased. The first-year Governor has been able to show his constituents, a majority of whom presumably support the death penalty, that he too believes the State should be authorized to kill certain human beings in the name of justice and that he will stand watch over that belief. The Attorney General does not have to fret about the symbolic presence of a moratorium on executions. Those who support capital punishment in theory, but are concerned about fairness and justice, such as the Chairman of the Legislature’s Judiciary Committee, should end up with a credible study that addresses those issues. Those who are opposed to capital punishment have the potential result of a State-sponsored study which exposes unfairness and a lack of justice with respect to capital punishment, and no reason to fear the outcome no matter what it might be. Those on death-row and those who represent them have new grounds to argue against the scheduling of any execution; namely, that the fairness and justice of this penalty are truly at issue, as evidenced by an official, ongoing study of these very questions, a study overwhelmingly endorsed and underwritten by the Legislature, and agreed to by the Governor and the Attorney General.

It is interesting, to say the least, how some of the most controversial and perplexing issues which come before the Legislature are played out, at least on a short-term basis. Like most of the tough issues, this one will return.

Complex Question Offers Food for Thought

At the Nebraska Catholic Conference we have received several inquiries along this line: how is it that this Governor, who has let it be known that he is a practicing Catholic, could veto a moratorium on executions, given the Church’s opposition to use of the death penalty and also Pope John Paul II’s plea for a global moratorium on executions, at least during the Jubilee (year) of the new Millennium?

A fully adequate response is beyond reach. The question is complex.

Obviously, as with any of us, this individual cannot truly be bound in secular endeavors to act in accordance with the teachings of his faith. As an elected public official, the Governor is obligated to make public-policy judgments which he truly believes are in the best interests of the common good of the citizens he represents.

Perhaps the most that can be expected is that the person who has to make these public-policy judgments will consider and give weight to the teachings of his faith in carrying out these responsibilities. In the current instance, we know for a fact that the latest of official Catholic teaching on capital punishment was communicated to the Governor (from several sources). This information included the Holy Father’s most recent statements regarding capital punishment and a clear reference to his plea for a global moratorium on executions at least during the Jubilee of the Millennium.

There is no reason to think that Governor Johanns did not consider and weigh this input as he deliberated on LB 76. For some reason, however, he chose to reject it, or was not persuaded by it, or otherwise concluded that it did not weigh in heavily enough.

Moreover, it also is true that Catholic teaching on the death penalty has a basis, albeit an extremely narrow one, upon which executions can be justified pursuant to the theory of self-defense. If, in fact, the Governor did rely upon this basis in informing his conscience, as a step precedent to vetoing LB 76, then he must have been convinced of two factors: first, that sometime during the next two years--the period of the proposed moratorium--at least one of the convicted murderers on death row would be scheduled for execution; and secondly, that it would be absolutely necessary to kill this human being in order to protect Nebraskans from harm. Therefore, no moratorium.

At least in part, the issue is decided for now, but food for thought remains.

Capitol Correspondent 2/4/00

The Coach and Congress

So, THE coach wants to be in Congress. Interesting development. Some are left wondering why, but hardly anyone, it seems, doubts it will happen. Certainly this is less of a long shot than, let’s say, some of those past occasions when Nebraska wanted to overcome Switzer’s Sooner magic.

By the way, the Legislature is in session, but more on that in a bit.

The odds appear to be overwhelming that on the first Tuesday night in November—that is just days before the Huskers play at Kansas State—Tom Osborne and his family, friends and supporters will be celebrating his new career as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, from Nebraska’s third congressional district.

On the Money

A friend of mine graciously reminded me last week that within days after Osborne’s retirement as Nebraska’s football coach, I had predicted that he would eventually run for political office. I’ll take my friend’s word for my adept prognostication, but I wish I had documented it, in this column for example. It would now be framed and hanging over my desk.

Predictions aside, I’m sure there are others like me who hoped that political talk involving Dr. Osborne would prove to be just that, talk, and that he would find a niche for returning to coach football. That’s not to suggest he would not be excellent as a member of Congress, but Rep. Tom Osborne just does not ring with the same clear tone as Coach Tom Osborne, at least not right now. It’s a question of what fits.

Consider how puzzling and almost surreal it would be to hear Rep. Bill Barrett talking about double-wing reverses, split-back iso passes and the BCS rating system. It was at least that surreal the other evening to hear Tom Osborne talking about the Freedom to Farm Act. That type of thing could take some getting used to.

Bad Judgment?

In the days since the former coach announced his candidacy a number of people have mentioned to me that one of their uneasy feelings is that they will find out something about Tom Osborne, his philosophy and/or his politics they don’t like. That will happen, but everyone who commands that much attention, in a context that open to scrutiny causes the rest of us to have to either rank priorities or accommodate some balance. Did anyone like everything about Osborne’s coaching? Of course not. I, for one, am still upset about his lack of good judgment in going for two against Miami in the Orange Bowl instead of kicking the extra point to lock up the 1983 national championship! (I might face a dilemma if I was a voter in the Third District.)

If everything goes according to plan, we will be having a Nebraska Catholic Conference candidate questionnaire again this election year. It’s likely that candidates for Nebraska’s seats in the U.S. House of Representatives will be provided with an opportunity to respond on that questionnaire to a range of public-policy issues. We look forward to having Coach Osborne’s responses as part of our voter-education feature.

Finally, just a couple of other quick thoughts about this captivating story.

First, how many times during this campaign are we going to hear a newscaster or an interviewer or a commentator or a talk show host or somebody else who ought to know enough to check, mispronounce this candidate’s name? The candidate himself, and those who care enough to get it right, pronounces it Ozburn, not Oz-born.

Secondly, assuming that Tom Osborne is the Republican nominee, and assuming there is a Democrat nominee, what’s it going to be like for the latter, running against a Republican with that much respect and name recognition in a district that is so heavily Republican? Brings to my mind the games of seasons past when University of Pacific played Nebraska in Lincoln or, better yet, the old Kansas State Mildkittens versus NU.

Two-Thirds to Go

It is true that the Legislature is in session. In fact, this session is already one-third completed. Only 40 legislative days remain.

This is still the time in the session when the full Legislature convenes during the mornings and the standing committees convene after lunch to conduct public hearings on bills introduced this year. This schedule will continue for another couple of weeks.

On February 17, the Revenue Committee will take testimony on LB 1136, introduced by Senator Curt Bromm of Wahoo and 10 co-sponsors. This bill proposes to establish state tax credits of up to $500 for contributions to qualified programs which use at least 90 percent of their revenue to provide scholarships for children to attend private elementary and secondary schools. This bill is modeled after an Arizona law, which was ruled to be constitutional in all respects.

In several previous sessions, legislation was introduced proposing to establish a state income tax credit for direct expenditures for tuition, books and transportation. LB 1136 is not the same as an education-expense tax credit. Again, it is a credit for contributions to scholarship programs for private elementary and secondary schools.

Senator Bromm is to be commended for bringing this idea to the Nebraska Legislature. It is worthy of consideration as another idea for providing a modest measure of relief for parents who endure the double burden of paying both taxes and tuition in providing the education they deem best for their children.

Prohibit Abortion Connection

Similarly, Senator John Hilgert of Omaha is to be commended for bringing LB 1405 to this session of the Nebraska Legislature. It proposes to prohibit the use of fetal tissue obtained from induced abortions in research and experimentation.

LB 1405 is a straight-on response to the morally repugnant and truly lamentable situation at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, which was revealed to be relying upon fetal tissue obtained through a planned, ongoing arrangement with a Bellevue-based abortionist.

LB 1405 has 26 co-sponsors in addition to Senator Hilgert. The bill is now in the hands of the Legislature’s Judiciary Committee, which will conduct a public hearing on a yet-to-be-determined date. Even if a majority of the committee thereupon sends the bill to the full Legislature it won’t be considered this session unless it is designated as a priority bill. At the time the story broke, Senator Hilgert already had made a commitment to prioritize another bill and, unfortunately, no other senator has stepped forward to prioritize LB 1405.

Capitol Correspondent 2/18/00

Fiscal Impact of Bill Hints at Government Savings

In the process of the Nebraska Legislature, each legislative bill receives a "fiscal note". This is an estimate of the fiscal impact that the provisions of the bill are likely to have on the state treasury and other government funds. Fiscal notes are prepared by experienced, professional analysts employed by the Legislature and are often reviewed by personnel from the affected government agencies.

A fiscal note shows impact in terms of expenditures and revenue in each of two ensuing fiscal years. A legislative bill proposing to start or expand a program, for example, typically would show increased expenditures. A bill raising a tax would show increased revenue, but also would probably project some increase in expenditures as well, due to administrative costs. Given the nature of legislation, fiscal notes that show increases in expenditures are probably most common, while those which show decreases in expenditures are probably least common.

LB 914, introduced in this session of the Legislature by Senator John Hilgert of Omaha, is an uncommon bill. Its fiscal note indicates a reduction in expenditures of almost $1.5 million in each fiscal year.

That’s right, a bill that projects a government savings! But what’s even better about LB 914 is that reduced cost would be a byproduct of doing the right thing regarding the underlying public policy.

Exemption Limited

Under current Nebraska law, able-bodied adult members of a family which qualifies to receive cash assistance, because of little or no income and very limited resources, are required to participate in employment-related activities as a condition for receiving the assistance, still best known as Aid for Dependent Children. One parent is exempted from this mandatory participation while the youngest child in the household is not yet 12 weeks of age. When the youngest child is between the ages of 12 weeks and six months, the exemption becomes part-time. Once the youngest child reaches the age of six months, full-time employment or participation in employment-related activities is required in order to receive cash assistance.

This policy is often referred to as the child-in-care age. Under conditions imposed by current Nebraska law, the children of an ADC-eligible family typically have to be placed in childcare as soon as the youngest child is 12 weeks old.

LB 914 proposes to change the conditions so that one parent of a poor family would be exempt from mandatory participation in employment-related activities until the youngest child reaches the age of one year. In other words, the bill would raise the child-in-care age from 12 weeks to 12 months. This would affect mandatory participation; earlier participation would be an option for the family.

The Nebraska Catholic Conference, as well as several child-advocacy organizations, testified in support of LB 914 at its public hearing Feb. 10 in front of the Legislature’s Health and Human Services Committee. Our testimony did not suggest that mandatory participation in activities designed to promote self-sufficiency is a bad thing. However, it urged that such a government mandate must not distort crucial relationships and obligations within the family.

Part of the NCC testimony was this: "There are values at stake here that are not a function of income or rapid movement toward self-sufficiency, for example, the value of parenting. The mandate imposed under current law tends to distort the relationship between work and the vocation of being a parent. The welfare system should allow flexibility for parents who believe more time at home is in the children’s best interests."

The right thing to do, regardless of fiscal considerations, would be to allow one parent of a poor family—in many situations that is a single mother—the option of remaining at home at least until the baby reaches the age of one year.

Child Care Costly

But now here’s the other aspect that makes LB 914 a good bill. It relates to the fact that the state has a commitment to pay for a big part of the childcare that becomes necessary due to mandatory participation in employment-related activities. In other words, the state says to the eligible poor family: "in order for you to receive cash assistance you have to start doing such and such things once your youngest child reaches the age of 12 weeks, and we’ll pay most of the costs of childcare."

The fiscal note on LB 914 has determined that by allowing one parent to stay at home until the youngest child reaches the age of one year, rather than a mere 12 weeks, the state would save money, accumulating to as much as $1.5 million in a fiscal year.

Another analysis, this one developed by the independent Nebraska Appleseed Center for Law in the Public Interest, finds that while the state’s ADC cost for a poverty-stricken mother and two children amounts to $4,368 for a year, that ADC cost plus the cost of child care to accommodate the child-in-care policy ranges from $8608 to $12,318 depending on the type of child care. In other words, by doing the right thing for the development of the child, by allowing a parent to have more time at home with the infant, and thereby reducing reliance on outside childcare, LB 914 could save the state between $4300 and $8000 per family.

Although they did not testify on LB 914—no one opposed it—the state’s welfare reformers might argue that delaying the employment-related activities would delay self-sufficiency and thereby increase costs over a longer term, devouring the short-term savings. That argument, heavily skewed toward economic considerations, places too much confidence in the system’s ability to make self-sufficiency feasible, subverts family relationships, and ignores what’s best for the children and their development.

Even though it had not been designated as a priority bill, with just a few days left for that to happen, there still are ways for the provisions of LB 914 to be acted upon this session. Let’s hope that happens.

LB 1405 Prioritized

Updating the status of LB 1405, which proposes to prohibit the use of fetal tissue derived from induced abortions for purposes of research or experimentation: the bill has been scheduled for a public hearing in front of the Legislature’s Judiciary Committee on February 23. Also, Senator Paul Hartnett has made LB 1405 his priority bill for the session. This means that if the committee advances the bill to the full Legislature, it is likely to be taken up for floor debate.

LB 1405 is a response to the University of Nebraska Medical Center’s reliance upon a deliberate, planned, ongoing arrangement with an abortionist as the source of fetal brain tissue for use in research.

Capitol Correspondent 3/3/00

Rural Opportunities Needed

Creating new and expanded economic opportunities in Nebraska’s rural areas is an important objective for several policymakers and others who believe that negative trends, including rising poverty and out migration, can be reversed.

One of the concepts being touted and pursued is value-added agriculture. There are variations on this concept, but generally it means that producers take steps beyond production of raw agricultural products, steps that add value, which translates into greater return in the marketplace. Some view this simply as adding processing to the role of farmers/ranchers. Others view it more comprehensively, to include the development of new products, alternative production methods and new marketing strategies.

Regardless of how value-added agriculture is specifically defined as an approach, the purpose is to increase farm and ranch income by increasing the farm and ranch share of food-system profit. This not only creates economic benefit for individual producers, but it also generates economic growth for rural communities. Adding value to agricultural products through processing or other means can be a source of local employment, causing more dollars to circulate in communities.

Stimulate and Encourage

Two bills introduced in the current session of the Nebraska Legislature propose to stimulate economic growth by encouraging increased development of value-added agriculture.

LB 1222 would establish the Value-Added Partnerships Act. Program funding would be used to provide grants to encourage partnerships among producers, rural communities and businesses for the development of value-added products. Those eligible for grants would be family farmers or ranchers working in collaborative arrangements; communities or counties; agricultural cooperatives; and agricultural marketing associations or corporations. In order to receive funding, projects would have to be multi-area or multi-community, produce a value-added product, be located in one or more of the 76 Nebraska counties that have a labor force of no more than 10,000 workers, and promote the following purposes: stimulate value-added agricultural purposes; build an environment for more effective value-added efforts; encourage entrepreneurship; create employment opportunities; and enhance the economic viability of rural communities.

As introduced, LB 1222 contemplates a General Fund appropriation of $250,000 in each of the next four fiscal years, to be awarded jointly by the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Economic Development as grants of up to $50,000 each. At least 50 percent of grants would have to be matched by recipients.

LB 1222 was introduced and prioritized by Senator Floyd Vrtiska of Table Rock. However, as of the 33rd legislative day in a 60-day session, the bill was still held by the Agriculture Committee. It is expected that the bill will be advanced, probably with amendments proposing to modify it in some measure.

Agricultural Opportunities

LB 1348 proposes to establish the Nebraska Agricultural and Rural Opportunities Act. It would set up and fund new programs in the Departments of Agriculture and Economic Development and would provide additional funding for an existing program. As introduced, the bill contemplates an annual General Fund appropriation of $7 million, a whopping amount compared to the other bill. The cost could be reduced because the bill also sets up a designated cash fund for the receipt of gifts, grants, donations, proceeds from contracts for services and expense reimbursements.

The new program in the Department of Agriculture would be an agricultural opportunities grant program. It would receive $5.5 million of the total, for use in awarding incentive grants to qualifying organizations and entities that provide new and enhanced economic opportunities for agricultural producers. Grants would be limited to a maximum of $150,000 per recipient.

The new program in the Department of Economic Development would be a community opportunities grant program. It would receive $500,000 to use as incentive grants for increased and diversified rural economic development. Grants would be limited to a maximum of $50,000 per recipient.

The remaining balance of $1 million would be allocated to the existing Microenterprise Partnership Program.

Senator Roger Wehrbein of Plattsmouth introduced LB 1348. It too has been prioritized, but as of the 33rd legislative day it too was still held by the Agriculture Committee. It too is likely to be advanced with amendments. No doubt the original $7 million price tag is a significant concern, because there appears to be little room for new spending in the FY 2000-2001 budget modifications that the Legislature will decide before it adjourns.

Encouraged in Statement

As priority bills, both LB 1222 and LB 1348 can still be debated and passed this session. The Nebraska Catholic Conference hopes that will happen. At its meeting February 9 the Conference discussed these bills and decided to support them. It was determined that these bills exemplify the kind of public policy encouraged in the Bishops’ "Joint Statement on Economic Hardships Affecting Rural Life" issued last October.

In their statement the Bishops emphasized cooperation in the aggressive pursuit of new marketing strategies and processing opportunities for family-based producers. "The benefits to be realized from working together on processing and direct marketing opportunities include reduced exposure to price manipulation, increased economic power to compete in the marketplace and a fairer economic return," the Bishops wrote.

One aspect that gives LB 1222 a modest edge over LB 1348 as a matter of public policy, in our view, is its emphasis on cooperation and collaboration among family-based producers to develop and implement innovative approaches for value-added agriculture.

Incentive to Address Need

On another matter relating to the Legislature, soon to pass is LB 482, a bill introduced in 1999 and carried over to this year’s session. It will provide payments of $1000 per year for up to five years to help families who adopt state wards. It has nearly unanimous support.

The Nebraska Catholic Conference supports LB 482. It is meritorious legislation because it is focused on encouraging permanent homes for more of the children caught up in the foster-care system. Nearly 6,500 children were state wards in 1999. Sometimes merely tossing money at a problem does little good, but there is a trust that this financial assistance can help lower a barrier to permanent placements for these children. There is confidence that this is an investment more than a cost.

Also, LB 482 is an example of a legislative bill that ends up as much better policy than it started out. As introduced, the bill was a dubious proposal to provide a tax credit to any Nebraskan who would adopt an infant or child up to the age of six. That made little sense because it did not address a problem. There is no shortage of prospective parents seeking to adopt infants; in fact there are waiting lists. Adopting older children who are wards of the state is a compelling need, and to their credit leaders in the Legislature recognized this and acted upon it.

And finally, from the file marked, "He really didn’t say that, did he?"

When it was announced last Fall that the (once) mighty Notre Dame football program was going to be penalized for some violations of National Collegiate Athletic Association rules, we heard of a statement attributed to the president of Notre Dame, Father Ed Malloy, that went something like this: for Notre Dame this is like Good Friday, but it too will be followed by an Easter Sunday!

Capitol Correspondent 3/13/00

Rationalizations Won’t Fit as Pro Life

The proceedings of the Nebraska Legislature are officially chronicled each day in what is known as the Legislative Journal. The pages of this journal are sequentially enumerated throughout the session, but each legislative day has its own journal, rather like a chapter in a volume of history. Each journal is printed in a booklet format and hundreds of these are ready for distribution early the next business day. Each journal is also available online.

There are other components that document what takes place at the Legislature. From gavel to gavel each day all of the official proceedings on the floor of the Unicameral chamber are recorded and subsequently transcribed. Also, there are daily agendas, worksheets showing the status of every bill, and summaries that provide a quick update on activity, bill-by-bill. Now days, all these and other documents as well are also accessible at the Unicameral website.

Still, the daily journal is the essential report of activity, the guidebook of what has happened and, to some extent, what can be expected to happen.

Joining On The Bill

In the Legislative Journal for the 18th legislative day, one finds this one-sentence entry: "Senator Robak adds her name as co-introducer of LB 1405."

With that entry, Senator Jennie Robak of Columbus became the 29th co-sponsor of the bill that proposes to prohibit utilization of fetal tissue derived from induced abortions in biomedical research and treatment.

LB 1405 was introduced on the 10th legislative day by Senator John Hilgert of Omaha and, at that time, 25 of his colleagues, as a response to the media-exposed collaboration that the University of Nebraska Medical Center carries on with an abortionist. In exchange for the credential of voluntary faculty, the abortionist fulfills UNMC’s utilitarian needs and specifications for parts of the bodies of directly aborted children--human remains from his grisly trade--for research and possibly, or at least potentially, treatment relating to neurodegenerative diseases. This is a collaboration that has been going on for six-and-a-half years and every indication is that it will continue unless UNMC’s total need and exact specifications for fetal brain cells can be satisfied through other sources.

In the Legislative Journal for the 40th day, one finds this one-sentence entry: "Senator Robak withdraws her name as co-introducer of LB 1405."

Apparently, Senator Robak changed her mind about the bill. She has the prerogative to do that. While her switch can only be lamented as we view it, in a sense she did the honorable thing in removing her name from LB 1405. After all, earlier, as a member of the Judiciary Committee, she voted against advancing the bill for debate by the full body of legislators and thereby assisted in constructing a significant roadblock to its enactment.

Until Now

Considerable attention has been focused on Senator Robak’s actions on this legislative matter. One reason is that in her 11 years of service as the legislator from District 22 she has always presented herself as pro life on the issue of abortion and has assembled a solid voting record to back up that reputation. She has been a vote the pro-life position could count on; that is, until now.

Senator Robak’s switch presents an interesting question. Is it consistent and defensible for someone, whether Senator Robak or anyone else, who accepts irrefutable scientific evidence that the beginning of the life of a new and distinctive human being is conception, who respects the inherent human dignity of each unborn child, and who opposes induced abortion because each one denies that dignity by deliberately destroying an innocent human being prior to birth, to oppose prohibiting biomedical research that utilizes fetal tissue from induced abortions? The answer from this corner, with all respect to Senator Robak and others, is "no", that position is neither consistent nor defensible, for at least three reasons.

First and foremost, given the nature of the timing and acquisition of the fetal body parts, the researcher is complicit in the abortions. The collaboration between UNMC and its abortionist partner is proof of this. There is no effective separation. There is an agreed-upon arrangement between the two that is planned, predictable, proximate, controlled and ongoing (What’s more, according to UNMC’s own testimony the arrangement was initiated after the researcher solicited the abortionist’s cooperation.) These aren’t random acts. The abortionist scavenges fetal tissue with UNMC’s purposes in mind. UNMC anticipates the abortionist’s call. The pro life position as described above cannot tolerate such complicity. The ends do not justify the means.

Unborn Deserve Benefit of Doubt

Secondly, rationalizing propriety for this collaboration on grounds that there is little or no evidence it influences women to have abortions is not an effective defense for opposing LB 1405. There is little or no evidence to the contrary either. No one can be definitively assured that ascribing a beneficial use to the unborn child’s remains will not have such an influence. There is no reliable evidence one way or the other, only speculation, uncertainty and doubt. The pro-life position on abortion must resolve uncertainty and doubt in favor of prohibiting the practice. Too much is at stake in the lives of the unborn to risk the possibility, to risk not knowing for sure.

Thirdly, the inherent risk that relying upon induced abortion as a source of fetal tissue, given its roots in utilitarianism and pragmatism, will yield to the inevitable temptation of commercialization and even greater exploitation is too substantial to justify allowing this practice to continue.

Attempts can be made to rationalize support for what UNMC is doing. Attempts can be made to rationalize opposition to LB 1405. But such attempts at rationalization are neither consistent nor defensible with respect to a pro-life position on this matter. This is a matter on which respect for the inherent human dignity of the directly aborted children must be kept at the forefront and endorsed through unwavering statements that the ends do not justify the means and that this morally contaminated approach should be prohibited.

Capitol Correspondent 3/31/00

Progression from Concern to Public Policy

In the development of public policy, one initiative or response often builds upon another. Nebraska is in the midst of a development like that.

Last September, Governor Mike Johanns gave Lieutenant Governor Dave Maurstad a challenging assignment: review working conditions in Nebraska meatpacking plants. This was part of this administration’s response to significant issues brought to light by public-interest advocates and media reports. These issues relate to how workers in the meatpacking industry are treated and their working conditions.

Over the subsequent three months, the Lieutenant Governor visited nine meatpacking plants, including four unannounced visits, and interviewed more than a hundred individuals, including workers, union representatives, worker advocates, regulatory and law-enforcement officials and representatives of industry management. On January 24, he issued a report on his findings and recommendations.

According to background provided in the report, some 24,000 individuals are employed at 106 meat-processing facilities in Nebraska. From 1994 to 1998, employment in this industry grew 14.6 percent (compared to 9.2 percent in manufacturing, for example).

While the industry has changed over the last decade, due in large measure to technological advancements, and while attention has been given to workplace ergonomics and worker safety, the labor remains physically demanding and hazardous. According to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the annual workday rate of injury and illness was 23.7 in 1997, compared to 3.8 for all private industry.

Responding to Recommendation

The report offered six recommendations, all significant, but perhaps the most significant of which was the recommendation that the Nebraska Department of Labor develop a Worker’s Bill of Rights for meatpacking employers to voluntarily adopt and post prominently in the workplace.

This recommendation is being given the attention and action it deserves. On March 15, the Governor released for distribution and comments a draft "Nebraska Meatpacking Industry Workers Bill of Rights." Its purpose is to establish minimum workplace guidelines. The goal is to improve harsh conditions.

The draft bill of rights proposes 11 protections: the right to organize, without fear of harassment or reprisal; the right to the safest possible working conditions; the right to have and to utilize adequate restroom, locker, meal and break facilities; the right to adequate equipment; the right to complete information regarding job descriptions, work hours, compensation, benefits and occupational hazards; and the right to understand rights and obligations by having information in the worker’s native language.

Also, the right to existing state and federal benefits and rights pursuant to laws protecting workers, e.g. NE Workers’ Compensation Act, the NE Workplace Safety Consultation Program, and the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Act; the right to the respect and protection against discrimination, harassment and intimidation; the right to training, including supervisor training, and skill development; the right to expect payment of wages for work performed; the right to seek state help on labor-related issues.

Comments and suggestions regarding the draft Meatpacking Industry Workers Bill of Rights are being accepted through April 14. Information is available by Internet at www.dol.state.ne.us .

Next Step: Legislation

It now appears likely that the development of public policy on these issues will also involve legislation.

A bill is on track to pass in this Unicameral session that will create a task force to study issues relating to the immigrant workforce in Nebraska. It is to be known as the "Task Force on the Productive Integration of the Immigrant Workforce." This bill, LB 1363, is timely, important and necessary. More than 4000 immigrant workers and their families come to Nebraska each year. By August 31, 2001, the 16-member task force will report to the Governor and the Legislature on issues relating to immigrant-worker integration, including housing, language barriers, health care, and access to services.

LB 1363 became related to the Meatpacking Industry Workers Bill of Rights when an amendment was adopted March 24 that will acknowledge those rights in statute. The amendment also creates the position of Meatpacking Industry Worker Rights Coordinator within the state Department of Labor.

Given the fact that many immigrants are employed in meatpacking plants, the relationship between LB 1363 and the meatpacking industry worker bill of rights is obvious and natural. There was no question about the germaneness of the amendment.

The progression of public-policy development on these matters is appropriate and reassuring. Facts came to light and concerns were expressed, which led to a review and recommendations by the Lieutenant Governor on behalf of the Johanns administration. In response to one of those recommendations, the Department of Labor has drafted a workers’ bill of rights, which in turn is being acknowledged in legislation and is likely to receive direct and specific regulatory attention.

Lieutenant Governor Maurstad has stated the appropriate context for this development of public policy:

"We will continue to draw attention to the issues of workplace safety and worker rights until all Nebraskans know their rights, feel free to exercise these rights, and work in an environment that respects their dignity."

Capitol Correspondent 4/14/00

Legislature Adjourns

Nebraska's 96th Legislature finished up the second of its two regular sessions this week at the State Capitol. The motion to adjourn "sine die" was made and unanimously approved at the conclusion of business on Wednesday, April 12, this year's 60^th legislative day.

Except for whatever attention is given to interim-study resolutions later this year, unless extraordinary circumstances pop up to cause the convening of a special session, this was it for this Legislature. Its two-year run is over. As with each of its predecessors, it will leave a legacy of one kind or another.

Fittingly, as one of its last acts of official business, the Legislature honored its members who are known to not be returning for the 97^th Legislature. There are four: Senators Ardyce Bohlke (Dist. 33), LaVon Crosby (Dist. 29), Shelley Kiel (Dist. 9) and Jerry Schmitt (Dist. 41). In aggregate, these four distinguished Nebraskans provided the state and its citizens with 33 years of public service. They are owed a debt of gratitude.

Praiseworthy Overrides

There were other noteworthy occurrences as the 2000 session negotiated the final curve and headed down the homestretch.

One of the usual items of business in the even-year session concerns itself with adjusting the State's budget, which is developed in the preceding odd-year session and covers the ensuing two-year fiscal cycle. This time, most of those adjustments were made in LB 1217. The whole package of adjustments proposed to increase the budget for the current two-year fiscal cycle by some $82.1 million.

When the budget-adjustment package reached the desk of Governor Johanns, he used his veto authority to reduce the proposed increases by approximately $8.8 million.

Most of those line-item vetoes were either accepted or sustained by the Legislature. However, two were overridden, much to the solons’ credit in our view.

Thirty votes from among the 49 legislators are needed to override a gubernatorial veto; on a vote of 43-2 the senators restored $2 million appropriated for a rate increase for mental-health-care providers. There was a substantial need and justification for this increase, as the rates outside the state's mental-health managed-care contract had not been boosted for several years. The legislators also restored $750,000 of FY 1999-2000 spending for reimbursement of mental health services in facilities located in Region VI.

Promoting Agriculture and Rural Development

Following up on some matters addressed in a previous column, the Legislature amended LB 1222, the "Value-Added Partnerships Act", into LB 1348, the "Agriculture and Rural Opportunities Act", and then passed the modified, aptly named "Agricultural Opportunities and Value-Added Partnerships Act." The "new" LB 1348 provides $250,000 annually for grants to individuals or groups to promote value-added agriculture; $250,000 for a new program that will provide agricultural entrepreneurship opportunity grants; $250,000 for an existing program aimed at providing loans to micro businesses; and $500,000 to be distributed among the programs on the bases of demand and need.

As has been extensively treated in the secular media, LB 1405, the bill proposing to prohibit the use of fetal tissue obtained from induced abortions in research and transplantation, was withdrawn after not quite three hours of first-round floor debate. The disappointment of that result lingers. Apparently, the University of Nebraska Medical Center's planned, proximate and ongoing collaboration with the abortion industry will continue. What a truly repugnant situation.

Pursuit of other sources of fetal tissue? Perhaps, but a long shot. UNMC's comfort with the convenience and expediency of the present arrangement casts a cloud of doubt over any meaningful hopes in this regard. If the practice continues, as we expect it will, perhaps the repugnance will escalate, causing the Legislature to look even more seriously at this situation next year.

One of the lobbyists for UNMC, a former member and Speaker of the Legislature, Ron Withem, is quoted as having said this: "From my 20 years in the Legislature, I know that when a solid majority of legislators are committed to getting something done, they find a way to get it done." That observation resonates with us, to some extent.

A majority in the Unicameral is 25. LB 1405 had 27 co-sponsors; 28 legislators voted to bring it up for floor debate, clearly a majority. However, according to Withem’s analysis, the keys to getting something done lie in the descriptions "solid" and "committed." Perhaps those keys were lacking on the idea of prohibiting, as a matter of law, reliance on induced abortions as a source of fetal tissue.

Wide Gap

The practical reality is that LB 1405 needed a minimum of 33 votes to survive a filibuster, and the gap between 28 and 33 is wide indeed.

More disturbing is the fact that some senators who like to be labeled as "pro life" on the issue of abortion played the same game as UNMC, trying to separate this situation from the issue of abortion. One even publicly expressed regret that the legislation was "mislabeled" and "misrepresented" as a pro-life (i.e. opposition to abortion) issue.

That expression is ludicrous. UNMC’s planned, ongoing collaboration with induced abortions has everything to do with this compelling issue. It moves abortion to another level, giving it a utilitarian purpose, further exploiting and disrespecting human life in the womb, treating it as a commodity, and edging closer to commercialization.

A true pro-life position, firmly rooted in truth and principle and rejecting rationalizations, could not view this matter any other way.

Capitol Correspondent 5/12/00

FCC Rumor Is Just That

Some notes and quotes from here and there while contemplating the once again relevant and still perplexing issue of why so many Nebraskans eligible to vote stay away from the polls. Low voter turnout is the antithesis of civic responsibility, which is something we all should take seriously. Let’s hope the numbers are considerably higher in November.

Considering the number of calls, e-mails and notes recently received at the Nebraska Catholic Conference, the rumor about notorious atheist, Madeline Murray O’Hair seeking to ban religious music and programs from radio and/or television is as persistent as ever.

Allegedly, there is a petition, No. 2493, filed and pending before the Federal Communications Commission that "would ultimately pave the way to stop the reading on the Gospel of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ on the airwaves of America….CBS would even be forced to discontinue ‘Touched By An Angel’ because they use the word ‘God’ in the program." So goes the alarming gist of this rumor.

Last December, the Office of General Counsel of the United States Catholic Conference, in its monthly newsletter, Law Briefs, addressed this situation. It was not the first time it had done so. Here’s part of OGC’s comments:

"The brief answer to any such inquiry (about petition No. 2493) is that it is a hoax! O’Hair never filed a petition with the FCC to ban religious material on television or radio broadcast outlets.

"There is a small kernel of fact from which this 25-year-old rumor, apparently, continues to spring. In 1975, two individuals, Jeremy Lansman and Lorenzo Milam, filed a petition with the FCC requesting that it disqualify any applicant for non-commercial radio or television licenses that is a religious entity. That petition was promptly denied by the FCC on the ground that such an exclusion would violate the First Amendment. Once a petition for rulemaking is denied, as was the case with [this] petition…, the petition process is at an end. The fact remains, then, that there simply is no truth to the rumor that has been circulating for 25 years, that there is any petition now before the FCC to ban religious broadcasts from the airwaves.

"To obtain a copy of the FCC’s news release and fact sheet explaining the truth behind this persistent rumor, you may access the FCC’s web site at: www.fcc.gov/mmb/enf/forms/rm-2493.html and www.fcc.gov/mmb/enfj/forms/1975-08.html."

Secondary thought: isn’t the latest on Madeline Murray O’Hair that she is missing and presumed dead? Sort of an updated version of Jimmy Hoffa? Unfortunately, bogus petition No. 2493 is not missing with her.

Silly Advertising

Did we correctly understand the news and its irony: that the first winners of Husker football skybox seats--not a luxury suite, to be clear—in the marketing scheme from the Nebraska Lottery, hail from Colorado? Hope they enjoy the hospitality during their visit.

Broader query: is anything a bigger sham than the Nebraska Lottery and its painfully silly advertising schemes?

Bold Prediction Revisited

Last February 4, a couple of comments in this column went something like this: The odds appear to be overwhelming that on the first Tuesday night in November, just days prior to the Huskers’ game at Kansas State, THE coach, Tom Osborne, and his family, friends and supporters will be celebrating his new career as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives.

Let’s see, given the outcome in the Primary, shall we change that prediction? Hmmmm. No, we’ll hang in with it.

Our special thanks hereby go out to all of the candidates, including Coach Osborne, who responded to the Nebraska Catholic Conference candidate survey for the Primary Election. Responding takes some time and effort, and there are many different surveys, we know. We appreciate their interest and their understanding of the importance of providing could-be voters, in this case Catholic citizens, with information about their positions on a range of issues. Those who did not respond failed to take advantage of an opportunity.

No Reason for Veto

Within hours after the legislators had adjourned sine die, Governor Johanns announced he was vetoing LB 925. The bill would have provided Nebraska businesses with a tax credit for providing on-site childcare for their employees. Even more significantly, as we viewed it, the bill would have reasonably expanded the child-in-care exemption for welfare-recipient families. It proposed that one parent of a poverty-stricken family would be exempt from full-time participation in the self-sufficiency contract provisions until the youngest child is over age one. Under current law, the requirement begins when the youngest child reaches six months of age.

As a policy matter, expanding the child-in-care age, as proposed by Senator John Hilgert and others—it was a proposal added as an amendment to LB 925 without much difficulty—presented a compassionate and empowering option, especially for the most desperate of circumstances, to allow a parent, most often a single mother, to stay home with her infant for a modestly longer period of time. What’s more, it would have saved money for the State, given that the costs of subsidizing childcare are considerably greater than the meager amount of "extra" cash assistance.

Lamentably, in his veto message the Governor suggested that he would have been inclined to accept the bill if it had contained only the business tax-credit idea; it was that other idea, extending the time for welfare parents to stay home after the birth of their children, that led him to veto it. He referred to that part of the bill as turning back the clock on Nebraska’s welfare reform efforts. We disagree. Expanding the child-in-care exemption was the right thing to do, and it would have saved tax dollars to boot.

Capitol Correspondent 5/26/00

Chinese Trade Status and Human Rights

As this week leading up to Memorial Day begins to unfold, we are planning to be tuned into and focused on the highly significant debate that is expected to take place mid-week in the U.S. House of Representatives. This should be something worth following. Thank goodness for C-Span.

At issue is whether or not to grant China permanent normal trade relations (PNTR) with the United States. In addition to locking in low-tariff access to U.S. markets and opening Chinese markets to U.S. enterprises, permanent status is also relevant to China’s desire to gain entry into the World Trade Organization. Apparently, if China is given PNTR by the U.S., then its entry into the WTO will be eased. From the perspective of global economics, having the world’s most populous nation in the WTO is no ho-hum proposition. The market possibilities are making dollar signs dance in the heads of many, on both sides of the world.

U.S. Representative Doug Bereuter, who has represented Nebraska’s First Congressional District since 1979, and who is a notable participant in the current proceedings, has said this decision on PNTR for China is the most important trade vote in decades. The focus is on the House of Representatives because the vote there is expected to be extremely close; PNTR has plenty of support in the Senate.

The current U.S. policy is that Congress annually reviews and votes on China’s trade status. This has been the case for some 20 years. Although favored trade status has been granted, each year’s public debate has been valuable in focusing attention on China’s shocking record on human rights and religious freedom.

In at least a couple of newspaper reports, we have seen this issue described as a "no brainer" on the side of approving PNTR for China. Perhaps that is true from some business self-interest perspectives, but it appears to us that this matter is far more complicated than to be so arrogantly fluffed. China’s human rights violations and religious persecution are relevant to this debate, whether free traders like that fact or not. And there are other economic issues as well, beyond just opening up markets, including potential impacts on employment in this country.

Commission Says No

In 1998, joint action of the Congress and the president established the nine-member U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom. Less than a month ago, May 1 to be exact, that commission released a report that recommends that Congress not approve a permanent trade accord with China until that nation stops suppressing religious freedom. As reported, the commission stated in part, "A grant of (permanent normal trade relations) at this juncture could be seen by Chinese people struggling for religious freedom as an abandonment of their cause at a moment of great difficulty." Similar comments attributed to the vice chairman of the commission were reported as follows: "For Congress to simply grant China (permanent normal trade relations) at this moment…would be to send Beijing a signal that these awful, inexcusable, inhumane policies [including, we hasten to specify, China’s coercive "one child" policy] did not require a more immediate response."

Notwithstanding its origin, the commission’s recommendations are binding on no one, but they deserve meaningful attention, especially as a counter view to the increasingly heard notion that the way to have an impact on China’s policies is through greater economic engagement.

The U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom is not the only voice of concern about granting PNTR to China. The body of U.S. Catholic Bishops is as well. In an April-12 letter distributed to all members of the House of Representatives, Bernard Cardinal Law, as Chairman of the United States Catholic Conference’s Committee on International Policy, acknowledged the importance of the goal of fully integrating China in the global economy, but stated: "However, as long as the Chinese leadership steadfastly refuses to abide by the universal norms of human rights protection, the United States should not grant normal trade relations on a permanent basis. Instead, we should retain the valuable option provided by annual review of China’s compliance with fundamental norms."

Which Approach?

What is the best way at this time of having an impact on China’s suppression of religious freedom and other violations of human rights (e.g. slave labor camps)? Is it through the leverage of annual review and debate on these issues? Or is it through non-guaranteed residual effects of facilitating China’s movement into the world trade system? We hope a lot of the Congressional debate focuses on these questions.

A somewhat late-breaking development in this highly significant situation was being attributed to Congressman Bereuter. He became a Nebraska Republican in the spotlight on a vote the Clinton administration values heavily and wants badly. He and Congressman Sander Levin of Michigan were credited for a bipartisan proposal intended to win votes for PNTR by addressing points of opposition and easing concerns. Their idea involved creation and empowerment of a commission to monitor and report on human rights in China. Also, they proposed a "surge protector", some means of protecting domestic employment from surges in Chinese imports.

At deadline we were unadvised as to what reaction the U.S. Catholic Conference had to the Bereuter-Levin proposal. However, the odds seemed to be that PNTR would be approved with the amendment.

Capitol Correspondent 6/9/00

Faithful Citizenship in the Millennium Year

As part of its promotion of the election-year statement issued on behalf of the nation’s Catholic Bishops, "Faithful Citizenship: Civic Responsibility for a New Millennium," the United States Catholic Conference ( www.usccnccb.org ) has taken steps to place it within a family context. That’s a challenge, given the fact that the statement, for obvious reasons, is written for an adult audience, voting being such a key element of civic responsibility. (Summary of this document can be found on this website)

Still, the fundamental message of "Faithful Citizenship" can and should be shared and reflected upon within families. That message from the bishops is that "responsible citizenship is a virtue; participation in the political process is a moral obligation."

In responding to the challenge of making this important message family-friendly, the U.S. Catholic Conference has produced a single-sheet presentation of suggestions and resources under the title, "Family Guide to Faithful Citizenship." It also includes some do’s-and-don’ts tips for parents, such as: do show your children that your are concerned about the issues and share your thoughts with them; do ask for their opinions, questions or concerns, and really listen to what they have to say; do encourage and help them to think about public-policy issues in moral terms; do vote and let your children know that voting is a priority for you.

Copies of the "Family Guide to Faithful Citizenship", as well as the subject document itself, can be obtained at no cost by contacting the Nebraska Catholic Conference (402/477-7517).

Means What It Says

Last month, the Nebraska Supreme Court ruled that Article XII, Section 8 of the Nebraska Constitution is not vague and really means what it says: a family farm or ranch corporation not only has a majority of stock held by family members, at least one of whom resides on the farm or ranch, but at least one of the shareholder family members is involved in the labor and management activities on an active, day to day basis.

This clarifying interpretation is important because real family-farm corporations are excluded from the general rule of Article XII, Section 8, which a sizeable majority of Nebraska voters placed in the State Constitution by approving Initiative 300 in 1982. The general rule is this: "No corporation or syndicate shall acquire, or otherwise obtain an interest, whether legal, beneficial or otherwise, in any title to real estate used for farming or ranching in this state, or engage in farming or ranching." Pursuant to the rule and the exclusion, Initiative 300 imposes restrictions on non-family corporate agriculture.

The Supreme Court’s ruling was made in the case involving Progress Pig, Inc., a hog feeding operation located near Syracuse. The litigation lasted nearly 10 years. Ultimately it was ruled that the facts did not establish that the corporation’s sole shareholder was sufficiently involved in the day-to-day labor and management of the operation to constitute a family-farm corporation for purposes of exclusion from the rule.

As reported, the owner plans to comply with Article XII, Section 8 by changing the business structure to a sole proprietorship. That means he can continue as an absentee owner, but not with the potential tax and liability advantages of the corporate structure.

This latest ruling is another underscoring of the fact that Initiative 300 means what it says and that with conscientious enforcement it does what it was intended to do, keeping the playing field as level as possible so that family farmers and ranchers do not have unfair competition from non-family corporations.

Missed Slam Dunk

While on the subject of the Nebraska Constitution, Article I, section 27 makes English Nebraska’s official language and requires that the "common school branches" be taught in English in "public, private, denominational and parochial schools."

That requirement was adopted fairly soon after World War I, reflecting the anti-German sentiment at the time. On June 4, 1923, it was rightfully ruled by the U. S. Supreme Court, in the famous case of Meyer v. Nebraska, that the requirement, as applied to private, parochial and denominational schools, exceeds the power of the State and invades the liberty guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment of the U. S. Constitution.

As applied to other-than-public schools the requirement has no teeth, is essentially meaningless. It should be stricken from the state constitution. This year the Nebraska Legislature finally got around to proposing the necessary "housekeeping" amendment for a vote of the people. There was absolutely no meaningful opposition during any stage of legislative consideration. In fact, LR 20CA passed on a 48-0 vote!

This amendment to the Nebraska Constitution should have been a slam-dunk. It was the right thing to do. There was no substantive reason to vote against it.

So what happened? The proposed amendment absolutely got drubbed at the polls. Seventy-seven percent of the votes went against it.

A great number of voters no doubt were caught off-guard by the proposal. Its lack of controversy meant that not a lot of attention, information or voter-education had been directed at it. Also, it was difficult to fully comprehend just by looking at the language and the statement of explanation on the ballot. According to conventional wisdom, if a voter is unsure about what a ballot question means or does, he or she either votes no or leaves it blank. Even more, in this case the statement of explanation was so inadequate that the proposal misleadingly appeared to give private, parochial and denominational schools in Nebraska special treatment, or relief from a responsibility, which would not apply to public schools. No doubt that generated "no" votes.

Another "explanation" for the voters’ overwhelming rejection of Proposed Amendment No. 1 was found in an editorial carried by StatePaper.com. That piece, authored by Dick Herman, formerly an editorial writer for the Lincoln Journal-Star, included a totally gratuitous charge that some who sponsor and operate parochial schools—no doubt he was thinking of Catholic schools--may have had something to do with the drubbing. He inferred that some form of organized effort might have been undertaken to ensure that private schools’ "identical identity" with "the English-speaking common schools" would not be affected. Why? To "bolster unending efforts to gain tax dollars for non-public instruction."

Of course, Dick. You’re on to us.

What a ludicrous notion.

No doubt Dick Herman would be terribly disappointed to learn that there was no Catholic conspiracy to influence the outcome of Proposed Amendment 1. Catholic-school administrators organized nothing, did nothing, said nothing with respect to the ballot question. Frankly, the issue prompted no actionable concern, one way or the other.

Capitol Correspondent 6/30/00

Same Sex Marriage Petition Drive and Bishops' Statement

Currently underway in Nebraska is a citizens’ initiative petition drive seeking to acquire enough signatures to bring a proposed amendment for the Nebraska Constitution to a vote at the General Election in November. The proposed constitutional amendment would establish that Nebraska does not validate or recognize "same-sex marriage" or any same-sex equivalent of marriage. The proposed wording is this:

"Only marriage between a man and a woman shall be valid or recognized in Nebraska. The uniting of two persons of the same sex in a civil union, domestic partnership, or other similar same-sex relationship shall not be valid or recognized in Nebraska."

A coalition of Nebraskans using the title "Defense of the Family Committee" is conducting this volunteer-based petition drive. It started May 24 and has until July 7 to submit petitions to the Secretary of State. Those petitions will have to contain approximately 105,000 valid signatures in order for the proposed amendment to qualify for the General Election ballot.

Archbishop Elden Francis Curtiss of Omaha, Bishop Fabian W. Bruskewitz of Lincoln and Bishops Lawrence J. McNamara of Grand Island reviewed and considered this initiative petition drive. Through their association as the Nebraska Catholic Conference, they came to the following joint and mutual conclusion:

"We acknowledge as valid the intent and purpose of such an undertaking because we agree with the principle it seeks to uphold, that marriage is the legal union of one man and one woman as husband and wife and should be protected as such. We too are committed to upholding the dignity and inherent good of traditional marriage and family. However, we have concluded that, from our perspective, this undertaking is not timely.

"As Bishops we are leaders of the Catholic faithful, but we are first and foremost teachers, and as such we feel strongly that a thorough, meaningful educational process for the benefit of our adherents must precede an undertaking such as this, on such a morally significant issue. Such a process would explain the moral dimensions of the issues, provide background information and clearly articulate the Church’s teaching. Sufficient time does not exist to allow us to prepare and implement the educational process we believe is necessary before we ask our people to support an initiative petition campaign. Therefore, we have determined that while we agree with the underlying principle we cannot tangibly or directly support this undertaking in the context of the 2000 General Election because there is insufficient time to undertake such a large and important project."

Given the Bishops’ decision not to tangibly or directly support such an initiative petition drive at this time, the Nebraska Catholic Conference is not involved, and is neither supporting nor opposing the current efforts to collect signatures. Individual Catholic Nebraskans are free to participate as they see fit.

Nebraska’s Situation

Currently, Nebraska law contains no explicit prohibition of "same-sex marriage" and does not explicitly limit marriage to a male-female relationship. However, the minimum-age provision of Nebraska law states: "At the time of the marriage, the male must be of the age of seventeen years or upward, and the female the age of seventeen years or upward." This wording suggests that Nebraska law contemplates only opposite-sex marriage. Inferences may be drawn from other statutes as well.

Likewise, Nebraska law does not specifically prohibit recognizing "same-sex marriages" contracted in other states. Nebraska’s general rule of law regarding recognition of out-of-state marriages is that a marriage valid where contracted is valid here. It could be difficult for a court to rule that a "same-sex marriage" contracted outside Nebraska would be void in Nebraska if it was valid where contracted. Nonetheless, no other state has to date legalized or validated "same-sex marriage."

More Than Marriage

The initiative’s proposed constitutional amendment would not just prohibit legalization and recognition of "same-sex marriage." It proposes to do the same with regard to any form of same-sex civil union, domestic partnership or "other similar same-sex relationship."

The same legal situation that applies to "same-sex marriage" also applies generally to same-sex civil unions. One possibly significant, distinguishing factor is that one state—Vermont—has given legal status to same-sex civil unions. Since Nebraska does not have a specific statutory prohibition on recognizing either "same-sex marriages" or same-sex civil unions, it is possible, but by no means definite at this point, that Nebraska could be a potential target of a legal challenge by a same-sex couple who travel to Vermont, satisfy its legal requirements, enter into a civil union there, and later return to Nebraska seeking enforcement of their Vermont-based legal status. All scenarios, whether involving marriage or civil union, presume extensive litigation and appeals.

As the Bishops’ statement acknowledges, the Church’s fundamental teaching regarding marriage and family rejects the idea of "same-sex marriage." Marriage is a faithful, exclusive, and lifelong union between one man and one woman, joined as husband and wife in an intimate partnership of life and love. Only such a union can form the basis of a family. In a recent address, May 25, the Holy Father said, "Attempts to define the family as something other than a solemnized lifelong union of man and woman which looks to the birth and nurture of children are bound to prove destructive."

Among resources for the Church’s teaching regarding homosexuality are The Catechism of the Catholic Church and documents promulgated by the U.S. Bishops, "Always Our Children" and "Human Sexuality: A Catholic Perspective for Education and Lifelong Learning."

Capitol Correspondent 7/7/00

U.S. Supreme Court Rulings Affect Education and Partial Birth Abortion

On the day (June 28) the United States Supreme Court issued the final major rulings of its Spring term, the greatest amount of attention was focused Nebraska’s partial-birth abortion case, Carhart v. Stenberg, and rightfully so.

There were other decisions rendered that day, however, including one we hail with downright delight.

In a landmark ruling on Mitchell v. Helms, the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of a federal education program, Title VI of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, that provides instructional materials and equipment, including library books and computers, for the benefit of students attending religiously based schools as well as those attending public and secular private schools. This is an excellent program, with a track record of success in Nebraska and throughout the country, working well for the educational benefit of all schoolchildren. Not only would it have been an injustice, but a real shame as well, if this program had been denied to children attending Catholic and other religiously based schools in Nebraska and the other states.

The Supreme Court’s ruling ended litigation that had been going on for nearly 20 years. The challenge to the program was based upon the argument that eligibility for children attending religiously based schools constituted a violation of the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, making it clear that the Establishment Clause does not deny children attending such schools their statutory right to participate on an equitable basis in this educationally significant program.

The United States Catholic Conference filed a friend-of-the-court brief in Mitchell v. Helms, arguing on behalf of the result that ultimately came to be. In his post-ruling reaction, the USCC’s General Counsel said Mitchell v. Helms "continues a recent trend in the Court’s Establishment Clause jurisprudence that exhibits a more realistic and benign interpretation of that Clause." He also pointed out that the Supreme Court emphasized the design and implementation of the program, and the choices of individual parents, "as opposed to some old notion about whether schools were ‘pervasively sectarian’".

A few additional thoughts regarding Mitchell v. Helms:

It was also pleasing to learn that the Supreme Court officially abandoned Meek v. Pittenger and Wolman v. Walter, thereby getting rid of two backward, unjust rulings from the 1970’s.

Although the decision applied to the program now known as Title VI of ESEA, this program has had several descriptive titles. Over the years we have known it as Title IV(b), Title II and Chapter II. The ESEA, originally enacted in 1965, is reauthorized every five to seven years and on several of those occasions the reauthorization resulted in a reorganization of the provisions and new titles.

Just about every news report we saw on Mitchell v. Helms, including some on national networks, wire services and major dailies, described it as approving government funds for religiously based schools. Wrong. Not the way it is. Read the law.

Funds are provided on behalf of, and for the educational benefit of, eligible elementary and secondary school students, regardless of the schools they attend. No funding is distributed to any religiously based school or any other kind of private school. The appropriated money is distributed to governmental units or government contractors that purchase the educational materials and equipment, distribute them for the use of the eligible school children and retain responsibility for them.

Probably the worst violation of intellectual honesty, or maybe it was merely an example of not understanding the subject at hand, or perhaps it was just being careless, was this bogus headline in the Lincoln Journal Star: "Government can give church schools funds."

Rights in Action

A quick update on an item from a previous column:

We were pleased to learn that Governor Mike Johanns has approved and signed a final version of a meatpacking workers’ bill of rights. Moreover, a state coordinator has been appointed with responsibility and authority to monitor industry compliance with the bill of rights.

One of the basic rights listed is to be able to organize. That effort is currently underway and should gain a boost from the Governor’s public support.

Sinking to a New Low

As good as the news was on Mitchell v. Helms, it was that bad and much worse on Carhart v. Stenberg. Abortion jurisprudence has reached a whole new depth of atrocity.

Much has already been written about this ruling, and much, much more will be written in the future. It is entirely possible, however, in our way of thinking, that nothing already written or still to be written will be more perceptive, more accurate or more chilling than these comments by highly acclaimed columnist George F. Will, as published in the Omaha World Herald on the morning after the decision was announced:

"….In Roe v. Wade, which arose in Texas, the court left standing a Texas law prohibiting ‘the killing of an unborn child during parturition,’ meaning the killing of an infant ‘in the state of being born and before actual birth.’ On Wednesday, such killing—what Justice Scalia, dissenting, accurately calls ‘live-birth abortion’—became a fundamental constitutional right."

Capitol Correspondent 7/21/00

USCC Sets Example for Political Responsibility

Like a number of other national organizations, the United States Catholic Conference, which is the public-policy agency of the nation’s Bishops, presents its views on major public-policy issues to the platform committees of the Republican and Democratic parties. This election year’s communication was finalized late last month.

Consistent with the exhortation they have for those they shepherd, this is an act of political responsibility on the part of the Bishops. Even though the Church’s moral framework and social teaching do not easily fit the categories of any political party, the Bishops seek to contribute to the major party platforms because they recognize how important the process is in relation to the course of public policy. As the Conference’s General Secretary stated in his letter of transmittal, "[T]he Bishops seek the support of people of good will of every religious or political persuasion for our policy positions since we firmly believe they advance the common good of all."

As the Bishops’ contribution, the U.S. Catholic Conference presented to each platform committee the full text of "Faithful Citizenship: Civic Responsibility for a New Millenium" and urged that it be carefully studied. This was an excellent approach to take. It is a wise use of what we believe to be a particularly strong document, the current edition of the Bishops’ quadrennial political-responsibility statement that summarizes the Church’s teachings in relation to important public-policy issues.

Since it’s "Faithful Citizenship", the testimony furnished to the platform committees emphasizes these themes: Life and Dignity of the Human Person; Call to Family, Community and Participation; Rights and Responsibilities; Option for the Poor and Vulnerable; Dignity of Work and the Rights of the Workers; Solidarity; and Care for God’s Creation.

"We believe that every human life is sacred from conception to natural death; that people are more important than things; and that the measure of every institution is whether or not it enhances the life and dignity of the human person," the statement says.

While it would be too much to expect that significant, specific portions of "Faithful Citizenship" would find their way into either of the two major-party platforms, it should not be too much to expect that its themes and priorities would be seriously considered in the formulation of the overall attitude and tenor of the party documents.

A reminder: Copies of "Faithful Citizenship: Civic Responsibility for a New Millennium" are available free of charge by contacting the Nebraska Catholic Conference (402/477-7517; nebrcc @alltel.net).

Support for Marriage

A new, broad-based, bipartisan marriage movement was born on June 29. On that day, more than 100 prominent scholars and religious and civic leaders announced they have joined together to give public voice and direction to a grass roots movement focused on strengthening marriage. They marked their announcement by releasing a new document: "The Marriage Movement: A Statement of Principles."

A headline in USA Today described the statement as "The matrimony manifesto." That prompted us to seek and obtain a copy of the document via the movement’s website: www.marriagemovement.org . It deserves more in-depth study than we have been able to give it to date, but it strikes us initially as a thorough, insightful and encouraging treatment of a highly significant subject. It forthrightly asserts that "the divorce revolution has failed" and confidently asserts that renewing a marriage culture is a reasonable goal.

One of the first things that struck us about the statement is this description of its signatories: "We are teachers and scholars, marriage counselors and marriage educators. We are judges, divorce lawyers, and legal reformers. We are clinicians, service providers, policy analysts, social workers, women’s leaders, religious leaders and advocates for responsible fatherhood. We are people of faith, asking God’s blessing in the great task before us. We are agnostics and humanists, committed to moral and spiritual progress. We are women and men, liberals and conservatives, of different races and ethnic groups…."

Wow. There surely must be an immediate, natural credibility associated with that much of a cross section.

Parenting and Permanence

This statement sees strengthening marriage as a legitimate public goal, for at least four reasons: marriage protects the well-being of children; children do better, on average, when they are raised by their own two married parents; divorce and unwed parenting generate large taxpayer costs; marriage is a unique generator of social and human capital, as important as education in building the wealth of individuals and communities; and only marriage creates a reasonable hope for permanence.

It will be interesting to see what lies ahead for The Marriage Movement and what impact it will have. Its policy goals are praiseworthy. Its emphasis on action rather than a fatalistic acceptance of weak marriages and divorce is encouraging. So is the fact that its participants pledge their time, their resources, and their intellectual and moral energy.

Among the more than 100 original signers of the Marriage Movement’s Statement of Principles are three listing Nebraska addresses. They are noted author Mary Pipher of Lincoln; Michael G. Lawler, Director of the Center for Marriage and Family at Creighton University; and Sister Barbara Markey, Director of the Family Life Office of the Archdiocese of Omaha. At least a half dozen other Nebraskans are listed as additional signers since the statement’s release to the public.

Visit NCC

For us, what is some exciting news: if everything goes well and according to plan, the Nebraska Catholic Conference will soon have its own, information-rich website. Our target date is August 1. Anyone interested in knowing more about the role of the Conference in the work of the Church will be able to visit us at www.nebcathcon.org . In addition to information about NCC and current issues, the site will have the text of position statements and testimony on legislative bills. There will be "sub-sites" for both the Bishops Pastoral Plan for Pro Life Activities and the Nebraska Federation of Catholic Schools Parents, and also links to other sites. We will always welcome suggestions for making the website even better.

Capitol Correspondent 8/4/00

Death Penalty Study

A couple of mere observations, absent any immediately available, specific, empirical evidence to back them up: first, although still quite substantial, public support for capital punishment is declining; secondly, public policy justification for capital punishment is withering more rapidly. Concerns about fairness in imposition of the death penalty, about whether or not it satisfies a truly meaningful sense of justice, and about the manner in which it is carried out are bothering politicians, bureaucrats and judges.

Nebraska is part of this intensified public-policy doubt regarding the death penalty. Consider some recent events and others that are ongoing:

As a result of action by the Legislature in 1999, a study is underway of all criminal homicide cases in the state since 1973; the key question about each of the approximately 1300 cases is this: "Are offenders who are arrested, prosecuted and convicted for similar criminal homicides receiving similar punishments?"; the study’s relevance regarding the death penalty is unmistakable;

Two convicted murderers have been taken off death row and re-sentenced to imprisonment for life after they were determined to be mentally retarded, in accordance with a 1998 Nebraska law that prohibits execution of individuals with IQs below 70;

In early May, a state district court judge in Scotts Bluff County issued an order 18 pages in length declaring that Nebraska’s current procedures for causing death by electrocution, which includes pauses between four separate jolts of electricity instead of a continuous current of electricity, violates the constitutional prohibition on cruel punishment; in other words, by including pauses, the mode of electrocution used is different from the mode called for by state law; since Nebraska is one of only two states to use the electric chair (out of 38 that have capital punishment), concerns about electrocution have provided some impetus for legislatively changing to lethal injection, as happened most recently in Georgia and Florida;

A recently published national report, one based on studying every death sentence in the U.S. between 1973 and 1995—4,578 death sentences in all—says that 65 percent of Nebraska’s death sentences were reversed on appeal, an error rate quite close to the national average of 68 percent; defenders of the death penalty say the reversal rate shows the system works, while opponents and others describe the situation in ways we think is much truer to form: gross inefficiency and a "broken system", which increases the risk of putting an innocent person to death.

These are meaningful indications, and there are others as well, that the death penalty can no longer be sustained as a matter of public policy. Of course, there are morality-based arguments that lead even more directly and resolutely to the same position, including that of unyielding regard for the dignity of each human person.

More Time and Money

A couple of other Nebraska developments regarding the death penalty:

Before adjourning their 2000 session, Nebraska legislators voted 48-0 to pass LB 1008, which affects the study on homicides in at least two ways. For one, the deadline for completing the study has been extended from December 31, 2000 to August 1, 2001. Also, by virtue of the accompanying "A-bill", LB 1008A, an additional $40,000 has been appropriated to fund the study, bringing the total to $200,000.

It was somewhat surprising, but even more disappointing, that on June 5 a federal magistrate turned down a request to stay a death penalty case pending the outcome of the legislatively sanctioned study on homicide cases. Still, it seems quite unlikely that any execution will be carried out in Nebraska while that intensely relevant study is underway and unfinished.

Silly Argument

Although it still has to survive quite a bit of administrative process before becoming officially qualified for November’s ballot, the citizen-initiated proposal to amend the Nebraska Constitution to prohibit recognition of same-sex "marriages", civil unions and domestic partnerships is already attracting public reaction. That’s good. Arguments for and against this proposed amendment should be aired prior to Election Day.

One early-made argument offered publicly in opposition to the proposed amendment suggests that if this is adopted, persons of the same sex won’t be able to engage in any business partnership formed in Nebraska since "domestic partnerships"—as distinguished from foreign partnerships—will not be recognized under law.

This strikes us as a silly, ridiculous argument, more in the nature of a scare tactic than anything to be taken seriously. Only a wild imagination would think that any court would hold that business partnerships between two men or two women are prohibited.

The proposed amendment has two sentences. The first sentence says, "Only marriage between a man and a woman shall be valid or recognized in Nebraska." It is followed by a second sentence that says, "The uniting of two persons of the same sex in a civil union, domestic partnership, or other similar same-sex relationship shall not be valid or recognized in Nebraska." Clearly, the second sentence has to be read in the context of the first sentence. The context of the proposed amendment is marriage and any similar, "near"-marriage or marriage-like relationships intended to have the same recognition and status as marriage, including "domestic partnerships", as in "domestic relations" (i.e. family) law. Only that interpretation makes sense.

Visit NCC

What for us is some exciting news: if everything goes well and according to plan, the Nebraska Catholic Conference will soon have its own, information-rich website. Our target date is August 4. Anyone interested in knowing more about the role of the Conference in the work of the Church will be able to visit us at www.nebcathcon.org. In addition to information about NCC and current issues, the site will have the text of position statements and testimony on legislative bills. There will be sub-sites for both the Bishops Pastoral Plan for Pro Life Activities and the Nebraska Federation of Catholic Schools Parents, and also links to other sites. We will always welcome suggestions for making the website even better.

Capitol Correspondent 8/18/00

Education Expense Tax Relief

Last week’s Sunday Journal Star newspaper has a neat human-interest story about the Walker family of Lincoln. The story focuses on a paper route and how, for the past nearly 15 years, the six children of Eugene and Margie Walker—three boys and three girls—have passed the route down the line of siblings from oldest to youngest. Now they are giving it up. The youngest of the six, the incumbent carrier, has reached his junior year of high school. "Paper route legacy coming to an end" says the headline.

Here’s how the Journal-Star’s talented feature writer, Cindy Lange-Kubick described the situation:

"Thousands of rubber bands, countless frigid dawns, six Walker kids and an incredible number of ink-stained hands later, the Catholic clan’s last carrier and youngest child, Robert, 15, will fling the dynasty’s last paper."

Robert Walker has a lot to look up to. His oldest sister is now a wife, mother and pediatric resident. His oldest brother is now a certified