THE CONFERENCE:

Candidate Survey (11/2006)

Legislative Issues

NCC/Publications:

  -NCC Statements &

   Current Issues

Medical Treat-      ment Decision-

making (1/06)

  -Bishops' Statements

    *Behavioral Health

     Statement (2/05)

  -Capitol 

   Correspondent:

    Columns-2007

    Past Columns

  *********

PRO LIFE:

Calendar of Events

Current Issues

NE Catholics for Life

  -NCL Newsletter

  -A People of Life Brochure

Life Insight: 

  Columns-2008

  Past Columns

Preg. Help Centers

Project Rachel

2007 PL Convention

Walk for Life 2008

Printed Resources

*********

Education Issues:

The NFCSP

Education/Legislation

Action Alerts!!

Newsletter: 

 Parent Advocate

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

Capitol Correspondent - 2001

Diocesan Newspaper columns by James R. Cunningham

New Legislative Session Opens (1/5/01)

Public Policy Ideas Abound (1/19/01)

Death Penalty / Private School Exclusions in LB 745 & 799 (2/2/01)

Tracking Legislative Bills (2/16/01)

Nebraska Legislature Seeks to Mandate Contraception Coverage (3/2/01)

At Legislative Half-way Point, Priority Bills Chosen (3/16/01)

LB 462 - Fetal Tissue Ban to Be Debated (3/30/01)

Legislative Bill Recap Two-Thirds of the Way Through Session (4/13/01)

Legislature Tackles Budget Process (4/27/01)

97th Nebraska Legislature to Finish on Schedule (5/25/01)

Assessing the Impact of the 97th Nebraska Legislature (6/8/01)

Trailblazing Education Legislation to Assist Parents and Schools (6/22/01)

A Look Back at Some Bills of Interest (7/6/01)

Death Penalty Study, ESA's and Ag Meeting (7/27/01)

New Farm Bill Due:  Ag Policy Tremendously Significant (8/10/01)

Death Penalty Study (8/17/01)

Values for Rural America's Future (9/7/01)

Regents’ Decision On Stem Cell Research Has Been Writing on the Wall (9/14/01)

Seeking to Understand and Explain the Attacks on America (9/28/01)

Nebraska Supreme Court Case Will Affect Marriage, Families and Children (10/12/01)

Legislative Session Won't Be Special (10/26/01)

Special Session Over--Budget Cuts Not (11/9/01)

Gambling Expansion is Dubious (11/23/01)

Senator Chambers' Favorite Target (12/7/01)

Mullens Were Prominent Catholic Nebraskans (12/21/01)

Capitol Correspondent  1/5/01

Legislature Opens

The 97^th Nebraska Legislature set sail for its place in history this week. January 3 was opening day, "the first Wednesday after the first Monday in January," as prescribed by Article III, Section 10 of the Nebraska Constitution.

Each Nebraska Legislature consists of two regular sessions. The first occurs in an odd-numbered year and may last up to 90 legislative days. The regular session in the ensuing even-numbered year may last up to 60 legislative days. There are provisions for extending regular sessions—and also provisions for "special" sessions—but it would be rare and unique for that to happen.

The 2001 regular session will probably last through May. A tentative schedule reserves the 90^th legislative day for either May 31 or June 1. Perhaps that 90^th day won’t even be necessary. That was the case in 1999, when adjournment sine die occurred with the conclusion of business on the 89^th legislative day.

Secret Ballot Elections

Probably the most exciting day of any Legislature is the first day. There is an appropriate amount of formality and ceremony as the 49 select Nebraskans convene in the legislative chamber located just off the rotunda of the beautifully imposing State Capitol. Many of the legislators no doubt had family members present for the ceremonial activities, which included the swearing in of the 26 legislators elected in November.

Some important business also adds to the excitement, as the legislators elect their leadership by secret ballot. Some drama always accompanies that process. This year, however, the drama and excitement was reduced by the fact that most leadership positions were expected to be retained by those who held them in the last Legislature. Unless something totally unexpected happened, Senator Doug Kristensen was re-elected Speaker of the Legislature and Senator George Coordsen of Hebron was re-elected chairman of the Executive Board of the Legislative Council. Lieutenant Governor Dave Maurstad fills the role of President of the Legislature.

As opening day approached it was apparent that most of the Legislature’s 14 standing committees would continue with the same chairperson, in fact, perhaps as many as 13 of the 14. The one certain exception is the Education Committee, for which the incumbent chairperson did not seek re-election. At least four senators were expected to place their names in nomination for this highly significant post.

Also open was the chair of the Committee on Committees, one of the Legislature’s four select committees.

In a future column we will provide a listing of the committee chairpersons, and the full committee memberships as well.

Bills and Information

The second through the 10^th legislative day of this session will be devoted largely to the introduction of new bills. Lots of ideas will be put forth, in the form of legislative bills and resolutions. We plan to again use this column to describe and comment on legislation and other legislative happenings as the session progresses. In addition, we will have legislative information on our Nebraska Catholic Conference website: www.nebcathcon.org .

The Unicameral itself provides several ways for Nebraskans to follow the action. Bill status inquiries and other questions can be posed by calling the Legislative Hotline at (402) 471-2709, between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. on weekdays. An excellent way of following the session is to subscribe to the weekly Unicameral Update. That subscription is available, free of charge, by calling the Unicameral Information Office: (402) 471-2877. For sure, don’t overlook the Legislature’s website: http://www.unicam.state.ne.us/.

Time for Prayer

As has been our custom for more than a dozen years, we acknowledge the beginning of a new session of the Legislature by offering a special prayer. It is adapted from an invocation originally given by the 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 97^th Nebraska Legislature, First 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 in 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."

Back to Top | Columns 2000 | Columns 2002| Columns 2003 | Columns 2004 |

Capitol Correspondent  1/19/01

Public-Policy Ideas Abound

The Nebraska Legislature has completed the open bill-introduction period for its new session, which means there are a lot of ideas in the public-policy hopper right now.  These include new ideas, renewed ideas, old ideas in new formats, old ideas in old formats, ideas that don't make sense, ideas that make more sense than they should, good ideas that don't belong in legislation and bad ideas that aren't any better as legislation.

This is what legislation is all about:  ideas for affecting change in public policy, and paying for it when necessary.  With more than 800 bills introduced, the Legislature has more than enough ideas to sustain its session.

State is Strong

On the seventh legislative day, Jan. 11, Governor Mike Johanns came to the Unicameral chamber and delivered the State of the State address. This major speech sets forth the administration's objectives and priorities for the legislative session.

As is necessary, the Governor's presentation was wide-ranging.  Near the beginning he said, "The state of our state is strong."

We were impressed by the Governor's confident tone and manner.  He was gubernatorial.  He was cautiously optimistic, as governors have to be.  While he urged caution regarding the economy and state spending, he was firm on continued attention for public safety, economic development, property-tax relief and education.  He also applied some new emphasis to support for mental health services, a "substantial juvenile-justice reform plan," and early childhood development.

We were pleased that on the subject of initiatives involving teacher retention, recruitment and compensation, Governor Johanns specifically mentioned the importance of including those who teach in private schools, that is, those who teach 12-plus percent of Nebraska's children in elementary and secondary schools.  These professional educators are state-certified, just the same as their public-school counterparts, and they are employed in schools that meet and often surpass the State's standards.

If the Legislature decides that the State will assist teachers directly, based upon credential, employment and any other criteria for which teachers in private schools are situated no differently than those in public schools, then the fair and just approach will be to treat all certificated teachers the same.

It is also encouraging to hear the Governor speak directly and strongly on behalf of the most innocent and defenseless members of the human family, newly started on life's journey within the womb of their mothers.  " I also ask this body to make a bold commitment to honor life of the unborn," he said.  He called for strengthening parental-notification laws, promoting adoption as an alternative to abortion and passage of fetal homicide legislation, all commendable objectives in our view.

Curious Reward

The Governor also repeated his pledge to sign in to a law a ban on research use of fetal cells derived from induced abortions.  We applaud the Governor for addressing this issue, a significant controversy in Nebraska, of course, due to the planned, intentional, on-going involvement of the University of Nebraska Medical Center in obtaining fetal tissue from induced abortions.  Still, there was a curious dichotomy in the Governor's message.  Although expressing specific opposition to this morally abhorrent practice, he also endorsed a proposal that has some steam:  to provide the University of Nebraska Medical Center, and other institutions as well, with a healthy chunk of funding specifically dedicated to medical research, by utilizing proceeds from the State's settlement with the tobacco industry.  

While the Governor desires to make sure that none of the funds from this source would be directly used for research involving fetal tissue from induced abortions or embryonic stem cells, why would he want to reward the University in any fashion as long as it continues its connection to and reliance upon induced abortion?  Wouldn't it be more consistent to withhold support from any such initiative unless and until the University definitively stops using induced abortions as a tissue source?

The connection between induced abortions and fetal tissue for research and experimentation will once again be addressed in this session of the Legislature.  Senator Dwite Pederson of Elkhorn has introduced LB 462, proposing to prohibit any institution or individual that relies upon public funding form linking up with induced abortions.  The bill is similar to LB 1405 that was introduced and subjected to some debate last year before being withdrawn.

Also, Senator Chris Beutler of Lincoln has introduced LB 304, which deals with fetal tissue, but appears to have little or no meaningful impact.  UNMC could continue its reliance upon induced abortions as a source of fetal tissue until it finds what it considers and adequate, satisfactory alternative source.

Apology

While on the subject of the fetal-tissue controversy as it pertains to legislative action. We take this opportunity and use this means to issue an apology to Senator John Hilgert of Omaha.  He was the chief sponsor of last year's LB 1405, mentioned above, which had a public hearing in front of the Judiciary Committee and was eventually advanced to the full Legislature on a floor motion to do so notwithstanding the lack of committee action.  Later, as floor debate unfolded, Senator Hilgert decided to withdraw the bill from further debate and consideration when he concluded that not enough of his colleagues-33 being the number of votes needed--were willing to put an end to a filibuster.

Looking back on the situation, there is no doubt that Senator Hilgert, as the bill's floor leader, was in the position to make that decision, especially since he was experiencing and reacting to the process.  He judged that the outcome was inevitable.  Subsequently, however, he was victimized by some extremely unfair, unjustified and inflammatory criticism in the Omaha Metro Right to Life newsletter, including ludicrous suggestions that he used his pro-life credentials to defeat the bill and that his actions caused the slaughter of, and experimentation upon, the unborn to continue.

We apologize to Senator Hilgert on three counts. First, for our own frustration over the way things played out on a very difficult issue, in the face of considerable effort, energy and arrogance on the part of the university's cadre of apologists. Secondly, for failing, until now, to comment in his defense given the unjustifiably harsh criticism and rude treatment to which he was subjected. And thirdly, for overlooking for so long the importance of doing this.

Back to Top | Columns 2000 | Columns 2002| Columns 2003 | Columns 2004 |

Capitol Correspondent  02/02/01

Death Penalty Outmoded Form of Cruel & Unusual Punishment

According to Nebraska law, Section 29-2532 of the statutes, "The mode of inflicting the punishment of death in all cases shall be by causing to pass through the body of the convicted person a current of electricity of sufficient intensity to cause death, and the application of such current shall be continued until such convicted person is dead." In Nebraska, the sole method of execution is by electrocution.

It has been widely reported that the current protocol for carrying out this mandate uses an eight-second jolt of 2,450 volts of electricity followed by 22 seconds of 480 volts. Then, there’s no jolt for 20 seconds, followed by a repeat of the two-jolts.

Does the four-jolt procedure constitute passing a current of electricity through the body of a convicted person and continuing it until that person is dead? A district court judge in Scotts Bluff county decided it was not. Last May, he ruled that the procedure not only doesn’t comply with Section 29-2532, but also as such violates the constitution-based prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. This same issue is now at play on other capital cases as well. And, don’t overlook what’s happened in Florida. There, electrocution was cast aside in favor of lethal injection because of legal dilemmas—some stemming from actual experiences—over the cruelty of electrocution.

Repeal is the Solution

So, Nebraska’s current method of inflicting the death penalty is a problem. The right way to resolve that problem, and to do so thoroughly, would be to eliminate the death penalty. A bill introduced in this session of the Unicameral would do just that. LB 18 proposes to replace capital punishment with life in prison without possibility of parole and with mandatory restitution for the families of victims. In this day and age, that would fully and adequately meet the state’s legitimate needs for protection and punishment.

There are other ideas for fixing Nebraska’s problem with its electric chair. These are the ideas of those worried about the risk of losing capital punishment on legal grounds, because of cruelty in the method. Thus, Senator Jon Bruning has introduced LB 62 and Senator Kermit Brashear has introduced LB 356. Both bills propose to kill those who have been convicted and sentenced to death by injecting them with "a lethal quantity of an ultra-short-acting barbiturate in combination with a chemical paralytic agent and potassium chloride, or other equally effective substance, sufficient to cause death."

Presumably, lethal injection is to be deemed more humane and less barbaric than electrocution. Presumably, it will help Nebraskans handle their uneasiness about the death penalty. Perhaps there’s some truth on both counts, but whatever is there is truth without substance, given the modern-era injustice inherent in punishment by death.

Non-Exclusionary Approach

During last year’s Unicameral session, Senator Nancy Thompson of Papillion was a key legislator on fashioning public-policy responses to concerns about teacher shortages, recruitment and retention.

To her credit, Senator Thompson was fair and broad-minded in her approach to these concerns. She worked hard to establish a loan-forgiveness program for would-be teachers (the Attracting Excellence to Teaching Program) and to reward Nebraska teachers who achieve the national Master Teacher credential. Both of these proposals were enacted into law, although funding was not provided. That’s the next step.

Nurturing these ideas along the way to enactment was only part of Senator Thompson’s endeavors, however. She also worked hard to see to it that they will apply in the context of approved and accredited private schools as well as public schools. That’s what we mean by her fair and broad-minded approach.

Now move ahead to the current legislative session, and contrast Senator Thompson’s approach with that of Senator Ron Raikes, who’s more than just a senator interested in education, he’s the new chairman of the Legislature’s Education Committee.

To his discredit, Senator Raikes has introduced at least two bills, LB 745 and LB 799 that propose to strike all references to private schools, and thereby cancel all eligibility for benefits in the context of private schools. For example, for purposes of the Master Teacher Program, he proposes to redefine the term "Teacher" so that it would mean a person who holds a valid certificate to teach in Nebraska, who has been employed for at least three years in a public school and who continues to be employed in a public school. Of course Senator Raikes knows that teaching personnel in approved and accredited private schools are required to have valid State-issued certificates just like their public-school counterparts. Apparently, however, he prefers not to think of them as teachers. On the loan-forgiveness program, he would make it a condition that the eligible teacher-education students commit to teach in a public school only.

The hostility that the chairman of the Education Committee is showing toward private schools and their constituencies by these actions can only be lamented. It appears he has little or no understanding of, or respect for, the contributions that private schools make to the overall educational system in Nebraska; and we’re not talking here just about millions upon millions of dollars in tax relief. The Nebraska Federation of Catholic School Parents, as the largest private-school organization, especially faces a challenge of helping Senator Raikes gain that understanding and develop that respect.

Meanwhile, Senator Thompson has indicated that she’ll fight these bad bills and work to retain a private-school context. Good for her.

Back to Top | Columns 2000 | Columns 2002| Columns 2003 | Columns 2004 |

Capitol Correspondent  02/16/01

Tracking Legislative Bills

In a recent call to the Nebraska Catholic Conference office, the caller wanted to know if a certain legislative bill is "on our radar screen." She was speaking figuratively, of course. She was anxious to find out if we were aware of the bill in question and what information we could provide on it.

It is not uncommon for us to receive calls like that. As the public-policy agency operated jointly and cooperatively by the three dioceses, the Catholic Conference receives inquiries and expressions of interest or concern. Often these are referrals from pastors or others familiar with this aspect of the Church’s work.

Although we don’t use radar, tracking legislation is part of what we do. (The Internet has provided much more technological facilitation than there used to be.)  During the current session of the Unicameral, for example, we are already paying attention to more than 100 separate bills. That number will grow even more as the session progresses; it’s now a third of the way finished. Lawmakers have introduced nearly 900 bills, and we are still in the process of reviewing each one to assess any possible impact it might have on the Church’s institutional interests, or on prioritized social concerns stemming from the Church’s rich teaching. (For a partial list and position of bills followed by the Conference this session, click here.)

Following are just a few of the bills that NCC is active on during this session:

Faulty Presumptions

LB 200 proposes to reinstate the sales tax on food items purchased as groceries. Reinstatement of this sales tax, which was eliminated by the Legislature in 1983, would be accompanied by a refundable state income-tax credit, at different amounts depending upon levels of income. Individuals with a filing status of single or married filing separate would not be eligible for any food-sales-tax credit if their annual income exceeded $14,000. Similarly, the phase out for individuals with a filing status of married filing joint return or head of household would be $30,000.

Reinstating the sales tax on food is intended as a revenue raiser for the State treasury. Concurrently providing the income tax credit is intended to offset the fact that the sales tax is inherently unfair. The tax is regressive; those who are poor spend a greater portion of their limited income on the basic necessity of food.

The view here is that, as a matter of public policy, exempting food is much to be preferred over taxing it and providing an accompanying income-tax credit for those who can least afford to pay. The latter approach presumes relief for the poor in the form of a forced savings plan, with the State as the banker. It presumes the poor can afford such a plan. Those who are eligible for the credit will be expected to wait until they file a tax return in the following year in order to have relief. What’s more, the tax-credit approach presumes that all eligible individuals and families will know about and undertake the rigmarole necessary to receive the credit for which they qualify.

Given that LB 200 offers a process that, as a whole, is presumptuous and cumbersome, the bill probably won’t be taken too seriously. That’s as it should be.

Threat to Religious Conscience

LB 319 is sure to spark controversy. It proposes to mandate that every individual or group health insurance plan, policy, certificate, subscriber contract, contract of insurance provided by a managed care plan, preferred provider agreement or health maintenance organization subscriber contract that pays for or purchases health care services for covered persons will do two things: First, provide coverage for non-experimental infertility procedures for the diagnosis and treatment of infertility; second, provide benefits for prescription contraceptive drugs and devices, and also outpatient contraceptive services, if benefits are provided for any other outpatient drugs or devices. In other words, by State-imposed mandate, contraceptives, the function of which is to interfere with normal, healthy bodily processes, will have to be treated no differently for purposes of insurance coverage than drugs prescribed to treat a disease or pathology.

LB 319 is Nebraska’s 2001 version of legislation that has been considered, or is now being considered, in just about every state in the nation. This national campaign has Planned Parenthood’s fingerprints all over it.

One inherent problem with this type of legislation is that it is heavy-handed toward insurers, employers and those insured whose religious beliefs would be violated by forced adherence to such a requirement. LB 319 has a provision that appears intended to provide religious institutions and religious organizations with some protection of conscience, but our early assessment is that it is too narrow in scope and that anything reasonably within its scope is ineffective and inadequate. More on this another time.

Any Motive Whatsoever

LB 61 has been described as "crazy" by a practicing attorney who has experience in the field touched by the bill. It proposes to give every person specific legal standing to initiate an appeal to the Tax Equalization and Review Commission, for any reason whatsoever or no particular reason at all, challenging any religious, charitable, educational or cemetery tax exemption granted by a county board of equalization. Any person could appeal any property tax exemption based upon any motivation imaginable. Even the worthiest of exemptions could be subjected to costly, time-consuming, adversarial, quasi-judicial proceedings for no legitimate reason.

Adequate provisions already exist under Nebraska law to guard the public’s interest in preventing unwarranted property tax exemptions. County assessors and county board members—duly elected representatives of the citizens—have authority and discretion to review, recommend, consider evidence and make decisions about granting or denying exemption applications. Promulgated rules and regulations, based upon the Nebraska Constitution, state statutes and court rulings, are in place for guiding such decisions. What’s more, as a result of legislation passed in 2000, there are expanded public-notice provisions relating to county proceedings on tax exemptions. That same legislation granted each county assessor standing to appeal any exemption granted by the respective county board over his or her objections. There is no reason for the Legislature to give thought to passing a bill that would only increase ill-motivated adversarial proceedings and the attendant risk of encouraging personal and community animosity.

Back to Top | Columns 2000 | Columns 2002| Columns 2003 | Columns 2004 |

Capitol Correspondent  3/2/01

Nebraska Legislature Seeks to Mandate Contraception Coverage

LB 319 is a bill in this session of the Nebraska Legislature that seeks to impose a two-part mandate upon every health insurance plan, policy and contract in the state.

Pursuant to one part, any health insurance that covers any outpatient prescription drugs and/or devices would have to include all prescription contraceptive drugs and/or devices approved by the federal Food and Drug Administration. The same mandate would apply to outpatient contraceptive services. In addition, no deductible, co-insurance or other cost sharing or waiting period could be applied to the coverage of contraceptives if it did not also apply to all other prescriptions under the plan.

Pursuant to the second part of the mandate, all health insurance would have to cover all non-experimental procedures for the diagnosis and treatment of infertility.

The only exemption from the mandate would be that any "religious organization" or "religious institution" would not be required to cover "any procedure" that it determines will violate its religious and moral teachings and beliefs.

The Nebraska Catholic Conference, representing the mutually held views and concerns of the three dioceses in Nebraska, under the direction of the Diocesan Bishops, is opposed to LB 319. Testimony on that position was presented to the Legislature’s Banking, Commerce and Insurance Committee at a public hearing, Feb. 26, at the State Capitol. The testimony—the full text of which can be found on the NCC website (www.nebcathcon.org/ncctestimony1.htm) --presented three basic reasons for opposing LB 319.

Exemption is Inadequate, Flawed

Regarding the exemption for religious organizations and religious institutions, it is inadequate and ineffective and fails to overcome our objections to the bill, for at least three reasons. First, the provision does nothing to protect the religious beliefs and/or moral convictions of most health care payers. It would not apply to most insurers, most employers, most health plan participants and most individual consumers. Second, the opt-out for religious organizations applies only with regard to any "procedure" covered under the Act. Apparently, the exemption does not apply to any contraceptive drug or device or outpatient service, the operative terms specifically used in the mandate. Third, even if a religious organization opted out, that would not necessarily mean it would be freed from paying for objectionable drugs, devices, services or procedures, because it could still be treated as a part of a broader pool of insured entities affected by the cost of coverage.

Thin and Flawed Reasoning

Proponents of the legislation, including Senator Deb Suttle of Omaha, who is the sponsor of LB 319, and representatives of Planned Parenthood, hit hard on the fact that last December the federal Equal Employment Opportunity Commission decided that two specific employers had violated the federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) by failing to cover the cost of prescription contraceptive drugs and devices. The proponents’ strategy, of course, was to leave members of the legislative committee with a sense that, by virtue of the EEOC’s ruling, they must support and advance LB 319, if not as a matter of obligation per se, then at least as a matter of wisdom and prudence, because the EEOC’s ruling will eventually be the law of the land anyway.

Whoa, not so fast Senator Suttle and Planned Parenthood. The EEOC decision is far from being the law of the land, not just because it applies only to the two cases that were considered, and not just because it may be subjected to appellate review, but also because there are strong reasons to conclude that the EEOC missed the mark, employing reasoning that is thin and flawed. When it comes to deciding what to do about LB 319, Nebraska lawmakers should not jump to any conclusions about that decision and, in fact, should assign little, if any, weight to it.

The reason Congress enacted the PDA was to prevent women from being fired or otherwise treated disadvantageously in the workplace because they either were pregnant or could become pregnant, that is, all situations in which women are "affected by pregnancy." Artificial contraception is generally intended to prevent pregnancy and therefore falls outside the umbrella of concerns that motivated Congress in passing the PDA. The U.S. Supreme Court case that the EEOC decision relies upon, International Union v. Johnson Controls, dealt with the capacity to become pregnant, not the interest in preventing pregnancy. A woman who uses contraceptive drugs and devices is not usually "affected by pregnancy," but is trying to avoid pregnancy. Hence, Congress had no need to specifically exclude contraception from the PDA. And without a need, the absence of an explicit exclusion for contraception is no evidence that Congress intended to cover it. Rather, the fact that there is no clearly expressed affirmative intention by Congress to cover contraception reinforces the conclusion that the EEOC expansively misread the PDA.

Back to Top | Columns 2000 | Columns 2002| Columns 2003 | Columns 2004 |

Capitol Correspondent  03/16/01

At Legislative Half-Way Point, Priority Bills Chosen

The Nebraska Legislature has passed the halfway point in its current session of 90 legislative days. The 49 lawmakers made this a four-day weekend break after completing their 47^th legislative day last Thursday.

Already, the legislators have passed more than 100 bills. That number includes a dozen or so "A" bills, which are separate measures that appropriate state funds to pay costs of programs or activities authorized by an underlying bill. For example, LB 303 establishes the Education Roundtable, consisting of 36 members to identify and prioritize the future needs and challenges related to education. LB 303A appropriates $14,550 from the General Fund for FY-02 "to aid in carrying out the provisions of LB 303."

In addition to the bills they have already passed, the legislators also have "killed" nearly 120 bills and withdrawn eight others.

The Legislature’s standing committees have completed almost all of the public hearings on bills, so when the Legislature reconvenes next Tuesday it will do so for full-day sessions on the floor of the George W. Norris chamber.

Since nearly 900 bills were introduced, there are many more than the process can handle. Faced with that, the Legislature uses a priority system to determine which measures receive attention as the days begin to dwindle. Each senator has designated one personal priority bill. Each of the 13 standing committees has designated two priority bills. And, the Speaker of the Legislature, Senator Doug Kristensen of Minden, has the prerogative to select 25 additional priority bills and to designate five bills as "Major Proposals." Those are like super priorities.

The complete list of priority bills is available on the Legislature’s website: www.unicam.state.ne.us.  For a partial list of bills followed by the Conference this session, click here.

Should Have Enthusiastic Support

One of the priority bills is LB 824, selected by Senator Mike Foley of Lincoln. It is reform legislation, the purpose of which is to extend the protection of Nebraska’s homicide laws to the unborn child at every stage of development in utero. A hypothetical situation described by Senator Foley in his presentation of the bill before the Legislature’s Judiciary Committee aids in understanding this bill: A pregnant woman is walking her dog. Someone approaches and shoots and kills her and her unborn child and her dog. Under current Nebraska law, the perpetrator could be prosecuted for killing the woman and for killing her dog, but not for killing the unborn child.

Nebraska law does not recognize homicide of an unborn child, even if the child is born alive and then dies as a result of prenatal injuries inflicted by a criminal act. LB 824 would change that. In order not to be tripped up by Roe v. Wade and its progeny, the bill would not apply to an abortion or any other medical procedure to which the pregnant woman consents, or to conduct of the pregnant woman herself.

At least half the states have enacted legislation that makes killing an unborn child a form of homicide. Like LB 824, the most common approach is to make such killing a crime irrespective of any arbitrary gestational age. The crime is defined logically and like every other crime, it is subject to prosecutorial discretion and evidentiary issues.

No fetal homicide statute has ever been successfully challenged on legal grounds. These aren’t abortion cases. As Josephine Potuto, the Richard H. Larson Professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Nebraska, stated in a letter to the Judiciary Committee: "I see no constitutional impediment…in including an unborn child at any gestational age within the coverage of wrongful death and homicide."

The Nebraska Catholic Conference presented testimony in support of LB 824 at the public hearing conducted by the Judiciary Committee. Part of that testimony was as follows: "Regardless of how one views the moral status of prenatal human life, these bills should elicit enthusiastic support. For those who believe prenatal human beings deserve recognition and protection under the law, this bill would affirm that belief, at least outside the context of abortion. For those who believe the moral status of prenatal human beings should be determined by the mother, these bills ensure that the choice of mothers to give birth to a child is respected and protected."

The Legislature should heed what other states have done and make the policy decision proposed by LB 824. As a priority bill, it could pass this year, if it can make it to the full Legislature for floor debate. The Judiciary Committee controls the bill.

No Reason for Discrimination

Another bill with priority status is LB 305. Senator Ron Raikes, who is chairman of the Education Committee, selected it, although without specific details. It is going to be the vehicle for whatever package of ideas the committee advances on the issues of teacher salaries and teacher recruitment.

One idea getting some traction, apparently, would reimburse new teachers for a significant portion of their college tuition costs for up to four years once they have their state teaching certificate and take employment in a public school. For Senator Raikes, and perhaps others, the idea is sound only if it excludes anyone who attains the State-required credential and chooses employment in a private or parochial school. Not only would this approach be discriminatory, but also it would further exacerbate the competitive disadvantage that private and parochial schools already face in recruiting and hiring teachers. For these reasons and others, LB 305 is going to hotly debated once it assumes its priority position on the Legislature’s agenda.

Treated with Disdain

LB 271 was not selected as a priority bill, but it is a meritorious proposal nevertheless. It proposes the Elementary and Secondary Scholarship Assistance Act. Individuals and businesses would be eligible for modest state tax benefits for making monetary contributions to specially formed school-tuition organizations that, in turn, allocate their revenue for scholarships to help children attend private schools.

LB 271 is similar to a bill that was introduced in 2000, but eventually killed by the Revenue Committee. Both the parent and the offspring are patterned after legislation enacted in Arizona, and now functioning there for the benefit of school children.

Inexplicably, although it is a tax-relief measure that should be under the jurisdiction of the Revenue Committee, as it was last year, the Legislature’s Executive Board assigned LB 271 to the Education Committee. That committee’s chairman, Senator Raikes, wasted little time showing his disdain for the proposal. He scheduled it for a public hearing on March 13, the last day of hearings for his committee. Of 79 measures referred to the Education Committee, 74 were given public hearings prior to March 13; that includes 68 bills that were introduced later than LB 271 was introduced. That’s a shame.

Back to Top | Columns 2000 | Columns 2002| Columns 2003 | Columns 2004 |

Capitol Correspondent  03/30/01

LB 462 - Fetal Tissue Ban to be Debated

Sometime before too many more working days of their current session have elapsed, Nebraska’s legislators will have debate on LB 462, legislation proposing to require the University of Nebraska Medical Center (UNMC) to discontinue biomedical research using fetal tissue obtained from induced abortions.

The context and extent of that debate is uncertain.

As this week began—with the 52^nd legislative day of a 90-day session—the Judiciary Committee held the bill. A motion to advance the bill to the full Legislature for floor debate produced a 4-4 committee deadlock last week. Senators Tom Baker, Kermit Brashear, Dwite Pedersen and Gene Tyson voted to advance the bill. Senators Patrick Bourne, Ernie Chambers, Matt Connealy and Jennie Robak voted against it.

Under the Legislature’s rules, a motion can be made to advance the bill to General File (the first stage of floor debate) notwithstanding the committee’s deadlock. As this week began, it appeared likely that Senator Pedersen, who is the primary sponsor of LB 462, would soon be filing that motion. Once filed, that motion will itself be subject to floor debate and will be scheduled for that purpose by the Speaker.

If, after whatever floor debate transpires, the motion to advance the bill to General File notwithstanding the committee’s deadlock receives at least 25 votes, the bill will be advanced. Since Senator Phil Erdman designated LB 462 as his priority bill relatively early in the process, it is likely to be near the top of the General File agenda, which means first-round floor debate could occur fairly soon. Again, the context and extent of that debate is uncertain. A filibuster has to be anticipated, but a motion to suspend the rules, filed earlier by Senator Brashear, might block that from happening.

To be clear, LB 462 does not come anywhere close to preventing all biomedical research into dementia-related diseases. That’s not what it’s about. What’s more, it would not prevent biomedical research using fetal tissue. That’s not what it’s about either. The proposed ban is narrowly focused on the source of fetal tissue, that is, no publicly facilitated or subsidized research using fetal tissue from induced abortion.

Incompatible with Principle

One of the related issues that has flared up as a result of UNMC’s lamentable practice of relying on induced abortions as a source of fetal tissue stems from the fact that some public officials—most notably, based upon publicity, state senator Connealy and University of Nebraska Regent Drew Miller, but there are others as well—describe and promote themselves as "pro life" even though they support UNMC’s practice and vigorously oppose any effort to prohibit it as a matter of public policy.

Last week, representatives of 10 Nebraska pro-life organizations, including the Bishops’ Pastoral Plan for Pro Life Activities, responded. At a press conference in the rotunda of the State Capitol, they jointly issued a stellar statement that says supporting fetal-tissue research that relies upon induced abortions is incompatible with the fundamental principle of the pro-life position as it relates to this matter. Following are key provisions of that statement:

"The principle at the core of opposition to abortion is a belief that prenatal human beings are morally equal to postnatal human beings and deserve to be equally recognized and protected in law. Accordingly, this principle means that killing (or complicity with killing) innocent human beings BEFORE birth is just as wrong as killing (or complicity with killing) human beings AFTER birth.

"Based on this fundamental principle, the pro life movement opposes UNMC’s aborted fetal tissue research for at least two reasons:

"1. In order to do this research, UNMC depends upon a prearranged and ongoing collaboration with induced abortion and is therefore complicit with the intentional destruction of prenatal human beings. Those who adhere to the principle stated above can no more support UNMC’s collaboration with the destruction of prenatal human beings than they would support UNMC’s collaboration with the destruction of innocent human beings after birth (e.g. collaborating with a professional hit man to obtain body parts from his victims).

"2. Proper consent cannot be obtained for the use of the remains of an intentionally aborted baby. Those who adhere to the principle stated above believe that a mother who seeks an abortion cannot legitimately consent to the use of her child’s body, just as a mother who conspires to kill a born child cannot consent to the use of her child’s body."

Given the impenetrable foundation of their principle as a matter of science and logic, as well as their long and consistent activism and public recognition, the Bishops’ Pastoral Plan for Pro Life Activities, Nebraska Right to Life and the other organizations rightfully have first claim on defining and declaring what it means to be "pro life". Moreover, none of the organizations that signed onto the statement knows of any other organization anywhere in the country that considers itself part of the pro-life movement and yet accepts induced abortions as a legitimate source of fetal tissue for research.

Cease and Desist

If public officials who support UNMC’s policy wish to describe and promote themselves as "pro life", then they have a responsibility to define what they mean by that label. If they say they are "pro life" because they are opposed to abortion, then the obvious follow-up question would be, why are you opposed to abortion? If their answer would be the intellectually honest one, that it’s because abortion deliberately ends the life of a innocent human being, then they would have to answer another question: as a matter of logic and principle, how is it that you regard killing of the unborn child to be different and less meaningful than killing of the child already born? Ultimately, we think, their explanation would have to abandon their own definition, admit that their support for UNMC’s policy on fetal tissue from induced abortions is, as the statement points out, morally and intellectually irreconcilable with the belief that prenatal human beings are of equal moral status as born human beings, and quit trying to play both sides of this issue.

Response to Grumbling

Shifting gears to clarify a matter from our last column…

For the woman who called from Wahoo and left a message of complaint, but wouldn’t leave her name or a number for a return call: Senator Curt Bromm is the chief sponsor of LB 271, proposing a modest tax credit for contributions to elementary and secondary scholarship programs. We thank and commend him for doing that. There was no political motive behind not mentioning his name. The bill is not prioritized.

Back to Top | Columns 2000 | Columns 2002| Columns 2003 | Columns 2004 |

Capitol Correspondent  04/13/01

Legislative Bill Recap Two-Thirds of the Way Through Session

When he moved to adjourn the Legislature’s day of business on April 5, the Speaker, Senator Doug Kristensen of Minden, commented that if this was the year of a "short" session his motion would be to adjourn sine die, meaning without another day, the end of the session.

"Short" sessions of the Unicameral last 60 working days. They occur in even-numbered years. This being an odd-numbered year, the Speaker’s motion to adjourn the 60^th working day had no special significance, other than it marked two-thirds down and just 30 days to go.

What a 30 days they will be. Some major issues and "hot-button" topics loom large on the horizon. Participants and observers had better be prepared for a wild ride.

Since the two-thirds mark has been eclipsed, it’s a good time to update the status of legislation previously presented and discussed in this column.

Back to Top | Columns 2000 | Columns 2002| Columns 2003 | Columns 2004 |

Capitol Correspondent  4-27-01

Legislature Tackles Budget Process

The rules that govern the Nebraska Legislature require that its Appropriations Committee must place appropriations bills on General File, the first stage of Unicameral floor debate, no later than the 70^th legislative day. These are the bills that ultimately constitute the State’s budget for the next fiscal biennium. The rules also provide that these bills must be passed no later than the 80^th legislative day.

On Tuesday of this week the Legislature observed its 70^th day, and so the first-round of consideration began on the several bills crafted and advanced by the committee. The budget package includes the mainline budget bill, LB 543, which appropriates funding for the overall operation of state government, including agency appropriations for both programming and salaries, and also state aid for programs implemented by governmental subdivisions. LB 543 proposes by far the biggest chunk of General Fund spending for each of the ensuing two fiscal years, spending that is likely to range between $2.7 billion and $3 billion for each of FY2001-02 and FY2001-03.

The process is complex, if for no other reason than its scope and enormity. Essentially, the Legislature starts with a beginning balance and subtracts ongoing obligations, including the obligation to maintain a cash reserve. The resulting unobligated beginning balance is then increased by estimated receipts, including the net receipts that are estimated by using forecasts and historical averages. The result at this point is General Fund net receipts, from which the appropriations will be subtracted.

Once the package of appropriations is finally decided, and subtracted from the sum of the unobligated beginning balance and the estimated receipts, the result provides a response to one of the key questions in the process, namely, how much is available to spend on "A" bills? These are the bills that appropriate funds to pay costs associated with new programs and activities authorized by underlying legislation. For example, as we alluded to in a prior column, LB 303A appropriates funds for implementing the Education Roundtable, as authorized and commissioned pursuant to LB 303.

In an obvious and necessary accommodation for making the budget process work, the rules of the Legislature require that during a 90-day session, such as the current session, all "A" bills that, when considered with their companion bill, appropriate general funds resulting in a net loss; all bills resulting in the reduction of revenue to the General Fund; and all tax-expenditure bills (e.g. tax credits) cannot be read on Final Reading until after the appropriations bills have been passed. This is one reason why the final 20 days of the session are so hectic and significant.

Big Ticket Item

In the category of "A" bills and their companion programming/authorization measures, LB 305A/LB 305 may turn out to be the biggest ticket item of all, in terms of new spending. These bills have evolved into the legislative vehicles for addressing teacher salaries, recruitment and retention. How big a ticket? Well, big, as in $49 million, perhaps, in each of the next two fiscal years.

On April 5, the Legislature’s Education Committee voted to advance LB 305 to General File. Senator Ron Raikes, the committee’s chairman, designated LB 305 as his personal priority for the session, which, once it was advanced to the full Legislature, assured it of being considered during this session.

As it was originally introduced, LB 305 contained all the recommendations issued last October by the Legislature’s Teacher Salary Task Force. The Education Committee considered these recommendations, as well as a myriad of other inputs, and then fashioned and advanced its own proposals, in the form of a committee amendment.

The proposed committee amendment to LB 305 has several components: public school districts and educational service units will have available to them in the first year funding to enable them to provide a $2,000 per teacher salary subsidy for all beginning public-school teachers (those within the first four years of their teaching careers); additional state aid will be available to public school systems in the second and subsequent years, calculated at $100 per student, with such additional state aid directed to be used to enhance teacher pay; a one-year relaxation of the state-imposed spending limits so that public school districts can boost teacher salaries by more than that allowed under the limits.

One idea the committee amendment does not propose, and we’re pleased by its absence, is elimination of the college-loan-forgiveness program. This program was established by the Legislature last year, but not funded. This year, the Appropriations Committee has included some funding in its proposed budget.

Big Whammy

Obviously, a bill with a (potential) price tag like that of LB 305A puts a big whammy on the State’s budget. To help offset that reality, LB 305, as formulated in the committee amendment, includes a proposed one-quarter of one percent increase in the state sales tax rate. In proposing this, the Education Committee was carrying out an idea endorsed by the Revenue Committee. Coincidentally, three legislators serve on both committees, including both chairmen.

The Education Committee’s ideas will launch the discussion, certainly, but they are by no means done deals. In fact, it will be interesting to see the extent to which those ideas are retained. The price tag and the tax increase will be hot buttons no matter what.

One member of the Education Committee, Omaha Senator Chip Maxwell, is promoting an alternative to the committee’s version. His plan would provide a one-year boost to beginning public-school teacher salaries, relax the state-imposed spending limits in certain circumstances on an ongoing basis, and fund the Master Teacher incentive program, which was also created last year but not funded. By relaxing the spending limits, the Maxwell plan would allow public school districts to increase teacher pay using their existing resources. And, higher local spending would result in some increased state aid for school districts in future years. Having a substantially reduced cost, estimated at $19 million, the Maxwell plan is promoted as doable without any tax increase.

It will be quite interesting to see what transpires during the remaining 20 legislative days, on LB 305/LB 305A certainly, but also on the state budget as a whole.

Back to Top | Columns 2000 | Columns 2002| Columns 2003 | Columns 2004 |

Capitol Correspondent for  05/25/01

97th Nebraska Legislature to Finish on Schedule

When all is said and done, both literally and figuratively, the 97th Nebraska Legislature will finish its regular session for 2001 on schedule. As this week ended, the 49 citizen lawmakers had completed all but three of their 90 working days. Adjournment sine die—without day—was reserved by the Speaker for either May 31 or June 1, depending on what works better for considering gubernatorial vetoes.

This Legislature fulfilled the two duties it was obligated to fulfill: it established a state budget for the next fiscal biennium, which starts July 1; and it drew new maps for six categories of political districts, based upon the new decennial census. Both of these duties are prescribed by the Constitution, and both fulfillment processes were facilitated by efficient committee work.

Steered by their nine-member Appropriations Committee, the legislators passed a budget package appropriating approximately $2.66 billion for fiscal year 2001-02 and $2.81 billion for fiscal year 2002-03. Those figures represent a two-year average spending growth of somewhat less than seven percent. Interestingly, as reported by Unicameral Update, 81 percent of the spending increases are attributable to three categories: $185.9 million for state aid to schools; $182.3 million for the main entitlement programs—Medicaid, public assistance and special education; and $128.2 million for state employee salaries and health insurance.

The budget process does not just involve the Legislature, of course. The administrative branch of Nebraska government is also integrally involved. This year, the Governor vetoed just $18.4 from the two-year budget. That’s tiny in relation to the $5.5 billion total, so even though the Appropriations Committee went through the routine of recommending an override of several vetoes, the vote of the full Legislature was well short of doing that.

With the final results in on the budget package, the legislators and the Governor will be making decisions about spending for new or expanded programs and activities addressed in this year’s legislation. Appropriations bills that accompany underlying legislation constitute another component of state spending.

In an upcoming column, we’ll take a closer look at some of the spending decisions, especially in the areas of education and social services.

Captivating Process

While the budget process is intriguing in and of itself, it is also relatively routine. It is continual. A new budget is set in every 90-day legislative session (the odd-numbered years) and numerous adjustments are made in every ensuing 60-day session (the even-numbered years). Redistricting, on the other hand, is a captivating process because it only happens every 10 years.

This Legislature began planning for its redistricting obligations early in its session. A select Redistricting Committee was appointed and several guidelines were prescribed. For example, while figures from the 2000 census provide an "ideal population" for each of the political districts, the guidelines specify how districts may deviate in size from the ideal, within allowable limits. Then it really did become a project of drawing maps to comply with the guidelines. The districts have narrative descriptions, but the maps are easier to consider.

Other guidelines include: following county lines whenever practical and forming districts that are "compact and contiguous"; following boundaries of cities and villages whenever possible; preserving the core of prior districts; avoiding favoritism toward a political party or any other group or person; prohibiting consideration of political party affiliations of registered voters; and complying with all legal dictates regarding voting justice for minority populations. The guiding principle throughout is one person, one vote.

Using the guidelines and the numbers, the Legislature’s Redistricting Committee developed six separate bills, one for each of the following categories: U.S. House of Representatives (LB 851); the Nebraska Legislature (LB852); the State Board of Education (LB 856); the University of Nebraska Board of Regents (LB 854); the Nebraska Supreme Court (LB 853); and the Public Service Commission (LB 855).

Not surprisingly, the new maps for the House of Representatives and the Legislature captured the most attention. The other four categories generated little controversy and were handled with relative ease.

First or Third?

Although it might be different in 2011, Nebraska still is entitled to three congressional districts and the census says 570,421 is the ideal population for each. Given that number, and guidelines dictating that the deviation district-by-district cannot be more than plus or minus five tenths of one percent of the ideal population, and that the overall deviation cannot exceed one percent, the committee was faced with having to shift some territory of the current districts. The fact is that even more of Nebraska’s population now lives in the eastern end of the state.

The final outcome of the congressional map was still in question as this week began. The committee’s recommendation involved shifting Madison County from the 1^st congressional district to the 3^rd, but that idea was tossed aside during first-round floor debate. It appeared that the "compromise" would move York and Saline counties to the western district.

As for the Legislature, state law requires 49 districts and the 2000 census numbers set the ideal population per district at 34,924. Given that figure and the guidelines, the legislators are faced with having to create another district in the Metropolitan Omaha area. It appears to be a done deal that the current 18^th district will be the victim. It is now located in the northeast part of the state, comprised of all of Cedar, Pierce, Stanton and Wayne counties and parts of Dixon and Knox counties. Senator Doug Cunningham of Wausa represents the district. If the change is made as proposed, he’ll become a resident of the 40^th legislative district, which means he would probably have to challenge and defeat veteran legislator Cap Dierks in 2002 in order to continue in the Unicameral.

Several members of the redistricting committee have commented that having to eliminate the position of one of their current colleagues is the most difficult and unpleasant part of their task. It is difficult, but it has to happen. Since these bills go through the full legislative process, just as any other bill, all involved must assume that the end results will be the best results, all things considered.

Back to Top | Columns 2000 | Columns 2002| Columns 2003 | Columns 2004 |

Capitol Correspondent  6-8-01

Session Ends

It is plenty difficult, if not altogether impossible, to assess what impact the first session of the 97th Nebraska Legislature, the session completed on the last day of May, will have on the lives of Nebraska citizens. It is too early for conclusions, both because many of the bills won’t even take effect until the end of August and also because the true impact will not be known until the new laws are experienced for a while.

It is a fact that lawmakers passed more than 250 bills, which includes both underlying measures and companion spending measures. It also is a fact that lawmakers adopted a budget for the fiscal biennium, and a fact that they drew new maps for political districts to reflect the 2000 census. Those two tasks were obligations under law.

Were there other significant accomplishments? Sure, but it’s premature to try and identify them. Some new laws, once they are experienced in real life settings, will prove to be more significant than expected, while others will prove to be problematic. For now, it’s a matter of hopeful expectation and potential, as it always is at the end of a session.

Commitment to Health Care

One bill that we view as having great potential for a significant impact is LB 692. It has a companion spending measure, LB 692A (meaning "Appropriation). These bills suggest that this Legislature got pretty serious about enhancing health care in Nebraska.

The underlying bill creates an annual $50 million endowment for this purpose. For its funding source it relies upon principal and income from Nebraska’s ongoing share of the master settlement agreement between 46 states and the tobacco industry–-the Nebraska Tobacco Settlement Trust Fund—and also from intergovernmental transfer payments under Medicaid—the Medicaid Intergovernmental Trust Fund.

It is especially noteworthy that this Legislature, pursuant to the leadership of its Health and Human Services and Appropriations committees, made some potentially far-reaching decisions about how best to use the tobacco settlement funds. Still in place, however, is a $7 million commitment for both the current fiscal year and the next fiscal year for prevention and control of tobacco use, especially among young people.

So, what is the Legislature’s plan for spending $50 million per year on health care? It’s an omnibus approach, but focused on some definite needs. It emphasizes public health services on a statewide basis, mental health, and increased attention on racial and ethnic minority health. Following, thanks to the Legislature’s information service, is a summary of how the newly created endowment is to support new programs and supplement others already in existence for Fiscal Year 2001-02 (some amounts are increased for FY 2002-03):

UNMC’s Questionable Reward

The designation of $10 million for biomedical research—it is the same amount in FY2002-03 and then increases to $12 million for both FY2003-04 and FY2004-05 and to $14 million in FY2005-06 and each year thereafter—attracted a good deal of attention, at least initially, until there was sufficient agreement on the allocation formula. As enacted, 24 percent of the appropriation goes directly to the University of Nebraska and 16 percent goes via contract directly to Creighton and Boys Town Hospital. The remaining 60 percent will be divided according to each institution’s prior-year’s expenditures of funds received from the National Institutes of Health. In other words, more NIH grant money means a bigger slice of Nebraska’s new pie.

The idea of the University of Nebraska Medical Center being rewarded with more Nebraska dollars while it continues to rely on induced abortions as a source of fetal tissue for research still does not sit well with us. However, we acknowledge what one senator observed: "research and public health go hand in hand." Moreover, we appreciate and salute the fact that this new funding is restricted. Thanks to the efforts of Senators Mike Foley, Chip Maxwell, Pat Engel, John Hilgert, Jim Jensen, Phillip Erdman and others, LB 692 contains language that specifically prohibits any and all funds appropriated or distributed under the Health Care Funding Act from being used for abortion, abortion counseling, referral for abortion or research or activity of any kind involving the use of human fetal tissue obtained from induced abortions or involving the use of human embryonic stem cells. What’s more, the formula used to allocate that part of the research funding that is based on NIH grants specifically does not count any such funds used for research involving tissue from induced abortions or involving embryonic stem cells.

Another part of the Legislature’s intent is to ensure that every county has, or is associated with, a "local public health department", that is, a county, district, or city-county department. Each of these will be required to carry out the core public health functions within its geographically defined community. The core public health functions are "emphasizing services to prevent illness, disease and disability"; "promoting effective coordination and use of community resources"; and "extending health services into the county, including (but not limited to) public health nursing, disease prevention and control, public health education and environmental health services."

Another really good aspect of LB 692 is that it requires annual reporting to the Governor and the Legislature about how the intent and purposes of the legislation are being fulfilled. Oversight and accountability are essential to this major initiative. This is especially true in the context of "public health services." The term and the category it represents are extremely broad. There is potential to offend the moral sensibilities of many Nebraskans, most notably with any emphasis that might be placed on contraceptive-based family planning and any hindering of the right of parents to guide the lives of their children. There are many reasons to pay attention to LB 692.

Back to Top | Columns 2000 | Columns 2002| Columns 2003 | Columns 2004 |

Capitol Correspondent  6/22/01

Trailblazing Education Legislation to Assist Parents and Schools

Some interesting, give-a-cheer news arrived recently from our Catholic Conference colleagues in Pennsylvania and Florida. In both states, trailblazing legislation has been passed that provides dollar-for-dollar tax credits to businesses that voluntarily contribute to qualified scholarship programs that help needy children attend private schools.

The Keystone and Sunshine states are trailblazers with this kind of program, but not of the first order. That honor goes to Arizona, which has had a similar program for several years. That program has been ruled to be constitutional in all respects and is enjoying success and gaining momentum. In fact, it has been reported that the tuition scholarship fund established by the Diocese of Phoenix, for example, has received more than $5.4 million in contributions.

In Pennsylvania, the tax credit program will provide a 75 percent tax credit, that is, a reduction in actual taxes paid, to businesses making a one-time contribution to tuition scholarship organizations, which can be established by schools and other nonprofit organizations. Businesses that make a two-year commitment will receive a 90 percent tax credit for qualifying contributions.

Help in Bearing the Burden

The head of the Education Department of the Pennsylvania Catholic Conference has stated the fundamental impact of this incentive legislation:

"This program will assist parents of low and middle income in sending their children to the school of their choice," he said. "Working with area businesses, schools and dioceses can provide financial help to more families who are unable to bear the burden of both tuition and taxes."

The Pennsylvania legislation, which was one part of an educational reform package, mandates that scholarships funded by contributions for which tax credits are claimed must be reserved for families with household incomes of $50,000 or less. The ceiling is higher when the number of dependent children in a family is greater.

Given concerns about the State’s tax expenditure that results when a credit is provided against a tax, the Pennsylvania Legislature also put a budgetary ceiling, $20 million, on the program.

The scenario played out a little differently in Florida. There, the Legislature passed a law, to take effect in 2002, which extends eligibility for scholarships to students who wish to attend private schools. Apparently, the tax law in Florida already incentiveizes contributions that fund scholarships for students attending public schools outside their resident districts.

While the size of the tax credit in Pennsylvania is discounted from full expenditure, it’s 100 percent for contributions in Florida. Another difference is that the aggregate statewide cap is $50 million in Florida.

Nebraska Has a Vehicle

So, Pennsylvania and Florida are just a Governor’s signature away from joining Arizona in this meritorious approach on behalf of educational choice for parents. That’s interesting information, but how does it relate to Nebraska?

The answer is that legislation of this type was introduced in the 2001 Unicameral session (recently concluded) and will still be around for additional consideration when legislators reconvene next January. LB 271 was the subject of a public hearing in front of the Education Committee last March 13. Proponents of the bill, including representatives of the Nebraska Federation of Catholic School Parents, presented excellent, compelling testimony in support of the idea. However, the committee took no action on the bill during the remainder of the session. Since 2002 will be the second part of the 97^th Legislature, LB 271 carries over, still alive under the committee’s jurisdiction..

LB 271, with Senator Curt Bromm of Wahoo as the primary sponsor, joined by 10 other co-sponsors, proposes the Elementary and Secondary Scholarship Assistance Act. While conceptually close to the Arizona, Pennsylvania and Florida legislation, one difference is that it would make credits (against applicable taxes) available to both individuals and businesses. Any voluntary contribution to a qualified "school tuition organization" would be eligible for a dollar-for-dollar credit, up to a maximum of $500 per year. "School tuition organization" is defined as a nonprofit, 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization that allocates at least 90 percent of its annual revenue for scholarships to help children attend any state-recognized private school of the parents’ choice.

This really is public investment legislation. Enabling more parents to have meaningful educational choice serves the public interest by promoting a well-educated citizenry.

Behind Senator Bromm’s leadership, Nebraska lawmakers, with cooperation from the Governor, should make this state the fourth to enact such legislation. LB 271 provides the vehicle. The other states provide the precedent, as does the fact that Nebraska has previously enacted tax-based incentives for economic development. LB 271 would bolster educational development.

As the preamble section of LB 271 states, "it is in the best interest of the state and its citizens to assist parents and legal guardians in choosing the educational opportunities best suited for their children by encouraging individuals and business firms to support programs which financially assist parents and legal guardians in paying tuition for their children at nonpublic elementary and secondary schools."

Back to Top | Columns 2000 | Columns 2002| Columns 2003 | Columns 2004 |

Capitol Correspondent  7-6-01

A Look Back at Bills of Interest

Around our shop, the Nebraska Catholic Conference office, we spent many a June hour reviewing all of the legislative bills we followed in one way or another during the 2001 session of the Unicameral. That session ended May 31. Our re-examination will be the basis for a comprehensive report for the next meeting of the Conference.

Reviewing legislation can be a scary process. You keep hoping you won’t find something really significant that you missed. After two-dozen years, there’s experience that should prevent that from happening, but there’s also a danger of complacency, which could allow it to happen. It’s hard not to take aspects of the legislative process for granted, but there is risk in doing so.

A number of years ago, a veteran lobbyist gave us this advice: "always be sure to check the repealers." She was talking about these obscure, one-line provisions that are probably in less than 25 percent of the bills passed. They don’t just change existing statutes they repeal them altogether. Repealers are easy to overlook.

Monitored Bills

More than 800 bills were introduced in this year’s session. We had nearly 200 on our interest list. Most of these, except for 20 or so priorities, fit our category of monitored legislation, meaning we did not lobby on them, as determined by the Conference’s governing board, but we still paid attention to them. Following is a sampling of some of the bills in this category.

The Legislature passed and Governor Johanns approved LB 154, which is aimed at improving medical care for inmates in Nebraska’s correctional system. Impetus for this bill came from a 1999 report by the State Ombudsman’s office that found serious systematic problems, and from a follow-up report of an inmate medical services task force appointed by the Governor.

LB 154 requires the Department of Correctional Services to employ a medical director, who will be responsible for coordinating inmate medical care, selecting and supervising staff, establishing protocols, maintaining records and also developing a quality assurance program, including seeking accreditation from the relevant commission of the American Correctional Association.

One of our summer projects at the Conference will be to relate the objectives and components of this bill to "Responsibility, Rehabilitation and Restoration," last November’s statement on crime and criminal justice by the U.S. Bishops.

Another bill passed and approved was LB 432, which makes it unlawful in Nebraska to discriminate on the basis of genetic testing. The bill seeks to have an impact in five contexts: insurance companies and employers cannot require genetic testing; insurance companies cannot deny coverage on the basis of genetic testing; employers cannot base hiring and firing decisions on genetic information that is unrelated to the ability to perform the duties of a job; labs doing genetic testing for diagnosis, treatment or forensic purposes must be accredited; standards are established for the retention of genetic material.

By the way, for anyone interested in a deeper understanding of this bill, "genetic information" means information about a gene, gene product, or inherited characteristic derived from a genetic test," which is "the analysis of human DNA, RNA and chromosomes and those proteins and metabolites used to detect heritable or somatic disease-related genotypes or karyotypes for clinical purposes."

Uh, o.k. then, moving right along.

The passage and approval of LB 593 means that racial profiling by Nebraska law enforcement agencies is prohibited. In addition, the bill seeks to create a pool of information about the extent of racial profiling by requiring officers to record information on the drivers they pull over in traffic stops.

By virtue of the enactment of LB 433, Nebraska businesses will be able to get tax credits for providing child care services for employees. These tax breaks will be allowed for 30 percent of expenditures to improve facilities for childcare, or to provide, license, staff, operate, or subsidize a childcare facility for employees. The credit cannot exceed 50 percent of the total tax liability and cannot be carried forward. There’s a three-year limit on taking the credit, which expands to five years if the facility is not only licensed, but nationally accredited as well.

In November 2000 Nebraska voters approved an amendment to the State Constitution so that any future candidate for Governor can select his or her own running mate, replacing the process of a separate nominating election for lieutenant governor. LB 768 makes the statutory changes needed to implement that constitutional amendment. By September 1 of the election year, the gubernatorial candidate from each political party who receives the highest number of votes in the primary election will have to file an affidavit with the Secretary of State designating his or her running mate.

Planning and Advice

Beginning in 2002, the Legislature will have the "Nebraska Futures Center" as part of its operational structure. That’s the result of LB 772. The Center’s staff will be responsible for examining long-term issues and advising and assisting governmental entities and officials in coordinating futuristic public policy. The Center will be governed by a 21-member board consisting of appointees from the legislative and executive branches of state government, the private sector, postsecondary education and local government.

A final thought, one with a peripheral connection to Nebraska legislation: it’s not hard to believe, but it’s lamentable and shameful nevertheless in our opinion, that the new Governor of Texas, Rick Perry, vetoed legislation that would have prohibited application of that state’s death penalty to mentally retarded persons.

Nebraska has it all over Texas on this count. In 1998, the 95^th Legislature and then-Governor Ben Nelson made Nebraska the 12^th death-penalty state to prohibit these executions.

Back to Top | Columns 2000 | Columns 2002| Columns 2003 | Columns 2004 |

Capitol Correspondent   7-27-01

Death Penalty, Education Savings Accounts and Ag Meeting

Soon (if it has not already happened between the time this column is transmitted and subsequently published), the study commissioned by the Legislature on the proportionality and fairness of the death penalty in Nebraska will be a public document. August 1 is the prescribed completion date for the Nebraska Commission on Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice, the agency given the responsibility (and the funding) for this comprehensive examination of 28-years worth of homicides in the state.

The report will have a media splash initially, but it’s what happens in the weeks and months down the road that will be more significant. How will it affect the debate over abolishing the death penalty and replacing it with mandatory incarceration for life? What impact will it have on public opinion? How will lawmakers respond to it? What changes, if any, will it encourage?

Study on the Study

One reason this final report will be significant for a while, in addition to the fact that it addresses a compelling topic, is that the Legislature’s Judiciary Committee has Legislative Resolution 192 on its slate. Introduced jointly by Senator Kermit Brashear, who is chairman of the committee, and Senator Ernie Chambers, whose opposition to the death penalty is both well-known and resolute, LR 192 calls for the committee to conduct an interim study to consider the results of the commissioned study.

Although LR 192 is not officially designated as a high priority for the committee, one would have to think that with the attention this topic rightfully generates, with this type of report, with these two influential legislators out front, and with considerable public interest involved, a process will be undertaken. An official assessment is a good idea. Look for at least one public hearing to be called by the committee. A facilitated opportunity for public comment on something like this is necessary and a good thing.

Georgia Senator’s Legacy

We can recall being tuned in to C-SPAN on several past occasions when the late Senator Paul Coverdell of Georgia was presenting and debating his proposal to expand the law governing college-level savings accounts to allow such accounts to be used for elementary and secondary education costs. He had a steady, gentlemanly manner (even in the face of a nasty filibuster by Senate Democrats) that made him an eloquent, persistent advocate for a darned good idea. Unfortunately, then-President Clinton, under the influence of a host of public-education organizations, scuttled the legislation one year by threat