Capitol Correspondent

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.

Capitol Correspondent - NCC Column 2007

Diocesan Newspaper columns by James R. Cunningham

Most Recent:

Carry-Over Bills Ready for Action (12/21/07)

Input from Sessions on Immigration Will Help Formulate Statement (11/23/07)

Farm Bill, SCHIP, Are Major Congressional Items (10/24/07)

Seeking a Better Rule Revision (10/12/07)

End of Initiative 300. What Next? (09/14/07)

Some Bills Hitch a Ride Across the Finish Line (07/20/07)

Reviewing Legislation Helps with What Happened (06/29/07)

Inexperience Did Not Prevent Noteworthy Performance (06/08/07)

Tax Reduction Part of Legislature’s Wrap-Up (05/18/07)

Large-Scale Changes in Health and Human Services Laws (05/04/07)

Budget Process Will Take Center Stage (04/27/07)

Priority Bills Will Dominate Session’s Second Half (03/16/07)

Good Start for Legislature (02/16/07)

Unique Mix Leading This Legislature (01/19/07)

Carry-Over Bills Ready for Action (12-21-07)

As 2007 winds down, one approaching event on the 2008 horizon is the second session of the 100^th Nebraska Legislature. January 9 is the scheduled convening date for the 49 citizen legislators.

Unless something extraordinary happens, the 2008 session will have a run of no more than 60 working days. It is the second installment of one full Legislature, following up on the 90 days of lawmaking that took place in January through May this year.

Legislative bills not terminally disposed of in the 90-day session, whether by passage or indefinite postponement, carry over to the 60-day session. This includes bills already positioned at one of three stages of Unicameral floor action, having been advanced by one of the standing committees, and bills still under committee jurisdiction.

Approximately 100 bills are positioned for floor action right away; there’s not much lull at the onset of a second session. A summary of some of these bills follows:

LB 112 is pending on General File, the first stage of floor action. It proposes to establish a statutory procedure whereby any qualifying minor could petition the district court of his/her county of residence for a judgment of emancipation, i.e., adulthood. Certain facts regarding the minor’s situation and capacity to function as an adult would have to be set forth in the petition and considered by the judge.

As it currently stands, this bill is not free of ambiguities, nor is the scope of the policy sufficiently clear. Presumably, greater clarity will be sought and provided as floor debate on the bill unfolds.

LB 157 had some floor debate in the first session, but its fate was unresolved. The bill proposes the abandoned baby safe-haven, allowing a parent to leave a newborn infant at a designated location (e.g., hospital, fire station) without being subject to prosecution for child abandonment. The issues of such a policy are more complex than intuitively apparent. It will be interesting to watch how they are addressed.

LB 171 proposes to direct the state’s Health and Human Services agency to apply for and utilize any and all options available to maximize Federal funding for the food stamp program. The bill was advanced to the full Legislature by the Health and Human Services Committee, debated and amended on General File and advanced to the second stage, Select File, where it awaits action in the upcoming session.

Also pending further action on Select File is LB 246. It proposes to statutorily ensure the recovery of transplantable organs from donor decedents whose bodies come under the jurisdiction of a county coroner. Apparently, this is intended to be remedial of situations in which a coroner’s response may not be time-sensitive enough to facilitate transplantation of organs donated pursuant to Nebraska’s Anatomical Gift Act.

LB 476 proposes to repeal the death penalty and replace it with imprisonment for life without parole and order of restitution to the victim’s estate as the exclusive punishment for first-degree murder. The bill was debated “on the floor” before failing to advance on a 24-25 vote. Technically it is alive—bills can have three strikes on General File—but it probably won’t be scheduled for more action.

In addition to carry-over bill already at floor-debate stages, there are others that will start 2008 under committee jurisdiction. Among them are the following: LB 104, proposing to drop the age of majority from 19 to 18; LB 534, proposing to authorize cities to establish fictionalized storm water utilities and to impose user fees; LB 571, proposing to allow two adults, regardless of marital status and regardless of gender, to jointly adopt a minor child; LB 599, proposing to establish a legal process whereby the biological parents of a child carried by a gestational surrogate could establish maternity and paternity for purposes of the child’s birth certificate; LB 647, proposing to require parity in insurance coverage for the diagnosis of behavioral illness; and LB 700, proposing a comprehensive ban on human cloning.

Perhaps, and as this column is being written it’s still a pretty big perhaps, this Congress is going to pass a new Farm Bill, quite likely over a presidential veto. If it happens, it is virtually a sure thing that it will include a strong Food and Nutrition Title, which will increase benefit levels and make other improvements in both domestic (e.g., food stamps)and international programs that address the needs of hungry people.

To his credit, Nebraska Senator Ben Nelson has been a consistent supporter and leader regarding a strengthened policy on nutrition assistance.

In another area of Congressional activity, a salute please for First District Representative, Jeff Fortenberry for voting to override the President’s veto of the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education appropriations bill. Although the override failed, Rep. Fortenberry showed support for programs that are critical to the nation’s health and well-being and which have been harmed by inflation and cuts.

Finally, how sad and annoying is it, if not downright offensive, to be exposed to all of this state-government-sponsored advertising to influence the buying of lottery and scratch-off tickets as Christmas gifts? Linking Christmas with government-promoted gambling—bah humbug.

Input from Sessions on Immigration Will Help Formulate Statement (11-23-07)

The Nebraska Catholic Conference, which functions on behalf of the mutual concerns and interests of the three dioceses, under the direction of Archbishop Elden Curtiss, Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz and Bishop William Dendinger, recently conducted a series of informational sessions on the subject of immigration in Nebraska.

The Bishops are contemplating issuance of a joint pastoral statement on this subject and these sessions are part of the process being used for development of such a teaching document. The subject is timely, complex, controversial in several respects, and of considerable importance to the Church.

Using the theme, “Listening, Sharing, Learning,” the Conference’s meetings had a twofold purpose. First and foremost, the purpose was to receive input from Catholic parishioners throughout the state, their views, attitudes and concerns; to hear what those who are interested have to say. The second purpose was to present the Church’s social teaching on migration and its relevance to the current concerns and issues. Each person who attended one of these meetings received informational materials; the source for most of these was the ongoing “Justice for Immigrants Campaign” sponsored and implemented by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

The NCC’s “Listening, Learning, Sharing” sessions were conducted regionally, at eight parishes on consecutive Sunday afternoons beginning September 23 and ending November 11. The scheduling was announced and promoted through parish bulletins; every parish in the state received at least three advance contacts, via both regular mail and e-mail, with a requested/recommended announcement. The host parishes, to which the Conference owes gratitude, were St. Michael in Hastings, St. Joseph in Lincoln, St. Ann in Lexington, Christ the King in Gering, St. Mary’s Cathedral in Grand Island, St. Thomas More in Omaha, St. Bonaventure in Columbus and St. Mary in Nebraska City.

One relatively insignificant by-product of this eight-week series was that this columnist, as coordinator of the project, benefited from an intervention addressing his couch-potato addiction to spending Sunday afternoons watching televised pro football.

The basic agenda for each of the eight sessions focused on small-group, table dialogue prompted by 10 discussion questions. The responses and comments that generated the most reaction and energy at each table were then discussed in a plenary session. Examples of the discussion questions are as follows: “What are the greatest challenges associated with the arrival of immigrants in your community; what are the opportunities?” “Has your Catholic faith influenced your attitudes and actions regarding immigration and unauthorized resident immigrants; if so, how?” “Given Her teaching to ‘welcome the stranger,’ what should the Church do to combat stereotyping and to respond to the reluctance of some, including Catholics, to accepts people of different cultures, ethnic backgrounds, language and customs?” “What are some of your most deeply held concerns and hopes about the growing immigrant population …and immigration issues?” “…how do you understand what it means to be ‘illegal’; what if the underlying laws governing immigration in the U.S. are problematic and/or unjust?”

All of the notes from the meetings are being retained and will be reviewed and considered as the development of a pastoral statement progresses. The same is true for the many written comments that have been submitted. What’s more, written comments will continue to be accepted and welcomed through the end of December. They can be sent via regular mail (Nebraska Catholic Conference; 215 Centennial Mall South; Lincoln, NE 68508), via e-mail (nebrcc@neb.rr.com), or via fax (402-477-1503). The resource-material folders can be requested as well.

Another part of this pre-drafting process is that several focus-group meetings with immigrants are being arranged through local parishes. Their experiences and concerns are also vital to understanding the social, economic, political and spiritual dimensions of this complex subject. Efforts to receive input from immigrants from Mexico, Central and South America, Somalia, the Sudan and Southeast Asia are being undertaken.

After eight weeks of “listening, sharing and learning,” a few preliminary observations tend to linger, among them: it’s obvious that U.S. policy and the implementation thereof are far too inadequate with regard to both controlling the influx of people from foreign countries and dealing with their many issues once they are here; there is an absolute need for comprehensive immigration policy reform; too often innocent children are the most vulnerable and experience the most harm from the pervasive uncertainty, actions by their parents and deficiencies of U.S. policy; there is need for greater education and understanding with respect to the complex issues involved with immigration; often the rhetoric does not match with realities, and that can be true regardless of whether the perspective being expressed is anti “illegal immigrant,” predominantly political, or seeking social justice.

Also to be lamented is what happens when other important policy decisions, currently most notable being reauthorizations of the “Farm Bill” and the Children’s Health Insurance Program get linked to concerns about “illegal immigration” on some pretty flimsy bases.

Farm Bill, SCHIP Are Major Congressional Items (10-24-07)

Without question, hands down, the two most rapidly expanding issue-based, information/resource maintained in the Nebraska Catholic Conference office since July 1 have been those dedicated to SCHIP reauthorization and the 2007 Farm Bill. Both pertain to major legislation for this U.S. Congress. Both address Federal programs that are large—i.e., in funding and expanse—and remarkably complex. Both have moral dimensions and social justice implications. Both have broad support generally and in overall concept, but a great deal of controversy in design, scope, priorities and details.

SCHIP is the States Children’s Health Insurance Program. Under it, the federal government, working with the states, provides a form of health insurance for children in families that earn too much to qualify for Medicaid, but not enough to be able to afford private insurance. In other words, it’s an important and praiseworthy program for providing health care for children who otherwise would be uninsured.

The current SCHIP program was to expire on September 30. Congress didn’t reauthorize the program by that deadline, but did approve a temporary extension, at current funding levels, until Nov. 16. Meanwhile, legislative and political efforts continue toward reauthorization. Expansion and improvement of the program are goals of many lawmakers and advocates, but the battle is over “how” and “how much.”

On September 25, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 976, the Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act—SCHIP becomes CHIPRA—on a vote of 265 to 159. The Senate followed suit two days later, on a vote of 67-29. Described by some as “bipartisan, compromise legislation,” the measure would provide $35 billion in additional funding over the next five years. According to the Catholic Health Association of the U.S., that would maintain coverage for the approximately six million children currently enrolled and extend to approximately four million more uninsured children.

On October 3, President Bush vetoed H.R. 976. The $35 billion expansion was $30 billion more than he had proposed. Last Thursday, a motion in the House of Representatives to override the veto failed to muster the two-thirds majority required. All three Nebraska Representatives voted against the override.

The matter is by no means finished. There is significant talk of compromise. More opportunity to improve this major legislation still exists.

Re-authorization of the “Farm Bill”—an every-five-years-or-so occurrence—has not yet made it to the President’s desk, but the process has moved along some. The House of Representatives passed H.R. 2429 in late July; work in committees of the Senate will soon give way to floor debate.

The Farm Bill molds agricultural policy, with both domestic and international dimensions. As one pundit described it, “the farm bill is the single most important piece of legislation for our food, water, wildlife and soil.”

Regarding H.R. 2429, the Department of Social Development and World Peace of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops commented in part:

“The bill contained important improvements and increased investments in the areas of nutrition, food aid, rural development, and conservation….However, the bill failed significantly to change or target farm subsidies that provide the largest payments to farmers that need them least while offering little support for those who need it most….

“Nutrition programs were increased by $4 billion by House leadership, but we are advocating for an additional $1.6 billion in order to restore the purchasing power of families receiving food stamps. The House bill does provide good overall funding for food aid at $2.5 billion, and establishes a “safe box” to protect food aid for development purposes, but it falls short of providing $3 billion needed for the Conservation Security Program, which supports farmers who are good stewards of the land.

“While H.R. 2419 made great progress in some areas of concern to the Catholic community, we were deeply disappointed that it did not address seriously the plight of struggling family farmers here and abroad. It did not do enough to target farm supports to those who need them most and left intact inequitable subsidies that do little or nothing for family farmers whose livelihoods depend on agriculture.”

Those comments reflect issues on which the Senate’s floor debate should focus. There are important decisions to be made.

Support for Safe Haven Legislation

At its meeting on September 25, the Nebraska Catholic Conference voted unanimously to support abandoned baby “safe haven” legislation in the 2008 session of the Nebraska Legislature. The action was approved by the three Diocesan Bishops.

The thrust of such legislation is to provide immunity from prosecution for parents who leave their newborn infants at designated “safe havens,’ such as hospitals, police and fire stations. As a matter of public policy, the idea is intended to assist those under great duress to take advantage of safe havens rather than harming their babies.

While abandoned baby “safe haven” legislation is not new in Nebraska, heretofore the Conference has not taken any position. There have been concerns about its interaction with the traditional child placement processes and its practical adequacy and effectiveness. Recent instances of child abandonment were among factors that caused the Conference to reassess the legislation. More on this in a future column.

Two More Sessions

In anticipation of, and preparation for, the development of a pastoral statement on “Immigration in Nebraska,” the Nebraska Catholic Conference has been conducting information/discussion meetings. The sessions are open to Catholic parishioners. The purposes are to receive input on this topic and to address Catholic social teaching.

The remaining schedule: Nov. 4, Columbus; Nov. 11, Nebraska City.

Pre-registration is required. Contact the Catholic Conference by telephone—1-888-818-6998 or Lincoln local, (402) 477-7517)—or by e-mail: nebrcc@neb.rr.com. Also, written comments may be submitted by e-mail or regular mail: Nebraska Catholic Conference; 215 Centennial Mall South; Ste. 310; Lincoln, NE 68508.

Seeking a Better Rule Revision (10-12-07)

Administrative rules and regulations, those parts of the law that are promulgated and enforced by governmental agencies, are often just as important as the statutes upon which they are based and from which they draw their legal authority. Typically, in governing the “nuts and bolts” of governmental programs and processes, they have an impact that is more practical than the statutes.

Administrative rules and regulations can be worthy of attention. An example is what is currently happening with an administrative rule that falls under the jurisdiction of the State Department of Education. This one has particular implications for parents of children enrolled in private schools.

NDOE’s Rule 4 implements and governs the statutorily-based program that enables parents (and guardians) of students in approved and accredited private schools to borrow secular textbooks purchased by means of, and only to the extent of, an annual appropriation of state General Funds by the Legislature. By law, local public school districts function as purchasing agents for Rule 4 textbooks and as local facilitators and managers of the program. For these functions they receive a five percent administrative fee on top of the State-paid reimbursements for textbook purchases.

As a relative matter, this is the only exclusively state-authorized and funded program in Nebraska providing educational benefits for students in other-than-public schools. The authorizing statute was first enacted in 1971, but subsequently went through some complex and lengthy litigation before finally being ruled to be fully constitutional by the Nebraska Supreme Court, unanimously, in 1989.

The Legislature has provided a modest amount of funding each year since then, and the program has established an 18-year, successful record of educationally assisting Nebraska children enrolled in other-than-public schools.

Almost a year ago, the state Department of Education began to indicate that revisions would be proposed for Rule 4. A working draft came to be. To the agency’s credit, representatives of private schools and private-school parents, inarguably the foremost stakeholders in the program were allowed opportunities to comment. Nevertheless, transforming the working draft into a hearing draft, for purposes of a public hearing in accord with the Administrative Procedures Act, was the bureaucrats’ domain.

Some of the proposed revisions in the original hearing draft would improve Rule 4, in technical ways primarily. However, one proposed revision in particular is quite substantive and would detrimentally affect the rights of private-school parents and students seeking the program’s educational benefits. It would severely restrict the opportunity for parents to request and borrow, via state-funded purchase, the publisher’s most recent copyright edition of eligible textbook titles. By statute, textbooks to be loaned and borrowed in accord with this program must be textbooks designated for use in the local public schools. The obvious purpose of this provision is to ensure that textbooks purchased with public funds are non-sectarian.

For at least 15 years, Rule 4 has been interpreted to be flexible in the occasional circumstances in which a more recent copyright edition of a designated textbook title (i.e., author, series) is available from that publisher, that is, a copyright edition more recently published than the one presently in use in the local public school. In fact, the practice of expending the state appropriation in this prudent manner in these narrow circumstances has been encouraged by the Department through its own technical advice.

In the original hearing draft, the Department of Education inexplicably proposed, to limit the borrower’s options to (1) textbooks already in the Rule 4 inventory; (2) textbooks of the title and exact copyright edition being used in the local public schools; and (3) any new textbook titles or editions the public school district would pre-determine and announce plans to use in the next ensuing school year. Given necessary and applied deadlines, the feasibility of this third option is unrealistic, if not practically impossible.

Inarguably, the originally proposed hearing draft offers a more restrictive policy. Yet, representatives of the Department told the media and others, inaccurately if not disingenuously, that the change was not intended to be restrictive and was only technical.

The much-to-be lamented and opposed original hearing draft was the subject of a public hearing on September 12. Representatives of the 16,000-member Nebraska Federation of Catholic School Parents testified in opposition to the proposed revision on “the copyright issue.” NFCSP representatives also presented an alternative amendment, which would make the current, longstanding, flexible practice more explicit in Rule 4; that, in the occasional context of such facts, parents would definitively have the option to request and borrow the publisher’s most recent copyright edition.

It’s common sense and prudent use of legislatively-appropriated funds.

Last week, much to their credit, and after hearing from many of their constituents who have children in private schools, the eight members of the State Board of Education voted unanimously to reject the Department of Education’s hearing draft, at least temporarily, and to approve a new hearing draft that affirms an option for private-school parents to request and borrow a later copyright edition, when applicable. A public hearing on this version of Rule 4 revisions has been set for November 6.

End of Initiative 300, What Next?

Even though the nearly quarter-of-a-century existence of Nebraska’s unique Initiative 300 has been snuffed out by federal courts, compelling questions remain regarding the aftermath.

Given the depth and significance of the initiative as a matter of public policy—it manifested as a provision in the state constitution, Article XII, Section 8, prohibiting most non-family corporations from owning Nebraska farm/ranch land and from engaging in farming and ranching—the overriding question is, what impact and effect will this judicially mandated reversal of policy have, not only on business structures for production agriculture, but also on social structures and the way of life in rural Nebraska?

In 2005, a U.S. District Court judge in Omaha struck down the 24-year-old, citizen-initiated and voter-approved constitutional amendment as violating the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution and the Americans with Disabilities Act, without even allowing a trial on the merits of the issues. Late last year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the District Court, ruling that Article XII, Section 8 discriminated against out-of-state interests in violation of the commerce clause. Earlier this year, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to grant further review; and that was that.

No doubt there will be some practical reactions of more immediate relevance—new arrangements and reorganizations using corporate structures—but the realistically reliable answer to the overriding question lies in the long term. As for the here-and-now, a timely question is whether or not the Legislature will enact a public-policy response and. if so, how extensive will it be? The process for considering such is underway.

Before adjourning their 2007 session, state legislators approved both a legislative bill, LB 516, and a legislative resolution, LR 93, supporting and facilitating the Legislature’s Agriculture Committee, under the leadership of its chairman, Sen. Phil Erdman of Bayard, in studying implications of the ruling and identifying “policy instruments…in order to foster and enhance legal, social, and economic conditions in Nebraska consistent with and which advance those state interests that exist in the structure, development, and progress of agricultural production.” LB 516A makes an initial appropriation of $50,000 from the General Fund for these endeavors. LR 93 authorizes the committee to conduct a study during the interim between sessions, with a corresponding charge to report its findings and recommendations to the full Legislature.

Three public hearings on LR 93 already have been held, in Norfolk, Lincoln and Scottsbluff, providing opportunities for more input from interested and impacted organizations, ag-business representatives and individual producers. Whether or not the various viewpoints can ever have a meaningful meeting of minds on issues remotely close to the core of Initiative 300, is presumably in doubt. Initiative 300 was plenty controversial in and of itself and throughout its history. What’s more, issues of protecting family-based agriculture and of ensuring a level playing field for family farmers and ranchers in the face of corporate advantages and absentee ownership were debated in coffee shops and the State Capitol well before Initiative 300 was a petition drive and a ballot issue. In fact, it was the failure of the Legislature to address these issues in any meaningful way that spawned Initiative 300, the petition drive on its behalf, the hotly contested campaign, approval by voters in 1982 by a 12-percentage-point margin and implementation as an amendment of the Nebraska Constitution.

From the perspective of the Nebraska Catholic Conference, which supported Initiative 300 throughout its history, the hope is that the Legislature will be guided no less by social justice principles and social values than by business motives, shielding from liability and maximizing potential for profit. Principles of fairness for family-based operators, dispersed ownership of land, resources and production, and good stewardship cannot be ignored or minimized if policy is to be just. Social values inherent in family and community are worthy to be upheld and promoted.

Receiving Input

In anticipation of, and preparation for, the development of a pastoral statement on “Immigration in Nebraska,” the Nebraska Catholic Conference has scheduled eight information/discussion meetings around the state. The sessions are open to Catholic parishioners. The purposes are to hear from them regarding this challenging societal topic and to enable them to learn more about Catholic social teaching on this topic.

The schedule as follows: September 23, Hastings; September 30, Lincoln; October 7, Lexington; October 14, Gering; October 21, Grand Island; October 28, Omaha; November 4, Columbus; November 11, Nebraska City.

Pre-registration is required for attendance at any of these sessions. For pre-registration or additional information, contact the Nebraska Catholic Conference by telephone—1-888-818-6998 or Lincoln local, (402) 477-7517)—or by e-mail: nebrcc@neb.rr.com.

Also, written comments may be submitted by e-mail or regular mail: Nebraska Catholic Conference; 215 Centennial Mall South; Suite 310; Lincoln, NE 68508.

Some Bills Hitch a Ride Across the Finish Line (07-20-07)

The Clerk of the Legislature’s office recently responded to a request of ours by faxing over what might be the most helpful document for analyzing and understanding what state lawmakers did during their 2007 session. It’s a listing of the bills that didn’t pass, but nevertheless were enacted in whole or in part by means of amendments to other bills that did pass. There are 80 bills on the list.

Unless one has a particular interest in a legislative subject, or is otherwise paying keen attention to all of the amendments that legislators consider during a session, it’s certainly possible to lose track of a proposed idea that was the subject of original legislation. That’s why it’s helpful to know, albeit after-the-fact, which bills became law as amendments in a “piggy-back” fashion. This has become a common and fairly routine practice in the legislative process, especially during the waning days of a session.

While it sometimes might be questioned as stretching the rules of the process, whether theoretically or ethically or practically, the practice has tradition behind it.

Individual legislators use the strategy, but more typically it is used by standing committees to package bills under their respective jurisdictions. Usually this happens with bills the committee already advanced to the full Legislature and that do not have much opposition or controversy.

On a strictly numerical basis, LB 124 is a pretty good example of how a cluster of bills were brought together during the 2007 session. The Banking, Commerce and Insurance Committee used a committee amendment to add a dozen other bills to LB 124, which was enacted as amended. The Appropriations Committee, as another example, used its committee amendment to add the provisions of a half-dozen separately-introduced bills into the mainline budget bill, LB 321. And the Education Committee used a bill pertaining to educational service units, LB 603, to bring together for passage five other bills dealing with the same subject.

An example we regard as more significant was how the Health and Human Services Committee, through its chairman, Senator Lowell Johnson, used LB 247 to carry six other measures across the finish line, including a fairly significant change in statutes governing adoption.

On a singular basis, cooperation between Senators Arnie Stuthman and John Synowiecki facilitated the long-deserved repeal of the punitive child exclusion/family cap welfare assistance policy. Senator Stuthman allowed for his LB 351 to take on Senator Synowiecki’s LB82 in the form of Amendment 1382. It spawned an excellent result.

Misleading Question

The Unicameral is “officially” a non-partisan body (wink, wink); candidates seeking the office of state legislator run “unaffiliated” in the primary elections and no party designation is listed for general elections either. That’s Nebraska’s policy and law. Nonetheless, everyone who pays attention understands that plenty of partisanship is at play with the Legislature (wink, wink), both its electoral aspect and to a lesser degree the lawmaking process. It’s a fact of political life. Both major parties get involved.

Given reality, it was no particular surprise to discover that a fancy, certainly-not-cheap mailer setting forth a particular legislator’s retrospective on the 2007 session was “[P]aid for by the Nebraska Democratic Party”, or that it shot at least one pretty good zinger at the Governor, a Republican.

The more questionable and lamentable aspect of this party-sponsored mailing, made to the Senator’s constituents presumably (we’re one and we received it), is one of the questions it poses as part of a simplistic “Priorities Survey”. The question is this: “Do you support stem cell research?” That’s it; the answer choice presented is, yes or no. As such, it’s a question that can rather routinely elicit mistaken or unintended responses and produce unreliable results.

The question is deficient and misleading. It fails to distinguish between adult stem cell research and embryonic stem cell research, i.e., research that destroys human embryos as part of the process. It fails to capture the true essence and controversy of a timely, compelling issue.

Hopefully, if and when the results of this “survey” are disseminated, the crucial distinction between adult and embryonic stem cell research will be acknowledged and responsibly presented.

Better Spending

A recent edition of the Sunday news magazine, Parade, put some numbers to what we suspect is a thought that crosses the minds of quite a few Americans.

It is estimated that the roster of candidates for President in 2008—there were 19 at the time of the report—will spend at least $1 billion campaigning for election. The question: what else could that much cash buy? Three of Parade’s ideas are as follows:

Basic health insurance for 250,000 Americans; more than 415 million school lunches for needy children; nearly 6,700 new, fully armored Humvees for U.S. troops.

Reviewing Legislation Helps with What Happened (06-29-07)

Even though the Legislature is not in session, this is a time for reviewing all that happened in areas of interest. That’s what we have underway at the Nebraska Catholic Conference. We’re analyzing the outcomes and public-policy implications of each of the more than 180 bills that came to be on our list of interest during the 2007 session.

Following are comments on just some of the bills to which NCC gave attention in varying degrees.

LB 554, passed by the legislators on a 46-0 vote the next-to-last day of the session, re-writes Nebraska’s “Parenting Act.” In general, it governs child custody and parenting time cases in the context of divorce. It is substantive legislation and significant public policy, which recognizes the importance of maintaining parent-child relationships.

An element of mandatory mediation is a key aspect of LB 554. As a general rule, divorcing parents will be required to attend a parenting education course and at least one session with a trained mediator. Also, they will be required to develop, either on their own or through mediation, a detailed plan for parenting their children. Cases involving allegations of “domestic intimate partner abuse”—a curious, obscure term that may warrant further attention—or unresolved parental conflict will be referred to mediators trained to deal with high-conflict cases.

LB 554, which won’t take effect in full, July 1, 2010, retains “best interests of the child” as the standard by which issues are resolved.

Nebraska has not had a change in its state-level minimum wage since 1997. Then, it followed suit a year after the federally-applied minimum wage was raised from $4.25 to $5.15 per hour. The purchasing power of that $5.15 has declined substantially.

Senator Danielle Nantkes introduced LB 31, proposing to raise the state-applied minimum wage incrementally over a three-year period to $6.26. The Business and Labor Committee eventually moved the bill to the full Legislature, but thereafter nothing happened with it. Nonetheless, the issue received attention late in the session.

Once Congress and the President got together on an increase in the Federal minimum wage, Sen. Nantkes found a way to again follow suit in Nebraska. She added an amendment using the federal numbers to LB 265, which was en-route to passage.

Somewhat ironically, the increase that follows the federal law is more than what LB 31 proposed. The minimum wage will jump to $7.25 by the summer of 2009.

In Nebraska, every child with one or more disabilities is entitled to governmentally-provided special education and related services, delivered by or through the public school district of his/her residence. Financing is a combination of federal, state and local governmental funds. The basic premise may be simple, but implementation involves complexities.

LB 316, passed May 24 on a 48-0 vote, establishes a 15-member task force to review the providing and financing of special education in Nebraska. This will involve numerous issues and could end up recommending policy changes, including legislation.

Senator Mike Friend of Omaha sponsored LB 316 and will be on the task force. So will Sen. Ron Raikes, chairman of the Legislature’s Education Committee, and Sen. Greg Adams. Parents, educators and bureaucrats appointed by the Governor will comprise the other 12 spots.

Thanks to the efforts of Senator Friend, one position is reserved for a parent of a child receiving special education in a private setting and another for a private school principal or director.

Another matter to be formally studied is the aftermath of the demise of Initiative 300, the ex-provision of the Nebraska Constitution that regulated ownership, farming and ranching by non-family corporations. The result of a citizens’ initiative petition, it had a 20-year life, but was ruled unconstitutional by federal courts.

LB 516 was introduced in response to the jurisprudence. It authorizes the Legislature’s Agriculture Committee and the Attorney General to contract with experts to study options for public-policy regarding corporate farming and ranching in the state.

When the Legislature and the Governor last year enacted a law allowing individuals with acquired permits to carry concealed handguns, they wisely excluded some locations from the permission, among them “schools”. But issues developed over the scope of that term. The Attorney General opined that universities and colleges weren’t within the scope. Moreover, because non-governmental schools tend to be an afterthought in public-policy contexts, that was a concern as well.

Clarification was accomplished by means of a late amendment to LB 97. Legislators voted 26-0 to approve the amendment that explicitly includes colleges, universities and private elementary and secondary schools. Another amendment added hospitals to the list of excluded locations. These modifications improve the concealed-carry law.

Inexperience Did Not Prevent Noteworthy Performance (06-08-07)

With the conclusion of the first session of the 100^th Nebraska on the last day of May, another chapter of Nebraska history has been written. And historical it was, not only because of the laws that were made, but also because it was the first Nebraska Legislature to follow the initial impact of term limits on legislators.

Nebraska is unique among the states; it alone has a one-house Legislature; just 49 legislators (all of whom are elected on non-partisan ballots). But this year’s Unicameral Legislature had only 27 returning members (29 if counting two who were not incumbents, but served during prior tenures). That produced a lot of inexperience.

The true impact of the actions taken by this Legislature can only be judged over time. Nonetheless, it seems pretty evident that the unique blend of returning legislators—only 19 (21) of whom had more than two years experience themselves—and new legislators performed remarkably well.

For starters, a new state spending plan was enacted for the fiscal biennium that will run July 1, 2007 through June 30, 2009. The state’s revenue surplus will be drawn down as a result of enactment of multi-faceted tax-reduction legislation. Other high-profile issues included the highly complex Omaha metropolitan-area, K-12 public education tensions, the controversies involving water in the Republican River basin, and reorganization of the Health and Human Services System. These major issues will continue to attract attention, but there will be others, more obscure, that will have practical, every-day effects on Nebraskans as well.

Much of the credit for how well this Legislature performed is being bestowed on the Speaker, Senator Mike Flood of Norfolk. He himself is only in his third year in the Unicameral and at 32 is the fourth youngest among the 49. But he more-than-fulfilled the confidence placed in him by his colleagues when he was elected Speaker on the first of the 90 days. He is sharp, extremely well-spoken and seems to thrive on being a leader and formulating public policy. He is a rapidly developing governmental superstar.

The inexperience of the new members was soon overshadowed by their collective ability and their commitment to the process. Many were not new to elective office or governing. Most became effective legislators. Several will soon be in leadership roles; not just because of the numbers when the second round of term limits takes effect after next year, but because they have the necessary skills.

Given the bills that receive a lot of attention during a legislative session, there also are the obscure ones; those that don’t get many headlines. But this doesn’t necessarily mean they are not substantive or don’t make significant, perhaps even monumental changes in public policy. They too can be major accomplishments.

Into this category, from the perspective of the Nebraska Catholic Conference, we put that part of LB 351 that was added by Amendment 1382 during the second round of floor action.

AM1382 was the original LB 82, introduced by Senator John Synowiecki of Omaha. It proposed to repeal the provision of Nebraska’s Aid for Dependent Children (ADC) program that denies additional cash assistance for any child born into a recipient family after the initial 10 months of eligibility for the “Employment First” welfare program. This is the child exclusion/family cap policy. It originated in 1994 as part—the ugliest part—of Nebraska’s welfare reform package.

The child exclusion/family cap arose out of a myth that ADC recipients were having additional children in order to receive more cash assistance; no more than $71 per month. The policy idea was that ADC could and should be used as a behavior modification tool; to teach poor women a lesson in responsible child bearing.

Reliable, empirical research is practically non-existent as to whether or not this policy has come anywhere near meeting its intended purpose, phony as that is. There is some, not necessarily validated evidence from other states that the policy has been a factor in women having abortions. What is known with assurance is that ADC-eligible families have extremely limited income and few assets, and that the exclusion of any child from the additional financial assistance not only discriminates on the basis of the order of conception, but makes a poor family even poorer, affecting all the children.

AM1382 was added to LB 351 on a remarkable 39-0 vote. LB 351, which also contained other welfare program changes, subsequently was passed by the Legislature on a 47-0 vote and signed into law by Governor Heineman. Nebraska thus joins Illinois and Maryland as states to have repealed the child exclusion/family cap. As a result, some 700 impoverished children per month will have a little extra financial assistance.

This was a major, noteworthy accomplishment in our view; perhaps the most obscure, but meaningful accomplishment of the 2007 session. Here’s something Senator Synowiecki told us after the vote on AM1382: “The removal of the family cap is, on a personal level, one of the most fulfilling initiatives that I have been associated with while in the Legislature.” He is in his sixth year and has been an active legislator.

Also to be applauded are those legislators who voted in favor of AM1382, thus getting rid of a policy that should not have been adopted in the first place. They are as follows: Senators Greg Adams, Ray Aguilar, Brad Ashford, Bill Avery, Tom Carlson, Ernie Chambers, Mark Christensen, Abbie Cornett, Cap Dierks, Pat Engel, Phil Erdman, Deb Fischer, Mike Flood, Mike Friend, Tim Gay, Tom Hansen, John Harms, Lavon Heidemann, Gwen Howard, Carol Hudkins, Ray Janssen, Joel Johnson, Russ Karpisek, Gail Kopplin, Chris Langemeier, Amanda McGill, Mick Mines, Danielle Nantkes, John Nelson, Rich Pahls, Dave Pankonin, Dwite Pedersen, Pete Pirsch, Kent Rogert, DiAnna Schimek, Arnie Stuthman, (the chief sponsor of LB 351, who allowed Sen. Synowiecki to attach the amendment), Synowiecki, Norm Wallman and John Wightman.

Tax Reduction Part of Legislature’s Wrap-Up 05/18/07

Water policy legislation has been passed and approved by the Governor; debate on the death penalty has been concluded until next year; a proposed ban on human cloning carries over as well; reorganization of the state’s Health and Human Services System has been enacted and is already underway; a state spending plan of nearly $7 billion for the next fiscal biennium has been passed and awaits possible line-item vetoes by the Governor and possible overrides.

There is still work to be done, particularly on tax relief and public education policy, but the first session of the 100^th Nebraska Legislature is closing in on closing down. The session that started with more than 20 new members and 90 working days has less than 10 days remaining. The end is near.

The spending plan, better known as the state budget and the tax-relief package both acknowledge the state’s current fiscal situation, which is that the treasury is healthy; there’s a surplus over and above current spending obligations combined with the cash reserve. What’s more, income projections are robust for the next several months.

In response to this positive situation, legislators generally have decided to spend a little more and to modify tax policy in ways designed to eliminate or reduce some revenue sources, thereby providing taxpayers with some relief in a mix of tax categories.

As the Legislature’s final 10 days got underway, the tax changes were embodied in LB 367, which was first formulated by the Legislature’s Revenue Committee and then modified some during two stages of floor debate. The bill awaited final determinations on the budget prior to its own finalization. As advanced to Final Reading on a 44-3 vote, it is multi-faceted. It would result in a net tax reduction of approximately $208 million in the fiscal year ending June 30, 2008 and more than $216 million in FY ’09.

The mix of components in LB 367 is interesting. The anchor provision, and intended political face, is approximately $220 million in what seems to be foremost on Nebraskans’ minds: “property tax relief.” It would take the form of a tax credit for all real property owners. If you’re the owner of taxable property, you wouldn’t receive cash, but on your property-tax statement you would see a credit against your tax obligation. The state will disburse the legislatively designated amount of cash to the local taxing subdivisions, thereby enabling the offset reduction for taxpayers.

The amount of the credit in the first year of the two-year program is projected to be about eight cents per $100 of taxable valuation; by way of example, that would be an $80 reduction on a parcel of real property valued at $100,000. For the second, ensuing fiscal year, FY2008-09, the credit would be continued at a four cent levy reduction.

Another component of LB 367 would repeal the state estate tax.

In the income tax category, the bill would adjust the brackets for married taxpayers filing joint returns so that the tax would be twice the amounts for single filers. This would eliminate the “marriage penalty.” There would be an adjustment of the standard deductions as well. Also, the state earned income tax credit, one of the state’s best tax policies, would increase, from the current level of eight percent of the federal EITC to 10 percent. On the other side of the income tax equation, a little used credit for businesses that provide employees with subsidized child care is proposed for elimination.

LB 367 also has a sales tax component, although not necessarily the change that would seem to make the most sense, i.e., a reduction in the rate.

The current policy of construing labor on commercial construction as a taxable service is proposed for repeal. Also proposed is a new sales-tax exemption for community-based wind energy projects, while the current tax credit for renewable energy projects would be increased and a capacity requirement for these would be eliminated.

During the first stage of floor debate on LB 367, Senator Ernie Chambers proposed an amendment that would have replaced the ideas dealing with the income, sales and estate taxes with lowering of the sales tax rate from 5.5 percent to 5 percent. Those who spoke in support of this cited the inherently regressive nature of the sales tax.

Senator Chambers described it this way, “The sales tax taxes Little Orphan Annie at the same rate as Daddy Warbucks.”

His amendment to reduce the sales tax rate was rejected, 18-26.

Later, during the second stage of floor debate, Sen. Tom White of Omaha proposed a similar rate reduction for the sales tax. He pointed out that a reduction would honor a promise the Legislature made to taxpayers when it increased the rate to help resolve the state’s budget crisis less than 10 years ago.

On this second occasion, the proposed rate reduction failed on a vote of 15-24.

Thirteen legislators voted for the sales tax rate reduction both times it was offered as an amendment. We think they deserve mention. In addition to Senators Chambers and White, they were Senators Gwen Howard, Russ Karpisek, Gale Kopplin, Lowen Kruse, Steve Lathrop, Amanda McGill, Danielle Nantkes, Don Preister, Kent Rogert, DiAnna Schimek and John Synowiecki.

Large-Scale Changes in Health and Human Services Laws 05/04/07

Just two legislative bills that will be enacted by the Nebraska Legislature during its current session are together just about 2000 pages in length. That’s a lot of new law.

Although the aggregate length of these bills is rather extraordinary, length in and of itself is not all that relevant. It is much less so, certainly, than the subject matter and the policy implications. In the case of these two bills, both of which are related to health and welfare, the real relevance is the impact they will have on the scope and functioning of state government. Both bills are substantive and significant, and the products of a great deal of work over time by legislative and administrative staff.

LB 463 is the whopper, now at 1053 pages. That is what it’s taking to re-codify the current Uniform Licensing Law, which will be renamed as the Uniform Credentialing Act. This encompasses state credentialing requirements for all health care and health-related professions and occupations, for both individuals and entities, regulated by the Nebraska Health and Human Services agency.

For example, one cannot practice medicine and surgery without having a state-issued license to practice in that profession. The same is true, for example, for funeral directors and embalmers, for massage therapists and acupuncturists, and asbestos removers, just to name a few of a whole host of regulated professions and occupation.

With few exceptions, LB 463 does not change existing requirements for obtaining a license or credential; nor does it change the scope of practice for any state-regulated profession, occupation or entity. However, it does seek to clarify wide-ranging provisions relating to: requirements necessary to initially obtain, to renew, to reinstate or to voluntarily surrender a credential; acts and behaviors that constitute grounds for state discipline against a credential; processes for filing complaints for alleged violations and for imposing disciplinary actions; and the types of disciplinary action that can be imposed against licenses issued by and through the Health and Human Services agency.

In deference to the extent of the bill’s scope, the operative date for LB 463 is being intentionally delayed until December 1, 2008. This will leave plenty of time, including the Legislature’s full session next year, to identify and address any glitches or inconsistencies.

In and of itself LB 463 is a virtual lock to be passed by the Legislature; that probably will happen within the next two weeks.

By the time the new Uniform Credentialing Act is ready for implementation, the agency charged with most of the duties it prescribes will have undergone a major restructuring. That restructuring is already well underway, authorized by and stemming from the Legislature’s passage of the other lengthy bill, LB 296, a mere 929 pages.

Back in 1996, five existing departments of state government, all of which dealt with matters related to health and welfare, were converted into the Nebraska Health and Human Services System, consisting of three separate, but interrelated agencies, the Department of Health and Human Services; the HHS Department of Finance and Support; and the HHS Department of Regulation and Licensure. The impact of LB 296 will be further conversion of the system by collapsing the “Big Three” into a single agency, led by a Chief Executive Officer, who will oversee six separate departments: Public Health, Medicaid and Long-Term Care, Children and Family Services; Behavioral Health; Developmental Disabilities and Veterans’ Homes.

Administrative efficiency, effectiveness and responsiveness to the needs of Nebraskans are fundamental objectives behind restructuring the state’s human services agency in this manner. This is an agency, i.e., a system, that has been known to stumble and bumble and has been intensely scrutinized and prodded and often criticized. It has nearly 6300 employees throughout the state.

The CEO of the reorganized agency has already been appointed by the Governor and approved by an overwhelming margin of the Legislature. She is Christine Peterson, herself a former state legislator. By most every account, she is looked upon as the right person, at the right time, with the right skills and professional temperament to both lead this huge agency and to direct its internal transitions as well.

Another former state legislator, John Hilgert, has been tabbed to head up the division on Veterans’ Homes. This will be in addition to his current post in state government, as head of Veterans’ Affairs. Another already-named and approved department head will be Scot Adams, who has moved to state government after a successful career in the private sector of human-services work; for many years he was executive director of Catholic Charities for the Archdiocese of Omaha. Dr. Adams’ special affinity for addressing behavioral health issues, including both mental health and addictions, supports his appointment as director of the Behavioral Health Department.

As the current session of the Legislature grinds toward its finish—only 15 days remain—it might be said that the bulk of its work is already completed, referring just to the 2000-plus pages that constitute LBs 296 and 463. A lot of that length is attributable to necessary harmonization with so many other statutes that are implicated by reference.

Budget Process Will Take Center Stage 04/27/07

The rules of the Nebraska Legislature call for its Appropriations Committee to place spending bills on General File, the first stage of floor debate, no later than the 70^th legislative day in a 90-day session. The rules also provide that these appropriations bills must be passed no later than the 80^th legislative day, which generally means that three stages of floor debate must be concluded within a relatively tight time frame.

The currently transpiring session of the 100^th Nebraska Legislature is its first and longer session, that of 90 legislative days, the 70^th of which is only a few days away. Legislative action will soon focus heavily on developing a state-government spending plan, about $7 billion worth, for the fiscal period of July 1, 2007 through June 30, 2009.

If the nine-member Appropriations Committee would happen not to meet the deadline for getting its spending recommendations to the full body of legislators, the rules say the appropriations bills introduced on behalf of the Governor would be considered. A package of such bills was introduced back on January 23.

It is unlikely that the Appropriations Committee won’t meet the deadline. Nothing has been reported to indicate a problem. The budget debate will ensue as usual.

The committee’s recommendations will be advanced “to the floor” in the form of amendments to the bills in the Governor’s package. The mainline budget bill, which will set the two-year plan for most state-government aid and operations, is LB 321. Other budget bills include capital construction (LB 320), salaries of legislators (LB 318) and constitutional officers (LB319), and adjustments for the budget now in effect (LB 317).

The Appropriations Committee’s recommendations won’t be totally unexpected. The committee released a preliminary report on Feb. 23, just before starting an intensive process of public hearings on budget requests and issues affecting all state agencies.

Comparing the Governor’s spending plans with those of the Appropriations Committee will be a major aspect of the upcoming process on the floor of the Unicameral. The committee’s preliminary report had average spending growth of 4.2 percent per year, compared to 3.8 percent recommended by Gov. Heineman.

Budget development also involves “A” bills, which make expenditures or reduce revenue in conjunction with companion, “regular” pieces of legislation. The Appropriations Committee targets an amount for A-bill spending.

Revenue is another component of the budget. There’s spending and there’s taxing. Recently, over quite a few months, actual revenue has exceeded projected revenue, which means the cash reserve fund has been growing above its prescribed minimum at a healthy rate. This situation has motivated legitimate calls for “tax relief,” the form and extent of which are going to continue to be another dominating issue.

Time Not Wasted on Death Penalty

The several hours of legislative time lawmakers spent recently on the issue of capital punishment was not wasted, even though the ultimate outcome, lamentable in the view of the Nebraska Catholic Conference, produced no change in the status quo. Nebraska will continue as a death penalty state. Moreover, the next execution in the electric chair might soon take place, on May 8, unless something happens to change that.

After debating and rejecting a motion to advance LB 476, proposing to repeal the death penalty and replace it as the maximum punishment with imprisonment for life without parole and mandatory restitution of the victim’s estate, the Legislature returned to the issue a couple of weeks later. This time it was for considering a unique alternative, sparked by the Legislature’s Judiciary Committee. The new idea proposed to allow the death penalty only when evidence would establish beyond a reasonable doubt that the convicted murderer could not be effectively secured in the prison setting; in other words, execution would have to be the sole recourse for defending and protecting society.

To their credit, several senators, including Tony Fulton and Tom White, both of whom opposed the repeal measure, and Steve Lathrop and Brad Ashford, both of whom supported it, extended their personal efforts to find a way to improve the status quo and achieve greater justice. Although their efforts were rebuffed by a thin majority, and under the threat of a gubernatorial veto, they acted responsibly and not in vain in terms of the additional attention they fostered on this issue of life and death.

Also to be commended are the legislators who voted in support of both the repeal measure and the alternative proposal. They were the following: Senators Ray Aguilar, Brad Ashford, Bill Avery, Tom Carlson, Ernie Chambers, Cap Dierks, Gwen Howard, Joel Johnson, Gail Kopplin, Lowen Kruse, Steve Lathrop, Amanda McGill, Danielle Nantkes, Dwight Pedersen, Don Preister, Ron Raikes, Kent Rogert, DiAnna Schimek, John Synowiecki and Norm Wallman.

Priority Bills Will Dominate Session’s Second Half 03/16/07

The first session of the 100^th Nebraska Legislature is more than half completed. March 14, the 46^th legislative day, moved state lawmakers into the second half of their 90-day session.

The inward journey will be more difficult than the outward trek was. There are major issues still to be debated and decided, not the least of which will be the state budget for the 2007-09 biennium and the manner and extent to which Nebraskans will be provided with tax relief during this time of a revenue surplus.

Presumably, something will be worked out on deciding what to do about the structure and financing of education in metropolitan Omaha and also the voters’ decision last November to overturn the legislation that eliminated Class I school districts.

To help set its inward course, the Legislature uses a system of priority legislation. Each of the 49 legislators is allowed to select one priority bill. Each of the standing committees is able to select two priority bills. A third category consists of up to 25 additional bills picked by the Speaker, Senator Mike Flood. Generally speaking, the senators’ priority bills have a leg up in scheduling, followed by a first priority bill per committee, then the second committee priorities, with the Speaker’s priorities mixed in along the way.

Among the priority bills there are several of particular interest to the Nebraska Catholic Conference.

LB 476 was prioritized by Sen. Ernie Chambers of Omaha. It proposes to abolish the death penalty and to replace it with imprisonment for life without possibility of parole and an order for restitution, i.e., compensatory payment to the estate of the victim. Floor debate on this measure got underway March 19. It is likely to be some of the most intense and compelling debate of the session.

LB 316 is the priority bill of Omaha Senator Mike Friend. It proposes to create a task force to do a comprehensive review of the manner in which special education services are provided and financed.

Under a combination of Federal and State laws, all Nebraskans up to age 21 who have disabilities are entitled to tax-funded special education and related services to enable them to have a free, appropriate education. The governmental entities commissioned and funded to deliver special education and related services are public school districts and educational service units. In the school-age category, special education typically supplements general education. The school an eligible youngster attends for his or her general education, including any private school, is supposed to make little or no difference regarding access to services, but that isn’t always the case.

Under LB 316, the task force on special education would include a spectrum of stakeholders, including public school and educational service unit administrators, special education and public school classroom teachers and private providers of special education services. This bill has a deficiency, however, in that it fails to provide for representation of parents or administrators from private schools at which special-education-eligible students receive their general education. This could be rectified.

LB 554 has the Speaker, Senator Flood, as its main sponsor, but has been prioritized by Senator DiAnna Schimek. It proposes a new “Parenting Act” for Nebraska. It would specifically manage situations in which the custody of children has to be decided by legal processes. It reinforces a “best interests of the child” standard and emphasizes mediation and planning, seeking to involve both parents in mutual decisions.

LB 554 has a lot of components. The legislators as a whole will have to have considerable trust in the handlers of this bill. It’s unrealistic to expect more than a few senators to have a full grasp of this bill, but its policy implications are substantial.

LB 573 is the priority bill for Senator Lowen Kruse of Omaha. Some call it a proposed codification of a “dram shop” law. It would make liquor licensees strictly liable for deaths and injuries that result from providing alcohol to minors or to clearly intoxicated persons. But even more, this bill would create virtually absolute liability for “social hosts” who provide alcohol to minors. The definition of “social host” is quite broad, resulting in legislation that needs much clarification and improvement.

Among committee priority bills is LB 475, a rather curious selection by the Judiciary Committee, which has more than 115 bills within its jurisdiction. This bill proposes to rename the Nebraska Fair Employment Practice Act as the Employment Non-Discrimination Act. But its foremost purpose is to add “sexual orientation” to the factors that an employer of 15 or more employees is forbidden to consider in making employment decisions. An amendment recommended by the committee would not apply the “sexual orientation” prohibition to any bona fide religious organization.

Good Start for Legislature 02/16/07

The 100^th Nebraska Legislature already has finished more than a third of its 2007 regular session. Thirty-three legislative days completed 57 more to go.

Almost three-fourths of the 700-plus legislative measures introduced, which include both bills and constitutional amendment proposals, have had a public hearing in front of one of the standing committees. That process will continue through mid-March.

Convening as a body of the whole on most weekday mornings, the 49 lawmakers already have passed more than 30 bills. Most were non-controversial, perhaps a little too often described as “technical corrections,” but still they faced three stages of floor action, which comes after a bill is advanced to General File by a committee.

The 20 first-year legislators seem to be adapting well. It’s obvious that most have had public-policy experience, whether as lawyers or as elected or administrative officials of other governmental bodies. We’ve heard them ask pertinent and probing questions in public hearings, and most are not hesitant about getting involved in floor debate. It will be interesting to observe how they handle issues that are more controversial and emotional.

One such issue could be capital punishment. The Judiciary Committee has (already) advanced a bill, LB 476, that would repeal statutory authority for the sentence of death and replace it with mandatory imprisonment for life without possibility of parole, subject only to the constitution-based authority of the Board of Pardons to commute life sentences. The committee’s vote was 6-0, and occurred soon after a public hearing on Jan. 31. Not a bit of testimony was presented in opposition to the bill.

Testimony in support of LB 476 was broad-based, including, among others, the Nebraska Catholic Conference, and also the Social Ministry Commission of the Archdiocese of Omaha. NCC’s testimony emphasized that Catholic teaching, as set forth in the modern Catechism and embellished by Pope John Paul in his instructive and inspiring encyclical, The Gospel of Life, regards use of the death penalty as morally permissible only when absolutely necessary to protect society. For several years now, the position of the Catholic Conference, the arrangement through which the three Diocesan Bishops speak jointly to their mutual interests and concerns involving public policy, has been that capital punishment, in this developed nation and state, in this modern, technological age, fails the test of absolute necessity and should be repealed and replaced.

The last time the Nebraska Legislature, as a whole, directly considered a proposal to abolish capital punishment was 1979. That legislation actually did pass, on a close vote, due primarily to the tag-team efforts of Senators Ernie Chambers and John DeCamp as we recall, but it was vetoed by then-Governor Charles Thone. There weren’t enough votes for an override.

In spite of the fact that LB 476 had no opposition at its public hearing, it faces an uphill climb under consideration by the full Legislature. The floor debate should be quite interesting. It is likely to take place sometime during March.

Elementary and secondary education policy, relating to both funding and governance, and tax relief, which has budget implications, are going to be major topics as the current session progresses. There are several competing ideas in both categories.

Regarding education, the foremost context is the tense and complex situation involving educational equity and achievement in the metropolitan Omaha area. Regarding tax relief, the brewing clash involves Governor Heineman’s preference for targeting the state-based taxes—income, estate and sales—versus the preference of many legislators to do something truly significant about those three words heard so often: “property tax relief.”

In the latter category, one of the most intriguing measures of this session is Omaha Senator Tom White’s LB 453, which has nearly 30 co-sponsors. It’s a straightforward, uncomplicated proposal to authorize a refundable state income tax credit for the property taxes paid by Nebraska homeowners. The credit amount would be capped at $500.

One senator described it as not really property tax relief, but an income tax reduction for someone who owns a home. But the response attributed to Senator White was equally direct: “It’s money in the pocket of taxpayers. I don’t think they care what we call it as long as they get the money.”

Attention parents of youngsters enrolled in Catholic schools: check your most recent property tax statement and note how much you’re paying to the public school district and the educational service unit. Not to suggest you shouldn’t be paying for that obligation, but consider what it would be like to receive up to a $500 offset against that financial obligation (as part of your total tax bill). Intriguing, isn’t it? Of course any form of tax relief would help.

Tax relief looms large on the agenda for this session because state receipts have been exceeding projections, a trend that is expected to continue awhile. But the extent of tax relief is also going to be tied to spending decisions in this budget-development year.

Unique Mix Leading This Legislature 01/19/07

If the unprecedented, overall lack of experience that characterizes the 2007 Nebraska Legislature makes a substantive difference, time will tell. For now, it’s process as usual. Some 700 legislative bills have been introduced and the schedule that makes time for a public hearing on almost every bill is into its second full week.

After the meaningful, tradition-rich pomp and ceremony that opens each new Legislature—the non-legislator officers and all legislators newly elected or appointed for this Legislature take the oath of office and the Governor gives his official welcome—the 49 lawmakers on their first day, Jan. 3, tended to the business of organizing.

The prominent post of Speaker of the Legislature, the chair and vice-chair of the Executive Board, and the chairs of 14 standing committees and three special committees were filled by handwritten, secret ballot any time there was more than one candidate. It is arguably the most exciting of the 150 legislative days that constitute each Legislature.

This year the anticipation and drama did not measure up to standards of the past. In 13 out of 20 decisions, balloting was unnecessary because the posts were uncontested and the sole nominee received a unanimous vote by acclamation.

That was not the case with the office of Speaker, however. In a rather extraordinary, but not particularly surprising outcome, Senator Mike Flood of Norfolk defeated Senator DiAnna Schimek of Lincoln on a vote of 28-21. What’s extraordinary is that Sen. Flood is at the onset of only his third year in the Legislature; Sen. Schimek, with 18 consecutive years, is the second most long-tenured member of the body.

At 31, Senator Flood, a graduate of Norfolk Catholic High School, is the second youngest legislator ever to hold the post of Speaker; Robert B. Crosby also was 31, but a few months younger. Sen. Flood’s performance during his first two years was, by all noteworthy measures, quite impressive. Obviously, it created confidence among his colleagues. He fills a position of great challenge and responsibility.

Almost as extraordinary was the fact that four of the standing committee chairpersonships were won by individuals, who, like the new Speaker, are just at the onset of their third years as legislators. Most noteworthy of these is Senator LaVon Heidemann of Elk Creek. He was elected Chairman of the powerful Appropriations Committee on a 26-23 vote over a veteran legislator, Senator Lowen Kruse of Omaha, who was the incumbent vice-chairman of that committee.

Senators Rich Pahls of Omaha and Abbie Cornett of Bellevue, both third-year legislators, were chosen by acclamation to lead the Banking, Commerce and Insurance Committee and the Business and Labor Committee respectively. Senator Deb Fischer of Valentine won, 27-22 over Senator Arnie Stuthman of Platte Center to become the new chairperson of the Transportation and Telecommunications Committee.

In another interesting development, the chairmanship of the extremely busy Judiciary Committee was voted by unanimous acclamation to Senator Brad Ashford of Omaha. An attorney, he is a veteran legislator in a unique way; he previously served two terms in the Legislature, but then turned to other endeavors for several years, before running again and being elected last November.

Veteran legislators chosen to lead committees included the incumbent chairmen of the Education and Urban Affairs committees, Senators Ron Raikes of Ashland and Mike Friend of Omaha respectively. Also, Senator Ray Janssen of Nickerson, the long-tenured incumbent chairman of the General Affairs Committee, shifted his focus and defeated Senator Mick Mines of Blair, 30-19, to become chairman of the Revenue Committee. Senator LeRoy Louden of Ellsworth, in his fifth year, edged Senator Chris Langemeier of Schuyler, 26-23, to lead the Natural Resources Committee.

Other veteran legislators elected to lead standing committees for the first time—all won by unanimous, acclamation vote—were Sen. Phil Erdman of Bayard, seventh year, Agriculture Committee; Sen. Vicki McDonald of St. Paul, sixth year, General Affairs; Sen. Ray Aguilar of Grand Island, eighth year, Government, Military and Veterans Affairs Committee; Sen. Joel Johnson of Kearney, fifth year, Health and Human Services Committee; and Sen. John Synowiecki of Omaha, sixth year, Retirement Systems Committee.

The incumbent chairman of the Legislature’s Executive Board, Senator Pat Engel of South Sioux City, was elected to that post once again. The vice-chairman of the Board, which governs the internal operations of the Legislature, is another veteran legislator, Senator Don Preister of Omaha.

So, the leadership of this Legislature is an interesting mix, unique from all, previous legislatures. The first-time impact of term limits has a lot to do with this. Twenty of the 49 legislators are “rookies”.

The full membership of each one of the Legislature’s standing and special committees can be found on the Legislature’s official website: nebraskalegislature.gov.

The organization is set. Bills are in the pipeline. Public hearings are underway. The business of lawmaking is going on at the State Capitol. It’s the Legislature, and it deserves the attention and interest of us all.

| Back to Top | Past Column Index |