|
215 Centennial Mall South, Suite 310, Lincoln, NE 68508-1813; 402-477-7517; nebrcc@neb.rr.com
|
|
Nebraska C C:
James R. Cunningham
NCC Statements & Current Issues
Medical Treatment Decision-making
USCCB
Capitol Correspondent: ********* PRO LIFE:State Director
Life Insight:
Program Models
Education:Associate Director of Education Issues
|
Vote in Fremont Will Capture Attention 06-11-10 New Anatomical Gift Law Worthy of Attention 05-21-10 Legislature Adjourns, but Still to be Active 05-07-10 Legislators’ Dilemma Alleviated on Prenatal Care Issue 04-09-10 Pro Life Commitment or Lip-Service? 03-19-10 Legislation Not Needed for NSAA Changes03-05-10 Cost of Capital Punishment 01-29-10 Hope for Better Conditions at Adjournment 01-15-10
Vote in Fremont Will Capture Attention 06-11-10 With all due respect to that city in Nevada and its catchy, pop-culture, commercial advertisement; what happens in Fremont, Nebraska on June 21 won’t stay in Fremont. It receive plenty of attention and will reverberate for quite some time; it being the outcome of a municipal election on a proposed city ordinance involving illegal immigration. More specifically, this is a repeated attempt—similar to that of Hazleton, PA; Valley Park, MO; Escondido, CA; Riverside Township, NJ and Farmers Branch, TX—to use a local measure to enforce federal immigration law. Each of those has either been ruled unconstitutional or blocked from enforcement. If approved by voters, proposed new section 6-428 for Ordinance 3139 of the Fremont Municipal Code, a proposal that already has quite a history, is likely to be a subject of attention and reaction for a lengthy period of time, because it will be the subject of extensive and costly litigation. Almost certainly the city will have to defend against a challenge that the measure is an impermissible intrusion into federal authority and responsibility, in violation of the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The proposed ordinance generally has two prongs. One deals with housing and the other with employment. Both invoke federal law as justification, seeking “harmony with the congressional objectives of prohibiting the knowing harboring of illegal aliens and prohibiting the knowing employment of unauthorized aliens.” The employment prong would mandate that an authorized representative of any business entity applying for any business license or permit from the city, or awarded a contract for work to be performed in Fremont, or applying for any grant or loan from the city, must execute an affidavit that the business entity does not knowingly employ any immigrant lacking authorization for employment in the U.S. as verified with/by the federal government. To that end, every business entity operating in Fremont would be required to be registered in the federal government’s E-Verify program. The uniqueness of this prong of the proposed ordinance appears to be its prescribed enforcement: any affected business entity that failed to register in E-verify and to verify the authorization of every employee hired after “such registration” would be “tried at a public hearing before the City Council.” Lawsuits are authorized as well. Even more intriguing and curious are the implementation and enforcement mechanisms of the anti-harboring, housing prong. Prior to occupying a leased or rented dwelling unit (dormitory rooms, hotel rooms and rooms at any shelter for the homeless or abused are excluded), every prospective occupant 18 or older would have to obtain an “occupancy license” from the Fremont Police Department. That would require submitting an application and paying $5. The application would require several items of identifying information, e.g., name, address, date of birth and country of citizenship. A U.S. citizen or national would have to declare that status. An applicant who is not a U.S. citizen or national would have to submit an identification number assigned by the federal government, which the occupant believes establishes his/her lawful presence in the U.S. If such an applicant did not know of any such number, s/he would so declare and that would be good enough. It would be a violation of Fremont’s municipal code for an owner/landlord to lease or rent a dwelling unit without retaining a copy of the occupancy license of every known occupant. It would be a violation not to state in the lease that occupancy without a license would constitute a default. It would be a violation for an owner/landlord to knowingly allow anyone without a license to occupy the dwelling unit. Promptly after issuing an occupancy license to one who did not declare him/herself to be either a U.S. citizen or national, the Police Department would submit the identity and immigration-status information from the application along with a request that the federal government, e.g., Department of Homeland Security, ascertain whether the occupant is lawfully present. If the report back is conclusive that the occupant is not lawfully present, the police would send a “deficiency notice,” giving the occupant 60 days to seek a correction and/or to provide additional information. The police would be prohibited from making any independent determination of immigration status. No earlier than the 61st day after issuing a deficiency notice, the police would again ask the federal government. If the response again was that the licensed occupant was not lawfully present, the police would send a “revocation notice” to the occupant and the owner/landlord. Revocation of the occupancy license would take effect 45 days later. Occupying a dwelling unit without retaining a valid occupancy license would be a separate violation for each day beginning on the 46th day after the revocation notice. Each violation of the ordinance, whether by an owner/landlord or by an occupant, would be subject to a fine of $100, upon conviction in the Dodge County Court. The extensive and cumbersome mechanism—and burdensome for the police—is probably deemed necessary to satisfy concerns about due process. Obviously, the underlying objective is that the entire rigmarole won’t play out, because undocumented immigrants will leave the city rather than risk being identified and detained.
New Anatomical Gift Law Worthy of Attention 05-21-10 According to a recent news item, approximately 450 Nebraskans are waiting for an organ transplant on an average daily basis. Beginning next year that number could begin to decline if legislation enacted this year fulfills its intended purpose. Legislative Bill 1036 offered Nebraska’s lawmakers the essence of the latest version—2006 as updated—of the Revised Uniform Anatomical Gift Act (UAGA) promulgated by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL). The bill’s intent and purpose are to update and improve governance and coordination of the donation and procurement processes, thereby facilitating more donations of body parts for transplantation, therapy, research and education. Legislators gave LB 1035 a generally warm, but rather ho-hum reception. Its length (46 pages) and substance notwithstanding, the bill had a smooth, unchallenged trip through the legislative process, under the sponsorship of Senator Brenda Council of Omaha. It was introduced January 21 and given final passage March 26, on a 48-0 vote. It was signed into law by the Governor and takes effect next January 1. As its descriptive title suggests, LB 1036 is sort of model legislation. Its scope is limited to donations from deceased donors as a result of gifts made before or after their deaths. The basic framework and most of the details are the work-product of the NCCUSL, which creates and pushes for legislation that can be generally uniform and harmonized among all the states, on a variety of subjects. Like most states, Nebraska has several Uniform Law commissioners, typically highly influential attorneys. Two of these commissioners did most of the lobbying for LB 1036 and were bolstered in their efforts by the national chairman of the UAGA drafting committee, who visited the state and testified for the bill at the public hearing held by Health and Human Services Committee. The original Uniform Anatomical Gift Act was promulgated in 1968 and adopted by every state in a short period of time. In 1987, NCCUSL revised the 1968 UAGA to address changes in technology and practice. Only 26 states enacted that new version; Nebraska was not among them. But Nebraska hasn’t ignored its anatomical-gift laws since 1968. There has been amendatory legislation several times during the intervening period; significant among such bills were establishment of an organ-donor registry, and a “first-person consent” law, which bars next-of-kin from overturning an adult’s own act of donation. Before passage of LB 1036 in Nebraska, 38 other states had adopted the essence of the updated 2006 UAGA. While uniformity is the mantra, it hasn’t been achieved on an absolute basis. States have made independent decisions and changes within the framework, including Nebraska with LB 1036. Among aspects of the UAGA adopted by LB 1036 is explicit recognition of the autonomous decision of anyone who desires not to be an organ donor. The legislation expressly allows for making a “refusal” to be a donor. If a refusal is written and signed, as with a document of gift, it has to be honored, assuming adequate communication. There is a significant flaw in the way this autonomy is addressed. While there is an active registry and a process for effectuating a positive designation, no similar registry or process exists for the negative designation. It’s a general authorization; if one wants to use it, he or she has to make sure the decision is communicated in a variety of ways. Attempts to correct this flaw by opening the registry to refusals as well as donations were vigorously rejected by the uniform law commissioners, paying heed apparently to objections from the exclusive organ procurement organization in the state. Catholic teaching encourages organ donation as an act of beneficence and charity, but there are moral principles and prescribed conditions to be upheld, such as informed consent, medical certainty that death has occurred and not causing death. As part of its response to enactment of LB 1036, the Nebraska Catholic Conference plans to provide information and guidance relating to this new law prior to its January 1 effective date. Basic information on the bill is available on the Legislature’s website: www.nebraskalegislature.gov; enter LB 1036 and click on “Go”. And finally…..observations on a different matter: Thursday, April 29 could not have been a great day for the Speaker of the Legislature, Senator Mike Flood of Norfolk, at least in terms of the morning’s headlines in the Midlands section of the Omaha World Herald. At the top of the page, there was this one: “Community colleges’ feud flares up.” Down a little on the same page was this one: “Second hospital in Kearney more likely—Talks break down between a doctor group and Good Samaritan.” Senator Flood, you see, organized negotiation summits and appeared to have successfully brokered compromise agreements in both of those controversies. Those headlines indicated some cracks in those agreements; apparently minds didn’t stay met. Still, from the Speaker’s perspective, his efforts were good enough to keep both controversies from tying up the Legislature in its closing days.
Legislature Adjourns, but Still to be Active 05-07-10 The second and concluding regular session of the 101st Nebraska Legislature completed its 60 legislative days on April 14, as scheduled. No last-day drama; no late-hour adjournment; not even the buzz of a veto override. There was plenty of time to honor the three senators known for sure not to be returning for the 102nd Legislature. As is of course the case, the practical results of the 2010 session, and of this Legislature as a whole, won’t be fully known for a while. Typically, it takes some time for the true impact of public-policy changes to make a difference. Most of the 196 bills passed this session won’t take effect until mid-July—90 days after adjournment sine die. Some of the bills were passed with an “emergency clause,” which means they took effect when the Governor gave his signature of approval. From most perspectives, the 2010 regular session of the Legislature was successful; probably not anything historically monumental, but efficient and significant. The Speaker of the Legislature, Senator Mike Flood of Norfolk, told his colleagues in his closing speech that “fiscal responsibility” was the standard of the session. With few exceptions, any bill requiring a general fund appropriation did not make it through the process. Following up on last November’s special session, the legislators further pared the current budget and resisted temptations to tap the cash reserve, which now exceeds $300 million, a number that is pretty remarkable relative to other states. Even though its two regular sessions are now concluded, this Legislature is by no means finished. The cash reserve notwithstanding, a budget deficit now projected at nearly $680 million for the next fiscal biennium is a source of ongoing concern and anxiety for current legislators, most of whom will confront it directly in 2011. Although unlikely, it’s not out of the question that this Legislature will have another special session before the end of 2010. More unique with respect to the fiscal situation is something the legislators did on April 13, the next-to-last day of their session. On a 46-0 vote, they approved Legislative Resolution 542, which was introduced by the chairman of the Appropriations Committee, Senator Lavon Heidemann. LR 542 sets in motion a process for preparing to confront the budget deficits in 2011. It encourages the current Legislature’s standing committees and Executive Board to “examine General Funded functions and expenditures of state agency operations and aid that are required by state law.” Articulation of what this might mean is found in this statement: “…it is hoped that committees are able to identify statutory changes that de-obligate the state from operating and aid costs for the forthcoming biennium.” The resolution also expresses the Legislature’s desire “that the Governor submit enabling legislation specific to his budget recommendations.” Anytime budget making involves “de-obligating” and statutory changes, it’s a major situation, much more so than just setting line-item numbers. Given this context, the rest of 2010 is clearly going to be active and meaningful for the Legislature. The three senators who for sure won’t be back in 2011 will be able to participate in LR 542 and other legislative activity, because their terms continue until their successors are sworn-in early next January. They are the district 22 senator, Arnie Stuthman of Platte Center; the district 14 senator, Tim Gay of Papillion; and the district 8 senator, Tom White of Omaha. Senator Stuthman is the only legislator subject to term limits in this election year. Senator White chose to run for another office and Senator Gay opted not to seek a second term. Appropriately, they each addressed their colleagues during the closing ceremony and were applauded for their public service. Another thought on the recently concluded session: In our own category of bills that received less attention than was warranted, but are likely to have a significant impact, we have these two: LB 1036 and LB 1106. The former is a 43-page rewrite of state laws governing organ and tissue donations, generally consistent with the latest “Uniform Anatomical Gift Act” pushed by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws. It updates and facilitates the organ-donation process and empowers organ and tissue procurers to be even more aggressive. The latter bill authorizes public-school districts to operate health centers under certain conditions and makes the services eligible for Medicaid reimbursement. Uniquely, it was handled as a budget bill. These measures passed on final votes of 48-0 and 49-0 respectively. Both had less than eight hours of floor discussion and few probing questions. And finally……Of the numerous blogs and other internet reactions we’ve seen on the hot issue of continuing prenatal care services for unborn children from impoverished families regardless of the mother’s immigration status, this may be the most amusing: “Nice try (Senator) Ashford, but my governor knows what’s best to deal with the scurge (sic) of illegal immigration, and it isn’t giving them incentives.” Evidence perhaps of a winning political calculation?
Legislators’ Dilemma Alleviated on Prenatal Care Issue 04-09-10 The Nebraska Legislature is a remarkable institution. That’s not only because of its uniqueness as the sole unicameral among all the states, or the fact it makes both public policy and history on a regular basis. It’s also because it assembles 49, elected citizen-legislators and facilitates and coordinates much of their public-service, encompassing their personalities, principles, ideas, political concerns and judgments. It is more than a process; it’s the unique sum of unique parts. It has its own existence, role and influence. The role and influence of the Legislature as institution were on display recently. It happened on the controversial and emotionally charged issue of reinstating governmentally supported prenatal care services for unborn children of impoverished families, regardless of the mothers’ federal immigration status. After 30 years or more of having such a policy, relying upon the federally established Medicaid program, Nebraska was suddenly told by federal officials that its policy was impermissible and no longer qualified to receive federal funding. The reason? Medicaid never has recognized the unborn child as the recipient of benefits in his or her own right, as a separate individual. And if the unborn child’s mother is an unauthorized immigrant, she is ineligible. What all happened next has been documented by generally good reporting and numerous editorials. Once it became definite that administrative action to overcome this “surprise” development was not going to be implemented, even though it was possible to do so, enough legislators cast a procedural vote to suspend the Legislature’s rules to allow for late introduction of remedial legislation. LB 1110 proposed to reinstate prenatal care services for unborn children of impoverished mothers using the specific unborn-child option of another federal program, the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). What’s more, due to its higher federal-funding share, exercising this option most likely would have meant continuation of the policy at less cost than had been the case. The CHIP unborn-child option also offered obvious cost savings from the preventive effects of prenatal care services. After a public hearing, the Health and Human Services Committee voted 6-1 to advance LB 1110 to the full Legislature and designated it as a priority bill. Unless something unexpected and dramatic takes place in the final eight days of the session, the report on LB 1110 will be that it never had much chance for enactment, at least in a thorough, logical version that would do the most good for at-risk unborn children. For one thing, once the bill “reached the floor,” the Governor’s opposition to providing governmentally-funded prenatal care services for unborn children of “illegals” was firmly set, imposing a dark cloud over the prospects. Correspondingly, the political winds of “the immigration issue” blew chilly throughout the legislative chamber. In its full form, LB 1110 never had a vote. The issues at stake, such as the health and well-being of children in utero, the social, health and fiscal repercussions of not having access to prenatal care services; and the separate, individual existence of unborn children, never had a thorough debate on its own substance. This is where the institution of the Legislature had an impact. Legislative leadership, including the Speaker, the chairman of the Health and Human Services Committee and the introducer of LB 1110, assessed the voting sentiments of their colleagues and concluded that there were not enough votes to invoke cloture on a filibuster (33), to override an anticipated veto by the Governor (30) or even to advance and pass the bill (25). Their assessment led to a decision to withdraw LB 1110 from further consideration. Apparently, for the sake of the institution it was deemed better not to debate and vote on LB 1110, regardless of the outcome, then to have debate and a vote that would put legislators on record on a highly contentious and politically divisive matter, one involving in one way or another, whether logical and appropriate or not, both pro-life and immigration issues. In essence, the institution protected its members. Numerous legislators undoubtedly welcomed and appreciated the quiet demise of LB 1110. Otherwise, they would have faced a real dilemma in casting a vote (or perhaps abstaining) that would have pitted fundamental pro-life principles against the real or imagined political consequences of appearing to be soft on the federal issue of illegal immigration. The extensive exhale of relief seemed detectible throughout the capitol. Late last week, right before adjourning for their four-day Easter weekend, legislators voted 43-zip to add an amendment to another bill, which could permit case-by-case eligibility for a narrow category of otherwise ineligible pregnant women as long as they are U.S. citizens. This action, which has to be viewed positively to whatever limited extent it might make a difference, was more one of expedience than pro life principle. Pro Life Commitment or Lip-Service? 03-19-10 Only 15 legislative days remain in the Nebraska Unicameral’s regular session for 2010. Some earlier-hinted speculation that legislators might not use all 60 working days allowed for this session now appears remote. A significant amount of prioritized legislation remains on the worksheet. A bill sure to spark intense debate and likely, but lamentably, a showdown with the Governor is LB 1110. It proposes to reinstate longstanding governmentally funded prenatal care and services for unborn children in impoverished families. Codifying the unborn-child option of the federal Children’s Health Insurance Program will allow Nebraska to continue this medically-important coverage for all eligible unborn children in the state irrespective of the mothers’ immigration status. What’s more, since the federal share of costs is greater under CHIP than under “regular” Medicaid, the state can continue the coverage and still have savings over what the cost would have been had such coverage under Medicaid been allowed to continue. LB 1110 is a win-win: continuing the long-term benefits of prenatal care for unborn children from impoverished families at a cost lower than what it has been. For those who are inclined to react to this as an issue of providing benefits to illegal immigrants, notwithstanding the reality that the true recipients of such benefits are unborn children, who are not illegal immigrants but presumptive U.S. citizens, reading both LB 1110 and its fiscal note would be a helpful, conscientious thing to do. Both documents are available through the Legislature’s website. Those who maintain that churches and charities should step in and meet the prenatal healthcare needs of all those in the impacted category are naively or intentionally unrealistic about the scope and scale of these needs. They also may be ignoring the essential functions and social responsibilities of government. By now it is well-known through media reports that Archbishop George Lucas of Omaha, Bishop Fabian Bruskewitz of Lincoln and Bishop William Dendinger of Grand Island wrote to Governor Heineman, respectfully asking him to reconsider his announced opposition to LB 1110. The essence of the Bishops’ message is the following: “This is an important and urgent Pro Life matter, Governor. Obviously, the need for, and importance of, prenatal care and services only exist when a woman is pregnant, carrying an unborn child in her womb....Denying prenatal care coverage in these circumstances of family poverty is an affront to human dignity and Pro Life principles. It is a terrible injustice, which could do great harm to the lives of children at a very vulnerable stage in their development. What’s worse, the lack of access to coverage for such care could be a decisive factor in leading some pregnant women to choose abortion over childbirth, each time a tragedy. “Assisting unborn children to have a healthier start to life makes abundant sense, not only from an economic standpoint, since healthcare needs are likely to be considerably greater without the benefits of prenatal care and services, but also from a human rights standpoint as well. The immigration status of their mothers should not be allowed to adversely affect the health and well-being of the unborn children. When balanced against the legitimate public-policy concerns about illegal immigration, caring for the unborn children should be the higher priority, as the right thing to do.” The letter was hand-delivered to the Governor’s office on March 2. As of March 15 there had not been a direct response. Nonetheless, comments made for media purposes suggest that his opposition to reinstating prenatal coverage for unborn children regardless of their mothers’ immigration status is firm. The Governor’s vigorous opposition significantly increases the challenge for enacting LB 1110, especially for legislators who desire to remain true to pro life principles of respect for the sanctity and individuality of human life in the womb and safeguarding the health of these vulnerable lives. In the face of political repercussions, is being pro life a matter of commitment to fundamental principle or more a matter of lip-service? That’s a dilemma of conscience some legislators might have to face with regard to LB 1110. Politicians who tell voters they are pro life, but turn their backs on an opportunity to support the unborn deserve to be viewed with skepticism. To their credit, six of the seven members of the Health and Human Services Committee voted to advance LB 1110 to the full Legislature for floor debate and supported making it a priority bill. Appreciation and commendation are due these six: Senators Tim Gay (chairman), Kathy Campbell (introducer), Mike Gloor, Gwen Howard, Arnie Stuthman and Norm Wallman. The same is true for those who exhibited leadership by adding their names as co-sponsors of this important legislation: Senators Howard, Bob Krist, Colby Coach, Jeremy Nordquest, Ken Hear and Abby Cornett. And finally….according to at least three dictionaries, the word “illegal” is not a noun. Thus, referring to unauthorized immigrants as “the illegals” is incorrect. It is also inappropriate and dehumanizing.
Legislation Not Needed for NSAA Changes 03-05-10 During the remaining couple dozen working days in their current session, Nebraska legislators are likely to spend some time and energy deciding the extent to which they should use state law to dictate organizational, governance and policy changes regarding the Nebraska School Activities Association. LB 1021 deals with this subject matter. It was advanced to the full Legislature by the Education Committee, with a recommended amendment that would pare its impact. It is the priority bill for Lincoln senator Bill Avery. Having that status, it will be addressed on the floor of the Unicameral. Among all the many issues, concerns and problems the Legislature can and does deal with, matters such as tax and fiscal policy, energy, health and welfare, the core of education, higher education, roads and infrastructure, water, law enforcement, criminal justice, etc., etc., giving attention to this one is a bit of a head-scratcher. It is connected to education, but only in the context of extracurricular activities. The Nebraska School Activities Association has a 100-year history of governing and managing interscholastic competition and contests involving high schools statewide, encompassing both public and private high schools. The NSAA is not a governmental agency. It has no authority to levy taxes. It is not part of, or beholden to the state Department of Education. It is an independent, non-profit, membership-based, self-governing organization with a constitution and by-laws and its own representative, legislative, and judicial processes. Its members are the high schools. They pay dues and activity fees, but the greatest amount of revenue is generated from admission and concession sales involved with district and state contests in athletics primarily; music, drama, speech, debate and journalism are also sanctioned activities. If the reported numbers are correct, about five percent of NSAA’s annual budget has a tie to tax dollars. That budget is $3.5 million, of which $210,000 is paid by the member schools in dues and fees. But that number drops to $182,500 as the public-school, tax-funded share, since approximately 13 percent of the member schools are private and non-tax-funded. The independent, membership-governance model and the small amount of tax support notwithstanding, Senator Avery and some others apparently have concluded that there are enough public-interest and quasi-governmental elements in the NSAA to justify involvement by the Legislature. He is urging legislative action to address issues he has identified with respect to fairness, accountability, transparency and oversight. Legislative interest in the NSAA was originally prompted by concerns some parents had in recent years with rules that limited “dual participation” in non-school “club programs” during the concurrent interscholastic sports seasons. From the NSAA’s perspective, this was a matter of protecting the integrity of the high-school programs and watching out for the welfare of the student athletes. For the parents and club coaches it was viewed as an intrusion upon their rights to enable their children to train and compete to the extent they desired. The parents and club coaches took their concerns to state legislators, such as Sen. Avery, who, upon examination, identified broader issues of concern. Make no mistake, there are legitimate issues involving the structure and governance of the NSAA, especially with regard to equity and fairness in representation. Senator Avery points to the fact that over 100 years, the NSAA’s top level of governance, its elected, six-member Board of Control, has never had a member of a racial minority and only one female. Interestingly, as far as we have been able to determine, there never has been a board of control member from other than a public school either. What’s more, there have been rules that have been unfair to private-school members, particularly strict reliance upon public-school-district boundaries for residency, eligibility and transfer rules. Nonetheless, changes have been made over the years and issues addressed. Obviously, private schools are a minority in the NSAA membership, but they participate actively in the elections and processes and seem generally satisfied with the relationship. By no means are they advocating for intervention by the Legislature in the governance of the NSAA. Like their public-school counterparts they have doubts and concerns about LB 1021 and its repercussions for a non-governmental association. To its credit, the Legislature’s Education Committee has recommended that LB 1021 be scaled back to a point that it only would impose requirements for open meetings and open records, like those that apply to governmental subdivisions. The committee has proposed an amendment to accomplish this. But even that might be going too far. If there is a compelling need for this legislation it is obscure, with consequences for the independence of an organization that many think ought to be independent. The NSAA’s governing authority and its member schools cannot have been oblivious to the clamor. They have gotten the message. Changes will be made. The Legislature need not dictate change, but should watch it happen. Cost of Capital Punishment 01-29-10 When does the economic
cost that government incurs in seeking to dispense the ultimate retribution to
those convicted of heinous murders become too high to justify? How much is
endmost revenge worth in spending taxpayer funds? Can capital punishment be too
expensive and irresponsibly wasteful when other crime-fighting and crime-solving
needs are underfunded? Hope for Better Conditions at Adjournment 01-15-10 One thing Nebraskans might hope to count on when the 101st Nebraska Legislature concludes its second regular session in mid-April is that there won’t be 20-plus inches of snow on the ground and wind chills well below zero. Goodness. Not that the Legislature is responsible for the weather, of course, but no Nebraskan needs reminding that those were the conditions when the 49 citizen legislators began their 2010 lawmaking journey last week at the State Capitol. Welcome back, solons. Of course it wasn’t that long ago—early November—when the Governor called you into special session to reduce the current biennium’s spending plan. This regular session is the second of the two conducted by each Legislature and is generally limited by law to no more than 60 working days. This is the part when legislators “hit the floor running,” because legislative bills that were not passed or indefinitely postponed (killed) last year are still available for action. So, after three transition days of little more than new bill introductions, floor debate began last Monday. From January 19 through March 1—tentatively—the full Legislature will meet in the mornings and its committees will conduct hearings on the new bills in the afternoons. The tentatively scheduled 60th day, for adjournment sine die, is April 14. Remember, less snow and warmer temperatures. It is important for Nebraskans to stay informed about the myriad of public policy debates and decisions that will be taking place at the State Capitol over the next 13 weeks. An excellent starter source is the Legislature’s official website, www.nebraskalegislature.gov. Also (in addition to this column, of course), there’s Unicameral Update, which is available both online and in hard copy. For the 34th consecutive year, we’ll be using the space graciously provided by the diocesan newspapers to update and comment on issues of interest and concern for the Nebraska Catholic Conference, which is the public-policy agency operated jointly and cooperatively by the three dioceses in Nebraska, under the direction of the Diocesan Bishops. Our website is www.nebcathcon.org. Our phone number is 402-477-7517. Explanation Would Help Address Disappointment The amendatory wording that Senator Ben Nelson and his staff “stumbled onto”—his description of the circumstances—for prohibiting federal-government funding of elective abortions and maintaining longstanding policy (e.g., the Hyde Amendment), thus enabling him, at least in substantial part, to provide the key vote for Senate passage of health-care-reform legislation, is imprecise, troubling and controversial. To his credit, Senator Nelson took a strong stand—some say courageous—that expanding government funding of abortion should not be part of health care reform. He pledged that any legislation that violated this principle and precedent would not get his vote. Nonetheless, he ended his resistance and thereupon brought an end to an important segment of the process, because, apparently, he became convinced and confident that adoption of the wording he stumbled onto fulfills his objective and his pledge. But does it? Skepticism, doubt and concern, as well as disappointment, are appropriate pro life responses. Does it truly maintain the status quo or is it an “accounting gimmick” and an abortion-funding mandate as some have analyzed? From a pro life perspective, it is not nearly as sound as the Stupak amendment in the House of Representatives’ bill. But is it better, equal to, or worse than the Nelson-Casey-Hatch amendment that was defeated earlier in the process? That’s a debatable topic. Apparently, Senator Nelson determined that it was not worse. One thing is certain, Senator Nelson’s last amendment doesn’t fulfill the objective he consistently asserted and the pledge he consistently made just because he says it does. It isn’t better than or even equal to the status quo just because he says it is. He bears a responsibility to thoroughly and clearly explain how his amendment does not expand federal funding for abortion. Otherwise, doubt, concern and disappointment will persist. And finally…. There’s a note left over from the Unicameral’s special session on budget cutting. Because a big part of the mainline budget consists of government operations, at least one representative of every agency, usually the director appeared before the Appropriations Committee to describe the anticipated impact of an across-the-board budget cut and in some instances, targeted, program-specific cuts as well. The typical description was that cuts were understandable, acceptable and doable. But almost as typically, caveats and some reluctance were expressed. One of the agency representatives, who appeared late in the process, near the end of the long list of agency hearings, told committee members at the onset of his testimony that he had observed how common it was for those appearing before the committee to testify, “our agency supports the proposed cuts, but….” “I too have a little but,” he further testified. |
Nebraska Catholic
Conference