As we move into our final few days of this legislative session, I feel I need to re-introduce myself to many of you.  I don’t mean personally, but rather politically.  There have been two bills in the last few weeks that have generated several hours of debate on the floor and have also generated extensive contact to my office.  One bill is LB 577, the “Medicaid Expansion Bill” and the other LB 543, the “Death Penalty Bill”.  I have cast votes or removed my name from pledge lists concerning these bills and I think I have confused some.

There are highs and lows, as we all know, in life.  I am learning there are highs and lows in politics as well.  You win some, you lose some.  Last week I told you in this column about LB 153 which was my priority bill.  This bill passed and was signed into law by the Governor.  The bill provides another avenue for cities, towns and villages to qualify for grant money administered by the Department of Economic Development.  Naturally, I felt this was a win.

LB 377 is a bill I introduced this year.  The bill provides clearer definition in statute as to authority and duties of cities and/or villages when they annex property and in particular, county roads.  State law wasn’t clear on this.  LB 153 provides that the authority held by a county board over a county road, including any easements, are transferred to the governing body of the annexing city or village.  This was an assumption that most operated under but was not clear.  The bill clarifies this.

LB 377 passed Final Reading and was signed into law by the Governor on May 7.  It’s always hardest to get the first one passed and as I said, this was one of “my bills”.  As you can imagine, I consider this a win as well.

You can imagine my surprise when I opened the Omaha World Herald on April 26th, and saw a headline quoting a candidate for the Omaha Mayor’s race saying during a debate that the Omaha Steel Castings Company’s move to Wahoo was “falling apart”.  If you have been out past the northeast corner of Wahoo lately, there perhaps isn’t another area with more activity and construction going on in the district.  As you can also imagine, I was upset.  The owner and administrative team from Omaha Steel assured me that there is no substance to the statement.  They said Wahoo simply was the best choice once they decided to move and they were set to begin operations in June.  After I calmed down, I began to realize that if a community wants to participate and compete for business in today’s economic climate, we have to be ready to “play the game”.

In Legislative District #23 we have several large operations and businesses.  I know all across the district we have been actively trying to recruit others to move to our part of the state.  We also have vibrant small town main streets.  These “downtowns” are comprised of smaller businesses that contribute to our vitality and quality of life.  These are the enterprises we need to patronize, both large and small, as often as we can.  Whether large or small, our towns need to try to offer the most they reasonably can to appear inviting not only for those looking to locate or re-locate, but for our existing residents as well.

This past week LB 153 passed on Final Reading.  This bill will try to help ALL communities competing for dollars through the Civic and Community Center Financing Fund, a program operated through the Department of Economic Development.  I prioritized this bill to help it get on General File.  Each senator is allowed one priority designation and a senator can designate his or another senator’s bill for this purpose.  This bill was introduced by Senator Annette Dubas of Fullerton and she asked me to prioritize the measure.  As I said earlier, we need to make our communities as livable and inviting as possible and I feel this bill accomplishes that purpose.

The Civic and Community Center Financing Fund (CCCFF) is in statute already.  With LB 153, accessibility to funds would be made clearer and more competitive for each applicant.  Through amendment, the CCCFF will include recreational and civic centers among other types of expenditures for which communities can apply and fund monies can be granted.  There are criteria the DED must look for which include retention impact, new resident impact and visitor impact, just to name a few.

LB 153 will provide that cities or villages may apply for funds, not just large cities or suburban areas constructing arenas.  The money then may be used for not only new construction, but for renovation or expansion of existing civic or recreational centers.  This can include conversion, rehabilitation or reuse of historic buildings or upgrades to civic centers.  There can also be funding given for assistance for engineering and technical studies directly related to the above described projects.  The bill as passed, makes the process easier and clearer for all that may want to take advantage of the fund.

As I said, the Omaha Steel story tells me not to get complacent but get busy attracting and keeping businesses of all sizes to and in our communities.  I feel LB 153 is a great tool to help facilitate this goal.

Next week, the budget battle begins.

Sincerely,

Senator Jerry Johnson

Officially, our Legislature is non-partisan.  This means we don’t recognize the political parties in our elections and ideally, we don’t operate that way on the floor of the legislature during consideration of the bills before us.  Now, I realize this isn’t always the norm but for the most part, I think party affiliation is checked, on most issues, at the door.  There is another divide however, that I am seeing on a semi-regular basis that is not so subtle and can become even more divisive when displayed.

I am speaking of the rural-urban split.  On some issues, if you aren’t from Douglas, Lancaster or Sarpy Counties, you are rural.  This divide was probably no more evident than in the debate on LB 407 which began this past week.

I have noticed in my short time here in the Legislature that it is not often that a bill advances to passage “clean”.  By that I mean the bill doesn’t advance without some form of amendment.  The amendment, as you can imagine, is intended to make the bill better.  I have seen instances where the amendment becomes the bill.  This past week we spent a little over an hour on a three-word amendment that not only made the bill to which it was attached better, but made our society better going forward.

Here in the Legislature, we deal in words.  During debate we took a look at words and realized that they do matter.  The old kid’s poem “sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me” isn’t true.  Words hurt, and usually they are directed at the weaker members of our society, ethnic groups, nationalities and probably the weakest of all, those with physical or mental challenges which can’t be changed.  LB 23 is a bill that was introduced to help bring in higher Medicaid payments to supplement pay rates for intermediate care facilities that house people with developmental disabilities and intellectual disabilities.  As happens, another senator saw that his bill wasn’t going to finish this year (LB 343) so he amended his bill into LB 23.  LB 343 and now LB 23 asks that the term “mental retardation” be removed from state laws and replaced with the words “an intellectual disability”.

There are 44 other states that have eliminated the word “retardation” from their laws.  The federal law was changed to reflect this in 2010.  During debate on the amendment, several senators spoke of family members or friends that have children or others that are afflicted.  They spoke of times where they heard the “r” word whispered or said directly to the person.  One senator gave moving testimony of his childhood and remembered how his teacher treated him due to his speech defect and made him wear a dunce cap and then marched him down to the “retard” (his description, not mine) room.  After a period of time he was allowed to come back to his “regular” room but the damage was done and obviously the experience has remained and will remain with him for a lifetime.

It is amazing how thick LB 343 is, 63 pages in all.  It goes through state statute and gets rid of the words “mental retardation” wherever they appear.  Earlier state statute used words such as imbecile, moron or even idiot, just to name a few.  Those words are now gone from state law.  Read one of our nation’s great authors, Mark Twain, and the “n” word is a regular word in his works especially Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn.  Obviously, we don’t use that form of slang anymore either.

As I said when I began, the hour we debated the amendment for LB 23 was truly eye-opening and at times moving.  Often, the gallery is full of students from all across the State of Nebraska seeing our Legislature in action.  Those that were here for the above discussion, witnessed a “teaching moment” for their state senators as well.  The bill containing the amendment unanimously passed on to Select File.

If you, your family or any of your friends have been the victim of a crime, I can only imagine how violated you feel.  Many of you would want retribution which is a nice word for full and harsh punishment of the person who committed this crime.  Move on to the crime of murder.  Many want the ultimate penalty imposed which is the death penalty, still allowed in Nebraska.  What if the person doing the killing was 18 years of age or even younger?  Until this point, Nebraska legally could not put these persons to death, but a mandatory sentence of life in prison, absent any mitigating factors, was the sentence for juveniles convicted of first degree murder.  Presently, there are 27 inmates serving life sentences without the chance for parole for crimes they committed when they were younger than 18.

This past summer the U.S. Supreme Court declared that imposing mandatory life sentences for juveniles who committed capital crimes was unconstitutional.  The high court said they had serious concerns about about brain development at that stage of life.  The court said that judges must take into account the “mitigating factors of life” when imposing a sentence on a juvenile for murder.  We all know most young people are easily impressed by their peers.  We know they can be impulsive, immature and truly a product of their surroundings.  The court felt the offenders at this age might not truly comprehend the magnitude of their crime.

LB 44 was introduced to comply with this ruling.  The bill as introduced would change the sentence for first degree murder convictions by juveniles to 30 years to life.  You’ll notice that life in prison can still be an option for the sentence but does not have to be mandatory.  As I am becoming more and more aware, nothing comes easy in the Legislature and it shouldn’t when discussing an issue with this much importance.  The body is fine by taking away the mandatory life sentence, but then trying to arrive at an agreeable amount of time for the minimum sentence became the subject of several hours of debate.  As most of you know, our state sentencing guidelines allow an inmate to be paroled after serving half of a sentence.  Several amendments were offered to LB 44 by senators who felt 30 year minimum sentences were too short.  The person could be released in 15 years from the time of sentencing and a good number felt this wasn’t enough.  A 60 year minimum was then offered but defeated with several senators feeling this time was potentially unconstitutional.  I finally agreed with an amendment that would set a 40 year minimum with the opportunity for parole beginning at 20 years.  Several members of the legislature that are legal scholars said it would be rare for a person to be paroled on his or her first attempt at the 20 year mark. The bill came up against a time limit on the daily agenda and has not passed as of the time I write this update.

LB 362, the bill that would add $7 to each car registration, also came up for debate this past week.  The same arguments as heard in committee were brought forth.  This bill would raise an additional $12 million per year for state park maintenance but it is a mandated increase that many feel is added on to an already high auto registration formula.  Some say they don’t use the state parks at all.  I think this bill is headed for a study over the summer months that will determine how the Nebraska Game and Parks can best manage their park system.  This study may even include determining if we need all of the state parks we are now trying to operate and maintain.

Sincerely,

Senator Jerry Johnson

This past week, a senator was put in an unusual position of trying to undo a bill he successfully fought for several years ago. In a nutshell, Senator Bill Avery introduced LB79, which would take the Nebraska Campaign Finance Act off the books, but try to make campaign reporting more transparent. This past summer, the Nebraska Supreme Court ruled the Nebraska Campaign Finance Act was unconstitutional. This was a result of a U.S. Supreme Court decision in an Arizona case that said such legislation and regulations of campaign spending create undo burdens on the rights of free speech, which are guaranteed under the First Amendment

When passed, the Nebraska law had the commendable goal of leveling the financial playing field in political campaigns between candidates. Various spending limits were established for state offices in primary and general elections. Candidates who agreed to these totally voluntary limits could qualify and expect to receive matching public funds if their candidate exceeded the limit or cap. The money in the fund came from donations given by people agreeing to the check-off on their tax returns, civil penalty fines, and late filing fees paid by campaigns that broke campaign laws.

Again, the Supreme Court ruling forced Senator Avery, who had strongly supported the campaign finance limitations, to back away and ask for the law to be removed from statute. Existing money in the fund dispersed between the Accountability and Disclosure Commission for technological equipment to allow campaign financial statements to be filed electronically and updates to equipment for the Secretary of State.

I bring up the dilemma with Senator Avery because I had a related incident with a bill I introduced this year as well. LB580 was introduced in response to a case heard by the Nebraska Court of Appeals regarding a legal principal called inverse condemnation. The bill was somewhat technical in nature, but was brought as a result of a sewer backup into a private residence. The home did not have a device called a backflow preventor in use, which would have prevented this problem. New construction law requires this device, but many homes are “grandfathered in” and not so equipped. The homeowners felt that the city utility system is the city’s responsibility to operate properly. Water, being a utility, is not supposed to back up from the  from the public line and the homeowners felt the city should bear the cost of repair. It was argued that the city knew or at least could have foreseen that its action or inaction could cause damage of this sort to private property. The District Court rejected the homeowner’s case, which was then appealed. The Nebraska Court of Appeals upheld a part of the lower court decision, but reversed the District Court’s decision not allowing the legal claim brought by the homeowners, who felt that they had not been fairly compensated for private property taken or damaged for public use.

The city, fearing expensive future claims, then appealed to the Nebraska Supreme Court and thus was LB580 born. This bill would have set guidelines for inverse condemnation by requiring cases filed in District Court of this nature to determine if a taking or damage has occurred and determination of just compensation for damages. A three year statute of limitations would be established as a time limit for filing damages and allowing for offers of judgement at trial on condemnation and petitions for inverse condemnation.

As we neared the hearing for lB580 before the Judiciary Committee, I was waiting for the Supreme Court decision which could render most of the bill moot. As fate, luck or whatever would have it, the morning of the hearing, the court ruling was handed down and for the most part, the ruling of the Appeals Court was reversed. The high court said that even though the Nebraska Constitution forbids the taking or damaging of private property without just compensation the law cannot be a source of compensation for every action or inaction by a governmental entity that causes damage. Inverse condemnation cases must show that government entity intended or could foresee its actions would result in the taking or damage of private property. No evidence was shown in this cases that the city knew there would be damage to homes under this operation. Therefore, I had to go to the hearing and ask the committee to indefinitely postpone or kill the bill. If there are changes needed,we may introduce something at a later date. As you can see, it’s a little unusual to hit the chair and say, never mind, but this can be a strange place.

Sincerely,

Senator Jerry Johnson

If you appreciate Nebraska as I do, and I have to assume most of you reading this article do, then I am sure you will agree with a bill we heard this past week on General File. LB634 was heard and unanimously passed to Select File. This measure concerns future preparedness of our state as a result of the devastating forest fires we experienced the last few years, especially last year, made worse when combined with the drought we were, and still are, going through.

It is estimated the fires last year alone burned over 500,000 acres of timber and canyon land. This is beautiful country for those of you who have the chance to experience it. There were sixty-five buildings lost and the state emergency response system was hit with a cost of over $12 million. This bill would allow the Nebraska Forest Service to contract with private aviation companies to station air tanker planes in Valentine and Chadron during the fire season. Response time is everything during these fast moving disasters. Testifiers on the bill during the hearing stated that as little as a fifteen minutes earlier response to fire last year near Ainsworth could quite possibly have controlled what turned out to be one of the biggest wildfires of all. The fire burned for over two weeks. The planes obviously could cut response times and deliver 600-800 gallons of water of fire retardant to more specific and isolated areas. The bill also dedicated funds for additional firefighter training, rehabilitation of forest land destroyed by fire, and will help landowners not only thin forest areas properly, but try to control or remove red cedar trees. These trees are a major fuel source for the fires and are infesting many of the fire prone areas.

It is pretty obvious that LB634 could save lives, property, and money, but investing in the bill also was brough up during floor debate. The bill has a fiscal note or a cost of $1.7 million. This amount seems reasonable, but some senators started looking at the overall budget picture and noted this $1.7 million is “new” money. By that, I mean it is money not included in the preliminary budget figures released a couple of weeks ago. The Appropriations Committee has told the Legislature there will be somewhere between $16-19 million available this year for new spending. As you can imagine, the competition for these relatively few dollars is intense. In fact, the cost of all of the proposals this year approaches $150 million in “new” money. As I look through some of the bills asking for money, I notice that most are very worthy ideas. Some are ideas that have been put off for years, while other proposals come from education, health and human services, medicare, and so on, that have yearly increases built in. The answer lies in just a few areas, cut or raise taxes. Both are difficult choices and I certainly don’t want to raise taxes. We have just begun to do the balancing act and try to spend within our means. The Governor has weighed in and is in favor of LB634. As I said, the vote to advance was unanimous. There goes 10% of the “new” money.

Sincerely,

Senator Jerry Johnson

This past week marked the halfway point of our legislative session. We have completed forty-seven working days of a scheduled ninety day session. At times, the days have seemed to go by quickly and at times it seems we have been bogged down on floor debate over a variety of issues.

This past week also saw the end of the hearing phase of our process. This unique portion of our legislative year allows you, the constituents, to appear before a committee of senators and voice your opinion on an issue of importance to you. Not all states allow this privilege and not all states allow a hearing on every bill that is introduced. Our system in Nebraska is unique, but so far I think it is pretty user friendly to the public. I have been asked several times why I don’t testify on a bill before a committee if it’s not one of my bills, but one for which I have an interest. There have been several of those this year concerning various topics such as roads in our district, big lakes in our district and so on. The hearing process is for you. My time is coming now when bills start to come out of the committees to which they were assigned and appear on General File or first round debate. While I know each of the bills presented this year are important to someone, I have tried for the most part to wait for bills to get on the floor and as some of the major bills advance and debate has begun on priority bills, I can begin to see what a good portion of the rest of the session will look like.

Some major bills going forward include LB613. This bill will create the Tax Modernization Committee and it’s passage is crucial. You’ll remember Governor Heineman introduced two bills earlier to drastically change our state tax system, but agreed to have these bills killed in exchange for the creation of this committee. The committee is to examine our tax system, which hasn’t really had any meaningful examination for over fifty years. Quite literally, this bill is a cornerstone of several others this year.

LB577 is the Medicaid expansion bill. Passage of this measure will probably be after extended debate, if at all. We can also expect the Governor to veto this bill if his earlier comments on this issue are any indication.

Historic horse racing, keno regulations and of course, the budget will be on our agenda in the days ahead. Wednesday, March 27, will be the first day of all day debate. I have been told this portion of the session is when the fun begins.

Finally, if there are high school students in District 23 that have an interest in law, government or leadership, please consider the 2013 unicameral Youth Legislature conference this June 9-12. This legislative simulation is held at the State Capitol building. Student “senators” will sponsor bills, conduct hearings and debate the issues under the supervision of current senators, legislative staff and lobbyists. Registration forms can be obtained at www.nebraskalegisalture.gov/education/unicamyouth.php or liferaydemo.unl.edu.web/4hcamps/bigredcamps. The registration deadline is May 15, 2013.

Sincerely,

Senator Jerry Johnson

If you are a political junkie, so to speak, you probably remember a couple of weeks ago in the U.S. Senate when a senator carried on a filibuster for over thirteen hours on the subject of drones and how much power the President of the United States has to determine when and how these miniature flying planes (which can also be used as weapons) has. The reviews are mixed on the skill displayed by the senator and the effectiveness of his effort but nevertheless, it was quite interesting.

In the past week, we wrapped up a filibuster in our Legislature as well. Again, the reviews are mixed as to the success of the issue. This time the bill came in the form of a constitutional amendment (LR41CA) that would allow betting on “historical” horse races. This proposal would authorize the Legislature to enact laws providing for the licensing and regulation of wagering on live, replayed, or delayed horse races when such wagering occurs at licensed racetracks. Patrons would go to a machine and bet on the outcomes of past races chosen at random from the hundreds of thousands of sanctioned races that have been run in years past. Any information that would help someone identify when and where the race occurred is erased of “scrubbed” from the video.

This resolution is nothing new. In fact, as recently as last year, a very similar bill was passed but overridden by the Governor. Those supporting the resolution say this is a step in helping to save the horse racing industry in the state. In years past, this was a major industry in the state. Several thoroughbred farms operated in District 23 and throughout the state. With the proliferation of casino style gambling in surrounding states, horse racing began to fall out of favor. Now many tracks have closed or run on a greatly reduced schedule. Opponents of LR41CA say this is just another attempt to expand gambling. They note the machines even look like slot machines.

After close to four days of debate and eight hours, I voted against LR41CA. I do not favor expanded gambling and I wanted to be clear on that however, this was just the first vote to move this proposal to Select File and possibly on to a final vote. I may very well change my vote at that time  to help support the industry. You’ll also note that this is a constitutional  amendment. If we pass this measure in the Legislature, it then goes before you, the voter, to determine if you want this amended to state law. Lots of steps left for this idea.

I also had my priority bill heard and passed on General File this past week. As I told you last week, I prioritized LB153, a bill introduced by Senator Annette Dubas, that would rewrite the statutes governing the use of the Civic and Community Center Financing Fund. I feel this bill will support and promote development of civic, community, and rec centers throughout the state and hopefully will help smaller communities remain viable and grow.

I introduced three bills this year and signed on to thirteen other measures. It is common for senators to carry another senator’s bill as a priority and I feel pretty confident that my bills will stand on their own.

Sincerely,

Senator Jerry Johnson