Krusin' the Capitol
By Nebraska State Senator Lowen Kruse
2004
Week 14
April 9, 2004
Hi
With only three days to go, we can do a tally of sorts. We are out of time
on starting any more bills down the track, though some creative souls will seek
to amend their bills to other bills on the second round.
Water resources bill - yes
Poop bill (regarding cattle nutrients) - yes
Criminalize domestic violence - no (Could get amended in)
Reform mental health care delivery - yes
Fill the $300 million budget hole coming in January - no
Protect McDonalds from being sued by fat people - no
Smooth the way for an insurance company to move to Nebr. - yes
Petition to allow the legislature to authorize casinos - yes
Criminalize harming a fetus - no
License body artists - yes
Allow motorcyclists to have air through their hair - no
Expedite closing single room schools - no
Ease restrictions on city-county mergers - no
Prohibit riders in the back of pickups - yes
Ban smoking in restaurants - no
Shift more costs to property taxes - yes
We had a major crash of the system this week. Evidently I am prophetic. I
wrote last week that we have two very stubborn senators who are unable to hear
each other. I did not predict how that might come out, but this week these
two men showed us one way not to do legislation. It was the most awful moment I
have experienced in four years at this job. Seasoned senators pleaded for
respect for the process, to honor how far we have come in the this extremely
difficult year. No give from either man.
It was on the rights of a fetus. Side note: let me correct a statement I
made last week. I said Senator Chambers felt life begins at birth. Upon
rereading, I recognize that is not accurate. He accepts that a fetus is human
life, but states that it is not a human being until birth.
Senator Foley presented his bill to criminalize injuring a fetus. Senator
Chambers presented his case that the bill is nibbling away at abortion rights by
preparing to extend the rights of a "person" to the fetus. Foley uses the
term "unborn child" in his debate. Though he said this has nothing to do with
abortion, he and others made repeated references to the Roe v. Wade decision of
the Supreme Court.
It was an excellent debate, civil, with thoughtful content and with several
senators asking questions of others in the debate, to better understand their
positions. However, this was the last day to open on senators' priority bills,
with twenty bills in waiting. Five hours gone with no one changing positions
fueled frustration!
The speaker privately sought an agreement from each of the men. Chambers
would withdraw his 22 amendments, designed to keep the agenda tied up until
midnight. Foley would allow a vote on his bill, to advance it, but would
understand that on Tuesday it would be the last item of a very heavy agenda and
therefore would not pass to final reading.
The speaker announced the agreement and asked each in turn to state to the
body that this was the agreement. Chambers said "Yes." Foley responded in
excited tones, that this gave him a chance to "win" (not his word, but his
message) on Tuesday, if everybody hurried up their bills. Chambers came back on and
said he would not pull the amendments if Foley did not pull back from any
consideration on Tuesday. Foley said "No." Chambers said in that case this is
war. War with the whole body if we let Foley "win." He would delay every bill
on Tuesday, if Foley's bill is even on the agenda, and take the rest of the
days of the session so critical bills could not be finished and we would have to
vote to go into extended session.
We were aghast at the response from both men. It was all win-lose. Neither
can abide the thought of the other winning. Foley was extremely foolish to
throw down the gauntlet and start a victory speech for Tuesday. Chambers was
overreacting, as he could stop the bill on Tuesday as easily as he had the first
day, without threatening other necessary bills. A threat that was mostly
smoke a month ago can become reality when we are down to the last days.
A senior senator, with choked voice, urged the men to respect the beautiful
work we have done in a tough year. The speaker's negotiation is our usual way
of getting past an impasse, and though we grumble we always back off and let
the process go forward. However, each of the men refused to budge.
I and two other senators pleaded with Foley, as we stood in the aisle during
Chambers next speech, to pull the bill or move for cloture, which would end
the debate. He said that would give Chambers the victory. I said not taking
the bill back hands Chambers the victory, as the bill is dead. Pulling it away
maintains dignity and gives base for life another day. "No. He must not
win."
There was tension and turmoil and disbelief on the floor, as we have gained
great respect for both of these senators. We had no option left but to vote to
adjourn, which killed Foley's bill and Chamber's debate. What a downer.
Let's turn to a little humor to balance out the memories of the week. Very
little. Senator Dwite Pedersen is a CADAC, pronounced "kay-dak" and standing
for certified counselors in alcohol and drug abuse. He kept repeating the term
as he argued that a CADAC and a mental health counselor represent two quite
different professional skills, yet are often confused in mental health treatment
facilities.
Senator Chambers saw an opening for fun and questioned Pedersen if he was a
cicada. Amazingly, Pedersen was not acquainted with the word and repeated he
is a CADAC. Chambers asked if he was now or ever had been a cicada. No, he
was quite sure not. Chambers asked if he knew what 'cicada' means. A neighbor
was whispering "insects" to Pedersen, so he said he knew now because he heard
someone whispering. "So what is cicada?" "Incest."
Later, Dwite worked into his comments that "this was not incest or insects or
something like that." May we learn a new word every day.
One more reflection on the crunch time. It is a bit bold of me to hope that
those who were not there will understand the moment from my sketchy
description. I hesitated to even comment. So please let me become pedantic and state
the moral of the story.
This is not a putdown of either senator. If so, it would not merit space
here. Rather I share a painful illustration to help you understand the extreme
pressure under which we are working, the valued camaraderie of a group of
diverse political creatures, how we go out of our way to understand and
accommodate one another, the high value we place on backing off when it gets too hot,
and the internal agony that is experienced by a person when s/he hits a wall.
We call them 'principles' in ourselves, 'walls' in others. They are both,
and good people can simply run out of rope. We each have principles that we
will not compromise. The test is to back off enough to let others have the same.
O I do hope you hang in there.
Lowen
Back to Top
Krusin the Capitol Index
Home Page
|
