2007
Week 2
January 13, 2007

Hi

We are introducing and cosponsoring bills for two more days, so more on that when the dust settles. I will sponsor 15 bills, cosponsor about 40 -- on a wide range of subjects. Most of these will become amendments. We must start each one as a bill in order to get a public hearing. Most are small and seldom is a bill new legislation. We are tweaking present statutes because of loopholes, gaps or undesired results.

I have been on the front page of the W-H two days in a row, plus in a lead editorial. We welcome that, as it gets the public involved, which is critical to good legislation.

The editorial relates to repealing a casino-support statute, voted in by the people as they rejected casinos. Please, I do not explain these things. It is superfluous and could be misused.

Then we plug a DUI loophole discovered in a major bill from last spring (caused by another section of law that was not in the bill). The bill targeted repeat offenders who are at twice the legal limit -- an extremely dangerous collection of hard heads. Their lawyers are now advising them to refuse to take the blood test as they are stopped when they continue to drive impaired (preparing to do WHAT?) and their blood level will be entered at the lowest limit. We must change that so refusal by repeat offenders trips the evidence trigger to twice the legal limit. If offenders do not think they are that high, take the test. Quit the games. There is a felony waiting out there for them and we want their lawyers to advise them not to EVER do this again.

Another news item relates to where minors can drink. At present, church and home are the only two exemptions in location. I contend that public policy should be that teens not be allowed to drink anywhere. A few Christians are contending that communion is drinking. That is ridiculous, but we will change the language to make it clear. Which is what my legal guru wanted to do all along. I hate it when he is right.

However, it is not simple and several lawyers have wrestled with it. Present language allows teens to consume alcohol "on the premises where religious services are held..." Perhaps it is good legal language -- but it is misleading English. Senator Chambers often says we are hypocrites when we say teens should not drink, but they may get drunk at church or at home. The language must be changed.

I of course am opposed to any law which would compromise a religious ceremony. The technical wording is a distraction from the main point; stop teen drinking. I do question the mixed message sent by a priest who, as one parent complained to me, tells teens not to drink but forces an altar boy to drink some wine. There are better and acceptable church alternatives but that is for the church, not the senators, to say and do. For example, Jewish leaders say scripture does not require wine for children. Also, every church serves the valid eucharist to pregnant women and recovering alcoholics, without wine. Again, not mine to decide.

There is humor here. A Missouri Synod Lutheran, who supports my bill, says it really is not an issue for them. They put water in the cup and God changes it to wine. Arrest God.

The new law addresses only the minor, not God or the servers. At present a priest, pastor or rabbi can serve alcohol "on premise" and that does not change. At present, a parent may NOT give alcohol to a child in the home and that does not change. Since at present a child may consume large quantities of alcohol in the home there is a legal presumption that a parent is involved, but it is not specifically allowed.

These are not questions which I dream up, nor are they anti-alcohol, nor are they, as some have said, my emotional reaction to Doug's injury. Our son was hit by a minor impaired with alcohol he and others purchased illegally. These specific issues come from local law enforcement and the state patrol. When they raid a teen keg party, for example, and witness kids who are obviously drunk, the kids know to say they were drunk when they left home (or the church bazaar?) and so they cannot be arrested.

I also have a bill increasing penalties for an adult who procures alcohol for kids. (This is not about a clerk who misreads a minor's ID.) The procurers are among the lowest class people on the planet, as I see it, and I would like to drop them over a cliff. My legal guru says we may not do that. Argh. Well, take away their drivers licenses? Or send them to jail for a season of private meditation?

Once in a while someone says that I must hate teens. Clearly, I love teens and I am trying to keep them alive and healthy. When home and church exceptions were put in law we did not know that steady alcohol consumption causes permanent brain damage in teens. In fact, in persons under 25. Now we know. I can not think of a better public policy than to do what we can to let young people have a healthy brain. Getting public support is more important for results than good law.

As a horrible example, one fellow called the office, said I was over reacting. He would rather lose his son than force teens to quit drinking. O my. Right away I know he does not have a son. I'll bet he hates taxes even more than kids, so how about another fact? An extensive study concluded that drinking by minors costs $435 million per year in Nebraska. Wow! Think we could use that money to a better purpose? That is equivalent to 20% of Nebraskan's property tax bill. Think we should stop it? Remember, it is adults, not kids, who cause the problem.

In this letter, I have stayed with one subject to give you a more comprehensive idea of all the challenges of good tweaking of statutes. We have loopholes to plug, words that are misread, a public that has good ideas and nutty ideas, and a tax component to nearly every idea. When we work at the capitol building, my/your questions soon become a team effort, with my two staff, a committee's two staff, bill drafters and the public in hearings -- all trying to produce sound legislation.

Hang in there, team!

Lowen

P.S. Come the first of February, tele marketers can start calling lists of cell phone numbers. The feds have offered to block your number, if you choose, but you must call in soon. Now would be good. You must call on the cell phone with that number, then follow the prompts: 888.382.1222