As is typical with the week after the Turnaround deadline, the Legislature was closed on Monday. The Speaker then called for a Pro Forma day on Tuesday, so the House did not reconvene until Wednesday.
From The Statehouse: Week 7
Committee schedules were lackluster this week with a few exceptions, but we did engage in two very lengthy debates on the floor Thursday and Friday. We have five weeks until First Adjournment, which is the next major legislative deadline.
Budget Update: No Movement
Last week, the Legislature sent the FY 2010 Rescission bill to the Governor. He has not yet taken action on the bill, but if he signs it (which he is expected to do), his signature will officially enact $92 million in cuts to the current budget, effective immediately. As I mentioned last week, revenue estimates continue to come in below what has been expected and the gap has only gotten bigger. On Friday, February revenues came in $71 million short for the month, for a total $105 million shortfall in FY 2010. We will be forced to revisit the budget in April, after the most current revenue estimates are made available. Until then, I’m still waiting to see some major movement on the FY 2011 budget in Appropriations, which hasn’t yet happened. Some legislators continue to insist that Kansas has a spending problem, not a revenue problem. However, those legislators have yet to identify what programs stand to endure further cuts. After five rounds of cuts and a sixth round on the horizon, I have a hard time accepting that assertion.
Effective July 1, 2010, Kansas will be smoke free
Last year, the Kansas Senate passed a statewide smoking ban, House Bill 2221. Despite significant support from representatives, the bill was tabled in House committee and essentially killed for the year. Then in January, Governor Mark Parkinson revived the debate and encouraged the Legislature to move forward with this initiative in 2010. In his State of the State Address, Parkinson requested legislation that was not “full of loopholes” and that would satisfy the 75% of Kansans who want a “real public smoking ban.”
Because the bill carried over from last year, the House retained the opportunity to concur with the Senate bill. This legislative procedure is utilized on occasion when a bill with significant support gets “stuck” in a chamber. If enough members concur, the bill goes directly to the Governor with no opportunity for amendments. After hours of debate, the House voted to concur with House Bill 2221at a vote of 68-54.
Effective July 1st, the Kansas Indoor Clean Air Act will protect Kansans from harmful secondhand smoke by banning smoking in public places, any place of employment, including restaurants and bars, and access points of all buildings not exempted by the bill. Those buildings exempted include: private homes, outdoor areas with ventilation, gaming floors of lottery gaming facilities or racetrack gaming facilities, designated smoking rooms in hotels, and tobacco shops.
This is not perfect legislation and it is very possible that we will need to do more work on it next year, or pass a trailer bill. However, killing the bill would have delayed the advancement of any clean indoor air act for years. It was more efficient to press forward and with the option of improving the legislation over time (as we do with all statutes), rather than delay any movement at all for the indefinite future.
Protecting the health and safety of Kansans is my number one priority in the Statehouse. There is no risk-free exposure to cigarette smoke. Tobacco-related diseases cost Kansas nearly $200 million annually in Medicaid costs and are the number one cause of preventable death. Not only will a smoking ban protect innocent Kansans from harmful secondhand smoke, it will save our state millions of dollars during a year when we have no dollars to spare. Health benefits aside, this is simply good public policy.
Kansas workers rally for worker’s compensation reform
On Friday, Democrats in the House and Senate joined together with members of the Kansas Coalition for Workplace Safety on Friday to rally support for worker’s compensation reform.
Workman’s Compensation has not been adjusted in Kansas for 23 years. If a worker is injured on the job, he or she can only claim a maximum of $125,000 in disability benefits, no matter how serious the injury or how high the medical bills. Even if the injured worker is disabled at a young age for the remainder of his life, he is capped at $125,000.
Senate Bill 258 would require the Secretary of Labor to adjust the current workers compensation caps to meet the Midwest cost-of-living adjustment. The state’s current statutory limits – which have been in place since 1987 – limit a worker who has suffered a permanent total disability to a $125,000 cap and a worker who has suffered a partial or temporary total disability to a $100,000 cap.
Senate Bill 547would raise compensation caps, require that weekly compensation be paid to an injured worker who has suffered a partial or permanent total disability in a sum equal to 75% of the average workers gross weekly wage, and would also allow injured workers to choose their health care provider.
In a legislative session that will yield very few positive results for the people of Kansas, we have the opportunity to recognize the dignity and worth of our state’s injured workers and their families by increasing the state’s statutory cap on workers compensation.
Working families have been hit the hardest during this recession. This is something we can do to really help ease the pain. A poor economic climate is no excuse for letting workers compensation remain broken for a 24th year.
Health care amendment heard in House committee
On Thursday, the House Judiciary Committee heard testimony on SCR 1615 – the concurrent resolution asserting state sovereignty under the 10th Amendment over “intrusive” federal legislation. Several state senators gave testimony, along with many citizens from across the state who have been adamantly opposed to federal health care reform. Proponents testified that the federal government has failed to respect states rights under the 10th Amendment and that this resolution will carry that message to Washington D.C. Some proponents also referenced the debate over national health care reform in Washington and said that any result should be in the form of a constitutional amendment, not federal legislation. Some also worried about the federal government establishing state mandates that do not have funding and their effect on the state budget.
Opponents were concerned that this resolution would send a message to the federal government that Kansas is not in favor of certain important federal acts, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Violence Against Women Act, and other acts relating to inter-state violence like the Amber Alert law. Some also inquired about whether the correct place to raise these concerns would be the courts as they have the power of judicial review over allegedly unconstitutional laws.
I have a number of concerns about this proposal. Foremost, I believe that it is highly irresponsible to treat the Kansas State Constitution like a political piñata. There is no federal health care bill yet, so it seems highly premature to publicly declare opposition to something that doesn’t even exist. Secondly, state legislatures are not the place to challenge federal legislation. If citizens are concerned about a federal law, they can challenge its constitutionality in court. That is what the judicial branch is for. In my opinion, taxpayers expect Kansas lawmakers to make more productive use of their time than to argue about federal legislation over which they have no jurisdiction.