There are several bills I would like to highlight this week along with some information from the Kansas Corporation Commission regarding ways to save on energy costs.

First the bills:

Smoking Ban:
HB 2221, the statewide smoking ban passed on Thursday. Unfortunately members never had the opportunity to make any changes to the bill through a debate on the House floor. The vote that was taken was to concur with the Senate. As is fairly common for a bill that does not go through the necessary channels, this bill has some pretty large flaws. This ban will affect all businesses in Kansas EXCEPT state owned casinos. This ban will also preempt all other local bans within the state. Depending on the city you live in, this may have an undesired affect.

Many members who would have ultimately supported a smoking ban once it when through the process and a compromise was reached voted “no” on this particular bill. One example of an explanation of vote given on the House floor was:

“MR. SPEAKER: We are telling private business they must ban smoking yet we are exempting the state casinos because it will cost us revenue. This double standard cannot be permitted. HB 2221 will preempt the bans already in place by the local governments, in many cases weakening them. This bill has never been debated on the House floor and I cannot support flawed legislation that will not give Kansans the policy they expect. I vote NO on HB 2221.”

Please contact me if you would like to discuss this bill. I would really appreciate knowing where you stand on the subject of exemptions like this and the erosion of local control.

Cash Assistance Drug Screening:
HB 2275 would require the Department of Social and Rehabilitation Services to establish a program of random drug screening, for cash assistance recipients. Applicants for cash assistance would be required to participate in the program as a condition of their eligibility. This bill would put cash assistance recipients under the same scrutiny as those employed by most private businesses.

Concealed Carry Prohibitions Challenged
House Bill 2685 requires that “adequate security measures” be in place in any state or local publically owned facility or premise if the facility or premise is posted prohibiting the carrying of a concealed weapon. Likewise, any properly licensed employee could carry a concealed weapon in the workplace at a publically owned facility or premise unless the facility or premise provides adequate security measures.

As written ‘‘Adequate security measures’’ means the use of electronic equipment and personnel to detect and restrict the carrying of any weapons into the facility or on such premises, including, but not limited to, metal detectors, metal detector wands or any other equipment used for similar purposes.

When a facility is posted prohibiting concealed carry we are denied the ability to provide for our own security. Placing of a sign prohibiting the carrying of a concealed weapon in an unsecured facility does not cause the facility to be more secure. Placing a sign is sometimes perceived to provide some level of security. But the opposite is true. It becomes an invitation for criminals to a “gun free zone”. Does the placing of a sign imply an acceptance of responsibility for the provision of security?

Restrictive gun laws do not prevent criminals from getting their hands on guns and signs prohibiting concealed carry will not stop them from entering the premises. However, they do prevent law-abiding citizens from having the tools to defend themselves.

In the case of a posted private business, a person can choose whether or not to enter. But, in the case of a public building, such as a court house or a city hall, the public requires access. The reality is that if a person’s ability to provide for their own security is impeded by law, then that responsibility, and the associated liability, falls to someone else. In the case of state and local government who post public facilities, it lies with them.

Energy Efficiency Programs Help Kansans Save on Energy Bills
This time of year finds many of us thinking about ways to save on energy costs. I have been working with the Kansas Corporation Commission to identify ways that the State can help improve the energy efficiency of homes, small businesses, and public buildings. I will include information on other programs next week.

Efficiency Kansas (www.efficiencykansas.com)
This new $34 million loan program helps Kansans identify and implement cost-effective energy-efficiency improvements in existing homes and small business. Operated by the State Energy Office (785-271-3170), Efficiency Kansas is a public-private partnership, with financing accessed through partner lenders and utilities. Currently, 18 banks and credit unions (with 105 branches statewide) and one utility (Midwest Energy) offer the program. Additional partner lenders and utilities are expected to offer the program later this year.

Kansans can borrow up to $20,000 for approved projects in homes and up to $30,000 for approved projects in small commercial or industrial structures (those that use residential-sized equipment). Most projects are expected to average around $5,000.

To ensure that Kansans get the greatest energy savings for each dollar spent, all Efficiency Kansas projects require an energy audit, performed by one of the private-sector energy auditors who have been qualified to work with the program. At this time, there are 45 auditors listed on the Efficiency Kansas web site—www.efficiencykansas.com/auditors_list.php—and the list is expected to grow, as more Kansans receive the training.

For more information about Efficiency Kansas, check out the web site (www.efficiencykansas.com) or call the State Energy Office (1-877-448-3185).

It is an honor to serve you in the House of Representatives. I would be happy to discuss these or any issues with you individually. Please do not hesitate to contact me or my staff with any questions or concerns.