The content of these pages is developed and maintained by, and is the sole responsibility of, the individual senator's office and may not reflect the views of the Nebraska Legislature. Questions and comments about the content should be directed to the senator's office at email@example.com
This past week, the Speaker of the Legislature announced the 25 bills that he selected as speaker priority bills. I was fortunate that two bills that I introduced were on his list.
LB 47, chosen as a speaker priority bill, requires applicants for drivers’ licenses to answer the question regarding whether to place their name on the Donor Registry and donate their organs and tissues. Currently this question on the application is optional. I introduced this bill in an attempt to increase the number of donors in Nebraska, by joining the 25 states and the District of Columbia that already have a mandatory question on their license application. Nearby states, where the question is mandatory, have experienced higher participation rates than in Nebraska. At any given time, there are approximately 500 Nebraskans waiting for an organ or tissue transplant. This legislation does not require an applicant for a license to become a donor, but only requires them to answer yes or no to the question.
My second bill selected as a speaker priority was LB 539. This bill seeks to provide necessary tools to the two separate auditing arms of state government – the Auditor of Public Accounts and the Legislative Audit Office. The legislation establishes deadlines that agencies must meet in responding to requests for information. It also prohibits and penalizes retaliatory personnel action against employees who cooperate with auditors.
This past week marked the end of the public hearing process. Legislators will now meet in full day sessions to discuss bills that have been given priority status. The Appropriations Committee, of which I am a member, will continue to meet after the Legislature adjourns each day. We are working to finalize the budget bills that must be presented to the Legislature by the 70th legislative day, which falls on April 28th this year.
The Legislature started out this past week discussing LB 10, which would return Nebraska to a winner-take-all presidential electoral vote system. Currently, we are one of only two states that have a system in which one presidential elector is chosen from each congressional district and two are chosen at large.
If a bill is filibustered, a motion to invoke cloture can be made after sufficient debate, which is generally considered 8 hours at the first stage of debate and 4 hours at the second stage of debate. This immediately ends debate and allows for a vote on the advancement of the bill. During the first round of debate on LB 10, the cloture motion was successful, garnering 33 votes. However, during the second round of debate earlier this week, the cloture motion only received 31 votes, 2 votes shy of the required number. An unsuccessful cloture motion generally means that the issue will not be taken up again.
In the 24 years since the current system was adopted, a dozen attempts have been made to reinstate the winner-take-all system. Two times, in the 1990s, legislation was passed, only to be vetoed by Governor Ben Nelson, who signed the law creating our current system in 1991. During this time, only once has the presidential electoral votes been divided, with one vote in 2008 going to Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama from the 2nd congressional district.
The Legislature gave first-round approval to LB 367, introduced by North Platte Senator Mike Groene, on a 38-0 vote. This legislation would once again allow circulators of petitions to be paid based on the number of signatures they collect. In 2008, after reports of problems with petition drives, lawmakers passed the pay-per-signature ban, along with other restrictions on petition circulators. Supporters of the bill cited a study showing the prohibition reduced the number of petitions in affected states by 45%. Furthermore, they say it makes petition drives more expensive, as the productivity of circulators is reduced when they are paid by the hour rather than by the signature.
The Legislature is in the process of discussing LB 31, which as introduced, would repeal the motorcycle helmet requirement. The Transportation and Telecommunications committee amendments to LB 31 exempt only persons who are 21 years of age or older. The committee amendments also require the motorcycle operator to wear eye protection. Our current motorcycle helmet law was passed in 1988. There are 19 states and the District of Columbia that still require all riders to wear helmets. Another 28 states require helmet use for certain groups, typically those under age 21 or age 18.
If you would like to voice your opinion on these or other issues before the Legislature, I encourage you to contact me. I can be reached at District #1, P.O. Box 94604, State Capitol, Lincoln, NE 68509. My telephone number is (402) 471-2733 and my email address is firstname.lastname@example.org.
The Legislative Performance Audit Act was established in statute by LB 607 in 2003. It replaced the Legislative Program Evaluation Act. A performance audit is an objective and systematic examination of evidence for the purpose of providing an independent assessment of the performance of a government program. These audits assess how well a state program is functioning and provide answers to the following questions. Is the program doing what the Legislature intended it to do? Is the agency administering the program meeting statutory and regulatory requirements? Is the agency running the program effectively and efficiently?
The purpose of the Act is to provide for a system of performance audits to be conducted by the Legislative Audit Office, under the direction of the Legislative Auditor. The Legislative Performance Audit Committee is responsible for overseeing the state’s performance audit process. The committee is made up of seven senators. In January, I was selected to serve as chair of the committee.
This year, the committee adopted three new areas to work on. The first concerns issues relating to the current functioning of the behavioral health system in Nebraska. Committee members are interested in where there may be gaps in behavioral health services across the state. The second is an audit of agency regulations that may be adopted outside of the Administrative Procedure Act, which means the public and other stakeholders do not have the opportunity to comment on the proposed regulations. The final area is the utilization of the long-term care insurance and tax credit to find out if these tools are increasing the number of people who set money aside for long-term care.
The Performance Audit Committee is authorized to introduce legislation. By rule, the committee is granted the authority to designate two priority bills, resulting from a performance audit or involving the performance audit process.
LB 538 was introduced by the Performance Audit Committee this year. The public hearing was held earlier this week before the Revenue Committee.
LB 538 seeks to implement the recommendations of the Tax Incentive Evaluation Committee adopted during the 2014 LR 444 interim study. The interim study was introduced in response to a 2013 performance audit that found the goals of Nebraska’s tax incentive programs were too broad to permit meaningful program evaluation. The Tax Incentive Evaluation Committee was made up of the Performance Audit Committee, as well as the chairman and vice-chairman of the Revenue Committee, and one senator appointed by the Executive Board. Evaluation experts from the Pew Charitable Trusts worked with the committee to help craft recommendations for a tax incentive performance audit process tailored to Nebraska’s needs.
LB 538 creates a process for ongoing evaluation of Nebraska’s existing and future tax incentive programs enacted for the purpose of recruitment or retention of businesses in Nebraska. The bill creates an evaluation structure that will produce information needed for lawmakers to draw clear conclusions about whether tax incentives are benefitting Nebraska’s economy and meeting program goals. LB 538 requires the Legislative Audit Office to conduct a performance audit of each tax incentive program at least every three years, to evaluate whether the goals established by the Legislature are being met.
Additionally, legislative performance auditors will analyze the economic and fiscal impacts of the tax incentive programs taking into account effects on businesses and state and local governments, economic development strategies, and the specific emphasis of individual programs.
Over the years, there has been much discussion as to whether our tax incentives serve as a good investment for our state. One of the missing factors in the discussion is a means to evaluate our tax incentives. LB 538 seeks to provide the necessary information.
If you have any questions on LB 538, the Performance Audit Committee, or on any other issues before the Legislature, I encourage you to contact me with your thoughts and opinions. I can be reached at District #1, P.O. Box 94604, State Capitol, Lincoln, NE 68509. My email address is email@example.com and my telephone number is (402) 471-2733.