The official site of the Nebraska Unicameral Legislature

Sen. Roy Baker

Sen. Roy Baker

District 30

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

The American Heart and American Stroke Associations and Mission: Lifeline Stroke organization held a press conference today at the Cornhusker to highlight a $6.5 million commitment to enhance and expand stroke care in Nebraska. The foundation of this new initiative is a three year grant of $5.35 million from The Leona M. and Harry B. Helmsley Charitable Trust.

Pictured left to right: Jeff Willet, American Heart Association; Judy Martin, Health & Human Services; Dr. James Bobenhouse, Bryan and CHI; Walter Panzirer, Helmsley Trust; Jill Duis, Nebraska Stroke Advisory Council; Sen. Baker; Kevin Harker, American Stroke Association.

Senator Baker introduced and successfully carried LB722 into law in January of 2016, which created the Stroke System of Care Act in our state.

Medical Center Opening

July 10th, 2018

Sen. Baker attended the opening of the new UNL Health Center and the UNL Medical Center College of Nursing Lincoln. Chancellor Ronnie Green addressed the crowd; also pictured are University President Hank Bounds and UNMC/UNO Chancellor Jeffrey Gold.

Shuttle Rides

June 26th, 2018


Sen. Baker took a ride in the autonomous (“driver-less”) shuttle bus on Innovation Campus on Tuesday, June 26.


April 6 Update

April 6th, 2018

And then there were four. April 6 was the fifty-sixth day of the session.  Four legislative days remain.  On the last day of this last full week, a bill came forward by Senator Curt Friesen that would allocate foundation aid to every student across the state regardless of the needs or resources of the school district.

The current state formula to send aid to schools is based on needs (student population, poverty, growth) minus resources (property tax revenue) which then equals aid.  This formula takes into consideration the local levy rate which school districts derive their funding.  Some school districts are at the maximum rate of $1.05 and some have even exceeded this rate by a vote of the district electorate.  However there are school districts whose levy rates are at $.60 cents or less.  The school districts in District 30 range from the high of a $1.05 per $100 to $.57 per $100 (based on 2015-16 data).  The disparity in the rates is due to a number of factors, districts that are land rich with low student populations tend to have lower rates.  Districts that have high student growth and do not have the same amount of land or property tend to tax higher.

Senator Tom Briese has been working on a bill, now an amendment, to look at eliminating sales tax exemptions and taxing more of the services industry. Part of Senator Briese’s bill would consider lowering the sales tax rate.  The amendment would include an increase in the income tax rates.  These items, coupled together, would help fund state aid to schools which would then lessen the burden on property tax payers. I often hear that a tax shift is wrong. The legislature is just robbing Peter to pay Paul. I would make the assertion that if Paul has been paying inordinately more than Peter, it is time for Peter to bear his fair share.  So yes it is a shift but one I think needs to be part of the discussion.

Another issue debated this week was voter identification requirements.  LR 1 CA brought by Senator John Murante would require a voter to show a driver’s license or state identification card to vote. Those who opposed the measure stated this resolution would be infringing on a constitutional right and should not be encroached on in any way.  This issue has been debated a number of times over the last few years.  Senator Murante knew he didn’t have the votes so with the agreement of the opposition, a cloture motion was made much earlier in the debate than ordinarily done.  The motion failed, killing the resolution for this session.

As the session is in its last days, there is a sense of urgency for some senators to pass their bills.  However at this late date, mostly controversial bills remain, which can mean protracted and sometimes contentious debate. This greatly narrows down the number of bills which can be taken up in the limited time remaining.

402-471-2620; and






March 29 Update

March 29th, 2018

March 29, 2018 – Legislative Update

Senator Roy Baker – District 30

In these closing days of session, we often hear criticism of the legislature for leaving so many contentious bills to be debated until the waning days. However, the sheer fact that the bills are controversial is the reason they are late in coming to the floor for debate. Legislative committees are where many of the disagreements on the bills are hashed out and adjustments made.  Committees continue to meet on those bills long after the public hearing is over, to work on amendments and try to reach an accord. Often times consensus is reached, which makes the discussion on the floor easier.  However, there are times when committee members do not reach agreement and eventually forward the bill to the full legislature to allow the entire body to debate the issue and ‘let the chips fall where they may’.

An example of a controversial bill that was stalled in committee and ultimately advanced to the floor was LB 640. Currently under Nebraska law, real estate owners in Nebraska receive state tax credit toward their property tax bills. Sen. Mike Groene’s LB640 would remove those tax credits and redirect the $220 million plus in the property tax credit fund to public school districts. The tradeoff in the bill would be lowering school districts’ statutory levy maximum from the current $1.05 per $100 valuation to $0.987.

When the bill came up on the agenda for debate on March 27, I led the opposition to LB 640.

First, there would be winners and losers under this proposal.  A key provision of the bill says the only school districts to qualify for property tax relief aid are those that receive more than 55% of their general fund receipts from property taxes.  In District 30, that leaves out the Beatrice and Lincoln school districts.  In general across the state, school districts with higher enrollments are more likely to have general fund levies over $1.00 per $100 of valuation and those districts are more apt to receive equalization state aid and thus, likely receive less than 55% of their revenue from local property taxes.

Secondly, LB 640 provides state funding to equalized districts to backfill part of the gap created by dropping the statutory levy cap.  Over the past 20 years, the State has only been able to fully fund TEEOSA (state aid) three times.  It takes a leap of faith to think the state will be able to do so in the future, especially in light of LB947, which calls for a lowering of income tax rates.

If LB640 were to pass, the $0.987 levy cap would be ensconced in state statute.  If Nebraska were unable to provide the replacement funding, the levy cap would remain in statute and would likely require 33 (of 49) senators to vote to change the levy cap, which might prove to be very difficult to accomplish.  School districts would then be in the position of needing to do one of two things:  procure a favorable vote of patrons to override the levy cap; or, make cuts in school programs that the majority of parents and patrons value.

Another controversial bill, the state budget bill, LB 944, became bogged down, due primarily to 14 lines in the bill that spelled out restrictions for the use of Federal Title X funds.  Late on March 28th, a compromise amendment regarding the Title X language was adopted, and the legislators overwhelmingly advanced the budget bill to final reading.  Final approval will likely occur during the first week of April and the bill will be sent to the Governor.

Another bill with the potential for hours of debate is LB 947 dealing with property and income tax reductions. Members of the Revenue Committee have very differing views on the efficacy of the proposed cuts, and concerns about the long-term impact such cuts will have on the state in future years.  These fundamental differences in how the legislature provides property and income tax relief will carry over to the debate on the floor.

With eight legislative days remaining at this writing, much work and debate lay ahead.  Whether in session or not, your correspondence is always welcome. You can contact me at 402-471-2620 or You can watch the Legislature in session on educational television or livestream the debate by clicking on the NET icon on the right side of the web page at






March 23rd Update

March 23rd, 2018

March 23, 2018 – Legislative Update

In the remaining days of session a sense of urgency has set in.  Urgency for the senator whose priority bill remains unheard; urgency for the budget bill to move forward; urgency for a property tax relief bill to be discussed; urgency because time is now the ticking down on legislative days in the 105th, second session of the legislature. Debate on some of these bills has been protracted because of controversial issues.  Many of these bills are coming to the floor late in the session because the committees had to work through some of the controversy.  Once the bills are on the floor, the disagreement doesn’t go away – it just expands to all 49 members who have different perspectives on the issue.  Some issues are deeply imbedded within a bill and if not for that one particular point, the bill could be debated in a less heated manner.

One such bill is LB 944, which helps address additional budgetary shortfalls for this next fiscal year. The budget has taken center stage this past week with some debate focused on the University, but primarily discussion, and heated discussion, was on language in the bill to restrict federal Title X funds to organizations that may offer or refer a client for abortions.  I supported an amendment by Senator Anna Wishart regarding Title X funds that “would prohibit funds from being disbursed to an organization that uses abortion as a method of family planning or to an organization that provides directive counseling in favor of abortion. It also would require that entities receiving Title X funding submit a detailed monthly record of expenditures to the state Department of Health and Human Services.” (Unicameral Update)

I fully support Senator Wishart’s amendment.  It protects Title X funds from being used for abortions, which was already the law, but it also provides accountability for Title X funds. I believe this is a compromise that tries to appease senators on both sides.

Another bill receiving extended debate is LB 295 offered by Senator Jim Smith.  The bill would provide a non-refundable tax credit equal to the amount the taxpayer contributed to a scholarship-granting organization. The Committee Amendment, which becomes the bill, would allow a tax credit as follows: Individuals – $10,000 if married filing jointly; $5,000 all other taxpayers; Partnerships, LLC’s and S Corporations – $50,000; Trusts and Estates – $50,000; and Corporations – $150,000.

It should come as no surprise that I am opposed to LB 295. Having spent my career in public education, I believe state dollars should go toward public schools.  Tax credits are basically an exemption on taxes that are owed to the state on a person’s or corporation’s income.  The more tax credits given away, whether for corporations in the Advantage Act or for tax credits under the Opportunities Scholarship Act, the greater the reduction in tax receipts that would have come to the state’s General Fund but would now be exempt.

LB 295 is bad state policy because it erodes the income tax owed to the state and redirects it to private schools.  I have no problems with a person or a corporation wanting to support a private school with a donation, but to ask the state to designate it as a tax credit is wrong.

For the past week the legislature has been going to 10 pm or later to try to debate as many bills as possible.  The long hours of debate lead to short tempers but the sense of urgency I talked about only increases.

Your opinions and concerns are vital as we finish up the last few days of session. Please contact me at 402-471-2620 or To track any legislation, go to the website at


Unicameral Camp

March 23rd, 2018


Sen. Baker invites students to youth legislature

High school students are invited to take on the role of state senators at the Unicameral Youth Legislature June 10-13. At the State Capitol, student senators will sponsor bills, conduct committee hearings, debate legislation and discover the unique process of the nation’s only unicameral.

The Unicameral Youth Legislature gives behind-the-scenes access to students who have an interest in public office, government, politics, law, public policy, debate or public speaking. Students will learn about the inner workings of the Legislature directly from senators and staff.

“This is an excellent opportunity for students to experience many of the same things I see as a senator,” said Baker. “The camp helps demonstrate the importance of being involved in policy making at every level, even if you might think you have no interest in ‘politics'”.

Registrants are encouraged to apply for a Greg Adams Civic Scholarship award, which covers the full cost of admission. Applicants must submit a short essay. Other scholarships are also available.

The Office of the Clerk of the Nebraska Legislature coordinates the Unicameral Youth Legislature. The University of Nebraska–Lincoln’s Extension 4-H Youth Development Office coordinates housing and recreational activities as part of the Big Red Summer Camps program.

To learn more about the program, go to or call (402) 471-2788. The deadline for registration is May 15.



Heidi Uhing                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          Nebraska Legislature Unicameral Information Office                                                                                                                                                       (402) 471-2788

Fifteen legislative days remain.  In that time the legislature must debate and pass a balanced budget.  This is the only constitutional requirement the legislature must complete.  The legislature has always passed a balanced budget within the 60 or 90 day session. I know the senators will accomplish this goal. But what remains to be done with senators, committee, and Speaker priority bills, waiting at various stages of the process, will be determined in the waning days of session.


Speaker Jim Scheer announced on March 15th that only four priority bills have been passed thus far this session.  One of those was my priority bill. Seven bills are currently on Final Reading and should be passed by the legislature. However, 23 priorities are on Select File which is the second round of debate and 52 are sitting on General File, waiting for the opportunity to be discussed for the first time. Twenty-one priority bills remain in committee for various reasons.


Once bills come to the floor, it seems more and more bills are filibustered rather than being honestly debated, amended if necessary, and then advanced. With my priority bill, there were indications of potential extended debate; but in order to move this bill forward in a timely manner, I agreed to an amendment that helped resolve some of the concerns expressed on the floor.


Not every bill given a priority should necessarily be passed by the Unicameral.  Just because a bill has a constituency that may want a particular issue, senators still have the responsibility to ensure the bill is good state policy.


Two issues I would like to have the chance to debate would be property tax relief and the issue of tax exemptions on the books.  A number of proposals have been offered on property tax relief, some coupled with income tax relief. Other bills propose massive reductions to property tax but no explanation of how to pay for the reductions.


A bill that addresses a large number of tax exemptions, LB1084, is still held in committee.  I think this is something senators need to consider when looking at tax reform.  It is not just reducing property tax, or reducing income tax, or increasing sales taxes, that will make the state’s revenue stream work.  A comprehensive review of all the exemptions past legislatures have granted over decades needs to be on the table if serious tax reform is to take place.  But with fifteen legislative days left, I doubt this task is doable.


Please contact me at any time with your thoughts and concerns. My office phone is 402-471-2026, and email is







March 9 Weekly Update

March 9th, 2018

Full day session allows senators the opportunity to move more bills through the process. However, just 20 legislative days remain in which to address the multitude of priority issues and the state budget.

On March 13th the budget bills will be taken up.  At the close of the 2017 Legislative session, the Fiscal Year 2017-18 and FY 2018-19 biennial budget package was balanced.  Spending was limited to a two year average increase of .6%.  Since that time last June, “increases in child welfare costs, a lower than budgeted federal Medicaid match rate, and a large reduction in revenue forecasts in October 2017 resulted in a budget shortfall relative to the required minimum reserve of roughly $210 million.” (Appropriations Committee Budget Proposal, March 2018)

The only ways for the Legislature to address the budget shortfall are to increase taxes – not a popular option; or reduce expenditures, which could mean cuts in aid to K-12 schools, the University and Medicaid along with other cuts – also not popular options; or a little bit of each.

In the final proposal, the Appropriations Committee decided not to increase taxes; to make some budget reductions; and to transfer $100 million from the Cash Reserve Fund.  The Committee maintained the minimum 2.5% Cash Reserve and has a very small buffer of $600,000.  At this time, the projected revenue forecast does improve in future years.

However for this session, bills with any kind of fiscal impact, would be funded by drawing from the Cash Reserve Balance.  I for one do not want to leave the state in that precarious of a financial situation. More information can be found in the Appropriations Committee Proposed Budget at

Advanced this past week was LB 44, offered by Senator Dan Watermeier.  LB 44 would require remote sellers (online retailers without a physical presence in our state) to collect and remit sales tax if their gross revenue in Nebraska exceeds $100,000 or their sales in Nebraska consist of 200 or more separate transactions.  Nebraskans are currently required to self-report their sales taxes on internet purchases, but many do not.  This bill is not popular with the Governor. The United States Supreme Court will hear a case out of South Dakota to review the internet sales tax issue.  Nebraska needs to be ready to recapture this tax revenue stream.

Every session the Speaker of the Legislature puts forth a ‘Consent Calendar’.  It consists of bills considered to be non-controversial, that have no fiscal impact, and had no opposition at the hearing.  Senators submit their requests to the Speaker who then reviews the requests, researches the bills and develops the list for Consent Calendar.  However, if three senators object to a bill on the calendar, the bill is removed.  The Speaker limits the discussion on each bill to no more than 15 minutes, at which time a vote is taken on the bill.  This is an excellent tool to move bills forward that address relatively simple issues or clarify statutory language but don’t rise to the level of a priority bill.

I have submitted two of my bills for consideration to be added to the Consent Calendar list.  The first bill, LB 709, brought to me by city officials in the district, would update the plumbing statutes. The second bill, LB 1037 would clarify language for elected officials who also serve on association boards connected to their elected positions. It is my hope the Speaker will place both of these bills on Consent.

If you ever need more information on a legislative issue, you can contact my office at 402-471-2620 or email and my staff will assist you.





Left: Karl, a wonderful representative of Mosaic in Beatrice, visits with Sen. Baker.

Right: Nora Jelinik of Firth, visited the floor of the Nebraska Legislature.



Students representing the No Limits organization visited with Sen. Baker this week.Pictured from left to right (Shelbie Sukovaty, Kamrin Edmonds, Senator, Tess Schellhorn, and Ashley Bailey)


Samanatha Bourne and Juliet Eich, 6th graders in Omaha, came to the Capitol to visit with Senator Baker and Senator Pansing-Brooks about school safety issues.


Enjoyed meeting 4-H members Jetta and Josiah Harvey of Beatrice at the Capitol last week, along with Mat Habrock, Nebraska Assistant Director of Agriculture.



Sen. Baker and the Hickman team, at the League of Municipalities luncheon on Feb 27.

Left to Right:

Phil Goering, Council President

Doug Hanson, Mayor

Senator Baker

Silas Clarke, City Administrator

Kelly Oelke, Assistant City Administrator/City Clerk

Sen. Roy Baker

District 30
Room #1208
P.O. Box 94604
Lincoln, NE 68509
Phone: (402) 471-2620
Search Senator Page For:

You are currently browsing the archives for the Press Releases category.

Committee Assignments
Search Current Bills
Search Laws
Live Video Streaming
Find Your Senator