The hearings phase of this first session of the 107th Nebraska legislature has finally come to an end. This year our new Speaker chose to schedule all-day bill hearings, something that hasn’t happened in decades. We had 684 bills introduced this session, along with a number of resolutions and executive branch appointments. COVID restrictions made the process of holding public hearings much more complicated and time-consuming. Scores of people behind the scenes made all this possible. To all the committee clerks, legal counsels, research analysts, and other legislative staff that did such a great job of getting the people’s business taken care of, I say, “job well done!”

Now that hearings are over and the deadline for designating individual and committee priorities has passed, senators are looking for ways to get their proposals voted out of committees and advanced to the full legislature for debate. A number of committees are equally split between conservatives and liberals, so bills from either end of the political spectrum often remain trapped in committee on a tied vote. I am reminded that elections have consequences and the political ideology of the senators in the body reflect that of the population of our state.

There is a legislative rule that allows a senator to make a motion to “pull” a bill from a deadlocked committee. This motion requires a simple majority of senators (twenty-five votes) to be adopted. Use of this rule is rare because it generates hard feelings — especially with committee chairs — and lengthy, contentious floor debate. 

Many will object to the pull motion arguing it weakens the power of our committee system. The idea behind the rule allowing pull motions is simple to understand: if a majority of senators think a committee has made a mistake in not advancing a bill, a motion to pull the bill is a remedy for that. The speaker informed us recently that at least thirty-five priority bills are still stuck in committee, so I expect to see this sort of motion used before we adjourn for the year.

One last note: of the new features we implemented in the committees this year, my favorite was a new way for citizens to leave comments on the legislative website for the senators to read. I believe this new feature will be very useful in the next phase of our work. Full-day debate on the floor of the legislature has begun. With Senator Chambers no longer in the body, the pace will be more brisk than any time in the last eight years. Senators will have less time to sort through all the information on each bill. I believe this new comment feature will be very informative and useful for senators and gives us a head start on understanding each bill. Brief, timely comments from the public are very helpful as we review legislation. I encourage citizens interested in a bill to look it up on the website and leave a comment.

This past week, I heard a bill introduced in the Government, Military and Veterans Committee by Senator Justin Wayne. He believes the executive branch of our state government should not testify against bills introduced in the Legislature. He believes people testifying on behalf of executive branch agencies should testify in the “neutral” capacity and not express an opinion for or against the bill. In his view, the executive branch is bound by oath to follow the laws passed by the Legislature. It calls into question their willingness to faithfully follow the laws and encroaches on the constitutional sovereignty of the legislature as a separate branch of State government. I think Senator Wayne makes a valid point with his proposal.

A common reason a state agency might testify against a bill is that the bill in question will cause them more work. I was given a recent example of this by the Nebraska Department of Agriculture with my state meat inspection bill. States all over the country are passing state meat inspection programs to help make it easier to expand slaughter capacity in the states, and also provide much-needed economic development to small rural towns. Unfortunately, the Department opposed my bill.

There are other ways for a state agency to kill a bill. Agencies are given the opportunity to submit “fiscal notes” predicting the financial impact of a bill on their operations. This is basically a price tag that is supposed to indicate the fiscal impact on the state from running a particular program. In the case of my bill, I believe the fiscal note was intended to frighten the senators on the committee with a shocking price tag. We call this “death by fiscal note.”

But there is a significant difference opposing a bill in a hearing and submitting an inflated fiscal note. When an agency provides operational information and financial projections in a fiscal note based on their expertise, I think that is within their designated mission, even if I think their numbers are incorrect. In the Legislature, we can choose to trust that information or not, and we also make the policy decision about whether a bill is worth the price tag. 

However, when an agency testifies in opposition to a bill, something important happens. Under the legislative rules, a bill cannot be fast-tracked as a “consent calendar” item if it received any opposition in the public hearing. This practice is really a preemptive veto by the executive branch. I support the power granted by the Nebraska Constitution to the governor to veto legislation. I believe that veto power is an important check within our system of government. However, I do not think the executive branch should be able to veto bills until after they are presented to the governor. I think Senator Wayne’s idea deserves more discussion.

Last year, we saw nearly a dozen Nebraska counties join a growing movement across the country to announce that they are “Second Amendment Sanctuary” counties. While those resolutions send an important message, unfortunately they do not have much direct legal impact. Watching those county officials speak out in favor of our God-given, constitutionally recognized rights made an impression on me. I started working with my staff on ways to give those elected officials another tool to protect our cherished rights.

That is why I introduced LB 236. Under that bill, counties would be granted the power to adopt an ordinance to  become “constitutional carry” counties. In other words, in that particular county, citizens could carry a concealed weapon without a state-issued permit. This does not change the state or federal laws that define “prohibited persons” who are not allowed to possess or carry weapons. 

State law already grants local governments the authority to create more restrictions on our right to carry weapons. We have tried to eliminate that local gun control authority, but Lincoln and Omaha senators have stubbornly opposed those efforts. My bill will give counties the power to reduce restrictions on the people they serve. I am proud to say that police, gun owners, and other patriots turned out in force to support my bill. Only one person showed up to testify in opposition. My bill had one hundred and forty five letters in support and one letter in opposition. In just one day, we fielded over one hundred telephone calls in support of the bill. 

Senator Steve Halloran has another bill, LB 188, that would declare Nebraska a second amendment sanctuary state. This means that we would not allow state and local law enforcement resources to be used to enforce federal gun control schemes. The bill would still permit our law enforcement to collaborate with federal authorities on task forces enforcing laws that exist on both the federal and state level. We received two hundred and thirty-eight letters in support of Senator Halloran’s bill, three letters in opposition. We received one hundred and eight phone calls in support without a single one opposed. Thirty citizens testified in support of the bill. I know that other legislative offices received a similar quantity of constituent calls.

Gun owners are often in the position of playing defense against gun-grabbing politicians with new schemes to take away our rights. I am proud, along with Senator Halloran and others, to be part of a new effort to do more than just play defense on our rights. I think the laws in Nebraska need to get better, and we are working hard to make that happen. I encourage all Nebraskans who care about our right to keep and bear arms to contact my colleagues and politely educate them on why the Second Amendment is so important to free people, and why they ought to support these good, pro-freedom bills. Nebraska’s “Second House” must lead the way on this issue.

How is it possible that a “regional transmission authority” in Arkansas can order our Nebraska public power utilities to shut off electricity to Nebraskans? Nebraska by itself has more than enough electrical generation within our own state to meet the load requirements that Nebraska users have. Why must power be shut off to Nebraskans?

In 2009, when Nebraska’s public power organizations decided to join the Southwest Power Pool, they made this decision all by themselves. The decision to join a 17-state consortium of electrical utilities was never a question before the Legislature. No bill was ever introduced, no public hearings before a committee were ever held, and no public debate by our elected representatives was ever conducted. No bill was ever put on the Governor’s desk for signature or veto. No question was ever put on the ballot for the people to decide.

I question whether or not the Nebraska Public Power District had the legal authority to make such a choice on behalf of our entire state in the first place, especially when it works against one of the reasons the Legislature provided for the existence of public power districts in the very first law written to create them. Nebraska law says that public power districts “have an obligation to provide the inhabitants and customers of the district an adequate, reliable, and economical source of electric power and energy.” Willfully turning off the heat during the coldest winter in generations is the opposite of providing reliable power. It ought to be criminal.

I can tell you one thing for certain, no rancher trying to keep his cattle alive in record cold weather ever voted for this wrong-headed idea. Some years back the Legislature was not pleased with how the Department of Health and Human Services was dealing with government programs for children, so they created an Inspector General for Child Welfare the Legislature could call upon when issues arose. 

The issue of prison overcrowding raised similar concerns in the Legislature so a special investigative committee for the department of corrections was created and they also have an inspector general now. 

In 2011, an entire special session of the Legislature was convened to pass a body of laws that addressed how the Keystone XL pipeline would be routed and built in Nebraska. 

It is plain to see the Nebraska Legislature has a long history of creating more oversight and demanding more accountability for things that our State is not doing very well. Deliberately shutting off electricity to Nebraskans because some outfit in another state ordered us to do so is a life-or-death matter that cries out for more accountability. There are numerous opportunities this year to find a way to bring public power before this legislature under oath. They have some tough questions to respond to. Their very existence may rely on their answers.

I have introduced sixteen bills this session. This is my second in a series of updates where I want to explain what these bills are about. Last week I discussed my State Meat Inspection bill, and my bill to end applying income tax to social security payments. This week, I want to devote this update to LR13CA.  

LR13CA is a legislative resolution to put a proposed constitutional amendment on the ballot for the voters to ratify in 2022. This requires 30 votes (not the normal 25) to pass. I have introduced a version of this every year I have been in the legislature. This resolution is designed to lower property taxes by addressing the root cause of the problem. High property taxes are a very easy problem to understand, yet one of the most difficult to solve. Nebraska has some of the highest property taxes in the country because we rely upon them to fund public education far too much. Nationally about 40% of the funding for K-12 schools comes from property taxes. In Nebraska, that’s about 60% and in some school districts it is much more. We are 47th in the nation in terms of how much the legislature appropriates and spends on K-12 education. 46 other state legislatures provide more funding for K-12 than we do.

LR13CA places a limit in the constitution on how much property taxes can be used to fund schools. The resolution says no more than 33% of the funding for our public schools can be derived from property taxes. If this was the law today and spending was at the same level, the legislature would have to come up with about $670M in a new general fund appropriation. The question, “How are you going to pay for it?” kills a lot of bills and this is no exception. Soon the debate turns to what spending would senators vote to cut? What tax would they vote to raise? Very quickly discussing the merits of the bill is replaced by arguments over revenue sources and the bill dies (again.) 

The fact remains that having no limit in our constitution for how we fund “the free instruction in the common schools” is the root cause of our high property tax problem. I’m confident the people would pass this proposed amendment by a comfortable margin were it ever put on the ballot. But there are quite a few people and groups who would prefer to never give the public that opportunity. Forcing this body to find an extra $670M would cause a historic political fight because of the massive spending cuts in other programs that would be required. If the past fifty years is any guide, it’s clear that as long as the legislature can continue to pass-off the lion’s share of the funding for schools on to the school districts to fund themselves with property taxes, they will continue to do so.

The first session of the 107th Legislature has convened. First sessions are long, ninety legislative days. Bills introduced but not passed in the first session carry over into the second session. The current end of the session is scheduled for the 10th of June. 

I have introduced sixteen bills this session. I want to devote the next several weekly updates to explaining what they are about. 

LB 237 is a bill to stop applying Nebraska income tax to Social Security payments. Nebraska is one of thirteen states that tax Social Security. Two-thirds of people drawing Social Security benefits have only this money to live on — they have no other source of income. Besides that, the money people pay into Social Security has already been subject to income taxes when you earned it. I consider the practice immoral. I’ve introduced this bill every session I have been a state senator and I’ll continue to until we pass it. As it turns out, Sen. Lindstrom has also introduced a very similar bill so the Revenue Committee will get to hear this idea twice!

LB 235 is a bill to “turn on” state meat inspection and make Nebraska the 28th state to do so. It will take two sessions of the legislature to get this done. This bill is the first step. In 1968 Congress passed a food safety law requiring all meat be inspected. At the time, most every state had their own meat inspection program. Like a lot of states, Nebraska turned off their state meat inspection program in 1971 to save money on something the federal government decided they were going to do. It was a good idea at the time. Now it is increasingly difficult for small meat lockers to actually get a USDA meat inspector. The agency’s focus is on the big packer that slaughters thousands of animals a day, not the small town locker that might do twenty a week. 

I agree with a recent Nebraska editorial that said that “Nebraska should be to beef what Napa is to wine.” In fact, I think we are already there. Our  state has “the best in the world” of something, and we need to take every opportunity to promote and support that industry. Small town, state-inspected meat lockers in Iowa can sell beef and pork on-line and sell it across state lines. Small meat lockers in Nebraska cannot. The bottleneck created by the response to COVID showed us how a great market for beef quickly began to struggle because we lack slaughter capacity in Nebraska. We need laws that incentivize the opening of small town meat lockers in Nebraska. We need laws that open up these new markets for ranchers who make the most valuable thing we produce in Nebraska.  

We are the Beef State. It is long past the time when the Nebraska Legislature recognized this and did something about it. LB 235 will be heard in the Agriculture Committee Tuesday, the 2nd of February.

The first session of the 107th Nebraska Legislature convened on January 6th while our society continues to cope with the Chinese virus. I prefer to devote this weekly column to issues important to my legislative district. This week however, I think it is important I pass on some important changes to the legislative procedure that have happened because of the virus.

On January 25, the Legislature will commence public committee hearings. Public committee hearings are one of the most important parts of our legislative process—a critical time in which Nebraska’s “second house” (the people) can be heard. To ensure that the committee hearings are as safe as we can make them, I want to pass along some information. Here are four ways that the process is changing this year:

1. Morning and afternoon hearings. In order to minimize the chances of having to suspend our session, the Legislature will have both morning and afternoon committee hearings rather than floor debate in the morning and committee hearings in the afternoon.

2. New modes of public input. The Legislature wants to help reduce the need for people to testify in person while still making their voices heard. The Legislature has developed a process for “written submitted testimony.” During the 2021 session an individual may hand deliver the morning of the hearing their testimony which will be provided to the committee members during the public hearing. This will allow someone who has health concerns to limit their exposure to others by not having to sit in the hearing room for an extended period of time.

The option of submitting a position letter for the hearing record via email is still available. However, the deadline for submitting these letters will be earlier: noon the day before, instead of five o’clock (Central time). Position letters should be submitted via email to new designated committee email addresses.

In addition, the Legislature has implemented a new feature allowing the online submission of comments on a bill at any stage of debate. These comments will be accessible by all Senators and staff to read. You can learn more about how to take advantage of these public input options at [https://nebraskalegislature.gov/committees/public-input.php].

3.  Limited physical space. To accommodate social distancing, seating in the hearing room is limited. And because of the restricted physical space caused by the ongoing HVAC renovation of the State Capitol, there will be no overflow rooms available.

4. Modified hearing protocols. Hearings will look and feel different. These include a number of procedures, including extra sanitization efforts, masks, and social distancing. This is a unique year with unique challenges. We look forward to doing the people’s work in the Legislature and appreciate your understanding of these modified procedures.

Please contact my office with any comments, questions, or concerns. Email me at tbrewer@leg.ne.gov, mail a letter to Sen. Tom Brewer, Room #1101, P.O. Box 94604, Lincoln, NE 68509, or call us at (402) 471-2628.

I have spent a lot of my life fighting for this country. The fact that the United States is a beacon of freedom in the world is what always made me proud to wear the uniform. We believe that people ought to be free. The right to keep and bear arms is one of the most sacred rights enshrined in our federal and state constitutions. 

The past twelve months have presented steady reminders of why this right is so important. More and more, people of all political stripes have decided to take responsibility for protecting themselves and their families. Month after month, 2020 set records for new gun sales. According to the National Shooting Sports Foundation, about 8.5 million people became first-time gun owners in 2020.

In Article I, Section 1, our Nebraska Constitution recognizes “the right to keep and bear arms for security or defense of self, family, home, and others, and for common lawful defense, hunting, recreational use, and all other lawful purposes, and such rights shall not be denied or infringed by the state or any subdivision thereof.”

This version of the constitutional language was placed there by voters not in some ancient time, but in 1988 by initiative measure 403. Unfortunately, many of my colleagues in the Legislature have been reluctant to fully honor this promise. Because of that, state law prohibits most people from carrying defensive weapons concealed. 

To carry a concealed handgun legally, folks have to pay hundreds of dollars for a required course and permit application fee. In my first year in office, I introduced LB 502 to make Nebraska a “constitutional carry” state. That bill was shot down by anti-gun senators. The same year, Senator Mike Hilgers introduced his LB 68, to end the patchwork of local gun control measures that are layered on top of state and federal law. Despite heroic efforts by Senator Hilgers, that bill died on Select File, mostly because of urban senators who claimed that the bill violated the principle of local control. 

During floor debate on LB 68, anti-gun Senator Adam Morfeld stood on the floor and said, “I am in support of responsible policy that allows for local control to react to the varying circumstances of their locality or city or county. […] Maintaining that local control is critical because the reality in Ainsworth is a lot different than the reality in north Lincoln or north Omaha[.]”

On Day 4 of the 2021 legislative session, I introduced Legislative Bill 236. It proposes more local control, and recognizes that many counties in Nebraska have taken our gun rights more seriously than state lawmakers. In 2020, nearly a dozen Nebraska counties, most of them rural, passed “Second Amendment Sanctuary County” resolutions. I appreciate that these county officials are standing up and declaring that they will honor their duty to uphold our God-given, constitutionally recognized rights. LB 236 would give counties the power to declare that permitless carry of concealed weapons is lawful in their jurisdictions for anyone who is not a felon or otherwise prohibited from possessing weapons. I do not believe Nebraskans ought to have to pay hundreds of dollars to exercise a constitutional right. If LB 236 is passed into law, I believe that rural Nebraska counties will lead the way and show our more timid urban neighbors that freedom is the best policy.

Please contact my office with any comments, questions, or concerns. Email me at tbrewer@leg.ne.gov, mail a letter to Sen. Tom Brewer, Room #1101, P.O. Box 94604, Lincoln, NE 68509, or call us at (402) 471-2628.

I was disappointed to learn recently the Nebraska Public Power District (NPPD) has decided to greatly expand its spending on “renewable” energy. NPPD and Monolith have entered into an agreement that outlines Monolith’s plan to buy two million megawatt hours (MWh) of renewable power from NPPD. Most of this will come from wind energy. 

“The approximately two million megawatt-hours of generation would create a sufficient number of renewable energy credits (RECs) to meet 100 percent of Monolith’s average annual energy usage and meet their environmental and sustainability goals,” said NPPD’s president and CEO, Tom Kent.

Just a couple years ago, Mr. Tom Kent and NPPD’s chief legal counsel sat in my office and told me they had no plans to expand their “renewable portfolio” and what few wind turbines and solar facilities they had were all they wanted. It is clear something has changed, or perhaps nothing changed and this was their intent all along.

NPPD has made a decision to enter into an agreement with a company that is driving further expansion of wind energy in Nebraska. To supply two million megawatt hours (MWh) of “renewable” power will require the construction of hundreds of the newest, biggest wind turbines and scores of new power lines. When the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow, where will NPPD get the “renewable” power this agreement requires them to deliver? Will they buy it off the grid? How much will that cost ratepayers? How many years is this power purchase agreement for? How many citizens will be forced to be neighbors to an industrial wind energy facility because of this? Where will these be built? How many angry neighbors at county board meetings will this cause? 

Wind energy rips apart the fabric of Nebraska communities. It makes bitter enemies out of families that have been neighbors for generations. I have seen this sad scenario played out across my legislative district, and around the state many times. It is wrong-headed for the State of Nebraska to promote energy policies that rely on erratic and unreliable generators of electricity. There are many ways to reduce CO2 emissions for far less than building windmills and solar farms. If our State’s energy policy is going to drive a wedge between neighbors, and cost ratepayers more, it should at least make sense. 

Please contact my office with any comments, questions, or concerns. Email me at tbrewer@leg.ne.gov, mail a letter to Sen. Tom Brewer, Room #1101, P.O. Box 94604, Lincoln, NE 68509, or call us at (402) 471-2628.