LB 777 is a bill I introduced this session. The purpose of the bill is to create a video archive of all legislative sessions and all hearings in the various committees. Forty-six states currently have a form of this capability for their citizens. I think it is high time for Nebraska to join this list.

Our one-of-a-kind Unicameral was built on the principle of maximum transparency for the public. This was the major selling point Sen. Norris repeated over and over on his campaign around the state. The unicameral was to be so transparent that the citizens of Nebraska could act as “the second house.” Nebraskans have so much respect for this philosophy we name schools and power districts and even our legislative chamber after this man.   

Sen. Norris could have never imagined the information environment we live in today, but we do know how he would have felt about it. The briefest reading of Nebraska history tells us the invention of the internet and the explosion of new communications technology that has resulted, would have been embraced by Norris. “Every act of the legislature and every act of each individual must be transacted in the spotlight of publicity.” George Norris said.      

This task is not as easy as one would first think. It is not just as simple as building a webpage. An archive of video files has to be curated and indexed. Closed-captioning capability must also be developed. Clear language in my bill informs users that the written transcript of the legislature remains the “official” record. The Legislature will have to coordinate with Nebraska Public Media. Software engineering, long-term large cloud storage, back-up capability and careful lawyering writing the law will all be needed. Accomplishing this task will take a joint, inter-agency effort.

I think people understand that there is a lot more information in a video than contained in a written transcript. Over 70% of human communication is non-verbal. Listening to someone speak if you are blind, or watching someone speak if you are deaf are both far richer experiences for folks with these disabilities. People can hear the emotion in a Senator’s voice, or see the expression on their face as they speak. The written transcript is no substitute for the context one gets from watching and listening. It is nonetheless very important to have the official record if someone attempts to manipulate the truth about what was actually said.

The LB 777 had an excellent hearing in front of the Executive Board of the Legislature, and it enjoys considerable support among the senators on that committee. I look forward to finishing the amendment on the bill and seeing this idea advance to the floor of the legislature this session. Like Norris, I want to make it easy and convenient for the “second house” (the public) to see what the first house is up to.

LB 986 is a bill introduced by Sen. Briese. It would limit how much a school district could raise property taxes from one year to the next to the greater of 2.5% or the consumer price index (inflation). It has provisions to exempt rapidly growing schools from this limitation. Sen. Briese has introduced similar bills every session we have been here together. It needed thirty-three votes. It received twenty-eight. Twenty-one senators voted against it.

Sen. Linehan introduced LB 364 which would have created a tax-credit scholarship program so parents of children from a poor family could afford to attend a private school. We spend about $4.5 billion dollars of tax payer money on public K-12 education in Nebraska. This bill would be capped at $5 million. It also needed thirty-three votes. It also only received twenty-eight votes. It also had twenty-one senators against it, fourteen voting no, seven present but not voting.

These two bills have something in common:  The same seventeen senators voted “no” or “present-not voting” (the same as “no”) on both bills.

There is a very simple truth that becomes blindingly obvious when you examine the votes on these two bills. The same people who oppose limits placed on how much a school district can take in property taxes also oppose school choice. Nebraska is one of two states that have absolutely zero school choice, and we’re rapidly becoming the state with the highest property taxes in the country. Until the Legislature has at least thirty-three votes willing to place limits on how much property taxes can be used to fund public schools, we will never have either school choice, or any reduction in the property taxes killing our state. 

That brings me to the coming election in November. Of the forty-nine legislative districts, the twenty-four even-numbered legislative districts will be on the ballot this time. Twelve Senators are termed-out (served eight years). Twelve Senators are seeking re-election. Two senators are running for higher elected office, so the total may be twenty-six open seats. How many of these races will produce a senator willing to change how this body views these subjects? 

With the exception of a couple votes cast either way, I have seen scores of votes on bills dealing with taxation and schools break down just like this. Year after year, Senators Briese and Linehan and others introduce bills trying to address issues that overwhelming majorities of Nebraskans support. Year after year, these bills are defeated by a handful of well-funded lobbyists who have just enough senators supporting them. I hope the people send a very clear message this fall and send representatives to this body that will finally respect the tax-payers more than the tax-spenders.

On the 9th of February twenty calendar days will have passed since my priority bill, LB 773, had it’s hearing in the Judiciary Committee. I notified the speaker the first hour of the very first day of session that this will be my priority bill. I was the first senator to do so. After twenty calendar days have passed since a bill hearing, a procedure in the legislature’s rules commonly known as the “pull motion” is in order. 

Senators use this procedure to force a bill to advance out of a committee to General File for debate by the entire legislature. Despite the fact this is in our rules, it isn’t a popular procedure. Pull motions cause hard feelings and they do come with a price. A significant amount of time will be spent on this, and we are already a third of the way through the session. Senators with priority bills that have yet to be heard should realize there may not be enough time for their bill to make it to the agenda before the session ends. This bill is very important to me. I will use every legislative procedure available to see it passed because this is about defending our constitutional rights which I swore an oath to do. 

LB 773 would remove the requirement to have a state-issued permit to carry a concealed weapon in Nebraska. This is commonly known as a “constitutional carry” law. Five of our six neighboring states have already passed this legislation. A citizen authorized by law to possess a firearm shouldn’t have to pay money and ask permission from the government to use their constitutionally protected 2nd Amendment rights. That said, this bill does not end the concealed carry permit program in Nebraska. Citizens will continue to have the option to get a permit if they wish. When our neighbors passed this law, the number of people paying for a permit actually increased after “constitutional carry” passed in their state.  

I realize this topic generates strong reactions in some people both for and against. It is important to remember that gun control laws only “control” those people inclined to obey the law in the first place. Murder and assault are already illegal. More laws don’t stop gun violence. There is no evidence that supports the idea that restrictions on law-abiding gun owners somehow makes society safer. In fact, there is quite a bit of evidence to the contrary. I encourage folks to read the 2003 and 2004 studies done by the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, and the National Academy of Science concerning the efficacy of gun control laws on stopping gun-related crime. It will open your eyes.

I remain hopeful the chairman and members of the Judiciary Committee will carefully consider advancing my bill before next Wednesday. If they do not, I will use the pull motion. 25 votes are needed for the motion to be successful. I believe I have the votes. I urge citizens interested in protecting their 2nd Amendment rights to contact their senator and ask that they support LB 773. When the day of the debate comes this month, I hope to see the capitol filled with citizens who support this. Your presence in numbers makes a big difference.

My good friend Sen. Steve Halloran’s Convention of State’s resolution (LR 14) passed today without a single vote to spare. It was signed by the speaker of the legislature and presented to the Secretary of State for his correspondence with the congress. 

Article V of the US Constitution provides two different ways to propose amendments to the federal constitution. Either two-thirds of congress or two-thirds of the states. Our country has used Article V thirty-three times to propose amendments. The states have ratified twenty-seven of them. So far, congress has proposed all of these amendments. The second way to propose amendments is when 34 states (2/3) make “application” to congress. This morning, Nebraska become the 17th State to make application to congress to call a convention of the states to propose amendments to the federal constitution. Our nation is at the halfway point thanks to Nebraska.

Since I have been in the legislature, there have been numerous attempts to accomplish this. During her time in the body Senator Laura Ebke introduced this measure at least three times and Senator Halloran has brought this legislation twice. Today’s victory was not fast or easy. It is the culmination of many years of hard work, and the steadfast persistence and determination of senators, staff, and hundreds of Nebraskans who gave so much of their time and talent. I extend my sincere thanks and gratitude to them all. 

Once 34 states have made application to congress as we have, congress “shall” name the date and place of the convention. After doing that, congress has no further involvement in the convention. All 50 states may send a delegation to the convention whether they made application or not. Each state has one vote at the convention. A majority of the states will then create proposed amendments and forward them to the congress. The congress will then select a mode of ratification, and forward the amendments to the legislatures of the fifty states for ratification. Three-fourths of the States (38) must ratify the proposed amendment before it can become a part of the federal constitution. 

Several serious concerns face our country. The terms of elected officials. The power and scope of the federal government, and the pressing need to balance our county’s budget are among the many ideas for proposed amendments. 

The framers put this second way for states to propose amendments in the federal constitution because they feared the day would come when the congress would not restrain itself, and would grow too oppressive and tyrannical. Current events make quite clear we have arrived at that moment the framers of the constitution feared. The states created the federal government. Thank the lord they gave the states a way to reform it.

When I was sworn in as a Nebraska state senator in January 2017, I said that “I will support the constitution of the United States, and the constitution of the State of Nebraska, and will faithfully discharge the duties of senator according to the best of my ability.”

That was not the first time I made the commitment to support the constitutions of the United States and Nebraska, but it was the first time I took that oath as a senator. Legislators are supposed to write laws that fulfill the promises in our founding documents. During our first week of legislative hearings, I was honored with the opportunity to speak out in support of protections for our First and Second Amendment rights.

On Wednesday, January 19th, the Government, Military and Veterans Affairs Committee held our public hearing Legislative Bill 774, “The First Freedom Act.” This bill is about protecting the religious liberty of every person in Nebraska. I believe that it should be very hard for government to get in between people and their faith. I introduced LB 774 because it would give believers the opportunity to have a day in court when government gets in the way of worship. Whether for church gatherings or religious charity work — for people of faith, churches are “essential,” not optional.

The next day, January 20th, I introduced a bill in support of our Second Amendment rights in the Judiciary Committee. The committee heard LB 773, which would make Nebraska a “Constitutional Carry” state. That means that law-abiding gun owners would no longer be required to get a state permit to carry concealed for self defense. I support training. I support personal responsibility. I will never support the idea that people should have to pay a fee or take a test to use their God-given, constitutionally recognized rights. 

Over the last two weeks, we also advanced Legislative Resolution 14, a call from the Nebraska Legislature for an Article V Convention of States to propose amendments to the United States Constitution. I believe the states are going to have to act to rein in the runaway federal government. Seeing the Convention of States resolution move forward is a big morale boost after many years of hard work on this issue.

Not every bill that we discuss grabs headlines like these items. But the promise to support our constitutional rights is part of my job on every bill we look at. I am grateful for the continuing opportunity to stand watch for our rights as a Nebraska state senator.

Sen. Lou Ann Linehan’s LB 364 was debated yesterday. It is a bill that would create tax credit scholarships for poor children whose parents want a chance to send their child to a private school. It was filibustered for a full eight hours and the cloture vote was taken. It fell five votes short of the thirty-three votes needed. Sen. Linehan joined the legislature the same time I did. This was the sixth time she has introduced this bill and it has died in committee or from a filibuster every time. I am confident she will continue to introduce it. Nebraska continues to be one of two states that have no form of school choice. (aka; parents deciding how their tax dollars will be spent for their child’s education)

The tax credit scholarship would have “cost” the legislature five million dollars in lost income tax revenue. No tax payer would be allowed to use this tax credit for more than fifty percent of their tax liability. There was an amendment planned for the bill that would have put a sunset provision in the law, automatically ending the program in a few years unless reaffirmed by another vote of the legislature.

The average cost of a year of tuition at a Nebraska private school is about $4,000. Assuming someone wished to make a donation to the charity granting the scholarship to pay for one child’s private school education for a year, they would have to owe the state of Nebraska at least $8,000 in income taxes to start with. The Nebraskans who would participate in this are the sort of folks who are already paying a lot of taxes. We are a high tax state so it’s no surprise that we already have a lot of different tax credits in Nebraska’s tax code. But this is the only one I know of that not only helps someone lower their tax liability, it also helps a poor kid get a better education. Sadly, a number of senators who themselves can afford private schools for their own children voted against this bill. 

The various teachers unions along with the leadership of a number of large public school districts in Nebraska have become ever-more detached from the desires of ordinary families on this and other issues concerning their child’s education. Parents with children in an under-performing public school want options. I believe the vote taken yesterday is going to make for some really tough questions for a number of re-election campaigns, and it should. 

Please check out how your senator voted: https://www.nebraskalegislature.gov/bills/view_votes.php?KeyID=7452

The second session of the 107th Legislature has convened. Second sessions are short, sixty 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 20th of April. 

I have introduced sixteen bills so far this session. The last day of bill introduction is the 20th of January. I think I will be introducing a few more bills. I want to devote the next several weekly updates to explaining what these bills are about. 

My priority bill is LB 773. This is commonly referred to as “Constitutional Carry.” This would change Nebraska’s law to allow the carrying of concealed weapons without a permit. Five of our six neighboring states already have this law. The bottom line is simple; citizens should not have to pay money to lawfully exercise their constitutionally guaranteed rights. I am hopeful I have the five votes needed in the Judiciary Committee to advance this bill. This bill will receive a hearing very soon. I urge citizens interested in supporting the second amendment to contact the senators on this committee and ask them to support the bill. If I am forced to, I will use the “pull motion” rule to advance this bill to the full legislature for debate.

There are other bills coming this session the public should take note of. The Convention of States resolution (LR 14) by Sen. Steve Halloran will be up for debate next week. This measure petitions the Congress under Article V of the United States Constitution to call a convention of the states for the purposes of limiting the size and scope of the federal government’s authority, placing fiscal constraints on the federal government, and limiting terms of federal elected office. LB 364 is Senator Lou Ann Linehan’s bill to provide tax-credit scholarships so poor school children can attend a quality private school. Senator Julie Slama’s LR3CA would amend the Nebraska Constitution to require photo identification to vote. This will require thirty votes of the legislature to pass, so there is also a people’s ballot initiative that does the same thing. One way or another, I hope to see this question on the ballot next November.

Nebraska has about $1.1B in various, one-time, federal money to spend. Bright ideas for spending this money abound. Personally, I would divide that number by the number of Nebraskans paying taxes and send everyone a check and be done with it. I feel this way because assuming the government can decide how best to spend this money is never as beneficial as letting individual people decide. After all, the money belongs to the people in the first place. Nonetheless, I think we will likely spend at least have the session debating how this windfall will be spent. We must avoid creating things with this money that are going to have continuing costs in the years to come. We cannot let this turn into something we will have to cut in a lean year when revenues are down.

I began my career as a soldier by taking an oath to defend the United States Constitution. The Constitution was supposed to set up a government of checks and balances. Those checks and balances are how we protect liberty and prevent government abuse. The Second Amendment is a critical part of our constitutional system.

I do not think the government should charge you money for freedoms spelled out in the Constitution. As chairman of the Government, Military, and Veterans Affairs Committee, I can tell you that we do not charge people money for voting in Nebraska. We do not charge people money for attending public meetings. We do not charge people money for coming in and examining public records. We do not charge people money for these things because people have the right to do them. 

But today in Nebraska, the government charges people money for their right to bear arms. We do that even though the Second Amendment says that people have the right to “bear arms.” Nebraska’s Constitution says it, too. I do not agree with our current law on making it a crime to carry concealed without a permit. In 2021, the normal way that everyday people carry defensive sidearms is concealed carry. For this reason, more and more states do not require people to pay for a permit to carry concealed.

Vermont never had a ban on carrying concealed, and at least twenty other states have repealed their bans on concealed carry by law-abiding people. Five of our six neighbors are on the list — all but Colorado. Iowa was the most recent convert and just became a constitutional carry state in 2021. Sometime in 2022, the Supreme Court of the United States will be elaborating on what the Constitution means to “bear arms.”

This is the right time to act in Nebraska. This past January, I introduced LB 236. That was a county-option constitutional carry bill. Over the last two years, we have seen many Nebraska counties declaring themselves “Second Amendment Sanctuary Counties.” Giving those county boards the power to make their constituents more free seemed like a good idea. Well, against pretty tough odds we got LB 236 out of committee. 

It was going to be a fight on the floor of the Legislature, but we were feeling good. Then the Attorney General weighed in at the very last minute. The Attorney General’s office did not think LB 236 was such a great idea. In fact, they thought that it was an unconstitutional idea. That opinion shook some folks up. We had to make a difficult decision. We decided to gut LB 236 and amend in some other important gun law improvements that we had been working on, including improvements to the Concealed Handgun Permit program and a very important clarification of how a person may legally transport guns in Nebraska. 

Now, I am coming back for permitless carry. I will be introducing a Constitutional Carry bill in the Nebraska Legislature in January. My staff has been working with the NRA and many others to get draft legislation into shape. Our governor has promised to sign the bill if it comes to his desk. People should not have to pay money and ask government permission to exercise their constitutionally protected individual rights.