Ag Committee Action on I-300 and Beginning Farmer Bills

This morning the Agriculture Committee of the Legislature met and voted to advance LB 1027 (with LB 875 as an amendment) and LB 1174 with amendments to the full Legislature.

LB 1027 would provide a personal property tax exemption of up to 3 years for beginning farmers who qualify under the Beginning Farmer program in Nebraska. LB 875 would expand the entities that are available to partner with beginning farmers. All members of the Committee voted to advance the bill (8-0).

LB 1174 would reinstate Initiative 300 (I-300) in statute in response to the federal district court and appeal court's ruling that I-300 was unconstitutional. It would provide possible remedies to the previous law in response to the court ruling (dormant commerce clause and Americans with Disabilities Act). The bill also contains a very narrow exception for up to 5 unrelated producers, as individuals, to partner for agriculture production. The Committee voted to advance the bill 7-1.

Today in the Legislature

This morning we began where we left off yesterday with LB 878. This bill would change the way that recall petitions are handled and under which circumstances you can be recalled. The bill was bracketed right out of the gate - meaning the bill is dead for the year - as there were not enough votes to pass the bill.

LB 1001 would create a Low-Income Home Energy Conservation Act. The goal of the act is to provide a mechanism for Nebraskans whose income is at or below 150% of poverty to increase the energy efficiency of their homes, resulting in conversation of energy and reduced costs for the ratepayer. The bill would authorize certain public power entities to designate 20% of the sales tax remitted to the Department of Revenue to a fund which would provide grants to the eligible persons. The public power district would be required to match the sales tax dollars on a dollar-for-dollar basis. (From the Statement of Intent)

The bill potentially has a fiscal impact to the state, but as I understand it, it is based on all public power districts doing this and I believe at this time only Omaha Public Power is planning on using this program. The bill advanced to Select File.

Just before lunch we debated and advanced LB 1094 to Select File. Many of you know that LB 701 that passed last year would have provided local funding for farmers who would forego their use of their water right to assist the state in meeting the provisions of the Republican River Compact. LB 701 was challenged and because of that challenge the ability to reimburse farmers for their loss in use of that legal right was also inhibited. So until LB 701 is through the courts someone, and I believe the state needs to keep faith with those citizens, and provide gap funds to those producers until the mechanisms can be implemented once LB 701 is through the courts. The bill would transfer the funds from the cash reserve to another fund for distribution to those producers and would be paid back once a way, either under LB 701 or another way is determined.

After lunch we discussed a three bills before adjournment.

LB 765 would change provisions relating to certificates of need. In 1997 the Legislature changed the law to remove the requirement that many facilities in the state previously had that they had to get approval before they expanded their health care facilities. The Legislature chose to retain the certificate of need or CON for rehabilitation and long term care facilities. LB 765 would restore the practice and interpretation of the law in Nebraska for the past decade which was changed by a court case in Lincoln. Prior to the case the exact practice in LB 765 was employed by the Department of Health and Human Services. The only testifiers on the bill at the hearing on January 24th was the Madonna Hospital for the bill and Bryan LGH against the bill. Those were the two entities involved in the lawsuit over the interpretation of the language currently in statute. There was no other opposition to the bill for nearly a month and a half and then all of a sudden other hospitals which didn't have any problems with the law prior to now came out of the wood work to say it would somehow negatively affect them. Ironically all of those hospitals were able to expand the number of rehabilitation beds during the past decade without any problems. There will be a discussion between now and the next time the bill comes up to clarify the bill if it needs it. My hope is that hospitals will actually seek to be apart of the solution and recognize the intent and impact of the bill and not just throw stones because someone said so.

Next we debated LB 889. LB 889 would amend this Act to give all political subdivisions, including cities, villages, counties, school districts, community colleges, state colleges, public power districts, or natural resources districts, the authority to enter into design-build contracts or construction manager at risk contracts for public projects. There was little debate on the bill and was seen as a logical extension of a previous act that was passed by the Legislature.

We ended the day on LB 958. Many of you have emailed me about the overreaching and heavy handed restrictions on gun owners rights of LB 958 as introduced by Sen. Ashford. I opposed LB 958 as introduced and in the amended form that the bill came out of committee. It is unusual for a bill to have so many different forms as this one has.

Yesterday afternoon a compromise was reached between Sen. Ashford and others who support gun rights including the NRA (National Rifle Association). One of the hardest parts of this situation is that few people including members of the Legislature were aware of this compromise until yesterday. But when the bill came up for debate today, that new amendment was debated. The amendment would eliminate all of the assault weapons issues and many other overreaching restrictions that were previously in the bill.

As you can imagine with a bill like this that was so horrible for gun owners in the state, any amendments to the bill without good advance notice to the public makes people confused and wondering what the Legislature is doing. There wasn't enough time to inform people following this bill about the new amendment and many are probably confused about why the bill would pass. But now that we have had at least one round of debate let me give you an overview of what the compromise amendment (AM 2235) included:

1. A study by the Crime Commission on the use of guns in crimes committed in Nebraska and a requirement that the Commission recommend administrative, enforcement or statutory changes in law relating to guns.
2. It would create a hotline for people to report their guns as lost or stolen to the State Patrol.
3. It would repeal an outdated and contrary requirement that purchasers of guns in Nebraska have to apply for a purchase permit in addition to the federal instacheck requirements. This provision is cumbersome for gun owners and will be a blessing to gun owners to not have this additional hurdle.
4. It would allow for a person's mental health reports to be held for 10 years and available for inspection instead of the existing 5 year requirement in law. Which I believe is consistent with new federal laws.

I was not part of any of those negotiations. When I read the amendment I realized an amendment needed to be offered to the first item to strike the requirement that the Crime Commission recommend statute or other policy changes. They can have a study done if they want to, but it should be the Legislature who decides what laws could be changed not a commission somewhere. You can very easily argue that you don't need to put this in law as they could do this already. So now the bill only requires the study, that a hotline for lost or stolen guns be created, that the burdensome purchase permit is repealed, and the mental health records are available for 5 more years.

I fully recognize that this bill is a victim of heavy lobbying - and rightfully so of which I agreed with overwhelmingly as introduced or as amended by the committee amendment. However now the bill is in a completely different form and the main provision - if not the only provision - is that it eliminates a requirement that is a burden to gun owners in Nebraska. Oh yeah and gives you a toll free number to let the State Patrol know someone stole your gun.

I assure you that if I or others in the Legislature who support your 2nd amendment rights felt this bill with these amendments would infringe on your rights as gun owners, I would oppose it vehemently. The bill did advance to Select file and I would encourage you to read the bill for yourself and let me know your thoughts. I think it is a fair proposal as the only real thing the bill does now is repeal an burden for gun owners. You can read the bill and the amendments at: