SENATOR XXXXXX advance i t o ver the E & R Initial, and I t hi n k t h at i n so do i ng y ou wi l l hav e p r ov i d ed a v e r y v a l u ab l e economic d e v e lopment tool for the State of Nebraska, but by the s ame token is not in any way detrimental to the c o n s umers t h a t would be utilizing this particular legislation. SPEAKER B A RRETT : Th ank yo u . You h av e he a r d t h e c l o s i ng . And the question is the advancement o f L B 9 1 3 t o E & R In i t i a l. Those i n f av o r vo t e a y e , th o s e o p p o sed no . V oti n g on the advancement of the bill. H a v e you all voted? P l e ase record.
SENATOR XXXXXX. SPEAKER XXXXXXX: Sen at o r Lab xx x . CLERK: You h ad a m ot i o n to return, Senator. D o you want to offer that? SENATOR LABED2 : Y es , I w ou x x re s p e c t fully a s k th a t to be w it h d r a w n . S XXXXXX XXXXXXX : I t i s w i t h d rawn . CLERK: Sen at o r N cF a r l and a n d S e n ator Xxxxxxx had amendments printed, Nr. President. I u nd e rs t a nd yo u w an t to w ith d r a w t hose , Xxx a t o r . S ENATOR Nc XXXXXXX : W i t h d raw th e m . S XXXXXX XXXXXXX: Wi t h d r xx x. ASSISTANT CLERK: ( Read LB 8 8 o n Fi n a l Re x x x x x. ) SPEAKER B A RRETT : A ll pro v isions of law relative to procedure h aving been complied with, the question is, s h al l L B 8 8 p as s ? Those in favor vote aye, opposed nay. V o ting on the passage of LB 88. H ave you all v<'xxx? S e n ator Xxxxx, did I h e a r y o u to 12028 Apri l 8 , 198 8 L B 90 , 29 5 A , 30 1 , 30 1 A , 35 2 , 3 6 9, 419 , 4 19 A , 44 5 , 4 63 6 32, 6 64 , 6 6 4 A , 6 7 2 , 6 8 4 , 7 0 0 , 70 3 , 71 6 , 7 1 6 A , 7 6 6 , 7 6 6 A , 82 3 833 , 8 3 5 , 85 5 , 8 58 , 86 6 , 88 4 , 89 0 , 899 , 9 00 , 00 0 , 0 00 , 000X 9 42, 9 53 , 9 7 8 , 9 8 7 , 9 8 7 A , 9 9 8 , 1 0 0 4 , 1 0 0 8 , 1 0 0 8 A , 1 0 1 3 , 1 0 1 3 A 1 039, 1 0 3 9 A , 1 0 4 2 , 1 0 7 9 A , 1 0 7 9 , 10 8 9 , 109 2 , 110 0 , 110 0 A , 11 1 0 1 126, 1 1 43 , 1 1 4 3 A, 1 1 57 , 1 2 0 7 , 1 2 0 7 A , 1 2 1 7 , 1 2 2 1 , 1 2 2 1 A , 1 2 3 3 balcony. We have 18 third, fourth, fifth and sixth graders from District 53 i n A yr, Nebraska. W ould you folks please stand and be recognized. Th ank you. We ' re glad to h av e y o u w i t h u s . Another gue s t o f Sen a to r P e t erso., Xxxx No l an , t h e Ci t y Administrator at Norfolk is under the north balcony. M x . Xxxxx, would you please stand and be recognized. T h ank you . G lad to have you with us too. A n y thing for the record, Mr. Xxxxx? CLERK: X x . P r esident, I do. I h ave a series of veto messages. (Read veto messages received from the Governor. Re : XX 00 0 , XX 00 00 , XX 122 1 A, LB 672 , LB 10 79 A , LB 823 , LB 114 3 , LB 1143 A . See pages 2339-42 of the Legislative Journal.) M r. President, I also have a series of letters addressed to t h e C ler k . ( Read letters regarding signing of the following bills, LB 940 , L B 94 0 A , LB 1100 , LB 110 0 A, LB 85 5 , LB 8 58 , LB 89 9 , LB 1089 , LB 11 10 , LB 120 7 , LB 120 7 A, LB 12 17 and LB 123 3 , LB 419 , LB 4 19A , LB 664 , LB 6 64 A , LB 352 , L X 00 0 , XX 000 0 , XX 463 , LB 9 13 , L B 10 79 , LB 1157...
SENATOR XXXXXX. Thank you, Mr. Xxxxxxxx. I appreciate your testimony and the work that you all have done on this. I do continue along the same lines to be a little bit con- fused about some of the structures that are set up to ensure that safeguards are properly in place and there is no intermixing. Let me ask, what is the advantage, again, and why would we go about a phased safeguard approach? I mean, I realize at the end of the day, that there’s a lot of things that are driving this besides non-nuclear proliferation, and sort of, the tail is wagging the dog, and we’ve sort of gotten what we could get, here, I understand that. But, what is it—why is it to their benefit to do it over a phased amount of time? Xx. XXXX. Senator, the—during the negotiations on the separa- tion plan, the Indian Government wanted time to phase out the im- plementation of IAEA safeguards at additional facilities in our schedule, to allow them time to prepare, to spread out the expense of bringing those additional facilities under safeguards over a longer period of time. And it was just a means by which they ar- gued to us that they should be permitted to implement this in a gradual manner, as opposed to a date certain for all facilities, when those would be put. Senator XXXXXX. But, big expense in that? I mean, the benefits of having these materials seems pretty large. There is a large ex- pense in bringing these under proper safeguards? Xx. XXXX. There’s some expense required, only in that you need to provide declarations, you need to have people trained and have a system in place by which material is accounted for in very small quantities and other matters are done. We obviously favor this. I don’t mean to come across as saying this isn’t a reasonable thing to ask countries to do, we encourage them to do it, and the Indians have safeguards on some facilities today, but this was substantially, as I mentioned, increase the fa- cilities placed under safeguard. So, it’s just a phased implementa- tion toward that. But there is an incentive, which is, until facilities are under safe- guards, international cooperation, such as the sale of fuel to be used in a reactor, would not be possible. So, there is a—the system encourages India to place facilities under safeguards, earlier rather than later. Senator XXXXXX. Let me read a question, in 2007, the Chairman of the Indian Atomic Energy Commission answered the question— how will the separation of civilian and nuclear facilities from their military cou...
SENATOR XXXXXX. Well, Mr. President, it was failure to dot our " i ' s " and cross our " t' s" and be specific and face up to things that got us into this whole mess in the first place and I can se e i t is h e ading down the same path again. Unfortunately Senator Xxxxxx and Senator Xxxxxxx do have, by the statements they both made, exactly opposite views of where we a re g o i n g on t hi s and what the purpose of this legislation is . S e n ator Xxxxxxx spelled that out p retty clearly. If t h is is for the y ear 1985, then I think it should be spelled out, I didn't feel that way when we started the conversation but after l i s t e n i n g I a m c o n v i n c e d of it, but, Senator Xxxxxxx, I would say your amendment doesn' t g o fa r e nou g h . I t h i n k i t h as t o sa y for t h e y e a r 1985 and subsequent to that establish what the valuation is going to be. In other words it shall be valued according to the same standard as all other property in the state because it is obvious you have conflicting views as t o w ha t h a ppens after 19 8 5 . A t le a s t three conflicting views have been expressed here. Sen a xxx Xxxxxxx'x is that the Legislature is going to get a bill passed, we are going to straighten it o ut and , t he r e f o r e , we can b e vag ue o r we don' t ha v e t o address it. Senator Xxxxxxx's is after 1985 should nothing happen o r shou l d t he L egislature fai l t o q u i c k l y do something, the Department of Revenue w il l v a l u e and t h e i r standards will be, I assume, productivity or whatever is in LB 30. S e n ator Xxxxxx'x point of view as o n e of the s ponsors i s af t e r 198 5 it reverts back to the system of valuing all property uniformly and proportionately, and as I say, if we have got the three principal individual s o n one of the m o s t i m portant matters ex pressing diametrically
SENATOR XXXXXX. Mr. President, I Just have a question of S enator Xxxxxxx . PRESIDENT: Ee was closing but there was some confusion. SENATOR XXXXXX: All right.
SENATOR XXXXXX. Mr. President, members of the Legislature, I would like to ask Senator Xxxxxxxx a question please. Senator Xxxxxxxx, first of all I guess here we go again. Would you explain to me Just what is involved in the bill board proposal that you are talking about here at this time. SENATOR XXXXXXXX: Well the Federal Government has mandated clearing signs that are visible from the interstate. I don' t agree with it, I think that most of us don' t. Were saying hat if at some later time either this session or next session were forced to pass such a bill, that first we want to make sure that the department of roads clears out the signs within 660 feet before they go off the deep end and begin spending money on those beyond 660 feet. Therefore I think that you would agree with it. SENATOR XXXXXX: I would like to ask another question. Do we have legislation before the body at this time with reference to compliance with the federal mandate? Is t hat t r u e ? SENATOR XXXXXXXX: LB213 which is not underlined. Is alive and it would accomplish this. So this offers to the Public Works Committee the assurance, and the other Senators that even if 213 is passed, were not going to spend money taking those off if they are not beyond 669 feet until we have accomplished the Job within 660 feet which I guess woul be another year or two. SENATOR XXXXXX: Has the federal mandate which now extends beyond 660 feet, does that represent a distinct change in their policy from what they established earlier when they set 660 feet as the limit?
SENATOR XXXXXX. I support Senator Xxxxxxxx 1s amendment and I feel that it might be redundant also but I have no objec tion to it and if Senator Xxxxxxxx is more comfortable and he is * ' ery prudent in scrutinizing, I compliment him for it and support the amendment. SPEAKER MARVEL: Senator XxXxxx. The question has been called for. Do I see five hands? I see five hands. All those in favor of ceasing debate vote aye, opposed vote no. Record the vote. CLERK: 29 ayes, 0 nays to cease debate, Mr. Xxxxxxxxx. SPEAKER MARVEL: The motion is carried. The amendment is adopted. I*m sorry, I got ahead of myself. Debate has ceased. Senator Xxxxxxxx. Pardon? Waive closing? SENATOR XXXXXXXX: I will waive closing, Mr. President.
SENATOR XXXXXX. It has been discussed in the court a little bit. The First National Bank of Omaha, o f cou r se , I am s u r e would like to retain the situation as it stands. SENATOR XXXXXXX: T h eir name. SENATOR XXXXXX: B u t I' m not sure. I' ve not discussed it with them, no. SENATOR XXXXXXX: Thank you, Senator. SPEAKER XXXXXX: Senator Xxxxxx, w ould y ou l i ke t o c l os e o n your amendment? S ENATOR SC H MIT : Mr. President and memb e rs o f t he L egislature, I a s k y o u r i ndul genc e on t h i s amendment.
SENATOR XXXXXX. Nr. President and members of the Legis- lature, I rise in strong obJection to Senator Xxxx'x statement that the Board of Lands and Funds is doing a better Job of land management than are the farmers of the State of Nebraska. That is absolutelv 1ncorzect and I take 1ssue with it. I take issue with it v1gorouslv and I come as close to chast1s1ng my good fr1end, Senator Xxxx, for that statement as anvthing I have ever done on th1s floor. I want to point out that the State of Nebraska, the Board of Lands and Funds, is the largest landowner 1n the State of Nebraska. They have power over more real estate than any other one landowner and I would 11ke to point out that what Senator Xxxxxxx 1s attempting to do here, is to prov1de one additional point of critez 1a prior to the development oi' real estate by the Board oe Lands and Funds. Now I want to ask you this ouestion. The Board operates this property. The zzoard decides if and when they should develop land for irrigation. Ne have heard criticism time after time by various srouos of individual farmers who are burdened with the oroblem of suppoz'ting government for developing land, bringing it into irrigation, at a time when we are at least tem- porarily burdened with a surplus of crops. Rut I want to point out that these farmers are investing their own money. They are gambling their own resources. Thev are dependent upon earning a prof1t from that land in order to repay for the cost of development, the cost of the equipment, to pay the labor, to pay fo'r all other
SENATOR XXXXXX. Mr. President, members of the Legislature, the amendment that is filed was actually a part of LB 501 which h a s h a d a he ar i ng , but it excludes all provisions withi n t h at x x x x wi t h t he exception of increasing f i n e s permitted under...for overweight vehicles. Primarily what i t addresses i s t h e fines over . . . a v eh i cl e overweight b etween 2 5 and 30 p er ce n t b ecause i r r eg a r d l e s s under existing law how much a vehicle is overweight above that the f ine i s on l y $ 5 0 0 . Th e amendment also adjusts the fine from 15 to 20 percent overweight from $225 to a maximum of $325; from 20 to 25 percent a maximum of $300 t o $ 5 00 ; and t h en from 25 to 30 percent it is currently $500. W e w o ul d g o t o $ 750; 3 0 t o 3 5 p er c e n t , $500 t o $95 0; 35 t o 4 0 percent , f rom $500 t o $ 1,150 ; 4 0 t o 4 5 p e r c e n t , $50 0 t o $ 1 , 5 50 ; a n d 45 to 50 percent, from $ 500 t o $ 2 , 0 0 0 ; a n d o ver 5 0 p e r c e n t from $500 to $2,500. Obviously, if you have got vehicles at that kind of overweight, they do tremendous damage under any circumstances. Some of you may recall, I recall reading in Iowa where some v e h icle was going across the state, it was l i k e 70 or 80 , 000 pound s , I' ve f orgotten the a m ount o f overweight, and did tremendous damage and it seems to me the fine w as, that I o w a as, essed, w a s . . . r u ns i n my m ind was 6 0 t o 70,000 dollars. I t w a s ubstantial. T h i s i s r el a t i v el y modes-, but it only applies to what would obviously be gros.. i nt e n t i o n a l ov er w e i g h t and of a ve ry su b s t antial portion. I t h a s h ad a h ea r i ng . This portion of the bill I am not aware of any objection to at the hearing and would urge the
