Government, Military and Veterans Affairs Committee
February 26, 2025
Committee Chair: Sen. Rita Sanders | Bills Heard: 4 | Full Transcript (PDF)
LB662: Require annual reporting of federal funds received by state agencies
Introduced by: Sen. Bob Andersen | Testimony: 4 proponents, 1 opponents, 1 neutral | Read bill text (PDF)
Sen. Andersen seeks transparency on Nebraska's $5.7 billion in annual federal funding. LB662 would require state agencies to report federal funds received, obligations incurred, and contingency plans for funding cuts of 10% or more. The bill also mandates legislative approval for new federal funds with maintenance-of-effort requirements.
Why it matters: Nebraska receives just over one-third of its budget from federal sources. With potential federal cuts looming and the national debt at $36 trillion, lawmakers need clear visibility into which state programs depend on federal money and what happens if that funding disappears.
What they're saying: - Proponents: The Platte Institute and Center for Practical Federalism support the bill as essential for oversight. Other states like Idaho, Indiana, and Utah have implemented similar policies without significant fiscal impact. Nicole Fox recommended increasing the contingency planning threshold from 10% to 25%. - Opponents: The Department of Labor warned the bill could prevent rapid response to federal opportunities. Commissioner Katie Thurber cited the CARES Act, which required a 24-hour response to provide pandemic unemployment benefits—impossible under LB662's approval requirement.
By the numbers: The fiscal note exceeds $1 million, primarily due to University of Nebraska System and DHHS implementation costs. Sen. Andersen said he's seeking clarification from both agencies.
What's next: No vote was taken. The committee will likely continue discussions about the fiscal impact and whether to exclude the University System.
Committee sentiment: Skeptical: Sen. John Cavanaugh, Sen. Dan Lonowski Unclear: Sen. Dunixi Guereca
Sentiment estimated from questions and comments — not stated positions.
LR14: Application to Congress for Article V convention of states to propose constitutional amendments
Introduced by: Sen. Lauren Lippincott | Testimony: 52 proponents, 38 opponents, 0 neutral | Read bill text (PDF)
Sen. Lippincott seeks to remove sunset clause from Nebraska's Article V convention application. LR14 would rescind the 2022 resolution (which expires February 1, 2027) and replace it with a permanent application to Congress for a limited convention of states. The convention would be restricted to proposing amendments on three topics: fiscal restraints on federal government, limiting federal power, and term limits for federal officials.
Why it matters: With 19 states already on board and 34 needed to trigger a convention, this is a live constitutional mechanism. The debate reflects deep frustration with federal spending ($36 trillion debt) and congressional incumbency (95% reelection rate) versus fears about opening the Constitution to unknown risks.
What they're saying: - Proponents: Mark Meckler (Convention of States Action) argued that 34 states with identical language create binding scope; delegates are agents of legislatures and cannot exceed their authority. Polling shows 86% of Democrats and 90% of Republicans support term limits. Steve Halloran noted debt grew from $30 trillion to $36 trillion since 2022, proving the need. - Opponents: Sheri St. Clair (League of Women Voters) said criteria haven't been met—no clarity on who counts applications or runs the convention. Kathy Wilmot warned the broad language about 'limiting federal power' could open every constitutional right to debate. John Walz cited the 1787 convention as a runaway despite delegates' instructions.
By the numbers: 19 states have passed matching resolutions; 34 needed to call convention. 27 amendments have been ratified in U.S. history. Online comments: 52 proponents, 38 opponents.
What's next: No vote was taken. The committee heard extensive testimony on both sides but took no action.
Committee sentiment: Skeptical: Sen. John Cavanaugh, Sen. Dunixi Guereca Unclear: Sen. Dan Lonowski, Sen. Dave Wordekemper
Sentiment estimated from questions and comments — not stated positions.
LB259: Establish procedures for Nebraska delegates to Article V convention
Introduced by: Sen. Lauren Lippincott | Testimony: 3 proponents, 5 opponents, 1 neutral | Read bill text (PDF)
LB259 attempts to bind Nebraska delegates to an Article V convention through state law. The bill would require delegates to be elected by the Legislature, take an oath to follow instructions, and face criminal penalties for unauthorized votes. An advisory committee would determine if votes exceeded the convention's scope.
Why it matters: If LR14 passes and a convention is called, this bill would be Nebraska's attempt to control its delegates. But opponents argue state law cannot bind federal constitutional officers, and the Supremacy Clause means federal rules would override Nebraska's restrictions.
What they're saying: - Proponents: Mark Meckler said the bill is not legally necessary but supports it to give people comfort. Under agency law, the Legislature has absolute control over delegates; they act only with granted authority. Sixteen states have passed similar legislation. - Opponents: Gavin Geis warned the bill gives a false sense of security. Congress will likely pass rules when calling the convention, and the Supremacy Clause means federal law supersedes state law. Kathy Wilmot argued delegates would be federal constitutional officers, not state officers, so Nebraska cannot restrict them. Allan Eurek said the Legislature loses control once the convention is called.
By the numbers: Online comments: 15 proponents, 33 opponents, zero neutral.
What's next: No vote was taken. The committee heard concerns that the bill may be unenforceable due to the Supremacy Clause and federal constitutional officer status of delegates.
Committee sentiment: Skeptical: Sen. Dunixi Guereca Unclear: Sen. Dan Lonowski
Sentiment estimated from questions and comments — not stated positions.
LR21: Single-topic Article V application for congressional term limits amendment
Introduced by: Sen. Lauren Lippincott | Testimony: 10 proponents, 125 opponents, 1 neutral | Read bill text (PDF)
Sen. Lippincott proposes a narrow Article V application focused solely on congressional term limits. LR21 would call for a limited convention of states to propose a single amendment imposing term limits on members of Congress. Nine states have already passed matching resolutions; 34 are needed to trigger a convention.
Why it matters: Term limits poll at 87% nationally and 81% in Nebraska, making this perhaps the most bipartisan issue in American politics. But Congress will never impose term limits on itself, so states are using Article V as leverage—either Congress acts preemptively or faces a convention.
What they're saying: - Proponents: Chris Keener (U.S. Term Limits) argued Congress will never voluntarily limit itself because it would lose the power to grandfather in current members. The single-topic approach is narrower and less risky than the broader Convention of States resolution. Nebraskans voted for term limits in their state constitution in 1996. - Opponents: The League of Women Voters has opposed term limits since 1991, arguing they reduce accountability and empower bureaucrats. Gavin Geis raised a technical concern: the language in LR21 could be aggregated with broader Convention of States applications, potentially triggering a multi-topic convention. Sen. Cavanaugh noted that the House and Senate sponsors of term limit amendments are themselves in violation of the limits they propose.
By the numbers: 9 states have passed; 34 needed. 81% of Nebraska voters support term limits; 78% support this resolution. Online comments: 19 proponents, 125 opponents, 1 neutral.
What's next: No vote was taken. The committee heard extensive testimony but took no action.
Committee sentiment: Skeptical: Sen. John Cavanaugh Unclear: Sen. Dunixi Guereca
Sentiment estimated from questions and comments — not stated positions.
Session Notes
The committee heard four bills/resolutions on February 26, 2025. LB662 (federal funding transparency) and the three Article V-related measures (LR14, LB259, LR21) generated substantial testimony. The Article V resolutions were particularly contentious, with 52 proponents and 38 opponents for LR14, and 125 opponents for LR21. No votes were taken on any measures. The hearing lasted several hours, with testimony extending into the evening. Committee Chair Sanders adjourned the hearing to move into executive session.
Generated by NE Wire Service | Source: Nebraska Legislature Transcribers Office This is an AI-generated summary. Verify all claims against the official transcript.