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 move the adopt1on of the amendments to LB 164.
SENATOR XXXXXX. Yes sir.
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. 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. Senator Xxxxx, what are the actuarial assumptions for the disability income portion for 1980 or . . . down the road five years or ten years? You' ve certainly looked at assumptions other than just the first year where you' re talking about $62,000 out of the general fund. SENATOR X. XXXXX: That's . . . that's SENATOR XXXXXX: That's not a frozen fixed figure. SENATOR X. XXXXX: According to our actuary that is an amortized figure over that 20 year period. SENATOR XXXXXX: $62g000? SENATOR X. XXXXX: Ye s. SENATOR XXXXXX: That will totally fund the liability? SENATOR X. XXXXX: That's an annual appropriation.
SENATOR XXXXXX. Thank you Mr.President and members. I am reminded again by the exchange there with Senator Xxxxxx that you are asking, you are asking us to take a giant leap in faith when we don't know what this...the bottom line is on this amendment. When we get this amendment ready to advance, when 806 is ready to advance, we don't know what these figures are and I think we deserve to have that opportunity. I object to us doing something in the blind, and that is what we are doing with this bill. If we advance it today we need...we are saying, we are taking everything for granted. We don't know what it is doing, but we are going to trust you. Idon't think r.hat we can do that. I don't think we should do it to our constituents and I don't think that we should do it to ourselves. I have got a bracket motion up there that will bracket the bill until Tuesday. By that time we will have the results from the amendments that have been put up, and as soon as we vote on this amendment, that bracket motion will come up and I would urge your support of that bracket motion. I think it makes ^ood sense, I think it tells the people involved here that we ne"d to know exactly what we are doing. We can't be doing these things blindly, and I would hope that that message should come across
