Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Critical Infrastructure topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Judiciary committee hears wide-ranging bill to harden agriculture and critical infrastructure from foreign-adversary threats

Judiciary Committee, Nebraska Legislature · February 5, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Sen. Elliot Bostar introduced LB1096 to criminalize unauthorized importation of high-risk agricultural pathogens, create a permitting framework for legitimate scientific work, and give the attorney general new vetting and enforcement powers to limit foreign-adversary access to critical infrastructure; supporters cited recent federal warnings, opponents warned the measure is overly broad and risks rural telecom service disruption.

Senator Elliot Bostar introduced LB1096 to the judiciary committee as "a bill to protect Nebraska agriculture from deliberate biological attacks and harden Nebraska's critical infrastructure against foreign adversary control and exploitation," outlining new criminal penalties and a permitting framework for high-risk agricultural pathogens and additional vetting for companies with access to critical systems.

The bill would make knowing unauthorized importation of designated high-risk agricultural pathogens or pests a felony, create a permitting path for legitimate research and testing tied to existing USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) classifications, and expand state authority to restrict or block foreign adversary involvement in telecommunications, power, water and other systems. The measure also directs the attorney general to maintain a public list of prohibited network-connected technologies and allows withholding certain critical water-infrastructure records from public disclosure.

Why lawmakers are considering it: Lieutenant Governor Joe Kelly, testifying as the governor's homeland security adviser, said Nebraska's 2026 threat assessment shows "foreign adversaries are increasingly targeting the twin pillars of Nebraska's strength, our ag production and our communications networks," and urged the committee to provide additional state tools because federal programs have not finished removing risky equipment rapidly enough.

Supporters from state agencies and security groups told the panel they see real examples—seed packages intercepted in multiple states, indicted lab operators and ongoing cyber campaigns—where additional state safeguards would reduce risk to farms and to emergency services. "Adoption of LB1096 would be a tool to help prevent the introduction of any agent, toxin, or organism designated as a high risk agricultural pathogen or pest into Nebraska," Nebraska Department of Agriculture deputy director Jessica Schellburn said.

Opponents, particularly telecommunications trade groups and rural carriers, said the bill as written is too broad on definitions and compliance burdens. Tip O'Neil of the Nebraska Telecommunications Association testified LB1096's definition of critical infrastructure "incorporates nearly every component of a modern network" and that mandatory employee background checks, open-ended reporting, and AG investigatory powers could create operational, privacy, and funding problems. Industry witnesses pointed to the federal FCC "rip-and-replace" reimbursement program and said many carriers are already engaged in federally directed replacement projects and that state-level fines could punish carriers that have applied for federal extensions.

Rural providers described real costs and supply-chain constraints. John Beckert of Vero Wireless told senators that replacing covered equipment can require tower reinforcement, new power and generators and cost "anywhere from $200,000 to near $1,000,000" per tower in some cases, and that Vero is actively participating in the federal replacement program and seeking extensions.

What happens next: Committee members asked for narrower definitions and clarity about which employees and contractors would be covered, how background checks and reporting would work, and whether state enforcement should be structured to avoid duplicating or contradicting federal programs. Sponsors said amendment language (AM1982) was forthcoming to clarify definitions and narrow some enforcement provisions. The committee did not vote on the bill during the hearing; members requested additional written materials and fiscal detail.

Ending: Proponents emphasized the economic and public-safety stakes for Nebraska agriculture and utilities; opponents asked for tighter, targeted language to avoid burdening rural service providers while federal remediation programs finish. The sponsorship indicated they will work with stakeholders on amendments before any advance to the floor.