Stiffer fentanyl penalties advance in Legislature, takeover of Nebraska Medicine heard

By Fred Knapp , Senior Reporter/Producer Nebraska Public Media

Feb. 19, 2026, 5 p.m. ·

Sen. Tanya Storer speaks Thursday (Fred Knapp/Nebraska Public Media News) — Sen. Tanya Storer speaks Thursday. (Fred Knapp/Nebraska Public Media News)

Listen To This Story

Increased penalties for fentanyl advanced in the Legislature Thursday, despite warnings they will increase prison overcrowding and slow down other legislation. And a committee heard a proposal to require legislative approval of the University’s plans to take over Nebraska Medicine.

Under current Nebraska law, the maximum penalty for trafficking in fentanyl is 20 years in prison. The proposal debated Thursday (AM2092 to LB795) would raise that maximum to life imprisonment.

Critics say that could mean life in prison even for someone who possessed only trace amounts of the drug. But Sen. Tanya Storer, sponsor of the proposal, denied that.

“We don't get to the point of an enhancement for potentially life in prison until you get to the point of being in possession of 1,400 pills. 1,400 pills! So the conversation that we've heard from some of the opposition on this is really distracting and inaccurate, in this idea that all of a sudden this bill is going to start sending people that are caught with a trace amount of fentanyl to prison for life. That is not true,” Storer said.

Sen. Danielle Conrad, who opposes the proposal, pushed back.

“I know everybody is trying their best to advance their policy goals, but precision matters. We can't just make misleading statements because it feels good or we're trying to make a case. We have to look at the record. The record in regards to this issue from proponents of this bill is unequivocal. This isn't about additional penalty for quantity or purity. This is about additional penalty for trace amounts,” Conrad said.

Fentanyl is often mixed with other drugs to increase their potency. Conrad pointed to public hearing testimony (pages 37-40) by Assistant Attorney General Jason Osborne that the test for fentanyl under the proposal would be whether it was present in a mixture of drugs, not how much of it there was. But Osborne also said the Supreme Court has upheld using the entire weight of the mixture of drugs, not just the one substance in question.

Thursday was the third day in a row that senators debated the proposal, as senators in opposition filibustered against it. Storer lamented that delay.

“This has been a long conversation, and I know that we have lots of bills to get to that are very important as well," she said. "And I can tell you that I'm equally as frustrated that we have had to spend four hours talking about something that is so common sense. We're not creating new criminal law here. We're aligning a lethal drug killing people in our communities aligning those penalties with other drugs that already are subject to those penalties."

Senators voted 35-13 to shut off debate and vote on Storer’s proposal, which they then attached to another bill which received the second of three approvals it will need to pass. But Conrad signaled that for senators who oppose this and similar measures to increase criminal penalties, the fight is not over.

“Members who care about prison reform, saving taxpayer dollars, a better approach to public safety, are going to have to be ever vigilant in filing measures on what otherwise would be perhaps even worthy or innocuous pieces of legislation, because the felony factory is moving too fast,” she said.

Thursday afternoon, the Legislature’s Executive Board heard a proposal (LB1125) by Sen. Tony Sorrentino to require legislative approval of the University of Nebraska’s plan to take over the Nebraska Medicine hospital system.

The plan calls for the university to buy out Clarkson Regional Health Services’ 50% share of Nebraska Medicine for $500 million and pay another $300 million for Clarkson-owned real estate. Clarkson in turn would donate $200 million to the university.

The University of Nebraska Board of Regents approved the plan last month, although the former board of Nebraska Medicine sued to prevent the takeover from happening. Sorrentino said his proposal to add a requirement for legislative approval is not intended to be disruptive. Instead, he said his goal is to let senators fulfill their responsibility to ask tough questions and ensure accountability, transparency and fiscal responsibility.

“This bill is not about a lack of trust of any individual or any organization associated with the University of Nebraska. Nothing could be further from the truth. This bill is about doing what we all were elected to do, pure and simple,” Sorrentino said.

University lobbyist Matt Blomstedt opposed the bill. Blomstedt noted that the state constitution gives the regents the power to run the university, and while they’re willing to discuss their plan, they don’t want to give up that power.

“If there are detailed questions about specific projects, including Nebraska Medicine, the appropriate leaders will always be ready to address them. Accountability is part of the job. But LB1125 would change a governance structure that has served Nebraska well for generations. For these reasons, we respectfully ask the committee not to advance the bill,” Blomstedt said.

Testimony that was officially neutral but largely sympathetic to Sorrentino’s proposal came from Andreia Nebel, president of Clarkson College. The college, which educates students in healthcare fields, is part of Nebraska Medicine but is not affiliated with the university.

Nebel expressed frustration with what she said was a lack of information about what will happen to the college.

“The chaos of the last month and half has been disruptive. However, the exceptional professionals of Clarkson College are commended, and they remain committed to our work and staying focused on our mission, strategic initiatives and service to our students. Although there have been promises publicly made about no changes in operations to the hospital or health system, with all the changes that have occurred in leadership and the number of entities involved already, it seems impossible for there to be no changes or detrimental impacts,” Nebel said.

The board took no immediate action on Sorrentino’s proposal.