Pete Jorgensen

The lawmaker supports the bill because they believe specific rules are needed beyond reckless driving laws and cites a personal story of a friend killed by a texting driver.

The lawmaker urges the body to resist the amendment because higher deductibles are a reality in both private and individual insurance markets. He argues that $500 is not egregious compared to other options.

The lawmaker urges defeating the amendment to preserve the independence and ability of the School Facilities Commission to handle project priorities without losing autonomy.

The lawmaker argues that health care is a complex issue best addressed through federal action rather than this bill, and therefore urges members to support the amendment for further study while defeating the bill itself.

The lawmaker argues that the bill is necessary to equalize the tax burden across the state rather than focusing it solely on districts where college buildings are located, describing it as an equitable distribution of taxation.

The lawmaker opposes the bill's tax rebate provision, arguing that the private market should be able to offer necessary health care options without receiving a tax break.

The lawmaker raises concerns that out-of-state policies may include liability limitations due to differing state malpractice rules, which buyers might not fully understand.