Lloyd Larsen

The lawmaker urges a no vote because the amendment requires too many new employees, creates a heavy burden with monthly requirements, and includes provisions already in the bill.

The lawmaker opposes the amendment because removing the existing language would fail to protect against industrial expansion or other mischief that the current text prevents.

The lawmaker opposes the amendment because limiting funds to extraction-only industries would exclude value-added processing and manufacturing, which are vital for job creation and economic growth.

The lawmaker opposes the amendment because he argues existing industries have been over-taxed and deserve matching funds for new value-added projects like nickel mining.

The lawmaker supports the amendment because superintendents in his district have requested flexibility to manage unique challenges faced by small Wyoming school districts.

The lawmaker opposes the amendment because past investigations revealed significant financial irregularities in fraternal orders, necessitating gaming commission regulation to ensure charitable contributions are appropriate.

The lawmaker explains that moving $250,000 between water accounts ensures they remain fully funded immediately to prevent negative balances. This action is intended to maintain Wyoming's financial stability ratings by avoiding the appearance of fiscal mismanagement during legislative adjournment.

The lawmaker expresses discomfort with the bill because it makes any unintentional injury a felony, which they consider too broad and extensive.

The lawmaker supports the second amendment because it ensures stability by allowing the full five percent spending policy to go to the general fund, protecting against revenue shortfalls.

The lawmaker supports the amendment because it provides flexibility for students to gain technical skills and professional experience in their communities while still being counted as educated.

The lawmaker opposes the amendment, arguing that a measured approach allows for future adjustments if needed while benefiting students immediately.

The lawmaker expresses concern that removing the cash-on-hand requirement without adding new safeguards broadly opens the door to spending without immediate funds, which conflicts with current state standards.

The lawmaker opposes the amendment because they believe its broad language restricting diversity, equity, and inclusion programs would negatively impact recruitment efforts for underserved tribal populations.

The lawmaker supports the amendment because their community loses bright students to a similar scholarship program in Michigan that keeps them away from Wyoming. They believe this bill is worth trying to recruit those students back.

The lawmaker opposes the amendment because he is uncomfortable with the request given previous assurances during the college's creation that state aid would not be needed before accreditation.

The lawmaker states that failing to provide comparable take-home pay has resulted in losing essential staff like CDL drivers and air quality experts to the private sector or other states.

The lawmaker supports the amendment because it allows for matching funds from Medicaid that would double the investment, potentially making hospitals thrilled with the increased rates.

The lawmaker requests an explanation from the committee chair regarding why their committee is better suited to handle this bill before voting on the motion.

The lawmaker supports the amendment because professionals have made calculated recommendations on resource placement. They argue against delaying funding to see benefits when expertise is already in place.

The lawmaker changed his vote to support the amendment because he realized that without it, local governments in his county would face significant revenue losses from property tax and oil production cuts.

The lawmaker opposes the bill because clerks lack the software capacity to revert valuations to a 2019 level and finds the cost-adjusted base price method non-transparent.