Scott Heiner

The lawmaker explains that the bill addresses technical errors and argues against reading every word to save time, leading to a vote for concurrence.

The lawmaker supports concurrence because the Senate amendments only removed a conflict of interest clause and clarified banking language to exclude FDIC-insured institutions, leaving the rest of the bill unchanged.

The lawmaker supports concurrence because the Senate amendments include technical corrections and improvements that speed up permitting processes by removing certification delays, eliminating duplicate permit fees in industrial parks, and establishing a pre-permitting opportunity.

The lawmaker opposes the amendment to ensure all school districts are treated equally, arguing that a standardized cost of living index updated annually is fairer than creating exceptions for specific counties.

The lawmaker supports the amendment because it restores flexibility for students to participate in work shadow programs and explore career paths outside the school walls.

The lawmaker opposes the amendment because they believe there is sufficient money in the corpus and that a stepped approach recommended by committees should be followed instead of an immediate large increase.

The lawmaker explains he will not vote on the amendment because his wife owns a plug-in hybrid, which would be affected by the fee adjustment.

The lawmaker has reservations about giving large sums of money to young adults who may drop out or change their plans, questioning how the state would recoup those funds.

The lawmaker supports the amendment because they view it as a result of a two-way dialogue where both sides explained their positions, rather than a forced mandate.

The lawmaker withdraws his amendment because there are no fraud investigators in the department and he anticipates preemptive federal changes that would make state action unnecessary.

The lawmaker opposes the amendment because existing unspent funds from reversion are sufficient to cover the clerical position for several years.

The lawmaker opposes the amendment because he calculates that a $600,000 increase represents nearly a 6% budget hike for the commission which will likely be passed on to customers.

The lawmaker opposes the amendment because tying the distribution to sales tax will provide stable revenue for counties and municipalities, reducing their need to lobby annually.

The lawmaker opposes the bill because he is concerned it would violate agreements made with utilities regarding their certificated service areas, potentially undermining their ability to invest in infrastructure.

The speaker argues in rebuttal that facing reelection ensures the attorney general responds to the needs of the people rather than just one individual.