John Bear

The lawmaker opposes division two because they view the funding as a giveaway to wealthy companies rather than tax relief for property owners, and believe spending should be constrained.

The lawmaker supports an amendment to limit the severance tax funding to $105 million because they believe it aligns with the bill's intent and ensures money flows as intended.

The lawmaker opposes the amendment because he believes it fails to address constitutional issues with current relief measures, which are temporary band-aids rather than a long-term fix.

The lawmaker supports the amendment because it involves school boards in understanding variations from the model, which is more than just additional reporting.

The lawmaker opposes the amendment citing the legislature's constitutional duty to protect public health and morality by restricting vice.

The lawmaker reiterates opposition based on concerns that compacts historically lead to state laws being changed for compliance, effectively surrendering sovereignty and requiring unknown funding.

The lawmaker opposes the bill because they believe adding another layer of committees will dilute efforts and prefer handling this serious issue through a standing committee to draft effective legislation.

The lawmaker opposes the bill because he believes the trade relationship would be one-sided, citing concerns about importing Irish beef and pharmaceuticals instead of supporting local industries.

The lawmaker recommends a vote against the bill because they believe existing measures are sufficient.

The lawmaker opposes the resolution because they fear codifying unconstitutional spending measures into the Constitution rather than simply enforcing existing laws to control spending.

The lawmaker supports Amendment Two because it consolidates funding and codifies provisions for dual enrollment grants and immediate school bus reimbursement.

The lawmaker opposes the appropriation because testimony provided was insufficient, lacking specifics on how funds would be spent or why that specific amount was chosen.

The lawmaker opposes the amendment because it would reduce property tax relief for residential homeowners who are already struggling, effectively cutting their assistance in half.

The lawmaker opposes the second amendment because a guaranteed spending rate would force the reserve account to be drained quickly if investment returns fall short, undermining long-term financial stability.

The lawmaker recommends voting to concur with the Senate's amendment because it increases funding for K-12 school security and construction from $5 million to $10 million, which is then distributed through grants over several years.

The lawmaker recommends concurring with the Senate's position to set a higher percentage for direct sales tax distribution because it aligns with budget discussions.

The lawmaker recommends a no vote to send the bill to conference because local governments already have public information officers who know ground conditions better than a new state position would.

The lawmaker encourages members to read the struck language because they believe the current discussion misrepresents the statute, which prohibits acting on promises of future cash rather than requiring actual funds or securities.

The lawmaker supports the bill because he believes that requiring developers to build homes for others has no essential connection (nexus) to their development, and thus constitutes a taking of property rights.

The lawmaker opposes this specific amendment because he believes a similar, improved version resulting from discussions between leadership and the university will be presented shortly.

The lawmaker supports the amendment to make necessary technical corrections and ensure legal accuracy in the budget.

The lawmaker supports the amendment because it addresses seed money needs for metal tags, which producers will ultimately pay for once the initial production is funded.

The lawmaker opposes the amendment because he believes it is better for the college to raise private funds first rather than spending remaining state money and going into a negative balance.

The lawmaker supports the bill because they believe it addresses a negative impact on employer-employee relationships caused by what they describe as a hidden tax instituted by the federal government.

The lawmaker supports the amendment because he believes it cleans up the language and makes sure there is no issue created by being more specific about elective abortions.

The lawmaker urges a vote against the amendment to allow time for fixing the constitutional issue in third reading, acknowledging the validity of the concern about legislating in the budget.

The lawmaker supports decreasing the budget because the state jets are too old to sell or repair profitably, so funds should be removed from internal service accounts.

The lawmaker opposes the amendment to add a second module immediately, arguing it is better to hire one set of personnel first to assess management and recruitment capabilities. He warns that hiring two modules at once could lower quality and compete with other agencies for staff.

The lawmaker opposes the amendment because he believes the distribution was intended only as temporary relief for removing a grocery tax, not as a permanent long-term funding source.

The lawmaker opposes the bill because party platforms help voters understand a candidate's stance on government responsibilities, which informs their decision-making.

The lawmaker argues that imposing fees and conditions to mitigate housing needs constitutes a taking of private property without just compensation, violating the Fifth Amendment. He supports the bill because it limits local governments from infringing on these constitutional rights.

The lawmaker urges a no vote, stating that increasing Medicaid funding contradicts the state's decision not to accept Medicaid expansion and suggests addressing the issue through another bill instead.

The lawmaker supports the bill because it codifies a process to ensure emails diverted by system filters are corrected within two days, addressing issues where constituents' messages were unknowingly sent to spam folders.

The lawmaker supports the bill because the task force completed its work ahead of schedule, allowing for an early sunset and returning $40,000 to the legislative stabilization reserve account.

The lawmaker supports the bill because it allows legislators and communities to decide how $45 million in federal funds will be spent on health programs, while also establishing a perpetuity fund to extend the program's life for decades.

The lawmaker supports the bill as a simplification of finances, clarifying that funds are not disappearing but moving directly to the general fund for public understanding.