Andrew Byron

The lawmaker argues that the current exemption amount does not cover working-class residents in their district who have seen their home values rise, and they oppose relying on refinancing as a solution to pay higher taxes.

The lawmaker supports the amendment to restore work done over four weeks and address his district's unique high cost of living caused by free market capitalism, which makes it an outlier.

The lawmaker opposes the amendment because adding residency restrictions at third reading without public input is inappropriate given the complex and wide-ranging effects of such a change.

The lawmaker argues the amendment is necessary because without it, the literacy position created by the bill would have no statute to administer and therefore very little work to do.

The speaker supports the bill because expanding participation rights from grades 6-12 to K-12 improves the legislation and addresses a broader need.

The lawmaker asks for an I vote because communities need someone dedicated to bringing information about large-scale incidents while other staff are working the fire line.

The lawmaker supports the amendment based on fiscal responsibility and a desire to keep the trust fund corpus growing.

The lawmaker plans to vote no because the amendment's fixed ounce requirements combined with a fixed appropriation could create funding shortfalls if metal prices rise before purchase.

The lawmaker opposes the amendment because they believe the proposed cuts do not reflect the values and wishes of their constituents, who value honesty and freedom.

The lawmaker argues that adding a staff position is an immediate need to prevent federal regulators from losing confidence in state-chartered banks, which would lead to increased federal regulation. He also notes the funding comes from special fund revenues rather than the general fund.

The lawmaker encourages support for the bill, arguing it is not complicated and clarifies that horses dragging feet on private property are prohibited while fencing remains unaffected.

The lawmaker argues that moving the bill creates a negative perception of the institution and urges an urgent no vote on the motion.

The lawmaker supports the amendment because local volunteer resources are already stretched thin during multiple simultaneous fires. They argue that trained personnel can be built now to save communities.

The lawmaker argues that waiting for a single module to prove itself before adding more would be too slow given the current severity of fires. He states that having two modules, one on each side of the state, is necessary to respond faster and avoid pulling local resources from multiple counties.

The lawmaker opposes the amendment because increasing the percentage further reduces state revenue available for other funding needs, arguing the current increase is sufficient.

The lawmaker supports the bill because it requires schools to establish cardiac response plans, ensure AED accessibility, train staff in CPR and AED use, rehearse emergency procedures, and coordinate with local EMS. These measures aim to standardize rapid response protocols and expand life-saving training to increase survival chances during sudden cardiac emergencies.

The lawmaker supports the bill because it creates a limited pilot program for high-performing students to use funds at private institutions, with built-in oversight and an evaluation period.