Ken Pendergraft

The lawmaker supports a second amendment because it clarifies that large power projects or industrial upgrades must still go through the established easement process.

The lawmaker explains that the bill was negotiated to reduce funding for a Gillette project and includes a provision requiring Campbell County to increase its mill levy, which will eventually repay costs across the state.

The lawmaker opposes the bill because they do not want to legitimize gambling or make the state dependent on it, preferring existing methods of handling such issues.

The lawmaker opposes the resolution, arguing that the Constitution itself is not the problem and that changing it will not fix an apathetic populace.

The lawmaker supports the amendment because districts composed of multiple small schools lack a large instructional silo to move resources around, making the specific floor necessary for their situation.

The lawmaker supports the bill because they believe it promotes necessary conversation about state protection, even though they feel the current text does not go far enough.

The lawmaker supports a vote for the amendment because it prevents giving excessive tax breaks to wealthy homeowners and avoids driving the state into a fiscal cliff regarding school funding.

The lawmaker asks members to vote against the bill so they can discuss details regarding a new project for Gillette College and its funding sources.

The lawmaker warns against using credit as a tool, noting that misusing it could lead to negative consequences for the districts.

The lawmaker supports the amendment because they believe public television should be free to compete in the open market and sell advertising rather than rely on government funding.

The lawmaker opposes the amendment because their own courthouse has many unprotected entrances where anyone with ill intent could cause damage, making security funding necessary.

The lawmaker opposes the amendment because he believes the agency has a large enough budget to reallocate funds internally rather than receiving additional appropriations.

The lawmaker votes against the bill because he believes it devalues the sacrifice of combat veterans by granting benefits to those who did not experience actual combat, comparing it to giving special recognition items to everyone rather than just those who earned them.

The lawmaker opposes the amendment because he believes continuing to fund Medicaid in this manner interferes with the free market and prevents innovation after fifty years of trying.

The lawmaker opposes the amendment because he believes the organization is increasing its funding request from $10 million to $15 million by asking for additional funds that were previously set aside.

The lawmaker opposes the amendment because increasing Medicaid payments has historically failed to solve the problem, leading instead to higher provider fees without resolving maternity deserts.

Drawing on five years of experience working in a nursing home, the lawmaker argues that an additional 5% increase will not solve the underlying problems facing these facilities.

The lawmaker opposes the bill because they fear it would make the state dependent on funds from gambling activities.

The lawmaker explains that the bill authorizes necessary maintenance and construction projects for state-owned facilities, including specific funding for a veterans home in Johnson County and ongoing building resiting at LCu using private donations.