Ben Hornok

The lawmaker opposes the bill because he believes it creates a logical contradiction where auditors cannot be properly overseen if they are given special exemptions. He warns against setting a precedent for carving out agencies from standard rules.

The lawmaker opposes the amendment because sending a message that rich people should be excluded is unfair, especially for long-term residents whose home values have risen.

The lawmaker supports the amendment to ensure that only vulnerable adults with a diagnosed mental illness are included, preventing those who do not qualify from being forced into the system.

The lawmaker opposes cutting days because he signed up to support the people, and if hearing more topics in the interim is necessary for that purpose, he will be there.

The lawmaker opposes an amendment because he believes removing existing checks and balances on special use taxes will allow cities to create confusing, separate tax rates across borders.

The lawmaker urges a vote for the amendment because it stops municipalities from increasing special taxes permanently without voter consent.

The lawmaker opposes the amendment because he believes it asks intrusive questions about policies like religious affiliation that are not asked of public school teachers, urging a no vote.

The lawmaker supports striking the amendment because its broad language could allow teachers with good intentions to withhold information, creating an unnecessary disconnect between parents and schools.

The lawmaker votes yes because he believes there is no use for the funds if they cannot be used for fireworks.

The lawmaker supports the amendment because it maximizes savings for the state's long-term future by directing more funds into the permanent mineral trust fund without reducing current school funding.

The lawmaker supports the amendment to prevent departments from using funds allocated for vacant positions to give raises, arguing this maintains legislative control over state funding decisions.

The lawmaker opposes the funding mechanism because he believes large construction projects should be fully funded through debate in a bill rather than accumulated over time.

The lawmaker opposes the bill because it transfers control of millions in funds from the legislature to a board appointed by the governor, removing legislative oversight.

The lawmaker reiterates support by explaining that if landowners disagree with changes, mines continue under existing permits, ensuring landowners are not left out of the loop.

The lawmaker opposes the bill because it creates an incentive for landowners to allow their properties to deteriorate.

The lawmaker opposes the approach of using public funds to match federal subsidies, arguing that alternatives like satellite internet exist and this method picks winners and losers.

The lawmaker opposes the bill because he believes the retirement fund will be fully funded eventually without it, and passing the bill would require state employees to pay more money now.

The lawmaker opposes the bill because lowering the five-day license fee instead of raising all fees would generate more revenue by encouraging people to buy longer licenses.

The speaker opposes the bill, claiming it is designed to test Medicaid expansion by collecting data on costs for people making less than 200% of the federal poverty level.