Rob Geringer

The lawmaker supports the governor's veto because he believes retaining only the operational study language allows for future evaluation without immediately forcing changes, giving the agency time to address concerns.

The lawmaker opposes the amendment due to ambiguity regarding which industries qualify and because it would exclude value-added projects like natural gas refining that were previously supported.

The lawmaker opposes an amendment because they believe reducing the funding by 80% would effectively neuter the bill and make it ineffective.

The lawmaker opposes automatic penalties by comparing the situation to traffic enforcement, arguing that discretion is needed for mitigating circumstances rather than prescriptive fines.

The lawmaker supports the amendment as a way to provide one year of funding without expansion, allowing time to determine if the agency should be kept or restructured.

The lawmaker opposes the amendment because it imposes a $20 million cut regardless of whether the university complies with all requested studies and savings measures.

The lawmaker supports restoring funding for an additional attorney to handle the state's involvement in numerous federal natural resource cases and defend against future litigation affecting energy production and sovereignty.

The lawmaker supports the amendment as a safety measure because deteriorating concrete in local buildings poses risks that could eventually make them unsafe for students and the public.

The lawmaker supports the amendment as a one-year funding bridge to allow for an evaluation of the business council without committing to long-term programs or expanding authority.

The lawmaker supports the amendment because he believes upgrading an outdated system is necessary to provide transparency and efficiency for constituents regarding their utility rates.

The lawmaker supports the bill to evaluate and reform economic development by adding legislative members to the board, pausing expansion for a year, requiring detailed reporting on grants and return on investment, and establishing a task force.

The lawmaker supports the amendment because it replaces previously received funds for communities without increasing taxes, clarifying that statues are not funded by these dollars.

The lawmaker opposes the bill because they believe the identified issue is already being handled through existing processes with IT staff and does not need to be added to state statutes.

The lawmaker supports removing the front license plate requirement, noting that over 20 other states do not have this mandate.