ZWONITZER, DN

The lawmaker asks for a no vote and to sustain the veto because the measure goes beyond typical practices and may have an adverse effect.

The lawmaker encourages an aye vote because the amendments provide a clearer definition of electronic transmission and correct an error where 'county' should have been 'department'.

The lawmaker requests an aye vote because they have confirmed that the drafting language works correctly despite initial confusion about how amendments were listed.

The lawmaker opposes the amendment because it redirects money away from its intended purpose of helping communities with railroad quiet zones back into the general fund.

The lawmaker supports the amendment because it removes a requirement to send audit reports to the Legislative Service Office, arguing that this will save paper and trees.

The speaker urges an aye vote because the Senate amendments correctly require that funds in the newly created trust be re-authorized before they can be spent.

The lawmaker opposes the bill because legislators lack knowledge of specific road safety features and should let the department responsible for constituent safety handle the decisions.

The lawmaker supports concurrence because the amendments improved grammar in the catch title without substantially changing the bill's effect.

The lawmaker supports the motion because the Senate amendments only corrected grammar in the catch title without substantially changing the bill.

The lawmaker opposes the amendment because he believes the project qualifies for AML funds as it has been studied extensively and addresses damage from mining operations.

The speaker supports the amendment as a realistic measure during hard economic times to prevent raises for high earners over two years.

The lawmaker supports voting no to ensure future tracking and verification of the necessity of specific services included in the budget.

The lawmaker supports deleting the footnote to allow smaller donors under $200,000 to receive a match while ensuring needs across the campus are met.

The lawmaker supports the amendment because he believes agencies do not currently disclose where they could cut 10% of their general fund appropriations in public proceedings. He argues that requiring this information would provide the legislature with valuable data on potential budget reductions.

The lawmaker opposes the bill because there are cases where more stringent rules than federal standards are necessary for public health and should be decided by state agencies.

The speaker supports the bill because research indicates that cannabidiol medication can help people with certain ailments.

The speaker questions whether the bill sets a long-term precedent for excluding state management whenever an action involves predator species.

The speaker supports the bill as an organizational cleanup measure designed to integrate statutes and prevent adding unnecessary volume to the statute books following previous legislation on fraternal benefit societies.

The lawmaker notes that the bill is necessary to maintain state accreditation and acknowledges it will appear repeatedly if not passed now.