Mike Yin

The lawmaker supports concurrence as a fair compromise that replaces the refund program with reduced registration fees, which they believe is more appropriate given the administrative burden of the original plan.

The lawmaker supports concurring with Senate amendments because they view replacing the refund program with reduced registration fees as a fair compromise.

The lawmaker opposes both the bill and the amendment, arguing that adding more bureaucracy will increase error rates rather than reduce fraud.

The lawmaker opposes the amendment because while they understand the needs of their own district, they do not want to cut taxes for a specific area if it negatively impacts the entire state.

The speaker opposes concurring because including a trigger mechanism implies the bill is unconstitutional, which contradicts the intent of passing it as valid law.

The lawmaker opposes Division Two because he believes passing the bill without this amendment would create a massive fiscal shortfall that forces future tax increases or burden shifts on other areas.

The lawmaker supports the amendment to avoid permanently breaking the teacher funding silo, proposing a temporary one-year allowance for nutrition spending instead.

The lawmaker argues that adopting the bill in its current form will cause actual harm to people and urges rejecting it until it can be properly fixed.

The lawmaker opposes the bill because creating a select committee signals acceptance of gaming growth, which they do not want for the state.

The lawmaker opposes the appropriation because they do not understand what specific catastrophe is being prepared for or why a new study is needed given the existing National Guard.

The lawmaker supports concurring with the Senate amendments because a public information officer is essential to inform residents about fire risks during what could be one of the worst fire years in state history.

The lawmaker supports the amendment because it prevents districts from reducing instructional time by creating home room blocks, thereby increasing educational hours for students.

The lawmaker opposes the amendment because they do not understand why any money should be cut from the university, viewing it only as a negotiating tactic rather than a substantive reduction.

The lawmaker views the amendment as a necessary backup plan to address court case issues in case the primary recalibration bill fails.

The lawmaker supports the amendment because it frees up $300,000 that can then be used to vote yes on other amendments.

The lawmaker supports helping barbers with funding after hearing from a barber in his chair about the difficulties of performing board inspections while running a business.

The lawmaker supports the amendment to prevent federal overreach and ensure timely permitting for coal and oil projects in his district.

The lawmaker opposes the motion because they believe 'committee shopping' to find a more favorable hearing is not the right approach for this bill.

The lawmaker argues the amendment is necessary because the original bill fails to address threats of violence against pregnancy centers and healthcare workers, which creates a chilling effect on service provision.

The lawmaker supports the bill because it corrects a gap in Title 22 by allowing political parties to appoint central committee members when current ones move away or cannot serve, ensuring proper representation for voters.

The lawmaker supports the amendment because cutting revenue threatens the survival of small towns and discourages young people from returning after college.

The lawmaker opposes the bill due to concerns about optics, specifically allegations that checks were handed out on the floor of the legislature. He states he wants to vote down the bill to make a statement against such influence.

The lawmaker explains that the bill addresses triple taxation on resident EV drivers by shifting taxes to fast chargers used mostly by non-residents and providing refunds for residents, creating a fairer system.

The speaker opposes the bill because he believes it is unconstitutional without a constitutional amendment and argues that debating such social bills wastes time during the budget session.

The lawmaker opposes the bill because lowering the cap would disadvantage younger homeowners trying to buy property while giving an advantage to long-term residents.

The lawmaker opposes the bill because they believe it forces a specific type of speech from doctors and creates constitutional concerns that will likely be challenged in court.

The lawmaker opposes the bill because they believe individuals who have served their sentences for fraud should still retain the right to start new businesses and achieve the American dream.

The lawmaker supports the bill to protect privacy and basic rights by preventing government agencies from using AI to create social scores that could punish citizens or limit their legal rights. He also cites the need for guardrails against non-consensual biometric identification.

The lawmaker questions whether voting for the bill again is worthwhile given its previous failure in the other legislative body.