Video & Transcript Research : 'proxy attestation'
Page 100 of 104
NH
New Hampshire 2025 Regular Session
House Judiciary (01/22/2025)
Transcript Highlights:
- records under the Rules of Evidence, the city was challenging those minutes because they had not been attested
- So the next best thing is getting a start and end time and an attested record so they know who they can
Summary:
The Judiciary Committee opened its hearing with a procedural discussion about a forthcoming Monday hearing, and the chair confirmed that any amendment deemed non-germane would be made public in advance and included in the calendar. The committee then took up House Bill 6, which would replace the word “citizen” in the Right-to-Know law with “any person,” allow requesters to specify the format of records, and expressly reference preliminary drafts circulated to a quorum or majority of a public body as disclosable material. The sponsor said the bill was intended to clarify existing law, remove uncertainty after a Rochester-related dispute over requester eligibility, and make records easier to obtain electronically unless doing so would be impossible, unusual, unduly burdensome, or harmful to recordkeeping integrity.
Testimony was mixed. Cordell Johnston, speaking for himself as a municipal attorney, opposed most of the bill, especially the requirement that records be delivered electronically or by mail, arguing that out-of-state or out-of-country requests can be fishing expeditions that impose significant burdens on towns and clerks. He said local residents already can obtain records at town hall and that many municipalities voluntarily email records as a courtesy, but should not be required to mail large volumes of material. He also said the preliminary-draft language was unnecessary because such drafts are already covered when circulated to a quorum or majority. Representative Alexander raised concerns about the breadth of “any person,” potential abuse by bad actors, and the cost to municipalities, while Representative Peternell asked about whether the bill should account for nonresident property owners and business owners. The sponsor responded that limiting requesters by residency would not meaningfully stop abuse and said he did not know the bill’s fiscal impact, though he suggested it might improve efficiency.
Yil Biset of the ACLU of New Hampshire testified in support of HB 6, calling it a modest and reasonable transparency measure. He said the preliminary-draft language was acceptable and consistent with existing exemption language in the public-meeting and documents statutes, and he said he was not aware of foreign-bot document requests occurring in New Hampshire. He also noted that current law already requires electronic disclosure when records exist electronically and can reasonably be provided that way. No vote or final committee action was taken in the portion of the meeting provided.
HI
Bills:
HB20, HB463, HB469, HB649, HB963, HB1163, HB1334, HB1481, HB1509, HB1511, HB1514, HB1515, HB1516, HB1518, HB1519, HB1523, HB1524, HB1546, HB1548, HB1550, HB1553, HB1573, HB1574, HB1576, HB1588, HB1591, HB1618, HB1619, HB1628, HB1642, HB1643, HB1656, HB1658, HB1664, HB1667, HB1679, HB1682, HB1688, HB1692, HB1696, HB1700, HB1705, HB1707, HB1710, HB1711, HB1713, HB1716, HB1718, HB1721, HB1728, HB1737, HB1740, HB1741, HB1749, HB1752, HB1753, HB1768, HB1782, HB1800, HB1804, HB1810, HB1823, HB1839, HB1842, HB1854, HB1858, HB1864, HB1870, HB1875, HB1881, HB1886, HB1888, HB1890, HB1894, HB1897, HB1898, HB1920, HB1929, HB1946, HB1959, HB1961, HB1962, HB1973, HB1974, HB2001, HB2005, HB2020, HB2021, HB2022, HB2023, HB2062, HB2078, HB2093, HB2095, HB2096, HB2097, HB2101, HB2137, HB2152, HB2207, HCR137, HCR181
HI
Bills:
HB20, HB463, HB469, HB649, HB963, HB1163, HB1334, HB1481, HB1509, HB1511, HB1514, HB1515, HB1516, HB1518, HB1519, HB1523, HB1524, HB1546, HB1548, HB1550, HB1553, HB1573, HB1574, HB1576, HB1588, HB1591, HB1618, HB1619, HB1628, HB1642, HB1643, HB1656, HB1658, HB1664, HB1667, HB1679, HB1682, HB1688, HB1692, HB1696, HB1700, HB1705, HB1707, HB1710, HB1711, HB1713, HB1716, HB1718, HB1721, HB1728, HB1737, HB1740, HB1741, HB1749, HB1752, HB1753, HB1768, HB1782, HB1800, HB1804, HB1810, HB1823, HB1839, HB1842, HB1854, HB1858, HB1864, HB1870, HB1875, HB1881, HB1886, HB1888, HB1890, HB1894, HB1897, HB1898, HB1920, HB1929, HB1946, HB1959, HB1961, HB1962, HB1973, HB1974, HB2001, HB2005, HB2020, HB2021, HB2022, HB2023, HB2062, HB2078, HB2093, HB2095, HB2096, HB2097, HB2101, HB2137, HB2152, HB2207, HCR137, HCR181
HI
Hawaii 2026 Regular Session
EDN Public Hearing - Tue Feb 17, 2026 @ 2:00 PM HST
Transcript Highlights:
- And I can attest that my mom and other homeschooled parents truly do their best to educate their children
Summary:
The committee on Education met on February 17 and announced it would limit public testimony to one minute because more than a thousand testimonies were expected on one measure. The first bill heard was HB 1934, relating to the Imagination Library of Hawaii. The state librarian and Friends of the Library supported the bill, saying the program is a proven, cost-effective way to improve early literacy and should be expanded statewide for children ages 0 to 5. Friends of the Library said the current 50/50 match requirement would be too difficult to meet immediately and asked for state funding for the first few years to help launch the expansion. Testimony included eight supporters and one opponent, and members asked whether the proposal was an expansion of an existing program; the state librarian said it would expand service beyond currently targeted communities.
The committee then heard HB 20004, which would extend the floating librarian pilot program. The state librarian, Department of Education, HSTA, and several individuals testified in support. Supporters said the program helps address staffing needs and improves student readiness, especially for college and information literacy. One retired community college librarian said school librarians help students prepare for college and are increasingly important in teaching critical evaluation of misinformation and AI-generated content. Members asked about implementation of the existing pilot, including recruitment of certified librarians for neighbor island and Oahu complex areas; DOE said those positions had been identified and recruitment was underway, and existing funds remained intact.
The final major discussion was HB 2398, which clarifies the library system’s role in RNMSP-related projects and public library construction on or near school land. The state librarian and public library system supported the bill, while the Department of Education and Attorney General’s office raised concerns about vague language, especially the phrase “land controlled by the board,” and suggested amendments. In questioning, the state librarian explained that the bill was prompted by conflicts on shared or adjacent school/public library sites, including traffic, pickup and drop-off access, and other operational issues. DOE described significant disruption from one project’s traffic changes and said planning for such projects should involve early coordination and formal agreements. The state librarian responded that the new bill would clarify oversight and help avoid delays and disputes over property control and future renovations.
KY
Kentucky 2026 Regular Session
Juvenile Justice Oversight Council. (2-6-26)
Transcript Highlights:
- As a teacher whose career ended due to violent actions of a student, I can attest that this is necessary
Keywords:
Meeting Start: 00:00:00
Agency Updates: 00:01:45
26RS SB 125: 00:02:10
26RS SB 101: 01:14:58, 958, all
Summary:
The Juvenile Justice Oversight Council met on February 6, 2026, took roll, approved a motion to convene, and heard agency updates from materials in the packet. The council then took up Senate Bill 125 out of order because Senator Carol was present. The bill was presented as a collaborative effort focused on creating a secure, state-run high-acuity mental health facility for justice-involved youth who need specialized psychiatric care and cannot be appropriately served in detention or by private hospitals. Speakers said the facility would fill a gap in services, improve safety and treatment outcomes, and be designed with trauma-informed, medically equipped spaces rather than a jail-like setting.
The presenters also outlined other parts of the bill, including a placement process in which DJJ and CHFS would evaluate youth and provide recommendations before the judge makes the final decision, with certain hospital-declination provisions to be delayed until the new facility is operating. They described payment incentives for hospitals treating high-acuity youth, confidentiality and escape-related disclosure provisions, and contracts with a public teaching university for clinical services. The proposed facility was described as a 24-bed center at Central State, with staffing to include mental health professionals and juvenile detention staff receiving enhanced training. Dr. Clark Lester said staffing needs would vary by youth and could include one-to-one supervision for some patients.
The bill also addressed female juvenile detention capacity. Speakers said the number of detained girls has risen sharply since 2024, peaking at 51 in 2025, and that current facilities cannot meet the separation requirements for boys and girls or high- and low-level youth. The proposal would build two female detention centers, with possible locations discussed in central Kentucky and western Kentucky, and a third or fourth center could be added if population data show the need. Members asked about hospital placement authority, staffing, and average length of stay for girls; the presenters said the current court-order process would remain until the new facility is built and that they would provide additional data later. No vote was taken during the portion of the meeting provided.
US
US Federal 2025-2026 Regular Session
US House Floor Proceedings (Thursday, September 4, 2025)
US Federal House Floor Meeting
Transcript Highlights:
- Speaker, I can personally attest to the Flying Wranglers' skill and musical ability.
NH
LA
Louisiana 2026 Regular Session
House of Representatives Mar 30th, 2026
Louisiana House Floor Meeting
Bills:
HR72, HR73, HR74, HR75, HR76, HR77, HR78, HR79, HR80, HR81, HR82, HR83, HCR36, HCR37, HCR38, HCR39, HCR40, HCR41, HB368, HB433, HB1017, HB1018, HB1019, HB1020, HB1021, HB1022, HB1023, HB1024, HB1025, HB1026, HB1027, HB1028, HB1029, HB1030, HB1031, HB1032, HB1033, HB1034, HB1035, HB1036, HB1037, HB1038, HB1039, HB1040, HB1041, HB1042, HB1043, HB1044, HB1045, HB1046, HB1047, HB1048, HB1049, HB1050, HB1051, HB1052, HB1053, HB1054, HB1055, HB1056, HB1057, HB1058, HB1059, HB1060, HB1061, HB1062, HB1063, HB1064, HB1065, HB1066, HB1067, HB1068, HB1069, HB1070, HB1071, HB1072, HB1073, HB1074, HB1075, HB1076, HB1077, HB1078, HB1079, HB1080, HB1081, HB1082, HB1083, HB1084, HR70, HR71, HCR35, HB31, HB326, HB1013, HB1014, HB1015, HB1016, SB192, SB196, SB198, SB203, SB204, SB214, SB216, SB257, SB291, SB383, HB13, HB23, HB25, HB32, HB41, HB42, HB90, HB120, HB121, HB122, HB127, HB138, HB139, HB141, HB179, HB187, HB213, HB247, HB286, HB332, HB344, HB357, HB367, HB370, HB462, HB505, HB527, HB537, HB605, HB680, HB681, HB725, HB780, HB782, HB847, HB892, HB911, HB916, HB1012, HR15, HR20, HCR14, HB53, HB57, HB64, HB102, HB106, HB111, HB137, HB152, HB155, HB177, HB238, HB256, HB258, HB337, HB359, HB363, HB386, HB434, HB546, HB557, HB584, HB661, HB697, HB726, HB727, HB747, HB756, HB758, HB759, HB765, HB767, HB825, HB858, HB930, HB941, HB957, HB964, HB58, HB69, HB93, HB166, HB199, HB201, HB202, HB218, HB223, HB224, HB231, HB235, HB246, HB338, HB349, HB352, HB379, HB405, HB429, HB535, HB547, HB577, HB588, HB626, HB636, HB652, HB653, HB669, HB688, HB691, HB721, HB738, HB806, HB851, HB857, HB861, HB889, HB904, HB907, HB908, HB929, HB1009, HB868, HB119, HB140, HB739, HB842, HB875, HB919, HB61, HB185, HB233, HB613, HB848, HB52, HB228, HB289, HB735, HB796, HB722, HB284, HB301, HB827, HB953, HB901, HB9, HB46, HB193, HB400, HB436, HB468, HB570, HB582, HB733, HB746, HB923, HB952
Keywords:
HR72, House Resolution 72, Sophia Patout, Layla Porter, St. Amant High School, Future Farmers of America, FFA, Coastal Restoration Heroes, coastal restoration, Louisiana coast, coastal land loss, wetlands, saltmarsh, barrier island, West Grand Terre Island, Restore or Retreat Inc., smooth cordgrass, Spartina alterniflora, black mangrove, Avicennia germinans
US
US Federal 2025-2026 Regular Session
US House Floor Proceedings (Thursday, December 18, 2025)
US Federal House Floor Meeting
NH
New Hampshire 2025 Regular Session
House Health, Human Services and Elderly Affairs (02/12/2025)
Health, Human Services & Elderly Affairs
TX
Bills:
SB835, SB3070, SB22, SJR59, SB926, SB1494, SB251, SB456, SB500, SB1307, SB2615, SB2995, SB2321, SB973, SB974, SB865, SB506, SB781, SB1522, SB1558, SB510, SB667, SB763, SB2073, SB1858, SB1660, SB505, SB2900, SB1433, SB1540, SB1964, SB1300, SB1644, SB2217, SB2373, SB2431, SB1758, SB2480, SB3039, SB3047, SB3073, SB2920, SB2781, SB826, SB766, SB2460, SB527, SB1946, SB2885, SB1243, SB2610, SB2595, SB857, SB37, SB8, SB10, SB227, SB261, SB12, SB15, SJR27, SB552, SB835, SB3070, SB22, SJR59, SB25, SB57, SB127, SB293, SB441, SB3059, SB512, SB241, SB1718, SB140, SB2055, SB2075, SB2018, SB1534, SB1567, SB785, SB1233, SB1580, SB1663, SB413, SB447, SB519, SB467, SB1579, SB1191, SB1021, SB1838, SB2807, SB2835, SB546, SB2121, SB2167, SB2035, SB2024, SB1032, SB1049, SB1266, SB1400, SB1302, SB401, SB1596, SB1281, SB1242, SB1343, SB310, SB1346, SB2753, SB2703, SB2221, SB1719, SB2177, SB800, SB790, SB748, SB571, SB1957, SB1923, SB1896, SB1760, SB1335, SB2368, SB2477, SB2587, SB2972, SB2986, SB2965, SB1563, SB1467, SB1164, SB1137, SB614, SB705, SB961, SB918, SB955, SB869, SB850, SB863, SB1610, SB1055, SB2206, SB457, SB2337, SB1362, SB926, SB1494, SB251, SB456, SB500, SB1307, SB2615, SB2995, SB2321, SB973, SB974, SB865, SB506, SB781, SB1522, SB1558, SB510, SB667, SB763, SB2073, SB1858, SB1660, SB505, SB2900, SB1433, SB1540, SB1964, SB1300, SB1644, SB2217, SB2373, SB2431, SB1758, SB2480, SB3039, SB3047, SB3073, SB2920, SB2781, SB826, SB766, SB2460, SB527, SB1946, SB2885, SB1243, SB2610, SB2595, SB857, SCR9, HB5560, HB762, HB 107, HB 114, HB300, HB138, HB4386, HB2495, HB581, HB3348, HB5323
Keywords:
sexual abuse, nondisclosure agreements, confidentiality agreements, public policy, victim rights, lottery, bingo, regulation, Texas Lottery Commission, Department of Licensing and Regulation, criminal offenses, state administration, audits, transfers, Texas, moving image industry, incentive program, film production, grant funding, job creation
VT
Transcript Highlights:
- tangentially observed for over 30 years a family business in permitting and septic design, I can attest
Summary:
The House returned from recess and took up S. 208, a bill on standards for law enforcement identification. The House Judiciary Committee explained that it had rewritten the bill into a model-policy approach focused on Vermont state and local agencies, rather than imposing direct requirements on all law enforcement, because of constitutional and preemption concerns raised by a recent Ninth Circuit decision. The amended bill would direct the Law Enforcement Advisory Board to develop a statewide policy on officer identification and facial coverings by July 2027, require agencies to adopt a consistent policy by October 1, 2027, and deem agencies to have adopted the model policy if they do not act. The committee reported the bill favorably on a 6-5 vote.
Members then debated an amendment offered by Representatives Berbeco and McGill to restore federal officers to the bill. Supporters argued that public authority should not be anonymous, that visible identification is necessary for transparency, accountability, and public trust, and that the bill should apply to federal agents as well as state and local officers. They said the amendment included exemptions for undercover work, tactical teams, protective equipment, and safety concerns, and argued Vermont should not wait for courts to resolve every constitutional question before acting. Opponents on the Judiciary Committee said the language remained likely unconstitutional and could jeopardize the bill’s passage; the committee had found the amendment unfavorable on an 8-1 vote.
The floor debate continued with several members speaking in favor of the amendment, including arguments that other states have adopted similar requirements and that Vermont should lead on the issue. One member raised a point of order that was not sustained, and the Speaker ruled federal authority relevant to the question. The transcript ends while debate on the amendment was still underway, after a request for a roll-call vote was granted, with no final floor vote on the amendment shown in the excerpt.
MN
HI
Hawaii 2026 Regular Session
JHA Public Hearing - Tue Feb 24, 2026 @ 2:00 PM HST
Judiciary & Hawaiian Affairs
Transcript Highlights:
- I can attest to the fact that I was on the mainland for a very long time.
Summary:
The House Committee on Judiciary and Hawaiian Affairs heard testimony on HB 1875, which would expand Hawaii’s existing protections to include gender-affirming health care, clarify permitted disclosures of protected health information, and bar certain adverse actions by malpractice insurers and health carriers against providers of lawful reproductive or gender-affirming care. The Insurance Division of DCCA supported the bill with a technical amendment, suggesting language tied to actuarial analysis rather than the phrase “actuarially sound.” The Office of Information Practices also provided comments.
Most testimony was strongly in support. State agencies and advocacy groups, including the Hawaii State Youth Commission, State Health Planning and Development Agency, Commission on the Status of Women, Hawaii Civil Rights Commission, Hawaii Public Health Institute, Stonewall Caucus, ACLU of Hawaii, PFLAG Oahu, Planned Parenthood Alliance Advocates, the Healthcare Association of Hawaii, and the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, said the bill would protect patient privacy, reduce chilling effects from out-of-state litigation, and help retain providers in a state already facing shortages. Several testifiers said gender-affirming care is medically necessary, evidence-based, and life-saving, and emphasized that Hawaii should protect its own health care decisions from outside political pressure.
A few individuals testified in opposition, arguing the bill was unnecessary or that it protected providers more than opponents of the bill, but these views were not echoed by most of the testimony. The chair repeatedly reminded testifiers to keep comments brief and maintain decorum. The transcript provided does not include a final committee vote or disposition on the bill.
MN
NH
US
US Federal 2025-2026 Regular Session
US House Floor Proceedings (Thursday, March 27, 2025)
US Federal House Floor Meeting
Transcript Highlights:
- Those who know him best attest to Coulter's humility and work ethic, saying, and I'm quoting, "All he
HI
Hawaii 2025 Regular Session
JHA Public Hearing - Wed Feb 12, 2025 @ 2:00 PM HST
Judiciary & Hawaiian Affairs
Transcript Highlights:
- So from that experience, I just want to attest that it is essential to have an impact if you're going
Summary:
The committee met on February 12 at 2 p.m. and heard several measures related to corrections, re-entry, law enforcement, retirement benefits, and gun violence prevention. On HB 10002, which would extend the Hawaii Correctional System Oversight Commission coordinator’s term and clarify unannounced inspection authority, the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation said it had no objection to the term length or to 24/7 unannounced access. The commission’s chair, Commissioner Mark Patterson, asked for a longer term, saying the commission needs more time and stability to manage reform efforts after years without staff during COVID. Community Alliance on Prisons and Carolyn Eaton also supported a longer term, with both suggesting six years would better insulate the position from politics. The chair noted he had asked Chair Bot for background on the prior committee’s changes and said that could be discussed during decision-making.
The committee then heard HB 67, which would require DCR to help inmates obtain civil identification documents such as IDs, birth certificates, and Social Security cards as soon as practicable, including for people in furlough or community placement programs. DCR said it supported the bill and described ongoing work with the city and county on ID machines and with agencies on certificates and Social Security cards. The Office of Hawaiian Affairs, the Oversight Commission, Community Alliance on Prisons, and the Office of Public Defense all supported the measure, emphasizing that identification is essential for housing, employment, and successful re-entry and noting the disproportionate impact of incarceration on Native Hawaiians.
On HB 1183, which would classify certain law enforcement administrators and Department of Law Enforcement employees as Class A members for retirement purposes, the Department of Human Resources Development, the Employees’ Retirement System, and the Department of Law Enforcement all supported the bill. DHRD said it would help recruitment and retention, ERS said it had technical amendments to suggest, and DLE said the change would help with succession planning and allow the governor to appoint the most qualified leader. The committee also heard HB 1045, an emergency appropriation bill to cover payroll fringe benefits for Department of Law Enforcement personnel after salary funding had been shifted to other departments; Budget and Finance and DLE explained the need for the supplemental funding, and no opposition was noted.
Finally, the committee took up HB 664, which would create an Office of Gun Violence Prevention, a grant program, a resource bank, and a special fund. The Attorney General recommended adding standards for grant awards and warned of overlap with the existing Gun Violence and Violent Crimes Commission, suggesting consolidation and repeal of the older commission to avoid duplication. Supporters included the Brady Campaign, Everytown for Gun Safety, Moms Demand Action Hawaii, a physician, and an Army veteran, who argued the office would centralize data, coordinate prevention efforts, and help secure outside funding. Testimony was mixed, with the chair noting 37 supporters, nine opponents, and three commenters, but no vote was taken during the hearing.
NH
New Hampshire 2025 Regular Session
House Education Policy and Administration (02/03/2025)
Transcript Highlights:
- This bill has many complications that harm students with disabilities in obtaining FAPE, as parents attest
Summary:
The House Education Policy and Administration Committee heard testimony on HB 222, which would repeal the requirement that a chartered public school and the resident school district sign a memorandum of understanding on how students with disabilities will receive special education services. The prime sponsor, Rep. Peggy Balboni, said the bill was requested by the New Hampshire Association of Special Education Administrators and the New Hampshire Alliance for Public Charter Schools. She argued that federal and state law already require districts to provide FAPE and that the MOU requirement has created extra work, legal costs, and delays without improving services. She said many MOUs remain unsigned, but students are still receiving services and complaint numbers have not changed.
Rep. Mooney also supported repeal, calling the MOU duplicative and impractical because IEPs and 504 plans already govern services. Testimony from Jane B. Brulu of the special education administrators’ association and Beth McLure of the charter schools alliance echoed that view, saying the MOU has not helped students, has added hours of work and legal fees, and has mostly been a source of disputes over funding and service costs. McLure said her school has worked with more than 15 districts and has always been able to reach agreements, though the first year of the requirement took substantial time and money. Committee members asked about the original purpose of the law, unsigned MOUs, and whether disputes could be resolved without the requirement.
A representative from the Department of Education said the MOU was originally proposed to address reports that some students were not getting services on time and to provide some oversight, but the department has no authority to order charter schools or districts to agree and no appeal process if they cannot. The department also said it does not currently audit charter school special education services because it lacks authority to monitor charter schools directly, and it urged the committee to consider some alternative oversight if the MOU requirement is repealed. The hearing on HB 222 was then closed, and the committee announced it would begin the hearing on HB 699 after a short break.
NH