Transcript Highlights:

• The vast majority of Americans agree that only U.S. citizens should have the right to vote in our elections
• And when we analyzed voting in voting.
• They vote.
• Speaker, is a vote against the SAVE Act today was a vote against American citizens' voting rights.
• vote, you voting booth, you cast your vote, you find<04:03:04.560> out<04:03:04.720> who

Keywords: U.S. House of Representatives Floor Proceedings on Thursday, April 10, 2025, 1012, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So, the majority of business taxes.
• So, the majority of the vehicles.
• <02:07:43.360> vote<02:07:43.599> of commission may upon a majority vote of commission
• may upon a majority vote of the<02:07:43.840> commission<02:07:44.159> take<02:07:44.320
• That's your starting point, and going forward they can add to whatever they want just by a majority vote

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Any members voting with reservations? Any members voting no?
• Vice Chair, voting on HB 1033 HD1. Voting on HB 1033 HD1. Any members voting reservations?
• Chair, voting on HB 1439. Voting on HB 1439.
• Vice Chair, voting on HB 1146. Vice Chair, voting on HB 1146.
• clear okay Vice chair for the vote clear okay Vice chair for the vote voting<01:02:11.559> on

Keywords: 910, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Well, who doesn't vote against protecting kids?
• They voted for now keeping 53 cents on their tax bill every year.
• If this was on the ballot, 90 to 95% of your constituents would vote for this.
• It's just a major pain.
• And I think the same can be said for the vast majority of Missourians.

Keywords: 959, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• High taxes are a major factor driving Coworkers, graduates, and retirees.
• High taxes are a major factor driving this exodus.
• The vast majority do not have it.
• They've already voted with their feet. Their strategies are set.
• A majority of Democrats, a majority of unenrolled, and a majority of Republicans all support this.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions held a public hearing on two proposed ballot initiatives: one to reduce the state personal income tax rate from 5% to 4% over three years, and another to revise the state’s tax collection cap/62F process so it would be based on prior-year collections plus wage growth and include surtax revenue. The committee chair and House co-chair outlined the hearing process, and the first witness was Doug Howgate of the Massachusetts Taxpayer Foundation, who testified as the committee’s subject-matter expert on both measures. He said the income tax proposal would lower taxes broadly but would reduce state revenue by about $5.4 billion when fully implemented, with an estimated $800 million hit in FY27, and he discussed possible effects on competitiveness, taxpayer savings, and public finances. On the 62F proposal, he said the revised cap would make refunds more likely, could have produced several large refunds in recent years, and would reduce stabilization fund deposits and constrain recovery after recessions. Committee members questioned Howgate about competitiveness, outmigration, prior tax ballot measures, spending growth, MassHealth, and the interaction between the income tax and surtax. He emphasized that taxes are only one part of the state’s overall competitiveness and that housing, public services, and other factors also matter. He also noted that the surtax is constitutionally restricted but can still support ongoing spending choices. After his testimony, the committee moved to the proponents’ panel. Proponents of both initiatives, including representatives from Taxpayers for an Affordable Massachusetts, the National Federation of Independent Business, Pioneer Institute, and the Mass Opportunity Alliance, argued that the measures would improve affordability, help retain residents and businesses, and support job growth. They cited polling support, outmigration, small-business reinvestment, and comparisons to lower-tax states such as North Carolina. Their economist, Rebecca Paxton, said her model showed smaller revenue losses than critics claim and projected that the revised revenue cap would not create additional annual revenue losses while producing more regular taxpayer refunds. Committee members pressed the panel on competitiveness, prior ballot initiative implementation, and whether the measures would actually address broader affordability pressures; the hearing ended with the committee continuing to take questions from the proponents.

Transcript Highlights:

• This is not what they voted for. wanted. This is not what they voted for.
• Remaining electronic votes will be conducted as five-minute votes.
• Members will record their votes by electronic device. This is a 15-minute vote.
• Have all members voted? Does any member wish to change their vote?
• Have all members voted? You're not wish to change their vote.

Keywords: U.S. House of Representatives Floor Proceedings on Monday, April 7, 2025, 1012, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The clerk votes >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The clerk votes I. I. I.
• Chairman, by a vote of 13 in the affirmative, zero in the negative, three not voting, House Bill 1485
• count on that on that vote? count on that on that vote?
• The clerk votes >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The clerk votes I. I. I.
• <02:27:08.000> I three not voting. Hold on a second. I three not voting.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Votes will be taken in the following order. favoring a vote by the ys and nays will favoring a vote by
• The first electronic vote will be conducted as a 15-minute vote.
• A recorded vote is requested. Those favoring a recorded vote will rise.
• Have all members voted? Does any member wish to change their vote?
• Recorded vote.

Keywords: U.S. House of Representatives Floor Proceedings on Tuesday, March 25, 2025, 1012, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I ask you to vote against. Thank you very much, Ms. Liva. Thank you. I have to vote against.
• Majority, the majority of Black kids. In some instances, it's up to 80, 87%.
• Majority, the majority of black kids. In some instances, it's up to 80, 87%.
• This is a major concern.
• Members, we do plan on voting Senate Bill 2.

Summary: The Senate Committee on Education K-16 convened with a quorum, adopted its committee rules, and heard opening remarks from members introducing staff and outlining priorities for the session. Several senators emphasized support for public education, teacher pay and safety, parental choice, and the combined K-16 jurisdiction of the committee. The chair also reviewed hearing procedures, including public testimony registration and time limits. The main item was Senate Bill 2, the Texas Education Freedom Act, laid out by Chairman Creighton. He described the bill as an education savings account program intended to expand school choice, with a $200 million universal eligibility pool and an additional $800 million targeted to students with disabilities and lower-income families. He said the bill includes anti-fraud safeguards, criminal background checks for vendors, reporting requirements, data protections, and annual testing for participating students, while not imposing STAAR on private schools or homeschoolers. He also said the bill removes a prior hold-harmless provision for public schools and is separate from public school funding and teacher pay legislation. Members questioned the bill’s income threshold, lottery and priority structure, treatment of homeschoolers, microschools, charter schools, religious freedom protections, citizenship/lawful presence language, cybersecurity, open records, and disability-related issues, including whether 504 students and foster children should be included. Creighton said the bill is designed to prioritize former public school students with disabilities or lower incomes, while also allowing universal eligibility within the program’s first funding tier, and that the Comptroller would oversee vendor screening and cybersecurity rules. He said the bill does not direct curriculum or interfere with religious beliefs and that amendments may be offered later on citizenship and other issues. After member questions, the committee began invited testimony, starting with EdChoice representative Robert Inlow, who testified in support of SB 2 and cited national growth in school choice programs and studies he said show positive effects for students and public schools.

Transcript Highlights:

• Vote.<01:43:29.920> Closed. Vote. Closed. Vote. Closed.
• Closing vote. Vote closed. Senate File 56, 29? I to no. Vote. Close. Senate file 56 Vote. Close.
• Vote.<01:47:23.679> Closed. Vote. Closed. Vote. Closed.
• Closing vote. Vote closed. Senate File 90, 31? I. Closing vote. Vote closed. Senate File 90, 31?
• Having received the affirmative vote of the majority of the members elected to the Senate, Senate File

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Majority of them… Majority of them go to UNM, and then at discharge, they're going back with the resource
• to vote, we've come in behind.
• Representative Brown: I vote no and would like to explain my vote. Representative Chatfield.
• Representative Dow: I will vote no and I'd like to explain my vote. Representative Duncan...
• I point those out to the people in the majority, and I'm being told this is a procedural vote where you

Bills: HB1

Keywords: feed bill, legislative appropriations, legislative branch, New Mexico Legislature, general fund, legislative council service, legislative finance committee, legislative education study committee, house chief clerk, senate chief clerk, per diem, mileage, session expenses, interim committees, district staff, capitol complex, capital outlay data system, legislative processing system, redistricting, census redistricting

Transcript Highlights:

• are you folks ready to ready to vote are you folks ready to ready to vote then?
• Chair votes I. amendments. Chair votes I. Co-Chair<00:05:22.520> Miyake.<00:05:23.200> I.
• Um Um Um Chair<00:05:40.760> votes<00:05:41.000> I. Chair votes I. Chair votes I.
• This is the draft that we had to vote on earlier. This is the draft that we had to vote on earlier.
• Chair votes I. Co-Chair Miyake. I. Chair votes I. Co-Chair Miyake. I.

Bills: SB2876, SB3253, SB2125, SB2781, HB549, HB1768, SB2053, SB2494, SB2851, SB3073, HB1678, HB1721, HB2475, HB2246, HB1667, HB1516, SB2532, SB3131, SB3154, HB2297, HB1737, SB2143, SB2398, SB2623, HB1740, HB1920, HB1682, SB2153, SB3140, HB1515, SB2835, HB2282, SB3083, SB2031, SB2519, SB2667, SB2140, SB2544, SB2069, SB2697, SB874, SB2043, SB888, SB2721, HB2152, HB1334, HB2385, HB1643, HB2314, HB1688, HB1692, SB2568, SB2983, SB2108, SB3136, HB1959, SB3156, HB1511, HB1753, HB1824, HB2137, HB1810, HB2279, HB2309, HB1548, HB2078, HB2293, SB3262, SB2169, SB2607, SB2964, SB3255, HB2576, HB1481, HB1864, HB1550, SB2818, SB3067, SB2061, HB1728, HB1881, HB2361, HB2395, HB1823, SB2050, SB2397, SB2175, SB2852, SB847, SB3001

Keywords: natural hair braiding, hair braiding, braids, braider, braiding license, cosmetology, barbering, barber board, Board of Barbering and Cosmetology, registration, licensure exemption, sanitation training, health and safety, hair extensions, cornrows, twists, locks, protective hairstyles, beauty industry, occupational licensing

Transcript Highlights:

• >> Uh, vice chair vote. >> Uh, vice chair vote.
• Voting on HB191. >> Okay. Voting on HB191.
• Chair and vice chair vote I. amendments. Chair and vice chair vote I.
• >> Vice Chair for the vote. >> Uh, voting on HB 1776.
• >> Vice Chair for the vote. >> Uh, voting on HB 1776.

Bills: HB1991, HB1776, HB1897, HB1900

Keywords: liquor tax, alcohol, inflation adjustment, small craft breweries, public health, tenant rights, housing stability, landlord-tenant code, eviction prevention, multilingual resources, condominium, dispute resolution, mediation, arbitration, attorneys' fees, common expenses, construction defects, building code, statute of repose, statute of limitations

Summary: The committee heard testimony on HB 1991, which would change Hawaii’s liquor excise tax structure to an ABV-based system. The Department of Taxation and the Tax Foundation of Hawaii took no position and stood on written comments. Supporters, including the Hawaii Public Health Institute and an individual testifier who described surviving a drunk-driving crash, argued that higher alcohol taxes reduce alcohol-related harms, save lives, and generate additional state revenue. The public health witness cited alcohol-related harms as a major preventable cause of death and said the tax increase would have only a small annual cost for most consumers. Most industry testimony was in opposition. Representatives of Lanikai Brewing Company, Maui Brewing Company, the Wine Institute, and the Hawaii Food Industry Association said the bill would sharply raise taxes on beer and wine, squeeze already thin margins, and threaten local jobs and businesses. They argued Hawaii producers already face high costs for labor, energy, shipping, and compliance, and said an ABV-based tax would be difficult to administer, would require additional testing and labeling work, and could reduce consumer choice. Several industry witnesses urged lawmakers to instead adopt a small-producer or class 18 carveout, with one suggesting a cap tied to 60,000 barrels. Committee members questioned the brewers about alcohol content testing, labeling, and whether smaller producers already measure ABV. Witnesses said many local producers do not certify ABV for in-state sales, that yeast and fermentation can vary by batch, and that an ABV-based system could require more testing than current practice. No vote or final action on the bill was taken during the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• I vote no.
• Madam President, to explain my vote, I'll be voting yes on this.
• So I will be voting no.
• I vote aye. YES, WE ARE.
• And I will be voting no.

Keywords: 993, senate, all

Summary: The Senate first handled routine business, approving the prior journal and taking up several messages and motions. A Rules Committee report was accepted on Senate Print 915, a Cannabis Law bill, and the chamber then moved to debate that measure on the controversial calendar. The bill was described by supporters as clarifying how distances are measured for adult-use cannabis dispensaries near schools and houses of worship, with the sponsor saying it would create statewide consistency and provide clearer direction to the Office of Cannabis Management. Opponents argued it would weaken protections for children and churches, reward agency mistakes, and allow dispensaries to be sited closer to school property than intended. After extended debate, the Senate passed the bill 36-23. The cannabis debate centered on whether the bill merely clarifies legislative intent or substantively changes the law. Supporters said the current language left measurement methods undefined and that the bill would help legal dispensaries, reduce confusion, and push back illicit stores. Opponents said the original law already protected school grounds and houses of worship, and that the new language would allow dispensaries to abut school playgrounds, fields, or church-related property in some cases. Several senators also raised concerns about youth exposure, public consumption, local zoning, and the performance of the Office of Cannabis Management. After the vote, the Senate returned to the calendar and passed additional measures, including Calendar 121 (Public Authorities Law), Calendar 170 (Public Health Law), and Calendar 190 (Labor Law), each by comfortable margins. The chamber also adopted a resolution package honoring Burnt Hills-Ballston Lake High School’s boys cross country team and girls field hockey team for state championships, with Senator Tedisco introducing the guests. Later, the Senate passed Senate Print 6990A, the Civil Voice Law, which requires state agencies to conduct exit interviews for employees who resign or retire. Supporters said the bill would improve accountability, morale, and retention by standardizing a way to hear from departing workers. The bill received affirmative explanations of vote from Senator Jackson and others, and the Senate continued through the calendar after its passage.

Transcript Highlights:

• Chair voting no.
• Chair voting aye. Vice Chair voting no. Bauer Kahan, aye. Back can I and I.
• Lee, that measure has four votes. Lee, that measure has four votes. Great. Set it.
• Yes, not voting. Ellis not voting. Barakhan? Aye. Barakhan, aye. Castillo... Voting.
• Chair voting aye, Vice Chair voting no. Castillo, you are not voting before? I'm just checking.

Summary: The committee heard SB 404 on metal shredding facilities, SB 601 on water quality protections after the U.S. Supreme Court’s Sackett decision, SB 682 on phasing out PFOS in certain consumer products, and later SB 646 on prenatal vitamins and toxic metal contamination. SB 561 had been pulled from the hearing. In each of the measures, the authors and supporters emphasized environmental and public health protections, while opponents raised concerns about overregulation, implementation, and unintended economic impacts. The committee also spent time on the policy details of each bill, including how smaller operators would be treated under SB 404, how “nexus waters” would be defined under SB 601, and whether alternatives and testing standards were adequate under SB 682 and SB 646. For SB 404, Senator Caballero said the bill would create a permitting and enforcement framework for metal shredding facilities, with operational standards for fire prevention, stormwater, and releases of shredder residue, while supporters argued it would bring needed certainty to a critical recycling industry. Opponents, including small recyclers and community/environmental advocates, said the bill was either too broad or not strong enough, with some warning it would burden smaller facilities and others arguing it would fail to protect overburdened communities. The committee approved SB 404 on a due-pass-as-amended motion to Appropriations, with recorded support from the chair and some members and opposition from others. SB 601 sought to restore state-level protections for waters that lost federal Clean Water Act coverage after Sackett, using a “nexus waters” framework and revised enforcement provisions after amendments removed the private right of action. Supporters said California needed to preserve protections for seasonal streams and wetlands and avoid backsliding, while opponents from business, agriculture, water districts, and local governments argued the definition remained too broad and could create uncertainty, costs, and unintended consequences. The committee also approved SB 601 on a due-pass motion to Appropriations, again with split votes. SB 682, which the committee also advanced, would phase out intentionally added PFOS in six product categories, including cleaning products, cookware, dental floss, ski wax, food packaging, and juvenile products, with an amendment delaying cookware implementation until 2030. Supporters framed it as a source-control measure to reduce PFAS contamination and lower long-term water treatment costs, while manufacturers and cookware interests argued the bill was overbroad, lacked workable testing standards, and could push consumers and businesses toward uncertain alternatives. The committee chair recommended an aye vote, and the measure passed to Appropriations. SB 646 was then introduced on prenatal vitamins, with supporters saying it would require testing and disclosure of heavy metals like lead, arsenic, cadmium, and mercury, while the opposition said disclosure must be handled carefully so as not to confuse consumers or undermine confidence in prenatal supplements.

Transcript Highlights:

• Have all senators voted?
• Have all senators voted? Have all senators voted?
• Fifty of them raised taxes on our residents with the simple majority vote.
• The maximum millage rate determines what millage rate can be levied by a government with a majority vote
• vote.

Summary: The Senate took up Committee Substitute for Senate Joint Resolution 2F, a proposed constitutional amendment to expand homestead property tax relief, lower the assessment cap on non-homestead property from 10% to 5%, and limit county and municipal ad valorem tax revenues to specified uses. Senator Avila presented the measure as a major property tax reform intended to provide relief to homeowners and restrain local government spending, while opponents argued it would shift costs to fees, services, and state appropriations and could harm local budgets, public safety, schools, and other services. Several senators also raised concerns about the ballot language and the lack of a completed fiscal analysis. The chamber considered and rejected multiple amendments. Senator Sharif’s income-based “circuit breaker” amendment failed, as did Senator Smith’s sunset clause amendment and Senator Berman’s amendment to rewrite the ballot statement for greater accuracy. During questioning, Avila said the revised language was meant to preserve flexibility for local governments and that future legislatures could set implementing procedures and, if necessary, prohibit certain local expenditures by general law. He also confirmed that the proposal would not affect refinancing or portability, and said the measure would not prevent local governments from continuing to fund many services such as libraries, parks, animal control, code enforcement, mosquito control, public housing, county health departments, and elections. Debate on final passage was extensive. Supporters described the proposal as overdue relief for homeowners and a way to force local governments to prioritize spending, while critics called it a risky tax shift that could reduce local revenue by billions and force cuts or higher fees. Some senators emphasized concerns about public safety funding, mental health and social services, and the accuracy of the ballot summary; others argued the measure would give voters a chance to decide on property tax reform. After debate, the resolution was rolled over for third reading and the Senate continued discussion, but the transcript provided does not include a final vote on the joint resolution.

Transcript Highlights:

• Motion and a second, Patel, and our majority leader.
• And I thank you for your I vote. Thank you so much.
• And I thank you for your I vote. Thank you so much.
• I respectfully ask for your aye vote on Senate Bill 1309.
• We respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Summary: The Assembly Health Committee heard several bills focused on access to care, public health, and oversight. SB 989 would streamline Care Court referrals by allowing first responders to ask county behavioral health agencies to review and file petitions; supporters, including firefighters and mental health advocates, said it would reduce barriers, while opponents argued Care Court is coercive, costly, and not yet proven effective. SB 1089, as amended, would direct CalRx/HHS to help distribute GLP-1 medications more affordably; the author described personal experience with the drugs and supporters emphasized prevention and chronic disease management, while members asked about distribution, liability, and age limits. SB 1309 would eliminate cost sharing for medically necessary lung cancer follow-up care after abnormal screenings; cancer survivors and clinicians strongly supported it, while health plans and insurers opposed it, saying the bill could raise premiums and did not address low initial screening rates. The committee also heard SB 1284, which would require DHCS to publish an annual report identifying large employers with workers enrolled in Medi-Cal and estimating taxpayer costs; supporters framed it as transparency and corporate accountability, while the chair and others linked it to broader budget and fairness concerns. SCR 7, urging permanent standard time, was presented as a public health measure to reduce sleep disruption and related harms, and it passed with support from the California Medical Association. The committee also took up SB 995, which would create a statewide inspection and enforcement framework for large involuntary residential facilities, including private immigration detention centers and some youth facilities; supporters cited unsafe and inhumane conditions, while probation officials objected to overlap with existing oversight for secure youth treatment facilities. The committee approved the measures it heard, with roll calls showing SB 989, SB 1089, SB 1309, SB 1284, SCR 7, and SB 995 all advancing out of committee, along with consent items and add-on votes.

Transcript Highlights:

• Well, and this is the major problem with the bill.
• Please vote. Vote no on HB 232. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening.
• I ask you to please vote no on HB 232.
• or asking you to vote against this bill?
• They majored in...

Bills: HB232

Keywords: disaster recovery, natural disaster, weather disaster, emergency relief, flood relief, hurricane relief, storm damage, wildfire, tornado, hail, windstorm, extreme heat, ice storm, snowstorm, property damage, personal injury, temporary housing, relocation assistance, lost wages, state emergency management

Transcript Highlights:

• And again, many municipalities have had votes on Kino and voted no or have voted yes in some cases.
• Um, the vote failed twice with 80% of voters voting no.
• > no<01:15:09.520> or have had votes on Kino and voted no or have had votes on Kino and
• Voted again.
• The vote being 15 Voted again. Okay.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on Senate Bill 110, as amended by the Senate, which would establish fees for alteration-of-terrain applications and direct the Department of Environmental Services to adopt rules for a permit-by-notification process for certain projects. Trisha Milo introduced the bill for Senator Lang and noted that the department had worked on the amended language. Matt Mayberry of the New Hampshire Homebuilders Association said the industry strongly supported the bill, describing it as a public-private partnership that would speed review for developers without affecting local control, with builders paying the costs rather than taxpayers. Members focused heavily on how the bill’s fee structure and permit thresholds would work, especially for projects near shoreland, wetlands, and protected water bodies. Representative Opel raised concerns about whether the bill reduced review of habitat and shoreland impacts or shifted costs unfairly; Philip Trobridge of DES explained that the bill does not eliminate those reviews and that shoreland projects still receive greater scrutiny. He said the bill creates different tiers, with the permit-by-notification process applying to certain projects between 100,000 and 150,000 square feet that are not in protected shoreland, while larger or shoreland-affected projects remain under the standard review process. He also said the proposed fees were based on sustaining the program, covering added habitat and species review responsibilities, and keeping reviews efficient. Trobridge said the new fee structure would generate about $1.2 million in additional revenue and help fund additional staff and related program costs. He stated that the department had worked with the regulated community and believed the fees were fair and reasonable, though he acknowledged the bill’s wording was confusing and that the threshold could be revisited later if the new process works well. Members also discussed how the state process interacts with local approvals, and Trobridge said both state and local approvals are required before a project can begin. No vote or final action was taken in the portion of the meeting provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Not voting. Krell? Not voting. Michelle Rodriguez? No. Blanca Rubio? No. Schiavo? Not voting.
• Not voting. That bill has six votes. That vote has six no votes. Thank you, Ms. Ortega.
• It has six votes. Thank you, that bill has six votes.
• That's seven votes. The bill has seven votes. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good job.
• That has nine votes.

Keywords: 988, house, all