Video & Transcript Research : 'testimony'
Page 171 of 500
WY
Wyoming 2026 Regular Session
Senate Corporations, Elections & Political Subdivisions Committee, February 16, 2026
Corporations, Elections & Political Subdivisions
Transcript Highlights:
- Merch, we thank you for your testimony. Let's hear other testimony.
- <00:29:03.120>
today, we could hear all the testimony today, we could hear all the testimony - Let's we thank you for your testimony.
- Anybody else in the room have testimony? Anybody else in the room have testimony?
- testimony. What is your pleasure? testimony. What is your pleasure?
NH
New Hampshire 2025 Regular Session
Senate Energy and Natural Resources (04/03/2025)
Energy and Natural Resources
MN
Minnesota 2025-2026 Regular Session
Committee on Environment, Climate and Legacy - 03/25/25
Environment, Climate, and Legacy
Transcript Highlights:
- <00:19:48.960>
Fantastic ahead with your testimony. Fantastic ahead with your testimony. - Thank you very much for your testimony Thank you very much for your testimony and<00:40:20.320><
- ahead with your testimony. ahead with your testimony.
- Go ahead with your testimony.
- proceed with your testimony. proceed with your testimony.
KY
Kentucky 2025 Regular Session
House Standing Committee on Health Services (3-12-25)
Transcript Highlights:
- Goldberg and of course Adair Weishar for their testimonies. First of all, on behalf of Dr.
- Adair Weishar for their testimonies. Adair Weishar for their testimonies.
- And I have to say my questions shifted continuously during the testimony.
- So, what I heard at the testimony much.
- testimony today about imperfect bills. testimony today about imperfect bills.
Keywords:
00:00:00 Call to Order/Roll Call
00:01:10 Discussion of 25RS HB 414
00:44:26 Roll Call Vote on 25RS HB 414
00:50:25 Discussion of 25RS SB 27
00:53:44 Roll Call Vote on 25RS SB 27
00:55:49 Discussion of 25RS SB 93
00:57:57 Roll Call Vote on 25RS SB 93
00:59:29 Discussion of 25RS SB 132
01:37:39 Roll Call Vote on 25RS SB 132
01:40:55 Discussion of 25RS SB 153
01:42:05 Roll Call Vote on 25RS SB 153
01:43:46 Adjournment, 958, all
Summary:
The Health Services Committee met with a quorum and took up House Bill 414 with a committee substitute. The bill, described by sponsors and supporters as a continuation of prior maternal-health legislation, was framed as a clarification of medical standards and an effort to improve care for women and families facing complicated pregnancies. Representative Tate, Representative Nemes, Adair Wushar of Kentucky Right to Life, and Dr. Jeff Goldberg of ACOG Kentucky all testified in support, saying the substitute was developed collaboratively to reduce confusion in the law and help physicians provide evidence-based care without fear of criminal penalties.
Supporters said the committee substitute was intended to define what is not an abortion under Kentucky law and to spell out medical treatments for conditions such as miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy, molar pregnancy, sepsis, hemorrhage, preeclampsia, premature rupture of membranes, and fetal demise. Dr. Goldberg said current statutes contain significant ambiguity and have created unintended barriers to treating pregnancy complications, including emergency situations, and he gave examples of patients who were delayed or harmed because physicians were uncertain about what the law allowed. Representative Nemes said the measure was the result of unusual cooperation among groups that do not usually agree and described it as a first step toward fixing a discrete problem.
Representative Wilner raised concerns that the language could effectively require a patient to be in severe distress before treatment is clearly permitted and that it was too prescriptive about how physicians should manage miscarriages. In response, Dr. Goldberg and the sponsors said the substitute was not perfect, was meant as a short-term solution, and was designed to give doctors more confidence in providing routine, medically necessary care for pregnancy complications. The transcript indicates the committee substitute was adopted, but no final vote on the bill itself is shown in the excerpt.
NH
New Hampshire 2025 Regular Session
House State-Federal Relations and Veterans Affairs (01/24/2025)
State-federal Relations and Veterans Affairs
Transcript Highlights:
- your testimony your testimony today<00:08:08.240>
seeing <00:08:08.639>no <00:08:08.919 - "Thank you for your testimony."
- "Thank you for your testimony."
- even given your testimony.
- testimony here uh the one question that testimony here uh the one question that I<01:50:58.440>
did
NV
Nevada 2025 Regular Session
Senate Committee on Government Affairs May 30th, 2025 at 03:30 pm
Government Affairs
Transcript Highlights:
- We will go to the phone line for support testimony for Assembly Bill 442.
- Oh, you are coming for neutral testimony? Oh, sorry. Neutral testimony, please.
- We'll go back to neutral testimony for Assembly Bill 462.
- Anybody else wishing to come forward in the neutral testimony? Thank you.
- Anybody else wishing to come forward in the neutral testimony?
NH
New Hampshire 2025 Regular Session
Senate Health and Human Services (04/16/2025)
Health and Human Services
Transcript Highlights:
- So, we're going to be limiting testimony to three minutes this morning.
- Go ahead. you're here to read testimony, um if you're here to read testimony, um if you'd<00:08:33.200
- So, do you like you for your testimony.
- NHMA opposes testimony already provided.
- And with that, I'll end my testimony. And with that, I'll end my testimony.
NH
New Hampshire 2025 Regular Session
House Science, Technology and Energy (04/14/2025)
Science, Technology and Energy
Transcript Highlights:
- have a lot of testimony to get to today. have a lot of testimony to get to today.
- >
has testimony. - here today and probably the testimony here today and probably the testimony<04:46:44.798>
of < - That is my testimony. I'm happy project. That is my testimony.
- Appreciate your testimony.
NH
New Hampshire 2025 Regular Session
House Science, Technology and Energy (02/18/2025)
Science, Technology and Energy
Transcript Highlights:
- I've learned through testimony tonight I've learned through testimony tonight today<01:09:18.239>
- and that's that's my testimony and that's that's my testimony thanks<01:17:19.679>
thank < - <02:13:29.840>
here uh language uh Supply the testimony here uh language uh Supply the testimony - I appreciate that testimony.
- <04:20:40.159>
on markets to change we heard testimony on markets to change we heard testimony
WY
Transcript Highlights:
- <03:02:31.120>
about <03:02:31.600>specific testimony that tells us about specific testimony - And there's testimony that project done.
- Martinez, for your testimony. Nice Mr. Martinez, for your testimony.
- <03:36:25.439>
in well, I understand through testimony in well, I understand through testimony - So, fast testimony. Be back at 1:30.
NH
New Hampshire 2025 Regular Session
House Education Policy and Administration (02/03/2025)
Transcript Highlights:
- Would I heard testimony about a MOU template? Yes.
- I want to apologize in advance if my testimony doesn't follow protocol.
- You can see my complete remarks in my written testimony.
- limit um of 3 minutes on testimony limit um of 3 minutes on testimony now<02:03:53.400>
just< - <02:29:54.080>
I um as you'll see in in my testimony I um as you'll see in in my testimony
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.
AZ
Arizona 2026 Regular Session
06/02/2026 - Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Elder Abuse
Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Elder Abuse
Transcript Highlights:
- You can use names in this place because this is Senate testimony.
- You can use names in this place because this is Senate testimony.
- And unfortunately, I'm not here to give expert testimony.
- I appreciate your testimony. Okay, we got two more people.
- I appreciate your testimony. Okay, we got two more people.
Summary:
The Senate Ad Hoc Committee on Elder Abuse opened by explaining it was gathering testimony on elder abuse, especially alleged misconduct involving court-appointed systems such as guardians ad litem and fiduciaries, to identify gaps in law and oversight and develop legislative fixes. The chair limited each witness’s time, asked for names and contact information for follow-up, and repeatedly noted that some allegations might warrant referral to law enforcement, the attorney general, or county attorneys if basic criminal elements were present.
Several witnesses described alleged abuse in guardianship, conservatorship, and fiduciary cases. Dr. Holly Lauder said her mother, who had Alzheimer’s disease, was subjected to allegedly deficient psychological capacity evaluations that ignored treating doctors and family input, leading to a fiduciary arrangement that later resulted in neglect. Kevin Axson described his mother’s probate case, saying a guardian ad litem and conservator were appointed after a family financial dispute, that the guardian ad litem and fiduciary had little contact with his mother, and that the estate was burdened with substantial fees and a $200,000 bond requirement. Frieda Alvarado testified about a 94-year-old client, Samuel Armento, saying he was isolated, medicated without his request, and treated without dignity after a fiduciary and care team took control. Bill Chalmers, Johnny Hamilton, and Kathy Hamilton also testified about Sam Armento’s case, alleging isolation, excessive fees, conflicts of interest, and poor oversight by fiduciaries and caregivers.
Other witnesses raised broader concerns about Arizona probate practices. David Redkey said he has been under a long-running conservatorship despite earning degrees and maintaining capacity, and alleged that court-appointed professionals and fiduciaries overcharged his estate and blocked efforts to terminate the arrangement. Susan Wolfe described the Peyton case, alleging that a wife’s conservatorship and related court actions led to the loss of assets, exclusion of witnesses, and large fees for a relatively small monthly care bill. Dr. Lewis Heller, an OB-GYN and disciplinary committee member, said the medical evaluations he reviewed showed the people involved were competent and that the conduct he observed was unethical and possibly criminal. Renee Self testified that she lost her role as trustee and spent large sums defending her father’s estate, alleging that the probate process stripped her father of assets and limited her access to him despite APS findings that her actions were in his best interests.
No formal committee votes or legislative actions were taken in the excerpt, but members repeatedly expressed concern, asked for documents and transcripts, and indicated they would follow up with witnesses and consider stakeholder meetings to craft legislation addressing oversight, transparency, and accountability in guardianship and fiduciary systems.
HI
Hawaii 2026 Regular Session
JDC, JDC DEFER Public Hearings 03-20-2026
Transcript Highlights:
- We do have a two-minute time limit on testimony.
- Often members will ask questions, so if you can hang around after your testimony, that would be great
- >> Um, we submitted written testimony, but >> Um, we submitted written testimony, but I<00
- We submitted written testimony in support of this. >> Okay. Thank you.
- written testimony in support of this. written testimony in support of this.
Summary:
The Judiciary Committee first considered Governor’s Message 574, confirming Michael Tenoi to continue serving on the Commission to Promote Uniform Legislation through June 30, 2028. Several supporters testified, and Tenoi said he valued working with Hawaii and national commissioners and hoped to focus on emerging issues such as artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, and data security. The committee recommended advise and consent and adopted the measure, with a photo taken afterward.
The committee then heard HB 1519 on campaign contributions, which would require disclosure of compensated officers and immediate family members of certain state contractors and grantees. The Campaign Spending Commission and State Procurement Office supported the bill but asked for clarifying amendments; several advocacy groups supported the measure but urged stronger language, including removing branch-of-government limits and narrowing loopholes. The chair proposed amendments to remove monetary thresholds, limit the bill to paid officers, add appropriations for the Campaign Spending Commission and State Procurement Office, define “officer” more broadly, and note that false-name contributions are already felonies. The committee voted to pass HB 1519 with amendments.
HB 2250, the claims against the state bill, drew testimony from the Attorney General and multiple departments in support, but members raised extensive questions about why many claims would be paid from the general fund, how corrective action is being pursued, and the handling of several specific claims, including wrongful imprisonment, a cesspool citation, Department of Corrections deaths, a large special education settlement, a charter school lease dispute, and an outdated check. Because of those outstanding questions, the committee postponed decision-making on HB 2250 until Tuesday, March 24, at 10:30 a.m. in Room 016. Later, the committee also considered Governor’s Message 725, confirming Daniel M. Gluck as an associate judge of the Intermediate Court of Appeals; the committee recommended consent and adopted the measure.
MN
Minnesota 2025-2026 Regular Session
Utility executive compensation 3/17/26
Minnesota House Floor Meeting
Transcript Highlights:
- I have provided<00:09:59.519>
expert <00:10:00.000>testimony <00:10:00.560>in <00 - testimony in two recent Minnesota<00:10:02.000>
rate <00:10:02.320>cases, <00:10:02.959 - My testimony will be brief here." mind uh some equity concerns. Um so mind uh some equity concerns.
- to provide testimony and can answer<00:20:53.679>
any <00:20:54.000>questions. - You heard in his testimony making.
Summary:
The committee heard House File 76, as amended by the adopted A1 amendment, and the chair moved the bill to be re-referred to the general register. The bill would limit the amount investor-owned utilities can charge ratepayers for executive compensation, capping recoverable pay for the top 10 executives at the governor’s salary. Representative Greenman argued the measure would protect customers from paying for lavish executive pay and said it would not affect what executives are paid, only what can be recovered from ratepayers. She cited recent Public Utilities Commission action and ongoing rate cases as evidence the issue is real and recurring.
Supportive testimony came from a Minneapolis resident describing financial hardship and rising utility bills, a local worker who said customers have no choice of utility provider and should not fund monopoly executive pay, and advocates from the Energy and Policy Institute and Utility Reform Now, who said ratepayers should not subsidize excessive compensation and that the bill is a targeted reform. Xcel Energy and CenterPoint Energy opposed the bill’s premise by defending the current regulatory process. Their representatives said the PUC already reviews executive compensation in rate cases, generally allows only limited recovery, and has used that process for decades. Xcel also emphasized its affordability programs and said executives help secure savings and investments for customers.
Members discussed whether the legislature should set a bright-line rule or leave the issue to the PUC. Representative Greenman said the bill is needed because the PUC process can take years and the legislature should establish a clear standard for all investor-owned utilities. Some members supported the bill as a response to an affordability crisis and the lack of consumer choice, while others said the legislature should focus on broader energy-cost issues and existing regulatory tools. The committee did not take a final vote on the bill in the portion of the meeting provided, but the amendment was adopted and the bill was moved for re-referral to the general register.
MO
Missouri 2026 Regular Session
Elementary and Secondary Education Jan 15th, 2026
Elementary and Secondary Education
NH
New Hampshire 2025 Regular Session
Committee to Study Long-Term Managed Care (09/24/2025)
Transcript Highlights:
- I think the question that was raised during testimony is if we change from to a managed care system,
- I think the question that was raised during testimony is if we change from to a managed care system,
- I think the question that was raised<00:12:21.519>
during <00:12:21.839>testimony <00:12 - is if we change raised during testimony is if we change from<00:12:24.399>
to <00:12:24.639>- So I think that what we heard in testimony from the county, Hillsborough County in particular, and I
Summary:
The Committee to Study Long-Term Managed Care approved the prior meeting minutes as amended after correcting the first paragraph. The chair then outlined the committee’s plan to produce a preliminary report by October 1, with additional meetings to follow, since some questions remain about the federal One Big Beautiful Bill (OB3) and its effects on Medicaid financing and managed care.
The main discussion focused on New Hampshire nursing home funding and how ProShare and MQUIP work. Members reviewed Medicaid rates, supplemental payments, intergovernmental transfers, and the role of federal matching funds. The chair and Mr. Litman concluded that OB3’s phase-down of payments above the Medicare rate likely would not directly eliminate ProShare or MQUIP in New Hampshire, but uncertainty remains about intergovernmental transfers and about how these payments would function if the state moved nursing facilities into managed care. Mr. Litman said managed care would likely require waivers for supplemental payments, and Texas was cited as an example of a state operating under such waivers.
The committee also discussed dual eligibles, DNIP, PACE, and the possibility of carving out HCBS from nursing facility services. DHS said its managed care contract would allow the state to use MCOs for DNIP, with the goal of better coordination between Medicaid and Medicare, while PACE would likely require more study and might be more feasible in populated counties. Members also reviewed OB3’s new presumptive eligibility provisions and a state waiver request modeled on Washington’s approach, plus a separate grant for transitioning people from facilities back to the community. The rural health transformation fund was discussed as a possible source for workforce, telehealth, mobile integrated health, and other support investments, but not for direct construction or major building renovation. County representatives emphasized that any county role in PACE or DNIP would require significant vetting, infrastructure, capital investment, and a realistic timeline. The meeting ended with the chair saying the draft report would outline issues and possible alternatives, but not recommendations yet, and the committee adjourned without taking further action.
TX
Transcript Highlights:
- We will reopen public testimony.
- We will reopen public testimony.
- Chair Kolkhorst, members, thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony today.
- Thank you for your testimony.
- Hearing none, public testimony is closed. I believe Ms. Powell is not here.
Bills:
HB18, HB37, HB 116, HB388, HB879, HB913, HB 1151, HB2216, HB2358, HB2809, SB577, SB1590, SB1782, SB1887, SB2744
Keywords:
rural health, hospital funding, healthcare access, mental health services, financial stability, perinatal bereavement, healthcare, hospital training, bereavement support, maternal care, fetal demise, stillbirth, neonatal death, parent-child relationship, involuntary termination, family law, child welfare, child protection, HB 388, HB388
Summary:
The committee first reopened testimony on House Bill 2216, which would strengthen child welfare requirements by expanding “active efforts” to help families avoid removal and support reunification, while also raising standards related to removals and terminations. Supporters from child welfare and family defense groups said the bill would better protect families and align Texas more closely with ICWA-style principles, but several warned it would require significant new funding, staffing, and community services such as mental health care, housing, child care, and substance use treatment. The committee then left HB 2216 pending.
The committee next heard Senate Bill 1782, aimed at boarding and group homes. Senator Miles said the bill closes enforcement gaps left by prior law by requiring retention of background-check records and creating misdemeanor penalties for failing to conduct or keep them, or for knowingly hiring people with serious convictions. Harris County sheriff’s investigators testified in support, describing illegal boarding homes, operators who evade permits and background checks, and exploitation of vulnerable residents; the bill was left pending. The committee also took up Senate Bill 481 on emergency preparedness for nursing facilities and assisted living facilities, adopted a new committee substitute that softened some requirements and removed the fiscal note, and left the bill pending.
The committee then heard House Bill 388, which would require the Texas Department of Insurance to create a single standardized coordination-of-benefits form for dual health plans to reduce errors and surprise bills; it was left pending. Senate Bill 1590 would move paternity registry searches for adoptions to an electronic process with a 10-day target, and House Bill 2809 would track child suicide attempts in managing conservatorship and require related reporting and parental notice; both were left pending. The committee also heard Senate Bill 1887, which would prohibit administering mRNA-containing products for immunization for 10 years, with exceptions for cancer and genetic disorders. Supporters argued the bill was needed for safety, informed consent, and medical freedom, while opponents from the medical, research, and public health communities said mRNA vaccines are well-studied, save lives, and that the bill would harm access, research, and Texas’s biotech economy. The bill remained under discussion as testimony concluded.
MN
Transcript Highlights:
- Thank you for your testimony. Thank you. Thank you.
- Thank you for your testimony. time. Thank you for your testimony. Thank<00:04:57.840>
you. - Thank you very much for your testimony.
- Thank you for your testimony.
- Thank you for your testimony. bill. Thank you for your testimony.
TX
Transcript Highlights:
- Also, please limit your testimony to 3 minutes and avoid repeating any testimony that has already been
- Following their testimony, any questions, I'd like to reserve my right to close.
- Thank you for your testimony. Thank you. Cheer calls Margaret Summereve. Good morning.
- That's my testimony. Any questions? Any questions? Chair recognizes the chair of the suit.
- Appreciate your testimony. OK.
MN
Minnesota 2025-2026 Regular Session
House Veterans and Military Affairs Division 3/5/25
Veterans and Military Affairs Division
Transcript Highlights:
- Chair, and please begin your testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
- <00:09:10.480>
uh your name and begin your testimony uh your name and begin your testimony - Kerr, would you like to state your name and begin your testimony?
- Are there any other testimonies?
- Please begin your testimony. Thank you, Madam Chair and committee. This is a very easy bill.