Video & Transcript Research : 'testimonies'
Page 233 of 500
AZ
Transcript Highlights:
- "Thank you for your journey and your testimony and your bravery. Thank you.
- Keith, thank you very much for your testimony.
- After 40 hours of testimony... Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair.
- After 40 hours of testimony and hearing and receiving evidence from hundreds of families who have been
- And I think at this point, if you haven't watched the 40 hours of testimony, please go back and examine
Bills:
SB1015, SB1049, SB1066, SB1081, SB1092, SB1133, SB1134, SB1139, SB1147, SB1148, SB1168, SB1189, SCR1001, SCR1002, SCR1005, SCR1010
Keywords:
gender transition, detransition, healthcare liability, medical malpractice, youth protection, legal action, Arizona law, spousal maintenance, court guidelines, self-sufficiency, financial support, marriage dissolution, child safety, dependency cases, attorney regulation, foster care, legal representation, probation, dangerous crimes, children
MN
Minnesota 2025 1st Special Session
House committee hears bill to ban pet store sales of cats and dogs, HF2627 4/1/25
Transcript Highlights:
- Swanson, please identify yourself for the record and begin your testimony.
- Swanson, please identify yourself for the record and begin your testimony.
- If you can identify yourself for the record and begin your testimony.
- and begin your testimony. and begin your testimony.
- their testimony their testimony today.<00:26:04.240>
And <00:26:04.480>I <00:26:04.640
MN
Minnesota 2025-2026 Regular Session
House Housing Finance and Policy Committee 3/24/26
Housing Finance and Policy
Transcript Highlights:
- That will >> Thank you for your testimony.
- Thank you for your testimony. With go. Thank you for your testimony.
- and his testimony goes to both bills. and his testimony goes to both bills.
- Please begin with your testimony. >> Um, thank you, Chair Igo.
- :13.840>
manufactured testimony, we've seen manufactured testimony, we've seen manufactured housing
Keywords:
HF4234, Minnesota private activity bonds, tax-exempt bonds, bond cap, aggregate bond limitation, residential rental projects, multifamily housing, affordable housing finance, housing bonds, public finance, bond allocation, private activity bond cap, Minnesota Statutes 474A.02, tax committee, natural gas, gas hookups, residential construction, energy policy, local control, state preemption
MN
Minnesota 2025-2026 Regular Session
House Agriculture Finance and Policy Committee 3/11/26
Agriculture Finance and Policy
Transcript Highlights:
- First >> Uh we're going to hear testimony.
- Um, so we might need to keep the testimony a little shorter.
- I encourage you to read the testimony in your packet.
- This bill has more pages of testimony This bill has more pages of testimony than<00:56:15.599>
- to read the testimony in your packet. to read the testimony in your packet.
Keywords:
pesticide, agriculture, environmental protection, health risks, chemical safety, local agriculture, insecticides, pollinators, seeds, environmental health, neonicotinoids, systemic insecticides, civil penalties, pest management, land trends, report, appropriation, farmers, veterinary medicine, veterinary technology
MN
Minnesota 2025-2026 Regular Session
House Transportation Finance and Policy Committee 3/9/26
Transportation Finance and Policy
Transcript Highlights:
- We'll hear be hearing some testimony We'll hear be hearing some testimony from<00:21:10.080>
- So, we can now move ahead and hear testimony from our testifiers.
- we can now move ahead and hear testimony we can now move ahead and hear testimony then<00:25:43.280
- If you could please introduce yourself and then proceed with your testimony.
- <01:21:08.440>
on living in, there there was testimony on living in, there there was testimony
Keywords:
veterans benefits, Secret War, Laos veterans, eligibility process, burial fees, veteran designation, electronic license, driver's license, digital credential, transportation, data privacy, authentication, license plates, vehicle registration, validation stickers, Minnesota statutes, transportation policy, aeronautics, transponder, aircraft safety
MN
MN
Minnesota 2025-2026 Regular Session
House State Government Finance and Policy Committee 2/13/25 - Part 1
State Government Finance and Policy
Transcript Highlights:
- My committee administrator will be timing your testimony because we have a relatively full agenda and
- Appreciate your testimony. Um, we're going to—we may have to jump around.
- gouty and proceed with your testimony gouty and proceed with your testimony keep<00:43:58.240>
- and some of the very heartfelt testimony and some of the very heartfelt testimony we<00:54:09.520
- Rigs, please be brief as we're doing our testimony.
NH
Transcript Highlights:
- So I think, um, perhaps there was a misunderstanding in my testimony.
- So I think, um, perhaps there was a misunderstanding in my testimony.
- So I think, um, perhaps there was a misunderstanding in my testimony.
- ago in the house there was testimony ago in the house there was testimony from<01:17:51.920>
- <02:03:08.320>
as questions and to provide testimony as questions and to provide testimony
WY
MA
Massachusetts 2025-2026 Regular Session
Joint Committee on Bonding, Capital Expenditures and State Assets Jun 21st, 2026 at 11:00 am
Joint Committee on Bonding, Capital Expenditures and State Assets
Transcript Highlights:
- Today, the committee is hearing testimony on H. 5279.
- Today, the committee is hearing testimony on H. 5279, An Act financing long-term improvements to municipal
- I'd ask everyone to keep their testimony to three minutes, and then everybody here in the committee room
- I'll begin my testimony today with the Chapter 90 program.
- That concludes our testimony for today's public hearing. Motion to adjourn. Motion to adjourn.
Summary:
The Joint Committee on Bonding, Capital Expenditures and State Assets held a public hearing on H. 5279, a bill financing long-term improvements to municipal roads and bridges. MassDOT and A&F testified in support, describing the bill as a more than $5 billion transportation bond package centered on a four-year, $1.2 billion Chapter 90 authorization, plus funding for MBTA rail reliability and modernization, housing-related transportation improvements, a new DCR/MassDOT PRISM program for parkways and other DCR assets, and reauthorizations of the Municipal Pavement Program, Shared Streets and Spaces, and highway programs. They said the bill would support safety, resilience, housing production, and multimodal transportation, and noted that some bonds could be issued as special obligation bonds backed by the Commonwealth Transportation Fund and Fair Share revenues.
Committee members asked about the size and structure of the authorizations, the federal match for highway projects, the source of MBTA vehicle procurement, bridge repair needs, and whether the housing-related funds could be used flexibly for items like sidewalks, bike lanes, bus stops, and other local transportation improvements. Administration witnesses said the bill is intended as a temporary refill of existing programs until a larger transportation bond bill is filed next session, that the federal-aid line includes the full spending authority while the state only borrows the 20% match, and that the housing-related program is deliberately broad and not limited to MBTA communities. They also said Chapter 90 includes a road-mile component that especially helps rural communities and that preservation and safety are built into the programs.
The Massachusetts Municipal Association also testified in strong support, emphasizing that Chapter 90 is the most important tool municipalities have to maintain the roughly 30,000 miles of local roads and bridges they are responsible for. MMA urged timely passage before construction season and praised the continued $300 million Chapter 90 level, especially the $100 million road-mile distribution that helps communities with large road networks and smaller populations. No votes were taken on the bill, and the hearing concluded with adjournment after testimony ended.
CA
California 2025-2026 Regular Session
Assembly Appropriations Committee May 13th, 2026
Appropriations
Transcript Highlights:
- Please note that any written testimony submitted to the committee is considered public comment and may
- Testimony on any such bill will be limited to a statement of name, organization, if any, and position
- The committee will allow no more than 40 minutes of testimony.
- Berrick, for your testimony and for being such a good Thank you, Mr.
- Barak, for your testimony and for being such a good constituent of mine.
NH
Transcript Highlights:
- Um, for House Bill 1384, we received zero testimony that this is a problem in New Hampshire.
- And um that the voluminous amount of testimony that was presented here should be able to fill the gaps
- And um that the voluminous amount of testimony that was presented here should be able to fill the gaps
- And um that the voluminous amount of testimony that was presented here should be able to fill the gaps
- And um that the voluminous amount of testimony that was presented here should be able to fill the gaps
MN
Minnesota 2025-2026 Regular Session
Targeting property tax refund program expansion 3/12/26
Minnesota House Floor Meeting
Transcript Highlights:
- Egger, uh, Paul Egger, please introduce yourself as you get started with your testimony.
- Um, my testimony is going to be extremely brief because Mr.
- Thank you for your testimony,<00:04:38.760>
Paul <00:04:39.000>Eger. - <00:04:39.280>
When <00:04:39.480>you're testimony, Paul Eger. - When you're testimony, Paul Eger.
CA
California 2025-2026 Regular Session
Assembly Water, Parks, and Wildlife Committee Mar 25th, 2025
Transcript Highlights:
- , this hearing will be streamed on the Assembly's website, and members of the public can provide testimony
- Website and members of the public can provide testimony in person here in Room 4444.
- Following the primary witnesses, remaining witnesses are asked just to limit their testimony to name,
- Are we having any testimony from one of the Marks? If that's all right, if you'll indulge me.
- The other Mark, I heard the testimony though. Good job. Good morning.
Summary:
The committee heard several water, parks, and wildlife bills. AB 764 would expand the list of exotic non-game birds that can be managed in California to better control mute swan populations; the author and California Waterfowl said swans are invasive, aggressive, and rapidly increasing, while no opposition testified. The bill passed to Appropriations. AB 616 would make the State Library Parks Pass program permanent by allowing state parks to transfer annual day-use passes to the State Library free of charge; supporters said it improves equitable access to parks, especially for low-income families, and the bill passed unanimously to Appropriations.
AB 293 would require groundwater sustainability agencies to post board membership and a link to Form 700 filings online. Supporters, including the Community Alliance with Family Farmers, argued it would improve transparency and public trust, while opponents said the requirement was redundant and could discourage service on GSA boards. The bill passed, but with some no votes. AB 639 would narrow the definition of dams so certain weirs used for irrigation would not be subject to dam regulations; the author and technical witnesses said the structures pose no safety risk and are already closely managed, while members urged the bill be narrowed further to the Kings River area. It passed as amended to Appropriations.
AB 679 would streamline land transfers for Big Basin Redwoods, Año Nuevo, and Butano State Parks by exempting those acquisitions from the Public Works Board process. Supporters said it would speed conservation and park rebuilding after the CZU fire, while one member opposed it over cost and broader state land-management concerns; it passed as amended. AB 454 would remove the sunset on the California Migratory Bird Protection Act, making state protections for migratory birds permanent after federal rollback concerns; it passed as amended to Appropriations. The committee also adopted its 2025-26 rules and approved the consent calendar, and the meeting adjourned after add-on votes were taken for absent members.
CA
California 2025-2026 Regular Session
Assembly Appropriations Committee Mar 19th, 2025
Transcript Highlights:
- We encourage the public to provide written testimony before the hearing by visiting the committee website
- Please note that any written testimony submitted to the committee is considered public comment, and may
- Please note that any written testimony submitted to the committee is considered public comment and may
- Testimony on any such bill will be limited to a statement of name, organization, if any, and position
- The committee will allow no more than 40 minutes of testimony in total.
Summary:
The Assembly Appropriations Committee met on March 19, 2025, adopted its committee rules unanimously, and then heard a series of housing, insurance, and disaster-recovery bills. Early bills focused on wildfire relief and insurance issues, including AB 238 on mortgage forbearance for Los Angeles County wildfire survivors, AB 493 on insurance payout interest for homeowners, AB 597 on consumer protections after disasters, and AB 226 on strengthening the California FAIR Plan’s liquidity tools. Supporters generally framed these measures as necessary protections for disaster survivors and market stability, while opponents and concerned witnesses raised issues such as investor guidelines, compliance conflicts, and market disruption. Several members also noted equity concerns and the need to balance relief with consistency across the state.
The committee also heard a cluster of housing-production bills. AB 306 proposed a six-year pause on new state building code updates affecting residential construction and limits on local code modifications, drawing strong support from housing and building industry groups who argued it would reduce costs and improve predictability. It also drew opposition from code, environmental, and clean-energy advocates, who warned about safety, local control, and the loss of important code updates. AB 253 would allow licensed third-party professionals to perform plan checks if local review takes 30 days or more, and AB 301 would impose state-agency permitting timelines similar to those already applied to local governments; both were presented as ways to reduce delays and speed housing development. AB 462 would exempt ADU construction from coastal development permit requirements in Los Angeles County, especially to aid fire recovery and expand housing supply.
After hearing testimony and brief member discussion on each measure, the committee placed the bills on suspense or advanced them as appropriate. In the suspense hearing at the end of the meeting, the committee took up the suspense-file bills and reported AB 226, AB 238, AB 301, and AB 306 out with due pass recommendations on roll call votes. The meeting then adjourned.
NM
New Mexico 2025 Regular Session
Senate - Tax, Business and Transportation Mar 18th, 2025
Senate Tax, Business & Transportation
Transcript Highlights:
- 553, the timber Grading Act, from the consent calendar so that there can be discussion and public testimony
- audience and just a reminder Representative that um you will have 5 minutes to respond to public testimony
- Uh, so if you will, Jackson, go ahead and unmute yourself and go ahead and give your testimony.
- Chairman, would you like to respond to any of the public testimony that was given?
- Since we are back in the bill, I will give a chance for there to be a public testimony and discussion
MN
Minnesota 2025 1st Special Session
House workforce panel considers HF661 2/25/25
Minnesota House Floor Meeting
Transcript Highlights:
- File 661, if you want to move to the testifying table, I'm chair, I'm going to try to have recorded testimony
- I'm going to try to have recorded testimony. Okay, so I'm going to try to hook up the L.
- So thank you for your testimony today. house file 661 forward uh as amended we house file 661 forward
- /c><00:16:06.519>
you <00:16:06.600>for <00:16:06.759>your <00:16:06.959>testimony - bill so thank you for your testimony bill so thank you for your testimony today
CA
California 2025-2026 Regular Session
Assembly Human Services Committee Jun 30th, 2026
Human Services
Transcript Highlights:
- Please note that we limit testimony to two witnesses in support and two witnesses in opposition.
- According to testimony shared at that... ...to ignite the fire.
- First of all, thank you very much for your testimony.
- Thank you very much to all three of you for your testimony. Digging in.
- Thank you very much to all three of you for your testimony.
FL
Florida 2026 Regular Session
FL House Floor Session - 2026-04-29 (10:00AM Session)
Florida House Floor Meeting
Transcript Highlights:
- That was their testimony, and that is all the information I have. Additional questions.
- That was their testimony, and that is all the information I have. Additional questions.
- That is the testimony of the governor's office. Senator Davis: Thank you, Mr. President.
- And that is the governor's testimony. Senator Davis. Thank you, Mr.
- We've had a good discussion about that, but we also have testimony, testimony that I've referred to before
Summary:
The Senate convened in special session with an opening prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance, then moved to the special order calendar to consider congressional redistricting legislation, beginning with Senate Bill 8D and then substituting the identical House Bill 1D. The bill would establish Florida’s congressional districts. Senator Gaetz, presenting the measure, said the Governor had proposed the map to address population growth and to draw race-neutral districts, and argued that mid-decade redistricting is legally permissible and has occurred before in Florida and other states. He repeatedly said the Legislature could accept, reject, or amend the proposal, but that the Governor had the prerogative to propose it.
The floor debate focused heavily on the legality and timing of the map, especially after the U.S. Supreme Court’s Louisiana redistricting decision was announced during the session. Several senators, including Rouson, Sharief, Smith, Polsky, Arrington, Bracy Davis, Bernard, Nathan, and Berman, questioned whether the map complied with the Florida Constitution’s Fair Districts Amendment, the Voting Rights Act, and equal protection principles. They raised concerns about the short notice, lack of statewide public hearings, the use of partisan data, the absence of sworn testimony from the Governor’s representatives, the claimed severability of the Fair Districts Amendment, and the impact on minority communities and communities of interest. Gaetz generally declined to offer legal opinions, saying those issues would ultimately be for the courts, but he relayed the Governor’s position that race-based provisions in the Fair Districts Amendment are unconstitutional and that the proposed map is race-neutral and compact.
Members also debated whether the map’s population data and compactness scores justified the district lines, with critics arguing that the plan cracked and split communities in places such as Central Florida, Tampa Bay, and South Florida. Gaetz said the Governor’s office relied on 2020 census data plus updated population estimates from the Office of Economic and Demographic Research and the American Community Survey, and that the mapmaker said he drew the map himself without outside consultants. After questions concluded, the Senate adopted a motion to substitute HB 1D for SB 8D, read the bill a third time, and proceeded to debate the House bill. The transcript ends during debate, with no final vote on passage shown.
FL
Florida 2026 5th Special Session
FL House Floor Session - 2026-04-29 (10:00AM Session)
Florida House Floor Meeting
Transcript Highlights:
- That was their testimony, and that is all the information I have.
- That was their testimony, and that is all the information I have. Additional questions.
- That is the testimony of the governor's office. Senator Davis. Thank you, Mr. President.
- And that is the governor's testimony. Senator Davis. Thank you, Mr.
- We've had a good discussion about that, but we also have testimony—testimony that I've referred to before
Summary:
The Senate convened in special session and took up Senate Bill 8D / House Bill 1D, which would establish Florida’s congressional districts. The sponsor, Sen. Gates, explained that the Governor had transmitted a redistricting plan two days earlier and argued that mid-decade redistricting is legally permissible, citing population growth and the Governor’s view that race-based districting is unconstitutional. Much of the floor time was spent in extended questioning about the process, the lack of public hearings compared with prior redistricting cycles, the use of population estimates from the Census/EDR/ACS, compactness scores, and whether the Governor’s office used partisan data or outside consultants. Gates repeatedly said he was relaying the Governor’s proposal and legal theory rather than offering his own legal opinion, and he said any constitutional challenge would be for the courts.
A major portion of the debate focused on the U.S. Supreme Court’s newly issued Calais decision and its implications for the Fair Districts Amendment and the Voting Rights Act. Senators questioned whether the decision struck down Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, whether it affected Florida’s constitutional ban on partisan gerrymandering, and whether the Legislature should postpone action to review the ruling. A motion to temporarily postpone the bill failed by voice vote and then by recorded vote, 12 yeas to 23 nays. Senators also raised concerns that the proposed map cracked minority communities, including Latino and Black populations in Central Florida and Tampa Bay, and that it would produce a heavily Republican-leaning map despite the state’s voter registration mix.
After debate on the Senate bill, the chamber substituted the identical House companion bill, read it a third time, and proceeded to final debate. Opponents argued the map was an illegal partisan gerrymander, was based on assumptions rather than verified data, and would likely lead to litigation. Supporters maintained that the Governor had authority to propose a congressional map, that the plan was race-neutral, and that the Legislature could accept, reject, or amend it. The transcript ends during continued debate on House Bill 1D, with no final vote shown in the excerpt.