Video & Transcript Research : 'vote tabulation'

Page 23 of 500
KY
Transcript Highlights:
  • Chair Willner votes aye, sir.
  • Senator Yates chair Willer I vote I sir Senator Yates chair Willer I vote I sir the<00:02:16.080>
  • Senator Girdler, uh, explain my yes vote, please.
  • Yes, sir. role Senator Boswell I'm G vote in favor role Senator Boswell I'm G vote in favor of<00:06:
  • Chair Willner, I vote aye.
Summary: The Standing Committee on Economic Development, Labor, and Tourism met with a quorum and first considered House Bill 114, sponsored by Representative Truett. He explained that the bill clarifies the recreational use statute by expressly adding rock climbing, bouldering, and rappelling, removing liability for landowners who give permission for those activities on their property. After no questions, the committee voted unanimously in favor and reported the bill to the floor with a favorable expression. The committee then took up House Bill 808, sponsored by Representative Ken Upchurch, which would establish the Burnside Island Development Authority to promote recreation and tourism at General Burnside Island State Park in Pulaski County. Testimony described the authority as a public-private partnership entity that could develop lodging, restaurant, and recreational facilities, with potential for significant tourism and economic development. Members asked about expected economic impact and how revenues would be used; witnesses said direct fees would go back to the authority for the bill’s purposes, and referenced a feasibility study suggesting substantial private investment and indirect tax benefits. Several senators expressed support but also raised questions about whether the proposal had been fully reviewed by Appropriations and Revenue and about the governor’s potential response. The committee ultimately voted to report House Bill 808 favorably to the floor, with Senator Boswell requesting his vote be recorded. The meeting then moved toward adjournment.
KY
Transcript Highlights:
  • more we do have to move on to a vote more we do have to move on to a vote uh<00:26:54.720> let
  • May I explain my vote? Chair: Yes, go right ahead.
  • So I wish he'd been nicer to me, but I'll still vote yes.
  • So I wish he'd been nicer to me, but I'll still vote yes.
  • Representative Stalker: May I briefly explain my vote?
Summary: The House Agriculture Committee met briefly and took up Senate Bill 69, a measure creating a certification path for non-veterinarians who perform equine dental work, especially floating teeth. Sponsor Sen. Robin Webb and supporters said the bill was the product of about two years of open meetings and stakeholder discussions, and that it would provide accountability, insurance access, and a way to grandfather in long-time practitioners with additional training. They framed it as a rural access and affordability issue, arguing that many horse owners, especially in remote areas, cannot easily reach or afford large-animal veterinarians and that the bill would preserve a long-standing husbandry practice while setting limits so certified providers could not perform surgery. Opposition came from equine veterinarians Dr. Brad Tanner and Dr. William Rainbow, who agreed there is a shortage of large-animal veterinarians and that floating teeth is necessary, but argued the bill’s scope goes beyond simple husbandry. They said the proposed authority would include procedures such as tooth removal and other work they consider surgery, which should remain within veterinary practice because of the need for sedation, pain management, and broader oral and physical exams. They also objected to the title “equine dental provider,” saying it could mislead owners into thinking the person has dentist-like training, and suggested a term like “equine teeth floater” would be clearer. Tanner cited a KVMA survey he said showed only 14 of 214 respondents supported indirect veterinary supervision in the bill. Members asked about continuing education, the “good moral character” licensing language, and whether people with past criminal records could be excluded. Supporters said continuing education would be required through certification programs and that character determinations would be handled case by case, with reference to broader second-chance licensing efforts moving through the legislature. Rep. Stalker asked for clearer terminology and educational guidance for consumers; the witnesses reiterated that the public should understand the difference between floating teeth and a full dental exam. After discussion, the committee moved to a roll call vote on the bill, but the transcript cuts off before the final vote result is fully shown.
KY
Transcript Highlights:
  • President, before we vote on the bill, I want to give you an opportunity to say a few words. funky fomer
  • Um, I do want to... ...we do have a motion on the bill, but before we vote on it, I do want to let you
  • <00:08:14.319> but<00:08:14.479> before<00:08:14.680> we<00:08:14.840> vote
Summary: The committee met with a quorum, approved the minutes from the February 12 meeting, and then took up its only agenda item, Senate Bill 87. A committee substitute was adopted before testimony. Senator Shelley Funke Frommeyer presented the bill with representatives from CVG, describing it as an efficiency measure for Kentucky’s aviation sector. The bill’s main provisions would streamline procurement rules for Kentucky’s three largest commercial airports by tying the acquisition threshold to the FAA’s simplified acquisition threshold, which adjusts with inflation. Testimony also explained that the bill directs the Council on Postsecondary Education and the Transportation Cabinet to study workforce needs in aviation, especially the shortage of air traffic controllers, and to examine ways Kentucky postsecondary institutions could help create a path to additional training and possibly a second site for final credentialing. Committee members and the Senate President spoke in support of the bill’s workforce and aviation goals. The President said CPE should be doing this kind of planning without needing extra funding, and noted the bill fits CPE’s coordinating role. The chair announced the fiscal note on the underlying bill showed no impact, though it may change with the substitute. The committee then voted to report Senate Bill 87 favorably with the committee substitute attached, and adjourned after no further business.
AZ

Arizona 2026 Regular Session

03/11/2026 - House Ways & Means

Ways & Means

Transcript Highlights:
  • This bill will go to the voters to vote upon. Mr.
  • Chairman, Max made my vote yes, please. Mr.
  • I disagree with that and I vote aye.
  • And for those reasons, I vote aye.
  • Members, I vote aye.
Bills: SB1142, SCR1028
Summary: The House Ways and Means Committee heard Senate Concurrent Resolution 1028, which would send to voters a constitutional change narrowing an existing exception to Arizona’s two-thirds vote requirement for tax increases. The resolution would require legislative approval for increases in state revenue through fees and assessments that are authorized by statute before January 1, 2027, and set by a state officer or agency without a prescribed formula, amount, or limit. The sponsor argued the measure would close a loophole that has allowed agencies to raise fees without direct legislative accountability, while opponents said it would make it harder for agencies to adjust fees for inflation, operations, and regulatory costs and could shift costs to taxpayers or slow services. After testimony and debate, the committee voted 5-3 with one absent to return SCR 1028 with a due pass recommendation. The committee then took up Senate Bill 1142, which would have Arizona opt into a federal tax credit program for donations to scholarship-granting organizations. Supporters said the measure would bring new private scholarship funding into Arizona at no cost to the state, expand school choice, and help students with tutoring, special needs services, transportation, and other educational expenses. Opponents argued the federal program was not yet fully written, lacked clear guardrails, and could further strain public schools by diverting resources away from the majority of students who remain in the public system. Committee members debated whether the program would benefit Arizona students without affecting state funds, and whether more transparency and rules were needed before adoption. After discussion, the committee voted 5-3 with one absent to return SB 1142 with a do pass recommendation. Several members explained their votes on both measures, with supporters emphasizing voter choice, accountability, and limiting fee increases, and opponents emphasizing the need for revenue, public school funding, and caution about the unresolved federal scholarship rules.