Video & Transcript : 'Section 94B' :
Page 299 of 500
FL
Florida 2026 Regular Session
FL House Floor Session - 2026-02-25 (10:00AM Session)
Florida House Floor Meeting
Transcript Highlights:
- This also makes Section 9 of the bill consistent with the language in Section 8.
- Is it your intent that the prohibition of funding in Section 1...
- Representative Henson, no, that is not the intent of Section 1.
- , Section 1 is overly broad. ...is because this section, Section 1, is overly broad.
- Code Section 713E2 relating to personal responsibility education.
MN
Transcript Highlights:
- Section one in 1127 just names the bill after Damon.
- Um section one So that's what this is.
- c> the</c><00:23:16.240><c> asset</c> Section two, we removed the asset Section two, we removed the asset
- Um Senator Mquade rock in section three.
- However, there is um a services section.
Committee:
Senate Human Services
NH
Transcript Highlights:
- sections D to BC.
- the next section, would you be supportive of it?
- </c> which may be in another section of law? which may be in another section of law?
- </c> >> it's in the next section. >> it's in the next section.
- </c> different section of the law altogether. different section of the law altogether.
Committee:
Senate Judiciary
OK
Oklahoma 2026 Regular Session
Senate Legislative Session Mar 25th, 2026
Oklahoma Senate Floor Meeting
Transcript Highlights:
- The bill refers to Section 1020.6 in Section 82, and that's where that's solicited.
- Actually, with the floor amendment, that whole section is what we are removing.
- talking about defraud here—and it quotes the same Section 1702.
- That's the punishment there for fraud pursuant to that section.
- Senator Brooks: And so Section 1702, Title 21—I'm sorry, Title 21, Section 1702—can you explain to me
Bills:
SB1778 , SB1570 , SB134 , SB1966 , SB1636 , SB1725 , SB1726 , SB259 , SB504 , SB592 , SB2030 , SB1572 , SB843 , SB1242 , SB1255 , SB1262 , SB1264 , SB1286 , SB1581 , SB1290 , SB1316 , SB1319 , SB1369 , SB1379 , SB1381 , SB1400 , SB1427 , SB1436 , SB1461 , SB1496 , SB1509 , SB1534 , SB1553 , SB904 , SB1592 , SB1645 , SB1684 , SB1767 , SB1772 , SB1813 , SB1894 , SB1928 , SB1946 , SB1980 , SB2040 , SB2060 , SB2061
Keywords:
reading instruction, literacy, educational equity, intervention services, third grade retention, Strong Readers Act, child welfare, child safety, administrative transition, Department of Child Safety and Well-being, Oklahoma Commission on Children and Youth, juvenile justice, foster care, retirement, public employees, reemployment, benefit adjustment, Oklahoma Public Employees Retirement System, memorial highways, bridge designations
Summary:
The Senate first handled several gallery introductions recognizing visiting groups, including Muskogee Day, domestic violence advocates, Wagner High School leadership students, the Bixby Chamber and football team, and the Heartland Home Educators co-op. The chamber also adopted a motion to suspend debate rules for the remainder of the day so third-reading bills could be debated under shortened time limits.
Senate Bill 134, which shortens the waiting period for Oklahoma Public Employees Retirement System retirees to return to public employment from one year to six months, drew questions about “double dipping,” actuarial impact, and workforce shortages. The author said the bill was requested by the Association of County Commissioners to help counties retain experienced workers, noted an actuarial estimate that the system would drop from 107% to 105% funded, and explained there were no special safeguards beyond existing limits. The bill advanced and then passed 47-0.
Senate Bill 196, a measure naming multiple bridges, highways, and interchanges for veterans, law enforcement officers, and other honorees, was presented as a personal bill by the author, including a bridge named for his grandfather. After brief questions, it advanced and passed 47-0. Senate Bill 1636, which allows immediate family members or similar individuals to request OSBI review of cold homicide cases after a local law enforcement case-file review, also advanced after questions about eligibility, timing, and workload; supporters said it would give families a path to seek answers in long-unsolved cases. It passed 47-0.
The chamber then considered Senate Bill 1725, which addresses expressive activity on higher-education campuses by allowing content-neutral security fees, limiting discipline to narrowly defined harassment, and requiring free speech training for first-year students. Debate centered on campus free speech, university accountability, and whether the bill would add costs or sufficient enforcement; it passed 40-17 and was advanced as an emergency measure. Senate Bill 1726, a companion bill requiring training for graduate assistants who teach, emphasizing classroom management, academic integrity, and viewpoint neutrality, passed 41-7 and was also advanced as an emergency measure. Finally, Senate Bill 259, a long-debated water bill requiring metering or approved measuring devices for groundwater use, drew extensive discussion over costs, property rights, regional differences, and regulation of irrigators; the bill was advanced to final passage after a 34-8 vote, with debate continuing at the end of the transcript.
NH
New Hampshire 2026 Regular Session
Senate Energy and Natural Resources (01/08/2026)
Energy and Natural Resources
Transcript Highlights:
- Is there a motion to move into exact section? >> Exact section seconded by Senator Waters?
- seconded by Senator >> exact section seconded by Senator Waters?
- But we intend to include section 5A, I believe, or section five, and continue this work. Thank you.
- It's in the RPC sections.
- </c> and um urge you to to support sections and um urge you to to support sections 3,<02:44:25.200><c
Committee:
Senate Energy and Natural Resources
NH
New Hampshire 2025 Regular Session
House Ways and Means (04/29/2025)
Transcript Highlights:
- I also want to flag the zoning mandate in section 2, lines 16 through 26.
- ><c> know</c> there's uh sections you know there's uh sections you know specifically<00:52:09.040><c>
- The first sections as you're reading it.
- :45.360><c> to</c><01:10:46.320><c> church</c> section seems to apply to church section seems to apply
- Um and the second section you employees.
Summary:
The Ways and Means Committee held a public hearing on Senate Bill 291, which would update religious land-use and property tax exemption rules for church-owned parsonages, parish houses, and similar properties. Senator Tim Lang, speaking for the sponsor, said the bill was intended to address situations where former parsonages are no longer occupied by clergy and are instead used for church-related purposes such as housing staff, religious education, or congregate living tied to ministry, including addiction recovery. He emphasized that the bill was not meant to create commercial rental housing and that it also preserves reasonable zoning and environmental regulations.
Committee members pressed the sponsor on how the bill would be applied, especially the meaning of “religious purposes,” the six-unit limit, the “same lot” language, and whether churches could use the exemption to rent units for revenue. The sponsor said the six-unit cap was added to prevent large-scale commercial rental use, that congregate housing would be limited and defined, and that the bill was meant to cover uses like substance abuse recovery, homes for unwed mothers, and religious education, but not apartments converted for ordinary rental. He also said churches would still file annual exemption paperwork and towns could challenge claims they believed were commercial. Questions also raised concerns about whether the bill treated religious and nonreligious housing trusts differently; the sponsor responded that the bill was aimed at church-owned property used in pursuit of a religious mission.
Several witnesses testified in support. Representative Mark Pearson, an active clergyman, said the bill would not remove additional property from the tax rolls because clergy housing allowances typically lead clergy to buy taxable homes elsewhere, while the church-owned parsonage remains exempt. Nick Taylor of Housing Action New Hampshire supported the bill as a modest expansion that could help create more attainable housing by allowing better use of existing religious land and structures, though he noted his organization would support even broader use. The hearing ended without a vote or final action, and the chair closed questions after the testimony.
WY
Wyoming 2026 Regular Session
Senate Floor Session-Day 20, March 5, 2026-PM
Wyoming Senate Floor Meeting
Transcript Highlights:
- Uh, what happened was this section was put in to that bill just to codify it to the section.
- But earlier, our good friends section.
- President, um Mason section 312. >> Mr. Mr. President, um Mason section 312.
- That would be section 312, part three.
- So this significantly narrows section.
MN
Transcript Highlights:
- The bill is in the education section of the statute, so is the school vaccination statute.
- And then there are two more sections under this statute, so current law gives the exception for us to
- And finally, members, in section uh statute 363A.24, this is based on public accommodations, so this
- </c> on that then uh another section on that then uh another section Minnesota<01:19:34.400><c> statute
- </c> that and finally members um in section that and finally members um in section uh<01:20:28.719><c
MN
Transcript Highlights:
- That's the section that covers civil investigative data.
- That's the section that covers civil investigative data.
- That's the section that covers civil investigative data.
- Moving a section of staff over to be permanently in this division.
- Moving a section of staff over to be permanently in this division.
Committee:
Senate Human Services
MN
Minnesota 2025-2026 Regular Session
House Higher Education Finance and Policy Committee 3/12/26
Higher Education Finance and Policy
Transcript Highlights:
- The A2 amendment is inserting a new section in the bill.
- It inserts a new section, and that section amends the definition of resident student that's used for
- Um, so within the bill, uh, section one would require... >> Thank you, Mr. Chair.
- Section three is really sort of the meat of the bill.
- </c><01:25:19.920><c> of</c> just added, there's a whole section of just added, there's a whole section
Committee:
House Higher Education Finance and Policy
NH
New Hampshire 2025 Regular Session
Commission to Study Costs of Special Education (10/29/2025)
Transcript Highlights:
- </c> section of our budget for as an example. section of our budget for as an example.
- There are five sections.
- </c><01:29:22.719><c> So</c> section around special education. So section around special education.
- </c> submitted by districts in those sections submitted by districts in those sections related<01:29:
- He only did the four five sections.
Summary:
The commission met to continue its study of the cost of special education, with the chair emphasizing that the group needs to narrow its focus over the coming year toward specific cost drivers, including the IEP process, Medicaid, charter schools, and EFAs. Members reviewed a draft first report due November 1 and agreed it would be a brief synopsis of prior meetings, with minutes attached. The September 30, 2025 minutes were amended to correct the number of federally funded department staff from 234 to 23, and to revise language about Senator Sullivan’s comments so they reflected concerns about IEP advocates and fees charged to families rather than support for the concept. The amended minutes were then approved unanimously, with abstentions noted for members who were absent.
The main presentation focused on how special education costs are handled for students attending charter schools. The DOE representative said there are 804 students with disabilities in charter schools across 88 of the state’s 176 districts, and that the district of residence remains responsible for all services and costs. She explained that students must meet IDEA criteria through district evaluation and parent consent, and that services are determined through individual IEP meetings rather than by a blanket charter-school decision. Members asked how those costs are tracked, whether any students are merely “monitored,” and whether districts separately identify charter-school special education expenses; the answer was that most districts fold those costs into their overall special education budget, though some may break them out as a line item.
The discussion then turned to transportation and mileage costs for staff providing services at charter schools. Testimony indicated that districts may use their own staff, contract staff, or contract with a charter school for certified services, and that travel costs are often either built into contracts or absorbed as part of staff time rather than separately reimbursed. Members questioned whether mileage is reimbursed when staff travel to distant charter schools and whether those costs can be isolated in district budgets; the response was that practices vary by district and are not usually broken out by special education function. Several members argued this makes it difficult to determine the true cost of delivering special education, especially given New Hampshire’s model in which the district of residence pays regardless of where the charter school is located. The chair noted the complexity of the system and compared it to the state’s separate tuition and transportation approach for career and technical education centers.
TX
Transcript Highlights:
- As a reminder to the committee and our visitors and witnesses today, Under House Rule 4, Section 13,
- Is it time for the legislature to revisit section 36.122 the export provision?
- But beefing up that 36113 section would also be helpful in what districts can consider.
- But they've said and going back to the Conservation Amendment, Article 15, Section 59.
- I think the legislature should look at how we can revamp that whole section. And Mr.
Committee:
House Natural Resources
NH
Transcript Highlights:
- It does have in there some qualified immunity protections at the very last section, so we don't have
- The witness replied that it is in the very last section, mentioning the Attorney General's office.
- so there's stuff in there that section so there's stuff in there that my<01:48:17.119><c> friends</c
- yeah um and it's on page section yeah um and it's on page two<01:48:49.679><c> um</c><01:48:50.679><
- So there is a section, I believe it's first page—excuse me, let me find it here—we go.
Committee:
House Election Law
HI
Hawaii 2025 Regular Session
AGR Public Hearing - Wed Feb 12, 2025 @ 9:30 AM HST
Agriculture & Food Systems
Transcript Highlights:
- Next we have Hawaii Farm Bureau. must follow section 136d 31b and one of must follow section 136d 31b
- </c><00:31:59.440><c> is</c> the requirements within that section is the requirements within that section
- I really don't have much to offer you on the sections one and two of this bill.
- I really don't have much to offer you on the sections one and two of this bill.
- I really don't have much to offer you on the sections one and two of this bill.
Committee:
House Agriculture & Food Systems
US
US Federal 2025-2026 Regular Session
US House Floor Proceedings (Wednesday, September 3, 2025)
US Federal House Floor Meeting
Transcript Highlights:
- Section 2. A.
- Section 2 A. No amendment to waved. Section 2 A.
- Section 3.
- Section 4.
- Section 5.
MN
Transcript Highlights:
- You have included in the definitions sections, armed with a firearm, armed with a weapon.
- Sections 1 and 3 address the issue regarding utility charges in multifamily buildings.
- Section 2 solves a problem that Legal Aid brought to the Multi-Housing Association.
- The House File added two sections.
- Those are the two sections that are different in the House File, Mr. President.
HI
Transcript Highlights:
- due to drafting, it didn't clearly state that developments under 100 are exempt in the exemption section
- under 100 are exempt in<00:09:46.800><c> the</c><00:09:46.959><c> exemption</c><00:09:47.519><c> section
- c><00:09:47.920><c> So</c><00:09:48.160><c> this</c><00:09:48.399><c> cleans</c> in the exemption section
- So this cleans in the exemption section. So this cleans it<00:09:48.880><c> up.
- um within HRS chapter 20 section um within HRS chapter 20 uh<00:59:22.559><c> part</c><00:59:22.880>
Bills:
HB1604 , HB1713 , HB1722 , HB2270 , HB2401 , HB2515 , HB1979 , HB1593 , HB1743 , HB2122 , HB1756 , HB1837 , HB1729
Committee:
House Housing
Keywords:
agriculture, housing, workforce, land use, zoning, public-private partnerships, tax credit, school impact fees, impact fee exemption, school facilities authority, residential development, housing shortage, affordable housing, infill housing, land dedication, fee in lieu, school construction, developer exactions, fair share contributions, education contribution agreement
Summary:
The committee heard testimony on HB 1604, which would create an agricultural workforce housing group within the Department of Agriculture and Biosecurity to address shortages of farmworker housing. The department said it supported the bill’s intent but emphasized that the group’s early work should focus on gathering data and surveying farm operators to assess actual demand, to avoid “mission creep.” Testimony from the City and County of Honolulu Office of Economic Revitalization, Hawaii Farmers Union, Hawaii Farm Bureau, Housing Hawaii’s Future, and the Maui Chamber of Commerce was in support, with one witness suggesting a housing advocacy nonprofit be added to the working group for balance.
The committee then discussed HB 1713 on school impact fees, which would clarify exemptions for certain affordable housing projects and exempt new residential developments of fewer than 100 units. The Attorney General’s office said the bill should define “low to moderate income households” because that term is not defined in chapter 302A. HHFDC, the School Facilities Authority, Grassroot Institute of Hawaii, and others supported the measure, arguing it would reduce administrative burden and remove barriers to housing. Members questioned whether the bill should instead repeal the school impact fee entirely; supporters said they also favored full repeal but viewed this bill as a more feasible step. The School Facilities Authority also explained that about $28 million in school impact fees had been collected across four districts and none had yet been spent, and discussed how recent nexus requirements limit how the funds can be used.
HB 1722, relating to residential condominiums, drew extensive testimony and questioning. HCDA supported the bill and explained that it amends the 99-year leasehold pilot program created by Act 97 of 2023 by reducing owner-occupancy restrictions from 100% of units to 60%, allowing some rental or subleasing flexibility for the owner-occupied units, and permitting up to 40% of units to be sold to qualified residents after being on the market for more than 60 days. HCDA said the original restrictions, combined with rising construction costs, higher interest rates, and competition from nearby projects, made the pilot project difficult to market and finance; it said the changes are needed to make the project feasible and competitive. Supporters including AP Hawaii, Kila LLC, and project representatives said the amendments would help make the demonstration project in Kakaʻako viable. Some members raised concerns that the changes could weaken long-term affordability and questioned why certain ownership language was being deleted if rentals would still be restricted. No votes or final committee actions were taken in the portion of the hearing provided.
HI
Transcript Highlights:
- <00:30:14.559><c> 6E42.2A</c> section 6E42.2A section 6E42.2A 2<00:30:16.880><c> a</c><00:30:17.279><
- What are your thoughts another section.
- What we're concerned about are sections three and four of the bill's changes to the QAP.
- What we're concerned about are sections three and four of the bill's changes to the QAP.
- I recommend that we delete sections four, five, and six of the bill entirely.
Bills:
HB2611 , HB2102 , HB1710 , HB1868 , HB1920 , HB1812 , HB1733 , HB1715 , HB1723 , HB1724 , HB1727 , HB1711
Committee:
House Housing
Keywords:
HB2611, Hawaii antitrust, rental housing, rent price-fixing, algorithmic pricing, algorithmic rent-setting, property management software, pricing algorithms, rent coordination, price-fixing, collusion, cartel, multifamily housing, landlord software, occupancy levels, lease terms, Attorney General, public education program, consumer protection, housing affordability
Summary:
The committee first took up HB 2611, which would prohibit algorithmic price-setting in Hawaii’s rental market, require public education by the Attorney General, and establish fines and penalties. The Department of the Attorney General opposed the bill, saying its language was too unclear and could expose landlords and agents to criminal and civil liability for ordinary rent-setting practices based on public information or assistance from property professionals. Members asked about antitrust standards, tacit agreement, and whether using county-published affordable-rent schedules would be unlawful; the AG said that would not be unlawful if based on public information and without collusion. Testimony was mixed, with the chair noting support from the Hawaii Civil Rights Commission, Hawaii Realtors with comments, 50501 Hawaii and General Strike Hawaii, Haloha Project, 13 individuals, and one opponent.
The committee then heard HB 2102, which clarifies that residential projects involving ground disturbance in high-risk areas remain subject to state historic preservation review and removes an exemption for lands presumed nominally sensitive. The Office of Planning and Sustainable Development and the Department of Planning and Permitting supported the measure, saying it would improve clarity and ensure review focuses on projects most likely to affect historic properties or iwi kupuna, while also urging language refinements to better define sensitive sandy-soil areas and balance preservation with housing timelines. NAP Hawaii opposed the bill, arguing it would undo progress made last session and that the current process already includes protections for inadvertent discoveries and efficiency for lower-risk areas.
The Office of Hawaiian Affairs strongly supported HB 2102, explaining it was responding to beneficiary complaints about late-added language in last year’s law and saying the nominally sensitive-area language should be removed because it was adopted without sufficient stakeholder input and could be harmful to iwi kupuna protections. Native Hawaiian Legal Corporation and several individuals also supported the bill. Committee discussion focused on how “nominally sensitive” areas are determined, whether project proponents could self-certify areas as exempt, and how high-density residential projects should be treated; SHPD said it uses survey and monitoring data to map sensitivity, that highly sensitive areas like Kīauea are not nominally sensitive, and that some high-density projects should remain exempt if they do not involve new ground disturbance. The hearing included no final vote in the portion provided, but the chair noted 48 individuals in support and continued questioning on the bill’s definitions and implementation.
MN
Transcript Highlights:
- to the department, and I do understand that that section is going to move as part of HF 1053.
- Section six. Section six. Okay.
- <01:38:26.480><c> Section</c><01:38:26.960><c> six.
- Section six. Section six. Okay. pardon? Section six. Section six. Okay.
- </c> strike section six of the DE2 amendment. strike section six of the DE2 amendment.
Committee:
House Education Policy
MN
Minnesota 2025-2026 Regular Session
House Commerce Finance and Policy Committee 3/13/25
Commerce Finance and Policy
Transcript Highlights:
- may be issued for space that is section may be issued for space that is not<00:25:52.880><c> Compact
- The financial responsibility sections of law, all of the licensing requirements would apply as well.
- The financial responsibility sections of law, all of the licensing requirements would apply as well.
- The financial responsibility sections of law, all of the licensing requirements would apply as well.
- The financial responsibility sections of law, all of the licensing requirements would apply as well.
Bills:
HF1262 , HF1741 , HF472 , HF1668 , HF2055 , HF1786 , HF1876 , HF1089 , HF1121 , HF509 , HF1545 , HF2027 , HF642
Committee:
House Commerce Finance and Policy
Keywords:
food truck, liquor license, temporary license, community events, catering, municipal regulations, food hall, St. Louis Park, on-sale, intoxicating beverages, food vendors, common seating area, HF472, Mankato, Minnesota State University Mankato, MSU Mankato, Taylor Center, special liquor license, on-sale wine license, malt liquor license