Transcript Highlights:

• The committee to vote no on House Bill 232. Thank you very much.
• 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?
• So please, I urge you to vote no on HB 232. Thank you.

Bills: HB232

Committee: House Higher Education

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:

• I would recommend a no vote.
• This is uh I would recommend a no vote.
• Oh, we'll pause one moment while vote.
• </c> a vote. All those in favor say I. I. a vote. All those in favor say I. I.
• </c> we vote no senator. Any other questions? we vote no senator. Any other questions?

Committee: Senate Higher Education

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Sullivan, she won, and there was a State Rep vote on a recount, and she won by one vote on a particular
• State Rep vote on a recount and she won State Rep vote on a recount and she won by<00:15:22.600><c> one
• I ask that you vote an expedient to legislate on SB 44.
• </c><00:27:36.520><c> an</c> elections I ask that you vote an elections I ask that you vote an expedient
• </c><00:41:02.480><c> in</c> voters registered voters who voted in voters registered voters who voted

Committee: Senate Election Law and Municipal Affairs

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• A yes vote suspends the rule. A no vote doesn’t suspend the rule.”
• A yes vote suspends a rule. A no vote doesn't suspend the race. Yeah.
• A vote yes is a vote for Representative Muscarella to be able to get out. A vote no...
• A vote yes is a vote for Representative Muscarella to be able to get out.
• The secretary will now take a vote. If you're... The secretary will now take a vote.

Committee: House Judiciary

Summary: The committee met with a quorum and took up House Bill 911 by Rep. McMakin, which proposes a major restructuring of Orleans Parish courts into a single judicial district with one clerk of court and a consolidated system, while keeping current judges in place through the end of the year and allowing them to run in scheduled elections. The committee first adopted a three-minute debate rule, then later rejected a motion to suspend it. The bill was then amended with a large set of mostly technical changes, and the amendments were adopted without objection. Supporters argued the bill would modernize Orleans’ court structure, reduce duplication, and align Orleans with other judicial districts. They cited Supreme Court data, prior studies, declining population and caseloads, and the state’s direct funding of Orleans criminal court as reasons to consolidate and reduce judgeships. Opponents, including local legislators and attorneys, said Orleans is not comparable to other parishes because of complex litigation, multiple-defendant criminal cases, jury-trial volume, tourism-related cases, and the need for specialized dockets. They also criticized the process as rushed and said local judges, legislators, and practitioners were not adequately involved. Testimony from ACLU and defense-side witnesses emphasized that case counts are not uniform across parishes and that Orleans has a high number of jury trials and a large workload per judge. They warned that eliminating judgeships could increase delays and create transition costs, while supporters countered that other districts manage similar or heavier work with fewer judges. White-card witnesses from Orleans Civil District Court, including Judge Kernan Reese, Judge Sidney Cates, and Clerk Chelsea Richard Napoleon, testified that Orleans handles complex and time-sensitive matters, that the clerk’s office relies on self-generated funds, and that the bill’s funding and office references contain inaccuracies. No final vote on the bill was taken in the portion of the transcript provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• And I respectfully ask for, and I vote. Thank you, Senator.
• And with that, respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.
• So for these parents, please vote no. Thank you. Please vote no. Thank you.
• I asked for your aye vote. Thank you, Senator.
• For SB 363, vote change for Sanchez, from aye to not voting.

Summary: The Assembly Health Committee heard several bills focused on health care access, oversight, and affordability. The first major item was SB 306 by Senator Becker, a prior authorization reform bill. Becker and supporters, including the California Medical Association and California Hospital Association, argued that prior authorization delays care, adds administrative burden, and can lead to serious patient harm. The bill was substantially amended late in the process to have DMHC and CDI identify services and drugs to exempt from prior authorization based on utilization data, with safeguards for fraud, waste, abuse, and patient safety. Health plans and insurers opposed the measure as written, saying prior authorization remains an important utilization-management tool and raising concerns about the 90% threshold, drug inclusion, and how modifications are counted. The committee also heard SB 35 by Senator Umberg, which would let cities or counties inspect unlicensed sober living homes if DHCS does not act promptly on complaints. Supporters said the bill would address weak enforcement and protect residents, while one behavioral health directors group opposed it unless amended. Members generally supported the measure, citing problems with unlicensed facilities and the need for local enforcement backup. The committee then heard SB 62, which would codify California’s updated essential health benefits benchmark if approved by the federal government. Senator Wiener said the package would add hearing aids, durable medical equipment, and infertility treatment including IVF, acknowledging that premiums could rise but arguing the benefits were worth it. Health Access California and other advocates supported the bill, while the California Family Council opposed it. The committee also took up SB 596 by Senator Menjivar, which would tighten the rules for hospitals claiming an on-call list as a defense to nurse staffing ratio penalties. Supporters, including nurses and SEIU, said hospitals have used vague or ineffective on-call practices to avoid accountability and that the bill would improve enforcement and patient safety. Hospital groups opposed it, arguing that staffing is highly dynamic, that hospitals need flexibility to manage acuity and emergencies, and that the bill could increase costs and interfere with collective bargaining arrangements. Finally, the committee heard SB 40 by Senator Wiener, the Insulin Affordability Act, which would cap insulin copays at $35 for a 30-day supply and restrict step therapy unless a plan covers at least one insulin in each drug type. Supporters, including physicians, diabetes advocates, nurses, students, and patient groups, said insulin is life-saving and too often unaffordable, forcing patients to ration or choose between medication and basic needs. There was no formal opposition testimony, though one member questioned why insulin remains so expensive. The committee also began discussion of SB 363, but the transcript cuts off before that bill’s full presentation or any action on the measures. No votes are recorded in the portion provided, and several bills were noted as consent items earlier in the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you for your vote. Thank you.
• </c><00:16:39.680><c> of</c> thank you all for this vote of thank you all for this vote of confidence
• Thank you for your vote. Thank you. Thank you for your vote. Thank<00:17:27.919><c> you.
• </c> Have all the senators voted? Have all the senators voted?
• Anyone who should change their vote, explain their vote. If not, the clerk will take the call.

Keywords: Senate streaming session for Wednesday, January 14, 2026, 960, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So by an 11-0 vote, uh, the House Bill 166 will be.
• first vote Bill to get out of committee?
• I just want to thank the committee for your vote, um, on voting my bill out today. Thank you.
• Burdell has asked to reconsider vote in a moment that he, that he had voted, he wanted to vote yes on
• I'm asking you, I'm not just asking for your vote.

Bills: HB47

Committee: House Criminal Jurisprudence

Keywords: HB 47, Texas Tax Code, ad valorem taxes, property tax, voter-approval tax rate, tax rate election, taxing unit, injunction, taxpayer rights, property owner, local government finance, tax refund, attorney's fees, court costs, voter-approved tax increase, tax reform, municipal taxes, county taxes, school district taxes, bond election

Transcript Highlights:

• And so, next, we had distributed a list of bills to vote on.
• Vice Chair Wu, as one of the prevailing votes, moves to reconsider the vote by which House Bill 166 was
• I just want to thank the committee for your vote on voting my bill out today. Thank you.
• Burdell has asked to reconsider vote in a moment that he had voted. He wanted to vote yes on Ms.
• Members that will want to vote on this.

Bills: HB47 , HB1552 , HB1686 , HB1953 , HB2151 , HB2355 , HB2582 , HB2697 , HB2895 , HB3073 , HB3418 , HB47

Committee: House Criminal Jurisprudence

Keywords: sexual assault, victim rights, forensic examination, medical care, trauma-informed care, crime victims compensation, evidence retention, child sexual abuse material, child pornography, digital services, reporting requirements, children's protection, sex offender registration, indecent assault, educator-student relationship, criminal justice, legislation, crime victims, compensation fund, information disclosure

Transcript Highlights:

• He says he has voted for this bill in the past, but today he is going to be a pass vote because he has
• She votes no. Senator Mills explains his vote.
• He votes yes. Senator Neus explains his vote.
• He says he votes because of that. Senator Rollings explains his vote. He says Dr.
• He votes yes. Senator Richardson explains his vote.

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on Senate Bill 132, a health care conscience-protection measure. Supporters said the bill would protect health care professionals from being forced to participate in procedures or services that violate sincerely held religious or ethical beliefs, while explicitly excluding emergency care. They argued it would help recruit and retain providers, preserve ethical integrity in medicine, and has worked in several other states. Supporters also emphasized that the bill is aimed at procedures or services, not at denying care based on who a patient is, and noted that the bill includes a civil cause of action to give it enforcement teeth. Several supporters described personal experiences. A nurse said lack of conscience protections affected her career choices and limited her path into women’s health. Dr. Warman said he had requested not to perform anesthesia for abortions and later chose non-narcotic pain management because he objected to heavy opioid prescribing, saying conscience protections allow professionals to practice responsibly. Senators asked about examples, the bill’s scope, whether it could be used to discriminate, and which states have similar laws; Mississippi, Florida, Montana, Ohio, South Carolina, and Arkansas were named. Questions also focused on the bill’s civil enforcement provisions and whether it could be used against patients based on identity or religion. Opponents warned the bill was overly broad and could allow refusals of care by a wide range of health workers, including clerks, ambulance drivers, pharmacists, nurses, and physicians. Dr. Karen Abrams said it could lead to denial of birth control, Plan B, blood transfusions, and other care, especially in rural areas with few alternatives, and could worsen Kentucky’s provider shortages. David Conway said the bill lacked patient protections, could increase delays and discrimination, and could prevent reassignment of objecting staff. The chair noted there were seven people signed up in opposition, limited testimony to two minutes each, and said the committee would return to the bill after hearing additional opposition and other pending bills.

Transcript Highlights:

• The House will vote on our Mr. Speaker.
• ><c> to</c> nays are ordered or votes objected to nays are ordered or votes objected to under<02:15:40.480
• </c> All those in favor of taking this vote All those in favor of taking this vote by<02:30:48.560><c
• </c><02:48:45.200><c> in</c> my colleagues to join me in voting in my colleagues to join me in voting
• </c><05:27:40.480><c> on</c> a short recess, I urge a yes vote on a short recess, I urge a yes vote on

Keywords: U.S. House of Representatives Floor Proceedings on Monday, June 23, 2025, 1012, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• ><c> the</c> take the voted budgets, the take the voted budgets, the expenditures, expenditures, expenditures
• Those voting yes, 28. Those voting no, two.
• President, the voting committee was Mr.
• </c> didn't give you the House vote. didn't give you the House vote. Thank<01:10:38.800><c> you.
• </c> passed out of appropriations on a vote passed out of appropriations on a vote of<01:26:16.920><c

Keywords: 927, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Those opposed will vote no. The clerk will please call the roll.
• If you're in favor please vote aye. If you're opposed please vote no.
• If you're in favor please vote aye. If you're opposed please vote no.
• If you're in favor please vote aye. If you're opposed please vote no.
• Chair: At this time, if you're in favor please vote aye. If you're opposed please vote no.

Committee: House House Administration

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• All present voted. We have sey. Thank you, Mr.
• All present voted. Have I nay? Seal report your bill as a do pass.
• All present and voted. 0 nay, 7 yeah. We report the bill as a do pass.
• We'll open up for a vote. With all votes in, we have 0 nays.
• All present voted. 0 nays. I believe that takes care of everything.

Committee: House Public Safety

Keywords: 914, all

Transcript Highlights:

• All the other members are voting<00:28:28.880><c> members.</c> voting members. voting members.
• </c> have the official vote on consent. have the official vote on consent.
• Ready to vote. We've had discussion. So we're ready to vote. We're ready to vote. To vote.
• Are we taking a vote on the amendment? Yeah, let's take a vote. We have to vote to pass that.
• Who is voting to pass on the amendment? Who is voting to pass on the amendment?

Committee: Senate Education

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Oh, we need to vote. I think we had a vote on the amendment. Had a vote on to pass. And how many?
• Oh yeah, we didn't actually all<01:40:33.760><c> vote.</c> all vote. all vote.
• I prefer not to vote on it today. >> Senator, can I... >> We don't have to vote on it today.
• </c> &gt;&gt; we did vote on it. &gt;&gt; we did vote on it.
• Vote on it.

Committee: Senate Education

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We're voting on a committee amendment, or we're voting on the thing as amended.
• </c> we're voting on the thing as amended. we're voting on the thing as amended.
• </c> repeating these votes later. Okay. Okay. repeating these votes later. Okay. Okay.
• And therefore, if you want to vote, we can vote on the removal.
• So I did vote on it. that list of PAS. So I did vote on it.

Committee: Senate Finance

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Vice Chair, for vote, please. Voting on SB 281 SD1.
• </c> vote? Vice chair for vote, please. vote? Vice chair for vote, please.
• Seeing none, base chair for the vote. Voting on SB 295 SD1.
• </c><01:44:41.119><c> Chair's</c> the vote. Voting on SB 1028 SD1. Chair's the vote.
• </c><01:47:33.520><c> Voting</c><01:47:33.840><c> on</c> the vote. Voting on the vote.

Committee: House Human Services & Homelessness

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on SB 281 SD1, which would define and prohibit torture as a Class A felony. The Honolulu Prosecutor’s Office, HPD investigators, and other supporters said the bill is needed because existing laws do not adequately capture torture, especially cases involving children and vulnerable persons. Several testifiers emphasized that starvation is a common method of torture that often leaves little visible evidence, and they urged the committee to restore the original starvation language removed from the measure. The Office of the Public Defender said it did not oppose the bill’s purpose but raised concerns that the language was too broad and could create trial issues, particularly around minors and vulnerable people, and suggested narrowing amendments. The chair indicated the testimony had made a strong impression and said the committee would try to move the bill forward. The committee then heard SB 292 SD1, relating to sexual exploitation and safe harbor protections for survivors seeking medical or law enforcement help. The Honolulu Prosecutor’s Office supported the measure, noting that a prior version raised equal protection concerns that were no longer present, and said survivors should be able to seek help without fear of prosecution. Written support was also noted from several advocacy and state groups. Testimony in support focused on retaliation fears, trafficking, and the need for manpower and resources to address exploitation and related crimes. Finally, the committee took up SB 295 SD1, which would increase penalties for violating temporary restraining orders and orders for protection and treat a violation of one as a second offense for the other. The Public Defender’s Office objected to the mandatory jail component, arguing judges should retain discretion and that there was no clear evidence mandatory jail deters violations. The transcript cuts off before any final committee action or vote on SB 295 was recorded.

Transcript Highlights:

• Seeing none, Vice Chair, for the vote. Voting on HB 224.
• ><01:41:00.320><c> chair's</c> vote voting on HB 1349 chair's vote voting on HB 1349 chair's recommendation
• <01:43:13.960><c> chair's</c> vote voting on HB 613 chair's vote voting on HB 613 chair's recommendation
• Seeing none, for the vote. Vice Chair voting on HB 324.
• <01:46:38.880><c> chair's</c> vote voting on HB 943 chair's vote voting on HB 943 chair's recommendation

Committee: House Human Services & Homelessness

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The House Committee on Human Services and Homelessness met on February 6, 2025, and heard testimony on several measures. HB 44, which would appropriate funds to the Department of Human Services to work with community-based organizations on social services needs, drew broad support from nonprofit providers and coalitions that said contracts and reimbursement rates have not kept pace with the actual cost of services, leaving agencies unable to retain staff or meet demand. DHS said it supported the bill’s intent but asked for clarification because the language was broad and did not specify which organizations or how funds should be allocated. Committee members and the bill’s introducer discussed how to make the measure more specific and equitable, including whether to set a percentage increase, use a baseline date, and direct DHS to distribute funds among different program areas; the True Cost Coalition and DHS agreed to follow up in writing with proposed language and a funding number. The committee then heard HB 1349, which would authorize Medicaid/CHIP coverage for income-qualified pregnant persons and children regardless of immigration status. Supporters, including the Legal Clinic, Aloha Care, and the Hawaiʻi Coalition for Immigrant Rights, said the bill would improve prenatal and child health, reduce the chilling effect of immigration enforcement on care-seeking, and help prevent premature or underweight births by ensuring earlier access to providers. DHS provided comments and the committee asked where the measure would fit in the budget; the department identified the relevant budget code. Written testimony in support came from multiple advocacy and health organizations and dozens of individuals. Finally, the committee heard HB 613, which would appropriate funds to DHS for emergency shelter and services for unaccompanied homeless youth. The Office of the Public Defender, the Statewide Office of Homelessness and Housing Solutions, the Office of Youth Services, Rise, the Hawaiʻi State LGBTQ+ Commission, and others supported the bill, emphasizing youth homelessness, the need for coordinated shelter and outreach, and the high share of LGBTQ+ youth among homeless minors. OYS asked that the committee consider funding its existing Safe Spaces pilot rather than creating a new program, while DHS said it supported the intent but wanted clarification because multiple department programs could be implicated. No votes were taken during the hearing; the chair instead requested follow-up language and funding information for HB 44 and continued the measures for further consideration.

Transcript Highlights:

• So I vote aye. Thank you.
• So I vote aye.
• We will proceed right now with a vote. This is a voice vote.
• I vote no. Senator Tishner, Senator Williams would like to explain my yes vote, sir.
• I vote no. Senator Tishner, Senator Williams would like to explain my yes vote, sir.

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The Senate Education Committee met with a quorum and first considered two concurrent resolutions. SCR 76, sponsored by Sen. Amanda Bledsoe, would create a Kentucky School for the Deaf Governance Task Force to examine the school’s future governance and its relationship with the Kentucky Department of Education. Bledsoe described the school’s long history and said the task force would give the small deaf-school community more voice. The committee adopted the resolution unanimously with favorable expression. The committee then took up SCR 131, sponsored by Sen. Max Wise, to continue the Efficient and Effective Districts Task Force from 2024. Wise said the prior task force met about 10 times and focused on student achievement and district policy, and the new version would continue that work as a legislature-only task force. The resolution passed unanimously with favorable expression. Members next considered HB 240 on primary school promotion. Rep. Truitt explained that the bill would require students who are not ready in kindergarten to repeat kindergarten, while a committee substitute softened the approach by allowing a school to hold a child back in kindergarten but requiring action in first grade. He said the bill aligns with existing reading-screening efforts and is intended to strengthen early literacy foundations. The committee adopted the substitute and passed the bill unanimously with favorable expression; Sen. Williams briefly explained his support as favoring performance-based advancement. The committee also approved HB 298, which would change the identification of schools for comprehensive support and improvement from every three years to annually, require KDE recommendations during management audits, add professional development in reading and math, and require effective instructional resources. The committee substitute also allowed districts with multiple CSI schools to contract for a turnaround vendor. The bill additionally carried employee-misconduct provisions from prior sessions, including disclosure requirements for applicants; the only change discussed was removing the word “investigation” from one disclosure section. HB 298 passed unanimously with favorable expression, and the committee also adopted a title amendment. Finally, the committee heard HB 424 on employment at public postsecondary institutions. Rep. Tipton said the bill would require performance and productivity reviews for faculty at least every four years, clarify appointment and removal authority for presidents at certain institutions, and expand “cause” for dismissal to include failure to meet performance and productivity requirements. Dr. Ray Horton, speaking for faculty groups, proposed a small substitute that would tie any performance measures to existing employment contracts to preserve academic integrity and avoid unintended changes to tenure processes. Members discussed how tenure works at Kentucky universities, and the committee was still in the middle of considering the proposed substitute when the transcript ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• Strong support from all six towns to bring equal access to voting.
• I feel if Montague gets to vote whenever My town.
• to vote the same as the town of Montague.
• There were very few negative votes. They were passed almost unanimously.
• There were very few negative votes. We got through them pretty quickly.

Bills: H5171 , H5261 , H5294 , H5317 , S3026 , S3033

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Municipalities and Regional Government

Keywords: Holyoke, municipal governance, acting mayor, city council, local government, Oxford, town charter, municipal government, town manager, residency requirement, local approval, charter amendment, home rule, local governance, municipal administration, residence of officials, Worcester County, Worthington, solar, solar photovoltaic