Video & Transcript : 'IT modernization' :
Page 493 of 500
ND
North Dakota 2025-2026 Regular Session
Senate Industry and Business Apr 2nd, 2025 at 09:30 am
Industry and Business
Transcript Highlights:
- But as it is now, they don't have the staff for it.
- But as it is now, they don't have the staff for it.
- And it drives me nuts. I mean, I hate it, right?
- get into it.
- it.
Committee:
Senate Industry and Business
Summary:
The Senate Industry and Business Committee met to take up remaining business, focusing mainly on House Bill 1191, which would create an Office of Entrepreneurship within the Department of Commerce, and noting that House Bill 1584 on pharmacy benefit managers would be held until amendments were ready. Members discussed whether the entrepreneurship effort should be housed in Commerce, whether it would duplicate existing private and nonprofit resources, and whether the state should be creating a new government function at all. Supporters said Commerce is the right place, the bill contains no appropriation, and the office would mainly direct small businesses and startups to existing resources and report back on demand and staffing needs. Opponents warned it could grow into another government entity and argued private industry and existing programs are better suited to provide coaching and mentorship.
Testimony and discussion referenced small business development centers, the Kauffman/Right to Start model, and other startup support programs already operating in the state or elsewhere. Members also cited a local entrepreneur’s experience as an example of the value of mentorship, networking, and guidance from private-sector groups, while others stressed that government should focus on pointing people to those resources rather than running the assistance itself. The committee emphasized that the bill would ask Commerce to identify how it could support entrepreneurship with existing staff and to report on its efforts.
A motion for a do pass recommendation on House Bill 1191 was made and seconded. The committee voted 3-2 in favor, with Senators Klein, Kessel, and Chairman Barta voting aye and Senator Inget voting nay; Vice Chair Bame’s vote was not recorded in the final tally as read. Senator Kessel was designated as the carrier. The committee then noted it would reconvene later in the day after floor session, with the PBM bill expected to be taken up once amendments were available.
WA
Washington 2025-2026 Regular Session
Legislative Ethics Board Jun 9th, 2026
Transcript Highlights:
- I drafted it. I sent it to him.
- I looked at it, signed it. I made Had sent to him on April 1st. I looked at it, signed it.
- I said, it said something like, if I recall, it said, it was great to see you on Monday.
- It does.
- I signed it first and then sent it to her.
Summary:
The hearing resumed in the Legislative Ethics Board matter involving Tara Simmons after the board confirmed no ex parte communications had occurred overnight. Respondent’s counsel moved to dismiss two allegations at the close of the board staff’s case: that Simmons pressured the Administrative Office of the Courts to alter a contract in favor of her employer, and that she violated ethics rules by combining legislative support for AEJG with a personal donation to the organization. Board staff opposed the motion, arguing the evidence showed Simmons’s legislative and personal dealings were intertwined. After a recess for deliberation, the board denied the motion to dismiss, and the hearing moved into the defense case.
The first defense witness was Sharon Navas, executive director of the Equity and Education Coalition (EEC). Navas testified that she met Simmons in 2018, later hired her, and took steps to separate Simmons’s legislative duties from her work for EEC. She said Simmons was never paid for lobbying or legislative acts, that her compensation came from unrestricted funds, and that the organization used written ethics-compliance language and a formal scope of work. Navas also described the proviso-funded dashboard project involving Anthony Powers and Chris Stanley, testifying that Simmons was not involved in the project’s day-to-day work, did not attend the meetings about the dispute, and was not part of the alleged contract disagreement. On cross-examination, staff focused on the contract documents, the dashboard work, and whether the scope of work matched the parties’ understanding.
Tara Simmons then testified in her own defense. She described her background, legislative career, disability accommodations, and extensive efforts to seek ethics guidance from House counsel and board-related materials before taking outside employment or supporting provisos. She said she relied on prior ethics advice when separating her legislative role from outside work and when seeking provisos for AEJG and EEC. Simmons also addressed her relationship with Anthony Powers, describing it as a friendship rooted in criminal justice reform work and prior collaboration. The hearing was still in the middle of Simmons’s direct testimony when the transcript excerpt ended, with no final ruling on the merits or disposition of the allegations.
ID
Transcript Highlights:
- It doesn't say they shall. It says they may.
- It wasn't purchased. It wasn't purchased. The city of Nampa gave it away.
- And hopefully it is what we think it may be, or what we hope it will be.
- It just simply says get your eyes on it.
- It just simply says get your eyes on it.
WV
West Virginia 2026 Regular Session
Senate in Session Mar 14th, 2026 at 09:19 pm
West Virginia Senate Floor Meeting
Transcript Highlights:
- The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it. I declare the amendment adopted.
- , it mandates it right off the bat.
- “It provides an incentive to use E-Verify, but it doesn’t require it.
- The ayes appear to have it; the ayes do have it. I declare... The ayes appear to have it.
- The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it.
AZ
Arizona 2026 Regular Session
02/19/2026 - Senate Health and Human Services
Health and Human Services
Transcript Highlights:
- it.
- I mean, it makes it—it doesn't make any logical sense, and it definitely doesn't make any emotional sense
- Was it the director? Is it the ninth floor?
- It was so brutal that I can't unsee it.
- It was so brutal that I can't unsee it.
Bills:
HB2408 , HB2434 , HB2725 , HB2728 , HB2729 , HB2730 , HB2731 , HB2732 , HB2733 , SB1192 , SB1398 , SB1399 , SB1494 , SB1557 , SB1813 , SB1821
Committee:
Senate Health and Human Services
Keywords:
nursing board, regulatory actions, disciplinary actions, expungement, healthcare professionalism, controlled substances, prescription monitoring, opioid crisis, healthcare regulations, patient safety, prescription drugs, opioids, healthcare, pain management, utilization controls, AHCCCS, Department of Economic Security, social services, welfare programs, vocational rehabilitation
FL
Florida 2025 Regular Session
December 9, 2025 - 09:30 AM
Transcript Highlights:
- And I think there's some uniqueness, but it it it really does revolve around the data still.
- Is it real data? Is it is it a real data with no PH? I mean, are you encrypted at rest?
- It will need oversight. It does have the ability to go off course.
- it correctly.
- So it is and transform into our own it reformat.
TX
Transcript Highlights:
- Get it. Don't agree with it, but I get it.
- What does it mean when the state pays it, then who doesn't have to pay it?
- I think it had a million dollars in it.
- You did it. No. And we all did. Thirty-one people did it in the House. We all did it.
- Maybe then it makes it all okay.
Summary:
The Senate opened with an invocation and then took up several conference committee matters and resolutions. It granted the House request for a conference committee on House Bill 46 and adopted a conference report on Senate Bill 37, which was described as higher education governance reform, including stronger board authority, changes to faculty senates, general education requirements, and a new ombudsman office. Senators also adopted a large package of resolutions and HCRs by voice vote.
A major focus was Senate Bill 12, the “Parental Bill of Rights,” whose conference report was adopted after extended questioning. The bill was described as giving parents more access to school materials and grievance procedures, requiring parental consent for student clubs, and restricting school district employees from assisting with social transitioning or related gender-identity instruction. Senators raised concerns about effects on students already socially transitioned and on parental rights in medical or psychological decisions; the author said the House language was retained in key areas and that districts would need policies and parent notification. The report passed 20-11.
The Senate then adopted a resolution allowing the conference committee on Senate Bill 1, the state budget for fiscal years 2026-2027, to go outside the bounds, and later adopted the budget conference report. Senators highlighted major funding for public education, property tax relief, public safety, health and human services, child care, water and transportation infrastructure, and the Texas Energy Fund. The budget discussion also covered higher education, mental health facilities, community attendant wages, rural hospitals, DFPS case management, child care assistance, and a study rider on TRS. The report passed unanimously, 30-0.
Finally, the Senate suspended rules to take up Senate Bill 8 and adopted its conference report. The bill requires counties with jails or jail contracts to participate in the federal 287(g) immigration enforcement program, with sheriffs choosing among available models and counties receiving tiered grants to help cover costs. Supporters framed it as a public safety measure targeting criminal illegal aliens, while opponents questioned whether it would divert local resources and increase fear in immigrant communities. The report was adopted after debate.
NH
Transcript Highlights:
- </c> regulations it is also unclear if it regulations it is also unclear if it would<01:02:21.920><c>
- So, but it is what it is.
- So, but it is what it is.
- </c><01:15:25.639><c> and</c> around us it it it means communities and around us it it it means communities
- it they get it that waiver and recording it they get it that<01:39:20.119><c> that's</c><01:39:20.320
Committee:
Senate Commerce
DE
Delaware 2025-2026 Regular Session
Delaware Nuclear Energy Feasibility Task Force Jun 29th, 2026 at 10:00 am
Transcript Highlights:
- Sperber, we will turn it over to you. We'll turn it over to it. Good morning, everybody.
- it needs to have its own Secretary of Energy.
- And it needs to be a separate department and it needs to have its own Secretary of Energy.
- It could look like this. It could take this form.
- I was under Section B, it, it, is.
LA
Transcript Highlights:
- I think it makes it good. We're good. We're good. We see it. Okay. We got it. Okay. Okay.
- I think it makes it good. We're good. We're good. We see it. Okay. We got it. Okay. Okay.
- it.
- Is it, is it? It's performance-based.
- If it affects the PBMs, it does.
Committee:
House Insurance
NY
New York 2025-2026 Regular Session
Senate Standing Committee on Housing, Construction and Community Development - 03/31/2026
Housing, Construction, and Community Development
Transcript Highlights:
- You know what it is?
- I appreciate it.
- But again, we'll take it. We will consider it and take it back. I appreciate that. Thank you.
- I think I'm not sure that it limits it to...
- So it could be, yeah. So it would be one of those things.
Summary:
The Senate Committee on Housing, Construction, and Community Development met on March 31, 2026, with a quorum present and noted that the Legislature was in budget negotiations and approaching a scheduled break. The committee took up several housing-related bills, with most being reported to Finance after discussion. The first bill, S.3742A, would require information to be provided in new and renewal leases for certain housing accommodations, and it was reported without opposition. S.4659B, the Rental Emergency Stabilization for Tenants Act, generated the longest debate; supporters said it would give local governments outside New York City a more flexible way to determine a housing emergency and opt into rent stabilization, while opponents argued it lacked a clear vacancy-rate standard, could discourage development, and would benefit higher-income tenants. The bill was ultimately reported, with some negative votes and one or more votes without recommendation.
The committee then discussed S.8168, which would create a deconstruction and salvage framework for building materials, including local options, technical assistance, grants, and related code updates. Supporters said it could reduce landfill use, lower disposal costs, and encourage reuse markets, while opponents questioned costs, market demand, and whether the program would raise housing and demolition expenses. The bill was reported, again with some negative or without-recommendation votes. S.8595, dealing with how certain valuations and amounts due are calculated in foreclosure actions, was also reported. S.8672, the Employer-Assisted Housing Matching Grant Act, would provide a state match for employer housing assistance for certain nonprofit human services employers; members raised concerns about scope, possible double-dipping, and whether the program should be expanded to other workers, but the bill was reported with some negative and without-recommendation votes.
The final bill, S.94A, made a minor amendment to the Housing Access Voucher Pilot Program regarding priority applicants and unit inspections, and it was reported as well. Throughout the meeting, members repeatedly emphasized that several proposals were optional for local governments or employers rather than mandates, and many of the exchanges focused on affordability, housing supply, local control, and the fiscal effects of the bills. No floor votes were taken; the committee’s actions were limited to reporting the bills to Finance, with some reported favorably and others reported with negative or without-recommendation votes.
ID
Transcript Highlights:
- I'll second it.
- cannot do, what it includes and what it does not include.
- You don't have to do it if you don't want to, and then if you get into it and you don't like it, you
- It takes you a couple of days to wrap your head around it.
- It says may not require. What would it say? Shall? Well, that’s one of the—” “What would it say?
Committee:
Senate Commerce and Human Resources
NM
Transcript Highlights:
- No, Bergman — I did it right.
- If it was possible for me, it is possible for others too.
- Some of it is from alfalfa. Some of it is from apple orchards.
- It did burn, but it does now have structural damage from the water flow around it and the lack of vegetation
- I believe it was close to 220,000 for the acequia part of it.
Committee:
Senate Senate Conservation
Keywords:
insurance, wildfire, flood damage, natural disasters, property coverage, water projects, appropriation, New Mexico, finance authority, infrastructure, New Mexico Finance Authority, funding, SB193, acequia, community ditch, irrigation works construction fund, water infrastructure, ditch infrastructure, irrigation, New Mexico water law
NH
New Hampshire 2026 Regular Session
House Children and Family Law (01/13/2026)
Children and Family Law
Transcript Highlights:
- That's it. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.
- So, if you can do it, I appreciate it.
- We want it so that we can read it and go over it before we exec.
- </c><03:52:52.000><c> It</c> kids. It It hurt me financially. It kids. It It hurt me financially.
- </c> review it. review it.
Committee:
House Children and Family Law
FL
Transcript Highlights:
- So if it was struck by a hurricane, or if it lost a major business enterprise that was important to its
- You tell it like it is, good, bad, or ugly. You tell it like it is, and we appreciate it.
- So our general revenue has sales tax in it, it has corporate income tax in it, and it has doc stamp in
- it. ...tax, and it has corporate income tax, and it has doc stamp in it.
- I thought about it. I thought. No, no. I thought about it. I thought about it. You're excused.
Committee:
Senate Finance and Tax
Summary:
The Senate Committee on Finance and Tax met to hear a presentation from Amy Baker on the state’s ad valorem property tax forecast and how the revenue estimating conference handles property-tax-related impact analyses. Baker explained that the conference process requires unanimous consensus, that the revenue estimating conference produces the state’s official forecast, and that her office recently overhauled the ad valorem model to use a bottom-up, county-by-county approach with separate modeling for county and school rolls, confidential parcels, and detailed categories such as homestead, non-homestead, residential, non-residential, and agricultural property.
Baker walked through the current baseline numbers and the main components of taxable value, emphasizing the role of homestead differentials, especially Save Our Homes and portability, and homestead exemptions. She noted that differentials remove a large share of homestead value statewide, with especially large effects in South Florida and along the east coast, while exemptions are concentrated more heavily in northern and fiscally constrained counties. She also explained that many parcels have little or no remaining taxable value, while a smaller number of parcels hold a large share of taxable value, which makes exemption proposals highly uneven in their effects.
The committee discussed how impact conferences evaluate proposed constitutional amendments or bills by measuring the change from the baseline forecast, converting taxable-value changes into tax-dollar losses using county millage rates, and then expressing results in cash and recurring terms. Baker stressed that impact analyses do not address broader budgetary effects or local government replacement decisions, and that each proposal is analyzed as a standalone measure rather than in combination with others. Senators asked about seven House property-tax proposals already analyzed, the availability of those reports online, possible interactions if multiple proposals passed, and whether property-tax relief could stimulate the economy enough to offset revenue losses. Baker said the economic effects would be highly proposal- and county-specific and that any budgetary analysis would require separate work beyond the conference process. The committee took no substantive action beyond receiving the presentation and then adjourned.
NH
New Hampshire 2025 Regular Session
House Finance Committee Budget Briefing (04/08/2025)
Transcript Highlights:
- it won't be in it won't be there it it won't be in it won't be there forever. forever. forever.
- It it it so it money budget. Correct.
- It it it so it money paid<01:12:14.480><c> by</c><01:12:14.640><c> rateayers.
- So it it does involve money. Okay. Yes. So it it does involve money. Okay.
- </c><03:02:22.640><c> it</c> federal money, but um but it's it it federal money, but um but it's it it
Summary:
The meeting was a House budget briefing focused on the overall state budget and the first of three divisions. The presenter reviewed the size and structure of the budget, noting that the state had eliminated the interest and dividends tax and still balanced the budget. He explained the major spending categories in the general fund and total budget, emphasizing that health and human services and education remain the largest areas, while transportation is largely self-funded. He also walked through the revenue picture, including business taxes, insurance taxes, court fees, communications taxes, and Medicaid recoveries, and said the remaining interest and dividends tax revenue reflected late payments from prior assessments.
Members asked about the size of the tax cut from eliminating the interest and dividends tax, federal funding stability, and why Medicaid was being reduced if federal support was expected to remain steady. The response was that the lost revenue would have been about $200 million absent repeal, and that the budget gap was addressed through many small cuts across departments. On federal funds, the presenter said most aid is tied to multi-year grants and that core programs such as Medicare and Medicaid were expected to remain relatively stable, though some federal reductions could occur. He also said some agency reductions came from eliminating long-vacant, funded positions and from expected lapses.
The discussion then moved into Division One, which covers smaller and miscellaneous agencies. The division made cuts to the governor’s office, eliminated a temporary position at the Governor’s Commission on Disability, reduced Department of Information Technology spending through a back-of-budget cut, and found savings in Administrative Services. It also delayed maintenance at the Sununu Youth Services Center, stopped advertising for paid family medical leave, changed retiree health insurance funding, and consolidated several personnel-related boards into one. The division eliminated the Commission on Aging and the Office of the Child Advocate, made a temporary special education advocate position permanent, reduced the Secretary of State’s budget, kept municipal rooms-and-meals distributions flat, and made changes to the retirement system, including $55 million to improve Group 2 retirement benefits and a new retirement structure for future state hires. The judicial branch was also asked to find savings and received two additional judges because of expected caseload increases from other eliminations.
MN
Minnesota 2025-2026 Regular Session
Human services committee considers HF973 3/12/25
Transcript Highlights:
- So when we centralize it, more people will use it when they need it.
- So when we centralize it, more people will use it when they need it.
- So when we centralize it, more people will use it when they need it.
- So when we centralize it, more people will use it when they need it.
- So when we centralize it, more people will use it when they need it.
FL
Florida 2025 Regular Session
Community Affairs Feb 4th, 2025
AZ
MA
Massachusetts 2025-2026 Regular Session
Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions Mar 31st, 2026
Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions
Transcript Highlights:
- And the people of the Commonwealth know it. They feel it.
- And the people of the Commonwealth know it. They feel it.
- We could talk about whether or not voters like it or not, or what it is or what it doesn't.
- We could talk about whether or not voters like it or not, or what it is or what it doesn't.
- , making it easier for people to register, making it easier for people to vote, and making it... and
Bills:
H5001
Keywords:
election day registration, voter registration, proof of residency, provisional ballot, party affiliation
Summary:
The Special Joint Committee on Initiative Petitions held a public hearing on Initiative Petition 25-12, H.503, an act to implement all-party state primaries. Committee leaders explained the Article 48 process and said the hearing was part of the Legislature’s review before any measure could advance toward the 2026 ballot. The hearing format included subject-matter experts, proponents, opponents, and public testimony, though this excerpt mainly covers the expert and proponent panels.
The first expert, Northeastern University political scientist Costas Panagopoulos, described top-two primaries used in states such as California, Washington, Alaska, Louisiana, and Nebraska, and said the research shows only modest or mixed effects. He argued that top-two systems do not reliably reduce polarization, can weaken party gatekeeping, may increase campaign spending and incumbent advantages, and can lead to undervoting when voters do not see a preferred candidate on the ballot. In response to questions, he said turnout effects are mixed and not substantially higher overall. Katie King of the National Conference of State Legislatures then outlined different primary systems, including closed, open, top-two/top-four, nonpartisan, all-comers, and blanket primaries, and reviewed Supreme Court cases holding blanket primaries unconstitutional while upholding Washington’s top-two system. She also noted that changing primary systems would require significant voter education and administrative preparation.
The proponent panel, led by Danielle Allen of the Coalition for Healthy Democracy, argued that Massachusetts has too many uncontested elections, low primary participation, and too little accountability, and that all-party primaries would give every voter a meaningful choice in a higher-turnout general election. Supporters said the proposal is tailored to Massachusetts, would keep party endorsements visible on the ballot, and could broaden competition, improve representation, and help independent and minor-party candidates. Jim Henderson, coalition counsel, said the bill is narrowly focused on state-level primaries and was drafted to fit Article 48 requirements. Other proponents, including Kevin Johnson, Kate Kavanaugh, and Spencer Reynolds, echoed that the current system overrepresents a small partisan electorate and that the reform would shift power to voters. Committee members pressed the proponents on turnout evidence, party endorsements, ballot access, the role of fusion-style cross-endorsements, the effect on polarization, and whether the change would actually improve representation or simply move party influence to an earlier stage. No votes or final committee action were taken in the excerpt.