Transcript Highlights:

• It creates programs and projects, some projects that were heard by the LCCMR and rejected.
• Members, I ask you to reject this amendment for the simple reason that this isn't something that's done
• I reject the premise of this amendment.
• Reject this amendment, members. Vote red. Representative Zeleznikar.
• The reality is Democrats rejected regulations in settings like Planned Parenthood, which do invasive

Transcript Highlights:

• Please reject any efforts to remove students from eligibility for the North Star Promise program.
• Please reject any efforts to remove students from eligibility for the North Star Promise program.
• are they are for themselves they are they are motans<00:22:58.159> please<00:22:58.640> reject
• <00:22:58.960> any<00:22:59.200> efforts<00:22:59.520> to motans please reject
• any efforts to motans please reject any efforts to remove<00:22:59.960> students<00:23:00.279

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Don't we also have the constitutional authority as an institution to consider this map and just reject
• It is now in our hands, and we have the authority to accept it, to reject it, or to amend it.
• President, I rise to reject this abrogation of our duty to defend the Constitution, this abandonment
• I urge this body to reject this partisan-drawn, gerrymandered map and stand by the side of fairness,
• Obviously, his argument was unanimously rejected by the Florida Supreme Court.

Summary: The Senate convened in special session and took up Senate Bill 8D, later substituted with House Bill 1D, both establishing Florida’s congressional districts. The sponsor, Senator Gates, explained that the Governor had transmitted a proposed redistricting plan on short notice and argued that mid-decade congressional redistricting is legally permissible, citing population growth and the Governor’s view that race-based provisions in the Fair Districts Amendment are unconstitutional. He repeatedly said the Legislature was not being asked to prove the Governor’s legal theory, only to consider the proposal, and noted that no amendments were offered. A lengthy question-and-answer period followed, with senators raising concerns about the rushed process, lack of statewide public hearings, and the map’s effects on minority communities, compactness, communities of interest, and partisan fairness. Senators questioned whether the map cracked Latino and Black communities, whether partisan data was used, whether the Governor’s office had outside consultants, and whether the plan complied with the Florida Constitution, the Fair Districts Amendment, and the Voting Rights Act. Gates generally deferred on legal conclusions, said the Governor’s representatives had testified the map was race-neutral and used political data only as one factor, and emphasized that any constitutional challenge would be for the courts. After a motion to temporarily postpone failed by a recorded vote of 12 yeas to 23 nays, the Senate continued debate. Senators Rouson, Bernard, and others spoke in opposition, arguing the proposal was rushed, partisan, and harmful to communities of interest and minority voting power. Gates maintained that the Governor had a constitutional prerogative to propose the map and that the Legislature could accept, reject, or amend it. The House companion bill was then substituted for the Senate bill, read a third time, and the chamber moved into final debate on the congressional redistricting plan.

Transcript Highlights:

• Don't we also have the constitutional authority as an institution to consider this map and just reject
• It is now in our hands, and we have the authority to accept it, to reject it, or to amend it.
• President, I rise to reject this abrogation of our duty to defend the Constitution, this abandonment
• I urge this body to reject this partisan-drawn, gerrymandered map, and stand by the side of fairness,
• Obviously, his argument was unanimously rejected by the Florida Supreme Court.

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Don't we also have the constitutional authority as an institution to consider this map and just reject
• It is now in our hands, and we have the authority to accept it, to reject it, or to amend it.
• President, I rise to reject this abrogation of our duty to defend the Constitution, this abandonment
• President, I rise to reject this abrogation of our duty to defend the Constitution, this abandonment
• Obviously, his argument was unanimously rejected by the Florida Supreme Court.

Summary: The Senate convened in special session and took up Senate Bill 8D, later substituting identical House Bill 1D, to establish Florida’s congressional districts. The opening prayer and Pledge of Allegiance were followed by procedural remarks, then extensive floor discussion focused almost entirely on the redistricting proposal, its timing, and its legal basis. Senator Gaetz, explaining the bill, said the Governor had transmitted the map two days earlier, argued that mid-decade congressional redistricting is not prohibited by law, and said the Governor’s stated reasons were to address population growth and to draw race-neutral districts. He also said the legislature could accept, reject, or amend the proposal. Much of the debate centered on the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent Louisiana decision and whether it affected Florida’s Fair Districts Amendment and the Voting Rights Act. Senators Smith, Rouson, Sharief, Polsky, Arrington, Bracey Davis, Bernard, Nathan, and others questioned the short notice, lack of public hearings, the use of partisan data, the absence of sworn testimony, and whether the map diluted minority voting strength or fragmented communities of interest. Gaetz repeatedly said he was not offering legal opinions, that the Governor’s counsel believed the Fair Districts race-based provisions were inconsistent with federal law, and that any legal challenge would be for the courts. He also said the Governor’s mapmaker reported using census and demographic data, along with political data as one of many inputs, and claimed the map’s compactness was comparable to the current map. A motion by Senator Smith to temporarily postpone consideration of the bill failed on a 12-23 vote. After the Senate returned from a 30-minute break to review the new Supreme Court decision, debate continued. The chamber then substituted HB 1D for SB 8D, read the House bill, and advanced it to third reading. The transcript ends during debate on final passage, with Senators Rouson and Bernard speaking in opposition and arguing the map was procedurally rushed, legally vulnerable, and politically motivated.

Transcript Highlights:

• Don't we also have the constitutional authority as an institution to consider this map and just reject
• It is now in our hands, and we have the authority to accept it, to reject it, or to amend it.
• President, I rise to reject this abrogation of our duty to defend the Constitution, this abandonment
• I urge this body to reject this partisan-drawn, gerrymandered map, and stand by the side of fairness,
• Obviously, his argument was unanimously rejected by the Florida Supreme Court.

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.

Transcript Highlights:

• Please reject this map. Thank you. Thank you. Next.
• Please reject this map. Thank you. Thank you. Next.
• We ask you to please reject this map.
• Supreme Court of... ...told us that the people of Florida reject partisan maps. And the U.S.
• I would urge you to reject this exclusive process. There's no urgency. Please vote no on this.

Summary: The Committee on Rules met with a quorum present and took up a presentation from the Governor’s office on proposed congressional reapportionment. Executive Office of the Governor counsel Mo Jazeel argued that mid-cycle congressional redistricting is legally permissible, that race should not be used in drawing districts, and that the Florida Fair Districts provisions are inconsistent with federal equal protection principles and, in the executive branch’s view, are inseverable. Jason Parada then presented the proposed map, explaining that it was drawn using 2020 census block data, with county growth estimates used only as a guide, and that the plan was designed to be race-neutral while also considering compactness, county and municipal boundaries, and other traditional redistricting criteria. He said the map keeps 48 counties and 382 municipalities whole, has compactness scores comparable to the current map, and makes the largest changes in South Florida, with some districts remaining unchanged and others reconfigured around population shifts and geographic boundaries. Members questioned both presenters extensively about the legal basis for disregarding the Fair Districts Amendment, the use of partisan data, the absence of racial analysis, and whether the map truly reflects population growth. Jazeel said the executive branch’s position is that race-based provisions in the state constitution cannot be used if they conflict with the U.S. Constitution, and that the forthcoming U.S. Supreme Court decision in Louisiana v. Calais could further clarify the law. Parada said he did not use race in drawing the map, did use partisan information as one of several traditional criteria, and relied on 2020 census data for population equality. Senators also pressed him on who reviewed the map, why the public and legislators had limited time to review it, and whether the plan was intended to favor Republicans; Parada denied partisan intent and said he was the only person who moved lines on the map, though he consulted with other Executive Office of the Governor staff and counsel. Several senators raised concerns that the map did not clearly reflect Florida’s recent population growth, that some districts remained highly irregular, and that the plan appeared to be based on a legal theory contingent on future court rulings. The presenters responded that congressional districts must be equal to the person, that growth estimates can only guide orientation rather than replace census data, and that the map was designed to preserve as much of the existing structure as possible while making the largest adjustments in South Florida. No vote or final action on the map was taken during the excerpted portion of the meeting, and the committee continued with questions and discussion.

Transcript Highlights:

• The first Denim Day sparked a global movement, one that continues today as a visible rejection of victim
• The first Denim Day sparked a global movement, one that continues today as a visible rejection of victim
• The first Denim Day sparked a global movement, one that continues today as a visible rejection of victim
• Today we stand together in denim to say that we believe survivors, we reject harmful myths, and we will
• harmful myths, and survivors, we reject harmful myths, and we<01:34:02.760> will<01:34:02.880

Keywords: 981, all

Summary: The Senate convened with a quorum, approved the journal, and received a series of committee reports and appointments. Reports included favorable action on several bills from Finance, State Veterans and Military Affairs, and Business, Labor, and Technology, along with a recommendation to place some measures on the consent calendar. The chamber also moved through a long set of personal-privilege tributes and April Fools’ Day remarks recognizing Senate President James Coleman, the House, and various guests and organizations, with a few lighthearted fines announced for members participating in the joke tributes. On third reading, the Senate considered three consent-calendar House bills. House Bill 1024, concerning voluntary relinquishment of a child and extending the age from 72 hours to 30 days, passed 35-0. House Bill 1002, dealing with access to behavioral health providers and related licensing and network participation changes, passed 30-5 after several senators recorded no votes. House Bill 1023, clarifying a political party’s liability for certain accessibility requirements related to ballot access for persons with disabilities, passed 35-0. The Senate then took up House Bill 1259, an early childhood services measure affecting licensing exemptions, reimbursement, universal preschool funding, eligibility, reporting, and advisory bodies. A substantive third-reading amendment was adopted 35-0 after discussion about the bill’s treatment of 3-year-olds, and the bill then passed 32-3. House Bill 1058, providing protections for minors featured in digital content, passed 33-2. The chamber also granted, then withdrew, leave for the Joint Budget Committee to meet while the Senate was in session, and later moved into Committee of the Whole for second reading of House Bill 1120, a mobile-home taxation and delinquent property tax measure, where the Finance Committee report was adopted and an amendment was discussed to align legal-disability language and redemption-period provisions.

Transcript Highlights:

• municipality, a real water district using reverse osmosis, they have to be able to discharge their reject
• They have to be able to discharge their reject water to something, a stream or an ocean that is already
• They struggle with being able to discharge all of the reject.
• It's that you're putting all of the contaminants in your reject.
• It's that, uh, you putting all of the contaminants in your reject.

Summary: The meeting focused on the use of biosolids on farm and ranch land, with testimony from Oklahoma State University experts, a conservation official, and an engineering representative about the benefits, risks, and regulatory implications. Dr. Lusk described OSU’s long history of soil fertility research and said biosolids can provide nutrients and organic matter, but also may carry contaminants such as PFAS, heavy metals, pharmaceuticals, microplastics, and pathogens. He emphasized that many questions remain unanswered, especially about contaminant uptake into soil, crops, livestock, and humans, and said existing EPA and Oklahoma DEQ regulations address some treatment and application standards but may not fully cover PFAS. Dr. Arnell expanded on nutrient management, explaining that biosolids can function similarly to manure as a fertilizer source, especially for nitrogen and phosphorus, but should be tested, incorporated into soil, and applied under permit conditions to reduce runoff and other losses. He said PFAS testing methods are not yet standardized and that more research is needed to determine sampling protocols, movement in soil, and long-term effects. Committee members asked whether farmers and ranchers should be notified of risks, whether PFAS is currently tested, how many counties use biosolids, and what research would be needed for a dissertation-level study. The witnesses generally agreed that landowners should be informed of known risks and uncertainties, but said the science is still developing. Dr. Arnell said a unified testing method is needed before reliable PFAS monitoring can be done, and suggested that a multi-year study would be required to understand soil movement, crop uptake, and livestock impacts. Greg Scott of the Oklahoma Conservation Commission framed the issue as a waste-management problem, noting that human waste streams contain contaminants and that soil type affects how pollutants move; he said sandy soils pose greater movement risks than clay soils and that current best practice is incorporation, careful timing, and avoiding steep or sensitive sites. He also said PFAS are widespread and not naturally occurring in the way some other compounds are, and that liability and cleanup costs are major concerns. Mary Elizabeth Mock of Garver Engineering focused on the practical and financial consequences of a possible moratorium on land application, saying most of Oklahoma’s biosolids are currently land applied and would otherwise have to go to landfills. She warned that many landfills are nearing capacity, tipping fees could rise sharply, and cities such as Tulsa and Norman could face large increases in disposal costs, which would ultimately be borne by ratepayers and taxpayers. She also said septic system maintenance costs could rise if land application options shrink, potentially leading to deferred maintenance and system failures. Mock urged a tiered, data-driven approach to PFAS regulation and said advanced treatment technologies may help in the future, but they are still emerging and expensive. No votes were taken; the session consisted of presentations and member questions.

Transcript Highlights:

• I urge my colleagues to reject this rule, reject this reconciliation bill, and reject this dangerous
• > this<02:47:57.680> rule, my colleagues to reject this rule, my colleagues to reject this
• ><02:48:00.720> and reject this reconciliation bill, and reject this reconciliation bill, and
• > for<02:48:03.040> our reject this dangerous vision for our reject this dangerous vision
• Without objection, I hope my colleagues will join me in voting for the motion to reject. reject.

Keywords: U.S. House of Representatives Floor Proceedings on Tuesday, June 9, 2026, 1012, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I respectfully ask the Senate Education Committee reject this bill and prioritize our students' needs
• I respectfully ask the Senate Education Committee reject this bill and prioritize our students' needs
• I respectfully ask the Senate Education Committee reject this bill and prioritize our students' needs
• I respectfully ask the Senate Education Committee reject this bill and prioritize our students' needs
• I respectfully ask the Senate Education Committee reject this bill and prioritize our students' needs

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Got to get in the right mode here, relative to the acceptance or rejection of charitable contributions
• So the discussion would have to take place and the school board would have to vote to accept or reject
• would have to vote to accept or reject would have to vote to accept or reject the<00:03:35.120><
• Would you be amendable to having this bill with a slight change that says rejected or accepted?
• I would be rejected or accepted?

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first heard Senate Bill 69, which would require local school boards to publicly vote on whether to accept or reject charitable gifts or donations, prompted by a case in which a church offered to pay off school lunch debt but the offer was refused and families were sued instead. Senator Keith Murphy said the bill is intended to force transparency and public accountability in similar situations, while acknowledging that boards may still reject gifts with strings attached or for ethical reasons. Members raised questions about anonymity, privacy, and whether school boards already have authority to address meal debt before litigation. Murphy said the bill was aimed at cases where money is refused and families are sued, and he said he would accept amendments to make the vote requirement apply to both accepted and rejected gifts. The hearing on the bill was then closed. The committee then took up Senate Bill 206, which requires public schools to adopt policies limiting student cell phone use during the school day. Trisha Milo, presenting for Senator Rashardi, said the bill is meant to improve focus, reduce distraction and cyberbullying, and create more consistent policies across districts, while still allowing exceptions for medical, disability, language support, and instructional needs. Committee members questioned whether districts would retain flexibility, whether the bill should apply to charter schools and other devices, and whether the annual policy-update requirement and enforcement language were too prescriptive. Milo said districts would still have flexibility in how they write their policies and that she would seek clarification from the senator on several drafting questions. Becky Wilson of the New Hampshire School Boards Association testified in support of the general concept of a cell phone policy, saying many districts already have some form of policy, though not all do, and that existing sample policies are outdated. She said the annual update requirement would likely be burdensome and that the enforcement language seemed intended to ensure administrative involvement rather than teacher discipline, but she suggested the wording may need revision. Members also discussed whether very small districts or districts without schools should be covered and whether the bill should better distinguish between classroom enforcement and student discipline. The chair closed the hearing on Senate Bill 206 after no further testimony, and the committee moved on to the next bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• Today's business is to receive public testimony and vote to accept, reject, or modify the port priority
• The committee will receive public testimony and vote to accept, reject, or modify the port priority applications

Keywords: 965, house, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Transportation, Highways and Public Works met to receive public testimony and act on port priority applications for inclusion in the FY 2027-2028 Port Priority Construction and Development Priority Program. After approving the March 9, 2026 minutes, the committee heard from Commissioner Andrew Kilshaw of the Office of Multimodal Commerce on two applications from the Avoyelles Harbor and Terminal District: a building addition and waterfront industrial improvements project, and a Workforce Training Center redevelopment project. He said both met program criteria and projected substantial state benefits, jobs, and high benefit-cost ratios. Committee members asked about the projected jobs, the unusually high benefit-cost ratio, and the status of other port projects. Kilshaw and DOTD’s Molly Bergoin said the program has a backlog of more than $200 million, but the department is working through it, with some projects nearing closeout. They also said the annual request cap has been increased and that a tiered funding approach is being considered to help projects compete for federal dollars. Members expressed support for expanding investment in ports and for a statewide strategic plan. Chairman Boriak moved to accept the port priority applications received through March 1, 2026, for inclusion in the FY 2027-2028 program. There was no objection, and the committee accepted the projects. The meeting then adjourned without objection.

Transcript Highlights:

• try to submit an invoice outside the software, it will delay the process or the invoice will be rejected
• process or they will reject the invoice. process or they will reject the invoice.
• software, they find that it's rejected software, they find that it's rejected because<00:25:05.480
• <01:25:46.560> by<01:25:46.720> this were offered and rejected by this were offered
• and rejected by this committee<01:25:47.400> that<01:25:47.600> would<01:25:47.840>

Bills: HF1234, HF3528, HF3672, HF3679, HF3680, HF1944

Keywords: payment transparency, public contracts, contractor rights, government accountability, construction payments, barbering, licensing, examinations, barber schools, public safety, certifications, Barber Examiners Board, data transparency, Legislative Budget Office, state agencies, fiscal notes, public data, standard time, federal law, time zone

Transcript Highlights:

• Has been rejected. amended. Has been rejected. Next<00:15:47.279> rule.
• It's been rejected before and I encourage us to reject it again. On and opposed.”
• It's been rejected before and I body.
• > reject<00:20:27.919> it<00:20:28.080> again.
• On and encourage us to reject it again. On and opposed. opposed. opposed.

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Proponents reject the input of families most affected.
• Proponents reject the input of families most affected.
• Proponents reject the input of families most affected.
• Proponents reject the input of families most affected.
• I recommend the Senate Labor Committee reject SF 2149 or amend it to remove any 14C phase-out language

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So, you're suggesting that we reject our amendment, that one and two be taken off of the list and that
• Why are you summarily rejecting our amendment? Because I can save money.
• <00:40:26.000> our you're suggesting that we reject our you're suggesting that we reject our
• Why are you summarily rejecting<00:40:55.599> our<00:40:55.920> amendment?
• Because I can rejecting our amendment? Because I can save<00:40:57.920> money.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Hasn't this bill been rejected? Senator, um, Mr. President, it has not.
• There was a hearing, there was public comment, there was a committee vote, and it was rejected twice,
• So, being rejected certainly wasn't rejected on this side of the world.
• And reject this amendment. Thank you, Mr. President.
• And so I ask the chamber to reject this amendment.

Transcript Highlights:

• which make it more difficult to come out to family members, risking resistance or even outright rejection
• from their parents and loved ones. ...or even outright rejection from their parents and loved ones.
• teaches that we're responsible for one another, and that our communities are strongest when they reject
• Our communities are strongest when they reject hatred and exclusion in all forms.

Summary: The Assembly met in session, established a quorum, and opened with a prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance. Members then handled a series of procedural motions, including re-referrals of several Senate bills, notices for committee hearings, and a successful motion to suspend rules so ACA 20 could be taken up later in the week. The chamber also recognized former Assembly Member Christina Garcia and later moved into a Pride Month observance. The main ceremonial item was House Resolution 115 recognizing June 2026 as LGBTQ+ Pride Month. Assembly Member Ward opened on the resolution, and multiple members from different caucuses spoke in support, highlighting Pride history, LGBTQ+ rights, and the contributions of LGBTQ Californians. Assembly Member DeMaio offered supportive remarks while noting policy differences, and the resolution was adopted by voice vote after 53 co-authors were added. The Assembly then held a Pride honoree ceremony recognizing 15 individuals and groups for contributions to the LGBTQ community. On the floor file, members also adopted several resolutions by voice vote after adding co-authors: ACR 187 on Men’s Mental Health Month, ACR 157 marking the 50th anniversary of the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act, ACR 222 declaring Alzheimer’s Disease and Brain Awareness Month, and ACR 224 recognizing Social Media Harms Victim Remembrance Day. Each drew personal testimony from members about the underlying issues, including suicide prevention, caregiving and dementia, mining reclamation, and harms to youth from social media. The Assembly also concurred in Senate amendments to AB 46 on mental health diversion by a 51-1 vote, and later adopted the consent calendar 66-0. The House adjourned until June 25, 2026, at 9 a.m.

Transcript Highlights:

• Yes means you adopt the amendment, and no means you reject it.
• I would hope that you reject and support teachers and school employers in this state, because they deserve
• So I ask that you reject those amendments, even though I know they may pass, but we hope that you reject

Keywords: 965, house, all

Summary: The House Committee on Labor and Industrial Relations met for its final meeting of the 2026 session and took up SB 312 by Senator Talbot, a bill concerning labor organizations, employee dues and fees, withdrawal from unions, annual notice requirements, and related reporting and notification provisions. The committee first adopted a technical amendment set, then debated a larger amendment set that shifted the cease-withholding request to the employer, required electronic confirmation, placed certain administrative costs on the labor organization, and added language about employer notification and authorization procedures. Members discussed whether the bill was needed, whether employees already have the ability to opt out, and whether the amendments would create confusion or unnecessary bureaucracy. Supporters said the bill protects employee choice and ensures dues stoppage happens at the nearest payroll period; opponents argued the added language was unclear and burdensome. The committee also adopted a separate technical amendment adding mass transit employees to the list of exemptions. Testimony came from the bill author and several stakeholders. Senator Talbot said the bill is meant to ensure workers know they do not have to join a union, can revoke dues authorizations, and can stop deductions without waiting for a fixed annual window. Representative Eccles defended the amendments as employee protections and a way to shift administrative costs away from taxpayers. Jim Patterson of LABI supported the amendments, saying they protect public employers and taxpayers from administrative costs. After the amendments were adopted on a roll call vote, union representatives Matt Wood of the Louisiana AFL-CIO, Peter Robbins-Brown of the AFL-CIO, and Larry Carter of the Louisiana Federation of Teachers and School Employees testified in opposition to the amended bill, saying they had worked in good faith on a simpler opt-in/opt-out framework and objected to the new cost and bureaucracy provisions. Several members also spoke in favor of the bill as a matter of freedom of choice and employee control over paycheck deductions. At the end of debate, Representative Wilder moved to report SB 312 with amendments. The motion passed on a roll call vote, and the bill was reported from committee with amendments. The committee then adjourned.