Video & Transcript Research : 'refund'

Page 73 of 90
US

US Federal 2025-2026 Regular Session

US House Floor Proceedings (Tuesday, January 13, 2026)

US Federal House Floor Meeting

Transcript Highlights:
  • Quote, “People are going to have massive refund checks,” said White House National Economic Council Director
  • Working Families Tax Cut boosts refunds, providing permanency to lower tax rates from the 2017 Trump
  • Quote, “People are going to have massive refund checks,” said White House National Economic Council Director
  • Quote, “People are going to have massive refund checks,” said White House National Economic Council Director
  • Working Families Tax Cut boosts refunds, providing permanency to lower tax rates from the 2017 Trump
CO

Colorado 2026 Regular Session

Colorado House 2026 Legislative Day 029 Feb 11th, 2026

Colorado House Floor Meeting

Keywords: 981, all
NH

New Hampshire 2026 Regular Session

House Commerce and Consumer Affairs (01/29/2026)

Commerce and Consumer Affairs

Transcript Highlights:
  • The section 399:793-b includes additional prorated pre-buy fees that must be refunded to the consumer
  • that<04:46:03.840> must<04:46:04.160> be<04:46:05.360> uh<04:46:05.920> refunded
  • <04:46:06.560> to<04:46:06.798> the um that must be uh refunded to the um that must
  • be uh refunded to the consumer<04:46:07.600> if<04:46:07.840> they<04:46:08.080> don't
Keywords: 1189, house, all
NH

New Hampshire 2025 Regular Session

House Finance Division I (02/28/2025)

Transcript Highlights:
  • Now we anticipate that the 100% federal funds will fully refund to us, so that's why we increase the
  • Now we anticipate that the 100% federal funds will fully refund to us, so that's why we increase the
  • Now we anticipate that the 100% federal funds will fully refund to us, so that's why we increase the
  • Now we anticipate that the 100% federal funds will fully refund to us, so that's why we increase the
Keywords: 928, house, all
Summary: The committee reviewed the Department of Corrections budget, with the chair initially noting that the overall numbers looked close to fiscal year 2024 spending, except for federal funds. Department officials explained that prior ARPA expenditures and delayed revenue recognition had distorted the comparison, and that the corrected general fund spend was about $169.7 million. Members then focused on whether the budget’s staffing assumptions were realistic, especially the shift from overtime to full-time lines and the use of vacant positions to offset overtime costs. The department said it is leaning on vacancy savings, but would return for additional appropriations if unforeseen staffing problems arise. A major portion of the discussion centered on recruitment, retention, and staffing levels. Officials reported a 42% vacancy rate in enforcement ranks, down from 51% in January 2023, with 28 new officers headed to the next academy and 33 new hires already tracked. They said overtime is more expensive than regular staffing because of benefits and that it takes about 11 months for a new hire to break even. Members also asked about the split between incarcerated and supervised populations; the department said it oversees about 1,970 inmates in facilities and just over 4,000 people in the community, with 77 positions supervising the community population and the inmate population remaining the most expensive area. The committee also discussed how sentencing and statutory changes affect incarceration levels, including misdemeanor/felony thresholds and theft thresholds, with the department agreeing that such changes can significantly affect prison and jail populations. Members asked about education and recidivism, and the department said base education is the most important foundation, followed by vocational training, while noting that many incarcerated men lack a high school diploma. The department also described a $1.3 million reduction in contracted forensic evaluation services, explaining that these evaluations are court-ordered competency assessments and are not statutorily required to be provided by DOC. Finally, members reviewed victim services funding and staffing, including VOCA-supported positions, and the department explained that a new victim witness specialist would help support survivors at parole hearings and safety planning.
US

US Federal 2025-2026 Regular Session

US House Floor Proceedings (Wednesday, December 3, 2025)

US Federal House Floor Meeting

Transcript Highlights:
  • We call it a VAT tax and how they arbitrage, where they refund it when you export to the United States
  • If you go on cable news tonight or cable talk and you say, you know, we're going to get a refund, math
  • we're going to and you say, you know, we're going to get<08:48:41.120> a<08:48:41.440> refund
NH

New Hampshire 2025 Regular Session

Senate Judiciary (02/18/2025)

Judiciary

Transcript Highlights:
  • c><00:19:31.280> a a realtor a retailer will provide a a realtor a retailer will provide a refund
  • 32.200> customer<00:19:33.080> but<00:19:33.240> the<00:19:33.440> damage refund
  • to the customer but the damage refund to the customer but the damage has<00:19:34.000> been<00
Keywords: 1191, senate, all
CA

California 2025-2026 Regular Session

Senate Budget and Fiscal Review Committee Jun 29th, 2026

Budget and Fiscal Review

Transcript Highlights:
  • Additionally, thank you for refunding the enhanced services for asylees and vulnerable non-citizens program
Keywords: 987, senate, all
MA

Massachusetts 2025-2026 Regular Session

Joint Committee on the Judiciary Jun 21st, 2026 at 01:00 pm

Joint Committee on the Judiciary

Transcript Highlights:
  • Because we had to file jointly, the refund I should have received—several thousand dollars—was instead
Keywords: 995, all
Summary: The Joint Committee on the Judiciary held a lengthy public hearing on a wide range of civil actions, labor, consumer protection, and animal welfare bills. Chair Lydia Edwards and Representative Michael Day opened with strict testimony rules and time limits, then heard from legislators and advocates on measures including animal-abuser pet ownership bans (S. 1207/H. 1914), a name-change privacy bill (S. 1045/H. 1973), tort claims reform (H. 1724), law enforcement council coverage under the Tort Claims Act (S. 1199), civil rights and qualified immunity-related proposals (H. 1641), employee free speech/captive audience restrictions (S. 1078/H. 1653), consumer protection and civil rights jurisdiction expansion (S. 1041), private right of action for wage theft (H. 1916), gun-owner liability insurance (H. 1836), pseudoephedrine sales tracking (S. 1243/H. 1581), prepaid legal services plans (H. 1612), structured settlement protections (H. 1863), third-party litigation financing disclosure (H. 1861), antitrust reform for small businesses and workers (S. 1038/H. 1982), legal notices in online-only newspapers (S. 1279/H. 1632), and several animal cruelty and protection bills including H. 1938, H. 1949, S. 1277/H. 1934, and H. 1764. Testimony was largely supportive from bill sponsors and advocacy groups, with repeated themes of protecting vulnerable people and animals, improving access to justice, and updating outdated laws. Supporters of the animal bills argued for stronger possession bans, broader cruelty citations, and civil removal tools to prevent repeat abuse; opponents or conditional supporters raised due process and enforcement concerns, especially around warrantless seizures and requiring retail or shelter staff to check registries. On the labor and consumer side, supporters said the antitrust bill would curb monopoly power and help small businesses and workers, while opponents warned it could destabilize competition and burden successful firms. The employee free speech bill was backed as a response to captive audience meetings, and the wage-theft bill was presented as a way to let workers or organizations pursue claims when individual employees are afraid to come forward. Several public officials and association representatives testified on the law enforcement and civil rights bills. Chiefs of police supported adding law enforcement councils to the Tort Claims Act, saying it would close a liability gap for regional mutual-aid collaborations. But police representatives opposed changes to the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act and qualified immunity-related provisions, arguing the federal system already provides a workable forum and that expanding liability could increase costs, reduce morale, and worsen recruitment and retention. On the consumer/civil rights bill, Senator Collins and a veteran described an out-of-state assault case that they said showed the need for Massachusetts to let residents seek redress at home when rights are violated elsewhere. No votes or formal committee actions were taken during the hearing itself; the committee mainly received testimony and questions. Several witnesses indicated they had submitted written testimony or proposed amendments, and some bills drew requests for favorable reports while others were explicitly opposed unless amended.
MA

Massachusetts 2025-2026 Regular Session

Joint Committee on Consumer Protection and Professional Licensure Jun 21st, 2026 at 10:00 am

Joint Committee on Consumer Protection and Professional Licensure

Transcript Highlights:
  • Now I have to take one back and get a manager for a refund or that kind of thing.
Keywords: 995, all
Summary: The committee heard testimony on House Bill 452, a right-to-repair bill for agricultural equipment. Farm Bureau and several manufacturers’ representatives opposed the bill, arguing that existing memorandums of understanding already provide farmers access to parts, diagnostics, and repair information, and warning that broader software access could increase emissions tampering and safety risks. Supporters, including repair advocates, a legislator, and a farmer representative, argued that the MOUs are not binding, that farmers need enforceable repair rights to avoid costly delays during critical harvest periods, and that owners should be able to repair equipment they bought without dealer lock-in. No vote was taken during the hearing. The committee also heard testimony on bills to limit or eliminate “grab-and-go” alcohol sales at large venues, including House Bill 325 and Senate Bill 225. Union workers from Fenway Park and the TD Garden described self-checkout alcohol kiosks as creating public safety and compliance problems, including underage access, over-serving, theft, and difficulty monitoring intoxication in crowded settings. They said workers are often understaffed and bear discipline when violations occur. In contrast, the Boston Red Sox and Aramark defended the supervised self-checkout model, saying it speeds service, is widely used, and operates with multiple layers of supervision, training, and regulatory oversight; they said they had not received violation notices and that any incidents are isolated. Senator Edwards also testified in support of House Bill 369, aimed at restricting marketing of certain harsh cosmetic products to children, and in support of the grab-and-go bill. She argued that children should not be targeted with products containing toxic chemicals and that alcohol service should remain supervised by trained staff to protect consumers and jobs. Senator Collins and other legislators also spoke in favor of restricting grab-and-go alcohol service, citing concerns about underage drinking and overconsumption. The hearing additionally included a separate bill on Sunday morning alcohol service, with Representatives Scanlon and Lewis arguing for allowing sales beginning at 8 a.m. on Sundays rather than 10 a.m., but that bill was only discussed briefly and no action was taken.
CA

California 2025-2026 Regular Session

Assembly Budget Committee Jun 15th, 2026

Budget

Transcript Highlights:
  • Businesses over that period would be eligible to elect to receive refundable credits that would essentially
Keywords: 988, house, all
WA
Transcript Highlights:
  • Did you ever represent Representative Simmons that you were blindsided by the decision to refund her
Keywords: 904, all
Summary: The hearing concerned a Legislative Ethics Board complaint against Representative Tara Simmons in Washington State OAH Docket 401-645. The judge outlined the process, the two issues on appeal—whether Simmons violated RCW 42.52.020 and RCW 42.52.070, and, if so, what penalty should apply—and admitted a number of exhibits by stipulation or prior ruling, while taking one exhibit under advisement pending an offer of proof. The board also moved to sequester witnesses, which was granted, and the judge deferred ruling on a motion to exclude three defense witnesses until after hearing the board staff’s case. Opening statements followed, with staff alleging Simmons used her position to benefit an outside organization and to secure special privileges, and the defense arguing the conduct was lawful, technical in nature, and consistent with prior ethics guidance. Board staff then called Kimberly Gordon, an attorney and founding board member/treasurer of American Equity and Justice Group (AEJG), as its first witness. Gordon testified that AEJG used data dashboards to make justice-system data more accessible, received state proviso funding sponsored by Simmons, and also received two donations from Simmons—$10,000 and $40,000. She said the first donation was intended to help hire Antoine Coleman, whom Simmons had recommended and who was later identified as Simmons’s romantic partner, and that AEJG returned the $10,000 and declined the $40,000 after concluding there was a potential conflict of interest. Gordon also testified that AEJG believed Simmons’s involvement in the organization and her communications about Coleman created ethical concerns. Gordon further testified about a second proviso intended to expand AEJG’s work into education data and its subcontract with Equity in Education Coalition (EEC). She said EEC did not perform the expected deliverables, prompting repeated communications with the Administrative Office of the Courts and a meeting involving Chris Stanley, where AEJG raised concerns that EEC was not complying and that Simmons had intervened in the dispute. According to Gordon, Stanley ultimately directed the parties to rewrite the subcontract and continue, but AEJG later moved forward largely without EEC’s assistance. The board staff introduced AEJG’s complaint and related timeline exhibits during her testimony. After direct examination, the hearing recessed for lunch, and cross-examination by Simmons’s counsel began when the hearing resumed.
WA

Washington 2025-2026 Regular Session

Legislative Ethics Board Jun 8th, 2026

Transcript Highlights:
  • Did you ever represent Representative Simmons that you were blindsided by the decision to refund her
Summary: The hearing opened in a Washington State Office of Administrative Hearings matter involving Legislative Ethics Board complaint 2025-5 against Representative Tara Simmons. The ALJ outlined the process, the issues on appeal, and the burden of proof, which centered on whether Simmons violated the Ethics Act by using her legislative position for others’ benefit and by holding outside employment that conflicted with her duties, and what sanction would be appropriate. Several exhibits were admitted by stipulation or without objection, while Exhibit 2 was initially held for later ruling but was ultimately admitted after testimony from the witness who prepared it. The board also granted a motion to sequester witnesses and took under advisement a motion to exclude three defense witnesses until after the staff case-in-chief. In opening statements, board staff alleged Simmons violated RCW 42.52.020 and RCW 42.52.070 by sponsoring a proviso that benefited her outside employer, Equity and Education Coalition (EEC), by using campaign surplus funds to help hire a friend, by intervening in a dispute over the proviso-funded work, and by sending text messages to influence others. Staff said it would seek penalties of up to $5,000 per violation plus costs. Defense counsel argued the allegations were technical ethics issues, denied Simmons profited personally, and contended the proviso funding her employer was permitted under prior board guidance; counsel also argued the campaign donation and later contract dispute were lawful and context-dependent. The first witness, Kimberly Gordon of American Equity and Justice Group (AEJG), testified that AEJG received state proviso funding and donations from Simmons, including $10,000 and later $40,000, which Gordon said were intended to fund the hiring of Antoine Coleman, Simmons’s romantic partner. Gordon said AEJG returned the donations and terminated Coleman after learning of the relationship and potential conflict of interest. She also testified about a later 2024 proviso involving EEC, a subcontract between AEJG and EEC, and a dispute over EEC’s performance under that subcontract. Gordon said AEJG raised concerns with the Administrative Office of the Courts, met with contract manager Chris Stanley, and ultimately rewrote the subcontract after Stanley, allegedly after speaking with Simmons, directed them to do so. The hearing then recessed for lunch, and cross-examination of Gordon was set to continue afterward.
TX
Transcript Highlights:
  • speaker clarified that the $400 application deposit was just a flat application fee and was fully refundable
Keywords: 1185, senate, all
MN

Minnesota 2025-2026 Regular Session

House Rules and Legislative Administration Committee 4/28/26

Rules and Legislative Administration

Transcript Highlights:
  • The individual pays a portion of the money upfront in a non-refundable payment and agrees to a payment
Keywords: 1183, house
AZ

Arizona 2026 Regular Session

03/24/2026 - House Education

Education

Transcript Highlights:
  • They can refund it or they can... ...or decrease the property tax as a result of this.
Keywords: 1182, all