Transcript Highlights:

• I wish we could have an intelligent conversation on this issue.
• So I hope we can turn down the temperature and the rhetoric and have some productive conversations on
• I think the has signaled his willingness to have this conversation and we could take him up on it.
• America wants common-sense conversations and solutions. So with that, thank you Mr. Speaker.
• Please take conversations off the floor.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, I am also wondering, um, What was the main conversation in Senate Finance?
• I was able to follow some of the conversations, um, as you were working the budget out.
• There was a lot of conversation about roads and the roads package.
• So, um, appreciate the conversation. Thank you. Thank you very much, Representative.
• OK, uh, I appreciate us having this public conversation. We're working very hard to do more.

Transcript Highlights:

• But it continues the conversation.
• I think it's a simple ask here in terms of let's continue the conversation.
• And again, I suppose my basic question is, why not continue the conversation?
• It's a big chunk and say, hey, let's continue the conversation.
• It's a big chunk and say, hey, let's continue the conversation.

Keywords: 993, senate, all

Summary: The Senate Standing Committee on Cities 1 met on May 14, 2026, with a quorum present and Chair Erik Bottcher presiding. The committee considered a series of bills affecting New York City and related tax, housing, and municipal issues. Early measures included a neighborhood small business rent increase exemption (S.1451A), notice to community boards before locating transitional housing (S.3884), a solar and energy storage tax abatement credit (S.4272A), towing protection enforcement (S.4793), safety policies and training for correction and health workers (S.543?), and a proposal to create the city of Staten Island (S.8578). Most of these bills were advanced to other committees after brief discussion and voice votes. The most extensive debate centered on S.8578, which would incorporate Staten Island as a separate city. Senator Lanza argued that Staten Island has long been neglected by New York City, cited past referendums and historical grievances, and urged the committee to let the bill continue through the process. Chair Bottcher and other members responded that Staten Island is an important part of New York City and discussed housing, transit, environmental preservation, and the City of Yes zoning changes; several members said they did not support secession but were open to continued conversation about Staten Island’s needs. After debate, the bill was defeated in committee. The committee also considered an artist housing preferences bill (S.9652), a facade-work tax abatement bill (S.9559), a parkland discontinuance measure (S.9987), and a credit/debit card surcharge prohibition bill (S.1005). S.9652, S.9559, S.9987, and S.1005 were reported out after voice votes. One homeless shelter placement bill (S.5554) failed. The meeting concluded after the final votes and adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• Have there been any conversations with the executive or with the governor's office around a potential
• So, any conversations with the governor's office about what to do and whether a disaster declaration
• Chair, I can tell you I haven't had those direct conversations, but Dr.
• Yes, sir, we did have quite a conversation about it.
• So, we don't necessarily have a formal task force, but we have had the conversations similar to what

Transcript Highlights:

• Just a little bit of context to get us started: the beginnings of these conversations really happened
• Mississippi followed shortly thereafter in 2024, and so those conversations have led us all to really
• I've never heard that even mentioned as part of the conversation, so I was just wondering.
• Conversely, for students who require fewer resources, you'll provide less funding.
• In all the conversations they've had, it's clear that this is a priority.

Keywords: 1136, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• the wellness conversation within policing.
• I really looked at focus group conversations and had conversations with men and women throughout the
• So we're definitely interested in continuing these conversations, especially the recent conversations
• Let's just pause a minute and have a conversation.
• A lot of conversations have happened before today.

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We're in a very precarious scenario with the property tax conversation.
• Thank you for the conversations and those we heard from.
• And we've had some excellent conversations with the sponsor.
• And, you know, we've had a lot of conversation about this bill.
• That part doesn't really, that's not part of the conversation.

Bills: S0036, S0620, S0796, S0934, S1080, S1096, S1366, S1536, S1548, S1580, S1588, S1620, S1756, S7034, S7044

Keywords: nursing title, advanced practice registered nurse, advertising, professional standards, disciplinary action, candidate qualifying, federal office, election integrity, regulatory compliance, political candidacy, veterinary medicine, telehealth, veterinary professional associate, animal health, public safety, access to veterinary services, payment bond exemption, Habitat for Humanity, Florida Forever Act, land acquisition

Summary: The committee first took up SB 354, the “Blue Ribbon Projects” bill, which creates a framework for large planned communities on at least 15,000 contiguous acres with 60% reserved area and a streamlined local review process. Senator McLean presented the bill and a strike-all amendment, and members raised concerns about local control, conservation enforceability, data centers, concurrency, multi-county projects, and whether reserve lands could later be converted. Audubon Florida and 1,000 Friends of Florida opposed the bill, arguing the conservation protections were not permanent enough and that the reserve areas could be changed later; small-county representatives also worried about tax-base impacts. Supporters argued the bill would better manage growth, preserve green space, and provide a more orderly alternative to sprawl. After debate, the committee voted to report the bill favorably. The committee then approved SB 620 on candidate qualifying, which requires candidates for federal, state, county, district, judiciary, school, and school board offices to disclose any non-U.S. citizenship. Amendments added disclosure about whether federal candidates intend to trade stock if elected and adjusted 2026 congressional qualifying procedures in the event of redistricting, including a new qualifying window and petition rules. The bill was reported favorably after brief support from a member of the public and discussion about candidate vetting. The committee also reported favorably CS/CS/CS/SB 1452, a Department of Financial Services bill with amendments addressing My Safe Florida Home notices, condo pilot eligibility, firefighter hiring, unclaimed property, and related financial-services provisions. Next, the committee approved CS/CS/SB 1620, a school board members’ bill of rights. A substitute amendment narrowed the bill to access to records, fiscal transparency, and nondisclosure agreements, while preserving board members’ rights to timely documents, budget information, and public comment, and setting deadlines for records requests. Superintendents and a school board member testified in support, saying the bill clarifies roles and prevents board members from being frozen out. The committee also passed CS/HB 245, which replaces the term “child pornography” with “child sexual abuse material”; one senator supported the terminology change but warned about preserving legal precedent and avoiding appellate issues. The committee then reported favorably SB 1548, an update to the Live Local affordable housing law expanding eligible sites and clarifying setbacks, airport proximity, and fair-housing protections. Finally, the committee took up the veterinary medicine bill creating veterinary professional associates. The bill allows trained master’s-level VPAs to perform limited veterinary services under a veterinarian’s supervision, and an amendment tightened the standard to immediate supervision on premises. Supporters said the measure would expand access to care, especially in rural areas with vet shortages, while opponents argued it added unnecessary regulation. After testimony from veterinary educators and others, the bill continued with support expressed by committee members, including praise for the direct-supervision amendment.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:50:50.559> that going to say um in in conversations that going to say um in in conversations
• it does seem, at least in conversations it does seem, at least in conversations and<00:51:19.680
• And so, you know, when conversations.
• I'm um some of the the the conversations I'm um some of the the the conversations I'm<01:40:20.000
• <01:44:29.199> that there's been conversation about that there's been conversation about that

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• That's a difficult conversation, but as demand increases, that conversation becomes easier.
• That's a difficult conversation, but as demand increases, that conversation becomes easier.
• That's a difficult conversation, but as demand increases, that conversation becomes easier.
• I'm not going to say that conversation.
• <01:42:25.600> that hope these are the conversations that hope these are the conversations

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The task force met with a quorum, approved the minutes from the August 20 meeting, and then heard testimony from Representative Steven Doan on House Bill 439, a school nutrition bill aimed at restricting certain ultra-processed foods in schools. Doan said the bill was inspired by his own health journey and his work in agriculture, and he described the measure as targeting specific chemical additives in foods served during the school day, not concession sales or after-hours activities. He said the bill would phase in later to give schools time to adjust and noted that the list of restricted additives was drawn from efforts in other states and advocacy groups. Members asked about the chemical abstract numbers, fiscal impact, summer meal programs, fundraisers, and whether the bill would affect parent-provided items; Doan said he had not done a fiscal note and explained that the bill was intended to apply only during instructional time on school property. Committee members generally reacted favorably, with some raising practical concerns about cost and implementation. One member asked about high fructose corn syrup, which Doan said was not included because it is too pervasive in the food system. Another member noted that schools already limit some homemade items and asked about the line between school-provided and parent-provided food. Doan also said the list was based in part on Turning Point USA materials and similar laws in other states, and he referenced federal efforts to define ultra-processed foods. The committee then heard from Kentucky Department of Education officials Matt Ross, Lauren Moore, and Katie Embry on school meals and nutrition programs. They outlined Kentucky’s school lunch, breakfast, summer meals, and other USDA child nutrition programs, including participation and reimbursement figures, and explained how community eligibility provision schools, meal patterns, offer-versus-serve, smart snacks, and local wellness policies work. They said USDA and FDA are currently seeking public input on a uniform definition of ultra-processed foods, that there are no current USDA requirements specifically on ultra-processed foods, and that schools already operate under federal and state rules governing competitive foods, including a state time restriction on smart snacks. They also discussed local purchasing, noting its benefits but also the procurement and staffing challenges schools face. No votes or final actions on the bill were taken in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• My recommendation is to keep this conversation going and pass with amendments.
• Notate what to fight for or not in future conversations on the budget.
• Conversation and defer the date to July 1, 3000.
• We want to move this bill forward and continue the conversation.
• We do want to continue the conversation on this measure.

Keywords: 910, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• 11.760> murdered Because when conversation about murdered Because when conversation about murdered
• different conversations. different conversations.
• When the conversation turns to pattern.
• gone wrong in our conversation. gone wrong in our conversation.
• Uh this uh this came from a conversation Uh this uh this came from a conversation I<02:52:21.840

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• , uh we had significant conversations, uh we had significant conversations, myself<00:23:00.320><
• to the substance of the conversation. to the substance of the conversation.
• party to the conversation. Yeah. Yeah. party to the conversation. Yeah. Yeah.
• So that if we do have such a conversation, conversation, conversation, we<04:25:50.240> should
• I should have that<04:26:12.798> conversation that conversation that conversation understanding

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• is work product from conversations is work product from conversations between<00:21:01.640> cities
• are ongoing, but um these conversations are ongoing, but this<00:22:16.800> is<00:22:17.760><
• Roark mentioned this, that this has come about as the result of conversations with stakeholders.
• I know that we had pretty a lot of conversation around this issue.
• <00:33:51.440> around<00:33:51.720> this uh a lot of conversation around this uh a

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you, committee, always, for the conversation.
• I appreciate the conversation and I'd ask for your support today.
• If we need to increase those and strengthen those, let's have that conversation.
• Thank you, committee again, always for the conversation.
• So I'm curious about your conversations with tech experts about this.

Summary: The committee first took up SB 1272 on guardianship, which would limit a guardian’s ability to isolate an adult ward from family and require notice to family or other named persons about major events such as a ward’s death or medical relocation. Senator Jones said the bill was intended to curb abuse by bad actors while not affecting good-faith guardians. Fortuna Smuggler and Phyllis Smith spoke in support, describing the need for family notification and closure. The bill passed unanimously, 8-0, and was reported favorably. The committee then considered CS/SB 1284 on wrongful death for an unborn child. Senator Graal explained that the bill would expand Florida’s Wrongful Death Act to allow parents to recover economic and non-economic damages for the death of an unborn child. An amendment was adopted to define “unborn child” as a member of the species Homo sapiens carried in the womb and to state that the act does not authorize a wrongful death action against the mother or a health care provider acting within the applicable standard of care. The amendment drew questions about abortion, medical emergencies, and whether fathers could sue; the sponsor said the bill was not intended to create claims against mothers or lawful medical care. Public testimony was sharply divided, with supporters arguing it gives families parity and accountability, and opponents warning it could be used to target abortion care, increase malpractice pressure, and worsen physician shortages. The committee approved the bill as amended by a 6-4 vote. Finally, the committee heard a strike-all amendment to SB 1288 on parental rights. The amendment would strengthen parental consent requirements for minors’ medical care, with exceptions for emergencies, court orders, certain legal categories of minors, and other existing statutory exceptions. It also would require parental consent for treatment related to STD screening, give parents more control over school or health surveys, and address use of biofeedback devices. Supporters said the measure restores parents’ authority and protects children from inappropriate questioning or treatment, while opponents argued it could block needed care for minors in unsafe homes, reduce access to STI treatment and mental health services, and create unintended consequences. The amendment was adopted, and the committee continued hearing testimony on the bill.

Transcript Highlights:

• Thank you, committee, always, for the conversation.
• I appreciate the conversation and I'd ask for your support today.
• Thank you, committee, again, always for the conversation.
• So I'm curious about your conversations with tech experts about this.
• Chair, but I think this is a conversation we have to have.

Summary: The Judiciary Committee heard Senate Bill 1272 on guardianship, which would limit a guardian’s ability to isolate an adult ward from family and require notice of major events such as a ward’s death or relocation to a more restrictive setting. Senator Jones and supportive speakers said the bill was intended to protect wards from abuse and isolation by bad actors, while still preserving good-faith guardianship. With no opposition testimony or debate, the committee voted 8-0 to report the bill favorably. The committee then considered CS for Senate Bill 1284, which would expand Florida’s Wrongful Death Act to allow civil claims for the death of an unborn child. An amendment was adopted to define “unborn child” as a member of the species Homo sapiens carried in the womb and to state that the act does not authorize claims against the mother or against health care providers acting within the lawful standard of care. The bill drew extensive debate and testimony. Supporters argued it would give parents parity and fuller damages, including economic losses and mental anguish, when negligence causes the death of an unborn child. Opponents, including the ACLU, medical professionals, and reproductive rights advocates, warned it could be used to target abortion care, increase malpractice exposure, worsen physician shortages, and create speculative damages. The committee approved the bill 6-4. Finally, the committee took up Senate Bill 1288 on parental rights, with a strike-all amendment that would strengthen parental control over minors’ medical decisions, surveys, and biofeedback devices, while adding exceptions for emergencies, court orders, certain legal statuses, and situations involving abuse or out-of-home placement. Supporters said the measure restores parents as primary decision-makers and protects children from inappropriate questioning or treatment without consent. Opponents argued it could block minors from confidential care for STIs, mental health, or abuse-related issues, and could chill school and medical screenings. The transcript ends during testimony and debate on this bill, before any final vote is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:32:17.039> with and stay in conversation with and stay in conversation with legislative
• <00:32:28.559> and be hosting regional conversations and be hosting regional conversations
• of that in the conversation? of that in the conversation? >> Diver. >> Diver.
• conversation about that. conversation about that. >> Thank<00:39:34.079> you.
• visited the capitals, had conversations visited the capitals, had conversations with<01:35:23.120

Keywords: 918, senate, all

Summary: The Select Subcommittee first took up adoption of three previously prepared nonpartisan committee summary reports dated October 15, November 13, and November 21. Senator Rasmusson objected to the lack of advance notice about the day’s testifiers and criticized the practice of having nonpartisan staff summarize what he described as a partisan agenda. The chair responded that the committee’s purpose is to gather information, not hear bills, and that the summaries were intended as neutral resources for the Senate. Senator Coopek moved adoption, the motion was opposed by Rasmusson and another member, and the motion passed. The committee then turned to the day’s hearing on federal impacts on Minnesota, with the chair focusing on federal funding threats and the effect of congressional budget actions on health care, especially in greater Minnesota. The first presentation came from the Minnesota Department of Health on the state’s rural health transformation work. Assistant Commissioner Carol Broom introduced the team and described the rural hospital transformation program as a major opportunity to invest in rural health, while acknowledging longstanding challenges such as demographics, transportation barriers, and the financing of care. Nitha Moibi outlined the state’s rural health chart book and data showing an aging population, workforce shortages, and many health professional shortage areas, and described proposed strategies including workforce pipelines, bridge payments for low-volume birth hospitals, telehealth access points, mental health urgent care, and chronic disease prevention. Acting Assistant Commissioner Anna Ashby of the Minnesota Management and Budget office explained the state’s application to CMS for the Rural Health Transformation Program, which was created in federal law and awarded Minnesota just over $193 million for federal fiscal year 2026. She said the application was shaped by public comments, stakeholder meetings, and legislative outreach, and included initiatives on preventive care, workforce, care access, behavioral health, and provider financial stability. She also reviewed implementation constraints, including a January 30 revised budget deadline, limits on administrative spending, restrictions on using funds to offset Medicaid losses, and the need to show measurable progress to remain eligible for future funding. The presentation noted that most year-one funding would go to rural hospitals, with additional support for federally qualified health centers, community mental health centers, tribal partners, and technical assistance.

Transcript Highlights:

• forward to those conversations forward to those conversations to<01:36:21.600> seek<01:36
• <03:09:55.840> because really important conversation because really important conversation
• formula and there's been conversations formula and there's been conversations about<03:16:10.720
• it It's an interesting conversation it It's an interesting conversation because<03:17:51.240>
• And in the conversations conversations conversations we<03:28:50.560> had,<03:28:51.440> the

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So, I know there's conversation on that. Um, so, I think it's a different conversation.
• But, I a different conversation.
• <00:21:52.480> and hand-in-hand in this conversation and hand-in-hand in this conversation
• <01:24:59.360> The conversation when it started. The conversation when it started.
• conversations. Eyes 27, Nos four. conversations. Eyes 27, Nos four.

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Paul and have conversations with them.
• in St. call and and have conversations in St. call and and have conversations with<01:05:42.559>
• Members, please take your conversations Members, please take your conversations to<01:14:48.719> the
• But with that, thank you, Madam Speaker. vibrant and strong conversation here at vibrant and strong conversation
• Thank you, Madam to a good conversation.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• This conversation feels like we're off to a good start.
• Just one thing to add to the conversation as a clarification is that the NGFO that's been appropriated
• We've had a few of these interviews already, and they've been really robust, detailed conversations.
• Chair, with kind of a brief of the provisal language, and we had a great conversation around how the
• Okay, I know I can say I eagerly look forward to both, you know, our conversation as well as the work

Summary: The committee held its first meeting, with co-chairs and members introducing themselves and staff outlining the committee’s statutory mandate under the 2025-27 supplemental operating budget. Staff explained that the Joint Legislative-Executive Committee on Budget Transparency and Fiscal Sustainability will receive technical assistance from a nonpartisan organization, with work split into two phases: first on revenue growth, spending assumptions, and cost drivers in the four-year outlook, and later on staffing, overhead, performance management, and public reporting. Members broadly said they hoped the committee would build a shared factual understanding of the state’s fiscal situation, structural deficits, and budget processes, and identify a sustainable path forward for the operating budget. Staff then gave a detailed presentation on operating budget basics. They reviewed the size and composition of the operating budget, noting that most spending is concentrated in grants/client services and salaries/benefits, with K-12, DSHS, HCA, DCYF, DOC, and higher education making up most NGFO spending. They explained the distinction between constitutional, federal, statutory, and discretionary spending, using examples such as K-12, Medicaid, collective bargaining agreements, court-driven obligations like McCleary and Trueblood, and one-time appropriations. They also walked through how the state uses incremental budgeting, carry-forward and maintenance-level calculations, caseload and per-capita forecasting, and the four-year balanced budget outlook, including reserve calculations and the budget stabilization account. Members asked extensive questions about what is and is not included in the outlook, especially future collective bargaining agreements, health care and compensation growth, tort and other liabilities, and whether the state could better distinguish mandatory from discretionary spending. Staff explained that current CBAs and other already-enacted obligations are included, but future CBAs are not; some liabilities are reflected as expenditures when appropriated, while broader long-term liabilities are not fully captured in the outlook because they depend on future policy choices. Staff also noted that the legislature and ERFC can adopt assumptions such as reversions and growth factors, and that an outlook accuracy report is produced every five years to compare projected and actual maintenance-level spending. The committee agreed to follow up on some of the more complex liability and assumption questions. After a short break, Josh Goodman of the Pew Charitable Trusts began a presentation on Pew’s role and approach to state fiscal sustainability. He described Pew as a nonpartisan organization with long-standing state fiscal research, emphasizing its 50-state comparative data, interviews with state officials and experts, and focus on long-term sustainability, reserve policies, and recession preparedness. The presentation was ongoing when the transcript ended.