Video & Transcript Research : 'debates'
Page 80 of 333
FL
Florida 2025 Regular Session
April 3, 2025 - 04:20 PM
Transcript Highlights:
- the rules, negotiated time allocations are included in the special order letter for questions and debate
- Members, any debate? Seeing no debate, all in favor? No public testimony cards have been submitted.
- Members, any debate? Seeing no debate, all in favor of the special order letter, say aye.
Summary:
The Rules and Ethics Committee met on Thursday, April 3, 2025, with a quorum present. After the roll call and brief opening remarks, the committee considered the special order letter for the House session on Wednesday, April 9. The chair noted that negotiated time allocations for questions and debate were included as required by the rules.
There was no public testimony and no debate on the special order letter. The committee voted to adopt it unanimously by voice vote.
Members were also reminded of upcoming amendment deadlines: main amendments and implementing/conforming bill amendments are due the next day, with separate deadlines for GAA amendments and adhering amendments on Tuesday, April 8. With no further business, Representative Kennedy moved to adjourn, and the meeting ended without objection.
MA
Massachusetts 2025-2026 Regular Session
Status of Persons with Disabilities Jun 21st, 2026 at 11:00 am
Transcript Highlights:
- On the surface, this was a debate about resource management, right?
- On the surface, this was a debate about resource management, right?
- And last, we have to frame the debate in the right terms, right?
- This is not, in fact, a debate about waste or about tax savings.
- In fact, the debate is about waste or about tax savings.
Summary:
The Permanent Commission on the Status of Persons with Disabilities’ Long-Term Services and Supports and Health Equity Subcommittee met to hear a presentation from Colin Killick of the Autistic Self-Advocacy Network on disability discrimination in crisis standards of care during COVID-19. He described how Massachusetts and other states initially used standards that prioritized longer life expectancy and, in some cases, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), which he argued devalued the lives of disabled people and older adults. He also discussed related issues such as denial of transplants, pressure on disabled patients to sign do-not-resuscitate orders, and inequities affecting communities of color. He said disability advocates, legal groups, and public officials pushed back through litigation, media, and organizing, leading to revisions of Massachusetts’ standards and the eventual inclusion of disability advocates in the drafting process.
Killick also discussed vaccine rollout, saying disabled people were initially under-prioritized but later gained broader access and more accessible vaccination options such as ASL interpretation and in-home vaccination. He closed by urging support for S. 869, an act relative to preventing discrimination against persons with disabilities in the provision of health care, which he said would ban disability-based discrimination in crisis standards, prohibit QALYs in health care decision-making, and add protections against coerced DNRs. He noted the bill had been favorably reported out of the Health Care Financing Committee but still needed support.
In questions, members asked why the bill had not advanced further; Killick said earlier opposition from QALY supporters had been resolved, and the main barrier now was lack of legislative prioritization. Members thanked him for the presentation and for the work on revising crisis standards. The subcommittee then completed roll call, approved the prior minutes, and adjourned, noting the next meeting would be August 31.
OK
Transcript Highlights:
- Will there be discussion or debate? Seeing none, staff, please open the queue for a vote.
- There will be discussion or debate. Seeing none, staff, please open the queue for a vote.
- Whether there be discussion or debate. Seeing none, staff, please open the queue for a vote.
- Will there be discussion or debate? Seeing none, staff, please open the queue for a vote.
- Are there any discussion or debate? Seeing none, staff, please open the queue.
Bills:
HB4336, HB1818, HB3194, HB3538, HB3682, HB3762, HB3793, HB3930, HB3931, HB3934, HB4124, HB4200, HB4410, HB4457, HB4473, HB3884, HB1912
Keywords:
interventional pain management, pain management clinic, chronic pain, acute pain, spinal injections, epidural steroid injection, peripheral nerve block, nerve ablation, spinal cord stimulator, intrathecal infusion pump, endoscopic diskectomy, fluoroscopy, physician supervision, allopathic physician, osteopathic physician, CRNA, certified registered nurse anesthetist, nurse anesthetist, freestanding pain management facility, medical licensure
AZ
Transcript Highlights:
- Lots of debates still ongoing about whether or not a governor should be able to do that.
- When the bill was debated, the previous bills were debated on the floor...
- When the bill was debated, the previous bills were debated on the floor, folks hearken back to the Ducey
- We're debating—yeah, yeah, yeah.
- It doesn't sound like we're actually debating the actual amendment.
Bills:
SB1638
Keywords:
taxation, income tax, internal revenue code, deductions, tax benefits, retroactive, standard deduction, 1182, all
Summary:
The Senate Finance Committee took up SB 1638, a tax conformity bill that would update Arizona’s tax code to the Internal Revenue Code as of January 1, 2026 and incorporate federal changes from 2025. The bill also included individual income tax subtractions for tips, overtime, seniors, and auto loan interest, along with changes to the standard deduction and charitable contribution deduction. Committee discussion focused heavily on whether Arizona should conform broadly to federal changes or limit the bill to more targeted, temporary provisions.
Two amendments were considered. The chair’s amendment was described as clarifying only, addressing retroactivity and foreign dividend language, and it was adopted. Senator Epstein’s amendment would have removed the broader conformity provisions and the modified charitable deduction, limited the standard deduction change to tax year 2025, and kept the individual subtractions; she argued the business-related conformity items mainly benefited corporations and should be negotiated in the budget. Opponents said the amendment would create unnecessary recalculations and uncertainty for taxpayers and businesses, while supporters of the underlying bill said conformity was needed quickly to match Department of Revenue forms and avoid filing-season confusion. Epstein’s amendment failed.
Public testimony split along similar lines. Business and tax group representatives supported prompt conformity, saying taxpayers and small businesses needed certainty and that the department’s forms should be codified. Opponents argued the bill would reduce state revenue substantially and mainly benefit higher-income taxpayers and corporations, while diverting money from education, child care, and health care. After debate, the committee voted to move SB 1638 as amended with a do-pass recommendation, passing it by about 4-3, and then adjourned.
FL
Florida 2025 Regular Session
December 2, 2025 - 01:00 PM
Transcript Highlights:
- Is there any debate on the Bill? >> Representative Valdes, you're recognized.
- Representative Nixon members, any further debate on the bill.
- Representative, here's the chair recognized in debate. >> Thank you very much.
- Representative Alvarez, you're recognized in debate. >> Thank you.
- Any further debate seeing no further debate.
MN
Minnesota 2025-2026 Regular Session
Balancing the Budget – Minority Leader Mark Johnson Jun 16th, 2025
Minnesota Senate Floor Meeting
Transcript Highlights:
- Fortunately, it wrapped before then, but that didn't leave a lot of time for discussion, debate, or adding
- 01:04.479>
time <00:01:04.720>for <00:01:04.960>discussion, <00:01:05.519>debate - ,<00:01:06.000>
or of time for discussion, debate, or of time for discussion, debate, or adding - So the process leading up to that, when the bills were actually debated on the floor, uh, you saw a lot
- critics during the debate said that it doesn't<00:05:05.199>
save <00:05:05.360>the <00
FL
Florida 2025 Regular Session
Agriculture Mar 3rd, 2025
Transcript Highlights:
- MEMBERS, DEBATE ON THE BILL. SENATOR YOU ARE RECOGNIZED. >> Sen.
- MEMBERS, WE ARE BACK IN DEBATE ON THE BILL. IS THERE ANY DEBATE?
- SEEING NO DEBATE ADAM PLEASE CALL THE ROLL.
- IS THERE ANY DEBATE? LEADER BOYD, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED. >> Sen. Boyd: THANK YOU MISTER CHAIR.
- ANY DEBATE ON THE BILL? YOU ARE RECOGNIZED. >> Sen. Burton: THANK YOU CHAIR.
FL
Florida 2026 4th Special Session
February 26, 2026 - 12:15 PM
Transcript Highlights:
- As required by our rules, negotiated time Chair: allocations are included for questions and debate on
- Is there debate, members? Chair: I don't see debate.
- As required by the rules, the negotiated time allocations are included for questions and debate for all
- Is there any debate? Seeing none. All in favor of the special order letter say "Aye." Members: Aye.
MD
Transcript Highlights:
- That's not brought up in the debate.
- That's not brought up in the debate.
- that debate. I had no idea that um that debate.
- And I love the debate.
- And I love the debate.
Summary:
The Senate opened with an invocation by Reverend Dr. Patrick Claybourne of Bethl AM Church in Baltimore, introduced by the senator from the 40th district, who highlighted the church’s long history, community work, scholarships, food pantry, school partnerships, and a planned rise center. The Senate journalized the invocation and then recognized several guests, including the Bethesda Roosters U16 rugby team, which was congratulated for winning the Maryland state title and the 2025 National U16 Championship, and members of the Joint Veterans Committee of Maryland. The chamber also welcomed a Johns Hopkins Police Accountability Board appointment letter, which was referred to the Executive Nominations Committee, and later a delegation from the Ghana Parliament legislative staff visiting with the Department of Legislative Services and NCSL representatives.
The main floor business centered on Senate Bill 1, which would prohibit law enforcement officers from wearing face coverings. The minority whip argued against the bill, saying it was unenforceable, an improper use of legislative time amid other state crises, and could create a system where local officers detain federal officers for a civil violation; he also said officers mask themselves because of threats and doxxing. Senators in support argued the bill was needed to address masked ICE agents, protect public safety, and respond to concerns about civil rights abuses and intimidation. After debate and vote explanations from senators, including one emphasizing immigrant heritage and another supporting the bill as a protection measure, SB 1 passed with 31 affirmative votes.
The Senate then passed Senate Bill 17, an emergency bill on alcoholic beverages related event promoters permits, by unanimous affirmative vote. It next took up Senate Bill 245, an emergency bill prohibiting immigration enforcement agreements. The minority leader questioned whether the bill would eliminate formalized 287(g) agreements and replace them with county-by-county policies, arguing that this could reduce uniformity, weaken safety, and create a patchwork of local practices. The bill’s sponsor responded that counties would still be bound by constitutional and legal limits, that the agreements provide minimal training and resources, and that the state should stop formally cooperating with federal immigration enforcement. The sponsor also said the bill would not increase profiling and that public safety would remain intact. The debate continued with concerns about Montgomery County’s evolving policy and the impact on smaller counties, but the transcript ends before final action on SB 245.
NM
New Mexico 2026 Regular Session
Senate Chamber Feb 12th, 2026 at 04:57 pm
New Mexico Senate Floor Meeting
Transcript Highlights:
- Any other debate? Senator Woods. Any other debate? Senator Woods.
- So I'm not going to debate another minute.
- So I'm not going to debate another minute, Madam President. I thank you.
- See no further debate? Senator Moran. See, no further debate. Senator Munoz.
- Thank you for the lively debate. I really appreciate it.
US
US Federal 2025-2026 Regular Session
US House Floor Proceedings (Tuesday, June 9, 2026)
US Federal House Floor Meeting
Transcript Highlights:
- for the purpose of debate only. Mr. for the purpose of debate only. Mr.
- All time for debate has expired.
- But today, this isn't the debate.
- But today, this isn't the debate.
- But today, this isn't the debate.
OK
Oklahoma 2026 Regular Session
Commerce and Economic Development Oversight Mar 3rd, 2026 at 03:00 pm
Commerce & Economic Development Oversight
Transcript Highlights:
- Will there be any discussion or debate?
- I'm assuming those fingers are for support and not for debate. OK, thank you, Clark.
- Will there be discussion or debate. Seeing none, clerk, please open the queue.
- How to do pass and a second will There be discussion or debate?
- Will there be any discussion or debate? None. Clerk, please open the queue.
Bills:
HB2929, HB2956, HB2955, HB3128, HB3880, HB4294, HB2970, HB3338, HB3443, HB3783, HB3800, HB3818
Keywords:
homeowner insurance, insurance premium, claim history, insurance regulation, at-fault claims, flood insurance, state law, consumer protection, appraisal management, Real Estate Appraiser Board, appraiser registration, background checks, ownership requirements, captive insurance, protected cell, sponsored captive, captive insurer, insurance commissioner, premium tax, dormant captive
OK
Oklahoma 2026 Regular Session
Local and County Government REVISED Mar 3rd, 2026 at 02:00 pm
Local and County Government
Transcript Highlights:
- Seeing no additional questions on the amendment, will there be debate on the amendment?
- Senator Reinhart, would you care to close debate on the amendment? He waives.
- Seeing none, will there be debate, Senator Reinhart? Would you like to close?
- That concludes debate on Centerville 2135. The vote will now occur.
- Seeing none, will there be debate? I'll debate from the chair.
MA
Massachusetts 2025-2026 Regular Session
Formal House Session 19 Jun 21st, 2026 at 11:00 am
Massachusetts House Floor Meeting
Transcript Highlights:
- The issue that the gentleman from Stoneham so aptly raised in the last debate.
- Now, we get into also an area of a great debate that we've had for a better part of a year and a half
- That the poll for the rules that we're debating today was only open for 30 minutes.
- We are debating the House rules package for the 2025-2026 legislative session.
- The subject matter of the amendment has already been raised, debated, and voted upon.
Summary:
The House first took up House Bill 58, a fiscal year 2025 supplemental appropriations bill. The chamber adopted a further amendment offered by Rep. Michael Witts of Boston, then concurred with the Senate as amended after a roll call vote of 128-23. The House then moved to the orders of the day and considered the proposed permanent joint rules for the 2025-2026 session (House No. 2026 / Senate No. 18), with Rep. Moran of Brighton presenting the package as a set of transparency and process reforms, including joint committee procedures, a 60-day reporting deadline, public posting of summaries and testimony, and revised formal session timing.
A series of minority amendments offered largely by Rep. Jones of North Reading and others were debated and repeatedly rejected, including proposals to require roll call votes for post-July 31 formal business, require two weeks’ notice for such sessions, publish State Auditor audits on the legislative website, require SJC advisory opinions on constitutional disputes, extend poll windows to two hours, require advance notice of electronic polls, and lengthen amendment filing deadlines. Supporters argued these changes would improve transparency, accountability, and member access; opponents said they would slow the legislative process and reduce flexibility. Most of these amendments failed on roll call votes by margins of 128-23 or similar, while a technical amendment from Rep. Galvin was adopted. The House then adopted the joint rules package by roll call, 128-23.
The chamber also adopted the House rules package for the 2025-2026 session (House No. 2024) after debate led by Rep. Galvin of Canton, who emphasized modernization, online transparency, in-person participation, and an outside audit and EEO officer. Additional minority amendments on committee reporting, timing of formal business, and poll procedures were debated and defeated, while one technical amendment was adopted. The House later returned to the issue of legislative audits, rejecting an amendment to require House audits by the State Auditor after a lengthy debate over Question 1, separation of powers, and the scope of the auditor’s authority. The session ended with a memorial tribute to former Rep. Carol Doherty and an order to adjourn until the next day at 11 a.m.
FL
Transcript Highlights:
- Is there any debate on the bill representative or state you are recognized?
- Representative Kendall, you are recognized in debate and thank you, Madam Chair.
- Representative Yeager, you're recognized in debate. >> Thank you.
- Seeing no further debate.
- This has been an important debate. This is what we need to do.
FL
Florida 2026 Regular Session
Governmental Oversight and Accountability Feb 11th, 2025
Governmental Oversight and Accountability
Transcript Highlights:
- Senators, any debate? Any debate on the bill?
- Seeing no debate, Senator Burgess, you are recognized to close. And thank you for waiving close.
- Senators, we’re in debate. What’s your name? Good afternoon, Chair and Committee members.
- Okay, Senators, we are in debate. Senator Polsky, you're recognized. Thank you very much, Mr.
- Senator Rodriguez, in debate. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Summary:
The Committee on Governmental Oversight and Accountability met with a quorum present and took up two bills and one presentation. Senate Bill 108, on administrative procedures, was presented by Senator Burgess on behalf of Senator Grall. The bill would require agencies to systematically review rules over five years old, submit annual regulatory plans and reports, and take action on reviewed rules; it also would speed publication of proposed rules after new rulemaking authority and expand transparency for incorporated materials and rule histories. Americans for Prosperity appeared in support, there was no debate, and the bill was reported favorably on a roll call vote.
The committee then heard a presentation from State Board of Administration Executive Director Chris Spencer on implementation of statutory investment restrictions affecting state funds. He reviewed the SBA’s structure and fiduciary duties, said the agency must maximize financial return using only pecuniary factors, and described the Protecting Florida’s Investments Act restrictions involving Northern Ireland, Cuba, Venezuela, Israel, Sudan, Iran, and China. He noted recent changes, including expanded Iran restrictions after the October 7 attacks, the addition of China-related divestment requirements, and the SBA’s move to eliminate China and Hong Kong from its global equity benchmarks; he said the agency is ahead of schedule on required divestment and in compliance with the law.
Senate Bill 100, on display of flags by governmental entities, was then presented by Chair Fine. The bill would prohibit political flags on government buildings and allow active-duty service members and veterans to use reasonable force to stop flag desecration. The committee heard extensive public testimony, with supporters arguing government buildings should not display political messages and opponents raising First Amendment, vagueness, and enforcement concerns, especially regarding LGBTQ-related flags and school settings. Senators also questioned the bill’s definitions and the reasonable-force provision. After debate, the committee voted to report SB 100 favorably, with Senators Arrington and Polsky voting no and Senators Brodeur, McClain, Rodriguez, Fine, and Chair DeSiglie voting yes. At the end of the meeting, Senator Rodriguez was recorded as voting yes on SB 108, and the committee adjourned.
AL
Transcript Highlights:
- Petition to close debate with the undersigned close debate with the undersigned close debate with the
- It's unfortunate that we have to have this type debate to have this type debate to have this type debate
- That's debatable. So, might be the case. That's debatable. So, might be the case. That's debatable.
- So, we're going to end that debate. we're going to end that debate. we're going to end that debate.
- We petition to close debate recognized. We petition to close debate recognized.
WY
Wyoming 2026 Regular Session
House Floor Session-Day 5, February 13, 2026-PM
Wyoming House Floor Meeting
Transcript Highlights:
- Same type of debate.
- :56.800>
debate. - We had to kind of grind it out and debate and debate and debate to go from 5x to 7x for our income investments
- Pretty much debated it. It's over 315. Pretty much debated it.
- Um we've pretty well debated it. bill. Um we've pretty well debated it.
MN
Minnesota 2025-2026 Regular Session
House Floor Session 4/25/25 - Part 2
Minnesota House Floor Meeting
Transcript Highlights:
- >
reviewing <00:23:08.159>every council debating and reviewing every council debating and - We debated debated debated thoughtfully<00:26:42.960>
and <00:26:43.279>we <00:26:43.520 - staff and look forward to the debate. staff and look forward to the debate.
- leave personalities out of the debate. leave personalities out of the debate.
- , the section of law that we are debating, the section of law that we are debating, the<01:06:14.079
MN
Minnesota 2025-2026 Regular Session
Facing Minnesota's Affordability Crisis by Addressing Healthcare Costs and Home Construction Hurdles May 1st, 2026
Minnesota Senate Floor Meeting
Transcript Highlights:
- It was welcomed by both caucuses, but it was debated on the floor for nearly two hours.
- If there was a main concern that was brought up during that debate, what was it?
- I think the two-hour debate was a reflection of the fact that they had spent a lot of time and energy
- >
was <00:07:17.960>a think the two-hour debate was a think the two-hour debate was a reflection - I remember hearing when this bill was being debated that it's not requiring anyone to have vaccines.