Video & Transcript Research : 'Senate Concurrent Resolution 22'

Page 99 of 500
AL

Alabama 2025 Regular Session

Alabama Senate Mar 19th, 2025

Alabama Senate Floor Meeting

Transcript Highlights:
  • Senate Joint Resolution number 42 by Senator Allen, honoring the Law Enforcement Officers of the Year
  • Resolutions adopted. Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Senator Allen.
  • Senator Waggoner: I have a resolution from Rules.
  • President, Senator Waggoner moves for adoption of the resolution.
  • Senate Resolution Number 43, special... Senate Resolution Number 43, special order calendar.
Bills: SCR 5, SCR 13, SB 3, SB 6, SB 10, SB 12, SB 13, SB 15, SB 17, SB 18, SB 19, SB 24, SB 35, SB 57, SB 65, SB 112, SB 284, SB 290, SB 388, SB 400, SB 402, SB 412, SB 495, SB 499, SB 502, SB 509, SB 621, SB 706, SB 740, SB 815, SB 842, SB 854, SB 875, SB 893, SB 917, SB 974, SB 1025, SB 1061, SB 1073, SB 1106, SB 1268, SB 1281, SB 1300, SB 1362, SB 1379, SB 1447, SB 1451, SB 1555, SB 1902, SJR 36, SJR 12, SCR 13, SCR 25, SCR 5, SCR 22, SCR 12, SCR 24, SB 495, SB 412, SB 10, SB 18, SB 565, SB 372, SB 842, SB 765, SB 62, SB 19, SB 666, SB 707, SB 888, SB 687, SB 706, SB 847, SB 290, SB 13, SB 1248, SB 740, SB 14, SB 1006, SB 504, SB 917, SB 925, SB 388, SB 1902, SB 1121, SB 995, SB 857, SB 305, SB 296, SB 284, SB 35, SB 6, SB 815, SB 3, SB 1281, SB 1379, SB 1300, SB 1497, SB 1499, SB 1498, SB 1451, SB 1061, SB 15, SB 65, SB 241, SB 304, SB 402, SB 499, SB 621, SB 974, SB 1023, SB 1024, SB 1025, SB 1106, SB 686, SB 112, SB 371, SB 204, SB 400, SB 609, SB 1447, SB 670, SB 502, SB 427, SB 850, SB 854, SB 413, SB 1555, SB 1362, SB 1346, SB 1033, SB 1220, SB 1073, SB 810, SB 987, SB 1539, SB 893, SB 447, SB 875, SB 406, SB 509, SB 985, SB 965, SB 17, SB 1119, SB 1505, SB 12, SB 24, SB 57, SB 1194, SB 1253, SB 1215, SB 1532, SB 1268, SB 1302, SB 856, SB 650, SB 583, SB 673, SB 840, SJR 57, SCR 8, SB 213, SB 681, SB 1172, SB 1252, SB 378, SB 610, SB 918, SB 1343, SB 608, SB 487, SB 955, SB 957, SB 988, SB 990, SB 1019, SB 1021, SB 1120, SB 251, SB 958, SB 535, SB 761, SB 1, SB 541, SB 315, SB 379, SB 1018, SB 1737, SB 266, SB 1415, SB 3, SB 6, SB 15, SB 35, SB 290, SB 706, SB 842, SB 917, SB 1281, SB 1451, SB 1902, SB 12, SB 13, SB 17, SB 19, SB 388, SR 261, SR 265, SR 276, SR 277, SR 281, SR 286, SR 293, SCR 5, SCR 13, SB 2425, SB 2880, SB 10, SB 12, SB 13, SB 17, SB 18, SB 19, SB 388, SB 412, SB 495, SB 2425, SB 2880
HI

Hawaii 2025 Regular Session

House Chamber - Thu Apr 17, 2025, 11:30AM HST - Day 53

Hawaii House Floor Meeting

Transcript Highlights:
  • noted Senate concurrent resolutions. noted Senate concurrent resolutions.
  • No. 199, Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 69 SD1 HD1, Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 70 SD1, Senate
  • Concurrent Resolution No. 111, Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 123 SD1 HD1, and Senate Concurrent Resolution
  • HD1, Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 70 SD1, Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 111, Senate Concurrent
  • Resolution number 199, Senate Concurrent Resolution number 199, Senate Concurrent Resolution<00:
Keywords: 910, house, all
KY

Kentucky 2026 Regular Session

Senate Legislative Session Day 60 (4-15-26) - Part 2

Kentucky Senate Floor Meeting

Transcript Highlights:
  • resolution Senate Resolution 212, a resolution Senate Resolution 212, a resolution confirming
  • resolution Senate Resolution 213, a resolution Senate Resolution 213, a resolution confirming
  • resolution Senate Resolution 219, a resolution Senate Resolution 219, a resolution confirming
  • resolution Senate Resolution 222, a resolution Senate Resolution 222, a resolution confirming
  • , Senate Bill 129, Senate<01:05:21.800> Concurrent<01:05:22.280> Resolution<01:05:23.240
KY

Kentucky 2026 Regular Session

Senate Legislative Session Day 56 (3-31-26)

Kentucky Senate Floor Meeting

Transcript Highlights:
  • > to Senate Concurrent Resolution 110 to Senate Concurrent Resolution 110 to create<04:59:40.878
  • Senate<05:22:16.240> resolution<05:22:16.798> 236,<05:22:17.600> a<05:22:17.760>
  • Senate resolution 238, a resolution<05:22:29.120> confirming<05:22:29.600> the<05:22:29.840
  • Senate resolution<05:22:39.120> 239,<05:22:39.920> a<05:22:40.160> resolution<05
  • Senate resolution<05:22:50.878> 240,<05:22:51.920> resolution<05:22:52.560> confirming
Bills: HB567, HB776, HB2, HB568, HB619
LA

Louisiana 2026 Regular Session

Senate May 18th, 2026

Louisiana Senate Floor Meeting

Transcript Highlights:
  • Introduction of Senate concurrent resolutions: Senate Concurrent Resolution 71 by Senator Seabaugh is
  • Senate Concurrent Resolution 72 by Senator Seabaugh is a concurrent resolution to commend Todd McClure
  • Senate concurrent resolutions on second reading: Senate Concurrent Resolution 70 by Senator Cloud is
  • Senate concurrent resolutions on second reading, Senate concurrent resolution number 70 by Senator Cloud
  • Senate Concurrent Resolution 22 by Senator Brach Myers is a concurrent resolution to request the legislative
Bills: SR125, SCR70, SCR12, HB4, HB251, HB623, HB819, HB944, HB986, HB1098, HB1222, HB1257, HB221, HCR58, SCR22, SCR24, SB29, SB30, SB32, SB41, SB42, SB43, SB47, SB84, SB93, SB113, SB192, SB199, SB219, SB220, SB221, SB222, SB241, SB253, SB255, SB289, SB292, SB306, SB314, SB351, SB399, SB404, SB14, SB102, SB133, SB151, SB165, SB169, SB170, SB200, SB217, SB280, SB291, SB300, SB303, SB330, SB449, SB489, SB521, SB45, SB156, SB181, SB203, SB274, SB304, SB379, SB396, SB410, SB425, SB427, SB436, SB424, SCR61, SCR9, SB35, SB65, SB215, SB246, SB249, SB269, SB282, SB296, SB323, SB363, SB369, SB474, SB490, SB492, SB500, HCR31, HB296, HB299, HB322, HB364, HB519, HB535, HB538, HB568, HB571, HB622, HB635, HB676, HB772, HB784, HB1006, HB1018, HB1043, HB1070, HB1134, HB1239, HB62, HB193, HB203, HB210, HB220, HB228, HB246, HB420, HB475, HB486, HB574, HB584, HB750, HB813, HB815, HB826, HB870, HB949, HB953, HB1045, HB1092, HB1151, HB1162, HB1176, HB1177, HB1196, HB1214, HB1241, HB22, HB28, HB33, HB41, HB47, HB87, HB115, HB162, HB195, HB214, HB217, HB233, HB283, HB290, HB319, HB324, HB345, HB362, HB363, HB368, HB377, HB380, HB382, HB386, HB392, HB406, HB431, HB441, HB466, HB503, HB533, HB559, HB575, HB590, HB593, HB618, HB636, HB655, HB664, HB685, HB692, HB707, HB715, HB732, HB738, HB741, HB748, HB776, HB807, HB822, HB856, HB860, HB868, HB887, HB888, HB905, HB908, HB961, HB980, HB990, HB992, HB999, HB1000, HB1010, HB1146, HB1157, HB1233, HB1236, HB1243, HB54, HB137, HB180, HB192, HB310, HB321, HB396, HB512, HB552, HB578, HB638, HB663, HB708, HB717, HB718, HB1009, HB1082, HB1104, HB1107, HB1198, HB1246, HB1250, HB17, HB36, HB73, HB119, HB126, HB129, HB133, HB140, HB159, HB166, HB211, HB226, HB245, HB271, HB280, HB337, HB351, HB354, HB399, HB677, HB712, HB723, HB726, HB728, HB759, HB789, HB844, HB850, HB966, HB1036, SB149, SB382, SB441, HB134, HB258, HB359, HB782
KY
Transcript Highlights:
  • And that has been<00:22:04.640> a<00:22:04.799> funding<00:22:05.039> and<00:22:
  • >> So,<00:22:10.400> using<00:22:10.640> your<00:22:10.799> analogy,<00:22
  • c><00:22:12.480> was<00:22:12.880> thinking<00:22:13.200> in<00:22:13.360> my
  • >> And<00:22:56.159> how<00:22:56.400> many<00:22:56.480> of<00:22:56.640>
  • those<00:22:56.880> a<00:22:57.039> year<00:22:57.200> do<00:22:57.840><
Summary: The subcommittee heard a budget overview from the Kentucky Court of Justice focused on mandated services and several growth items in the judicial branch budget. Court officials said the requests were driven by legal and contractual obligations, including higher contractor rates for court interpreters and IT support, annual software-as-a-service costs, and upgrades to the court’s audiovisual record system (JAVS). They also discussed local facilities needs tied to Jefferson County lease space and the Boyle County Courthouse, though the bulk of the presentation centered on the court’s technology and service-delivery costs. Members asked detailed questions about interpreter services, including whether services are provided in person, by phone, or by Zoom, and whether Kentucky could train and certify more local interpreters instead of relying on contractors from around the country. Court officials said the certification process is rigorous, that the branch is working with the National Center for State Courts on an apprenticeship program, and that they believe Kentucky may have flexibility to develop state-level certification if it meets court needs. They also said they are exploring technology and AI tools for translation, but have not found a solution that reliably handles complex courtroom context. Representative Sharp asked whether cases had been delayed for lack of interpreters; officials said they could provide aggregated data later. The court also described its major IT modernization effort, including a statewide case management system, e-filing, and maintenance of many legacy applications. Officials said contractor rates need to be raised to compete for skilled labor during the implementation phase, but that those costs should decline once the new systems are fully built and only maintained. They explained that part of the request covers three SaaS initiatives: ongoing subscription costs for existing systems, annual fees for the CaseWorks system used in pretrial and specialty courts after federal grant funding ends, and adoption of DocuSign to streamline invoicing, procurement, and contract execution. In response to questions from Representative KC Carney, they said cybersecurity is taken seriously, that they recently conducted a tabletop exercise, and that some risk shifts to cloud vendors under contract, though no separate cybersecurity line item was included. A substantial portion of the discussion focused on the JAVS audiovisual court-record system. Court officials said not all courtrooms are on the same version, and they want funding to bring all locations up to the current version and prepare for version 9, which they said would standardize the system statewide and support the official court record. When asked about costs, they said each upgrade can cost about $70,000 to $80,000 per system, that they aim to upgrade about 50 per year, and that the request reflects the need to keep pace with a four-year refresh cycle. No votes or formal actions were taken during the meeting.
KY
Transcript Highlights:
  • Senator Rocky Adams, Senator Wilson, Senator Yates, Representative Bridges here, Representative Gordon
  • My co-chair, Senator West. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  • 04.480> think<00:33:04.559> it's<00:33:05.279> that<00:33:05.519> how Senator
  • Senator Stephen West asked about KAR 205.
  • Yeah, Senator Wilson's already had one. We have an announcement on the next meeting.
Summary: The subcommittee approved the minutes from the previous meeting and then took up several regulations. The first was a Department of Veterans Affairs regulation, with a staff amendment, to allow nurse practitioners to apply for the Veterans Affairs nurse loan repayment program year-round and to make technical drafting changes. The committee heard from the Office of Kentucky Veteran Centers, then adopted the staff amendment and approved the regulation without objection. The main item of the meeting was the Board of Optometric Examiners’ proposed amendment to 201 KAR 5:010, which would allow applicants to use the Optometry Examining Board of Canada written exam in place of part one of the National Board of Examiners in Optometry exam for licensure. The board said the change would improve access to care, provide an additional pathway for Canadian-trained candidates, and still require applicants to pass the remaining national board parts. Opponents, including NBEO officials, ARBO, Pearson VUE, and several optometrists, argued the Canadian exam is not equivalent, does not test the same biomedical science content, is not validated for U.S. scope of practice, and raises concerns about test security, transparency, and portability across states. They urged the committee to find the amendment deficient or vote no. Committee members questioned both sides about prior communication with the board, whether Kentucky would be the first state to adopt such a change, the rationale for the proposal, and the cost difference between the exams. Supporters said the board had received some written comments and one phone call, and that the proposal was driven by access concerns and the presence of Canadian students. Opponents said they had not had direct discussions with the Kentucky board before the hearing. No final vote on the optometry regulation is reflected in the transcript excerpt, but the committee heard extensive testimony and rebuttal before moving on.