Senate leaders and rank‑and‑file members spent a long floor session debating the state’s main budget bill, Senate Bill 206, with multiple amendments considered and a steady stream of votes and procedural motions.

The debate returned repeatedly to two themes: how to order the work of the budget — including whether the School Finance Act should be run before the long bill — and whether state spending had grown too fast in recent years. Senator Chris Bridges (Senate) said that the long bill represented a “balanced budget” as prepared by the Joint Budget Committee but warned the chamber that state spending has grown faster than inflation and population, and argued for prioritizing public education in future budget cycles. “We need to put the big rocks ahead of the marbles and the sand,” Bridges said on the floor (remarks at 1611.33–1624.955).

Conservative senators pushed for more immediate cuts and a narrower general‑fund footprint. Several amendments aimed at trimming what their sponsors called lower‑priority items — from specialized program grants to certain office salaries — were offered and debated on the floor. Many of those proposals were rejected by the Senate; a handful succeeded. Sponsors and opponents repeatedly emphasized seeking offsets rather than one‑time fixes so the overall budget would remain sustainable in the coming year.

Several amendments that drew extended debate on the floor included:
- An amendment to move $1.2 million to support a rural hospital maternity program (moved by Senator Pelton) — discussed but initially lost on the floor before a later bill amendment restored similar funding elsewhere in the long‑bill package (discussion 2129–2198; later action 8431–8530).
- A set of personnel and rate amendments in the Department of Corrections that drew extensive floor debate on staffing, pay and the relationship between correctional programs and recidivism (discussion 2727–2944, 3035–3148). Some corrections amendments were defeated (several recorded “no” votes); at least one amendment restoring therapist/therapy funding for Medicaid providers passed after the committee process (j067 was adopted on the floor — see votes-at-a-glance).
- Numerous technical and programmatic amendments across health, economic development, natural resources and public safety. Several of those were decided by voice vote or recorded roll calls on the floor; the chamber reported dozens of bills as passed on second reading and sent them on for final consideration.

What this means: The Senate floor record shows lawmakers grappling with tradeoffs between preserving service levels for health, education and safety programs and responding to concerns about a structural growth in state spending. Proponents of the long bill argued the document implements the Joint Budget Committee’s work and legal obligations; opponents asked for deeper reforms, particularly for the timing and priority of K‑12 funding and for restraints on the growth of department head counts and recurring costs.

Provenance: The discussion and roll‑call activity recorded here are drawn from the Senate floor transcript for April 2, 2025, including Senator Bridges’ long remarks about process (timestamp ~1611–2092) and the sequence of amendment motions and roll calls through the session.

Ending: With hours of floor votes and committee reports, the Senate advanced the long bill through committee of the whole and adopted a series of technical and policy changes; the funding priorities and several contested amendments will remain visible as the bill proceeds through final steps.