Nelson T. Abbott

• S.B. 292 Autonomous Systems Amendments · House floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026

  Asks to yield to the sponsor for a series of questions.

  Read what they said

  Thank you. Uh, I will sponsor yield to a series of questions. Will the Sponsor yield to a series of questions? Yes, Yes. Okay. So

  ▶ Watch at 1:13:26

• S.B. 292 Autonomous Systems Amendments · House floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026

  Asks where the $100,000 cap figure comes from, noting that the cap applies to injuries to people but not to economic damages such as vehicle costs.

  Read what they said

  I'm wondering about the a hundred thousand dollars cap, um, as a, you know, legislature and as conservatives, I think we value people and relationships and, um, you know, that type of thing. But we don't cap the economic damages. We only cap non-economic damages. So the, the, the damage cap is on injury to people. But for example, if somebody's car is damaged and that car costs more than a hundred thousand, we'd say we need to protect that because we highly value that. But if somebody's caused to be quadriplegic or they lose an arm or, you know, whatever it is that the most anybody should ever be compensated is a hundred thousand. And I'm wondering, where does …

  ▶ Watch at 1:13:35

• S.B. 292 Autonomous Systems Amendments · House floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026

  Expresses concern about the message sent by setting different limits for damage to property and for injuries to people.

  Read what they said

  Thank you. I just am concerned of the message that we send to the world when we adopt disparities like this, for example, saying, well, we value money, we value vehicles, we value whatever it is. Maybe a store front's been damaged and it costs $200,000 to fix that. We value that, but we don't value humans. And as a conservative, I do value humans. I think that goes to whether the person is born or not. We value them what, you know, whoever they are. And I worry about the message that we send when we make these kind of distinctions in these laws.

  ▶ Watch at 1:16:27

• S.B. 242 Transportation Amendments · House floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026

  Raises concern that the bill covers multiple subjects, including tow trucks, food trucks, equipment purchasing, electric vehicles, school buses, and taxes, which he says conflicts with the single-subject rule.

  Read what they said

  Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have some concerns about this bill. And I guess my major concern is we have, it's, my understanding is the constitutional provision, but also rules that say that a bill should cover one subject. Now this says transportation, but we've got tow trucks, food trucks, purchasing of equipment, electric vehicles, school buses. Um, I'm trying to remember what else is in there, but there's, there's something to do with taxes in there. There's a lot in this bill. And in my mind, this actually, it exceeds one issue. It, it is so broad and big that it doesn't meet with our rules or the Constitution to say one bill, one subject. And so for that …

  ▶ Watch at 2:13:07

• S.B. 242 Transportation Amendments · House floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026

  Raises concern that the bill covers multiple subjects, including tow trucks, food trucks, equipment, electric vehicles, school buses and taxes, and may violate the one-subject rule.

  Read what they said

  Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have some concerns about this bill. And I guess my major concern is we have, it's, my understanding is the constitutional provision, but also rules that say that a bill should cover one subject. Now this says transportation, but we've got tow trucks, food trucks, purchasing of equipment, electric vehicles, school buses. Um, I'm trying to remember what else is in there, but there's, there's something to do with taxes in there. There's a lot in this bill. And in my mind, this actually, it exceeds one issue. It, it is so broad and big that it doesn't meet with our rules or the Constitution to say one bill, one subject. And so for that …

  ▶ Watch at 2:13:07

• H.B. 207 Competency Amendments · House floor debate (day 44) · Mar 5, 2026

  Explains that the Senate amendment fixes a technical error so that administrative medication orders, like court-ordered ones, are transferable between facilities.

  Read what they said

  Yes. When this got to the Senate side, we realized that there was, uh, just a little technical error where as you may recall, we were trying to make, um, medication orders transferable amongst facilities and we realized that we had made court ordered medication orders transferable but not administrative court or not administrative orders transferable. So this fixes that so that both become transferrable. Thank you Representative Abbott.

  ▶ Watch at 36:36

• H.B. 2 New Fiscal Year Supplemental Appropriations · House floor debate (day 42) · Mar 3, 2026

  Asks the House to circle the bill so he can bring up an amendment to remove $10 million for the Pioneer Trail, saying it grew from a smaller amount and that state money should go back to taxpayers instead.

  Read what they said

  Yes. I have a, an amendment that has been in work for probably, I don't know, 30 minutes or an hour. And it's not quite up on the board and it's a little more complicated because what I, in looking at this, uh, last night, I realized for the first time that we're spending $10 million to build what's called a Pioneer trail. And, um, that has grown over the years. It started is my understanding, it started at 1 million and it Uintah 2 million. And, um, the subcommittees voted not to fund it, but it ended up in our budget as 10 million. It's not easy to do a voice amendment on that because, um, it's spread out. …

  ▶ Watch at 34:55

• H.B. 2 New Fiscal Year Supplemental Appropriations · House floor debate (day 42) · Mar 3, 2026

  Asks for a few minutes for the amendment to be brought up and says legislators were elected to keep government small and be responsible with public money.

  Read what they said

  No, thank you. I'm just asking for a couple minutes for the amendment to come up. While, while we're talking, the, the drafter called me, I didn't answer because I didn't feel that was appropriate and that I'm standing right here. But it shouldn't be long. And then we can, I think, have an appropriate debate. I think each one of us was elected by our constituents to keep the government small and to really be responsible with the money that they've entrusted to us. And I think each one of us owes it to our constituents to do that for them. And, um, I understand that others have negotiated this and, you know, whatnot, but I think we personally …

  ▶ Watch at 43:19

• H.B. 207 Competency Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 27, 2026

  Presents the second substitute, which makes a technical correction and changes procedure for competency evaluations, including ordering two evaluations at once, clinically appropriate placement, and continuity of medication orders after transfers.

  Read what they said

  Perfect. So the diff the second sub just makes a technical correction that we realized was wrong on here. Okay. But what this, what this bill does is it requires, uh, it, it, so basically it changes the procedure, but not the substance of competency evaluations. So, for example, sometimes, uh, the state may want, or the state may need to pay for two competency evaluations. Maybe it's a higher level of crime or, you know, whatever it is. And sometimes maybe they only need one. This just says, if you need two, ask for 'em at the same time, don't do one, and then come back and get the second one later. Um, it, let's see. It talks about …

  ▶ Watch at 2:02:53

• H.B. 207 Competency Amendments · Senate Judiciary, Law Enforcement, and Criminal Justice Committee · Feb 27, 2026

  Responds that he understands much of the subject but has some parts he is still working through, and has brought a resource to consult.

  Read what they said

  Uh, that's a loaded question there, isn't it? Um, I've, I think I understand a lot of this, but there's still some parts that, and so I did bring a lifeline here, if you guys have we tough

  ▶ Watch at 2:04:10

• S.B. 154 Protection and Advocacy Agency Reporting · House Health and Human Services Committee · Feb 27, 2026

  Asked what authority the state has to require reporting from a private organization that receives no state funding.

  Read what they said

  Thank you, Madam Chair. I do have a question. It's my understanding that we provide absolutely no funding to this organization. So what gives us the right as a state to either suggest or require them to perform certain actions? I mean, 'cause we could do that to any advocacy agency out there. Mm-hmm. And so where do we derive the, whether it's legal or just the moral authority to require an, uh, a completely independent age, uh, organization to do this?

  ▶ Watch at 1:25:02

• S.B. 154 Protection and Advocacy Agency Reporting · House Health and Human Services Committee · Feb 27, 2026

  Asked whether the state provides any funding to the designated agency.

  Read what they said

  Uh, when you're gonna designate them as the state's official designated agency, do we actually provide any funding to them?

  ▶ Watch at 1:26:04

• S.B. 154 Protection and Advocacy Agency Reporting · House Health and Human Services Committee · Feb 27, 2026

  Said the state has no funding role with the Disability Law Center, that the governor's designation is the only connection, and that the bill is not appropriate legislative action.

  Read what they said

  Yes. So, you know, we have an interesting relationship with the Disability law center. We see them up here a lot. They advocate for positions. Sometimes we agree with their position, sometimes we don't. Sometimes, um, we think that they're making the right decisions in regards to which cha cases they choose to proceed. And sometimes we don't. Sometimes they actually sue the state and maybe we don't like that, but they serve a function, right? And we don't give them any funding. They're not a state agency. They don't have, the only connection they have with the state is that the governor has designated them as, and I don't, can't remember the exact language, but the governor's designated them …

  ▶ Watch at 1:32:09

• S.B. 154 Protection and Advocacy Agency Reporting · House Health and Human Services Committee · Feb 27, 2026

  Argued that requiring a privately funded organization to report to the state sets a poor precedent and imposes costs on it.

  Read what they said

  Okay. Thank you. I think we need to step back and say, what precedent are we setting here? If the governor chooses to recognize an organization but gives absolutely no funding, no support, nothing does that give us the right as a state to regulate them and to either require or encourage them to report to us and to do this and that, et cetera, et cetera. It's a terrible precedent. It's not a conservative principle. It's not the way we should be acting as a legislature. We need to let outside groups that don't take State Money act independently of us. If the governor says, you know what, I'm, maybe I wanna change my designation. He can ask and …

  ▶ Watch at 1:35:41

• H.B. 363 Water Easement Amendments · House floor debate (day 38) · Feb 27, 2026

  Moves to adopt House Amendment One in his name to the bill.

  Read what they said

  Representative Abbott. Thank You Mr. Speaker. Motion to adopt house amendment one in my name.

  ▶ Watch at 23:34

Show all 118 remarks →

From the official recordings' automatic captions, with speakers and summaries identified by AI. Use the ▶ links to check the recording before you rely on a quote.