Transcript Highlights:

• I think we have to be open-minded. I think we have to be creative.
• So thinking broadly, innovatively, and creatively I think is key.
• I think we have to be open-minded. I think we have to be creative.
• So thinking broadly, innovatively, and creatively I think is key.
• projects and I think there was a I think projects and I think there was a I think there<00:32:02.480

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I think it's awesome.
• I mean, I think that's— I think we would endorse that.
• So I just think it’s, you know, I don’t think we should...” “I don’t think we should kill them.
• So I think that's two things to think about. I don't know unless Ms.
• So I think that's two things to think about. I don't know unless Ms.

Keywords: 965, house, all

Summary: The Ways and Means Committee held an informational hearing on the state capital outlay process, with Roger Husser and Matt Baker of the Division of Administration’s Office of Facilities Planning and Control (FPNC) presenting a detailed review of House Bill 2 and proposed improvements. They said FPNC administers about 54% of the bill, while other agencies administer the rest, and emphasized that the capital outlay program has improved significantly over the last few years, with project expenditures more than doubling due to better cash-flow management, staffing changes, and more efficient project administration. They also explained how the bill is structured by priorities, how the priority-one cash line of credit is capped and adjusted for construction inflation, and how the bill has grown into a much larger, longer-range plan than a true five-year program, especially on the non-state side. A major theme was that the bill contains too many dormant, legacy, and low-priority projects, which creates false expectations and ties up funding. Committee members pressed the presenters on culture change, third-party project management, staffing shortages, and the use of technology and statutory interpretation to speed projects without sacrificing compliance. Husser and Baker said they had reduced internal bureaucracy, used staff augmentation because of hiring difficulties, delegated smaller projects to agencies when appropriate, and improved cash-flow analysis so projects can move forward with less money up front. They also discussed overappropriations, dormant projects, and the need to reappropriate unused funds to projects that can actually spend them. The presenters offered several recommendations and considerations: limit the number and size of new projects, reduce scope creep, require more regular endorsement of long-running projects, consider caps on priority-five funding, impose time limits and reporting requirements on non-state grant projects, and possibly require non-state entities to escrow or otherwise demonstrate their match earlier. They also suggested bundling related projects together, expanding that approach beyond the current pilot, and improving transparency by showing full project funding history and the first year each project appeared in the bill. No votes were taken, and the meeting remained informational, with members generally supportive of the efficiency reforms while also raising concerns about false hope, dormant projects, and the need for clearer expectations and accountability.

Transcript Highlights:

• I don't think they've made a final decision on that, but um I think that they're open to that and I think
• think about it. think about it.
• Um, so I think that, uh, I think this does resolve the issue and, um, I think better meets the legislative
• Um, so I think that, uh, I think this does resolve the issue and, um, I think better meets the legislative
• So yeah, I mean I think I think a couple So yeah, I mean I think I think a couple of<01:55:21.119

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We think about elections. We think about formal institutions.
• :58.320> often<00:15:58.639> think think about democracy, we often think think about democracy
• We think about elections. constitution. We think about elections.
• I think that many of them are quite concerned. mean, I think that's if there's one mean, I think that's
• > and >> Do you think that do you think that and >> Do you think that do you think

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The Judiciary Committee held an informational briefing with Professor Colin Moore on democratic norms and their erosion in the United States, with a focus on what that could mean for Hawaii. Chair Carl Rhodes introduced the topic and the professor, noting the briefing was livestreamed and could be rescheduled if technical problems arose. Moore defined democratic norms as unwritten guardrails that make written constitutional rules work in practice, emphasizing two core norms from political science: mutual toleration, meaning acceptance of political opponents as legitimate, and institutional forbearance, meaning restraint in using legal powers to the maximum for partisan gain. Moore used historical examples to show how norms develop and erode, including George Washington’s resignation, the Alien and Sedition Acts, the contested 1800 election, Franklin Roosevelt’s court-packing plan, and Watergate. He argued that democracies usually erode gradually rather than through sudden coups, often through leaders who reject opponents’ legitimacy, tolerate political violence, restrict civil liberties, or attack the press. He said the United States is vulnerable because of its strong presidency, an 18th-century constitutional design that did not anticipate modern political parties or a neutral civil service, and because polarization has encouraged “constitutional hardball” and retaliation. He cited comparative examples such as Hungary, Turkey, and other countries that slid toward authoritarianism over time, and said the U.S. has been rated a flawed democracy by outside indexes. Moore said the erosion predates Donald Trump, though he believes Trump has accelerated it, and pointed to recent actions and rhetoric as moving beyond ceremony into government practice. He also warned that Congress has not consistently checked executive power and that public willingness to excuse anti-democratic behavior from preferred candidates is troubling. The briefing ended with Moore turning to federalism and Hawaii, arguing that the state depends heavily on federal funding for health care, schools, housing, and infrastructure, and that delays or disruptions from an unstable federal government could create serious local harm even if no law is formally broken.

Transcript Highlights:

• I think that is the case. I think some counties it's not required.
• So I'm thinking, Mr.
• I think, let's see.
• But I do think that one way I, I, I, I do think that one way I, I Do think that one way I think that
• I think for the directive, I think that is correct.

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The Child Custody Review Task Force met with a quorum, approved the prior meeting minutes, and reviewed a memorandum compiling member suggestions for possible legislation. The memo grouped ideas into topics including creation of a family court, expanded education for parents, attorneys, and judges, expedited hearings for parenting-time violations, limiting law enforcement involvement in custody disputes, creating parenting time expediters, and adopting more uniform court procedures. Members also discussed whether to form subcommittees, but the task force decided to continue working as a full committee rather than create subcommittees at this time. The committee then heard testimony from Dr. John Perez, a mental health professional, who described his personal custody experience and his professional work with families he believes have been affected by parental alienation. He argued for stronger education, faster court response times, and better tools to address intentional interference with parenting time. Members questioned him about his case history, the concept of parental alienation, and whether specialized family courts or judges with family-law training could help. Dr. Perez said a dedicated family court and faster hearings would likely have helped his situation. The task force spent substantial time discussing the possible creation of a family court. Judge Hovey supported the idea of a specialized family court or at least a study of one, saying family cases are distinct from ordinary adversarial litigation and that judges with family-law experience could better handle them. Several members agreed that a family court could improve consistency, expertise, and speed, but others cautioned that the task force’s current directive is focused on enforcement of existing orders rather than broader custody policy, and noted that voters had previously rejected equal shared parenting proposals. The group also discussed expedited procedures for parenting-time disputes, with Judge Hovey suggesting a 30-day hearing timeline may be workable. On education, members generally supported requiring parents to complete a parenting education course and adding educational materials explaining court process, child support, and what judges can and cannot do. Mr. McLean suggested a short instructional video for litigants and more family-law education for judges and attorneys, while Ms. Moldenhauer said education could be incorporated into scheduling orders or mediation orders. Members also discussed the Parents Forever course, including whether it should be mandatory in all counties and whether cost is a barrier; no vote was taken on any of these proposals.

Transcript Highlights:

• I think that if we took out F, I mean, I think we could just replace that with a parent.
• I do think that Mr.
• Yeah, I think we did mention Supreme Court earlier, I think, right? Office.
• Yeah, I think we did mention Supreme Court earlier, I think, right? Okay, Beth.
• I think 0.06.6 believe, excuse me, I want to give you the exact, I think it's point.

Keywords: 908, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I think that if we took out F, I mean, I think we could just replace that with a parent.
• I do think that Mr.
• Yeah, I think we did mention the Supreme Court earlier, I think, right? Okay, Beth.
• What I think Mr.
• I think 0.06.6, believe, excuse me, I want to give you the exact, I think it's...

Summary: The Child Custody Review Task Force met to approve prior minutes and then worked through draft legislation related to a possible family court study committee. The group discussed the proposed 15-member committee’s makeup in detail, including whether to add parent representation, judges, family law section members, child support, clerks of court, domestic violence advocates, and other stakeholders. The task force ultimately agreed to keep the committee at 15 members, reduce the legislative membership from eight to six, add two judges from different districts, add two family law section members with rural and urban representation, include one parent subject to a custody order, and replace the mental health professional with a clerk of court representative appointed through the trial court administrator’s office. The draft was also revised to keep domestic violence advocacy representation and to clarify that the study could consider juvenile court issues as part of the family court umbrella. The committee voted to approve the revised draft and recommend it to Legislative Management, with one recorded “no” vote from Judge Hovey after the meeting resumed. The task force then turned to a second draft dealing with requiring participation in a family transition program, which was renamed in discussion to a parenting education course. Members debated whether the bill should simply refer to an existing program like Parents Forever or instead specify broader education about the court process, parental rights, co-parenting, and related issues. Some members supported the requirement as a way to reduce conflict and improve understanding of the system, while others raised concerns about vague language, cost to parents, lack of exemptions, and whether the bill was too open-ended or potentially duplicative of other legislation. The discussion became lengthy and unresolved, with the drafter noting that more specific direction would be needed to revise the bill. The transcript cuts off before a final vote or action on this second draft is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• Um,<00:09:52.040> I<00:09:52.120> think Um, I think Um, I think I<00:09:53.200> think
• ><00:13:58.360> see Uh and so, I think I think we could see Uh and so, I think I think we could
• So, I think we should actually really think big and think about some new, potentially nontraditional
• Vice Chair. >> I think uh, I think Mr.
• Vice Chair. >> I think uh, I think Mr.

Keywords: 916, all

Summary: The committee opened with quorum and housekeeping, then began setting interim topics for discussion. The first major topic was trapping, including prior legislation on mandatory trapper education and trapping setbacks. The Game and Fish director said the department had already gone through a trapping reform process in 2018-2019 and was prepared to testify on those issues again, noting that the commission had previously wanted legislative authority for them. A substantial portion of the meeting focused on a proposed non-motorized trail user fee. Supporters argued it could help fund trail systems and match state trail grants, citing demand for professionally built trails and examples from other states. Testimony estimated potential revenue at roughly $150,000 to $250,000 annually, depending on the model, while noting enforcement would likely rely on an honor system. Committee members discussed possible alternatives and related ideas, including using good neighbor authority with federal land managers and looking at motorized trail funding models. The director said the concept was not yet ready for immediate passage but was worth continued discussion. The committee also briefly discussed fishing outfitter issues, with the co-chair noting a prior bill had passed and that the current board still exists, but more data would be needed later in the interim. Another topic addressed ticket scalping and fake tickets at Jackson’s rodeo, which the sponsor said was affecting visitors and could warrant broader state discussion. The State Archives topic proposed expanding the digital archive and requiring agencies to use it, with added resources for local governments; staff said it would improve security, access, and storage efficiency. The committee then discussed problematic gaming and program funding, but noted a pending bill to create a separate statutory select committee on gaming, so the topic may be better handled there if formed. The final major discussion was the Game and Fish budget. The director said employee compensation increases had raised salary costs from about 40% to 60% of the budget, while overall revenue had not kept pace, forcing cuts to habitat and research work. She warned the department could reach a critical budget point by 2030. Committee members and the Wyoming Wildlife Federation supported a deeper interim review of the department’s finances and possible new revenue sources, with the director suggesting a three-meeting structure: first to lay out the budget outlook, then to discuss additional revenue options, and finally to consider what future generations may have to pay.

Transcript Highlights:

• <00:09:31.680> is I would look subdivision 3 I think is I would look subdivision 3 I think
• I think my concern, though, Mr.
• I think my concern, though, Mr.
• Um, I think the subdivision three part of the I think is an improvement over the the amendment be you
• I mean, I think that is helpful.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• floor, I think, early when we get back. floor, I think, early when we get back.
• And I think we have to think about HCMC in relationship to those other hospitals.
• Yeah, I think<00:09:39.120> Senator<00:09:39.520> Champion think Senator Champion think
• It did end in a rough way and I think It did end in a rough way and I think there's<00:09:44.800
• think that we are going to come back. think that we are going to come back.

Keywords: 918, senate, all

Summary: Senate leadership said members were working through a fast-paced, intense session before a break, with many committee hearings still scheduled and about 27 bills expected to be heard that day. The leader highlighted several priorities for when lawmakers return, including an independent Inspector General proposal, additional anti-fraud measures, and packages on gun violence prevention and the Metro Surge response. The Metro Surge package was described as roughly 11 bills dealing with masks in essential spaces, aid obligations for federal agents, civil-rights/Bivens issues, and BCA participation in investigations; the broader gun violence package includes school safety, mental health, an assault-weapons ban, and a ban on high-capacity magazines, though it still awaited Finance Committee action. The leader also said bonding remains a high priority and that the Senate plans to continue moving policy quickly after the break. On budget matters, the leader said supplemental funding is needed for Capitol and Senate building security, largely because of increased personnel and overtime costs. He also said HCMC needs a short-term financing step because it is under financial pressure, but that the issue points to broader instability in Minnesota’s hospital system, especially as other hospitals may face difficulties related to HR1. Other budget-related items mentioned included housing support, rental and heating assistance, energy assistance, small business aid, health care, and food support, with some governor-proposed tax and spending ideas possibly left out because they are not affordable. The leader said the Senate is still working on fraud legislation, including the Inspector General proposal and related enforcement and oversight measures, and expects House differences to be worked out in conference committee. He described the House as a question mark and said the two chambers are moving at different paces, but he hopes to resolve differences and send bills to the governor. He also noted a rough end to the Senate Jobs Committee, said Senator Champion is considering next steps, and said Senator Mohamed and other DFL members had sent the Attorney General’s anti-fraud bill through a different committee path. He added that legislator safety is a growing concern because members from both parties are receiving threats, and he is working with counsel on possible responses. On guns in the Capitol, he said the issue reflects broader divisions and that current law allows permitted carry after screening, though he is frustrated by those using the issue to provoke emotion.

Transcript Highlights:

• I think that's critical.
• when you think many years and I think when you think about<01:34:08.760> how<01:34:08.920>
• think which I think is many issues I think which I think is very<01:34:30.000> important<01:34
• So I think that's critical.
• how I'll think the basis to I think how I'll think about<01:50:27.960> decision-<01:50:28.320

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• You think about some of the great evolutions of enlightenment and thought through history, and I think
• So I think one of the things I've done in my work to be a ... for students, and I don't think we pay
• way it's designed that way I think way it's designed that way I think controlling<00:09:43.640><
• <00:10:15.279> them ination I think one of them ination I think one of them is<00:10:17.360
• resources and you are thinking declining resources and you are thinking about<00:15:47.040> how

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Summary: The forum focused on the University of Minnesota system’s future, with candidates largely agreeing that the five campuses should remain distinct while working more closely together. Speakers emphasized the land-grant mission, the importance of serving Greater Minnesota, and the need for each campus to have a clear value proposition tied to local communities. Several suggested stronger cross-campus partnerships, more use of technology, and more seamless student pathways between campuses, while also noting enrollment declines and the need to preserve campus identities. A second major topic was public trust in higher education and the perceived value of a college degree. Candidates pointed to rising tuition, student debt, and concerns about post-graduation job prospects as key challenges. Proposed responses included better storytelling about university outcomes, stronger partnerships with schools, legislators, and communities, more targeted fundraising and commercialization of research, and clearer evidence of return on investment for students and families. The discussion then turned to athletics, where most candidates described sports as the university’s “front door” but said academics must remain the priority. They raised NIL, revenue sharing, and the need to keep athletics funding separate from core university funding, while also recognizing athletics’ role in campus culture and student recruitment. In later questions, candidates discussed why they sought regent service and how to support diversity, equity, and inclusion, with responses stressing access, belonging, open debate, and meeting students where they are. No formal votes or actions were taken in the transcript.

Transcript Highlights:

• I think there's a lot of social stigma. I think that's a big thing here culturally.
• And I think people are more open. I think the housing industry in general...
• And so as we're thinking of this model, I really think we shouldn't use the word, And so as we're thinking
• I think you're totally right. I think you're totally correct.
• And I think, too, I think that, I think that, I think that... Housing.

Summary: The committee heard testimony on several housing-related proposals and policy ideas. One speaker urged changes to the welfare property tax exemption for affordable housing, arguing that annual income recertifications are outdated and burdensome, and proposing a one-time qualification at move-in, streamlined monitoring through TCAC or HCD, and continued exemption protection for projects that remain in compliance. The witness said rising insurance costs and administrative burdens are hurting cash flow and threatening the viability of affordable housing operations. A major portion of the meeting focused on social housing and the SB 555 study. HCD described its ongoing study process, including public engagement with residents, practitioners, and experts, and noted that California already has many building blocks for social housing, such as public land tools, long-term affordability mechanisms, community land trusts, and tenant protections. Community land trust and housing policy witnesses argued that social housing will require legislative action, expanded public subsidy, tax abatements, public land, and simplified financing, and they emphasized the need to reframe the concept for the “missing middle” and middle-class households to build broader political support. Committee members discussed stigma around “social housing,” the need for a rebrand, and the possibility of a pilot program, especially on excess public land. The committee also heard a proposal for a certified professional plan-check system modeled on Vancouver, Canada. The presenter said California’s permitting delays, inconsistent reviews, and staffing shortages add cost and uncertainty even for streamlined projects, and proposed allowing state-certified private professionals to perform plan checks and inspections under state oversight while local governments retain zoning and enforcement authority. Members discussed local control concerns, infrastructure costs, and the need to reduce delays and uncertainty in the entitlement process. Finally, the committee heard testimony supporting changes to HCD loan disbursement so funds can be used during construction rather than only after completion. Witnesses said this would reduce interest costs, improve feasibility, and could produce additional affordable homes with existing funding. The discussion also referenced AB 1053 as the vehicle for implementing that approach.

Transcript Highlights:

• This is important, I think.
• I think it's awesome.
• I mean, I think that's— I think we would endorse that.
• So I just think it's, you know, I don't think we should kill them.
• So I think that's two things to think about. I don't know unless Ms.

Summary: The committee met for an informational hearing focused largely on the state capital outlay process and House Bill 2. Roger Husser and Matt Baker of the Division of Administration/Facility Planning and Control described how the office prepares and administers the capital outlay bill, said the bill has grown substantially over five years, and argued that recent changes in culture, staffing, project management, cash-flow analysis, and use of third-party support have more than doubled project expenditures and improved delivery. Members asked about the use and cost of third-party project managers, delegation of smaller projects to agencies, hiring difficulties, and whether the changes represented better interpretation of existing law versus statutory changes. Husser said some statutes were amended, some internal customs were removed, and the office would provide a list of those changes. He also explained that the office is trying to move away from overly rigid practices and toward faster project completion while still following public-bid and oversight rules. A major portion of the discussion centered on the size and structure of the capital outlay bill, especially the gap between Priority 1 cash capacity and the much larger Priority 5 backlog. Husser said the current annual Priority 1 limit is tied to construction inflation and is about $574 million, with additional surplus funds also available, but that the bill contains far more Priority 5 funding than can realistically move in a five-year plan. He and members discussed dormant projects, scope creep, legacy projects that have sat in the bill for years, and the problem of false expectations for non-state entities. Proposed solutions included limiting Priority 5 to five times Priority 1, requiring annual re-endorsement by members, setting district or project caps for non-state projects, requiring time limits and reporting for grant-like non-state projects, placing matches in escrow, requiring design readiness before submission, and consolidating the many existing reporting requirements into one clearer report. Members also discussed bundling multiple projects under one agency project, which the House had begun piloting for LSU, UL Lafayette, Southern, and DOTD, and which Husser said could improve flexibility, reduce overappropriation, and better reflect actual spending. Baker then explained cash-flow management and the commitment process, saying FPC now analyzes projects annually to estimate what can actually be spent in the next fiscal year and uses commitments to allow projects to proceed when future-year funding is expected. He said overappropriations can result from poor cash-flow estimates, delays, dormant projects, or projects coming in under budget, and that the office is already reworking cash-flow assumptions and reappropriating savings where possible. Members also raised concerns about change orders and low bids; staff said project managers review change orders closely, require concurrence on non-state projects, and sometimes reduce scope to keep projects within budget. After FPC’s presentation, the committee heard the beginning of Louisiana Economic Development’s capital outlay discussion, where LED explained that its projects generally fall into three categories, including the Economic Development Awards Program and Site Readiness Program, both used to support targeted economic development and job creation.

Transcript Highlights:

• I think there's a lot of social stigma. I think that's a big thing here culturally.
• I think there's a lot of social stigma. I think that's a big thing here culturally.
• And I think people are more open. I think the housing industry in general...
• I think you're totally right. I think you're totally correct.
• And I think, too, I think that, I think that, I think that, Housing.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And so you're saying you think yes. I think, I mean, I think they're so interrelated.
• I don't think this is going to go away. No, I don't think so.
• Don't you think?
• I think if I can clarify a little bit, I think what Senator Peterson is thinking through is what kind
• I don’t think so. Jennifer suggests. Do you? I don’t think so.

Keywords: 904, all

Summary: The meeting focused on ethics guidance for legislators’ official newsletters and social media posts about a major tax bill that has since become a ballot measure. Members and staff debated whether existing board guidance, which allowed comments on legislation previously before the legislature, should also apply to social media and to the current biennium rather than only the immediately preceding session. Several members argued that legislators should be able to state how they voted on the bill and discuss it as part of their legislative record, while others stressed that using state resources to advocate for or against a ballot measure is prohibited and that posts could become an indirect appeal to voters. The discussion also covered whether there should be a bright-line cutoff tied to the primary election date, after which official communications should stop discussing the bill if it is now a ballot measure. Staff and members raised concerns about tone, tenor, and proximity to the election, and whether official social media, caucus communications, and newsletters should be treated differently. One motion to extend the prior rule to the full biennium and apply it to social media failed. A second motion then passed establishing the primary date as a date certain for monitoring these discussions, with the understanding that official communications should be more limited after that point. Members noted that personal social media and campaign resources remain separate from official legislative resources. The meeting then moved toward adjournment of the public portion, with no public testimony offered, before a brief break and executive session.

Transcript Highlights:

• >> What do you think? Uh, Mr. McGn, what do you think?
• McGn, what do you<00:30:13.679> think? you think? you think?
• . think. think.
• I yeah, I think >> I think they're buddies.
• >> I<01:30:40.320> I<01:30:40.639> think >> I I think >> I I think >

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• But I think when we talk about the general constituent, a general property owner, they think property
• They think what they pay.
• But I also think there's going to be a massive education program, which I think is necessary and good
• But I also think there's going to be a massive education program, which I think is necessary and good
• I think...

Summary: The Select Committee on Property Taxes held its first meeting with opening remarks from the co-chairs and ranking member framing the committee’s task as developing property tax legislation for next session. Staff then gave a high-level overview of Florida property taxes, explaining how ad valorem taxes work, the roles of property appraisers, tax collectors, taxing authorities, value adjustment boards, and the Department of Revenue, and reviewing key concepts such as just value, assessed value, exemptions, taxable value, millage rates, homestead exemptions, Save Our Homes, and portability. The presentation also emphasized that property tax law is largely rooted in the Florida Constitution and that local governments choose millage rates, which affects collections. No public comment was taken. The committee then discussed five Speaker-proposed concepts. Proposal 1 would require cities, counties, and special districts to hold a referendum on eliminating property taxes on homestead properties; members raised concerns about local funding, public safety, special districts, renters, and the need for extensive voter education, with some suggesting countywide elections or town halls instead. Proposal 2 would create a new $500,000 homestead exemption for non-school taxes and a $1 million exemption for seniors 65+ or long-term homesteaders; members split between seeing it as meaningful relief for seniors and warning it could devastate local tax bases, especially in lower-value or rural counties, while also potentially trapping older homeowners in place. Proposal 3 would authorize the Legislature to raise homestead exemptions by general law; some liked the flexibility, but others worried about statewide one-size-fits-all impacts, political difficulty in reversing changes, and the need for local revenue replacement. Proposal 4 would change assessment caps for homestead and non-homestead property; several members said it would not provide enough relief and could shift burdens to rental properties and non-homestead owners. Proposal 5, eliminating foreclosure on homestead property for tax liens, drew the strongest opposition, with members saying it would undermine lien priority, mortgage and title systems, and incentives to pay taxes. Throughout the meeting, members repeatedly stressed the need to understand local fiscal impacts, including police, fire, infrastructure, and other services funded by property taxes, and to consider alternative revenue sources or offsets if taxes are reduced. The co-chairs said the committee is still in the information-gathering stage, that all ideas remain on the table, and that members should do “homework” by meeting with local taxing authorities and learning how property taxes are set and spent in their districts. The meeting ended with no votes on the proposals and adjournment after a motion to rise.

Transcript Highlights:

• President Davis, and to me I think this is obvious, but I think any time I think it is absolutely certain
• I don't think I am.
• But what I think, what I think— Speech is not violence, but what I think would be the most effective
• I think that's true.
• That's what I think. But I think we will, I mean, I hope we will. That's what I think.

Summary: The joint Senate and House Select Committee on Civil Discourse and Freedom of Speech in Higher Education convened for its first public hearing, adopted its proposed rules without objection, and framed the hearing as an organizational, invited-testimony-only session. Members repeatedly condemned political violence and the assassination of Charlie Kirk, saying the committee was created in response to concerns about civil discourse, intimidation, and hostility on college campuses. Several members emphasized that the goal was not to suppress speech but to protect open expression while maintaining order, due process, and institutional accountability. The first witness, Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board Commissioner Wyn Rosser, outlined implementation of Senate Bill 37. He described the General Education Advisory Committee, which is reviewing broad core-curriculum knowledge and skills and may recommend reducing the current 42-hour core, while leaving review of specific courses to individual institutions. He also explained the new Office of the Ombudsman, the board’s role in supporting it, and existing training and certification requirements for governing board members. Members asked about enforcement tools, transparency, and whether the ombudsman would investigate complaints involving censorship, retaliation, or political bias; Rosser said some enforcement exists in certain laws, but he deferred on the exact scope of the ombudsman’s investigatory authority and on issues outside the agency’s role. University of Texas at Austin President Jim Davis testified that UT Austin supports free speech, academic freedom, and civil discourse, and he described three areas of focus: speech on campus grounds, classroom discourse, and how people treat one another. He said the university enforces time, place, and manner rules, expects professors to present alternative views on controversial topics, and has created internal reporting and appeal processes for students and faculty. Members questioned him about heckler’s veto incidents, protests, off-campus participants, complaints about professors, hate speech, and whether the university would protect speakers and students from disruption or unfair targeting. Davis said the university would not tolerate disruptions, would use due process and factual review, and is working to align campus practices with the new law and regents’ expectations. Ricky Adam Jr. of Turning Point USA’s Club America described the group’s campus and high-school organizing, praised Charlie Kirk’s approach to open debate, and said the organization is expanding in Texas. He raised concerns about school administrators and a counselor at an Early College High School in Killeen allegedly interfering with a student club and withholding footage, and committee members said they would seek information and, if necessary, use legislative process to investigate. Members from both chambers reiterated support for free speech, criticized political violence and campus suppression of viewpoints, and stressed that future hearings would continue examining implementation and enforcement issues.

Transcript Highlights:

• c> this guess I I think personally I think this guess I I think personally I think this is<01:06:
• think it's sad that something I think think it's sad that something I think they<01:18:14.159>
• think you're I think I I hear you and I think you're I think you're<01:23:49.360> right<01:23
• Vol all right I think think we're up to Vol all right I think think we're up to the<01:29:55.119
• <01:37:28.719> of think I said no and I wasn't thinking of think I said no and I wasn't thinking

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee first took up House Bill 313 and, on motion by Representative Perez, voted to retain the bill because members felt it needed further work and was not ready for final action. The motion passed 18-0, and no further action was taken on the bill. House Bill 391, an anti-SLAPP measure, was then discussed; supporters said it addressed a real problem and should move forward, while opponents raised concerns that it was too broad, could affect criminal cases, and might create procedural complications. The committee voted 18-0 to retain HB 391 as well, and it was placed on consent. The committee next considered House Bill 462, establishing a cause of action for unwarranted video imaging of residential properties. Representative McFarland moved OTP, saying the bill raised First Amendment and property-rights concerns. The motion passed 18-0, and the bill was also placed on consent. The committee then turned to House Bill 509, which would require reporting on forfeitures. Supporters argued the information was useful for future legislation, while opponents said the reporting would be costly, duplicative, and potentially split data across fiscal years. The committee voted 11-7 to recommend OTP, with a minority of members opposed. House Bill 520, authorizing Department of Education hearing officers to issue subpoenas, drew the most extended debate. Supporters argued DOE needed the same tools other agencies have, while opponents said DOE already had access to needed information, the Attorney General could handle subpoenas, and the bill would create an unbalanced process and raise due process and student-record concerns. Representative Tur offered Amendment 0842H to shift subpoena power from DOE hearing officers to the Attorney General; after debate, the amendment failed 10-8. The transcript cuts off as the committee begins the roll call on the underlying bill after rejecting the amendment.