Transcript Highlights:

• The committee will require a detailed statement of all legal fees, and I guess my question is, was that
• require and expenses the committee will require a<00:10:01.920><c> detailed</c><00:10:02.680><c> statement
• of</c><00:10:03.320><c> all</c><00:10:03.560><c> legal</c><00:10:03.839><c> fees</c> a detailed statement
• of all legal fees a detailed statement of all legal fees and<00:10:04.760><c> I</c><00:10:04.839><c>

Committee: House Rules and Legislative Administration

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Chair and Representative Schultz, I don't have the health care access fund statement in front of me,
• don't have the health care access fund i don't have the health care access fund uh<00:14:47.440><c> statement
• 48.079><c> front</c><00:14:48.320><c> of</c><00:14:48.480><c> me</c><00:14:48.720><c> but</c> uh statement
• in front of me but uh statement in front of me but i'm<00:14:50.399><c> recalling</c><00:14:51.040><

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Summary: The committee reviewed a side-by-side comparison and fiscal analysis of Senate File 3472, a reinsurance-related bill affecting the premium security plan account, MinnesotaCare, and related health care funding. Staff explained the Senate and House versions of the bill, including how the Senate proposal extends reinsurance for five years and uses a projected $1.087 billion general fund transfer to fully fund claims and administrative costs through fiscal year 2028, while the House version conditions continuation of the program on federal approval of the state innovation waiver. The fiscal presentation also covered appropriations for MNsure, a mental health parity and substance abuse office, and House provisions for delivery reform and a public option study, along with a House transfer of $110.674 million to the health care access fund. Members debated the budget horizon and whether costs should be forecast beyond fiscal year 2025. Representative Schultz argued that the spreadsheet understated the broader fiscal impact of reinsurance and warned about future funding cliffs for MinnesotaCare and other health programs, while other members and staff noted that the state’s standard forecast ends in fiscal year 2025 and that the fiscal note only estimated reinsurance costs through the five-year extension. Supporters said reinsurance was the best available option to reduce premium increases, especially in rural areas, and some pointed to a public option as a longer-term alternative. Opponents argued reinsurance does not address underlying health care costs or deductibles and urged consideration of other reforms. House Research then walked through the policy differences. House-only provisions would change Minnesota Comprehensive Health Association board membership, require platinum plans in certain markets, expand postnatal coverage, require a prescription drug benefit in some plans, set a minimum actuarial value for MinnesotaCare, create an Office of Mental Health Parity and Substance Abuse Accountability, and direct reports on delivery reform and a public option. The shared provisions would extend the premium security program to 2027 and delay the transfer of remaining premium security plan funds to the health care access fund until 2029, with the House language again contingent on federal waiver approval. No formal vote was taken in the excerpt; the chair closed discussion after hearing no further questions and indicated members would be contacted about next steps.

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> done a impact feasibility statement done a impact feasibility statement after<01:22:40.960><c> the
• Takayama. buildings, isn't that a contradictory buildings, isn't that a contradictory statement?
• And shouldn't we strict statement? And shouldn't we strict strike<02:03:01.199><c> that?
• Uh, can you elaborate on that statement a little bit more? >> Right.
• I’m concerned about the plumber’s statement about Bill 15.

Committee: House Judiciary & Hawaiian Affairs

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on House Bill 2592, which would clarify the powers of the Mauna Stewardship and Oversight Authority regarding land use on Mauna Akea and related property transfers. The Department of Land and Natural Resources supported the rural property transfer but objected to language transferring conservation district use permits, saying CDUPs normally run with the land rather than being assigned to specific telescopes or observatories. The University of Hawaiʻi and the observatories generally supported the bill but urged clearer language, especially on the transfer of real property assets, related obligations and liabilities, and the inclusion of milestones for the transition. Office of Hawaiian Affairs supported the bill’s overall intent but warned that some language could be overbroad and might improperly waive future beneficiary claims. Several testifiers opposed the measure, arguing it ignored DHHL lands and beneficiary rights, while others supported it as a way to clarify the authority’s role. Members questioned DLNR about the practical effects of transferring CDUP responsibility, and the committee emphasized that the bill was narrowly focused on specific land. The committee then took up House Bill 2593, which would authorize the Mauna Stewardship and Oversight Authority to extend existing leases and subleases for up to 10 years. The authority explained that the bill does not itself extend any lease, but instead gives the authority discretion to initiate a transparent public process if extensions are needed. The University of Hawaiʻi supported the concept but said the timing of any extension matters and noted possible legal requirements under state law. The observatories also supported the bill, describing it as a flexible tool during a broader transition process and noting that the authority has held many public planning workshops. Opponents, including Native Hawaiian and community testifiers, argued that the conservation lands should receive the highest protection, that the community had not consented, and that the observatories have had decades to plan ahead. One testifier urged the bill be deferred or killed for lack of clarity. In response to questions, the committee clarified that the bill only authorizes a process and does not itself extend leases, and that any extension would require public participation. The final measure discussed in the excerpt was House Bill 2047, relating to the AHAPU advisory committee. The discussion focused on the committee’s administrative relationship to the Department of Land and Natural Resources and whether DLNR should oversee basic legal compliance issues such as Sunshine Law and legislative reporting. DLNR explained that the committee is administratively attached to the department, which provides support on human resources, procurement, and legal questions, but that the committee itself generally handles its own operations. The department said it would route compliance questions to its attorneys and implement their advice. The hearing then moved on to House Bill 2231, which would transfer appointment authority for island burial council members from the governor and Senate to the Office of Hawaiian Affairs board of trustees. OHA said it generally supported the change for geographic moku representatives, since it already nominates candidates for those seats, but expressed concern about taking on appointment authority for the large landowner seats because that role is less directly tied to its statutory duties.

Transcript Highlights:

• We have a mission statement that's been reviewed by the minority head there, and um, and uh I'd like
• that's been uh reviewed by the statement that's been uh reviewed by the minority<00:02:51.920><c> head
• With respect to the subcommittee report mentioned in the mission statement, that will be due out of the
• /c><00:04:39.560><c> mission</c> report mentioned in the mission report mentioned in the mission statement
• that will be due out of the statement that will be due out of the subcommittee<00:04:43.080><c> on</

Committee: House Election Law

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Scarborough, that's a great closing statement.
• fund, okay, but then I look at the fiscal note and it refutes that statement.
• Is that statement what you believe to be fact?
• So I was just wondering, is that statement racist? Absolutely, it's not racist.
• DEI and their mission statement or in their...

Committee: Senate Education

Summary: The Senate Committee on Education K-16 convened with a quorum, adopted its committee rules, and heard opening remarks from members introducing staff and outlining priorities for the session. Members from both parties emphasized education as a major issue, while several Republicans framed the committee’s work around school choice and parent empowerment. Senator West and other Democrats stressed protecting public schools, listening to Texans, and considering the effects of vouchers or education savings accounts on school districts and communities. Chairman Creighton laid out Senate Bill 2, the Texas Education Freedom Act, describing it as a universal education savings account program modeled on similar programs in other states. He said the bill would provide about $200 million for a universal eligibility pool and additional funding for students with disabilities and lower-income families, with priority weighting for former public school students. He also highlighted anti-fraud measures, vendor pre-approval, criminal background checks, cybersecurity protections, annual testing requirements for participating students, and the use of the Comptroller rather than TEA to administer the program. Creighton repeatedly said the bill is not a voucher and argued it would not take money from public schools, which he said would receive separate historic funding increases. Members questioned Creighton about the 500% of federal poverty line definition, the adequacy of the $10,000 ESA amount, whether the program would favor students already in private school, how microschools and homeschool pods would fit, and whether the bill protects religious liberty and private-school autonomy. Democrats raised concerns about disability protections, 504 students, foster children, public-school funding, open records, and the historical context of vouchers. Republicans generally supported the bill as a way to expand options for parents and students, while also asking about administration, fraud prevention, and data security. After member questions, the committee began invited testimony, with EdChoice President Robert Inlow presenting in support of SB 2 and citing the growth and reported success of school choice programs nationwide.

Transcript Highlights:

• The environmental impact statement must still be completed by the primary agency.
• What we statement for federal projects.
• ><c> process,</c> Energy impact statements, NEPA process, Energy impact statements, NEPA process, everything
• Again, I rise in support of H.R. 6398. part of that statement every step of the part of that statement
• </c> my colleagues make outrageous statements my colleagues make outrageous statements in<05:39:07.680

Keywords: U.S. House of Representatives Floor Proceedings on Wednesday, April 15, 2026, 1012, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• It is, it's, I think I made this statement before.
• It is, it's, I think I made this statement before.

Bills: HB2992 , HB3183 , HB3464 , HB4170 , HB4338

Committee: Senate Energy

Keywords: HB2992, Data Center Customer Ratepayer Protection Act of 2026, Corporation Commission, Oklahoma utilities, ratepayer protection, data centers, artificial intelligence computing, AI data centers, cryptocurrency mining, large load customer, electric rates, utility tariffs, cost causation, rate design, public power utility, municipal utility, electric cooperative, investor-owned utility, load growth, interconnection

Summary: The committee first handled several executive nominations. It unanimously advanced Richard Allier to the Environmental Quality Board, Kevin Foreman to the Liquefied Petroleum Gas Board, Gary Keel to the Air Quality Advisory Board, Megan Langley to the Oklahoma-Arkansas River Compact Commission, Jacob Bull to the Air Quality Advisory Council, and Tommy Colwell to the Oklahoma Mining Commission. In each case, the nominating senator described the appointee’s background and qualifications, and the committee voted to send the nomination to the full Senate without opposition. The committee then considered House Bill 2992, with Senator Green offering a technical amendment to correct drafting errors. The amendment passed 8-0, and the bill itself passed 9-0. Green said the measure would require large-load data centers and crypto mining facilities to pay their share of electric infrastructure costs so those costs would not be shifted to other ratepayers. Senator Boren asked whether municipal utilities and co-ops would be affected, and Green responded that the bill was aimed at the corporate shareholder utility model. House Bill 4338 was also heard and passed, though the roll call showed one no vote. Green explained that the bill concerns produced water and would create a framework for extracting elements from it, with House changes clarifying that it is not retroactive, adjusting flexibility for the produced water unit size, and allowing processing of brine before corporation approval. The committee also advanced House Bill 417, which addresses theft of copper fittings on oil rigs and related cleanup damage by making certain conduct a misdemeanor; it passed 10-0. The meeting ended after the committee approved the remaining nominations and adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• So let me, that last statement confused me a little bit. So we're not reviewing the $160,000...
• That last statement confused me a little bit.

Committee: Joint Joint Legislative Budget Committee

Keywords: 1182, all

Transcript Highlights:

• settled, please introduce yourselves to the committee, and then you're welcome to make any opening statements
• They'll just make a few opening statements and comments about the board and their licensure process,

Committee: All ALC-OCCUPATIONAL LICENSING REVIEW SUBCOMMITTEE

Summary: The Occupational Licensing Review Subcommittee met to review two occupational licensing reports: the Arkansas State Board of Nursing and the State Board of Registration for Professional Soil Classifiers. For nursing, board officials described the board’s history, scope, and licensure categories, saying it regulates about 72,000 nurses across RN, LPN, advanced practice, medication assistant, and dialysis technician-related roles. Members asked about workforce shortages, complaint volume, and the board’s finances. The board said Arkansas has enough licensed nurses overall but faces vacancy and distribution issues, receives about 2,200 complaints annually, and most serious complaints involve criminal backgrounds, fraud or misrepresentation, misappropriation, drug abuse, and criminal investigations. Officials also said they are looking at ways to improve efficiency in case handling, including better documentation and added help positions, and noted outreach efforts through nursing associations and the Arkansas Center for Nursing. For professional soil classifiers, Agriculture Department officials explained that the occupation was created in 1975 and now is administered by the Natural Resources Commission after the former board was abolished in 2023. They said the profession is small and specialized, with about 29 registered soil classifiers in Arkansas, and requires a four-year degree plus coursework in biological, earth, and soil sciences. Members asked whether the current number is sufficient, what the work involves, and how the licensing fund is used. Officials said the current number appears adequate, though demand could change with more nutrient management or related work, and that soil classifiers commonly assist with septic system design, perk testing, wetland determinations, and other soil-related projects. They also noted the program has a small reserve and may look at training, curriculum, testing, and administrative budget adjustments. Both reports were reviewed without objection, and no votes were taken. The next meeting was announced for February 19 at 1:30 p.m.

Transcript Highlights:

• Okay, I'd like to make a closing statement. Would you like to close? Yes, I would, Chairwoman.
• Okay, I'd like to make a closing statement. Would you like to close? Yes, I would, Chairwoman.

Summary: The committee met without a quorum at first but proceeded with presentations and testimony. SB 31 by Senator McNerney would expand uses of tertiary treated recycled water, including for toilet and urinal flushing in food handling facilities, outdoor irrigation in certain settings, decorative lakes and ponds, and HOA common-area irrigation, while clarifying regulatory definitions and reducing the need for dual plumbing in some cases. The author and witness said the bill would help California reduce reliance on imported water and improve drought resilience. Multiple water agencies, cities, and related organizations testified in support, and no opposition was presented. SB 650 by Senator Cabaldon would make technical changes to the Delta Stewardship Act, including setting an appeals timeline, clarifying who may file appeals, and adding a severability clause. The author and a county supervisor witness described it as a good-governance and due-process measure with no impact on Delta conveyance projects. Support came from water district and statewide water association representatives, and there was no opposition. The committee also took up a consent calendar including AJR 9, SB 55, and SB 563, all of which were approved. Once a quorum was established, SB 650 was passed to the Judiciary Committee, and SB 31 was passed to the Environmental Safety and Toxic Materials Committee. The committee then adjourned after leaving the roll open briefly for additional members to vote.

Transcript Highlights:

• I like your one statement that, uh, we cannot relocate climate. Uh, agriculture, I like that.
• That's a good statement. I mean, Mexico's blessed with the right climate for fresh produce.

Committee: House S/C on International Relations

Transcript Highlights:

• Representative Friberg says, 'Madam Speaker, this is a bill dealing with filing periods for statements
• Representative Friberg says the bill deals with filing periods for statements of economic interest.

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• He found her statements to being of being the sole protector impossible to ignore and concluded that
• He found her statements to being of being the sole protector impossible to ignore and concluded that
• found her statements to being of being the<00:58:53.200><c> sole</c><00:58:53.520><c> protector</c><
• ><c> former</c><01:32:44.800><c> justices</c> statement from the three former justices statement from
• ,</c><02:10:54.880><c> and</c> Attorney Kimberly Bar's statement, and Attorney Kimberly Bar's statement

Keywords: 958, all

Transcript Highlights:

• impact statements both at the<00:28:36.519><c> federal</c><00:28:36.799><c> and</c><00:28:36.960><c>
• I just want to make a note that, as a professional engineer, sending out statements of qualifications
• qualification should cover the statement qualification should cover okay<00:37:30.359><c> all</c><00
• </c> refrigeration thus the added statement refrigeration thus the added statement amending<03:34:55.279
• Speaker: Thank you for that statement.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The Environment and Agriculture Committee opened by noting member absences and then reviewed the governor’s HB 2 trailer bill language creating a solid waste site evaluation committee. The chair explained that Finance would want the committee’s input on the proposal and also announced a temporary change to the committee’s schedule, with additional Wednesday meetings planned around school vacation. The committee then moved into a work session on several bills. On HB 150, Representative Ktoa offered a simple amendment changing food-processing language from “washed and rinsed” to “cleaned and sanitized” in the processing area. Members agreed the change better matched food safety practice, and the committee indicated support for advancing the bill. On HB 307, dealing with homestead food production areas, members discussed proposed amendment language that would add clearer sanitary requirements, including handwashing access, sanitary storage, sanitizable food-contact surfaces, and pest exclusion. The committee also discussed whether to replace “potentially hazardous food” with “time temperature control safe food,” but several members favored keeping the existing term because it is already well defined in food safety law. The bill was held for further amendment work rather than being executed immediately. The committee spent substantial time on solid waste legislation. For HB 479, members recalled a prior plan for a letter to the solid waste working group and agreed to proceed with the bill in executive session, with an offer of drafting help from Representative Bixby. For HB 77, which would require DES to establish site-specific setback distances for proposed new landfills, Representative Penza said his amendment was not ready yet but was close, and the bill was left for further discussion. The most detailed discussion was on HB 2115, which would require landfill permit applicants to submit a report on the project’s harms and benefits. Representative Germana explained an amendment that would replace section one, expand the list of benefits to include economic potential and infrastructure improvements, and set up a third-party review process in which the applicant submits a list of reviewers, DES screens the list, and the commissioner selects a reviewer if no agreement is reached within 60 days. Members asked about who could serve as contractors, whether they had to be local, and how DES would judge qualifications; the response was that environmental engineering and similar firms could be used, local or outside the community, and that the process would remain somewhat flexible. Representative H. Haskins asked whether the legislature or subcommittee would be formally notified of preliminary review problems, and the chair said no additional notification process would be built in beyond existing practice. The committee planned to continue work on the bills in upcoming executive sessions, including after school break.

Transcript Highlights:

• Representative Overdorf, I wanted to focus on the ballot statement itself.
• Representative Oberdorf, I wanted to focus on the ballot statement itself.
• There is a general law statement there at the end of it. You are correctly pointing that out.
• So far, you just made statements. You have a question. Make those choices in this back fills.
• I looked at the mortgage statements of a couple of people.

Summary: The House met in special session, opened with prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance, approved the journal, and adopted the special order report setting the day’s calendar. The chamber then took up CS/House Joint Resolution 1F, the Governor’s property tax proposal, which would raise the homestead exemption for non-school taxes, lower the annual assessment cap on non-homestead property from 10% to 5%, and restrict county and municipal ad valorem revenue to public safety and certain other uses. Sponsor Rep. Overdorf said the measure would return money to homeowners and give local governments flexibility, while opponents repeatedly argued the ballot language was misleading and that the proposal could create large local revenue shortfalls, shift costs to other taxpayers, and threaten local services and debt obligations. Members debated a series of amendments aimed at protecting specific programs from the bill’s effects. Rep. Bartleman’s amendment to exempt Children’s Services Councils and Children’s Trusts was defeated 25-74 after supporters said those entities fund child care, mental health, aftercare, and family support, while opponents said local governments could still choose to fund them. Rep. Cross’s amendment to include water management districts in allowable uses of ad valorem taxes was also defeated, despite testimony that the districts are essential for flood control, water supply, Everglades restoration, and drought response. Rep. Eskamani’s amendment to require the Legislature to backfill public safety funding failed 25-71 after debate over whether the proposal could reduce police and fire budgets and response times. The House then rejected Rep. Woodson’s amendment to require state backfill for senior services, with supporters citing Meals on Wheels, transportation, adult day care, and other aging services, and opponents saying the state already funds senior programs. Finally, Rep. Gant’s amendment to protect veteran services was introduced and debated, with members emphasizing housing, mental health, transition assistance, and homelessness concerns for veterans; the transcript cuts off before the vote on that amendment. Throughout the debate, sponsors and supporters of the main resolution maintained that local governments would retain spending discretion and could use other revenue sources, while critics argued the measure lacked clear backfill provisions and could force cuts or tax shifts at the local level.

Transcript Highlights:

• If you say that it stretches 120 miles, I certainly would not dispute your statement.
• I I certainly would not dispute your statement.
• Were they required to make their statements under oath in front of the Senate Rules Committee, sir?
• That statement specifically omitted compliance with the Florida Constitution.
• I don't know what the point of that statement was. We're not getting an extra congressional seat.

Summary: The Senate convened in special session and took up Senate Bill 8D, later substituted with House Bill 1D, both establishing Florida’s congressional districts. The sponsor, Senator Gates, explained that the Governor had transmitted a proposed redistricting plan on short notice and argued that mid-decade congressional redistricting is legally permissible, citing population growth and the Governor’s view that race-based provisions in the Fair Districts Amendment are unconstitutional. He repeatedly said the Legislature was not being asked to prove the Governor’s legal theory, only to consider the proposal, and noted that no amendments were offered. A lengthy question-and-answer period followed, with senators raising concerns about the rushed process, lack of statewide public hearings, and the map’s effects on minority communities, compactness, communities of interest, and partisan fairness. Senators questioned whether the map cracked Latino and Black communities, whether partisan data was used, whether the Governor’s office had outside consultants, and whether the plan complied with the Florida Constitution, the Fair Districts Amendment, and the Voting Rights Act. Gates generally deferred on legal conclusions, said the Governor’s representatives had testified the map was race-neutral and used political data only as one factor, and emphasized that any constitutional challenge would be for the courts. After a motion to temporarily postpone failed by a recorded vote of 12 yeas to 23 nays, the Senate continued debate. Senators Rouson, Bernard, and others spoke in opposition, arguing the proposal was rushed, partisan, and harmful to communities of interest and minority voting power. Gates maintained that the Governor had a constitutional prerogative to propose the map and that the Legislature could accept, reject, or amend it. The House companion bill was then substituted for the Senate bill, read a third time, and the chamber moved into final debate on the congressional redistricting plan.

Transcript Highlights:

• If you say that it stretches 120 miles, I certainly would not dispute your statement.
• I I certainly would not dispute your statement.
• Were they required to make their statements under oath in front of the Senate Rules Committee, sir?
• That statement specifically omitted compliance with the Florida Constitution.
• I don't know what the point of that statement was. We're not getting an extra congressional seat.

Summary: The Senate convened in special session and took up Senate Bill 8D / House Bill 1D, which would establish Florida’s congressional districts. The sponsor, Sen. Gates, explained that the Governor had transmitted a redistricting plan two days earlier and argued that mid-decade redistricting is legally permissible, citing population growth and the Governor’s view that race-based districting is unconstitutional. Much of the floor time was spent in extended questioning about the process, the lack of public hearings compared with prior redistricting cycles, the use of population estimates from the Census/EDR/ACS, compactness scores, and whether the Governor’s office used partisan data or outside consultants. Gates repeatedly said he was relaying the Governor’s proposal and legal theory rather than offering his own legal opinion, and he said any constitutional challenge would be for the courts. A major portion of the debate focused on the U.S. Supreme Court’s newly issued Calais decision and its implications for the Fair Districts Amendment and the Voting Rights Act. Senators questioned whether the decision struck down Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, whether it affected Florida’s constitutional ban on partisan gerrymandering, and whether the Legislature should postpone action to review the ruling. A motion to temporarily postpone the bill failed by voice vote and then by recorded vote, 12 yeas to 23 nays. Senators also raised concerns that the proposed map cracked minority communities, including Latino and Black populations in Central Florida and Tampa Bay, and that it would produce a heavily Republican-leaning map despite the state’s voter registration mix. After debate on the Senate bill, the chamber substituted the identical House companion bill, read it a third time, and proceeded to final debate. Opponents argued the map was an illegal partisan gerrymander, was based on assumptions rather than verified data, and would likely lead to litigation. Supporters maintained that the Governor had authority to propose a congressional map, that the plan was race-neutral, and that the Legislature could accept, reject, or amend it. The transcript ends during continued debate on House Bill 1D, with no final vote shown in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• If you say that it stretches 120 miles, I certainly would not dispute your statement.
• I I certainly would not dispute your statement.
• Were they required to make their statements under oath in front of the Senate Rules Committee, sir?
• That statement specifically omitted compliance with the Florida Constitution.
• I don't know what the point of that statement was. We're not getting an extra congressional seat.

Summary: The Senate convened in special session and took up Senate Bill 8D, later substituting identical House Bill 1D, to establish Florida’s congressional districts. The opening prayer and Pledge of Allegiance were followed by procedural remarks, then extensive floor discussion focused almost entirely on the redistricting proposal, its timing, and its legal basis. Senator Gaetz, explaining the bill, said the Governor had transmitted the map two days earlier, argued that mid-decade congressional redistricting is not prohibited by law, and said the Governor’s stated reasons were to address population growth and to draw race-neutral districts. He also said the legislature could accept, reject, or amend the proposal. Much of the debate centered on the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent Louisiana decision and whether it affected Florida’s Fair Districts Amendment and the Voting Rights Act. Senators Smith, Rouson, Sharief, Polsky, Arrington, Bracey Davis, Bernard, Nathan, and others questioned the short notice, lack of public hearings, the use of partisan data, the absence of sworn testimony, and whether the map diluted minority voting strength or fragmented communities of interest. Gaetz repeatedly said he was not offering legal opinions, that the Governor’s counsel believed the Fair Districts race-based provisions were inconsistent with federal law, and that any legal challenge would be for the courts. He also said the Governor’s mapmaker reported using census and demographic data, along with political data as one of many inputs, and claimed the map’s compactness was comparable to the current map. A motion by Senator Smith to temporarily postpone consideration of the bill failed on a 12-23 vote. After the Senate returned from a 30-minute break to review the new Supreme Court decision, debate continued. The chamber then substituted HB 1D for SB 8D, read the House bill, and advanced it to third reading. The transcript ends during debate on final passage, with Senators Rouson and Bernard speaking in opposition and arguing the map was procedurally rushed, legally vulnerable, and politically motivated.

Transcript Highlights:

• If you say that it stretches 120 miles, I certainly would not dispute your statement.
• I I certainly would not dispute your statement.
• Were they required to make their statements under oath in front of the Senate Rules Committee, sir?
• That statement specifically omitted compliance with the Florida Constitution.
• That statement specifically omitted compliance with the Florida Constitution.

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• If you say that it stretches 120 miles, I certainly would not dispute your statement.
• I I certainly would not dispute your statement.
• Were they required to make their statements under oath in front of the Senate Rules Committee, sir?
• That statement specifically omitted compliance with the Florida Constitution.
• I don't know what the point of that statement was. We're not getting an extra congressional seat.

Keywords: 998, house, all