Transcript Highlights:

• We have other roads in the state that do have mile markers, but they're not a consistent program, and
• When the sponsor told me that federal funds were going to pay for this enlarged program of adding the
• Yes, this would work its way into the program that uses federal highway funds.
• , the resurfacing programs and bridge maintenance programs.
• FLAP program, which is another source of funds associated with a specific purpose.

Committee: Senate Transportation

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• You just said, President Gates, that it is a topic worthy of the consideration at a future date.
• Two weeks, one person determining the political future of millions without any public input.
• What do you think might happen if a future court says maybe that's not such a good idea?
• And for those reasons, I cannot accept a future where maps choose voters.
• A future where maps choose voters, logs exclude citizens, and power overrides principles.

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:

• You just said, President Gates, that it is a topic worthy of consideration at a future date.
• Two weeks, one person determining the political future of millions without any public input.
• What do you think might happen if a future court says maybe that's not such a good idea?
• And for those reasons, I cannot accept a future where maps choose voters.
• A future where maps choose voters, laws exclude citizens, and power overrides principles.

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:

• You just said, President Gates, that it is a topic worthy of consideration at a future date.
• Two weeks, one person determining the political future of millions without any public input.
• What do you think might happen if a future court says maybe that's not such a good idea?
• And for those reasons, I cannot accept a future where maps choose voters.
• A future where maps choose voters, laws exclude citizens, and power overrides principles.

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:

• You just said, President Gates, that it is a topic worthy of consideration at a future date.
• Two weeks, one person determining the political future of millions without any public input.
• What do you think might happen if a future court says maybe that's not such a good idea?
• And for those reasons, I cannot accept a future where maps choose voters.
• A future where maps choose voters, laws exclude citizens, and power overrides principles.

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• You just said, President Gaetz, that it is a topic worthy of consideration at a future date.
• Two weeks, one person determining the political future of millions without any public input.
• What do you think might happen if a future court says maybe that's not such a good idea?
• And for those reasons, I cannot accept a future where maps choose voters.
• A future where maps choose voters, laws exclude citizens, and power overrides principles.

Summary: The Senate convened in special session with an opening prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance, then moved to the special order calendar to consider congressional redistricting legislation, beginning with Senate Bill 8D and then substituting the identical House Bill 1D. The bill would establish Florida’s congressional districts. Senator Gaetz, presenting the measure, said the Governor had proposed the map to address population growth and to draw race-neutral districts, and argued that mid-decade redistricting is legally permissible and has occurred before in Florida and other states. He repeatedly said the Legislature could accept, reject, or amend the proposal, but that the Governor had the prerogative to propose it. The floor debate focused heavily on the legality and timing of the map, especially after the U.S. Supreme Court’s Louisiana redistricting decision was announced during the session. Several senators, including Rouson, Sharief, Smith, Polsky, Arrington, Bracy Davis, Bernard, Nathan, and Berman, questioned whether the map complied with the Florida Constitution’s Fair Districts Amendment, the Voting Rights Act, and equal protection principles. They raised concerns about the short notice, lack of statewide public hearings, the use of partisan data, the absence of sworn testimony from the Governor’s representatives, the claimed severability of the Fair Districts Amendment, and the impact on minority communities and communities of interest. Gaetz generally declined to offer legal opinions, saying those issues would ultimately be for the courts, but he relayed the Governor’s position that race-based provisions in the Fair Districts Amendment are unconstitutional and that the proposed map is race-neutral and compact. Members also debated whether the map’s population data and compactness scores justified the district lines, with critics arguing that the plan cracked and split communities in places such as Central Florida, Tampa Bay, and South Florida. Gaetz said the Governor’s office relied on 2020 census data plus updated population estimates from the Office of Economic and Demographic Research and the American Community Survey, and that the mapmaker said he drew the map himself without outside consultants. After questions concluded, the Senate adopted a motion to substitute HB 1D for SB 8D, read the bill a third time, and proceeded to debate the House bill. The transcript ends during debate, with no final vote on passage shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• You just said, President Gaetz, that it is a topic worthy of consideration at a future date.
• Two weeks, one person determining the political future of millions without any public input.
• What do you think might happen if a future court says maybe that's not such a good idea?
• And for those reasons, I cannot accept a future where maps choose voters.
• A future where maps choose voters, logs exclude citizens, and power overrides principles.

Keywords: 998, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And relative to home education programs.
• </c> Completion of a home education program Completion of a home education program pursuant<00:18:32.720
• </c><01:02:17.440><c> info</c> invited sponsors to future info invited sponsors to future info sessions
• Have you had a chance the EFA program.
• :51:03.920><c> regulations</c><03:51:04.399><c> or</c> that no future laws, regulations or that no future

Committee: House Education Policy and Administration

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• were the create when the computers were the create when the computers were created with pharmacy programs
• , you had created with pharmacy programs, you had created with pharmacy programs, you had to invest in
• as in much as they going to be in the as in much as they going to be in the as in the past in the future
• And so, the past in the future. So, yes. And so, the past in the future. So, yes.

Bills: SCR 13 , SCR 24 , SB 1 , SB 12 , SB 15 , SB 17 , SB 24 , SB 57 , SB 65 , SB 213 , SB 371 , SB 372 , SB 378 , SB 379 , SB 388 , SB 400 , SB 402 , SB 427 , SB 495 , SB 499 , SB 502 , SB 509 , SB 535 , SB 583 , SB 610 , SB 621 , SB 650 , SB 706 , SB 740 , SB 840 , SB 854 , SB 856 , SB 875 , SB 893 , SB 918 , SB 925 , SB 974 , SB 995 , SB 1006 , SB 1018 , SB 1025 , SB 1061 , SB 1073 , SB 1106 , SB 1121 , SB 1194 , SB 1252 , SB 1253 , SB 1268 , SB 1300 , SB 1343 , SB 1362 , SB 1447 , SJR 36 , SJR 12 , SJR 57 , SCR 25 , SCR 22 , SCR 12 , SCR 24 , SCR 8 , SB 565 , SB 372 , SB 765 , SB 62 , SB 666 , SB 707 , SB 888 , SB 687 , SB 847 , SB 1248 , SB 740 , SB 14 , SB 1006 , SB 504 , SB 925 , SB 1121 , SB 995 , SB 857 , SB 305 , SB 296 , SB 284 , SB 815 , SB 1379 , SB 1300 , SB 1497 , SB 1499 , SB 1498 , SB 1061 , 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 1119 , SB 1505 , 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 , 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 57 , SB 499 , SB 974 , SB 1025 , SB 1061 , SB 1268 , SR 302 , SR 303 , SR 304 , SR 305 , SB 30 , SB 1333 , SB 1666 , SB 30 , SB 1333 , SB 1666

Keywords: water rights, treaty compliance, Rio Grande, agriculture, drought, international water, Texas water supply, Texas, Israel, trade, investment, partnership, economic ties, technological innovation, bilateral relations, appropriations, budget, state funding, education, healthcare

Transcript Highlights:

• 53 agencies. and programs.
• Our dental programs, our vision programs, we go out to bid.
• the SNAP Program.
• We also have a program that we call the lock-in program.
• But do you all have a reward program, like a Crimestoppers type reward program?

Committee: House Delivery of Government Efficiency

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm sure we'll see you back when we have our future hearings. Your chair calls.
• The proposal at hand could have wide implications for future representatives.
• And our future growth. I thank you so much for the opportunity to speak with you today.
• We have to think of our future, of our children and their children. Texas is not all the same.
• And you have a bright future ahead of you. Thank you very much, sir. Thank you for testifying.

Keywords: 1185, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We also have the Nature Conservancy in support.

Keywords: 910, house, all

Summary: The joint hearing of the Committees on Economic Development and Technology and Tourism on February 12, 2025, focused on HB 77/HB 1077, a measure related to increasing the transient accommodations tax and directing revenue toward climate mitigation/resiliency and economic development/tourism resiliency. Most testifiers supported the bill, including the Hawaii Emergency Management Agency, Hawaii Green Infrastructure Authority, State Energy Office, Governor’s office, DLNR, the Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Commission, the Office of Planning and Sustainable Development, the Nature Conservancy, the Hawaii Climate Advisory Team, Care for Aina Now Coalition, the Hawaii Tourism Authority, and the Ocean Legislative Task Force. Supporters emphasized the need for reliable funding for disaster preparedness, environmental restoration, infrastructure resilience, and tourism-related resilience projects; some cited polling and a reported funding gap for natural resource protection and restoration. Opposition or concerns came from the Kohala Coast Resort Association, which argued the state should fully collect existing taxes from short-term vacation rentals and other accommodations before considering any tax increase. The Attorney General and Department of Taxation offered technical comments, noting the bill’s special fund language referred to fees that the chapter did not actually authorize and recommending either deleting that language or authorizing fee collection through rulemaking. The Hawaii Tourism Authority supported the measure but asked that the funding mechanism have a clear nexus to tourism resiliency. After a brief recess, the chair recommended amendments to redirect the proposed 1.75% TAT increase away from the two special funds and into the general fund, while earmarking 7.3% of total revenue for climate mitigation/resiliency and 7.3% for economic development and tourism resiliency, with technical and defect-effective-date amendments. Both committees then voted to pass the measure with amendments; the recommendations were adopted, and the meeting adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• But I’m really focused on the anecdote that you used and how in the future some providers may rely on
• My name is Julie Barrett, testifying on behalf of Conservative Ladies of Washington as other on House

Bills: HB2112

Committee: House Consumer Protection & Business

Keywords: age restrictions, online content, digital media, youth protection, cyber safety, 904, all

Transcript Highlights:

• 1,100 community-based agencies that serve Vermonters via phone, text, email, and website, with 3,270 programs
• Um, and on the 21st anniversary of our own Vermont 211 program, this statewide information referral system
• treatment, veteran<00:25:02.799><c> services,</c><00:25:03.279><c> parenting</c><00:25:03.760><c> programs
• ,</c> veteran services, parenting programs, veteran services, parenting programs, and<00:25:04.640><c
• their department poster night, spotlighting new science and innovative approaches in wildlife conservation

Keywords: 926, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> we may be doing in the future. we may be doing in the future.
• That has huge implications in the future. future. future.
• So, you know, that new school district may have a better, you know, AP program or a robotics program
• . future. future.
• </c> the future? the future?

Keywords: MS Senate Floor - 7 January, 2026; 10:00 AM, 925, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I've actually done programming at CJR, provided programming.
• The program is so good that the state certified it as a certified apprenticeship program.
• The DOC can do that program.
• The DOC can do that program.
• It becomes very conservative.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The commission opened an informal discussion focused on developing recommendations for its September report on correctional consolidation and cooperation. Chairs Dan Hunt and Senator Brownsberger emphasized that the group is still in an information-gathering phase, but should begin putting ideas on the table, including possible written recommendations, further hearings, and additional facility tours. Members discussed whether the commission should seek more input from frontline stakeholders such as sheriffs, probation, parole, reentry centers, unions, and the judiciary, and whether recommendations should be organized around specific issue areas like medical costs, programming, reentry, and facility operations. A major theme was the need for a more integrated and consistent correctional system. Participants raised concerns about fragmentation across DOC, county sheriffs, probation, and parole, and suggested exploring step-down pathways, minimum security, pre-release, day reporting, and regional reentry hubs to improve outcomes and reduce recidivism. Several speakers stressed the importance of uniform standards, evidence-based programming, better data on outcomes and spending, and clearer alignment between custody conditions and rehabilitation goals. There was also discussion of looking to other states and international models, as well as revisiting older reports and plans, including the 2009 commission report and the 2010 corrections master plan. Facility-specific issues were also raised, including the need to examine women’s facilities such as Framingham, Bridgewater, and restrictive housing practices in light of suicide concerns and mental health needs. Members discussed the relationship between correctional custody and behavioral health, the role of the judiciary in sentencing and reentry planning, and whether judges should be better informed about available programming and step-down options. There was broad agreement that collaboration, transparency, and accountability should be strengthened, with some members urging that recommendations be based on firsthand facts and data rather than opinion alone. The meeting also included presentation of a written set of eight high-level recommendations compiled by advocacy and legal organizations, which focused on clearer and more consistent programming, equitable application of rules, and reducing punitive conditions that function like solitary confinement. The chairs said the document would be shared with members and posted online. No formal votes were taken during the discussion, and the meeting ended with plans to continue the conversation at a future session, including possible follow-up on reentry centers, restrictive housing, and other systemwide reforms.

Transcript Highlights:

• c><00:08:15.520><c> of</c><00:08:15.680><c> those</c><00:08:15.919><c> programs.
• </c><00:08:16.800><c> Uh</c><00:08:17.199><c> to</c> the operations of those programs.
• Uh to the operations of those programs.
• Okay, second question and hubs program.
• Um and I think engaged with the program.

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The Government Contract Committee met with a quorum, observed a moment of silence for Representative McCool after the death of his sister, and approved the April 14 minutes. The committee then reviewed a large agenda of contracts and amendments, beginning with a deferred Office of the Controller procurement involving broker services. Members questioned why a contract that had previously been handled for about $300,000 annually was now priced at about $1 million, and why the procurement was limited to one year. Office of the Controller staff said the prior vendor had held the work for more than 20 years, the work had previously been treated as not practical to bid, and the new RFP was intended to increase competition. They said the technical evaluation was scored before cost was considered, that past performance was not scored because it was seen as unreliable, and that AON received the highest technical score despite not being the lowest bidder. After discussion, the committee voted to take no action and let the contract proceed to the Finance Cabinet, with members noting continuing concerns about the pricing and process. The committee next considered a DCBS memorandum of agreement amendment for language services. DCBS representatives said the additional funding did not come from a new cut elsewhere, but from reduced spending on interpreter services because commonly used forms had been translated into other languages, freeing up funds for the contract. The committee approved the item unanimously. The final major item discussed was an initial contract for the Board of Hairdressers and Cosmetologists for legal services. Board staff said the board had been without a permanent general counsel since March 2024 and had relied on special and conflict counsel because of unusually heavy litigation, including 11 active cases, plus broader disciplinary and licensing changes tied to recent legislation and an oversight report. They said the contract was a not-to-exceed amount funded entirely by agency fees and that the board was currently running a surplus. Senator Thomas urged support, citing prior legislation and oversight findings about problems at the board and saying the contract was needed to help the board address ongoing litigation and corrective work. The committee approved the contract and then approved the remaining agenda items without objection, sending them forward.

Bills: SJR12 , SCR39 , SB7 , SB8 , SB27 , SB29 , SB125 , SB241 , SB371 , SB396 , SB406 , SB464 , SB568 , SB578 , SB608 , SB617 , SB660 , SB689 , SB693 , SB707 , SB731 , SB732 , SB763 , SB779 , SB836 , SB854 , SB857 , SB875 , SB878 , SB879 , SB906 , SB920 , SB921 , SB922 , SB942 , SB965 , SB985 , SB996 , SB1029 , SB1035 , SB1036 , SB1059 , SB1084 , SB1098 , SB1101 , SB1185 , SB1188 , SB1321 , SB1332 , SB1366 , SB1388 , SB1396 , SB1453 , SB1484 , SB1494 , SB1536 , SB1563 , SB1596 , SB1610 , SB1619 , SB1737 , SB1738 , SB1741 , SB1816 , SB1822 , SB1841 , SB1939 , SB2155 , SB2188 , SB2230 , SJR36 , SJR12 , SJR81 , SJR50 , SCR22 , SCR12 , SCR39 , SB765 , SB62 , SB666 , SB888 , SB687 , SB847 , SB1248 , SB504 , SB857 , SB305 , SB296 , SB284 , SB241 , SB304 , SB1023 , SB204 , SB609 , SB670 , SB850 , SB854 , SB413 , SB1346 , SB1033 , SB1220 , SB1073 , SB810 , SB1539 , SB447 , SB406 , SB985 , SB1119 , SB1505 , SB1215 , SB1302 , SB583 , SB673 , SB681 , SB1172 , SB608 , SB955 , SB957 , SB1120 , SB541 , SB1737 , SB266 , SB1415 , SB125 , SB53 , SB1352 , SB785 , SB1450 , SB1502 , SB1566 , SB414 , SB1062 , SB578 , SB711 , SB746 , SB942 , SB1404 , SB1448 , SB1738 , SB507 , SB689 , SB1026 , SB1349 , SB1355 , SB1433 , SB1434 , SB1596 , SB1403 , SB763 , SB667 , SB1059 , SB617 , SB1567 , SB310 , SB311 , SB505 , SB1209 , SB1210 , SB1470 , SB264 , SB1029 , SB1358 , SB1364 , SB1569 , SB1376 , SB1228 , SB519 , SB878 , SB1350 , SB462 , SB827 , SB1585 , SB1396 , SB920 , SB1484 , SB1273 , SB1741 , SB7 , SB927 , SB1227 , SB1229 , SB1353 , SB1366 , SB1464 , SB1709 , SB1729 , SB1733 , SB1744 , SB1772 , SB1816 , SB1841 , SB2188 , SB1147 , SB879 , SB1008 , SB1536 , SB2016 , SB1453 , SB1173 , SB1163 , SB996 , SB27 , SB568 , SB1370 , SB1321 , SB1101 , SB906 , SB860 , SB1563 , SB993 , SB693 , SB1610 , SB1537 , SB836 , SB1332 , SB1307 , SB963 , SB493 , SB922 , SB984 , SB1084 , SB619 , SB1098 , SB1122 , SB455 , SB522 , SB1057 , SB1239 , SB1254 , SB1255 , SB1259 , SB1341 , SB1664 , SB1877 , SB464 , SB1277 , SB32 , SB732 , SB660 , SB731 , SB921 , SB268 , SB1822 , SB1188 , SB1939 , SB1589 , SB397 , SB1388 , SB2230 , SB1058 , SB1036 , SB1267 , SB2112 , SB1930 , SB532 , SB1035 , SB2155 , SB508 , SB29 , SB292 , SB291 , SB901 , SB1333 , SB1436 , SB1494 , SB964 , SB779 , SB1378 , SB2312 , SB1719 , SB1386 , SB287 , SB2143 , SB1245 , SB261 , SB1247 , SB1948 , SB2406 , SB2407 , SB1882 , SB1197 , SB1814 , SB618 , SB38 , SB393 , SB2065 , SB1371 , SB1394 , SB1365 , SB2243 , SB2226 , SB2039 , SB1919 , SB1895 , SB1598 , SB1493 , SB1810 , SB1791 , SB1706 , SB1644 , SB1238 , SB783 , SB458 , SB22 , SB651 , SB897

Keywords: parental rights, education, constitutional amendment, school choice, child education, border security, southern border, federal immigration policy, illegal immigration, cartels, transnational cartels, fentanyl, drug trafficking, human trafficking, Operation Lone Star, Texas border, National Guard, state guard, border wall, border barriers

Transcript Highlights:

• It refers to itself as a family transition program.
• and those programs exist within a professional... ...Mandates participation in a vaguely defined program
• It's a private program, so I would not.
• It's a private program, so I would not.
• Who's going to make this program? Who's going to pay for this program to be made?

Committee: Joint Child Custody Review Task Force

Keywords: 908, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Every inmate there is there for a specific program. There's a program for vocational programs.
• There's other vocational programs that Windham is doing and educational programs.
• We have had great success with this program. This program is a grant-funded program.
• This program is a grant-funded program at this point, and we would like to move that program into a permanently
• funded program.

Summary: The Senate Finance Committee heard the Legislative Budget Board’s overview of the Texas Department of Public Safety’s 2026-27 budget, followed by extensive testimony from DPS leadership. The LBB presentation covered funding and staffing changes across driver license services, facilities, troopers and recruit schools, crime labs, vehicle and aircraft operations, and border security. The recommendations included added support for customer service staffing and trooper hiring, but did not include several DPS exceptional items such as major driver license staffing and technology requests, new regional headquarters in El Paso and San Antonio, and other capital projects. Members also discussed proposed rider changes, including a new rider to lapse unused trooper funding and require reporting after recruit schools. Much of the committee’s questioning focused on driver license operations, where senators criticized long call wait times, low call-answer rates, appointment delays, and what they viewed as an overreliance on adding staff rather than improving processes. DPS and LBB witnesses said the agency is pursuing some technology upgrades, including automation, online pre-population of applications, and appointment-system improvements, but acknowledged that the driver license division remains a major problem area. Senators also raised concerns about whether the 2019 efficiency study led to meaningful changes and whether the agency should consider broader process redesign or even a different administrative structure. Colonel Freeman and other DPS officials then defended the agency’s broader law enforcement and border-security work, emphasizing the need for the Williamson County training academy, the 500 additional troopers funded in prior sessions, and continued support for Operation Lone Star. They described DPS’s role in border interdiction, threat-to-life investigations, oilfield theft cases, Capitol and Alamo security, and highway safety, and said the agency is stretched thin by deployments and overtime. Members asked about border reimbursement possibilities, regional staffing differences, pursuit safety, fleet and aircraft replacement needs, and the Texas Ranger Hall of Fame museum. No votes or formal actions were taken in the portion provided.