Transcript Highlights:

• Conservative and progressive, the past great initiatives in this state.
• It's not just going to penalize the people on the conservative side.
• It's not just going to penalize the people on the conservative side.
• From our perspective, these changes don't limit participation or organizing.
• From our perspective, these changes don't limit participation or organizing.

Summary: The committee heard House Bill 2260, House Joint Resolution 4209, and House Bill 2259, with testimony and questions on each. HB 2260 would require petition signature gatherers to sign and date each petition sheet, provide their address and county, and require voters’ residence addresses for signature verification; supporters said this would improve accountability and help prevent fraud or duplicate signatures, while opponents argued it would burden volunteers, risk disenfranchising voters who move or use incomplete addresses, and add unnecessary penalties. The Secretary of State and former Secretary of State opposed the bill, saying existing verification methods are effective and that the measure could create costly, unintended barriers. HB 2259 would require 1,000 registered-voter signatures before filing an initiative or referendum and prohibit pay-per-signature compensation, with civil penalties and a private right of action; supporters said it would reduce frivolous filings, title shopping, and fraud incentives, while opponents said it would chill initiative activity, especially for rural communities and referenda with tight timelines. The Secretary of State and former Secretary of State also opposed HB 2259, saying the initiative process should remain accessible and that the bill would add barriers and workload. House Joint Resolution 4209 would amend the state constitution to allow the legislature to modify congressional districts mid-decade by simple majority if another state adopts a new congressional map absent a court order. The prime sponsor argued Washington should not unilaterally stay passive if other states engage in partisan mid-decade redistricting, while opponents said the proposal would weaken Washington’s bipartisan redistricting system, set a bad precedent, and invite retaliation. Testimony on the resolution was sharply divided, with supporters warning that partisan redistricting elsewhere threatens fair representation and opponents saying Washington should preserve its existing commission-based process rather than respond in kind. The hearing on HJR 4209 was concluded after testimony. No votes or final committee actions were taken in the excerpt. The chair suspended and reopened hearings as planned, and testimony was taken on all three measures, with HB 2260 and HB 2259 drawing extensive public comment and questions about fraud, access, and administrative burden.

Transcript Highlights:

• So conservation districts had to be formed even before the federal... conservation commission I won't
• Easements through conservation districts around all 2,107 dams.
• commission or conservation districts have increased.
• In conservation, otherwise we'll just get back behind the curve again.
• We've had lots of those national philanthropic organizations Organizations actually approach us and say

Committee: House A&B Natural Resources Subcommittee

Summary: The meeting began with a budget presentation from the Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry. Secretary Blaine Arthur and Deputy Commissioner Jan Lee described the agency’s divisions and recent efforts to improve efficiency, including expanded online licensing, electronic veterinary inspection certificates, and a new laboratory information system. They highlighted youth and workforce programs, local food initiatives for schools, market development efforts, and ongoing animal health concerns such as avian influenza, equine herpesvirus, and the threat of New World screwworm. They also discussed staffing, turnover, and uncertainty around federal cooperative agreement funding, while noting they were not requesting new or additional appropriations for the upcoming fiscal year. Members asked about meat inspection staffing, the use of one-time forestry firefighting funds, biosecurity and national security coordination, and agency staffing levels. The department said meat inspection was currently in good shape but dependent on federal funding stability, and explained that prior firefighting dollars had been used for equipment purchases. They also said they work with state and federal partners, including DHS and FBI, on threat preparedness and have reduced turnover by adjusting salaries and maintaining staffing at or below prior levels. The Oklahoma Conservation Commission then presented its budget and program overview. Staff described the agency’s long history and current work in water quality, flood control, soil health, unpaved roads, wetlands, and woody species control, especially eastern red cedar removal. They emphasized data-driven, voluntary conservation practices, citing stream cleanups, flood-control dam benefits, pond cleanouts during drought, and the Cherry-Peach watershed project as examples of programs that improve water resources and reduce wildfire risk. The agency said its workload has grown significantly and requested funding for critical dam repairs, local conservation district staffing, continued unpaved roads work, and expansion of woody species control statewide. Members asked about county matching for road and dam projects, who to contact about flooding roads, sediment removal from pond cleanouts, and the effectiveness of county training programs. Commission staff explained that county in-kind work can count as match, local conservation districts are the first point of contact, and the road training has produced measurable savings and better maintenance practices. They also clarified that “high hazard” dams are those where failure could threaten people or infrastructure downstream, not necessarily dams that are structurally failing.

Transcript Highlights:

• Name, organization, and your opposition. Sure, thanks.
• I'm Michael Jair with The Nature Conservancy.
• Name, organization, and your opposition. Sure, thanks.
• I'm Michael Jair with The Nature Conservancy.
• organizations, and state agencies.

Committee: Senate Natural Resources and Water

Transcript Highlights:

• Facebook was transformed, and it works side by side with NGOs. to censor conservatives.
• Google had used its enormous power to systematically censor, de-boost, and throttle conservative ideas
• I know this because I've been fighting these people and these organizations my entire career.
• Finally, many of these organizations are direct... ...directly involved with real-time censorship.
• It can fund organizations that promote childbirth without also funding organizations that promote abortion

Committee: Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution

Keywords: censorship, First Amendment, social media, misinformation, free speech, government regulation, Big Tech, public discourse

Summary: The meeting primarily focused on the implications of government involvement in censorship, particularly regarding social media platforms and compliance with misinformation standards. senators and witnesses discussed growing concerns over the influence of large tech companies, like Facebook and Google, in shaping public discourse and suppressing dissenting views. A significant part of the meeting included testimonies from various experts emphasizing the dangers of the 'censorship industrial complex'—a term used to describe the collaborative efforts between government entities and private organizations to control information flow. This collaboration is viewed as a violation of First Amendment rights, with calls for urgent legislative action to restore free speech protections.

Transcript Highlights:

• They are leading conservation efforts through the Florida Forever program.
• They are leading conservation efforts through the Florida Forever program.
• Conservation is made up of three basic principles: research, management, and enforcement.
• And third is our premier conservation law enforcement agency in the nation.
• Florida's disaster response due to the unique equipment that we use for our conservation mission.

Summary: The Agriculture and Natural Resources Budget Committee met to organize for the session, confirm a quorum, and hear introductory remarks from members about their districts and interests. Chair Esposito outlined the committee’s jurisdiction and budget overview, noting a total budget of about $7.2 billion, with major funding tied to the Department of Environmental Protection, the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Fish and Wildlife, and the Department of Citrus. She also described major cost drivers such as Everglades restoration, water quality, resiliency, land acquisition, and rural family lands, and asked members to review agency requests in small groups later in the process. Agency leaders then presented budget and program updates. Agriculture Commissioner Wilton Simpson emphasized department efficiency efforts, including IT modernization, staff reorganization, rural and family lands conservation, best management practices, Fresh From Florida marketing, hurricane recovery loans for farmers, and completion of the Connor Complex headquarters. DEP Secretary Alexis Lambert highlighted record investments in Everglades restoration, water quality projects, resilience grants, land acquisition, state parks, and enforcement. FWC Executive Director Roger Young discussed conservation research, fisheries and wildlife management, law enforcement, disaster response, and pressures from growth, boating, invasive species, and derelict vessels. Department of Citrus Executive Director Shannon Shep reviewed the industry’s decline due to hurricanes and citrus greening, current research and marketing efforts, and e-commerce campaigns to support Florida citrus sales. Members asked questions about citrus production declines, future replanting and therapies, rural family lands, PFOS cleanup, mangrove restoration, flooding and pump infrastructure, agricultural theft, and derelict vessel removal. Officials generally responded with updates, emphasized science-based management and enforcement, and in several cases said they would follow up with more detailed information later. No formal votes were taken; the meeting ended with the chair directing members to provide feedback on agencies for further budget review and then adjournment.

Transcript Highlights:

• A wolf conservation management plan was adopted in 2011 that has...
• Hedrick, I apologize from the Ferry Conservation District.
• I'm the director of Forest Partnerships for the Nature Conservancy in Washington.
• Our conservation efforts, the balanced ecosystem, is totally destroyed.
• Nello Picnic from Coastal Conservation Association.

Summary: The committee heard public testimony on House Bill 2619, which would create a joint legislative task force to review and recommend ways to reduce regulatory burdens in agriculture, and on House Joint Memorial 4009, which asks Congress to ensure federal wildfire response agencies remain capable of protecting communities, natural resources, and firefighter safety. On HB 2619, the prime sponsor and supporters from the Washington State Department of Agriculture, cattle, wheat, potato, onion, and dairy interests said the bill responds to farm stress and suicide concerns by examining regulatory overload; WSDA supported the concept but noted a fiscal note, and members discussed whether the task force scope and cost could be reduced before policy cutoff. On HJM 4009, staff and the sponsor described the memorial as a request for stronger federal wildfire capacity and coordination, with testimony from tribes, counties, forest landowners, conservation groups, and public employees emphasizing wildfire risk, smoke impacts, and the importance of federal-state cooperation; the committee also repeatedly tied the memorial to support for state wildfire funding under 1168 and heard broad support for restoring that funding. The committee then took up House Bill 2221, which would require the Department of Fish and Wildlife to designate at-risk ungulate populations and begin predator mitigation when certain population declines occur, while also requiring annual reporting and white-tailed deer surveys. The sponsor argued the bill addresses rapidly declining deer and elk herds, predator pressure, food security, and rural economies in northeast Washington. Supporters included some local residents, ranchers, sheriffs, county officials, and the Colville Tribes, who said predators, livestock conflicts, and reduced hunting opportunity are harming communities and that the state should act more aggressively. Opponents included WDFW staff, Washington Wildlife First, the Sierra Club, the Animal Legal Defense Fund, and other conservation voices, who said the bill is not scientifically supported, would be costly, and wrongly blames predators rather than habitat, forage, weather, disease, and vehicle collisions; several said predator control would have limited value and could undermine wolf recovery. Some agricultural and sportsmen groups supported the bill in principle but asked for amendments, especially to remove or revise the in-state wolf translocation provision. No final votes or executive action were taken in the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• Coast and across the state is looking at conservation.
• Well, they're employed. implementing water conservation efforts.
• You had the Soil Water Conservation Board up here.
• As a non.... advocacy organization.
• Wheat and Taqua are mission-driven non-profit organizations.

Committee: House Natural Resources

Transcript Highlights:

• organization committed to professionalism, accountability, and service.
• My service director of the Missouri Department of Conservation.
• The Department of Conservation centers around three strategic goals.
• Conservation Business Services functions totaling $61.5 million.
• Conservation Business Services functions totaling $61.5 million.

Committee: House Budget

Transcript Highlights:

• It also lists some of the laws that govern the organization, authority, and responsibilities of those
• Then the Conservation Corps of Minnesota.
• This is a nonprofit organization that used to be part of the DNR.
• This would be the trust fund statute as well as the organization of the LCCMR.
• </c><00:19:24.320><c> of</c><00:19:24.480><c> the</c> as the organization of the as the organization

Committee: House Environment and Natural Resources Finance and Policy

Transcript Highlights:

• and interests in conservation lands, so we help monitor and provide oversight for conservation easements
• <00:03:59.120><c> land</c><00:03:59.319><c> stewardship</c> conservation land stewardship conservation
• </c> overarching purpose of the conservation overarching purpose of the conservation land<00:04:10.760
• conservation conservation easements<00:05:32.560><c> uh</c><00:05:32.759><c> that</c><00:05:32.919><
• > utilize</c><03:26:30.439><c> um</c> Organ organizations that we utilize um Organ organizations that

Summary: The meeting began with testimony from Charlotte Harding of the Conservation Land Stewardship Program, who explained that the office protects the state’s interests in conservation lands by monitoring conservation easements and related stewardship obligations. She described the program’s funding sources: a land conservation endowment held at the State Treasury and administered by the Council on Resources and Development, plus transfers from Fish and Game for easements not covered by the endowment. Members discussed how the endowment is funded when new easements are created, the program’s staffing, the loss of a state vehicle, and the need to increase in-state travel so staff can use personal vehicles for field monitoring. Harding said the office has two full-time positions and a seasonal employee, that the work is mostly monitoring rather than hands-on land management, and that enforcement issues are referred to the grantee agencies or, if needed, to the Council on Resources and Development. She also noted that the office works directly with landowners to resolve smaller issues and that stewardship has become a greater focus in the conservation community because ongoing oversight requires funding. Members asked about examples of properties under the program, including LCIP lands such as Musquash Headwaters, Hidden Valley Boy Scout Camp, and Nash Stream, and the committee did not take a motion before moving on. The committee then heard from Paul Breen and Susie Anzelone of the Pease Development Authority regarding the Division of Ports and Harbors operating budget. They explained that the authority provides finance, legal, environmental, and engineering support to the division, which operates New Hampshire’s only deep-water berth at Market Street, as well as facilities in Hampton, Rye, the Portsmouth Fish Pier, and navigational waters in the Piscataqua and Great Bay. They described the authority’s history after the closure of Pease Air Force Base, the transfer of roughly 2,400 acres, and the creation of a self-sustaining enterprise fund tied to airport and port operations. They emphasized that the division does not draw on the general fund because revenues from wharfage, dockage, parking, registration, and mooring fees cover operating costs, with any surplus retained for capital improvements and replacement. Members questioned several budget lines, including a sharp increase in overtime and workers’ compensation. Breen said overtime is driven largely by security needs at the deep-water port and fluctuates with vessel traffic, such as salt shipments, while workers’ comp is a DAS-set cost and not something the division controls. He said the budget is conservative and that if revenues fall short, capital projects would be the first items scaled back. The discussion also covered fee-setting, with Breen saying rates are reviewed against the local market and infrastructure constraints, and that some smaller facility fees had recently been increased after being stagnant for years.

Transcript Highlights:

• conservation space.
• conservation space.
• conservation space.
• conservation space.
• </c> conservation if you would. conservation if you would.

Committee: Joint Agriculture, State and Public Lands & Water Resources

Transcript Highlights:

• All testifiers should clearly state their name and organization for the official record.
• It's a top priority for The Nature Conservancy this session as well. Thank you. Appreciate.
• The Stewards is a new organization.
• It's the highest conservation priority in Island County.
• I'm with Terrain, an arts and community-centered organization in Spokane.

Summary: The Capital Budget Committee held a hearing on Proposed Substitute House Bill 2295, the supplemental capital budget. Staff said the proposal totals nearly $911 million, including about $400 million in bonds and $511 million from other state and federal sources, with much of the increase over the governor’s proposal coming from Climate Commitment Act (CCA) funding. Major spending areas include housing and homelessness, K-12 construction, human services facilities, and CCA-funded clean energy, decarbonization, and habitat restoration projects. The chair said the committee would not take amendments at the hearing and planned to vote out the budget on Thursday, with a technical fix striker expected. Testimony was largely supportive of the House proposal, with many witnesses asking the committee to preserve or increase specific items in final negotiations. Housing advocates urged support for the Housing Trust Fund, manufactured housing preservation, and projects such as Alliance Place, Cloverdale Cottages, Cherry Street Village, Somos, and the Thrive Center. Education and public facility witnesses backed investments in school seismic safety, small district modernization, Healthy Kids Healthy Schools, community college and university maintenance, and projects at Cascadia College, WSU, CWU, and UW. Health and human services testimony supported behavioral health, Tubman Center, HealthPoint, pregnant parenting treatment, and the Yakima Behavioral Health Hub. Natural resources, climate, and infrastructure witnesses praised funding for Flood Plains by Design, community forests, trust land transfer, salmon recovery, the Skokomish land purchase, and the Lower Columbia River dredging project. Several local governments and organizations requested additional support or Senate-level funding for specific projects, while Climate Solutions cautioned against using CCA dollars to backfill existing obligations. The committee heard no votes during the hearing, and the chair closed by saying the budget would be executed on Thursday.

Transcript Highlights:

• Stand up for conservation, nutrition, and food security.
• Your organization was often critical of biofuels, including ethanol.
• Now, your organization has said some things—some pretty strong things.
• Very locally-led conservation programs and conservation technical assistance are essential to implement
• Conservation program participation.

Committee: Senate Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Committee

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm with New Mexico Wild and the Traditional Communities Organizer.
• The Organic Act created the Forest Service.
• The Armendaris, it just sold to a conservation group, 365,000, 885 acres.
• To a conservation group, 365,000, 885 acres.
• Most of what NRCS does is Farm Bill money, is conservation practices.

Summary: The committee first took up House Bill 180, a disaster-funding measure that was amended with a substitute adding reporting requirements for the Natural Disaster Revolving Fund, creating a new funding “waterfall” that could draw first from the executive orders for disaster fund, then the appropriation contingency fund, and then the revolving fund, and removing language tied to the end of a fiscal year. The sponsor said the bill clarifies which disaster funds may be used for natural and non-natural disasters, limits and structures executive authority, and improves transparency. Supporters included the New Mexico Association of Conservation Districts and the Village of Ruidoso; DFA raised concern that the transfer language could unintentionally create a deficit and threaten bond obligations. After questions about non-natural disasters, executive orders, and the fiscal impact, the committee voted do not pass on the original bill and do pass on the committee substitute. House Bill 158, dealing with the Government Results and Opportunity Expendable Trust, was amended with a technical change replacing “expendable trust” with “program fund” in several places. The bill would require agencies receiving GROW appropriations to submit accountability and evaluation plans to the state budget division director and LFC director. Sponsors said they had worked with DFA and tried to address concerns raised in a prior veto message. There was no public opposition, and the committee approved the bill as amended. House Bill 271 proposed a one-time $100 million general fund appropriation to the Office of Natural Resources Trustees for public land expansion and restoration, plus up to $30 million for state matching funds for political subdivisions with approved federal disaster assistance. Supporters from outdoor recreation, conservation, wildlife, and local government groups said the bill would help restore fire- and flood-damaged lands, expand access, and support rural economies; opponents or skeptics raised concerns about land management, tax base loss, tribal consultation, and whether the state should acquire more land given New Mexico’s already high public-land percentage. After extended debate, the committee tabled the bill. Finally, House Bill 246 was heard as a Lincoln County/Ruidoso floodplain mitigation bill. It would provide state matching funds so local governments can leverage federal Emergency Watershed Protection dollars to buy out and rehabilitate repeatedly flooded properties, with the goal of reducing future disaster risk. The sponsor and county officials said the program is voluntary, based on pre-disaster valuation, and intended to help residents relocate while restoring floodplains; supporters from conservation and recreation groups said it could become a model for disaster recovery. Committee members asked about property priority levels, voluntary participation, ownership after acquisition, and climate-related planning. The discussion ended with the sponsor describing the bill as a Lincoln County-specific effort tied to ongoing flood recovery and forest-management concerns.

Transcript Highlights:

• He continues to build that organization.
• And so it's my honor to have **Kristen Worthington**, who is also the co-organizer of the second annual
• I know **Senate Conservation** has got a number of bills.
• The Senate Conservation Committee will meet tomorrow morning at 9 a.m.
• I very much appreciate the Chair of Conservation talking about the FIRs and things like that.

Transcript Highlights:

• At the same time, we're investing in conservation at a scale that reflects the values these lands provide
• The comment is really to shout out the Department of Conservation and Recreation and how much we ask
• This commission would explore the ins and outs of water conservation and management as it relates to
• I'm the board chair for the Policy Committee of the Northeast Organic Farming Association.
• We are a nonprofit organization that advocates and educates for organic farming in seven Northeast states

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Bonding, Capital Expenditures and State Assets

Summary: The committee held a hearing on S.2542, the Mass Ready Act, a $3 billion environmental bond bill aimed at climate resilience, water infrastructure, conservation, and related permitting reforms. Secretary Rebecca Tepper and administration officials described the bill’s major investments in flood control, coastal resilience, DCR roads/bridges/dams and parks, drinking water and wastewater upgrades, PFAS remediation, land conservation, food security infrastructure, and expanded Municipal Vulnerability Preparedness funding. They also explained proposed streamlining measures for environmental permitting, flood risk disclosures, a Connecticut River Resilient Commission, and a new Resilience Revolving Fund to provide low-cost financing for municipal resilience projects. Committee members asked about affordability, useful life of projects, how the revolving fund would be capitalized, and how the bill would help communities such as Lawrence, Methuen, and coastal towns; officials said the fund would initially use existing trust resources, not new fees, and could later support special obligation bonds once it has a track record. Several witnesses supported the bill but urged larger authorizations or additional provisions. Boston Harbor Now asked for more funding for MVP and the state’s resilient coast plan, and supported permitting reforms for nature-based and hybrid solutions. The Massachusetts Rivers Alliance urged inclusion of drought-management language from separate bills, plus a statewide flood buyout program and a water reuse commission. Green Roots called for dedicated funding for outdoor and indoor air quality monitoring and indoor air quality improvements, especially in environmental justice communities affected by traffic and airport pollution. Conservation and forestry advocates requested more funding for urban tree canopy, local nurseries, and workforce training, while also raising concerns about PFAS impacts and the need for clearer municipal reforestation language. Agriculture and water infrastructure groups focused on food security and drinking water needs. The Southeastern Massachusetts Agricultural Partnership and the Mass Food System Collaborative backed the food security infrastructure grant program and farmland protection funding, warning that the program needs continued support in fiscal 2027 and that farmland loss is accelerating. The Massachusetts Waterworks Association said the bill does not go far enough on drinking water, wastewater, and stormwater infrastructure, citing large statewide capital needs and PFAS compliance costs, and asked for recurring funding and broader eligibility for climate resilience grants. A Product Stewardship Council representative also urged funding for a waste reduction needs assessment, citing growing landfill constraints and rising disposal costs. No votes were taken during the hearing."}{

Transcript Highlights:

• At the same time, the administration is investing in conservation at a scale that reflects the values
• The comment is really to shout out the Department of Conservation and Recreation and how much we ask
• I'm the government relations manager at Conservation Law Foundation.
• I'm the board chair for the Policy Committee of the Northeast Organic Farming Association.
• We are a nonprofit organization that advocates and educates for organic farming in seven Northeast states

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Bonding, Capital Expenditures and State Assets

Summary: The Joint Committee on Bonding, Capital Expenditures and State Assets held a hearing on S. 2542, the Mass Ready Act, the Healey-Driscoll administration’s environmental bond bill. Secretary of Energy and Environmental Affairs Rebecca Tepper and Undersecretary Jen Sullivan described the bill as a $3 billion resilience package to protect drinking water, farms, fisheries, roads, bridges, parks, and communities from flooding, heat, drought, wildfires, and other climate impacts. They highlighted major authorizations for flood and coastal resilience, DCR infrastructure, drinking water and wastewater upgrades, PFAS remediation, open space and land protection, food security infrastructure, and a new Resilience Revolving Fund for low-cost loans to municipalities, tribes, and water districts. Committee members asked about project lifespans, flood and salt marsh permitting, wastewater and combined sewer overflow funding, parkway maintenance, land acquisition priorities, Quabbin stewardship, and how the revolving fund would be capitalized and administered. The administration said the fund would be modeled on the Clean Water Trust, use existing trust resources rather than new fees, and could later support special obligation bonds; they also said the bill would streamline certain permitting and improve flood-risk disclosure and climate-related building standards. Many witnesses urged the committee to strengthen the bill’s funding levels or add related policy provisions. Labor, contractor, and plumbing groups supported creating a water reuse and graywater recycling commission, saying it could conserve water, reduce stormwater and sewer burdens, and create skilled jobs. Boston Harbor Now asked for higher authorizations for the Municipal Vulnerability Preparedness program and resilient coast work, plus permitting reforms for nature-based and waterfront projects. The Massachusetts Rivers Alliance backed the bill but also urged inclusion of drought-management legislation, a water reuse commission, a statewide flood buyout program, and more support for community resiliency. Environmental justice advocates from Green Roots called for dedicated funding for outdoor and indoor air quality monitoring and indoor air quality improvements in schools and public housing, while conservation and tree advocates sought larger investments in urban forestry, local nurseries, and workforce training, along with clearer language to ensure municipal reforestation funds go to cities and towns. Agricultural and food system witnesses emphasized the importance of the bill’s food security and farmland provisions. The Southeastern Massachusetts Agricultural Partnership and the Mass Food System Collaborative supported the $125 million food security infrastructure grant program, saying it has funded critical facilities and equipment for farmers, fishers, processors, and food access organizations, but warned that without the bill there could be a funding gap in fiscal year 2027. They also supported farmland protection and asked for more funding for agricultural capital programs, used-equipment eligibility in grant programs, and a next-generation farmer fund. Water utility representatives said the bill still falls short of the state’s long-term drinking water, wastewater, and stormwater needs, citing EPA estimates of nearly $37 billion in needed investments over 20 years and urging dedicated recurring funding and broader eligibility for climate resilience grants. No votes were taken at the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• I just think I'm common sense, really, but they say conservative.
• I saw it as a political movement, a conservative political movement.
• And, yes, we are a Christian-based conservative organization.
• We saw these protests being organized all over, you know, Columbia.
• My name is Dylan Sider, and I'm the leader of a prominent conservative student organization at Texas

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:

• I will say the Voyageurs Conservancy, which is our official philanthropic partner, organizes and leads
• I will say the Voyageurs Conservancy, which is our official philanthropic partner, organizes and leads
• I will say the Voyageurs Conservancy, which is our official philanthropic partner, organizes and leads
• I will say the Voyageurs Conservancy, which is our official philanthropic partner, organizes and leads
• I will say the Voyageurs Conservancy, which is our official philanthropic partner, organizes and leads

Committee: Senate Environment, Climate, and Legacy

Transcript Highlights:

• I have, in the last two months, been meeting with folks from all these organizations and have observed
• </c><00:10:23.000><c> and</c> grants uh to cultural organizations and grants uh to cultural organizations
• Is it conservation focused?
• </c> government entity or um in conservation government entity or um in conservation easement<00:48:11.280
• c> easement that's a permanent conservation easement that's a permanent conservation easement<00:48:13.960

Committee: House Legacy Finance