Transcript Highlights:

• I do believe that the advisory board might have been a voluntary board, or not a board, advisory board
• And the reason they said no is the governor and ADOA do 100% of this, and they did not want to give up
• And the reason they said no is the governor and ADOA do 100% of this, and they did not want to give up
• I do not know what's going to happen there.
• We have been paying off, and we did put some money additional to that, not in this year's budget.

Transcript Highlights:

• I couldn't pay for a decent car. I couldn't do anything on retirement.
• It's not, it's not fair that we don't pay for, um, other state employees. Employees, uh, premiums.
• I retire, do I not?
• It's not affecting insurance rates, do we know? Mr.
• We do have reception this evening at 5:30. It's not far from here.

Transcript Highlights:

• How many people do you need so that we do not get these calls anymore?
• But if you do that, do you sense that, first of all, 70 hours of overtime a month is not healthy.
• Nobody's paying attention to that, not even the feds.
• There's not a price tag here. Do we know how much that cost?
• It's better not to even use notes than you usually do. Yeah, it's not how my brain works.

Bills: SB 1

Committee: Senate Finance

Keywords: campground safety, youth camp regulations, flood safety, emergency evacuation, health and safety standards

Transcript Highlights:

• Do not use a sledgehammer.
• Do not use a sledgehammer. Mahalo. Tom Go ahead.
• not going to do paper but it's probably not going to do anything<00:43:56.760><c> uh</c><00:43:56.839
• This is a without a tax incentive you do not have a film industry. They will not come.
• This is a without a tax incentive you do not have a film industry. They will not come.

Committee: Senate Ways and Means

Summary: The committee took up House Bill 422, relating to school impact fees. The Education Committee recommended passage with amendments, and Ways and Means concurred. The amendments would repeal the construction fee component of the school impact fee while retaining the land impact fee and in-lieu fee requirements, remove related statutory language, exempt certain developments from school impact fees, raise the unit threshold for satisfying the land component to 100 units, require the School Facilities Authority to adopt rules and policies, and require a report to the Legislature on the effect of repealing the construction portion of the fee. The measure was also given a sunset date of June 30, 2029, with the committee report to note that the changes are intended to test the efficiency and efficacy of the fee structure and could be made permanent if the report supports that outcome. The committees adopted the recommendation, with one senator initially voting no and then changing to yes after the amendments were explained. The meeting also included a separate hearing on House Bill 1155, concerning procurement for Department of Transportation projects and construction manager/general contractor procurement. DOT testified that it supported the concept but wanted to narrow the bill, saying the current language was too broad and that the goal was to allow more innovative procurement while preserving selection safeguards. The State Procurement Office said it supported the bill’s language but was willing to work with DOT on alternative wording. Several construction-related organizations, including subcontractors, iron workers, elevator constructors, and building trades representatives, opposed the bill, arguing that exemptions from the procurement code would weaken protections such as retainage, equality, and prompt payment and could invite favoritism or corruption. In response to those concerns, the chair proposed amendments limiting the exemption to DOT, narrowing the qualifying contracts, adding a two-year sunset, requiring a report after the first year, and clarifying that project management could not be procured under the section. The amended recommendation passed, though several members voted with reservations. A separate item, House Bill 476, was briefly called up at the end of the agenda, with a recommendation to pass with amendments to increase a rate from 7.25% to 8%, but discussion was not completed in the portion of the transcript provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Do not be afraid. Do not be discouraged, for the Lord your God will be with you wherever you go.
• Those seniors who do need to continue to work will not see benefits. Will not benefit.
• It's not available to do something about the traffic.
• These are the things that we can do together with this revenue when we do not fritter it away at the
• In the past, in fact, Arizona has chosen not to conform to similar business tax cuts because we do not

Summary: The Senate convened with prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance, recorded attendance, approved the prior journal, and made temporary committee appointments. It then resolved into Committee of the Whole to consider SB 1106, a tax conformity bill tied to federal tax changes. Senators debated the measure at length, with supporters arguing it would provide tax relief, certainty for taxpayers and businesses, and conformity with federal filing rules, while opponents said it would reduce state revenue, favor wealthier taxpayers and corporations, and should be handled in budget negotiations or a special session. The bill advanced from Committee of the Whole and, on third reading, passed the Senate 17-12 with one not voting, then was transmitted to the House and later to the governor. During the floor debate, senators focused on the bill’s effects on child care deductions, senior deductions, overtime and tip income, business expensing, and a provision related to federal school voucher tax credits. Democrats argued the bill would worsen budget pressures, undermine funding for education, roads, public safety, and human services, and do little for families on child care waitlists or seniors still working. Republicans countered that the bill would keep more money in taxpayers’ pockets, support working families and small businesses, and align Arizona’s tax code with federal changes to avoid confusion for filers. After the tax vote, Senator Bolick read a proclamation honoring Arizona and U.S. law enforcement, citing fallen officers, officer assaults, and the need for training, equipment, mental health support, and tougher penalties for attacks on officers. The Senate then received and referred a large number of new bills to committees, announced upcoming committee meetings, and adjourned until Tuesday, January 20, 2026.

Transcript Highlights:

• If, in the event, you do not get approval to do the tax increment dollars from local government, how
• It'll take longer to pay off the note, but not necessarily longer to do the process.
• It'll take longer to pay off the note, but not necessarily longer to do the project.
• We have been doing it right from day one on this. So this is not going to be any different.
• And we have to know that, not disputing what we do, but we do need to at least have that information

Summary: The Senate Budget Subcommittee No. 5 heard an update from the California High-Speed Rail Authority on its draft 2026 business plan and related budget proposals. The Authority reported continued Central Valley construction progress, including completion of 59 of 92 major structures, 80 of 119 miles of guideway under construction, 93% utility relocation completion, and plans to begin track laying and electrification soon. It said the revised goal remains completing the Merced-to-Bakersfield early operating segment by 2032-33, while also pursuing ancillary revenue opportunities, a private partner through a co-development procurement, and two budget change proposals to reappropriate $423 million for Link Union Station and $246 million in federal trust funds before they expire. The Legislative Analyst’s Office said it had no specific concerns with the budget change proposals but raised major concerns about the draft business plan and the project’s broader fiscal outlook. LAO said the plan appears incomplete in several respects, that funding is likely insufficient to complete the revised initial operating segment and would leave a larger gap for expansion beyond the Central Valley, and that borrowing costs, optimistic assumptions, and uncertainty around future greenhouse gas reduction fund revenues could worsen the outlook. LAO suggested the Legislature could wait for a finalized business plan and highlighted unresolved questions about the scope of the project, borrowing, public-private partnerships, and proposed statutory changes. Members focused on whether the project can be delivered on time and what financial obligations the state could face. Senators questioned the need for tax increment financing, value capture, and other legislative changes, with concerns about impacts on local governments and school districts. The Authority said utility relocation authority is its top legislative priority and that value capture is a longer-term tool that would not affect civil construction of Merced-to-Bakersfield, but could affect payback timing. It also said the state’s $1 billion annual cap-and-invest funding through 2045 is currently assumed to cover the Central Valley segment, while private partners could either finance against that state commitment or invest additional capital in other segments. Public testimony was mixed: building trades and labor groups supported the project and the Authority’s request, while local government and special district representatives opposed tax increment proposals and urged consent from affected agencies; environmental and rail advocates supported the project and urged action on utility relocation. No votes were taken, and the hearing adjourned after public comment.

Transcript Highlights:

• Do we see anyone? We do have one in opposition online, Luis Chavez. Not there anymore. Okay.
• It's not free. Someone's paying for it, and that someone is the taxpayers.
• Use the service, but it's not free to the people who are paying the tax.
• It is being paid by someone else, and the user of the service is not paying for it.
• I would hope my Republican colleagues do not let perfect be the enemy of good here.

Bills: SB204 , SB241 , HB34 , HB2 , SB204 , SB241 , HB34

Committees: Senate Senate Education , Senate House Education

Keywords: higher education, research funding, federal funding, New Mexico, appropriation, University of New Mexico, New Mexico State University, New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, child care, child care assistance, child care subsidy, early childhood education, early childhood care, daycare, preschool, pre-K, Head Start, Early Head Start, Children's Code, early childhood education and care department

Transcript Highlights:

• I think that it's better to leave the certified notice, not only for this, but if they're not doing it
• They do not. Okay. What they will do is if something is lost, they'll attempt to find out.
• Do you know how certified notices are given to people? I do not. I will find that answer.
• No, sir, we do not.
• in the last 20 years, and the courts do not really know what to do with it.

Committee: House Utilities

Summary: The Utilities Committee first met in executive session and approved House Bill 1917 on a 15-0 vote, with one member present and eight absent. The chair noted that members were also working on separate legislation to clarify how detachment from a district would occur, and encouraged input on that effort. The committee then moved into public hearings. House Bill 2000, sponsored by Rep. Martin, would allow public sewer districts to notify delinquent customers by first-class mail instead of certified mail before disconnection. The sponsor and sewer district witnesses argued this would save money, improve efficiency, and still provide adequate notice because customers already receive monthly bills and often do not pick up certified mail. Opponents, including Consumers Council of Missouri, argued certified mail provides an important warning in crisis situations and that sewer delinquency can lead to serious consequences such as water shutoff or liens. The bill also drew questions about whether first-class mail is actually trackable and how sewer disconnections work in practice. House Bill 2397, sponsored by Rep. Bromley, would change the process for dissolving and selling public water districts by allowing a board option to lower the voter approval threshold from two-thirds to four-sevenths, while also adding board approval and other safeguards. Supporters, including Missouri-American Water, the Missouri Chamber, and Missouri Energy Development Association, said the bill would help struggling districts sell systems, improve reliability, and reflect a compromise with added local control. Opponents, including the Missouri Rural Water Association and Association of Water Districts, argued the two-thirds threshold should remain because districts are valuable public assets and the change could make it easier for private companies to acquire them. The committee also heard concerns about ballot language, proceeds from sales, and whether the Public Service Commission’s oversight would remain in place. House Bill 2382, sponsored by Rep. Simmons, would eliminate sales tax on residential-only utility bills. The sponsor said utilities are essential services and should not be subject to what he described as double taxation, and he argued local governments could find other revenue sources. Supporters said the bill would provide relief to households and reduce taxes on basic necessities. Opponents, including the Missouri Municipal League, city officials, and municipal utility representatives, said the tax is voter-approved revenue that helps fund police, fire, roads, and other essential services, especially in smaller communities with limited tax bases. The Department of Revenue clarified that the tax currently applies to 544 cities, 106 counties, and one hospital district. The hearing concluded without further action on HB 2382.

Transcript Highlights:

• Who pays for that day's service and knowledge? We do. We do. We do.
• So the... ...school, who pays for that day's service and knowledge? We do. We do. We do.
• They do not have to do it only through the 7,965 minutes; they can also do it through proficiency.
• not have to pay it back if something happens and they do not succeed.
• do not pay back scholarships.

Committee: House Education

Summary: The committee heard several higher education and K-12 bills centered on TOPS, school accountability, and curriculum alignment. It first welcomed University of Louisiana at Lafayette’s new president, Ramesh Kuluru, who spoke about student success, workforce alignment, and the university’s financial recovery. The committee then adopted amendments and reported HR 17 favorably, directing a study of TOPS return on investment with the Board of Regents, Louisiana Works, LED, and the Blanco Public Policy Center. Testimony from business and policy groups supported the study as a way to assess whether state financial aid is producing workforce and retention outcomes. Members then considered HB 385 by Rep. Bamberg, which would require repayment of TOPS awards under certain circumstances when students lose eligibility, with exemptions for hardship and a pathway into LCTCS or career-technical programs. The bill drew strong debate over whether merit scholarships should ever be repaid; opponents argued TOPS is earned for the semester and should only be lost going forward, while supporters emphasized taxpayer accountability. After amendments, the committee narrowly approved the bill by roll call vote, with Chair Schlegel casting the deciding yes to report it favorably as amended. The committee also unanimously reported HB 1058 favorably, which requires the Board of Regents to maintain a uniform data system for state financial assistance; independent colleges and business groups supported the measure as a way to improve accountability and analysis. The committee next heard HB 406 by Speaker Pro Tem Johnson, which asks the Department of Education to study the feasibility of moving oversight of interscholastic athletics to a more accountable model after a legislative study found widespread complaints about the private LHSAA’s transparency and consistency. Supporters said the bill is a cautious step toward reform and a possible 2028–2029 transition, while an LHSAA representative defended current audits and governance and opposed the premise of the bill. Despite objections, the committee reported HB 406 favorably. It then heard HB 787 by Rep. McMakin, as substituted, which would exempt non-public high school students from the TOPS computer science requirement; BESE and the Department of Education opposed the bill, saying it would separate diploma and TOPS requirements and create scheduling confusion, while Catholic school representatives said the requirement conflicts with their theology curriculum. McMakin asked to defer the bill for two weeks. Finally, the committee unanimously reported HB 1059 favorably, which aligns TOPS math requirements with BESE’s integrated math pathways, and began hearing HB 1021 by Rep. Egan on repayment of certain TOPS awards, though the transcript cuts off before that bill was completed.

Transcript Highlights:

• And those restaurants have to pay, they have to do advance payments.
• to pay this and continue to... 3,500 people that are not able to pay this and continue to have the debt
• It would not help any of my clients who cannot afford to pay the tax.
• It would not help any of my clients who cannot afford to pay the tax.
• Obviously, we do not think that would be a very efficient process.

Committee: Joint Joint Committee on Revenue

Summary: The Joint Committee on Revenue held a hybrid hearing on several property and local tax bills. The main focus was H.56, the Municipal Empowerment Act, which the Healey-Driscoll Administration, the Massachusetts Municipal Association, MAPC, and Salem Mayor Dominick Pangallo supported as a package of local options and administrative reforms. Supporters said municipalities need more tools to relieve pressure on property taxes and fund services, citing proposed increases to local meals and lodging taxes, a new local vehicle excise surcharge, senior property tax relief, one-year override flexibility for emergencies, and central valuation of telecom and utility property by DOR. The administration said the bill was based on municipal listening sessions and was intended to give cities and towns optional, not mandatory, revenue tools. Opponents, including the National Federation of Independent Businesses, argued the tax increases would hurt restaurants, hotels, tourism, and small businesses and add to affordability concerns. The committee also heard testimony on H.3211, dealing with deeds excise receipts, from Norfolk County Commissioner Richard Staidi. He said Norfolk County is financially stable but needs additional revenue for major capital needs at its agricultural school, especially a new cafeteria and other aging facilities, and also to support county programs such as veteran transportation services. On S.2020, a bill to allow settlements of tax liability, Greater Boston Legal Services, the Asian American Civic Association, and several individual taxpayers urged creation of a more workable offer-in-compromise process at DOR. They said the current system is too subjective, requires an unaffordable $5,000 threshold, lacks clear standards and appeal rights, and leaves low-income taxpayers stuck with unmanageable debt, license suspensions, or business closures. Supporters said the bill would give both taxpayers and DOR a practical way to resolve liabilities and bring people back into compliance. The committee also took testimony on S.1966, which would require nonprofits selling property to disclose any back-tax obligations to buyers. Senator Peter Durant said the bill was prompted by a personal experience in which a tax bill arrived after a nonprofit property purchase was already completed, and he argued the disclosure would prevent buyers from being surprised by retroactive tax liability. No votes were taken during the hearing, and the chair closed the session after hearing from all scheduled witnesses.

Transcript Highlights:

• And obviously, I and the board do not feel that to be the case.
• Do I think that budget is, you know, over the ...over the 24%? Absolutely not.
• That's not our goal. But that would ultimately do that.
• They're getting the straight pay and not the overtime. That's horrible.
• Do you know, you might not know this, do you know how much we have in the legal expense fund?

Committee: House Crime and Public Safety

Summary: The committee on Crime and Public Safety held public hearings on House Bill 3175 and House Bill 3066. HB 3175, called Mason’s Law, was presented by Rep. Chris Brown as a system to let the Department of Revenue, Missouri Highway Patrol, and MULES alert officers during traffic stops if a driver may have a disability or health condition affecting communication. Brown described a traffic stop involving a young man with autism and said the bill would allow a physician-verified designation tied to license plates and driver records. Testimony in support came from Mason and his mother, who said the bill could prevent dangerous misunderstandings, along with a friend, a speech-hearing association representative, and Kansas City police, who said officers already receive crisis-intervention training. No opposition testimony was offered. HB 3066, by Rep. Brad Christ, would clarify parts of the new St. Louis City police governance structure, including responsibility for civil liabilities, budgeting, and extending the transition director’s term. Christ said the bill is meant to clean up language from last year’s police governance changes and address disputes over who pays for lawsuits arising from different time periods, while also allowing the Board of Police Commissioners more flexibility to move money within its budget. Several witnesses and members raised concerns that the bill would weaken the city’s Board of Estimate and Apportionment, reduce transparency and checks and balances, and shift financial burdens onto city taxpayers and vital city services. City representatives opposed the bill and urged waiting for a memorandum of understanding to resolve the issues locally, while supporters from the police board, the police officers association, and the Attorney General’s office said the bill would provide needed clarity and efficiency and help resolve lingering liability questions. No votes were taken on either bill during the hearing. At the end of the meeting, the chair announced that several other House bills and a House resolution would not be executed that day and might be heard later.

Transcript Highlights:

• There are so many kids, even in our big urban cities, that do not have access to the internet.
• And that is not a gift, just because you don't make somebody pay twice to be in the right-of-way, and
• That's not a gift; that's just saying don't pay twice. So thank you for the time.
• Going forward, we do not set the fees that we... elect; the Public Utilities Commission sets those fees
• The state does not pay all of those costs. for the relocation.

Bills: HB3713 , HB3953 , HB4055 , HB4272

Committee: House S/C on Telecommunications & Broadband

Keywords: telecommunications, local exchange companies, universal service fund, rate maintenance, business expansion, broadband access, internet service, multiunit residential properties, urban areas, affordability programs, fiber-optic cables, public land, construction permits, environmental impact, notification requirements, municipal projects, infrastructure, facility relocation, public right-of-way

Transcript Highlights:

• Y'all may not think this way, but a lot of times we pray, "God, please do thus and so for us.
• You might be paying on it, you may not be, but it's letting you know you need to start paying on it.
• Instead of it's not requiring them to do anything because somebody asked me, "How many people do you
• that she's not going to get that she was going to then directly pay her rent, pay for the child.
• I'm not opening this up. I'm a... Clear. I'm not opening this up. I'm a Baptist, so I can do it.

Bills: HB265 , HB146 , SB254 , HB202 , HB3 , HB42 , SB18

Committee: House Judiciary

Transcript Highlights:

• But if you remember, the Senate had a proposal to do pay increases across the board; we did not have
• Senate had a proposal to do pay increases across the board, we did not have that.
• And Florida is not doing the work of what hardworking everyday Floridians need to do.
• And Florida is not doing the work of what hardworking everyday Floridians needed to do.
• And you can see that it's not working as we're doing it.

Summary: The House convened with prayer, a moment of silence for former Senator Don Childers, the Pledge of Allegiance, and recognition of Officer Antonio Richardson as law enforcement officer of the day. The chamber announced it would take up 11 budget conference committee reports, with no third-reading bills or special-order calendar items. Members were reminded that conference reports were subject to debate but not amendment, and that the required review periods had been satisfied. The first major action was on HB 7031E, the tax package. Representative Duggan explained that the conference report included a mix of retained, modified, and new tax provisions, including sales tax holidays, property tax and homestead-related changes, reductions in certain gaming and carbon-related taxes, changes to child care and documentary stamp tax credits, a new refund process for public works construction tax paid by universities and colleges, and other tax administration changes. Debate focused on the bill’s consumer impact, the reduction of the child tax credit from three years to one, the inclusion of firearm accessories in a sales tax holiday, the absence of gas tax relief and combined reporting, and the homestead exemption provision for certain deployed diplomatic and foreign service personnel. Critics argued the package favored niche or corporate interests over broad affordability relief, while supporters said it provided targeted tax relief and reflected conference negotiations. The House adopted the conference report and passed HB 7031E by a vote of 88-11. The House then began presenting the conference report for HB 501E, the state budget, which totaled $114.5 billion for fiscal year 2026-27 and was described as below the prior year’s spending level while maintaining reserves. Subcommittee chairs outlined major budget areas: pre-K-12 funding included an increase in FEFP, salary increases for veteran teachers, stabilization funding, and support for declining enrollment; higher education included full Bright Futures funding, workforce programs, college operating support, university initiatives, and school guardian expansion; IT funding focused on Palm, ACCESS, APD’s I-Connect replacement, corrections systems, emergency management systems, and cybersecurity grants; health care funding covered Medicaid, nursing home rates, waiver provider increases, ADAP funding and restructuring, child welfare, and behavioral health; transportation and economic development included housing, cultural grants, jobs and rural infrastructure, Visit Florida, Space Florida, highway patrol equipment, and local transportation projects; justice funding included correctional construction, juvenile justice facilities, law enforcement grants, and clerk and due process reimbursements; state administration included fire stations, constrained counties, building maintenance, and Safe Florida Home; and agriculture/natural resources funding emphasized Everglades restoration, water quality, land acquisition, Florida Forever, state parks, and citrus research. Members then began questioning the budget details, including school voucher accountability, school funding formulas, public defender parity, prison technology, wastewater monitoring in prisons, ADAP policy, SNAP fraud controls and AI-assisted verification, Florida Forever funding, school lunch funding, and coral reef restoration. No final vote on HB 501E appears in the transcript excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• And it's not done where they don't want to pay it.
• And it's not done where they don't want to pay it.
• Okay, but if I just say, I'm not paying it, I'm not paying $10 now. How does that work?
• Where do you get that we're doing that? Because that was not the intention. All right.
• I do not disagree with you.

Bills: HB471 , HB798 , HB947 , HB1140 , HB1186 , HB1195 , HB1222

Committees: House Commerce , House Commerce, Consumer Protection, and International Affairs

Keywords: surveillance, price discrimination, consumer protection, automated decision systems, data privacy, broadband, cable service, price increase, notification, digital assets, abandonment, custodian, escheatment, blockchain, cryptocurrency, unclaimed property, state treasurer, telecommunications, spoofing, call authentication

Transcript Highlights:

• We do recommend adopting the removal of the prospective pay funding.
• So we're not trying to do a policy change.
• Prospective pay is not paper work. It's a piece of mind.
• These changes do not impact county social services workload.
• We do not project a need to increase DUI program fees in 2026-27.

Summary: The committee first heard May Revision child care and human services items. The Department of Child Support Services described two technical adjustments, which the analyst supported. The Department of Social Services then walked through child care proposals, including a reduction in federal and Proposition 64 funding absorbed through a shift from General Child Care to the Alternative Payment program, a 2.01% child care COLA, disaster-related infrastructure grants, a new administrative support cost structure for Alternative Payment agencies, the removal of prospective pay funding after a federal rule change, a reappropriation for existing infrastructure grants, and estimates of unspent child care funds. The Legislative Analyst’s Office recommended asking for more justification for shifting reductions to CAP, supported the COLA reduction but wanted consistency across programs, recommended removing prospective pay funding, opposed the administrative cost shift, and suggested further review of disaster grant alignment. Members pressed the administration on why more slots would be cut for the same savings, why the COLA was reduced, and whether the administrative percentage would grow over time. The administration said the changes were intended to avoid disrupting currently enrolled families, reflect point-in-time relinquishments and unspent funds, and stabilize contractor operations. Public commenters, including providers, advocates, and county representatives, urged full COLA funding, rejection of child care slot reductions, preservation of prospective pay, and continued investment in child care infrastructure and access. The subcommittee then recessed before moving to health items. In Part B, the Department of State Hospitals presented its May Revision proposals, including a central utility plant replacement project at Metropolitan State Hospital, funding for a continuum electronic health record system, reduced county bed billing authority to reflect phase-in of additional LPS beds, limited contract exemption authority for online clinical subscription services, reversion of prior-year unspent operating funds, and a workforce development proposal to use Behavioral Health Services Act funds instead of General Fund for training programs. The department said the EHR would modernize records and improve continuity of care, and that the contract exemption would prevent delays in essential clinical information services. No votes were taken in the excerpt provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• So, in the state of New Hampshire, if you do not have a policy about what happens to your vacation, pay
• </c> classifications do not include names. classifications do not include names.
• </c> that do not support on HP 1072. that do not support on HP 1072. like<04:42:05.520><c> to</c><04:
• Okay, but I do appreciate the concern. do not believe that that requirement do not believe that that
• </c> who they're not having to do as much. who they're not having to do as much.

Committee: House Labor, Industrial and Rehabilitative Services

Transcript Highlights:

• Would that not be accurate? Senator Fine. Thanks, sir. I do not believe they are.
• I'll confirm it, but I do not believe they are counted within that 6,500.
• I urge you not to repeal in-state tuition. I urge you: do not repeal in-state tuition.
• And they're 47th in the nation in pay. There is no career development plan. We do not fund them.
• But I do not believe this is unconstitutional or illegal.

Committee: Senate Appropriations

Summary: The Senate Appropriations Committee took up SB 2-C, a major immigration enforcement bill sponsored by Senator Gruters and co-introduced by Senator Fine. Gruters described the measure as a broad crackdown on illegal immigration that would replace a single immigration officer with a State Board of Immigration Enforcement, create a $250 million grant program for local law enforcement, fund additional Department of Agriculture interdiction staff and facilities, expand pretrial detention for certain unauthorized immigrants, increase criminal penalties, require more cooperation with ICE, and eliminate in-state tuition eligibility for undocumented students. He and supporters framed the bill as a way to support law enforcement, deter illegal immigration, and align Florida with federal enforcement efforts. Committee questioning focused heavily on the bill’s education, detention, and enforcement provisions. Senators pressed Gruters and Fine on why the bill did not address employer sanctions or E-Verify, whether the tuition changes would affect students who had grown up in Florida, how sanctuary-policy enforcement would work, and whether the bill would create practical burdens for prosecutors, jails, and local officials. Gruters said he was open to working on E-Verify in regular session but not to amending this bill, and Fine argued the tuition repeal would apply to undocumented students who had qualified under existing law. Sheriff Bob Gualtieri testified in support, saying ICE bed capacity was still insufficient and that county jails needed more resources to honor detainers. Mark Schlachman of FSU Law offered historical context, noting prior state-federal cooperation efforts and warning of unintended consequences, while several public witnesses opposed the bill as unconstitutional, costly, and harmful to immigrant families and the economy. Opponents from the Southern Poverty Law Center, ACLU of Florida, Florida Center for Fiscal and Economic Policy, Florida Policy Institute, AFL-CIO, and immigrant advocacy groups argued the bill would invite litigation, encourage racial profiling, harm the workforce and higher education, and punish law-abiding immigrants and their families. They emphasized that immigration is a federal matter, that K-12 education must be provided regardless of status, and that removing in-state tuition would reduce access to college and hurt Florida’s economy. Some speakers urged the committee to grandfather current students if the tuition waiver is repealed. The meeting ended with continued public testimony and no final vote reflected in the transcript provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• We were not able to find one who can do the European standard UIC 60 rail that we need.
• If, in the event, you do not get approval to do the tax increment dollars from local government, how
• It'll take longer to pay off the note, but not necessarily longer to do the process.
• It'll take longer to pay off the note, but not necessarily longer to do the project.
• And we have to know that, not disputing what we do, but we do need to at least have that information

Transcript Highlights:

• But what we're doing is not working.
• You said that the parents can do community service in lieu of paying fines.
• It's not hurting, like you said, the kids who can afford to pay the fine; they're not hurting because
• To not have their parents pay the fines, take the fine down to a dollar, regardless.
• I do not believe we have any witnesses. Chair recognizes... Senator Fairley, do you close? I close.

Bills: HB2947 , HB3276 , HB3513

Committee: House S/C on Juvenile Justice

Keywords: truancy, school attendance, parent responsibility, education code, community service, criminal record nondisclosure, juvenile board, Moore County, appointments, juvenile justice, county legislation