Transcript Highlights:

• <01:45:54.080> So If you look at the back of the packet that I handed you, uh, there's a map
• that lists anybody you, uh there's a map that lists anybody in<01:47:08.080> blue<01:47:08.480
• >> I uh, I used to sell Apple and IBM computers. But that's a different thing.
• >> I uh, I used to sell Apple and IBM computers. But that's a different thing.
• >> I uh, I used to sell Apple and IBM computers. But that's a different thing.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Where's the map?
• Because although I know we're talking about maps. ...lines and maps and lines.
• The maps—I don't know; you keep saying there are maps, but there are not maps.
• . map.
• interested in the map.

Keywords: 997, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We are pretending that the governor did not approve the very maps, the very maps he is now insisting
• And why don't we even have a map? Where are the maps?
• with the map in question.
• Once they had come up with a map, that map had to be approved.
• I promise ample time, if there's a map before the committee, to go into great detail over that map with

Keywords: 1185, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Well, I'll have to pull out the map.
• Yes, I have that map.
• So these maps have been amended since your map. Is that correct? Slightly.
• Calais decision also said that this map, or the map—not this one in particular, but the... ...map of
• Even before SB 8, the maps, redistricting maps that we passed in this legislature prior to SB 8, those

Bills: SCR12, HB221, HB509, HCR58, HB75, HB1222, SB121, SB312, SB348, SB485, SCR9, SCR58, SB65, SB215, SB249, SB269, SB282, SB296, SB323, SB363, SB369, SB474, SB490, SB492, SB500, SB514, HCR54, HCR79, HCR87, HCR94, HCR104, HCR32, HB944, HB17, HB41, HB73, HB223, HB244, HB410, HB750, HB759, HB906, HB966, HB1006, HB1009, HB1086, HB1107, HB1112, HB1215, HB1242, SB208, SB217, SB283, SB387, SB389, SB401, SB408, SB469, HB74, HB119, HB368, HB414, HB552, HB732, HB776, HB848, HB870, HB953, HB956, HB1236, SB29, SB42, SB43, SB78, SB149, SB274, SB300, SB341, SB382, SB441, SB449, HB134, HB210, HB258, HB359, HB468, HB784, HB1117

Keywords: logging, recognition, John Keith, environment, safety, Mississippi River bridge, Trump Expressway, transportation, federal funding, Louisiana highways, injection wells, public hearing, geologic sequestration, environmental impact, public comment, Ascension Parish, state capitol, economic development, community partnership, celebration day

Transcript Highlights:

• Redistricting map.
• Now, most of this is about maps.
• Our maps must catch up.
• I would love to comment on a map, but I've seen no clear map for this hearing today.
• No maps, there's no census.

Keywords: 1185, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• , a new congressional map.
• Produce a new map.
• I have not filed any map.
• How and why they drew the map.
• that map and file it.

Transcript Highlights:

• Adam Kincaid and the fact that he drew the maps in 2021, and from what I understand, drew the map that
• On that map.
• the actual map and saying why did you do this and how did you do that I would want to look at the map
• I just don't see the harm in inviting somebody who drew a map and asking, How and why they do the map
• I might, if we get a good report on the map from council, then I might take that map and file it.

Keywords: 1185, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• , or no, it isn't on a map.
• on the map.
• map the map is we're trying to make the map the map is how<00:46:34.640> we<00:46:34.760>
• That updated map, current map, would be the controlling map in my reading of this.
• > would<00:48:19.240> be updated map current map would would be updated map current map would

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Yes, I have that map.
• So the map comes back from the House, and my understanding, from the proponents of the map, is that we
• "The map comes back from the House, and my understanding, from the proponents of the map, is that we
• So these maps have been amended since your map. Is that correct? Slightly.
• Even before SB 8, the redistricting maps that we passed in this legislature prior to SB 8, those maps

Bills: SCR12, HB221, HB509, HCR58, HB75, HB1222, SB121, SB312, SB348, SB485, SCR9, SCR58, SB65, SB215, SB249, SB269, SB282, SB296, SB323, SB363, SB369, SB474, SB490, SB492, SB500, SB514, HCR54, HCR79, HCR87, HCR94, HCR104, HCR32, HB944, HB17, HB41, HB73, HB223, HB244, HB410, HB750, HB759, HB906, HB966, HB1006, HB1009, HB1086, HB1107, HB1112, HB1215, HB1242, SB208, SB217, SB283, SB387, SB389, SB401, SB408, SB469, HB74, HB119, HB368, HB414, HB552, HB732, HB776, HB848, HB870, HB953, HB956, HB1236, SB29, SB42, SB43, SB78, SB149, SB274, SB300, SB341, SB382, SB441, SB449, HB134, HB210, HB258, HB359, HB468, HB784, HB1117

Keywords: logging, recognition, John Keith, environment, safety, Mississippi River bridge, Trump Expressway, transportation, federal funding, Louisiana highways, injection wells, public hearing, geologic sequestration, environmental impact, public comment, Ascension Parish, state capitol, economic development, community partnership, celebration day

Summary: The Senate convened with a quorum, received a prayer and pledge, adopted the journal, and heard messages from the House reporting final passage of several Senate bills and concurrence in SCR 86 and 87. The chamber also observed personal privileges honoring the lives of Edith K. Kirkpatrick and Susan Ann Traylor Bidick, with family members present and a moment of silence held for Bidick. The House later refused concurrence on Senate amendments to HB 42 and HB 159. The Senate then took up a series of resolutions, most of which were adopted without objection. These included studies on energy infrastructure and modernization (SR 174, amended to add an alternative energy industry representative and a consumer advocate), breast pump Medicaid reimbursement (SR 175), digital student IDs (SR 176), lethality assessment protocols in domestic violence cases (SR 177), problem gambling prevention (SR 178), community water system grading (SR 179), condolences for Sharon Courtney (SR 180), and expansion of the Louisiana Tumor Registry (SR 181). The chamber also adopted SCR 85 honoring the Sam Houston High School Broncos baseball team after a recorded vote of 36 yeas and 8 nays. On bills returned from the House, HB 1222 on grocery initiative grants failed on final passage by a vote of 18 yeas and 19 nays. SB 312 had House amendments rejected, SB 348 and SB 485 had House amendments concurred in, and SB 121 on congressional redistricting was the subject of extensive debate over racial gerrymandering, district configuration, and expected litigation before the Senate concurred in the House amendments by 28 yeas and 10 nays. The Senate also concurred in several House concurrent resolutions, including studies or reports on flooded corn and migratory waterfowl, deer hunting with dogs in Kisatchie National Forest, support for a Senator Kennedy letter to the Fish and Wildlife Service, boating safety reporting, and subsurface data review. Finally, HB 944 creating a Women’s Health Consortium within the Department of Health was amended to address funding concerns and convert it into a more task-force-like structure, then passed 37-0 with nine coauthors. The Senate then recessed until 1:30 p.m. to continue work, including conference committee reports.

Transcript Highlights:

• Look at any map, to make comments on any map.
• So with all of that and all of y'all voting for those maps, what's wrong with the maps?
• Those were the maps that were voted on. They were legitimate and legal maps.
• You thought it was a legal map, not an illegal map, a legal map.
• Legal, L-E-G-A-L, map.

Bills: SR5, SB5, SB11, SB12, SB25, SB26, SB28, SB35, SB5, SB11, SB12, SB25, SB26, SB28, SB35, SB5, SB11, SB12, SB25, SB26, SB28, SB35, SR5

Keywords: redistricting, Senate procedures, public input, Texas Legislature, amendments, Texas Senate, congressional districts, legislative procedures, legislative transparency, Senate rules, public hearings, committee procedures, hemp regulation, consumable products, cannabinoids, occupational licenses, criminal offenses, SB 11, Texas attorney general, election crimes

Transcript Highlights:

• This would be the map under Plan C2333.
• So let's check off: You established a House map and that's what you filed when the House map stalled
• You established a house map and that's what you filed when the house map stalled in the house.
• Chairman, I find it awful, awful funny that you didn't draw a map; you just took the House map.
• I took the House map because it met the objectives that—that was the game that I had for a map, which

Summary: The Senate Special Committee on Congressional Redistricting met to lay out House Bill 4, the House companion to Senate Bill 4, and no public testimony was taken at this hearing. Senator King explained that HB 4 was based on the House’s revised congressional map, which he said made only minor changes from SB 4 while aiming to comply with law, improve Republican political performance, and keep districts compact. He noted changes affecting several districts, including moving Fort Bliss into CD 16, placing all of Navarro County into CD 6, and moving Liberty County into CD 9, and said counsel had reviewed the map and found it legally compliant. Several senators criticized the process and the substance of the map. Senators Alvarado, Miles, and Hinojosa objected that the House substitute had not been subject to a public hearing and argued that communities in Houston, El Paso, the Rio Grande Valley, and South Texas were being split or paired with unrelated areas. They also questioned the compactness of the districts and raised concerns about racial effects, including changes in Black voting-age population in CD 9 and CD 18. Senator King responded that the committee had already heard extensive testimony on redistricting, that the Senate was following its usual companion-bill process, and that he had not relied on racial data but on historical voting patterns and legal review. After debate, Senator Parker moved to report HB 4 favorably to the full Senate with the recommendation that it do pass and be ordered not printed. The committee approved the motion by a 5-3 vote, with one absent, and then recessed subject to the call of the chair.

Transcript Highlights:

• And the bill passed by the legislature will take us to what map? >> But the 2023 map?
• Um when you were developing the map, when you were developing the map, and when the map was being developed
• So you agreed with this map? >> I didn't. I said I carried the map. The >> I didn't.
• The map that, if this bill passed, which map will we go back to?
• What about the map now?

Keywords: 1136, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• , and our state senate map, especially for the congressional map, things that we agreed to.
• map that you're trying to go back to.
• , and our state senate map, especially for the congressional map, things that we agreed to.
• >> The Livingston map is the congressional map. >> So, what is the state Senate map?
• >> The Livingston map is the congressional map. >> So, what is the state Senate map?

Keywords: 1136, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Here you will also be able to view the map in an interactive viewer as well as download the map files
• That is, they're housed there when you draw maps.
• this map drawing application, including the geography.
• By staff to draw maps is in this map drawing application, including the geography, which is how we construct
• You'll see there are no maps in Chapter 8.

Summary: The Select Committee on Congressional Redistricting held its first meeting, established a quorum, and opened with remarks from the chair outlining the committee’s purpose and scope. The chair said the committee will focus only on congressional redistricting, will not take public comment at this introductory meeting, and may consider whether to propose a new congressional map ahead of the 2026 session. He emphasized that the work would rely on the 2020 census data, the current congressional map, and the House’s map-drawing software, and he stressed transparency, record retention, and compliance with constitutional prohibitions on drawing districts to favor or disfavor a party or incumbent. House outside counsel Andy Bartos then gave an educational presentation on redistricting basics and legal standards. He distinguished reapportionment from redistricting, explained that Florida was apportioned 28 congressional seats after the 2020 census, and reviewed the one-person, one-vote rule, noting that congressional districts must be drawn with near-exact population equality. He also described census geography and how counties, tracts, block groups, and blocks are used to build districts, and explained that congressional redistricting follows the ordinary legislative process rather than the special process used for state legislative districts. Bartos also covered contiguity, explaining that districts must be one connected piece and that mere point-touching is not enough, while bodies of water within a district do not necessarily break contiguity. No questions were asked after the presentation, no votes were taken, and no public testimony was heard. The meeting ended after the chair thanked attendees and said the committee would meet again the following week.

Transcript Highlights:

• We didn't talk in detail about the map. OK.
• The district does not change with this new map.
• If you look at the existing congressional map or the House and Senate map, in trying to...
• drawn the map for more Republicans.
• Chairman, I find it awfully funny that you didn't draw a map; you just took that House map.

Keywords: 1185, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• That the cash versus accrual and so Representative Lock was trying to compare apples to oranges with
• We want to be able to have that for you guys so you can see the municipal apples to apples.

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• my district that are paying more, an individual barber or farm worker is paying more in taxes than Apple
• paying far more in taxes, and certainly as a share, but even just in dollars, in taxes than Google or Apple
• or NVIDIA or PayPal. ...taxes than Google or Apple or NVIDIA or PayPal or Intuit are paying.

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• a patient that lives in Wells can go home, can have the same care level as somebody that lives in Apple
• a patient that lives in Wells can go home, can have the same care level as somebody that lives in Apple
• a patient that lives in Wells can go home, can have the same care level as somebody that lives in Apple

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• And a lot of those things can tip the apple cart.
• And a lot of those things can tip the apple cart.
• And a lot of those things can tip the apple cart.

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The Budget Review Subcommittee for Health and Family Services met for its first meeting, established quorum, and heard a presentation from Department for Medicaid Services Commissioner Lisa Lee and CFO Steve Becktold. The department reviewed its compliance with House Bill 695, which requires legislative approval before certain Medicaid eligibility, service, benefit, or waiver changes, along with fiscal impact reporting to the Legislative Research Commission. They described current waivers, including home and community-based waivers, managed care and transportation waivers, and the 1115 re-entry waiver, and said the community engagement waiver is in public comment and on track for submission to CMS. They also said required reports and other HB 695 tasks, including a pharmacy rebate fund, budget analyses, expenditure reports, and a behavioral health scorecard, are underway or completed as required. The CFO outlined Medicaid’s budget, saying the department has two appropriation units and projecting near-full use of state funds while leaving some federal funds unspent because of matching-rate differences. They reported roughly 211 filled positions and 11 vacancies. Members asked about the vacancy makeup, the behavioral health scorecard, and whether a provider involved in quality metrics could have a conflict if used in the scorecard process; the department said it would follow up. Members also asked about the community engagement waiver and its interaction with federal policy, and the department said CMS guidance is still pending and that it will proceed under HB 695. A substantial portion of the discussion focused on federal Medicaid policy changes under a reconciliation bill, including possible limits on provider taxes, directed payments, cost-sharing, and community engagement requirements. Department officials said the final federal impact is still uncertain because the Senate bill is not finalized, but they have modeled several scenarios and warned that any reduction in federal support or benefits would be harmful, especially for hospitals and rural hospitals. They estimated Medicaid benefits are funded about 80% federal and 20% state overall, with expansion populations closer to 90% federal funding, and said administrative costs would also rise if federal requirements change. Members also asked about work requirements and eligibility. The department said the community engagement waiver would mainly affect the expansion population, which they estimated at about 450,000 people out of roughly 1.5 million total Medicaid enrollees, and that many groups are exempt, including children, the aged, blind, disabled, and people in substance use disorder treatment. Officials said they can provide data on how many enrollees are working or work-ready and explained that their eligibility system is designed to prevent duplication by automatically placing people in the correct category and correcting errors quickly. They also noted a federal proposal to require expansion eligibility reviews every six months, compared with current annual renewals.

Transcript Highlights:

• There will be another bite at the apple.
• have to ask questions on the amendment right now yes recognizing there will be another bite at the apple
• We can do more questions, but again, there will be another bite at the apple after we do the amendment

Summary: The committee first heard SB 1134, which would extend the use of qualified private providers in the building permit process to residential solar energy systems and certain single-trade inspections, and would allow computer-based plan review tools. The sponsor said the bill is intended to reduce long solar permitting delays and lower costs. A late amendment clarifying the word “application” was adopted, and after some discussion about local permitting problems and the need to work with municipalities, CS/SB 1134 was reported favorably, with Senator Pizzo voting no. The committee then took up SB 784, dealing with issuance of addresses and parcel identification numbers for plats. The bill sets a 14-day timeframe, and an amendment was adopted that would allow use of a private provider if the deadline is missed and would limit fee collection if verification is not completed. Members discussed whether the bill should include more flexibility and whether private providers are appropriate for this function, but the committee ultimately reported CS/SB 784 favorably. SB 1738, allowing counties that previously opted out of transportation concurrency to opt back in while maintaining current levels of service, was also reported favorably without significant opposition. Next, SB 1080 on local government land regulation was presented as a measure to speed up development permit and order approvals, limit repeated information requests, prevent hearing delays, and impose penalties for noncompliance. Local government testimony argued it would rush planning and weaken public input, while supporters called it common-sense streamlining. After debate, the bill was reported favorably, with several no votes. SB 1260, which clarifies county constitutional officer budget procedures and creates an appeal process for clerks and supervisors of elections similar to that used by sheriffs, was also reported favorably after members raised concerns about county budget timelines. Finally, the committee considered SB 420, as amended by a strike-all, which would prohibit counties and municipalities from adopting or funding DEI-related ordinances, programs, or policies, while carving out compliance with state and federal law and defining DEI-related terms. The amendment removed retroactivity and delayed the effective date, but members from both parties raised concerns about vague definitions, impacts on women- and minority-owned business programs, local commemorations, and the loss of attorney’s fees for prevailing counties. Public testimony was sharply divided, with many speakers opposing the bill as an attack on local control and inclusion, and a few supporting it as a merit-based standard. The amendment was adopted, but the bill drew extensive opposition in debate and was not yet reported in the portion of the transcript provided.