Bills: HB42, HB 125, HB 1233, HB2853, HB3148, HB3326, HB3701, HB4066, HB4361, HB4762, HB4909, HB4912, HB42, HB125

Keywords: higher education, funding, financial allocation, state budget, Texas A&M University, University of Houston, education funding, medical education, osteopathic medicine, healthcare workforce, Tarleton State University, industry-recognized credentials, workforce development, career opportunities, feasibility study, student fees, university funding, student union, education, UT El Paso

Bills: HB42, HB 125, HB 1233, HB2853, HB3148, HB3326, HB3701, HB4066, HB4361, HB4762, HB4909, HB4912, HB42, HB125

Keywords: higher education, funding, financial allocation, state budget, Texas A&M University, University of Houston, education funding, medical education, osteopathic medicine, healthcare workforce, Tarleton State University, industry-recognized credentials, workforce development, career opportunities, feasibility study, student fees, university funding, student union, education, UT El Paso

Transcript Highlights:

• university's work, Texas now leads the nation in top tier research universities with 16 Research-1 or R1
• However, we now, uh, that we lead California and New York in the number of R1 universities, we ranked
• R1 institutions in Arlington, in Dallas, El Paso, and San Antonio.
• Texas State University is on track to achieve R1 Carnegie status by the year 2027.
• University of North Texas in Denton and Frisco is our flagship institution and a Carnegie R1 research

Transcript Highlights:

• And the number of R1 universities, we rank third behind those two states in total research expenditures
• Austin as the leading public research university in Texas as well as our four additional Carnegie R-1
• Texas State University is on track to achieve R-1 Carnegie status by the year 2020.
• UH is a Carnegie, very high research.
• University of North Texas in Denton and Frisco as our flagship institution and a Carnegie R1 research

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So again, reaffirmation of our R1 status by Carnegie.
• So we have the R1, Opportunity College and University, which I mentioned before, and the Carnegie-engaged
• So again, reaffirmation of our R1 status by Carnegie.
• So we have the R1, Opportunity College and University, which I mentioned before, and the Carnegie-engaged
• So again, reaffirmation of our R1 status by Carnegie.

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The committee met with a full quorum and approved the prior minutes. Members offered introductions of guests and family members, then heard a presentation from University of Louisville President Thomas Jared Bradley, who was sworn in before testifying. He described his background and outlined U of L’s strategic priorities: student success, access and affordability, workforce development, community engagement, and research. Bradley highlighted enrollment growth, increases in first-generation and Pell-eligible students, strong transfer pathways with KCTCS, and support programs such as the Cardinal Commitment Grant, 15-to-Finish, Comeback Cards, tutoring, mentoring, and mental health services. Bradley also emphasized U of L’s statewide and regional impact through UofL Health, rural outreach, the Bullitt County rural cancer education and research center, nursing expansion, and the Kentucky Manufacturing Extension Partnership program. He noted major institutional distinctions, including R1 status, a new Carnegie Opportunity College and University designation, and community-engaged classification. He said the university is one of only 10 public universities nationwide with all three designations and reported record enrollment, improved retention, and strong research expenditures. He also thanked lawmakers for significant capital and operating support, including funding for the simulation center, health science center, asset preservation, and the MEP program. During questions, members praised the university’s public service role and asked about first-generation enrollment, retention, graduation rates, and post-graduation outcomes. Bradley said the university is working to improve completion by expanding academic support, early alerts, incentives for tutoring, and faculty/advisor mentoring, especially for first-generation and high-need students. He acknowledged that post-graduation employment data is difficult to collect but said the new Carnegie classification reflects positive outcomes. No votes were taken beyond approving the minutes, and no formal actions were taken on legislation in this portion of the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• What this has also done is put us in the category of what's called R1.
• This is the Carnegie Classification's highest research activity.
• We should become an R1 institution in 2025 based on the benchmarks that have been established.
• Carnegie Foundation, which I've laid out here.
• This is the company you want to be in when you're R1.

Summary: The Education Postsecondary Committee held its first meeting and focused on state university centers and institutes, with an overview from the Board of Governors on how the more than 500 centers and institutes across Florida’s public universities are categorized, overseen, and reported. The Board described three categories: state-level centers, legislatively established centers, and university-established centers. Members were told universities must maintain policies, notify the Board of changes, publish public inventories, and submit annual reports and compliance certifications. Senator Harrell asked about funding sources and whether underperforming centers are reviewed for elimination; the response was that funding varies by center and that universities decide whether to maintain or disband centers under their own policies, with annual reporting and audit findings shared with the Board. Four university presentations followed. Florida Atlantic University highlighted its Center of Excellence in Biomedical and Marine Biotechnology, describing research in marine-derived drug discovery, genomics, imaging, cancer, neurodegenerative disease, and ocean sustainability, along with spin-off institutes and partnerships that have generated significant grant and contract support. FIU presented its Center of Excellence for Hurricane Damage Mitigation and Product Development, emphasizing the Wall of Wind facility, hurricane and water intrusion testing, code and product innovation, insurance modeling, and future expansion toward higher wind speeds and flood simulation. Florida State University’s High-Performance Materials Institute described work in advanced materials, aerospace composites, sensors, nanocomposites, and AI-enabled materials development, along with patents, industry partnerships, and new facilities tied to economic development. The University of Florida’s Lastinger Center for Learning outlined its work on teacher professional learning, literacy, New Worlds Reading, tutoring, and mathematics supports, including microcredentials, statewide book distribution, and early results showing improved reading confidence and growth. Members generally praised the centers for their research, commercialization, workforce development, and education impacts. Senator Jones and Senator Harrell commended the Lastinger Center’s literacy work and the broader return on investment from these programs, while Senator Berman noted the value of the synergies across institutions. The chair emphasized that future funding requests should clearly show measurable success, commercialization, and statewide impact. The committee then adjourned without any formal votes on legislation.

Transcript Highlights:

• We are a preeminent R1 research institution ranked in the top 25, and last but not least, a point of
• We are considered a R2, Research 2 institution as opposed to the R1s on both sides here.
• We are an R1 research university, defined by Carnegie Classifications.
• We are an R1 research defined by Carnegie Classifications.
• But that's a pretty big number for a major R1 that's ranked in the top 25.

Summary: The Higher Education Budget Subcommittee met to hear an overview of State University System finances from the Board of Governors and detailed budget presentations from Florida State University, the University of Central Florida, and the University of North Florida. The witnesses explained how university budgets are organized into fund categories such as education and general, contracts and grants, auxiliaries, local/designated funds, capital projects, and component units such as direct support organizations. They also described carry forward funds, the statutory reserve and spending-plan requirements, the PICO/HECO capital outlay process, and how universities use investment accounts, audits, and board oversight to manage restricted and unspent funds. The universities emphasized that most operating dollars are restricted to specific uses and that state support helps keep tuition low. Members asked about differences in funding levels among institutions, especially why FSU receives more funding than UCF despite lower enrollment. Officials said preeminence funding, performance funding, and special legislative appropriations explain much of the difference, and the Board of Governors noted that Florida now has four preeminent universities, with UCF nearing that status. Questions also focused on what happens to unspent carry forward money, how it is invested, and whether the Board of Governors or Legislature can require funds to be returned; officials said the money is invested conservatively, subject to board and audit oversight, and can roll forward under a detailed spending plan, though the Legislature can change funding levels. The committee also discussed capital projects, with members asking about delays, inflation, and whether more projects should be phased or funded faster; witnesses said PICO funds remain with the state until needed and are reimbursed as construction proceeds. A substantial portion of the discussion covered athletics, research, student fees, and endowments. The universities said athletics is generally expected to be self-supporting, though limited use of auxiliary or carry forward funds may be allowed for projects benefiting the broader student body. They also described the financial pressures from name, image, and likeness changes and new NCAA-related costs, and said institutions are planning for those changes now. On research, the universities explained sponsored research funding, indirect cost recovery, compliance obligations, and tech transfer, but did not provide specific commercialization revenue figures and said they would follow up. Members also asked about student fee increases, student input, counseling and wellness funding, and how housing costs affect affordability; the universities said student committees and boards review fees, and aid packaging is intended to keep student debt low. Endowments were described as being held in separate foundations/DSOs with independent investment committees and used mainly for scholarships, faculty support, and research.

Transcript Highlights:

• I mean, the percentages are not that dissimilar, but you do start seeing the differences in the R1s versus
• some of the R2 institutions where research plays a larger part in the R1s, obviously.
• some of the R2 institutions where research plays a larger part in the R1s, obviously.
• Also, how to benchmark according to Carnegie classification.
• Carnegie just updated their classification model.

Summary: The committee held an informational hearing on higher education funding, focusing on how Florida’s university system should be financed and whether a new funding model is needed. University system financial officers and Chancellor Ray Rodriguez discussed major cost drivers, including wages and benefits, utilities, maintenance, financial aid, research, and the effects of geography, institutional mission, and student mix. UF highlighted the cost of research and graduate programs; UCF and FAU pointed to growth, location, and cost of living; FAMU emphasized recruiting top-tier talent while relying on other revenue sources; and UNF noted the challenges of growth and long-term planning. Members also discussed the role of internal controls and audits in addressing excessive spending and questioned whether out-of-state tuition should be adjusted to help offset costs. On revenue sources beyond state appropriations and tuition, the panel described auxiliaries, restricted funds, capital projects, and component units such as foundations and health systems. Several universities noted that some revenues are restricted to specific purposes and cannot be used for general operations. FAMU explained that a large share of its capital project funding reflected active campus construction, while UF said its component-unit revenue is largely tied to UF Health. The Chancellor emphasized that the system’s low tuition and strong state support are central to Florida’s national standing, but also noted that some auxiliary revenues are pledged to debt and must be managed carefully. When discussing the current funding process, witnesses praised Florida’s performance-based funding model for aligning incentives with student success, transparency, and accountability. They also raised concerns about non-recurring appropriations, rising employee benefit costs, unfunded mandates, deferred maintenance, and the difficulty of multi-year planning. Suggestions for improvement included more recurring funding, better coverage of mandated costs, greater flexibility in fee-setting, and possible weighting for mission, geography, and institutional type. The Chancellor said the Board of Governors is considering a “version 3.0” of performance-based funding that would benchmark institutions against peers and Carnegie classifications, but any changes would require legislative action. On out-of-state tuition, most universities said they would prefer local board flexibility, while the Chancellor cautioned that increasing out-of-state enrollment or fees could affect future state support and should be balanced carefully.

Transcript Highlights:

• We are triple designated with the Carnegie Foundation in three different areas.
• We are R1 high research institution with the Carnegie Foundation.
• with the Carnegie Foundation in three different<00:59:12.760> areas.
• We are R1 high research different areas.
• We're also with the Carnegie Foundation.

Keywords: 958, all

Summary: The Interim Joint Budget Review Subcommittee on Education met for its first summer interim meeting, opened with prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance, and took roll. The first presentation came from Jerry Gels, principal of Ignite Institute in Erlanger, who focused on the rising cost of dual credit. He said dual credit tuition has increased from about $150 to $290 for a three-credit course over roughly five years, which he argued is discouraging participation, especially for working-class and low-income students. He cited Ignite data and broader college outcomes to argue dual credit improves college persistence, shortens time to degree, and reduces student debt, noting that many of his students enter college with substantial credit and that low-income students at Ignite have increasingly participated after targeted efforts and scholarship use. He also said the instructional labor is largely paid by county school systems, so he questioned the size of the tuition increase and said the committee should examine how the costs are being set and whether college tuition should be stabilizing as more students arrive with credits already earned. Members asked about who pays for dual credit, the role of state scholarship support, and whether tuition varies by institution. Gels said students in his district generally pay the dual credit cost themselves, though some districts may cover it, and he noted the dual credit scholarship now covers fewer classes than before. He said the price appears to be set centrally rather than varying by university, and he emphasized that the higher cost is creating barriers even though the courses are taught largely by local teachers on school payrolls. He also described Ignite’s efforts to expand access for free- and reduced-lunch students, saying participation among that group rose from 27% with no dual credit to about 90-92% taking at least one dual credit class. The committee then heard from the Goldwater Institute, represented by Michael Frazier and Dr. Tim Minella by Zoom. They argued Kentucky’s public universities should face stronger accountability and transparency, citing declining public confidence in higher education, rising costs, and what they described as administrative growth and research spending that does not clearly benefit students or the Commonwealth. They proposed requiring a 10-year accounting of staffing growth by category, comparing it to enrollment and low-income Kentucky enrollment, and limiting non-STEM faculty teaching releases for research unless approved under a baseline consent process. They also criticized certain university-funded research projects as examples of misdirected spending and said public reporting should distinguish Kentucky residents from non-residents more clearly, pointing to a reported decline in low-income in-state undergraduate enrollment. No votes or formal actions were taken during the meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• Are those the minimum to become R1 institutions, so they're already there, or is this a stretch goal
• legislators, how are we actually encouraging the research aspect of what NDSU and UND are doing is R1
• The R1 piece is going to be exactly the same, or it was very similar to what has been presented this
• The last couple meetings only applies to the R1. The completion is a slight difference on it.
• The economies of scale piece showing what the non-R1s are getting, again, doesn't make any change.

Keywords: 908, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Are those the minimum to become R1 institutions, so they're already there, or is this a stretch goal
• Are those the minimum to become R1 institutions, so they're already there, or is this a stretch goal
• The R1s, Carl and Bruce, came up with a suggestion based on them looking at what they get in the past
• The R1 piece is going to be exactly the same, or it was very similar to what has been presented this
• It only applies to the R1. The completion is a slight difference on it. The doctorates just...

Summary: The Higher Education Funding Review Committee met to continue work on a draft higher education funding formula and related capital building fund changes. Lisa Johnson of the North Dakota University System updated the committee on the board’s developing policy for low-producing academic programs. She said the board is using a five-year rolling window, with thresholds of fewer than 10 undergraduate graduates or fewer than 5 graduate graduates, and that programs flagged in three consecutive review cycles would go to the board for review. Possible outcomes include continuation, continuation with modifications, inactivation, or termination. Members asked about how the policy would account for enrollment, program costs, workforce need, and programs that serve students outside their major. Johnson said the board would likely use an accompanying procedure to consider those factors. She also reported that about 200 programs could potentially be reviewed under current guidance, with 135 inactivated and 112 terminated, and said the process is intended to support quality and stewardship rather than simply cut programs. Jamie Wilkie then reported on the Capital Building Fund. He reviewed the fund’s history, matching requirements, and use for extraordinary repairs, deferred maintenance, and some legislatively authorized projects. He said about $334 million in state and matching dollars has been invested overall, with roughly 78.7% going to deferred maintenance and extraordinary repairs. Committee members pressed for updated information on how much deferred maintenance has actually been reduced, and several members said they wanted clearer reporting on the return on investment from new buildings versus repairs. NDSU representatives said the tier funding has helped significantly reduce deferred maintenance and allowed demolition and renovation work on campus. The committee also discussed the need for updated five-year facility plans and space-utilization information from the institutions. The committee then began a section-by-section review of a draft bill that would replace the current higher education funding formula with an FTE-based model and restructure the capital building fund. The draft would fund UND and NDSU differently from the other nine institutions, use fall enrollment rather than completed credits, add performance funding for completions in in-demand fields, create research incentives for UND and NDSU, and combine capital building fund tiers while changing matching requirements and eligible uses. Members raised concerns about the treatment of professional students, the use of CIP codes, incentives for waivers, and whether the formula should rely on more current data. The committee did not take final action on the draft during this meeting, but it continued detailed discussion and indicated more review would follow.

Transcript Highlights:

• UNH is only one of 146 universities in the country that's classified as an R1 institution in the Carnegie
• c><00:04:41.240> classified<00:04:42.240> as<00:04:42.360> an<00:04:42.880> R1
• delegate uh uh classified as an R1 delegate uh uh classified as an R1 institution<00:04:44.680><
• c> in<00:04:44.840> the<00:04:44.960> Carnegie<00:04:45.520> Carnegie institution
• in the Carnegie Carnegie institution in the Carnegie Carnegie classification<00:04:46.800> which<

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee received an orientation from University System of New Hampshire Chancellor Katherine Preventure and Senior Director of Government Relations Lauren Banker on the system’s enrollment, finances, workforce role, and academic programs. They described the system as consisting of UNH, Keene State, and Plymouth State, with about 23,000 students, $928 million in FY24 operating expenses, a $3.7 billion economic impact, and UNH’s R1 research status. They emphasized the system’s role in graduating students into the New Hampshire workforce, its statewide Cooperative Extension and regional campus presence, and its alignment of degree offerings with top occupations identified by New Hampshire Employment Security. The presentation also highlighted partnerships with businesses, internships, and collaboration with the community college system, including 100 transfer pathways and a direct-admit program. A substantial portion of the discussion focused on tuition, state support, and student costs. The chancellor said the state invested $95 million in FY25, with about $81 million used to reduce resident tuition and about $14 million for statutory programs such as Cooperative Extension and the Agricultural Experiment Station. She said the state subsidy is about $7,300 per New Hampshire student, and that resident net tuition averages about $7,000, while nonresident net tuition averages about $16,600. She provided published tuition figures for UNH, Plymouth State, and Keene State, and explained that resident tuition has been held flat for five years while financial aid has increased, reducing average net tuition and fees for New Hampshire students from about $10,500 in 2020 to $9,800. Members asked for clarification on how residency and workforce-retention percentages were calculated, and the chancellor said she would follow up. Members also asked about comparisons with peer institutions, housing and meal costs, research funding, and the reasons for declining enrollment and staffing reductions. The chancellor said peer comparisons were based on flagship universities for UNH and smaller regional publics for Plymouth and Keene, and noted that out-of-state tuition has risen about 2.5% annually. She said housing for a UNH double room is $8,536 and a meal plan is $5,100, and offered to provide a consolidated cost document. On research, she said the system’s direct research spending includes federal funding and that indirect costs were about $34 million last year, with a follow-up promised on the federal/state and direct/indirect split. She attributed enrollment declines largely to demographics and said the system is responding by reducing costs, selling buildings, exiting leases, moving the system office to NHTI, and implementing Workday. She also noted that Plymouth received approval for five three-year bachelor’s degree programs and that members praised the shorter, workforce-focused pathways, especially for manufacturing and other in-demand fields.

Transcript Highlights:

• In order to be considered an R1 institution, your minimum is...
• In order to be considered an R1 institution, your minimum is X, but the calculation is five cents on
• broke out how it was showing on the spreadsheet so that there was recognition of, in order to be an R1
• But that's definitely been a concern that we've discussed is, you know, when you look at the R1s, the
• But that's definitely been a concern that we've discussed is, you know, when you look at the R1s, the

Keywords: 908, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I mean, the percentages are not that dissimilar, but you do start seeing the differences in the R1s versus
• some of the R2 institutions where research plays a larger part in the R1s, obviously.
• Also, how to benchmark according to Carnegie classification.
• Carnegie just updated their classification model.

Summary: The Appropriations Committee on Higher Education met to examine how Florida’s state universities are funded and to begin discussing a possible university funding model. The panel included the State University System chancellor and CFOs from FSU, UF, FAMU, FAU, UNF, and UCF. Members first reviewed major cost drivers, which the universities said are broadly similar across institutions: wages and benefits, equipment and supplies, financial aid, professional services, utilities, IT, and maintenance. Several institutions noted unique pressures from geography, growth, research intensity, and mission, such as UCF’s size and engineering focus, UF’s land-grant and research enterprise, FAMU’s need to recruit top talent while serving a high-Pell student population, and FSU’s large facilities and research obligations. The chancellor also summarized systemwide cost growth since 2012-13, including higher health insurance, retirement, and salary costs, while noting tuition had been held flat. The committee then discussed other revenue sources, including auxiliaries, restricted funds, capital projects, and component units such as foundations and health systems. University leaders explained that many of these funds are restricted to specific purposes, and some, like UF Health, account for a large share of operating expenses. Members also discussed the current performance-based funding process. University representatives generally praised it for transparency, accountability, and its focus on student success, but said the heavy use of one-time funds, nonrecurring appropriations, and unfunded mandates makes long-term planning difficult. FSU and others argued that rising employee costs, waivers, and facilities expenses are not fully covered, while FAMU said performance funding has improved outcomes but can disadvantage institutions serving more low-income students. In response to questions about improvements, the universities suggested more recurring and predictable funding, better coverage of mandated costs, more flexibility in fees, and continued investment in research and strategic priorities. The chancellor said the Board of Governors is considering a version 3.0 of performance funding that would benchmark institutions against peers and Carnegie classifications. The committee also explored whether universities should have more flexibility to set out-of-state tuition and professional school tuition. Most university leaders favored giving boards of trustees more authority, while the chancellor cautioned that increasing out-of-state enrollment or tuition too much could affect legislative support. No votes were taken; the meeting ended with the chair thanking the panel and adjourning the committee.

Transcript Highlights:

• classification in order to be considered an R1 institution.
• broke out how it was showing on the spreadsheet so that there was recognition of, in order to be an R1
• But that's definitely been a concern that we've discussed is, you know, when you look at the R1s, the
• And I think ...have met too, is we'd like to see one formula and not have the R1s broke out.
• As you'd expect, the R1s tend to collect more tuition. ...campuses, as you'd expect, the R1s tend to

Summary: The Higher Ed Funding Committee met to review how North Dakota might identify and address low-producing academic programs and to discuss draft funding formulas for the university system. Lisa Johnson of the NDUS explained that the State Board of Higher Education is already developing a system-wide policy, using models from other states such as Texas, Virginia, North Carolina, Colorado, Kentucky, Ohio, and Connecticut. She described how low-producing programs are typically flagged by multi-year enrollment or completion thresholds, then reviewed for workforce demand, mission fit, cost, accreditation, and regional need before any action is taken. Committee members asked about what counts as a program, how costs are analyzed, whether certificates are included, how exemptions work for mission-critical or high-demand fields, and whether the board or legislature should set the rules. Johnson said the board is the appropriate body to lead the process, but legislators could use funding leverage if they wanted to encourage action; the chair asked the board to bring a detailed proposal to the June meeting. The committee then heard a Legislative Council presentation on a draft formula for UND and NDSU. The proposal uses fall census FTE enrollment, with a placeholder undergraduate rate of $7,000 per FTE and a graduate/professional rate of $10,500, plus incentives for completions in in-demand fields and research productivity. Alex from Legislative Council walked through the projected funding effects, noting that the model would increase funding for NDSU and reduce it for UND in the current biennium, with different results in the next biennium as enrollment changes are recognized. Members questioned the use of the placeholder rates, the definition of in-demand programs, the treatment of research funding, and the exclusion of state-appropriated dollars from the external grants calculation. The chair emphasized that the numbers were illustrative and that appropriators would set the actual dollar amounts later. A second draft formula for the other nine institutions was also reviewed. That model uses fall census FTE without a weighted economic factor, applies a higher undergraduate rate, and adds completion incentives for in-demand credentials and all other completions. Members noted that the formula would benefit some institutions, such as Bismarck State College, while reducing funding for others, such as Mayville State, and discussed whether the nine institutions should be treated more uniformly or split into smaller groups because of their different missions and sizes. Committee members and staff repeatedly stressed that the formulas are still being refined and that some institutions would likely need hold-harmless adjustments or other transition measures. The meeting ended with the chair directing the committee to continue the discussion later and to expect further work on both the low-producing program policy and the funding formulas.

Transcript Highlights:

• We're on target to achieve Carnegie Tier One status by 2028. But I'm not looking at Carnegie.
• Some come back with AAU or the Carnegie Classifications, but let me make some comparisons.
• Not AAU, not Carnegie, I'm talking about the board.
• The more R1 institutions, the better for students in Texas.
• So UNT, as the Chancellor mentioned, is already a thriving Carnegie R1 public research. University.

Bills: SB1, SB 1

Keywords: appropriations, budget, state funding, education, healthcare, infrastructure, campground safety, youth camp regulations, flood safety, emergency evacuation, health and safety standards, 1185, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Texas that are now classified by the Carnegie Institution of Higher Education as an R1 institution or
• Baylor achieved R1 status in 20.

Bills: SB2972, SB1909, SB2815, SB735, SB2233, SB800, SB1069, SB2683, SB2986, SB2058, SB2310, SB2055, SB1032

Keywords: expressive activities, freedom of speech, public forum, higher education, protests, student rights, antisemitism, public institutions, disciplinary policy, student organizations, compliance, institutional policy, disciplinary sanctions, diploma designation, institution merger, academic records, student options, Holocaust education, Holocaust Remembrance Week, genocide education

Transcript Highlights:

• And I know for a fact, based on the Carnegie classification of institutions of higher education, UF is
• considered an R1 school, FAU is an R2 school, FAMU is an R2 school.
• I would love for all institutions in Florida to be R1 institutions.
• I would love for all institutions in Florida to be R1 institutions.
• They just hit R1. Oh, congratulations, FAU.

Summary: The committee first heard CS for CS for SB 344, which would modernize the Telecommunications Access System Act of 1991 based on Public Service Commission recommendations. The bill drew no opposition and was reported favorably. Members then took up several Senator Burton measures: CS for SB 714 on non-opioid advanced directives, which was amended to create a Department of Health website access point for a voluntary form allowing patients to notify providers they do not want opioid medications; CS for SB 738 on child care and early learning providers, which streamlines and updates child care regulation and was supported by industry and business groups; CS for SB 756 on health insurance coverage for individuals with developmental disabilities, which removes the age-8 diagnosis limit and age cap for mandated autism-related coverage; and CS for CS for SB 1356, creating a Florida Institute for Pediatric Rare Diseases at FSU and a newborn genetic testing pilot, later amended to add FIU and Nicklaus Children’s Hospital to the board and remove specific appropriations. All of these bills were reported favorably. The committee also approved CS for CS for SB 1624 on higher education, a broad bill affecting tuition policies, workforce programs, institutional governance, and naming changes. The bill generated extended discussion over replacing references to “minority” with “underrepresented,” with the sponsor explaining the intent was to focus on low-income access and student support, while members raised concerns about impacts on majority-minority institutions and preeminence pathways. An amendment added guardrails for private religious postsecondary institutions by requiring public review of affidavits of compliance and giving the Commission for Independent Education enforcement authority. After debate, the bill was reported favorably. The committee then passed CS for SB 1626 on child welfare, which addresses military-family investigations, emergency shelter certification, children’s services council appointments, criminal-background exemptions, group-home rates, licensing extensions, small residential group homes, missing-children procedures, and psychotropic medication refills; it was amended to adjust council board composition and then reported favorably. Additional bills approved included SB 178, directing Florida A&M University to conduct an agronomic study on emerging crops for land taken out of production; SB 1162, expanding boating improvement funding for trailer parking and offering lease incentives for clean marine manufacturers; CS for CS for SB 958, creating a type 1 diabetes early detection information program for parents and schools; CS for CS for CS for SB 1070, requiring ECGs for student athletes with phased implementation and exemptions, after extensive testimony from parents and advocates about sudden cardiac arrest; CS for SB 774, requiring electronic transmission of certain court orders to sheriffs within six hours; SB 1516, creating an International Aerospace Innovation Fund administered by Space Florida; SB 994, revising driver education requirements and prompting a commitment to add distracted-driving instruction; and CS for CS for SB 1402, expanding eligibility for dropout retrieval programs. The committee also took up SB 810 on stormwater management systems, amending it to focus annual inspections on vulnerable MS4 infrastructure. That bill drew significant opposition from the Florida League of Cities, counties, and stormwater groups, who argued the mandate would duplicate existing permit requirements and impose major costs, but supporters said it was a basic flood-prevention measure. The transcript ends during debate on SB 810, before a final vote is shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• Just last year we became what's known as a Carnegie R1 research-intensive university.
• as<00:13:51.040> a year we became what's known as a year we became what's known as a Carnegie
• <00:13:51.839> R1<00:13:52.399> research<00:13:52.959> intensive Carnegie R1 research
• intensive Carnegie R1 research intensive university.<00:13:54.000> That's<00:13:54.160> the

Bills: SF0025, SF0027, SF0043, SF0066

Keywords: landowner licenses, hunting, wildlife management, quota hunt areas, game and fish commission, game management, hunting regulations, black bear, tracking dogs, wildlife conservation, conservation, contracting, supervisor, funding, districts, hunting licenses, donated licenses, life-threatening illness, vision impairment, nonprofit organizations

Transcript Highlights:

• And I know for a fact, based on the Carnegie classification of institutions of higher education, UF is
• considered an R1 school.
• standardized test options for preeminence, most higher education institutions are trying to get to R1
• I would love for all institutions in Florida to be R1 institutions.
• They just hit R1. Oh, congratulations, FAU.

Summary: The committee took up a series of bills and amendments, reporting several measures favorably. Early in the meeting, CS for CS for SB 344 modernizing the Telecommunications Access System Act was approved without opposition. The committee then adopted amendments and passed CS for SB 714 on non-opioid advanced directives, CS for SB 738 updating child care and early learning provider regulation, CS for SB 756 revising health insurance coverage for individuals with developmental disabilities, and CS for CS for SB 1356 creating a Florida Institute for Pediatric Rare Diseases at FSU and a newborn genetic testing pilot. Later, the committee also approved CS for SB 1624 on higher education, CS for SB 1626 on child welfare, SB 178 on an agronomic study for emerging crops, SB 1162 on water access facilities and boat ramp parking, CS for CS for SB 958 creating a type 1 diabetes early detection program, CS for CS for SB 1402 expanding dropout retrieval eligibility, SB 774 requiring electronic transmission of certain court orders, SB 1516 creating an international aerospace innovation fund, and SB 994 revising driver education requirements. Most of these bills were reported favorably by roll call votes after brief explanations and, in several cases, amendments. Several measures drew substantive discussion and public testimony. CS for CS for SB 1624 prompted questions about replacing “minority” with “underrepresented,” the role of the Florida Department of Education’s Commission for Independent Education in overseeing private religious postsecondary institutions, and whether the changes could affect access for students at institutions such as FAMU and FIU. CS for CS for SB 1070 on ECGs for student athletes received extensive emotional testimony from parents and advocates describing children lost to sudden cardiac arrest and urging mandatory screenings; the sponsor said the bill would be cost-neutral for districts by encouraging partnerships with screening groups. SB 994 on driver education was discussed as a vehicle to add distracted driving instruction, and the sponsor agreed to work on that issue. SB 774 was presented as a response to a fatal delay in transmitting an ex parte order, with support from clerks and sheriffs. The most extended debate centered on SB 810 on stormwater management systems. The sponsor said the bill, as amended, would narrow annual inspections to infrastructure identified as vulnerable by MS4 entities, but the Florida League of Cities, Florida Association of Counties, and Florida Stormwater Association warned the proposal could impose major costs and duplicate existing MS4 permit requirements. Committee members questioned the fiscal impact, whether the bill would apply to FDOT or other entities, and whether annual inspections were feasible for large and small jurisdictions alike. Despite those concerns, the sponsor and several members emphasized flood prevention and public safety, and the bill remained under discussion with the sponsor indicating continued willingness to work with stakeholders.