Michael Williams — Identified as a panelist expected to discuss the bill.
Michael Williams — Thanked the committee and stated that UNT System is implementing Senate Bill 37.
Brandon Simmons — Identified as the chancellor of the University of North Texas System and invited to come up.
Brandon Simmons — Introduces himself as the ombudsman for higher education and begins describing the office's launch and staffing.
Wynn Rosser, Commissioner of Higher Education — Begins testimony on implementation of Senate Bill 37 and the General Education Curriculum Advisory Committee.
Savannah Mann — Identified as the staffer who will be supporting Senator Parker on the committee.
Michael Williams, Chancellor of the University of North Texas System — Introduced as the next witness to provide comments on UNT System's implementation of Senate Bill 37.
Budman Simmons — Introduces himself, though the transcript appears to contain a transcription error in his name.
Ryan Walters — Hired as General Counsel and Deputy Director for the ombudsman's office; previously served in the Attorney General's office.
student — A student is the subject of one open investigation alleging a violation of SB 17.
faculty member — A faculty member is the subject of one open investigation alleging a violation of SB 17.
Chancellor — The chair asks for opinions on the transition from the Chancellor, Commissioner, and Ombudsman.
Chancellor — Referenced as a prior collaborator on the initiative.
Commissioner — The chair asks for opinions on the transition from the Chancellor, Commissioner, and Ombudsman.
Ombudsman — The chair asks for opinions on the transition from the Chancellor, Commissioner, and Ombudsman.
Brendan Sorsby — Described as a student athlete who stepped forward to address a severe addiction and was supported by the university.
Chancellor Creighton — Said that if the decision was made, it was outside the ACS, regent-based, and upper-level executive staff process.
Chancellor Creighton — Explained that the April 9 guidance memo clarifies that studying Black history, discussing racism, and treating students with respect are protected.
Chancellor Creighton — Said the university’s deliberative curriculum process did not lead to the result and agreed to look into it and contact the dean.
Chancellor Creighton — Said faculty may have misunderstood the process and that teaching Supreme Court holdings and history is not inhibited by the process.
Chancellor Creighton — Gave assurances the university would work with the faculty member and asked for follow-up.
Chancellor Creighton — Agreed that the bill helps universities become top-tier and said public institutions should stay in a reform-based mindset.
Chancellor Creighton — Said Texas Tech is exceptional and that his goal as the sixth chancellor is to drive excellence across higher education.
Chancellor Creighton — Said the office must ensure strategy and vision extend beyond the present and praised faculty.
Chancellor Creighton — Agreed that some schools have become mediocre and said Texas Tech is receiving advanced computation chips.
Gary VanDeaver — Referenced as Chancellor Creighton when discussing specific numbers and program details.
President Keller — President Keller and his team at UNT were working on reviewing low-enrollment courses and programs, including identifying low-enrollment courses and combining overlapping geography degrees.
Donna Cornell — Donna Cornell was introduced as part of the second panel and then identified herself as Vice Chancellor, Vice President for Legal Affairs, and General Counsel at the University of Houston System. She began her testimony by describing her long service as general counsel and explaining how she and university administrators, faculty, and staff worked to update board policies and bylaws in response to SB 37.
Nellie Herrera — Nellie Herrera is called forward as part of the second panel and then introduces herself as the Vice Chancellor and General Counsel for the Texas State University System.
Archie Holmes — Archie Holmes is called forward as part of the second panel and then introduces himself as the Executive Vice Chancellor for Academic Affairs at the University of Texas System.
Brooks Moore — Brooks Moore is called as part of the second panel, greeted by the chair, and then introduces himself as General Counsel at the Texas A&M University System.
Brooks Moore — Identified himself and introduced the A&M System's implementation update.
HB127 — House Bill 127 is discussed as a research security measure aimed at protecting higher education institutions from foreign adversaries, trade secret theft, and broader intellectual property risks. Speakers describe it as creating a framework for safeguarding research integrity, including the Higher Education Research Security Council, and then shift into testimony focused on how the bill is being implemented and the committee’s interim charge to monitor that implementation.
HB127 — Referenced as the bill governing suitability inquiries and research security procedures.
Kevin — Kevin is introduced as the first panelist testifying on House Bill 127 and identified as the Associate Vice Chancellor and Chief Research Security Officer at Texas A&M University. When asked to state who he represents, he confirms that he represents Texas A&M University.
Kevin — Cited as having spoken about research security culture and the need for top-down guidance.
HB127 — The speaker refers to related charges in both chambers, but the Senate bill number is not specified.
Dr. Kevin Gamash — Dr. Kevin Gamash introduced himself as the associate vice chancellor and chief research security officer for the Texas A&M University System and chair of the Higher Education Research Security Council, then stated his central message: Texas can protect the integrity and value of research without sacrificing the openness that enables discovery.
HB127 — HB 127 is discussed as the enacted research security law, with emphasis on its compliance framework and implementation timeline. The speaker notes that governing boards must certify institutional compliance with HB 127 by August 31, 2026, argues that the bill should not be treated as a mere check-the-box exercise, and describes its phased implementation as already underway.
HB127 — HB 127 is described as a major step for Texas in building a research security culture, with the bill providing the necessary top cover and setting expectations for implementation.
Joan Bienvenu — Joan Bienvenu introduces herself and identifies her role as Chief Research Security Officer and Associate Vice Chancellor for Research for the University of Texas System, also noting her leadership position with the Higher Education Research Security Council.
Kevin Gamash — Identified as the chair whose leadership helped develop phased implementation of HB 127.
Trey Aatchley — Trey Aatchley introduced himself as the Associate Vice President and Chief Research Security Officer for the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, and the chair responded by thanking him and noting his strong background.
Trey Aatchley — Referenced as being involved in researcher screening and research security issues.
HB130 — Referenced as protecting Texans' genomic information.
TAM — The chair invites Tam to state their name and representation.
Tam Dow — Tam Dow opened his testimony by introducing himself and identifying his role as Associate Vice President for Public Safety and Research Security at Rice University. He then described his background in federal and state funding, his continued security clearance, and his collaboration with university leadership and government partners. He concluded by emphasizing the importance of research security in protecting sensitive research and intellectual property, maintaining research integrity, and supporting both national security and Texas’s economic success.
Tam Dow — Referenced as being involved in researcher screening and research security issues.
Joan — Agreed with the chair's assessment and emphasized identifying and addressing threats rather than preventing every incident.
Trey — Trey from M.D. Anderson is referenced and directly addressed during a discussion about investigators responding to attempts to steal intellectual property and the need to protect high-value research before publication.