SEVENTY-THIRD DAY — SUNDAY, MAY 25, 2025

CSSB 25 DEBATE - SECOND READING
(Hull, Frank, VanDeaver, Bucy, Pierson, et al. - House Sponsors)

CSSB 25, A bill to be entitled An Act relating to health and nutrition standards to promote healthy living, including requirements for food labeling, primary and secondary education, higher education, and continuing education for certain health care professionals; authorizing a civil penalty.

[Representative Canales raised a point of order against further consideration of CSSB 25 under Rule 4, Section 32(c)(2), of the House Rules on the grounds that the bill analysis is substantially or materially misleading. The point of order was withdrawn.]

[Representative Canales raised a point of order against further consideration of CSSB 25 under Rule 8, Section 1(a)(1), of the House Rules on the grounds that the caption fails to give reasonable notice of the subject of the proposed measure. The point of order was withdrawn.]

[Representative Canales raised a point of order against further consideration of CSSB 25 under Rule 4, Section 32(c)(3), of the House Rules on the grounds that the rulemaking authority statement in the bill analysis is incorrect. The point of order was withdrawn.]

REPRESENTATIVE HULL: I am so excited to be laying out CSSB 25 today, and I am so proud to partner with Senator Kolkhorst on this bill. This is something that has been a passion of mine for nearly two decades. Becoming a mom to my son has only fueled me to want to make Texas and this country healthier for the generations to come. In 2014 the U.S. life expectancy peaked at 78.9 years. We are now experiencing the sharpest decline in more than a century. In countries like Spain and Switzerland, the average lifespan is five years longer than Americans, and the Canadians will outlive us by three years despite significantly less health care costs per person. The U.S. ranks 60th in average lifespan and, of course, first in health care spending. In the U.S., we spend $4.5 trillion annually on health care, with 90 percent of those expenditures on chronic and mental health conditions. For comparison, the food industry grosses $1.46 trillion, with 45 percent of that as gross profit. There is a 79 percent increase in early onset cancers for Americans under 50 and a drastic increase in heart and liver-related diseases. Forty-two percent of adults and twenty percent of children are obese compared to five percent in the 1960s. On Thursday, President Trump read findings of the MAHA Commission that show more than 40 percent of children have a chronic condition, and childhood cancer is soaring by over 50 percent since the 1970s. According to the CDC, one in three Americans aged 17 to 24 are ineligible to serve in the military due to their weight. This is now a national security problem.

We hear these statistics and continue spending money to prescribe medications to treat chronic illness and obesity instead of combatting the causes. Recent studies have shown the link between an increased ultra-processed food diet and an increased risk of early mortality and links to depression, obesity, type 2 diabetes, cancer, and cardiovascular disease. Ultra-processed foods are 73 percent of the U.S. food supply and 52 percent cheaper than minimally processed alternatives. But that doesn't include the health care spending, lost productivity, and societal effects of disease.

For those who have traveled abroad, you know that in many other countries the food doesn't lead to weight gain or the same digestive issues that plague so many Americans. In other countries with socialized health care, they require rigorous testing to permit food additives because those governments know that they will pay for the long-term health consequences. If anyone has looked at our state and federal budgets lately, you'll see that we are also paying to treat chronic disease caused in part by our food in both Medicaid and Medicare. Currently, we don't permit food additives. Instead, for decades we've allowed food manufacturers to self-report, to self-certify the safety of their food additives as Generally Recognized as Safe (GRAS). It's a true situation of the fox guarding the henhouse. Some of these manufacturers also own pharmacies or want to become Medicaid providers so they can sell you the profit food and profit off the health care conditions they cause, all on the taxpayers' dime.

For decades, D.C. has been lobbied to prevent real change in our food system. As I'm sure you're all aware, the lobby has picked up and moved to Austin, and you've probably met them all right outside those doors. We should probably rename this bill the Lobby Employment Act of 2025. Entire associations have formed against this bill because "Big Food" doesn't want to inform consumers, just like decades ago "Big Tobacco" didn't want warning labels either. I'm sure you've all seen the opposition letter with tons of big food labels on it simply fighting transparency. This truly is David versus Goliath. This is about the average Texan in the grocery store wanting to make healthy choices against a multi-trillion-dollar industry.

Members, we need to break the system and address chronic disease. Here is how this bill will help do that: Number one, by establishing a nutrition advisory council with a focus on metabolic health, functional medicine, and chronic disease. Number two, requiring daily P.E. and prohibits the removal of recess and P.E. for disciplinary reasons and returns middle school P.E. to three years with a new exemption allowing for middle school opt out of P.E. for out-of-school activities. Number three, it updates health curriculum for K-8 to include nutrition instruction and creates a high school elective in nutrition and wellness. Number four, requiring updated nutrition training for all Texas physicians, PAs, nurses, dieticians, medical residents, and medical students. And number five, as I'm sure you have all heard, requiring food labels to inform and empower consumers about certain ingredients not recommended for human consumption in other Western countries so that we can be informed about the food choices we are making. People assume because it is on a shelf in the grocery store that it is safe to eat. There is a drastic difference in what is produced to sell to Americans and what is sold in other countries by the exact same companies. Canadian cereals and British ketchup have entirely different ingredient lists than the American versions because other countries have determined that these products aren't safe to eat and are linked to chronic disease. Texans deserve to at least know about the products they're buying for their children. So manufacturers have a choice to label it or remove it. This bill is not a ban. They have complied with other countries' outright bans and warning labels on the very same products they sell to us here.

I am proud to partner with Senator Kolkhorst to make Texas healthy again. Together, we are two moms on a mission who want Texas to lead the way for the nation on combatting chronic disease. This is a bipartisan problem that needs a bipartisan solution, which is why this bill passed the senate 31 to 0, with democrats and republicans giving emotional and moving speeches on the floor. Every single senator loved this bill. This is about the MAHA parents and the crunchy granola parents coming together to say we are sick and tired of being sick and tired. This is republicans and democrats coming together for Texas kids. With this bill, Texas will lead the nation. Other states and the feds are looking to us to see Texas get this done and inspire positive change across the nation. I have personally spoken to the White House, who said they are looking to us, to Texas, to get this done, to stand for our children and our future.

REPRESENTATIVE ISAAC: Representative Hull, would you agree that improving children's physical activity and nutrition is not just a health issue but is also an educational and an economic one for our state?

HULL: Yes, I do agree with that.

ISAAC: Is it fair to say that many of our current health challenges, like childhood obesity and rising diabetes rates, are preventable through better habits established early in life?

HULL: Yes, exactly.

ISAAC: Does this bill help ensure that Texas students receive meaningful education and nutrition rather than relying solely on reactive treatment after disease has taken hold?

HULL: Yes. That is the entire goal.

ISAAC: Prevention?

HULL: Yes, prevention.

ISAAC: Would you agree that transparency in food labeling empowers parents and consumers to make better decisions for their families?

HULL: Absolutely. This is pro-consumer, transparency, and more information for Texans.

ISAAC: Are the nutrition guidelines developed under this bill based on scientific consensus and free from the industry influence?

HULL: Yes, and that is the entire goal of this bill.

ISAAC: Would you agree that training medical professionals in nutrition and metabolic health fills a major gap in how we currently approach chronic disease?

HULL: Yes, I would agree with that.

ISAAC: Are you aware that many countries––I believe you already said this––already ban or label some of the ingredients this bill targets, yet U.S. consumers often remain uninformed?

HULL: Yes. That is completely accurate. The food that the same manufacturers make for the U.S. is very different than what they make for Canada, the U.K., et cetera.

ISAAC: Would you agree that a healthier Texas workforce starts with healthier Texas schools?

HULL: Absolutely. Yes.

ISAAC: Would you also agree that this bill advances both personal responsibility and physical responsibility––

[Amendment No. 1 by Hull was laid before the house.]

HULL: Members, we have made many changes to this bill already. We narrowed the health majors required to take the nutrition curriculum, changed the required high school course to an elective, created an exemption for middle school P.E., created defined lists of ingredients, removed items from the list, delayed the implementation two years, and required the labeling only of labels designed after 2027 so no products would be pulled from the shelves. This list currently has 52 items that are based on over 200 ingredients that HEB has created on their own select ingredients list and concerning ingredients that they have removed from their line of products with the green check mark. Senator Kolkhorst took several amendments for HEB on the senate floor, we made additional changes in the committee substitute, and I am making several additional changes at their request and at the request of Blue Bell and many others.

This amendment addresses the infamous Section 9 of the bill, the labeling requirements. It clarifies that the bill is only required for items that are disclosed as an ingredient. For those who don't know, titanium dioxide, a whitening agent, isn't required to be disclosed in dairy products. It is a whitening agent that is used for low-fat dairy products. This is another example of a successful D.C. lobby effort. So titanium dioxide and any other products, like pesticides, that is not listed as an ingredient will not have to be labeled. It also explicitly exempts products with alcohol, prescription and over-the-counter drugs and dietary supplements, and pesticides or chemicals used in agriculture, which also wouldn't have to be disclosed as they aren't an ingredient.

Finally, it removes Ace-K, aspartame, high-fructose corn syrup, potassium sorbate, saccharin, and vanillin from the list. Let me be clear, these are still bad for your health, but the removal of these items comes from many meetings and conversations with stakeholders who still don't want the bill, but we are working with them anyway. I appreciate that Blue Bell is already working to remove many of these ingredients from their products, and, of course, HEB already doesn't include any of these in their select green check-marked products.

REPRESENTATIVE GERVIN-HAWKINS: I'm glad to hear that your amendment fixed some of the challenges that our stores have shared with you. So when you say that you're working with it and through, are you postponing your bill, or you're saying that—

HULL: No, my amendment is doing this. And then there are going to be two amendments to the amendment.

GERVIN-HAWKINS: To work on this?

HULL: Yes.

GERVIN-HAWKINS: My question is, and I may have missed this, in doing this amendment and the bill, was your goal to create a more healthy eating environment?

HULL: Yes.

GERVIN-HAWKINS: You know the bill; would you agree that it is wide-reaching?

HULL: Wide-reaching as far as the labeling?

GERVIN-HAWKINS: The labeling as well as––I mean, we're talking public schools, we're talking about grocery stores—it's just so many moving pieces. So to me that's wide-reaching when you engage so many entities in one bill.

HULL: Okay.

GERVIN-HAWKINS: So the goal is to change the nutrition dynamics for the entire State of Texas?

HULL: Yes. The goal is to make Texas healthier and to be an example for the nation.

GERVIN-HAWKINS: Do you believe, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, that this isn't somewhat of an infringement on individuals who make their own selection and choices on how they want to eat and what they buy?

HULL: No, I don't at all. This is pro-transparency. This is more information. This is pro-consumer.

GERVIN-HAWKINS: Thank you, Representative Hull. I'll listen to the other amendments and see how we could continue to work with the stakeholders involved because what we don't want to do is destroy anyone's business and/or create such a burden or financial cost that the cost of food will continue to rise because of the changes.

HULL: I have heard that, and that is one of the biggest lies from the lobby. This will not increase the price of food. This will not clear food from the shelves. That is a flat-out lie that the lobby is spreading. They have until 2027. We have extended the runway for them to comply with the labeling requirements. If they don't ever change their label after 2027, then they do not have to. They are using all of—they still know all of that, and they are still lying. The point is they change their label all the time—all the time.

GERVIN-HAWKINS: So you said something that caught my attention here. So you're saying if they don't do it by 2027, they don't have to, or there are penalties associated?

HULL: No, correct. And that's the point is "Big Food" is well aware of that. We extended the runway; they know this. They are still spreading the lies like you have heard and you just shared.

GERVIN-HAWKINS: But if they're not up and running by 2027, is there any penalties?

HULL: No.

GERVIN-HAWKINS: Okay.

REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS DAVILA: I just wanted to get some clarification. I know the labeling piece of this has garnered a lot of attention, but would you agree with me that if the ingredients were not in these foods, they wouldn't need to label them anyway?

HULL: That would be correct, which is why I appreciate the conversations that I know have been taking place with Blue Bell, where they have said that they are already working to start removing some of these from their products.

HARRIS DAVILA: And are you aware that a lot of manufacturers sell food in Europe and in the United States, but they have different formulas for what they sell in Europe or other countries than what they sell in the U.S.? So they actually already have better formulas without some of these ingredients already included in their business model. Would you agree with that?

HULL: Correct. They are perfectly capable of making the same product for the U.S., and they should.

HARRIS DAVILA: And when we were working on our other Make Texas Healthy Again bill about banning certain ingredients in our school lunches, we had a conversation with some of these similar manufacturers, and they said that they were already working on changing these formulas for the United States given what the federal government's push is to remove some of these ingredients. Are you aware of that?

HULL: Yes, and I love to hear it.

HARRIS DAVILA: And one other point that I'll add, and I don't know if you're aware of this, in our healthy school lunches bill we require implementation by the 2026-2027 school year. So some of these ingredients in your bill will be banned from those school lunches earlier than your implementation date in your own bill. Were you aware of that?

HULL: Yes.

HARRIS DAVILA: So they will already be starting that work, and so even giving that runway to 2027, they'll already be able to have most of this implemented by that point given other laws and potentially what the federal government might do between now and then.

HULL: Yes, exactly.

HARRIS DAVILA: And then another clarifying question. We heard some comments about how far-reaching this bill is, but I've read the bill. I think it's reasonable approaches to fixing what we're seeing going on in this country, especially when it comes to doctors learning more about nutrition and wellness. Can you speak a little bit more to how important that is to kind of righting the ship, making sure that doctors have that information? I mean, I've spoken with my own doctor, and they're sometimes surprised by what they don't know and what they weren't taught and sometimes wish they were taught that. Can you speak to that a little bit more?

HULL: Yes. I mean, all of these chronic health conditions that are plaguing Americans, it would be—the role that food has in our health is significant, and if more doctors and health care professionals were taught about that and could then tell their patients, it would be transformative.

HARRIS DAVILA: And then just to go back to the labeling piece one more time. I think, and would you agree with me, that the existence of stores like Whole Foods and Natural Grocers that have all these other options are there for a reason? They're there because consumers want those choices. Would you agree with me on that?

HULL: Absolutely. I love Natural Grocers.

HARRIS DAVILA: And that's what we're trying to provide. We're trying to provide transparency and what consumers want. Would you agree with me on that?

HULL: Yes. This is transparency. This is pro-consumer. This is information for Texans.

REPRESENTATIVE GOODWIN: I noticed that your amendment addresses pesticide chemicals, and I had an amendment as well. Does your amendment require the committee to examine the effects of harmful pesticides and chemicals used in the production or development of food on human health?

HULL: This bill is about ultra-processed food. So while I agree with what you are saying—

[Amendment No. 2 by Ashby, et al. was laid before the house.]

REPRESENTATIVE ASHBY: First off, I want to thank the bill author for working with me on this amendment to her amendment, which I believe is acceptable. What this amendment does is it strikes atrazine and glyphosate from the bill's warning label list. These two herbicides have been proven over and over again, not only by our country's EPA but by 50 other countries, as being safe and vital to crop production, food security, and weed control in each and every one of your lawns. I believe it is acceptable to the author.

REPRESENTATIVE WILSON: Sir, if you could help me out here. I appreciate you laying out the amendment. What does it hurt for people to know that these things are in their food?

ASHBY: Well again, what we're doing here is proving what is––all we're saying is what has already been proven by science and studies, both in this country and across the globe, and that is that these two herbicides are completely safe.

WILSON: And I do appreciate that, but there's also science that says that they're not. And I understand there's concern about crop yield, but Texas State, in their research, as well as others, have already identified that there are already alternatives to these two pesticides.

ASHBY: Well, the alternatives that I'm aware of, Representative Wilson, are actually used on less than one percent of cropland just in this country alone. And if I could, let me just mention one thing here. I mentioned earlier that not just in the U.S.A. but in other countries it's being used. And as I said, it's been approved from a safety aspect, from a health aspect looking at carcinogens and other factors, as being completely safe by our best scientists. So, again, we're standing on that research that has been done with this amendment today.

WILSON: And I do appreciate that, sir. Are you also aware that there are far more than 50 countries who say that it's not?

ASHBY: Well, that's actually not correct. Actually, I think most people would agree that Europe––the European Union––has the most stringent standards when it comes to looking at herbicides and pesticides. This has actually been approved in the European Union, so I think when you look at the terms of the safety aspects of this, again, just setting aside the efficacy issues, the facts lay out in what I think I'm presenting to you that it is a completely safe herbicide.

WILSON: Well, sir, I appreciate that, but I beg to differ. Sir, do you farm?

ASHBY: I do.

WILSON: Okay, sir. I do too. Do you know even ag agents are showing us the alternatives to pesticides? There is a place for pesticides, but when you look at the ones that you're suggesting, there are alternatives that they are now teaching farmers to use so that they can get the crop yield that they are looking to, but also they're taking other things into consideration––our droughts and all those other sorts of stuff. I appreciate the respectful debate here, but we're talking about things that potentially are impacting our youth. When you look at ADD, ADHD, autoimmune––when you look across the board in terms of the population that's skyrocketing, that's costing us in public education on special 504 allotments and all those other sorts of stuff; it's just going through the roof. So when you look to what President Trump is trying to do and RFK is trying to do in terms of trying to limit what is in and on our food, I know that this bill doesn't do that, but let me ask you. What is the harm for those who are conscious of it to be able to see it, be it an R code or a label or whatever that may be?

ASHBY: I want to go back and address something you said, Representative Wilson. You talked about the risk to children. Again, there is nothing, zero evidence, that either one of these herbicides relates whatsoever to what you just referenced in terms of ADHD or any other type of childhood disorder. I would bring your attention to, again, the EPA, which is what we rely on in this country. In 2020, atrazine, and in 2022, glyphosate, they looked at specifically, were there any impacts on child safety and child health? They found no risk to these children if they're used at approved levels.

WILSON: I do appreciate that. Realizing that we're talking about labeling, again, if it's no risk, then what's the harm of placing it on a label?

ASHBY: Well, I would turn the question–

WILSON: So that––I'm sorry. I don't mean to talk over you, sir.

ASHBY: No, no. Go ahead, finish.

WILSON: So that purchasers can be informed purchasers and consumers?

ASHBY: I understand that line of thought, and I appreciate what you're suggesting there, but again, if we already know that there is no safety risk, then why put it on there?

WILSON: Simply because the president of the United States and others have made this a priority for us to understand what is happening to the quality of our food. And I think the State of Texas, standing by our president, should be looking forward to helping them in that endeavor in terms of the health of people. People, basically, could be healthy can also have an adverse reaction and so forth to any sort of ingredient. So I would say that if it ends up on a plant, that it should be considered a something label. And I do appreciate the dialogue, sir.

ASHBY: You bet.

HULL: Atrazine and glyphosate aren't food ingredients, which is why I am accepting this. But they are banned in other countries because these pesticide and herbicide residues end up in our food. The amendment I just offered not only exempts chemicals in the agriculture industry, but it also stipulates the bill only applies to ingredients required to be disclosed in the ingredient list, which these are not. The ag industry knows this bill wouldn't affect them with my amendment, but they don't even want the words listed in the bill.

I'm still going to accept this amendment anyway because this bill is about food additives, not about the pesticides and herbicides that are in our food. Again, other countries have banned both of these. Atrazine is owned by a company that is a subsidiary of the Chinese government. Other states don't even allow it to be sprayed in their state. Our farmers don't want China to own our land but are here advocating to spread the Chinese government's chemicals on it. Atrazine and glyphosate are toxic, and studies with no conflicts of interest show the health effects that the residue in our food has on our bodies. Because they are so toxic, instead of looking at the long-term effects, we have genetically modified our food to withstand more of this poison so that our food is harder to digest and causes further health effects. This is a conversation for another session. For now, I move adoption.

ASHBY: Move adoption.

[Amendment No. 3 by Bucy was laid before the house.]

REPRESENTATIVE BUCY: This is a simple cleanup amendment. The current amendment exempts products with a warning label issued by the surgeon general. These warnings are not actually issued by the surgeon general. They are issued by TTB. This corrects the amendment, changing the language referencing a warning with the recommendation by the U.S. surgeon general. It is acceptable to the author.

[Amendment No. 3 was adopted by Record No. 3513.]

[Amendment No. 1, as amended, was adopted by Record No. 3514.]

[Amendment No. 4 by Buckley and Ashby was laid before the house.]

REPRESENTATIVE BUCKLEY: First of all, let me say that I appreciate the intent of this bill, and I certainly agree with most of it. But I can tell you that this amendment is necessary if we're going to maintain the ability for our young people to have educational options. What this amendment does is simply maintain current law that requires our middle school students to have four semesters of physical education. While, certainly, there are those that would say that six semesters is preferable, let's talk about the unintended consequences of that. So if I'm a young person and I'm not involved in athletics and I want to pursue fine arts, if I want to pursue a foreign language, I will often do so in the eighth grade so that I can bank those credits so when I attend high school I have a clear pathway, whether it be for CTE, where I can have a coherent sequence to earn a credential of value. It will also open a pathway for advanced math and STEM pathways in some high schools.

It also is necessary that a student have that ability if they're trying to attend a high school of choice, one that is a fine arts magnet school, one that is for STEM, one that's for health care. All these specialized high schools in Texas often require that a student have elective credits that count towards high school that they achieve in middle school. Now there is an exemption, but the exemption only works if you are a student who can participate in an out-of-school-day activity like travel ball. Let's think about so many of our students in Texas that play travel ball, and that's great, but there are many other students, especially those kids that may not have the resources, that can't participate outside of the school day.

What I ask is that you vote for this amendment. Let's keep it as we have it now in law, that we have four semesters of P.E. required. I believe that other parts of this bill will educate our kids better, will improve the food supply, will do the things that are necessary, but for their academic achievement––this is mind and body. Mind and body require that we adopt this amendment to give more options to our middle school students.

REPRESENTATIVE VANDEAVER: Chairman Buckley, thank you for bringing this amendment. You and I were both in this chamber a few sessions ago when we passed HB 3. Is that correct?

BUCKLEY: Yes, sir.

VANDEAVER: And a major part of HB 3 was to extend career and technology to the eighth grade. Is that correct?

BUCKLEY: That is correct.

VANDEAVER: So would this bill as written, without your amendment, have any impact on the implementation of that part of HB 3?

BUCKLEY: Absolutely. It creates a conflict, and it takes an option off the table. There's never been a more important time for young people to have that option. That option is to complete this coherent sequence of courses that requires banking credit in the eighth grade so that you can receive that credential of value. That was an important part of HB 3 in 2019. We have extremely strong programs in our public schools for this. Though well intentioned––I think this bill and this section of the bill are very well intentioned––it simply are in conflict with something that this body has supported and knows is very important for our students as far as achieving those levels of career and technical education but also advanced courses that can lead them to dual credit and other things that we've also agreed are important.

VANDEAVER: And we also have a funding model now that rewards schools for students who complete a credential of value. Is that correct?

BUCKLEY: That is correct. That is an outcome-based funding model that we have. Without this amendment, that funding model is in jeopardy because it takes that off the table for young people in eighth grade.

VANDEAVER: So if your amendment doesn't get on, it could actually lead to reduced funding for our local schools? Is that correct?

BUCKLEY: It certainly could.

HULL: I love the fine arts, and I'm so glad that there's expanded CTE, but I also want healthy kids. I know it was already talked about. Until 2017 P.E. was required for all three years of middle school. This is returning to three years. As I said in my layout, one in three Americans aged 17 to 24 are ineligible to serve in the military due to their weight. This is now a national security problem. I know Chair Buckley is in Killeen, so I know he understands that. This bill doesn't take away the ability for marching band, or show choir, or anything else that currently counts as P.E. to continue to count. The group that I think is behind all of this, because I don't know who exactly they are because they have never talked to me, not once. If they had, I would have told them that in the committee substitute, we added a P.E. exemption for middle school so that parents can opt their kids out of P.E. for out-of-school activities just like they currently can in high school. I want to thank Representative Bucy for bringing that suggestion. I thought that had addressed any possible concerns because only one person testified on that issue in the committee. No one has ever contacted my office.

Middle school P.E. is the first time most students learn to use gym equipment, how to develop a fitness routine, and learn lifelong skills. For many kids, this may be their only opportunity to learn those skills. Kids will still be able to participate in fine arts and CTE, because they did before 2017, and there are multiple elective spots in a school schedule. I have a sample schedule here if anyone is interested. Kids will still have room for electives and P.E. under this bill, just like they always have. When these kids are adults, it would be great if they're still participating in community theatre or making pottery, but at the end of the day, I really hope that they are staying active and using those lifelong gym skills. This group never came to talk to me. I only saw this amendment as of yesterday. I believe in helping kids stay active and healthy. I'm going to leave this to the will of the house because I know everyone feels differently. I have to vote no because I believe in healthy kids. But, members, vote your district.

REPRESENTATIVE PATTERSON: Representative Hull, you mentioned that there's an exemption already in the bill now for extracurricular sports or activities that are done outside of the school hours. Can you speak a little bit more about that? I know Dr. Buckley mentioned travel ball, but I don't think that it requires that you travel across the state or you travel across the country to participate.

HULL: No, it could be anything. This all came from Representative Bucy, which I, again, very much appreciate him helping out with this. Like we have talked about, no one wants to harm fine arts or CTE, so the suggestion was to allow the same exemption that high school parents have, to allow it for middle school as well.

PATTERSON: So it could be participating in sports, let's say, in your local community could exempt you from the P.E. course?

HULL: Yes. So my son plays ice hockey. That would count. I know another member, Dr. Oliverson, said that his daughter is a ballerina. Those are all things that would count that middle school parents would be able to opt out.

PATTERSON: Okay. The group that brought this amendment forward––in part they want this amendment because it would increase CTE courses in middle school?

HULL: Yes, and Dr. Buckley did talk about that. That's why I am leaving it to the will of the house for members to vote their district. I know people feel differently about this.

PATTERSON: Do school districts get paid more––

HULL: They do. Yes.

PATTERSON: If their students take CTE courses?

HULL: Yes.

PATTERSON: Okay, so really this is an exchange between keeping kids healthier by participating in P.E. more semesters, and instead of doing that, they want the additional dollars that come with the CTE courses. Is that fair?

HULL: I guess it's fair.

VANDEAVER: Thank you for this bill. I'm proud to be a joint author on this bill and work with you to make our kids healthier. But would you disagree with me if I said that it's really unfair to say that schools are more interested in funding than in healthy kids? Was that a fair assessment?

HULL: I don't know. I think it would probably depend per person. I don't know.

VANDEAVER: Yeah. You mentioned your son. Have you ever tried to get a waiver for P.E. from a local school?

HULL: No, I have not.

VANDEAVER: Okay. Would it surprise you to learn that schools apply this in different ways and have different standards?

HULL: Yes.

VANDEAVER: And that some schools might require that the child be in a really high-level gymnastics program to exempt them from P.E.?

HULL: Again, the bill does not touch what is currently allowed or not allowed.

VANDEAVER: But is it accurate to say that the bill does include what's currently done? You included that exemption in your bill. Is that correct?

HULL: Yes.

VANDEAVER: Because that exemption is not currently in place for middle school. Is that right?

HULL: For middle school? Right. High school parents have that. Middle school parents don't.

VANDEAVER: I'm just curious. Do you not think that it could be a fairly high bar to clear for these middle school students to qualify for this exemption?

HULL: Well, I think people should talk to their school boards if they don't like the exemption policies.

VANDEAVER: Okay. Thank you, and again, thank you for bringing this bill.

HULL: Yes. And again, members, I'm leaving it to the will of the house. I know everyone feels differently about this, so everyone is free to vote your district.

BUCKLEY: First of all, I appreciate the dialogue back and forth and certainly appreciate the work Chairwoman Hull has done on this bill. Overall, I think this is a good bill, but I also know, and I just want everyone to know, that the group that contacted me about this amendment or that informs me is a group of three children in my home that all participated and benefitted from the flexibility in eighth grade, where they could then pursue, for my daughters, fine arts courses that would not have been available that way, and also because of that were able to participate in a dual credit program, and my son, who was able to participate in CTE courses because of it. So it's about that. It's about mind and body. We can have both. And I believe this amendment does that, and I ask for your support on this amendment.

REPRESENTATIVE M. GONZÁLEZ: I was also, proudly, on the HB 3 conference committee when we were making some of these changes because I think we recognize that there are five million kids in our local public schools and over a thousand school districts with different options for these kids. We were trying to allow for us to recognize the breadth of skills that these young people have. Does that feel accurate?

BUCKLEY: Yeah, absolutely. Our kids, they need to be able to experience different things and try out different things, and that flexibility in the eighth grade year––you talk to local school folks and talk to your teachers and your principals, and that eighth grade year, that flexibility is crucial to a child finding their pathway to graduation, whether it be banking college credit hours or whether it be banking a credential of value. There may be a time when we can rearrange the way we do school from eighth grade through twelfth grade, but at this time, it is important that we stay where we're at so we don't disrupt the good things happening for our kids and the opportunities they have now.

M. GONZÁLEZ: And I do want to reframe something that was characterized. Is this about school districts getting money, or is this about the health of the kids? I don't think it's a binary. I think, in fact, healthy kids are happy kids who get to explore their futures. When they don't have those opportunities, they are even less healthy. So I want to push back on that narrative that this is about money and health. I don't think it's a binary, and I think just because the school finance formula will be impacted doesn't mean it's a binary. Can you help expand on that?

BUCKLEY: Absolutely. There is nothing that creates a healthier child than finding their passion. That finding their way where they've finally decided––everyone who has kids knows, when they're little kids they walk in and they're going to play in the MLB or the NFL, then they want to be a police officer, and some do, and then they might want to be a teacher or a lawyer or a veterinarian or a doctor. But you never see a child thrive until they really have unlocked that passion for what they want to do, and it changes them. I believe those options available in the eighth grade are just pivotal. You think about the age of an eighth grader. I think that's why this is so important. And then we talk about the money part. That is a part of it, but what we know is that we have created outcome bonuses because we know that's what the Texas economy needs and that's what our children should be able to access. Though I think the intentions of this bill are outstanding, I think this is an unintended consequence, and I just want to try to correct that so that we still have great opportunity for young kids or young folks in Texas schools.

M. GONZÁLEZ: I appreciate your leadership, and I do appreciate the author's leadership in trying to make sure we have healthy kids. And I think your amendment does that too, so thank you so much.

[Amendment No. 4 was adopted by Record No. 3515.]

[Amendment No. 5 by Goodwin was laid before the house.]

GOODWIN: Members, this amendment is pretty simple. It just would allow marching band to count towards the P.E. credit, and it just spells it out to make sure it's absolutely clear that it would count towards a P.E. credit. So imagine someone who's involved in marching band. Friday night football games are the beating heart of small towns across the Lone Star State. They're part of our identity and culture. Going to your first high school football game without your parents is a rite of passage for many Texas teens. Friday night football games bring communities together and are a reminder that even when screens dominate our world, nothing beats a Texas sunset set against a football field. But we all know football season begins long before Friday night football games. Most teams begin practicing twice a day in late July or early August, but they aren't the only ones preparing for the upcoming football season.

Students who play in their school's marching band can often be seen practicing their routine in the stadium parking lot. But playing the halftime show at the games on Friday is only a part of what the marching band is preparing for. Most bands spend much of their time preparing to compete in UIL competitions across the state. To be successful, students have to put in countless hours learning their instruments and rehearsing their steps. This is why many marching band programs begin in the middle of summer and might involve weeks of 9- to 12-hour days. During the school year, many bands practice every day after school for at least two hours. Given the physical demands of marching bands, it makes sense that studies have shown that participation in marching band can improve cardiorespiratory fitness. Marching band is a serious blend of music, performance art, and athletics and should be allowed to count towards a P.E. exemption.

HULL: I appreciate what Representative Goodwin is doing. Most school districts already allow marching band. Under current law, dance and music that is taught by a certified P.E. teacher already counts toward P.E. and could count toward the P.E. and fine arts TEKS. So this is not necessary to add this to this bill. Again, I appreciate what she's doing, but it's just unnecessary, so I move to table.

[Representative Hull moved to table Amendment No. 5.]

GOODWIN: So I recognize that it is possible that marching band might be counted as P.E., but this just spells it out in writing, makes it extremely clear that it would be allowed to go towards a P.E. credit.

[The motion to table prevailed by Record No. 3516.]

[Amendment No. 6 by Goodwin was laid before the house.]

REPRESENTATIVE FLORES: A common theme this session has been about a parent's exclusive right to decide what their children read, believe, and think. If you voted to support parents' rights, then this amendment is for you. Currently SB 25––I guess it's CSSB 25––allows students to participate in private club sports to receive an exception from the additional P.E. credit requirements. That means that students who can afford to participate in a private club or league sport will have time in their schedule to take up to two additional courses. This creates an unfair academic advantage for the group of students who already have an athletic advantage because of their ability to participate in a private sport.

All my amendment does is say that if a parent believes that their child gets enough physical activity outside of the school day by participating in other non-private league or club-related activities, then they should be allowed to request the same exemption for their child and give their child the same academic advantage as other students. Members, let's be honest, private sports leagues and clubs can be expensive and time-consuming to participate in. For parents struggling to make ends meet or who simply can't take the time off from work, private club sports are not within the realm of possibility for their kids. However, this does not mean that their children are not athletic or active outside of school. If you were to leave right now and drive down the street to a park in East Austin, I guarantee you'd find a group of sweaty kids running around playing soccer, basketball, or football. You'll also see plenty of kids on bikes or jogging around the track. Just because kids are not paying hundreds of dollars to play their chosen sport does not mean that they are not getting enough exercise outside of school.

If parents had the exclusive right to, as Representative Patterson and many others have said, choose what their child reads and learns, then they should also be able to decide if their child needs to spend an additional year taking P.E. when they could be taking another class that would better serve their academic career. Not every famous athlete had the resources to participate in a private club or league when they were growing up, but that didn't mean that they didn't have the talent or skill necessary to compete. Members, let's even the playing field and allow parents to decide.

HULL: While I appreciate what Representative Flores is doing and especially an amendment about an exemption form—super great. But this bill extends the current exemption that high schoolers have to middle schoolers, not creating the exemption like this amendment would. I'm just kind of seeing this as of yesterday, so I haven't been able to review it with stakeholders. And again, they're getting an exemption. That amendment was put on, so it's back down to two years and—

REPRESENTATIVE ROSENTHAL: Is this just a form?

HULL: It's just a form, yes. So again, the exemption could be any free sport, a YMCA, a letter from a YMCA; that would work too. So while I appreciate it, I have to move to table.

[Representative Hull moved to table Amendment No. 6.]

FLORES: As always, I'm just trying to make sure that folks that come from less affluent families have the same opportunities that rich kids have. So please, I'd ask for your consideration and ask for your adoption of this amendment.

[The motion to table prevailed by Record No. 3517.]

[Amendment No. 7 by Turner was laid before the house.]

REPRESENTATIVE TURNER: This amendment requires the middle school and high school courses included in the bill, which I think are a great idea, include the effects of hormones and antibiotics in our food. Hormones and antibiotics in food can have long-term effects on human health, including potential links to hormonal imbalances and other health issues. Meat hormones, especially those used on red meat, have been linked to early puberty in young girls, leading to some young girls beginning menstruation at eight or nine years old. That's two years below the average age. Additionally, health experts, including the CDC, have long warned that the overuse of antibiotics in agriculture contributes to antibiotic-resistant bacteria, which is a major health threat.

Education is a key prevention strategy, and students deserve to be informed on how the hormones and antibiotics in their food affect their bodies and their natural immunity. This amendment simply requires that the instructional materials used for the required nutrition curriculum in the bill also include information on the effects of hormones and antibiotics used in food products on human health. This is a commonsense, science-based update to the curriculum that benefits Texas students, families, and future health care for our state.

HULL: While I very much agree and appreciate with what Chairman Turner just said, the nutrition curriculum in this bill is about ultra-processed food, so the stuff on the hormones and antibiotics, this is a conversation for a future session. While I agree, I'm going to have to move to table, please.

[Representative Hull moved to table Amendment No. 7.]

TURNER: Again, if the goal is to teach our young people, our school students, about the stuff we put in our bodies, that they put in their bodies, and what's good for you, what's not good for you, this is just a commonsense addition to that curriculum to teach about the effects, including the potentially negative effects, of foods that contain levels of antibiotics or hormones. That's all the amendment does. I ask that you vote no on the motion to table.

REPRESENTATIVE WU: Representative Turner, again, we're dramatically changing what is available to our citizens, what schools must do, and this is all happening around students, and they're not really given any explanation of exactly why this is all happening and what purpose does it serve. Is that fair?

TURNER: Well, I think that this bill does represent a lot of changes to a wide array of aspects of our state, including in education. My amendment is focused specifically on K through 12 and, more specifically, grades six through eight, that the instructional materials––the curriculum––include this additional information. So we're talking about foods, whether they're good or they're bad, and what effects they may have on a child's body now and as they grow into adulthood, that the curriculum also include information on antibiotics, which we know is an issue in some foods, and hormones, which is an issue in some foods.

WU: I know the bill author has said that we don't know if we need to do this right now; let's wait for another session. This bill literally has a requirement that you cannot get a bachelor's degree unless you take an entire semester nutrition class.

TURNER: That's true.

WU: Right? And we're saying we're going to force college students to take an extra college class, required before they can graduate, to learn about nutrition, but we can't explain to younger kids why this stuff is happening. I think that's what she's saying.

TURNER: Yeah. I have some concerns about the college-level requirement in the bill as well. I do think, with respect to younger kids, nutritional instruction makes some sense. I just want it to be complete, and if we're going to do nutritional instruction, introduce a new requirement, a new curriculum for grades six through eight––that it be a complete curriculum, as complete as possible, and that's what I think this amendment helps to achieve.

WU: And I know the author said that we should wait until next session; the bill is already time-delayed. The bill does not start for two years. There's plenty of time for people to figure this out in that time frame.

TURNER: Yeah, that's a good point.

WU: We don't need to come back.

TURNER: There's plenty of time for rule making and for TEA and SBOE to develop the curriculum on this, so I think there's plenty of time to get it right.

WU: Nothing's going to change in the next two years that says that we would have a different opinion about what we need to teach kids?

TURNER: No, I don't think so. I think this is a health concern today, and I think it certainly will be years into the future. Thank you, members. I ask you to vote no on the motion to table.

[The motion to table prevailed by Record No. 3518.]

[Amendment No. 8 by Bhojani was laid before the house.]

REPRESENTATIVE BHOJANI: I am so glad that student health has been a focus of ours this session. We'll help protect our children from harmful social media, encourage schools to regulate cell phone usage, and now we are making sure they eat healthy and exercise. So the idea of this amendment came from my daughter, Raisha Bhojani, at the beginning of the session. Y'all may remember that she came during spring break and spoke to many of you and your offices about this idea of having mindfulness as an elective course in school districts that may want to choose it. So it's permissive, it doesn't have any fiscal note on it as well, and so that's what this amendment is about. Anyone who has a teenager or remembers being one knows the stress they are under, and as adults, we know how closely linked mental health is to physical health. If our youth don't learn how to deal with life's struggles in a healthy way, it impacts all of us when they become adults and act in unhealthy ways.

This amendment would allow schools to have an elective course on mindfulness. For some reason, there is misinformation that this has something to do with religion. This absolutely does not have anything to do with religion. I have never heard of mental health or the generic term "mindfulness" being linked to a religion. This is science, and there's a lot of research that shows mindfulness techniques in schools can boost cognitive functions, improve academic performance, and reduce disciplinary issues. In short, these practices gave students a stronger foundation to learn and grow. Let's ensure healthy minds are included when discussing healthy bodies.

HULL: I respectfully have to ask for this to be tabled. This has nothing to do with this bill. It is not germane. So I just ask that you move to table, please.

[Representative Hull moved to table Amendment No. 8.]

BHOJANI: Again, more than 60 of you are joint authors and coauthors on this bill that made it out of Public Education but did not get placed on the calendar in time. I respectfully urge you to vote no for the motion to table.

[The motion to table prevailed by Record No. 3519.]

[Amendment No. 9 by Ward Johnson was laid before the house.]

REPRESENTATIVE WARD JOHNSON: As a former community college trustee, this one resonated with me. The average price of tuition at Texas public higher education is around $52,000. With housing, course materials, and additional institutional fees, the number goes up to around $80,000 or more. For many Texas students and their families, that's a serious financial burden. CSSB 25, as written, would mandate an additional nutritional course regardless of a student's major career path. While nutrition education is valuable, making it a requirement adds yet another cost and another barrier to graduation. This amendment would make nutritional courses for college students—my amendment would make it optional, not mandatory. This would not remove access to nutritional courses and content. Instead, we are simply saying that students should be allowed to choose the class if it aligns with their goals––with their department goals, with their class goals, with their graduation goals. College is already stressful and a demanding experience. Vote for this amendment to stand by your college students. Give them the freedom to choose what's best for their future and ease the financial strain. This class does not bring value to every department. This class does not bring credentials of value.

WU: Representative Ward Johnson, do you know if this bill contains any money for universities in Texas to offer this class?

WARD JOHNSON: No, I'm not aware of that.

WU: Would you believe that there is not?

WARD JOHNSON: I would believe that there is not. I would say that there is not.

WU: Does this provide any money to students who now would be required—every single baccalaureate student—would now be required to take it? Is there any money for them to take these extra hours?

WARD JOHNSON: No, there's no money for them. It would have to come out of their pockets.

WU: If a student now suddenly has to be in school an extra semester so he can meet this single requirement imposed by this law, does anything in this bill provide additional funding for that student to be in school another semester?

WARD JOHNSON: No, it does not. As a matter of fact, a lot of parents are going to have to come out of their pockets. So a lot of you that pay for your kids to go to school, this would impact you.

WU: There's nothing in the bill that says that a student wouldn't have to pay for this, right? There's nothing that says schools can't charge for this?

WARD JOHNSON: Right, nothing.

WU: And there's nothing in this bill that says that schools will be made whole if they offer this class for free.

WARD JOHNSON: You're absolutely right. Nothing.

WU: And if a student says, "Look, I've done everything. I've completed all my hours, and you guys just dropped this on me." There's no exception for them.

WARD JOHNSON: No exception.

WU: Even if it's a student that says, "I'm already going into med school. I'm already going into a health field; I'm going to take nutrition classes out the wazoo." They would not be exempt from this?

WARD JOHNSON: No, they would not.

WU: And even if a student was in a near-health program. That they're in a science where nutrition was already an elective of some kind, they would not be exempt from this?

WARD JOHNSON: No, they would not.

WU: This is adding an incredible, massive mandate to our schools and to our students, isn't it?

WARD JOHNSON: I absolutely agree. I was a technology major, and this class would have done nothing for me.

WU: And your amendment would take a shall––a must––to a may, correct?

WARD JOHNSON: Correct.

WU: This is a very sensible amendment that should be supported by everyone.

HULL: The bill is not prescriptive in how these schools must implement this. So no one in the higher ed community has come to speak about this as a concern at all, and it has been in the bill since March 5. So the bill, again, is not prescriptive as to what this course of instruction in nutrition will look like. This is also going to go through rigorous rulemaking at the Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board, so there is nothing in this bill that says that they have to pay for an additional class. That is not at all the intention. And again, no one in the higher ed community has raised a single concern. They can simply incorporate any sort of nutrition curriculum into already existing classes, so no one is required to pay for an additional class.

WU: Representative Hull, does your bill say that it only needs to have components of it in other classes?

HULL: No, again, it is not prescriptive. And so the rulemaking, again, that is the—

WU: In fact, on page 4, starting on line 10 through 17, is that requirement. It actually says that the THECB by rule shall require institutions of higher education to require each student enrolled in an associate or baccalaureate degree program at the institution to complete a course of instruction. It doesn't say learn the ideas. It says it must complete a course. Does it not?

HULL: Yes, but again, that curriculum can be incorporated into any course where they believe that it would fit.

WU: Does your bill say what you just said?

HULL: No. The whole point of it, and again if you keep going, part of it is those guidelines, but there's further—I'd have to find it on the exact page—all of the rulemaking.

WU: And again, Representative Hull, you're telling me to read between the lines? Me, as an attorney reading the lines, this direction is complete. It says you must complete a course, and the course must have things provided by the Texas Nutrition Advisory Committee established under this law. It does not say that it can be included in other classes. It does not say that other classes can suffice for it. It does not say that you are exempted for it because you've taken these things or have these things in your course load or if you're in this major. It just says that every single student who is seeking an associate's degree or baccalaureate degree must take a course of instruction in nutritional education. If I was a school reading this, this is black and white. It says you must create a course that they must now take.

HULL: It doesn't say that they have to create a course, and, again, with the rulemaking, all of that is part of that process. And I go back to, this has been in the bill since March 5, and not a single person in the higher ed community has had a concern about this section of the bill.

WU: Again, Representative Hull, I'm not sure why people have to tell you something is bad when we're telling you something is bad.

HULL: Because I don't believe that it is.

WU: You don't think requiring every single college student—these are adults, these are adults over 18, these are grown adults. You're telling them they must take this course for their own benefit, or they would not graduate.

HULL: Again, it can be within a course that already exists. It is the—

WU: That's even worse.

HULL: It is the new part of the instruction.

WU: If they already have a nutritional program, that is a complete class. And they say you have to take this complete three-hour class? That's even worse.

HULL: I am not saying that they have to take a new class.

WU: But your law does. Your bill does.

HULL: No, it does not.

WU: Your bill says, "must complete a course of instruction." What is a course?

HULL: Yes. And again, they can implement it like I just said, where they are incorporating this curriculum into already-existing classes.

WU: And I'm telling you again that your bill does not say that. You should add that into your bill.

HULL: Yes, it is not prescriptive at all. Correct. It is not prescriptive.

WU: How is it not prescriptive? It says point blank what they must do. Like the words "must" and "shall" appear over 50 times in this bill. There is no "may" anywhere in this bill. Everything in this bill is a "must" or a "shall."

HULL: Yes, they have to take a course that at least incorporates this curriculum. Correct. The curriculum has to be incorporated into a course that would make sense. All of this is done by rulemaking, which is talked about in the bill.

WU: Where does the word "incorporate" show up on page 4?

HULL: Again, with all of the discussions with everyone within the higher ed community, that has been the discussion. The concerns that you are raising today have never been talked about. No one has been worried about a new course and kids having to pay for a new course. That is not how anyone has believed that the bill is implemented.

WU: Who pays for it then?

CHAIR (Landgraf in the chair): The chair will remind the members that we are on the amendment.

WU: We are talking about the amendment.

HULL: Who pays for what?

WU: Who pays for this course?

HULL: Again, it would be a course that they would already take.

WU: What if they don't have a course that they already take that has this component?

HULL: There's a lot of core curriculum, core classes that they have to take that could easily––a lot of the different science classes. There are a lot of different things that can incorporate nutrition education.

WU: And again, Representative Hull, the reason I keep asking you where do you see the word "incorporate"––there's a reason for that. Because you can say on the floor, again, you can say it's your legislative intent. By the way, we passed HB 113 that says legislative intent doesn't matter anymore. So the only thing courts can go on is the black-letter law that you have provided. The black-letter law says they must take a complete course, right? That has a curriculum required. It doesn't say you can incorporate it; you can add it into other stuff. Your bill does not say that. And I know you say it's not prescriptive, but that's what "prescriptive" means. It means prescribing what you must do.

HULL: I am, again, sharing with you all of the conversations that have been on this bill about what that does. I cannot make changes to that without going back and having further conversations with the higher ed community to figure out how that would change that. So I can't do it.

WU: We've just put a half a dozen amendments on. We're changing stuff right now. Why can't you just change it right now?

HULL: A lot of these other things in the amendment that I put on had been discussed for weeks and weeks. So I cannot make changes to the bill—a significant change—without talking to the stakeholders that it would affect. I can't do that.

WU: We've made significant changes today already.

HULL: Again, those changes had already been talked about and discussed. I cannot make a significant change without knowing exactly how it would affect how everything plays out. I can't do that.

WU: So I'll tell you the easy way to look at this. If you take that provision of the bill and take it from a "shall" to a "may," it would take the burden off of every––

HULL: But then they wouldn't do it.

WU: It would take the burden off of every college student in this state.

HULL: Then they wouldn't do it. And it's Texas public schools. I move to table.

[Representative Hull moved to table Amendment No. 9.]

WARD JOHNSON: I do have respect for the author and the sponsor of this bill. I was a former community college trustee, and I understand the burdens of degree plans and the costs associated with this, and this bill currently would make it mandatory to take this class, which would cause an extra burden for someone that does not need it to reach their degree plan of their graduation. So I will respectfully ask for you not to table this if you care about the value of what your kids are learning.

[The motion to table was lost by Record No. 3520.]

WU: Look carefully at the fiscal note on this bill, right? The fiscal note, in my opinion, is very incomplete because you have a provision here that says every university must, by law, create a program or program like it that is sufficient. Not only that, there is nothing in this bill; there is zero in this bill that provides them with funding. There is zero in this bill that says their funding will be protected when they create this. And worst of all, I love a little government overreach, but even this is too much. This is telling grown adult people, people in universities, in college already, what's good for them. You can advise people to take a class, you can tell people they should be healthy, but to say that you cannot graduate because you didn't take a health course because we thought it would be good for you. I'd love if people would be healthier. I would love for more people to exercise, to eat better. I would love for people to eat fewer processed foods and have salty snacks and have too much sugar, but I don't want to hold a gun to people's heads and make them do it. That seems counter to everything that we've said we care about in Texas. That we try to let grown adults make their own decisions. We could recommend that these classes be taken. We can tell schools you should make them available if people want them. But to say that you cannot graduate, to say that your child will not be able to earn their degree because we want them to do a little better.

I know Ms. Hull wants to play with the words that are on this bill, but you could read it yourself on page 4. It doesn't say that you could swap out other stuff. It doesn't say that you could make stuff fit because that language doesn't exist. Our legislation, our laws, don't work by what you think about and how you feel about them; they work by what's on the paper. Look at what's on the paper. It says point blank they must complete a course. It does not say that you can substitute. It does not say you can satisfy it with other criteria. It says you must complete this course. And there's no limitation to how long this course could be. This could be a one-hour course, or it could be a six-hour course. It doesn't say. There's no limitation. There's no guidance. All it says is you must complete this course. I urge you to vote on this amendment. You can still accept the rest of the bill, but we don't have to make this bill so onerous on every Texan who's going to attend school or their families.

WARD JOHNSON: The amendment is now acceptable to the author. I move adoption.

[Amendment No. 9 was adopted by Record No. 3521.]

[Amendment No. 10 by Collier was laid before the house.]

REPRESENTATIVE COLLIER: The proposed Texas Nutrition Advisory Committee will have the power to influence and guide the state's health and nutrition standards for the next generation of Texans. This is a huge responsibility placed on the backs of seven people, and we must ensure the committee's members possess the expertise, experience, skills, and training necessary to shape state policy. Given the purpose of this committee, we should have at least one licensed dietician at the table. Their training and expertise are directly related to the goals of the committee and will help improve their work. Dieticians are trained to use the principles of food, nutrition, biochemistry, physiology, and behavioral sciences to help people take care of themselves and maintain good health. In order to qualify for a dietician license in Texas, applicants must have completed an approved pre-planned professional experience, program, or internship of not less than 900 hours under the supervision of a licensed dietician or registered dietician. Then they must complete a minimum of 12 hours of continuing education during each two-year licensing period.

Members, every session we pass dozens of bills that come from the advisory committee's recommendation, these commissions that we establish. We rely on these committees to provide us with the expert opinions and input we need to make the best policy decisions for our state. Texas dieticians are trained experts in their field and should be represented on the Texas Nutrition Advisory Committee. I hope you will join me and ensure that their valuable perspective is represented. So this committee would move from seven people appointed by the governor to eight people appointed by the governor, with one being a licensed dietician.

ROSENTHAL: So first, it seems to me you're pointing out a flaw in this effort to make people healthy again because it's all about food, and we don't have a licensed nutritionist on the effort?

COLLIER: There is not currently a space at the table for a licensed dietician whose whole field of expertise is in food and nutrition.

ROSENTHAL: Okay. So the effort to make folks healthy and improve their diets, you think, would be improved, aided, assisted by having a licensed dietician?

COLLIER: Absolutely. That would be very helpful.

ROSENTHAL: That makes perfect sense to me.

COLLIER: If that's what their goal is. The goal is to help people make choices that would improve their health, not only with lifestyle and food intake. Let's have somebody at the table who specializes and who is trained in that area.

ROSENTHAL: I wish I had thought of this.

HULL: The advisory committee has seven members: one physician in functional medicine; one pediatrician who specializes in metabolic health; the five other spots–a rural member, urban member, member representing the Department of Ag if they choose, or a member who is an expert in metabolic health, and an unspecified person. So technically, a dietician could be one of those people. The makeup of this has been highly negotiated and has been crafted very carefully to try and keep out all conflicts of interest. I know, specifically, that dieticians and their conferences are sponsored by "Big Food." So I cannot put a dietician on the list. That does not mean that one of these other five spots could not be filled by one. But again, this list has been very highly negotiated, so I cannot add anything else.

ROSENTHAL: I do appreciate both the effort and the logic that you're presenting. Isn't it so that every other member of this––can you please again enumerate the commission? What are the positions again? You've got a physician, and please enumerate that.

COLLIER: In functional medicine, a pediatrician who specializes in metabolic health, and then a rural member, an urban member, a member representing Department of Ag, a member who is an expert in metabolic health, and an unspecified position, which means those are very, very flexible positions.

ROSENTHAL: I got it. And your logic for not wanting to have a dietician is?

HULL: We have had, again, numerous conversations. This has been heavily negotiated on the makeup and language of this committee, so I cannot add anything.

ROSENTHAL: I got it. But the reason that you gave was that the dieticians have sponsors for their events, for their convention?

HULL: Yes. That is one of the reasons that was given, and that was, yes, they are sponsored by "Big Food."

ROSENTHAL: I got it. By that logic, isn't it also true that every other group you mentioned has their events sponsored by outside interests?

HULL: Likely not "Big Food." When this whole bill is about ultra-processed foods. Again, the language of exactly who is on here, the positions, how they are listed has been heavily negotiated.

ROSENTHAL: Except for the one position that is unspecified. Is that correct?

HULL: Yes. And that is where the members, again governor-appointed, the members of the chair of Human Services, of Public Health, and the senate chair of Health and Human Services. There are others that can make recommendations to the governor.

ROSENTHAL: Let me ask this. Is there evidence to support the assertion that "Big Food" corrupts the dietician body?

HULL: I'm sorry. Say that again?

ROSENTHAL: So the concern expressed is that dieticians have support from the food industry, "Big Food," I guess you called it, and that that could corrupt their judgement on a panel like this?

HULL: Some, possibly. Others, no.

ROSENTHAL: But the support that all the other members of the body have will not corrupt their judgment on this commission?

HULL: Again, the language was crafted very carefully. If you read about the conflicts of interest in the bill and who is allowed and the people that cannot qualify, I feel like that answers that.

ROSENTHAL: I appreciate you indulging the questions.

[Representative Hull moved to table Amendment No. 10.]

GERVIN-HAWKINS: Representative Collier, one of the things I was looking at, and I was hoping it would encompass part of your amendment. Do we talk about the civil penalty that's involved at all?

COLLIER: I'm not sure if that's in this amendment.

GERVIN-HAWKINS: It's not in the amendment? I'll wait until the bill author comes back.

COLLIER: I understand that Chair Hull is concerned about undue influence by outside interests, but they took the time to designate a physician who specializes in metabolic and culinary medicine who would also, one could argue, be influenced by food and outside interests who specialize in food production and labeling and so forth. So I'm not sure if that is a strong argument when you're talking about not including a licensed dietician. I do appreciate the opportunity to have one appointed and would be willing to amend my amendment to ensure that one of those spots of the seven does include a dietician because it is very important that we have someone at the table who can discuss with confidence and with the expertise and experience about the types of foods that we eat and how they impact our lifestyle. And so with that, I ask that you vote no on the motion to table and provide a spot at the table for our dieticians. So no on the motion to table.

[The motion to table prevailed by Record No. 3522.]

[Amendment No. 11 by Howard was laid before the house.]

REPRESENTATIVE HOWARD: This is similar to the previous amendment, though in this case we're asking that one of the members of this Nutrition Advisory Committee be a licensed nurse who has received a certification or specialty training in nutrition, which actually is an avenue that a registered nurse can take where you get additional training to get certified as a nutrition nurse. I think that this has already been laid out, and I appreciate what Chair Hull has done here in terms of trying to create something that will help us get to a healthier lifestyle. I think we all want that. There's a lot in here that's good, but I think all the amendments we're hearing are just trying to make things better. Take advantage of this opportunity to insert things that would make this—

GERVIN-HAWKINS: You know as a nurse, one of the things why this dietician or someone who knows food is so important because there's so many people on medications now, correct?

HOWARD: Yes, there are.

GERVIN-HAWKINS: And there may be some unintentional consequences or some interactions that may be fatal to some people if you don't have a subject matter expert involved in saying if this is okay. Would you agree with that?

HOWARD: That could be the case. I know there are some health care professionals that are included on this, but it does not include the dietician, it does not include a nurse.

GERVIN-HAWKINS: And the difference between a dietician and a nurse, along with the individuals that are listed there, would be what? What can they add? The dieticians and the nurse?

HOWARD: Well, this amendment is not about the dietician, though of course that person has a unique specialty in that area and has unique expertise. Nurses, of course, also, if they have the additional 1,000 hours of training to become a nutritional nurse, would actually have very specific information, in which, of course, this bill is suggesting that all students are supposed to have this kind of education right now. This is somebody who's gone above and beyond that to get additional expertise and training, so it would be very valuable information as they are trying to determine what the guidelines are going to be and what the recommendations are going to be coming from this advisory committee.

GERVIN-HAWKINS: Great. Thank you for that, Representative. It's a great amendment.

HULL: This is not a medical advisory committee and I don't want to tie the hands of the governor. Again, the language in this advisory committee has been very heavily negotiated. Several of them are specifically not there—intentionally not specific. So someone that was just described could be in one of these positions, so I have to move to table.

[Representative Hull moved to table Amendment No. 11.]

HOWARD: I just once again will say that I think it would be important to expand the knowledge base of who's going to be on this advisory council, and I would move to vote against the table.

[The motion to table prevailed by Record No. 3523.]

[Amendment No. 12 by Manuel was laid before the house.]

REPRESENTATIVE MANUEL: This is an amendment that basically makes sure that if someone is a social media influencer and 33 percent of their income comes from these kinds of social media platforms where they're getting money, they can't be a part of the advisory board. We know that there are people like the "Liver King," who told people to eat raw meat and it was going to make them stronger and more hype, and found out he was on steroids. We had Bella Gibson, who was telling people that she had a brain tumor—or brain cancer, excuse me—and she was telling people to eat healthy. She had this app. There are documentaries on all of these. We put people's lives at risk. This is just to make sure that they're not a part of this system where they are able to influence since they are already profiteering off of this. I hope you all support me on this amendment. I appreciate you.

HULL: This is already addressed in the bill. An individual must disclose all existing affiliations with a food, beverage, dietary supplement, or pharmaceutical manufacturing company or any other affiliations that could reasonably create a conflict of interest. So I cannot allow—I cannot take this amendment because it already exists in the bill. Also in the bill, it talks about zero; no income is allowed. This amendment is 33 percent, and the bill is zero to make sure there are no conflicts of interest. So I have to move to table.

[Representative Hull moved to table Amendment No. 12.]

MANUEL: I close.

[The motion to table prevailed by Record No. 3524.]

[Amendment No. 13 by Goodwin was laid before the house.]

GOODWIN: This amendment would simply require the committee to examine the effects of harmful pesticides and chemicals used in the production or development of ultra-processed foods on human health. The Environmental Protection Agency regularly evaluates pesticides to determine the risk they pose to our health and well-being. According to the EPA, pesticide exposure can lead to both acute and chronic health problems ranging from skin or eye irritation to cancer, neurological disorders, hormonal issues, and reproductive health issues. The agriculture industry is a major economic driver in Texas. Farming and ranching operations can be found in every corner of the state, from citrus crops in the Rio Grande Valley to cotton in the High Plains, and in between there are rice paddies in the Coastal Plains, sheep and cattle ranches in West Texas, and timber harvesting in the Piney Woods of East Texas. In 2022, Texas' agriculture industry generated almost $25 billion in cash receipts, representing the fourth largest share in the country. Given the significance of this industry in Texas, I believe the Texas Nutrition Advisory Committee should look at how pesticides can impact our health. This is well within the scope of their mission and would provide Texas farmers with information to determine which pesticides to use.

HULL: I think you all heard my speech earlier on this topic. I very much appreciate what Representative Goodwin is doing here, and while I do agree, that is unfortunately not what this bill is about. This is a conversation for another day and another session, so I have to move to table.

[Representative Hull moved to table Amendment No. 13.]

GOODWIN: This bill is about our health. It's about the health of our children. It's about how food that we eat impacts our health. And the food that we eat that has chemicals and pesticides on it definitely impacts our health and our children's health. So members, I don't know why the author would say that this doesn't apply to the bill or why it's not pertinent to the bill, because it absolutely is.

[The motion to table prevailed by Record No. 3525.]

[Amendment No. 14 by Flores was laid before the house.]

FLORES: If we're serious about nutrition, we cannot ignore food access. CSSB 25 creates new state standards for nutrition and wellness, but what good are those standards in communities where fresh food is nowhere to be found? This amendment ensures we identify and examine food deserts across Texas and make evidence-based recommendations to solve them. Members, this is about market access. Many Texans want to eat better but live in areas where the free market hasn't followed. This is especially true for my rural communities and my community of Del Valle. Let's use data to empower communities with better tools, not mandates, to attract grocery stores, farmers' markets, and food entrepreneurs.

Residents in food deserts face higher rates of obesity, diabetes, and other chronic illnesses, which increase the state Medicaid and emergency room costs. Addressing food insecurity upstream is fiscally conservative and smarter than dealing with expensive health crises downstream. Whether you're in Central Texas or East Texas, you should have a fair shot at putting fresh food on the table. We talk about protecting families, but families cannot thrive without reliable access to nutritious food. This amendment upholds Texas values by protecting the health and dignity of our children, seniors, and working parents. The Texas Nutrition Advisory Committee is already tasked with developing guidelines. This amendment simply asks them to study food deserts and suggest solutions. It's a low-cost, high-impact addition that strengthens CSSB 25 and shows we're thinking ahead.

HULL: I understand and share the concern of food deserts. That's just not what this bill is about. This bill is about the dangers of ultra-processed food. So I have to move to table.

[Representative Hull moved to table Amendment No. 14.]

FLORES: This is about good nutrition and good healthy food, and my communities do not have access. It has everything to do with this.

WU: Representative Flores, your amendment is exactly the point of this bill because in those food deserts, without access to grocery stores, without access to fresh fruits, fresh meat, what do people end up eating?

FLORES: Junk food. They have Dollar Trees and those kinds of stores and convenience stores that they have to resort to buying food at times because they have to drive all the way into town to be able to buy fresh food.

WU: And we're talking about communities that many people don't have vehicles. People ride the bus. They ride their bike. Taking the bus an hour or half an hour one way and half an hour back the other way to go grocery shopping, people just can't do that. They won't do that.

FLORES: That's exactly right. Here in my community we've been trying to attract, and we are making headway, but it's taken forever to try to get a good grocery store that has fresh food and produce available to the citizens of Del Valle.

WU: And, in fact, when people don't have access to proper grocery stores or even farmer's markets or anything of that sort, they end up doing most of their shopping at the convenience store, correct?

FLORES: Well, they have to do that because it's a real hassle to try. You get out of work, and you want to put food on the table, and you don't have things, so you're going to resort to junk food, drive-throughs, whatever just to get something for your kids.

WU: Yeah. And a lot of times those convenience stores say, we have fresh fruits and vegetables, but they have a banana and an avocado, right?

FLORES: Yes, if they're even good at that.

WU: And a lot of times those are just already rotting.

FLORES: Right. So this is a problem, and I think this group, this advisory committee, would be a perfect opportunity to address the issue and look at food deserts and see where communities do not have access to fresh food.

WU: In fact, contrary to what Representative Hull has said, this amendment, this food scarcity issue, is one of the core reasons that have been identified for childhood obesity.

FLORES: It is, and it's a real problem. It's happening right here in southeast Travis County.

WU: In fact, there are studies that have linked, that have shown that in food deserts, in places where children do not have access to healthy foods, do not have access to groceries, that the rates of diabetes, the rates of cancer, the rates of all the things that Representative Hull has talked about in her layout, those are much higher in food deserts. Are they not?

FLORES: They are. They are.

WU: I want to be very clear. Your amendment, despite her words, your amendment is exactly on point with this bill, is it not?

FLORES: It absolutely is. I appreciate your comments and your questions. Members, I ask that you please vote no on the motion to table.

[The motion to table prevailed by Record No. 3526.]

[Amendment No. 15 by J. Jones was laid before the house.]

REPRESENTATIVE J. JONES: The amendment I've offered is simple. It says that before the advisory committee created in this bill turns in its report, it has to hold at least four public hearings. That's it. We're making decisions in this bill that will directly affect the food people can access in Texas. That's especially serious for Texans living in food deserts, as you just heard, places where corner stores or small grocery stores are the only option. These families already face limited choices, and if those stores remove products or shut down to avoid penalties under this bill, we're leaving people hungry and their children hungry. My amendment gives those communities a voice. It doesn't cost money. It doesn't delay the bill. It just ensures that the people we're trying to help––families, small store owners, parents––have a chance to speak before the committee finalizes its recommendations. We should not be passing policies about public health and nutrition without hearing from the very people who will feel the impact first––the public. I respectfully move adoption of the amendment and ask for your support. And to the extent the bill's author does not accept the amendment and moves to table, I ask for you to vote against the motion to table.

HULL: I have to move to table this amendment. The statute that creates the sickle cell task force does not include required public hearings, but they do post information on the public meetings on their website to discuss their annual reports to those meetings. This would be a very similar advisory committee, so I have to move to table.

[Representative Hull moved to table Amendment No. 15.]

J. JONES: I respectfully disagree that the sickle cell task force is the same as this task force. Sickle cell is killing people. It's just different. And as a person who grew up not always having food options and with a mother who had a car sometimes and didn't have a car other times, getting to the grocery store was hard. And I'll say that again. We take things for granted here because we can go to the grocery store; because we can afford to get there, we think that everyone can. Everyone cannot. And at the end of the day, if you don't have money to get to a grocery store that has healthy food options, rather than have your children starve, you're going to buy them the food that's available to you, which unfortunately might be around the corner. But the other option is just to starve people to death.

I think that it is a lack of respect to the people that we're purporting to help to decide that we know what's better for them than to have them actively come to a public hearing and actually tell them there are issues with it. And also, as a kid who grew up with a mom who didn't have enough money to even come to my after-school activities because she was too busy working overtime to try to get money, make money to pay rent, to buy food, I'm certain my mother wouldn't have been paying attention to any public notice, assuming we had electricity for internet to know what's going on for any public notices. So I think there are things that this body may be taking for granted that actually don't exist. So I respectfully ask for you to vote against this motion to table because I don't need people who have no idea and who have not walked in my shoes to tell me what's best for me and how I feed my children.

[The motion to table prevailed by Record No. 3527.]

[Amendment No. 16 by Curry was laid before the house.]

REPRESENTATIVE CURRY: What this amendment does is take this food-labeling piece to a study and let us try to understand what's really happening with these chemicals. There are 52 chemicals originally listed in this deal, and, through a couple of amendments today, some have been removed. It certainly wasn't lost on me that a couple of the chemicals were ag chemicals that are used in the field that have never been food additives. It certainly wasn't lost on me and several of the constituents out there and stakeholders, as they've been discussed before, that such as saccharin was removed because evidently a stakeholder wanted that out. But when you have big stakeholders throughout this state, none the least of which are Farm Bureau, HEB, Sysco Foods, and so many of these that have not been able to be at the table. Then why? Why are they not at the table, and why can we not have discussions with them? And I will tell you that this is a serious issue. These may or may not be serious chemicals, but they need to be studied. We don't want to make policy based upon guessing. We don't want to make policy based on what somebody else said or opinion. We make our policy based upon facts and the best facts we can find.

If we're going to put food labels on a huge industry in Texas that doesn't want this––Waco, Texas, where I'm from, is the home of Dr Pepper, it's the home of Big Red. We have a huge M&M/Mars manufacturing facility there. They haven't been at the table. I know, Ms. T, you haven't gotten any candy from my district, and we'll work on that. You haven't been over by the desk lately. But I do have to say that when you look at these stakeholders and what it really means and look at the labeling stakeholders that are out there as well. I have to tell you, we have got to think about what we're doing, and we've got to think hard about how to do this the right way. And so I stand before you to say, look, I don't have a problem. I want to make Texas healthy again, but I do not want to hurt Texas business. We are in business to do business, we're in business to attract business, and I don't want to hurt Texas business. So I'll tell you, we need to do the right thing here. Pass this amendment to make this part a study. It's a huge bill. It's an omnibus bill that we need to be careful about. Do the right thing with this part of the bill and make it a study.

WU: Representative Curry, at the beginning of the layout, did you hear the bill author say that Blue Bell was carved out of this bill?

CURRY: I did.

WU: Where is Blue Bell located?

CURRY: They're in Brenham, Texas, sir.

WU: Whose senate district is that?

CURRY: I believe that's the author in the senate. I think that encompasses that.

REPRESENTATIVE CANALES: So one, I want to tell you I appreciate your amendment because this is an omnibus bill, and it's going to affect Texas businesses, as you shared. Is that what you believe?

CURRY: Yes, I do.

CANALES: Now, are you aware that a bill this size didn't get heard in the full committee?

CURRY: I was made aware of that late this afternoon, yes.

CANALES: Are you aware that a bill this size only got heard in the subcommittee?

CURRY: I was not made aware of that necessarily, but I believe you if you say that.

CANALES: So there was no full committee hearing on this bill, and we are going to now impose all these rules, regulations. I was going to file an amendment to call this the Michelle Obama bill. Are you aware that all these businesses are going to be affected by this bill?

CURRY: I am aware that a lot of businesses are going to be affected by this bill. And again, I think that if you're going to do something this big, you have the education piece, you have the higher education piece, and I don't disagree with more exercise and making people more aware about situations. What my problem is is that putting the kind of strong labeling that we're doing on Texas businesses. Are we still attracting business with this, or are we trying to run it out?

CANALES: I support your amendment, Representative Curry. I think it is reasonable, I think it's sensible, and I think it's a good start. Thank you for your hard work.

HARRIS DAVILA: I just wanted to clarify something. Are you aware that the author of the bill mentioned that she had worked with Blue Bell, but that she did not say they were carved out of the bill?

CURRY: Yeah, I didn't say that they were carved out. I just know that Blue Bell was one of them that was a stakeholder that ended up at the table, and I know a lot of stakeholders did not.

HARRIS DAVILA: I totally understand. I just wanted to make that clarification. My second question: If a business does not have these ingredients in their food, many of which we are already banning in school lunches, they're already going to be required to comply with the law. If these ingredients are not in the food, they will not have to comply with the labeling piece anyway. Is that correct?

CURRY: I do understand it that way. I think the question is whether there are derivatives of them or not and, honestly, whether the list is complete and accurate and whether we should be making law by using something that we haven't had a broad enough opportunity for the stakeholders to be involved with.

HARRIS DAVILA: Well, I appreciate your concern. I'll just add I've had a lot of conversations with stakeholders on my bill, that I coordinated with Senator Hughes on, with making our school lunches healthy again, and I'm more than happy to provide you with the studies that go through these ingredients and why we need to label them and how harmful they are.

CURRY: I appreciate that.

HULL: Where do I start with the flat-out half-truths, mistruths, and lies that were just spread? Blue Bell is not carved out of this bill, and to insinuate what was just insinuated here is incredibly wrong. Actually, they have been working––because of this bill, have started to work to already remove some of these chemicals from their products, and they are still unhappy with the list that is in the bill. So to say that Blue Bell is carved out is a flat-out lie. Also, the entire committee voted on this bill, and I, along with Senator Kolkhorst, have been working this entire session to talk to members and stakeholders. So to pretend like nobody has any clue––also, this is probably one of the most heavily lobbied bills. So to pretend that nobody has any clue is absolutely ridiculous. Now, this amendment is to turn it into a study. I believe the study has already been done. It's been done on our children and on the American people for decades. And based on the state of our nation and our state's health, I would say we already have our answer. We don't need to do a stupid study. The study has been done on the American people.

[Representative Hull moved to table Amendment No. 16.]

CURRY: I don't believe that getting the facts straight is stupid. And I do believe that bringing the stakeholders to the table in a reasonable amount of time is smart. I think that's the responsible thing for us to do. I appreciate all the hard work to make Texas healthy again. I certainly want that as well. I just want to do it the right way.

[The motion to table was lost by Record No. 3528.]

[Representative M. González raised a point of order against further consideration of CSSB 25 under Rule 4, Section 18, and Rule 4, Section 32(b)(9), of the House Rules. The point of order was withdrawn.]

HULL: Once again, our children and the American people have been the study. This amendment guts the entire bill and the purpose of the entire bill. I know the lobby is right outside those doors. I know the lobby, the "Big Food" lobby, is the one who brought this amendment. They are terrified of labeling. This is not anti-business that they are trying to make it out to be. This is pro-transparency, pro-consumer. We have had enough. Kids are sick. American people are sick. Texans are sick. That has been the study. Please vote no.

CURRY: Just to be very, very clear, I am definitely for making Texas healthy again, but I'm for making good policy based on good decisions. This, in my opinion at least, does not gut the bill at all. If the whole bill is about food labeling, then they should have done a bill about food labeling. This bill has all kinds of educational components. It has all kinds of education requirements on it, even higher education requirements on it, and then a food labeling section that starts on page 8 or 9, maybe 10. I'd have to look and see. But the fact is is that by taking this piece of it into a study, we can get down to what's real. We can get down to what's true and what we should be making law based upon. So make good decisions based upon good information that's factual, that has all the stakeholders involved.

[Amendment No. 16 failed of adoption by Record No. 3529.]

[Amendment No. 17 by VanDeaver, et al. was laid before the house.]

VANDEAVER: I want to, first of all, say that I am supportive of this bill. I'm a joint author of this bill, but in my opinion there is a little fix that needs to be taken care of in the bill. This amendment is a preemption amendment. It relates to the food labeling section of the bill. The bill has a long list of ingredients and additives. I don't know if you've seen the bill or not. On mine it's pages 10, 11, and 12––a lengthy list, and I'm not arguing with that list, but basically saying that any food product that contains those ingredients or additives, it has to be stated on the label. I support that totally. This amendment is not about removing any of those ingredients or additives from that list, but the concern that I'm bringing is we know that President Trump has made it clear that he intends to roll out MAHA initiatives at the federal level. This amendment simply makes it clear that if the Trump administration does that, if we see federal regulations come out that deal with any of these ingredients or additives, then the federal regulation overrides the state regulation in CSSB 25. To be clear, if this bill passes, it will be the law of the land in Texas, and that's great. And if the federal government does nothing, it will still be the law of the land in Texas. But if the federal government enacts other regulations that affect this, we don't need conflicting labeling on our food products.

I agree we want to be very clear when we're labeling our food if there are chemicals in it or additives or ingredients in it that could be harmful or unhealthy, but I think one of the worst things we could do is have such a lengthy label or have two labels that are conflicting with each other; that's only going to confuse the consumer. That's what this amendment is about. It's simply saying we're only going to have one food label, it's going to be very concise and clear, and it's going to inform the decisions of the consumer. And that's really the goal of this bill, and that's the goal of this amendment.

HARRIS DAVILA: I just have a few clarifying questions on the amendment. My first question is, would this be giving state power over to the federal government in any way? Would your amendment be doing that in any way?

VANDEAVER: No. This does not give the state any power over the federal government.

HARRIS DAVILA: I was asking in reverse, sorry. Giving the federal government more power over the State of Texas?

VANDEAVER: No, we have preemption in a lot of areas. If the federal government enacts legislation that is in conflict with state law, that's not unusual. And again, the key is to streamline and to be very clear to clarify the label. That's the ultimate goal.

HARRIS DAVILA: Got you. And then, just another clarifying question. In your amendment it says that a federal law, regulation, or guidance issued by the United States Food and Drug Administration or the USDA could have an effect on this list of ingredients. Can you give us a little more background? What does it mean by guidance? I know, obviously, federal law is something that Congress would enact, but when we're talking about guidance, what exactly would that look like for an agency to issue guidance on something?

VANDEAVER: Well, it could be FDA, it could be USDA; it's not unusual. We know that RFK is very involved right now in trying to help us have healthy food. So it could be something from the FDA, but it could be any of those things.

HARRIS DAVILA: So are you aware that a mid-level bureaucrat in either of these agencies could issue guidance and that they could do so within a month if they wanted to?

VANDEAVER: I certainly don't think that is the intent of this amendment. I don't believe that we would envision that, as you say, a mid-level bureaucrat would be able to. I would assume that if it comes out of the FDA, that the secretary of that agency is going to know what's coming out.

HARRIS DAVILA: Well, I have some more details on the guidance section, but I just also want to get clarification. If the Food and Drug Administration or the USDA says that one ingredient on this list is not bad, then does that make the entire ingredient list moot under your amendment?

VANDEAVER: No. No, it does not, and I don't envision the feds saying that one ingredient is not bad. What I envision would be that different levels might be required, different labeling, formats might be required—but no. Each ingredient and each additive would stand on their own.

HARRIS DAVILA: Could you understand a concern that a mid-level bureaucrat could put out guidance on all of these ingredients before this law even goes into effect, making this law completely moot by its effective date in Texas?

VANDEAVER: I don't see that as a possibility. We can run with all kinds of theories that people might be bad actors in some way, but I really don't think that's a realistic concern.

HARRIS DAVILA: Are you aware that the State of Texas has passed different regulations that are outside of USDA regulation and FDA regulation when it comes to all sorts of food-related things like custom meat processing?

VANDEAVER: I'm not advised.

HARRIS DAVILA: Are you aware that in Texas we do permit custom slaughtering of livestock for personal consumption, but the USDA does not? Are you aware of that?

VANDEAVER: I don't know that that's an accurate statement. I believe that as long as USDA inspects for human consumption and for retail sale, I believe that that is all that's necessary.

HARRIS DAVILA: I've got the law right in front of me. Are you aware that the FDA has oversight over certain other food and safety labeling standards, but that this body passed a law earlier this session preempting Texas from having to obey those regulations the federal government put in place?

VANDEAVER: I'm not advised.

HARRIS DAVILA: Are you concerned that this might conflict with the healthy Texas food bill that we already passed that bans some of these ingredients from being put in school lunches? And are you concerned that this could create a patchwork of what ingredients Texas allows, what ingredients should be labeled, what we're banning, what we're not based on, again, just some guidance from a mid-level bureaucrat in Washington, D.C.?

VANDEAVER: No. I think what this amendment does is actually prevent the patchwork and prevent the confusion that might come with different labels where one is banned and one is not banned. What this amendment is doing—let's be very clear—what this amendment is doing is clarifying what must be on the label. It's clarifying that food products only need one label, and it's helping the consumer make healthy decisions, which is the spirit of this bill.

HARRIS DAVILA: I'm looking at the language of the amendment, and I just, again, just want a little bit more clarification. So it says that Section 431.0815 has no effect if for a specific ingredient––so one ingredient––is determined safe by the FDA or the USDA. To me that reads that if just one ingredient on that list is considered safe, then Section 431.0815 has no effect, and that's the entire section with all the ingredients.

VANDEAVER: No, I don't believe that is the case. I don't believe that's an accurate interpretation of the amendment.

HARRIS DAVILA: Okay. Well, I'm reading it, and I appreciate you answering my questions.

REPRESENTATIVE DARBY: Representative VanDeaver, I know our time is limited here, but what's the practical effect of your amendment?

VANDEAVER: It brings clarity. As I said, we know that the Trump administration is coming out with healthy standards and a MAHA from the federal level. The goal of this amendment is to bring clarity to the labeling process. It's to allow food manufacturers to have some certainty when they're labeling these food products that they're not going to have to choose between a state requirement and a federal requirement and choose which one they're going to disobey. Furthermore, it's to make the labeling very clear for the consumer. We cannot expect consumers to read through two or three labels. Think about when you get a prescription from the pharmacist and you get this long list of all of these warnings and side effects. Nobody reads those. The label needs to be very concise, very clear, and to help allay some of this confusion that we see with consumers.

DARBY: Does this amendment remove any labeling requirements that already exist in CSSB 25?

VANDEAVER: Absolutely not. This does not remove anything that's in CSSB 25. Again, I'm a joint author of CSSB 25, I support CSSB 25. I commend Senator Kolkhorst and Chair Hull. Texas is leading the nation in trying to make our citizens healthy again.

HULL: I have to oppose this and ask to move to table. The White House––I've spoken with them. They want this bill. They want the states to act. The entire point of this bill is because of decades of federal inaction. I'm hopeful the feds will take action. They have already started banning some food dyes, in which case they wouldn't have to be labeled in this bill because they would not be allowed to be in the food itself, so therefore the label would not apply. I know that HEB, who brought this amendment, only sells in one state, so they aren't worried about a patchwork regulatory environment. In fact, they comply with the Mexican government requiring them to add warning label stickers to everything they ship into Mexico from Texas. They can do it for Mexican citizens, so they can do it for Texans.

Federal preemption is another attempt to kill this bill and prevent it or any change from happening, just like they've done in D.C. for years. I know that ending federal overreach is an RPT platform issue, but again, this is a bipartisan issue. Democratic and republican parents are sick and tired of this. This amendment is Texas giving our rights away to D.C. None of us ran for office to take direction from congressmen in Chicago, New York, Seattle, San Francisco. Texas is not waiting. That's why I brought this bill.

[Representative Hull moved to table Amendment No. 17.]

VANDEAVER: Members, I hope this bill becomes law, and as Chair Hull said, the White House is very interested in this, and they take this to Washington, and they just make this theirs. If that's the case, this amendment does absolutely nothing. This amendment is about bringing clarity in case it does get there and Trump decides he wants to change something, and now we have conflicting regulations. Members, I ask you to stay with me on this and vote two on the motion to table.

[The motion to table was lost by Record No. 3530.]

HULL: Once again, this undoes the bill. Part of the language undoes it. The other part is completely unnecessary. If an ingredient is banned by the federal government, it cannot be in any of these food items; therefore, the label would not apply. If the federal government creates their own label, that automatically preempts our label. Once again, the White House wants this. They would not want something that is sitting here going to create all of this discussion of this patchwork and all of that. They know that if they create a label, it preempts ours. Please, please vote no. The rest of that part of the amendment guts the bill.

VANDEAVER: In all due respect, and I truly mean that to Chair Hull, I do not see how this amendment guts this bill. This is simply bringing clarity to our food labeling process. Therefore, I ask you to vote yes on this amendment.

[Amendment No. 17 was adopted by Record No. 3531.]

[Amendment No. 18 by Curry was laid before the house.]

CURRY: This is simply a clarifying amendment. It does not gut the bill. It does not change the intentions of the bill. It simply ensures that the restaurant supply chain, wholesale and commercial restaurant food products remain exempt from labeling requirements. And just to be clear, the reality is they're not in that business, and it's not clear in the bill as to how this should be handled, and consequently, again, it just needs to be dealt with and clarified.

HULL: Restaurants are already exempt from this bill. Anything that a restaurant gives out is exempt. If a distributor opens up a wholesale retail store, then there isn't much difference between them and Costco. So I am not going to take an amendment that could create an entire giant loophole in this bill. Again, restaurants and anything that restaurants give out are exempt, and the lobbyists that brought him this know it. I'm not allowing a loophole to be created. Please vote no.

CURRY: Without this amendment some distributors who are not manufacturers will be inadvertently pulled into labeling requirements in CSSB 25. I strongly suggest that you approve this amendment. It's a clarifying amendment. It's very simple. It was discussed before, and for some reason they just don't want to talk about it. I'm telling you, please accept this amendment.

[Amendment No 18 failed of adoption by Record No. 3532.]

[Amendment No. 19 by J. Jones was laid before the house.]

J. JONES: This amendment is what I call the food desert mitigation and delayed enforcement in support of communities in food deserts amendment. The purpose of this amendment is to make sure we don't unintentionally harm the very people this bill says it wants to help. It protects families living in USDA-designated food deserts from immediately losing access to the limited food they can get simply because those foods may not meet the new labeling requirements. Members, here's the reality. It costs more money to buy healthy food. Poor people often don't have that money, and not only do they not have the money, they don't have grocery stores in their neighborhoods. That's why they're called food deserts. And on top of that, they don't have transportation to get to the grocery stores that do carry healthier food options. So when this bill removes the food they can afford and access and tells them to go somewhere else to buy something healthier that costs more, we're setting them up and their families for failure. We're forcing people to chase food they can't afford, can't find nearby, and can't get to.

Let me be clear, while I believe the aspirations of this bill are noble, they are not realistic for Texans living in food deserts. This amendment ensures that, number one, the department identifies food deserts using USDA data. Number two, retailers in those areas receive technical assistance and grants to comply with the new law. Number three, the state works on a plan to preserve food access, not just enforce penalties. Number four, there's a short grace period until January 1, 2028, for these specific areas to come into compliance. And it still allows the attorney general to enforce the law everywhere else. This is not a loophole; this is a lifeline. Without this amendment, we are punishing the poorest Texans and their children for being too poor to comply with our policy vision, too isolated to reach a grocery store, and too under-resourced to meet a mandate they had no say in. I move adoption of this amendment, and if the bill's author moves to table, as she has with the other amendments, I respectfully ask that you vote no on the motion to table. Vote to protect working families. Vote to protect hungry kids. Please vote for this amendment.

HULL: I know this is the second amendment on food deserts, and while I understand and I share those concerns and know that those need to be addressed, that is not what this bill is about. That is not germane, and so I ask that you please vote to table this amendment.

[Representative Hull moved to table Amendment No. 19.]

J. JONES: Actually, it actually is germane, and I ask for you to vote no on the motion to table.

[The motion to table prevailed by Record No. 3533.]

[Representative Collier raised a point of order against further consideration of CSSB 25 under Rule 8, Section 1(b), of the House Rules on the grounds that the caption does not provide proper notice of the imposition, authorization, increase, or change of tax, assessment, surcharge, or fee. The point of order was withdrawn.]

WU: I don't relish speaking against this bill. I actually had high hopes for this bill when it was announced because some of the issues, especially dealing with chemicals, dealing with additives, are things that are important to me, and I've talked about those issues for a long time. What I did not expect was that this bill would turn into such a beast. That there would be so many musts and shalls just jammed down everyone's throats. If you look at all the things that are in this bill, a requirement that schools do this and that without providing any additional funding, saying you have to go back to this, you have to provide extra time. What happens to that time? Students right now are already short on time to study. We talk about how much time they spend on testing. If we pull an extra half an hour from here and there, where does that come out of? There is a set amount of time students have every day. Students have to make choices on what they take. We say, don't worry about it; just do it. The fiscal note does not even dig into what the school districts have to do. In fact, the fiscal note says there will be a local impact because the schools will have to implement all this stuff, but we don't know how much it's going to cost. We don't know how many employees they're going to have to devote to this. We don't know how much classroom time they're going to have to do to take care of it. But they have to do it.

The bill before we fixed it had a requirement that every single college student must take this course. That is incredible. It's beyond what I imagined. But at the same time that this bill goes too far, at the same time a lot of it that is in here does nothing. The formation of this committee––if you look on pages 8 and 9, you look at what this committee is designed to do, what they are supposed to do, it's supposed to provide independent review of scientific studies analyzing the effects of ultra-processed foods. No need, I've done it for you. A five-minute Google search will provide you with every scientific study on this topic. And then it says we need to develop an understanding of all these studies and see what all these studies say. No need. Here it is right here, a comprehensive meta-study of all the other studies and data sets saying what the results are. Point four says, could you provide us nutritional guidelines on what we're supposed to do? What does the FDA do? Those guidelines have been out for decades. What is the point of this committee? I've done all the work that's detailed in here with a Google search.

Here is what's most frustrating to me. The things that actually affect childhood obesity, that actually affect the things that Representative Hull has talked about, those things are being ignored. Twice during this debate, members offered amendments about food deserts. If you know anything about this policy area, food deserts are one of the top items of why there is an epidemic of obesity across our nation. Because poor communities have no access to non-processed foods. Because those communities have no access to grocery stores. They have no access to good, fresh meat, seafood, vegetables, fruits. So what do they eat? They eat trash. They eat junk food. They eat whatever they can buy for $0.75, for $1.65. You know what those things are. You buy them on the way home. You feel guilty about eating them. But imagine if that was your diet every single day. That is significant for our children. You go and talk to teachers. Teachers talk about kids will just bring a bag of Takis to class for lunch, and that is their lunch. Instead of this bill, what we should have had is saying we're going to provide school districts money to make sure that every child has a free lunch and that every free lunch will contain fresh meat from Texas, fresh vegetables from Texas, fresh grains, fresh dairy from Texas, and to make sure that our kids have access to the foods that will not kill them. That's what this bill should have been. Instead, we have overreach and ineffective. I think we can do better than this. I'm asking us to vote this down, not because the intention is bad or the idea is bad, but I think throughout this whole process it's been muddled, it's been confused, and I think we've lost the game. I think we should come back with fresh eyes next time and actually work on a bill that actually matches the intent and meets the goals of what we're trying to set out. I urge you to vote no.

HOWARD: I'll be brief. This, I think, took much longer than any of us anticipated. Clearly, this is something that is of interest to all of us. And I'm actually very pleased that we are doing something to try to address, whether this is the right way to do it or not, the health of our society because we always talk about the fact that we have an illness system rather than a wellness system. I think this, the intention of this bill anyway, is to be looking at how do we actually do things that will make a difference in the health care system and get people healthier. Y'all know that I'm a nurse. You may not know that I have a master's in health education and that a lot of my work was in patient and community health education. Decades ago, I helped set up the Seton GoodHealth school. This is not rocket science, and this is nothing new.

We've known for a long, long time that there are a lot of factors that impact our health and that the chronic diseases that plague our society are the result of a lot of these factors, including food. I know Dr. Oliverson has been talking a lot in the past couple of sessions about food as medicine. Clearly we know this is an issue. I'm very pleased with what Chair Hull has done with looking at the social determinants of health, the nonmedical drivers, whatever you want to call them, that now we have in our Thriving Texas Families program, where we're actually assessing what is going on in people's lives that we could do that would help them get to a healthier place. We know it's not just medicine. We know it's not just drugs. And clearly food is a big part of it. Though I would like to see some things done differently, which I will say that a lot of the democratic amendments you heard today were very sincerely put before you because we thought that there were things we could do that could make the bill better, take advantage of what was happening with this bill. But the fact is I am going to be supporting this bill. I think it takes us in a good direction. I would like to see much more done. I hope that we will do that. But what we do in terms of providing healthy food alternatives for all Texans, including those that are in food deserts, including our children that go to our schools, will make a long-term difference in their health and well-being. So I am here to say I am going to be voting for this bill.

HULL: I appreciate Representative Howard, the other democrats in this chamber, and the democrats in the senate because it was a bipartisan effort. This came out of the senate 31 to 0. Again, this is democrats and republicans coming together to say we have had enough. RFK Jr. just called me and Senator Kolkhorst and said they want this bill. This is the best bill in the entire nation. They are watching, and they want us to pass this bill. Members, this is about transparency. This is about informing consumers to make healthy choices for their kids. This truly is David versus Goliath. The mountain that we are up against here, I know. But Texas is standing up to "Big Food" on behalf of our children, and the whole nation is watching.

[CSSB 25, as amended, was passed to third reading by Record No. 3534.]