Senators debate process for House Bill 444 before adopting favorable report

On Feb. 10 the Senate’s Judicial Proceedings calendar took up House Bill 444, an emergency measure prohibiting the State, local governments, county sheriffs and certain officials from entering immigration-enforcement agreements. The committee chair described the bill as identical to a Senate cross-file and reported it favorably to the floor.

The Minority Leader rose to question the committee’s process, asking, "I understand that this house bill did not have a committee hearing. Is that accurate?" He pressed that a bill of this importance ordinarily requires a hearing to allow public participation and asked why the bill was placed on a voting session without a Senate hearing. The chair responded that the committee followed Rule 37 and had sought guidance from the attorney general, concluding the policy was consistent with the rule and that notice exceeded 48 hours.

The exchange continued with senators expressing concern that treating cross-filed measures as "considered" without a separate Senate hearing risks reducing public input. One senator urged caution and suggested pausing to see whether related developments (cited in national contexts) made immediate emergency action less necessary. The chair said no discernible drawdown or cooperation changes had materialized in the cited case and supported moving forward.

After the exchange the transcript records the committee’s favorable report as adopted "without objection" and House Bill 444 was ordered printed for third reading. The transcript does not capture additional amendments to the bill text during this floor sequence; it records the procedural debate about how cross-filed measures are processed and the committee chair’s claim that the committee followed existing policy and legal guidance.