Panel deadlocks on amendment to change cosmetology training hours; bill discussion continues

Representative Westco opened debate on House Bill 13‑29, saying industry letters support a 1,000‑hour program but criticizing one opposing letter for relying on what he called inaccurate Texas complaint figures. "Someone did not take their time to do their research," he said, adding that when measured properly consumer complaints "have remained steady or decreased."

The committee then considered a chairman's amendment, offered in coordination with Representative Cash, to set required training at 1,251 hours rather than 1,000. Cash said she supported the higher number because of a financial‑aid trigger: "I had agreed to vote yes on the bill if it went to 12:50 because based on the testimony that was previously heard, my understanding was that full financial aid could be captured at 12:50... the final financial aid kicks in at 12 after they've completed 1250 hours."

Other members objected to reducing hours from the current 1,500. Representative Morris said he had "great concern with your amendment" and urged attention to whether schools can cover the full curriculum in fewer hours: "Right now at 15, 1500 hours, it takes them about 9 months to complete the school. So we now are are just imagining we're gonna we're gonna hit 1251 hours... can these schools actually educate these people in $1,200? And what exactly does that entail, mister chairman? Is it is it hair only? Is it waxing?"

Representative Garcia Wilburn echoed concerns that a lower-hour standard would narrow training breadth: "a lot of the, retail spaces that representative Westco mentioned, in fact, majority of them only cut hair. Right? So we're not talking about coloring and highlighting and chemicals." Several members also noted repeated sessions of cosmetology bills and said students previously urged more—not fewer—training hours.

The roll call on the chairman's amendment produced five yes votes (Representative Venator; Representative Hostetler; Representative Issa; Representative Cash; Representative Payne) and five no votes (Representative Morris; Representative Genda; Representative Mosley; Representative Bartlett; Representative Garcia Wilburn). The chair held the vote open for additional members but the amendment "does not move forward" after the tally remained effectively tied and the committee proceeded to other business. The underlying bill remained under consideration; the committee did not adopt the 1,251‑hour amendment.

Ending: Committee debate focused on balancing federal financial‑aid thresholds and the scope of cosmetology training. Lawmakers opposed to reducing hours stressed vocational breadth and student testimony asking for more hours; supporters cited access to aid and industry input. No final change to the bill was adopted in committee on the amendment discussed during this meeting.