At a committee meeting, senators advanced legislation to create a Department of Tourism, saying a centralized agency would help market the state and better track the return on tourism spending.

The measure—largely unchanged from a version that passed both chambers in the previous session but was not signed by the governor due to budget concerns—was presented and discussed by committee members and tourism stakeholders. The chair urged members to read a recently released peer report on tourism advertising and noted the committee will visit a tourism facility in Jackson at 12:30 p.m. for an invite-only tour and lunch.

"Our new culinary campaign ... is talking about all of our culinary assets," a tourism representative said, describing recent initiatives that included regional culinary promotion and attention from Michelin-related coverage in the Southeast. Several senators said the statewide marketing approach could reduce parochial competition and encourage visitors to extend stays across regions such as the coast, Hattiesburg and Tupelo.

Senator England gave a lengthy defense of the proposal on fiscal grounds, saying tourism professionals are "very number centric, and they can tell you, to the cent what the investment on every dollar that we spend on tourism is," and arguing a specialized department would place spending decisions with officials who can measure returns and report back to the Legislature.

A committee member noted that recent government-structure consolidations reduced the risk that the bill would expand government and moved the legislation "sufficient to pass." The motion was seconded (speaker not specified) and the committee approved advancing the bill by voice vote; the transcript does not record a roll-call tally. The chair said, "This will be moving forward." The committee is expected to transmit its recommendation as the bill proceeds through the legislative process.

Officials and stakeholders emphasized outreach to all regions of the state and noted prior legislative attempts in 2019 that produced similar language but stalled on budget concerns. Funding details, the precise vote tally, and a return timeline for the committee to a floor or calendar vote were not specified in the transcript.