Transcript Highlights:

• First of all, one of the things that I was concerned about was the retroactive, and we've dealt with
• Uh, this last line here deals with the retroactive.
• and we've dealt with was the retroactive and we've dealt with that.<00:46:02.640> Uh<00:46:02.960
• Uh this last line here deals with the<00:46:04.480> retroactive.
• If somebody's on a the retroactive.

Keywords: 1136, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So the trailer bill change is not so much retroactive in our view as it is re-committing the state to
• The trailer bill applies retroactively to 30,000 open, non-final Applies retroactively to 30,000 open
• Retroactive changes tied to prior findings cannot be revisited.
• What I really would like to point out is one deep, deep concern we have with the retroactivity application
• labor agency about what I really would like to point out one deep, deep concern we have with the retroactivity

Summary: The subcommittee heard a series of budget and trailer bill presentations focused on labor and public employment programs. The first item covered EDD Next modernization, where EDD described progress on customer service improvements, fraud prevention, language access, and the Integrated Claims Management System. The LAO urged stronger legislative oversight as the project enters its most difficult phase, and members questioned the revised schedule, total cost, change orders, stress testing, SB 1090 implementation, and how race and ethnicity data will be protected. EDD said the overall project cost remains about $1.2 billion, that the work is being phased with disability insurance and paid family leave first, and that fraud has been greatly reduced since pandemic-era programs ended. Members also asked for follow-up information on SB 590 outreach and equity impacts. The committee then reviewed the California Workforce Development Board’s request to reduce staffing as one-time grant workloads wind down, along with trailer bill language to streamline reporting requirements. The board and Department of Finance said the staffing reductions reflect the end of surge funding and that the proposal would consolidate roughly 10 to 12 reports into one annual report, with additional reporting only if new funds are appropriated for certain programs. Senator Durazo questioned the policy direction of reducing workforce staffing, while the administration said the positions were tied to temporary grant programs and that current staffing is sufficient for ongoing duties. Members also asked about the board’s role in AI-related workforce planning and the rationale for using state funds for the High Road Construction Careers Program. A major portion of the hearing focused on the Subsequent Injury Benefits Trust Fund reforms and related staffing request at DIR. The administration and LAO described rapid growth in applications, backlog, and liabilities, saying the program’s eligibility has expanded beyond its original intent and that liabilities could reach about $30 billion by 2030 without reform. The trailer bill would tighten eligibility, apply the changes to open cases, and use the QME process and contemporaneous evidence to document preexisting disabilities. Members raised concerns about fairness to pending claimants, evaluator capacity, and the relationship to other SIBTF legislation, while the LAO said the proposal largely aligns with its prior recommendations. DIR also presented a request to eliminate vacant positions under a statewide vacancy sweep, which drew criticism from members who argued the cuts could weaken enforcement and backlog reduction efforts; the committee asked DIR to return with more detail on impacts and on its use of temporary-help authority. The final items addressed a request for additional Cal/OSHA investigative staff and a trailer bill to make permanent the revised Workers’ Compensation Appeals Board petition timeline. DIR said the BOI staffing would help investigate fatalities and serious injuries more quickly, while members emphasized the importance of family contact and timely investigations. For the WCAB item, the chair explained that the 2024 change to Labor Code section 5909, which starts the 60-day decision clock when a case is transmitted rather than when a petition is filed, has reduced pending cases and should be made permanent; the remaining backlog was reported at 460 cases, down from 637 before the change.

Transcript Highlights:

• The bill is not retroactive. It is prospective, going forward.
• Explicitly, it is not retroactive.
• It was not retroactive. Mr.
• The bill is not retroactive.
• There's no retroactivity on the tax exemption.

Bills: HJR175, HJR88, HB21, HB49, HB216, HB346, HB573, HB565, HB954, HB1953, HB2686, HB1441, HB2734, HB1650, HB3161, HB2876, HB3185, HB3388, HB2761, HB3233, HB 1186, HB1534, HB5506, HB5129, HB3619, HB778, HB2867, HB3221, HB3672, HB2434, HB4903, HB3687, HB3675, HB4609, HB4582, HB4921, HB3866, HB3901, HB4534, HB2446, HB3984, HB700, HB4012, HB4491, HB4088, HB229, HB4234, HB722, HB4136, HB4105, HB4413, HB170, HB551, HB2858, HB3053, HB3142, HB3180, HB3722, HB2200, HB1794, HB1784, HB1581, HB2530, HB4308, HB1896, HB2974, HB3359, HB4580, HB2458, HB2215, HB3332, HB2278, HB3015, HB3151, HB1368, HCR9, HCR40, HB5138, SB17, HB4944, HB2284, HB3421, SB1569, SB2420, SB1968, SB2351, SB2544, SB1490, SB1349, SB1568, SB2776, HB3531, HB2149, HB4327, HB3158, HB3717, HB4520, SB888, SB552, HB3138, HB3704, HB2921, HB4853, HB4506, HB3892, HJR161, HJR175, HJR88, HB1937, HB3334, HB5444, HB5137, HB361, HB321, HB5447, HB464, HB678, HB2294, HB4172, HB3225, HB1769, HB5394, HB1837, HB1787, HB2271, HB2440, HB5134, HB5149, HB2151, HB2073, HB2186, HB2025, HB1936, HB1777, HB1663, HB 1306, HB 1290, HB1527, HB4802, HB3462, HB2963, HB2462, HB2560, HB644, HB2725, HB2621, HB2588, HB1443, HB1403, HB3032, HB1557, HB1664, HB2811, HB2088, HB2598, HB3062, HB3134, HB3940, HB4027, HB4097, HB4862, HB4170, HB4157, HB4205, HB4279, HB4377, HB4838, HB5424, HB5294, HB4870, HB4763, HB5639, HB4112, HB2275, HB1677, HB5014, HB3848, HB3797, HB3727, HB3709, HB3177, HB3057, HB4176, HB4202, HB2180, HB3528, HB3658, HB21, HB49, HB216, HB346, HB573, HB565, HB954, HB1953, HB2686, HB1441, HB2734, HB1650, HB3161, HB2876, HB3185, HB3388, HB2761, HB3233, HB 1186, HB1534, HB5506, HB5129, HB3619, HB778, HB2867, HB3221, HB3672, HB2434, HB4903, HB3687, HB3675, HB4609, HB4582, HB4921, HB3866, HB3901, HB4534, HB2446, HB3984, HB700, HB4012, HB4491, HB4088, HB229, HB4234, HB722, HB4136, HB4105, HB4413, HB170, HB551, HB2858, HB3053, HB3142, HB3180, HB3722, HB2200, HB1794, HB1784, HB1581, HB2530, HB4308, HB1896, HB2974, HB3359, HB4580, HB2458, HB2215, HB3332, HB2278, HB3015, HB3151, HB1368, HCR76, HCR127, HCR9, HCR40

Keywords: constitutional amendment, medium of exchange, currency rights, digital currency, financial autonomy, tax exemption, rainwater harvesting, graywater system, local government, ad valorem taxation, housing finance, multifamily residential, low income, audit requirements, affordable housing, development bonds, oil waste, gas waste, liability, treatment processes

Transcript Highlights:

• There are also some provisions around really honing in on reducing retroactive eligibility, which we're
• currently in Florida, we allow pregnant women and children under 21 years of age to have 3 months of retroactive
• So we will have to align that to provide only 2 months of retroactive coverage.
• The retroactive coverage that will remain the same were not required to increase that we can have a more

Transcript Highlights:

• within six months of the expiration of the applicable limitations repose period, and will add non-retroactivity
• <00:03:34.560> non- repose period and will add non- repose period and will add non- retroactivity
• <00:03:37.120> Um<00:03:37.360> and retroactivity language as well.
• Um and retroactivity language as well.

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The Judiciary Committee first deferred HB 239, which would have narrowed the definition of child abuse or neglect by excluding cases where a caregiver is unable to provide certain needs solely because of poverty or lack of resources. The chair said other similar bills were still alive and expressed concern that carving out a specific category of abuse could hinder monitoring of children being harmed for other reasons. The committee then took up several decision-making items. HB 420, dealing with the contractor repair act and construction defect claims, was recommended for passage with extensive amendments that would clarify statutes of repose and limitations, define substantial completion, remove homeowner expert-report requirements, delete class-action limits, set timelines for inspections, mediation, and settlement procedures, and add non-retroactivity language; it passed unanimously. HB 732, concerning special management area minor permits for certain single-family residences, was also passed with amendments after the committee removed the provision that would have expanded minor-permit eligibility for homes under 3,500 square feet. HB 1017, repealing the greenhouse gas sequestration task force, passed with amendments to make it effective upon approval. HB 958, which restricts children under 15 from riding class 3 electric bicycles and raises the helmet age requirement, passed with technical amendments only. The committee also considered Governor’s Message 689, the nomination of Melissa Sautello to the Commission on the Status of Women. After testimony in support and questions from members about financial disclosure and her views on women’s sports and transgender participation, the committee voted to advise and consent to the nomination. The nomination passed, and the committee adjourned after noting that a full Senate vote would follow.

Transcript Highlights:

• there were multiple different ones depending on which policy, so the one that we chose with the retroactive
• 088 was the policy that we chose with 088 was the policy that we chose with the<00:21:28.720> retroactive
• the retroactive the retroactive payment<00:21:31.799> are<00:21:31.960> there<00:21

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• were to not have this, then it would essentially, I guess, make an argument to seek those funds retroactively
• I guess make an argument to seek those funds retroactively, and some of those funds may not be available
• It also allows the effects of certain provisions to operate retroactively to earlier dates.

Summary: The Finance and Tax Committee met with a quorum present and took up two bills. The first, SPB 7046, was the Senate tax package. It included changes to Live Local property tax opt-outs, charter school distributions from voter-approved property tax levies, RV park special assessments, fiscally constrained county funding, a permanent sales tax exemption for small propane tanks, a hunting/fishing/camping sales tax holiday, and provisions barring governmental net zero policies. An amendment made the charter-school distribution change prospective starting July 1, 2026. Committee discussion focused heavily on whether the charter-school language would divert money from traditional public schools and on the fiscal-constrained county formula. The bill was reported favorably as a committee bill after a roll call vote, with Senators Bernard and Jones voting no. The committee also considered SPB 7048, which updates Florida’s conformity to the Internal Revenue Code as of January 1, 2026 and partially decouples from federal tax changes in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The bill addresses bonus depreciation, research and experimental expenses, business meal deductions, and the business interest deduction, with the Revenue Estimating Conference expected to review the fiscal impact later in the week. The Florida Chamber testified that the bill should better align with federal tax relief and reduce administrative burdens, while senators emphasized the need to balance business tax relief with state revenue constraints. SPB 7048 was also reported favorably as a committee bill by roll call vote.

Transcript Highlights:

• "Okay, so that clears up the retroactive thing. Okay, good question, good answer."
• "Okay, so that clears up the retroactive thing. Okay, good question, good answer."
• "Okay, so that clears up the retroactive thing. Okay, good question, good answer."
• not retroactive. not retroactive.
• Okay, so that clears up the retroactive Okay, so that clears up the retroactive thing.<02:48:02.000

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Uh, the retroactive period. As Senator Coleman-Madison and I were discussing that earlier.
• Uh, the retroactive period. As Senator Coleman-Madison and I were discussing that earlier.

Bills: HB169, HB169

Keywords: education trust fund, appropriations, budget, fiscal year 2026, public education, K-12, pre-K, early childhood education, community colleges, higher education, Alabama Community College System, teacher pay, teacher stipend, school nurses, literacy, numeracy, reading coaches, math and science teachers, career and technical education, CTE

Transcript Highlights:

• Within the next month, we will begin piloting retroactive review process and looking at how it works
• be fully implemented for those coming into the system, and we will be continuing the process of retroactive
• Within the next month, we will begin piloting retroactive review process and looking at how it works
• We will begin piloting retroactive review process and looking at how it works to find the key takeaways
• So did the law work retroactively so that people who maybe were on probation for 10 years and were already

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on several bills and a Department of Corrections budget overview. On Senate File 9, Senator Rest explained a bipartisan campaign finance refund bill that had previously moved through the Elections Committee and the tax bill process. Members asked about the $10 minimum contribution threshold for reporting and refund eligibility, and Rest said it was a reasonable number suggested by Senator Karan to make the system more efficient. The bill also included data practices language classifying certain refund-related information as private data, with a separate nonpublic classification noted for receipt validation reports. The committee voted to recommend the bill to pass and re-refer it to the Taxes Committee. The committee then took up Senate File 11, a sales tax exemption for firearm safety devices such as trigger locks and gun safes. Rest described the bill as an extension of prior tax exemptions and clarified that it does not apply to the firearm itself. An A1 clarifying amendment defining “government entity” by reference to statute was adopted. Members discussed the bill’s scope and data privacy language, including a provision making purchase or transfer information private if collected by a government entity. The committee then voted to recommend the amended bill to pass and re-refer it to the Taxes Committee. Next, the committee heard Senate File 456, a bill to update Minnesota’s drug statutes to address fentanyl more directly. Anoka County Assistant County Attorney Sebastian Mesa and Senator Oumou Verbeten testified in support, arguing that fentanyl has become more dangerous than methamphetamine and that the law needs to be updated to give prosecutors a better tool. Members discussed overdose trends and whether more recent statistics were available; one member noted 2023 fentanyl deaths exceeded 1,000, while another said national fatal overdoses had declined since mid-2023. The bill was laid over, with the committee noting it would wait for fiscal analysis before further action. Finally, Commissioner Paul Schnell gave an overview of the Department of Corrections, describing its mission, staffing, prison population, community supervision responsibilities, and budget context. He emphasized rehabilitation, evidence-based practices, reentry support, and the public safety benefits of reducing recidivism. No vote was taken on the department presentation.

Transcript Highlights:

• House Bill 210 by Representative Melorine is an act to amend Title 42 relative to retroactivity to provide
• It gives the person retroactive protection. That's what this bill does.
• So you're trying from a retroactive standpoint?
• It's an act to amend Title 42 relative to retroactivity to provide for effectiveness. Yes. Okay.
• It just applies retroactively. That's what this bill does. Okay, amendments.

Bills: SR125, SCR70, SCR12, HB4, HB251, HB623, HB819, HB944, HB986, HB1098, HB1222, HB1257, HB221, HCR58, SCR22, SCR24, SB29, SB30, SB32, SB41, SB42, SB43, SB47, SB84, SB93, SB113, SB192, SB199, SB219, SB220, SB221, SB222, SB241, SB253, SB255, SB289, SB292, SB306, SB314, SB351, SB399, SB404, SB14, SB102, SB133, SB151, SB165, SB169, SB170, SB200, SB217, SB280, SB291, SB300, SB303, SB330, SB449, SB489, SB521, SB45, SB156, SB181, SB203, SB274, SB304, SB379, SB396, SB410, SB425, SB427, SB436, SB424, SCR61, SCR9, SB35, SB65, SB215, SB246, SB249, SB269, SB282, SB296, SB323, SB363, SB369, SB474, SB490, SB492, SB500, HCR31, HB296, HB299, HB322, HB364, HB519, HB535, HB538, HB568, HB571, HB622, HB635, HB676, HB772, HB784, HB1006, HB1018, HB1043, HB1070, HB1134, HB1239, HB62, HB193, HB203, HB210, HB220, HB228, HB246, HB420, HB475, HB486, HB574, HB584, HB750, HB813, HB815, HB826, HB870, HB949, HB953, HB1045, HB1092, HB1151, HB1162, HB1176, HB1177, HB1196, HB1214, HB1241, HB22, HB28, HB33, HB41, HB47, HB87, HB115, HB162, HB195, HB214, HB217, HB233, HB283, HB290, HB319, HB324, HB345, HB362, HB363, HB368, HB377, HB380, HB382, HB386, HB392, HB406, HB431, HB441, HB466, HB503, HB533, HB559, HB575, HB590, HB593, HB618, HB636, HB655, HB664, HB685, HB692, HB707, HB715, HB732, HB738, HB741, HB748, HB776, HB807, HB822, HB856, HB860, HB868, HB887, HB888, HB905, HB908, HB961, HB980, HB990, HB992, HB999, HB1000, HB1010, HB1146, HB1157, HB1233, HB1236, HB1243, HB54, HB137, HB180, HB192, HB310, HB321, HB396, HB512, HB552, HB578, HB638, HB663, HB708, HB717, HB718, HB1009, HB1082, HB1104, HB1107, HB1198, HB1246, HB1250, HB17, HB36, HB73, HB119, HB126, HB129, HB133, HB140, HB159, HB166, HB211, HB226, HB245, HB271, HB280, HB337, HB351, HB354, HB399, HB677, HB712, HB723, HB726, HB728, HB759, HB789, HB844, HB850, HB966, HB1036, SB149, SB382, SB441, HB134, HB258, HB359, HB782

Keywords: SR125, Senate Resolution 125, MUSV, Medium Unmanned Surface Vessel, MASC, Modular Attack Surface Craft, Conrad Shipyard, Morgan City, Louisiana shipbuilding, U.S. Navy, Department of the Navy, unmanned naval vessels, autonomous ships, defense procurement, military contracting, shipyard jobs, maritime workforce, advanced manufacturing, robotics, software engineering

Transcript Highlights:

• , but for regular damages, is that still retroactive?
• So that would be as far back as the retroactivity goes, as I read it.
• And how common is it to have retroactivity on civil liability damages?
• <01:46:12.000> goes as as far back as the retroactivity goes as as far back as the retroactivity
• <01:46:23.280> on have retroactivity on have retroactivity on civil<01:46:24.440> liability

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Do Massachusetts statutes generally grant prospectively or retroactively?
• Generally grant prospectively or retroactively? In your opinion, what does that mean here?
• Well, the SJC has held that unless it specifically says that a statute will apply retroactively, it only
• To anticipate Senator Friedman's possible question about retroactivity, To anticipate Senator Friedman's
• possible question about retroactivity, I don't know that you couldn't, that that office couldn't ask

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The subcommittee hearing focused on whether the Office of the State Auditor may constitutionally audit the Massachusetts Legislature under Chapter 250 of the Acts of 2024 and what such an audit could include under generally accepted government auditing standards. Chair Cindy Friedman opened by explaining the background: voters approved Ballot Question 1 in November 2024, the law took effect in January 2025, and the Auditor then initiated audits of both chambers. The chair said the subcommittee was seeking expert testimony because the proposed audit scope, constitutionality, and possible bias concerns remained unresolved. Public testimony was invited, but no members of the public pre-registered; written testimony remained open for a short period after the hearing. The hearing then proceeded with invited experts on constitutional law/state government and auditing-related issues. Professor Lawrence Friedman testified that the ballot initiative’s approval by the Attorney General and by voters did not resolve constitutional questions, and he argued Chapter 250 violates the Massachusetts Constitution. He said the Legislature has constitutional authority to set its own rules and manage its proceedings, and that an executive-branch audit would intrude on legislative deliberation, speech and debate protections, and separation of powers. He also warned that even audits of supposedly administrative matters could become a vehicle for repeated document demands and litigation that would indirectly burden legislative functioning. In questioning, senators pressed him on the line between administrative and deliberative functions, the role of the Attorney General versus the courts, the possibility of retroactive audit scope, and whether prior legislative consent to audits mattered; he said prior consent would not bind future legislatures and that constitutionality is ultimately for the courts. Professor Ray La Raja also opposed the audit, framing it as a threat to institutional independence and representative democracy. He argued that allowing an executive-branch official to audit the Legislature without consent would upset separation of powers, chill internal debate, and create a precedent for broader executive intrusion. He said voters often support “transparency” reforms without fully appreciating institutional consequences, and that legislatures should defend their autonomy, especially amid what he described as broader executive overreach nationally. Senators asked about chilling effects, the practical distinction between administrative and core legislative functions, and whether the courts or the Legislature should resolve the issue; he said the courts would ultimately adjudicate disputes, but the Legislature should not waive its constitutional authority lightly. Jean Kempthorne took the opposite view, arguing the audit is permissible and should proceed. She said the state auditor is a constitutional officer accountable directly to the people, that the audit power can be expanded by statute, and that separation of powers does not require watertight compartments. She contended the audit would not displace core legislative powers because the auditor can only evaluate operations, report findings, and make recommendations. She also argued the Legislature itself already conducts audits of other branches, so it is inconsistent to claim an audit of the Legislature is unconstitutional. In response to senators’ questions, she said there are guardrails against truly intrusive requests, but that the administrative-versus-legislative distinction is not a workable bright line; she suggested disputes should be handled case by case, with objections, negotiation, or litigation if specific requests go too far. No votes or formal actions were taken at the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• In doing so, it retroactively provides LECO credit for ERS group one, two, and three members employed
• To a certain date so rather than retroactive to birth this would once the findings been made and due
• made, if the man is determined to be the father, this is just when the responsibility would be... retroactive
• Senate bill 942 relating to a court order for retroactive child support. including for retroactive child
• Senate Bill 942 relating to a court order for retroactive child support.

Bills: SJR 12, SCR 39, SB 7, SB 8, SB 27, SB 29, SB 125, SB 241, SB 371, SB 396, SB 406, SB 464, SB 568, SB 578, SB 608, SB 617, SB 660, SB 689, SB 693, SB 707, SB 731, SB 732, SB 763, SB 779, SB 836, SB 854, SB 857, SB 875, SB 878, SB 879, SB 906, SB 920, SB 921, SB 922, SB 942, SB 965, SB 985, SB 996, SB 1029, SB 1035, SB 1036, SB 1059, SB 1084, SB 1098, SB 1101, SB 1185, SB 1188, SB 1321, SB 1332, SB 1366, SB 1388, SB 1396, SB 1453, SB 1484, SB 1494, SB 1536, SB 1563, SB 1596, SB 1610, SB 1619, SB 1737, SB 1738, SB 1741, SB 1816, SB 1822, SB 1841, SB 1939, SB 2155, SB 2188, SB 2230

Keywords: parental rights, education, constitutional amendment, school choice, child education, border security, southern border, federal immigration policy, illegal immigration, cartels, transnational cartels, fentanyl, drug trafficking, human trafficking, Operation Lone Star, Texas border, National Guard, state guard, border wall, border barriers

Summary: In this meeting, significant discussions revolved around the passage and modification of various Senate Bills, including SB1388, which pertains to family support services under the Health and Human Services Commission. Senator Kolkhorst advocated for the bill, emphasizing its focus on pro-life, family-centered care. The committee passed the bill after thorough examination, showcasing a collaborative effort among the members to ensure its alignment with successful past initiatives. In another session, Senator Hughes presented SB942, aimed at retroactive child support linked to prenatal care, which sparked a constructive dialogue reflecting bipartisan support for maternal and child welfare.

Transcript Highlights:

• We cannot retroactively take it away for criminal.
• notes that the Administrative Office of the District Attorney discusses the legal implications of retroactive
• So, Madam Chair, Representative, what about retroactivity?
• When it comes to this legislation, is it retroactive? Almost never considered retroactively.
• I know there are some exceptions to that, but no, this will not be retroactive.

Transcript Highlights:

• that the election of other officers, with the exception of the chief sergeant at arms, be made retroactive
• by the Committee on Rules and Legislative Administration, be authorized by the House, effective retroactive
• We're uh retroactively authorizing uh employees to January 6th, and I urge members to support.
• is pretty self-explanatory<01:36:30.800> we're<01:36:31.400> uh<01:36:31.719> retroactively
• self-explanatory we're uh retroactively self-explanatory we're uh retroactively authorizing<01:36

Keywords: 1183, house

Summary: The House convened with prayer, the Pledge of Allegiance, and a quorum present, then proceeded to elect a Speaker. Republicans nominated Lisa Demuth and Democrats nominated Melissa Hortman, with multiple members seconding each nomination and praising the candidates’ leadership, bipartisanship, and ability to guide a closely divided chamber. After roll call, Representative Demuth received 67 votes to Representative Hortman’s 65 and was declared duly elected Speaker of the Minnesota House for the 2025-2026 session. After taking the oath of office from Senate President Bobby Joe Champion, Speaker Demuth delivered remarks emphasizing gratitude, integrity, respect, accountability, and a commitment to real results, safer communities, strong schools, economic opportunity, and open collaboration with all members. She said her door would remain open to both parties and urged the House to focus on shared purpose and Minnesota’s future. The House then took up a resolution adopting temporary rules for the 94th session, based on the prior session’s rules and modified by the House organization agreement dated February 6, 2025. Members speaking in support said the agreement reflected bipartisan negotiation, preserved power sharing, protected committee and conference committee balance, and would help the House address issues such as affordable housing, health care, and child care. The temporary rules were adopted by a roll call vote of 130 ayes and 2 nays. Finally, the House began the election of the chief clerk. Representative Robbins nominated Patrick Duffy Murphy, highlighting his long service to the House, his role as parliamentary adviser, and his work supporting continuity and remote proceedings during the pandemic. The transcript cuts off during the nomination and does not include the final vote on chief clerk.

Transcript Highlights:

• Along those lines, you know, is this bill retroactive or is it going forward, or is it, you know, if
• This is not retroactive; it is moving forward because what is in place today is.

Bills: HB4260, HB2981, HB3695, HB2960, HB3967, HB3968, HB4339, HB4341, HB4342, HB2940, HB4295, HB4196, HB3134, HB1016

Keywords: workers' compensation, first responders, acute myocardial infarction, stroke, health presumption, emergency services, firefighters, peace officers, emergency medical technicians, open meetings, school boards, transparency, public access, education governance, HB3695, Oklahoma, motor vehicles, personal injury accident, traffic offense, DUI

Transcript Highlights:

• Yes, retroactively they will be subject to the audits.
• And so that's retroactive.
• But we will not... retroactively go back and say you've got to give back and pay the state of Texas.
• No, we're not – because that would be illegal to go retroactive in that... instance.
• Finally, the retroactivity of this legislation is also very unclear and of concern.

Bills: HB21, HB211, HB223

Keywords: HB 21, Texas Tax Code, ad valorem tax, property tax, delinquent taxes, tax delinquency, penalty reduction, interest rate, split payment, installment payment, tax relief, county tax collector, taxing unit, property owner, tax collection, voter-approval tax rate, no-new-revenue tax rate, tax increase election, supermajority, 60 percent threshold

Transcript Highlights:

• They just don't want retroactive changes, and that's what your language suggests.
• <00:27:16.000> that<00:27:16.240> would be no retroactive changes that would be no retroactive
• On one hand, you have the no retroactive provision.
• <00:39:28.720> to uh gets decided that is retroactive to uh gets decided that is retroactive
• From what I understand, retroactively.

Keywords: 928, house, all

Summary: The committee met on April 14 and began by welcoming a new member, Representative Samban Denier, who briefly described his background as a Clarkson University environmental engineering graduate and Air Force veteran. The committee then moved into a work session on five energy-related bills, starting with Senate Bill 65 on stormwater management for solar arrays. Representative McGee presented amendment 1594H, which would exclude projects in shoreland areas from the bill’s permit-by-notification process and require the standard alteration-of-terrain permit review instead. Members asked for clarification, and McGee explained the amendment was requested by the New Hampshire Lakes Association and others to preserve the fuller review process for shoreland projects. The committee appeared satisfied with the explanation and moved on. The committee next discussed Senate Bill 230 on electric utility restructuring and investment in distributed energy resources. Members concluded that section one was unnecessary because a better definition of advanced nuclear resources had already been added to House Bill 710, and that section two would allow investment in advanced nuclear resources in a way they had already rejected in another bill due to ratepayer risk. Several members agreed the bill was redundant and supported an ITL motion. They also discussed Senate Bill 232 on net metering terms and conditions, focusing first on whether hydroelectric generators could be listed in ISO New England while also taking net metering credits. Granite State Hydropower Association representative Heidi Kroll testified that generators are subject to checks and balances, that double-dipping is not occurring, and that rules and tariffs already require participation in one market arrangement or the other. Discussion on Senate Bill 232 then shifted to section two, which would bar retroactive changes to net metering tariffs in place as of January 1, 2025. Representative McGee proposed alternative language to protect existing customer generators, group hosts, and municipal hosts from retroactive changes, while others said the language was needed to provide stability for current participants operating on thin margins. Some members supported the clearer wording; others argued the committee should not tie the hands of the PUC and DOE, noting future circumstances could require regulatory flexibility and that conflicts could be resolved in court if necessary. The committee did not take a final vote in the portion of the meeting provided, and the discussion was still ongoing when the transcript ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• Lastly, Section 4 provides that the provisions in Sections 1 and 3 apply retroactively to offenses committed
• Section 4 provides that the provisions in Sections 1 and 3 apply retroactively to offenses committed
• Lastly, Section 4 provides that the provisions in Sections 1 and 3 apply retroactively to offenses committed
• Section 4 provides that the provisions in Sections 1 and 3 apply retroactively to offenses committed

Keywords: 909, all