Transcript Highlights:

• Chair, Senator Mesnard, it's any retroactive changes.
• So since the bill is retroactive, that's when we would see the amended returns.
• Chair, Senator Mesnard, it's any retroactive changes.
• So since the bill is retroactive, that's when we would see the amended returns.
• Chair, Senator Mesnard, it's any retroactive changes.

Keywords: 1182, all

Summary: The joint House Ways and Means and Senate Finance committees met to hear identical conformity bills, HB 2153 and SB 1106, which would align Arizona tax law with the federal Internal Revenue Code as of Jan. 1, 2026, including some retroactive provisions for tax year 2025. Staff explained that the bills would exclude three federal provisions: the higher federal SALT deduction, the new senior deduction as written in H.R. 1, and the deduction for interest on new car loans. They would instead include a $6,000 retirement-income deduction for taxpayers age 60 and older, a $6,000 Roth IRA contribution deduction, a higher dependent tax credit, and a deduction for child and dependent care expenses above the federal credit. JLBC estimated the package would reduce general fund income tax revenue by about $441.3 million in FY 2026. Members also discussed that the Department of Revenue’s forms had been issued assuming full conformity, and staff and supporters argued the bills were needed quickly to avoid confusion and amended returns during filing season. Committee members and sponsors largely framed the bills as tax relief and a way to provide certainty for taxpayers and preparers. Supporters said the package would help families, seniors, and workers, and noted that the Arizona version was negotiated to keep the overall tax relief roughly comparable to full conformity while shifting benefits away from the SALT deduction and toward child credits, retirement income, and child care. The sponsors also criticized the governor’s executive action and urged prompt passage so taxpayers would know how to file. Opponents argued the bills would reduce state revenue, worsen the budget outlook, and disproportionately benefit higher-income taxpayers and corporations. Several witnesses and members also raised concerns about the child care deduction, the retirement-income deduction, and the business expensing provisions, while supporters responded that the bill was designed to help working families and encourage saving and investment. Public testimony was mixed. The Arizona Society of Certified Public Accountants and the Arizona Free Enterprise Club supported the bills, emphasizing early conformity, filing certainty, and reduced confusion for taxpayers and software providers. Opponents included Save Our Schools Arizona, the Arizona Center for Economic Progress, Opportunity Arizona, and several individuals, who argued the package would deepen budget problems and favor the wealthy. One witness objected to a federal school-choice-related provision she said was being tied to the bill, though committee members said the measure before them was a tax conformity bill and not a school finance bill. The hearing included extended debate over the fiscal impact, the governor’s prior requests for some of the same tax changes, and whether taxpayers would need to file amended returns if the legislature later changed course. The transcript ends during testimony from NFIB, with no final committee vote or action shown in the excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• There's a proposal for retroactivity where a pension benefit would be credited back to years of service
• There's a proposal for retroactivity where a pension benefit would be credited back to years of service
• There's a proposal for retroactivity where a pension benefit would be credited back to years of service
• There's a proposal for retroactivity where a pension benefit would be credited back to years of service
• There's a proposal for retroactivity where a pension benefit would be credited back to years of service

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• And so this retroactive coverage period covers that. I'll also say it can... ...need.
• And so this retroactive coverage period covers that.
• The reduction in retroactive eligibility is sort of a hard reduction from three months to two months.
• And then just to clarify the retroactive coverage: coverage when you're found effective is effective
• And then we review for that retroactive eligibility.

Keywords: House Room C, General Assembly Building, 976, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• would penalize companies if they're allowing this technology, and whether there is some sort of retroactive
• ><00:10:33.920> sort<00:10:34.079> of is there some sort of is there some sort of retroactive
• step you can take if retroactive step you can take if something<00:10:38.320> for<00:10:38.920
• Are you asking if we found evidence of dissemination, if there's something retroactive that could be
• that could be done something retroactive that could be done yeah<00:11:10.680> I'm<00:11:10.880

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We’re just recommending that a savings clause be inserted to address the risk of retroactive applications
• We’re just recommending that a savings clause be inserted to address the risk of retroactive applications
• We’re just recommending that a savings clause be inserted to address the risk of retroactive applications
• potential protect the bill against any potential protect the bill against any potential retroactive
• application issues okay and retroactive application issues okay and we're<00:29:48.519> also<

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The Committee on Labor and Technology heard several labor-related measures. SB 183 would allow arbitration to resolve disputes over state and county contributions to the EUTF benefits trust fund; labor groups supported it, and the committee advanced it with amendments. SB 185, concerning indebtedness to the state, drew support from unions and discussion with DAGS about tiered repayment options for lower-paid employees; DAGS said the system could be programmed to accommodate the bill, and the measure was also advanced with amendments. SB 458 would expand the definition of employer for wage-payment laws to include the state and counties when no comparable public-employee provision exists; HSTA testified in support, citing repeated delayed pay for teachers, while DAGS and county representatives raised operational concerns. The committee deferred SB 458 for further administrative work. SB 425, on qualified community rehabilitation programs and the aggregate contract cap, was advanced with technical amendments after UPW said employers were splitting contracts to exceed the statutory threshold. The committee also considered SB 1287, which would apply unfair and deceptive practices law to tipped food and beverage establishments and require tip-pool signage with wage-division contact information. The Attorney General’s office recommended a savings clause to avoid retroactive application issues, and the committee passed the bill with amendments. SB 1660 would require hospitality employers to adopt anti-harassment measures, training, panic buttons, and anti-retaliation protections; the Commission on the Status of Women and worker advocates supported it, while DLIR noted existing complaint systems and the need for rulemaking. The committee adopted amendments incorporating sexual assault hotline information, panic-button guidance, and employer flexibility on translation languages, then passed the bill with amendments. SB 631, relating to the Department of Human Resources Development, was deferred, with the chair noting a prior law already allows departments to screen and select applicants from initial pools.

Transcript Highlights:

• deposited into the state general fund for the payment of essential government services, with a retroactivity
• to July 1 of 2026, and it repeals retroactively to tax year 2026 the following individual and corporate
• The bill also repeals the Rio Nuevo District State Tax Diversion Program, effective retroactively to
• Lastly, the bill contains a retroactivity clause of December 31, 2025, and with that, I'm available for
• Lastly, the bill contains a retroactivity clause of December 31, 2025, and with that, I'm available for

Keywords: 1182, all

Transcript Highlights:

• What this bill primarily does is make the 2024 changes retroactive, which was the intent of the bill
• an insurance provision that had to be negotiated with the insurance federation; that part is not retroactive
• What this bill primarily does is make the 2024 changes retroactive, which was the intent of the bill
• an insurance provision that had to be negotiated with the insurance federation; that part is not retroactive
• What this bill primarily does is make the 2024 changes retroactive, which was the intent of the bill

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Chair, we did not handle it for purposes of the forms because those provisions are not retroactive in
• We've seen other federal bills that had retroactive provisions, but it might have been one here, one
• The bulk of H.R. 1 was retroactive to '25. Okay.
• So that made this, we've seen other federal bills that had retroactive provisions, but it might have
• The bulk of HR1 was retroactive at 25. Okay. So we've had this process for 30 years or 47 years.

Bills: SB1042, SB1043, SB1044, SB1135, SB1136, SB1142, SB1180, SB1221, SB1252, SB1254, SCR1003

Keywords: public funds, virtual currency, bitcoin, investment, Arizona Strategic Digital Asset Reserve Act, state treasurer, retirement system, state payments, cryptocurrency, Arizona law, payment methods, government transactions, property tax, tax exemption, Arizona Revised Statutes, digital currency, workers' compensation, death benefits, burial costs, spousal compensation

Summary: The committee began with staff and page introductions, then took up a series of previously heard bills, mostly related to cryptocurrency and tax administration. SB 1042, SB 1043, SB 1044, and SCR 1003 dealt with allowing public entities to invest in virtual currency, accept cryptocurrency payments, and exempt virtual currency from property tax. Supporters framed the measures as modernization, while opponents argued crypto is risky, fraudulent, and a poor use of public funds. All four measures were recommended do pass on narrow 4-3 votes, with Democrats generally opposed. The committee also heard SB 1221, which would require the Department of Revenue to notify legislative tax chairs before adopting a new interpretation or application of tax law that could adversely affect taxpayers. The sponsor said the bill was meant to front-load disputes and avoid surprise tax changes; it passed 4-3. SB 1142, which would have Arizona opt into a new federal scholarship tax credit program and require ADOR to administer it, drew extensive testimony. Supporters said it would expand scholarship opportunities for students in public, charter, private, and home education settings and keep donations in Arizona. Opponents argued it would divert money from public schools, lack accountability, and primarily benefit wealthier families. The bill passed 4-3 after lengthy debate. The committee then questioned Department of Revenue officials about a press release on Arizona tax forms and federal conformity after H.R. 1. Members focused on why the department told taxpayers not to wait to file, how the state conforms to federal changes, and whether amended returns would be needed if the Legislature changes the forms later. DOR said the forms were issued assuming conformity, that most taxpayers would not be affected by pending changes, and that amended returns could be required for some retroactive provisions; members criticized the guidance as confusing and potentially costly. Finally, the committee heard SB 1254, which would require both grantor and grantee signatures on conveyance documents before recording, to reduce deed fraud and clarify acceptance of property transfers. County assessors supported the bill, saying it would close a loophole and improve records; it passed 6-0 with one member not voting. The committee then began SB 1252, the Uniform Assignment for Benefit of Creditors Act, with testimony from the Arizona Uniform Laws Commission explaining that it would create a more uniform framework for asset assignments and creditor claims, but the transcript cuts off before any vote on that measure.

Transcript Highlights:

• What was going to happen, but we worry about the retroactivity of the bill.
• But the fact that it's going to impact all instead of just new ones in a retroactive manner, which by
• Every generation source in Texas would have to be firmed retroactively as well as prospectively by 2027
• Um, the big issue for making a difference this session is to distinguish between retroactive application
• There is always a change, and everybody argues about retrofit or retroactive approaches.

Bills: SB75, SB715, SB776, SB1299, SB1405, SB1968, SB2021, SB2077, SB2148, SB2321, SB2330, SB2411

Keywords: electric generation, reliability, ERCOT, Public Utility Commission, penalties, performance requirements, energy policy, construction contracts, compensatory damages, government delays, contractor, legislation, nonprofit donor privacy, membership lists, supporter confidentiality, volunteer privacy, association rights, public records exemption, Texas Public Information Act, government transparency

Transcript Highlights:

• All the committee substitute does is allow this to be retroactive to January 1st, 2024.
• Other states that have decoupled have made theirs retroactive.
• Other states that have decoupled have made theirs retroactive.
• It's simply allowing the substitute to be retroactive to January 1st, 2024.
• Make it retroactive to January 1st of... retroactive to January 1st of 2024 when corporate...

Keywords: 1136, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• I'm committed to taking out the retroactivity part of this bill, if that would work for the committee
• Yeah, I mean, I think it should be retroactive. I believe this is blood money.
• Yeah, I mean, I think it should be retroactive. I believe this is blood money. And I, and while H.
• And I understand the negative consequences associated with going retroactive.
• But, you know, the retroactivity, I've understood the concerns with that.

Summary: The Assembly Health Committee heard a long agenda of health bills focused on access to preventive care, behavioral health, hospital services, and patient safety. Early items included AB 554, which would expand and protect access to HIV prevention drugs like PrEP, including injectable forms and coverage protections; supporters said it would shore up access amid federal threats, while insurers opposed it as a costly benefit mandate. AB 577 would limit insurer and PBM practices that steer medications away from physician offices and require more transparency and patient consent; doctors and patient advocates supported it, while health plans and insurers warned it could raise drug costs and disrupt specialty pharmacy networks. AB 546 would require coverage for portable HEPA purifiers for vulnerable enrollees during declared emergencies, especially wildfire smoke events, with support from air quality and public health groups and opposition from insurers concerned about benefit expansion and cost. The committee also heard AB 224, which would codify California’s updated essential health benefits benchmark plan after a public review process, adding infertility treatment, hearing aids, and durable medical equipment if approved by CMS for the 2027 plan year. DMHC said the state had completed the review and needed legislation to meet federal timing, and the measure drew broad support. AB 1032 would require plans and insurers to reimburse up to 12 additional behavioral health visits for enrollees in wildfire-affected counties for a limited period after an emergency; supporters argued it would fill gaps in trauma care after disasters, while insurers said existing parity and continuity-of-care rules already address the issue and that the bill could create inequities. AB 849 would require trained chaperones for sensitive ultrasound exams and training on how to observe and intervene; it was backed by a survivor and patient advocates, with hospitals and health districts raising staffing concerns. Later, AB 1196 would direct the Department of Public Health to update outdated rules requiring three surgeons for certain heart surgeries using cardiopulmonary bypass; supporters said the rule no longer reflects modern practice and strains staffing, while cardiology representatives had no formal opposition but wanted to review amendments. AB 1113 would codify a right to wear a mask for health reasons in public spaces, with support from disability and public health groups. AB 1386 sought to add perinatal care to the list of basic hospital services, prompting testimony about maternity ward closures, workforce shortages, and rural access; the author said the bill would be amended further and that the committee would need to revisit timelines and implementation details. The committee also heard AB 1429, which would address Kaiser’s repeated mental health parity violations and improve access to behavioral health care, though the transcript cuts off before any action on that bill is shown. Several bills were moved with motions and seconds, but many were held for quorum; AB 1196, AB 1113, and AB 1386 were among the measures advanced to a roll call or held on call, and the committee repeatedly noted that final votes would occur when quorum was available.

Transcript Highlights:

• Bernard: I SEE THIS BILL IS RETROACTIVE, WHAT'S THE DECISION BEHIND MAKING IT RETROACTIVE. >> Chair Avila
• Trumbull: THE BILL IS RETROACTIVE RELATING TO BOB BONDS BUT I SHOULDN'T SAY RETROACTIVE.
• I WOULDN'T NECESSARILY CONSIDER IT RETROACTIVE, IT IS LOOKING IN THE FUTURE TO SAY AS THESE LOCAL OPTION

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• THE RETROACTIVE PROVISION HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM THE EFFECTIVE DATE HAS BEEN CHANGED FROM JULY 1 2025
• THAT IS TAKING OUT RETROACTIVE DIVISIONS. OKAY.
• THOSE RETROACTIVE PROVISIONS HAVE BEEN DELETED IN YOUR STRIKE ALL. >> WITH YOUR INDULGENCE, YES.
• I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR LISTENING TO THE RETROACTIVITY AND REMOVING IT.
• THIS BILL SEEKS TO RETROACTIVELY ROLLBACK THOSE PRODUCTIONS. 70 COVERS AND INCLUDES A MAN WHO I LOOKED

Keywords: 999, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• um there is a um mistake in retroactive um there is a um mistake in SE<00:04:59.960> four<00:
• It should read: this section is effective—strike retroactively and insert on 9/1/25.
• It should read: this section is effective—strike retroactively and insert on 9/1/25.
• and insert um uh strike retroactively and insert um uh strike retroactively<00:08:06.319> on<
• 00:08:06.520> nine retroactively on nine retroactively on nine 8.26<00:08:08.560> and<00

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The amendments make the dispensing fee retroactive to January 1st, so...
• Yes, sir, like I was saying, those amendments make the dispensing fee retroactive to January 1st.
• Yes, sir, like I was saying, those amendments make the dispensing fee retroactive to January 1st.
• So now, explain to me about the retroactivity here. So what exactly... The retroactivity here.
• Retroactivity. Talk to me about the retro. You're making it retroactive to? Yes, sir.

Bills: HR179, HR180, HR181, HR182, HR183, HR184, HR185, HR186, HR187, HCR75, HCR76, HCR77, HCR78, HCR79, HR165, HR166, HR168, HR169, HR170, HR171, HR172, HR173, HR174, HR175, HR176, HR177, HR178, HCR65, HCR66, HCR67, HCR68, HCR69, HCR70, HCR71, HCR72, HCR73, HCR74, SCR34, SB34, SB43, SB52, SB56, SB165, SB173, SB189, SB190, SB260, SB322, SB345, SB374, SB387, SB401, SB448, SB449, SB455, SB487, SB496, SB502, SB505, HB362, HB893, HB990, HB1007, HB1153, HB1243, HR1, HR17, HCR5, HCR4, HCR47, HB55, HB385, HB394, HB396, HB406, HB608, HB622, HB676, HB772, HB897, HB1030, HB1035, HB1038, HB1045, HB1049, HB1056, HB1058, HB1059, HB1092, HB1100, HB1117, HB1160, HB1161, HB1162, HB1177, HB1180, HB1189, HB1216, HB1239, HB1240, HB59, HB74, HB159, HB330, HB364, HB414, HB458, HB525, HB568, HB786, HB1008, HB1033, HB1034, HB1041, HB1062, HB1070, HB1079, HB1112, HB1118, HB1139, HB1151, HB1176, HB1182, HB1196, HB1214, HB1241, HB87, HB115, HB162, HB368, HB433, HB441, HB447, HB466, HB481, HB741, HB1242, SB162, SB349, SB350, SB382, SB383, SB127, SB244, HB977, HB181, HB31, HB664, HB9, HB192, HB225, HB306, HB310, HB366, HB635, HB911, HB1230, HB1236, HB615, HB864, HB1103, HB1175, HB901, HR20, HR74, HB284, HB393, HB459, HB577, HB582, HB605, HB614, HB682, HB733, HB773, HB996, HB1003, HB1082, HB1113, HB1234

Keywords: neighborhood, crime prevention, security districts, law enforcement, community safety, funding, Counseling Day, mental health, Louisiana Counseling Association, community support, mental wellness, Louisiana State University, athletics, NAIA, sports achievements, recognition, success, competition, education, higher education

Summary: The House opened with a prayer, pledge, quorum call, and several personal privileges recognizing visiting groups and guests, including Junior League members, a Louisiana Renewable Energy Day proclamation, Wholesalers Day, the Louisiana Home Builders Association, and other visitors. Members also adopted or laid over a number of resolutions honoring local events, organizations, and individuals, including condolences resolutions and commemorations such as ALS Awareness Month and Junior League Day. The most extended debate centered on House Bill 385 by Rep. Bamberg, which would require certain TOPS scholarship recipients to repay one semester of aid if they lose eligibility, subject to several exemptions and a possible move into career and technical education. Members raised concerns about whether the bill would turn a merit scholarship into a loan, its effect on student decision-making and brain drain, constitutional notice issues, administrative costs, collection methods, and whether the Board of Regents had been consulted. After debate, a motion to recommit the bill to Appropriations failed by a 34-16 vote, and the bill was later returned to the calendar. The House then passed House Bill 55, prohibiting disclosure of juror information with exceptions for juror interviews, by a 94-2 vote; House Bill 394, extending the conditional parole period from nine to 24 months; House Bill 396, making autopsy photographs admissible in criminal proceedings; and House Bill 406, directing the Department of Education to study whether it should oversee interscholastic high school athletics, by a 97-1 vote. The chamber also passed House Bill 622 aligning criminal history record handling with federal requirements and House Bill 676 creating the crime of fraudulent patient referrals, or body brokering. Several other bills were introduced, referred, or returned to the calendar, including measures on criminal history confidentiality, parole, autopsy evidence, athletics oversight, and non-emergency medical transportation for mental health care.

Transcript Highlights:

• entire country that have retroactive COLA: ourselves and our sister organization TCDRS.
• Retroactive COLAs are very, very complicated, and I'm not going to try to explain them, but they have
• The aspects of retroactive COLAs that...
• The non-retroactive COLA expires December 31 of 2025.
• Simply put, this amendment to the COLA provision takes the existing non-retroactive COLA. provision.

Bills: HB245, HB700, HB2783, HB3526, HB3900, HB4061, HB4124, HB4166, HB4395, HB4534, HB4609, HB4641, HB4736, HB4738, HB4739, HB4945, HB5015, HJR175, HB245

Keywords: military service, retirement, law enforcement, custodial officer, Employees Retirement System, commercial financing, brokers, registration, disclosures, finance, consumer protection, fees, deferred compensation, automatic participation, county employees, payroll deductions, retirement plans, fiscal transparency, local government, bond issuance

Transcript Highlights:

• So that retroactive liability just does send a bad message to the entire business community.
• So finding these companies retroactively for something that is needed just is, again,...
• It imposes retroactive liability on businesses for conduct that...
• We are applying the same retroactive premise here to make sure New Jersey is more affordable.
• How can we go back retroactively? I believe...

Keywords: 1146, all

Transcript Highlights:

• bill in terms of our local elected officials being concerned about the violations and about the retroactive
• And that is taking out some of those retroactive provisions. I think we're in debate. Yes.
• I just wanted to put clarity on this that those retroactive provisions have been deleted in your strike
• First of all, I want to thank you for listening to the retroactivity and removing it.
• This bill seeks to retroactively roll back those protections.

Summary: The committee first heard SB 1134, which would extend the use of qualified private providers in the building permit process to residential solar energy systems and certain single-trade inspections, and would allow computer-based plan review tools. The sponsor said the bill is intended to reduce long solar permitting delays and lower costs. A late amendment clarifying the word “application” was adopted, and after some discussion about local permitting problems and the need to work with municipalities, CS/SB 1134 was reported favorably, with Senator Pizzo voting no. The committee then took up SB 784, dealing with issuance of addresses and parcel identification numbers for plats. The bill sets a 14-day timeframe, and an amendment was adopted that would allow use of a private provider if the deadline is missed and would limit fee collection if verification is not completed. Members discussed whether the bill should include more flexibility and whether private providers are appropriate for this function, but the committee ultimately reported CS/SB 784 favorably. SB 1738, allowing counties that previously opted out of transportation concurrency to opt back in while maintaining current levels of service, was also reported favorably without significant opposition. Next, SB 1080 on local government land regulation was presented as a measure to speed up development permit and order approvals, limit repeated information requests, prevent hearing delays, and impose penalties for noncompliance. Local government testimony argued it would rush planning and weaken public input, while supporters called it common-sense streamlining. After debate, the bill was reported favorably, with several no votes. SB 1260, which clarifies county constitutional officer budget procedures and creates an appeal process for clerks and supervisors of elections similar to that used by sheriffs, was also reported favorably after members raised concerns about county budget timelines. Finally, the committee considered SB 420, as amended by a strike-all, which would prohibit counties and municipalities from adopting or funding DEI-related ordinances, programs, or policies, while carving out compliance with state and federal law and defining DEI-related terms. The amendment removed retroactivity and delayed the effective date, but members from both parties raised concerns about vague definitions, impacts on women- and minority-owned business programs, local commemorations, and the loss of attorney’s fees for prevailing counties. Public testimony was sharply divided, with many speakers opposing the bill as an attack on local control and inclusion, and a few supporting it as a merit-based standard. The amendment was adopted, but the bill drew extensive opposition in debate and was not yet reported in the portion of the transcript provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• Would this be retroactive? I think that's an odd way to ask the question.
• So yes, I'm going to say that it would be retroactive back because about the tribes, that goes back.
• If it is retroactive, they're falling into the Indian tribes members. Thank you.
• That goes, they retroactive, they're falling into the Indian tribes, members. Thank you.

Keywords: 914, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Additionally, the committee substitute just adds retroactive language in the new Section 2.
• The way this is written suggests retroactive application. which is unconstitutional under our Texas Constitution
• Retroactive law or any law impairing the obligation of contract shall be made.
• forward on this legislation, we fix that unconstitutional problem in this—that it doesn't have retroactive

Bills: SB2215, SB2639

Keywords: zoning, municipality, municipal immunity, governmental immunity, local government, Chapter 211, Texas Local Government Code, land use, declaratory relief, injunctive relief, mandamus, attorney's fees, court costs, property rights, home rule city, code enforcement, planning and zoning, land development, municipal ordinance, historic landmark