Transcript Highlights:

• And I see that this bill is retroactive. What's the reason behind making it retroactive?
• The bill is retroactive relating to the bonds, but it would... well, I shouldn't say retroactive.
• I don't know if we would necessarily consider it retroactive.

Summary: The Finance and Tax Committee considered several tax-related measures. SB 674, allowing county property appraisers to budget for and pay hiring or retention bonuses with Department of Revenue approval, was supported by property appraisers and reported favorably. C.S. for SJR 318, as amended, would create a tangible personal property exemption for agricultural land used in agricultural production or agritourism; the amendment clarified the property’s location and allowed the Legislature to define conditions, and the resolution was reported favorably with support from Farm Bureau and the Florida Chamber. The committee also advanced C.S. for SB 1664, as amended, which requires locally approved discretionary taxes to be reauthorized by voters when they expire and sets rules for taxes tied to revenue bonds. Local government and tourism-related groups raised concerns about impacts on tourist development taxes, beach funding, transportation surtaxes, and long-term planning, while supporters argued voters should periodically reaffirm taxes; the bill was reported favorably. C.S. for SJR 1510 and its implementing bill, SB 1512, were both amended to sharply narrow a proposed long-term lease property tax exemption to one qualifying property and to single-family homes, mobile homes, and condominiums; counties and cities opposed the measures as tax shifts, but both were reported favorably. The committee then took up SPB 7034, the Senate tax package, which includes permanent sales tax exemptions for certain clothing and bullion, multiple tax holidays, a temporary motor vehicle fee reduction, a property tax study, corporate and insurance tax credit changes, a communications services tax freeze, and other tax provisions, with staff estimating $2.1 billion in total revenue reduction. Testimony included support for studying property taxes and strong opposition to the firearm and ammunition tax holiday from students and advocacy groups, who argued it was unsafe and inappropriate; others urged adding combined reporting or removing tourist development tax changes. After debate, the committee reported the package favorably and also approved a motion to submit it as a committee bill. The meeting ended after Senator Bernard recorded an affirmative vote on tab 5 and the committee adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• We would like the committee to consider including some kind of retroactivity for sentences, and I know
• Retroactivity for sentences, and I know that that is not something you're in favor of.
• And by the way, sir, it's not retroactive, and I do not intend to bring a bill to make it retroactive
• Smithman will have a comment or question after sending you Senator, I think the question about retroactivity

Bills: HB43, SB81, SB178, SB138, SB89, SB183, HB27, HB188, HB199, HB190, SB117, HB43, HB27

Keywords: criminal procedure, split sentencing, probation, Class A felony, Class B felony, minimum confinement, custodial sexual misconduct, sexual misconduct, inmate abuse, prisoner exploitation, correctional staff, jail staff, detention center, probation officer, parole officer, Department of Corrections, Department of Youth Services, sheriff, county jail, municipal jail

Transcript Highlights:

• So, if we can't be retroactive, I'd like it to be as soon as possible.
• So, if we can't be retroactive, I'd like it to be as soon as possible.
• amendment I asked that it be retroactive amendment I asked that it be retroactive to<01:27:51.560
• there's no such thing as retroactive. there's no such thing as retroactive.
• , if we can't be retroactive, if we can't be retroactive, I'd<01:28:14.880> like<01:28:15.280

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• That bill provides relative to the 2024 Regular Session and retroactivity of certain ethics code provisions
• That bill provides relative to the 2024 Regular Session and retroactivity of certain ethics code provisions
• the statute it actually put it into the statute, and the second was that the Senate amendment was retroactive
• They made it retroactive to a date I forgot. We just struck the retroactive part.
• It also keeps the retroactive application back to January 1, 2026. I move to concur.

Bills: HR310, HR314, HR316, HR317, HR321, HR275, HR276, HR279, HR282, HR286, HR289, HR292, HR295, HR302, HR319, HCR112, HR307, SCR59, SCR61, SCR62, SCR68, SCR69, SCR70, SCR54, SCR55, SCR64, SCR75, HCR79, HCR104, HB75, HB410, HB719, HB750, HB944, HB1098, HB1220, HB1252, HB359, HB210, HB468, HB1117, SB382, HB368, HB552, HB732, HB870, HB1236, SB29, SB42, SB43, SB149, SB208, SB274, SB300, SB312, SB387, SB389, SB401, HR74, HB998, HB901, HR20, HCR65, HCR71, HCR98, HB284, HB306, HB341, HB366, HB393, HB458, HB577, HB603, HB605, HB614, HB625, HB646, HB733, HB752, HB773, HB798, HB911, HB955, HB996, HB1035, HB1069, HB1113, HB1140, HB1180, HB1191, HB1240, HB1255, SB82, SB89, SB97, SB123, SB237, HB36, HB42, HB74, HB119, HB159, HB258, HB259, HB302, HB414, HB459, HB848, HB956, HB1017, HB1028, HB1095, SB217, SB283, SB469

Keywords: oil and gas, orphan wells, inactive wells, shut-in wells, marginal wells, plugging and abandonment, well decommissioning, site remediation, site restoration, Oilfield Site Restoration, OSR program, financial security, bonding, taxpayer liability, public liability, offshore wells, onshore wells, coastal erosion, Department of Conservation and Energy, natural resources

Transcript Highlights:

• In addition to another challenge we face is retroactive denials, where insurers initially approved claims
• This practice of retroactive denials creates financial unpredictability, and it makes it very difficult
• There's been so many different times in which retroactive denials have been an issue, as we know, and
• In which retroactive denials have been an issue, as we know, and you're right, consumers wind up going
• And I must remind you that these were not retroactive.

Summary: The committee met to hear five banking and insurance-related bills. HB 1549, an Office of Financial Regulation agency bill to help more efficiently regulate financial institutions, was amended to match Senate companion language and then passed unanimously. HB 1231 would extend physician payment and prior-authorization protections similar to a prior dental law, including limits on virtual credit card payments as the sole payment method; physicians and medical groups supported it as a way to reduce fees and retroactive denials, while insurers were not heard in opposition, and the bill passed unanimously. The committee then heard HB 999, which would make gold and silver legal tender and allow transactions in bullion through electronic debit mechanisms. The sponsor and several proponents framed it as an inflation hedge and economic freedom measure, while questions focused on definitions, transaction costs, and vendor participation. The bill passed on a mostly party-line vote, with one member voting no. The committee also approved HM 4363, a memorial urging Congress to establish a sovereign wealth fund; the sponsor described it as a way to steward national wealth, and the memorial passed with one dissenting vote. Finally, the committee took up HB 1551, which would create a prevailing-party attorney fee framework in insurance contract disputes. The sponsor argued it would restore balance, deter meritless litigation, and help consumers with valid claims recover fees, while insurers, business groups, and defense attorneys warned it would revive one-way fee shifting, increase litigation, and raise premiums. Consumer advocates and some members supported it as necessary to give policyholders meaningful recourse. After debate, the bill passed favorably, with one member voting no.

Transcript Highlights:

• <02:14:13.360> language One removes the retroactivity language One removes the retroactivity
• emergency clause and retroactivity? emergency clause and retroactivity?
• <02:25:37.359> retroactively.
• Um that is retroactively retroactively.
• retroactive application of this bill. retroactive application of this bill.

Keywords: 958, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Orders entered within the first year after the live birth of a child would be retroactive to 9 months
• They're already going to have retroactive child support.
• They're already going to have retroactive child support.
• So if there was a retroactive child support amount put on there, it would begin accruing interest at
• So if there was a retroactive child support amount put on there, it would begin accruing interest at

Keywords: 1136, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Assemblymember Brian, I just want to thank the author for addressing the retroactivity.
• Thank you for addressing that component, the retroactivity portion of it.
• Just to answer your question, the retroactivity amendment would address this.
• Just to answer your question, the retroactivity amendment would address this concern.
• Thank you for amending to take out the retroactivity.

Summary: The committee heard several bills. SB 911, by Senator Becker, would require notification and verification of defensible-space compliance when homes in high wildfire severity zones are transferred, using the preliminary change of ownership report; supporters said it would improve wildfire resilience and insurance availability, while county assessors opposed the use of the PCOR and urged a different recorded document. Members generally supported the bill but raised concerns about the 12-month compliance window and the need to keep working with assessors; the bill was held pending a quorum and later placed on call. SB 1016, by Senator Blakespear, would create a pathway for a higher-level mental health evaluation when a Care Court petition is dismissed because the person is too ill to participate or otherwise needs more intensive care. Supporters, including psychiatrists, family members, and local officials, said Care Court is leaving many severely ill people untreated and that the bill would connect them to existing LPS processes. Opponents, including Disability Rights California, county behavioral health directors, counties, and other advocacy groups, argued it would expand involuntary detention, bypass existing pre-petition screening safeguards, and undermine Care Court’s voluntary nature. The bill passed the committee on a roll call vote and was placed on call. SB 1112, by Senator Archuleta, would create a faster court process for victims of illegal or excessive “bandit towing” to recover their vehicles by posting a bond and obtaining a release certificate. Support came from Enterprise Mobility and the author, who said the bill targets bad actors and helps equalize leverage for vehicle owners; the California Auto Body Association sought an amendment to exclude auto repair shops. The committee passed the bill as amended to Appropriations and placed it on call. SB 1119, by Senator Padilla, would impose child-safety requirements on AI chatbots, including risk assessments, crisis-response protocols, parental controls, limits on time and data use, reporting, audits, and a private right of action. The bill was driven by testimony from the mother of a teenager who died by suicide after prolonged chatbot interactions; industry and business groups opposed or sought amendments, citing overlap with recent law, vague standards, and prescriptive design mandates. Members expressed strong support for the bill’s goals while urging tighter definitions, and the bill was moved on a roll call vote and placed on call.

Transcript Highlights:

• sure how this would go on a retroactive sure how this would go on a retroactive basis<01:32:21.280
• Some parts may be possible to do retroactively, some may not.
• Some parts may be possible to do retroactively, some may not.
• Some parts may be possible to do retroactively, some may not.
• Is there a reason why we couldn't do that retroactively?

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The subcommittee opened its first meeting on retained education funding bills, focusing on HB 366, which concerns school building aid for eligible projects, and HB 295, which would make school building aid program funds non-lapsing. The chair framed the discussion broadly around whether school building aid should remain a state program, how to address limited revenues, and whether the current system should continue to prioritize debt service and the existing formula or move toward a different model such as per-pupil allocations, a dedicated fund, or a split between new construction and renovation. He also raised questions about whether leasing should be included and how to manage any new fund under current law and the school building authority structure. Representatives and department staff discussed the current backlog of applications, the age and condition of school facilities, and the possibility that large projects can consume available funding for a year while other districts go unsupported. Tim Carney of the Bureau of School Facilities introduced himself and provided technical context on the program and current debt levels. Representative Luneau argued that under the ConVal decision, the state’s responsibility includes school buildings, construction, and renovation, and that the program also serves an equity function by helping districts with less property wealth. He noted that construction and renovation have long been recognized categories and asked about leasing, which staff said is already supported in statute for charter schools and possibly CTE, with a cap of 30% of annual lease cost or $50,000. The discussion also covered CTE facilities: staff explained that capital funding for CTE centers is state-funded, that federal Carl Perkins funds cannot be used for construction, and that the current rotational capital model means only a few centers are funded each year, which may not match changing program needs. A committee studying CTE capital needs was referenced, along with concerns that the report from that work had not yet been received. Representative Papich urged the subcommittee to focus on policy, principles, and structure rather than just numbers, saying the current system produces a few winners and many districts that never receive aid. He favored a simpler, more equitable per-capita or formula-based approach, while acknowledging the need for a transition plan for projects already in the pipeline. The chair later cautioned against mixing maintenance and operations with construction and renovation, noting that operation and maintenance are already part of the adequacy formula and should not be confused with capital funding. No votes were taken during the meeting; the discussion was exploratory, with members and staff laying out competing approaches and identifying issues for further work.

Transcript Highlights:

• There's no provision in the bill that talks about retroactivity." "Senator Smith.
• I'm good." "...the bill that talks about retroactivity. Senator Smith. I'm good on questions.
• Possibly reach out 20 years retroactively to hurt a company in the future.
• A retroactive contract after a job is done, just because the intent of the bill may say that...
• A retroactive contract after a job is done, just because the intent of the bill may say that...

Bills: S0198, S0422, S1236, S1356, S1456, S1722

Keywords: virtual currency, kiosks, money services business, regulation, financial services, consumer protection, cryptocurrency, registration, ADS-B, automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast, aviation, airports, airport fees, landing fees, departure fees, touch-and-go landing, general aviation, pilot privacy, airspace radius, aircraft tracking

Summary: The committee first postponed SB 1456, then heard SB 1236, which would condition state economic development incentives on employers using secret-ballot union elections and prohibit neutrality agreements. The sponsor argued the bill protects workers from coercion and applies only to companies receiving taxpayer-funded incentives; opponents said it was government interference, likely to hurt contractors, apprenticeships, and business growth, and raised concerns about federal preemption and Attorney General enforcement. After debate, the committee reported SB 1236 favorably on a recorded vote. The committee then considered CS/SB 198, a measure to regulate cryptocurrency kiosks by requiring operator registration, fraud warnings, transaction limits, blockchain analytics, receipts, and refund protections for certain first-time transactions tied to fraud. Supporters from the banking industry, AARP, and others said the bill would help stop scams that are targeting seniors and vulnerable adults; one industry witness supported the bill but suggested narrowing the limits for existing users and shortening the new-customer period. The committee reported the bill favorably. Next, the committee took up CS/SB 1356 on dog breeding, pet sales, and breeder registration. The sponsor said the bill is intended to curb puppy mills, improve animal welfare, and add consumer protections, while an amendment removed state oversight of local animal shelters. Pet store representatives supported much of the bill but objected to the three-day waiting period for financed purchases, expanded reimbursement, and unfair trade practice penalties; others argued the bill would add red tape and litigation. The committee adopted the amendment and then reported the bill favorably. The committee also heard SB 1722 on app stores and minors, which would require age verification, parental consent for minors, app-content disclosures, and enforcement by the Department of Legal Affairs. Supporters said the bill would help parents protect children online; opponents warned it could force collection of sensitive personal data, create privacy and constitutional problems, and duplicate existing parental tools. Members debated the balance between child safety and privacy, and the committee reported the bill favorably. Finally, the committee heard CS/SB 422 on ADS-B aviation data, which would bar use of ADS-B information to calculate certain landing or access fees; an amendment added departures to the restriction. Pilots supported the bill as a safety and privacy measure, while airport representatives opposed it as undermining airport finances and shifting costs. The amendment was adopted, and the hearing on the bill began with testimony from both sides.

Transcript Highlights:

• Now, that part was before the committee, before, was supposed to be retroactively applied.
• Now, that part was before the committee before, was supposed to be retroactively applied.
• committee before was supposed to be the committee before was supposed to be uh<00:25:01.279> retroactively
• 02.799> it<00:25:02.960> was<00:25:03.159> not<00:25:03.919> so uh retroactively
• applied it was not so uh retroactively applied it was not so that<00:25:04.480> fixes<00:25:04.880

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Senator Figures, I understand this is Senator Figures, I understand this is not<00:31:43.039> retroactive
• It does not have any not retroactive.
• , it was retroactive for all time<00:31:50.640> and<00:31:50.880> I<00:31:51.039> did
• There's no retroactivity.<00:31:54.480> Senator<00:31:54.799> figures. retroactivity.
• Senator figures. retroactivity. Senator figures.

Bills: HB63, HB19, HB80, HB41, HB20, HB60, HB100, HB71, HB91, HB93, HB63, HB19, HB80, HB41, HB20, HB60, HB100, HB71, HB91, HB93

Keywords: paternity, child custody, joint custody, parental rights, family law, domestic violence, shared parenting, Ebony Alert, missing youth, public safety, law enforcement, racial equity, human trafficking, victim restitution, civil action, criminal prosecution, labor servitude, sexual servitude, class A felony, class B felony

Transcript Highlights:

• The retroactive provision has been removed.
• 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.
• 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 took up SB 1134, which would extend and clarify the use of qualified private providers and computer-based tools in the building permit and inspection process for residential solar energy systems. The sponsor said the bill is intended to reduce long delays in solar permitting and make the process faster and cheaper; Senator Pizzo questioned whether the problem was limited to specific local governments, and a late-filed amendment clarifying the word “application” was adopted. After brief testimony from an industry representative supporting the measure, the committee reported the bill favorably, with Senator Pizzo voting no. Next, the committee considered SB 784, dealing with issuance of addresses and parcel identification numbers for plats and new development. 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 bar fee collection if the local government fails to act within five business days. County representatives said they wanted to keep working on the bill and raised concerns about the private-provider language and the short deadlines, while several senators discussed whether the process should be handled earlier on the front end. The committee then reported the bill favorably. The committee also passed SB 1738 on transportation concurrency, which would let counties that previously opted out of concurrency opt back in by maintaining current levels of service. SB 1080, a local government land regulation bill, was described as a measure to speed development approvals by setting stricter timelines, limiting repeated information requests, and imposing penalties for noncompliance; local-government testimony opposed it as a loss of local control, while builders supported it. After debate, SB 1080 was reported favorably. SB 1260, which clarifies county constitutional officer budget procedures and creates an appeal process for clerks and supervisors of elections similar to sheriffs, was also reported favorably after members discussed possible adjustments to avoid burdening county budget negotiations. Finally, the committee took up SB 420, as amended by a strike-all, which would prohibit counties and municipalities from adopting or funding DEI-related ordinances, policies, programs, offices, or contracts, and would expose officials to misfeasance/malfeasance claims and local governments to lawsuits. The sponsor said the amendment removed retroactive language, delayed the effective date, and added definitions and contract-certification requirements, but many senators and public speakers argued the bill was overbroad, vague, and would chill local efforts such as Black History Month, women-owned business programs, minority contracting, and community outreach. Supporters said it would ensure merit-based government action and consistency with state standards. The amendment was adopted, but the bill drew extensive opposition testimony and debate over its scope and potential conflict with federal and state law.

Transcript Highlights:

• Additionally, the committee substitute just adds retroactive language in the new Section 2.
• The way this is written is retroactive application, which is unconstitutional under our Texas Constitution
• Ex post facto means before-the-fact retroactive law or any law impairing the obligation of contracts
• this legislation that we fix that unconstitutional problem in this bill so that it doesn't have retroactive

Summary: The committee first heard Senate Bill 2215, which would clarify that property owners may challenge municipal zoning ordinances that are adopted without following Chapter 211 procedures, and would expressly waive municipal sovereign immunity for declaratory, injunctive, and mandamus actions in those cases. The bill sponsor and witnesses argued it would simply enforce existing notice, hearing, and due process requirements and give landowners a practical remedy when cities fail to comply. Testimony in support came from attorneys and a landowner describing alleged zoning actions in Selma that they said occurred without proper notice or hearings and caused significant financial harm. After questions, the committee substitute was withdrawn and the bill was left pending. The committee then took up Senate Bill 2639, which would add disclosure and compensation requirements for local historic designations, including compensation based on the greater of repair/restoration costs or the difference in appraised value with and without the designation. The bill author said it was intended to address situations where historic designation delays or blocks redevelopment and to ensure property owners are fairly compensated. A property owner testified in support, describing an Austin case in which a demolition permit led to historic designation and what he said was a costly forced rehabilitation. Opponents, including a preservation advocate and an East Austin resident, argued the current process is already rigorous, rare, and balanced, and that the bill would undermine cities’ ability to preserve historic places and community heritage. During closing on SB 2639, the chair raised a concern that Section 3B appeared to apply retroactively to pending cases, which he said could be unconstitutional under the Texas Constitution’s prohibition on retroactive laws. The committee did not resolve that issue during the hearing, and the bill was left pending. The committee then adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• First party trusts are generally seen as sort of a retroactive measure.
• Um, so I take this as a retroactive measure in the event that something were to happen, they designate
• Um, so I take this as a retroactive measure in the event that something were to happen, they designate
• I could just be missing it, but I want to make sure that we aren't opening that up in some way. retroactive
• measure in the event that retroactive measure in the event that something<00:23:50.400> were<

Keywords: Meeting Start: 00:00 Attendance Roll Call: 00:01 SB 132 Discussion 00:44 SB 132 Vote 07:10 SB 33 Discussion 08:30 SB 33 Vote 17:24 SB 85 Discussion 18:08 SB 85 Vote 25:58 Adjournment: 26:38, 958, all

Summary: The committee first took up Senate Bill 132, which would clarify that state law does not limit local governments’ authority to regulate businesses affiliated with licensed massage therapists. The sponsor and supporting testimony from a police chief and the Kentucky League of Cities said the bill is aimed at helping cities respond to complaints about suspected illegal activity, including possible human trafficking, by expressly allowing local ordinances on zoning, licensing, inspections, advertising, hours, and sanitation. The bill also increases the penalty for practicing massage therapy without a license from a class B to a class A misdemeanor and makes each unlicensed session a separate offense, while preserving existing protections for trafficking victims. The committee then heard Senate Bill 33, which addresses recovery residence centers. Senator Thomas said the bill responds to fraudulent or noncompliant recovery homes operating without proper certification and creating neighborhood problems. The measure would require recovery residences to notify cities when they apply for and receive certification, report certain ownership and contact information, and allow cities to keep a registry so they can identify certified facilities. Testimony from the Kentucky Alliance of Recovery Residences supported the bill’s enforcement goals but objected to making addresses public, citing safety concerns for vulnerable residents; the sponsor agreed to remove the public-record language through a floor amendment. The committee passed the bill favorably 8-0. Finally, the committee considered Senate Bill 85, which would allow state retirement benefits to be directed to a special needs trust. The sponsor and co-sponsor said the bill is intended to help state employees provide for a dependent with special needs after the employee’s death without affecting eligibility for waiver or other benefits. A witness from the Kentucky Alliance of Recovery Residences supported the concept and noted the importance of clear language, while Senator McDaniel raised a technical concern about whether the bill could allow benefits to be directed to an unintended beneficiary. The sponsor said the language would be reviewed and clarified if needed. The committee approved the bill 8-0 with favorable expression and adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• for them to submit their Medicaid application, at which point their Medicaid eligibility will be retroactive
• for them to submit their Medicaid application, at which point their Medicaid eligibility will be retroactive
• What happens then with respect to the payments and the retroactive payments that were discussed earlier
• PASS  EITHER METRIC WHAT HAPPENS THEN WITH RESPECT   288 TO THE PAYMENTS AND THE RETROACTIVE
• is my understanding that they will be paid regardless of certifications and background checks retroactively

Summary: The Health Facilities Subcommittee met to receive implementation updates from the Agency for Health Care Administration on three bills passed in prior sessions. First, Deputy Secretary Brian Meyer reported on the transfer of the Children’s Medical Services managed care plan from the Department of Health to AHCA under HB 1085. He said the move was administrative only, with no change to enrollment, providers, services, or clinical eligibility functions, and that it was intended to create efficiencies by aligning procurement and shifting staff resources between agencies. Members then questioned AHCA about reports of reductions in private duty nursing and therapy services for medically fragile children, including concerns about appeals, provider credentialing, and whether families were losing services or being transitioned appropriately. AHCA said it was reviewing denials, monitoring the plan, and using contractual remedies while focusing on maintaining access for members. The committee also reviewed implementation of a bill creating permanent Medicaid eligibility for individuals with permanent disabilities. AHCA staff explained that the agency had submitted a federal 1115 waiver request after public comment and stakeholder meetings, but CMS had indicated it did not anticipate approving the requested authority. Members pressed AHCA on why the waiver was submitted later than the bill’s directive date and on whether the delay was avoidable. AHCA said the waiver was complex and required review, drafting, and public input, and noted that DCF already has a specialized unit to help with redeterminations while the agencies work on operational changes. The committee discussed the practical impact on families who struggle with annual eligibility renewals and the need for clearer communication and faster follow-up from the agency. Finally, AHCA presented on the home health aide program for medically fragile children and related Medicaid eligibility changes. The agency described the 2023 law that created a family caregiver provider type and the 2025 changes that increased the hourly rate, expanded hours, reduced training requirements, and removed caregiver earnings from Medicaid eligibility calculations, subject to federal approval. AHCA said it had completed state public comment, submitted the waiver amendment to CMS, and was awaiting federal action. Members raised concerns that some families may have enrolled or begun work before the eligibility fix was in place and may have lost benefits, especially in Broward County. AHCA said it would work with affected families and plans, review outreach through DCF and the health plans, and continue rulemaking, system updates, and provider training. The meeting ended with the chair noting that the committee had received the updates and adjourned without objection.

Transcript Highlights:

• The next provision is retroactive Medicaid eligibility.
• <00:20:59.440> So retroactive Medicaid eligibility. So retroactive Medicaid eligibility.
• Similarly with six-month renewals, same timeline, with the retroactive eligibility changes.
• Similarly with six-month renewals, same timeline, with the retroactive eligibility changes.
• <00:41:58.640> um same timeline um with the retroactive um same timeline um with the retroactive

Bills: HR1

Keywords: January 6 insurrection, pardon, law enforcement, violent crimes, public safety, justice system, political accountability, 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Miss Whitney, any further comment on the retroactivity? I would ask Mr.
• Cox if he knows why the retroactivity is.
• <01:26:53.480> and could explain why it's retroactive and could explain why it's retroactive
• I would ask Mr Cox if he retroactivity I would ask Mr Cox if he knows<01:27:33.119> why<01:27
• <01:27:34.320> thought knows why the retroactivity is I thought knows why the retroactivity is

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We made some additional clarifying changes in 2024 regarding retroactivity.
• c> 2024 changes in 2024 changes in 2024 um<00:12:44.000> regarding<00:12:44.839> retroactivity
• <00:12:45.839> Uh<00:12:46.240> currently um regarding retroactivity.
• Uh currently um regarding retroactivity.

Keywords: 919, house, all

Summary: The Public Safety and Judiciary Conference Committee met on May 13, 2025, with a quorum present and heard emotional testimony on Senate File 281, the coercion crime bill. Jamie Bumth testified about her son Carter’s death by suicide after being targeted in an online sextortion scheme, describing how the perpetrator groomed, shamed, and extorted him and urging lawmakers to hold offenders accountable and better protect children online. Members thanked her for sharing her story, and the committee then moved on without further discussion of that item. The committee next adopted several agreed-upon policy items. It approved Article 4, R17 House language, which extends consecutive sentencing to local jail inmates who assault a sheriff’s correctional officer, mirroring existing law for state correctional inmates and limiting the scope to first- through fourth-degree assault. The motion passed unanimously. Members also adopted Article 5, R1 Senate language with changes: replacing “preserve and protect” with “document,” removing a disputed provision related to fleeing individuals for future work, and inserting “active” so the language refers to facilitating the active search for a missing person. The committee then adopted the A3 amendment concerning felony murder resentencing, clarifying that when eligible individuals are resentenced, the predicate felony or lesser-included offense is redesignated for the felony murder charge while preserving the original conviction date, and applying the clarification to resentencings from August 1, 2023. All motions passed, and the committee adjourned after concluding its formal agenda.

Transcript Highlights:

• today in favor of Senate Bill 942, which enables courts to require the father of a child to pay retroactive
• today in favor of Senate Bill 942, which enables courts to require the father of a child to pay retroactive
• It fits within the framework that we already seek retroactive child support in most of our establishment
• to the discretion of the court and the statutes, but this pretty much just expands the existing retroactive

Summary: The committee first adopted its rules, which were distributed in the same form as the prior session’s rules. Members then took up several bills, beginning with SB 711, an HOA/condominium association bill that would extend and conform property-owner protections to condominium associations; the bill’s author and a Community Associations Institute representative testified in support, and the bill was left pending. SB 942 would allow child support and certain prenatal/postnatal medical expenses to be calculated from the date of conception rather than birth; it drew supportive testimony from the Texas Public Policy Foundation and the Attorney General’s Child Support Division, and was also left pending after testimony. SB 1448, an estates and probate cleanup bill, would require transfer of original wills by qualified delivery, add notice and electronic-order requirements for statutory probate courts, and make other clarifications; it received supportive testimony from the Texas Real Estate and Probate Institute and was left pending. The committee also heard SB 1403, the Attorney General’s Title IV-D child support modernization bill, which updates notice, review, remote-hearing, and administrative-process provisions and clarifies several enforcement and evidence rules; the AG’s office testified that it would improve efficiency, and the bill remained pending. SB 1404 would allow courts to require an email address in final SAPCR orders when other contact information is nondisclosed and clarify service and judgment requirements; the Attorney General’s office described it as a good-government measure, and it was left pending. SB 1559 would require transfer of protective orders into divorce or custody cases to avoid conflicting orders; family-law practitioners and a family court judge testified that it would resolve longstanding conflicts identified by multiple courts of appeals, and the bill remained pending. Finally, the committee considered SB 746, a guardianship bill that would address conflicts of interest in guardianship proceedings, allow guardian ad litem appointment earlier in the process, and require timely court action on annual guardianship reports and accounts; a committee substitute would remove some provisions and extend a reporting deadline from 20 to 30 days. TREP supported the bill, and one practitioner suggested requiring courts to state reasons when rejecting annual accounts. SB 1536 would require dementia and Alzheimer’s training for certain family guardians, with a committee substitute narrowing the scope and reducing the training time from three hours to one; the Alzheimer’s Association supported the measure and the substitute, and the bill was left pending. No bills were voted out of committee during the meeting.