Tennessee Senate Bill SB0069

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/9/25
• Chaptered: 3/24/25
• Passed: 3/24/25

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 4, Chapter 29 and Title 68, Chapter 5, Part 5, relative to the genetic advisory committee.

Summary

This bill makes a narrow statutory update concerning Tennessee’s genetic advisory committee. It removes the committee from one of the state’s general “sunset” or continuation provisions in Title 4 and adds it to the list of entities specifically exempted from automatic termination, reflecting that the committee is intended to remain in operation. In practical terms, the measure preserves the genetic advisory committee created under Tennessee Code Annotated § 68-5-503 by ensuring it is not subject to expiration under the state’s review process for certain boards and commissions. The bill does not create new duties, funding, or regulatory powers; it simply updates the state’s administrative code to maintain the committee’s legal status.

Impact

The bill amends Tennessee Code Annotated Title 4, Chapter 29 by deleting the genetic advisory committee from the list of entities subject to termination and amends Title 4, Chapter 29 again to add the committee to the list of entities exempt from sunset provisions. This preserves the committee’s continued existence under Title 68, Chapter 5, Part 5, and affects the state’s administrative structure rather than private parties directly. The practical effect is to keep the genetic advisory committee active without interruption.

Sentiment

The available voting history suggests broad support and little controversy. The Senate Government Operations Committee recommended passage unanimously, with 6 yeas and 0 nays, indicating a routine, noncontroversial administrative measure. No committee transcript was provided, but the absence of recorded opposition and the quick passage through both chambers suggest general agreement on the need to keep the committee in place.

Contention

There is little evidence of substantive contention in the available materials. The only discernible issue is whether the genetic advisory committee should remain subject to the state’s periodic review and sunset process or be permanently exempted. The bill’s sponsors and committee supporters appear to favor continued operation of the committee, while no opposition or competing policy concerns are reflected in the vote record or transcripts.