Transcript Highlights:

• in your school system who sent their child to the special school district every day and had them locked
• So I'm not for locking kids into where their zip code is.
• So I'm not for locking kids into where their zip code is.

Keywords: 959, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• in</c><00:15:12.520><c> and</c><00:15:12.800><c> and</c><00:15:13.040><c> and</c><00:15:13.240><c> lock
• /c><00:15:13.600><c> your</c><00:15:13.760><c> odds</c><00:15:13.960><c> and</c> go in and and and lock
• in your odds and go in and and and lock in your odds and look<00:15:14.200><c> at</c><00:15:14.320><

Keywords: 00:00 CALL TO ORDER 00:05 ROLL CALL 01:03 HB 566 DISCUSSION 03:05 HB 566 VOTE 05:10 HB 885 DISCUSSION 08:03 HB 885 VOTE 09:55 HB 904 DISCUSSION 33:10 HB 904 VOTE 34:28 ADJOURNMENT, 958, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So in summary, senators, I would propose this proposal would lock in an unclear future for our public
• So in summary, senators, I would propose this proposal would lock in an unclear future for our public
• They're locked up in lawsuits on a continual basis.

Summary: The committee first approved the minutes from February 20 and February 23, 2026. It then introduced several RS measures, including RS 3313-C-1 on Idaho Housing and Finance Association reporting and transparency, RS 33525 relating to an Idaho Department of Fish and Game gun club-related alternative, and RS 3344-1, a trigger bill concerning machine guns if the federal ban is repealed or overturned. Each of those motions passed without opposition. The committee then heard Senate Bill 1326, a private property/warrant bill sponsored by Senator Harris. The bill would generally require government agents to have a warrant, exigent circumstances, or consent before entering private land not open to the public, while preserving certain exceptions for law enforcement, water rights, drones, weed control, and abatement districts. Supporters, including landowners and the Idaho Farm Bureau, described experiences with government officials entering private property without permission; Fish and Game and the Idaho Association of Counties opposed the bill, arguing it would hinder routine compliance checks and enforcement. After testimony and questions, the committee voted to send SB 1326 to the 14th order for possible amendment. Next, the committee heard Senate Bill 1286, sponsored by Senator Nichols, which would regulate paid non-accredited assistance for veterans’ federal benefit claims. Supporters said the bill would protect veterans from aggressive marketing, unclear fees, and misuse of personal information while preserving access to free help and allowing contingent-fee arrangements under set rules. Some veterans testified in favor of consumer protections, while one veteran said the bill could limit his ability to choose paid help that had worked for him. The committee approved a motion to send SB 1286 to the floor with a do pass recommendation. Finally, the committee heard Senate Joint Resolution 103, sponsored by Senator Adams, proposing a constitutional amendment to create a trust for certain lands granted or acquired from the federal government and to bar their sale, with revenues used for land management, county payments, and education-related purposes. Supporters framed it as a way to protect public lands from sale and preserve access, while opponents from Conservation Voters for Idaho and the Wilderness Society warned it could create financial uncertainty, wildfire costs, and management problems without a clear state structure. The transcript ends during continued testimony on the resolution, with no final committee action shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• So in summary, Senators, I would propose this proposal would lock in an unclear future for our public
• They're locked up in lawsuits on a continual basis.
• They're locked up in lawsuits on a continual basis.

Keywords: 989, all

Summary: The committee first approved minutes from prior meetings, then considered several RSs and bills. It introduced RS 3313, which Senator Galloway said would improve transparency in Idaho Housing and Finance Association spending and outcomes; RS 33525, described as a codification of an alternative arrangement related to a gun club; and RS 33341, a trigger bill to protect machine gun possession and related activity in Idaho if the federal ban is repealed or overturned. All three motions to print passed without opposition. The committee then heard Senate Bill 1326, a private-property bill sponsored by Senator Harris and supported by the Idaho Farm Bureau and several landowners who described government employees entering private land without permission. The bill would require warrants, consent, or exigent circumstances for government entry onto private land not open to the public, add civil penalties and attorney fees for violations, and preserve certain exceptions for law enforcement, water rights, drones, weed control, and abatement work. Fish and Game and the Idaho Association of Counties opposed parts of the bill, citing concerns about routine compliance checks, enforcement, and the private cause of action. The committee voted to send SB 1326 to the 14th order for possible amendment. Next, the committee heard Senate Bill 1286, which would regulate paid, non-accredited assistance for veterans’ federal benefit claims. Senator Nichols and supporters said the bill would protect veterans from aggressive marketing, unclear fees, and misuse of personal information while preserving access to free services and veteran choice. Some testimony raised concerns about limiting who veterans can hire and about the federal accreditation framework, but supporters argued state action was needed to curb bad actors. The committee voted to send SB 1286 to the floor with a do pass recommendation. Finally, the committee took up Senate Joint Resolution 103, a proposed constitutional amendment to create a state trust for certain federal lands and prohibit their sale. Senator Adams argued the measure would protect public lands from future disposal and preserve access, while opponents from conservation groups, counties, forest products, and wildlife organizations warned it could create major management, wildfire, and county funding problems and lacked a clear state management structure. Supporters from sportsmen and some county officials said the amendment would provide a backstop against privatization. The transcript ends during continued testimony on SJR 103, with no final committee action shown.

Transcript Highlights:

• There's big decisions being made in the coming months that will sort of lock in some important features
• And so this is a really... ...lock in some important features and trade-offs.
• an expectation of a set amount of allowances to 2030, and we think that that should be honored and locked

Summary: The committee heard an overview of CARB’s proposed amendments to California’s Cap-and-Invest program, implemented under AB 1207 and SB 840 after last year’s reauthorization through 2045. CARB said the draft rule changes are intended to support affordability, market certainty, and the state’s 2030 and 2045 climate targets, while also addressing offsets, utility allowance transfers, leakage protections for industry, and post-2030 allowance budgets. Members emphasized the importance of completing the rulemaking on schedule this spring so the changes can take effect by September 1, 2026. A major focus was how allowances are allocated among electric utilities, natural gas utilities, industry, and the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. CARB explained that the proposal transfers natural gas utility allowances to electric utilities over time to support electrification and ratepayer protection, while maintaining free allowances for industry to reduce leakage risk and preserve in-state manufacturing and refining. Several members and panelists questioned whether the proposed utility changes could raise rates, whether the transition from gas to electric credits should happen faster, and whether the industrial allocation changes reduce climate credit and GGRF revenues more than necessary. CARB and panelists said they were open to additional data and comments, and noted that the proposal is still in public comment. The committee also discussed carbon capture, carbon removal, and refining. Members asked CARB to ensure that CCUS and CDR are clearly recognized as viable compliance pathways and to keep SB 905 rulemaking on track. On refining, members raised concerns about imported gasoline, leakage, and the need for better data on the carbon intensity of imported fuels; CARB said cap-and-invest applies to fuel suppliers at the rack, while life-cycle accounting issues are handled more through the Low Carbon Fuel Standard and related modeling. CARB said it is continuing technical work on those data tools. In the second panel, the LAO, IEMAC, EDF, and SCAPA representatives generally agreed that the program faces real tradeoffs between affordability, ambition, and leakage protection. The LAO and IEMAC stressed that the Legislature should scrutinize how CARB divides the allowance “pie,” since more free allocations to utilities or industry mean less revenue for GGRF. EDF argued the program could be somewhat more ambitious in the near term without harming affordability, while SCAPA said the proposal would reduce allowances for publicly owned utilities and could undermine early decarbonization investments and ratepayer benefits. No votes were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• There's big decisions being made in the coming months that will sort of lock in some important features
• And so this is a really... ...of lock-in and some important features and trade-offs.
• was an expectation of a set amount of allowances to 2030, and we think that should be honored and locked

Summary: The Joint Legislative Committee on Climate Change Policy heard an overview from CARB on proposed amendments to California’s Cap-and-Invest program, which was reauthorized through 2045 by AB 1207 and SB 840. CARB said the draft rules are intended to preserve affordability, market certainty, and progress toward the state’s 2030 and 2045 climate targets. The agency described the program’s main features, including the declining emissions cap, utility and industrial allowance allocations, offset changes, the allowance price containment reserve, and new reporting and oversight requirements. CARB also said the rulemaking is on a public comment timeline, with board consideration planned for late May and an effective date targeted for September 1, 2026. Committee members focused heavily on electricity affordability, the planned shift of free allowances from natural gas utilities to electric utilities, and whether the proposal would raise rates for investor-owned and publicly owned utilities. CARB said the proposal is meant to protect ratepayers from compliance costs and that the utility allocation is based on updated data showing utilities are greener than before, but members and utility representatives argued the transition should happen faster and that the current draft could reduce expected revenues and disrupt long-term planning. Members also pressed CARB on carbon capture and sequestration, asking that the regulations clearly recognize it as a compliance pathway, and on whether the SB 905 rulemaking for carbon capture should move forward on schedule. A second major topic was industrial allocations, especially for refiners and other sectors at risk of leakage. CARB said it is keeping all industries at high leakage risk through 2030, maintaining the current cap-adjustment approach, and leaving room for additional comments and data on whether refiners need more allowances to avoid economic leakage and preserve in-state refining. Members also questioned how imported gasoline is treated, and CARB explained that transportation fuel is regulated at the rack and through the low-carbon fuel standard, while cap-and-invest covers in-state tailpipe and smokestack emissions rather than full life-cycle emissions. CARB said it is open to using additional data, including SB 253 reporting, to improve fuel carbon-intensity estimates. The panel of outside experts largely agreed that the program must balance affordability, ambition, and leakage concerns, but they differed on how much allowance value should go to utilities, industry, and the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. The Legislative Analyst’s Office emphasized that the Legislature should scrutinize CARB’s allocation choices now because they will be hard to change later. An IEMAC representative said the proposal appears to shift more allowance value to industry and utilities, which could reduce GGRF revenues, while EDF argued the cap could be tightened further in the near term without triggering price containment. SCAPA, representing publicly owned utilities, warned that the proposal would reduce utility allowances and could raise costs for ratepayers and undermine early decarbonization investments. No votes were taken at the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• There's big decisions being made in the coming months that will sort of lock in some important features
• And so this is a really... ...lock in some important features and trade-offs.
• an expectation of a set amount of allowances to 2030, and we think that that should be honored and locked

Summary: The committee heard an overview and discussion of CARB’s proposed amendments to California’s Cap-and-Invest program, implemented under AB 1207 and SB 840. Chairs and members emphasized the program’s role in meeting climate targets while balancing affordability, and CARB described the proposal as intended to preserve market certainty, strengthen cost containment, address utility affordability, and support the state’s 2045 carbon-neutrality goal. CARB also noted the public comment period, the planned board hearing, and the goal of an effective date of September 1, 2026. Members questioned CARB on several implementation issues, including whether the rulemaking would be completed on time, the treatment of carbon capture and sequestration, the timing of the transfer of allowances from natural gas utilities to electric utilities, and the impact on ratepayers. CARB said it was on track to meet the May deadline, that CCUS/CDR could be further refined in the proposal and would also be addressed in a separate SB 905 rulemaking later in the year, and that it was seeking to protect ratepayers while inviting more utility data during the comment period. The committee also discussed refining-sector leakage risk, gasoline imports, and how imported fuel is accounted for under cap-and-invest versus the low-carbon fuel standard. A second panel of outside experts and stakeholders then testified. The Legislative Analyst’s Office and IEMAC representatives explained the major statutory changes, including putting offsets under the cap, shifting allowances from natural gas to electric utilities over time, and changing how allowance value is divided among utilities, industry, and the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. They stressed that CARB has significant discretion in setting the allowance “pie,” and that more free allocations to utilities or industry reduce GGRF revenues. EDF’s representative argued the proposal should be adopted this spring, said the utility transition should happen faster, and urged a tighter near-term emissions cap. SCAPA, representing publicly owned utilities, opposed the proposed utility allocation changes, saying they would reduce expected allowances, undermine long-term planning, and could force higher rates or reduced decarbonization investments.

Transcript Highlights:

• There's big decisions being made in the coming months that will sort of lock in some important features
• And so this is a really... ...of lock-in and some important features and trade-offs.
• an expectation of a set amount of allowances to 2030, and we think that that should be honored and locked

Keywords: 987, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• c><00:16:29.440><c> know</c><00:16:29.600><c> they'd</c><00:16:29.759><c> be</c><00:16:29.920><c> locked
• </c><00:16:30.279><c> out</c> do this you know they'd be locked out do this you know they'd be locked

Keywords: 912, senate, all

Summary: The committee heard testimony on a series of housing measures focused on streamlining approvals, reshaping financing programs, and expanding affordability requirements. SB 27 would exempt state-financed housing developments from County Council approval; SB 38 would bar county legislative bodies from changing housing proposals in ways that increase project costs; SB 25 would let counties reduce housing capacity in one area only if they offset it elsewhere with no net loss; and SB 379 would require perpetual affordability covenants for HHFDC projects and prohibit affordable housing in special flood hazard areas. SB 378 would create an HHFDC working group to identify mixed-use Maui properties for possible acquisition, SB 414 would authorize condemnation proceedings for a new Lānaʻi access road tied to disaster recovery, and SB 13 would eliminate the state income tax mortgage interest deduction for second homes. Testimony was mixed across the bills, with state agencies and housing advocates generally supporting faster permitting and more production, while county planners, NAIOP, Catholic Charities, and others raised concerns about local control, marketability, financing feasibility, and long-term affordability enforcement. A major portion of the hearing centered on the rental housing revolving fund. SB 70 would limit eligible applicants to government agencies or organizations that reinvest all surplus into additional housing; HHFDC said most developers would not object in principle but questioned how the surplus requirement would be enforced, while NAIOP and Catholic Charities opposed it as too restrictive and difficult to monitor. SB 71 would amend the fund’s preference criteria and eligibility rules, and SB 163 would require HHFDC to prioritize projects with the shortest repayment terms and highest unit production per dollar per year. HHFDC and some advocates supported the goal of faster recycling of funds, but NAIOP and Catholic Charities warned that shorter loan terms and narrowed preferences could burden developers and disincentivize projects, especially for lower-income tenants. The chair indicated SB 163 would be deferred and its concerns folded into amendments to SB 71. In decision-making, the committee voted to pass SB 27, SB 38, SB 70, and SB 71 with amendments, and SB 25 unamended. The chair said SB 27 would be amended to include projects with a state financing commitment and a report note that such projects still undergo 21-38 review; SB 38 would receive technical changes and language preventing county bodies from imposing cost-increasing conditions; SB 70 would add language addressing enforcement of the surplus requirement and a preamble citing the need to recycle taxpayer-financed housing value; and SB 71 would be amended to incorporate concerns raised in SB 163, including a broader preamble and revised priority criteria. SB 163 was deferred, while the other measures on the agenda were heard but no final action was described in the transcript excerpt.

Transcript Highlights:

• this</c><01:57:59.840><c> is</c><01:58:00.000><c> if</c><01:58:00.239><c> we're</c><01:58:00.400><c> locked
• </c><01:58:00.639><c> in</c> concerns with this is if we're locked in concerns with this is if we're
• locked in with<01:58:01.040><c> this</c><01:58:01.280><c> requirement</c><01:58:02.000><c> in</c><01:
• /c><01:58:15.599><c> it's</c> group one to group two after it's group one to group two after it's locked
• . locked. locked.

Keywords: 9:00am HB 155 9:30am HB 1102 10:30am HB 1109 11:00am HB 1356 11:30am HB 1469 1:00pm HB 1323 2:00pm HB 1376, 928, house, all

Summary: The meeting began with unanimous committee approval of amendment 2026-2021S to HB 2. Senator Lang explained the amendment corrected a drafting error so that $2.5 million in state funds, matched with federal money for a total of $5 million, could be spent during the biennium rather than lapse at the end of the fiscal year. The money is intended to stabilize Medicaid per diem rates for county nursing homes, and members agreed without objection to adopt the amendment and continue working from the bill as amended by the Senate. The committee then discussed HB 155 and a proposed amendment, 2026-201H, dealing with the business enterprise tax. The House side described the proposal as a compromise that would raise the filing threshold from $250,000 to $375,000 and create a trigger that would reduce the BET rate by 0.05% for each $100 million in combined business tax surplus, down to a floor of 0.25%. Senate members opposed lowering the rate at this time, arguing that tax relief should focus on the filing threshold, which they said would remove filing burdens for about 3,500 small businesses, and that rate cuts should be considered in a budget cycle rather than an off-year. Concerns were raised that one-time revenues, such as tax amnesty receipts or federal repatriation-related surpluses, could unintentionally trigger reductions. Representative Sweeney later offered a revised approach by moving the effective date of the trigger mechanism to January 1, 2028, and said he was also willing to carve out tax amnesty revenues or adjust the effective date to avoid using one-time funds. The Senate remained unwilling to agree to a rate reduction, though it expressed openness to raising the filing threshold further. The committee ultimately did not resolve the business tax issue and recessed to continue discussions at a later time. The final item discussed was HB 1102, concerning an increase in the research and development tax credit paired with changes to state park fees. House members supported the R&D credit increase but opposed tying it to higher park fees, citing concerns about tourism, especially at border parks, and noting that the Department of Natural and Cultural Resources had said it did not need the increase. Senate members defended the park fee changes as a fairness issue, arguing that New Hampshire residents should pay less than out-of-state visitors and that the department had not raised rates in many years. No vote was taken on this item during the discussion captured here.

Transcript Highlights:

• Um, one middle school uses the pouches that lock.
• If that's not locked and secured, um, that liability issue really makes teachers uncomfortable.
• </c><00:03:33.120><c> Another</c><00:03:33.920><c> um</c><00:03:34.159><c> high</c> pouches that lock
• Another um high pouches that lock.
• If that's not locked and secured, door.

Bills: HB1559, HB2012, HB2297, HB2122, HB2345, HB2398, HB2534, HB2621

Keywords: telecommunication devices, student use, public schools, student engagement, educational outcomes, confiscation policy, mental health, statewide policy, community literacy, education, Title I funding, reading proficiency, underserved communities, family engagement, tutoring, literacy support, adult education, community education, literacy programs, workforce development

Transcript Highlights:

• school parking lots for staging their enforcement activities, and that triggered school leaders to lock
• Stores and restaurants are closing or locking their doors in terror of being targeted for being other
• </c><00:14:36.720><c> The</c> leaders to lock down our buildings.
• The leaders to lock down our buildings.
• their doors in terror of being locking their doors in terror of being targeted<00:15:27.120><c> for<

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We're putting the box around things that we probably don't fully understand yet, and I don't like locking
• I just feel like putting percentage numbers in there that are very rigid are going to start locking us
• that are very rigid are going<00:15:12.959><c> to</c><00:15:13.279><c> start</c><00:15:13.519><c> locking
• </c> going to start locking us in. going to start locking us in.
• in um through the law, through locked in um through the law, through HR1,<00:26:13.679><c> and</c><00

Keywords: 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• </c><01:21:16.640><c> out</c><01:21:16.800><c> legitimate</c> information, or to lock out legitimate
• information, or to lock out legitimate users.<01:21:18.159><c> And</c><01:21:18.400><c> again,</c><01
• These processes were effective in quickly identifying and locking the suspicious accounts in our sample
• </c><01:24:19.040><c> the</c><01:24:19.199><c> suspicious</c> identifying and locking the suspicious
• identifying and locking the suspicious accounts<01:24:20.080><c> in</c><01:24:20.239><c> our</c><01:24

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• Or you don't go into the locker room and lock the door this way or that way.

Keywords: 993, senate, all

Summary: The Senate Standing Committee on Education met on April 21 and considered several education-related bills, mostly extensions or technical changes. S-57 (BOCES services to out-of-state school districts), S-150B (small-city school board nominating communication deadlines), S-8904A (BOCES lease terms for properties), S-9148 (exempting certain preschool special services providers from separate Commissioner approval), and S-9611 (extending provisions on certified school psychologists and preschool special education services) were all moved to the floor with little or no opposition. The committee also took up S-2498, which would reduce the required number of lockdown drills in schools from 12 to 10 and adjust the timing of drills. Senator Tedisco spoke strongly against the bill, arguing that repetition is necessary to prepare students and staff for emergencies and that reducing drills would move in the wrong direction on school safety. Chair Mayer responded that the bill still requires a significant number of drills and is intended to reduce trauma, especially for young children. The bill advanced, with Senators Stec and Tedisco opposed and Senator Weber recorded without recommendation. Most other bills were described as aligning existing rules, easing administrative burdens, or extending current law. The committee concluded by noting the meeting was productive and adjourned after moving all listed bills forward.

Transcript Highlights:

• The doorkeeper will lock the door closed. The Chair recognizes Mr. Geren for a second motion.

Bills: HB4, HB1, HB2, HB18, HB19, HB20, HB4, HB1, HB 2, HB20, HB19, HB18, HB 4, HB 1, HB 2, HB 18, HB 19, HB 20

Keywords: redistricting, congressional districts, Texas Legislature, elections, 2020 Census, disaster response, emergency management, mass fatality, justices of the peace, training programs, emergency manager license, volunteer management, justice of the peace training, criminal history checks, state health services, emergency communication, interoperability, grant program, first responders, state council

Transcript Highlights:

• So I know we have Nick Lock here for anyone who has any questions. Yeah, I got one question.

Keywords: 923, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• In short, this bill is smart policy, respectful policy, and urgently needed.
• And I think this is a smart place to look where we can fill a lot of those gaps.
• And I think this is a smart place to look where we can fill a lot of those gaps.

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The Joint Committee on Veterans and Federal Affairs held its second public hearing of the 2025–26 session, with opening remarks from Chairs John Velis and Joe McGonagle outlining testimony on 20 House bills and 18 Senate bills. The hearing covered a wide range of veterans issues, including municipal veterans assistance funds, pension equity, expanding the Office of the Veterans Advocate, veterans service officer staffing, disability benefits eligibility, service dogs, POW tax relief, courtesy parking spaces, women veterans and motherhood, and workforce-related licensing and employment measures. Chairs emphasized the hybrid format, three-minute testimony limit, and written testimony process. Several bills drew support focused on expanding services and access. Representative Arena-DeRosa spoke for bills to broaden municipal veterans assistance funds to cover housing and legal expenses and to study enhanced pension equity for veterans, citing burn pit exposure and shorter life expectancy among veterans. Senator Fattman, Representative Peas, and Veterans Advocate Bob Notch supported bills expanding the Office of the Veterans Advocate to include active-duty service members and their families, arguing it would improve transition support, coordination with state agencies, and retention of military talent in Massachusetts. Representative Arriaga backed a bill to incentivize municipalities to provide full-time or regional veterans service officers and another to study the impact of combat on women veterans and motherhood. Representative Moulton/another sponsor also sought to exempt veterans’ disability payments from income calculations for other state benefits, and Representative Hong and Senator Scanlan supported a state service dog program, POW income tax relief, and courtesy retail parking spaces for veterans. Testimony also focused on workforce and claims-assistance issues. The Military Officers Association of America and James Keene urged passage of bills waiving duplicative education requirements so qualified veterans and military medics can become licensed practical nurses, arguing it would help address health care shortages and recognize military training. Brave Veterans Inc. called for a Veterans Research Trust Fund to protect data and program evaluation work during budget cuts. On claims assistance, one witness supported criminal penalties for unaccredited agents who charge veterans for VA claims help, while a private consulting firm opposed the bill, arguing it would restrict lawful speech and veterans’ choice and that existing federal and HERO Act safeguards already address abuses. The VFW strongly opposed paid claims consulting, said its accredited service officers provide free help statewide, and urged more public awareness of existing free services. No votes or final committee actions were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• And, you know, they have smart lawyers. They have a lot of smart lawyers that work for them.
• And I'm sure their smart lawyers are going to go, hey, you know what?

Summary: The committee heard several bills, but much of the meeting focused on House Bill 306, which would require disclosure when a consumer is interacting with a chatbot rather than a human. Sponsor Senator Townsend described it as a consumer protection measure and said the bill is meant to keep pace with rapidly changing AI technology. Committee members and witnesses raised concerns about the bill’s enforcement structure, especially private rights of action and penalties that could apply even without actual consumer harm. The Department of Justice said the bill would apply where the conduct has a Delaware nexus, and that the disclosure requirement is the key consumer protection. Industry witnesses and chambers of commerce opposed the bill as drafted, arguing it would create broad compliance burdens and expose businesses to excessive litigation risk without a harm requirement or clearer safe harbor language. Earlier in the meeting, the committee discussed House Bill 429, which would update Delaware’s step therapy exception process to include biosimilars and interchangeable biologics. Senator Poore and supporters from Highmark and the Department of Insurance said the bill would modernize insurance law, improve access to effective treatments, and reduce costs; they cited national savings from biosimilars and said the bill has agency support. Members asked about Delaware-specific savings, patient switching, and how the process would work, but no vote was taken during the discussion. The committee also heard House Bill 310, which would exclude large data centers from Blue Collar Jobs Act tax credits; the sponsor said the bill is intended to ensure large energy users contribute more to state and local revenues, while supporters and opponents debated competitiveness and community impacts. House Bill 406, on allowing insureds to choose their auto repair shop, and Senate Bill 347, a cleanup bill related to medical debt collection and personal property levies, were also presented without opposition in the hearing. House Bill 253, concerning who may receive letters testamentary or of administration, was described as a cleanup to align statute with existing practice. The committee approved the meeting minutes, but the transcript does not show final votes on the bills discussed.

Transcript Highlights:

• So I can say when you get the people involved, then you get smart people involved, and you get the people
• Vera, who I happen to represent, some really smart people, great lawyers, are simply trying to access
• Vera, who I happen to represent, some really smart people, great lawyers, are simply trying to access

Keywords: 974, senate, all