Transcript Highlights:

• At this point, we don't know anything.
• There was a high point, you know, a high emotion point where finally the sister of C.C.
• I guess they couldn't cross the creek at that point, but the point is they could get anywhere.
• The trigger point—let me give you the other trigger point conversations.
• In my opinion, that's at this point, it's irrelevant. At this point, what do we do in the future?

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Points of personal privilege. Introduction of guests.
• Point of personal privilege. I would love to recognize my assistant. Where are you?
• Speaker Pro Tem, I rise for a point of personal privilege to introduce guests.
• Speaker Pro Tem, I rise for a point of personal privilege to introduce guests.
• It would create a single point of contact in the city to coordinate projects.

Summary: The House convened with prayer and the Pledge of Allegiance, approved the journal, and then spent much of the opening portion of the session recognizing administrative assistants and other guests in the gallery, including a doctor of the day and a visiting robotics team. Members repeatedly thanked their staff for keeping offices and the chamber running, and one member also welcomed civic leaders from Buckeye and a foreign delegation connected to a circular economy forum. The chamber then moved into Committee of the Whole on a series of Senate bills. SB 1060, concerning voting eligibility for certain overseas-born children of service members, drew opposition from one member who argued it would disenfranchise military families; the bill still received a do-pass recommendation. SB 1093, described by opponents as an anti-protest bill, also received a do-pass recommendation. SB 1162 and SB 1270 were both advanced as amended after committee and floor/subfloor amendments, and SB 1814, dealing with substance use disorder-related issues, was amended with a friendly change and advanced with comments about the need for broader study and bipartisan work on fraud, waste, and abuse in that area. The House then entered an additional Committee of the Whole for SB 1345 and SB 1401. SB 1345 was amended to focus on licensure timing and DHS collaboration, then advanced. SB 1401, the Workforce Housing Accelerator Act, was amended after debate over affordability standards and public benefit; supporters said it would speed permitting and reduce housing costs, while critics wanted stronger affordability requirements. The bill was ultimately advanced as amended. The House also took up third reading on SB 1041, a health care institutions bill, where members explained yes votes by citing a recent abuse case in assisted living and arguing the measure would help protect vulnerable adults. The transcript ends during vote explanations on SB 1041.

Transcript Highlights:

• Based factors is a tall and has a total of 100 points with 20 points allocated to each one of 5 categories
• And you're it's either you're awarded 100 points or 0 point depending upon whether the policy change
• And as you can see, it rains in points from 0 to 100 points based upon the score at the Cicero report
• compacts and you can be awarded points on a scale of 0 to 100 points depending upon your level of participation
• The other point is compensated care.

Transcript Highlights:

• Points of personal privilege. Introduction of guests.
• Point of personal privilege. I would love to recognize my assistant. Point of personal privilege.
• Speaker, I rise for a point of personal privilege, introduction of guests.
• I rise for a point of personal privilege. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
• Just wanted to point that out.

Keywords: 1182, all

Summary: The House convened with prayer, the Pledge of Allegiance, approval of the prior journal, and a long series of points of personal privilege recognizing administrative assistants, the doctor of the day, student guests, and other visitors in the gallery. Members repeatedly thanked staff for their work and highlighted Administrative Assistance Day, along with several outside guests including a Coconino High School robotics team, a German embassy delegation, and civic groups from Buckeye. The chamber then moved into Committee of the Whole and considered several Senate bills. SB 1060 and SB 1093 were debated, with opposition to SB 1060 centered on concerns it would disenfranchise children of military families born overseas, and opposition to SB 1093 centered on claims it would chill protest rights; both ultimately received do-pass recommendations. The House also approved committee and floor amendments and do-pass recommendations for SB 1162, SB 1270, and SB 1814, with discussion on SB 1814 focusing on substance use disorder treatment, fraud and abuse concerns, and the need for further study. The Committee of the Whole report was adopted, the bills were properly assigned, and SB 1162, SB 1270, and SB 1814 were engrossed while SB 1060 and SB 1093 were placed on third reading. The House then referred SB 1345 and SB 1401 to an additional Committee of the Whole for further amendment. SB 1345 was amended to focus on licensure timeframes and passed the additional committee. SB 1401, described as a workforce housing accelerator measure, was amended after debate over affordability standards and public benefit, then passed as amended. The additional Committee of the Whole report was adopted, and both bills were engrossed. On third reading, SB 1041 passed 41-11 after extensive debate over electronic monitoring in assisted living and long-term care settings, with supporters citing elder abuse prevention and opponents raising privacy, property-rights, and consent concerns. SB 1805, relating to landlord utility charges, then passed unanimously 52-0. The House also announced an evening charity softball game, recognized an ice cream cake birthday celebration, noted Earth Day, and adjourned until 1:30 p.m. on Monday, April 27, 2026.

Transcript Highlights:

• >> committee, any questions at this point >> committee, any questions at this point
• But I think that's a good protection to have at this point.
• But I think that's a good protection to have at this point.
• But I think that's a good protection to have at this point.
• Um, protection to have at this point.

Bills: HB0003, HB0117, HB0041

Keywords: pregnancy centers, abortion, pro-life, healthcare, women's rights, state regulation, civil rights, freedom of speech, informed consent, civil liability, coercion, healthcare rights, law enforcement, death benefits, retirement, survivor support, public safety, 916, all

Transcript Highlights:

• We are now at an inflection point.
• Witness: ...of points to cover.
• I don't think we're calling for walking back, but given where we are today, point A to point B of carbon
• I think at this point, we are not there yet as to the points that Director Milder made and Professor
• And also, actually, I guess it's four points, five points.

Keywords: 988, house, all

Summary: The Assembly Committee on Utilities and Energy held a hearing on California’s petroleum supply and price volatility amid the Iran conflict and Strait of Hormuz disruptions. Committee members and administration witnesses focused first on short-term supply conditions: the California Energy Commission said crude and refined-product imports were still arriving at healthy levels, West Coast inventories were generally adequate, and there was no expected near-term supply shortfall, though diesel inventories were tighter than gasoline or jet fuel. Officials said California’s reliance on imports has grown as in-state refining capacity has declined, and they described ongoing work to track import flows, inventories, refinery outages, and pricing. The Division of Petroleum Market Oversight said the conflict was driving real price increases, but also highlighted California’s persistent branded-gasoline premium and unusually wide station-to-station price dispersion. DPMO reported that some major-brand stations were charging far above the statewide average, that several outlier stations reduced prices after contact from the division, and that investigations and subpoenas were ongoing. Professor Severin Borenstein argued that while crude oil is a global price driver, much of California’s higher retail price gap is a downstream “mystery gasoline surcharge,” not explained by crude costs alone, and he said the state should focus on imports, port and storage capacity, and competition rather than expecting refinery subsidies or an E15 blend to solve the problem. Industry and labor witnesses took different positions on the causes and solutions. The Western States Petroleum Association said state policy had weakened California’s refining system, making it more dependent on long, fragile supply chains and vulnerable to global shocks, and urged the state to protect remaining refining capacity and reduce regulatory burdens. United Steelworkers Local 675 emphasized that refinery reliability and staffing matter for market stability. Members pressed witnesses on whether California should set fuel-supply targets, how to prepare beyond the next six weeks, whether more import dependence increases risk, and what additional data or authority the state needs. No formal votes or actions were taken during the hearing.

Transcript Highlights:

• Your point of order is not well taken. Point of parliamentary inquiry. State your point.
• Your point of order is not well taken. Point of parliamentary inquiry? State your point, Mr.
• State your point. State your point, Assembly Member Ransom.
• Speaker, I have a point of parliamentary inquiry. That's your point?
• That is not a point of order. The point is not well taken. Excuse me.

Summary: The Assembly met after a quorum call, recess, prayer, and the Pledge of Allegiance, then moved into a highly procedural and contentious floor session centered on redistricting measures. Members debated a point of order raised by Assembly Member DeMaio challenging the constitutionality of SB 280, ACA 8, and AB 604; the Speaker ruled the point not well taken, and the Assembly sustained that ruling on appeal. The body also took up consent-calendar and procedural motions, including suspending rules to adopt late amendments on ACA 8 and to bring the measure up without reference to file. Several motions to re-refer or suspend rules on related measures failed, while the motion to adopt the late amendments on ACA 8 carried. The main substantive item was ACA 8, the Assembly Constitutional Amendment related to redistricting, presented by Assembly Member Berman as a response to mid-decade redistricting efforts in other states, especially Texas. Supporters argued the measure was a temporary, voter-driven response to protect democracy, counter partisan gerrymandering, and address broader threats tied to the Trump administration, including immigration enforcement and health care cuts. Opponents argued ACA 8 would undermine California’s independent citizens redistricting commission, violate the state Constitution, and amount to partisan gerrymandering or a power grab. Members on both sides framed the issue as a defense of democracy, but disagreed sharply over whether the Legislature should act or leave redistricting to voters and the existing commission. No final vote on ACA 8 is shown in the transcript excerpt, but the Assembly did vote on several procedural matters: the appeal of the Speaker’s ruling was sustained 58-18; the motion to adopt late amendments on ACA 8 passed 58-19; a motion to re-refer ACA 8 and SB 280 to Judiciary failed 19-58; and a motion to take up A.J.R. 21 without reference to file failed 19-58. The session remained focused on ACA 8 and related redistricting questions, with extensive floor speeches from both supporters and opponents.

Transcript Highlights:

• We have not reached that point. I expect that we will not. We have not reached that point.
• Therefore, it will be publicly available at some point after the hearing.
• I am the chairman of the Harbor Point Community Task Force.
• I am the chairman of the Harbor Point Community Task Force, located at Harbor Point, which is right on
• Point apartment complex, which we developed in 1986, and it was the old Columbia Point housing project

Keywords: 995, all

Summary: The committee opened by explaining new attendance and public-testimony procedures, including that testimony would be recorded, livestreamed, and generally made public, with possible redactions for sensitive material. The chairs also noted that no committee rules were being formally adopted yet and that no votes would be taken during the hearing. Senator Collins briefly emphasized the committee’s oversight role on land takings and Article 97 issues, including concerns about proposed regulatory changes and the legislature’s constitutional role. The first major bill discussed was H. 3324, concerning the former Christos site on Crescent Street in Brockton and a proposed transfer of state-owned land from DCAM. Representative Michelle DuBois, Representative Rita Mendes, Mayor Sullivan, the Metro South Chamber’s Chris Cooney, Catholic Charities’ Larry Mayne, and Brockton planning director Rob May all supported the bill, describing the parcel as long vacant and arguing it should be reused for a mixed-use project with Catholic Charities, including affordable/workforce housing, an early education center, food pantry, workforce development, and language classes. Several speakers said the project would help retain Catholic Charities in Brockton and bring tax revenue and community services. DuBois outlined expected amendments, including moving one parcel into a municipal sale partnership and changing a “shall” to “may” regarding a right-turn lane. Some members raised questions about whether a deed transfer to a nonprofit was preferable to a long-term lease and about affordability definitions, but the bill was generally supported. Representative Connolly then testified on two Cambridge bills: H. 3308, relating to the Riverside Boat Club and a reconfigured DCR parcel boundary to support a lease with no loss of public space, and H. 3309, which would facilitate access to justice by preserving consideration of a vacant former probate court site for future court use. Senator DiDomenico supported the Riverside Boat Club measure and the broader goal of restoring court access in Cambridge. Members discussed accessibility, possible future court configurations, and the site’s prior use as an emergency shelter. The committee then heard testimony on S. 2217/H. 2108 concerning Columbia Point and access around the UMass/Bayside area. Harbor Point residents, including Orlando Perrella, Michael Corcoran, Richard Fulham, and Miles Byrne, described severe traffic congestion, emergency-access concerns, and frustration with the UMass Building Authority’s handling of the site and prior community commitments. Senator Collins said the committee should consider seeking an SJC opinion, and possibly an Attorney General opinion, on Article 97 and public-access rights. After the in-person testimony concluded, the committee attempted to reach remaining virtual witnesses on S. 2217 but did not receive testimony. With no further witnesses, the committee adjourned without taking any votes.

Transcript Highlights:

• Point zero, who skipped one. Point zero, who skipped one? Yeah, same one, Senate. Point 0.06, 0.0.
• Point 155, Senate. Point 155. And the next one, Senate, your own. Point 155, Senate.
• Point 155, Senate. Point 155, Special Victims, Senate. Point 155, Special Victims, Senate.
• Point 240, the second one down, Senate. Point 2.4 O, the third one down, Senate. Point 2.4, Senate.
• Point 155, House. Point 155, House.

Keywords: 959, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Motion carries. point for the construction and point for the construction and maintenance<00:02:34.640
• > will<00:02:47.880> be The 12-ft access point will be The 12-ft access point will be restricted
• <00:02:54.880> will It is anticipated the access point will It is anticipated the access point
• accepted that that number at this point? accepted that that number at this point?
• point point at<00:32:39.440> this<00:32:39.640> location.

Keywords: 1189, house, all

Summary: The Long Range Capital Planning and Utilization Committee first approved the March 16, 2026 minutes, then took up several Department of Transportation property actions. The committee approved a Greenland access point sale for a cell tower site to Wakefield Investments for $132,800 plus a $1,100 administrative fee, and approved disposal of two Epsom parcels to the town at no cost, with the town assuming demolition of the former depot and the committee waiving the fee. It also approved a Milton access point sale to Jeremy West Champney and Cameron McDermott for $90,000 plus the fee, with conditions requiring permits and other approvals. During the DOT items, members asked about appraisals, access restrictions, and where the administrative fee goes; staff said the fee generally offsets agency administrative costs and may go to a dedicated fund or the general fund depending on the project. The committee then considered three Department of Environmental Services requests for utility easements to bring power to dams so gates can be operated more efficiently and potentially remotely. It approved an easement with New Hampshire Electric Co-op for Pine River Dam in Wakefield, an easement with New Hampshire Electric Co-op for Sunset Lake Dam in Alton, and an easement with Eversource for Suncook Lake Dam in Barnstead. Members discussed whether to waive the $1,100 administrative fee on these items, with some questioning the fee’s purpose and where it is deposited. The committee ultimately approved the DES items as requested, including the fee waivers, while asking staff to research the fee’s history, sufficiency, and use for a future report. Finally, the committee received informational items from the New Hampshire Council on Resources and Development. Members briefly discussed a property at Bloody Point in Newington and the related Sullivan Bridge demolition, and DOT staff said the property had been tabled previously and is now being worked on with Fish and Game for a possible transfer of management and future water access use. No votes were taken on the informational items.

Transcript Highlights:

• They have increased from about 80 basis points to about 120 basis points, but the 120 basis points is
• , not 130 basis points.
• So 8.7 versus 7.9, 80 basis points.
• 50 basis points on a fiscal year-to-date. 50 basis points on a fiscal year to date.
• So we're avoiding that 39 basis points of fees and that cost to carry of around 15 basis points above

Keywords: 908, all

Transcript Highlights:

• Under Rule Four, Section 45, the same principle applies to points of order.
• The point of order is. respectfully overruled.
• The point of order is respectfully overruled. be overruled.
• When would this particular point of order be in order?
• I've ruled on the point of order.

Keywords: 1184, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• To that point, go ahead. Is it to that point for Representative Blackman?
• Which is a point four million just a... I was like... ...which is a point four million.
• This isn't his point. Go ahead, though, Vince. So I think the Senator Fincham's point...
• That's the point.
• Chairman, point of question, point of clarification. Yep, Ms. Wilson.

Bills: HB4154, HB4155, HB4156, HB4157, HB4158, HB4159, HB4160, HB4161, HB4162, HB4163, HB4164, HB4165, HB4166, HB4167, HB4168, HB4169, SB1847, SB1848, SB1849, SB1850, SB1851, SB1852, SB1853, SB1854, SB1855, SB1856, SB1857, SB1858, SB1859, SB1860, SB1861, SB1862

Keywords: general appropriations act, budget, biennial budget, state spending, fiscal year 2026-2027, appropriations, state agencies, public funding, education funding, health and human services, public safety, transportation, government operations, budget bill, fiscal policy, state finance, spending plan, legislative budget, capital appropriations, operating budget

Transcript Highlights:

• Chairman, to that point... Mr. Chairman, to that point...
• Chairman, to that point... Mr. Chairman, to that point.
• Chairman, to that point.
• Point of order.
• It's—I appreciate the point.

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:

• Points of personal privilege.
• Points of personal privilege.
• Points of Personal Privilege.
• Points of Personal Privilege.
• Points of Personal Privileged Proclamations.

Keywords: 1182, all

Summary: The Arizona House opened with prayer, the Pledge of Allegiance, approval of the March 18, 2026 journal, and recognition of Doctor of the Day Dr. Bradley Butler, an Arizona emergency physician and Navy Reserve captain. Members also introduced visiting carpenters, local officials from Show Low, World Down Syndrome Day advocates, and Giffords Courage Fellows. The House read and adopted a proclamation designating March 19, 2026 as ALS Awareness Day, with remarks from Representative Selina Bliss and testimony from ALS patients and advocates about the disease’s impact and the need for research, care, and support. The House then adopted House Resolution 2007 honoring Sheila “Ginger” Mattox, with family and friends present and members speaking about her community service and problem-solving work in Phoenix’s FQ Story neighborhood. The resolution was adopted unanimously, followed by a moment of silence. The chamber also announced committee assignments and received Senate messages listing several bills on first and second reading. The House resolved into Committee of the Whole to consider HB 2680, which received a Commerce Committee amendment and a floor amendment before being recommended do pass as amended. The House adopted the Committee of the Whole report and referred HB 2680 to engrossing. Later, HB 1004 was withdrawn from the Education Committee and additionally referred to Judiciary. The House recessed, made several announcements, and then adjourned until 1:30 p.m. on Monday, March 23, 2026.

Transcript Highlights:

• They have increased from about 80 basis points to about 120 basis points, but the 120 basis points is
• We really expect something, you know, 20, 30, 40 basis points, not 130 basis points.
• So, 8.7% versus 7.9%, 80 basis points.
• , somewhere around 20 basis points.
• So we're avoiding that 39 basis points of fees and that cost to carry of around 15 basis points above

Summary: The committee met to approve prior minutes and receive updates on the Legacy Fund transparency website and fund performance. Staff reported the website procurement was in contract negotiations, with a planned go-live around November 1, and that the site would provide downloadable, more transparent information on fund holdings, allocations, history, and legislative appropriations while protecting confidential data. The investment office then reviewed performance through January 2026, describing strong returns relative to benchmarks, noting real estate and fixed income as weaker areas, and explaining that the fund’s diversification and internal management had helped offset market volatility, including recent geopolitical impacts. Members also discussed the in-state investment program, especially the Bank of North Dakota’s CD-match allocation. Several members questioned whether the program had been static for years and whether the uncommitted balance should remain parked there if it was not being used. The committee voted to pause further transfers into the program until the Bank provides a report and the committee can consider possible statutory changes; the motion also requested a cost-benefit analysis from RVK, and it passed by roll call vote. In the afternoon, RVK presented its review of the investment policy statement as it relates to the in-state investment program. The consultant said it found no major policy impediments, and that implementers and stakeholders generally felt the program was proceeding as intended. RVK emphasized best practices such as third-party due diligence, competitive risk-adjusted returns, diversification, pacing, and exit strategies, while cautioning that required lower-return investments or spending commitments can create pressure on the fund’s long-term real value. The consultant also raised ancillary concerns about state-level concentration risk, the need to distinguish between public and commercial infrastructure, and the lack of a central repository for all state funding commitments to the same projects.

Transcript Highlights:

• Chairman, and this is the final point.
• And members, I would take them to that point on that.
• And so the fact that you increase the base, and we may have made this point at one point.
• It's when you would find—well, a good point.
• Very important point.

Bills: HB2053, HB2116, HB2148

Keywords: stormwater, recharge mapping, water resources, groundwater, appropriation, Arizona, HB2116, Colorado River, litigation fund, water rights, Arizona water law, general fund appropriation, state budget, interstate water compact, Colorado River Compact, water litigation, A.R.S. 45-119, natural resources, water policy, river management

Summary: The committee first considered House Bill 2116, which would appropriate $1 million in fiscal year 2027 from the State General Fund to the Colorado River Litigation Fund. The sponsor said it was a repeat of last year’s request and was intended as a backup if the seven Colorado River basin states cannot reach a new agreement. Arizona Department of Water Resources staff testified in support, explaining the state’s role in ongoing Colorado River negotiations and distinguishing the litigation fund from the executive’s separate Colorado River Protection Fund. The bill received a due pass recommendation on a 17-1 vote. The committee then took up House Bill 2053, which appropriates $100,000 to ADWR for updated stormwater recharge mapping and expands the mapping effort beyond state trust lands to private lands. The committee adopted Chairman Livingston’s amendment, which extended the coordination timeline to one year, broadened the agencies involved, and revised language on site eligibility and the definition of stormwater. The sponsor said the bill would help identify more places to capture stormwater for recharge, while ADWR testified neutral, supporting the mapping work but raising a concern about language tied to appropriable surface water because that is a legal determination for the courts. The amended bill passed 11-7. House Bill 2148 was then heard, proposing to give the legislature authority to appropriate non-custodial federal monies, with requirements for specifying purposes and allowing agencies to spend such funds if the legislature does not act. An amendment excluded university and Board of Regents research grants from the bill’s scope, which the chair said was intended to avoid implementation problems. The sponsor framed the bill as a transparency measure, and members discussed the large amount of federal pass-through funding Arizona receives. The amended bill passed 11-7. After the bills, the committee received a lengthy JLBC presentation comparing the executive budget with the JLBC baseline. Discussion focused on revenue forecasts, the impact of federal tax conformity, state employee health insurance costs, SNAP administrative and error-rate costs under H.R. 1, developmental disabilities and AHCCCS growth, and K-12/ESA funding trends. Members repeatedly criticized the executive budget for funding some ongoing costs on a one-year basis and expressed concern about rising caseloads and supplemental needs. No formal action was taken on the presentation.

Transcript Highlights:

• Maybe not, but you get the point.
• Um, yeah, great point, Senator.
• point you don't have a status. point you don't have a status. Thank<02:54:20.240> you.
• <03:35:53.920> One, wanted to point out three points.
• One, wanted to point out three points.

Keywords: 1191, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• So, for instance, a felony is 12 points, and it takes 15 points to be held over.
• The next time they come back is three points, not a cumulative 17 points, and then we bring them into
• And so thank you for making that point and sort of clarifying what I meant by the point system.
• And so thank you for making that point and sort of clarifying what I meant by the point system.
• Point of information.

Keywords: 959, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• , not a lobbying point, but a clarifying point.
• I do think that's a good point to take. Thank you.
• So that's not to disagree with your point.
• Um, Like I'm just pointing in different directions.
• At this point, I mean, we don't necessarily know what that looks like.

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The subcommittee met on SB 2370 with a quorum present and focused on how to handle proposed 340B-related reporting language. Members discussed three main paths: adopt the LC draft with reporting requirements for covered entities, PBMs, insurers, and manufacturers; convert only the PBM/insurer/manufacturer portions into a study; or turn the entire proposal into a study. Representative Dobervich explained that the study version would keep the same subject areas but delay initial reporting so the data could be analyzed more thoughtfully, and she noted gaps in the original amendments, including federally qualified health centers participating in 340B, 340B contract pharmacies, and a clearer plan for data analysis and administration. Testimony from HHS and the Insurance Department emphasized that collecting data is different from analyzing it and that any version would need clear authority, confidentiality protections, and a designated agency willing to collect, analyze, and publish the information. The Insurance Department said it could potentially collect data but would likely need additional budget resources for analysis, and it noted that the pending PBM bill, SB 1584, could affect what information is already available through regulation. A representative of the North Dakota Pharmacists Association said SB 1584 contains some reporting but is not as comprehensive as the proposal under discussion. Members also discussed whether the proposal belonged in an insulin bill at all, with concerns raised about germaneness and the possibility of sending the matter to the Delayed Bills Committee or placing study language elsewhere. No vote was taken. The subcommittee adjourned after members agreed to continue refining the language over the weekend and bring options back to the full committee, with several members expressing a preference for a combined version that includes both reporting and study elements.