May 14, 2024 2:00PM – Legislative Council

Based on the Legislative Council meeting on May 14, 2024, here are the key topics discussed and the committee actions and votes:

Key Topics

1. Resolution 2402: Policies for Legislative Interim Committees

– The resolution sets policies for legislative interim committees, maintaining policies from the previous year with the addition of clarifying virtual attendance and per diem eligibility for executive and judicial branch committees.

2. Resolution 2403: Approval of Expenditure for National Organizations

– Approval of dues payments for national organizations providing services to legislators, including the Council of State Governments, National Conference of State Legislatures, National Conference of Insurance Legislators, Education Commission of the States, and National Council of Legislators for Gaming States.

3. Resolution 2404: Legislative Drafting Manual Update

– Update of the legislative drafting manual to provide uniform policies for bill drafting and codification. The update includes changes reviewed by the Code Revision Commission, incorporating feedback from public meetings and various stakeholders.

4. Resolution 2405: Administrative Rules Drafting Manual Update

– Update of the administrative rules drafting manual following changes in the legislative process, including recent legislative enactments and interim rulemaking adjustments.

Committee Actions and Votes

1. Resolution 2402

Vote Outcome: Passed 12 to 1

– Yes: Speaker Houston, President Bray, Representative Lehman, Representative Soliday, Representative Stewart, Senator Charbonneau, Senator Garden, Senator Glick, Senator Holdman, Leader Giaquenta, Senator Ford, Senator Yoder

– No: One unnamed member

2. Resolution 2403

Vote Outcome: Passed 13 to 0

– Yes: Speaker Houston, President Bray, Representative Lehman, Representative Soliday, Representative Sterwald, Senator Charbonneau, Senator Garden, Senator Glick, Senator Holdman, Leader Giaquenta, Senator Ford, Senator Yoder, Leader Taylor

– No: None

3. Resolution 2404

Vote Outcome: Passed 13 to 0

– Yes: Speaker Houston, President Bray, Representative Lehman, Representative Soliday, Representative Sterwald, Senator Charbonneau, Senator Garden, Senator Glick, Senator Holdman, Leader Giaquenta, Senator Ford, Senator Yoder, Leader Taylor

– No: None

4. Resolution 2405

Vote Outcome: Passed 13 to 0

– Yes: Speaker Houston, President Bray, Representative Lehman, Representative Soliday, Representative Sterwald, Senator Charbonneau, Senator Garden, Senator Glick, Senator Holdman, Leader Giaquenta, Senator Ford, Senator Yoder, Leader Taylor

– No: None

Make sure that all Hoosiers have an idea of what the plan is in the state of Indiana. And because there is no place in this resolution addressing these needs, I’m going to have to vote. No. Call the roll. I mean, the measure passes twelve to one. Motion passes twelve to one. Agenda item number two, resolution 2402. George? Resolution 240. Two sets policies for the legislative interim committees. The policies are identical to the policies that existed and were adopted by the council last year, with one exception. The exception is that there was some ambiguity as to whether a legislator attending an executive branch or a judicial branch run committee could attend a virtual, attend virtually, and receive a per diem. The executive branch and the judiciary are subject to a statute that does permit them, under certain circumstances, to have. To have two present and physically, and then have other members come virtually. This resolution would indicate that although a legislator who has the responsibility on an executive branch or judicial run committee can attend virtually, we would not be paying per diem for that virtual attendance. The per diem is designed for. To cover expenses. And at the virtual is not necessarily going to cause an expense. So that’s the only change from last year’s set of resolution policies. Other questions? Questions for George. Senator Taylor. Thank you, Mister speaker. Mister chairman. George. The legislative committees, if a legislator attends one of these summer study, they also. I mean, virtually, they also would not receive per diem as well. Right? You spoke to us attending executive and judicial branch committees. But what about the summer study committee? There is a difference between legislative committees and administrative and judicial committees. Those in the executive branch and the judiciary have a statute that provides that you can attend virtually and vote. There’s no similar policy for legislative committees that’s written in any of the policies. So not only would you not receive a per diem, you would not be voting. Thank you for a legislative committee. Further questions for George. Senator Yoder, just for clarification, you. This is saying that a legislator could not attend an interim study committee and get a per diem via a virtual attendance and receive a per diem nor a vote. Is that what is for a legislative committee, presence is like the chamber. Presence is essential for executive branch or for judicial committees, presence is not necessarily required. Can you explain the difference? Statute was created by the General assembly that permits that. Okay, so that’s the difference. That’s the difference. Thank you for discussion. Chair seized on. So moved. Second motion’s been moved and seconded. Call the roll. Speaker. Houston. Yes. President Bray? Yes. Representative Lehman? Yes. Representative Nagel. Representative soliday. Yes. Representative Stewart. Yes. Senator Charbonneau? Yes. Senator Garden. Yes. Senator Glick. Senator Holdeman. Leader Giaquenta. Yes. Representative Hamilton. Representative Pryor. Leader Taylor. Yes. Senator Ford. Aye. Senator Yoder. Explain my vote. Okay. I am going to support this, however, I think it’s very. Very important when it comes to scheduling these meetings. There’s not a precedent or there isn’t a conversation that is taking place to create some normalcy on when these committees are going to take place. And what’s challenging is we are a part time legislature. So when we are getting together, I would agree face to face is, is important, but we don’t have a say in when those meetings are going to happen. And it’s difficult if we’re, I teach and in the fall, when I’m teaching, to be able to know when these committees are going to take place. Sometimes they’re on Wednesday, sometimes they’re on Friday, sometimes they’re on a Monday morning. I mean, there’s zero working together on something for the committee to survey when the best day would be for best day in time for those committee members. I recognize it’s impossible to schedule meetings. I mean, we’ve all been there trying to schedule these meetings, but not even an effort to come up with an idea of when we could schedule in the fall, looking ahead, because they don’t happen in the summer. They do start happening at the end of August and typically throughout the fall so that most members can be present. And I recognize the value of in person, I’m going to support this, but I just wanted to put a plug that it would be beneficial to all Hoosiers if we could have an idea of how to schedule not only for those who are on the committee, but people who want to attend, to testify or participate or be in the room. With that, I’ll vote aye. The measure passes 13 to zero. Motion passes. Agenda item number three, resolution 240. Three resolution three deals with the approval of an expenditure. The General assembly and the budget bill provides a line item for the payment of dues to certain national, nonprofit or organizations that provide services to legislators and have a dues payment that applies to the entire body. This is in addition to the payment of registration fees that several other organizations that legislators attend are paid. So the dues payment are for five organizations which were also approved last year, the Council of State Governments, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the National Conference of Insurance Legislators, the Education Commission of the states, the National Council of Legislators for gaming states. The resolution approves a payment based on an invoice from these organizations up to the amount appropriated by the General assembly. We have a general amount, and if the total of the dues requests exceed that appropriation, the resolution provides for a pro rata reduction in the amount that is paid. We have received invoices from three of the five organizations, and based on their billings, we will not exceed the appropriated amount and in fact, will pay a little bit less than what is appropriated. So the approval of this would authorize the staff to pay. These invoices begin in July of 2024 for discussion. Senator Ford. Thank you, Mister Speaker. George, is the education commission of the states, is that a new conference? No, in the sense that we paid dues to them last year, and I think the year before at least, the structure of the education commission of the states is a little bit different than, for example, NCSL. NCSL is directed toward legislators. The education commission of the states is both an executive branch and a legislative oriented organization. At one point in time, in the distant past, the executive branch picked that up through the budget agency and through. Negotiation. The state, the legislature picked it up as opposed to being a budget agency line item. Okay, great. Thank you for discussion, Senator Yehr. Thank you so much. You said we don’t come close to what gets appropriated. How much? I think I heard that correctly. How much are the dues of the ones that we are identifying here in this resolution? What is the total for 25? The NCSL. The ones I know. NCSL will be approximately 263,000. The education for the states of the states is 91,800. CSG is 248,400. So each of those figures have been rounded. The others are traditionally very small. Encoil is 20,000. And the gaming association has been of legislators have been 5000 in the past. So we should be have a reversion of around. Around $50,000 from the appropriation. One follow. Mister speaker, has there ever been much change in these five over the years or is this. I mean, we haven’t always been a gaming state, but for the most part, since 2012, when I became executive director, there’s been only one that’s been added. All right, thank you, Senator Taylor. Thank you, mister speaker. Do you request, like, I don’t think I’m a member of education commission states or national council legislators for gaming States? Is this by request only? So, member, do we pay like, a flat fee? I just want for. For my own edification, like, I don’t think I’ll ever want to be a part of the insurance legislators, but I might have a membership and I don’t know it. I haven’t requested it. So how does it. You are correct. It is a flat fee and you are a member even though you don’t know it. Oh, okay. I don’t want to go to a conference with Layman. That’s the reason why I just thought so. I’m actually a member of all these, right? Yes. Wow. Okay. Thanks for discussion. Still moved. Second collar roll. Speaker Houston. Yes. President Bray? Yes. Representative Lehman. Yes. Representative Nago. Representative soliday. Yes. Representative Sterwald. Yes. Senator Charbonneau? Senator Garten. Senator Glick. Senator Holdman. Leader Giaquenta. Yes. Representative Hamilton. Representative Pryor. Leader Taylor. Yes. Senator Ford. Yes. Senator Yoder. Aye. Measure passes 13 to zero. Thank you. Move on to item number four, resolution 240. Four. George, let me bring my prop out. And let me also introduce Stephanie Lawyer. She’s the deputy director in the Office of Code Revision and had managed the drafting and revision of the legislative drafting Manual. The legislative drafting manual is the Bible for how legislation is drafted. It provides for a uniform approach to bills and for the codification and language use in the Indiana Code. It was last revised in 2012 and before that in 1999? I believe so once every ten years it gets a refresh, more or less. In 2023, the Legislative Council directed the Code Revision Commission to review the legislative drafting manual, and the exigent reason was there was a discussion on creating more uniformity in the way that. The bills are drafted for the establishment of committees with providing uniform policies for all of them, both ones that are legislative committees, as well as executive branch and judicial committees. I have provided, and I did not do the work. Stephanie did the manual as it would look if adopted by this body. The changes have been marked color coded. And there is. This is exhibit five. That’s on the Internet also. And exhibit six is a summary of what the colors mean as well as a listing of the changes that have been made. So the bottom line is that the code Revision Commission reviewed these proposed changes in a public meeting. The code revision Commission includes not only legislators, but also representatives of the attorney general’s office, the governor’s office, and the judiciary. With that, I’ll let Stephanie answer any of your questions. Questions for Stephanie. Senator Yoder. Thank you, Mister speaker. And thank you, Stephanie. It looks like a lot of work, and I was wondering, when was that public meeting? The first meeting, I believe, was October 8, and I believe the second was October 14. So it’s been a while that this has been out there and circulating. People could comment, be present at the public meeting, and this is just the final step in the process. Thank you for clarification. Thank you for discussion. Chair czone. Resolutions of movement. Second Chair George, please call the roll. Houston. Yes. President Bray. Yes. Representative Lehman. Yes. Representative Nagel. Representative soliday. Yes. Representative Sterwald? Whatever Stephanie needs. Yes. Senator Charbonneau. Senator Garden. Yes. Senator Glick. Yes. Senator Holdman. Leader Giaquente. Yes. Representative Hamilton. Represent pryor. Leader Taylor. Yes. Senator Ford. Yes. Senator Yoder. Aye. The measure passes 13 to zero. Motion pass resolution passes thirteen zero. And the final item on the agenda, resolution 240 five. George. Like 15 other states, the General assembly publishes the administrative rules and a number of other documents prepared by the executive branch. The legislature had, in the 1970s, had just finished codifying the Indiana codes and the statutory law, and they used the expertise they had in codification and publication in order to apply a uniform approach to the language and the publication of administrative rules and certain other documents. The General assembly created, among other things, a drafting manual that is a slimmed down version of what we use for legislative drafting. And we have had. Once again, the legislature asked, rather, the Legislative Council asked us in 2023 to update the drafting manual. And the reason, the primary reason was the passage of House enrolled Act 1623, which made changes in the process in which administrative rules are published, and then again in 2014. 2024. Yes. This last session you passed, Senate enrolled four, which made relatively minor adjustments, additional adjustments. What is before you in exhibit five is the drafting manual that results from incorporating the legislative changes into a style that agencies can use on a uniform basis. The work that preparing this document with the changes were felled to Pam Walters, who is sitting on my side, who has the august title of reviser of rules, and Heather Jarrett, who’s behind me and is the primary person that actually does the editing and publishing of the rules. According to this drafting manual, the Code Revision Commission reviewed all the changes that were related to house enrolled 1623. They have not reviewed the changes that were made to as a result of Senate enrolled act four of the 24th session. And as a result, we have given you exhibit nine, which shows the changes that we are proposing in addition to those that were reviewed by the Code Revision Commission. The changes are nominal. They refer to primarily to provisional and to interim rulemaking. But they also contain a couple of changes. For example, a request that agencies include a short title in a digest that they prepare for each rulemaking, which would be similar to the synopsis. And the purpose for asking for that is an attempt to allow searching by you and members of the public a little easier by providing summaries that can be generated from the legislative website that contains the published material. The changes that were not reviewed by the Code Revision Commission were also reviewed by the Office of OMB, and as a result, we received consent to go forward along with the attorney general office representatives who review rulemaking. So there is no substantive change that has not been reviewed. But we’re doing this. And exhibit nine was not reviewed by the Code Revision Commission. We would ask that you approve, approve the combined set of changes which will bring us concurrent with the approach taken by the General assembly, and we can then ask agencies to uniformly comply with that approach. Questions for George Senator Taylor. Thank you, Mister speaker. The administrator, I remember in the co revision committee there was an administrator once we passed Senate Bill four, I remember the Department of Insurance and a couple other requests were made to make sure that we consider how they make their rules. The rulemaking had to be done at certain times of the year. Has that been resolved in this drafting manual? The answer is there’s nothing inconsistent with that approach. And in fact, it would be. It’s an interim rule, I believe, that they use and that it is consistent with what the drafting manual says. Okay. So that is implemented in these new drafts. Okay. Thank you, George. Senator Garden. Thank you, Mister Speaker. Senator Taylor, that actually was changing an amendment. I worked with DOI on that amendment which gave them interim rulemaking authority, I think, to correct that, if I remember that correctly. But we address. We had, we addressed their concerns because I met with them personally. Thank you for discussion. Chair seats done. Motion has been moved and seconded. George, please call the roll. Speaker Houston. Yes. President Bray? Yes. Representative Lehman? Yes. Representative Nagel. Representative soliday? Yes. Representative Stewwald? Yes. Senator Charbonneau? Yes. Senator Garden? Yes. Senator Glick? Yes. Senator Holdman? Leader Giaquenta? Yes. Representative Hamilton. Represent Pryor. Leader Taylor? Yes. Senator Ford? Aye. Senator Yoder. Aye. The measure passes 13 to zero. Measure passes 13 to zero. Is there further business in front of the Legislative Council? Council chair. Seize none. We are adjourned.
March 4. 2024 1:30PM – (H) House Session

During the House Session on March 4, 2024, several bills were discussed and voted on. The key highlights and votes are outlined below:

Senate Bill 2: Child Care and Education

Summary: Aimed at improving the effectiveness of child care systems in Indiana, addressing shortages of qualified child care workers, removing barriers in underserved areas, and providing data for future policy decisions.

Vote Outcome: The bill passed the House, though specific vote counts were not detailed in the transcript.

Senate Bill 15: Veterans’ Benefits and Education

Summary: Changes the criteria for educational discounts for children of veterans and adds other veteran-related provisions.

Vote Outcome: Passed unanimously.

Senate Bill 16: Guardianship and Pregnancy

Summary: Creates a three-county pilot program to provide a guardian ad litem for pregnant women under guardianship due to intellectual disabilities.

Vote Outcome: Passed unanimously.

Senate Bill 30: School Bus Safety

Summary: Addresses violations related to school bus stop arms, aiming to prevent tragedies involving school children.

Vote Outcome: Passed with strong support, though specific vote counts were not detailed.

Senate Bill 190: State Disaster Relief Fund

Summary: Seeks to improve the framework of the State Disaster Relief Fund to better support communities and individuals in disaster recovery and mitigation.

Vote Outcome: Passed unanimously.

Senate Bill 222: Automobile Sales and Safety

Summary: Introduces new regulations and training requirements for auto dealers and additional protections related to vehicle sales and safety.

Vote Outcome: Passed with strong support, though specific vote counts were not detailed.

Senate Bill 234: State of Emergency Guidelines

Summary: Sets guidelines for the duration and renewal of statewide emergencies, requiring legislative engagement after 60 days.

Vote Outcome: Passed with some opposition.

Discussions on Other Bills

Additional bills concerning public safety, corrections, and various administrative adjustments were also discussed and voted on, receiving widespread support with some opposition in specific cases.

These discussions and votes provide crucial insights for lobbying efforts, particularly regarding legislative attitudes towards public safety, veterans’ affairs, child care, and emergency management. The successful passage of many bills indicates a legislative priority on enhancing state services and regulatory frameworks.

Businesses. Roll call members, please indicate your presence when the machine is open. Following members are excused. Represent Baird. Good morning. Good morning. Decision to control the United States position suicide in Oregon. Now consider a suicide. All the members voted tie the roll. Roll call shows 96 members present and chair declares corps talking business. I want to welcome the four, a state champion girls basketball team from Lawrence Central High School, who are with us today in the gallery, the teams of guests of Representative Bartlett. Welcome. Congratulations. Congratulations, ladies. House motion, Mister Speaker, I move that when we do adjourn. We adjourn until March 5, 2024, at 01:30 p.m. Representative layman heard that you’ve heard the motion in second. That was 01:30 p.m. Tomorrow. 01:30 p.m. All those favoring casing. Aye. This was no motion is adopted. We’ll continue and this will be our final day of recognizing staff. Just confirming that is actually correct. So we’ll begin by our staff recognition with. Beginning with. Representing the republican policy office are Danny Kelly, the director John Brunemur, analyst Amber Fistrow, analyst and Corby Petro, analyst. Our bill reader, Jake Barman. Thanks, Jake. Bianca, I’m going to ask for apologies right off the bat, all right? The democratic policy office, Bianca. Miss Makowski, the republican attorney office, Noel Sykes, Chief counsel Ben Baker, attorney Grant Cooley, assistant and Tara Baldwin, attorney. Chris, I’ll get ahead of myself on this one. My apologies. The democratic attorney office, Chris Camp Aniolo, Chief Counsel Derek Morris, attorney Ryan O’Connell, attorney Morgan Fields, legal extern, and Eleanor Weinsappel, assistant. Our parliamentarian Jessica Dickinson, the republican ways of Means staff Ben Tooley, director of fiscal policy and Liza Sherman, the department director. The democratic ways of means staff Eric Gonzalez, director and Peter O. Coffer, assistant. The clerk’s office, Carolyn Spots Caroline Spotts, the principal clerk Trent Glass, Deputy clerk Pam Kirkpatrick, deputy clerk and Amy Ecilfritz, Journal clerk. In the speaker’s office, Christy Eganoff, the speaker’s assistant, and Yvonne Kanif, the session assistant. The democratic leader’s assistant is Katie Beaumont, democratic chief of staff Patrick Cunningham and the republican chief of staff, Tyler Campbell. Thank you all. We so appreciate all your efforts and work to help make this process go smoothly, and thank you for all that you do. Before we move on to the calendar second calendar, I just want to make sure that we know. So as we move into conference committee, we will be posting conferees and advisors. We are not announcing them from the floor, so keep work with your Las. I know. Lear G. Quinn, and I are trying to keep up with dissents to get conferees named, but don’t wait just to hear your name up here because you probably won’t hear it unless you’re being removed or added. Keep in touch with Las on the process. So House motion Mister speaker, I move that the House descend from Senate amendments to engross House Bill 1102 and that the speaker appoint a committee to confirm further motion second all in favor, in case saying aye, no motion is adopted. House motion Mister Speaker, I move that the House descend from Senate amendments to engross House Bill 1258 and that the speaker appoint a committee to confer it. Further motion is second. All those in favor and keep saying aye as opposed, no motion is adopted. House motion Mister Speaker, I move that the House sent from Senate amendments to engross House Bill 1359 and that the speaker appointed committee to further motion a second all those favor in case saying aye, opposed. No motion is adopted. House motion Mister Speaker, I move that the House descent from Senate amendments to engross House Bill 1385 and that the speaker further motion is second. All those favoring kissing aye. Those opposed? Motion is adopted. We’ll now move to the Senate bills on third reading calendar. Senate bill two representative on chair hands down on third reading. Senate bill two. Senate bill two a bill for an act to amend the Indian Code concerning human services. Chair recognize representative on speak on the bill. Thank you Mister speaker. Members of the House. Senate bill two was a bill that came out of public health through a summer study. It was a very bipartisan effort to look at daycares throughout the state of Indiana, and it kind of came up with 19 recommendations out of that summer study. I won’t go through all 19, but I’ll break it down into a summary as best I can. Basically, they created four priorities and priority. Number one is the overall effectiveness of child care systems while maintaining health and safety standards. Number two, immediately addressing the shortfalls of qualified child care workers number three, addressing barriers to access in underserved areas and number four, providing data for future policy discussions. So number one, effectiveness of a child care system. Senate bill Tua will improve the overall effectiveness of a child care system while maintaining health and safety standards by expediting the deadlines from completion of a third party regulatory review, establishing a date of July 1 of 2024 by which the Family and Social Services Administration, which is FSSA, must initiate emergency rulemaking following this third party review. Priority number two child care workforce Senate bill two will immediately address the shortfall of qualified early care and education workers by making childcare workers currently employed by licensed care child care programs categorically eligible for public subsidies under the Child Care and Development Fund, which is on my way. Pre K programs reducing the age of requirements by working alone in an infant and toddler classroom in a licensed child care center from page 21 or from age 21 to age 18 for working supervised in a school child care to 16. Senate bill two also includes substitute substitute educated credentials to improve flexibility in accessing a temporary workforce and requires an early educated compensation study. So last is lack of access in underserved areas. Number three, Senate bill two will expand access to child care in hard to serve areas by establishing a pilot for micro centers governing child and care programs located inside a residential or non residential facility that on a regular basis serve a minimum of three and a maximum of 30 children for more than 4 hours a day. The requiring state agencies to review fingerprinting access to ensure required process and equitable for underserved areas. And then last four to plan future policy discussions. And this is something that we amended and ways and means that not just looked at daycares, but it also looked at before and after school programs. And with that, I would look for your support. First question on the bill. Representative Shackford, speak on the bill. Thank you, mister speaker and members of the House. I would just like to come up in support of this legislation. This is a phenomenal piece that I myself was even surprised that Senator Charbonneau was able to get almost all of the recommendations that came out of our sunny summer health committee on child care into one bill and that we were able to get it passed through both houses. Not only does this bill open up access so people can have more places for you to go for childcare, but it’s also helping out the childcare workers. We knew we were not being able to pay them what they were needed, but in this bill we will allow them to at least get some of those subsidies to take care of their own kids. And then this bill will also allow for. In Indiana, we were not looking at the max that we can possibly look at as far as 85% when you’re talking about eligibility for those programs. So we pushed it up so that we’re looking at 85% of the income. So greatly appreciate this piece of legislation. I also love the micro programs, especially for those rural areas, because during the discussion, the summer study committee, we heard from so many rural areas that just did not have access to childcare. We heard from the child care workers and also the owners. So I think this bill puts us on a great path to making sure that there is child care accessible, and I ask for your support. First question on the bill chair recognize Representative Hamilton speak on the bill thank you Mister speaker, members of the House, I too rise in support of this bill. I think it’s an incredibly important, critical first step towards solving the child care crisis in our state. We do have much more work to do, but I’m thankful that we’re utilizing unused subsidies in a strategic way to help our child care workers have access for their own children to high quality childcare. I’m glad that our k twelve school systems will have an easier path to providing high quality programs in the schools without having to go through the pathways to quality program. There are several other good measures here, but again, until we provide some funding to this issue that where the market’s not working, we’re not going to make the most important dents that will support our workforce and our families across the state. So kudos on this bill. I encourage your support and I hope we come back and make some more progress next year. Thank you. First question on the bill chair she’s done the author has right to close he waves or questions on file pass to the bill all those favorable machines don’t vote aye those who vote now represent borders represent Valesworth would you like to vote? Ball the motors voted tie the roll roll close 99 97 eyes one no the bill has passed title bill remain the title of the act clerkstown four incentive to pass through the bill Senate Bill 15 represent Bartels chair hands down on final passage send a bill 15 Senate Bill 15 a bill for an act to amend the Indiana Code concerning labor and safety. Chair recognize Representative Bartel speak on the bill thank you, mister speaker your members of the House. Senate Bill 15 directs the Department of Labor to work with the Department of Veterans affairs to create a veterans poster that will be displayed at the point of employment by an employer that has more than 50 employees. This bill also then changed the criteria for the amount of the educational discounts for a child whose mother or father enlisted after 2011, but before June 30, 2017, and sets those benefits back to the standards prior to the change in 2011. It also clarifies that parents that have listed after June 30, 2017 their children’s educational discounts are as currently written in code. The remainder of the bill is House Bill 1202 that we amended last Thursday. And just to recap, it’s adding the United States Space Force to our code. Repeals a one year residency requirement to admission into a veteran’s home and required that veteran to establish residency within six months. It defines eligible person and primary caregiver and adds five days to the excuse absences for armed services training as it relates to schools. I’d like to thank my co sponsors, Representative Pack, Holstetler and Hamilton. Ask for your support. First question on the bill. Representative Pac speak on the bill. Thank you, Mister Speaker. I just stand to say that I am really excited about this speech. I love that this year we heard more veteran bills than we’ve had since I’ve been here. This is my fourth session. I especially love that our kids that have decided to serve in the United States armed forces is getting some extra time at school to complete their training without a penalty. I think Representative Bartel’s our chairman for looking at veteran issues so very seriously and looking to see what he can do to help. And to our committee members who got this whole thing rolling, I also want to acknowledge that there’s a portion of the bill that Representative Bartels was talking about that would let veterans know through signage or poster, whatever is decided upon, that you may have benefits, you may have disability benefits. It was over 30 years before I found out that I was eligible for disability benefits. So I’ve been out of the service regular army since 1991. I was just determined to be disabled a few months ago because I didn’t have the knowledge. So hopefully going forward, our veterans will see that you do have benefits that you so richly deserve, and you’ve got a united or you’ve got an Indiana House of Representatives and senators that are here to back you 100%. I thank you so much, and I’ll be voting yes and ask that you also vote yes. Thank you. First question on the bill, Representative Hamilton, speak on the bill. Thank you, mister speaker, members of the House, I rise in support of this bill, and I want to, just a moment to thank a couple of folks. I want to thank Representative Judy for amending in my bill, HB 1170, into this bill in committee last week. I want to thank Representative Bartels for accepting that amendment. And that was about providing full in state tuition support to the children of disabled american veterans. And I know a few of us have worked on that issue over recent years trying to fix what was broken. I would say in 2011, and we, there was an amendment in ways and means that changed it a bit, but it’s still certainly moving in the right direction and helping those kids access that critical education benefit if they’re a parent served and has disability status. And also, thank you to Representative Judy for adding me to this bill. After my bill was added. Thank you. First question on the bill. Cheers on the authorized right. Closing ways or questions on file pass to the bill all those favor will machines don’t vote either. Supposed to vote no of all the members voted Tyler roll roll close 97 I zero knows the bill has passed. Shall the Tyler bill remain the title of the act? Clerk sign four incentive pass to the bill send bill 16 represent Pressell chair hands down on file passage Senate Bill 16 Senate Bill 16 a bill for an act to amend the Indiana Code concerning family law and chair recognize Representative Pressell speak on the bill. Senate Bill 16 creates a three county pilot program that will provide a guardian, Ed lightem to a woman that’s under guardianship to an intellectual disability once she becomes pregnant. The pilot will expire July 1, 2026. And the pilot program is in Laporte County, Stark county, and Marshall county. I’d like to thank Representative Jordan. This came out of the Senate 45 to zero. Judiciary nine to zero, and I’d appreciate your support. First question on the bill chair seats none authorized to close the Wazir questions on file pass to the bill all those favor will machines don’t vote aye. Those folks vote no ball the members voted tell the roll roll closers 97 I zero knows the bill has passed. Otah Blue remaining tie the act clerkstown four incentive to pass to the bill. Send Bill 30 represents Slager, chair hands down on third reading Senate Bill 30 Senate Bill 30 a bill for an act to amend the Indiana Code concerning motor vehicles. Chair recognize Representative Slager to speak on the bill. Thank you, mister speaker. Members of the assembly. Senate Bill 30 has been here before in many iterations. We have a significant problem with violators of school bus stop arms. We all can agree on that. The numbers as of this year from the department of Education is somewhere in a neighborhood of about 350,000 violations per year in the state of Indiana. More strikingly is about 6000 of those are people passing on the right side of the bus. That would be the side the children are getting on and off. So we need to try to rein this in because the odds are not in our favor of preventing a tragedy. Again, the bill that is before you, you might remember, was heavily amended so that right now it’s little more than a notice provision when you register your vehicle. Today we had a meeting with several of us trying to deal with some of the legal repercussions that a lot of folks are concerned with. All with the idea that we understand there’s a problem and we need to deal with it. So what I’m asking you to do today is a little bit of a leap of faith. We need to move this bill. We will be back with a revised bill in conference committee. I’m very pleased with the work that we accomplished today and I’d ask you to hang with me and vote for this bill so that we can take another stab at it. We just plain ran out of time on second reading, so I’d appreciate your support. Happy answering any questions. Thank you Mister speaker for discussion on the bill chair suzanne the author has the right to close your wages. No questions on file pass to the bill all those favor will machines don’t vote I the supposed vote no of all the members voted Tyler roll roll coast says 94 ayes four no’s. The bill has passed. Todd Bill remain tile of the act Representative Clerkstown Foreign Senate Pass of the Bill House motion Mister Speaker, I move that the House to send from his Senate amendments to engross House Bill 1259 and that the speaker appointed committee to further motion signing all those favor in case saying aye opposed no motion is adopted. The House motion Mister speaker, I move that the House to send from Senate amendments to engrossed House Bill 1265 and that the speaker appointed committee further motion second all those variant k saying aye those opposed no motion is adopted. Just we’ll do the sense as they come in. Returning back to the third reading calendar sent Bill 65 Representative Ledbetter chair hands down Senate Bill 65 on third reading Senate Bill 65 a bill for an act to amend the Indian Code chair recognize Representative Ledbegger speak on the bill. Thank you Mister speakers members of the House. Senate Bill 65 comes to us after several years of negotiation between the auto salvage industry, Indiana state Police and the attorney general. This bill was brought forward as an effort to help our salvage scrapyard dealers in Indiana. Currently, to salvage a vehicle in Indiana that is 25 years or younger, the vehicle must have a clear certificate of authority or title. Since the certificate of authority passed in 2021, many of Indiana scrapyards have seen almost a 50% reduction in the intake of end of life vehicles. With this business going to our competitors in Illinois and Kentucky, Senate Bill 65 removes the 25 year statute and allows flexibility in the process of obtaining paperwork by permitting salvage vehicle recyclers to collect and submit all information on behalf of the seller to get a certificate of authority for the vehicle. It protects businesses from criminal activity by requiring that a salvaged recycler must contact a law enforcement agency under certain conditions such as theft or ownership issues. This bill will return businesses to over more than 200 of Indiana’s salvage yards. I would appreciate your support and I would like to thank my co authors, Representative Pressell, Lindauer and Genda. Thank you. Further discussion the chair sees none. All those will when the machine is open, vote aye. Those opposed will vote no. Have all the members voted? Tally roll call shows 95 voting aye, zero voting no. The bill is passed. Shall the title of the bill remain? Title act shall the title of the bill remain? The title of the act clerk shall inform the Senate of the passage of the bill. Representative King Senate Bill 149 chair hands down Senate Bill 149 on final passage Senate Bill 149 a bill for an act representative king, you’re recognized to present your bill. Thank you, mister speaker. Members of the House. Senate Bill 149 is an effort to reduce tobacco use by minors. Nearly half of our teachers deal with classroom disruptions due to vaping. The Indiana Youth Tobacco Survey says that 50% of Indiana high school students and more than 10% of middle school students think that it is quite easy to get tobacco products and this is unacceptable. This legislation is an effort to address the establishments that are profiting from selling vaping products to minors. The industry has exploded and this legislation puts into place some additional requirements to obtain a tobacco permit and should not put on extra requirements for those that are following the law. The requirements are similar to those who are applying for a liquor license. Clerks that are working in a retail establishment that sell tobacco must have a valid id and be able to show an excise officer upon request or be able to do so within five days. This bill reinforces that a new establishment wanting to sell tobacco may not be located within 1000ft of a school property. The retail establishment also may only have one license and will be void after 90 days of the date of sale or transfer. This bill helps put proper guardrails around tobacco retail establishments. I would appreciate your support in this bill. I want to thank Senator Linda Rogers for all authoring this bill and my co sponsors, Representative McNamara, Representative Criswell, and Representative Meltzer. Thank you. Is there further discussion? The chair sees none. The author has the right to close and waives it. All those in favor will, when the machine is open, vote aye. Those opposed will vote no. Revenant Judy, would you like to vote? Have all the members voted? Tally of the roll roll call shows 92 voting aye, four voting no. The bill is passed. Shall the title of the bill remain? The title of the actual clerk shall inform the Senate of the passage of the bill. Senate Bill 150 Representative Layman chair hands down. Senate Bill 150 on final passage, Senate Bill 150. Bill for an act to him in the indian acumen. Representative Layman, you recognize, present your bill. Thank you, mister speaker. Members of the House, Senate Bill 150 is dealing with that wonderful but scary world of technology. What this bill does is it keeps the state engaged in the future and the current and the future of AI, cybersecurity, data governance. It does three things. First, it creates a task force, 15 members from varied backgrounds and appointments. You can see they’re on page two. What that task force will do is they will study the impact of AI and what we’re currently using, what we will be using in the future. Make recommendations to other state institutional academic bodies regarding AI, ways to improve interbranch interagency communications. They’ll identify the challenges, identify best practices, receive input from the three branches, make recommendations to the three branches, and then every October have a report on what they have found. The second section of the bill sets up the technology resources, cybersecurity infrastructure standards. This sets out what municipalities, public entities can do if they’re going to use the state’s platform. There is language around what they have to do in that standard or the standards of use and state infrastructure. There’s a section here regarding the new technology around the cloud, basically saying that what we put, if we put some on the cloud and we move from one cloud to the other, what’s our data is our data. We can retain it. And then we also have to make sure we’re still in compliance with our contracts with those, those vendors, both software and hardware. The third section of the bill deals with doing an inventory, an inventory of what we are currently using, what we currently have, the whos, the hows, the whys, and the wheres, and that will be conducted and complied and end on December of 2027. That is the bill id thing. My co sponsors, Imgenah, Representative Judy, and Representative Matt Pierce. Happy to answer any questions. Thank you, Representative Layman. Further discussion. Will the sponsor yield? He yields. Thank you, Mister Speaker. Represent Lehman. I just wanted to ask is you’re still your expectation that this bill is going to go to conference and get a little more tweaking? Yeah, I think there was some language put in that I know the Senate author was not excited about. I cannot speak on behalf of Senator Brown, but in my conversations with her, her anticipation was to go to conference for a few tweaks here and there. Okay, thank you. Further discussion. Chair sees none. The authorized right to close, he waives it. The question is, on the final passage of the bill, all those will when the machine is open, vote aye. Those opposed will vote no. Representative have all the members voted? Tally the roll roll call shows 97 voting ayes. You are voting no. The bill is passed. Shall the title of the bill remains highly act clerk shall inform the sentence of the passage of the bill. Senate Bill 169 Representative Judy the chair hands down Senate Bill 169 on third reading. Senate Bill 169, a bill for an act to amend the Indiana Code. Chair recognizes Representative Judy to present a Senate bill. Thank you, mister speaker. Members of the General Assembly. Senate Bill 169 is a collaboration between DC’s and its providers. And what it does is it actually codifies much of the administrative code concerning the education requirements for caseworkers, caseworker supervisors, and executives. It also. It also codifies the restrictions on caseloads. And then it also specifies what on page three, what a child abuse or neglect is when it comes to an individual that is at least 18 years old, but less than 21, that has resided in or resides in a residential facility licensed by the department that’s been harmed or threatened with harm as a result of battery or sexual activity committed by a member of the staff at the residential facility facility. This also. This bill also specifies medical care that the children must have within a certain time frame. We define those timeframes on that second reading amendment. It came out of the Senate with no opposition. I’d like to thank Representative Garcia Wilburn on her work on this bill along with my co sponsors, Representative Devon Lauer and Heine, and I ask for your support. Thank you. Is there further discussion? Chair sees none. The author has the right to close and waives it. The question is on the final passage of the bill. All those will, when the machine is open, vote aye. Those opposed won’t know. Have all the members voted? Tally roll roll call shows 97 voting ayes. You are voting no. The bill is passed. Shall the title of the bill remain the title? Title of the act? Clerk shall inform the Senate of his passage. Sent Bill 179. Representative McNamara. Chair, hands down on third reading. Sent bill 179. Senate Bill 179, a bill for an act to him in the Indiana Code. Chair recognize Representative McNamara. Speak on the bill. Thank you, mister speaker. Members of the House. Senate Bill 179 comes to us from the Indiana Public Defender Commission. It’s an independent judicial branch state agency that manages the public defense fund. This bill has four main components. It permits the commission to reimburse counties for misdemeanor public defenses at a rate of about 25%, but only if the funding is available after all the felony expenses are reimbursed. The bill also asks individuals who have some ability to pay for a portion of their public defense to pay a little bit more. Currently, if a defendant has an ability to pay some of the cost of their public defense, the courts may order them to pay dollar 100 in a felony case or dollar 50 in a misdemeanor case. These have not had an increase since 1996, so this legislation would increase the potential fees to 201 hundred respectively. However, it’s important to note that these fees can be waived if a court finds that the individual is not able to afford them. The increase in funds would be sent to the commission’s public defense fund to offset the state’s ongoing expenses and provide reimbursement, but they all stay local. The third thing this legislation does is works towards guaranteeing that only individuals who truly cannot afford a lawyer will receive a lawyer funded at public expense. The language is included in the bill to require a comprehensive study and report by JRAC on how courts make indigee determinations. The courts in counties that receive misdemeanor reimbursement will also be required to use a form created by the Office of Judicial Administration. And finally, the bill changes the agency’s name to the Commission on court appointed attorneys because there’s always a lot of confusion between that and other commissions that use the public defense related agencies. I’d like to thank my co sponsors, Representative Stewart, Nagel and Hatcher, and we appreciate your support. First question on the bill chair seized on the authorized right. Close your waves or questions on file pass to the bill all those in favor will machines don’t vote aye? Those opposed to vote no while the Mars voted Tyler roll rolls 96 eyes two nos the bill has passed Tyler bill remains Tyler the act clerkstown four incentive to pass to the bill Senate Bill 190 Representative Davis chair hands down on third reading Senate Bill 190 Senate Bill 190 a bill for an act to amend the Indiana Code concerning Public Safety chair recognize Representative Davis speak on the bill. Thank you, mister speaker and members of the House. In 2023, Indiana had a tumultuous year of weather. As a result, many communities and individuals turned to the existing state disaster Relief Fund, administered by the Indiana Department of homeland security, to see if assistance was available for disaster recovery. Although the state disaster Relief Fund was able to assist several communities, IDHS found that the state disaster Relief Fund current statutory framework was inhibiting the state’s ability to support communities and individuals in their time of need. The intent of Senate Bill 190 is to fix the statutory limits of the program to better serve Hoosiers. It is important to remember, the state disaster relief fund is only available when the federal assistance is not available. The state Disaster Relief Fund is comprised of two different forms of assistance, public assistance for counties, cities, towns or townships, and individual assistance for households. Each program has its own criteria establishing when it can be used, how it can be used, and how much funding is available. The main changes to the public assistance in Senate Bill 190 are as follows. It simplifies the formula used to calculate how much funding communities can receive from the fund, and Senate Bill 190 also expands how communities can use the fund when recovering from a disaster. The individual assistance changes are decoupling the individual assistance program from federal government action. Currently, Indiana’s individual assistance program can only be used when the United States Small Business Administration declares a disaster for an impacted community. Removing this requirement gives Indiana autonomy over its own program to assist disaster survivors. Additionally, Senate Bill 190 increased the maximum amount of assistance a household may receive. This will go a long way in helping hoosiers who encounter catastrophic disaster damages. Moreover, Senate Bill 190 allows the state disaster relief Fund to not only be focused on disaster recovery, but also disaster mitigation. Studies show that for every $1 spent in mitigation activity, six to $7 are saved in recovery cost. I’d like to thank my co sponsors, Representative Meltzer, Representative McGuire and Representative Bartel, and I ask for your support. Thank you Mister speaker and members of the chamber. Further discussion on the bill chair seats done authorize close she weighs it questions on file pass the bill all those favorable machines open with either supposed vote no it while the members voted out of the roll rolls 97 I zero knows bill has passed Otah bill remains out of the act clerk sign Foreign Senate pass to the bill Senate Bill 222 represent Pressell chair hands down final pass disent Bill 222 Senate Bill 222 bill for an act to amend the Indian Income chair recognize Representative Pressell speak on the bill now Senate Bill 222 has four parts. First part of this adds new cars to used cars for an existing stop sale directive. We did the stop sale directive last year on used. We’re just simply adding new to this. Second part establishes a training course for used auto dealers before they can get their license. This is a one time requirement. Secretary of State’s office will implement implement this thought process. Behind it is so that they’ll be able to know and understand what reporting requirements are required of them as a car dealer. Third part adds a requirement for an advertised vehicle sale if there is an option that is not included in the advertised price that it must be specifically noted in the sales contract agreement. Fourth part adds tort protection to the owner, lessor or operator who leases or rents a commercial vehicle for failure to install optional equipment that hasn’t, that wasn’t part of the federal motor carrier vehicle safety standards when the vehicle was manufactured. This passed out of the Senate 49 to zero. House transportation unanimously. I’d like to thank my co authors, Lindauer, Bartels, Harris, and especially Representative Jordan. I would appreciate your support. First question on the bill. Chair seats done. The author has ready to close. He waives it. Questions on file. Pass to the bill. All those favoring Kate voting aye. Roll closer is 96. Eyes one no. The bill has passed out of the act. Clerkstown foreign Senate passes the bill. Send bill 234. Representative Layman, I now understand why Representative Lehman gave me a quizzical look. I will go back and get Senate Bill 228 after this. Sorry, representative. Go ahead. The chair hands down on third reading Senate bill 234. Sorry, Matt. Now go back. Senate Bill 234 bill for an act to amend the Indiana Code concerning public safety. Chair recognize yourself layman, and speak on the bill. Thank you, mister speaker, members of the House, for those of you keeping track at home, you’re off one bill. Okay, so this is Senate Bill 234. You know, only one time in our state’s history have we been had a state of emergency that lasted more than 60 days. And we just went through that a couple years ago. But Senate Bill 234 begins to set a parameter for future governors as to where are those parameters on when you need to engage the legislative branch. What Senate bill 234 does is it says that if there is a declarative state of emergency, it would need to impact the entire state. So once a statewide state of emergency is declared, then you’re on a 60 day window. So the governor can have a 60 day state of emergency statewide and they can’t. They can extend that 60 days once we are engaged. So the 60 days goes another 60 once the General assembly has been engaged. We can do that by resolution. We’re trying to make this as quickly as possible for us to come in, look at the data and say, yes, continue or no end currently in statute. We can end a resolution by resolution if we’re in session. This just simply says if we’re called in for a special session, we can do the same. One thing we put in here is if it has to be wholly unrelated to create another state of emergency outside that 60. So it can’t be, I’ll let the 60 expire on the 62nd day, just declare the same state of emergency has to be totally unrelated to the first. We’ve worked through this on multiple fronts with the, with the Senate, with the governor’s office. I’d like to thank my co authors, Representative Jeter, Lindauer, Bartels and Barrett, and happy to answer any questions and appreciate your support. First question on the bill, Representative Shackelford. Speak on the bill. Thank you, Mister speaker and members of the House. I’m going to rise in opposition to this bill and I’m going to explain why I was the only one that voted no in the committee. So as Representative Lehman has said, we experienced a pandemic. I think no one knew or even thought of that this pandemic will last more than 60 days. So when we’re talking about how long should we be in a statewide emergency, we have to be very careful of putting any maximum, are maximum limits on these disaster emergencies. I appreciate the due diligence, I appreciate the compromise that we’re going to differentiate between a statewide disaster versus just for some counties. And then I appreciate even increasing the statewide emergency from 30 days to 60 days. The issues that I have a concern with is that we cannot renew longer than 60 days. So say if we were in the pandemic, it’s lasting months. The governor can only get a 60 day renewal. And then we also put a cap on it that says that he can’t come back and ask for another state of an emergency if it has anything to do with the last emergency. So I’m not going to ask for you to vote no on this because I know that’s not going to be feasible. What I am going to ask is that when this goes to conference committee, because we did change it over here in the house, can we at least look at removing the maxes? Because that just puts us in danger. Not only because of the health of our communities, but also going to put us in danger of not receiving federal funding because we’re going to put a limit and a cap on when we can do these statewide emergencies. Thank you. First question on the bill. Chair seats down. The author has right to close you. Thank you, Mister Speaker. I do want to address that wrote briefly because we already encode there’s a maximum of 30 days. So we already have maxes in place. This is simply saying on a statewide emergency it would be a max of 60. The 30 can be renewed every 30, every 30. Every 30 by the governor currently, but there is a max of 30 before the governor has to act. This just says it’s a maximum of 60 before he has to engage with the General assembly so ask your support of the bill. Question is on the adoption of the bill. All those favor will and seniors open vote aye. Those opposed vote no while the members of other Tyler roll roll close to 71 eyes 27 no’s. The bill has passed remaining tile of the act. Clerkstown four incident pass to the bill Senate Bill 228 Representative Thompson chair hands down on final pass dissent Bill 228 Senate Bill 228 a bill for an act to amend the Indian Act Code concerning chair recognizes Representative Thompson speak on the bill. Thank you Mister speaker. Members of the House this is the Dor agency bill. It has I consider just taxpayer friendly provisions. One, it eliminates the 200 sales annually as a nexus for sales tax collection. This leaves in place the $100,000 annual amount. It also has a part if you sell over 75% of your sales are for food, you can have a 50% sales tax deduction on your utility. Taxes. It changes some statutes of limitation for periodic and defines a periodic tax. It requires a sheriff that to transfer twice a month on tax warrants on those collections from current laws once a month. Allows DoR to share information when they believe we have a fraudulent filing. Allows them to do that with tax preparers. It has some cleanup on the pass through entity tax and then clarifies with regard to a couple of cases where out of state providers for alcohol products. Who exactly is responsible for that tax? Thank you and welcome. Any questions? First discussion on the bill chair sees none. The authorized right closely waves it. Questions on file pass to the bill all those favor wills and machines vote no volume tell the roll rolka shows 97 I zero knows the bill has passed bill remains out of the act. Clerkstown four incident pass to the bill send the bill 252 Representative Doug Miller chair hands down final passage Senate Bill 252 Senate Bill 252 a bill for an act to amend the Indiana Code concerning state chair recognizes representative Miller speak on the bill happy Monday. We’re closing in on the end this week. This bill comes to us from Senator Buck and it does just a few things. It brings local news and local notices closer to the public. It updates the requirements for public notices that have been in place since the 1930s. It increases the paid circulation requirement that’s verifiable through the United States Postal Service from 200 to 500. It allows for a shorter time frame for a newspaper to be in business before it can publish before it qualifies to publish notices from three years to one year. It also in the amendment we did on Thursday provides a provision to include website page views as reported by the newspaper’s website host provider. And it includes allowing additional flexibility for local units of government in their selecting selection of printed media to publish local notices. And lastly, it reduces the board of directors of the Indiana Stadium and Convention building authority from seven members to three members and provides that the director of the state budget agency or his assignee as the board chairs. I’d ask you to join me in supporting this. Thank you for a discussion on the bill. Chair seats done. The question is on final pass to the bill. All those in favor will exchange open vote aye. Those opposed vote no. Bill remains out of the act. Clerkstamp for instance, pass to the bill sent Bill 256 Representative Thompson charing down on final passage sent Bill 256. Senate Bill 256 a bill for an act to amend the Indiana Code concerning state up chair recognizes Representative Thompson speak on the bill. Thank you, mister speaker, members of the House. This bill, as you know, has lots of provisions. We heard lots of them, of course, last Thursday. I’ll try to run through them pretty quick here. One thing that it does for the AG and for the high tech crimes unit, those appropriations are continually appropriated, has some things on deferred comp. It also for the state police pension trust, it requires them to have a supplemental allowance account. It expands the drop from currently three years to five years. Here’s a yes, it changes for farm ground. Right now the cap on farm ground is 8% and it changes that to 9%. And it’s important that we be sure to understand what this is going to cause. The shift to farm ground for taxes in page 26 will not be as great as without this provision. It’ll still be a shift to farm ground because there’s some, a lot of our fiscal notes looks at current law and some would say, oh no, this is not what you want to do. But remember now we’re going to have a huge shift to farm ground. This will lessen part of that. That’s what this provision does. It changes the, for civil service, civil service annuities, that deduction from 16 1000 to 28,000, I’m sorry, 22,000 for SnAp, it changed the asset limit from 500 from $5000 to $10,000. With regard to the attendance care we put in on second, I’m sorry, in committee, that would be 80% of the amount that was collected and that was the amount of fees paid to the home healthcare agency. And there’s a lot of discussion on that and that will continue on in the future. Feedback debt, feedback debt for universities. If it’s strictly refinancing, restructuring, that will not be required to come before budget committee. We extended the date. You could have an IDD from July 1 of this year to July 1 of 2027. But the but is it requires budget committee review here upon passage, have to come before the budget committee before that that can occur. We have the language in there that you can’t remove a parcel and put it right back in the very same one. It changes are on the mental health grants we had in the budget last year. There’s a cap on that of $2.5 million. We move that to $5 million. It has a for sister city agreements with our adversaries are not allowed anymore. It extends the first task force another year, and then the last thing it does, it deals with control projects. And I know what we put in on second, in my view, took on land at the right spot. What we put in committee was not really workable, but to me, that’s a topic needs to be addressed. Whenever you have in this case, a school corporation going down a path of advertising a project and night and day changing way over here, that’s not acceptable. This is not the perfect fit fix. But I hope maybe next year we’ll get the right fix for that. So with that, it’s kind of the highlights, of course, and we’ll welcome any questions, further discussion on the bill. Representative Hamilton, speak on the bill. The author yield, he yields. Yes. Thank you, Mister speaker. Thank you. Representative Thompson, just a quick question. I don’t think you mentioned it, but just to reconfirm, this dow includes the tax exemption for feminine hygiene products. I looked down at it and it’s right here on my nose and my eyes were going back up at you and I missed that. I apologize. It wasn’t unintentional. I trust that. Thank you very much. Thank you. You recognize everything. Thank you, Mister speaker. I’m really thrilled that this language is included in this bill. I’ve got a little chart here that shows starting back in 2016, my predecessor, Christina Hale, offered an amendment, some of you will remember, to create a tax exemption for feminine hygiene products. Then in 2017, I had an amendment. In 2020 and 2021, I had bills. In 2022, I had an amendment. In the last couple of years, there’s been offered legislation in the Senate. So this has been nine years in the works. I just really thankful this is finally happening. We are recognizing this is a critically important change, that we’re recognizing that these products are essential to women’s health. And just like food and prescriptions and medical devices, these products should be exempt from taxation. I’ve had countless, countless conversations with women all over the state for the last eight years since I’ve been in office about this issue. This is going to mean a lot to a lot of people. It’s a small but important step to help women. And it’s fair taxation. It makes a lot of sense. And I haven’t had a chance to run into Representative Mayfield, who offered this in ways and means. I don’t see her in the room, but I want to thank her for wherever she is. All right, thank you. First question on the bill chair sees none the author has right to close. He waives or questions on file. Pass to the bill all those favorite will win the machines that will vote aye. Those opposed will vote no. Voldemort Road teller roll roll coasters 98 eyes 98 I zero knows the bill has passed so Todd bill remains out of the act clerks have four incident pass to the bill Senate Bill 282 Representative Carball sent bill chair hands down on third reading sent Bill 282 Senate Bill 282 a bill for an act to amend the Indiana Code concerning chair recognize representative car ball to speak on the bill. Thank you, mister speaker, ladies and gentlemen, the house this bill has various education matters in it. I’ll do my best to summarize each one. Number one, if a student makes an unsubstantiated claim, as determined by the principal of the school, against the teacher, the school will need to communicate that to the teacher and to the parents of the student or a student if they’re an unemancipated minor. They also must make it known that the potential consequences of a second unsubstantiated claim at the discretion of the school, a parent may be restricted from attending after school activities, including sporting events and academic events, for up to six months. If a student is habitually truant, the school shall notify the local prosecutor and the prosecutor must, in turn notify each parent of the notice. A school attendance officer must meet virtually or in person once a year with the state attendance officer to implement truancy prevention measures and to discuss ways to promote school attendance and to deter absenteeism, and report to legislative council any legislative changes they recommend to help in this area. The truancy section applies to kids aged kindergarten through 6th grade. The absent student is defined as a child who has missed five days in a ten week period without being excused. The parents request filed with the school a doctor’s note with regard to medical treatments, ieps or other education plans developed according to federal and state laws. The school governing body must develop a truancy prevention policy regarding absent students. The student must contact the parents and make them aware of their responsibilities and consequences they and the child may face if the absenteeism continues. The parents must attend a conference about the truancy prevention measures that the school will be implementing for the student, a warning about what will happen if the student reaches the status as a habitual truant. There shall be a conference held with a representative of the school, a teacher of the school, the parent, and at the request for the parent or of the parent, a representative that could provide insight into the cause of absenteeism. Together they shall develop a plan to make sure the student is attending school. This conference must happen within five instructional days from the child’s fifth unexcused absence. A student who is habitually truant may not participate in extracurricular activities, and that’s all the way through 12th grade. On that provision, we tell universities to publish hazing incidents that have been adjudicated by the school publicly. We also say that a child age 16 or older may enroll in and attend a training program for certification as a fireman one, fireman two, or emergency medical technician. A literacy achievement grant received by a school corporation is not subject to collective bargaining. With that, I’d be happy to answer any questions for discussion. Representative Arrington, speak on the bill. Thank you, Mister speaker and members of the House. I received communication from my district concerned about one of the provisions in this bill which also concerned me, and that’s the one that would subject a child to the juvenile court system by making them a status offender. My concern, and I’m sure that of the person who contacted me, is that this is greater punishment to the child than it is to the parent when this bill is intended to address parental negligence. So a couple of different types of students could be affected here. And one is where a child has a chronic illness that, and they’re not on an IEP and they reach the maximum and they would be considered truant. And I know of a situation where there were two children in the family where one, they had chronic migraines, one was on an IEP and the other one wasn’t. The one who wasn’t is the one who got the truancy notices. The other, and probably more serious situation, is where a parent, something’s going on in the home. Maybe it’s abuse or it’s drug use that the parent doesn’t want outsiders to know about, and so they keep their child out of school. So I’m going to vote no on this bill because of that piece, in hopes that it would go to conference committee and we could find a better way to address this without involving the child. Thank you. First question on the bill. Representative Peter speak on the bill. Author Yield, sponsor Yield. He yields. Thank you, Mister Speaker. President Carbaugh. I’m trying to figure out this prosecutor thing too. I think the new language is just saying that the school’s got to tell the prosecutor that someone’s habitually truant. Is that correct? That’s right. And then the prosecutor has to tell the parent they got that notice. Okay. And we already have an existing law, and I think this is what has people a bit nervous. It says the prosecuting attorney shall file and prosecute actions under this section as in any other criminal cases. That’s existing law. So we’re getting the impression from that language that like the 6th grader is going, going to get prosecuted and sent away to reform school because they’re truant or I don’t think’s going to happen. So explain to me what happens in the real world if, you know, with these cases. Well, I can’t say that I know for sure. What I would say is that I don’t believe that that’s the intent, certainly not the intent of me as a sponsor. And in talking to the author of this bill, some of these amendments will not hit the germaneness rules, whatever those may be, in the Senate. And so this is definitely going to go to conference committee and we can work on some of those things. Like I said, I don’t think that what you’re talking about is the intent. It’s really a notification to the parent that the prosecutor has been notified. Thank you. Permission to speak. You recognize representative yeah. With the understanding this bill’s going to go to conference, I’m going to go ahead and vote for it, because there are some other good provisions in this bill that I think are worth supporting, but I hope we’ll kind of figure out exactly what we do, because I think most of us would agree that if you got a kid, is it truant? I don’t know if putting them in form school is the answer, and maybe it’s more the parents kind of exercising control over the, over the child. So hopefully that will get clarified in conference. First question on bill represent prior speak on the bill sponsor yield. He yields. Thank you, Mister speaker. So a second grader would not, could they have a status offense if they miss five days in a ten week period? Is that, could they have, could they have what I’m sorry. Could they potentially have a status offense if they miss five days within that ten week period? I think it’s all about the, the key in the bill is that it’s an unexcused absence and we allow for things. It was mentioned earlier if there was concern about kids who are sick. Doctor’s notes are in there. Actually, it says in the bill at the parents request, it’s on file with the school. That to me as I read that, it doesn’t even really give the school the ability to say yes or no. It’s just if the parent had filed an excuse with the school, that that wouldn’t be counted as an excuse towards those five that you’re talking about. I guess I’m just concerned about that 2nd, 3rd grader who really has no control over their life at all all of a sudden being thrown into the criminal justice system. And then they have a record that follows that them throughout high school and potentially the rest of their life when they are really too small to even understand what the system is. Yeah. Again, I don’t see what we’re trying to do. And again, going to conference committee, I’m going to talk more maybe concept than what we could read. But we’re not trying to throw the book at the second grader, the seven year old. We are trying to wake up the parents because they’re kind of at the mercy of their parents. And that’s where some of these notices going to the parents having to come in. If you do hit that stand, you got to come in and sit down, develop a plan on how you’re going to fix this for the student. This portion of it that we’re talking about is kindergarten through 6th grade. So we’re really, it’s really more parent focused, even though it’s got to be triggered because the student’s not showing up. If it goes to conference committee, you want to make sure that that child does not, is not the one that suffers. Correct. Because of it. And that’s why you want us to go to conference. That’s right. You can clean up that language and. That’s right. Don’t have a record. Yep. Okay, thank you. Yep. For discussion on the bill, represents the bill sponsor. Yield. He yields. Yeah, he yields. Thank you, mister speaker, ladies and gentlemen, I had a question about the operation of a different section. This has to do with the allegations made by parents or students. Is that the first part of the bill? Yeah, I’m looking at page two. Okay, thank you. So if you look like page two, lines nine through 31, that section there. So I’m just trying to understand how it work. If a parent has a child that makes an out, the child goes to their parent and says, I have a teacher that’s being inappropriate to me. And the parent tells the principal, this is what my child says, I’m concerned about this. And then it says that they make a determination that it’s unsubstantiation or it’s dismissed. If this happens again a second time, within a school year, that parent can be banned from school functions. So my concern is that oftentimes when you have, like, sexual abuse allegations and things like that, those are very hard. I mean, they’re hard to prove, especially initially, especially if there’s no physical evidence or anything like that. I’m worried about a parent who has a student who’s making some allegations. Why do we put a punitive measure in here that would really seek to kind of discourage parents from reporting behavior they might see as dangerous? Yeah, I think, and this, honestly, this is some language that I think a lot of us want to make sure we’re doing the right thing. And you’re going down a path that some of my own colleagues and myself are going down as well. You know, what we don’t want is we don’t want unsubstantiated claims taking up the time of our schools. And so this, I think, was an attempt at going that direction. Now, have we overcorrected? Maybe. And that’s one thing during conference committee, I’ll be definitely looking at and trying to work through to make sure we haven’t overcorrected. And if we can find a way to balance that issue of doing too many complaints that are unsubstantiated versus, you know, hey, I feel like I can’t complain, and there is a substantial thing, but I can’t trust the school to do it. Thank you. Yeah. Representative packs. Speak on the bill you got. Sponsored yield. He yields the sponsor. Yeah. Took me the last bill a second session to get to say sponsors. Sponsors. Thank you, Representative Carball. I wasn’t going to stand up because I had mentioned a couple of these points before on this subject, but a few minutes ago you mentioned something that hit me kind of hard, and it kind of shows how we feel about how some of us feel about parents, and we don’t really know what parents are going through. It’s not a cute thing to keep your kid home and not go to school. I can. I believe that parents want their kids to go to school, but my question is you said that you need to wake up the parents. Can you explain a little bit more about what you mean by wake up? In the case of, and albeit, I think it is rare in the case where the parents are just not taking their kids to school for whatever reason, and there are some really bad, legitimate reasons, but there are also those that get convicted for neglect. And so we’re trying to help those types of parents understand that was in regard to the prosecutor sending notice to them. Okay. And that’s how we’re waking these parents up. Thank you. Permission to speak, please. You recognize represent pack. Thank you, mister Speaker. I think that some of the language in this bill just indicates to me how so many of us are disconnected with the plight of who’s your parents and who’s your families. Punitive things are not what’s necessary to keep our kids and our families going and keeping them encouraged to go to school. Support is what it takes. We don’t have to wake up parents. They’re awake and they’re taking care of the kids and they’re doing the best they can. I will be voting yesterday and also looking forward to what we can get done in conference committee. We’ve got to get this divide down and start working with parents instead of us believing we’re here and we’re going to set forth all of these rules and not knowing what our parents are actually going through. Thank you. First question on the bill. Chair seats done. The authorized right to close your waves or questions on file pass to the bill. All those in favor will vote aye. Those hosts will vote no. President Shipley, would you like to vote? Have all the members voted? Tyler Roll. Roll closer 66. Eyes? 31. Nose. The bill has passed remaining tie the act clerks down four and Senate pass to the bill. Senate Bill 290. Representative chair hands down. Senate Bill 290 on third reading Senate Bill 290, a bill for an act to amend the Indiana Code concerning corrections. Chair recognize Representative Sturwald. Speak on the bill. Thank you, mister speaker. Members of the House. Senate Bill 290 comes to us from the Criminal Justice Institute. It updates and makes more relevant some of the reports they have to make to us as well as JRAC. It’s taking out a part of the report that they make a report on the effect of the criminal code reform. That’s long ago. It also states that the Division of Mental Health will assist criminal Justice Institute on some of their reports. It takes a report on the number of level six felons committed to the OC. That information is available, but not readily available. You know, we had this debate a couple years ago and we finally took out the last restriction on the court being able to send somebody to doc. We had a big debate whether or not it’s going to send a bunch of people to DLC as we believed years ago. It did not. The report I received a year or so ago after we did that, as we always contended, they’re negotiated, plea negotiated. They remain home for the most part. Any effect was de minimis at the most. So I appreciate your support. First question of the bill chair seize none the author’s right to close your waves or questions on file pass to the bill machines open all those favorable vote aye. Those opposed vote no while the mayor’s are that Tyler roll roll closers 98 eyes Euro knows the bill has passed remaining tie the actual clerks have form send the pass to the bill. So just a reminder for members tomorrow we’ll meet at 130. The process is a concurrence has to be filed 2 hours before the body can take up a bill. So you’ll probably see agendas start getting filed sometime post 11:00 tomorrow morning for bills that will be eligible for concurrence. And then we will probably go into session just once tomorrow to deal with those concurrences, potentially go to caucus afterward to talk about potential concurrence, even Congress committee reports that will set an agenda up for Wednesday. I would anticipate Wednesday morning and I’ll talk with Lear G. Aquinnah about this specific time. With that being said, the chair recognizes representative Moed for a motion. Sir, the motion is second. All those favor in case aye. Those opposed, no. We are adjourned.