February 19, 2021

TOP STORIES Governor Signs Chamber’s Top Priority on COVID-19 SPONSORED BY: Reid Health Civil Immunity

On Monday, SB 1 (Civil Immunity Related to COVID-19), authored by Sen. (R-Jasper), cleared the Legislature when the Senate concurred 39-7 on the version passed by the House. Three days later, Gov. signed the bill into law.

The Governor stated: “The pandemic has affected Hoosier businesses, schools and others in ways no one could have foreseen just one year ago. To aid in the state’s recovery, I made providing assurances that they will not have to live and work in fear of frivolous lawsuits a part of my Next Level Agenda. Most Hoosier https://www.reidhealth.org/careers businesses and other organizations are making good faith attempts to protect their customers and employees, because it is the right thing to do and it makes for better business in the long run. I want to thank lawmakers for rapidly passing this key piece of legislation and sending it to my desk for signature.”

Senate Bill 1is retroactive to March 2020.

The Chamber is very appreciative of the Governor’s support and that the Legislature fast tracked this bill. More and more of these lawsuits are being filed across the country despite the fact that a person could be exposed to COVID-19 virtually anywhere out in public.

Hoosier businesses that follow accepted COVID-19 safety guidelines should not be subject to litigation that could devastate their companies – many of which are already struggling financially. That’s why this bill is so important and comes as a great relief to businesses – particularly smaller businesses – across the state. And it’s the reason this was our top legislative priority this session.

The Chamber wants to thank Sen. Messmer and Rep. Jerry Torr (R-Carmel), the House sponsor of the bill, for all of their hard work on this critical business issue.

Resource: Mike Ripley at (317) 264-6883 or email: [email protected]

Senator Boots Kills Work Share Bill That Would Have Saved Thousands of Jobs, Produced Millions in Federal Funding

SB 44 – Work Sharing Unemployment Benefits Program Authored by Sen. Eric Bassler (R-Washington)

Establishes a voluntary work sharing unemployment insurance program. Requires an employer that desires to participate in the program to submit a work sharing plan for approval by the commissioner of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development (DWD). Establishes the work sharing benefit as equal to an affected employee's unemployment benefit reduced by a percentage equal to the percentage of the employee's normal weekly work hours that the employee works under the approved work sharing plan.

Chamber position: Support

The latest: A testimony-only hearing took place on Wednesday in the Senate Pensions and Labor Committee. Chairman (R-Crawfordsville) would not allow the committee to vote because he doesn’t believe in work share – no matter how much irrefutable data and first-hand experiences are presented to him. He does not support the idea of keeping workers employed part time during a recession via work share; he would rather employees be cut loose entirely with employers having to waste time and money hiring and retraining new workers later. It’s clear Sen. Boots only held the hearing because of pressure by Senate leadership. Based on the comments of committee members during the hearing and in private conversations, we know SB 44 would have passed overwhelmingly if given the chance. Senator Boots very likely would have been the only “no” vote. Moreover, several members of the committee – from both parties – expressed frustration and anger at the chairman’s refusal to allow SB 44 to be voted on.

Indiana Chamber action/commentary: Going into the hearing, we knew Chairman Boots didn’t want to vote on the bill but thought he might bow to the wishes of his committee. That notion was dashed at the onset by the remarks Sen. Boots gave after Sen. Bassler presented the bill. In four decades of Statehouse experience, I’ve never seen such a disrespectful display by a chairman. For several minutes, right before testimony was allowed, Sen. Boots went through the reasons why he didn’t like work share – all based on false premises or incomplete and outdated information – and why he didn’t want to see it enacted in Indiana. Again, this was before employers and others were lined up to testify in support.

Senator Boots offered it could be better for an individual to lose his or her job (and benefits) entirely than to be on work share because then they would have time for further education or training. That’s insulting given the current climate. When people are laid off and need to feed their children, pay their rent or mortgage, or get medicine, we highly doubt they are looking at the bright side of how they now have time to train. Not to mention, SB 44 would permit employees to receive training from their employers during the work share period.

Mark Miller, president and CEO of Indianapolis-based Markey’s Rental & Staging, kicked off the public testimony. Miller talked about how his company has successfully used work share to retain workers at its offices in Iowa and Ohio. He relayed that his business has been hard hit by the pandemic and was forced to completely lay off 100 workers in Indiana but said that 40 of these jobs would have been saved if Indiana had a work share program. Likewise, Danielle Tucker, labor and employment general counsel at Cummins, shared how the company and its workers had benefitted from work share in other states. Tucker also said that the full layoffs and production stoppage in Indiana would have been avoided if work share had been an option. We thank Miller and Tucker for their thoughtful testimony, along with those who sent written remarks to deliver to the committee and the hundreds of Indiana employers that signed on in support of work share.

In between these two Chamber member companies, I testified about the well-documented benefits of work share and the new data from the Brookings Institution on what it cost Indiana by not having work share in place during 2020 and going forward (see last week’s Legislative Report article at https://www.indianachamber.com/top-story-new-report-and-current-climate-make-powerful-case-to-pass- work-share-in-2021-committee-hearing-set). I also emphasized that there is still time for Indiana to take advantage of federal funding available for computer system and administrative costs as well as to pay for the actual work share claims. In conclusion, I refuted claims by Sen. Boots about fraud and his assertion that this is adding another government program. Fraud is highly unlikely under work share because participating employers have to submit employee information in advance. Further, under federal law, work share is a program within the unemployment insurance system.

Jessica Fraser from the Indiana Institute for Working Families also testified in strong support.

No one testified in opposition to work share (officially), but two who claimed to be neutral made negative remarks about the program and aligned themselves with Chairman Boots.

Andrew Berger of the Indiana Manufacturers Association (IMA) claimed that none of its members contacted the group to voice their support for work share. Perhaps that’s because the members know IMA would do nothing about it based on its history with this issue. The Indiana Chamber has many manufacturers among its membership – some of which also belong to the IMA – that have reached out to us about wanting work share and were on the list of hundreds we submitted to the committee. It’s too bad the IMA won’t ask its board to vote on this issue. Manufacturers are the biggest users of work share in states that have it.

The surprise of the hearing was Chairman Boots calling in Josh Richardson, deputy commissioner of DWD to bat cleanup for him. We had been assured that the Holcomb administration was neutral and that DWD was not going to testify. Why does that matter? No one has done more to stand in the way of work share year after year than Richardson. He has influenced Boots and together they have repeatedly sabotaged this commonsense alternative to full layoffs. This time, Richardson downplayed any benefits from the program and backed up negative assertions from Boots with careful wording about how work share could be looked at multiple ways.

There is overwhelming bipartisan support in the entire General Assembly for work share, but for nearly a decade the legislation has been stopped from proceeding in this committee.

It doesn’t matter what impartial research says. It doesn’t matter the negative impact on employers and employees. And it doesn’t matter to Sen. Boots that he has kept Indiana’s UI trust fund from receiving as much as $200 million in federal funding to pay work share benefits. The refusal to have meaningful debate and to allow work share legislation to reach the House and Senate floor is unconscionable given the pandemic and push for economic recovery.

Resource: Kevin Brinegar at (317) 264-6882 or email: [email protected]

Committee Passes (Amended) Priority Broadband Legislation

HB 1164 – Various Utility Matters Authored by Rep. Ethan Manning (R-Logansport) The bill will facilitate access to and adoption of broadband by making it simpler for school districts to locate broadband facilities on their property, allowing traditional cell towers to be built at greater heights and closer together to increase coverage and capacity, and streamlining access to state-owned properties and structures to deploy broadband faster.

HB 1449 – Broadband Development Authored by Rep. Ed Soliday (R-Valparaiso)

This bill specifies the following priorities for the awarding of grants from the fund after June 30, 2021. Extending eligible broadband service to rural areas (for which only available internet connections are at actual speeds of less than 50 mbps downstream), as well as to public school corporation buildings and rural health clinics (for which only available internet connections are at actual speeds of less than 1,000 mbps downstream). Also extends eligible broadband service so to ensure that every resident Indiana student less than 23 years of age has at the student’s residence an access point providing such connection. Finally, the bill establishes the Indiana Broadband Connectivity Program, under which the Indiana Office of Community and Rural Affairs (OCRA) must establish a public broadband portal through which an individual or business may report that minimum broadband internet is unavailable at to them.

Chamber position: Support for both

The latest: On February 15, the House Utilities, Energy and Telecommunications Committee, which is chaired by Rep. Soliday, passed HB 1164 (9-4) and HB 1449 (11-1).

Indiana Chamber action/commentary: Monday marked an important day for broadband in Indiana with the committee passage of two very significant bills that foreshadow what the same committee intends to do with the Senate bills they will review (and likely amend) a few weeks from now.

Although the committee did not take public testimony on HB 1164 during this week’s hearing, the Chamber supplied written support for the bill to its author, Rep. Manning. The Chamber emphasized its significance, stating that it will alleviate certain red tape that internet service providers must navigate when deploying a broadband network – especially one that uses wireless technology.

The Chamber provided oral testimony in support of HB 1449, a bill that Rep. Soliday amended substantially at the beginning of the hearing. When introducing his amendment, Soliday referenced testimony provided by the Chamber during a Senate committee hearing last week (SB 377). Representative Soliday’s amendment, in part, introduces more transparency into the state’s deployment of broadband grants and requires OCRA to report to his committee annually on the status of awarded projects. Again, based in part on the Chamber’s testimony last week, Soliday incorporated into HB 1449 the Indiana Broadband Connectivity Program, under which OCRA must establish a public broadband portal through which an individual or business may report that minimum broadband internet (defined as an actual speed of at least 25 mbps downstream and at least 3mbps upstream) is unavailable at the individual’s residential or business address. Subsequently, providers may bid competitively for a grant to connect the reported address.

Expanding broadband into rural Indiana is a top legislative priority for the Indiana Chamber this year. House Bills 1164 and 1449 are giant steps in the right direction because they will make technology infrastructure easier to deploy and increase the access to and adoption of high-speed broadband regardless of the city, town or community in which an individual or business resides.

Resource: Adam H. Berry at (317) 264-6892 or email: [email protected] IN OTHER NEWS

Taxation and Public Finance DOR Bill Addresses Partnership Audit Adjustments and More

SB 383 – Various Tax Matters Authored by Sen. (R-Markle)

This is the Indiana Department of Revenue’s (IDOR) annual bill containing a collection of changes the agency has identified as needed to improve state tax administration. Among the many provisions are those establishing new procedures for how individual partners must amend their tax state when the Internal Revenue Service audits and changes their partnership’s federal tax liability (on which their state income tax return is based). It also makes changes to the procedures governing when a manufacturing facility gets a new utility use meter (used to document an exemption). Full details at http://www.iga.in.gov/legislative/2021/bills/senate/383.

Chamber position: Support in Part

The latest: The bill was amended and voted out of the Senate Tax and Fiscal Policy Committee 13-0.

Indiana Chamber action/commentary: The Chamber expressed appreciation to Sen. Holdman and the IDOR for working with us on provisions in this bill. We are especially grateful for the work that staff has put into the provisions that address the state tax procedures for adjusting partner liabilities in response to a federal partnership adjustment. Changes made at the federal level, to audit partnerships as an entity rather than individual partners, created the need for Indiana to establish procedures for how individual partner liabilities would be adjusted at the state level when their partnership’s federal liability is altered. This has proven complicated and the IDOR has devoted a good deal of time and effort to work out details with knowledgeable tax consultants. It is recognized that the effort may not yet be complete and these procedures will probably have to be tweaked in the future. Our expression to the committee was that while perhaps imperfect, it remains important to reflect changes in our state code. The Chamber also supported the changes concerning the reporting of new utility use meters, citing those changes an example of IDOR’s willingness to fix administrative matters when they are brought to its attention.

Amended Unclaimed Property Bill Much Improved, But May Need More Work

SB 188 – Revised Uniform Unclaimed Property Act Authored by Sen. (R-Bedford)

This bill repeals the unclaimed property act and replaces it with the revised unclaimed property act.

Chamber position: Oppose in Part

The latest: The Senate Judiciary Committee amended and passed the bill 8-0.

The bill is intended to update and recodify the unclaimed property statutes in the manner proposed by the Uniform Laws Commission. But it was discovered that a wholesale repeal raised many concerns among the affected parties. Thus, the author engaged in a series of discussions to sort out the main issues that were raised when it was first heard. The result this week was a lengthy amendment. And it was acknowledged by the author that some additional amendments would still be needed to address what the chair called remaining “glitches.” So, look for those when the bill reaches the Senate floor or when considered by the House. The committee amendment did restore the business-to-business exemption that is in current law, but was removed in the introduced bill. It also inserts some language to “phase in” the new reporting requirement. This provision appears to be one of those glitches that still needs work.

Indiana Chamber action/commentary: The Chamber’s primary concerns with the bill were: (1) the elimination of the business-to-business exclusion, and (2) the 10-year lookback period that would have effectively made the new reporting requirements retroactive. The business-to-business exemption was restored and the phase-in provision was presented as an attempt to address the retroactive application. However, it is not clear that the phase-in provisions adequately remedy the problem of the 10-year lookback, retroactive application. We appreciate the changes that were made and will continue to work with the author and interested parties to determine if additional improvements can be made.

Resource: Bill Waltz at (317) 264-6887 or email: [email protected]

Quick Takes Remote Worker Legislation May Have Second Life; Pregnancy Accommodations and Worker’s Comp Benefit Increase Approved on the Floor

House Bill 1416 (Remote Worker Grants and Remote Work Sites), authored by Rep. Martin Carbaugh (R- Fort Wayne), would have established the remote worker grant program, which the Chamber sees as a vehicle communities all across the state can use to attract talent and new, taxpaying residents. However, HB 1416 died this week when the House Ways and Means Committee did not take up the measure. The bill previously passed the House Commerce, Small Business and Economic Development Committee. But all may not be lost. Late this week, we pressed the issue with key legislators and received indication that there may be a willingness to amend the remote worker legislation into a related bill coming over from the Senate, such as any on broadband. Many communities around the country are developing successful programs to attract these workers and Indiana needs to continue competing for the best talent. This is a top priority item for the Chamber, and we will continue to pursue all avenues to see it become law this session.

House Bill 1125 (Deceptive Lead Generation), authored by Rep. Matt Lehman (R-Berne), aims to corral misleading advertisements. The measure overwhelming passed the House 97-1. The bill was initiated by Cook Group, a Chamber member, and it assists in removing harmful, misleading medical device and legend drug ads that promote litigation. We will continue assisting the Cook Group to secure approval in the Senate.

House Bill 1309 (Pregnancy Accommodation), authored by Rep. Karen Engleman (R-Georgetown), cleared the full House 95-2. Senate sponsors of the legislation are Sen. Phil Boots (R-Crawfordsville) and Sen. (R-Lafayette). The Chamber previously testified that we support the bill and it’s a good compromise from HB 1358 (which we deemed too prescriptive for employers). We anticipate HB 1309 will get a hearing in the Senate – most likely in the Senate Pensions and Labor Committee – and will work to secure passage of the bill in its current form.

House Bill 1454 (Nonemergency Ambulance Service and Physician Order), authored by Rep. Beau Baird (R-Greencastle), was favorably amended this week in committee after a meeting with all stakeholders, including the Chamber. The bill previously raised reimbursements to out-of-network ambulance providers. That Chamber-opposed portion was removed and now the bill requires a submission of cost data to the Family and Social Services Administration by ambulance providers. The bill has now moved to third reading and is eligible for consideration by the full House. With the amendment, the Chamber moves its position from oppose to neutral. We will keep a close watch on this legislation as it moves ahead to make certain the scope remains the same.

Senate Bill 220 (Worker’s Compensation), authored by Sen. (D-Portage), would increase worker’s compensation benefits by 2% each year for three years beginning in July. The measure easily passed the Senate this week 43-3. We expect the bill to be assigned to the House Employment and Labor Committee. We will be working with its chairman, Rep. Heath VanNatter (R-Kokomo), to find a solution so that the benefit increase is not simply for employees but also for employers. We don’t disagree that an benefit increase is warranted; there hasn’t been one since 2016 (enacted in 2013). However, a comparable business consideration is in order as well.

Resources: Adam H. Berry at (317) 264-6892 or email: [email protected]; Mike Ripley at (317) 264-6883 or email: [email protected]

Economic Development Significant Regional Economic Development Legislation Clears Committee

SB 215 – Redevelopment Projects Authored by Sen. Travis Holdman (R-Markle)

Provides that the expiration date of an allocation area established by the redevelopment commission of a qualified city for the purpose of financing a mixed use development project only may not be more than 50 years. Authorizes a qualified city to enter into leases financed with incremental tax revenue from the allocation area for a term not to exceed 50 years for the purpose of financing a mixed use development project. Defines “qualified city” and “mixed use development project” for purposes of these provisions. Provides, that if in any state fiscal year, the Indiana Economic Development Corporation (IEDC) determines that it will award an amount of tax credits under $1,000,000, the IEDC must first receive state budget committee review. Establishes the regional economic acceleration and development initiative (READI) fund to provide grants and loans to support economic development and regional economic acceleration and development. Provides that the IEDC administers the fund. Provides that the IEDC board may review applications for grants and loans from the fund. Allows the board to form a strategic review committee. Requires the IEDC to establish a policy for the regional economic acceleration and development initiative. Makes an appropriation.

Chamber position: Support

The latest: On February 16, the Senate Tax and Fiscal Policy Committee passed SB 215 unanimously (13-0).

Indiana Chamber action/commentary: The Chamber testified in support of this bill that would invest in regional economic development. Senate Bill 215 seeks to invest $150 million (over two years) in quality of place investments that will spur economic growth throughout the state via regional collaboration, planning and cooperation.

Senate Bill 215 introduces the “READI” fund to signify that Indiana is “ready” to move forward out of the COVID-19 pandemic. Chairman Holdman’s amendment was drafted to create a “shiny object” that emphasizes the importance of regional economic development.

Senator Holdman noted that going into the pandemic Indiana had “$2 billion in the bank, far exceeding what any of our neighboring states had.” He continued by noting that now we must move “faster” down the path of economic growth, and the best way to do so is by supporting our regional economic development partnerships that are structured to accomplish this mission effectively and efficiently.

The Chamber testified in support of the bill, stating the General Assembly must be “bold and creative” in developing a regional economic development growth strategy. We reiterated the chairman’s point that the best path forward for the state “as a whole” is to tackle many of our eminent challenges (e.g. health, workforce, innovation and housing) at the local level – and through community collaboration and strategic cooperation.

Committee Passes Bill Supporting Certified Technology Parks

SB 213 – Certified Technology Parks Authored by Sen. Travis Holdman (R-Markle)

Specifies additional information that a certified technology park is required to provide to the Indiana Economic Development Corporation in the course of a review. Provides that if a park has reached the limit on deposits and maintains its certification the park shall become a Level 2 park. Increases, from $100,000 to $250,000, the annual additional incremental income tax deposit amount that a park captures once it has reached its limit on deposits. Clarifies the calculation of the additional incremental income tax deposit amount in the year in which a park reaches its limit on deposits. Provides that when the corporation certifies a Level 2 park the corporation shall make a determination of whether the park shall continue to be designated as a Level 2 park.

Chamber position: Support

The latest: This week the bill was passed unanimously by the Senate Tax and Fiscal Policy Committee (13-0).

Indiana Chamber action/commentary: On Tuesday, the Chamber once again testified in support of a bill that would give Certified Technology Parks (CTPs) additional funding. When we began this effort several years ago, we – along with our stakeholder contingent – set a goal of up to $500,000 for additional tax increment capture to support innovation and entrepreneurship throughout the state.

With this bill, beginning July 1, 2020, CTPs that have reached the initial $5 million cap may capture up to $100,000 per year. Due to these extraordinary times, we are not seeking an increase in law to $500,000 per year. Instead, we are pursuing an increase from a maximum of $100,000 per year to a maximum of $250,000 per year (without adding another lifetime cap or automatically resetting the tax base).

CTPs are as important as ever to our state’s future because they serve to diversify our local economies. This legislation would provide meaningful support to aid small business innovators, which have been battered by the recent economic shock.

We estimate this legislation’s fiscal impact to the state over the next two years at a maximum of $1.6 million. The CTP program is uniquely positioned to support many of the state’s most important economic goals: jobs, wages, innovation, workforce development and small business growth. Best of all, the CTP program is performance-based. If CTPs aren’t meeting their obligations to their community or to the state, they cannot obtain additional increment.

In testimony, the Chamber also made the following point to the committee: That CTPs should not be confused with “co-working spaces” or other business incubators. CTPs are unique in that they are a creation of a local “redevelopment commission” that identified as an unutilized or under-utilized location within the community and transformed it into a place that supports high-tech entrepreneurial activity.

Resource: Adam H. Berry at (317) 264-6892 or email: [email protected]

Local Government House Committee Refuses to Let Voters Decide Municipal-Township Reorganization

HB 1476 – Reorganization of Municipality and Township Authored by Rep. Karen Engleman (R-Georgetown)

Allows a municipality in a county (excluding Marion County) to reorganize with a township that has at least 70% of its population within the municipality, if: (1) the municipality adopts a reorganization plan; and (2) more than 50% of the voters in both the municipality and the unincorporated area of the township approve the reorganization plan. Establishes details of the process and requirements for the reorganization plan.

Chamber position: Support

The latest: Last week, the bill was amended to insert the requirement that 50% of the voters in both the municipality and the unincorporated portion of the township (the area outside the municipality) must approve the plan. This week, the Government and Regulatory Reform Committee finished hearing testimony, but the chair, Rep. Doug Miller (R-Elkhart), elected to hold the bill and not take a vote. Giving the deadline for bills to pass their house of origin, this means the bill is dead.

Indiana Chamber action/commentary: The Chamber testified last week, making the case that affected taxpayers of a municipality and a township, where there is a substantial overlap of population, ought to have the opportunity to vote for a plan to consolidate services provided by the two governmental entities. The opponents characterized the process as an elimination of elected officials, ignoring the fact that it requires the approval of both the citizens of the municipality and the unincorporated portion of the township. The bottom line in this debate is that the township officials do not want their own citizenry to be given the ability to determine the fate of their offices. Townships are dedicated to their self-preservation and dismiss the notion that a detailed, planned out merger that is vetted and approved by their constituents might just provide better, more efficient and effective services – if it threatens their own existence.

Resource: Bill Waltz at (317) 264-6887 or email: [email protected]

Health Care Senate Committee Passes Prescription Drug Rebate Bill That Will Drive Up Costs to Fully Insured Plans

SB 62 – Prescription Drug Rebates and Pricing Authored by Sen. (R-Evansville)

Provides that the defined cost sharing for a prescription drug under a policy of accident and sickness insurance or a health maintenance organization contract must be calculated at the point of sale and based on a price that is reduced by an amount equal to at least 85% of all rebates received by the insurer or health maintenance organization in connection with the dispensing or administration of the prescription drug.

Chamber position: Oppose

The latest: The bill passed the Senate Health and Provider Services Committee 10-2.

Indiana Chamber action/commentary: Eli Lilly and Company testified in support of the bill. Anthem, CVS Health, Care Source and CIGNA all joined us in opposition. In testimony, the Chamber mentioned that Lilly and Anthem are two of its largest members. We opposed the bill because the fiscal impact statement shows that premiums will increase for local government non-ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act) plans. If the bill impacts those plans in that manner, the same will apply to small group fully insured plans. The Chamber has a standing policy to oppose mandates that drive up premiums for fully insured plans. The Senate refuses to listen on this issue and will pass this bill. Every attempt will be made to kill SB 62 when it reaches the House.

Senate Appropriations Passes Pharmacy Benefit Manager Legislation

SB 143 – Pharmacy Benefit Managers Authored by Sen. Andy Zay (R-Huntington)

Requires the auditor of state to conduct an audit of prescription drug cost sharing for the Medicaid program every three state fiscal years. Adds requirements of pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) when denying an appeal of the maximum allowable cost pricing of a prescription drug. Requires the Department of Insurance to develop a process for complaints regarding PBMs, including: (1) denied appeals of maximum allowable cost pricing; and (2) unfair, unjust or unlawful contract provisions. Allows a pharmacy or pharmacist to decline to provide pharmacist services to a covered individual if the acquisition cost to the pharmacy or pharmacist would exceed the amount received for the pharmacist services.

Chamber position: Oppose (pending review of late amendment)

The latest: The bill was amended in Senate Appropriations Committee and some on the fly. Senator (R-Fort Wayne) expressed major concerns about the portion of the bill that allows pharmacies to deny a prescription because they would have to accept payment for less than they actually paid for the drug. She noted that there are other drugs on which pharmacies are making a profit. While this may help pharmacies, it doesn’t help overall costs and access. Senator Brown also maintained that the Department of Insurance currently has authority to audit between a PBM and the pharmacy. The committee chairman, (R-Bremen), amended the auditing language because it created a fiscal component. The bill passed the committee after much discussion.

Indiana Chamber action/commentary: With the amendments, we believe the bill is in much better shape than previously, but the bill may still drive up costs to employers. No written advance copy was provided for one amendment, so we will have to wait until the new draft version is made public to see what is in the bill. It’s clear that there is momentum to pass this legislation in 2021 regardless of the Chamber’s final position.

Resource: Mike Ripley at (317) 264-6883 or email: [email protected]

EVENTS / INFORMATION

March 5 – Monthly Policy Issue Call – Indiana Chamber members can hear the Chamber’s lobbying team offer analysis of General Assembly action; members can also ask questions important to their business. Register to attend; you can also replay last Friday’s call on the first month of legislative activity. Go to www.indianachamber.com/policycalls.

March 16 – Chamber Day Event – Indiana’s most influential business leaders, legislators and government officials will come together virtually to discuss topics vital to Indiana businesses. Keynote speaker is Myra Selby, a partner with the Ice Miller law firm and first woman and African American to serve as an associate justice on the Indiana Supreme Court. Register to attend today at https://www.indianachamber.com/event/chamberday/

Available now! The 2021 Legislative Directory will keep you connected with state legislators during this session and beyond! It comes as both a booklet and an app (for iPhones). Each contains contact information for all 150 state legislators and much more. A discount is given for purchasing both versions as well as bulk quantities of the book. Order online at https://www.indianachamber.com/directory or by calling (800) 824-6885.