This Act removes a derogatory term for Italian-, Spanish-, and Portuguese-American immigrants from the Delaware Code.
Both the Delaware Strategic Fund (Title 29, Chapter 87A, Subchapter II) and the Delaware Technical Innovation Fund (Title 29, Chapter 87A, Subchapter III) provide funding for Delaware businesses, including new businesses in growing technology-related fields. The Delaware Strategic Fund is intended to assist in the development of startup strategies such as seed capital and incubator programs. The Delaware Technical Innovation Fund is intended to promote coordination with Delaware’s institutions of higher education and the private sector to commercialize innovative products and processes developed by small businesses. This act encourages Delaware’s institutions of higher education to assist foreign-born, student entrepreneurs, who are engaged in the development of new businesses and technologies in Delaware, to provide them with assistance in maintaining proper legal status within the United States. Presently, thirteen universities in six states offer Global Entrepreneur in Residence Programs which have been successful in assisting foreign-born, student entrepreneurs in creating new businesses, new jobs, and attracting additional capital investment for their development and expansion. This act will add a provision comparable to those found in Global Entrepreneur Residence Programs within the existing frameworks provided by the Delaware Strategic Fund and the Delaware Technical Innovation Fund. This will encourage the creation and development of new businesses and new technologies in Delaware, without creating a new program with new funding needs.
This Act amends the Delaware Governmental Accountability Act to make the annual budget process part of a performance management system of strategic planning, performance metrics and performance budgeting, dedicated to continuous process improvement that makes government more efficient, reduces costs and eliminates waste in the process and operations that deliver goods and services to taxpayers, customers and employees of State government.
This legislation increases access to Delaware's existing community solar program by expanding geographic eligibility requirements of the program. The legislation also ensures 15% of all community solar facilities provide savings to low-to-moderate income households, and enables community solar facilities to reach 5 megawatts in size, which will maximize solar savings and grow the number of homes that can subscribe to a program.
This Act amends the Renewable Energy Portfolio Standards Act (REPSA) to provide for a workable cost cap to protect Delmarva Power customers from sharp annual increases in their bills due to the cost of procuring renewable energy. This Act authorizes the Director of the Division of Energy and Climate of the Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC) to freeze the renewable portfolio standard (RPS) if the cost of compliance to Delmarva Power customers increases by more than 1% a year, or 0.5% for solar power, without shutting down the RPS permanently. However, this Act requires the Director to lift a freeze if the increase in costs is expected to fall below the annual cost caps. This Act revises the RPS cost cap provisions by making it clear that the cost caps measure the annual increase in the cost of compliance with REPSA. This Act reduces the cost cap thresholds from 3% to 1% for renewable energy overall and from 1% to 0.5% for solar energy. Finally, the Act delineates the authority to promulgate regulations on the part of DNREC and the Public Service Commission to avoid any regulatory conflict and ensure that the agencies work together to implement REPSA while protecting customers from sharp cost increases.
This resolution recognizes June 6, 2018 as the 74th anniversary of D-Day, when the Allied Troops landed at Normandy during World War II.
Section 1 of this Act allows those licensed as importers to pay tax upon the sale of alcoholic beverages to customers, instead of the tax being due when the alcoholic beverages come to rest in the State of Delaware. Section 2 of this Act provides that if any of the provisions are found to be unconstitutional, the remaining provisions will stand. Section 3 of this Act provides that the legislation will be effective as of August 1, 2018.
This Act creates a Prescription Opioid Impact Fund (“Fund”) through a prescription opioid impact fee (“Fee”) that is assessed on manufacturers of prescription opioids as follows: 1. The fee is based on the total of the Morphine Milligram Equivalent (“MME”) in each manufacturer’s products dispensed in Delaware, based upon data already reported to the Prescription Monitoring Program (“PMP”). The PMP data contains the mandatory reports by pharmacists of every prescription opioid dispensed in the State. The PMP data does not include prescription opioids administered in hospitals, provided directly to patients by hospice, or dispensed by veterinarians. 2. The fee is assessed against manufacturers who exceed a threshold of MME dispensed each quarter. 3. The Fee is assessed as follows: • One penny per MME for a prescription opioid dispensed and reported in the PMP. • One-quarter of a penny per MME for a prescription opioid that is a generic. The money in the Prescription Opioid Impact Fund must be spent on the following activities: 1. Opioid addiction prevention. 2. The following opioid addiction services: • Inpatient and outpatient treatment programs and facilities, including short-term and long-term residential treatment programs and sober living facilities. • Treating substance use disorder for the under-insured and uninsured. • Emergency assistance relating to prescription opioids, including purchasing Naloxone. 3. Research regarding opioid addiction and treatment. 4. Administrative costs of implementing the Fee and Fund, up to 15% of the amount in the Fund. The Addiction Action Committee will award grants and contracts from the money in the Fund, based upon priorities developed in consultation with the Behavioral Health Consortium. A standing subcommittee of the Addiction Action Committee that does not contain any State employees will make the recommendations regarding the awards of the grants and contracts. This Substitute Bill differs from Senate Bill No. 176 as follows: • Adds additional whereas clauses to further explain the background for the Fund and Fee. • Gives responsibility for the Fee to the Secretary of State instead of the Secretary of the Department of Health and Social Services, because the PMP and the Controlled Substances Act are under the Secretary of State. • Removes the ability to use the funds from the Fee for Medicaid, and restricts appropriations to specifically-listed activities. • Prohibits using the Fund to supplant existing State funding. • Permits a manufacturer to challenge an invoice for a prescription opioid impact fee through the existing appeal process under the Controlled Substances Act. • Gives responsibility for appropriating funds from the Fund to the Addiction Action Committee. • Lowers the amount of the impact fee for generic drugs. • Establishes a minimum threshold before manufacturers are assessed the Fee. • Removes the restriction on raising prices to consumers because the Fee is unlikely to materially increase the price of prescription drugs because those prices are set on a national basis. • Provides explicitly that the Attorney General may recover interest and reasonable attorney fees and costs in a successful lawsuit to enforce this Act. • Clarifies that the Secretary of State develops the rules and regulations for implementing the Fee. And the Addiction Action Committee, with the Secretary of the Department of Health and Social Services, develops the rules and regulations for implementing the Fund. • Revises the reporting requirements on how money from the Fund is spent. • Provides clear permission to share the PMP data with the Addiction Action Committee, Secretary of State, and Attorney General for the purposes of administering and enforcing this chapter.
This Act prohibits the manufacture, sale, offer to sell, transfer, purchase, receipt, possession, or transport of assault weapons in Delaware, subject to certain exceptions. One exception relevant to individuals is that the Act does not prohibit the possession and transport of firearms that were lawfully possessed or fully applied for before the effective date of this Act; although for these firearms there are certain restrictions relating to their possession and transport after the effective date of this Act. This Act is based on the Firearm Safety Act of 2013 (“FSA”) passed in Maryland in the wake of the tragic slaughtering of children on December 14, 2012, at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. The FSA’s assault weapons ban was upheld as constitutional on February 21, 2017, by the full membership of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, in the case of Kolbe v. Hogan, 849 F.3d 114 (4th Cir. 2017). The names Newtown, Aurora, San Bernardino, Orlando, Las Vegas, and Parkland, among others, have become synonymous with tragic killing of innocent, unsuspecting Americans of all ages and backgrounds, amidst a framework of federal and state laws that have permitted the purchase of weapons designed for the battlefield — not for our schools, our theaters, our places of worship, or our homes. Safety — both for the general public, as well as members of Delaware's law-enforcement community — is the objective of this Act, as it was for the FSA. And, as with the FSA, a primary goal of this Act is to reduce the availability of assault weapons so that when a criminal acts, he or she does so with a less dangerous weapon and less severe consequences. Relying on United States Supreme Court precedent from District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), as well as the holdings of its sister circuits, the full Fourth Circuit concluded that the assault weapons banned by the FSA are not protected by the Second Amendment. The Fourth Circuit was convinced that the banned assault weapons are among those arms that are “like” “M-16 rifles” — “weapons that are most useful in military service” — which the Heller Court singled out as being beyond the Second Amendment’s reach. The Fourth Circuit concluded that Maryland had presented extensive uncontroverted evidence demonstrating that the assault weapons outlawed by the FSA are exceptionally lethal weapons of war. The Fourth Circuit also concluded that the evidence showed the difference between the fully automatic and semiautomatic versions of military-style weapons is slight. Further evidence considered by the Fourth Circuit that motivates this Act is as follows: (1) Like their fully automatic counterparts, the banned assault weapons are firearms designed for the battlefield, for the soldier to be able to shoot a large number of rounds across a battlefield at a high rate of speed, and that their design results in a capability for lethality — more wounds, more serious, in more victims — far beyond that of other firearms in general, including other semiautomatic guns. (2) The banned assault weapons have been used disproportionately to their ownership in mass shootings and the murders of law-enforcement officers. (3) The banned assault weapons further pose a heightened risk to civilians in that rounds from assault weapons have the ability to easily penetrate most materials used in standard home construction, car doors, and similar materials, and that criminals armed with the banned assault weapons possess a “military-style advantage” in firefights with law-enforcement officers, as such weapons allow criminals to effectively engage law-enforcement officers from great distances and their rounds easily pass through the soft body armor worn by most law-enforcement officers. (4) Although self-defense is a conceivable use of the banned assault weapons, most individuals choose to keep other firearms for that purpose. (5) Prohibitions against assault weapons will promote public safety by reducing the availability of those armaments to mass shooters and other criminals, by diminishing their especial threat to law-enforcement officers, and by hindering their unintentional misuse by civilians. (6) In many situations, the semiautomatic fire of an assault weapon is more accurate and lethal than the automatic fire. Finding this evidence and these conclusions by the Fourth Circuit to be strongly persuasive of the applicable framework of constitutional rights, and firmly believing that promoting the safety of the Delaware public and Delaware law-enforcement is a paramount function of the Delaware General Assembly, Delaware legislators file this Act in the name of public safety and with adherence to core constitutional principles.
This bill makes it a crime to sell, transfer, buy, receive or possess a trigger crank or bump-fire device designed to accelerate the rate of fire of a semiautomatic rifle, making such weapon function more like an automatic weapon. A bump stock was used by the gunman in Las Vegas in October 2017. Violation of this provision is a Class E felony.
