Megan Egbert — Asked how the bill would affect third-party tools used by agencies, citing Workday as an example.
Megan Egbert — Explained her concern that agencies could still be using a product even if DEI issues are not visible in the model itself.
Megan Egbert — Asked another question about AI uses, following the discussion of Department of Correction support.
Megan Egbert — Asked whether police would be impacted by the bill in their use of AI for determinations.
Jessica Spoya — Jessica Spoya, licensing program manager with the Division of Occupational and Professional Licenses, presents the rule chapter docket on behalf of the board and concludes by requesting committee approval of the rule chapter consistent with the Senate's action excluding Section 400.
Chris Bruce — Representative Bruce is recognized as the next speaker and then asks why the Senate removed Section 400, focusing the discussion on the Senate's objection to that provision.
Chris Bruce — Representative Bruce is told no second is needed for the motion.
Chris Bruce — Asked which department the issue involved and whether it was judicial or pardons and paroles.
Ms. Boyer / Ms. Spoya — Explains that the Senate wanted more financial information and was not comfortable increasing fees.
Britt Raybould — Moved to approve the rule docket with Section 400 struck.
Britt Raybould — Her motion from the prior section was the motion under discussion.
Britt Raybould — Likely the speaker transcribed as 'Representative Rabe'; asked about a possible relation to another bill.
Britt Raybould — Questioned whether HB 593 relates to another bill on the agenda.
Ms. Boya — The chair acknowledged Ms. Boya in connection with the witness testimony to follow.
Ms. Dawson — A witness identified as Ms. Dawson was called to testify.
Heather Scott — Representative Heather Scott presents HB 593 as DOGE Committee-related code cleanup, explaining that the changes came from executive-branch agency recommendations and that the bill addresses an outdated committee structure. In response to questions, she clarifies that the committee was created in 1985, was intended to be temporary, is now unnecessary, and could be recreated by law if needed. The discussion also clarifies that the bill concerns both the Payette-related provisions and unrelated sections of Title 39, with Scott acknowledging some confusion and noting that the bill repeals specific sections tied to the State Hazardous Waste Management Planning Committee.
David Leavitt — Possibly the intended reference in 'Representative Van der Wada House'; exact identity uncertain.
David Leavitt — Likely the speaker transcribed as 'Representative Furman'; asked a question about the program and committee formation.
David Leavitt — Likely the speaker transcribed as 'Representative Furman'; clarified that the question was broader than the Payette committee.
David Leavitt — Representative Furman is the member asking whether the bill applies beyond the Payette provisions.
David Leavitt — Representative Furman is the member asking for clarification about whether the committee could be recreated if needed.
David Leavitt — Representative Van der Wada is asking whether the repeal in Scott's bill conflicts with his own legislation.
David Leavitt — Representative Van der Wada explains his bill may overlap with Scott's bill and asks what each bill repeals.
David Leavitt — Representative Van der Wada's bill may be affected by the repeal in House Bill 593.
David Leavitt — Representative Van der Wada asks whether the same section is being repealed twice.
David Leavitt — Representative Van der Wada's bill is described as repealing all of Chapter 58, Title 39, in contrast to the other bill's partial repeal.
Erin Bingham — Representative Erin Bingham questioned whether DEQ was involved in the changes and then followed up to confirm that DEQ was comfortable with and supportive of those changes.
Erin Bingham — Representative Bingham was mentioned as the person who could receive and pass along handouts to others.
Jordan Redman — Representative Redmond initially moves to send House Bill 593 to the floor with a due pass recommendation, then later withdraws that motion, which is subsequently withdrawn by unanimous consent.
Jordan Redman — Moved to send House Bill 687 to the floor with a due pass recommendation.
Roy E. Guren — Roy E. Guren introduces himself as a lawyer and lobbyist representing Republic Services, then responds to a question about the bills by indicating that both appear to repeal the same section and that a double repeal is acceptable.
Cornel Rasor — Moved to hold the bill in committee to the call of the chair.
Cornel Rasor — Asked whether there was a motion regarding House Bill 714.
Cornel Rasor — Was addressed regarding a motion on House Bill 714.
Cornel Rasor — Was asked a question from the chair about state payments to Recidiviz.
HB5045 — Representative Schurz began explaining the purpose and background of the bill.
Charlie Shepherd — Representative Schurz continued a sustained explanation of the bill’s AI restrictions and implementation. He said the contract language would require vendors to assure the state that DEI is not embedded in the code and would permit inspection if needed. He explained that agencies could adopt their own procedures to ensure compliance and that the bill’s guardrails were necessary even if no system is perfect, because biased principles embedded in AI could cause harm. He clarified that the bill applies when an agency itself procures, deploys, or directly uses a language model, including free tools, and not merely when it interacts with a company that has its own AI system. He also noted that IDOC was the agency involved in the example, emphasized that the department had been cooperative, and said he was not trying to criticize them. He further explained that his concern was the principles embedded in AI systems and that the bill was meant to set ground rules for state agencies, while indicating he did not seek formal support from the agencies and did not think police would be impacted.
Steven Tanner — Representative Tanner praised the bill’s focus on AI and raised a knowability concern, asking how the state could determine whether a vendor’s AI is ideologically neutral and whether any industry standards exist for making that assessment.
John Shirts — Representative Shirts discussed concerns about the lack of a current standard and the uncertainty around the issue, arguing that the state should avoid ending up in a bad situation. He referenced the Trump White House approach and emphasized that the contract language should require the model not be based on DEI. He added that the bill cannot guarantee complete certainty, but it is a good first step that provides recourse if the model is later found to be based on DEI.
Soñia Galaviz — Representative Galaviz is recognized by the chair and then begins his question regarding the Department of Correction, asking about the proposed changes and whether the department and its director support them.
Vito Barbieri — Addressed in the speaker's response as part of the chair reference.
Bruce Skaug — Spoke in support of the motion and suggested reviewing more contracts this way.
Megan Egbert — Representative Egbert is involved in the minutes approval discussion: after being asked whether the minutes had been reviewed, he moves to approve the minutes from February 10th and February 16th.
Megan Egbert — Was recognized as having a question following the motion.
Megan Egbert — Said she had previously understood the bill to be about procurement only, but noted the text also includes 'use.'
Layton Parker — Layton Parker is introduced as the new page and then introduces himself, saying he is a senior at Boise High School, moved to Boise five years ago from the Middle East, and enjoys being a page.