Todd Lakey — Todd Lakey is identified as having agreed to carry the bill on the Senate side.
Todd Lakey — Senator Lakey introduced House Bill 787 as an occupational licensing reform bill, explaining that it would repeal the existing podiatry chapter and place podiatry under the Board of Medicine to create efficiencies. He concluded by asking for an aye vote and offering to answer questions.
Todd Lakey — Senator Lakey explained that he would support the motion despite some reservations, saying the bill appropriately limits scope of practice and uses certification rather than licensure. He compared it to other licensed professions, arguing that lower-level providers can deliver appropriate services at lower cost. Later, another speaker referenced Lakey’s comments and said he was aligned with that same view.
Janie Ward-Engelking — Was identified as making the motion to send House Bill 773 to the floor with a do pass recommendation.
Janie Ward-Engelking — Seconded the motion on House Bill 648.
Janie Ward-Engelking — Was called up to present House Bill 790.
Janie Ward-Engelking — Introduced House Bill 790 and described the interim licensure review committee process.
Janie Ward-Engelking — Explained that House Bill 790 addresses recognition and practice limitations for interior designers.
Janie Ward-Engelking — Was identified as seconding the motion on House Bill 790.
Van Burtenshaw — Was identified as seconding the motion on House Bill 773.
Van Burtenshaw — Moved that House Bill 790 be sent to the floor with a due pass recommendation.
Van Burtenshaw — Spoke in support of the motion and began explaining his professional experience in the flooring business.
Phil Hart — Phil Hart presented House Bill 702 and explained its Uniform Commercial Code context, focusing on how modern securities ownership works through entitlement holders, securities intermediaries, and clearing corporations. He described the bill’s purpose in a severe financial downturn and read the language the bill would eliminate, which gives creditor claims priority over entitlement holders. He argued that stock owners should not be disadvantaged if a broker or intermediary fails, and then noted that Senator Wisniewski would also present.
Tony Wisniewski — Tony Wisniewski presented testimony on House Bill 702 and explained that the bill has a twofold purpose. He used the collapse of Lehman Brothers to illustrate how leveraged financial decisions can create insolvency risk, contrasted FDIC protection for bank deposits with SIPC coverage on the securities side, and cited MF Global as an example of what can happen when protections are weakened or UCC requirements are rolled back.
Christy Zito — Senator Zito is addressed and then explains that the bill would not protect individuals with claims against a company's retirement program, clarifying that its protections apply to securities business accounts instead.
Christy Zito — Senator Zito is called on during the discussion of House Bill 702 and then moves to send the bill to the floor with a due pass recommendation.
David Jensen — Introduces himself as an Idaho Uniform Law Commissioner and begins testimony opposing the bill.
Mr. Jensen — Jensen is asked to address a concern raised by the sponsor's bill.
Ms. Jensen — Thanked for the explanation; likely the witness being addressed as the committee runs out of time for questions.
Treg Bernt — Senator Treg Bernt asks the representative to explain why House Bill 702 has been rejected in many other states and whether Idaho would be isolated by adopting it. Shortly afterward, he makes a substitute motion to hold House Bill 702 in committee.
Chris Bruce — Representative Chris Bruce was introduced and then presented House Bill 648, describing it as an anti-cancer medication oral parity bill. He explained the bill’s background and shared his personal experience as a leukemia survivor during chemotherapy. He concluded his opening remarks by noting that the bill was straightforward and inviting other supporters and co-sponsors to testify.
Brooke Green — Representative Brooke Green was introduced as the co-sponsor and then immediately began testifying as the representative from District 18, explaining that she wanted to give a glimpse of what the issue looks like based on her recent chemotherapy experience.
Monica Church — Representative Brooke Green discussed her personal experience with chemotherapy, including 21 rounds of treatment and the burden of repeated infusion visits, especially for rural patients who must travel long distances. She explained that oral chemotherapy alternatives often exist but can be prohibitively expensive, forcing patients into costly IV treatment. She clarified that the bill does not create a new mandate but instead requires health plans to apply the same cost-sharing to oral chemotherapy as to IV equivalents. She also shared a personal example of a $4,500 balance and then yielded time to a Susan G. Komen witness. A later reference noted that she had previously raised the issue of rural access.
Elena — The committee prepares to connect with Elena virtually for testimony.
Elena Tier — Elena Tier, the state policy and advocacy manager with Susan G. Komen, testified in support of House Bill 648. She explained that many cancer treatments are oral drugs, but high out-of-pocket costs can cause patients to delay or forgo treatment, with especially serious burdens for rural patients. She said the bill represents a long-negotiated compromise with Idaho health plans and argued that patients should not be financially penalized based on the route of administration for their cancer drugs.
Sherry Baker — Sherry Baker introduced herself from Meridian, Idaho and testified about her multiple myeloma diagnosis and long-term treatment. She explained the insurance and cost challenges she faced, including separate prescription deductibles and high out-of-pocket costs for oral maintenance therapy, which would have cost about $9,000 per month. Because hospital-administered treatment was better covered, she sought that option instead. She concluded by urging that cancer treatment be covered equally regardless of how it is delivered and asked support for the bill.
Randy Johnson — Randy Johnson testified in support of the bill on behalf of the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network. He said he had already submitted written testimony, added that the issue is personal because his sister has multiple myeloma, and referenced a costly pharmacy experience as part of his support for the legislation.
Tammy Nichols — The chair appears to recognize Senator Nichols at the end of the testimony period.
Tammy Nichols — Moved that House Bill 648 be sent to the floor with a due pass recommendation.
Tammy Nichols — Spoke in support of the bill, describing her child's leukemia treatment experience and the burden of infusion visits.
Tammy Nichols — Moved that House Bill 787 be sent to the floor with a due pass recommendation.
Tammy Nichols — Made the motion to advance House Bill 787.
James Ruchti — Seconded the motion on House Bill 787.
James Ruchti — Senator Ruchti repeatedly asked where the overlap or conflict lies between architecture and interior design, specifically how the two professions bump up against each other and where architects have concerns about the practice of interior design. The witness then began explaining the distinction between the professions, noting that architects typically complete at least five years of schooling.
Liz Hatter — Liz Hatter testified on behalf of the Consortium for Interior Design Idaho in support of House Bill 790. She explained that interior designers are trained, tested, and qualified through education, experience, and examination to create safe, functional, accessible, and code-compliant spaces, and that requiring an architect’s sign-off creates an unnecessary barrier and added cost.
Ms. Hatter — Ms. Hatter explained that the latest draft of the bill was sent to AIA for feedback on scope language, but she did not receive substantive comments on scope. She said the main disagreement raised in stakeholder discussions is not the scope language itself but sign-and-seal privileges, which interior designers are trained to perform and which opponents argue would increase competition. She noted that the language has been shared and revised with stakeholders, with no other major opposition, and referenced a regulatory report on overlapping practice areas. She then walked through key bill provisions, including what interior designers cannot do, limits on board authority to promulgate licensure rules, and that the certification framework is voluntary.
Andrew Bick — Andrew Bick was expected to testify but could not attend because of a funeral obligation, and testimony was offered on his behalf.
Terran Mitchell — Terran Mitchell introduced himself, stating that he is testifying on his own behalf and for Andrew Beck, described his Idaho background, and identified himself as the founder and owner of TKM Architecture. He then continued into his testimony by saying the proposal was initially presented to the board as a title bill.
Mr. Mitchell — Mr. Mitchell argued that architects and interior designers are not equivalent because architects have substantially different educational, experiential, and examination requirements. He added that without a background in building systems, it would be difficult to coordinate or integrate design work properly into a building.
Brian Lenney — Supported the bill while criticizing broader system issues involving PBMs, insurance consolidations, and hospitals.
Brian Lenney — Argued the bill addresses cost-sharing symptoms rather than underlying system problems, but said he would support it.
Brian Lenney — Expressed support for House Bill 787 and praised consolidation.
Jim Guthrie — Jim Guthrie offers a brief commendation to Hayden Carter, describing him as friendly and outgoing, and thanks him for his willingness to serve as a page.
Hayden Carter — Hayden Carter is introduced and invited to the podium for a recognition presentation. He thanks the committee for the past few weeks, explains that although he initially wanted a different committee assignment he is glad he served with Senate Commerce, and reflects that the experience taught him to listen, observe, and better understand how the Senate works. In response to a question, he says he expected more conflict and polarization than he actually saw, noting that while many bills pass unanimously there is still real disagreement behind the scenes. The committee then praises his friendliness and service, presents him with a flag, certificate, letters of recommendation, and gifts, and closes by thanking him for his help as a page.
Brian Lenney — Identified in the transcript as 'Senator Lennie'; he asks Hayden what surprised him about the Senate.
Senator Lakey — Senator Lakey closed in support of the bill, noting that many states already grant interior designers sign-and-seal privileges or other regulation, and that interior designers complete accredited education plus experience requirements. He emphasized that their work differs from architects but is important for safety, including material choices that can affect disease spread and planning for fire escapes and smoke alarms. He concluded by urging the committee to send the bill to the floor with a due pass recommendation.