Brian Lenney — Senator Lenney questioned Mr. Bramble about whether he served in the Idaho or Utah legislature, then followed up to confirm Bramble’s support for the bill, acknowledging his response and continuing the same line of questioning.
Brian Lenney — During the committee Q&A, the witness opens the floor for questions, and Senator Shippey is identified as the questioner. The discussion then continues with the witness responding to Senator Shippey’s question about kratom, specifically addressing whether cases may involve adulterants.
Brian Lenney — Senator Kaiser is introduced as the next speaker and then asks whether enforcement and administration under the section are similar to enforcement for tobacco, CBD, oil, and alcohol.
Director — The speaker says the director has the exact numbers and references the SOP for funding details.
Shawn Dygert — Mr. Bernbaum says Co-Chair Tanner came to both Health and Welfare committees and asked them to bring policy bills, using bill 863 as an example.
Shawn Dygert — Speaker label appears to be a transcription error; likely 'Senator Shippey' refers to Senator Shawn Dygert or another member, but the transcript is unclear.
Shawn Dygert — Senator Shippee opened the exchange and asked about the Idaho State Police testing equipment costs, questioning how the bill could be described as fiscally neutral in its statement of purpose.
Shawn Dygert — Senator Shippey said he would be open to coming back tomorrow to hear more testimony if there was no other schedule, and he raised concerns about the bill’s fiscal neutrality and the costs of enforcement.
Shawn Dygert — A senator is addressed as 'Senator Shippey,' likely a transcription error for Senator Dygert or another senator; the source is uncertain.
Shawn Dygert — Representative Shawn Dygert continues his discussion with the coroner/Ms. Sanchez, referencing prior committee discussion and asking whether investigators can determine if a kratom-related death involved synthetic or adulterated products.
Gwen McElhenney — Gwen McElhenney is introduced by the chair, then gives her testimony opposing SB 1419. She identifies herself as a lifelong Idaho resident speaking for herself and many Idaho families, and explains that her opposition is informed by her 45 years as a speech-language pathologist serving children and youth in the Treasure Valley, including extensive work in Title I schools and with low-income students who rely on public support.
Julie Davis — The chair asks whether Julie Davis is present in the room.
August Christensen — The chair introduces August Christensen as the next online presenter, and Christensen then testifies as the mayor of Driggs and a former early childhood professional of 30 years. He states that he does not support Senate Bill 1419.
Ms. Christensen — The committee repeatedly tries to establish audio contact with Ms. Christensen, asking her to unmute and confirming whether she can hear them. Ms. Christensen responds that she could not hear the committee, and the committee then asks her to proceed with her presentation.
Doug Taylor — Doug Taylor was introduced as the next in-person presenter and then testified in support of SB 1419 on behalf of the Foundation for Government Accountability. He placed the bill in the context of his organization’s broader work on program integrity, including prior legislation related to SNAP and Medicaid, and said SB 1419 is appealing because it adds accountability, imposes consequences for fraud, and increases legislative oversight.
Mr. Taylor — Mr. Taylor explained that he works with the Foundation for Government Accountability, which is not based in Washington, D.C. and has policy analysts spread across the country. In the same exchange, he also stated that he did not help write the language being discussed.
Megan Millward — Megan Millward was introduced and then testified as a licensed daycare provider in Pocatello since 1993. She raised concerns about the alarming rate of daycare center closures and the affordability of child care, and questioned whether lawmakers are consulting the providers and families directly affected by annual licensing rule and regulatory changes. The chair then thanked her and closed her testimony.
Monique — Announced as the next person, though no further testimony appears in this excerpt.
Ms. Hiddins — Her concerns were referenced as part of the discussion about foster care and eligibility.
Jerald Raymond — Explained that the existing child care program rules are being repealed through the bill.
Jerald Raymond — Referenced as having said that eligibility requirements in House Bill 90 cannot be changed in rule.
Jerald Raymond — Referenced as someone Senator Shippey had already discussed the bill with earlier.
Jerald Raymond — Referenced as having made a similar point earlier.
Jerald Raymond — Referenced as having made a similar point.
Jerald Raymond — Credited, along with others, for working on the bill.
Jerald Raymond — Thanked for coming down to the committee room.
Codi Galloway — Senator Ziderfeld asked for a rough estimate of how much of the $76 million is used for subsidies, and Monty Pro later responded to that question.
Monty Pro — Identified himself as a deputy director at the Department of Health and Welfare and estimated that a little over $50 million, about $54 million, of the $76 million is for subsidies.
Ms. Tins — Was asked to come to the microphone after earlier testimony.
Julie VanOrden — Acknowledged the clarifying question and continued the discussion.
Julie VanOrden — Recorded as voting aye.
Julie VanOrden — Chairwoman Van Orden is repeatedly addressed and then speaks during a committee exchange about the bill’s implications. She responds that the bill appears to create a framework for future marijuana legalization, then moves the committee to the next question after the witness’s clarification, and continues the discussion about enforcement and whether the bill changes anything for law enforcement or Idaho State Police responsibilities.
Julie VanOrden — During the introduction/testimony segment, the speaker repeatedly addressed Chair Julie VanOrden and the committee members while being introduced and beginning remarks.
Charlie Shepherd — Said he was not consulted on the legislation and cannot support it as written.
Tammy Nichols — Introduced Senate Bill 1418 and stated it will be requested to the 14th order.
Tammy Nichols — Referenced as having a list of people she wanted to testify.
Tammy Nichols — Mentioned in connection with the sign-up list of people who wanted to testify.
Tammy Nichols — Referenced as part of the discussion about whether to continue testimony and hear from physicians.
Tammy Nichols — Praised for work on strengthening the bill.
Tammy Nichols — Senator Tammy Nichols is referenced as wanting the bill to go to the 14th order so amendments, including labeling provisions, can be added.
Tammy Nichols — Senator Nichols closed her remarks on the kratom bill by thanking the committee and emphasizing that the bill does not place testing costs on ISP, which is why the fiscal note remains neutral. She argued the proposal creates Idaho’s first enforceable public safety framework for kratom by setting standards for prohibited adulterated or synthetic products, potency and labeling limits, age verification, compliance and testing requirements, and escalating penalties for repeat violators. She stressed that the bill is intended to protect compliant businesses and lawful users, avoid criminalizing people using kratom for legitimate purposes, and prevent unsafe products from being pushed underground. Nichols also described the bill as a balanced, targeted approach that avoids patchwork regulation, cited support from law enforcement and physicians, referenced a federal bill with similar language, and requested that the measure be sent to the 14th order for possible amendments, including labeling changes and clarification that testing responsibility rests with manufacturers/processors rather than ISP.
Stephanie Mickelsen — Introduced the bill and explained its purpose and background.
Grayson Abel — Grayson Abel is introduced as the first witness and identifies himself as a toxicologist with TRC and a consultant in human health risk assessments. He then testifies in support of the bill, citing studies suggesting high mitragynine blood levels have shown no adverse effects and noting that no lethal human dose of kratom has been identified. He concludes by supporting scientifically based regulation of the kratom industry, including warning requirements and criminalization of adulteration.
Dr. Dennis Postenbach — Described as a nationally recognized toxicologist with over 40 years of experience.
Ms. Kili Rastisi — Her passing is referenced with condolences and as the subject of the coroner's conclusion being discussed.
Dr. Ed Boyer — Cited as having analyses that raised concerns about the coroner's report.
Dr. Heidi Sikora — Cited as having analyses that raised concerns about the coroner's report.
Dr. Heidi Sikora — Dr. Heidi Sikora was yielded time to as a signed-up witness, then introduced herself as a doctor of nursing practice, retired nurse practitioner, and health care executive. She further stated that she serves as a volunteer chief scientific officer for the International Plant and Herbal Alliance, has no financial ties to kratom, and began discussing her review of the coroner's report.
Jeff Keller — Jeff Keller, an ER physician and jail physician, testifies against the bill and argues that kratom should be classified as a Schedule I drug. He says his clinical experience with opioid-related and kratom-related withdrawal shows kratom is addictive and should be treated like other opioids, including in newborns exposed in utero. He compares kratom to past drug trends such as spice and bath salts, warns about effects on the unborn, and says the medical literature does not support kratom as safe or effective for any use, including opioid addiction treatment. He also argues that passing the bill would wrongly signal that kratom is safe and effective, notes that Suboxone is a cheaper alternative, and warns that kratom’s availability to children makes it a potential gateway drug.
Robert Durkin — Robert Durkin, outside counsel for the American Kratom Association and a pharmacist with FDA and military experience, testifies in support of treating kratom as a natural dietary supplement rather than a dangerous synthetic drug. He says his FDA background supports his view that kratom has a strong safety record, is not associated with birth defects or cancer, and should be distinguished from synthetic 7-hydroxymitragynine. He praises the bill for creating a regulatory framework that would allow safe access to kratom while banning the synthetic compound, and argues that bans in other states have driven the market underground and created black markets. His testimony ends when his time expires.