Jonathan Richardson — Jonathan Richardson introduced himself to the committee as a page from Shelley, Idaho, and explained that he has lived there his whole life. He said he works in concrete, has done the job for four years, and learned about the page opportunity through his school. He thanked the committee for sponsoring him and reassured them that the experience did not scare him off. He then described his concrete work, including residential and commercial foundations and more recent flat work, and noted that his longest workdays could run from about 2 a.m. to 8 p.m.
Melissa Wintrow — Was asked whether she had a question for Jonathan Richardson and replied no.
Melissa Wintrow — Asked for the correct pronunciation of Louis's name and asked about his move from Hawaii to Idaho.
Melissa Wintrow — Melissa Wintrow is not directly mentioned in these sections; the transcript contains no substantive discussion about her across this span.
Melissa Wintrow — Senator Wintrow asked for an explanation of the science behind blood supply safety, specifically how safety is ensured for donors and transfusions, and was then prompted for any additional follow-up question.
Melissa Wintrow — Senator Melissa Wintrow thanked the chair and Ms. Nichols, then asked about the safety implications and broader risks of directed donations.
Melissa Wintrow — Asks Martinez to clarify what he meant by increased costs.
Melissa Wintrow — Senator Wintrow expressed concern that the bill could undermine confidence in the blood supply by suggesting safety doubts or creating a split system. She continued that the Red Cross and blood supply are community-oriented and warned the bill could create fear, irrational reactions, and safety issues, especially in a disaster.
Camille Blaylock — Asked Jonathan Richardson about the type of concrete work he does.
Camille Blaylock — Senator Blaylock questioned the fiscal note, asking when the Department of Health and Welfare ended the action and noting that the fiscal note seemed unusual compared with prior-year changes. He then followed up by asking whether the lost survivor-benefit revenue should be reflected in the budget as revenue no longer coming in.
Camille Blaylock — Camille Blaylock is mentioned repeatedly across a short, continuous stretch of the meeting, with no distinct topic shift or separate narrative identified in the provided sections.
Camille Blaylock — Camille Blaylock asked whether a more robust directed donation program could help increase the state’s blood supply, particularly for planned or non-emergency surgeries where a patient might anticipate needing a transfusion and could potentially solicit donations in advance.
Camille Blaylock — Seeks clarification about whether Cox's experience differs from testimony that the process already exists under federal law.
Brandon Shippy — Asked Jonathan Richardson about the maximum amount of concrete poured in one day.
Brandon Shippy — Senator Nichols referenced Representative Tanner’s explanation of the bill and agreed with the need to codify the policy.
Brandon Shippy — Senator Nichols referenced Representative Tanner’s explanation of the bill and agreed with the need to codify the policy.
Brandon Shippy — Representative Tanner is the sponsor being discussed in connection with the bill.
Brandon Shippy — Was asked to confirm the effect of the vote on survivor benefits.
Brandon Shippy — Explained that the bill codifies an existing executive order and clarified confusion about which beneficiaries are covered.
Brandon Shippy — Explained that the executive order was done last year and that the fiscal note reflects a range because the exact number was hard to determine.
Brandon Shippy — Responded that the change does not show up separately in the budget because it is built into the department budget.
Brandon Shippy — Explained that the executive order stopped taking Social Security benefits from foster youth and that the issue is no longer in the budget.
Brandon Shippy — Answered that the state would not help administer the benefits; it would only stop taking them.
Brandon Shippy — Explained that the state will no longer take the money and that the benefits stay with the youth until adulthood.
Brandon Shippy — Answered that some children already qualify for other programs and the bill protects the Social Security benefits.
Brandon Shippy — Explained that the bill protects the Social Security dollars parents paid in and referenced prior-year foster youth policy work.
Brandon Shippy — Confirmed that the age was changed to 23 for some benefits to help transition youth.
Brandon Shippy — Asked Representative Tanner to explain the benefits and their origin.
Brandon Shippy — Was addressed by Representative Tanner in response to his question.
Brandon Shippy — Name appears in the question about the origin of the benefits.
Brandon Shippy — Representative Tanner responded to his question about the origin of the benefits.
Brandon Shippy — Was addressed as the senator asking about the benefits.
Brandon Shippy — No direct mention in this section; none identified.
Brandon Shippy — No direct mention in this section; none identified.
Brandon Shippy — No direct mention in this section; none identified.
Brandon Shippy — Brandon Shippy followed up on concerns that the bill could worsen blood shortages, questioning whether it would actually bring in additional donors rather than reduce supply. He pressed on whether any shortage is caused by a lack of donors versus limits in personnel, storage, or blood processing capacity, and asked why unused safe blood could not be recirculated into the general supply through a policy change.
Brandon Shippy — Brandon Shippy first checks whether there are any further questions on the presentation, then moves to send House Bill 528 to the floor with a due pass recommendation.
Louis Raleigh — Louis Raleigh introduced himself as a new Senate page who recently moved from Hawaii to Idaho. He said he is grateful for the opportunity, hopes to become a senator someday, and mentioned his involvement in sports and Sandpoint’s state championship in swimming. He also clarified that his name is pronounced “Louis,” like Louis Vuitton, and explained that the move was his parents’ decision while he remains a high school senior.
Olivia — Olivia introduced herself as a page from Boise with childhood ties to Westport, Connecticut, and dual citizenship in the Netherlands. She shared that she hopes to pursue international law or become a JAG lawyer, noting her interest in politics, fashion, and other hobbies. She also said she speaks Dutch and Afrikaans and has been learning French for six years.
Mark Harris — Mark Harris was called on regarding the February 3rd minutes and then moved to approve them after stating he had read them.
Mark Harris — Mark Harris is mentioned in passing across a short span of the transcript, but no direct substantive discussion or identifiable topic is associated with these references.
Mark Harris — Asked whether directed-donation blood can be used elsewhere or must be saved forever.
Carl Bjerke — Identified as the seconding senator, though the transcript says 'Burkey.'
Carl Bjerke — Carl Bjerke first asked whether a motion was in order and then moved to send House Bill 558 to the floor with a due pass recommendation.
Carl Bjerke — Carl Bjerke thanked Ms. Nichols for her testimony and the Red Cross’s work, then continued by asking which other states she works in and how Oregon and Montana handle the issue.
Carl Bjerke — Asks the witness for examples of the alleged barriers to direct donor blood in Idaho.
Carl Bjerke — Referenced indirectly as one of the senators who had raised concerns or comments earlier.
Carl Bjerke — Senator Bjerke supported the bill and connected it to a similar debate from the previous year, emphasizing concerns about the corporatization of medical care while urging respect for doctors and medical institutions.
Josh Tanner — Presented House Bill 558 and explained its purpose.
Josh Keyser — Senator Tammy Nichols is introduced as the sponsor, and shortly afterward Senator Keyser is addressed in the discussion. Keyser then asks for confirmation that a yes vote would preserve benefits for orphans while a no vote would allow those benefits to be used for overhead.