Ilana Rubel — Representative Ilana Rubel argued against an immediate ban on kratom and moved to hold the bill for a time certain until March 25, saying the current status quo is unacceptable but that delaying action would preserve leverage while a regulation bill is considered in the Senate. She emphasized concern about making felons of people, including veterans with chronic pain, and said the extra time could help determine whether the regulation proposal has support. She also noted she did not want her son criticized in the discussion of gas stations and kratom sales, and later thanked the chair, said she would split her time with Representative Aaron Bingham, and referenced a letter recommending Schedule Action.
Ilana Rubel — Her motion is identified as the one the speaker will support.
Ilana Rubel — Representative Ilana Rubel is called during the roll call, then speaks in support of the motion and says she will vote for it. She is also referenced in a related comment recalling her earlier concern about banning nutrient-rich foods, and Redmond later refers to her as the 'good representative' while discussing the cleanup bill.
Ilana Rubel — Representative Ilana Rubel discusses her concerns about Ways and Means process, explaining that RS measures can bypass hearings and tend to pass on party-line votes. She says this makes her wary of surprise procedural changes and supports the substitute motion because she prefers that House Bill 903 proceed cleanly without late-added amendments. When questioned further, she reiterates that she supports the bill itself and urges the sponsor to let House Bill 903 stand on its own this year rather than complicating it with additional changes.
Ilana Rubel — Named during roll call; vote not captured in this fragment.
Dr. Keller — Dr. Keller testified about kratom and related opioid issues, saying he did not know why federal regulation had not occurred and describing kratom as a gateway drug that is marketed to kids and available without a prescription. He then discussed its use over time in corrections and, when asked about an officially recognized diagnosis, said he was unsure what that meant but that they diagnose the condition. He also explained that Suboxone, like other opioids, can be abused but that the naloxone component reduces abuse potential, and he emphasized that while all opioids carry risk, Suboxone is far less risky than kratom. He concluded his testimony after reiterating that comparison.
Marco Erickson — Asked about Suboxone, medication-assisted treatment costs, and Medicaid impacts.
Marco Erickson — Votes nay on the motion.
Marco Erickson — Votes aye on the motion.
Lou Skeen — Announced as the next person up, though the transcript is unclear whether she is present in person or in another room.
Lou Skeen — Introduces himself and says he is representing himself, then defers his time to Bob Durkin.
Kurt Bramble — Kurt Bramble was introduced as a virtual witness and identified himself as representing the American Kratom Association and kratom consumers nationwide. During questioning, he stated that FDA and DEA concerns were focused on 7-OH and other synthetic derivatives rather than whole-plant kratom, and he said he would support scheduling whole-plant kratom if it met the eight-factor analysis used for Schedule I designation.
Mark Harris — The transcript says 'Representative Furman,' which appears to be a transcription error; no clear member ID match is available for that name in the provided list.
Jordan Redman — The transcript says 'Representative Redmond,' which appears to refer to Representative Redman.
Jordan Redman — Referenced as part of the discussion about whether the matter will be heard here if it moves.
Jordan Redman — Referenced in the discussion about whether the matter will be heard and voted on here.
Jordan Redman — Says the matter will likely come to business regardless.
Jordan Redman — Votes yes on the motion.
Jordan Redman — Introduces HB 903 and explains it as a SNAP-program clarification.
Jordan Redman — The transcript says Representative Redmond; corrected to Jordan Redman based on the member list.
Jordan Redman — Gives closing comments and agrees with the prior representative.
Jordan Redman — Explains the drafting approach and says the bill is a cleanup bill.
Jordan Redman — Fuhriman asks Redmond to clarify the proposed changes to the bill.
Jordan Redman — Explains that cookies, brownies, and cakes will be struck while muffins remain.
Jordan Redman — Continues listing the specific items to be struck or retained.
Jordan Redman — Redmond is asked to clarify the scope of the changes.
Jordan Redman — Fuhriman asks whether Redmond consulted the original sponsors before making changes.
Jordan Redman — Says he and the Senate sponsor conferred on the changes but has not spoken with retailers and other stakeholders.
Jordan Redman — Fuhriman directs criticism toward Redmond's decision to change the bill after prior negotiations.
Jordan Redman — Defends the decision to change the bill and says the draft language was largely developed with retailers.
Jordan Redman — Explained he wanted to strike cookies, cakes, and brownies from the bill to focus on nutritional value.
Jordan Redman — Responded that he wanted the bill sent forward, not returned.
Jordan Redman — Said he wanted the bill sent to the second reading calendar with a due pass and that he would bring an RS with the proposed deletions.
Jordan Redman — Was referenced as the sponsor explaining planned amendments.
Jordan Redman — Bill 903 is identified as the measure being voted on.
Jordan Redman — Explained the need to move quickly so the bill can still be heard by the Senate before adjournment.
Jordan Redman — Was asked whether he would be content with House Bill 903 proceeding without the proposed amendments.
Jordan Redman — Said he prefers the bill with the amendments and plans to introduce them the next day.
Jordan Redman — Argued against the substitute motion, saying the bill needs to move quickly to reach the Senate and that he cannot support the motion.
Jordan Redman — Referenced as the person explaining the proposed changes.
Jordan Redman — The witness says she missed some of what he said, referring to the sponsor's explanation.
Jordan Redman — The speaker is said to respond to him regarding extra time.
Jordan Redman — Votes no on the motion.
Mr. Bramble — Mr. Bramble states that the American Kratom Association strongly supports regulating kratom and wants labeling requirements, content disclosures, warnings, age limits, and penalties for violations. He adds that regulation is necessary because bad actors have adulterated products in the past and are now synthesizing or altering kratom derivatives in the current market.
Bob Durkin / Robert Durkin — Bob Durkin, a pharmacist, Army veteran, and representative of the American Kratom Association, testifies in opposition to the bill while saying he supports some regulatory aspects. He argues the bill is confusing because it targets synthetic or chemically modified compounds rather than kratom leaf itself, which he says is not an opioid. Durkin explains his FDA background and contends that kratom is already regulated federally as a food/dietary supplement. He advocates for a KCPA-style state framework that would allow labeling requirements, age restrictions, store placement rules, and stronger enforcement, rather than a ban that could push products into the black market. In response to questions, he says states with consumer protection acts have seen better outcomes, that adverse events usually involve other substances rather than kratom leaf, and that bans can worsen harms by driving people toward fentanyl or heroin. He further clarifies that mitragynine is a natural kratom alkaloid, while the compounds targeted by the bill are man-made or chemically modified, using a coffee analogy to explain how 7-hydroxymitragynine is not naturally present in the living plant but can form after harvest through oxidation.
Robert Durkin — The committee announces that Robert Durkin will provide the last virtual testimony.
Bob Durkin — Bob Durkin argued that kratom should not be conflated with 7-OH or the other compounds in the bill. He explained that kratom is metabolized into many compounds, so safety concerns about 7-OH should not be extrapolated to kratom itself. He also said that removing mitragynine from the bill would leave the remaining listed substances as synthetic, man-made opioids, and emphasized that kratom is not an opioid and would not be reversed by naloxone. He concluded by saying he could provide scientific papers and expert support for his claims that kratom is not an opioid and does not cause opioid-like withdrawal.
good doctor — A doctor Egbert said she worked with over the summer who was unable to testify.
Robert Beiswenger — Robert Beiswenger introduced a substitute motion and then argued against the bill, saying the substance has medical value and should not be placed on Schedule I. He warned that the bill would unnecessarily criminalize people, creating felony penalties, jail time, withdrawal-related concerns, and added costs during a budget year. He also noted that supporters were open to regulation and labeling, but objected to the bill's punitive approach, and he ultimately moved to lay House Bill 864 on the table.
Robert Beiswenger — Representative Beiswenger is called during the roll call vote and votes no on the motion.