Melissa Wintrow — Asked for clarification and began a question to Ms. Tiddens.
Melissa Wintrow — Summarized her understanding of the bill’s main concerns and asked for more detail on audits and foster care.
Melissa Wintrow — Addressed as Senator Wintrow while Ms. Tiddens clarified the audit issue.
Melissa Wintrow — The foster care question was directed to Senator Wintrow.
Melissa Wintrow — Melissa Wintrow questions Mr. Taylor about his organization and involvement in the legislation, first asking whether he represents a national group based in Washington, D.C., and then following up by asking whether he helped write the bill language.
Melissa Wintrow — Senator Wintrow questioned how the department could create additional rules for the program while existing rules were being repealed, noting that the program still must comply with state and federal requirements. She then asked whether the foster parent issue would count as an eligibility requirement, prompting a response that it may be a clarification of eligibility in the bill and that the committee could follow up on the point.
Melissa Wintrow — Senator Melissa Wintrow speaks on the motion, first clarifying that the program is fully federally funded and moving a substitute motion, then explaining her support for the original motion while expressing concern that foster families need child care and that affordability is a major issue for citizens. The sequence concludes with her recorded no votes on the motion.
Melissa Wintrow — Senator Blaylock is repeatedly addressed during a continuous exchange about testing requirements and the costs associated with Idaho State Police testing.
Melissa Wintrow — Senator Wintrow says this is a tough issue and asks to hear from more doctors if possible.
Melissa Wintrow — Senator Wintrow questioned Dr. Litchfield about the safety implications of banning kratom, asking what would happen to current users if it were banned and whether the amendments and future work were sufficient to make the bill safe.
Melissa Wintrow — Senator Wintrow follows up on the bill’s amendment process, asking about labeling as a proposed amendment and then arguing that the bill should be supported with additional amendments. She warns that if the bill fails, politics could derail regulation entirely, leaving no protections in place, so she favors moving the bill forward with changes rather than risking losing all regulation.
Melissa Wintrow — Senator Sutterfeld followed up on enforcement concerns, asking about bad actors, whether police could seize and test products based on a complaint, and what unintended consequences might arise from such complaint-driven inspections or testing. The discussion remained focused on compliance and enforcement risks, with the senator noting agreement with the concerns being raised.
Camille Blaylock — Senator Blaylock is recognized as asking Jonathan about his future plans.
Camille Blaylock — Senator Camille Blaylock asked Director Sharon a follow-up question in the same discussion, referencing how the issue had evolved over the past couple of months and seeking clarification on the status of the $14 million appropriation and whether the department could operate under the current rules. Director Sharon responded in the exchange about the unspent funds.
Camille Blaylock — Senator Camille Blaylock is first identified as seconding the motion and is later recorded twice in the roll-call vote as voting aye.
Camille Blaylock — Addressed by name as Senator Blaylock.
Sean — The speaker thanks Sean, likely referring to Jonathan by mistake or another person in the room.
Mark Harris — Senator Harris is noted as absent.
Mark Harris — Mark Harris is part of a brief, continuous exchange in which he asks Representative Redmond about the drafting process behind the bill, including whether there were prior versions and how the current bill came together, with reference to earlier committee support and related legislative process details.
Mark Harris — Explained that the bill sunsets after two years and argued for strong program integrity to root out fraud, waste, and abuse.
Mark Harris — Said the bill would help ensure program integrity and prevent fraud, waste, and abuse.
Mark Harris — Responded that the program would continue without the bill, but without the same integrity safeguards.
Mark Harris — Said the bill creates integrity within the program and responded to follow-up comments.
Mark Harris — Praised the bill as an improvement, said it helps root out waste, fraud, and abuse, and said he would support it to the floor for now.
Mark Harris — Addressed by Senator Shippey in the question.
Mark Harris — Said he does not disagree with Senator Shippey's concerns but believes the bill is needed to harden the program and create safeguards in statute.
Mark Harris — Noted that the bill is subject to legislative appropriation and then asked for further questions.
Mark Harris — Requested that the director address concerns about foster care eligibility.
Mark Harris — Referenced as having already discussed movement of the rules related to licensing.
Mark Harris — Thanked for coming down to the committee room.
Mark Harris — Senator Harris was referenced as having previously asked about the Idaho Medical Association, and then directly asked what the Medical Association thinks about the issue.
Mark Harris — Mentioned by name in the question as the senator being thanked.
Mark Harris — The speaker addressed 'Senator Nichols,' likely a transcription error for Mark Harris, and asked Mr. Diotis to answer.
Mark Harris — Asked whether enforcement and administration would be similar to tobacco, CBD, oil, and alcohol.
Mark Harris — Asked whether the enforcement structure is similar to tobacco, CBD oil, and alcohol enforcement.
Mark Harris — Addressed by Senator Nichols in response.
Mark Harris — Explained the bill was drafted to match existing enforcement for alcohol, vape, and nicotine products.
Mark Harris — Said the current amendments are the only ones, and clarified ISP would not be responsible for testing.
Mark Harris — Said the only current issue is adding more labeling information.
Mark Harris — Said nothing is being removed; testing responsibility is being clarified as belonging to the manufacturer and producer, not ISP.
Mark Harris — Said oversight is being split and the clarification does not remove enforcement provisions.
Mark Harris — Said enforcement could cost the state, or it could not, and emphasized the bill is a step toward regulation with room for future tweaks.
Mark Harris — Closed testimony and responded to the motion context.
Glenneda Zuiderveld — Senator Zuiderveld is referenced in the motion/seconding context.
Glenneda Zuiderveld — Senator Glenneda Zuiderveld raised concerns about the program’s long-term sustainability, particularly in relation to federal mandates and the implications for state sovereignty. The follow-up discussion continued that same line of inquiry, with her remarks framing the issue as interconnected and prompting a response that addressed both the easier and more difficult parts of the question.
Glenneda Zuiderveld — Senator Verki asked for clarification on whether the child care program would go away if the bill failed to pass or was held and did not move forward.
Glenneda Zuiderveld — Senator Zuiderveld asked for a rough estimate of how much of the $76 million was subsidy, and Deputy Director Pro responded that it was a little over $50 million.
Glenneda Zuiderveld — Senator Glenneda Zuiderveld raises concerns about federal programs, warning that the state may be unable to backfill lost federal funding or meet matching obligations. She also argues that child care decisions should remain with families rather than government, expressing concern about impacts on small daycares. The sequence then concludes with her recorded no votes on the motion.
Glenneda Zuiderveld — Senator Kaiser asks follow-up questions about the bill, focusing on its restrictions, age requirement, labeling requirements, and whether it could lead to broader drug legalization.
Glenneda Zuiderveld — Senator Glenneda Zuiderveld (transcribed as 'Senator Sutterfeld') is addressed and then asks whether the product is being laced at factories or during transit, expressing concern even if the intentions behind the product are good.