Raymond P. Ward

• H.B. 247 Great Salt Lake Related Amendments · House floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026

  Explains that the Senate made two changes: an agreement on how fast the brine shrimp assessment money would be paid and on the assessment rate, which would return to its rate of four years ago, and a settlement over adjacent lands near the Great Salt Lake that the bill allows to be finalized.

  Read what they said

  Yes, I would. There were two good changes that, uh, took place, um, in the Senate. When the bill left here, there was still some battling back and forth about how fast it would be implemented and what the, the rate would be. On the Brian Shrimp assessment. The parties involved came to a a, a better agreement so the money will go sooner and the Brian Shrimp assessment will return to the rate that it was four years ago. The other agreement, uh, the other bit that is put in the bill, relates to a settlement. Uh, that the, that we are just in the process of finalizing with some lands that are directly adjacent to the Salt Lake, …

  ▶ Watch at 7:55

• S.B. 206 Tax Amendments · House floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026

  Speaks in support of the bill, saying it would give the public basic information on how tax increment districts are valued and how their money is spent.

  Read what they said

  Thank you Mr. Speaker. I just wanna rise in support of this bill. Um, this is just such an important step as we have created tax increment district after tax increment, district after tax increment district, each with different rules, even the very basics of reporting of how things are going that we have had forever for the old type of redevelopment areas that we made just have not been in place. A person who wanted to know how much was that property worth when we made it, how much is that property worth now, what is the basics of how the money is being spent, has not been able to find that information and this is just a great …

  ▶ Watch at 42:10

• S.B. 206 Tax Amendments · House floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026

  Supports the bill, saying it adds reporting that would let residents see original and current property values and how tax increment money is spent.

  Read what they said

  Thank you Mr. Speaker. I just wanna rise in support of this bill. Um, this is just such an important step as we have created tax increment district after tax increment, district after tax increment district, each with different rules, even the very basics of reporting of how things are going that we have had forever for the old type of redevelopment areas that we made just have not been in place. A person who wanted to know how much was that property worth when we made it, how much is that property worth now, what is the basics of how the money is being spent, has not been able to find that information and this is just a great …

  ▶ Watch at 42:10

• S.B. 284 Local Land and Water Modifications · House floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026

  Supports the bill, saying it would allow external ADUs in most places while cities keep control, and that smaller and less expensive housing is needed.

  Read what they said

  Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just wanna rise in support of this bill because it will allow external ADUs in, in most places still what the city's able to control. But if we want housing to get cheaper, we've gotta find ways to allow smaller housing and ways to allow less expensive housing. And this is one great way that has been worked on for a long time and I'm so glad to see it come to this conclusion.

  ▶ Watch at 54:41

• S.B. 284 Local Land and Water Modifications · House floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026

  Rises in support, saying the bill keeps city control over external accessory dwelling units and helps move toward less expensive housing.

  Read what they said

  Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just wanna rise in support of this bill because it will allow external ADUs in, in most places still what the city's able to control. But if we want housing to get cheaper, we've gotta find ways to allow smaller housing and ways to allow less expensive housing. And this is one great way that has been worked on for a long time and I'm so glad to see it come to this conclusion.

  ▶ Watch at 54:41

• S.B. 170 Vitamin K Amendments · House floor debate (day 45) · Mar 6, 2026

  Explains that the bill concerns giving vitamin K to newborns to help protect against blood clots, that substitutions removed any requirement on parents, and that it directs hospital staff to give parents accurate information.

  Read what they said

  Uh, this bill relates to the administration of vitamin K. Uh, when a, a newborn, uh, is born that helps protect the baby against blood clots. The bill's had a bunch of substitutions made to it so that it doesn't have any requirement on the parents at all. It's directed towards the staff in the hospital who is providing the information to the parents and their newborn so that they can have accurate information about how the vitamin K can help protect their child against bleeding. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

  ▶ Watch at 2:38:53

• S.B. 288 Medicaid Provider Amendments · House floor debate (day 44) · Mar 5, 2026

  Supports the bill, saying social services providers have gone years without inflation adjustments and the bill would provide some of them.

  Read what they said

  Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just would like to rise in support of this bill. Um, in social services, we have a trouble just keeping up with inflation. Some of the, some of the things in social services do get inflationary adjustments. We pay our, our ACOs, um, our large organizations that manage Medicaid services for them, we pay them a statutory increase every year. Um, state employees at least get consideration for an inflationary adjustment every year. They don't get it every year, but it gets considered. But in social services, we have a large number of services that just go out through contractors. The people who provide the services are not state employees. Um, these are foster families, …

  ▶ Watch at 1:16:33

• H.B. 248 Family Law Modifications · House floor debate (day 44) · Mar 5, 2026

  Says the Senate amendment changes the due date of a reporting requirement to the HHS Interim Committee from November to August, so there is time to consider any resulting changes.

  Read what they said

  I would. This is a very simple change. The bill had in a reporting requirement from ORS back to the HHS Interim Committee, um, after some meetings that they were to have had with the people whom they served. And the Senate Amendment just moved that from November to August. Uh, so that if there were things that came from that that would lead to improvements or changes, that there would still be time for those to be thought about after the report.

  ▶ Watch at 1:25:25

• S.B. 150 Healthcare Providers Scope of Practice Amendments · House floor debate (day 44) · Mar 5, 2026

  Speaks in support of the bill, saying the Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel has been helpful and that the bill adds a way for industry to request review of a license class when new technology applies.

  Read what they said

  Thank you Mr. Speaker. Pro Tem. Um, I just wanna rise in support of the bill. It was a little, the bill was a little puzzling to me at first about what it accomplished, but I finally got my head around that. I think we, LAR has done a good job. It's a relatively recent office here in the state, but they've done quite a bit for us already in helping provide more information. When we are deciding what different license classes can do what, but right now there's, there's really two ways that LER takes action. One is they review all of our license classes on a 10 year interval. If 10 years rolls around, they'll, they'll review it …

  ▶ Watch at 2:00:45

• S.B. 174 Exercise of Religious Beliefs and Conscience Amendments · House Health and Human Services Committee · Mar 4, 2026

  Asks how a patient would be served at an outpatient clinic if a provider has a moral objection to prescribing contraception.

  Read what they said

  Thank you, Madam Vice chair. Some of these things seem to slot easily into my head. Some of 'em, I, maybe you could help me understand how it works. So, if there was a provider who was working in an outpatient clinic, and that provider had a moral objection to writing prescriptions for contraception, and someone just scheduled a visit with them, they, that person might not have known that they had that objection and came in and wanted to get their blood pressure medicine and also a contraceptive. What would the procedure be? How would that patient still get served? And what would the provider or clinic be expected to do in a setting like that?

  ▶ Watch at 16:15

• S.B. 174 Exercise of Religious Beliefs and Conscience Amendments · House Health and Human Services Committee · Mar 4, 2026

  Asks whether a patient would have to call DHHS to get a provider.

  Read what they said

  Um, let's see. Let me go back for one second. Wait, I'm sorry. They would have to call DHHS to get a provider.

  ▶ Watch at 19:02

• S.B. 174 Exercise of Religious Beliefs and Conscience Amendments · House Health and Human Services Committee · Mar 4, 2026

  Asks whether a provider who signed an in-network contract can still object under the bill, and says the contract would govern.

  Read what they said

  Okay. So if, for example, I signed a contract, um, to be in network and to see all patients, and that required that I dispense emergency contraceptive or whatever the fact pattern was, that contract governs over the individual objection, because you can't have it both ways. Sign a contract and then back out of the contract with a conscience. Objection. Okay. Thanks. Yes, Thank you.

  ▶ Watch at 20:03

• S.B. 174 Exercise of Religious Beliefs and Conscience Amendments · House Health and Human Services Committee · Mar 4, 2026

  Asks the sponsor and Robin Wilson to explain how a healthcare provider may bring a suit against the Department of Health.

  Read what they said

  Thank, thank you. I have another question for the sponsor, if I might. So, the bill down in court actions allows a healthcare provider to bring a suit against the Department of Health. What, talk me through what would have to happen before that person could then bring a lawsuit against the Department of Health? You have a line you're referring to? Yeah, Like 4 67 through four 70. Well, 4, 4 67 talks about filing a complaint with them, and then 4 76 talks about bringing a court action against them. Thank you for that. Uh, professor, do you wanna take a crack and then I'll

  ▶ Watch at 24:27

• S.B. 174 Exercise of Religious Beliefs and Conscience Amendments · House Health and Human Services Committee · Mar 4, 2026

  Asks whether a provider may still bring a complaint if DHHS investigates and takes action.

  Read what they said

  Thank you. If I might one, one follow more follow-up question. So, does the language mean that if the department, uh, because right, the whole phrase at what, at 4 76 starts by saying, if the DHHS fails to investigate and take action, then the per healthcare provider may bring a complaint. So does that mean that if DHHS does investigate that the person may not bring a complaint?

  ▶ Watch at 27:53

• S.B. 281 Senior Nutrition Private Donation Incentives · House Health and Human Services Committee · Mar 4, 2026

  Asked whether the structure relies on local groups putting in funds that the state then matches.

  Read what they said

  Thank you, Madam Vice chair. So is there, I mean, the structure is to hope to get matching funds, right? Where some local group puts some funds in, and then the state matches

  ▶ Watch at 35:20

Show all 343 remarks →

From the official recordings' automatic captions, with speakers and summaries identified by AI. Use the ▶ links to check the recording before you rely on a quote.