[{"_1":2,"_100":-5,"_101":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,76,88],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},"mediaId",6297635,"mediaKeyId","2509035-f26b438a4d9420a8028b65704475b9b4","parentId",2509035,"title","Committee report: quick outcomes on bills considered","audioSeconds",4272,"startMs",2000,"endMs",4274000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2509035-f26b438a4d9420a8028b65704475b9b4&start=2&end=4274","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2509035-f26b438a4d9420a8028b65704475b9b4/thumbnail_2000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6297635/Oklahoma/Committee-report-quick-outcomes-on-bills-considered","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6297635-08831934e396a311867c4994e409f08d/orig.mp4?Expires=1770437736&Signature=AZp2MRB-cS98BnkoegWkb7NGpTXunjuE-ZdbMH9b3XZrjUXCsnBIT2q4bTxez0Cb7VIZFp82UqF7NMCIHH2o0XbMl8BWjYqofkL9aZi8TdnWOFfJuWEAScP2~wvadODFZhXE7Chs0nyd~Wq0NIO~YXiFoNcZ6fsjs8E0p1inqN9~d5ByajquyKLxNHSO49j8bxdcTxQfkfpwZEFZq~35ZY~OoLs60ee3Eqgjdn9FfUgeLg234m3ZBUXy23q3Ncht0GZOuCD38pc8tpSzqGUYIrlmMXOcmqbFnR~DOD2XIshUBGC4Vk1TWv6gbMAKoqU~F7zosBUtqLVgLPtaXTNEZA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","OK State Legislature","date","2025-03-05T00:00:00Z","article","The committee considered multiple bills with short presentations or policy recommendations and reported them to the next stage. Items and recorded outcomes below reflect the committee clerk's roll call recorded in the hearing transcript.

Votes at a glance:

- House Bill 16-30: Sponsor presented a proposed committee substitute; committee reported the bill as \"do pass\" with 8 yeas and 3 nays; clerk said it \"will report your bill as do pass revenues needed.\" (vote: 8–3).

- House Bill 2,295: Sponsor presented; committee reported as do pass, 15 yeas, 0 nay (vote: 15–0).

- House Bill 12-70: Amend ABLE commission notification deadlines for applicants (author's summary); committee reported as do pass, 14 yeas, 0 nay (vote: 14–0).

- House Bill 19-33 (Maddox Baez Act): Sponsor described intent to restrict nitrous-oxide misuse; committee reported as do pass, 14 yeas, 0 nay (vote: 14–0).

- House Bill 13-88: Sponsor said the bill sets up a program to protect students from online harms; committee reported as do pass, 14 yeas, 0 nay (vote: 14–0).

- House Bill 2,298 (nurse practitioner bill / negotiated supervision language): Committee incorporated supervision provisions and reported as do pass, 13 yeas, 0 nay (vote: 13–0).

- House Bill 25-84 (physician assistant scope parity): Committee reported as do pass, 14 yeas, 0 nay (vote: 14–0).

- House Bill 28-04 (manufacturer registration clarification): Reported as do pass, 13 yeas, 0 nay (vote: 13–0).

- House Bill 16-88 (vital records scrivener corrections for birth/death certificates): Reported as do pass, 13 yeas, 0 nay (vote: 13–0).

Each of the above items was reported out of committee; some had more extended debate and are treated in separate articles.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Health and Human Services Oversight Mar 5, 2025 3:00 PM","oneSentenceSummary","Several bills received brief presentations and unanimous or near-unanimous committee recommendations; this roundup lists each bill, short description as presented, and the committee vote tally as recorded in the transcript.","taxTitle","2025 Legislature OK, Oklahoma","taxId",78380,"location","Oklahoma","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":77,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":78,"_41":79,"_43":80,"_45":81,"_47":82,"_49":83,"_51":84,"_53":85,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":86,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":87,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6297640,"Committee advances bill to restrict upfront fees for third-party veterans disability representation",753,3225000,3978000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2509035-f26b438a4d9420a8028b65704475b9b4&start=3225&end=3978","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2509035-f26b438a4d9420a8028b65704475b9b4/thumbnail_3225000.jpg","/articles/6297640/Oklahoma/Committee-advances-bill-to-restrict-upfront-fees-for-third-party-veterans-disability-representation","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6297640-32f7743904a9193381b3a91409341367/orig.mp4?Expires=1770437736&Signature=PVQg3kCDmiprTgPtWD83uOfauZNBkFP94JXWfAjGhyyRhgHSFzyJVDmZMMQXyJizG5ojzloJytOxEsDhYyPtlYHXNIwpPJC0lo-tr3Ty~19OrAx~XcP3bp8hTiXPA6IGOYpwyubPQcmEoVArwcVRK~dcHKBHzW8X0JgiSDOwu2Rm1kv6ABYuzjWAEOy6qxJS8Dcmc~RStu5aW0waWB4RQj24n0QIWFExjBBvSzl~~zX2sKVF-0B~nZaJJsKnQRXv9MEJ4JMDZr9Ybn6TejKldCOxzD42AMDv61QpdpNufn24Af7okz07rhqeiP-rq~3dzUTaYV6kJgNXpD42bVNSzg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Representative Doyle presented House Bill 28 36, which he described as establishing a framework \"to protect veterans from predator predatory third parties helping them with their veteran disability benefits.\" The bill would require compensation to those third-party representatives to be contingent on an increase in the veteran’s benefits and limit the contingency to a multiple of the monthly increase.

\"I'm really asking for the how does the VA math work there on this increase if we're gonna allow private entities to compensate some? How does the VA increase work with the the increase work with the VA math?\" Representative Bill de Brandt asked, seeking clarification about how the bill's payment cap would operate given how the Department of Veterans Affairs calculates ratings.

Doyle explained the bill’s mechanism with a numeric example: if a veteran’s benefit rose by $500 a month after representation, the third-party contractor could receive up to five times that monthly increase as compensation. \"If there's no increase with this bill, then the veteran can't be taken advantage of. There's no payment made,\" he said.

Opponents argued the bill could restrict veterans’ access to private providers that charge upfront fees but often claim high rates of favorable outcomes. Representative Hildebrandt, urging a no vote, said the bill would \"limit individual choice\" and \"rather than exploiting their finances, it's now exploiting their health,\" arguing that some veterans rely on paid providers to secure meaningful benefits.

Supporters replied that regulation protects veterans from unscrupulous actors and creates a clearer marketplace: \"If you're a good actor within that industry, you should welcome regulation so that you don't have the state or the feds coming down and over regulating you,\" Representative Doyle said in debate.

Committee members also questioned whether the contingency-based cap would provide adequate compensation for contractors who perform time-consuming work, and whether it would disincentivize representation in marginal cases. The sponsor said veterans would retain access to free Veterans Service Organizations (VSOs) and to private actors; the bill focused on limiting contingency structures that can leave veterans out-of-pocket when outcomes are poor.

The committee voted to report the bill as do pass with 11 yeas and 3 nays. Opponents said they would seek an opt-out amendment or further changes on the floor.

Ending: The sponsor and opponents signaled willingness to work on clarifying language; the committee moved the bill to the next stage with instructions that members may pursue amendments to preserve veterans’ choice while preventing predatory fee structures.","A bill to limit fees charged by private third parties who help veterans secure disability benefits was reported out after extended debate over contingency fees, veterans' choice and how VA benefit increases are calculated.",{"_33":89,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":90,"_41":91,"_43":92,"_45":93,"_47":94,"_49":95,"_51":96,"_53":97,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":98,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":99,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":74,"_75":74},6297644,"House committee approves bill requiring licensed, trained bartenders for public event venues",1930,1211000,3141000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2509035-f26b438a4d9420a8028b65704475b9b4&start=1211&end=3141","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2509035-f26b438a4d9420a8028b65704475b9b4/thumbnail_1211000.jpg","/articles/6297644/Oklahoma/House-committee-approves-bill-requiring-licensed-trained-bartenders-for-public-event-venues","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6297644-99ccd51e35b220f28ebf73ad54ca6fa4/orig.mp4?Expires=1770437736&Signature=hxI6q~T0u3rY40Y2CMldtqBFM4zQR45BjkhewqTqXnlHw6XmMy0SmstDMHBjX34a2UfKxaPzxxOGQk2Pjeha-gdvPUTW4bEzJeBfQ519oPJqLQPsCLUEOFJ9ZRIXT-k9w5Fd595PWCfdyBhpUbTQCo0EetL4Svuljr3QCD~8owCjfoXyLH4thuprvkPzqJImNAILdXzk7mDNIm8PRPwWtAbdSRAaU7aCC2Q9dZthUftzpfrg2xeUCahHRyl5oH2TaGI3xTmAJ-OvLhqdM-IWMcWJ3q3qviIkVFPJshfbs~0ZvAW9BdZ3YhqwXuj5N2f1z4GcqjzW5cUbw3ShOS2oJQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Representative Hill, the bill sponsor, told the committee the measure — referred to by supporters as the “Marissa” bill — would require a person who serves alcoholic beverages at an event venue that is offered to the public for rent, lease or reservation to hold a training-backed license.

\"This simply protects and make sure that there is adequate training for the bartender and that the bartender has a license, which shows that they've received that training,\" Representative Hill said while explaining the proposal and yielding to questions.

The nut graf: supporters framed the change as a public-safety step to reduce impaired driving and other alcohol-related harms when events are operated as commercial, public-facing activities. Opponents and several members asked for clarifications about how the bill would apply to volunteers, BYOB gatherings, private homes and short-term rentals.

Committee members pressed on how the bill defines an \"event venue.\" Representative Hill replied that the bill targets locations \"that offers to the general public for rent, lease, reservation, or other contractual use,\" and that private gatherings at a friend’s barn or a family home would not be covered unless the place is being offered to the public as a rented venue.

\"So my apology... it refers to there that is open to the general public for rent lease reservation. So that would not include the venues you're mentioning,\" Hill told Representative Breaux when asked whether a private barn used informally would be covered.

Members also asked whether the measure would require an additional license for someone who already holds a bartender or food-handler credential through an employer. Representative Hill said the intent is that when a bartender goes \"out and do that\" away from their employer’s licensed facility they should be under their own license for the event. \"It goes to the bartender,\" she said when asked where liability would land.

Questions about volunteers at festivals and temporary beer tents were raised. Representative Sherman said she had volunteered in beer tents without a license and asked whether the bill would affect those volunteers. Hill referred enforcement and inspection specifics to the ABLE commission (the agency that administers related licenses) but said the bill’s focus was training and licensing for persons serving alcohol at covered events.

Members discussed fee and license length. The sponsor described the fee as \"minimal,\" at one point referencing \"5 or a $50 license\" in discussion; the sponsor later described the license as an ongoing (not single-event) credential. The committee also noted an existing satellite tasting license referenced in statute and described in committee discussion as a $100 license for certain temporary tasting events.

Supporters repeatedly emphasized the bill’s safety purpose. \"If this bill is passed... we believe that the bartender who actually realizes that the liability lies on them ... might make a better decision in how they serve the folks there, and could that possibly save 1 Oklahoman life?\" Representative Marty asked rhetorically; Representative Hill answered, \"Yes, mister chairman. It truly would be.\"

Opponents raised implementation concerns and requested follow-up review if ambiguities surfaced after agency review. The sponsor agreed to work with the ABLE commission and to address unintended consequences in future amendments if needed.

The committee voted to report the measure as \"do pass.\" The clerk recorded the vote as 12 yeas and 2 nays.

Ending: The sponsor said she would work with the ABLE commission and members to clarify specific language before floor consideration. The bill was reported out of committee for further legislative consideration.","The committee voted to report a bill that would require individuals who serve alcohol at rented or publicly offered event venues to hold a license and training; sponsors said the measure aims to reduce intoxication-related harm, while opponents raised questions about scope, volunteers and impacts on small venues and private rentals.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Committee report: quick outcomes on bills considered

Committee advances bill to restrict upfront fees for third-party veterans disability representation

House committee approves bill requiring licensed, trained bartenders for public event venues