Representative Ed Buttry, sponsor of House Bill 60, opened the hearing by saying the bill is a routine cleanup for the state auditor’s office that revises definitions, filing requirements and consumer protections across securities and insurance statutes.

"House bill 60 revises multiple areas of statute affecting the auditor's office, including definitions, regulatory filing requirements, producer training, surplus lines insurance, and consumer protection measures," Buttry said, summarizing the bill as a package of administrative updates and so‑called "red tape relief." He said the bill was requested by the state auditor and that the office consulted affected stakeholders.

The bill would change the securities registration process, establish a one‑year statute of limitation measured from discovery of a securities violation, and clarify eligibility for the securities restitution fund, which helps pay restitution in securities enforcement matters. The bill also would modernize insurance rules on disclosures, telehealth, medically‑necessary examinations and privacy protections while removing obsolete provisions.

Frank Cote of the State Auditor's Office testified in support and answered committee questions about implementation. "There is a cooperative relationship between CSI and the insurance companies that regulates it," Cote said, describing stakeholder outreach during drafting.

Fiscal effects and surplus lines: Buttry walked the committee through the fiscal note. Section 4 would eliminate a $50 fee for an exemption to notice filing for nonprofit or charitable offerings, reducing revenue by about $2,265 in the first fiscal year listed in the note. Section 9 would allow surplus‑lines insurers domiciled in Montana to write premiums in the state, producing premium‑tax revenue the sponsor described in the fiscal note; combining the revenue gain and the fee loss produced a net positive impact the sponsor summarized as $32,110 in fiscal year 2026 and $66,485 in fiscal year 2027.

340B amendment: Buttry said he would offer a friendly amendment to extend an existing sunset for the federal 340B drug program by four years. Proponents from health systems and pharmacy benefit managers — including Maddy Tyson of Carly Fleck (representing Billings Clinic/Logan Health), Adam Schafer of Intermountain Health, and Greg Van Horsten for State Farm/Prime Therapeutics — told the committee they support the bill and will support the 340B extension amendment.

Bail‑bond training controversy: The most substantive dispute at the hearing involved section 16, which addresses training requirements for bail‑bond (surety) producers. John Looney, president of the Montana Bail Agents Association and owner of Bad Boy Bail Bonds, testified in opposition to the bill as drafted, saying the statute enacted in 2023 inadvertently eliminated practicable pathways for surety producers to become licensed.

Looney said the 2023 law required 40 hours "in all of these areas," producing a training curriculum that continuing education providers were not prepared to deliver. He said continuing education tied to surety bail licensing is effectively unavailable and that temporary licensing has been ineffective. "It needs to be addressed," Looney said, and he offered proposed language to fix the problem.

Cote (State Auditor's Office) acknowledged the drafting problem and told the committee the cleanup bill changes the requirement to permit a license applicant to obtain 40 hours across the listed subject areas (not 40 hours in each area). He said the office has granted one temporary license and that the current change would allow that individual to meet the statutory training requirement without having to complete every topic in full. Cote also said the office does not have authority to reissue temporary licenses beyond what the law allows.

Sponsor response and next steps: After committee questions, Representative Buttry said he would remove section 16 from the bill as an amendment and pursue the topic as a standalone policy bill later in the session. "I will propose and have drafted an amendment to remove section 16 from the bill so we can go ahead with the proposed cleanup language," he said.

What happened next: The committee closed the hearing on House Bill 60. No final action or recorded vote on the bill occurred during the hearing; the sponsor indicated executive action would be scheduled later after amendments were drafted.

Notes and context: The hearing included multiple insurance‑industry witnesses and attorneys who described consultation with the state auditor’s office. Several speakers praised the office’s stakeholder outreach; opponents concentrated on the bail‑bond education and licensing language and asked for a targeted fix outside the cleanup bill.