H.B. 85 State Sovereignty Amendments: transcript

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Representative Lisa Shepherd represent Provo and Orem. And you should have in front of you a bill analysis for 85. Does everyone have that? It was, or she still passing those out? Distributed. Okay. Thank you. Appreciate the, the thank you, um, the, the permission to pass that out. Thank you so much. I asked that ahead of time. This bill was House Bill 1 58 last year. It died on the Senate board at midnight. There are 17 currently there's 17 co-sponsors. We're still getting some more. We had 28 last year. House Bill 85 is a clarifying forward-looking bill that makes clear that international organizations do not have independent legal force in our state. International organizations mean the United Nations World Economic Forum or the World Health Organization. Just so you know, the World Economic Forum has US partners and they include the alphabet, uh, Microsoft, Amazon, JP Morgan, and Chase and BlackRock. Just so that you can understand there might be some influences. HB 85 does not block cooperation research or the consideration of international ideas. It simply preserves accountability by ensuring that only elected officials who hold the top executive office in a political subdivision, the governor, mayor, chief executive and counties can declare a state of emergency that binds Utahans. The bill prevents IGOs policy creep, it reinforces state sovereignty, and it protects the principle that Utah is governed by Utah law. I have on there the, the analysis does pretty much the same thing that I'm gonna show you here. I have notated if anyone has questions on the changes that happen in this bill. So it, it talks about prohibiting the governor or the Chief Executive officer officer from declaring a state of emergency. And the word exclusively follows that. So that actually was an amendment from a committee last year that it was a government operations committee. And they suggested that we put exclusively because we didn't want to not use the science that's available from an international organization if we wanted to. But what this does is it brings it back to the state of Utah. Let's say if it were the governor that we're considering declaring a state of emergency based on an IGO, then we require him at that point to ask his professionals, the ones here in Utah and what's happening here with the boots on the ground here in Utah before we decide that we're going to go ahead and shut down our communities. So that's pretty much on that one. And I'm open for questions.

Um, oh, excuse me. I'm curious, has this ever happened?

No, this is actually, that's in my sum. So you want me to tell you what that is? Yeah. Would you? So, so we're looking at that. We haven't really had something like this happen. However, some people feel like perhaps it did happen in 2020 and we all experience that. But we're trying to go ahead of what could happen. 'cause there's been times in history where we've had good moral and sound judgment that have given way to temporary fads, moral panics, and political manipulation. We don't wanna do that. The rights of our citizens must be protected by good sound laws, even if they're only bear fruit 50 years in the future. So that is what it is. And so this law, it should be looked at as a bare minimum of protection for the state of Utah and its residents.

Okay. Um, may I ask a follow up question? Go ahead, Chair. Um, when you, when you referenced the, the events in 2020, um, I'm curious, having not worked in, in local government before or even in the state level, it, it seems to me common best practice that a, a chief executive would go to their staff before anybody else. Um, in, in putting this in, I, I, I can't, I just can't imagine a situation in which a chief executive within the state of Utah would operate exclusively on, um, the, the advice of an international organization. I, I just, I I fear legislating, um, hypotheticals that just don't seem like they would happen. If that makes sense. I don't, I don't know how else to say that.

Yes, I appreciate that. Uh, may I respond? Yeah, please. Okay. Thank you Mr. Chair. Is that okay?

Representative Ward, If I might ask a question? So

I was just making sure I could respond.

So some people do feel that it's possible that we could have had people respond in our state that would've not gone to the, their executives Right. To their own public health officials. And that's what we're looking for, to make sure that they do, we wanna make sure that that's the case. That it's not just from what an IGO says across the world, but from our professionals here. And so we want to make sure that it is very possible that that could happen. I'm not saying that did happen. Yeah. But it's very possible it could happen.

So do you mind if I ask one more clarifying question just to that point? Um, is this, I apologize, chair, is that all right? Yes. Does this, so does this bill then address folks other than the chief executive officer?

It actually does. Um, I'm sorry. It does not. It's the chief Executive officer in each of the branches. Okay. So you look at the chief, excuse me, the governor is our Chief Executive Officer. You also have a mayor. You'll have the county councils, you'll have the, uh, county mayor, we have those as well. And so it's going to be the chief executive of the different political subdivisions. Did I clarify that okay for you? Yeah. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. So if I'm understanding it right, that any chief executive could, if they felt like there were a local reason to have an emergency, then their powers are not diminished. They would say, that's correct. I'm doing this because I believe there'd be, there is a local emergency, but they could not say I, I mean, what would they even say if they said, I don't think there's a local emergency. I, but I'm just doing what the World Health Organization recommends. Even they, there's, even though I don't, but then they would, all they would have to do if they believe there was an emergency is say that they thought there was a local emergency and then they could still do anything they wished to do with what their current powers are. It just seems under what circumstance would someone not think that there was a local emergency, but would want to just follow an international guideline when they didn't think there was a local reason?

Okay. I'm trying to think of my answer on that one. Uh, I think a situation could be if, if an IGO says we have this and it's coming to the United States and we want to shut down everything. I mean, we did have this experience right, a few years back, and they want us to shut down every person's opportunity to work, uh, to be with their families, to be with them when they need medical help, those types of things that, that did happen. We don't want that to repeat. We wanna make sure that what happens that an international organization cannot tell Utah that we have state sovereignty here. They cannot tell Utah or influence heavily without our executives being able to go and use their local experts.

Sure. I mean, I agree with that. Right? Yeah. I mean, the executives do what they do in service of the people here and, and they're not subservient in any, I mean, those organizations don't have, um, statutory authority nor moral authority to have our office holders respond out to, to those absent a local decision to make the decision. Yeah. Um, is, I'm still just trying to wrap my head around what circumstance it could be where the person didn't think there was a local cause, but still wanted to follow a another body's instruction, if you will. That's just a little hard for me to think.

Yes, yes. So, no, I, I agree with you that it's hard to think on that that can happen. And you as a medical professional, you probably have more on this than I do. But if you have, if if you have an elected official who wants to call, uh, a state of emergency for health reasons, then they're going to use their local people. But if they're overly influenced by what's going on in the world and they're not using their people here, then that's what we wanna prevent. We want them to go to the local professionals and to make sure that they are getting their expert opinions on that. Whether like, let's say we had a measles outbreak, right. And which,

Which we, which we have had and still do have in recent times. Right. I mean, it's been event our worst outbreak in many years, this last year we're the second highest state for per capita number of measles cases of all 50 states this last year.

Yeah. Thank you for that information. Yeah.

Thank you. Uh, Mr. Chair, a question for the sponsor, please. Um, in the absence of legislative action that's being proposed, um, do international organizations currently have power jurisdiction or authority in Utah?

They do not legally have that, but there are times that that is the political manipulation that might happen and that they'll put that force on us. And that's what we're trying to avoid. We just wanna make sure that Utahans are protected by Utahans and that not necessarily by something that's going on in other part of the world.

So, and Shepherd, I don't think this bill hurts anybody. I don't think it helps anybody. Uh, because if a local government wants to say, okay, the UN or the, some international organization or whatever declared an emergency, they would just have to say, well, I think we have a an problem here and I'm gonna declare an emergency not based on that. But they could go ahead and do it. 'cause it says exclusively based on that. Right. I don't see anything where it says they have to consult with any of their local people. I understand your intent. I, I, I don't think it, if this does something, I'm happy for you, but I don't think it does a lot. But I don't think it hurts either.

Spencer Tuft from Saratoga Springs. Not representing anybody but myself, my family. Um, I just was wondering why international organization was defined specifically as three specific organizations rather than using some more generic language. Uh,

Thank you Mr. Chair. I, i curious in the answer to the, the last, uh, public comments question. Do, do you have an answer to that? Mr. Chair? Would, can she respond

That was in current code, so nothing's changed on that, so I didn't change that.

Mr. Chair.

So when you say it's incurred code, do you mean you, you took a definition, it was somewhere else in code? 'cause it, it does look like new language in lines, you know, three, four Oh It right there. You're right three. Just say that in there.

Uh, I'm gonna have to actually see on that one because my understanding that that did come from somewhere. I wonder if our policy analyst has that information for me. Thank you.

So you're not sure or

I, I don't know if he's consulting with about something different or consulting on this issue. Sorry,

Yeah, I thought that came from another place in the documents, but, um, that was my understanding. Okay. So this bill was transferred to me from

Yeah, I'm good now. Thanks. Okay. Uh, to the committee

Yeah. Are we able to entertain motions? Go ahead. Yeah. Um, I move to Table House bill 85.

No, no. I think there's been good discussion around this.

Um, I don't see a reason to table. I think that there's been discussion and that you can go forward and make some decisions on it.

Can I make a substitute motion to adjourn only because I believe this is our last item on the agenda. I don't

I, I would prefer to, I don't think the bill should be tabled. OOO. Okay. I guess I'm Speaking Against that ad motion.

Well, I'll just speak against tabling it.

Sure. Um, I, I think, uh, to me, I have some of the same questions as Chair Dunnigan about what, whether it would create something useful or whether it's just kind of a statement about the international organization. So I'm not at the point where I write at this moment would wanna work, move forward. Tabling makes it very, very difficult for a bill to ever be heard again. And I don't want to just hang that extra thing, um, around its neck. I don't, I don't think the bill's detrimental in a way to say that she, that the sponsor would not have a chance to bring it back to the committee if she made some other changes and came to committee members and said, look, this is the, the reason to hear it. I want to leave that same opportunity to the sponsor, which you would not have if it was tabled. So that, that's why I would speak against the motion to table.

So I'm opposed to the, uh, motion to table. Um, I also would like to see the bill come back with some more specificity.

Excuse me. Substitute motion, Mr. Chair Motion to move HB 85 favorably.

Sure. Just briefly. I mean, we've had a good discussion about it. I don't disagree with some of the comments that the value of it may be limited, but sponsors put a lot of work into this. I don't think a couple of more days is gonna change it substantially. So I'd like to put it to the committee for a decision.

Thank you. Obviously, I would prefer that one. Uh, we actually had a 59,

I would oppose the motion to recommend favorably. Um, I would not necessarily oppose the motion to adjourn.

Well, obviously I would prefer to recommend it favorably. This actually was passed by a committee last year, and it was adopted and passed by a senate committee. Um, the floor of what we had 59, 13, and three on that vote. And it was just a couple items down, I think like 15th down or something at midnight on the Senate floor where they would've passed it. So I think this bill actually does help us, and it just puts, port, puts in some language that we know that our state is sovereign for many international government organization from telling us what we need to do in shutting down our state.

Thank you. Oh, it was on.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Um, I, uh, support the motion, uh, to favorably recommend. I, I agree generally with, um, representative Arthur and Representative Dunnigan that have said that, I, I don't think this has much substantive effect because I, I just don't believe that in Utah we would base any emergency solely and exclusively on some directive from an international organization. Uh, that being said, I don't, I don't think anyone has presented any sort of harm. In fact, most of the people who spoke against the bill have said, I don't think this does anything bad. It, it only, um, doesn't really do much. Uh, with that in mind, I think it's fair to say that there is a segment of our population in the state that is concerned about these international organizations. And if this bill helps to resolve some of that concern where it has no externalities, I don't know why we wouldn't push this forward and allow it to, to move forward in the process. Especially, um, understanding the fact that this is something that was considered last year. It passed this committee or, or a committee last year. It passed the house floor. It passed the Senate committee. Um, it has been well vetted. I haven't heard anyone with, with concerns that they wanted particular language changed in the bill. And so I think it's ready to move forward.

Thank you Chair. Can I ask a question and then make a comment? Yes. The language on, just so I can understand clearly the language online, 75, 76 is new language.

Is that correct? Yes. Yeah.

So I, I, I do not feel comfortable with in Utah Code, um, international organization being defined solely as the United Nations, the World Economic Forum or the World Health Organization. Um, so for that reason alone, along with, um, my concerns about passing bills that, that don't provide any substantive positive impact and, and taking the time from the future committees that would have to work on this, I would vote against this.

I'll waive. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for, allow me to go now so I can get over and take care of things and make a quorum in the other meeting. I really appreciate that. Back in 2024, the legislature and governor passed, and the Governor Cox signed into law Senate Bill 57 to establish a clear constitutional process for how Utah responds. When federal directives challenge our state sovereignty House Bill 85 builds on that same principle with an international level. It protects Utah Utahns from having policies, recommendations, and political pressures imposed by international government organizations whose agendas don't necessarily align with everyday Utah. So, Utah's are Utah experts. So this will just require any top level executive to make sure that we have the experts from Utah weighing in. It doesn't prohibit them from using the science. It only allows, it only tells them that they have to get local input on that. Basically, that's the bill. Okay. Thank you. If I remember right, this is a holdover from last year, went through the process and didn't get debated the last night. So, uh, Yeah, it died on the Senate board. Okay. Uh, that ends your presentation.

Yeah. Thank you. Uh, representative? Uh, yeah, just in clarification, so as I was reading through the bill, and I apologize 'cause I expected to spend a little bit more time on it before you got to it, but, um, and you mentioned that, uh, just have local input on that. So, for example, if the, if a, a national or some type of an agency that dealing with health, then you'd look to the state health department or the local health department.

Yes, that's correct. Where does it say that?

In here, because I couldn't see, I couldn't see. It was, it seemed like it was, it was more inflecting that it was just if the, the World Health Organization or something.

Yes, it does. It's something then you just couldn't do it.

But, um, it just says exclusively, I guess, you know, I mean, the common sense tells me that you'd wanna follow, you know, local health department, state health department. But you mentioned in your presentation that that would be how it works. So I just wanted to know where that's outlined in the bill.

So there has the word exclusively that we actually subbed in last year and exclusively does lend to the fact that it will go, that they will get other input as well, besides just what the international organization is telling them. They would get input here and that's, I guess it doesn't exactly spell that out, but it's implied.

I'm Marilyn Nominee, I'm a citizen representing myself, and just want to thank, um, Representative Shepherd for her work on this bill and for all of us who went through COVID-19 and saw some things happen that I didn't think in my lifetime, um, I would ever see. I think this is a really good bill and something that we definitely should put into our code. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would favor move that we favorably recommend HB 85.

Awesome. Thank you. Senator Sandall. Waive. Waive.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. In 2024, this legislature passed and Governor Cox signed into law Senate Bill 57 to establish a clear constitutional process for how Utah responds to federal directives to challenge our state sovereignty. House Bill 85 builds on that same principle at the international level. House Bill 85 protects Utahans from having policies, recommendations, or political pressures imposed by international government organizations whose agendas do not necessarily align with everyday Utahans or Utah's experts. Hospital 85 is consistent with recent federal action, including a new executive order reaffirming limits on the authority of the World Health Organization, recognizing that international guidance does not automatically carry a binding force here in Utah. Mr. Speaker, if we believe in federalism, we believe in a state's right to govern itself and to determine whether to call a state of emergency or not. This bill provides clarity and and reinforces state sovereignty, electoral accountability and constitutional governance. HB 85 provi prohibits our elected chief executives from automatically implementing and international directives. Utahns deserve decisions made transparently by our local elected officials evaluating the facts in Utah, listening to our health experts and carefully considering the real, the very real life altering consequences of the vast disruptions On our families, workers, and businesses. It's my position that all Utahns and all Utah businesses are essential in the everyday life of those of whom we serve. H Bill 85 builds on, builds directly on 2020 fours, SB 57, and puts clear guardrails to protect Utahans.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. Uh, I'd like to thank the, the good sponsor for bringing legislation that is hoping to solve a problem that that could arise in the future. However, as was noted in the committee meeting, this does not actually address a problem that exists today. This is not based on any case study or anything that is actually taking place here in Utah. And as a result, it was mentioned in committee several times that this bill does nothing necessarily helpful, but also nothing terribly harmful. As a new member in this body, uh, on principle, I am going to choose to vote no for any bill that does nothing positive or negative. If it has no substantive positive effect on the lives of everyday Utahans, uh, no matter who brings it or what the policy says, um, just as a principle, I'll be voting against it. Thank you.

Thank you Mr. Speaker Pro Tim, uh, our, our new friend. The comments of our new colleague, uh, might have missed a lot of the things that transpired in our state over the last four or five years and, and we can certainly give him a pass for that. We experienced a, a number of issues where we had international bodies instructing our state on how to care for the health, the welfare, the safety of our people, and, and the pressure on our state was tremendous in a very serious situation. And sadly, uh, a good colleague sponsor used the word federalism and we're sadly seeing this wild swing from one administration to another, that that, uh, as an administration changes policy changes 180 degrees and it really doesn't need to be that way. It shouldn't be that way. It should be a governing partnership that we all understand our roles and responsibilities. And this bill does more than nothing. It clarifies the fact that we are a sovereign state. We are responsible with the jurisdictional duty to protect the health, safety and the welfare of our people. With that, I encourage the body support.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. Um, will the sponsor yield to a question please?

Can you please help us understand why there are only three international organizations that are specifically named and targeted, uh, in this particular proposal?

Yes, those are the ones that refer to health issues.

Okay, thanks. Thank you.

Oh, thank you, Mr. Speaker. Pro tem. Um, I initially want was going to vote no on this because I don't like the, um, sometimes when I read bills, they come across as being fear based, but I do want to, uh, to support the bill because I think it's very important that Utah protects Utah. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd just like to remind this body that last year this bill came through and it was overwhelmingly with 59 yeses, 13 nos and three on a warranty in attendance. And we had 28 co-sponsors. Thus far this year we have 17 co-sponsors. We just started trying to gather them. So I ask for your support. This bill passed through the Senate, but it didn't the Senate committee, but it died at midnight on the floor. So I urge you and ask you for your support in this bill to support the citizens in the state of Utah. Thank you.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. Personal privilege.

It's been around for a while and, uh, it, uh, died on the board last session, midnight came before we got to it. So here's the, the third attempt to it. All this bill does is, uh, recognize that, uh, when emergency happens, that, uh, our governor or our elected officials in our cities and counties do not react to the United Nations, the World Health Organization or the World Economic Forum, that we base our decisions upon what's happening in Utah. That's what the bill does.

Thank you, Mr. President. I wonder, uh, if the sponsor would answer a question, will You yield Senator Winterton? You bet. Yes. Proceed. My Question is, how would we know if the governor declared an emergency solely because a world organization had done so?

Senator Winterton, That's a really good question. But when the pandemic hit, it was worldwide and the, the fallout from that was a frenzy of we were being pushed by, you know, other organizations that we've got to do everything to keep this from spreading. And so the pressure came from that. And so, I it's a really good question. I'd put something in there if we knew the answer to prevent the opposite from happening. But this is trying to go back to, we, Senator Vickers ran a bill, senate bill 1 95 back Kanosh in I think 21 that had all this listed there, but we still were reacting to other things that did not happen in our state.

Senator Fillmore? Yeah, Mr. President. Of course, I remember that. And I know that I, I don't know, WHO probably declared some emergency if they have that power. And the federal government declared an emergency, and so did Governor Herbert. Um, and you know, I, and, uh, I think several others, uh, had some heartburn over, probably not after the initial declaration or an emergency, but how it kept getting renewed. And in fact, I think the, the body was so concerned about that the legislature was so concerned about that, that we passed significant reforms to the, um, you know, to the, the governor's unchecked power to declare such an emergency. But I, uh, this part of this, uh, bill gives me pause because I just think it's impossible to tell. And therefore, why is it even there? I, I mean, if WHO said there's an emergency, and Governor Cox said, I agree, there's an emergency, so I'm declaring one at, at how would we, it just seems, uh, like a completely unenforceable provision of the bill because we can't read the governor's mind. And maybe he would say, I am declaring an emergency because I dunno of X. But how do we know that wasn't because just the, the, the WHO or whatever would say, it just seems like we're trying to put this in to read someone's intent. And, and I just don't think that that's possible. The other parts of this bill I don't have an issue with, but I do wonder why we would put something in law that seems to me totally unenforceable and, uh, you know, un unless the sponsor, um, can, uh, can show how it would be enforceable. Like how would the legislature act to check that power

Senator Winterton?

Well, if you remember back, uh, the Governor's power is limited to emergency for 30 days after that, he has to come and ask us. But he can declare an emergency on his own power. We're just saying keep this in check. We don't want something that's happening across the globe to affect Utah when we don't have the evidence that you're, you're saying. So, yeah, I think it's pretty hard to define.

Do we have evidence? I mean, we just had a measle outbreak. Do we declare me emergency over measles and everybody's gotta be vaccinated?

Well, that was centrally located in our state. And that's something that we're saying, well, whether it's the economic forum that's declaring a, a financial disaster or something, and we've gotta get in front of it, I think we as a legislative body would be brought into that argument to make sure that we're doing the right thing because we pride ourselves on being the best run state in the nation. So we shouldn't be reacting to something that's happened from these world organizations is basically the, the cause of this.

Fillmore with no more questions, but just to sum up here. Yeah, I, I agree. The Senator from UN County states it correctly, but all of that exists under current law. Uh, and I think that the, the balance that we struck was the appropriate one. And, and I think that that is sufficient. That whatever reason the governor gives for declaring an emergency, um, that can only be short term in nature. We have immediate power to end that emergency simply by passing a resolution, uh, that doesn't require the governor's signature. So I think that that, uh, that those parts of the governor's power are already appropriately checked and that we should not amend the law that would re to, to require us to divine the governor's intent. At some level, his intent doesn't particularly matter. It's the fact that he declared an emergency. And if we think that's inappropriate, we already have the power to step in and fix that.

Pro Tim, um, just to comment, uh, I, I love my role working with the, uh, federalism Commission and have learned a lot about how important it is for us to work, uh, as states, but also to keep that communication open with the federal government. Um, and that that's what we talk about when we're talking about dual sovereignty. Um, and, you know, a, a compound republic, and it seems like, uh, the issues with, with this bill that I have is that it binds our hands as a state to have those conversations. Um, we, we don't know if there's going to be issues. And I, I know that the good, uh, senator, uh, is coming from a place of, of concern with this bill, but I also don't want to tie our hands as a state from having these conversations. This is one of the things that I've learned working with the Federalism Commission and, uh, just wanted to let you know that yes, even Democrats love, uh, federalism.

Okay. I, I think that the, the Good House sponsor on this felt like it was needful that we called out those organizations. And so that's where the line 75 and 76 put that in. But outside of that, um, I'll trust the body that, uh, policy and the state of Utah will remain with us.

I would make the motion then that house bill 85 be read for a third time.

Thank you. Uh, this is a follow up. Just, uh, a statement that, uh, states that in Utah there will be responsible for any emergencies and, and the particular instances in our state and not, uh, subject to, um, those, uh, world organizations like the World Health Organization, United Nations, or the World Economic Forum. That sometimes the rhetoric gets caught up and when we think we have to act on it, we we're just saying that we will do it. Our governor won't declare those emergencies based upon those circumstances. Thank you for the presentation.

Thank you. Will the sponsor yield to a Question? Senator, will

Thank you. Um, would this bill jeopardize us from receiving aid during a crisis? Um, meaning if we're gonna say that we don't wanna be a part of these organizations, would that hinder our ability to receive aid if there was an earthquake or some kind of natural disaster?

To my knowledge, no, because those do not direct money to us directly. It would come through our federal programs and we would receive it that way.

Yes. Will the sponsor yield the question?

Um, I'm looking through the bill and, and oftentimes when we run legislation, we're trying to fix a problem or solve a problem. Um, it, I'm just wondering if you can give me specific examples where this has been a problem in the state of Utah.

Well, during, during the COVID Pandemic, it started out of the states, it was manufactured outside of the U us and then with everything that dominoed, all of a sudden everybody started taking all these, uh, precautions or or passing legislation for this in the state of Utah. We were one of the few that pushed back and, and controlled it in our economy, survived because we didn't buy into that. That's one that comes to mind right now.

Yeah. Just to follow, just to follow up, this Bill calls out international organizations and we're basically saying in international organizations have no power jurisdiction. Can you give me an example where an international organization asserted its power authority over the state of Utah when there was a state of emergency that would be resolving with this bill?

No, I, I can't think of one myself. I think that everybody got caught up in the messaging that they were sending and that was the domino effect that the swept the United States.

Yeah. President, I also have a couple of questions for the sponsor of He'll Yield.

You. I I note that he talked about the, during the COVID Pandemic, pull up Mike A. Little bit. I think we're hearing you, but it's a little noisy in here. So I think he spoke, uh, about the COVID Pandemic, and it was interesting in his answer. I think the question was, was there a time when this had been a challenge for Utah? And in his answer he illustrated how it wasn't a challenge for Utah. The world organizations and, and other states took action. Utah took a totally different approach. Our people and our economy were better off for it. Um, my question is, uh, and I raised this a bit yesterday, but just to frame it a little bit differently, um, if, if the governor or later on the bill, it, it restricts municipal, uh, officers also, if the governor or the county mayor were to declare an emergency that, um, that we thought was exclusively because a world organization did. So what remedy is in this bill?

I think more than anything, it's a statement that we're not going to react to, to those conditions. So that's the best I can do for you

And thank Mr. President. One more question. Go ahead, Senator. Um, this makes it very clear that, uh, that uh, specifically states that international organizations don't have legal authority to act inside Utah. Is there a deficiency that, uh, the sponsor can point to in the Utah Constitution that makes it so that that is an open question.

You know, that's a very good point, and I don't think so. I think we addressed it in, in Senate Bill 1 95 during that time, but I think that they, the residents felt like that maybe we hadn't addressed the fear that we might be reacting to those. So that's the best on that one. Thank you.

Thank you. Yeah, Mr. President, I appreciate that answer because I think that every statement that this bill is trying to make is already made in existing statute and in the state constitution. Um, I have a constituent who comes to my town hall meetings regularly, and he came again this year and he gave the same speech that he always gives when I call on him and he says, this is me. And, you know, a group of representatives that are, are sharing the stage with me. He says in this session, the second best thing you could do is nothing. The best thing you could do is repeal some bills. Anything else you do is suspect. Uh, and that's a simplistic statement. Um, and I, you know, I'm, I run a lot of bills. We all run bills and we think that those bills, uh, help make the government operate better for the citizens of Utah. But I point out that we're going to be, you know, we're gonna be running a lot of bills this year and we're gonna get, uh, you know, the media will harp on us and maybe our constituents will harp on us because the media does about the number of bills we pass if we pass this one that literally does nothing except restate what already exists in statute. And what is crystal clear in our constitution that the people of Utah hold the sovereign power of government and that they delegate the operation of that government to a legislative executive and judicial branch and no one else? Um, I think that's very clear in our constitution. I, I I think that we would deserve the flack that we would take for passing too many bills if we pass a bill like this one.

I, I, uh, respect the comments and, and I think that there's some valid points there. I think that we owe it to our citizens to let them know that we did listen to 'em and that this was a concern of, of many. And with that, I would urge your support on this bill. So I'd make the motion that, uh, house Bill 85 pass.

Mr. President, I'm gonna vote no, but I wanna explain why. Um, I feel like if I vote no, there's a perception that I do want the governor or the mayor, uh, to solely respond to the World Health Organization in the United Nation, which I don't. Uh, but I tend to agree with, uh, Senator, um, Fillmore that this is, um, completely unnecessary. Um, I think it's redundant and I, I feel like I understand it's a message bill, but I'm not sure what message it's sending because I think we've already sent this message and it's impossible to get into the mind of a chief executive and determine exactly why they did something that they did do. If we have a, a legitimate worldwide pandemic in the future. Do I want our government to respond to that? Absolutely. Do I want them to have data and do their own research? Yes, I do. So I'm gonna vote no, but not because I want our leaders to lay down and let the un run the state or the cities, but because I think the bill is entirely unnecessary. No.