Bills / H.B. 88
H.B. 88 Public Assistance Amendments
Sponsor: Rep. Lee, Trevor
House/ filed · 3/6/2026
Your legislators on this bill
Enter your address to see how your own representative and senator voted and where they spoke.
Quotes come from the official recordings' automatic captions, which can mishear words. Speakers and one-line summaries are identified by AI and can be wrong. Use the ▶ links to check the recording before you rely on a quote.
What the bill does
This bill addresses lawful presence for receipt of public benefits.
Full text and history on le.utah.gov →Hearings and debates
- Feb 17, 2026 House Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Committee▶ Watch
Transcript (185 turns)
- Committee chair1:05:28
I'm guessing Representative Lee, if you'd like to come forward or present from your chair if you'd like. This is HB 88 Public Assistance Amendments. Whenever you're ready. My Intern has to hand out a, Uh, pass Out A handout. Yeah, bring it here. We'll just make sure he's not sending us any terrible stuff. Not crazy. Okay. Well, That's copy for you, So, yes. Okay. That's fine. Yeah. Take seven. So, uh, just to be clear, we have, uh, we're, we have a sub, is it the third sub? Yeah, third Sub is the one I wanna speak to. You're speaking to that correct. Okay. Go ahead
- Rep. Trevor Lee1:06:45
whenever you're ready. All right. Thank you. Chair, uh, or vice chair? Uh, thank you committee. Uh, this bill that I'm presenting on today, uh, is something that I believe is a very common sense approach to something that, uh, can be a, a very sensitive subject, uh, in the state of Utah and, and around this country. But I do believe that this is a common sense approach to not just be rational, but also our fiscal moral and ethical responsibility as legislators. And it's also to act in the best interest of our constituents in our state. And before I dive into some of these numbers, um, just to get to the nature of this topic, I want to start by sharing a quick quote that I think hits it really, really well. And that is, compassion stops at the door of irresponsibility. And so a couple of, uh, items as you guys have charts, uh, that I presented for you. Um, fair. The Federation for American Immigration Reform re reported in the 2024 report that illegal immigration cost American taxpayers or American citizens $150 billion annually in services and support. Now, of course, this is going to be a burden varying by state. For example, California is gonna spend over 31 billion due to its large population. Its border proximity and vast political climate estimates, uh, place the number of illegal immigrants in California between 1.8 and 2.6 million, which explains their fiscal impact. While Utah is different from California, we are not immune to the costs. Estimates for illegal immigrants in Utah vary widely, but according to Fair, 500,000 illegals with their 48,000 plus US born children live in Utah. Among those are 54,188 students who cost taxpayers $743 million in education. Law enforcement, legal and correction services cost another 117 million annually with 179 million in healthcare and 17.8 million in public assistance when all factors are accounted for. The ES estimated costs per illegal immigrant for Utahns is $5,033 amounting to 931, almost a billion dollars for the Utah taxpayer per year. Beyond these direct costs, there are hidden and long-term strings in healthcare, in the healthcare system, education system, criminal justice system, and job market, including depressed wages, identity theft, and increased demand for public assistance. The consequences of incentivizing illegal immigration go far beyond the fiscal concerns. It undermines our laws, it weakens our economic stability and is unfair to those who follow the legal immigration process. By diverting taxpayer funds away from legal, uh, law abiding citizens in need, we create resentment and division making integration harder for legal immigrants and complicating meaningful policy reforms. Additionally, lack of border policies in the past have contributed greatly to increased drug trafficking, human smuggling and gang activity within the state of Utah and a large great and a much greater risk to law enforcement and border patrol agents who have to deal with that. And now we have a dangerous cycle where incentives are leading to more illegal entries exacerbating the problem. As legislators, our moral and ethical duty is to put our citizens first, we must prioritize those who fall the law, protect the essential social safety nets that the most vulnerable immigrants and citizens depend on. History and precedents have shown that the cost and consequences of inaction and the more we cater to legal immigrants, the more we incentivize it at the expense of our citizens and the security of our state. And I'll finish real quickly with the quote that I started with. Compassion stops at the door of irresponsibility committee. I think it's time to do the responsible thing and give HB 88 the do pass and send it to the floor. And with that, I'll end my presentation.
- Committee chair1:10:49
Okay. Thank you to the committee for any clarifying questions. Representative Stoddard.
- Rep. Andrew Stoddard1:11:01
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Is that all right if I ask a few questions?
- Committee chair1:11:05
You sure may. Okay. Thank you. The harder the better.
- Rep. Andrew Stoddard1:11:09
I take that as a challenge. Uh, thank you. Um, just curious, so you, you're presenting this issue as a fiscal one, so I just wanted to ask, do you know how much, uh, undocumented immigrants are paying into our state system?
- Rep. Trevor Lee1:11:26
No, and it's, and it's hard to have that number because estimates of anywhere between 50% to maybe even 60% are paying with, uh, an ITN number, but the rest are not. And so you have many who are not paying to the system or under the table with their wages.
- Rep. Andrew Stoddard1:11:41
So I, I am looking at some data here from the Institute for Taxation Economic Policy, and from 2022 saying that then, uh, state and local taxes paid by undocumented immigrants was two just over 235 million. Does that seem accurate? I mean, it could be. Do you know what amount of benefits they were receiving, say, in a year like that?
- Rep. Trevor Lee1:12:04
So in a year, based on the fair study, it's close to about a billion dollars in the expense to the state of Utah.
- Rep. Andrew Stoddard1:12:12
Okay. So a couple other questions about this. Um, have any other states tried something like this,
- Rep. Trevor Lee1:12:18
Uh, Idaho.
- Rep. Andrew Stoddard1:12:19
And do you know where their law currently is at?
- Rep. Trevor Lee1:12:21
Yes. So they are currently the A CLU was trying to sue them, but it is currently held up in the courts, but it, as of today, is still law.
- Rep. Andrew Stoddard1:12:29
So I understand it has been enjoined. Is that accurate?
- Rep. Trevor Lee1:12:32
Correct. Okay. So it's not law if it's enjoined, Parts of it are. Okay.
- Rep. Andrew Stoddard1:12:37
So is there a reason you want to push this through instead of waiting to see how federal courts handle it?
- Rep. Trevor Lee1:12:42
Yeah, I, I'm confident the courts are gonna side with the states that American citizens are the ones who deserve these benefits and not those who are illegal immigrants.
- Rep. Andrew Stoddard1:12:52
I mean, I've talked with a number of attorneys on this, um, and they're not so confident. What makes you confident that the courts are gonna view this differently than they have in the Idaho case?
- Rep. Trevor Lee1:13:03
Yeah, no, that's a good question. Um, it's also assuming that we do get challenged on this, but, uh, I, I trust that at least at the Supreme Court level, if this goes up that far, that this is something that they will side with the American citizens on.
- Rep. Andrew Stoddard1:13:16
So my question is, why us foot the bill for that legal challenge when Idaho is already doing it? Well,
- Rep. Trevor Lee1:13:23
That's if we get challenged.
- Rep. Andrew Stoddard1:13:26
Okay. Um, can you talk to me a little bit about the cause of action section? So as I read it, um, any, essentially any taxpayer, say someone does this in violation, if this were law, law were put in place, uh, any taxpayer then could sue this person for violating the law? Is that accurate?
- Rep. Trevor Lee1:13:47
Uh, not anymore. So sub three changed that.
- Rep. Andrew Stoddard1:13:50
Okay. And that one came out just barely, right?
- Rep. Trevor Lee1:13:54
Correct. Substitute three changed. Okay. How we were able to prosecute in the private right of action versus the immunity for the government, government entities. And can
- Rep. Andrew Stoddard1:14:02
You explain, just since this came out so recently, can you explain how it changed it?
- Rep. Trevor Lee1:14:05
Yeah. So, um, instead of being, for example, like let's say you have an entity that is going against, uh, this law, um, a citizen and or the person who works for the entity that is getting, uh, that is being prosecuted, going after this, it's no longer going to be a mis or a, um, what was, what was it before? I believe it was he's a, it was a B and that is no longer gonna be the case with this.
- Rep. Andrew Stoddard1:14:36
So I, so I'm looking at sub three here. Um, so not, not the criminal penalties, I'm looking at line 180 8. So an individual taxpayer who's injured by a violation of this section has a private right of action against an employee or executive director. Uh, if there alleged damages are reasonable, foreseeable and approximately caused by a viol violation of this section. So the way that I read that, if someone has been convicted of this were in place, then any taxpayer in the state could bring a private right of action against that person saying, I am a taxpayer. I have been hurt by this person's decision to violate this law. Is that
- Rep. Trevor Lee1:15:12
Accurate? That is accurate, yes.
- Rep. Andrew Stoddard1:15:14
Okay. Who's going to pay for the legal bill of that?
- Rep. Trevor Lee1:15:17
Well, if the that person is the wrong, then, you know, I guess we will pay for that as citizens.
- Rep. Andrew Stoddard1:15:23
So, I, I'm just trying to understand the financial motive of this section, because to me, it's, you're saying you want to take away these benefits to save money, but then you want the state to foot the legal bill for these people who could potentially be sued by every taxpayer in the state.
- Rep. Trevor Lee1:15:37
And this is assuming every taxpayer is gonna be suing if we think that's going to be the case, but with private right of action, that has not been the case with what we've seen in past, past issues that we've, we've had in the state of Utah,
- Rep. Andrew Stoddard1:15:48
But I don't think we've had private right of actions that open it up to every taxpayer in the state.
- Rep. Trevor Lee1:15:52speaker not certain
Nope. This should be a good one.
- Rep. Andrew Stoddard1:15:54
So I, I mean, I see, I see the state being one on the hook for the legal bill because this person was an employee while they would've committed this crime. And two, any violation is gonna be paid by state risk. So do you have any idea what the fiscal impact of that would be, those two components?
- Rep. Trevor Lee1:16:10
No clue. Okay.
- Rep. Andrew Stoddard1:16:14
Um, how would this affect, say, school pantries, school food pantries?
- Rep. Trevor Lee1:16:20
So, um, you should have two buckets that come either from the charitable side or the taxpayer side. If the food is gonna go to someone, uh, at a school and it is, uh, let's say yeah, within a school food pantry, then that's actually not gonna be covered under this bill because anything in the schools is, is not, is an exemption for this. That's a federal law. So the schools, that's, that's different. But if it's a public food pantry outside of the schools, then they're gonna have to have two buckets. They're gonna have to have one for the taxpayer and one for the charitable side. If people want to give to illegal immigrants, they're gonna have to go through the charitable side, but it will not come from the taxpayer.
- Rep. Andrew Stoddard1:16:57
But if you've got a, if you've got a high school food pantry that is taxpayer money potentially, right?
- Rep. Trevor Lee1:17:04
Yes. So this doesn't touch though on the education side. So I misspoke on that first part. This will not touch any of the food that you may have within a school. Like if the kids are gonna school and they're illegal immigrants, they're still gonna be able to get fed. Like that doesn't stop that on this.
- Rep. Andrew Stoddard1:17:17
And I'm not saying like the feeding in school, what, like, so my wife's school has a food pantry in the school. These kids get this food, take it home. Are they gonna have to verify id? No. Are they gonna have to verify status?
- Rep. Trevor Lee1:17:28
No, not, not according to this bill.
- Rep. Andrew Stoddard1:17:30
Can you show me where in the bill it says that schools are exempt. It
- Rep. Trevor Lee1:17:33
Doesn't touch the schools in this bill,
- Rep. Andrew Stoddard1:17:36
But if it's a school food pantry, Correct? I
- Rep. Trevor Lee1:17:40
don't see how it, It's not listed in the bill.
- Rep. Andrew Stoddard1:17:44
Okay. But you can't show me in the bill where it's exempted.
- Rep. Trevor Lee1:17:46
Do I, do I need to put in the like bill specifically
- Rep. Andrew Stoddard1:17:49
School? Well, I'm just asking if it's in there. Yeah,
- Rep. Trevor Lee1:17:50
Because I, that's not gonna change if the school is exempt from this. You're not gonna have any issues with them getting food at the schools.
- Rep. Andrew Stoddard1:17:59
Okay. Um, I think that's all the questions I have for the moment.
- Committee chair1:18:06
Um, Representative Stoddard, we could possibly have the drafting attorney chime in on that. Sure. If you'd like. Um, do you wanna reach out? I can reach. Okay. We'll, we'll see if we can't get an answer on that question. Thank you. Um, Representative Shepherd. Thank
- Rep. Lisa Shepherd1:18:21
You Mr. Chair. I have, um, just a follow up and another question too, a follow up on the school food pantry. Are school food pantries, aren't those privately donated?
- Rep. Trevor Lee1:18:32
Yes, That's what I thought.
- Rep. Lisa Shepherd1:18:34
When I've been to the school, someone's shaking their head no back there, but when I've been in Czech schools, they were, so that'd be good to have that follow up information. So I've received communications from across the state, both in favor and, and against. And then I've really tried to narrow down into those from my district, and I have some very opposed and some very, very support. So, um, their biggest concern is that our family's going to be able to have food and, uh, would they be able to go to some of the local food pantries by churches or, you know, other food pantries that are out there in our state?
- Rep. Trevor Lee1:19:08
Yes. If it's not taxpayer funded, then they're free to do and give as much food away as they would like.
- Rep. Lisa Shepherd1:19:15
Okay. Okay. Those are the questions I have. Thank you.
- Committee chair1:19:20
Okay, thank you. Anyone else from the committee? Okay. Um, do we have anyone from the public that would like to speak to this? Um, okay. We can do this a couple different ways. Should we give everybody, uh, two minutes? Sound fair? Do we have how many people put your hands up high? Okay. That's a lot. Yeah. Uh, what's that? You can say, I'll take like so many. Why don't we? Yeah, it looks like we have 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, I mean, we got about 30, 40 people. That's probably more than we can, we can handle. So wo against, you know, on different, yeah. So, okay. Raise your hand up here if you're in favor of this bill. Okay. Now raise your hand if you're in opposition to the bill. Okay, so we're about equal give or take. Can we get, uh, maybe, how about, uh, we're trying to be fair. Seven from each side. Does that sound fair enough? So if you're, how about line up on the, the, my right hand side if you are in favor and right up on my left hand side or the right hand side of the podium if you are in opposition. And, and just this chair right here Opposed this side, right? It, it doesn't matter where you sit, just get, let's get seven on each side, and, uh, why don't we give you each a minute and a half. Okay. So let me fix my timer here. There we go. Okay. And so we're gonna take seven, so if you are number eight in line, you, you could probably sit down and save your feet, uh, because we won't be hearing from you. So, um, if you would stay, stay back in the line there. Uh, ma'am. Yeah. Okay, great. Thanks. Okay. We've got, um, far more than seven, so you're welcome to, actually, we probably do need to have you sitting. Um, I don't know what our pages do. We normally have to be sitting. Um, okay. You're all right. All right, we'll go ahead and start, uh, on the, uh, on the right side. My left side. Hold on. Chime is on. Is this on? Yeah, just that's not turning on. Chime on. Chime is on. Exit. Okay. There we go. No exit. And then where's the start? Start timer. Okay, go ahead.
- Neil Rickard, Utahns Against Hunger1:22:10
My name is Neil Rickard. I'm the Child Nutrition advocate for Utahans Against Hunger. I wanna speak to the impact on pantries. Pantries across the state rely either directly or indirectly on TFA p funding, as well as a number of other federal, uh, revenue streams, uh, to provide benefits. And there's no infrastructure in most emergency food providers to separate this from donated foods in any absolute kind of way. Uh, the Utah Food Bank alone anticipates $500,000 in cost associated with compliance. Two HB 88 and many smaller pantries are going to have to contribute limited time and effort, making sure that they're compliant. If this p if this passes, uh, some pantries may indeed have only, uh, donated goods, but most of them, to some degree rely on federal or state funding, and it, it means a huge administrative lift for these pantries.
- Committee chair1:23:03
Great. Thank you so much. Uh, yeah, sir, we have a question for you and be sure. Sorry. Uh, be sure that you give your name and if you represent somebody when you stand to or sit to speak, go ahead.
- Unknown speaker1:23:18speaker not certain
I don't know what TFA B is. Could you please tell
- Neil Rickard, Utahns Against Hunger1:23:20
Me? Uh, TFAP is short for the Emergency Food Assistance Program, which was instituted originally in the 1980s, it provides com uh, commodities and monetary support to food pantries. Uh, a lot of this goes via the Utah Food Bank here in Utah, but a lot of organizations depend on this, again, either directly or indirectly.
- Committee chair1:23:39
Thank you. You, uh, oh, we have one other question for that. Yeah, go ahead. Representative Stoddard. Sorry,
- Rep. Andrew Stoddard1:23:47
Actually, just a point of information for the chair and maybe the bill sponsor. I see a fifth sub just dropped. Just wondering.
- Committee chair1:23:53
Um, I you, Okay. So we're, I'm thinking we may have, we may address that later, or we may not.
- Rep. Andrew Stoddard1:24:03
We'll see. Okay. I just, I would love to hear comments on applicable subs. So I, I mean, I know he presented to the third, if he's planning on moving the, the fifth, I would rather him take a minute and talk to it. Just, I think it's irresponsible of us as a committee to be changing subs in the middle of a committee hearing while we have this many people showing
- Rep. Trevor Lee1:24:29
Up. Okay. So sub five, so right now with the chip authorization to provide, um, healthcare for illegal immigrants is supposed to Sunset in 2028. Sub five would what I'm doing on, on this bill as written in sub three, it is Sunset this summer, but sub five would take that back to 2028.
- Committee chair1:24:50
Is that the only change? Yes,
- Rep. Trevor Lee1:24:52
Mr. Chair.
- Committee chair1:24:53
Okay. That that all right? Yeah. Od Okay. Great. Thank you. Okay. Uh, on the left or my right,
- Ronald Mortensen, resident1:25:02
Uh, Dr. Ronald Mortenson PhD and over the decades, the legislature has expanded the services and benefits available to individuals who are unlawfully in the United States, even though it often violates federal laws. And this includes, includes instate tuition, driving privilege cards, health insurance for children, and by making it easier for illegal immigrants to find employment by gutting Utah's Verify law. And this sends a message loud and clear that in Utah, the rule of law is not respected by those elected to uphold it and contributes to the overall decline in the respect for the rule of law. In fact, the bill that the legislature passed to provide health insurance for the children of illegal immigrants actually entices parents who are illegally in the United States to bring their children to Utah. And since the parents cannot work legally in Utah, although that's required in as a condition of getting the health insurance, that entices them to commit multiple job related felonies, including document fraud, identity theft, and perjury in order to get jobs with employers who require the completion of an nine nine form. So taken together, this sends a message that Utah encourages and rewards illegal conduct, and that Utah's elected officials do not respect the rule of law. So you can change that by passing this bill out. Thank you.
- Committee chair1:26:28speaker not certain
Good job.
- Madaline Chilcutt, resident1:26:36
Okay. Go ahead. Hello, Mr. Chair and committee members. My name is Madeline Chilcutt. I represent those without a voice. My only sister lived on the streets of Salt Lake City for nearly 20 years. During that time, she struggled to keep hold of her legal identification card. US citizens without ready proof of lawful status, who are unhoused and or poverty stricken, will be a casualty of house bill 88. Other casualties will be public servants whose good hearts compel them to serve their fellow humans, but may face criminal charges if they fail to val validate the lawful status of those whom they're serving. However, the actual target of this legislation is immigrants. Many of you suggest that the, that, that it is the immigrant's fault and that they should have come here the right way. Actually, many did. They were vetted and immigrated here lawfully following the guidelines that the US government had at the time they entered the us, but whose face suddenly changed with a new administration. Hundreds of thousands of immigrants had the legal right to live in the US one day, and on the next they did not. In addition, this legislation will create a logistical nightmare for community service agencies, which receive funding from the state, but also generous donations from churches, individuals, and foundations. How practical is it for the agencies which sucker the most vulnerable among us to separate goods and services based on the source of funding? And what effect will that have on those who so generously enhance the efforts of this state? Do you think that donors will be as willing to give knowing that the benefit of their donation will be withheld from immigrants? Do all you with a moral compass? I urge you to stand for that, which is light. Don't let misinformation or fear override your conscience. Don't withhold food, shelter, and medical care from the most needy among us while hiding behind legislation that was written from a false moral ground. Our response to those in need defines us as individuals and communities. This hateful legislation will negatively impact families for generations to come. It will be a stain on the good reputation of Utah citizens. It must be stopped. Thank you.
- Committee chair1:28:42
Thank you. I'm sorry, ma'am, did we get your name? I was, there was a flurry of people up here, and I,
- Madaline Chilcutt, resident1:28:48
My name is Madeline Chit. Madeline
- Committee chair1:28:50
Chit. I think you did say that at the beginning. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, go ahead, please.
- Shannon Macinnes, resident1:28:55
Good afternoon, chairman and members of the committee. My name is Shannon McNess, and I am a resident of Orem, Utah. I appreciate the opportunity today to testify. As I know we have a, a busy room today. I strongly support this bill because it ensures that already limited taxpayer dollars are used responsibly and lawfully for utahns who are legally present and eligible for state benefits. I'm confident that everybody in the room, every member, every committee member in the room today works very hard every single day to protect Utah Taxpayers, Utah families work very hard and pay taxes to fund essential services. HB 80 DA ensures that state resources are not directed to individuals who are not legally authorized and therefore not entitled to public benefits. Under federal and state law, state funds should not subsidize the cost associated with unlawful presence. This legislation does not eliminate benefits. It does not reduce support for qualified families. What it does do is create clearer standards, require consistent verification, and improve compliance across agencies that protects both taxpayers and the beneficiaries. HB 80 DA provides clear standards for eligibility and ensures that agencies have the guidance needed on the qualification, which clears up a lot of confusion. This reduces confusion on administrative burdens while improving compliance and transparency and state spending. Some may worry that this bill could harm individuals living in our communities. However, this legislation does not change federal immigration law. It does not affect emergency medical care or first response services, and it does not deny services that are already mandated under federal law. HB 88 simply ensures that state dollars are granted to individuals who are legally entitled to them, a principle that many Utah taxpayers expect and support. In closing, for the sake of responsible budgeting, respect for federal law and fairness to Utah residents, I respectfully urge the committee to support and pass HB 88. Thank you. Thank you.
- Committee chair1:30:49
Okay. Just a, uh, a reminder, when you hear the first chime, you'll have 15 more seconds, and if you'd be respectful of that, uh, and also, if you're listening closely to other people saying, and you have something unique to say, I would go to that first. Um, if you're just repeating what other people says, that's fine too. You're welcome to use your time as you'd like, but if you feel like you have something that's got a little extra relevance, I'd maybe put that on the top of your list, and then if you have to cut something off, it might be a repeat. So, but use your time as you'd like. And, okay. Go ahead.
- Dr. Sarah Schear, American Academy of Pediatrics Utah Chapter1:31:25
Thank you chair and committee members. My name is Dr. Sarah Sheer. I'm a local pediatrician here to speak on behalf of the American Academy of Pediatrics Utah chapter in opposition to HB 88. This bill is a direct threat to the health and wellbeing of Utah's children and families by requiring verification of immigration status for all public assistance, including public health services, like a vaccination and communicable disease testing and treatment. This bill risks worsening our outbreaks of measles, whooping cough and flu in communities across the state that affect US citizens and undocumented people alike. Furthermore, um, denying undocumented mothers access to food assistance, specifically WIC risks, losing Utah Taxpayers a return on investment of about two to $3 for every dollar spent in postnatal health outcomes ending Utah's chip program would strip coverage from more than 1600 kids, replacing cost effective planned preventive services with costly uncompensated care in Utah's already strained emergency rooms and hospitals, pediatricians across the state care for children, uh, in our state every day. Um, one young man with cancer who I have the privilege of caring for, who loves elephant and piggy, uh, and praise to God every day for a cure from his cancer, will not be able to continue his treatment without Utah Chip, we urge you to vote no on HB 88 to protect all of Utah's kids and families. Thank you.
- Committee chair1:33:01
Thank you. Okay, go ahead.
- Chad Saunders, resident1:33:07
Yes, my name's Chad Saunders, resident of Toola County, representing myself. I'm here today to speak in favor of HB 88. Let me start by saying this, bill does not remove services from those who need them. Hospitals must treat all who come to them in both emergency and desperate situations. What this bill does is makes it where we, the people do not end up paying the bill through funding from our taxes. Let's not be naive. We will all end up helping pay to assist folks in need that fall in the, in the categories described, but we should have more control and say in how we assist. That is controlled through charitable donations, supportive private grants, and other forms of raising funds. I grew up in an agricultural community, and my sister was the unit manager for the local emergency and critical care unit. I've seen these funds used sensibly and responsibly, but I've also seen them abused in ways that are beyond description. It's not the poor immigrant family that sets out to do abuse these needed funds, but those who work in organized crime and in illegal trafficking that manipulate our services, sadly, I've seen more abuse than sensible use. I encourage all of you to support getting this bill out of committee and to the floor where I hope it will pass. Thank you.
- Committee chair1:34:19
Thank you. Mr. Saunders. Um, Representative Stoddard, did you want to ask that question?
- Rep. Andrew Stoddard1:34:28
No, it was, it's okay. It's okay.
- Committee chair1:34:30
Uh, I apologize I didn't see your light. If there's a lot going on, if you guys have a comment or wanna say something, uh, representatives, please make sure I know, because if I miss your light, I, I don't want you to miss out. Okay. Go ahead, please.
- Megan Neuf, Voices for Utah Children1:34:44
Good afternoon, committee. My name's Megan Nuf. I'm the Children's Health Policy Analyst at Voices for Utah Children, and I'm here today to voice our opposition to HB 88 at Voices. We start with a question, is it good for kids and work to ensure that Utah has a place where all children and in turn their families are welcome and safe? H-B-A-D-A is not only inhumane, but fiscally and legally irresponsible. I urge you to vote no. There are many things that we disagree with in this bill, but given time, I'm going to highlight just a few and we're happy to follow up with any additional clarifications. First is the removal of services that have traditionally been exempt from verification of legal status because they risk real harms to both individuals and the broader public. These include crisis services, which could bring things like domestic violence services, communicable disease testing and immunization, which keeps the broader public safe from disease spread and prevents costly emergency care later. And food assistance for programs like WIC and food pantries, which help to feed children who were born here. All of these could inadvertently impact Utah families who are US citizens, but fail, fail to carry identification or leave their homes for safety without many important documents. This is a story we've heard from many domestic violence survivors. Lastly, the removal, the introduction of criminal, criminal penalties for civil servants opens a state to immense liability and undue expense should the private citizen pursue legal action. Additionally, HB 88 opens a state to lawsuits due to federal preemption issues. A similar law passed in Idaho, as we've discussed last year, that was currently enjoined due to conflict with federal law. I joined with many organizations, um, across Utah who, um, oppose this bill. Thank you for your time.
- Committee chair1:36:21
Thank you. Okay, go ahead.
- Teena Horlacher, resident1:36:26
Hello, my name is Tina Horlocker. I'm from Davis County. I am a member of the SCC and Executive Committee of the DCRP and other organizations like Eagle Forum. This bill, HB 88, falls in line with the Supreme Court Chevron decision. This bill limits the ability of bureaucracies to arbitrarily make subjective decisions to benefit some specifically here, illegal immigrants at the cost or harm of others who are in real need. At the expense of our hard earned taxpayer dollars, we must be principally based in making laws and the principle being reestablished. Here is the rule of law. Lawlessness is a scary precedent. It is highly responsible to fi to feed a system through a program of legal plunder, namely welfare, all while removing the same people who are here illegally in a way that is divisive and violent. Remove these programs that were promised by a course of regime under the Biden administration, and these people remove themselves peacefully, and they are, and then they are free to reenter legally. The incentive is this bill, the incentives this bill promotes is the rule of law and the incentive for people to follow it. Please, when government provides, um, disincentives, charitable organizations step back in helping where they could please vote yes on HB 88.
- Patrick Fleming, Utah Behavioral Health Commission1:37:51
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yep. Members of the committee. Hey, afternoon, my name is Patrick Fleming. I'm the chair of the Policy Review Committee, uh, and also U Save, which is the Utah Substance Use Mental Health Advisory Council, part of the Utah Behavioral Health Commission, Utah's Behavioral Health Commission, um, legislature established, uh, you saved in 1985 to advise you on policy. Uh, we are in opposed to this bill. We met with the sponsor very early on and, uh, expressed our concerns about this. And I'll just speak about three things. The, the mental health and substance use population does not in many cases, have an id. They don't have that with them when they're in crisis. They don't have that. And so it's very difficult for us to verify the fact that they have, that they're a citizen. Um, we're concerned about liability of this place is on our provider organizations. If they have to provide services for an individual out in the street, assisting the police departments, getting these people into, um, the receiving centers into crisis services, this really could present a big problem for us. And we just want you to be aware of that. I was also asked by the Domestic Violence Coalition, Utah, to, uh, express to you they are also opposed to this bill. So I urge you to not pass this bill out. It needs a lot more work. Thank you.
- Committee chair1:39:14
Thank you, Mr. Fleming.
- Merrill Kunz, resident1:39:18
My name is Meryl Kunz. I'm representing myself as a taxpayer or citizen from Riverton, Utah. I wanna thank Trevor Lee for his willingness to, you know, get this bill going. Pretty unpopular in this age of socialism, I might say. But my point would be a couple things that the goal of that, that the proper role of government is to restrain crime and the word migrant's been used here, but I would use the word illegal, criminal, illegal alien, because they are. And that's what this bill is going after. And I believe that there's many things in Utah, including the driver privileged cards that makes us partially, if not completely a sanctuary state, and bringing people in that have no allegiance to this country, that don't understand the branches of government or the proper role of government, haven't taken any oaths to swear and uphold and defend Our laws shouldn't be welcome here. And they should certainly shouldn't be receiving money from those who pay taxes and giving it those who are receiving it, I mean, from the taxpayer to them. The second point I wanna make is this, that when you look at the crime waves, um, particularly up in Minnesota, and you have just vast amounts of people that have little regard for laws, I predict that we're gonna have these problems here in the near future if we don't help them get, encourage them to self deport by cutting their services. Thank you.
- Committee chair1:40:45
Thank you, Mr. C***s. Go ahead.
- Cooper Cordova, resident1:40:52
Good afternoon. My name is Cooper Cordova. I'm here representing myself. I just wanna briefly correct the record by saying that being here, uh, as an undocumented immigrant itself is not a crime. It is a civil events offense. 40% of undocumented people entered the country legally on a visa and then merely overstated it. And crime has been falling for the past five years, straight in Minnesota, including in Minneapolis. And if you wanna talk about compliance with the law, the Immigration and Nationality Act includes a clause for or where exempted by federal law.
- Committee chair1:41:24
Hey, sir, if you could be sure and direct your comments to me.
- Cooper Cordova, resident1:41:26
Sure, of course. Um, yeah, thank You. But, but if, if this bill passes, it could open the state up to an enormous amount of liability. As has been mentioned. Um, the opposition to the bill has largely been substantive on the basis of the risks that it would pose to public health on the risk that it would pose to exposing the state to liability. And I find it very interesting that the original rationale for the bill, which was stated as being to incentivize undocumented people to self deport, has not been mentioned once. It is a quote on the record that this bill would incentivize, um, undocumented immigrants to self deport the organization that was cited in defense of that policy. Not only exempted undocumented households with citizens from that citizen taxpayer contribution to understate their net contribution, but, um, also included a quote from the founder, which said, as whites see their power decline, will they simply go quietly into the night? Vote no on this bill.
- Committee chair1:42:23
Thank you for your comments, Mr. Cordova. Um, just a reminder, I know there could be some, some feelings and emotions. Direct your comments to me up here and not to any of the members of the committee and, uh, and be respectful in every way and, and, uh, and we appreciate your passion. Okay, thanks. Go ahead.
- John Taylor, resident1:42:43
Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee. Um, my name's John Taylor. I represent myself. If you've been to Yellowstone lately, there's a sign that says, don't feed the bears. We used to feed the bears in Yellowstone, and it attracted a lot of extra bears, and they became lethargic. They didn't, um, fend for themselves and it became a nuisance. Um, you would say the compassionate thing is to continue to feed the bears, but that's not the case in California. They believe in feeding the bears. I was there in San Francisco two weeks ago. They're passing out clean needles. They're giving food. They're giving substance. That's not compassion, that's control. This bill is, um, an attempt to create taxes as not a charity. Utah is a very charitable state, the most charitable in the, in the union. And these people are supported, but our taxes are treated as a forced charity. We need to be stewards of these tax dollars and, and guard the rule of law. We can't use our taxes as a forced charity. Um, I am in support of this, um, bill be for those reasons. Thanks.
- Committee chair1:43:48
Thank you very much Mr. Taylor. Okay. Uh, go ahead.
- Rev. Lora Young1:43:53
I'm the Reverend Laura Young, and I am here on behalf of face hunger and homelessness. Our laws and our policies and the policies that flow from them are moral documents. And I'm here on behalf of my colleagues. 35 of us have signed a letter to submit to you this afternoon to remind our elected leadership that every faith tradition requires its followers to make provisions for the poor and the stranger among us. The reason for this is not just because it is the quote unquote right thing to do, but because it is very hard work and requires deep, moral and philosophical reflection and a heart for compassion. And we need to be reminded of this as human beings, that we are humans first and identities second. And I find the identity of being undocumented to be poor justification for denying lifesaving and compassionate care to those who are in our midst, seeking only to make a better life for themselves and their children. I see the rest of my time. Thank you.
- Committee chair1:44:55
Thank you, Reverend Young. Okay. Um, we have our seventh Now. I'm gonna do, I'm going to, I'm gonna extend this to three more people on each side. Let me reset that for one minute. So we're gonna offer a little grace so we get more people to hear, but one minute for three more people. So decide who your three are. There's a table outside, you can arm wrestle or whatever we need to do. And, uh, and we'll have three more after our last and final of the seventh right here. So go ahead.
- Jayden Laursen, resident1:45:29
Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. I feel like we could all take a deep breath after this meeting, but, um, Jayden Lauson represent myself. I wanna apologize to the committee. I don't usually use something I rewrote, but because of this topic being so straight to some so many's hearts, I wanna make sure I don't state anything wrong and wanted to make sure I was correct. When my friend approached me with this bill, my immediate thought was, do we really need something like this in Utah? It must be a prevention bill. And surely it is that I was preparing for this to be a big bi controversial bill knowing my friend. But after reading it fully, I found much of it in fact made complete sense. I would be the first to raise my hand and support and stand up for those seeking safety and a better life. I would even like to commend my friend Trevor Lee, for the wonderful way he has worded with lines 1 38
- Unknown speaker1:46:26speaker not certain
through 1 40 0 4, 1 40, making sure that those people are able to receive benefits when they do need them. And I would really urge everyone to support it and reread it if they are, have any questions. And I can my rest of my time.
- Committee vice chair (presiding)1:46:42
Okay. Thank you. Uh, we have a question for you. Yes.
- Unknown speaker1:46:47speaker not certain
Uh, I'm looking at 1 38 to one 40, and at least on the one I'm looking at, I'm not seeing new language there. Do you have that language? You could read it for me.
- Unknown speaker1:46:57speaker not certain
Yes. So this one, this was the one that I received before all the amendments. So the lines are different now. Okay. Um, but the lines that I had are the ones of, sorry, let me get it. 1 31 stating, provide for Junction, uh, of unique individual circumstances where the verification procedures in this section would impose un unusual hardship on a legal resident in the state of Utah.
- Committee vice chair (presiding)1:47:25
Thank you. You bet. Okay, thank you. Okay. We are down to our final three on each side for one minute. And you hear the chime. You got 15 seconds left. When the next chime goes off, if you would conclude your comments and be concluded at that point. Thank you. Go ahead.
- Greydon Burgoyne, resident1:47:43
Hello, committee, vice chair. My name is Grayden Burgo and I'm here to speak in opposition of House Bill 88 as a student of Herriman High School. I'm speaking because this bill will directly affect my friends and peers and their families. While House Bill 88 is framed as an eligibility and verification measure. Its real world effects go far beyond paperwork. Requiring proof of lawful presence before accessing public services creates fear and hesitation that discourages people from speak, from seeking help. From a public health perspective, this is dangerous when individuals avoid vaccinations, communicable disease testing, or basic medical care due to fear of verification, the risk does not remain isolated. Illnesses spread, emergency room see higher demand and preventable health issues become more costly and harder to control. House Bill 88 also places survivors of domestic violence at risk. People fleeing abuse often leave without identification or legal documents. This bill also harms children, including many US citizen children. Many families are mixed status. And when parents are scared to interact with schools, clinics, or assistant programs, kids lose access to food security, healthcare and stability. Thank you.
- Committee vice chair (presiding)1:48:44
Thank you, Mr. Wego. Okay,
- Ron Naves, resident1:48:49
Go ahead. Good evening, Mr. Chair. My name is Ron Navs. I'm an attorney and I also worked in law enforcement for 23 years as a part-time police officer and deputy sheriff, uh, deputy sheriff in, uh, in two states. I'm here in support of this bill. Uh, I wanted to come back to a couple of points that, uh, were made earlier by Representative Stoddard. He said that, uh, illegal aliens pay approximately $231 million in, um, taxes in the state. And if that's true, the, the cost here is about $931 million annually for the State of Utah, uh, to provide services for illegal aliens. That means that every household in Utah is facing about a $900 hit to sustain and support illegal immigration in Utah. Uh, I want this bill, um, is important because it encourages, um, legal immigration and discourages illegal immigration. And I wanted to point out that five members of my family have come here to the United States from other countries legally, and it is possible to do that. Thank you very much. Thank
- Committee vice chair (presiding)1:49:58
you. Okay, go ahead,
- Herbert Ley, resident1:50:03
Mr. Vice chair, members of the committee. My name is Dr. Herbert. Lay compassion may stop at the do of I responsible on rear responsibility, but infectious diseases do not. I'm not a medical doctor. I'm a scientist who came to Utah 33 years ago to earn a PhD in biochemistry at the u. My research focused on hepatitis Delta and how it exploits the systems, the defense mechanisms in our body to replicate and spread to others. I, uh, want to, in the interest of brevity, focus on the deletions at line 60 through 62 of the third sub, and I'll give you a second to find those. But basically what is being deleted here are standard provisions of basic public health assistance in the form of immunization, et cetera. Respectfully, I believe that not providing vaccinations, infectious disease, testing or medical care to any fellow humans is not only shortsighted ill-informed it's irresponsible and actually presents a public health risk to all utahns. Thank you.
- Committee vice chair (presiding)1:51:09
Thank you. Dr. Lay. Hey, could I ask you a quick question? Yes. Um, um, when someone comes to the border legally, would they have a medical exam of some kind or would they check immunizations or do you know that process at all?
- Herbert Ley, resident1:51:27
I believe people need to arrive with vaccinations, but I am not a medical doctor and I don't work for immigrations and customs.
- Committee vice chair (presiding)1:51:36
Okay. So, and, and someone coming in illegally certainly would not have any kind of a check
- Herbert Ley, resident1:51:42
That you cannot assume, sir, I'm afraid it is
- Committee vice chair (presiding)1:51:44
Impossible. Well, there would be no check correct. At our board.
- Herbert Ley, resident1:51:47
That's my Understanding, I'm guessing. Okay.
- Committee vice chair (presiding)1:51:49
Sounds good. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Uh, go ahead,
- Riley Beesley, Utah Federation of College Republicans1:51:54
Honor roll chair. I think I wanna thank you all for having me here. I'm the, my name is Riley Beza. I'm the Vice Chairman of the Utah Federation of College Republicans. On behalf of young people across the state, I have to ask, do we want to be prioritizing young Utahans or do we wanna make it easier to, uh, enable and allow for individuals to reside here illegally? Um, we, we, we must follow the administration for our laws. We have immigration laws in this country. If you want to be here illegally, it shouldn't be a burden to the Utah taxpayer. It shouldn't be a burden to individuals like myself who, who do pay taxes here. Um, we, we have to value and, and honor a rule law because if we don't, then we don't have much of a society. We don't have much of a country. And on behalf of young Utahans across this country, I urge you all to support HB 88. Thank you.
- Committee vice chair (presiding)1:52:49
Thank you. Okay. This will be our final, uh, witness a a against the bill. Go ahead.
- Emmie Gardner, Holy Cross Ministries1:52:59
Good evening, everyone. My name is Emmy Gardner. I'm the Chief Executive Officer for Holy Cross Ministries. We are a faith-based nonprofit that has been in the, in the state for 30 years. We serve over 4,700 clients a year. More than 85% of those clients are survivors of domestic violence, of sexual assault, or of trafficking. I, we oppose this bill because so many of the resources that are being asked to be removed are the pathways that allow us to help these clients on their healing journey from the moment they leave that perpetrator and go into shelter until the point that they are able to establish themselves in transitional housing, get Medicaid coverage for their children, help them establish and, and come to a path for self-sufficiency. We believe in, as you know, from Boulder way forward, and Dr. Susan Matson's work. You know, they're, the stats in Utah are bad when it comes to women being abused. And this bill will do everything possible to fight the efforts that we are doing to empower survivors. So I ask you to vote against that Bill. Thank you. Thank
- Committee vice chair (presiding)1:54:04
You, Ms. Gardner. Okay. Our final witness, and we do have, uh, a number online. We're gonna take four of them. Go ahead.
- Kelsey Hamilton, Turning Point Action1:54:15
My name is Kelsey Hamilton and I represent Turning Point Action. So in 2024, my cousin had her life taken from her by an illegal immigrant. Now, this is the main reason among many that I am in favor of this bill. I do not think that we should be financially incentivizing illegals to be entering into our great state of Utah. Thank you.
- Committee vice chair (presiding)1:54:47
Thank you very much. Okay, we'll go online now. Paul Dayton. Paul Dayton. If you would turn on your camera and microphone. There you go.
- Paul Dayton, resident1:54:58
Can you hear me okay? Yes, we can. Okay. Thanks for the opportunity to speak here to the committee. Every law, rule or regulation that government creates, um, places a burden on someone. When that burden falls on children, we should think very carefully before imposing it. Feeding a child is never the wrong thing to do. Providing healthcare is never the wrong thing to do. I'm the son of an American citizen and an immigrant who came to this country without documentation. My mother, the American citizen at times, received public assistance. I graduated at the top of my class at Payson High School. I earned a full tuition scholarship to the University of Utah. I've paid more. I've been paying income property and sales tax continuously since 2004. I've paid more to the state than I've ever received. What would a bill like this meant for someone like me? We're the wealthiest nation on earth, and this is one of the wealthiest states in that nation. And we're debating whether to deny children food and medical care. I don't know how we square who we say we are. The most moral thing a society can do is make sure that the least among us are nourished and cared for. This bill is not moral. I urge you to vote. No. Thank you.
- Committee vice chair (presiding)1:56:05
Thank you, Mr. Dayton. Okay, we will next go to Jessica Millard. Jessica Millard. And sir, if I could have you find a seat on the audience. We're done with public comments. Good comment. Thank you. Okay. Uh, Jessica, go ahead.
- Jessica Miller, Community Action Services and Food Bank1:56:26
Hi. Thank you so much for the opportunity to speak to you today. And real
- Committee vice chair (presiding)1:56:29
Quick, I'm giving you guys online all a minute and a half, so, oh,
- Jessica Miller, Community Action Services and Food Bank1:56:34
Okay. Thank you very much. Yeah. Um, my name is Jessica Millard. I'm the Chief Impact Officer at Community Action Services and Food Bank. And I am, uh, speaking today in opposition of House Bill 88. Um, a lot has been said about, um, food pantries being able to use private donations to serve, uh, undocumented populations. And I just wanna let you know that, um, as was mentioned earlier, that the vast majority of the assistance that we receive financially is coming from or through the federal or state government. And so while we would appreciate continued and, and growing community support right now, that is not, um, you know, the landscape financially that we're looking at. And so this bill will definitely, uh, limit, uh, our ability to provide, um, food assistance to, to, um, both those who are, um, undocumented as well as to the broader population, as we will have to, um, provide a additional, get additional staff to comply with this. Bill.
- Committee vice chair (presiding)1:57:42
Thank you very Much. Thank you very much. Yeah. Thank you. Jolene. Jessica, Jolene, Grover Grove Berg.
- Joleen Groberg, Box Elder Community Pantry1:58:02
Hi, my name is Jolene Grover. I'm with the Box Elder Community Pantry. Thank you all so much for letting me speak today. I want to let you know that this bill will impact our little pantry so much. Um, we serve all of Box Elder County. We are a rural community. We are a farming community. Um, annually, this would cost our little pantry $20,000 or more to check every single person that walks through that door to serve. This would eliminate so many people because there's homeless people, there are people that just getting out of prison, getting out of jail. There are families that are living paycheck, paycheck to paycheck that they are either going to buy birth certificates and IDs, or they have to choose between paying the gas and lights and buying food for their families. Um, so I just want to really let you know that I oppose this and I hope you all do as well. Thank you so much for letting me speak.
- Committee vice chair (presiding)1:59:26
Thank you. Okay. Our last one. Do you have any questions? I'd be willing. Um, nope, we're good. Thank you. Our final online will be in, and by the way, we didn't filter these for who's for and against, and so far we've had three against. So, uh, that just kind of is the luck of the draw. Sorry. Yvette Coronado. Yvette Coronado will be our last
- Yvette Romero Coronado, resident1:59:57
Thank you. Tribute. My name is Yvette Romero Coronado, and I'm a long time resident of West Valley City who works in this community as a social worker, mental health professional, and as a professor at a local university, I wanna ask, what problem is this? Bill solving policy should be about improving people's lives. And this policy does the opposite. It prevents people in crisis from accessing critical services such as shelter, lifesaving, and sustaining medical care and food. People will die, and I am not speaking in hypotheticals. This will happen the next time I'm working with an undocumented client experiencing a suicidal ideation. Where will they go for lifesaving care? Where should I, as a mandated reporter, refer them the next time I'm working with an undocumented child who's been subjected to sexual abuse? Where will they go for code R? No one should have to choose between suffering and dying in this way. What do you say to them, the people in those predicaments? And I feel wrong for making this about mandated reporters for a second, but what does that mean for those of us who are, so I ask again, what problem is this? Policy solving undocumented individuals already do not have access to the same services that you and I do. And in the critical moments where they need life-saving care, food, and shelter, I as a taxpayer want my tax dollars to be used to take care of my neighbors. I urge you to vote against this bill and to consider policies that elevate the quality of life in our communities rather than, uh, those that cause irreparable harm. Thank you.
- Committee vice chair (presiding)2:01:26
Okay. Um, thank you Ms. Coronado. Okay. In, in the, the spirit of being fair. If you are in favor of this bill and you're online, we'll take a couple of those comments. Sorry. Um, Maryanne Christensen, we'll go ahead and have you be a speaker. So we had four against, and we'll take a couple four. Maryanne, you need to accept, uh, there you go. Okay. We'll get her online. We got you.
- Maryann Christensen, Utah Legislative Watch2:02:24
Uh, my video's not staying on. I'm clicking it and it's going right off.
- Committee vice chair (presiding)2:02:34
There you go. Looks like it's on now. Okay. Uh, a minute and a half, Marianne.
- Maryann Christensen, Utah Legislative Watch2:02:38
Okay. Thank you so much for letting me speak in favor of the bill. For about the last 10 years, there's been a huge debate. Some people on one side saying we're not a sanctuary state, and other people saying, yeah, we are a sanctuary state. And I think that when, um, Representative Lee opened up this bill and we got to look at the code, it became pretty obvious that yes, Utah has been a sanctuary state with all of these possi with all these policies where we don't bother to verify anyone's, um, ID, we don't check for citizenship or residency even. And, um, the problem with being a sanctuary state is that it bleeds into a lot more than just food pantries and whatever. Um, if we don't have short memories, we'll, remember that just last session. You legislators were scrambling to find emergency funds for schools that were being overwhelmed by undocumented children coming to the schools. So it's not just a problem of being charitable, it's a problem of being overwhelmed by people who come to take advantage of our charity here. So I think this is a good move and I urge you to vote yes for the bill. Thank you.
- Committee vice chair (presiding)2:04:00
Thank you, Maryanne. Um, Marilyn, is it Mom? Momani? All right. If you're in favor of this bill, uh, go ahead and, and accept being a panelist. Is there hand still up? She's On. Turn your video on. There you go. Okay. Okay. A minute and a half. Go ahead.
- Marilyn Momeny, resident2:04:31
Thank you. I'm Marilyn Momani. I live in American Fork and I speak in favor of House Bill 88. I'm a citizen representing myself. I think most of us know that if we wanna get people to attend something, we provide free food. And what we have done for many of the illegal immigrants is provide a wide range of services from in-state tuition to medical care, to food. I would encourage a lot of the people in the that represent many of these organizations to spend a little bit more time to go to the charitable, uh, process. There are many, many people Utah's a very charitable state, and rather than depending on the taxpayers, which is a forced, uh, withdrawal of funds from those of us who work and pay taxes and allow us to give funds appropriately. But also to say to these people, you must follow the laws of the United States and of the state of Utah in order to receive services. That's, it's called tough love. And we need to have a little bit of tough love and ensure that we are following the laws in the state of Utah. I urge you to vote no or to vote yes on passing Senate. Yeah. Switch on us like that House Bill 88. Sorry. I'm in too many committees
- Committee vice chair (presiding)2:06:12
Today. Alright, thank you very much. Okay. Well, hopefully, uh, you feel we've been fair in all that comment and we'll invite the bill sponsor back up and we'll bring it back to the committee for any further, uh, questions, comments, or potential action. No one is illegal on stolen land. Thank you, sir. Outta your house. All right. Yep. Everybody, we've, we rules of decorum, please. No comments. Okay. Uh, Representative Stoddard.
- Rep. Andrew Stoddard2:06:57
Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. Um, I would like to make a motion to hold, and if I could speak to that,
- Committee vice chair (presiding)2:07:03
You may.
- Rep. Andrew Stoddard2:07:04
Um, we've had a substitute come out in the middle of committee. We had the substitute that the sponsor spoke to come out within the last hour of floor time. Uh, there's some pretty substantial policy changes within those that I think will greatly affect the fiscal note. Um, as I mentioned in my comments, I think there's some real financial concerns about this bill, uh, not just in terms of the private right of action. Um, one of the changes that one, one of the subs does is it takes away the state's, uh, indemnity of that, where they will cover the costs of our local political subdivisions. And that will be shifted onto our counties, onto our cities. So, uh, I would like to know some input from them. What is this going to cost them to have to indemnify and pay for their employees who may be accused of violations? What is it going to cost them to pay for damages potentially under this bill? Um, I also would like to know more of the numbers and stats because I, I, I think there's some issues with some of the data that was provided that it's not quite accurate. Um, I know under our state chip provisions that we have a number of children who were born in the United States to undocumented parents who are legal citizens. In order to qualify for that, the parents have to pay into the tax system. So they are paying for the taxes and receiving those benefits. I, I just don't think we have enough data to differentiate what actually is being taken by undocumented immigrants versus documented, or children of undocumented immigrants who are US citizens. Um, and, and another concern I have on this related to the costs is, uh, it was brought up multiple times that when these people aren't able to access normal care and receive the benefits that we have in place, it's gonna be shifted to the emergency room. I deal with insurance every day in my normal job, and I know what that does when it goes to the emergency room and everyone is shifted to the emergency room because we're kicking them off insurance, we're going to be paying more as taxpayers for our health insurance rates are gonna go up, deductibles are going to go up. So while we're paying for these things now through taxpayer dollars, it's going to cost us more in the long run. One, because we're going to have to defend a lawsuit to the state. We're going to have to pay more in our property taxes, anyone who has an employee that they're going to have to pay their legal costs due to the private right of action in here, and also to the insurance costs. And I just think we don't have the information to put this bill forward to the floor. Our committees are for vetting and what we've been presented with is three substitutes here, zero with a fiscal note, and just a whole lot of incomplete information and data. And so I would ask that you support me in holding this bill.
- Committee vice chair (presiding)2:09:59
Okay. That motion is in order. Would anyone like to, any comments from the committee members? Let's see. Do you go to the committee or back to the committee? Go to the committee First representative, is that Ballard or White? Ballard?
- Rep. Melissa G. Ballard2:10:13
Yes. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. I, I have to say, I really appreciate everybody coming out because there are so many things that I'm, I'm hearing from both sides that are absolutely real of what we're, what we're dealing with. Um, I'm in support of this motion and I wanna explain why. Um, first and foremost, to those who really like this policy, I have to say I totally agree with a lot of what you've said because this committee right here has put a lot of emphasis on, uh, human trafficking, drug trafficking, um, child trafficking, and the crimes associated, whether they're legal or not, the felony aspect of, of what is coming through our state as us being the crossroads is really significant. And we have made a deliberate effort, um, to really tell those who are breaking our laws that we don't want you here in Utah. Um, so I think that's really important. I think it's important that we should be law abiding citizens. Again, to the point of those who support this. Um, I, I, I know that our, the new Colossus that's on the Statue of Liberty embraces people to come, embraces for, for, um, the tired, the poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. And so it also puts me into some of the challenge that I I see with this bill, um, that, uh, it affects the kids greatly. Um, it affects the, the shelters. Um, and I think to untangle the money from the state even, that we have the opportunity on our tax, uh, forms to donate to the, the food banks. I think to unentangle that is very complicated. And I think to just to assume that it would be very simple in this bill, um, I think is onerous, uh, the way that it's written. Um, I also feel like there's something that, uh, and also the ER visits, I, I know with my work with behavioral health across the state, that is a much bigger cost. But there's something that hasn't been addressed, um, in this bill for very, I, I heard it in the presentation, but not, um, in most of the comments. And that is the ability of any private citizen to sue our agency directors. Like, how are we ever going to hire an agency director that's qualified and very capable to oversee a very large government agency if they know upfront you could be sued and we're not gonna have your back on anything that is, um, irresponsible. I feel like as a, as a legislator who's overseeing government agencies to put that on, on individual directors, um, I just don't, I don't see how that will help us as we right now want the very best to be efficient, transparent, innovative with what we do in government. So I, I think, uh, again, I, I appreciate some of the details even that, you know, should we be giving scholarships to those on higher ed, you know, who are here illegally? I had actually a constituent mention that to me and in very specific terms, um, of what is happening in our higher ed institutions. And so I think there's a lot of elements of this bill that are very valid, but I just think that the details of this are, are not, not there. I don't think taking it to the house floor, um, when there's this many details that have to be worked out or untangled. Um, but I, I applaud the efforts because I love America. I, I, I love people who are, um, self-sufficient and who are contributing citizens. And I want those who want to come to our country to come here legally. But we in Utah are not responsible for immigration laws. We are not responsible for border laws. We get the consequence of federal legislation or lack thereof. And so I think we can tackle each of these, um, even individually. I just think the way that this is puts our government directors of our agencies, our kids, um, our food banks and our shelters at a at a, uh, the, the language just makes it very complicated. And I think, um, I, I want this to be addressed more thoroughly instead of, um, in the way that it's worded here.
- Committee vice chair (presiding)2:15:08
Okay. Thank you. Um, to the bill sponsor.
- Rep. Trevor Lee2:15:12
Yeah, no, thank you for that discussion. So a couple of points, um, to that Mr. Vice chair, uh, this, the private right of action is if you have been harmed by an employee, I, I, I'm not saying the state is immune from this, this is the actual employee if they're gonna have issues. This happens to police officers all the time in their work of, uh, uh, in their line of work that they have. And the problem that we have here is, I don't think the government, if you just work for it, you should be immune. If you purposely do something that's gonna harm an individual, I think that is wrong, that you should be exempt from that. And this is also, if you knowingly do it too, and the damages have been proven, but you did harm that individual, I don't think you should get a free pass for that. The private right of action is only gonna come into play here. If that has been the case, if you have someone who has willfully broken the law, then that is where this would come into play on this bill. And so I, I think that is something that's gonna help create, uh, these agencies to make sure that they feel like, I don't wanna break the law. It's not that you can't hire top personnel and personality top personnel to, to run these departments. It's that they shouldn't break the law. Like any of us can't break the law with everything that we do in our lives. And so, uh, that is where I would, I would say that I'm against holding this bill. Uh, we have taken out, originally the, the government wasn't gonna be immune from this, but now they are immune from it. The state itself is immune from this, uh, from the private right of action on it. And so, uh, also as it pertains to the money on, on this bill, uh, er visits are happening all the time. You talk to any doctor, any nurse you talk to, anyone who works for the hospitals, they're already overrun and overcrowded. It's a problem. This bill is to act as a deterrent to stop people who are coming here illegally that are flooding the ERs already, and that they need to stop doing that. That they need to go back home and follow the laws. 'cause we're already paying for that right now out of our own pockets. And so, uh, what I would say to that is, and is if we're concerned about the chip stuff, which is the, the 1600 roughly kids, um, if you're a legal, if you're a legal, uh, resident and you're a child, you still get coverage. This does not apply to you if you're a legal citizen. This is only illegal immigrants. And what it's done is this act as an anchor to coming to our state where people know that in the state of Utah, they will offer free benefits to their kids if they come here legally. I know plenty of Utah families who are struggling to make ends meet and they don't get a dime of that taxpayer money, but they're paying into the system with everything that they have. And so I wanna make sure that this is an equal and this is a fair policy and I believe it strikes that balance very well. And so, uh, that's why I would, uh, oppose that, that motion to hold the bill.
- Committee vice chair (presiding)2:17:46
Thank you, um, to the motion, the maker of the motion to hold.
- Rep. Andrew Stoddard2:17:51
Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. Um, I wanna push back a little bit on what was said. Um, looking at, so I'm looking right now at sub three because that's what the sponsor said he was speaking to, which is another issue, which why I think we should hold it, is, like I said, there's three subs here and we know very little about the changes or the economic impacts from the fiscal note, but I'm looking at lines 1 79 to 180 2, which specifically dictates when this is a crime. So an employee of a state agency or political subdivision. So either with willful or reckless disregard. So I know this committee is a law enforcement. We deal a lot with Mens Reyes. The elements of a crime in terms of statute, so this doesn't even have to be something intentional, willful would be reckless, obviously not, uh, fails to verify or fails to maintain a record is a class B misdemeanor. And we can dispute the level of crime, whether that's what it is. But this is not someone who all the time is intentionally committing a crime and it makes it a class B misdemeanor. You know, what else is a class B misdemeanor? If I go to the seven 11 and still a candy bar, class B misdemeanor. But the difference is if I steal a candy bar from a seven 11, not every taxpayer in the state of Utah can sue me. If this goes through and someone is convicted of a class B misdemeanor, every taxpayer in the state under this law is written, sue them. We will ruin people's lives based potentially on a mistake for failing to maintain a record. And is that what we want to do as a state? I think we should hold this. There's a lot of policy changes in here. I think we need to know the full impact. And so I'd ask for your support on the motion.
- Committee vice chair (presiding)2:19:31
Thank you, Representative Stoddard. Okay, so the motion before us is to hold the bill and we will go to a voice vote. And, um, so all in favor of holding the bill, say aye. Aye. Aye. Raise your hands please. Okay, so we have three Representative Ballard, Representative Stoddard, and Representative Hollins. All in favor of not holding the bill. That's the right term. Say aye. Uh, or opposed to holding the bill. Yes. Say aye. Aye. Aye. Okay. Raise your hands please. Representative Hall Wilcox. Um, shepherd. Gwen. Gwen. Okay. Lee And strong. 7, 7 3. So that, that, uh, motion fails. Seven to three. Okay. So now we are back to the committee for further discussion or action. Representative Shepherd.
- Rep. Lisa Shepherd2:20:28
Thank you Mr. Chair. I move to Favorly recommend House bill 88. Third substitute to the floor
- Committee vice chair (presiding)2:20:35
When you adopt the sub. First
- Rep. Lisa Shepherd2:20:37
I move to adopt, adopt The sub. Okay, great. Thanks.
- Committee vice chair (presiding)2:20:40
The site, the third sub right? Third sub, right. Okay. That motion's in order. Um, uh, would you like to speak to that?
- Rep. Lisa Shepherd2:20:48
No, I'll Waive. Okay.
- Committee vice chair (presiding)2:20:50
To the maker or to the just Bill sponsor? Yes.
- Rep. Trevor Lee2:20:54
No, uh, no. Thank you. Uh, I think this sub is clarifying some of the concerns, uh, that the representative had over there from Salt Lake County. Um, and before it was much, it was, it was a much bigger deal when the state didn't have immunity anymore on this bill. And sub three does take that out. So now it's on an individual who is willfully and recklessly doing something they know is wrong. And so that is where I, I I like that substitute on this bill. It clarifies that.
- Committee vice chair (presiding)2:21:24
Okay. Thank you. Back to the maker of the motion.
- Rep. Lisa Shepherd2:21:26
Thank you. I Oh, waive.
- Committee vice chair (presiding)2:21:28
You waive. Okay, great. So, uh, oh, to comment. Okay. Sorry. Representative Ballard?
- Rep. Melissa G. Ballard2:21:36
Yes. I make a motion for a substitute motion for substitute five that at least holds the children, uh, harmless.
- Committee vice chair (presiding)2:21:47
Okay. Uh, that motion's in order. Would you like to speak to that?
- Rep. Melissa G. Ballard2:21:51
Uh, actually substitute four, excuse me. I don't, I'm not sure it's in your five though. I know four at least is exactly the same. Substitute five is what changed the Sunset back to two years for chip children. That's what substitute five does Now four does. I don't know what else is in five. Maybe staff can clarify.
- Unknown speaker (staff)2:22:12speaker not certain
Go ahead. Yeah, I was told that substitute five is a combination of sub four and sub three. So what is in sub three and sub four is now in sub five together.
- Committee vice chair (presiding)2:22:26
Okay. Okay.
- Rep. Melissa G. Ballard2:22:27
So We, I would need to adopt sub three then sub five?
- Unknown speaker2:22:31speaker not certain
No, I think you just do one or the other.
- Rep. Melissa G. Ballard2:22:33
Is it sub four? Okay. Okay. I will make a mo a substitute motion to adopt substitute five. Um, in that it holds the children harmless with the, with not getting their chip this summer for two years. Yeah.
- Committee vice chair (presiding)2:22:48
Okay. Uh, Representative Lee?
- Rep. Trevor Lee2:22:52
Yeah, I'm, I'm okay with that motion. If we want to take that back and we have this discussion just for the chip authorization for illegal immigrant kids, uh, we were gonna have to have this discussion again at some point in 2028 eventually. And so I'm okay if we wanted to push that specific part of this bill back to 2028.
- Committee vice chair (presiding)2:23:09
Okay. Back to the maker of the motion
- Rep. Melissa G. Ballard2:23:11
Waive. Thank
- Committee vice chair (presiding)2:23:12
you. Uh, okay. We have before us the substitute motion or the, the alternative motion to accept or to, um, approve the fifth substitute. Okay. Uh, we'll do a voice vote on that. I'll in favor say aye. Aye. Aye. Okay. Any opposed? Seeing none. That passes unanimously. So that passes, which means we are back to the committee for further action. Representative Shepherd.
- Rep. Lisa Shepherd2:23:53
Thank you. I move that we favorably recommend House Bill 88, substitute five to the floor.
- Committee vice chair (presiding)2:24:00
That motion is in order. Um, uh, is there, okay, we'll, uh, like to speak to that? Yeah, well, you know, would you like to speak to that Representative Shepherd? Ooh,
- Rep. Lisa Shepherd2:24:14
There's lots of things I'd like to say, but, um, no, I'm gonna waive you
- Committee vice chair (presiding)2:24:19
Waive. Okay. We have time Representative Stoddard to the motion to send favorably to the floor substitute five.
- Rep. Andrew Stoddard2:24:29
Thank you. I'm sure everyone is surprised that I wanted to speak on this again. Um, I think this bill is fiscally irresponsible and outside of that, I think this bill is cruel. The language in it is such that it casts such a wide net. You heard from people who deal with those in mental health crises, those suffering from domestic violence, those are the people that are going to get cast into this large net at the so-called expense of taxpayers. But that's why we have government is to help those people. If it costs us $900 a year to help those people in need.
- Committee vice chair (presiding)2:25:06
Excuse me, please, no comments from the audience. So you'll be removed. Thank you. If
- Rep. Andrew Stoddard2:25:12
It costs us $900 a year to help the people most in need, then we should absolutely do it. This bill does not fix the problem of taxpayer dollars. I can guarantee that if this bill is passed and is put in place, we will be paying more for tax dollars. We'll be paying more for our health insurance premiums and our communities will be poor if we lose our immigrant population. I ask you to not support this bill. Thank you.
- Committee vice chair (presiding)2:25:42
Thank you, Representative Stoddard. Okay, back to the bill sponsor.
- Rep. Trevor Lee2:25:46
No, thank you. Vice chair. Uh, couple things here. Uh, Citizenship in this country means something and it matters to Americans that they specifically agree with me on this issue. Uh, fundamentally, Gallup just ran a poll, uh, this last year and it ranked immigration as the most important issue facing the country today. And one of the reasons why I believe that is, is because we have a problem. And it was verified multiple times today in committee about all these charitable organizations taking our taxpayer money and giving them to non-citizens. Now, that is not charity anymore if you're forced to do it. And I think that is wrong. And I would also argue that all of these services, if people want to provide them, still can, they can choose to do so. I'm not stopping any organization from saying, you can go and feed the homeless. You can go feed the hunger, you can go feed the illegal immigrant, you can feed whoever you want. You can sell all your money to Africa for all I care. But taxpayer money is designed for the American citizen, and it's our fiscal and moral responsibility to make sure that we are good stewards of that money. It is really hard to look Utah families that are struggling in the eye and tell them that I'm giving their money to someone who just broke the law and came here. That is, that is a tough conversation to have and that is not something that makes them very happy. Now, once again, if someone wants to give to anyone, they are more than welcome to. You're more welcome to give $900 out of your own pocket every single month to someone. If you want her every year, that is your choice. And so I will say this last thing as well. America is not rich. We are very much so in debt, almost $40 trillion now because of our fiscal irresponsibility in all these entitlement spending programs. My children, and you heard from some of these young, uh, uh, young men and young women who came up and spoke today are gonna have to pay for this at some point. We cannot keep feeding everyone in the world. We do not have the funds to do so. This bill is the, is the responsible response to saying, we need to make sure that we take care of those who are citizens first with this money. And after that, if we have it, then we can look at helping others around the world. We, there is no other country that I'm aware of that allows you to go in there and then they're gonna start giving you benefits. In fact, if you wanna become a citizen in most countries, you, you are waiving your rights to have benefits. That is a common thing that we see. So, uh, I, I would ask the committee to favorably pass this bill out and, and give, give the floor a, a chance to vote and, and speak on this bill. Thank you.
- Committee vice chair (presiding)2:28:21
Thank you, Representative Lee. Okay, back to the maker of the motion.
- Rep. Lisa Shepherd2:28:25
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanna say federal government Congress, can you please fix legal immigration? We have these problems in our states because the federal government has not fixed it. And so with that, I ask for your support on this.
- Committee vice chair (presiding)2:28:40
Okay, thank you. Okay, so we have before us, uh, HB 88 fifth sub to be favorably moved out to the floor. All we'll do a voice vote. All in favor, uh, say aye. Aye. Aye. Any opposed? No, no. Raise your hand if you're in opposition. So we have Representative Stoddard, Hollands, and Ballard. Okay. So that passes out seven to three. Okay. Thank you. And thank you for your patience public. It's a large discussion.
- Feb 23, 2026 House floor debate (day 34)▶ Watch
Transcript (74 turns)
- Speaker (presiding)1:55:45
Fifth, substitute house bill 88 Public assistance amendments by Representative Lee. This bill will turn in law enforcement and criminal justice with the vote of 7 3 1. Representative Lee.
- Rep. Trevor Lee1:55:57
Thank you Mr. Speaker. Uh, motion to adopt this sixth substitute.
- Speaker (presiding)1:56:02
That motion is in order. Would you like to speak to him?
- Rep. Trevor Lee1:56:04
Yes, I would. Uh, this motion will do a couple of difference. Uh, well, it's gonna do something different, but what it does is it get rid gets rid of the private right of action that we had in the original part of the bill. It also takes down an employee who willfully commits fraud from a misdemeanor B to a fraction. Uh, the other thing that it will do is add in on the exemption list Mental health care crisis services, uh, to the list of exempt to the list of exemptions.
- Speaker (presiding)1:56:35
Thank you. Representative Lee Dis, uh, discussion to the motion to adopt six. Substitute none will go ahead and place the motion. The motion be forced. The house adopts six. Substitute under Representative Lee's name. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? No. That motion passes. The bill's been substituted before the body for further or for its consideration.
- Rep. Trevor Lee1:57:09
Thank, thank you Mr. Speaker. Colleagues, this is just a simple cleanup bill with some technical changes. Uh, And no, what this is going to clarify is in the state of Utah, the taxpayer money that we are responsible for, uh, is something that we shouldn't take lightly. Uh, we have very limited funds every session. We have many different groups who come to us asking for these funds, and we are tasked to be good safeguards of those funds. We've also had a problem in the most recent future of people trying to take money that they give to others and make the government in charge and responsible for those funds. And what we've done is we've diminished the amounts that charities have and have put that responsibility on the government to take care of those who are most in need. Uh, as, as someone who's conservative, I don't believe that that is, uh, the, the proper role of government. That charity should still be the ones to take care of the most vulnerable of our society. And specifically the funds that we have for taxpayers should go to citizens to those who are in need and who need it most. And that we are good stewards of those funds. And so what this bill does is if you are a taxpayer citizen who is a legal resident of the United States, you are eligible to receive those funds. And if you are not, you cannot receive those benefits. The other part to this bill is there still are exceptions that are on the federal mandates such as emergencies, uh, public safety. We added the healthcare crisis, uh, prevention crisis in there. Also short term relief in case there's a natural disaster of any sort. Uh, this bill does not apply to those who are under the age of 18. Okay, so I just wanna clarify that those who are under the age of 18, this bill does not apply to. And with that, Mr. Speaker, I will end my presentation.
- Speaker (presiding)1:59:06
Thank you Representative Lee. Let's go to, uh, discussion. Um, wow. Let's go to Representative Clancy.
- Rep. Clancy1:59:16
Thank you Mr. Speaker. Motion to amend.
- Speaker (presiding)1:59:19
Thank you Representative Clancy. That motion is in order. Would you like to speak to that? Would you like to which?
- Rep. Clancy1:59:25
Yes, sir. You Have Mr. Have an amendment that we're adopting? Mr. I'd like to move that we adopt Amendment two in my name.
- Speaker (presiding)1:59:31
There we go. That motion is in order. Would you like to speak to it?
- Rep. Clancy1:59:34
Yes. Mr. Speaker, this clarifies what the sponsor shared in his presentation that this doesn't impact, uh, children. So the amendment two would include Child nutrition services, uh, to make sure that you know, children who you know wouldn't be here of their, of their own choice or other, uh, pieces. Uh, don't get caught, uh, in this, uh, uh, challenge here.
- Speaker (presiding)2:00:03
Thank you, Representative Clancy. Representative Lee on the motion to adopt amendment number two under Representative Clancy's name.
- Rep. Trevor Lee2:00:09
Yes, that is a friendly emotion, uh, motion and, uh, does I believe strengthen what we are trying to do with this bill.
- Speaker (presiding)2:00:16
Thank you Representative Lee. Uh, we're gonna go to discussion on the motion to amend if your light is on. It is to speak to the motion to amend none. Back to Representative Clancy on the motion to adopt amendment number two.
- Rep. Clancy2:00:32
I'll waive. Thank you. Mr. Speaker
- Speaker (presiding)2:00:33
Summation has been waived. Uh, we're gonna place the motion. The motion before is the house adopt amendment number two under Representative Clancy's name. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Will that motion passes? The bills have been amended before the body for further, uh, discussion and debate, let's go to Representative Snider.
- Rep. Casey Snider2:00:58
Thank you Mr. Speaker. Motion to amend.
- Speaker (presiding)2:01:07
Thank you Representative Snider. That motion is in order. Would you like to speak to it?
- Rep. Casey Snider2:01:11
Yes. I'd like to move amendment one in my name, which clarifies, uh, the domestic violence services are available to all individuals regardless of status.
- Speaker (presiding)2:01:22
Thank you, Representative Snider. Uh, Representative Lee on the motion to adopt amendment number one under Representative Snyder's name.
- Rep. Trevor Lee2:01:30
Thank you Mr. Speaker. Yes. This is also a friendly amendment and I think it's, uh, something that once again still keeps the integrity of the bill of what we're trying to do, but also protects the most vulnerable in our society, regardless of their status.
- Speaker (presiding)2:01:43
Thank you, Representative Lee. Back to your representative Snyder on the motion to adopt amendment number one.
- Rep. Casey Snider2:01:47
I'll waive. Okay. Summation has been waived.
- Speaker (presiding)2:01:49
So we'll go ahead and place the motion. The motion before is the House adopt amendment number one on six, substitute HB 88. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Rule that motion passes the bill's been amended and before the body for its consideration. Let's go to Representative Ward.
- Rep. Raymond P. Ward2:02:09
Thank you Mr. Speaker. Will the sponsor yield to a series of questions? Representative Lee, will you yield to a series of questions? Yes. Yes. Representative Ward. Thank you. Mr. Speaker would a, a food pantry that gets some of its funding from private donations, but does get some of its funding from the state be required to ID all adults who came in and turn away those who did not have proper documentation?
- Rep. Trevor Lee2:02:30
Thank you for the question, Mr. Speaker. Uh, so in this bill as it states, they're not required to receive identification, whether they need a written, uh, and signed consent from the person who is getting the, uh, benefits that they are indeed a US resident or US citizen as well. Uh, I'm sorry, could you say that one more time? So, uh, the food pantry ha does still need to make sure that they're not giving benefits to non-citizens or they're exempt from that requirement. They do need to make sure they're not giving them to non-citizens. Correct.
- Rep. Raymond P. Ward2:03:04
Got it. Okay. And I do appreciate the change that we have at line 77, uh, where we moved that penalty from a Class B misdemeanor down to an infraction. Um, my understanding is that that would, a place where that would apply would be at our senior centers where an employee might serve seniors, um, some food without IDing them. And if that employee did that, um, what sort of a fine do you think they should have to pay for serving that food to them without IDing them? Even if they did that over and over, what would be an appropriate fine for the person?
- Rep. Trevor Lee2:03:40
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Uh, I think that what the fraction that we have is, is perfectly reasonable in this bill. In fact, um, the, it does specify that if you are purposely and willingly, um, or recklessly, recklessly administering the benefit to someone who is a non-citizen, that is where that fraction would, uh, apply to them.
- Rep. Raymond P. Ward2:04:00
Uh, thank you Mr. Speaker for those answers. It colleagues, it's a little tough for me to understand what it even would mean to recklessly serve someone food. Um, I suppose you, you could do it willfully. You could do it over and over again. Uh, you could do it when you didn't. Id the people, but I'm, I'm not sure what it means to be reckless, to serve people food if they come into the senior center. Um, colleagues. To me, there's some services that if we choose not to provide them, and if we choose to come down and go after the people who do provide them, that makes a statement about who we are as a community. That to me is a little, is it just is more important that than the order of who should get the services and, and who should get the service, should not get the services. If we're at the point where we're gonna say, I'm gonna make it so that it, it is not comfortable for you, you will not be able to go to a food pantry. It's the adults who won't be allowed in, but it'll be their kids who doesn't get the food. Um, and if we make it so that you can't even go to the senior center, 'cause you're gonna get carded when you go there, um, that, that will make it so they can't, no one can walk in through that door. People who've been here for decades who don't have their documents, would not be able to walk in through that door. Our safety nets in many places are, are already pretty thin. Um, people fall through them already. But if we deliberately go back and say, in this place, in this place, in this place, even for a thing as basic as food, we are gonna take action against who tries to help you out. To me, that is not right. And that's a road that I hope we do not go down. Thank you.
- Speaker (presiding)2:05:39
Thank you Representative Ward. Further discussion to the bill Representative Acton.
- Rep. Cheryl K. Acton2:05:45
Thank you Mr. Speaker. Will the sponsor yield Representative Lee, will you yield?
- Rep. Trevor Lee2:05:49
Yes. Yes. Representative Acton
- Rep. Cheryl K. Acton2:05:52
On lines 27 and two 17, I think the word immediately. Why, why is it important that they be denied immediately? What why does, why is that word added?
- Rep. Trevor Lee2:06:06
Thank you, Mr. Speaker for the question. Uh, if someone is, is once again trying to receive taxpayer funded benefits, I believe it's important that we report that immediately, that they're held accountable to that. Um, these, these benefits that are from the taxpayer are reserved for Utahans, for those who are struggling and who need them. And that we have a limited amount of resources for already. I've, I've heard many times, uh, here even in this chamber that we have children in our state who are citizens who don't have food, and yet we are giving food to those and, and specifically adults now who are trying to come into our country and break in the law. And so to be good stewards of that in those funds, that we make sure that that is being reported as soon as possible so that we can remedy the situation.
- Rep. Cheryl K. Acton2:06:51
Um, okay. I, Mr. Speaker, for me, this bill is more than a bill. It's, it's really for me personally, a moral test. Um, and I believe the word immediately, immediately deny people services is so that no one has an opportunity to think about it. It should be their, their kneejerk reaction should be deny, deny. Do not think about this. Uh, for me, I'm very comfortable with federal immigration. The immigration is a federal issue. Meanwhile, I don't think that we can hide behind some sort of bureaucratic shield and deny people food. Um, I was hoping that the sub would would say, we're not going to tell people they can't have food or access to food. And I'm, I'm certainly glad that it does not include children, but even adults need food and other services, um, occasionally. And I just, I find that it's just, uh, it's a violation really of the Sermon on the Mount, which, and I feel, I immediately thought of how, when asked, when someone asks you for bread and you give them a stone, um, that is not, that's a violation of some of our most fundamental principles that pre statehood and, and everything else. So with this, I support immigration efforts and, and self deportation and all of those things, but I, I can't go there with this bill. Thank you.
- Speaker (presiding)2:08:28
Thank you, Representative Acton. Further discussion to the bill Representative Stoddard Ard.
- Rep. Andrew Stoddard2:08:35
Thank you, Mr. Speaker colleagues. There is a flyer on your desk with a picture of the Statute of Liberty, and I wanted to put that out because I think it speaks to who we are as a nation, especially to who we are as Utahans and wanna focus on one of the last lines that is very well known. Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. That is not what this bill does. As has been stated by multiple representatives. This bill is not the Utah way. We can protect taxpayer dollars and make sure that we're being prudent to our constituents, but our constituents are not just people who are here legally. All of our communities have immigrants that are undocumented that live among us. And we as representatives are here to take care of all of them. The amounts of money in this bill that are being spent on services to those who are here without documents is very minimal compared to what people are receiving. We have no evidence that there are people who are taxpayers who are not getting these services, who are not getting food because they're going to immigrants. That's just not a thing, that's not a problem. We have lots of undocumented immigrants who are paying into the system estimates from nonprofit groups say that they're paying $250 million into our state, into Utah every year. These are people who, because of failures on a federal level, are not here legally. And we should not punish them because our Congress cannot pass meaningful immigration reform. I believe that it's our job as Americans to welcome people because it's not being born here that makes you American. It's our attitude and it's our desire to be here and to be better and to work hard. And there are a lot of people who are born outside of this country that share those same personal beliefs. And we should help them be here and make sure that they're taken care of instead of taking away their food, taking away the things to help them live comfortably in an attempt to get them to leave or to not come. I don't believe this is what we should be doing as people who strive to be good examples, good stewards, and just overall take care of our constituents, I would urge you to vote against this bill. Thank you.
- Speaker (presiding)2:11:15
You Representative Stoddard. Further discussion to the bill. Let's go to, uh, Representative MacPherson.
- Rep. Matt MacPherson2:11:22
Thank you, Mr. Speaker colleagues. I'd like to speak just briefly about the, some of the conversation that's been had. I think there's a conflation of two different issues here. Um, and one is charity, which the people of the state of Utah are very good at. The people do that a lot. In fact, uh, there's nothing, this bill that prevents people from providing charity. I think there was some discussion of the Sermon on the Mount. Um, I don't believe that, uh, in that discussion there was any, uh, direction to give your money to Caesar so he could do it for you. Um, I think the concern here is that just like in public education, we're not saying that children can't be educated. We're just saying that if you get dollars from the state, we have policies in place that determine how those dollars are spent. We want accountability for 'em. I think that's a good policy discussion to be had. Um, whether or not this, um, discussion should include things like, um, the discussion of what do we do with the poor, the sick and the needy. I would recommend that every single person here give to the poor, the sick and the needy, and that our nonprofits work hard and tirelessly and continue to do so. The question is, should we tax every single, uh, citizen in the state of Utah? And should we use that money, uh, whether they like it or not, without any policy consideration over some of the issues that are brought up in this bill? I think that's a very fine conversation to have. And I think them, any discussion so far around the policy discussions in this bill have been pointed in the wrong direction. There's a big difference between what charity means and what taxpayer money means. I think that the more that we engage the state in taking over charity, um, and engaging the work of charity, the more we take away from charitable acts that are done freely in this state by the majority of Utahans. I think that represents who Utahans are and represents the people of America as well. Um, and I think that, uh, making policy considerations as far as how the state spends its money would probably not affect because I would think we would actually see a greater increase of outpouring of support as we've seen in many other occasions from the private industry and from nonprofits. And so I think this is a good discussion to have. I support the bill. Thanks.
- Speaker (presiding)2:13:43
Thank you, Representative MacPherson. Further discussion to the bill. Let's go. Representative Berg. Thank
- Unknown speaker2:13:51speaker not certain
You Mr. Speaker. Um, with the sponsor yield, please.
- Rep. Trevor Lee2:13:55
Representative Lee, will you yield? I would, yes.
- Speaker (presiding)2:13:58
Representative Alre.
- Rep. Carl R. Albrecht2:14:00
Thank you. Uh, does this, does this bill, or have you corrected it in your subs? Because I appreciate the good work you've done on the subs. I understand what you're trying to do. Does it have any, uh, impacts on rural volunteer run food pantries?
- Rep. Trevor Lee2:14:22
Thank you for the question, Mr. Speaker. Uh, no, it does not. As long as they are giving out the charitable funds and donations that they have, they can freely give those to whoever they would like at any point.
- Rep. Carl R. Albrecht2:14:32
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
- Speaker (presiding)2:14:41
Thank you Representative Albrecht. Further discussion to the bill. Representative Dunnigan.
- Rep. James A. Dunnigan2:14:47
Thank you Mr. Speaker. The sponsor will yield to some questions. Representative Lee will yield to a series of questions.
- Rep. Trevor Lee2:14:53
Yes. Thank you. Yes, Representative Dunnigan,
- Rep. James A. Dunnigan2:14:55
Can you help me understand how this will apply in a public school setting as far as benefits provided to school children?
- Rep. Trevor Lee2:15:04
Yes. Thank you for the question, Mr. Speaker. Uh, this is what the first amendment on the bill is trying to clarify to make sure that we are keeping everything in the school system in tact. That that is not something affected all by this bill. Uh, children will not be denied school lunch even though it's paid for with tax dollars.
- Rep. James A. Dunnigan2:15:20
That is correct. I I have a question on healthcare. If there's a disease outbreak or to prevent a disease outbreak, will the health department be able to provide immunizations to people who are not here legally?
- Rep. Trevor Lee2:15:36
If there's an emergency in the public safety or it's an emergency, then that is an exception in the bill.
- Rep. James A. Dunnigan2:15:43
Thank you. What about preventive immunizations?
- Rep. Trevor Lee2:15:46
No. Preventative is not case. We don't, In case we don't want to wait until there's emergency.
- Rep. James A. Dunnigan2:15:50
If we do not immunize somebody, can we be guaranteed that they will not pass a disease? So the rest of us,
- Rep. Trevor Lee2:15:56
Uh, thank you for the question, Mr. Speaker On, on this one? No. Any preventive or non-medical emergency is reserved for the taxpayer.
- Rep. James A. Dunnigan2:16:06
So I, I support, uh, enforcement of our borders and legal immigration and I support charity helping people. And our state le leads the country in that. But on many of the wonderful things that we've accomplished as a state is because of a public private partnership where we have helped people.
- Rep. James A. Dunnigan2:16:33
One more question for the bill sponsor. How does this affect homeless shelters? Does somebody need to sign a, a document saying that they're legally allowed or here presence to go into homeless shelter?
- Rep. Trevor Lee2:16:46
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Uh, yes. And if they are coming to the shelter, uh, it is a simple thing to do, to sign to say, yes, I'm a US citizen.
- Rep. James A. Dunnigan2:16:55
I thank you. Uh, I disagree with that. It's not a simple thing. Homeless shelters are busy. They're overrun. People are going in and out all the time. And it's a challenge. And many of them just want to get in out of the elements. They have mental health illnesses. It's not that simple. So back to the public private partnership. I believe private donations, charity is a big part. I also believe that our government has a role to establish by policy, how we're gonna partner with charities, with food banks, with others to provide for the general welfare of our friends and neighbors. I think it's important. I'm very concerned about this bill. I think it's unworkable in a practical sense. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
- Speaker (presiding)2:17:53
Thank you, representative Dunna. Again, further discussion to the bill representative Corinne Peterson.
- Rep. Corinne Peterson2:17:59
Motion to circle Representative.
- Speaker (presiding)2:18:02
That motion is an order. We'd like to speak to it.
- Rep. Corinne Peterson2:18:04
Yes. I I'm sure like many of you, my phone's kind of blowing up back here with stakeholders who don't understand quite what this bill will mean for them. And I think, uh, we deserve to give them an opportunity to take a look at it.
- Speaker (presiding)2:18:16
Thank you Representative Corinne Peterson. Uh, discussion to the motion to circle. Well, first Representative Lee on the motion to circle,
- Rep. Trevor Lee2:18:23
Uh, no. I, I reject that motion. I think we've had plenty of time to talk to stakeholders. I've met with many of them. I believe the bill's very clear on how this works. Um, I believe that would just be a reason for people not to want the bill to pass.
- Speaker (presiding)2:18:36
Thank you, Representative Peterson. Okay. Representatives, if your light is on it is to speak to the motion to circle Representative Shelley. Representative Teuscher.
- Rep. Jordan D. Teuscher2:18:54
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would support the motion to, to circle I, I'm here looking at the sixth tab. I'm trying to understand it. Uh, I think a little bit of more time makes sense, especially when we still have a couple weeks left in the session.
- Speaker (presiding)2:19:06
Thank you Representative Teuscher. We'll go ahead and place or back to you, Representative Lee on the motion to circle, or no, sorry.
- Speaker (presiding)2:19:13
Representative Peterson. Corinne Peterson on the motion to circle.
- Rep. Corinne Peterson2:19:16
Uh, thank you. I I just, I'm hearing some pretty legitimate concerns, especially from our cities and counties on specific things like how they issue business licenses, how non-emergency public services work, how senior meal programs work. People are not quite sure how they're supposed to operationalize this bill and I think it's fair to give them a minute to, to figure that out.
- Speaker (presiding)2:19:36
Thank you. Representative Peterson. Uh, go and place the motion, the motion before us the house. Circle six. Substitute HB 88. All in favor say aye. Aye. All. Any opposed? No rule. That motion passes the bill's circled. Let's go to Madam Reading Clerk
- Feb 23, 2026 House floor debate (day 34)▶ Watch
Transcript (74 turns)
- Rep. Trevor Lee1:55:57
Thank you Mr. Speaker. Uh, motion to adopt this sixth substitute.
- Speaker (presiding)1:56:02
That motion is in order. Would you like to speak to him?
- Rep. Trevor Lee1:56:04
Yes, I would. Uh, this motion will do a couple of difference. Uh, well, it's gonna do something different, but what it does is it get rid gets rid of the private right of action that we had in the original part of the bill. It also takes down an employee who willfully commits fraud from a misdemeanor B to a fraction. Uh, the other thing that it will do is add in on the exemption list Mental health care crisis services, uh, to the list of exempt to the list of exemptions.
- Speaker (presiding)1:56:35
Thank you. Representative Lee Dis, uh, discussion to the motion to adopt six. Substitute none will go ahead and place the motion. The motion be forced. The house adopts six. Substitute under Representative Lee's name. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? No. That motion passes. The bill's been substituted before the body for further or for its consideration.
- Rep. Trevor Lee1:57:09
Thank, thank you Mr. Speaker. Colleagues, this is just a simple cleanup bill with some technical changes. Uh, And no, what this is going to clarify is in the state of Utah, the taxpayer money that we are responsible for, uh, is something that we shouldn't take lightly. Uh, we have very limited funds every session. We have many different groups who come to us asking for these funds, and we are tasked to be good safeguards of those funds. We've also had a problem in the most recent future of people trying to take money that they give to others and make the government in charge and responsible for those funds. And what we've done is we've diminished the amounts that charities have and have put that responsibility on the government to take care of those who are most in need. Uh, as, as someone who's conservative, I don't believe that that is, uh, the, the proper role of government. That charity should still be the ones to take care of the most vulnerable of our society. And specifically the funds that we have for taxpayers should go to citizens to those who are in need and who need it most. And that we are good stewards of those funds. And so what this bill does is if you are a taxpayer citizen who is a legal resident of the United States, you are eligible to receive those funds. And if you are not, you cannot receive those benefits. The other part to this bill is there still are exceptions that are on the federal mandates such as emergencies, uh, public safety. We added the healthcare crisis, uh, prevention crisis in there. Also short term relief in case there's a natural disaster of any sort. Uh, this bill does not apply to those who are under the age of 18. Okay, so I just wanna clarify that those who are under the age of 18, this bill does not apply to. And with that, Mr. Speaker, I will end my presentation.
- Speaker (presiding)1:59:06
Thank you Representative Lee. Let's go to, uh, discussion. Um, wow. Let's go to Representative Clancy.
- Rep. Clancy1:59:16
Thank you Mr. Speaker. Motion to amend.
- Speaker (presiding)1:59:19
Thank you Representative Clancy. That motion is in order. Would you like to speak to that? Would you like to which?
- Rep. Clancy1:59:25
Yes, sir. You Have Mr. Have an amendment that we're adopting? Mr. I'd like to move that we adopt Amendment two in my name.
- Speaker (presiding)1:59:31
There we go. That motion is in order. Would you like to speak to it?
- Rep. Clancy1:59:34
Yes. Mr. Speaker, this clarifies what the sponsor shared in his presentation that this doesn't impact, uh, children. So the amendment two would include Child nutrition services, uh, to make sure that you know, children who you know wouldn't be here of their, of their own choice or other, uh, pieces. Uh, don't get caught, uh, in this, uh, uh, challenge here. Thank you, Representative Clancy.
- Speaker (presiding)2:00:05
Representative Lee on the motion to adopt amendment number two under Representative Clancy's name.
- Rep. Trevor Lee2:00:09
Yes, that is a friendly emotion, uh, motion and, uh, does I believe strengthen what we are trying to do with this bill.
- Speaker (presiding)2:00:16
Thank you Representative Lee. Uh, we're gonna go to discussion on the motion to amend if your light is on. It is to speak to the motion to amend none. Back to Representative Clancy on the motion to adopt amendment number two.
- Rep. Clancy2:00:32
I'll waive. Thank you. Mr. Speaker
- Speaker (presiding)2:00:33
Summation has been waived. Uh, we're gonna place the motion. The motion before is the house adopt amendment number two under Representative Clancy's name. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Will that motion passes? The bills have been amended before the body for further, uh, discussion and debate, let's go to Representative Snider. Thank you Mr. Speaker. Motion to amend.
- Speaker (presiding)2:01:07
Thank you Representative Snider. That motion is in order. Would you like to speak to it?
- Rep. Casey Snider2:01:11
Yes. I'd like to move amendment one in my name, which clarifies, uh, the domestic violence services are available to all individuals regardless of status.
- Speaker (presiding)2:01:22
Thank you, Representative Snider. Uh, Representative Lee on the motion to adopt amendment number one under Representative Snyder's name.
- Rep. Trevor Lee2:01:30
Thank you Mr. Speaker. Yes. This is also a friendly amendment and I think it's, uh, something that once again still keeps the integrity of the bill of what we're trying to do, but also protects the most vulnerable in our society, regardless of their status.
- Speaker (presiding)2:01:43
Thank you, Representative Lee. Back to your representative Snyder on the motion to adopt amendment number one.
- Rep. Casey Snider2:01:47
I'll waive. Okay. Summation has been waived.
- Speaker (presiding)2:01:49
So we'll go ahead and place the motion. The motion before is the House adopt amendment number one on six, substitute HB 88. All in favor say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Rule that motion passes the bill's been amended and before the body for its consideration. Let's go to Representative Ward.
- Rep. Ryan D. Wilcox2:02:09speaker not certain
Thank you Mr. Speaker. Will the sponsor yield to a series of questions? Representative Lee, will you yield to a series of questions?
- Rep. Trevor Lee2:02:15
Yes. Yes. Representative Ward.
- Rep. Raymond P. Ward2:02:16
Thank you. Mr. Speaker would a, a food pantry that gets some of its funding from private donations, but does get some of its funding from the state be required to ID all adults who came in and turn away those who did not have proper documentation?
- Rep. Trevor Lee2:02:30
Thank you for the question, Mr. Speaker. Uh, so in this bill as it states, they're not required to receive identification, whether they need a written, uh, and signed consent from the person who is getting the, uh, benefits that they are indeed a US resident or US citizen as well.
- Rep. Raymond P. Ward2:02:51
Uh, I'm sorry, could you say that one more time?
- Rep. Trevor Lee2:02:53
So, uh, the food pantry ha does still need to make sure that they're not giving benefits to non-citizens or they're exempt from that requirement. They do need to make sure they're not giving them to non-citizens. Correct.
- Rep. Raymond P. Ward2:03:04
Got it. Okay. And I do appreciate the change that we have at line 77, uh, where we moved that penalty from a Class B misdemeanor down to an infraction. Um, my understanding is that that would, a place where that would apply would be at our senior centers where an employee might serve seniors, um, some food without IDing them. And if that employee did that, um, what sort of a fine do you think they should have to pay for serving that food to them without IDing them? Even if they did that over and over, what would be an appropriate fine for the person? Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Uh, I think that what the fraction that we have is, is perfectly reasonable in this bill. In fact, um, the, it does specify that if you are purposely and willingly, um, or recklessly, recklessly administering the benefit to someone who is a non-citizen, that is where that fraction would, uh, apply to them.
- Rep. Raymond P. Ward2:04:00
Uh, thank you Mr. Speaker for those answers. It colleagues, it's a little tough for me to understand what it even would mean to recklessly serve someone food. Um, I suppose you, you could do it willfully. You could do it over and over again. Uh, you could do it when you didn't. Id the people, but I'm, I'm not sure what it means to be reckless, to serve people food if they come into the senior center. Um, colleagues. To me, there's some services that if we choose not to provide them, and if we choose to come down and go after the people who do provide them, that makes a statement about who we are as a community. That to me is a little, is it just is more important that than the order of who should get the services and, and who should get the service, should not get the services. If we're at the point where we're gonna say, I'm gonna make it so that it, it is not comfortable for you, you will not be able to go to a food pantry. It's the adults who won't be allowed in, but it'll be their kids who doesn't get the food. Um, and if we make it so that you can't even go to the senior center, 'cause you're gonna get carded when you go there, um, that, that will make it so they can't, no one can walk in through that door. People who've been here for decades who don't have their documents, would not be able to walk in through that door. Our safety nets in many places are, are already pretty thin. Um, people fall through them already. But if we deliberately go back and say, in this place, in this place, in this place, even for a thing as basic as food, we are gonna take action against who tries to help you out. To me, that is not right. And that's a road that I hope we do not go down. Thank you.
- Speaker (presiding)2:05:39
Thank you Representative Ward. Further discussion to the bill Representative Acton.
- Rep. Cheryl K. Acton2:05:45
Thank you Mr. Speaker. Will the sponsor yield Representative Lee, will you yield?
- Speaker (presiding)2:05:49
Yes. Yes. Representative Acton
- Rep. Cheryl K. Acton2:05:52
On lines 27 and two 17, I think the word immediately. Why, why is it important that they be denied immediately? What why does, why is that word added?
- Rep. Trevor Lee2:06:06
Thank you, Mr. Speaker for the question. Uh, if someone is, is once again trying to receive taxpayer funded benefits, I believe it's important that we report that immediately, that they're held accountable to that. Um, these, these benefits that are from the taxpayer are reserved for Utahans, for those who are struggling and who need them. And that we have a limited amount of resources for already. I've, I've heard many times, uh, here even in this chamber that we have children in our state who are citizens who don't have food, and yet we are giving food to those and, and specifically adults now who are trying to come into our country and break in the law. And so to be good stewards of that in those funds, that we make sure that that is being reported as soon as possible so that we can remedy the situation.
- Rep. Cheryl K. Acton2:06:51
Um, okay. I, Mr. Speaker, for me, this bill is more than a bill. It's, it's really for me personally, a moral test. Um, and I believe the word immediately, immediately deny people services is so that no one has an opportunity to think about it. It should be their, their kneejerk reaction should be deny, deny. Do not think about this. Uh, for me, I'm very comfortable with federal immigration. The immigration is a federal issue. Meanwhile, I don't think that we can hide behind some sort of bureaucratic shield and deny people food. Um, I was hoping that the sub would would say, we're not going to tell people they can't have food or access to food. And I'm, I'm certainly glad that it does not include children, but even adults need food and other services, um, occasionally. And I just, I find that it's just, uh, it's a violation really of the Sermon on the Mount, which, and I feel, I immediately thought of how, when asked, when someone asks you for bread and you give them a stone, um, that is not, that's a violation of some of our most fundamental principles that pre statehood and, and everything else. So with this, I support immigration efforts and, and self deportation and all of those things, but I, I can't go there with this bill. Thank you.
- Speaker (presiding)2:08:28
Thank you, Representative Acton. Further discussion to the bill Representative Stoddard Ard.
- Rep. Andrew Stoddard2:08:35
Thank you, Mr. Speaker colleagues. There is a flyer on your desk with a picture of the Statute of Liberty, and I wanted to put that out because I think it speaks to who we are as a nation, especially to who we are as Utahans and wanna focus on one of the last lines that is very well known. Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free. That is not what this bill does. As has been stated by multiple representatives. This bill is not the Utah way. We can protect taxpayer dollars and make sure that we're being prudent to our constituents, but our constituents are not just people who are here legally. All of our communities have immigrants that are undocumented that live among us. And we as representatives are here to take care of all of them. The amounts of money in this bill that are being spent on services to those who are here without documents is very minimal compared to what people are receiving. We have no evidence that there are people who are taxpayers who are not getting these services, who are not getting food because they're going to immigrants. That's just not a thing, that's not a problem. We have lots of undocumented immigrants who are paying into the system estimates from nonprofit groups say that they're paying $250 million into our state, into Utah every year. These are people who, because of failures on a federal level, are not here legally. And we should not punish them because our Congress cannot pass meaningful immigration reform. I believe that it's our job as Americans to welcome people because it's not being born here that makes you American. It's our attitude and it's our desire to be here and to be better and to work hard. And there are a lot of people who are born outside of this country that share those same personal beliefs. And we should help them be here and make sure that they're taken care of instead of taking away their food, taking away the things to help them live comfortably in an attempt to get them to leave or to not come. I don't believe this is what we should be doing as people who strive to be good examples, good stewards, and just overall take care of our constituents, I would urge you to vote against this bill. Thank you.
- Speaker (presiding)2:11:15
You Representative Stoddard. Further discussion to the bill. Let's go to, uh, Representative MacPherson.
- Rep. Matt MacPherson2:11:22
Thank you, Mr. Speaker colleagues. I'd like to speak just briefly about the, some of the conversation that's been had. I think there's a conflation of two different issues here. Um, and one is charity, which the people of the state of Utah are very good at. The people do that a lot. In fact, uh, there's nothing, this bill that prevents people from providing charity. I think there was some discussion of the Sermon on the Mount. Um, I don't believe that, uh, in that discussion there was any, uh, direction to give your money to Caesar so he could do it for you. Um, I think the concern here is that just like in public education, we're not saying that children can't be educated. We're just saying that if you get dollars from the state, we have policies in place that determine how those dollars are spent. We want accountability for 'em. I think that's a good policy discussion to be had. Um, whether or not this, um, discussion should include things like, um, the discussion of what do we do with the poor, the sick and the needy. I would recommend that every single person here give to the poor, the sick and the needy, and that our nonprofits work hard and tirelessly and continue to do so. The question is, should we tax every single, uh, citizen in the state of Utah? And should we use that money, uh, whether they like it or not, without any policy consideration over some of the issues that are brought up in this bill? I think that's a very fine conversation to have. And I think them, any discussion so far around the policy discussions in this bill have been pointed in the wrong direction. There's a big difference between what charity means and what taxpayer money means. I think that the more that we engage the state in taking over charity, um, and engaging the work of charity, the more we take away from charitable acts that are done freely in this state by the majority of Utahans. I think that represents who Utahans are and represents the people of America as well. Um, and I think that, uh, making policy considerations as far as how the state spends its money would probably not affect because I would think we would actually see a greater increase of outpouring of support as we've seen in many other occasions from the private industry and from nonprofits. And so I think this is a good discussion to have. I support the bill. Thanks.
- Speaker (presiding)2:13:43
Thank you, Representative MacPherson. Further discussion to the bill. Let's go. Representative Berg. Thank
- Rep. Berg2:13:51
You Mr. Speaker. Um, with the sponsor yield, please. Representative Lee, will you yield? I would, yes.
- Speaker (presiding)2:13:58
Representative Alre.
- Rep. Roberts Albrecht2:14:00
Thank you. Uh, does this, does this bill, or have you corrected it in your subs? Because I appreciate the good work you've done on the subs. I understand what you're trying to do. Does it have any, uh, impacts on rural volunteer run food pantries?
- Rep. Trevor Lee2:14:22
Thank you for the question, Mr. Speaker. Uh, no, it does not. As long as they are giving out the charitable funds and donations that they have, they can freely give those to whoever they would like at any point.
- Rep. Roberts Albrecht2:14:32
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
- Speaker (presiding)2:14:41
Thank you Representative Albrecht. Further discussion to the bill. Representative Dunnigan.
- Rep. James A. Dunnigan2:14:47
Thank you Mr. Speaker. The sponsor will yield to some questions.
- Speaker (presiding)2:14:50
Representative Lee will yield to a series of questions.
- Rep. Trevor Lee2:14:53
Yes. Thank you. Yes, Representative Dunnigan,
- Rep. James A. Dunnigan2:14:55
Can you help me understand how this will apply in a public school setting as far as benefits provided to school children?
- Rep. Trevor Lee2:15:04
Yes. Thank you for the question, Mr. Speaker. Uh, this is what the first amendment on the bill is trying to clarify to make sure that we are keeping everything in the school system in tact. That that is not something affected all by this bill. Uh, children will not be denied school lunch even though it's paid for with tax dollars.
- Rep. James A. Dunnigan2:15:20
That is correct. I I have a question on healthcare. If there's a disease outbreak or to prevent a disease outbreak, will the health department be able to provide immunizations to people who are not here legally?
- Rep. Trevor Lee2:15:36
If there's an emergency in the public safety or it's an emergency, then that is an exception in the bill.
- Rep. James A. Dunnigan2:15:43
Thank you. What about preventive immunizations?
- Rep. Trevor Lee2:15:46
No. Preventative is not case. We don't, In case we don't want to wait until there's emergency.
- Rep. James A. Dunnigan2:15:50
If we do not immunize somebody, can we be guaranteed that they will not pass a disease? So the rest of us,
- Rep. Trevor Lee2:15:56
Uh, thank you for the question, Mr. Speaker On, on this one? No. Any preventive or non-medical emergency is reserved for the taxpayer.
- Rep. James A. Dunnigan2:16:06
So I, I support, uh, enforcement of our borders and legal immigration and I support charity helping people. And our state le leads the country in that. But on many of the wonderful things that we've accomplished as a state is because of a public private partnership where we have helped people.
- Rep. James A. Dunnigan2:16:33
One more question for the bill sponsor. How does this affect homeless shelters? Does somebody need to sign a, a document saying that they're legally allowed or here presence to go into homeless shelter?
- Rep. Trevor Lee2:16:46
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Uh, yes. And if they are coming to the shelter, uh, it is a simple thing to do, to sign to say, yes, I'm a US citizen.
- Rep. James A. Dunnigan2:16:55
I thank you. Uh, I disagree with that. It's not a simple thing. Homeless shelters are busy. They're overrun. People are going in and out all the time. And it's a challenge. And many of them just want to get in out of the elements. They have mental health illnesses. It's not that simple. So back to the public private partnership. I believe private donations, charity is a big part. I also believe that our government has a role to establish by policy, how we're gonna partner with charities, with food banks, with others to provide for the general welfare of our friends and neighbors. I think it's important. I'm very concerned about this bill. I think it's unworkable in a practical sense. Thank you, Mr.
- Speaker (presiding)2:17:41
Speaker. Thank you, representative Dunna. Again, further discussion to the bill representative Corinne Peterson.
- Rep. Karen M. Peterson2:17:59speaker not certain
Motion to circle Representative.
- Speaker (presiding)2:18:02
That motion is an order. We'd like to speak to it.
- Rep. Karen M. Peterson2:18:04speaker not certain
Yes. I I'm sure like many of you, my phone's kind of blowing up back here with stakeholders who don't understand quite what this bill will mean for them. And I think, uh, we deserve to give them an opportunity to take a look at it.
- Speaker (presiding)2:18:16
Thank you Representative Corinne Peterson. Uh, discussion to the motion to circle. Well, first Representative Lee on the motion to circle,
- Rep. Trevor Lee2:18:23
Uh, no. I, I reject that motion. I think we've had plenty of time to talk to stakeholders. I've met with many of them. I believe the bill's very clear on how this works. Um, I believe that would just be a reason for people not to want the bill to pass.
- Speaker (presiding)2:18:36
Thank you, Representative Peterson. Okay. Representatives, if your light is on it is to speak to the motion to circle Representative Shelley. Representative Teuscher.
- Rep. Jordan D. Teuscher2:18:54
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would support the motion to, to circle I, I'm here looking at the sixth tab. I'm trying to understand it. Uh, I think a little bit of more time makes sense, especially when we still have a couple weeks left in the session.
- Speaker (presiding)2:19:06
Thank you Representative Teuscher. We'll go ahead and place or back to you, Representative Lee on the motion to circle, or no, sorry. Representative Peterson.
- Rep. Karen M. Peterson2:19:14speaker not certain
Corinne Peterson on the motion to circle. Uh, thank you. I I just, I'm hearing some pretty legitimate concerns, especially from our cities and counties on specific things like how they issue business licenses, how non-emergency public services work, how senior meal programs work. People are not quite sure how they're supposed to operationalize this bill and I think it's fair to give them a minute to, to figure that out.
- Speaker (presiding)2:19:36
Thank you. Representative Peterson. Uh, go and place the motion, the motion before us the house. Circle six. Substitute HB 88. All in favor say aye. Aye. All. Any opposed? No rule. That motion passes the bill's circled. Let's go to Madam Reading Clerk
All votes
- 10-0-1House Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Committee · House Comm - Substitute Recommendation · Feb 17, 2026Roll call
- 7-3-1House Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice Committee · House Comm - Favorable Recommendation · Feb 17, 2026Roll call
Tallies are yeas–nays–absent.