H.B. 197 School Materials Amendments: transcript

I apologize, your microphone should now be on. There We go. Thank you so much. Um, if you don't mind, my intern has some papers for everybody. If she can bring 'em maybe up to Yeah, if you bring those up here to, uh, our fi our, uh, policy analyst. Thank you. Okay. So last year there was a bill that was before this committee related to school materials and instructional materials that Bill made it all the way through the process, but ended up being one of those that dies on the last night. It was number nine on the Senate board. And so we got to start the process all over again. But in a way I'm glad about that. Um, because even though there were some great things in that bill, since then, there's been some other developments in the conversation with schooled materials. One of those is that we did have a state sensitive materials audit and we did provide for you just, um, the main cover sheet for the sensitive materials audit, which tells the sensitive materials findings, and then also the key recommendations. And you can see those key recommendations there. Um, so recommendation, um, number three, one and three two are recommendations that are going to be covered in the bill that we're discussing today. And I should say that I'm actually speaking to the fourth sub. Okay. So the fourth sub is the one that we're planning on working on today anyway, so, um, those recommendations were to create and implement policies and processes to ensure communication with all the staff regarding sensitive materials and to utilize tools offered by USBE to do that. And then also local education agencies should create and implement policies for selecting books for and maintaining classroom library collections. So specifically that bottom one that they need to have a policy for how things come into their school materials. And I just wanna share a very brief story. So I did do some research throughout the interim. I was having lots of conversation with, uh, local school board members, teachers, and even librarians who are kind enough to let me come into their schools and take a look at their collections of books before the students started the school year. And talk to me about how they got the books and um, how, you know, how they go about maintaining that collection. And they were incredibly accommodating. I so appreciate them. And I've had a lot of really health conversations. I would say, um, people just being so dedicated to trying to help create the best materials for children. So when I Uintah these school libraries, um, it was mentioned that the way that the materialists come to the library is that they say, oh, we want this package, say from full books. And that, that then they'll just send a package of books. They don't necessarily get to select everything that's within that package. Um, now some people might argue, well, maybe they still could, maybe, but it seems to be that sometimes the schools are feeling like that's not what they're supposed to do. They're supposed to select other books outside of those packages that they get, which then means basically that there are vendors like full books who are actually curating the books for our libraries. So this was something that we definitely felt like matched those audit recommendations of we need to be selecting ahead of time what goes into the, the schools. It used to be in the old days that if new books or resources were going to be put in the schools, they would actually hand those things out at parent-teacher conferences. They would solicit input from the community before they would put it in the school with their children. And we don't actually have those types of processes in place anymore. And I'm not necessarily suggesting that process in particular. I'm just saying that the recommendation says to have a process. And that's what the bill also says. Another thing that the bill says outside of a couple of other definitions that are required for the language in the bill is the bill says that the, um, that a vendor may not sell or promote goods or services through a digital instructional material that the vendor provides to a contracting entity. So this means that maybe our school databases that we contract with through, um, through, you know, UETN, they create contracts, those types of things that they would not be able to sell to our children and advertise to our children. Unfortunately, it is a reality that there are things being sold to the children. Um, things like vapes and, uh, CRE and online betting, um, sites and all kinds of things that would be illegal. Like gambling sites and that kind of stuff that are being promoted to the children. It would be illegal for minors to do those things within the databases and so well, or anywhere because they're, they're minors. And so basically this will just make it so that children are free from being advertised to at school, which I actually always thought was already in like a policy somewhere, but upon inspection, no, it is something that needs to be said. I'll just mention that I've talked to a lot of people. I have had conversations with the head of UETN and he said to me that they would not have any problem in implementing any of the things that are within this bill. And we're gonna have some ongoing conversations too to help them from their side even take additional action to try to make sure that, um, we can make sure that have the best products possible for our students. And with that, Mr. Chair, I am open to any questions.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I've got two questions if that's okay. Yes, please go ahead. Wonderful, thank you. Um, okay, first of all, just a little bit of clarification on the advertising piece 'cause I wanna make sure we're not, um, dipping into things we don't want to here. So my understanding is that in databases when you're conducting research and things like that, you might need to look at historical sources. Um, and those could include historical advertisements. So would this potentially target material in the databases?

So I was told by UETN that they would have no problem removing those materials.

I, I think that's not quite the question I was asking.

Okay. So it sounds, uh, I think you're, I know what you're targeting and you're trying to make sure that there aren't, like banner ads on the sides and things like that in the, there Aren't actually banner ads on databases. Um, they're actually just, they, they look like it should be an article, but it's literally a press release on a product.

So you, interesting. So just to clarify, you do not want any sort of advertisement that ever existed, like as a historical source or anything like that to be included in databases?

Well, I think those historical ones in my conversation with UETN, they said, you know, any of those old historical ones that are in those old periodicals, if they're sensitive materials or something, then we could pull them out. But I don't think, that's not really my target. The target really is that people are paying these large, um, aggregate database companies to put advertisements in there that reach our children. So if they want them to reach people somewhere else, you know, at the library or maybe even on a college campus, fine. But when it comes to children in the public school, I, I really feel like they shouldn't be advertised to there.

Sure, of course. And I understand that. I just wanna make sure that we're not impinging on, because like, I mean, I studied sociology, we looked at old ads and things like that as source material. And so I wanna make sure we're not impeding kids' ability to learn because I, I know what your intent is, I think.

Yeah, yeah. But I mean, we often, we often find things that we don't intend in V and so I just wanna make sure that it is clear in that regard. I Did have that discussion with UETN and they said that if it had sent some materials in some of those old things, you know, then they would still move that, remove that. But these advertisements are very current. Okay. Like you can even see when they're added, which some of them were this month.

Okay, thank you. And then, um, my second question that I had is, have you worked at all with Senator Mikel? My understanding is that he is working on a bill that would, um, provide guardrails and parameters for the policy on library collections and things like that. And I wanna make sure that should both bills pass that this is not going to be in conflict with each other.

I don't think it would be in conflict. Obviously the drafters, if they both passed, would have to coordinate if there's anything there. Um, but we both know what each other is doing. I know I've had, I told them what I'm doing, but it, we didn't necessarily try to step on each other's toes, if that makes sense. Well, I assume you wouldn't step on each other's toes on purpose.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Chair.

Thank you Mr. Chair. So on lines 1 98 it says, an LEA shall review each instructional material. Um, is that up to the LEA to determine what that review process looks like?

Yes, total local control. Okay. Thank you. Mm-hmm.

Hi there. This is, uh, Daniel Neil. I'm with the Utah Library Association. I just wanna thank the committee for the improvements to the bill that have gone so far. We really appreciate that being heard. Um, the only concern, the two concerns I have, similar to what, uh, Representative Hayes shared, is the ability to make sure we're still able to research those historic advertisements. That is really important context. We're not trying to say the sensitive materials in advertisements, we agree with that, but other historic conte, historic advertisements is still important research. Um, the other thing I would just say is I am a little concerned about some of the ambiguity of the bill, and I would really hope that should the Senate Mike's Bill pass from the Senate, that we would be able to get that additional guidance from that bill for these collection development policies. 'cause I think the ambiguity in the, the language right now, uh, could have some unintended consequences and I would appreciate the additional guidance of that other bill. So just hoping for collaboration in the future. Thank

Corrin Johnson, president Utah, parent United. I won't take much of your time, but wanted to let you know that we support the fourth substitute. We've worked closely with the sponsor on this and believe this strikes the right balance and it addresses the audit and make sure that those requirements are met. Thank you.

Hello. Um, I'm Phyllis Kimmel. Um, I'm representing myself. I very much support this bill. I think it's great to be careful of what materials our students and our children are being exposed to at the school, and also the advertisements. I like the idea of the vendors being held accountable and careful about what they are presenting to our students also. Um, thank you.

My name is Aaron Bolen. I'm a father of five children in public school in Lehi. Four years ago, Utah passed its first, uh, sensitive materials bill to address pornography in schools. I supported this bill as I wanted to protect my children, including my daughter in third grade, four years later, and the problem persists. My daughter's now in seventh grade, and at the beginning of the school year, a boy in her class was reading a book from the English classroom library called Rabbit and Robot. He told my daughter it was a cool book and that she should take a look as a joke. Uh, the first page of the book had dozens of f words and vulgar and sexual content. The book was found to contain sensitive materials and was removed, but that didn't fix the fact that my little girl was exposed to inappropriate material material courtesy of my tax dollars. We must stop our public schools from obtaining these inappropriate materials in the first place. We need to pre-screen them to make sure that they're in compliance with the law. And even though the third sub doesn't do nearly enough to ensure that my kids will not be exposed to adult material in schools like the second sub would've, it is at least a start to the pre-screening process that we need. Thank you.

My name is Jean Rivera and I represent Utah Moms for America. I'm the mother of a student at Lehi School in the Alpine School District, and I'm here today to urge a yes vote on HB 1 97. The current reactive system for waiting for parents to find books and challenge them as failing our children. As I speak Stephen King's bag of Bones, a book containing graphic sensitive material is still available to students in my child's library at Lehi High. Despite the 2020 law, explicit content remains just a shelf reach away because our screening policies lack teeth. The 2025 legislative audit confirmed our fears that 95% of the books reviewed contain sexual conduct, and 73% contain nudity. This is not material schools should ever be providing to children. The audit was clear. We need to, we need mandatory policies for the selection of materials before they enter the school. Um, thank you.

Ahead. Hello, I'm Diane Matson. I'm a librarian and I'm representing myself in 2022. I intended the House Education Committee hearing for HB 3 74 because I was alarmed to hear professionals defend inappropriate material on children's collections. And I'm grateful that that bill passed. HB 1 97 is the next step. As a librarian, I can tell you that no one can personally read every book that arrives in a shipment. We need reliable tools and proactive review processes to make sure that students aren't exposed to explicit content. Most kids who love to read are not looking for that material, and they deserve safe, age appropriate collections. HB 1 97 supports both children and the librarians who work hard to protect them. I respectfully ask you to support this bill. Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name's Donna Gallegos, and I'm here to speak in favor of HP 1 97. But I'm specifically asking the committee to restore two vital protections that were present in the first substitute. First I ask that you bring back lines 2 9 9 through 3 0 1 from sub one. These lines require the state board to maintain a consolidated list of books removed or restricted across the state. We shouldn't ask every small district to reinvent the wheel. Providing a master's list allows our local schools to use the collective wisdom of the state to review their own materials efficiently. Secondly, I most importantly, to me as a parent, I ask you to restore lines 4 24 through 4 25 from sub one, which would require schools to maintain a collection of biographies on our founders and influential historical figures. I did a key word search of a well-known American and Utah heroes. Thank you.

My name is Lauren Starkey. Um, I'm representing myself. I'm also a member of the Utah Citizens of the Constitution and the Davis County Conservatives. I would like to address, uh, invite the, um, this committee to please push forward this bill. Um, as a child, I had a friend in, uh, safety patrol show me some vial material that was found in our city park. It made me physically ill, but my parents gave me the courage to help remove it. That experience taught me the irreplaceable blessing of parental oversight in protecting innocence. For decades, I have walked alongside families that have been shattered with unprotected, unchecked pornography exposure in childhood that are courageously rebuilding amid addiction and infidelity. This substitute is a vital, proactive step. We, we are watching your vote today defines vigilance. Thank you.

My name's Kristen Richie and I'm representing Eagle Forum Today. I'm concerned that schools are purchasing sensitive materials at a rate faster than we can challenge them and have them removed. A national group claimed there were 60 inappropriate books at our local high school. After analyzing these titles with AI versus the objective sensitive material standard in code, there were only 32 books that violated the law. A parent I know submitted 32 challenges to Alpine School District and, uh, in one year last year, they have only completed one review thus far. Alpine School District will cease to exist this summer before even three of these books have been removed. This is very ineffective. We need to be proactive rather than waiting till our kids have been exposed and the damage is done. Pre-screening is essential. Let's not purchase these books that we will struggle to have removed. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you so much. My name is Chelsea Hagman. I'm an elementary school librarian in Davis District, and I have a Master's in education. And I want you to vote no to HB 1 97. I am concerned that the AI tool mentioned in the bill may prevent me from buying books from, with various perspectives and different cultures to prepare the students for a global world. Additionally, every librarian in our district has a committee comprised of parents, community members and staff that helps us vet every single book that is entering our library. And additionally, there's a sensitive materials committee that has removed books that is deemed unnecessary. I need to be able to buy books that are engaging for the students and that help, um, the students not just academically rigorous books, but books that they're excited about and that they want to, um, provide an opportunity for them to read. And I need to be able to do that without ai, you know, dictating that. And so I would like to make sure that, uh, the librarians have a voice in this and that we make sure we provide appropriate materials for our students, but let the people decide that, not just necessarily the technology. So I want you to vote no for this. Bill. Thank you so much.

Thank you so much. My name is Nicole Allen. I am an educator up in Utah, uh, in Northern Utah. And I wanna speak in negation of the bill and, um, for primarily three reasons. The first is that I think that it will provide a competitive disadvantage for our students. As you might be able to tell, I'm a former high school debater myself, and I have deep concerns about the ways that the large language models will, uh, artificially and in ways that are not in line with the bill's intent prevent our students from being able to access the most important information. When we look at the bill, um, and what it might of comparative advantage with others concerned that we'll be putting Utah's youth that a significant disadvantage compared to their peers, I'm happy about the protections that exist. And while the process may be slow, I think it fits, um, with what advantages and disadvantages we need to be weighing. Thank you.

Could, could we, sorry, Mr. Chair. Thank you. Could we please require ness in the public comments that the last two commenters have spoken to something that is removed in the sub we're talking about here in the committee today?

Good afternoon. My name's Jill Ur Today, I'm here merely as a resident of Logan, Utah. I'm instantly a faculty librarian at USU. I would recommend delaying HB 1 97 at least until money has been apportioned for it to mitigate the risks of students having their education underfunded. Due to poor choices by LEAs and vendors, HB 1 97 will likely create new ongoing costs such as staff training, legal defense, and compliance monitoring is beyond just the estimated initial startup cost of 1500 to 4,000 per LEA. These are unfunded mandates that pull dollars away from classrooms, teachers, and our kids per the Census bureau, per pupil spending in Utah is already consistently among the lowest in the nation. And while it's admirable to do much with little, it's not fun, it's not fair to punish our students. I would urge the committee to support Utah students by ensuring this bill if passed is appropriately funded. Thank you for your time and service.

Hello? Can you hear me? We can go ahead, Amy. Great. My name is Amy Watson and I'm a member of the Utah Library Association. Um, I believe, uh, that HB 1 97 should not be passed and that it creates new and ongoing costs, um, and staff training, legal defense and compliance. That lawsuits will chill access and not improve safety. Many of the examples that we've heard today are around books and not the databases that are mentioned here. And, um, I believe Senator Michel's, um, SB 2 53 would address these issues, um, through circulation policies. Thank you.

Thank you Mr. Chair. I move that we adopt the four substitute to HB 1 97. That motion is in order. Uh, the motion is to adopt the four substitute to HB 1 97.

I would. There's been a lot of, of feedback taken lots of time discussing the issue and discussing this bill. And there's been a lot of changes in this four sub. So a lot of the comments that were against the four sub or the bill were not reflective of what's actually in the fourth sub. So, um, I just think it's a really important policy that we need to get right and then put to bed forever and leave our school districts alone to follow and comply with the laws. So that's my hope with adopting this fourth sub in passing the bill. Thank you, uh, to the members of the committee on the,

Thank you Mr. Chair. I probably shouldn't say anything. I just wanted to thank the sponsor for her good work, uh, on trying to get this right. She's worked really hard on this.

You. I appreciate that.

I'll waive. Thank you. Alright,

Okay. I move that we adopt HB 1 97 4 substitute, um, that we favorably recommend, excuse me, the fourth substitute for HB 1 97.

Would you like to speak to that? I'll Waive. Thank you.

Thank you Mr. Chair. I, um, the first thing I I wanna do is I want to thank the good sponsor for her work on this bill. Um, I, uh, um, I was, I was a no, um, out of the gate because for me, I am extraordinarily frustrated that protecting our kids from harm harmful materials even needs to be a political debate in conversation. And one, uh, I'm, I'm, uh, I'm hoping and praying that we can, that we can have policy in place and move on and not have a reoccurring conversation, um, that that continues to go on and on. Um, but I am grateful for, for the good sponsor for her work, um, that she's done to, uh, work to address the concerns of, um, of administrators, the state board, um, parents, um, on both sides. Um, and I think that we've gotten to some sensible policy, um, that, that's manageable and that, that protects, protects our students and our schools. And I'll be supporting, um, this version of the bill today.

Okay. Thank you. Um, so really this bill, the whole point of it is to help the school materials stay focused on education instead of selling to the children. Instead of bringing sens sensitive materials into the school. Uh, we heard in the public comment from multiple librarians, some who were in favor of the bill, some who were against the bill, but all of them want there to be good, appropriate educational material for the students. And I think that's the whole premise of this bill, is let's please focus on the education. And it is my hope that if we also don't expose our children to being marketed to during their, when they're, um, using their school materials, that will also be a less of a distraction for them as they're trying to do their study and research, um, during their academic pursuits. So I encourage everyone, please to vote in favor of this fourth sub. Thank you.

I'll waive. Thank you. Okay.

Um, Um, Do I, I don't, I don't know if I do have an amendment on that one. Well, yep. It just, it needs to be Is it from, is it assigned to me? Is the amendment Yeah. Back from the 24th. So maybe you've already moved on from that. Yeah, but It, it needs to Oh, okay. Okay. If, if it was my amendment, then yes. Is it my name on it? Yes. You know, things go by. I, I forgot to look at that. So yeah, I do have, um, It's in your name on the 24th. Okay. Thank you. I don't know what to push on here to I bet you this is it. No, that is definitely Not it. It has to do with about line two 30. Line two 30. Mm-hmm. Yep. Thank you. Um, oh, yes, please do add that in. Thank you. I know exactly what it is. It gave a little qualifier. Do I know how to stretch this out? Can you help me? Thank you.

Okay, thank you. So, um, I'm gonna be really brief in talking about this. I think there's probably gonna be some public comment, and I don't wanna take too much of the committee's time. This Bill does two things basically. Um, so if you can see on lines 1 92 to 1 93, it says an LEA may not make available for a student. Um, use an instructional material that has been removed statewide, and then it also makes it so that, so if something's been removed statewide, they can't make it available, that's already should be a standard. But it's also says in this bill that they need to vet things prior to putting them out as a material for their students. And so that's one thing that came out of the materials audit that happened during the interim. And then the next part is on line 2 29 to two 30, it says, A vendor may not sell or promote goods or services through a digital instructional material the vendor provides to a contracting entity. So we contract with, um, so we are UETN. And you can see on the, the screen there that I've pulled up the UEN website. I just want to show you what we're trying to capture with this language really quickly. So if I go to Utah's online library, and then I log in as a student and I click high school and high school Power Search, And I type in Create, you can see I might say, oh, I wanna read the news on it. There looks like the most of things there at the news. So I click the news and then you can see here that it says like Bolt creto, buy Creto, buy White Dragon Creto Online, buy Creto Bolt today. So these are advertisements that are masquerading as articles and these things are not necessarily put in by the Gale database. So what happens is Gale Database has a con, we have a contract with Gale database. Gale Database has a contract with say, media Hub who has a contract with say, Pacific Publishers who has a contract with, say this one, Rockland County Times who put this in and a whole bunch of other plans. So what happens is, is once we make the contract with Gale Database, we give them access to, to put stuff into our Utah online library, and they make a contract with one person and let's all these other people down the line put stuff in. So this stuff comes in, in a feed all the time, and a whole bunch of it is advertising and it's now pointed toward our children. So if you can look at the date on their February 23rd, something Potential abuse is a first to be felony, a death and reckless or Negative, I don't know what that is. Is that on my computer? Oh, okay. I don't know what that is. Anyway, so you can see at the top here of this article slash advertisement, which is just talking about Kratom and, and how great it is. Um, if I go to this link right here, if I copy and paste it, it actually takes me to this page right here, which tells me where to buy the Kratom. And so, um, it's directly advertising to the students. Um, if you can see the date here, February 23rd, um, 2026. So USBE and I have been working together on this and we've been working with UETN too, and they're working hard to try to stop this. In fact, UETN has said to me that they really need some of this sales language that they can't sell to the children so that they have some teeth to try to get them to stop this practice in our databases. The USBE, um, we, I showed them some things that I found that were selling. They were like, what? We're gonna go check this. So they went and checked it on a student computer, logged in as a student under the filters, everything else. And sure enough they found all these same things just like I did right here, logged in as a student. They had those things removed at UETN. And that was about a week and a half ago. But you can see on February 23rd, this was put back in probably UETN did not even know that it was put back in. It's because these contracting entities down the line are just feeding it into the computers. So that's what we're trying to capture in this language. We're just trying to make it so that there's some strong enough language where they say to those people who are feeding stuff into our children's databases at the school and selling to them that that's not okay. Whether they're selling them chewy gum, chewing gum or creto or, you know, a skateboard doesn't matter to me. I don't think that the school is the place for our children to be sold to. And with that, I'm open to any questions.

I had a question. Um, so is, I noticed that on the, on your demonstration that you had, Gail, is that a company that you mentioned that we have a contract with them who we as in the state or

Yeah, UETN. So UETN has contracts with multiple different databases like World Book Culture Grams, Gail, Gail is probably their largest contract would be my guess. Um, with that, that database, because their one database comes with many, many databases. If you saw as I was clicking through that I would click into a high school database and then another high school database and then into a database called Power Search. But they have lots of databases that they can pick from in there. That was just one. Have You found issues with other databases or Not any that weren't Gale? As far as the ones that we host now, there was another vendor company called EBSCO that we did have problems with, and our state ended the contracts with epsco. Um, and because they weren't coming into compliance, but with World Book and Culture Grams and stuff, uh, I've never heard any parents or anybody say that they found anything in those types of databases. And there's some databases that are just our state's things related to like, um, our state history and stuff like that. And those, I don't think there's any problems with those.

I, I guess what I'm getting at, we, we passed a lot of sensitive material stuff in the last few years mm-hmm. And I'm, I don't even know if that's even settling into the districts and to the, you know, the school board and, and getting implemented. Yeah. But it seems like to me, if there's, if there's one particular vendor that's ever having a problem with, it would just terminate the contract. And, and I think, honestly, I think that, um, USBE and UETN are having really serious contract, uh, conversations right now about how to handle this situation as well. And, and that's why having this language in there really helps them say, okay, well here's a line, don't violate this line, or, you know, you're done, you're gone. And so that's why it's a powerful thing to be able to just say not to sell to the children, which is kind of like, I think, I feel like it's a pretty obvious thing that shouldn't happen at schools.

Thank you. You mentioned UETN several times. Are they, are they, is there anyone here from UETN that's gonna speak to the bill or what we hear from them? Or have you had those conversations and, um, could you tell us where, where they fall out on this issue?

Well, I don't think they're gonna be taking a position on the bill per se, but I've had multiple conversations with the head of UBTN and the, the thing that's been conveyed to me is this language that says that we can't advertise to the children in the school materials will make it so that then they can have some teeth to crack down on this.

Thank you. Yeah, I, I guess it'd be nice to hear from them if, if they support this, uh, my understanding is, is they either don't have a position or, uh, yeah, I have not weighed in there. So, um, that would be helpful. I think there's, there's a lot of ambiguity here that I, I think is gonna be problematic as we move forward. So, um, that probably indicates where I'm leaning here, but that's all.

Yeah. Jenny Earl. Um, I'm on, I'm on the state board of education. I'm not speaking be on behalf of them. We've not taken a position on this, but I do want you to know that the images that were sent to us with the advertising, um, for various things, including vaping and such, that our staff took those, they ran those through, they found those exact pieces, they asked them to remove those because those would not be appropriate, um, within the database systems. And just as said, they were showing back up two weeks later. Um, I do think that this bill does assist with that. I think there's additional conversation that needs to take place around the databases, whether it's, um, whitelists or blacklists so to speak. Whitelist seems to be the area we're going because we do need areas for high schoolers to research. The other interesting thing, um, around these particular items with the, with the advertising was that they weren't, they were not showing up in, um, elementary or middle school, but they showed up in the high school databases. So there is some, um, ability to monitor those or look at those. Um, I do think that there's additional need to, um, have some conversations around these, these items so that, um, we can maybe move some things forward even next year. But I do think getting some basic provisions in place would be beneficial. So thank you.

Hi, my name is Gabriela Storm Ballin and I am 10 years old. And in fifth grade, two years ago, my sister Leah was my age, but now she is 12. And in seventh grade in her English class, there was a very explicit and inappropriate book that she started reading without knowing what was in it. She was really sad when she came home. The book was really deter. The book was later determined to violate the law and was removed from the school. Why is a book that is against the law in the school? How does that make sense? Why is it there in the first place? I really like to read, but now I'm worried that the same thing that happened to my sister, what happened to me, the state failed to protect my sister. Will you choose now to protect me? Thank you for your testimony.

Mary Ann Christensen, executive director of Utah Legislative Watch. I'm here to speak in favor of the bill. Unfortunately, when our children see something, they can't unsee it. And when they read something that creates a visual picture in their mind, they also can't un see that when, um, they're, when when they have ideas that are pitched at them, those ideas enter into their minds. They, they, they kinda lead 'em down a path that parents don't expect. Parents entrust their children to the school system. And, um, we just need to do everything we can to ensure that the school system is taking the kind of care of those children that parents expect. Um, one of the happy consequences of Representative Ch Air Pass passing a bill that said you can't put certain things in, in school lunches, was that the vendors responded without the state having to do anything. They just responded to the fact that now there was a higher standard for them. And I think the same thing will happen here if we go ahead and pass the higher standard.

Delaine England speaking for Eagle Forum and, um, United Women's Forum. We have had a lot of bills in the last five years regarding this topic, and yet we still have a lot of pornography in the schools. It's a very serious problem. They, the materials that are found in the school that if I as a citizen exposed my next door neighbor or a child on the street to that material, I would be arrested. It's completely inappropriate. We know that pornography is a drug. It has the same reaction on the brain as drugs do on the brain, especially bad for a young child because when their brain is being developed and it's being developed around an addiction, then it's very difficult for that child's brain to develop properly and for them to overcome the addiction because their brain's developed around the addiction. Um, just ask you to please support this bill.

Sorry. Hello, I'm Phyllis Kimmel, representing the worldwide organization for Women, um, databases should not be using students as potential customers in trying to sell items online and especially items that are objectionable and offensive and or could be potentially harmful. I ask you to please vote for this bill. Thank you. Thank You.

You, Mr. Chair. Um, yes, my name is Catherine Patterson. I'm a member of the Utah Library Association and I'm in Salt Lake County. Uh, while I deeply appreciate all the work Representative Peck has done to improve this bill, I would still like to urge the members of this committee to vote against HB 1 97 sub four. We've had many rounds of sensitive materials, bills, as many others have said, and in the legislative audits conducted in 2025, uh, librarians and educators reported feelings of confusion as to how these bills affect their school library collections. And unfortunately, the language in this bill is still quite vague and will likely lead to more confusion. Lines 1 98 and 1 99 mandate that each instructional material needs to be reviewed before it's added to a library collection. And bill, Representative Peck has stated that the review process will be left at the discretion of each LEA. That language is not included in the still any librarian or administrator reading the text of the bill could interpret this in myriad ways and could interpret it to mean that items need to be reviewed in their entirety, including all digital content in databases, uh, which would be an impossible and specific and task library. Digital collections are extensive as we've seen. Um, the language about advertisements will also still have unintended consequences. School library databases contain primary sources with scanned ads that are unlike what we just saw, um, with the, you know, pretty terrible freedom, uh, press releases. But those scanned ads still have research value. I've seen students use magazine ads to demonstrate harmful depictions of diet culture among other really excellent research projects. Um, what this bill does is cut students off from vital research material, and we want students and parents to feel confident that school library databases are safe places for students to do research. We know they're much safer than Google or chat t um, where students will certainly encounter targeted advertisements that feel their data, which is not what databases are trying to do. The passage of the bill would further confuse librarians and may drive students away from these safe spaces. Thank you so much for your time.

Yeah, I just wanted to point something out. I, um, you know, create 'em and, and those things might have been a bad choice just because it's already illegal to sell those online. So anyway, he not, I'm not saying that you can't do it, that you can't buy it online, but, uh, you just wanted to point that out, that it is illegal to sell, you know, crate and hemp and, and vapes online.

Yeah, I'll make a motion to hold the bill. Okay.

Yeah, thank you. Um, I mean, obviously I would love the bill to go forward, but I'm at the mercy of the committee and I understand that, and that you guys need to decide when you think something is ready to move forward or not. I do wanna just say, um, just for clarification, that, um, it does say on line 1 98 and LEA shall review each instructional material. So that's actually what is written in the bill. Um, there was something suggested otherwise, you know, it is true that those things like CRE and vapes and online gambling and all those things that are presented to children are illegal to present to children. But I think that's the point that whether we're selling anything to children, is it right? We need to ask ourselves that question, but we also need to ask ourselves, um, if there's online stuff, if there's stuff on their databases that's illegal, are we willing to let that stay there or are we gonna make the statement that we shouldn't be doing that?

Yeah, I think there's some other work being done in this space is my understanding. And, and I think this bill is largely gonna be unenforceable or very difficult for our districts to enforce. And we've had so much handed down to, to teachers and to librarians and to the districts that, um, it seems like we should let them work through what has happened in recent years and, uh, and, and look at other ways to, um, to help here.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. This bill is a combination of a couple of years of work. Now this, a version of this bill died number nine on the Summit floor on the, the last night, last year. But since then, there has been a sensitive materials audit and there were recommendations that were done in that sensitive materials audit. So this bill represents a combination, a very simplified combination of a key element out of the bill last year, and then one element out of those three audit recommendations from the Sensitive Materials audit. So basically what the bill does is it says that our LEAs and schools need to proactively select. So look at the materials that they are going to be providing to their students ahead of time instead of waiting for their to be problems and then going, oh, how can we have this in our collection? This used to be something that was always done back in the day, but our procurement of educational materials has changed since. And so they need to make a few adjustments to be able to do that. And there won't be any cost to that. It will just be a procedural change. The second part of the bill says that digital school materials, instructional materials cannot sell to our children. So there are things being sold in the online databases, things like kratom and vapes and online bedding sites and adult sex shop sites and gaming, all kinds of things that many of those things would be illegal for a child to do anyway. But also we're selling to them. I don't think that school is the place, especially doing our academics, is the time for children to have to navigate the very difficult, oftentimes addictive cap captivating, maybe even expensive world of shopping through their products, especially if those items might happen to be illegal to be presented to a child. And so with that, Mr. Speaker, I am open to any questions.

Thank you. Will the sponsor yield to a question? Yes. Representative Peck, will you yield? Yes, representative. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am just wondering how, I mean, like, so is this across the board? Is it possible for LEAs to be able to figure that out for themselves to determine what's appropriate and what's not? I'm guessing that's what you've talked about already, is that correct?

Well, I would hope so. There is already code that talks about objective sensitive, material, subjective, sensitive material obscenities, as well as there are state educational standards that they have to utilize while they're making selections for all of those instructional materials. So hopefully they will rely upon all of those things that are already there when they are pre-selecting. No one from the state is gonna be there looking over their shoulders. It's all in the local control of what they select. But obviously we would expect that the LEAs and the schools would be keeping in alignment with the standards that are already presented from USBE and that are codified in our state code.

May I ask a follow up question, Mr. Speaker?

Yes, representative. Thank

you, Mr. Speaker. So, I mean, like, band books wouldn't necessarily be considered something like that, like Tom Sawyer or Huck Finn.

Yeah, no, this doesn't make any mandates on what can or cannot be on the shelves that's already codified in the sensitive materials code. What this does is just says that the LEAs need to choose ahead of time. So if they say we wanna have huckleberry fin on the shelf, then they would just look at it, make sure they know what's in it, and then they would put huckleberry fin on the shelf.

Okay. And, but no obscenities or anything like that, we're wanting to protect that, correct? Correct. Okay. Thank you Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Uh, I support the sponsor's good intention with this bill and I support the sensitive materials changes that we've made in the past. Uh, I am, uh, a no vote on this because I think it's, uh, un unnecessary, uh, for two reasons. One, in in my district, uh, back in 20 22, 23, we had a lot of challenges. And for example, 65 people were cha challenged, uh, material books the next year it dropped down last, uh, last year, four people this year, only two people. So to me, this says that the things we've done in the past are working very well, but the, the primary reason that, um, uh, I I'm gonna be voting on is I think that there's some things we can change with policy, and there are some things that we need to change with technology. And currently the digital ads, uh, I think are better solved with, with the filters, uh, and using a AI technology to, to block these objectable, uh, uh, things that get, uh, put out on the internet rather than trying to legislate them. I've spoken with UETN about this. Their filters catch the examples we've been given in the, as we get, as we move forward, uh, using, uh, AI security, uh, technologies will be able to catch more and more of these. So I applaud the sponsor for her efforts and her goals. Uh, I think a different approach is, is the right way to, to catch these. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will a sponsor yield to a question? Yes. Representative Peck, will you yield? Yes, representative. I just have one question. Um, when we're talking about advertising, this, this came up in, in committee meeting and, uh, the question was, if I am looking up a newspaper article from 1925 and some articles come up advertising something or, or, or anywhere else like that, is that violating lines 2 29 and two 30? Thank you for that question.

No, the idea is not that this is supposed to, uh, make it so that somebody can't look at the history of what somebody sold a milk cow for or a new plow for or something way back in time. The idea of this is to capture things that should not be sold to children in current times. That they're not actively selling to children, the things that they could go and buy right now. That's the idea. When I'm, when it says selling to children, we're saying do not think of children as a market so that they are trying to get to, uh, children spending money, maybe their parents' credit cards, maybe, you know, however they're doing it or, or marketing to them so that they are maybe getting enticed by certain current products. And obviously, sensitive materials would come into play if they're sensitive materials in that old advertising, obviously they would need to remove that old advertising from those historical documents. But that should be a given anyway.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

If, if I may, I, I fully agree with the sponsor's intent here and, and agree with the intent. I worry that the language is not tied enough that, uh, if I were researching something from two years ago that might still being sold, that it might inadvertently catch up some of that, uh, uh, non-directed material. But, but I do agree fully with the sponsor's intent.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I'm hoping you met this one. Hey, uh, I appreciate what we, what what, uh, the good representative has brought forward. And I, and I, uh, I've been thinking along the same lines as our good colleague from Centerville, and then I realized that one of the districts I represent, I actually opposes this bill and it got me thinking that, you know, that there are some folks who, who, who just want to keep it the way that it is. And, and there are definitely some issues with, with the system that we have set up right now. So, um, I'm concerned that if we just, if we just, uh, ask them to fix the policy, uh, I don't, I'm not sure. I'm not convinced it's gonna happen. So for that reason, I'm, I'm gonna continue to support to support this bill.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Um, just in reference to some of the things that were said, I think it's important to note that this is not changing the sensitive materials process that is still in place. It's not touching it at all. What we're saying is that right now we have a reactive process and what we are hoping for and what the Sensitive Materials audit suggested in both of those audits was that we have a proactive process. And this would make it so that schools are not looked bad on and targeted. There's a lot of parents around the states who are becoming very disenfranchised with their schools. They're not sure that schools have their child's safety in mind and the schools are trying to keep up with law and everything else, but it's much more simple for us to say to them, Hey, just look at everything first. And if they go, okay, we're gonna make a procedure for how to do that. What many people don't understand is that a lot of the shipments of these supplies, these materials that come to schools, are actually just sent there without anyone at the school ever vetting those products. They're trusting vendors that send those books to them to curate a set or a collection for them. So we are allowing people in other states to curate the books for the students and the materials for the students in our state. And related to the database, I also have talked to UETN and they informed me that having this type of backup would be good for them as they're trying to navigate some of these difficult situations like the databases doing that selling. And so this, apparently we've had different communications there, but we need to understand something about the databases and how the selling is getting in. So there's the main databases, and we have multiple of them, but let's just say there's one like Gale database, that database contracts with other conglomerate type organizations, we might say. One is called something like Pacific Materials or something, or Pacific News Conglomerate and Pacific News conglomerate contracts with all of these other periodicals like Bennington Times and whatever it is on all these little towns who can put anything in there because they're contracted in. We only have stewardship over the contract with Pacific Conglomerate. We don't have any stewardship over the contracts that are now being happening that are now happening down the line, and they're being allowed to put anything into our black box that students get automatically signed into. It is absolutely humanly impossible to reactively pull out every bit of stuff in there that should not be sold to children because they are making the advertisements masquerade as articles. It's an article that is essentially saying, we have a Black Friday sale on Creo and dah, dah, dah, dah. That's what they're saying. And it's coming in daily. So no one could humanly police it. They have to have a policy that is, that stuff can come into our database. It is there, it is verified, looked at under student logins. It's there. We have to do something to protect our children. And I think this will help the parents also see that we understand their concerns as they are looking at what their children are seeing. And with that, I hope that everyone can offer their support.

And how, how it's regulated in Utah so it doesn't remove oversight. We're just looking to modernize and clarify the regulation of raw milk in Utah. It creates a tiered regulatory structure. Retail sales remain permitted, inspected, and tested by the department. It removes the requirement that a farmer own at least 51% of a store in order to sell milk there, but requires milk to be sold in stores inspected by the department. It allows designated agent delivery to a store. It expands producer reach, expands accessibility for consumers, retains all testing, labeling requirements, and the department re uh, the Ag Department maintains full oversight and investigative authority of foodborne illness outbreaks at every level. So we're reorganizing the framework while preserving public health concerns. And, uh, as I was not directly involved in all the negotiations, I'd like to say that it's largely a consensus bill at this point. And I'm open to questions. Thank you. Senator Sandall. Go ahead.

Thank you, Mr. President. Uh, I think you'd be disappointed if I, I didn't stand for a minute with the raw milk bill. Um, I can't tell you Mr. President, how many the count would be on raw milk bills that, uh, I've had in before me in the, my time at the legislature. Um, and most of 'em have been trying to point to this moment, um, wherein raw milk can be sold in a retail environment where the owner of the store has less than 51% ownership of the store. That's where we've arrived here, we've finally gotten there, but I want the legislature to know that this has been a process. It's been a number of years I'm supporting the bill in the way it is. I think there's been a lot of concessions, but it has been a complete mindset in way we deal with raw milk in retail environment where in the past it's been one-on-one communication between the producer and the consumer, understanding that raw milk has a higher degree of carrying some kind of a somatic cell count, those kind of things. But now we're going to take that barrier down and let raw milk be produced in and sold in those retail spaces. I'm comfortable with that at this point, but I think that's, uh, something I needed to point out. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. President. I've been moved, moved by some of the arguments on this bill. Um, I grew up, um, um, about a quarter mile from a dairy farm and my family would go and we would scoop it out and leave a dollar. I think, uh, for the farmer, he had a little, uh, change box there. Um, sometimes you had to move the flies out of the way to get to the, to the good stuff, but, um, I think a lot of people grew up on raw milk. Um, some people are disgusted by it. Um, but, and there are some dangers there. I don't think we should dismiss that. I had an electric bike bill that we debated a day or two ago. I think it's a lot more dangerous for parents to let their kids ride bikes that go 30 miles an hour on the sidewalk than it is to drink raw milk. But I do think part of freedom is letting people be free and I'll be supporting this bill and, um, and I think that people that wanna, uh, drink raw milk, buy raw milk, sell raw milk, and uh, feed it to their kids. Uh, this is America and it's 2026. They can Google it. They can ask ai. Yes, there's some risks, but, uh, freedom is sometimes letting people take some risks. So I'll be voting. Aye. Thank you. Thank you

You know, it's fun if you, if you get a chance to milk a cow and, uh, appreciate the opportunity to, uh, uh, recognize the great heritage and the shoulders we stand on in our Ian culture. I think this is a great bill in that it celebrates principles of free market and limited government, but government being involved properly. The evolution of this has been very intentional and, and helpful and it's, uh, I'm very positive and supportive of the step we're taking here. Thank you, Mr. President.

Yeah, I appreciate the comments. And, uh, based on those comments, my motion is that we pass third substitute house bill 1 79.